# Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF



## breaker1 (15 May 2008)

*Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

The Octaviar MFS PIF and plans to sell the investment management arm of the corporation"
*"Cash Enhanced Fund" 
"Premium Income Fund" 
"Wholesale Premium Income Fund" 
"Dynamic Growth Equity "*

(in recent company announcements) to *Wellington Capital*, an investment firm with evident links to Mr Scott.

The takeover of Mr Scott was further aided by the new ‘independent’ chairman Paul Manka, and new board-member Jenny Hutson, who also happens to be the managing director of Wellington Capital.

Mr Manka noted that “The board has recognised that it is not in the best interests of creditors, shareholders and other company stakeholders for Octaviar IM to remain a wholly owned subsidiary.”

Ms Hutson has forecasted a final purchase price to be ‘north of $20 million,’ which is a depressing prospect following the value of Octaviar at $1.33 billion when rival City Pacific proposed a merger in January.

The transaction with Wellington is completely legitimate, according to Ms Hutson, and will merely allow Wellington to earn management fees from the funds.

She also claimed her intention was to pursue the $50 million debt from Octaviar, and the $67 million owed by MFS Living and Leisure to the Premium Income Fund.

Ms Hutson made no excuses, recognising that “Our interests are quite different to the people in the Octaviar group.”

In 2006, Mr Scott inherited a large shareholding in Octaviar through the sale of his listed leisure business S8.

The coup may be complete, but Ms Hutson still claims that there is nothing untoward in the recent changes to Octaviar. She noted that Mr Scott was no longer a director, nor a shareholder, of Wellington Capital.

*My concerns are: Is it legal for Octaviar Ltd to sell their investment arms (PIF, WPIF, etc) to Wellington Capital? *
Who is Wellington Capital and what rights do they have to cheap assignment of the management rights of the investment arms of Octaviar?
I am just a bit confused, are they selling just the management rights or the assets as well to Wellington capital? If just the management rights, then who ownes the assets that investors have plowed $770 million into? If Chris Scott is associated with Wellington Capital via his old mate Ms Hutson, is there a possibility of collusion to somehow eventually sell the assets of the Investments Management Arm (PIF, WPIF, etc) at fire sale rates *to* Chris Scott/Wellington Capital and any colluding associates at fire sale rates, therefor leaving investors at only getting back cents in the dollar instead of their full investment (colluding buyers of *OUR assets *making a killing in the sale of *OUR assets*)? Why hasn't Octaviar PIF and WPIF managers organised a general meeting of investors to discuss these serious matters? 

PIF / WPIF investors are hanging on to for dear life, for an orderly and transparent liquidation with the possibilty of some real return in their investment dollar!! (Why are Octaviar and Wellington Capital pretending that the investment arms are going to be a going concern - who would invest in them now? Chris Scott is the 3rd CEO and apparently is only interested in the sharemarket listed side of Octaviar MFS (as he hold many shares there) and seems to be doing his darndest to dispose of the investment arms of Octaviar.

I am further perplexed that the Royal Bank of Scotland has been given such a strong controlling hand in stopping the PIF from paying monthly interest. The PIF may owe $184 million (shock, horror, why weren't we told earlier) to the RBOS, but legally does that mean the PIF has to obey their request to stop interest? Could the Royal Bank of Scotland be a colluding entity with Octaviar/Wellington Capital to stealthily purchase *OUR assets *at rock bottom prices?

Investors have about $770 million invested in the PIF, what are the PIF / WPIF assets actually worth now, individually and what would they realistically realise in the event of a receiver liquidating assets?

*I am hoping that this thread may lead to many responses from Octaviar PIF / WPIF / Cash Enhanced Fund / Dynamic Growth Equity investors. A forum has to be started somewhere for those investors feeling helpless and disenfranchised!! Lets hear from you!!*


----------



## breaker1 (17 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

The Premium Income Fund yesterday sold its 9.4 per cent of Geo Property Group, the former MFS Diversified, to listed investment company Trojan Equity for $10.22 million. 

At 25.5 a share, this *represents a significant discount *to Geo's closing price yesterday of 39 cents. 

Buyer Trojan Capital is chaired by Andrew Kemp. 

Both sat on the board of Chris Scott's S8 group before it was sold to MFS. 

Trojan Equity managing director Troy Harry said the company had done "a pretty good deal" *but denied getting mates' rates. *

Under the terms of the deal, the PIF receives 40 per cent of any profit Trojan makes by selling the Geo scrip. 

"They (the PIF) have an urgent need for funds," Mr Harry said. 

"They were able to meet their requirement for cash now and also provide some upside for their unit holders." 

My concerns are again that the Octaviar PIF's sale to Wellington Capital will also be at "mates rates" - there must be a law against this, to protect investor capital!!


----------



## breaker1 (18 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

*Octaviar offers 118 apartments for sale
13 May 2008 | The Australian Financial Review | Ben Wilmot and Michelle Singer 

The stricken Octaviar financial services and tourism group has kicked off the sales campaign for its apartment holdings, and more developments under its control are expected to hit the market in coming months. *

This means that Octaviar PIF is going to sell assets paid for by investors money and that income derived from the liquidation of those assets is going to pay the Royal bank Of Scotland *first*. If Octaviar PIF is already selling assets, even before any talk of liquidation, then what on earth is going to be left in assets to sell to pay back investors when an orderly liquidation does eventually take place??


----------



## breaker1 (19 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

*Watch video*, it shows an interview with a politician in NZ who invested in MFS Pacific.
Click on:  http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2008/05/19/video-mfs-pacific-slammed-by-investors/


----------



## robert toms (20 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

An offshoot of Octavia-LLA living and leisure- is relisting tomorrow 21st.It went into a trading halt at the same time as MFS.LLA holds aqariums and two snowfields in Aust plus a few sundries.
The company was floated at $1,but with Packer's Arctic Finance trying to refinance the debt by issuing shares at 7.5 cents each,I expect the share to commence trading tomorrow at under this.
MFS and OCTAVIAR were and are real turners....they have turned good money into ****e!
Hold on!


----------



## breaker1 (20 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

G'day Robert,
*1] **The truth is money doesn't turn into ****e, neither does it disappear.* Our "good money" and assets are simply being given away at fire sale prices (not their real value) to mates or sales to vulture buyers on management panic. The value of the assets remain as before, somebodies making a killing. Our question has to be - are they colluding mates who are buying our assets through Octaviar management or are management so stupid that they are simply giving our assets away at ridiculous prices or is it simply pressure, panic selling. I don't think these people are stupid, that leaves only two other options in my mind. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*2] * *Some investors in the failed finance company OPI Pacific plan to ask the Serious Fraud Office to look at how the firm ended up owing around $450 million.*
The firm previously known as MFS Pacific Finance convinced most of its 1200 investors to give it three years to try to recover their funds from its struggling Australian parent Octaviar, which put the money into property.

About 350 investors meeting in Auckland have been told that neither the trustee nor the remaining directors had any warning that OPI funds were in danger and had not been invested according to criteria agreed with Octaviar.

Octaviar cut-off the flow of cash back to OPI when trouble struck in Australia, and many of the loans using OPI funds were found to be of poorer quality than believed, and difficult to recover.

OPI director and former CEO Jason Maywald says they need to nail down some key elements to make the moratorium work.

OPI is pinning much of its hopes on Octaviar selling its one third stake in tourism operator Stellar Resorts.

Investment adviser James Clague, who represents some OPI investors, says the failure is a result of poor governance, poor directorship and a lack of process to ensure the loans were in good shape. He says that information has to go to the Serious Fraud Office.

OPI says the trustee, Perpetual, still retains the option to call in the receivers if the moratorium does not go to plan - but it warns that investors might then get only 40 cents back for each dollar


----------



## robert toms (21 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

Breaker1,I understand what you are saying...On a personal level my money in LLA has virtually disappeared...it looks as if Arctic Capital is going to pick up a bargain on Mt Hotham and Mt buller...My 6000 shares averaging in at 88c is not even a marketable parcel at aroung 4 cents a share.
I am more heavily committed to MFS-Octaviar and expect nothing there.
Until just before the collapse of MFS some analysts were still rating MFS as a buy.
I saw just after the collapse of MFS that the risk management-compliance officer tendered his resignation.
Surely that job was an oxymoron with MFS.


----------



## wally3218 (22 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

I have money invested in PIF and have been told that they will be a "deferment of payment of redemptions to 360 days."

Now I have been informed that "Octaviar Investment Management may, in its absolute discretion, allow withdrawals before maturity in certain limited circumstances, such as extreme financial hardship. A fee of up to 2% of the amount withdrawn applies if the request for early withdrawal is approved."

Wellington Capital are going to buy this fund at a wholesale price and it looks like everyone is making money from mine and others investments. There using these investments to make money for them selves the longer this **** goes on the worse it will get.
I believe that when 360 days are up they will try and pay us any money that is left but in the mean time they will have recovered any of there own losses.


----------



## breaker1 (22 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

Wally,

Why should we trust Wellington Capital anymore than the old losers at Octaviar / MFS PIf?

Why would Octaviar palm off the PIF if it was a going concern? More than likely things are worse than we even think!


----------



## wally3218 (23 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Wally,
> 
> Why should we trust Wellington Capital anymore than the old losers at Octaviar / MFS PIf?
> 
> Why would Octaviar palm off the PIF if it was a going concern? More than likely things are worse than we even think!




Yeah I totally agree why should we trust Wellington Capital there not even a listed company with the asx. 
I believe it's just another way of the major investors recouping some of there own investments before the investments fold and go bust.
I would have thought that someone independant would be checking up on the operation of Octaviar and how there running this company with disregard for any of the laws that were set in place.
Surely the investors should have rights and access to a independant umpire.


----------



## breaker1 (25 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

Wally,

I note that some investors in a similar fund based in Port MacQuarie, *Donovan, Oats, Hannaford Motgage Fund*  (which has gone into liquidation, has *formed an action group*, to ensure that the liquidation process is handled honestly and efficiently. They apparently have consulted with "Stacks Solicitors" to aid them in this matter. Particularly, to take on the liquidators ( Price Waterhouse Coopers), in hiring as consultant solicitors, *the same solicitors that formely ran Donovan, Hannaford, Oats*. This is being seen as a conflict of interest (Duh! Obvious) and investor action group solicitors, Stacks, may take action against PWC, in an effort to get PWC to change consulting solicitors. PWS claims using the same Donovan Oats Solicitors is more financially efficient. More financially efficient for WHO, certainly not the investors? (who may only get back 50-70% of their frozen funds and the process taking at least 3-4 year to acheive anyway)

Nevertheless, I feel that Donovan Oats Hannaford management has proceeded far more fairly and orderly than Octaviar / MFS PIF. They haven't mucked investors around with multiple management changes, false promises of possibly trading again and changing management rights to a totally new company (Wellinton Capital). The problem with OCV PIF is, that stalling too long without going into liquidation could see assets dwindle out the door to pay running costs, mates new management, creditor banks, developer defaults, etc, etc. At least Donovan Oats Hannaford have given investors a target rate return of 70c in the $  -  and are still paying interest. All I say is, lets get The Royal Bank Of Scotland off investor backs as quickly as possible - this RBOS control has got to be addressed by legal eagles and ASIC.

*Seriuosly, I have searched the net and found no such action group for Octaviar / MFS 
"Cash Enhanced Fund" 
OR
"Premium Income Fund" (PIF)
OR
"Wholesale Premium Income Fund"
OR 
"Dynamic Growth Equity "*
If an action group has started anywhere, please let me know about it?
If someone has access to names, phone numbers, emails (preferably) of investors - please let me know on here?

IF NOT.....

*Lets start an Octaviar / MFS Investment Management action group here!!!*


----------



## selciper (26 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

What about the Trustee? MFS/Octaviar PIF kept on beating the drum about the Trustee being the "custodian" of investors' funds. The Wellington deal should be examined immediately by the appropriate authorities. Hopefully some media outlets would by now be checking all this out. 
And the PIF newsletters are a total farce.


----------



## Javier (26 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

I am an investor in the PIF with many millions of $ of my own money in there, so I am extremely nervous to say the least. I have spoken to Guy Hutchings dierctly on a couple of occassions in the last 2 months, and whilst he assures me that we will recoup most, if not all our caiptal..I have my doubts. He himself has some of his own money in there.

What I can't work out is why Wellington Capital (WC) is now in the picture. I mean what is the financial advantage to them. I am hoping that they will be a white knight and at least pursue the $50m from the parent co to cover the shortfalls..but what does WC have to gain apart from a client list of investors that would not re-invest as a going concern?? I am more than happy to talk with other investors to get an action group started..I am in Sydney.


----------



## selciper (26 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

I also meant to add that Ms Hutson might appease PIF investors' worries by immediately stating that she has the investors' financial well-being as number one priority. As the Wellington Capital website has been down for days, you can only support the many sharp questions being raised in this very helpful thread (thanks to you, Breaker1). Hope that PIF are reading these posts.


----------



## breaker1 (26 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> I am an investor in the PIF I am hoping that they will be a white knight




Javiar,
Thanks for your reply. I find that we have been brainwashed by controlled media to always hope for a John Wayne to come riding out of the west to solve the problems of the many. What the abusers fear is that the many catch on to whats going on and finally get organised as a force to be reconed with. My gut feelings are that Wellington Capital is no white knight, even, possibly the very opposite. 

Our weakness is that we are individuals with no clout - organised, we have a chance for the better. Read what some organised investors have said recently regarding the failure of Donovan Oate Hannaford a similar investment company to MFS Investment arm (under):

“Although we are all experiencing the intense financial difficulties, worry, uncertainty, frustration and anger over DOHM failing to meet the expected obligations to their debenture holders, we must focus on an appropriate economic strategy to achieve our mutual objectives ...“We need to form a small and manageable committee backed by loyal professional advisers to disseminate information and recommend appropriate courses of action.”

The group says it has sought independent legal advice from commercial, property and mortgage specialists and, following meetings with the receivers and trustee, presented the receivers, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, with a list of “27 issues of concern” (see below).

These deal with a range of issues to do with the management of the company and the conduct of the receivership, including the ongoing management role of Donovan Oates Hannaford Mortgage Corporation directors and staff and the expense involved in having the prominent firm of Pricewaterhouse Coopers acting as receivers".

We Octaviar Investors need to head in the same direction - not wait for John Wayne to turn up. *So our initial real problem, is how do we get in contact with the many. Any ideas besides this thread??*

I specifically gave this thread the title it has, so that investors Googling will get this mostly first up on a search. Over 200 (guess) people have viewed it.


----------



## breaker1 (26 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> What about the Trustee? MFS/Octaviar PIF kept on beating the drum about the Trustee being the "custodian" of investors' funds. The Wellington deal should be examined immediately by the appropriate authorities. Hopefully some media outlets would by now be checking all this out.
> And the PIF newsletters are a total farce.




When I rang OCV PIF and asked about the trustee, she said, "I am not aware that we have a trustee" - perhaps she is mistaken, confused or what. I have to clear this up. I understood that the Queensland Public Trustee was involved at some stage, mainly regarding MFS shares and wanting to look at their books - but nothing seems to have come of it (in the press anyway)

If you know of any other investors - put them onto this site. 

If initially we can only get a dozen of us together - we are better than the single.

*The three or four of us on here so far, lets start making enquiries about Wellington and the Public Trustee and get back to each other here!*


----------



## breaker1 (26 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

*UPDATE*

This is my understanding under (correct me immediately if I am wrong in any facts):

* Wellington Capital have an option for shares in the Octaviar Pty Ltd Company side (the ASX listed part of Octaviar [not the PIF, WPIF, (investment arms), etc]. Another Wellington benefit is that they simply get the Management rights to the investment arms (PIF, WPIF,CEF, MYF, DGEF). They do not own the assets of the PIF, WPIF, etc

* "Perpetual" are simply the Registrar and Custodian of the assets - they apparently have little or no management rights over the Octaviar / MFS Investment Management side (PIF, WPIF, etc) - so they have no say over the day to day management matters. Further, Wellington Capital may or may not decide to keep Perpetual on as the Custodian and may appoint another Registrar / Custodian (but this has not been decided yet).

* Octaviar / MFS Investment Management (Ocv/MFSIM) have a current strategy to simply pay off The Royal Bank Of Scotland by selling off OCV/MFSIM assets - the idea obviously is to pay off this bank vulture first, *then* see what is left in assets and only *then* devise another strategy for we the investors. *This of course begs the question - what will be left for us?* Ocv/MFSIM has not been specific as to what assets are available, what they are worth and what specific assets are being sold to keep RBOS happy. Why *legally* OCV/MFSIM thinks the bank gets asset money first has to be investigated further.

* Apparently, if OCV/MFSIM is passed over to Wellington Capital, Guy Hutcings (PIF CEO) and Marylin Watts (PIF MNGR) will still be in similar positions after the transfer.

* So what happens after 360 days expire - is 100% of our assets going to be repaid? Just because we investors are waiting 1 year does not in any way guarantee 100% return on asset sale or even any interest backdated. Seriously, if the RBOS is getting first chop of the assets so far, it seems unlikely we will get back a high % figure - but that should be our goal!!

** We investors should contact ASIC about "The Corporations Act" and find out how we the investors can hold a general meeting with OCV/MFSIM management and press them for answers and request what we want!* *OCV/MFSIM is NOT planning any general meeting of investors - so it's really up to us!*

*OCV/MFSIM cannot expain sensibly why it is in our best interests to be managed by the Wellington Group (Chris Scott mates no doubt).

*AS A GROUP - WE MUST TRY TO ENSURE MAXIMUM RETURN TO WE THE INVESTORS!*


----------



## Javier (26 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

I rang Guy again today..I spoke to someone else..again no-one can explain to me what the benefit of WC will be for our funds. I left a message for Jenny Hutson too. We are getting treated like mushrooms. This is OUR money. I agree we have to start to do something. I will call asic tomorrow. Breaker I have sent you an email with my details. We must form a committee now..these people don't give a f%$K about our money!!


----------



## breaker1 (27 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Javier,

We had a good talk - not looking forward to my phone bill. Heh! Heh!

Things to do:

1] Find out where *all *our money is:
* who are the PIF's debtors (developers, businessmen, etc) and how much do they owe (yet to come in when loans from the PIF are paid back)?
* how much of our money (%) is in physical assets and what might be the expected return, if sold in an orderly manner?
* what is owed to the PIF from the Octaviar Ltd side - $50 million?
* any other monies to come into the PIF (e.g. Octaviar Premium Income sold out of GEO Property Group on May 15, receiving $10.2 million consideration for the 40,080,156 shares (9.4%) sold to Trojan Equity - what happened to that money??).
* on the minus side, how much more does the PIF owe to their creditors (E.g., Royal Bank Of Scotland = $100 million still to be paid ($64 million apparently already paid off, if $64 mill. paid off, where did the PIF get this money?)

In other words - what is the maximum money to come back to the PIF between now and next January 2009, when the redemptions can be exercised and what is the total money the PIF owes and what is going to be left % for redemptions, if the PIF doesn't go into liquidation before then?

*A full finacial disclosure is now totally in order from the PIF managers. No more mucking investors around!*

2] Chase up ASIC for the regulations for holding an extra-ordinary general meeting of PIF investors with PIF management. What are the processes involved? What do we expect to acheive with such a meeting?

3] A full explaination as to what Wellington Capital has to do with us and what are the REAL benefits to us OR is it just going to benefit other mates, financial creditors (RBOS) and predatory hangers on ?

4] Starting an action group of committed investors - that means anyone in the PIF

5] *I am giving out my email address to investors who wish to contact me direct - it is: breaker1@aapt.net.au*


----------



## seamisty (27 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

breaker1 hi, I am a PIF holder and tried to e-mail you but it bounced.I spoke with ASIC yesterday and am not confident we will get much help in the near future there. I live in WA so I have to do everything by phone or e-mail which I don't mind, it is just very time consuming. I have also lodged a written letter of complaint with the the ASX. A few of us had funds accepted after Dec31st 2007 and our argument is that MFS was already  in default with the RBOS at this stage but did not disclose it to investors. We have asked ASIC to make a ruling on the failure to disclose angle but I won't hold my breath waiting on action from them. I have tried contacting Jenny Hutson and Guy Hutchings. I do not like dealing with anyone at OCV anymore. I am sick of their BS. I agree something needs to be done. Regards Seamisty


----------



## wally3218 (27 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

Well done breaker1 for starting this thread. It's about time the investors were taken seriously and informed properly phone calls and emails are allways get the reply we will inform you later.
Surely someone can sort out whats going on and make sure were getting looked after.
I thought there was suspose to be a regulator or watchdog that checks up on these investment companies. There needs to be more questions asked maybe thru the newspapers or thru a current affairs program that might just get others involved.

I still beleive that we won't get all our money back and the only reason that this company hasn't gone into receivership is that the big investors are looking after themselves by creating positions on the board so that they will at least get paid for doing nothing.

I'm still waiting to hear more about the class action against IMF for continuous disclosure breaches by IMF by the two law firms  Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon maybe if more imvestors phone these firms up we might get some action taken so we can get answers.


----------



## selciper (27 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

The situation of pensioner-investors is apparently quite serious in some cases. More than likely, many of them don't have use of the internet and are completely in the dark - except for the infrequent press report and useless newsletters. Working out the financial position of the fund and its future "wealth" would be a ten minute job for PIF. So, by their studied silence, they are leaving themselves open to the actions of savvy investors who contribute to this blog. Patience is wearing thin.


----------



## wally3218 (27 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> The situation of pensioner-investors is apparently quite serious in some cases. More than likely, many of them don't have use of the internet and are completely in the dark - except for the infrequent press report and useless newsletters. Working out the financial position of the fund and its future "wealth" would be a ten minute job for PIF. So, by their studied silence, they are leaving themselves open to the actions of savvy investors who contribute to this blog. Patience is wearing thin.




Pensioners who have invested in this fund are not getting there monthly payments and have no access to their money and centrelink says they cant have access to any extra pension because the company hasnt folded yet and that the money they have invested is still deemed by centrelink.
They should have access to more govt pension as it will be 360 days before they get anything.


----------



## wally3218 (27 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

It's not looking very good have just read this from http://www.businessspectator.com.au

Octaviar has been served with a notice by Public Trustee of Queensland (PTQ), representing investors in listed notes of the company, that a default had occurred and demanding repayment of $351.5 million, including interest, by June 5. 

Octaviar Ltd, the fund manager formerly known as MFS, says National Australia Bank Ltd's (NAB) statutory demand for the repayment of $40 million remains unsatisfied

Octaviar also said Challenger Managed Investments Ltd, which was managing bonds issued by the company with a face value of $100 million, had commenced legal action


----------



## breaker1 (27 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> breaker1 hi, I am a PIF holder and tried to e-mail you but it bounced.I spoke with ASIC yesterday and am not confident we will get much help in the near future there. I live in WA so I have to do everything by phone or e-mail which I don't mind, it is just very time consuming. I have also lodged a written letter of complaint with the the ASX. A few of us had funds accepted after Dec31st 2007 and our argument is that MFS was already  in default with the RBOS at this stage but did not disclose it to investors. We have asked ASIC to make a ruling on the failure to disclose angle but I won't hold my breath waiting on action from them. I have tried contacting Jenny Hutson and Guy Hutchings. I do not like dealing with anyone at OCV anymore. I am sick of their BS. I agree something needs to be done. Regards Seamisty




*Seamisty
Thanks for your comments
Sorry your email bounced - it's a new email, so try again later, having your email on record with others, may come in handy later if any action group comes into being - I have sent myself emails, also got test emails from my ISP provider and a couple of emails from investors - they came through OK - perhaps a WA link problem? Once again, my email is:  breaker1@aapt.net.au

Re: Lack of disclosure by OCV/MFS PIF of the RBOS default of $184M (that's a lot of money) - is certainly something to ram home. Please see a snippet of my letter (via my local member) to the appropriate minister for ASIC(you'll see your not alone):
Nick Sherry - Senator for Tasmania
Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law
Parliament House
Suite M1 46
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600 
Tel02) 6277 7410 
Fax02) 6273 4116 
Email:Email Nick 
Electorate Office
23 Stewart Street
Devonport, TAS, 7310 
Tel03) 6424 8241 
Fax03) 6424 8555 
Postal Address:
PO Box 858
Devonport, TAS, 7310 

"Can the minister advise if MFS PIF or it’s parent MFS LTD, can be held liable to investors for not advising us of the outstanding loan default of $184 million to The Royal Bank of Scotland possibly as early as August, 2007, which is when I was reconsidering re-investing in MFS and I did re-invest because no such outstanding loan was advised by MFS? (The law requires there to be continuous disclosure of material information.)". 
*

*I have not received a reply as yet (sent approx 30/03/08). Nevertheless, I encourage investors to send their concerns and requests to Nick Sherry via their Local Members*

Seamisty, you said you spoke to ASIC yesterday, can I ask if you can give any details of the conversation that you feel comfortable mentioning on here?


----------



## breaker1 (27 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*



wally3218 said:


> Pensioners who have invested in this fund are not getting there monthly payments and have no access to their money and centrelink says they cant have access to any extra pension because the company hasnt folded yet and that the money they have invested is still deemed by centrelink.
> They should have access to more govt pension as it will be 360 days before they get anything.




*Please see a snippet of my letter to the appropriate minister Nick Sherry on behalf of my father, who is a pensioner and also a PIF investor: *"Would the minister responsible for Centrelink please look into this extraordinarily, harsh, Centrelink decision with the view of changing it to something much more humane – in fact I would ask that the loss of MFS income be deducted from my dad's recorded Centrelink income, because he is not getting it and that the $-------- not be counted as an asset because it is frozen and NOT available for its normal redemption date for him?

Centrelink glibly saying that they still see locked up, frozen, non paying investor assets as still tangible is outrageously bureaucratic and not humane, particularly if counting it as still somehow being tangible as income producing, is farcical. If by some miracle, dad's MFS interest, income recommences, surely it can be and only should be, recalculated then by Centrelink. 
The minister would be aware that many of the 11,000 MFS PIF investors would be retired pensioners. I don’t just want the minister to verify if my complaint is correct, I am urging the minister, to force Centrelink into a change of its internal decision or existing policy on the matter.  Some urgency is required, as people have to pay their bills and essentials".

Now, you may be wondering why Nick Sherry is the appropriate minister - it is because he is the minister responsible for ASIC and it is ASIC who advises Centrelink how to respond to investment and income matters and centrelink simply follows ASIC's recommendation. 


*I strongly recommend* fellow PIF, WPIF, etc. investors send their concerns to Nick Sherry via their local member - remember you can now send your concerns/requests via email to you local member. The more sent the more likely a favourable response. My local MP actually is expecting them. 
*See this link for contact details of your local member:* http://www.alp.org.au/people/index....state=&keywords=Sherry&image2.x=28&image2.y=9

Wally, thanks for your encouragement! Much appreciated. I appreciate your contibutions. *It is very important that we all carrry the load now, that will be the key!*


----------



## wally3218 (27 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

I have just emailed this and believe the more people who know and are asked about this the better for everyone.

To Senator Hon. Joe Ludwig Minister for Human Services

Could the senator please advise me or look into this unfair action about the age pension on behalf of my mother who is a age pensioner.

How it can use the deeming rates to calculate income for pension benefit where money in these investments are frozen and access to this money is unavailable this seems very harsh.

The money is in Octaviar Ltd, Formerly known as MFS, Premium Income Fund ARSN 090 687 577  this fund and others in this group have been deferment of payment of redemptions for 360 days and no access available for withdrawal of these funds.

Centrelink says it has been told by the government that even thou this money invested and is not bringing in any income it still has to be used for their deeming calculations. Surely once this money is frozen there should be compassionate grounds to be able to increase their pension especially in these hard times.


----------



## breaker1 (27 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

Wally,
Brilliant mate, good on you!


----------



## breaker1 (27 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

Dear Investors,
Things are barreling along at a fast pace and it's hard to keep up. The following article is somewhat exaggerated to me, but I post it anyway in my duty to keep you informed - every article helps us get the bigger picture.

Octaviar close to collapse 
Michael West 
May 27, 2008 - 6:07PM

Gold Coast financial engineer Octaviar, or MFS as it was known, is a hair's breadth from collapse with its major noteholder Challenger Managed Investments and the Public Trustee of Queensland demanding immediate repayment.

Both the Trustee and Challenger served legal notices on the embattled Octaviar.

If the courts rule in their favour, it will be the end of the road for Octaviar, which counts most of its value in the Octaviar Premium Income Fund.

Challenger, with $100 million - at face value - in bonds that mature in November 2011, is claiming that Octaviar is in default and is suing for immediate recovery of its money. *A trial date of July 21 has been set.*
Meanwhile, the Public Trustee of Queensland, who acts for investors in Octaviar's listed notes - whose face value is $349 million - has also served a notice claiming a default. Until now, the Trustee had been negotiating with Challenger on behalf of Octaviar. That it has now claimed a default suggests something must have gone wrong between the Trustee and Octaviar.

Octaviar would appear to have a reasonable case as the notes are unsecured and are not due for repayment until 2011. The claim by Challenger, and presumably the Queensland Public Trustee, is that the sale of Octaviar's interest in hospitality group, Stella, constitutes a default as this was the sale of a major stake in a key asset.

*Challenger and other Octaviar investors are understood to be unhappy that the Responsible Entity (RE) of Octaviar's most valuable asset, the Octaviar Premium Income Fund, has been delivered to an associate  (Jenny Hutson?? of Wellington Capital /b1) of the recently appointed chief executive Chris Scott.

Washington Capital is the RE for OPIF and it is also Scott's financial advisor.*

Meanwhile, Octaviar also faces a demand for payment from National Australia Bank, which has asked for payment of a $40 million guarantee which NAB had provided to Living and Leisure Australia Group.

Even if Octaviar were to bat off Challenger and the Queensland Public Trustee in court in July its future would be uncertain."

mwest@fairfax.com.au
Some may want to contact the above jounalist Michael West for more insight - email immediately above. Let us know if you got any info?

Keep a stiff upper lip, keep going forward in getting further disclosure from the PIF and doing good for fellow investors. It would seem obvious to say that the outcome of Challenger suing OCTAVIAR LTD, would have a strong bearing on Octaviar Ltd and the PIF surviving in its present form.


----------



## breaker1 (28 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

*UPDATE 2*
If you look at Octaviar's website: http://www.octaviar.com.au/managed-funds/investorupdates.html  and scroll down to Octaviar Premium income fund, "monthly update - February 2008" you will find the following $ figures:
Gross Assets: $890.1 million
Loan owed to third party bank: $184 million (no doubt RBOS)
Number of units on issue: 755.2 million
then do simple maths: 
$890.10 assets
                    minus  -  184.00 debit
                   balance  $ 706.1 asets tangible left
then divide $706.10  by  755.2 (the number of investor units held) *you get 
93.4cents in the dollar return to investors at current stated balance*

Now if these figures are genuine and the PIF is not hiding other debts and not inflating assets, then our return in the $,  IF, I repeat IF, all assets are finally realised 100% as shown on this February update, then things are not as bleak as they seem.

These figures make one hope that OCTAVIAR LTD and its PIF sister don't collapse in the mean time!

*It would appear that the PIF has brought down it's debt to the Royal Bank of Scotland from $184 mill, then to $100Mill and now to $64 mill. That's encouraging news!!! *But where did this $120 mill paid off so recently come from? Is it the sale of physical assets or more than likely, returns from developers paying back loans to the PIF. Please don't tell me they have taken out another loan somewhere else [another bank] to acheive this.

It would appear that management is working hard to stabilise the PIF and that the PIF's main goal at present being, getting rid of the RBOS debt, so that it can be free of RBOS (supposed contracted) default existing controls over the fund. This speedy ejection of RBOS may force the PIF to seek recapitalisation from another bank to do it, but hopefully the new recapitalisation will be for no more than $64mill and without any default control clauses. It is believable that the PIF could get a $64 mill loan from another bank, if assets as stated are real.  *This could mean that interest may start to be paid to investors again possibly before the end of the year and possibly at a lower rate than we investors previously had.* 

It is even possible that management of the PIF are getting wind of resentment and investor anger and *may try and hold a general meeting of investors within 2 months, underline MAY hold a meeting.* It is possible that at such a meeting PIF management may use this as an occasion to be more transparent about it's balance sheet, if not done so in an information letter beforehand.  It *may* even try to justify to investors at any such meeting, it's tranfer of management rights to Jenny Hutson's, Wellington Capital. It has been suggested that ASIC is looking favourably at the deal. *Nevertheless, as this is from an unrepresentative (non PIF) source, we should believe it when we see it, in the mean time we as a investors should still plow towards our existing action group goals. *

If we look at Wellington Capital being a company of $200MILL in assets and the add to it OCV PIF latest claim of assets, this would make Wellington worth 200+706= 906 million ($906,000,000 - nearly a billion $ company on paper anyway)  which would make it a big player in the market. However, this would be conditional on PIF investors staying with the PIF fund. So how do you get the PIF investors to accept Jenny as the new boss and stay on? My guess is that as in OCV Pacific (NZ), you stratagise in a way investors can't refuse. For example - if you leave you only get minimal cents back in the dollar, the longer you stay (2 or more years) the more you will get back in the dollar (maximize return). Does that make sense?

Now keep in mind, all this makes for interesting strategising as long as the whole OCTAVIAR/MFS pack of cards does not collapse from other pressures in the mean time (current law suits, pressuring circling creditors who want their money now, failing US dollar, sub-prime credit squeeze, etc,etc) 

I must say, I am looking forward to the Octaviar Premium income fund, "monthly update - March 2008" when it comes out shortly, to see if it's still adding up the way it's been presented as above by sources.

*What thinks ye fellow brother and sister investors - any comments?*


----------



## breaker1 (28 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

As mentioned in my previous post UPDATE2 the *vultures are circling *and we as PIF investors don't want MFS LTD (share side) to collapse and drag the PIF down with it.

"The creditors' game of bluff with Octaviar is well under way. But make no mistake, the shareholders are still going to get little or nothing in the end.

The creditors will take what they can and the vultures like Packer will buy the cheap pickings *that remain in the satellites [PIF?? /breaker1]*. The shareholders are the last in line." - Herald

See fullstory on: http://business.smh.com.au/ah-its-the-old-help-me-to-help-you-line-20080527-2iqw.html

Could it be that Chris Scott is trying to shift  OCV LTD's last real asset, the PIF, to Wellinton Capital before the circling vultures get their hands on it, before they can pick it up for "cheap pickings" - so that he can live again there with his budy Jenny if all else fails? Is Chris moving his most valuable asset out of harms way to save it, so that he can head their later? Or is Jenny the one getting cheap pickings? Getting very complicated folks - it would be playing out like an entertaining television soapie if we didn't have *our *money there!!!

Also see: NATIONAL Australia Bank may move to appoint an administrator to teetering Gold Coast property financier Octaviar *if $40 million is not received by the close of business today.*See URL: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23769015-664,00.html

Also see: OCTAVIAR'S chances of staging a Lazarus-like recovery appear increasing remote, after the stricken Gold Coast financial group revealed it had been ordered to repay a $349 million debt by Thursday next week. - Herald
See URL: http://business.smh.com.au/octaviar-pushed-closer-to-the-edge-20080527-2iqu.html

*Guy Hutchings and Chris Scott - if you're gonna do anything to save the PIF - do it NOW!!*


----------



## seamisty (28 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

Good morning breaker1 and other PIF holders,The following article is in todays Herald Sun .I think the next few days will be very interesting, cheers Seamisty::NATIONAL Australia Bank may move to appoint an administrator to teetering Gold Coast property financier Octaviar if $40 million is not received by the close of business today.

Last month, Octaviar told the ASX it may collapse because it owes $838 million to six of its biggest unsecured creditors. 

Other creditors of the company, formerly MFS, are also lining up, with the James Packer-backed Challenger group launching legal action to recover $100 million and the Public Trustee of Queensland demanding $350 million. 

Octaviar's best chance of avoiding administration appears to lie with another part of Mr Packer's empire, Hong Kong-based fund Arctic Capital. 

Arctic Capital is negotiating to purchase $63 million of debt from another former MFS company, Living and Leisure Australia. 

A $40 million tranche of that debt was guaranteed by MFS, sparking the latest crisis. 

NAB spokesman Brandon Phillips said that if LLA repaid its debt, the bank would have no need to pursue Octaviar for the guarantee. 

It is believed Octaviar has more than $200 million in cash, meaning it could easily pay the bank, but has not obtained the agreement of other creditors needed to make the payment. 

NAB served Octaviar with a statutory demand for the $40 million on May 7, but Octaviar only told the stock exchange of the notice yesterday. 

Under corporate law, if a creditor's statutory demand is not paid by a company - or set aside by a court - within 21 days, the creditor can launch legal action to have the company put into administration. 

The 21-day period expires today. 

Mr Phillips would not rule wind-up action in or out: "We'll keep thinking about our options and take appropriate steps once we see the outcome." 

The Living and Leisure Australia recapitalisation proposal has a strict debt repayment timetable. 

As part of the deal, LLA told the ASX it "must provide satisfactory evidence to NAB that it has a signed credit approved offer for a lending facility . . . sufficient to repay NAB's debt in full" by this Friday, and pay the debt in full by Friday, June 13. 

Representatives of LLA and Arctic Capital declined to comment. 

Octaviar is poised for a NSW Supreme Court showdown with Challenger on July 21. 

Challenger has taken action on behalf of its $1.65 billion Challenger High Yield Fund, which owns $100 million worth of unlisted floating rate notes - a form of debt - issued by Octaviar. 

Challenger spokeswoman Lynn Anderson said: "(Challenger subsidiary) CIML is seeking to enforce the rights of the loan agreement on behalf of unit holders in the Challenger High Yield Fund." 

She declined to comment on the reasons for the action, but it is believed Challenger will allege the sale of 65 per cent of Octaviar's tourism arm, Stella, in February, means the debt is due and payable. 

Challenger is believed to argue that the sale was a "trigger event" because the information memorandum sent out by the then-MFS said the notes were guaranteed by MFS and its subsidiaries, including Stella. 

The Public Trustee of Queensland, which represents investors in listed Octaviar notes, joined the claim rush on Friday, serving the company with a notice of event of default. 

Acting Public Trustee Patrick Wedge did not explain the nature of the default in a statement issued yesterday. 

"As trustee for the note holders, this office is acting consistent with our duties under the trust deed," Mr Wedge said. 

"This office will take all necessary steps to protect the interests of the note holders." 

He said the company has until next Thursday to respond to the notice. 

Octaviar stock is not trading on the exchange, but Living and Leisure stock recently relisted on the back of Arctic Capital's proposal. 

The ASX is investigating why Octaviar took so long to disclose the NAB's demand to the market. 

ASX spokesman Matthew Gibbs said the fact the Living and Leisure debt was guaranteed by Octaviar was one reason "why we'll take a close look at it." 

An Australian Securities and Investments Commission spokeswoman declined to comment. 

Octaviar company secretary David Anderson could not be reached.


----------



## Javier (28 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*

Wellington Capital actually have $600 mil in funds under management both in wholesale and retail funds, so add our $750 mil, and Jenny Hutson becomes a major player and she has publicly stated she wanted to be a listed company within 5 years of starting her own merchant bank business. She is VERY ambitious, this ambition is hopefully a positive energy that may help our cause!!


----------



## breaker1 (28 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Wellington Capital actually have $600 mil in funds under management both in wholesale and retail funds, so add our $750 mil, and Jenny Hutson becomes a major player and she has publicly stated she wanted to be a listed company within 5 years of starting her own merchant bank business. She is VERY ambitious, this ambition is hopefully a positive energy that may help our cause!!




Javiar,
Sorry, I could not be sure if Wellington had $600Mill or $200Mill - I could not check her web-site because its down for maintenance and I could not find the original article that touted the funds assets, so I decided to pick the conservative amount of $200mill.

*Following are details of Wellington Capital & Jenny Hutson from websites - not my opinions, just for some background:*
Jenny Hutson named Queensland Businesswoman of the Year
  Tuesday 20 March 2007  
Queensland’s business women of the year have celebrated their achievements in front of some 300 people at a gala event held at Brisbane’s Tivoli Theatre.

Wellington Capital’s Jenny Hutson has been named Queensland Businesswoman of the Year at qbr’s second Women in Business Awards.

The lawyer and S8 chair has had an outstanding 12 months, founding merchant bank Wellington Capital in early 2006 and increasing its revenue to over $8 million in that time.

Jenny also won the Professional Services Category.

Tourism, Fair Trading, Wine Industry Development and Women Minister Margaret Keech congratulated all the nominees, finalists and winners for their outstanding contribution to Queensland.

Catagory winner in: Professional Services (Jenny Hutson, Wellington Capital)

*Jenny Hutson BCom/LLB*
Jenny Hutson is the Managing Director and founder of Wellington Capital Limited, a merchant bank. Jenny also chairs Wellington Funds Management Trust. She was previously a partner for 10 years in the corporate division of McCullough Robertson Lawyers. Jenny was recently awarded Queensland Business Woman of the Year 2007, Australian Institute of Management Owner/Manager of the Year 2007 and the Australian Business Awards winner for Enterprise in Finance 2007. Jenny is a Director of the Mental Health Foundation of Australia Ltd, and a Director of Big River Timbers. She is a member of the Companies Committees of the Law Council of Australia, the Queensland Law Society, the National Advisory Board for ‘Year of the Surf Lifesaver' and the Royal Children's Hospital Foundation. Jenny holds a Bachelor of Commerce and Laws from the University of Queensland, is a Fellow, Emmanuel College, University of Queensland and is a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland.


*For a picture of Jenny Hutson see link: *http://www.qbr.com.au/wib/images/pics/L10.jpg
another pic see: http://www.workingwonders.com.au/go/learn-more/about-us/board-and-committees/

Company details 
c/- Wellington Capital Limited , Level 3 , 307 Queen Street , BRISBANE , QLD, AUSTRALIA, 4000
Tel: (07) 3221 3211   Fax: (07) 3220 0093

Date first listed: 12/07/2005
Company Secretary: Ms Mary-Anne Greaves
Industry: Real Estate
Activities: Investment and merchant bank trading in money, securities and the futures market - focus is on organising longer-term finance for clients, advising on mergers and takeovers, through to project financing and management, all with an emphasis on property
Directors and Executives:
   Ms Jenny Hutson (Chairman)
   Mr Robert Pitt (Managing Director)
   Mr Christopher Scott (Director)
   Mr David Burke (Director)
   Mr Peter Fahey (Director)

Hutson has a staff of approx. 17 people - if OCT PIF went into her control, she no doubt would have to pick up extra staff (possibly even ex PIF staff previously made redundant)


----------



## breaker1 (29 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My letter of concern about MFS PIF has gone via my local MP to Senator Ludwig (Human Services) to Jenny Macklin (Family and Community Services) to Treasury, then to Nick Sherry (Super and Corporate Law) and yes, then to ASIC. Needs to come back to my local MP, then back to me for the full circuit. Off course by then, the whole MFS box and dice will have collapsed, now wouldn't it.

Well at least a lot of big wigs are getting a good read about Michael King, ASIC, MFS PIF, the Royal Bank of Scotland, Fortress, Centrelink, etc.

I think I actually asked for Government assistance for the PIF and it's investors - now that probably got a laugh, but hey.... ye have not because ye ask not!


----------



## wally3218 (29 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just reading the newspaper this morning all about Alan Bonds return to the rich list after being bankrupt and jailed, and his memory returning.
Just doesnt seem to be any justice when your rich and can hide the money trail and investors go broke.
I imagine that all the directors of MFS will be glad to know when and if they become bankrupt that they still can return like Alan Bond.


----------



## Towbar (29 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Towbar,
my wife & i are investors with the pif, we contacted guy hutchings regarding financial hardship & received a phone call back from a john mortimer ex southport office telling us that there was no hope of receiving our matured investment(31/3/08)until 360 days was up.We are pensioners receiving reduced pension due to our assets with octaviar,& centrelink are not interested until octaviar go down.we agree there must be more contact with octaviar sooner rather than later


----------



## wally3218 (29 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Towbar said:


> Towbar,
> my wife & i are investors with the pif, we contacted guy hutchings regarding financial hardship & received a phone call back from a john mortimer ex southport office telling us that there was no hope of receiving our matured investment(31/3/08)until 360 days was up.We are pensioners receiving reduced pension due to our assets with octaviar,& centrelink are not interested until octaviar go down.we agree there must be more contact with octaviar sooner rather than later




You should write a letter/email or go and see your local member of parliament.
The more people that complain the more chance that we all will get someone to help or at least look into this terrible situation.
There are a lot of people hurting because of what MFS have done and not many of them know that there are others in same boat.


----------



## breaker1 (29 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



wally3218 said:


> Just reading the newspaper this morning all about Alan Bonds return to the rich list after being bankrupt and jailed, and his memory returning.
> Just doesnt seem to be any justice when your rich and can hide the money trail and investors go broke.
> I imagine that all the directors of MFS will be glad to know when and if they become bankrupt that they still can return like Alan Bond.




*Shonky Michael King*

Notable absences from this year's rich list are MFS founders Michael King and Phil Adams who last year were worth a combined $370 million.

Their fortune has been marked down to zero, with Mr King earlier this month conceding he was facing certain bankruptcy following the collapse of the MFS empire -- which at its height was worth more than $3 billion.

He has sold most of his stable of polo horses and is now hiring out his polo field to users where it used to be free. King recons he has a million the one chance of not going bankrupt. 

One thing I will tell you now about Michael King the MFS founder - he had a record with ASIC of running a former shonky business, but ASIC only left this record on their ASIC website for 6 months. I am very angry with this - if when i was doing my internet search of ASIC before investing with the PIF and seen this part of Kings history, I most definitly would not have invested in MFS. ASIC needs a kick up the pants for not leaving such important info on record for at least 10 years.

See pic of King in action before he fell of his perch: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23625980-3102,00.html


----------



## Javier (29 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Investor update for March 2008 is up on the Octaviar website today..our dollar value as at 31 Mar has gone down to 92.8c, wonder how much that really is today, or more importantly what it will be when there will be enough "liquidity" to pay out redemptions? I hate to think!!!


----------



## Duped (29 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just had a look at the March Investor Update.  Smoke and Mirrors

I can't see the relevance of the 'Update of Financial Market Conditions'.  Smoke. PIF is a fund - a lender - so interest rate rises are good ... Right?  Unless this leads to loan defaults or arrears - no prob there according to the Update. 

Likewise for the share market fall. Smoke. Normally falling share markets pushes capital into property ... Right?  There's property exposure throughout PIF.

The Mirrors  is the corporate structure - 'what AM I looking at?'. 'Commercial Loans', 'Asset Backed Investments', 'Property Backed Management Schemes', 'Fixed Interest Investments' & 'Cash Investments' - all create a nice image but what's behind them.  What's behind the glass?  How much of it is in related companies which will vanish into thin air if they go under.  Look at the February update - there were two blocks of related parties - in March there is only one.

PIF should NEVER have been saddled with debt.  MFS/Octaviar Ltd board used PIF as a cash cow.  All signed off by the Chairman.  Looks like to prop up the OCV, LLA& GPM share prices to justify Director bonuses.  Taking out margin loans helps prop up the price too ....  until the inevitable happens.

Credit squeeze means cash is king means PIF should be laughing.  Right.

How is the debt being paid off? For a start, how about by not paying distributions .  755M 1$ units paying an average of 8.5% pa.  Thats $64M PIF will 'generate' in 360 days. WE, the PIF investors, are paying off the debt.


----------



## Javier (29 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well said Duped, I think you pretty much summed it up. What do you think Wellington / Jenny Hutson is going to do about the current situation. I feel they will bash the old regime and reveal the goings on as you stated, she will then turn this transparency into a "we will not stop till se get the last cent we can for you poor folk", in an attempt to HOLD our money above and beyond the 360 days and we will more than likely be put into a newly created fund, which may then go out and seek new investors as well, if we take our money on the 360 day lifting of freeze we get say 70c for our dollar, but if we leave it in there with WC for say 2 years we MAY see closer to our full capital whilst obviously earning some % rate of return. What do you think?


----------



## breaker1 (29 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped writes....
"How is the debt being paid off? For a start, how about by not paying distributions .  755M 1$ units paying an average of 8.5% pa.  Thats $64M PIF will 'generate' in 360 days. WE, the PIF investors, are paying off the debt"


That, no doubt is why the RBOS froze our interest distributions - to get the cream first, before anyone else - I'll be glad to see the last of that global parasite. If OPIF has to get another refinancing loan without OPIF control strings attached, then I'm all for it....particularily if it allows distributions immediately after.


----------



## breaker1 (29 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Investor update for March 2008 is up on the Octaviar website today..our dollar value as at 31 Mar has gone down to 92.8c, wonder how much that really is today, or more importantly what it will be when there will be enough "liquidity" to pay out redemptions? I hate to think!!!




G'day Javier,

$890.1 mill (feb) *less * $869.4 mill (march) *=* $20.7 mill spent

RBOS owed $184 mill (feb) *less* $168 mill (owed march) *=* $16 mill paid off

$20.7 mill minus $16 mill = 4.7 mill  Where did the 4.7 million go in one month? Is that what it costs a month to run the OPIF show?


----------



## Javier (29 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Who knows..????


----------



## wally3218 (30 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

What better way to recoup some of your lost money than to arange a general meeting and to get yourself appointed as director and your friends to the board.
That way you can be paid a salary and not have to worry about distributions.
Does anyone know how much the directors are getting paid to help themselves there definately not helping us.


----------



## Tuart (30 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Breaker1 well done for starting this thread. I am a member of HotCopper and suggested that the PIF needed its own forum over there as the interests of PIF are certainly not aligned with interests of OCV shareholders.

I have been following the PIF issues closely as a I have close friends caught up in the mess and I was also aware of an offer to OCV to acquire the RE which manages the PIF from PIF.

The group wishing to acquire the RE was a major european insititution with billions at their disposal who saw an opportunity to enter Aust through undertaking a workout of PIF on behalf of the 11000 investors.

They could not even get in the front door with OCV to conduct due dilegence. They provided details to OCV as  well as JH at Wellington in her position as advisor to Chris Scott and despite numerous phone calls and written communication did not even get a returned phone call.

This group was told by a lady called Louise Edwards at Octaviar that OCV had over 25 expressions of interest from parties wishing to acquire the management rights of PIF. 

The bottom line is that JH has mislead the PIF unitholders if the statements in the paper are correct. She stated that hers was the only real offer and "no one else got close to due dilegence." If you do not consider any other offer then of course your own offer becomes the only offer! 

The party I am aware of could understand if they were beaten by a better offer but they werent. They had serious money available to fix the problems such as RBOS. Wellington claim to have 600 million under management but if this is all in non liquid assets what good is it to PIF.

What money is Wellington putting in to fix the problems. So far we have seen the fire sale of the GEO shares and now a further proposed haircut on the LLA loan. 

PIF needs an RE who can pay the bank and put funding in to see developments finished.   

You have had Korda Mantha as well as the staff at PIF working for months on this and yet the first statement JH makes is "that its a mess and we will need a few months to understand the position". That is total cr--.

I think there is about 38 investments held by PIF. Not hard to understand the position and they know it just do not want to tell the investors.

Its strange that the only deal avaialbel on PIF to OCV was to an advisor of Chris Scott. How is she going to deal with the $50 million issue.

I would suggest PIF unitholders call a meeting. You will find that you will need x number of investors to requisition. (number can be provided by existing RE)

Issues that should be discussed at meeting is:
1) Full disclosure of the 25 parties who approached OCV to acquire managemetn rights.
2) Full disclosure of current position including what losses have been incurred to repay bank.
3) Tender process to be undertaken to replace RE with party capable of providing funding to ensure maximised work out.

One of the things I do not understand is why instead of PIF taking a loss on LLA loan doesnt PIF replace Artic and act like the vulture fund and convert debt to equity.

LLA would require an additional far smaller rights issue but PIF could claw back a lot of its losses just from this one step.

The offer I was aware of included a proposed workout of LLA so that losses like these were not needed.

Anyway I hope that this forum can help investors in PIF because as a group you have power but alone you have none and are dictated to by the likes of Wellington Capital.


----------



## Javier (30 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Are you prepared to provide proof of this so called european institution not being allowed to make their proposal or to exercise due diligence? If you are I am prepared to take it further or else it's just talk on a forum, which counts for nothing. Please send me a private email and I will bring it up in the soon forthcoming investor meetings.


----------



## Duped (30 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> G'day Javier,
> 
> $890.1 mill (feb) *less * $869.4 mill (march) *=* $20.7 mill spent
> 
> ...




Wasn't PIF paying distributions until 12 March? Many investors would be drawing the income; accounting for some of the cash going out the door.  12 days @ 8.5%, 50% of investors is ~ $1M, 75% of investors is ~ $1.6M, 90% of investor is ~ $1.9M.  % could be very high 

+ plus writedowns of the 'investments'.  

Don't forget that PIF would have had cash coming in the door as well from the 'investments', add that to the 4.7M. I'm hoping they weren't all dodgy, self aggrandizement investments; but I wouldn't put it past MFSIM. 

By my calcs based on the Feb Update 24.7% of the 'assets' were with MFS related entities.  Subtract the $184M debt indicates that 31% of the 'value' was with MFS related entites.  Please, please please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## seamisty (30 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped, Distributions from the PIF stopped in January.Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Tuart (30 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Javier

tuart@live.com.au

I will be offline for a few hours but will try and get a copy of the EOI lodged by party with OCV over to you.

As I said Louise Edwards of OCV itself provided the number 25 as the number of parties who lodged interests with OCV regarding PIF and so ASIC could under their powers issue her with a notice to get the truth.

Also if you read the article in AFR it quotes Jenny Hudson herself as saying that they had numerous approaches "but no one else came close to doing due dilegence".

No one else came close as OCV would not talk to anyone else as they wished to only do a deal with a friendly party either for CS self benefit or else becuase WC is more likley to do deals which are best for OCV.


Breaker they have moderated your post at HotCopper so unless readers got in quick they no longer have reference to this forum.

.


----------



## Duped (30 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Shall take your word for it over Guy Hutchings' letters.  I've just had a look at them and they are misleading (http://www.octaviar.com.au/managed-funds/premium-income-fund/).

Letter of 29 Jan states "MFSIM currently expects to continue paying distributions at the target distribution rates*"

Next letter, dated 12 March, mentioned ceasing of distributions: misleading or did he just conveniently delay sending the letter.

12 March: "ceased distributions ...  to conserve cash in order to continue to fund PIF's development projects".  That's like a boss borrowing against a company for a ferrari then telling the staff they'll have to take pay cuts or the company could lose clients/business and you all could lose your jobs, not telling staff about the debt the company is carrying for his largess.

First mention of breach of $184M debt was in the letter of 29 March.  WOW!  Take your time pal.


----------



## seamisty (30 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

As I said once before Duped, we were all Duped!!!We re-invested in Jan and only got one payment. I know of several others in the same situation. We were not notified so I rang OCV and asked where the  Feb distribution was. I have been constantly lied to, misled, fobbed off and totally ignored ever since. Someone else has spoke personally to an  ASIC representative, here is a copy of the letter he wrote to which I added our name. Regards, SeamistyDear Sir



 I invested $XXX dollars with the MFS Premium Income Fund now Octavia PIF on Jan13 2008 which represents a significant part of my retirement savings 



As you will no doubt be aware the Octaviar PIF is now in serious financial difficulty having debts of $184 million dollars against assets of $770 million dollar and breached a  loan Covenant  by the Royal Bank of Scotland on  DECEMBER 31st 2007



The published assets as of DECEMBER 31st 2007 printed  in the PDS  contain no mention of any debt or LVR Covenant  in the fund  which is extraordinary as this loan    now represents  a substantial  component ( approx 23%) of the total value 



Investors were only informed of the debt ,Covenant and subsequent standstill agreement   approximately 11 weeks after the event on MARCH 19th 2008 when that  information  and the consequences were made public by accountants Price Waterhouse and Coopers  who  stated  plainly that their  is a material uncertainty  whether the fund can remain a going concern  in the half yearly account to December 31st 2007



I telephoned the Company and asked them why, “I had not been informed of the problems BEFORE I made my investment on JANUARY 13th 2008 and why their published assets on DECEMBER 31st 2007  listed  in the PDS contain no mention of the debt  level  or Bank Loan Covenant under the ASX rules of continuous disclosure”.



They informed me that  they were “, not obliged to directly publish details of  the debt  in the PDS and  in addition  they  had reached a standstill agreement with the  RBOS  in JANUARY” 



Although the PDS does state that the Fund had a loan facility agreement whereby they could draw up to 20% of the value of total assets. , to provide short term funding for opportunistic investments .We  are  gravely concerned as to the legitimacy of a  published document dated December 31st 2007 (provided)that clearly purports to demonstrate an asset base untainted by debt of this magnitude ..This subtle camouflage of the real debt position  clearly  makes a mockery of the  transparency ,honesty and fairness required under ASX guidelines. 



IT is also difficult to understand how 184 million dollars primarily loaned to other OCV related entities could ever hope to  be repaid in the short term   under the conditions stipulated above





 In any event regardless of whether or not they had reached a standstill agreement with the RBOS is irrelevant. The fact remains that the business was in serious financial difficulty having breached a Covenant that in effect gave RBOS the right to immediate repayment OF a mASSIVE loan  tHIRTEEN days BEFORE MY INVESTMENT was MADE  ON  13 JANUARY 2008 .



 Furthermore the standstill agreement was essentially only  a stopgap measure of limited duration used to  forestall  the direct  impact  of  a severe liquidity crisis .The PIF had made an   unsecured loan of 67 million dollars to the OCV entity  Living and Leisure  who themselves were in dire financial difficulty and unable to repay that  debt  



Moreover it specifically states in the PDS that all Commercial loans should have an LVR ratio of at least 66% and yet this particular loan did not even have first mortgage security.Only now after living and leisure have defaulted on the loan have the PIF belatedly attempted to negotiate some  protection over the assets of living and leisure  for investors.



In view of the fact that Living and Leisure was suspended from trading on January 19th by the ASX for failing to provide audited accounts, it would appear highly likely that this company was unable to service  its debt of 67 million dollars or eight percent( 8 %) of the total assets of  the PIF well before  that date . However their is no mention of this in the  December 31st PDS which record  the  PRINCIPLE  of loans in default as 17 million or( 2.2%) of the total  assets  



The desperate financial situation of the PIF at this time was  in fact confirmed by  Price ,Waterhouse and Coopers who have stated unequivocally that their was UNCERTAINTY SURROUNDING MFS and its RELATED ENTITIES WHICH HAS IMPACTED ON THE RECOVERABILITY OF CERTAIN ASSETS OF THE FUND. TO DECEMBER 31ST 2007



Therefore it would be absurd to believe that ANY REASONABLY INFORMED person would  have placed  an investment under these conditions in this Fund  had this information been generally  available AFTER  DECEMBER 31st 2007



Indeed recent events have demonstrated how grim the financial situation has become. It is now patently obvious that the Fund has been given an ultimatum by the RBOS as assets are being sold at fire sale prices in a frantic attempt to pay out the loan .This will inevitably result in very significant losses for PIF investors.



Given the above state of affairs would you please inform us if an ASX listed Company can keep the fact that it has  Breached  a Bank  Covenant  a CLOSELY GAURDED SECRET   from an investor under the ASX rules of continuous disclosure Clause 3.1 Chapter 6CA Section 674(2) and if such action contravenes the provisions of the Corporations Act namely if the information was generally available it would have a material effect on the price or value of the entity”. .



As far as I can determine the Corporation Act is simple and unambiguous in its definition of a Companies responsibility in these circumstances.  I would therefore presume that the two entities that formulate and administer these rules either (ASX or ASIC) would not experience any great difficulty in rendering a decision either positive or negative within a reasonable time frame. 



The lives of many retired pensioners and self funded Superannuation members who trusted this company completely are now at risk. These investors placed their savings in the company to provide an income for the necessities of life and now find themselves facing hardship.



We therefore respectfully request your urgent help and earnestly trust you will endeavor to bring this matter to a speedy resolution so that investors are able to proceed without delay with their own legal process in a timely manner.



I am also writing this letter on behalf of other investors listed below who placed their money in the Fund after December 31st 2007 



Yours sincerely


----------



## Duped (30 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Understand and thanks.
re-invested on Jan 13... ouch.  That's a big dose of salt.


----------



## selciper (30 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Javier,
I think you could be right. Ms Hutson has a good reputation as a lawyer and business woman. She and WC may well save the day. What else is on offer? The PIF phone calls I make are increasingly useless. The staff are getting crabby amd easily rattled and have lost sight of the fact that it's OUR money that we want back. They almost seem to convey a sense that the mess is really all because of us annoying investors. Still, what happens if Octaviar Ltd falls over? Does anybody know anything about the new board members recently appointed to oversee PIF?


----------



## selciper (30 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tuart -
Sorry, for some reason I missed your post. If there were other offers to take over PIF as you state, well my previous comments re WC no longer stand.


----------



## breaker1 (30 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Tuart said:


> Javier
> 
> tuart@live.com.au
> 
> ...




Thanks for the tip - I have put another *post* on hot copper asking for their graces to leave the link in their as a "one off" for the sake of aggreived OPIF investors - see what happens.


----------



## breaker1 (30 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*For those wanting the details of forcing the calling of a general metting by members on the OPIF - some key points as follows:*
* You need at least 100 members to make the request *OR* 5% of unit number voting rights (would need 3,850,000 unit votes approx. - so several investors with over $1 mill invested needed here). 100 members may be the best shot?
* must be given to OPIF in writing
* must be signed by the members
* state any resolutions to be proposed at the meeting

*Corporations Act 2001 - relavant sections 249D & 249F under* 
*Section 249D  **Calling of general meeting by directors when requested by members* 
(1)	The directors of a company must call and arrange to hold a general meeting on the request of:
	(a)	members with at least 5% of the votes that may be cast at the general meeting; or
	(b)	at least 100 members who are entitled to vote at the general meeting.
	(1A)	The regulations may prescribe a different number of members for the purposes of the application of paragraph (1)(b) to:
	(a)	a particular company; or
	(b)	a particular class of company.
Without limiting this, the regulations may specify the number as a percentage of the total number of members of the company.
	(2)	The request must:
	(a)	be in writing; and
	(b)	state any resolution to be proposed at the meeting; and
	(c)	be signed by the members making the request; and
	(d)	be given to the company.
	(3)	Separate copies of a document setting out the request may be used for signing by members if the wording of the request is identical in each copy.
	(4)	The percentage of votes that members have is to be worked out as at the midnight before the request is given to the company.
	(5)	The directors must call the meeting within 21 days after the request is given to the company. The meeting is to be held not later than 2 months after the request is given to the company.

*OR*
*Section 249F  **Calling of general meetings by members*
	(1)	Members with at least 5% of the votes that may be cast at a general meeting of the company may call, and arrange to hold, a general meeting. The members calling the meeting must pay the expenses of calling and holding the meeting.
	(2)	The meeting must be called in the same way””so far as is possible””in which general meetings of the company may be called.
	(3)	The percentage of votes that members have is to be worked out as at the midnight before the meeting is called.


----------



## breaker1 (30 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> losses for PIF investors.
> 
> Given the above state of affairs would you please inform us if an ASX listed Company can keep the fact that it has  Breached  a Bank  Covenant  a CLOSELY GAURDED SECRET   from an investor under the ASX rules of continuous disclosure Clause 3.1 Chapter 6CA Section 674(2) and if such action contravenes the provisions of the Corporations Act namely if the information was generally available it would have a material effect on the price or value of the entity”. .
> 
> ...




A top detailed letter Seamisty!

ASIC is such a spongy government body and they take forever to do anything. As you know my letter via my local member is with them now. I am just left wondering what they CAN actually do that would be of any benefit to us and fellow OPIF investor? If OPIF are at fault, can ASIC take legal action? If they can, do you end up with more than you could of got? The problem is - this spongy ASIC also is not transparent, not only in what they do, but in what they can do! We won't understand their worth to us individually until they actually contact us and DO something positve! "You will know them by their works!"


----------



## DoraNBoots (30 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All, we are fellow OPIF investors and are glad to have found this thread today.

Count us in for calling of a general meeting.  I'm certain we are not the only people who would like to get more detail on the assets held within the fund and strategy OPIF management have to resolve whatever issues exist.

I have become furious reading how poorly this fund has been managed due to its incestuous relationship with its parent company and want to find out what will happen to OPIF and our funds if Octaviar goes belly up.

Your Sincerely,


----------



## Rocky1 (31 May 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all

Also glad to have found this thread. My investment in PIF was inherited and I guess one of the biggest questions I have at the moment is if Octaviar folds, does the PIF instantly fold also or are its operations and assets independent enough to remain an entity on it's own.

With regards to forming a committee I am definitely happy to put my hand up and make relevant inquiries on behalf of the committee and all investors


----------



## breaker1 (1 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi All, we are fellow OPIF investors and are glad to have found this thread today.
> 
> Count us in for calling of a general meeting.  I'm certain we are not the only people who would like to get more detail on the assets held within the fund and strategy OPIF management have to resolve whatever issues exist.
> 
> ...




"Its incestuous relationship with its parent company", Heh! HeH! That puts a lot into a few words now doesn't it.

We can call for a general meeting (if we get the numbers) - however, we need to know  WHAT we WANT from OPIF? It would have to CLEARLY show benefits to investors.

The main thing we need *NOW* from Guy Hutchings and OPIF management is *transparency *(openess and detail)! That is what we should persue NOW individually and as we get it we should communicate it to each other on the forum or via email. 

*If and when our group gets big enough and respectable enough we should think about approaching OPIF as a group (even before any possible meeting).*

*DoraNboots and anyone else reading this thread - if your happy to do so, please contact me via email at: **breaker1@aapt.net.au    *

We need as many people on record as possible, we have a number already but not nearly enough - however the contact list is growing very slowly but surely. I hold this list of contacts with respect and responsibility.  I thank the investors who have already put their hand up to assist with their contact numbers or emails - good on you! I have asked a few to do some small chase up jobs already - thanks! I am waiting for the list to grow. If we get near any meeting (demanded or passive) from OPIF, the communication should intensify.


----------



## Rocky1 (1 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just wondering if it would be worth people ringing Guy Hutchings and Jenny Houston or associated management direct with the questions that have been raised through this forum. If a number of us ring with similar questions would this put some pressure on *them *to call a meeting of investors?.

If people think this is worthwhile does anyone have contact details for them? 

Like people have previously mentioned this is *OUR *money and therefore they need to be accountable and should answer our questions


----------



## breaker1 (1 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thought all might appreciate this excellent article about the Hobbs brothers considering legal advice against the OPIF. I will try and contact them! Further, I have already sent an email to the Coogee Bowling Club (no response as yet) - anyone a member?

This article, received with thanks, from a concerned investor:
*Angry retirees want their money from MFS fund*
Nick Nichols
Gold Coast.com

30May08

A RETIRED investor whose family has poured more than $1 million into the former MFS-controlled Premium Income Fund is in a state of limbo, unsure if he will be able to live comfortably or be forced to scrape by on the age pension.

Geoff Hobbs, of Lismore, and his brother Stuart, who lives in Victoria, are two of about 11,000 investors who have seen their money frozen in the fund in the wake of the debt crisis that hit MFS, now known as Octaviar, earlier this year.

But he is angry that there has been little information for investors about the likelihood of retrieving any of their money.

The Premium Income Fund (PIF) was Octaviar's flagship investment vehicle, but now the $770 million owed to investors cannot be claimed, if at all, until April next year at the earliest.

The fund is in the control of Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital, which is understood to have an option until August to take over management of the fund.

Ms Hutson did not return calls yesterday.

Mr Hobbs said numerous attempts to obtain information about the state of his investment have also fallen on deaf ears.

Mr Hobbs, 69, has invested $880,000 into PIF while his brother has $195,000 invested.

He said while he still had some income from other sources, his brother put his entire nestegg into the fund after selling his farm in Victoria.

"The hardest hit is for my brother," said Mr Hobbs.

"He can't even get a pension.

"He is deemed to be too wealthy until (Centrelink) gets notification to the contrary from the Premium Income Fund.

"He's eating pies at night and can't fix his mower or afford to run his car.

"I don't think they know what they're doing to people."

PIF originally announced a 180-day freeze on redemptions by investors to help stabilise the fund. This has since been increased to 360 days since the takeover by Wellington Capital.

For investors such as Mr Hobbs, it means he has to wait 360 days from the day the funds were originally deposited before they can be retrieved.

In his case, he has to wait until August next year to recover part of the money he has invested.

He said he was now 'living on an overdraft' which had blown out to about $50,000.

"We're just trying to get an idea of what the fund is worth," he said.

"We want to know if we have to sell our house now and buy something cheaper or whether we should rent.

"They've got to be more transparent."

The Hobbs's story is being played out for many of the fund's embattled investors.

Last week, it was revealed that Coogee Bowls Club in Sydney was forced to appoint an administrator because interest payments from the fund had dried up.

The club invested $200,000 into PIF six years ago and, after monthly interest payments were stopped three months ago, it was now unable to meet many of the club's daily expenses.

Mr Hobbs said he had investigated the possibility of whether he could move to wind up the fund.

He said he was awaiting advice on the matter.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, which is spearheading a potential class action against Octaviar and is being backed by litigation funder IMF, said it had been approached by several PIF investors looking to recover their funds.

Ben Slade, who is handling the Octaviar action from the firm's Sydney office, said Maurice Blackburn still was assessing the 'appetite of victims' to pursue the matter.

Mr Slade, who expressed his concern yesterday for victims of the corporate implosion, said it was unlikely Maurice Blackburn could take on a potential PIF action due to conflicts of interest between the aggrieved parties.

PIF is still owed $50 million by Octaviar via a support facility, payment of which is being pursued by the fund.

At last count, PIF had bank debt of $100 million, down from $168 million, with the latest update on May 9 telling investors asset sales were continuing.

There has been no indication of the net value of the fund's assets or what was likely to remain for the 11,000 investors.


----------



## breaker1 (1 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> Just wondering if it would be worth people ringing Guy Hutchings and Jenny Houston or associated management direct with the questions that have been raised through this forum. If a number of us ring with similar questions would this put some pressure on *them *to call a meeting of investors?.
> 
> If people think this is worthwhile does anyone have contact details for them?
> 
> Like people have previously mentioned this is *OUR *money and therefore they need to be accountable and should answer our questions




Rocky - contact numbers as requested under: I think you might find that Guy Hutchings works out of the OPIF Sydney Office. It has been my experience it is best to ring business men and women, early in the morning to get their attention.
All the best.

*Also please note that Wellington Capitals website is back on air:*
http://www.wellcap.com.au/

*Wellington Capital Limited ACN 114 248 458*
*Head Office*
Level 22 307 Queen Street
Brisbane Qld 4000

*Sydney Office*
Level 11, 6-10 O'Connell Street
Sydney NSW 2000

All Correspondence to
GPO Box 694
Brisbane Qld 4001

*Ph: 1300 368 848 (cost of local call I believe)*
T 07 3009 9800 
F 07 3009 9893 
E info@wellcap.com.au

PICS of Wellingtons Directors, etc: http://www.wellcap.com.au/personnel.html



*Octaviar Limited - Administration Offices*
*Sydney*Location: 
Level 21, Governor Macquarie Tower
1 Farrer Place, Sydney NSW 2000 

Mailing Address: 
PO Box R1693
Royal Exchange NSW 1225

Telephone: +61 (0)2 8259 7200 
Facsimile: +61 (0)2 9252 6201  

*Melbourne*Location: 
Level 20, 101 Collins Street
Melbourne VIC 3000

Mailing Address: 
Mail Box 123, 101 Collins Street 
Melbourne VIC 3000

Telephone: +61 (0)3 9657 2600 
Facsimile: +61 (0)3 9654 1191  


*Southport*Location: 
5 Hicks St
Southport QLD 4215

Mailing Address: 
PO Box 10414
Southport QLD 4215

Telephone: +61 (0)7 5557 7700 
Facsimile: +61 (0)7 5527 0205

*OPIF Client Services*
*Telephone: 136 637 (cost of local call I believe - Southport Office) *or +61 (0)7 5555 4300 
Facsimile: +61 (0)7 5532 5898 
Email: mail@octaviar.com.au
Location: 5 Hicks Street, Southport QLD 4215 
Mailing Address: PO Box 10414, Southport QLD 4215


----------



## Tuart (2 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hello to all PIF investors.

To maximise the value of your capital return investors have to collectively agree to a workout.

Although everyone wants their money back ASAP the result of this is a continued firesale of investments and loans that PIF is exposed to.

The recent sale of the GEO shares shows the desperate claw for cash going on.

The proposed sale of the LLA debt to Artic is a further example of the PIF taking a loss to appease bankers.

If PIF holders were to block this proposed sale they could instead of selling debt convert this debt to equity in LLA. Become the vulture fund not be the victim. If PIF took 50% of Artic position LLA itself requires far less cash through a rights issue.

This is one example of how value can be clawed back rather than investors losing so that the banks can get money back.

To try and stand up and fight and remember collectively PIF investors have power, indivually they have none, the following steps I think need to happen.

1) You need the 100 signatures to call the meeting

2) Meeting notice contains resolutions 
- for existing RE to present a report with the full position of each investment and loan
- for the RE to be replaced with a third party independent RE

In calling the meeting the group should also call for the existing RE to block LLA deal in the current form and seek to alter terms so that Artic and PIF jointly undertake the vulture fund role in LLA.

You would need to do this through the press but surely James Packer couldnt be to upset to help look after the 11,000 mums and dads. We dont want all of the deal just half.

A review of the last LLA balance sheet and cashflow statement show that this is an income earning group. LLA stake for PIF means PIF acquires an undervalued asset.

- to replace the existing RE there needs to be quickly an alternative sourced and the group needs to create a small fighting fund to have legal help to prepare resolutions and call the meeting. 

Any thoughts or comments on above would be appreciated but something like this needs to happen in days not weeks to stop the firesale.

It also need to be done in public with all guns blazing through the press. NAB, RBOS Artic WC need to all publically be asked why they would not support this including LLA deal. Doesnt change LLA life as Artic were buying debt and then LLA doing rights issue and refinance.


----------



## Javier (2 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am flying out of the country for a week. I belive we need to get collective legal representation for PIF investors too. The LLA block sounds good, and a way to start making money, rather than these constant losses. I have left several msgs for Jenny to return my call, but am still waiting! We need to start bombarding her to get a meeting asap. Once we do that, we can start addressing the investors and getting names etc, right now it's so hard to get even 100 people. Tuart, what happened to you providing evidence of orher prospective REs not getting a look in? I am a bit confused as to who you are and your intentions. For someone who is not an investor and just has "friends" that are, you sure are passionate.


----------



## selciper (2 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A date must be set for the recommcement of PIF distributions. Will Perpetual Trustees please tell us where our money is. Who are these new board members who now oversee our money? RBOS will have been repaid bt the end of July, I hear.  This continuing stone-walling is causing PIF investors financial hardship and the management is weaving and ducking all the time. Why? ASIC, please help.


----------



## selciper (2 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This link is for the WC website. It includes a phone number for Ms Hutson.
http://www.wellcap.com.au/


----------



## breaker1 (2 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*LLA RECAPITALISATION PROPOSAL WITH NAB BANK*
See link to ASX announcement dated 02/06/08 under:
http://www.asx.com.au/asx/research/...=&principalActivity=&industryGroup=NO#details

*TUART* - would this effective recapitalisation effect your desire for the OPIF "instead of selling debt convert this debt to equity in LLA. Become the vulture fund not be the victim. If PIF took 50% of Artic position LLA itself requires far less cash through a rights issue" ??

Futher, regarding the money LLA owes to OPIF: that the OPIF apparently has an alternative option to change the cash loan into an asset in LLA rather than a loan released till the end of 18/06/08. That might need to be clarified however.

*Next Topic:*
Wellington Capital option to be the RE
To the best of my undrstanding *Wellington Capital is not the RE *(*responsible entity*)* yet.* Octaviar Investment Management (OIM) is still currently the RE. 

This is the fuzzy part: I think WC wants to be the RE by purchasing approx. 2 million shares off OIM (or OCV LTD?). By shares, it does not mean ASX shares, it apparently means ownership of various parts (other holdings) of OIM - whatever that means.

Wellington Capital has on option to be the RE (which basically means the legal management) of OPIF till 31/08/08. Wellington Capital is engaging in "due dilligence" now - whichmeans they are looking at all the books of OPIF to see if it is a viable and potentially profitable option to WC. WC does not have to proceed to be the RE if it finds it doesn't want to after inspecting the OPIF books.

If WC become the RE - OPIF will no longer have ANY relationship with OCTAVIAR legally, besides perhaps keeping the name OPIF, which most likely would be changed again anyhow. Further, *that useless*, so called independant (protective) entity, called *Perpetual* will no doubt be given the flick also. What good Perpetual ever did I'll never know?

ASIC is said to be aware of WC's desire to the management rights of OPIF and if it is happy with WC's strategy to "fix" all of OPIF's problems, it will allow the RE transfer. I personally can't see ASIC knocking this transfer back.

Further, I understand that OPIF or WC management don't legally need to hold a meeting of investors for approval to do this - according to one inside source at least. What an action group can acheive legally, needs to be clarified. 

Nevertheless, whether OPIF or WC need to hold a meeting or not (legally) with investors - *for PR and MORAL reasons it most certainly should hold a general investor meeting BEFORE proceeding with any management transfer* - otherwise there is going to be bad blood between investors and OPIF / WC management. OPIF need to take the bull by the horns and hold a   general meeting ASAP in an effort to appease investor anger - otherwise if that anger continues to build, it could spell real trouble in the near future.


----------



## Rocky1 (2 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It would appear that there is a general feeling that we need to pursue a meeting with OPIF/WC management. As has been identified we need 100 investors, so I figure we get the ball rolling and over the next couple of days come up with ideas to find these investors. To kick things off what do people think about advertising or putting an article in major papers identifying our goal and calling for investors to join the group. I am in Melbourne and happy to meet with or discuss this with anyone. My email address as a first point of contact is adam.thorn@optusnet.com.au (I think that with the passionate people we have already - Breaker etc, we could achieve our goal of a meeting)


----------



## breaker1 (2 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> It would appear that there is a general feeling that we need to pursue a meeting with OPIF/WC management. As has been identified we need 100 investors, so I figure we get the ball rolling and over the next couple of days come up with ideas to find these investors. To kick things off what do people think about advertising or putting an article in major papers identifying our goal and calling for investors to join the group. I am in Melbourne and happy to meet with or discuss this with anyone. My email address as a first point of contact is adam.thorn@optusnet.com.au (I think that with the passionate people we have already - Breaker etc, we could achieve our goal of a meeting)




Firstly, we don't necessarily have to have 100 investors to hold a meeting with management OPIF/WC. We need a 100 investors to force a meeting, *IF* management don't want it. This meeting would then become open to all 11,000 members. We may be able to have a meeting with OPIF and WC, if they are willing and preparred to be candid with us turning up at say, Guy Hutchings Office Sydney. Any meeting would need to be well organised and have our agenda and questions at the ready. These things are hard to organise, peoples busy time, etc - we need to be well planned. About a dozen of us could turn up at an appointment time agreed to by Guy and Jenny (I don't know if she would fly down to Sydney for only a small group of us).

We could have 10,000 of us at a meeting, but if we wern't organised and didn't know exactly what we wanted OPIF to do and were vague with our questions, it would be a shambles. I appreciate your keen-ness, but at present we are still getting our act together, still trying to formulate an agenda, still trying to get enough info together to make  intelligent propositions. Still getting enough names together. Getting an understanding of investor rights under the corporations act. I think individually we still need to dig for info and bring it back here to further develop the bigger picture. I doubt that OPIF even know what they want to do yet, besides get rid of the Royal Bank Of Scotland as their main priority and hope that Jenny's WC takes up the RE option. I am not saying, let this drag on for ever though! But as a group we need to get a bit tighter together first.

I am compiling investors that are slowly contacting me, I believe from a conversation I will have shortly, I will have another 3 or 4 join us. Hopefully one with access to legal advice. I believe after a while this dripping of names of investors will increase exponentially. Your proposal to advertise needs to be a bit more specific - which media, what city, what town, who will pay for it, etc. We could spend all that money and then find that OPIF has called a meeting themselves, which apparently may be on the cards. Further, I feel MFS LTD may fail at any moment and that could change the whole picture.

I feel a small group gaining management access in the short term is the go.

Open for discussion.....


----------



## breaker1 (3 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It does get complicated:

Leisure operator on the edge: http://business.smh.com.au/leisure-operator-on-the-edge-20080602-2kyf.html

"At the same time, Arctic would take on $63 million of an unsecured $70 million loan that LLA has outstanding with Octaviar's Premium Income Fund."


----------



## Tuart (3 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good morning PIF investors

In relation to LLA the idea that PIF seek to change the terms of the Artic deal does not ultimately effect LLA.

Artic is buying your debt but are not forgiving LLA so LLA still owes the money. Artic buys debt at discount. 

Through the rights issue which if the shareholders dont stump up Artic effectively converts debt to equity gets a major stake in company. Either he gets paid out full value on debt or get a big chunk of LLA.

I just cant see why PIF cant do half the deal with Artic instead of taking the haircut. It needs to stand up to RBOS but if this is done publically I beleive it can be done.

In terms of getting the 100 people you have certain rights as investors.

You can get a copy of the register

Breaker instead of going on HotCopper and adverting this forum you need to say tht a there is a proposed PIF action group and give a private email address to get on list.

You need to work out if you are going to call a meeting and demand full transparency and/or replace RE with a totally independent RE removed from OCV.


----------



## seamisty (3 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good morning all.Excellent post Rocky1. Surely Jenny Hutson must realise she is dealing with 11,000 extremely disgruntled investors.She is being very short sighted by refusing to answer enquiries from people who she will be relying heavily on for the future success of the PIF and in effect doubling the size of WC. All we are asking for is some transparency and answers. I personally feel if she doesn't call a general meeting shortly and forces us to take action ourselves, she is leaving the PIF wide open for a mass exodus no matter what the losses are. People can only take so much!!!Don't forget some of the same staff who lied and misled us, fobbed us off, wrote letters stating all is well blah blah blah are still the same people we will have to deal with after JH is in charge.I am not prepared to ever have to deal with people of this calibre again!!! Seamisty:


----------



## Tuart (3 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty

The people you are attacking are just trying to do their job. They had a dictator I am guessing who used the PIF as their own bank. They would have not been told the truth and acted on instructions of the leaders.

Dont attack these people as they were just trying to do their job and were fed the same bulls--- which sadly for them as the public face they are the voice or name on the letter.

One thing needed is transparency to see what damage is done and what is left.

I am guessing they will come out with an offer of a moritorium with some cash from OCV if voted for. 

PIF holders need to get on front foot and call a meeting. Either Wellington comes clean on position and how they are going to get all of PIF holders money back or they have to go.

At some point like all the other MSF associates it must become easier to totally remove PIF management from any association with OCV and as much as Wellington Cap claims to be removed three months ago they were the financial advisors of Chris Scott a major OCV shareholder and now director of OCV.


----------



## seamisty (3 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tuart, If some employees have been with a company for 5-10 years, mix with their employers socially and call themselves senior financial advisers, chief executive officers etc, and have no idea what is going on, don't you think this equates to incompetence? And if you really didn't know and were unintentionally misleading and lying to investors, would you than stay with the same people after you found out you had been used in this manner? I agree that the majority in all honesty were only operating under instructions and did have no idea. I am not personally attacking anyone, just saying I would not feel confident in dealing with the same people again. The majority of these employees no doubt feel as betrayed as the investors, but the damage has been done and I agree we now need to concentrate on moving foward. I value your posts, Thankyou, seamisty


----------



## Rocky1 (3 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

In terms of advertising or putting an article in the newspaper I was thinking the major papers e.g Mercury, Advertiser, Herald Sun, Morning Herald, Australian as this would catch the widest audience. In terms of the bill, I'm sure we can unite on that if people think it is a good idea. Basically we are trying to generate numbers to action a meeting to be called by JH or CH or both. Once that meeting is called all investors will be aware of it.

Tuart you mentioned we could get a register - care to elaborate

In terms of being organised for the meeting I believe most of what we want to know is fairly straight forward and has already been discussed on this thread.

Surely a representative group could hold a round table meeting to ensure we are well prepared.

I guess the question is how long do we wait, how much more time do we give these people to eat away our unit value (the latest report shows that it has dropped a further 2-3 cents). I think we need to get serious!!!!!!!!!!! if not only for ourselves but for all those other unit holders out there, especially the pensioners


----------



## selciper (3 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Another month of financial loss and another  obstinate newsletter appeared yesterday. 

A message to PIF:

Answer the important questions that surface daily on this blog. That is the only way you can regain any confidence from increasingly angry PIF investors. Repeating platitudes in the "updates" insults investors' collective intelligence. Amongst all the other difficulties you face, there's a major PR problem. Step up to the plate and let's talk for real.


----------



## Tuart (3 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

As I mentioned previously I am not a PIF investor personally.

I have a fair understanding of the position and what rights investors have.

As a unitholder you would either have the right to a copy of the register or the right to inspect the register. This is one avenue to gather the names but I cannot do this only investors can.

The other method was as breaker was trying to achieve which was through posts in other forums. He was moderated for advertising this forum which is why I suggested going back there and providing a private email. 

Before breaker posts were moderated I have noticed it did draw across some new members who are investors so it worked to a degree.

You are talking 100/11000 which is less than 1% needed to get a meeting called.

You then need a consensus from the 100 to demand report from RE
and if the consensus agrees put up a resolution to replace the existing RE with independent RE.


----------



## Rocky1 (3 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have just spoken to a group manager RE: obtaining a copy of the registrar. She informed me that any request has to be in writing and in accordance with the Corporations Act. She also informed me that they have 45 days to respond to this request and that the cost is approximately $14,000

It also became apparent to me during our conversation that they are aware of this thread. It also became obvious to me that employees are more nervous about talking to investors as I kept hearing "I can't comment on that" and "we only know what the investors know".


----------



## seamisty (3 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

OK Rocky. How many more PIF holders or no of  units do you need? I think it would be a good idea if you lliase with breaker 1. I know there was a lot of PIF holders showing interest elsewhere on similar issues who would possibly make contact if you posted your intentions. Tuart could you help us out please. If there is 770 million units in the fund did you or someone else say that we would only need X amount of representation of units themselves rather than 100 investors? Rather than advertising in the papers in my opinion you would get more response from holders via a media release in an article pertaining to our intentions with a mention of share forums for contact details. Quite often other papers will pick up the the momentum if they think there is public interest. Does anyone have any media contacts/connections or there is always TV programmes looking for human interest stories. Other thoughts opinions welcome. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## Rocky1 (3 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty, Basically as I understand, from what Breaker has posted we need 100 holders or people holding 5% of units (38,500,000), so if we can source some people holding a large number of units we will get the number of unit holders much quicker.

I think a media release of some sort would be a good idea, plus I think we just form a committee, which I am happy to be part of and devote time too and get the ball rolling.

In terms of posting our plan of attack to attract people, others need to start communicating what they would hope to achieve through a committee and the questions they would want answered at a general meeting

I am hoping to talk to breaker personally via phone ASAP to see if we can get the ball rolling. Whilst this thread is good I believe the time has come for some action and personal communication


----------



## Tuart (3 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty

I have communicated with Javier who is away for a week.

I personally think getting the 100 is an easier road to follow.

You guys need to start the PIF action group, get some press and get your numbers.

Get a plan in terms of keeping RE or finding an alternative.

There was 25 parties interested last time in taking management control so I am sure more than a few will be on your door once you gather some momentum, get an address and committee.


----------



## breaker1 (3 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Tuart said:


> Seamisty
> 
> I have communicated with Javier who is away for a week.
> 
> ...




Tuart,
Do you know of any specific party, of the "25 parties" you mentioned. My initial concern is, would they be any better than Wellington Capital? 

OPIF & WC management should note: this is what happens when you don't accept investors into major decision making processes, keeping investors in the dark till any decision is made - especially when they divert away from our original PDF understandings.


----------



## seamisty (3 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Tuart,We just need some interested people to respond with numbers and support who are willing to put their hands up and put forth their concerns that they feel need adressing and help correlate 'The Plan'. I have e-mailed a few others I know who are PIF holders. If everyone does the same and with some media coverage, I would think it in the best interest of ALL holders to come foward. Hopefully in the next few days we can get a specific e-mail adress which can be posted on other forums to stir up more support. There is already two adresses on this thread asking for interested people. adam.thorn@optusnet.com.au / and I think breaker1 had one posted as well. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## Tuart (3 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Breaker

I know of one of the parties and thought their offer and approach was solid and made sense. Their approach was better as they actually have access to bring additional funds in.

From things I have read in the press I would imagine Challenger would have been another party whpo put their hand up given existing OCV debt.

Once you have a committee you can go through that vetting process but the key decision I guess re Wellington Capital is that a few weeks ago they were Chris Scotts advisor in getting him on board OCV.

CS is a major shareholder of OCV and OCV is trying to negotiate through its various demands from creditors including the 50 million guarantee to PIF.

Question will WC be sufficiently independent to do a deal for interests of PIF holders ahead of OCV shareholders when dealing with OCV.  

In many ways we are flying blind here in terms of the PIF position and what is required to get all of your money back.


----------



## breaker1 (3 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*UPDATE 3*

Dear investors,

Just to advise - I now keep the contact details of 12 OPIF investors on a file. I know that doesn't sound like a lot, but we are now enough to be a jury folks. Heh! Heh! But hey! this idea was only started just under 3 weeks ago. I have had several of our group, say they will get onto others they know in the OPIF and get them to contact me. I'd say conservatively that this accounts for possibly more than $3 million in PIF dollar investment.

Those of you, who emailed me, know that I am keeping in contact with you not only via this forum but more personally by email and occasionally by phone. If in any way, those committed are feeling left out or want to do something, let me know.

*Rocky1 *is going for a small press release in a moderate media outlet shortly - hope it gets printed. we worked out a basic wording, which rocky will edit, refine and add too. Good on ya mate - will speak to you tomorrow.

We agreed that using my contact email: breaker1@aapt.net.au in any article would be best, in order to keep the data base of people putting their hand up to join us, central and not confusing. This will allow group email efficiency and accurate collation. (off course individual emails to those still wishing to remain private, will remain private and clearly marked private).

Any investors reading this forum and haven't joined us - send me an email (as above) or register on aussiestockforums and contribute, preferably both. Now matter how humbly - remember your communication, thoughs, insight, knowledge and encouragement are greatly appreciated. This group is encouraging me, because everyone has put their hand up to do something. If you have an idea you think you can do, that will help, let me know! Everyone, has got different talents on here, thats the first thing I have found out.

*Give yourselves a pat on the back folks - were actually getting organised and doing something*!

P.S. Is it just me or do you find that this forum freezes occasionally and it stops you from typing for 10 seconds at a time in the reply box - let me know?


----------



## Tuart (4 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Breaker

Javier is away for a week and he will be keen to join. That makes 13.

Did you get a chance to put your email address on hot copper. Dont mention this forum just say you have formed the PIF action group so you dont get pinged for advertising another forum. All those who join list I am sure will find there way here ultimately if interested.

As mentioned before I have a few friends stuck in it so I will track them down and they will contact you direct.


----------



## DoraNBoots (4 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All,

In addition to increasing the action group's numbers to a point where we can demand a general meeting, should we also look at arranging a voluntary meeting with the OPIF responsible entity right now?

If we can find out who these people are (members of the Octaviar Investment Management Board I assume), gather their professional (and personal) contact details then make a concerted effort under the 'PIF Action Group' banner to contact them and get an audience.  I think that some general contact details may already exist on this thread however I could not find any reference to the OCVIM board members on the OCV website.

In addition to information on assets within the fund, I think we would want to obtain a copy of the fund's constitution including a history of any ammendments to it.  Also, receiving the OPIF responsible entity meeting's agenda (before the meeting) and minutes (after the meeting) are essential for keeping investors informed of any developments or board resolutions.  Having this agenda would give us an opportunity for input into proceedings.

Sincerely,


----------



## Javier (4 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all, will be back Saturday, just quickly, Jenny H left me a nsg on my mobile with her direct number. Will be able to contact her Tuesday. Please send me all relevant questions you would like me to ask. Primarily I will stress the need for an immediate address to investors via meetings arranged by WC on the current situation financially of the fund, what plan exists to start distributions, what the dist % will be, what is the plan to start the redemption process, how long it will take to pull out our money and how long it will take and if there is a plan to maximise the fund to realise the maximum value of our assets. Tuart your thoughts and should I mention that there is  growing momentum for a possible change in RE. I will talk to you on my return to draft pertinent questions and about the PIF trying to get some sort of holding in LLA. I rep 2 investor ID's and personally know 2 others, so add 4 signatures.


----------



## Duped (4 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Action Group - If they are not already on board, perhaps contact the Hobbs brothers and the adimistrator for the bowls club as mention in breaker1's post #64.  There's 1.2M units.

Am pressed for time at the moment, can anyone put together a list of board members of MFS Ltd, LLA, MFSIM, WC and Perpetual Nominees Ltd?  If anyone has any IT skills, perhaps we can set up a website and keep this info in one place and up to date.

JH is on the board of WC and MFSIM right?  Well that really worries me.  She sold PIFs GPM shares sale for 25.5 cents (+ 40% of capital gains thereabove) and they haven't traded under 32 cents since. (I don't hold out any hope for the 40%. Show me the money. What's stopping Trojan selling to a related entity when the share price is down?  Goodbye any CG. Its the MFS way.) She's quoted as saying '100 per cent sure history is going to show the judgement was right' (goldcoast.com 16 May 08).  Well the evidence is to the contrary for the moment.  

Oh and don't forget the planned 2.225c per share distribution planned for the 1/4 ending June 30.  Have set up a little reminder to check up on that.

Lets make something very clear JH, you're  not paid to be right, your paid to maximise returns to the investors. That is your duty, your obligation.


----------



## Tuart (4 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Javier

I hope you are trying to have some form of holiday but know that when you have stuff going on like this its hard to turn off.

I am trying to understand the OCV guarantee.

Do they guarantee up to $50 million in capital losses and unpaid interest or is it just interest.

An important question is how is the conflict on this to be managed between RE and parent and the added complication of having WC having acted as financial advisor to Chris Scott.

I am sure that WC would be aware of this thread and I see no harm in putting her on notice. I contacted the person who I knew had lodged an Expression of Interest with OCV and have introduced the idea that they back a replacement RE.

THis is why a committee is needed as WC will be selling you on them being the right group for the job, the group I know will be pushing their barrow and I am sure there will be other parties clambering to have the opportunity.

Ultimately the workout and the party chosen for the workout must be the one capable of maximising the return to investors and capable of restoring returns and protecting investors interests.

This decision should be made by investors and all conflicts put on the table.

I think you have the questions covered but would add why given existing OCV staff, Korda Mentha and I am sure RBOS all having the position of the fund pretty well placed  does it need WC such a long period to present position.

The number of loans is not huge.

Take an hour per position
- whats the loan
- do they need more funds to finish project
- are they paying interest
- what is exit strategy and estimated timing

Put it all in a spreadsheet and thats are fairly good guide to position.

The staff and KM would be on top of all of this information as RBOS would have been screaming for it.

Question - what was the nature of the mess JH supposedly found and then get the right to get agreement or not with key management staff. It is the lack of transparency that is the issue and you do not want to be fobbed off with the same answers to date.

Cheers


----------



## Rocky1 (4 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Should we be concerned that WC will take up it's option to be the RE (its my understanding that they are not yet the RE) before the August??? deadline before we can get enough numbers to force a GM 

Media release calling for investor interest in "Action Group" should be tomorrow


----------



## Tuart (4 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Rocky

If you remove the RE the option is meaniless as its major asset the management of the PIF will be gone.


----------



## breaker1 (4 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Action Group - If they are not already on board, perhaps contact the Hobbs brothers and the adimistrator for the bowls club as mention in breaker1's post #64.  There's 1.2M units.




Already done - spoke to the Hobbs family two days ago and will again tonight!Emailed bowls club days ago - no response as yet!


----------



## breaker1 (4 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*The Sydney Morning Herald*
CITY PACIFIC has suffered another blow in investor confidence, after the Brisbane property group's development spin-off conceded it was headed for a full-year loss and its largest unlisted mortgage fund delayed the payment of iThe latest update on CP1's troubles is expected to exacerbate worries among the Mortgage Fund's unit holders.

Despite City Pacific announcing on Monday that a deadline on a $240 million loan repayment had been extended to July 31, *several unit holders told the Herald yesterday that they were yet to receive their monthly distribution. *They said they were informed they would get their monthly distribution by the end of this week, about four days late.

Of the $240 million, the First Mortgage Fund has repaid only $60 million. It is unclear how much of this was funded by the US financial group *Fortress's *recent $100 million injection into the fund.ts monthly distribution.

*Sounds familiar doesn't it.* Well your not going to believe this, but my dad and I got our money out of City Pacific, just two weeks before they froze investor funds - pheww!. And look at who is the vulture again, Fortress - I know I'm being conspiratorial, but, are these vultures in collusion. No! No! I'm just being silly.


----------



## Rocky1 (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Octaviar action group pushes for extraordinary meeting*



Anthony Klan | June 05, 2008

INVESTORS in the frozen $770 million Octaviar Premium Income Fund have formed an action group that plans to attack the company's alleged lack of disclosure and could push for the appointment of a new manager to the troubled scheme.

One of the action group's founders, Adam Thorn, who has $250,000 invested in the scheme, said the Octaviar/MFS PIF Action Group would seek to call an extraordinary general meeting to address investor concerns.

"We don't think Octaviar has been completely transparent with investors and there are a lot of questions we want answered," Mr Thorn said yesterday.

He said the action group had been formed by Octaviar PIF investors who had met through Aussie Stock Forums, a share market chat website.

The 11,000 investors in Octaviar PIF -- which lends money to property developers -- have been unable to recover their investments in the fund since January, when the redemption facility was frozen.

Mr Thorn said the group had about a dozen members, who had invested amounts ranging from $10,000 to $2 million with Octaviar PIF. But he expected that number to grow quickly with many investors frustrated with the direction of the struggling company.

"To call an extraordinary general meeting, we need 5 per cent of the unitholders or 100 investors," Mr Thorn said.

He said the group expected to meet that requirement, given the strong response it had received from investors.

Octaviar was known as the MFS Premium Income Fund until March, when the MFS family of companies changed its name to Octaviar following the spectacular debt-related share-price meltdown of the company's listed arms in January.

Mr Thorn said the Octaviar/MFS PIF Action Group was concerned about scheme's poor disclosure and its perceived failure to keep investors fully informed of the state of the group.

"Many people are disgruntled with the fund's disclosure, including its initial failure to disclose $186 million of debt to the Bank of Scotland," he said. "We want to know how they are reducing that debt.

"Is there a risk of a fire sale of our assets?"

Octaviar executives did not return repeated calls from The Australian yesterday.

Mr Thorn said the action group was also concerned about a proposed deal to sell the management rights of Octaviar PIF to Wellington Capital.

The managing director of Wellington Capital is Jennifer Hutson, who was appointed as director of Octaviar investment management -- the manager of Octaviar PIF -- in early May.

Ms Hutson is a close business associate of Octaviar chief executive Chris Scott, with both acting as directors of Gold Coast-based management rights company S8 before it was taken over by MFS in 2006.

Mr Thorn said the investors group could challenge Wellington's move to take control of Octaviar PIF.


----------



## seamisty (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well done Rocky and Breaker!!! Lets hope we get a response. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## akernst (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Rocky1,

I have a large investment in the PIF, and wish to join any group in getting our money ASAP.

Andree Ernst


Anthony Klan | June 05, 2008

INVESTORS in the frozen $770 million Octaviar Premium Income Fund have formed an action group that plans to attack the company's alleged lack of disclosure and could push for the appointment of a new manager to the troubled scheme.

One of the action group's founders, Adam Thorn, who has $250,000 invested in the scheme, said the Octaviar/MFS PIF Action Group would seek to call an extraordinary general meeting to address investor concerns.

"We don't think Octaviar has been completely transparent with investors and there are a lot of questions we want answered," Mr Thorn said yesterday.

He said the action group had been formed by Octaviar PIF investors who had met through Aussie Stock Forums, a share market chat website.

The 11,000 investors in Octaviar PIF -- which lends money to property developers -- have been unable to recover their investments in the fund since January, when the redemption facility was frozen.

Mr Thorn said the group had about a dozen members, who had invested amounts ranging from $10,000 to $2 million with Octaviar PIF. But he expected that number to grow quickly with many investors frustrated with the direction of the struggling company.

"To call an extraordinary general meeting, we need 5 per cent of the unitholders or 100 investors," Mr Thorn said.

He said the group expected to meet that requirement, given the strong response it had received from investors.

Octaviar was known as the MFS Premium Income Fund until March, when the MFS family of companies changed its name to Octaviar following the spectacular debt-related share-price meltdown of the company's listed arms in January.

Mr Thorn said the Octaviar/MFS PIF Action Group was concerned about scheme's poor disclosure and its perceived failure to keep investors fully informed of the state of the group.

"Many people are disgruntled with the fund's disclosure, including its initial failure to disclose $186 million of debt to the Bank of Scotland," he said. "We want to know how they are reducing that debt.

"Is there a risk of a fire sale of our assets?"

Octaviar executives did not return repeated calls from The Australian yesterday.

Mr Thorn said the action group was also concerned about a proposed deal to sell the management rights of Octaviar PIF to Wellington Capital.

The managing director of Wellington Capital is Jennifer Hutson, who was appointed as director of Octaviar investment management -- the manager of Octaviar PIF -- in early May.

Ms Hutson is a close business associate of Octaviar chief executive Chris Scott, with both acting as directors of Gold Coast-based management rights company S8 before it was taken over by MFS in 2006.

Mr Thorn said the investors group could challenge Wellington's move to take control of Octaviar PIF.[/QUOTE]


----------



## seamisty (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Welcome aboard akernst, Here is an e-mail address for you to contact and register your interest: breaker1@aapt.net.au    cheers, seamisty


----------



## seamisty (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tuart in reply to your query regarding the $50 million support facility it is stated in the PDS:::The MFS Support Facility is a contractual arrangement between MFSIM and MFS Limited pursuant to which MFS Limited has agreed to provide callable funds to MFSIM in order to allow MFSIM to: (a) meet any shortfall in the target distributions of the Fund; and (b) meet any expenses, so HELLO, where is it? Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Things have really taken a turn for the worse and i suggest we may be facing a whole new ball game if the Queensland public Trustee can get it hands on our money . We need to take immediate action with a letter to ASIC to determine what protection their is for investors in this situation

  Octaviar Limited
ABN 90 107 863 436
For further information please contact
Investor Relations: 131 637
E-mail: mail@octaviar.com.au
Website: www.octaviar.com.au
Telephone: 1300 787 650
SHARE REGISTRY
Computershare Investor Services Pty Ltd
Level 3, 60 Carrington Street
Sydney NSW 2000
ASX Announcement
_______________________
Creditor Update
5 June 2008
As previously announced the Group needs to reach an accommodation with its large unsecured
creditors such that the orderly realisation of the investment in the Stella Group can occur within the
same timeframe as the amounts owing to these creditors become due and payable.
This is an update to the announcement dated 26 May 2008.
Winding up applications - PTQ
In our announcement dated 26 May 2008 we advised that the Public Trustee of Queensland (PTQ),
who is the trustee for those investors who hold the listed notes (ASX code: OCVG), had asserted in a
notice of 23 May 2008 to Octaviar Investment Notes Limited (OIN) that an event of default had
occurred and declaring that the face value of the notes and interest, together totalling approximately
$351 million, was due and payable on 5 June 2008. OIN denies that the notice is valid. Attempts to
arrange discussions with the PTQ regarding their notice of 23 May 2008 have not yet been successful.
Yesterday afternoon, 4 June 2008, the PTQ filed separate applications in the Supreme Court of
Queensland seeking winding up orders in relation to the following companies:
• Octaviar Limited
• Octaviar Investment Notes Limited
• Octaviar Investment Bonds Limited
• Octaviar Financial Services Limited
We are currently considering the applications filed yesterday and hope to discuss the applications with
the PTQ prior to any court hearing. We also continue our separate discussions with some of the major
holders of the OCVG notes.
Challenger Legal Action
Discussions continue with Challenger Managed Investments Limited but no resolution had yet been
reached.
Octaviar Limited
ABN 90 107 863 436
For further information please contact
Investor Relations: 131 637
E-mail: mail@octaviar.com.au
Website: www.octaviar.com.au
Telephone: 1300 787 650
SHARE REGISTRY
Computershare Investor Services Pty Ltd
Level 3, 60 Carrington Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Demand by NAB
The National Australia Bank (NAB) demand on Octaviar Limited under the guarantee currently
remains unsatisfied.
The Living and Leisure Group (ASX code: LLA), which is the borrower under the NAB facility,
announced on 2 June 2008 that it had delivered to NAB a conditional term sheet for new senior
financing facilities from another bank. LLA also announced that it had significantly advanced its
Rights Offer documentation and other matters necessary for the capital restructuring which would
allow the repayment of the NAB facility. The repayment of the NAB facility would end Octaviar’s
obligations to NAB under the guarantee.
OPI Pacific Finance Limited
As previously announced, OPI Pacific Finance Limited has entered into a moratorium with its
investors. During the week ended 30 May 2008 the first distribution was made to those investors under
the moratorium.
Octaviar Premium Income Fund
Discussions with the Responsible Entity of the fund continue regarding an agreement on the obligations
the Group has to the fund.
* * * *
There continues to be uncertainty as to whether an accommodation can be achieved with the major
creditors.
David Anderson
Company Secretary


----------



## selciper (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It does look like Octaviar are dying.


----------



## Duped (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Creditor seeks to liquidate Octaviar

June 5, 2008 - 1:26PM

Octaviar, formerly known as MFS, said the Public Trustee of Queensland filed applications with the Supreme Court of Queensland seeking to liquidate the company and three of its units.

Octaviar continues to dispute the Public Trustee's claim that Octaviar Investment Notes is in default on $351 million in bonds and interest, the Southport, Queensland state-based company said in a statement to the Australian stock exchange.

The company has failed in attempts to discuss the matter with Public Trustees since a default notice was filed May 23, Octaviar said.

The Public Trustee ''is seeking winding up orders in relation to'' Octaviar, Octaviar Investment Notes, Octaviar Investment Bonds and Octaviar Financial Services, according to the statement.

Octaviar is also in discussions with Challenger Management Investments about immediate repayment of $100 million in bonds and is holding talks with National Australia Bank on a $40 million guarantee that the bank is seeking to have paid.

Bloomberg
http://business.theage.com.au/creditor-seeks-to-liquidate-octaviar-20080605-2m4r.html


----------



## DoraNBoots (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Do we know what happens to the PIF if Octaviar goes down?  Can Octaviar’s creditors get their hands on money in the fund?

Thanks,
Dora


----------



## Duped (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

So the creditor onslaught is in full charge:
Challenger has initiated court proceedings to get its $100M back.
NAB has demanded payment of its $40M
Public Trustee Qld has now initiated court proceedings to get the $350M for its Note Holders

Can Perpetual Nominees Ltd, custodian for the PIF assets, do anything for the PIF investors?  PDS states that PNL "are not responsible for protecting your interests". But can PNL refuse to hand over assets to MFSIM if MFSIM is breaking the law or if the RE is illegally transfered to a new entity?

Unfortunately the $50M MFS Support Facility is "limited and is not a guarantee" so while JH says she will actively pursue the $50M I don't hold much hope. (May already have been drawn down to zip anyway.)

But does PNL have any duty or obligation to NOT hand assets over to MFSIM in certain circumstances?  Or are unit holders completely unprotected against MFSIM?

PS: Guaranteed we'll hear any new RE say they can't do anything about the errors of the previous RE. Watch.


----------



## Duped (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Do we know what happens to the PIF if Octaviar goes down?  Can Octaviar’s creditors get their hands on money in the fund?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dora




My understanding: technically no. But creditors may be able to get their hands on MFSIM which manages the fund, before WC.  Worst of all is that PIF has unsecured loans with and units in related entities which PIF may end up kissing goodbye.  According to my calculations based on the March Update this was up to 13.5% of the remaining PIF assets.  So if this all had evaporated before the end of March the units were worth 77.335 cents each ($869.4M minus $168M minus 13.5% of $869.4M)/755.2M units.


----------



## Tuart (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped

The companies that are subject to potential winding up orders do not include the RE (manager) of the PIF.

OCV owns the shares in the manager and has granted an option to Wellington Capital for the them to acquire the shares.

If OCV has an adminstrator appointed to it, it does not also force the manager into administration.

The adminstrators may try to unwind the option but I assume WC will proceed to acquire this seperate legal entity as their is no upfront consideration.

Your custodian Perpetual is there for precisely events like this so that PIF assets are recognised as having no relationship to OCV and its problems and are isolated.

In the event of OCV going into administration the RE which I assume would now be owned by Wellington would on your behalf be a 50 million unsecured creditor of OCV. It would also continue to operate normally !! as it has its own board and I am sure is still drawing fees.

In regards to a new RE if investors chose to replace existing RE of course they cannot be held accountable for the previous managers mistakes. 

In this case however where the company acting as RE continues and you have had a change of directors and only potentially change in ownership of the manager itself it remains a legal entity that can be held accountable.

It may have some directors insurance policies worth pursuing if wrong doing can be proved. It would not have a large amount of assets in its own right. I think ASIC requirements are $500,000 NTA.


----------



## seamisty (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for that Tuart, I was just thinking 'where is tuart when we need him' LOL!!! You just answered one of my questions I was going to post. Some sort of assurance from WC regarding the security of the PIF would be nice, but alas, looks as though we shall remain mushrooms for the time being. Regards, Seamisty:hide:


----------



## Tuart (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty

I am sure Wellington would be aware of this forum and feeling the pressure to get an update out.

They have to sell themselves to investors on their independence from OCV and ability to restore income and maximise returns or else unitholders will seek change.

For investors to round up the magic 100 the press needs to be in the more widely read newspapers. I wonder if there are financial planning groups that could be contacted. I also wonder what the views of OCV chairman is as I think his FP business has about 50 million of clients funds in. Not sure which side he would be on in a fight representing OCV shareholders versus PIF investors.

conflicts conflicts everywhere !


----------



## Rocky1 (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tuart.

As a non investor you remain a man of mystery, but one that seems quite informed on OCV, PIF and Wellington Capital and I am sure everyone appreciates your input

Todays media release has certainly got the ball rolling with attracting interest in the action group but I agree more avenues are needed so suggestions would be welcomed - FP's would be a good approach but how do we go about it. I have been talking with a FP today on behalf of one of his clients so will see if he can help in terms of reaching a wider FP audience through some release 

I have also been contacted by a journalist wanting to do a story in the Fin Review on anyone who invested in the PIF through a FP so if anyone is willing let me know and I will forward contact details


----------



## Duped (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tuart,

I only have basic knowledge of finance. I looked at PIF & MFSIM with trusting eyes until January. No more. 

I've seen nothing that convinces me that OCV Ltd  MUST hand over the $50M.  The PDS suggests to the contrary: page 13 "Facility is limited and is not a guarantee". I'm looking forward to being wrong.

I agree, OCV owns shares in RE.  All of them I believe. Hence, if OCV is wound up these shares, if WC don't take them, are treated as an asset and the administrator decides what happens to the asset.  If a creditor has an interest in acquiring that asset they could do a deal with the administrator.  Or could this NEVER happen?

My understanding of PNL's role is still: they have to do exactly what the RE tells them to do with the assets, no questions asked.  So the ONLY entity looking after the interests of the Unit holders is the RE and the Unit holders themselves.  I was just looking for clarification because PTQ has gone into bat for it's Unit Holders.

I know any new RE isn't held accoutable for previous RE's actions. Doesn't mean it won't sting like hel, not if but when, any new RE SHOVES THAT IN OUR FACES the moment the pressure is on them.  Watch.


----------



## DoraNBoots (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Regarding financial planners, Avenue Capital Management may be worth contacting:

“the fact remains that of the $754 million raised by MFS Premium Income Fund, $51 million came from clients of Avenue Capital Management. Avenue itself confirmed that across both PIF Wholesale and Retail funds it was the third largest investor in the funds…

They may not be interested though as:
“One financial planning dealer group with links to MFS/Octavier is Avenue Capital Management. Avenue director Michael Hiscock recently resigned from MFS/Octavier board, and MFS/Octavier deputy chairman, Paul Manka, is also a director of Avenue…. Similarly, MFS chairman-designate, Paul Manka, showed that he can be as conflicted as his fellow board member, simultaneously serving as an Avenue financial planner while also being a director of MFS Diversified, MFS Living and Leisure and MFS itself.  “

From: http://www.crikey.com.au/Business/20080401-Avenues-connection-to-troubled-MFS-.html

It may also be beneficial for the group to have a mobile phone number to be contacted on as some investors reading today’s article in The Australian may not have email\internet access.


----------



## breaker1 (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear investors,

On a day that I have rceived about 10 new replies from new investors seeking to join our action group my desktop went on the blink.. 

Those emails are on this desktop hard drive memory, as I have opened them and read them - as I went to reply to the first email, the PC started beeping at me and the screen froze. I am currently taking my PC apart to see what is - I have lubricated the fans and am contemplating changing to an old HD to isolate and see if it is actually in the HD. I now can't even get my desktop to turn the screen on. I will take the HD out and connect to my desktop (via enclosure case) and run a a virus cleaner through it, to see if that fixes it.

I am now working from my laptop - I have set up breaker1@aapt.net.au
on my laptop - *at present I am getting incoming emails to my laptop*, *but can't email out to contact you.[* I will sort this out with AAPT shortly. I have a good internet security system, but I am starting to suspect the remote possibility of sabotage via an email virus.

I don't think I have lost the emails on the desktop HD I do have an external enclosure case and will put the desktop HD in there and plug it into my laptop USB port, but I have had trouble previously trying to access outlook express via enclosures because it goes to the laptop OE instead of the drive (E) OE I am in on the enclosure.

*So again, I can get incoming emails - so keep sending them - I will get back to all of you who have sent me emails either late tonight or tomorrow - make no mistake.*


----------



## seamisty (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Duped and others, I asked Ocv about the legality of the $50mill Support Facility in April and received an e-mail back stating ::Hi
OCV has a legally binding contract with OCVIM to pay the Support Facility to PIF.
L&L is a seperate listed company.
Cheers
 Hope it was correct information. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## Rocky1 (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I will look into the Financial Planner idea, including Avenue tomorrow. 

I will also look into a mobile number (might get a $5 SIM card) + will have a think about posting my personal one (a number of investors have contacted me on it already so probably couldn't hurt)

I have also tried phoning a contact at the PIF today to inquire what the implications are for the PIF if Octaviar goes into liquidation. I will try again tomorrow


----------



## zixo (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All,

First time poster
Can someone explain how on earth Wellington Capital managed to wrangle a deal to sell Geo shares worth .40cents for .25 cents, also , If someone could explain how A LOAN to the LLA group was allowed to be Dealt whilst the BOS had complete control  of all the funds, yet they have not allowed any distributions.

Can Jenny Hudson seriously garnish any credibility when she tells us its for the benefit of the investors of the PIF that OUR assets and OUR money is being used to prop up other floundering investments.

Maybe I am not looking at the bigger picture, but how does throwing money away help us as investors

MFS PIF took our Money - not Wellington capital. To date Wellington have not issued a single statement to investors of the PIF.

Some kind of legal challenge by the investors is sounding like the best course so far, I for one have heard nothing to answer any of the questions I have.

Cheers


----------



## Rocky1 (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

zixo

Have you registered your willingness to be part of the action group with Breaker?


----------



## zixo (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> zixo
> 
> Have you registered your willingness to be part of the action group with Breaker?




Hi Rocky,

Ive Emailed breaker and yet to receive a reply, so I have no idea what's being discussed. Only discovered the Forum in a newspaper article and am going to pass on the site to others who I know that have been screwed by this mess.

I dont know if any politicians have become involved in this debacle.Maybe they should.

 I've Learnt that asic are not really worth a mention as they mostly wait to pick up the mess once its been made. they're not exactly proactive.

Cheers


----------



## DoraNBoots (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Breaker1,

I emailed you but just in case you are now having trouble receiving emails I thought I would post as well.

You should be able to send and receive email using AAPTs webmail.  From your Internet browser (i.e Internet Explorer) do this:
1. go to aapt.com.au 
2. click the 'Webmail sign in' link.  
3. enter your username and password 

Also I have a Vodafone pre paid SIM card which isn't activated yet.  It was given to me as an extra when I bought my phone.  The group is welcome to use it as I don't need it.

Regards,
Dora


----------



## Rocky1 (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

zixo

Breaker mentioned on an earlier post that he is having trouble with his email so if you want send your details to me also at adam.thorn@optusnet.com.au. Include    a phone number if you like and I will give you a call. 

Basically unit holders involved in the Action Group thus far are from all over Australia and therefore discussion other than on this forum is a little difficult. Once we are close to having the numbers we need I think the communication will need to change, but please keep contributing to this thread in the meantime as all posts are helpful in keeping each other informed and raising investor concerns which can be voiced by the Action Group once we have the numbers

Regards


----------



## seamisty (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Zixo, Breaker was having a problem with his computer but is receiving mail, just not able to reply at the moment. Thankyou for alerting other holders, I have done the same and know some are more than willing to support the group. ASIC is aware of what is happening and we know that every alternative avenue needs to be addressed. Many of us have done so already on personal grounds, but we need a much louder voice, hence the Action Group. I agree with your concerns regarding the PIF and we all would like answers. I beleive a PIF holder will be talking with Jenny Hutson on Tuesday and is willing to put foward questions so please e-mail them to breaker. If you follow the thread back you will get more of an idea of what we are trying to achieve. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Tuart (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Rocky

I found this thread from Breakers post in hot copper. I had been following the OCV forum there due to my knowledge of an alternative offer made to OCV regarding the Manager and the manner OCV dealt with this offer and the 25 others they said they have.

I have been trying to get understand why OCV did the Wellington Cap deal and beyond a reward for WC helping get Chris Scott on the board of OCV the best I can come up with is that for OCV the best party to be in control of PIF is WC because of the guarantee and the need for a negotiated settlement.

They would be the friendliest party for OCV to deal with in trying do a deal with its creditors. Good for OCV shareholders but not sure if in the best interests of PIF investors. 

Anyway thats my theory on it. 

My motivation

Well I am biased towards the offer I was aware of and would have liked to have seen a transparent process to sell the management rights by OCV to a party capable of making the best of a bad situation.

I hope my posts are helpful and constructive.

I would also like to see a manager put in place who has access to funding to get rid of the bank, ensure investors returns are maximised, interest payments reinstated and a workout plan put in place that maximises the value of what is left.

I am not sure if WC can do this and the first efforts in dealing with LLA and GEO show they dont have the ability to deal with the bank as these were firesale deals obviously to get cash in the door to pay down RBOS.


----------



## charles36 (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Breaker1,  I like a lot of others are frustrated at the lack of communication and who says that Wellington Capital can purchase OUR FUND for $20 million.  Who gets the $20 million.  

Who is responsible for allowing the covenant on the loan from the RBOS to default.  

Somebody must be accountable.  I would like to be part of the action group and would appreciate some communication from you. 

Regards,


Charles36


----------



## selciper (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It doesn't make sense for WC to allow their brand name to be badly affected daily by their continuing silence. PIF investors are a potential 11000 client base.
Just who was it who mucked up the RBOS loan? WC, please tell us.


----------



## Towbar (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

towbar,Hi Breaker, this week we  received the Octaviar Web Interface manual from PNL for our investments in the OPIF, they must think we dont know what we have invested with them! My wife  & i both put our hands up to join the Action Group Cheers


----------



## Mutchy (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I saw a reference to this forum in The Australian newspaper today and have contacted Breaker with my details. Many thanks to Breaker for alerting us to the problems for OPIF in what looks like the imminent collapse of Octaviar, the lack of transparency, and the suspicious relationship of Wellington Capital with Octaviar. Thanks also to Tuart for his enlightening posts.
Steve


----------



## breaker1 (5 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*MY EMAIL:  breaker1@aapt.net.au  IS NOW FULLY WORKING AGAIN FOR BOTH INCOMING AND OUTGOING EMAILS*

SO KEEP SENDING ME EMAILS AS THE CENTRAL ACCESS POINT FOR OUR CENTRAL DATA BASE OF ACTION GROUP MEMBERS.

Thanks to all who helped while I was off the net.

I am now working off my laptop, NOT my desktop.

I will now begin backing up all data memory as a rule.

My desktop Hard Drive works OK connected to my laptop via a USB port and I will tranfer (import what data I can from my desktop HD onto my laptop HD).

I will answer whatever emails i got that came onto my laptop after my desktop PC failed. My son goes to TAFE and does IT - I will get him to ask the IT teacher to get my email data off my desktop HD and put it on his thumbstick to transfer to my laptop.

I am also onto two quality US windows help site and am waiting on an answer on how to access emails and saved email data (in drafts folder) via a USB connected HD (with a password). I can access just about every thing else, but not the emails.

When the earlier emails sent me today are accessed - I will contact all who emailed me.

I tried going into WEB access mail (mail still stored in the ISP server) - got in, but nothing downloaded. I will talk to the ISP tech support re this.


----------



## breaker1 (6 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> Hi Breaker1,  I like a lot of others are frustrated at the lack of communication and who says that Wellington Capital can purchase OUR FUND for $20 million.  Who gets the $20 million.
> 
> Who is responsible for allowing the covenant on the loan from the RBOS to default.
> 
> ...




*Charles,
email me on breaker1@aapt.net.au  my email is now working fine*


----------



## breaker1 (6 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



communique said:


> Thank you - thank you - thank you Breaker!!!
> Finally, some action.
> It has been our sentiment for sometime that what we are witnessing
> is mates looking after mates.
> ...





God bless you communique! 
contact me on breaker1@aapt.net.au if not already done so - inundated today !


----------



## Michael/Theresa (6 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hallo breaker 1,

My wife and myself have considerable funds invested with MFS PIF via our SMSF. We are happy to join the action group. We fully agree with the comments we have read on this site and wish to lent our support to any actions deemed appropriate. Thank you, Michael and Theresa.


----------



## Rocky1 (6 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A couple of people where wondering if the PIFwould be dragged into any liquidation of Octaviar. I have just spoken to a contact in the PIF and they said definitely not, the PIF is a separate entity.

The effect of OCV being liquidated though would be that the support facility of 50 mill would probably not come to fruition and recovery of PIF loans to related OCV entities may be an issue. I know though that PIF have moved recently to change some of these from unsecured to secured (e.g L&L), which is some positive news


----------



## JohnH (6 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Have been following this thread for the last week or so.  Please add me to your growing numbers.


----------



## Rocky1 (6 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi John

If you haven't already please send your details through to breaker - breaker1@aapt.net.au


----------



## DeliaMC (6 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> A couple of people where wondering if the PIFwould be dragged into any liquidation of Octaviar. I have just spoken to a contact in the PIF and they said definitely not, the PIF is a separate entity.
> 
> The effect of OCV being liquidated though would be that the support facility of 50 mill would probably not come to fruition and recovery of PIF loans to related OCV entities may be an issue. I know though that PIF have moved recently to change some of these from unsecured to secured (e.g L&L), which is some positive news




Hello Rocky1,
I also spoke to someone this morning from OCV and they also confirmed (if you can believe what you are being told) that Octavier Ltd cannot get their claws into the assets of PIF if they go into liquidation.  Also the debt to Bank of Scotland is now $65 million.  Payments are coming from interest paid back by developer's loans plus income from the assets held by the PIF.  Naturally they could not tell me what those assets were.


----------



## akernst (6 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Octaviar PIF 
(Status as of 6th June, 2008)

1.  There are over 11,000 investors

2.  $770 Million approximately in fund.

3.  It is a separate entity, from the parent company (Octaviar Pty Ltd). 
     If parent company is liquidated, then PIF is not part of it, but there is a worry about loans owed to PIF,
     and support facility ($50 million), probably will not happen.

4.  No funds or assets cannot be transferred to parent company.

5.  The parent company has a support facility (ie $50 million) to bail out PIF if in trouble. (ie if cannot pay redemptions)

6.  The PIF did lend several loans to the parent company (they were unsecured, but now are secured? I hope)

7.  The PIF owed $186 million to the Bank of Scotland in March, 2008, but reduced now to $65 million.

8.  The PIF must pay the Bank of Scotland, before anything else can happen(ie unfreeze redemptions, disbursements).

9.  If PIF is liquidated, then investors will probably not get $1.00 unit price, but part there of. But if not liquidated, then it
     is possible that it could continue, if Bank of Scotland is paid out and parent company pays back the loans owing to PIF.
     Assuming there is a competent manager running the PIF.

10. The other assets in the PIF, as far as I know are:-
            Port Douglas Sheraton Mirage
            Port Macquarie development project (where some of the funds have gone into)


----------



## Lou3435 (6 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

All
I have just joined this forum and registered  for the action group (by email) with Breaker1. Trying to come to grips with all that is happening but am happy that there is a group of like minded people out there who do not want to take this lying down. Keep up the good work.
lou3435


----------



## mgr2118 (6 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Fellow OPIF Investors,

Been watching this forum for a few weeks, and glad to see so many interested and passionate people.

Also been intrigued with how everybody is looking at the problem – to me, there is only one constant (i.e.. non variable), and that is 
               A$1 = A$1. 

The Banks, Queensland Public Trustee, etc all want the same thing, and that is A$’s, with the number dependent on their transaction.

Our problem, until recently, is still somewhat of a mystery, and that is how many A$’s are we all talking about.

The most recent “official” Investor Update (March 2008) from OPIF says the following:-
	Gross Assets A$869.4M (unaudited as at 31Mar08)
	Loan issued to third party bank A$168.0M (as at 31Mar08)
	We are also provided with % Fund Asset allocations of
		Commercial Loans		43.1%
		Asset Backed Investments	31.7%
		Property Backed Managed Investment Schemes 15.6%
		Fixed Interest Investments			  7.8%
		Cash							  1.8%

Whereas the loan is definitely defined in A$’s, unless it is somewhere else, our only known is that we should have (7.8% + 1.8% = 9.6% of A$869.4M) roughly = A$83.46M in Cash or Fixed Interest (hopefully earning us all a good rate of return at ???% per annum).

What we don’t know (again someone may be able to help here) is:-
•	What are the assets that make up the other $786M?
•	When were these assets last valued?
•	What are their valuations today?
•	How much income/return etc is supposed to be coming from those assets?

I believe that, from this point forward, we should all be insisting that data is presented as A$’s, and get rid of all this marketing and PR spin associated with percentages etc.

If the banks and other lenders don’t want to be communicated to in % or asset values etc, I see no reason why the OPIF investors, who put in their hard-earned A$’s, should be treated any different.

Welcome feedback??


----------



## Janiss (6 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I recommend that everyone who has invested through an adviser requests their adviser to personally notify all their clients who have invested in MFS PIF about the formation of the Action Group and this Forum. This should help to build up the numbers very quickly. 
Lots of media coverage will obviously also help. 
I found out about this Forum through an article posted on Business Spectator website which allows for alerts to certain topics to be posted daily.
see : http://www.businessspectator.com.au...n-verge-of-collapse-FC29P?OpenDocument&src=ea


----------



## Rocky1 (6 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Janiss

I spoke to an adviser today who contacted me on behalf of a client to register them for the action group and he recommended exactly this, so you are spot on.

I have also made contact with Nick Nichols (Gold Coast Bulletin) today and we are going to talk early next week regarding an article.


----------



## breaker1 (6 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mgr2118 said:


> Hi Fellow OPIF Investors,
> 
> Been watching this forum for a few weeks, and glad to see so many interested and passionate people.
> 
> ...




Great post mgr2118
We need to get a firm handle on what we want and what questions we want answered.
Don't be surprised if the May update comes down to about 80% in $ - just a guess


----------



## breaker1 (6 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> Janiss
> 
> I spoke to an adviser today who contacted me on behalf of a client to register them for the action group and he recommended exactly this, so you are spot on.
> 
> I have also made contact with Nick Nichols (Gold Coast Bulletin) today and we are going to talk early next week regarding an article.




*Geoff,* Ahoy there Ol' soc! Did you get that? - Gold Coast Bulletin - better a free press release than an $add - hope rocky KO's it! Great idea - good on ya cobber!


----------



## Dexter (6 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Breaker1,  You spoke to my husband last Wednesday evening.   Thank goodness we are now able to make contact with others with the same thoughts and in the same delema!  We are in full support.  Include us in.  We also have 3 other family members who have investments in PIF and I am sure  they will participate.  They have been away on hols.  Will contact them tomorrow with details. Lets move things along asap.  Like all other unit holders we are sick of being kept in the dark.  Cheers.


----------



## B and C (7 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Breaker
I have emailed you with our details to include us in your people count. How many people do we have to date? I feel we need to do this quickly before all the assets are given away at ridiculous prices.
If you could post an update on how many people we have so that we get an idea how many email/formum campaigns we have to do until we reach our goal.
Thanks to all of you for getting this started!


----------



## breaker1 (7 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



B and C said:


> Hi Breaker
> I have emailed you with our details to include us in your people count. How many people do we have to date? I feel we need to do this quickly before all the assets are given away at ridiculous prices.
> If you could post an update on how many people we have so that we get an idea how many email/formum campaigns we have to do until we reach our goal.
> Thanks to all of you for getting this started!




Hope you got my reply email!

*UPDATE 4*

*OUR ACTION GROUP IS NOW 52 COMMITTED INVESTOR MEMBERS 

CONGRATULATIONS EVERYONE - WELL DONE!*

MORE STEADILY COMING IN

IF YOUR READING THIS THREAD AND HAVEN'T JOINED US YET EMAIL: breaker1@aapt.net.au


----------



## Mary Lynch (7 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Everyone,
Looking forward to being part of anything that can help get things together.  let's do it!

We have $570,000 in PIF and were between houses having signed a contract to buy one just before this nightmare started. 

Regards Mary Lynch and John Manton


----------



## seamisty (7 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

WEll done Breaker and Rocky!!! Welcome and thankyou to all the supporters. Obviously the word is spreading, at this rate we will exceed the 100 members needed to have a voice. Regards, Seamisty:band


----------



## breaker1 (7 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> WEll done Breaker and Rocky!!! Welcome and thankyou to all the supporters. Obviously the word is spreading, at this rate we will exceed the 100 members needed to have a voice. Regards, Seamisty:band




AAHW! I turned mi speakers on and no band music! Get limewire in there! Arf!


----------



## akernst (7 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> AAHW! I turned mi speakers on and no band music! Get limewire in there! Arf!





I have some info on Assets in the PIF.


Sheraton Mirage, Port Douglas (loan of $10 million, that has been defaulted) - trying to sell Hotel.

$50 Million to boutique fund manager - Causeway - is for sale.

Loan against a Hotel in Wollongong (do not know how much?) - trying to sell Hotel to Mirvac.

Several property-backed securities to various property developers

Deadline of 31st July to pay back Bank of Scotland (originally $168 million) - now owe $65million.


Lets get the 100 investors soon.

Cheers.


----------



## seamisty (7 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Akernst, The former Outreach Ettalong Beach  Resort at Wollongong was part of the 65% of Stella that was sold and is now re named Mantra Ettalong Beach. Not sure if MFS/OCV have something else there.I'll do some more digging. Cheers, seamisty


----------



## zixo (7 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All,

I was wondering what personal experiences investors with Octaviar have had in regards to getting information regarding the Premium income fund.

Post mailed "PIF update letters" which investors are suppossedly being notified with have come in up to 3 weeks late for me which I have complained about. I've been told to check the website or my email....I guess its too bad for the people who have no internet access.

Every single email message I have sent has gone unreplied. I have updated my email address with them twice and verified it many many times so i can get a prompt investor update ...so far Ive received nothing. I definately have no problems with my email.

I have resorted to phoning and we're having greater and greater difficulty in actually getting to talk to someone let alone have someone phone me back .

Is it just me or is everyone getting the same level of "service"?


----------



## Jadel (7 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty

if OCV goes into liquidation  i assume the PIF would have to stand in line behind the other creditors to get its  outstanding loans to the various OCV entities repaid  repaid 

For Wellington Capital  to have any credibility as RE they have to deliver with some hard cash to pay out the remaining PIF debt obligations 

    Otherwise they  can be regarded as  no better than  parasites feeding of the stricken host without giving anything in return 

 In which case investors should seriosly consider replacing with a new RE


----------



## selciper (7 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My fear is that PIF staff  at all levels will beome fatigued. In a crisis this can be very detrimental.


----------



## seamisty (8 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Zixo,There has been similar complaints on other forums as well as here regarding the lack of communication and overall treatment from OCV. I had the same problem with receiving updates 3 weeks after them being issued but I asked to get them by e-mail and the last one I received was on the 15th April, the day it was released. I have called OCV  a few times over the last 6 weeks and have no problems getting through. My e-mail to Jenny Hutson at WC never got a reply. The main complaint from holders of the PIF is total lack of information/communication regarding the financial state of the fund and its future outlook, hence the Action Group. Hopefully as a large collective group we will demonstrate that this treatment is unacceptable and changes need to be made. regards, Seamisty


----------



## wally3218 (8 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Have just emailed breaker1 and added my mothers name to the list.
It took a bit longer than I wanted to get her to agree to add her name as being a aged pensioner she didnt know what to do.
With $90000 invested the longer this goes on and the less they tell everyone the more she has got frustrated.
Trying to live on her pension and investment and with centrelink not any help. 
I have emailed the minister looking after centrelink but as usual no replys or acknowledgement givin.


----------



## wally3218 (8 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Has anyone else heard this
Following a large investment in the collapsed former investment bank MFS, the New South Wales Bookmakers Superannuation Fund is preparing to announce the first annual loss in its 30-year history.
You can read the full report here
http://www.acleardirection.com.au/bookmakers_caught_by_mfs___eureka_report_insert
Would be great if they could throw there weight and support into getting some questions asked.


----------



## seamisty (8 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

That is an excellent article Wally, Possiblly worth a follow up Breaker or Rocky? Can anyone confirm the  legallity of the loan (unsecured at that time) to LLA? Tuart what is your opinion regarding this please? From reading the PDS in relation to the PIF I was of the opinion that the guidelines did not allow this type of loan. I think that WC as Resposible Entity has an obligation to the PIF holders to inform us of the extent of all loans to MFS related companies, subsiduaries, entities etc. and where we stand as creditors in the event of OCV being liquidated. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## zixo (8 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Seamisty,
 Until last Thursdays Australian newspaper article I wasnt aware that there were any forums which were discussing the Octaviar Premium Income fund. I have been scouring newspapers for any information and came across a site which proved quite helpful ... I hope it can help others ;

http://www.plugger.com.au/news/?search_state=news&search_name=octaviar&d=0&df=&dt=&x=0&y=0

The most annoying thing about the lack of information regarding Octaviar is how they scoff at any newspaper reports and try and discredit the reporters as misinformed and unprofessional. Its as if the reporting of news on Octaviar is mostly the cause of the misinformation.

Investors need to be FULLY informed with credible and factual information. Has anyone been in contact with Talkback Radio stations regarding this shambles - perhaps someone in the media will start listening and helping us?


----------



## bigwilly (8 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I would like to be one of the one hundred plus investors to join the action group. 

Please keep  the pressure up and hopefully we can do some good for everyone.

AS you can plainly see - this has all been a shambles. I am very angry and disappointed at the level of professionalism. There has been no consideration for the little man just trying to get by. 

bigwilly


----------



## communique (8 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



wally3218 said:


> Have just emailed breaker1 and added my mothers name to the list.
> It took a bit longer than I wanted to get her to agree to add her name as being a aged pensioner she didnt know what to do.
> With $90000 invested the longer this goes on and the less they tell everyone the more she has got frustrated.
> Trying to live on her pension and investment and with centrelink not any help.
> I have emailed the minister looking after centrelink but as usual no replys or acknowledgement givin.




Wally, So sorry about your mum.  We also know someone who has put their life savings over $1mllion into MFS PIF etc and is now working in a factory just to make ends meet.  Does anyone know whether redemptions on sympathetic grounds have been paid to anyone applying.  We think not.  
We also don't understand why dividends have to stop.  They are still getting payments in from loans aren't they?  Smacks of the Gold Coast white shoe brigade.  Michael King still lives in Elysium Fields, and his hard luck story in the press not long ago touched our hearts...NOT!!!!!


----------



## breaker1 (8 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



communique said:


> Wally, So sorry about your mum.  We also know someone who has put their life savings over $1mllion into MFS PIF etc and is now working in a factory just to make ends meet.  Does anyone know whether redemptions on sympathetic grounds have been paid to anyone applying.  We think not.
> We also don't understand why dividends have to stop.  They are still getting payments in from loans aren't they?  Smacks of the Gold Coast white shoe brigade.  Michael King still lives in Elysium Fields, and his hard luck story in the press not long ago touched our hearts...NOT!!!!!




These Funds virtually want you on your death bed and pennyless before they consider you, but it's very much worth a try via an accountant mainly and a good report from your GP or specialist. 

*EARLY REDEMPTIONS POLICY - OPIF*

Under normal circumstances, Octaviar Investment Management may, in its absolute discretion, allow withdrawals before maturity in certain limited circumstances, such as extreme financial hardship. A fee of up to 2% of the amount withdrawn applies if the request for early withdrawal is approved.

As set out above and in previous correspondence, under the terms of the standstill agreement with the third party bank, Octaviar IM cannot deal with the assets of the Fund, including for the purposes of paying redemptions, without the approval of the bank. Until recently, this meant that Octaviar IM could not entertain early redemption regardless of the circumstances of the application. In the most recent extension of the standstill agreement, however, the bank has agreed to consider allowing Octaviar IM to satisfy redemption requests in cases of extreme financial hardship.

A person is taken to be in extreme financial hardship if they have experienced a sudden change in circumstances which has a permanent and / or terminal impact directly on the unit holder.

As a guide, this may include instances of:

A terminal medical condition that was discovered during the investment term and was not pre-existing to the investment commencing and they are not able to meet reasonable and immediate living expenses without assistance. 
An accident occurring during the investment term directly related to the unit holder which renders them unable to meet reasonable and immediate living expenses without assistance. 
All requests for early redemption are required to be in writing by the unit holder and sufficient documentation must be provided in order to substantiate a valid case. Unit holders should note, however, that even if a request is approved by Octaviar IM, it is still subject to the approval of the third party bank.

*Can anyone tell me if OPIF knockback decisions on early redemtions are open to appeal through any independant body?*


----------



## zixo (8 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Its wonderful to see another person signing up...welcome willy 

 I wonder if the 2% redemption request is valid for people who were suppossed to get their funds returned at the end of January or notified the fund many months prior to their redemption date...does anyone know?

Heck .. I would like to know how understanding the PIF management team would be if they or their families future were being held to ransom the same way they so smugly have treated us.


----------



## selciper (8 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Ms Hutson, Bring Down that Wall!


----------



## breaker1 (9 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



wally3218 said:


> Has anyone else heard this
> Following a large investment in the collapsed former investment bank MFS, the New South Wales Bookmakers Superannuation Fund is preparing to announce the first annual loss in its 30-year history.
> You can read the full report here
> http://www.acleardirection.com.au/bookmakers_caught_by_mfs___eureka_report_insert
> Would be great if they could throw there weight and support into getting some questions asked.




I have asked a capable fellow OPIF investor in our action group to follow the NSW Bookmakers Super Fund up, to join us. An email was sent by him and I have subsequently asked him to chase the email up with a phone call to management of the Super Fund - should get a reply from him this week I hope.


----------



## breaker1 (9 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> That is an excellent article Wally, Possiblly worth a follow up Breaker or Rocky? Can anyone confirm the  legallity of the loan (unsecured at that time) to LLA? Tuart what is your opinion regarding this please? From reading the PDS in relation to the PIF I was of the opinion that the guidelines did not allow this type of loan. I think that WC as Resposible Entity has an obligation to the PIF holders to inform us of the extent of all loans to MFS related companies, subsiduaries, entities etc. and where we stand as creditors in the event of OCV being liquidated. Regards, Seamisty




1] Getting an action group member to get back to me and give me his personal  opinion on it! May post it for discussion.

2] *Just to let all know that I have retrieved all the items lost in my Desktop PC that crashed last week.* ALL emails sent me and details of our first action group members were stored their, plus new emails of investors asking to join us (on the same day it crashed). ALL LOST DATA HAS BEEN RETRIEVED!
I want to thank DORA N BOOTS a poster on this thread, for her help - she is an Outlook Express expert and she volunteered her assistance. Thank you "Dora" Glad to see the last of this complex problem - I am now taking much better back up action of our action group data base. So if there are any other problems - all should be well.


----------



## scott francis (9 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am regular contributor to Alan Kohler's Eureka Report.

I previously wrote an article that looked at the failure of MFS Premium Income Fund and also the relationship between that fund and the NSW Bookmakers fund.

It is a terrible situation that investors with the MFS Premium Income Fund are in.

For my article I was trying to get my hands on a Product Disclosure Statement for the fund.  I especially wanted to look at what level of disclosure had been made that the fund could:
Borrow to invest (an activity that changes the risk reward nature of the fund) and;
Lend money to related particles (like the Living and Leisure Trust) in an unsecured way

I am also interested in some disclosures around fees.

I am interested that these borrowing/loans did not seem to be disclosed on their website until the start of this year.  I think that if they were not disclosed in the PDS then this would be a very interesting matter to bring into the public domain - ie how the hell were investors meant to know what was going on when it was not told to them in the PDS or the regular updates?  How can that happen that someone's money is invested in a way that is never disclosed to them?

I don't think that this issue has had nearly enough publicity.  I don't think many journalists understand the size of the fund, the poor way that MFS has behaved and the lack of information given to investors. 

If any of you had a Product Disclosure Statement that you would not mind sending to me, my e-mail address is sfrancis1@optusnet.com.au .


----------



## scott francis (9 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks very much.  I now have a copy.

Cheers
Scott


----------



## Jadel (9 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Scott to answer your question these are the principal issues that need to be invesigated
. 
1 / The PDS dated 31st 2007   does not divulge   honestly fairly and openly the 184 million dollar loan from the Royal Bank of Scotland. This debt was cleverly hidden under the terms of loan facility agreement whereby they could draw up to 20% of the value of total assets. , to provide SHORT TERM FUNDING for opportunistic investments .The published assets are in fact stated as 770 million dollars   making a travesty of the transparency guidelines required under ASX guidelines

2/ The breach of a Financial Covenant  with the RBOS on December 31st was not disclosed to the market until march 19th 2008 exposing many new investors after that date  to a huge financial  liability .
3/ The PDS states SPECIFICALLY that all commercial loans are secured by a FIRST MORTGAGE OVER PROPERTY AND AN LVR OF SIXTY SIX PERCENT ( 66% )
4/ In view of the fact that Living and Leisure was suspended from trading on January 19th by the ASX for failing to provide audited accounts, it would appear highly likely that this company was unable to service  its debt of 67 million dollars or eight percent( 8 %) of the total assets of  the PIF well before  that date . However their is no mention of this in the  December 31st PDS which record  the  PRINCIPLE  of loans in default as 17 million or( 2.2%) of the total  assets  

5/ Based on the figures supplied in the PDS it is not mathematically possible to have included the 67million Living and Leisure loan in the Asset breakdown for commercial loans or indeed any default of that loan

 Under these circumstances we can only conclude that the PIF has used a deceptive and misleading scheme to circumvent the disclosure provisions of the Corporation Act  in order keep this loan concealed from investors



 We are of the opinion that the PIF has used a deceptive and misleading  scheme  outside of the requirements in the  PDS Corporation Act  to keep details of loan concealed from investors


----------



## zixo (9 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The sooner we reach the amount of names required to demand answers, the better. We really need communication and figures now.

Investors and perhaps shareholders need to become increasingly concerned the way Chris Scott has shoe horned his way onto the Octaviar board and has taken control, slotting his own close associates into positions which may or may not be in the best interest of investors.

This forum group has become the only positive and honest move thats evolved out of the whole Octaviar PIF mess.


----------



## breaker1 (9 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



scott francis said:


> Thanks very much.  I now have a copy.
> 
> Cheers
> Scott




Thank you for your input Scott - I take it you are journalist for the Eureka Report? This is an excellent media organisation, quite often giving media exposure to matters of importance that othe media do not.

What is your opinion of Jadel's insight ? 

Is there a case for those who re-invested around Dec/Jan/Feb to get their investment returned?

Jadel,
Thanks for your answer to my email - well done mate!


----------



## breaker1 (9 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*UPDATE 5*

1] The following is a copy of an Adobe Reader 8 attachment email sent to the Hobbs family of our Octaviar PIF Action Group *from Jenny Hutson:*

*"PREMIUM INCOME FUND*

Thank you for your email. I do understand that the situation for a very large majority of Unitholders is extreme. *I do propose to answer all the questions that I have been asked by holding investor forums during the first week of july*

I am at the office today with my team as I have been every day since we took over seeking to define the most desireable way forward. I am working with my team to be in a position to clearly define the fund's future. I expect to be able to do that clearly by the first week of July and to communicate that clearly to you and to all of the Unitholders and answer all questions that arise.

I take the responsibility of trying to achieve the best outcome seriously.

I look forward to meeting you.


*Jenny Hutson*
Chairperson
Octaviar Investment Management Limited"

This email was dated 9 June 2008.

Thank you M for making this contact with Jenny.

I note that Jenny says, "holding investor forums" in the plural. Does this mean she will be touring state cities (Southport, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth) or having several meeting at one central location. Sounds like the former. Further, she has signed the letter/attachment "Chairperson - Octaviar Investment Management Ltd" *not* CEO OPIF which confirms to me that she has not taken up the RE of OPIF yet and her saying, "seeking to define the most desirable way forward" indicates WC is still doing "due diligence" (checking the books) but feels confident of taking the helm of OPIF.

Initially, I'd have to say, that's good news from the point of view of OPIF trying to be transparent at last, but it's still 3-4 weeks away and the information we need to know the most, which is, how insular is the OPIF from OCV LTD, really? If a bomb hits OCV LTD in the mean time, can any creditor of OCV LTD make claims on OPIF assets? What will happen to the funds we are trying to get out of Living and Leisure (approx 67 mill) and the OCV LTD support facility (50 mill)?? - (that's approx. 15% of our money, correct me if I am wrong). But from the point of view; Is WC the best RE for the benefit of investors? This is another matter yet to be proven.

2]  WE ARE NOW 64 COMMITTED INVESTORS IN THE OCTAVIAR PIF ACTION GROUP

WELL DONE FOLKS!


----------



## selciper (9 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Breaker 1. 
Agree with your analysis of the Hutson letter. At least a date is set for the circulation of information. But we must all remain vigilant. Take the PIF words written in the March 19 newsletter as a warning: "The MFSIM Board and its advisors are now focused on exploring initiatives to improve liquidity and allow the payment of income to unit holders and expect significant progress to be made before the end of the financial year 2008." Progress, I suppose paying the RBOS millions every month could classified as "progress".

I am sorry for PIF investors who don't know about this incredibly valuable site.


----------



## breaker1 (9 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Breaker 1.
> Agree with your analysis of the Hutson letter. At least a date is set for the circulation of information. But we must all remain vigilant. Take the PIF words written in the March 19 newsletter as a warning: "The MFSIM Board and its advisors are now focused on exploring initiatives to improve liquidity and allow the payment of income to unit holders and expect significant progress to be made before the end of the financial year 2008." Progress, I suppose paying the RBOS millions every month could classified as "progress".
> 
> I am sorry for PIF investors who don't know about this incredibly valuable site.




Two of our action group are trying to get articles into the Gold Coast Bulletin - if successful, that should help.


----------



## Duped (10 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



scott francis said:


> I am regular contributor to Alan Kohler's Eureka Report.
> 
> I previously wrote an article that looked at the failure of MFS Premium Income Fund and also the relationship between that fund and the NSW Bookmakers fund.
> 
> ...




Scott,

I recall hearing that commissions to advisors were dramatically cut in early 2007.  I also recall there was a change of Chairman at MFS Ltd and a change of CEO at MFSIM.

I have hard copies of the PDS of 1 Sep 04, 30 Jun 06 and 31 Jul 07 if they are any help to you.

Have you had a look at the Investor Updates for PIF on the OCV website.  
http://www.octaviar.com.au/managed-funds/investorupdates.html

Only Sep06, Dec06, Mar07, Jun07, Feb08 & Mar08 Updates detail exposure to related parties.  There was a monumental jump between Jun07 and Feb08.

Not only that – the Feb08 Update was the first to mention any debt.

Jun07 Update has a chart of growth of the fund.  Looks like it peaked in June 07.  Growth flatened after Dec06.  Because of a drop in commissions perhaps?

In a letter to investors dated 10 Oct 2005, MFSIM CEO Steve Kyler reported that PIF "was awarded the Standard and Poor's 2005 Australian Mortgage Funds Sector Award and MFS Investment Management Limited was awarded runner up in the 2005 Boutique Fund Manager of the Year category in August 2005".

On 23 Jun 06 MFSIM held a Special General Meeting to vote on changes to the constitution.  I have a copy of the memorandum.  Classic give and take stuff.  

Resolution 1: MFSIM's fee changed from fixed fee of 1% of gross assets to "all surplus funds (if any)" "after all distributions, expenses and redemptions of the Fund have been satisfied".  Woohoo ... so PIF didn't have to pay MFSIM anything if it doesn't perform. Sounded great but PIF lost the benefit of large surpluses for smoothing out the bumps.  But the support facility was introduced as well so all seemed fine.  PIF was looking more like a bank's term deposit.

Resolution 2: The kicker. 180 and 360 redemption period introduced. 

D'oh. Should have been more suspicious - but the S&P rating was very recent and soooooo reassuring. 

Resolution 2 came in handy for MFSIM less than 18 months later.  Spectacular timing? Or did they know something?


----------



## BH1 (10 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Evening everyone,I'm not much of a one for chat sites,a bit slow typing and not one with the 'gift of the gab.'Contacted Breaker to lend support for the OCV mess,I'm not sure if it's all the same,I bought MFS/OCV shares but everyone seems to be posting about the Premium Income Fund.I'm kind of resigned to the fact that I've lost that money(nothing unusual for me,lose more than I make)anyway hope we all get something back,It's very sad for those who were believers and put big money and their retirement money in,GOOD LUCK with the fight,
BH1Love this smiley


----------



## Tuart (10 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good morning everyone

Theres seems to be a common worry that should OCV fallover it could have an impact on PIF assets.

If an administrator or liquidator is appointed to OCV this person deals with the assets of OCV.

These assets include all of the shares in Octavia Investment Management Ltd which holds the license and is the manager of PIF. His role and rights do not extend to dealing with PIF assets. 

As long as OIML has its own source of funding it continues as a going concern with its own set of directors and runs its day to day business. Even if OIML is forced into admin this i only a trigger to replace RE.

If OIML has any debts to the parent then the adminstrator has the right to pursue this. He has the right to sell the asset (shares in OIML) however Wellington has an option to buy these shares.

There is no direct impact on PIF from OCV falling into receivership.

The consequences are a flowon:
1) OIML on behalf of PIF is an unsecured creditor for the $50 million guarantee.
2) IF PIF has provided a loan to a development that OCV is a party to in a JV  then if OCV interest is sold the impact on PIF comes down to its security and where it ranks as a creditor in each joint venture.

The PIF risk is not from the OCV creditors as it is a seperate legal entity.

Its risk is from the fact that the Royal Bank of Scotland has a first charge over all of the assets of the fund and can if it wants appoint a receiver into the fund.

They would be driving assets sales and taking all of the cash. 

Until a new banker is put in place or enough assets sales are made to clear debt PIF principle risk is the bank.

Again the question has to be asked asto why alternatives were not considered to do a deal with parties with the ability to replace banking facility so continued fire sales do not take place.

That is history and like the issues that Jadel has pointed out are all potential legal issues that could give rise action.

However lawyers picking over a carcus does not get investors income which must be the primary focus of this group. Getting distributions reinstated followed by putting in the best strategy to protect and maximise the value of the assets that remain must be the primary focus as what is best for the collective group and must be pursued.


----------



## Tuart (10 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

In answer to another issue raised on this forum is the redemptions for extreme circustances.

There are many many horror stories that are coming out of the freezing of the PIF. 

The problem is that on just two of the deals done (GEO and LLA) a loss is been suffered in asset sales. We have not been told of the losses suffered from any other sale or write off faced.

Investors unfortunately have to face up to the fact that you are facing a capital loss the magnitude is yet to be disclosed. 

So if any investor is paid out at $1.00 then his/her share of the loss would be collectively born by those that remain. The hole would get deaper for remaining investors. 

THis issue is a curly one but there is not point hiding from the truth


----------



## marcom (10 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

breaker 1

Just found the reference to Lonsec assessment of the PIF - it was in the Business Spectator 31 March 2008 (abstracted from a AFR article) -


Lonsec estimates that investors in MFS Premium Income Fund may recover $A0.95 per dollar. Capital losses could be posted by around 11,000 investors in the frozen fund. It is thought that Royal Bank of Scotland has granted the $A770 million Australian fund a one-month extension on its $A184 million loan. Michael Hiscock, a director of Avenue Capital Management, recently stepped down from the board of MFS, soon to be renamed Octaviar. Simon Clifford, a director of Avenue, denies that the dealer group has links with MFS. Litigation funder IMF (Australia) suggests that class actions may be lodged against MFS

Distributed by News Bites.  © Lexis-Nexis


----------



## marcom (10 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Scott francis

You and other PIF investors may be interestd in what MFS was saying to financial advisors in February 2008. Particularly look at the section on related party transactions. It may be important if Octaviar has changed their story since this statement. This is still on the Octaviar website in the pages for financial advisors.


----------



## Wolfgang (10 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi 
We are also investors in the MFS Premium Income fund and did not put all your eggs in the 1 basket, but this still dose not help much for we relied on the income stream fore the weekly living expenses. 

I am sore that their are many more in worse situations than this. 

We got letters from Octaviar every month, the letters did not outline the seriousness of the problem. I have now Google News Alert for Octaviar and found the problem is much much worse then they clamed. 

For now we are still hoping for a successful outcome but not holding our breath, we are back at work for an extra five years or rely on the government pension, I hope we will still be able to enjoy our retirement. 

How many eggs will it tack to insure that it will not happen again and will we be able to look after all the eggs? 

How long will it tack before the ASIC and other government bodies to do some thing so this dose not happen again? 

Thanks for nothing OCTAVIAR 
Wolfgang


----------



## scott francis (10 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for the comments to date, and the additional material.  I am involved in the Eureka Report, writing articles for them.

I had planned to focus this article on the poor quality of disclosure of borrowing around the PDS, and the ridiculous loan to Living and Leisure Australia.  I also want to make comments about the 'capital protection mechanism' - a big part of the marketing but the reality was that it was simply not disclosed.

I have attached the article last written about the MFS Premium Income Fund (from May 12).  I have tried to make it very small font so as not to take up too much page.  Feel free to delete it if it stuffs up too much of the thread.

Cheers
Scott

The MFS Premium Income Fund was a key fund of the MFS group (since renamed Octaviar). The name implied it offered investors (including NSW Bookmakers Super) a strong income stream, presumably so that they could sleep comfortably at night. An investor update from November 2007 showed that the target rate of return was 9% a year for a 24-month investment. The fund was popular and had more than $770 million of unit-holder funds.

Lots of funds have reassuring names such as "cash plus" or "income" (even "premium income"), and the troubles the MFS Premium Income Fund got itself into is a reminder that investors should understand what is happening in every investment. Underlying the MFS fund was a small minority of cash and fixed interest investments; the majority assets were a series of property and "asset backed" loans. 

The NSW Bookmakers Super Fund invested an estimated 8% of its members' money in MFS. The investment rating company Lonsec assessed the MFS Premium Income Fund as "investment grade"; in a fund review, although to be fair that was a review done about 18 months ago, in October 2006. 

A key characteristic that investors should understand about the MFS Premium Income Fund is that it borrows to invest, something investors should treat with caution. As soon as a fund borrows to invest it increases its underlying risk. Borrowing to invest has been a considerable problem for the fund - earlier this year it defaulted on its loan, a $184 million facility that was payable to a third party bank. 

The loan was repayable on demand as at December 31, 2007. This is where the fund started to struggle, and a series of letters to investors in the Premium Income Fund slowly highlighted the extent to which the fund was in difficulty. 

A letter dated January 29, 2008, said that due to an "unprecedented" level of volatility in investment markets, no investors would be allowed to redeem their investment in the MFS Premium Income Fund for the next 180 days, adding that the fund "expects to continue paying distributions at the target rates".

This expectation about paying distributions seemed optimistic given that MFS Premium Income Fund managers should have known they were in default of the $184 million loan. It seems unlikely that any reasonable bank that was owed $184 million would say, ?Sure, we are owed a bunch of money and you have defaulted on the terms of the loan, but we are happy for you to keep paying distributions to investors while we wait for our money'. Banks tend not to work that way. 

And they didn't. In another letter to investors on March 19, the fund advised investors it was in default on a loan and that "under the terms of the standstill agreement with the bank" the MFS Premium Income Fund was not permitted to pay distributions to unit-holders without the approval of the bank. 

And just when MFS Premium Income Fund investors felt it was safe to go back to their letterbox, a letter dated the April 14 announced that redemptions had now been deferred to 360 days "as stated in the Fund's constitution", and that ?unit-holders will not receive interest payments during the period of the cessation, nor will any interest accrue". 



So what is the cost to investors such as the NSW Bookmakers Super? As at February 29, an "investor update" listed the gross assets of the fund as $890.1 million, the loan of the fund at $184 million and the number of units on issue in the fund at 755.2 million. This gives a value per unit of 93 ¢, effectively a 7% loss on a $1 application price. Investors have now been without distributions for three months. Based on a 9% distribution, this is a "loss" of 2.25% (a quarter of 9%) - bringing the total "loss" to date to nearly 10%. Keep in mind that a good term deposit is currently yielding above 8%, so any money tied up in the MFS Premium Income Fund could be earning that in a low-risk term deposit with a bank. 

A blatant example of a conflict of interest was the widely reported February drawdown on the unsecured $66 million loan facility made by the MFS Premium Income Fund to Living and Leisure Australia (a MFS/Octaviar subsidiary, whose primary activities are owning and operating ski fields, aquariums and property development). 

The MFS Premium Income fund had already told investors that redemptions had been ceased; its managers should have known that the fund was in breach of the bank loan, and yet they (apparently) still thought the best way forward for investors in the MFS Premium Income Fund was to lend more money to Living and Leisure Australia, a company that had breached its own loan agreements in September 2007 (that is, Living and Leisure had already defaulted on the debt it owed). 

The loans to Living and Leisure Australia are primarily in the form of unsecured loans, which means the investors in the MFS Premium Income Fund wait at the back of the queue behind all the secured creditors if Living and Leisure Australia collapses. 

MFS/Octaviar Premium Income Fund investors - or anyone whose super fund was involved in this investment - should be furious about this misuse of the $66 million unsecured loan facility to prop up the Living and Leisure Australia trust. 

The results suggest that the MFS Premium Income Fund was a risky fund. It borrowed money to invest. It invested in many related-party loans and tried to pay an ongoing income stream to investors while investing in assets that did not pay regular interest. All in all it stands as a good reminder that investors need to understand what is happening in their fund rather than assume that reassuring name like "premium income fund" provides any promise about risk and return.

Through all the "investor updates", investor letters, media articles and ASX announcements that I read, I could not find one that said that MFS/Octaviar had stopped taking fees from investors. Surely that is the ultimate insult: having to pay for that sort of "investment expertise" when you can't even get your money out of the fund!


----------



## breaker1 (10 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The following information has been sourced from an investor in the OPIF who has access to OPIF management - being a third party source, make of it what you will:
* Jenny Hutson plans to take up the Responsible Entity (RE) position within a week or two
* Price Watehouse Coopers will be employed to assess the exact balance of the fund + or -    The PWC bill will be paid by OCV LTD not OPIF - why? - apparently Jenny negotiated this. Regardless Jenny has a very good idea of the OPIF debt 
* The OCV LTD 50 mill support facility may not be accessed by the OPIF if Jenny does not act quickly
* Find another bank to take over the remaining debt to RBOS so as to free up the RBOS contractual hold off the fund
* Will be trying to hold information forums at least in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne (possibly other areas of investor concentration) - investors off course invited - planned for first week of July
* There are approx. 54 areas where OPIF has it's money
* That negotiations are taking place to forestall Octaviar LTD from going into receivership. 
* That the original amount of the loan from RBOS was $200 million and that when OPIF reached the default %, 16 mill cash was demanded and received by RBOS, leaving $184 mill remaining (readers would be aware this has been reduced considerably since then - possibly only $64 mill remaining - but of course that would be contributing to our investor shortfalls in any redemptions)
* Jenny understands that investors want distributions to be re-instigated ASAP - but did not commit to a time
* Another name change for the OPIF (WCPIF i guess)
* Jenny has an agenda to list the renamed OPIF on the ASX, but this will be a long way down the track. Probably in association with existing WC assets
* Jenny could not answer why other companies wanting the RE of OPIF were NOT given a go
* OPIF/Jenny plan to get maximum cents in the dollar back for investors who stick it out with her company. 
* Possibly a press release on some of the matters mentioned above
* WC plans to give investors a written, black and white, copy of the finances of the PIF - possibly at the forums.

My first thoughts are that Jenny Hutsons Wellinton Capital should make a reasonable, genuine and substantial offer to OPIF investors and OPIF management, *before taking up any RE management rights, **to buy out any existing OPIF debt.* This to me would simply be par for the course for any company wanting RE rights. I read how other companies (Packer) wanting RE rights absorb debt. Why not WC in OPIF? 

If Jenny can access the OCV LTD 50 mill support facility, why can't Guy Hutchings the OPIF CEO? 

Another name change - here we go again - just leave the PIF in their as an anchor!

I am pleased that a time commitment is being made for OPIF transparency by Jenny, at last! But if Jenny knows the OPIF debt very well - why not release it now, why wait till early July? The main reason why investors are anxious, is quite simply because they don't know, and are invisaging worst case scenarios. Investors need to have closure on OPIF debt amounts ASAP.

In the mean time, the Octaviar PIF Action Group will continue towards the 100 required (and beyond) and consider what will be best for investors.

Open for discussion......


----------



## selciper (10 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

No doubt we will be asked at the "forums" to skip the past and get on with the future. Previous boards will be blamed for the present paralysis. The past MUST  be discussed and the present PIF CEO made available on the podium to answer any questions.

We musn't allow ourselves to be sidetracked any longer.

I was told in a phone call to PIF a week or so ago that RBOS would be paid off by the end of July. Is this a fact?


----------



## seamisty (10 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Selciper, It is my understanding that the extension of the loan from the RBOS was only until the end of July. Hopefully the Arctic Capital deal for LLA will go ahead and that should just about sort it. It would be nice to get the $50 million Support facility from OCV as well. Great to see some information being released, hopefully some positive actions regarding distributions will not be far away. Amazing what we can acheive with two thirds of an action group, our voice can only get louder!! Thanks to all contributors who have added their support and shared information. Cheers, Seamisty:bounce:


----------



## Rocky1 (10 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I've learnt to never count my chickens until they have hatched and with out putting a negative on the first positive we have had for some time this could all just be a smoke screen to try and halt our Action Group, so we must push on with recruiting numbers so we can, if need be, look after our own interests because date those people we entrusted have not done a very good job.

As such I have just spoken to Nick Nichols from the Gold Coast Bulletin again and he is going to ring me tomorrow to discuss an article in one of this weeks additions


----------



## zixo (10 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We really need this forum list to grow quickly so perhaps we can have questions answered truthfully for all Investors.
I agree with rocky. This Forum really is FOR investors BY Investors. It appears that the best interests with the fund are not with people who have up to this date been so pathetic in disclosing credible information or facts. 
The management of  MFS/Octaviar have been happy to keep us in the dark up until now. They forget it’s our money and livelihoods at stake. They dawdle and make deals with OUR funds and still get paid.


----------



## selciper (10 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Scott Francis -

Thanks for a great article to-be. It reflects well on the activities of the action group that possibly prompted you to write the story. Breaker1's post today is also very helpful. I understand that the PIF "team" read this thread very thoroughly.


----------



## breaker1 (11 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It appears there is a small chance Packers Arctic Capital might pay the PIF it's LLA $63 Mill debt to the PIF

*Packer's snow pitch still on the slopes** June 11, 2008 Sydney Morning Herald
* Page 1 of 2

Arctic Capital has completed the top of the run but there's still plenty of turns to go.

LIKE a slalom ski run, James Packer's move on snowfields and aquarium operator Living and Leisure Australia (LLA) still has plenty of twists and turns to negotiate.

Packer's private equity fund, Arctic Capital, is attempting to pull off a recapitalisation of LLA, whose future is being threatened by its former parent, the financially-stricken Octaviar group, better known in its previous incarnation as MFS.

The plan involves Arctic underwriting a $90 million rights issue, taking on $63 million of debt owed to Octaviar's Premium Income Fund, and helping organise the repayment of an additional loan of $127 million to the National Australia Bank.

According to an updated statement yesterday, Arctic has now completed its due diligence on LLA, which operates the Mount Hotham and Falls Creek ski resorts and a host of domestic and international aquariums.

But Arctic has yet to reach a final deal with Premium Income Fund on acquiring its debt, nor has it obtained all the information it needs from Octaviar to assess the position of the responsible entity which manages LLA and which the fund is also looking to take control of.

Thus the underwriting deal remains on a knife edge, which no doubt is the reason why LLA's shares keep slipping, down another 0.4c to 3.6c yesterday.

*Do The Deal!!*


----------



## Tuart (11 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Breaker

The deal does not involve PIF getting $63 million but having to take a loss on the loan. 

I believe the deal is $30 million cash plus PIF gets left with $10 million non interest bearing note plus 8 million LLA shares which if they trade back at 7.5 cents is worth just under the million mark.

Debt was over 70 million so that appears to be about a $30 million loss.

Whats the bet tha LLA will still carry the debt at full value on their books and through the rights issue Artic will get repaid the full value of the loan picking up a 20 to 30 million quick profit.


----------



## wally3218 (11 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I had a phone call from a lawyer from the firm Maurice Blackburn there handling a class action against Octaviar for failing continuous discloser breaches.
She rang asking me if I was a share holder or investor as I had previously rang them a few months back. 
There just looking after share holders and there going a head with it.
She told me there having trouble findin out the proper structure of the company as things are all over the place.
She also said the share holders wont be getting much in return if they succeed.
I told her about this forum and action were trying to take  and she said it was a very good idea


----------



## marcom (11 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hello Tuart

Not sure where the reference to $30 million came from - from memory it was only referred to in one article - AFR I think - all other articles covering the recapitalisation proposal quoted the ASX announcement. It certainly does not appear in the ASX announcement, and if it is a part of the deal then it should have been disclosed!

Attached is the section from the Arctic Recapitalisation Proposal announcement off the LLA ASX site dated 16 May 2008.* It specifically mentions Arctic purchasing $63 of PIF unsecured debt*, AS WELL AS the *remaining balance of the unsecured debt being $7 million plus capitalised interest * Ie $70 million plus capitalised interest.

The $7 million plus interest is to be repaid in the form of a $10 million 0% interest note, plus 88 million LLA shares and another 88 million options.

If this comes off the PIF could repay the RBOS - provided the Windup proceedings don't get in the way.


----------



## Tuart (11 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Marcom

This would be a good question to ask the RE. I had picked up on the $30 million figure from the article you referred to.

If they get $63 million plus the note plus the shares assuming they get back to 7.5 cents they wil break even or be slightly ahead depending on how much interest had been paid or not paid.

Another question would be why given that LLA were in default did PIF continue to allow this facility to be drawn down upon.


----------



## marcom (11 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tuart

Here is the response that MFS gave to Financial Advisors on 5 February 2008:

*2. Why do you regard MFS Diversifi ed and MFS Living and Leisure as appropriate investments for the Premium Income Fund?*

*"Both MFS Diversifi ed and MFS Living & Leisure unit holdings form a part of the property trust sector of the Premium Income Fund. They were purchased
for their excellent diversification and income yields which met the Fund’s investment guidelines. These securities continue to meet the investment
criteria required for the Fund."*

I have attached the full document (which is still on the Octaviar website) - its worth looking at to see how they invested in Trusts associated with or purchased shares in associated MFS entities.

*3. Have all the related party loans been disclosed?*

*Yes. PIF has almost 17% of assets in related party assets, being funds managed, but not controlled by MFS Group companies. PIF is prohibited from
making loans directly to MFS Limited, its wholly owned subsidiaries, or its Directors.*

I am not sure of the legality (or in any case the morality) of INDIRECT loans to associated entities to circumvent the PIF Trust deed - I'll leave that to others.

I have given this info to Scott Francis for his article.


----------



## Javier (11 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From today's SMH:
http://business.smh.com.au/packers-snow-pitch-still-on-the-slopes-20080610-2oli.html

Interesting to note,
But Arctic has yet to reach a final deal with Premium Income Fund on acquiring its debt, nor has it obtained all the information it needs from Octaviar to assess the position of the responsible entity which manages LLA and which the fund is also looking to take control of.

Does that mean the fund PIF is also looking to take control of LLA if Arctic does not come up with a great deal for PIF?? Gee I wish we were better informed, we are just second guessing news articles..soooo frustrating!!!


----------



## Wolfgang (11 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi
I do not understand any of this, you blocks are doing all the work thanks.
I am completely lost with all this jargon and the more I read the more I get confused.
It will be so simple if OCTAVIAR let all of us in on what is happening.

Thanks again Javier, marcom, Tuart, wally3218, breaker1 and the rest of you

Thanks
Wolfgang


----------



## seamisty (11 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Wolfgang you will not be the only investor who finds the situation of the  Premium Income Fund (PIF) confusing, frustrating and stressfull, that is why there is a need for the Action Group. My husband and I invested in the PIF (as did all investors) because we were led to `believe it was a very stable and secure investment, which it was for many years and hopefully will be again. We never expected this outcome. I am sure the Action Group will do its best to keep all members fully informed to the best of their abilities. There is also much usefull information posted on this forum. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## zixo (11 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Its Ironic that funds being held in trust for City Pacifics mortgage fund (which is the equivalent to The Premium Income fund only less diversified) are being held By the Queensland Public Trustee whom now are actively trying to liquidate Octaviar.

City Pacific only conducted due dilligence earlier this year. One Wonders if QPT are being nudged a little to see if a firesale can pull CP out of their mess.


----------



## marcom (11 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

ZIXO

The Public Trustee of Queensland also is the Custodian of Jenny Hutson's Wellington Property Fund and many other Queensland based funds.


----------



## zixo (11 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Marcom,

Thanks for the Update, I for one didn’t know Wellingtons Custodian is PTQ.
Let’s hope Jenny Hutson will get the 50 million earmarked from Octaviar for the PIF


----------



## breaker1 (11 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> From today's SMH:
> http://business.smh.com.au/packers-snow-pitch-still-on-the-slopes-20080610-2oli.html
> 
> Interesting to note,
> ...


----------



## breaker1 (11 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*UPDATE 6*

*WE ARE NOW 85 COMMITTED INVESTORS IN THE ACTION GROUP*

Nearly there people! 

It's amazing the individual activity out there from Action Group members. I mean what I'm getting from emails to me - the forum should give you 20% of the idea.

It encourages me greatly!


----------



## Yahti (11 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi everyone,

Great to see what you are doing here, as I am another who has been frustrated with OCV and have inested in the PIF.  

Breaker1, ive registered with the action group and look forward to helping in any way that I can.  

Thanks.


----------



## ian1328 (11 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

hi breaker1,  count me in as one of the 100


----------



## selciper (11 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Link to a short biography of J. Hutson.

http://www.qbr.com.au/wib/winners.html


----------



## erniel (11 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Breaker 1,
please could you include me in your action group re OPIF.

I feel we are running out of time and need to call for a meeting with the management , board and trustees of the PIF as soon as possible.
thanks for all the input.
erniel


----------



## dantra (11 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

hi, we also have money tied up in this company that we were counting on getting on the 31ts may.....
where do i sign up for the action group. any support would  be appreciated as our so-called "finance man" keeps sugar coating everything and we have no idea what to do next.


----------



## JohnH (11 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just a thought!   Where does Perpetual figure in all this?  Are they not the Trustees of the PIF?:


----------



## Rocky1 (11 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Anyone wanting to register for the action group can do so through breaker1 via breaker1@aapt.net.au


----------



## flatback (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> Its Ironic that funds being held in trust for City Pacifics mortgage fund (which is the equivalent to The Premium Income fund only less diversified) are being held By the Queensland Public Trustee whom now are actively trying to liquidate Octaviar.
> 
> City Pacific only conducted due dilligence earlier this year. One Wonders if QPT are being nudged a little to see if a firesale can pull CP out of their mess.



Mate i'm not sure whats going on at all but i'm sure interested in joining the action group ( how do i get involved i also look like losing a fair sum here ).


----------



## akernst (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The way I see it, is that if the PIF management can keep your money for 360 days, then that is what they will do, because they can use your money to make more money to keep their mansions and jobs.

Please put yourself in their position and you will see, that is what will happen. Also we might not get back $1.00 to $1.00, as once again that is in the PDS, and is another way to keep more of your money.

We must have our meeting ASAP. Is there 100 yet?

Lets get an Agenda together, which I can do if everyone agrees.

Where should this meeting take place? I live in Queensland and I think a lot
of investors are here as well.


----------



## seamisty (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

John H,  Perpetual Nominees Limited are the appointed Custodian of the PIF. They are an independant organisation responsible for holding the financial assets of the Fund. Sounds good doesn't it? Unfortunately it appears they were only there to send out distributions on behalf of the PIF. At all times they were only acting on direct instructions from the Responsible Entity(RE)! A far cry from what I was led to believe, I was told on many occasions from my contact at OCV that all assets of the Fund were held independantly by Perpetual. Wrong Wrong Wrong, just another huge misleading piece of worthless information dished out from the King regime to make it sound safe and secure. We sure were suckered!!! Akernst, I think Breaker is working on an agenda on behalf of the AG. Welcome all new members and thankyou for your support. I think we are close to the 100 needed and there will hopefully be some more media coverage in tomorrows Bulletin. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Seamisty ......... much as I thought!


----------



## selciper (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

When this PIF mess first started to unfold, I was told over the phone many times that Perpetual were the "custodians" of my money. So, they said, I should feel comforted by that fact. Fact? If Perpetual aren't our custodians, the PIF CEO must make a statement immediately in writing. Perpetual need to explain too.


----------



## Javier (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Ok so from this AFR 
1 Wellington has exercised the call option and is officially the RE for PIF..no Octaviar anymore, so all corro will now be communicated via JH @ WC

2 There is $690 mil of our funds in there, which we will not get all of it, how much has that eroded via deals done by OCV and JH since taking over (ie taking haircuts on refinancing borrowers and GEO and other bad loans will be revealed 7 Jul..we hope!

3 Her plan of action listing on the NSX..I have no idea if this is a good idea, it might be, we need to listen to what she has planned, BUT, we need to keep going to create our action group, form a committee so that when the fund's position is revealed early next month, you will see other parties that will hopefully offer us better alternatives

Essentially, we have to be in a position to be able to hear ALL expressions of interest from other consortiums, funds or RE's. Jenny must give us the best option to get all or most of our funds back as fast as possible AND get quick and maximum distributions.

Fear not we do have a valuable asset that in the right hands can use our fund as a basis to build on and give it value, we just have to see what is offered. Hear all, trust NOONE and don't be fooled by the fact this fund will allow the RE to make $$$ from us, people don't take on headaches like the current PIF for the love of it.

Folks we must power on and take control of our own destiny, we have been screwed over, but together we can be a poerful unit that WILL be heard!!


----------



## Duped (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> When this PIF mess first started to unfold, I was told over the phone many times that Perpetual were the "custodians" of my money. So, they said, I should feel comforted by that fact. Fact? If Perpetual aren't our custodians, the PIF CEO must make a statement immediately in writing. Perpetual need to explain too.




My understanding of PNL's role is they act like Swiss Banks used to, they hand over the assets when the owner or their legal representative demands it, no questions asked, even if the owner is a well known sought after criminal.

PNL has to do whatever an authorised Officer of the legal RE asks them to do.  They certainly don't perform the role of ASIC, ASX etc etc claim to do and check that the RE isn't breaking any laws or if e.g. a transaction will put the PIF in breach of its constitution.  I suspect they're not even obligated to check if a new entity broke any laws in acquiring the rights to the RE. 

I could be wrong.


----------



## marcom (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

beaker 1 Akernst

As the Action Group is nearing 100 it's time to focus on just what we want and what we have to do. Akernst has kindly volunteered to draft an agenda, but looking at the Corporations Act section there are a number of things that need to be done to call an EGM - see attached Section 252B (this is only 2 pages and there is more in Division 2G2 - like 20 pages if you are interested) Breaker 1 I have emailed the complete Division to you.

IS THERE A LAWYER IN THE HOUSE? Surely on averages there must be at least one lawyer in a Group of 100! We need a little guidance so that we can maximise the opportunity.

What do we want:

* Information on the current balance of the fund and current investors equity  ie cents per $1 unit - preferably by Lonsec the independent research company that regularly assesses managed funds or Price Waterhouse Coopers that WELLINGTON Capital will be relying on 
* Details of the loans the fund has outstanding - including repayment schedule and likelihood of repayment
* Details of the income expected from all other classes of investments including fixed and asset backed investments and their maturity dates and prospects of repayment
* Current cash amount held by the PIF and projected cashflows
* A firm date for the recommencement of distributions to investors and a guarantee that there will be sufficient cash reserves to meet monthly distributions and the details of how this is to be achived
* A projection of the investor unit value (cents per $1) at the expiration of    the 360 days freeze on redemptions
* An assessment of the capacity of the PIF To meet all redemption requests as at 22 January 2009 on the expiry of the 360 day freeze
* Details of the RE's proposed reporting to investors and the frequency and means of such reporting - which should include a webboard for investors direct access to RE staff for information etc
* An assurance that the current RE will provide ASIC with any relevant information about any possible breaches of the Corporations Act, Managed Investments and other relevant legislation by the previous RE

These can be made into formal Motions by wording as - 

"That the Responsible Entity undertakes to provide Investors with ...."
But it would be better to have someone with more knowledge of the law to do it properly.


----------



## Javier (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tuart has given me the contact details of a very experienced lawyer in Sydney, that is in the know on these type of cases and has represented investors in this type of situation. I have not contacted her as yet with fees etc., we should now start thinking about each of us making a contribution to get a fund going. I can find out fee structure and what it would take to get things rolling, maybe then I can get an account number for her firm and when she gets what's required she will start the action?? Your thoughts...


----------



## marcom (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just read Javier's info and looking at the figures quoted in JH AFR article ie 10,300 investors with a average investment of $70,000 = $721 million of Investor funds. The current balance quoted by JH is $690 million. Therefore the current investor equity is 690/721 = 95.7c in the $ or a 4.3% current loss with JH's comment that not all of the $690 will be recoverable


----------



## seamisty (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Javier, I spoke with a lawyer in regards to this a couple of months ago and was advised that it would be very expensive at this stage until such times as ASIC had made enquiries and determined the areas of misconduct and made applicable rulings where neccessary. I then contacted ASIC and they assured me they are conducting an extensive investigation as a result of being inundated with complaints from investors from both OCV and the PIF. I agree though we will definitely need some legal representation at some stage. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Javier (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am referring that we need a lawyer now to formulate the meeting legally, as it has to be drawn up just right, or our efforts will be wasted as our application will be deemed void.


----------



## Javier (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Just read Javier's info and looking at the figures quoted in JH AFR article ie 10,300 investors with a average investment of $70,000 = $721 million of Investor funds. The current balance quoted by JH is $690 million. Therefore the current investor equity is 690/721 = 95.7c in the $ or a 4.3% current loss with JH's comment that not all of the $690 will be recoverable




I don't read it like this marcom. I think it is more like 755.2 mil units issued as at 31 Mar 08 per OCV website..this is a constant as it was well and truly frozen when that last investor update was posted. JH is saying there are $690m possible funds remaining (if we get full value of assets realised / max loan repaid..but of course that will not happen..or any time soon anyway), but if we did get all $690m then we are looking at a value of approx 91.3 c/ unit. Once the bank is paid and we find out where that $200m loan went and the value left then we will know the true value of our $1 unit..I suspect this to be south of 80cents..JH knows within 10c of what our current position is pending PWC assesment..this is why we NEED to get the best deal as a 20-30% reduction in our funds in NOT acceptable..we want someone that will eventually deliver close to 100% and some distribution income along the way..I believe a fund with $$ to add value and ongoing future value exists out there and I will not give up and accept some token amount, for something that can have a lot more worth, if WC can deliver fine, if not we have to take control and find the right people to align ourselves with.

Let's not forget that any change in the constitution of the fund will require a high amount of votes from current investors by WC anyway, so getting a vote for something better will take the same amount of numbers either way. Please believe we can turn a positive out of this negative we are in now..things happen for a reason. I believe JH having the re at the moment is a good thing, she may be the one..but we have to consider all as we only get one real shot at this and the right move will give us the ability to share in the prosperous components of the fund and not just sell it off cheaply and let another party add $$mil in book value with our hard earned cash.


----------



## Tuart (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good afternoon everyone

It appears that information regarding the financial position PIF will be released by RE in early July.

The lawyer I have suggested is for intially just ensuring that if the action group deems it appropriate a call for a meeting is done in a properly constituted mnner.

I suggest even at this point you need to call your own investors only meeting even if its done in a number of places with telephone link up and microphone. I am sure some of the newspapers would have meeting rooms and they would offer microphone and telephone hook up and would love to listen to the meeting.

You need a committee formed to represent your interests to WC and any other party that may be interested in the opportunity of assisting in the work out.

I would then suggest that members of the action group provide a power of attorney to the committee members jointly providing them with the power to call a meeting and do what ever else is required to protect the action groups rights and interests.

The power of attorney will short cut the requirement later if it is deemed appropriate to call a meeting to get 100 signatures onto a document. It allows for far more collective bargaining power.

The legal costs relate to ensuring that you can create a structure through your group and its committee can take the required action quickly and easily. The legal costs will not be large for this part but ensures it is properly constituted.

The issues I guess you are talking about Seamisty is suing the RE or the parent company which is a totally different matter and there will be plenty of legal groups that will take that one on through a fee from any sucessful claim provided there is something left in OCV or there are insurance policies.

Again the power of attorney creates a collective bargaining position for dealing with the litagation specialists.

It would be good if you had the above in place by the roadshow as then there can be ensured a warts an all position.

One issue I am grappling with is that WC option involves a payment to OCV based on some form of work out solution.

It would seem crazy to see any funds go to this company after the position you have been placed in. Whatever happens not one cent should go to OCV as it had alternatives in dealing with the asset (shares in RE) that would have reduced your losses I believe but chose one that placed it in the best bargaining position on the 50 million guarantee.

Any money paid by WC should come back to PIF if it is deemed by the investors that they are the best group for the task ahead.

And that leads me to the second issue in that with the reports of a NSX listing to create liquidity this raises the value of what collectively you provide your manager.

If the fund is just a work out and overtime you grab whats left and ride off onto the sunset that has one value as a fund.

If on the other hand you collectively say no we will stick together, list this the units in the fund to provide liquidity and slowly overtime move to acquiring real income earning assets with growth that has a two fold effect.

It allows rebuilding of value overtime and it now a permanent fund that has significant value to its manager. You collectively create that value not the manager so who gets the value of that asset.

I think your numbers are about to snowball so I hope Breaker can cope or gets some help with the registry. 

Goodluck and stay positive.


----------



## Javier (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tuart makes a lot of sense, gee I wish you were on the east coast, hope you come soon as I need to buy you a drink or 2 mate! I hereby put my hand up to being a member of this committee..for what it's worth.


----------



## Tuart (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Javier

I think we said a few of the same things.

Any change in RE is a drawn out process and there are things happening currently that will impact on investors returns. 

I still remain confused about the LLA deal in terms of what PIF stands to get.

If it is a haircut why does PIF have to do it.

If it is because RBOS will cut the throat of the 11,000 investors by appointing a receiver if it does not get cash then WC or the press should ask that question and make RBOS say that to the world.

They are down from 180 million and are getting all of the cash investors are supposed to be getting so why do we have to be crucified in LLA if that is the deal.

Why cant PIF get half the deal that Artic is getting and RBOS wait a little longer for its cash. LLA appears to be strong cash producing businessees so let the 11,000 partner with James (owner or Artic)

Maybe Javier you can ask that question of WC.

Whats the deal for LLA and if we are taking the loss why cant PIF roll into equity in partnership with Artic.


----------



## seamisty (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Also Tuart and Javier,If WC did not negotiate the $50million Support Facility prior to becoming RE to the Fund I don't think we will get it. The following is written in the PDS::The MFS Support Facility will remain in force for so long as MFSIM or a Related Party remains the RE of the Fund. In the event that MFSIM retires, resigns or is removed as RE of the Fund and is not replaced by a related party, MFS Limited will be entitled by notice in writing to terminate the MFS Support Facility immediately. If MFS Limited terminates the MFS Support Facility, MFS'S obligations under the MFS Support Facility will cease immediately. However, any money paid by MFS Limited under the MFS Support Facility will remain the property of the Fund and MFS Limited  has no claim for the repayment of that money if the MFS Support Facility is called upon.::::::There has been no mention that JH has negotiated this payment. Regards,Seamisty


----------



## Javier (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

No deal has been as yet been entered into with Arctic by PIF, this is still being negotiated and I guess is one of the main points of consideration for Packer, he is trying to buy the $63mil cheaply and I hope JH is not backing down..he is the vulture fund getting LLA's assets cheaply and on top of that will form a ski resort monopoly AND in the process trying to screw us even more! The RBOS I think may be more flexible soon as to perhaps allow some sort of distribution to happen in the coming months, but by then they would have got most if not all their $$..I know JH is trying to get refinancing on the RBOS debt..but I guess in the current climate it's not that easy. Timing is crucial..if she gets a replacement for RBOS fairly quickly (I believe they are nearly there), then we may be able to get all our debt and then some from LLA if Arctic wants LLA and it's assets (which they have stated they "like very much")..I think it all depends on whether he can get it cheap enough before OCV gets put into receivership, then he will have to stave off the other vultures rather than do it now on his terms.


----------



## Javier (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Also Tuart and Javier,If WC did not negotiate the $50million Support Facility prior to becoming RE to the Fund I don't think we will get it. The following is written in the PDS::The MFS Support Facility will remain in force for so long as MFSIM or a Related Party remains the RE of the Fund. In the event that MFSIM retires, resigns or is removed as RE of the Fund and is not replaced by a related party, MFS Limited will be entitled by notice in writing to terminate the MFS Support Facility immediately. If MFS Limited terminates the MFS Support Facility, MFS'S obligations under the MFS Support Facility will cease immediately. However, any money paid by MFS Limited under the MFS Support Facility will remain the property of the Fund and MFS Limited  has no claim for the repayment of that money if the MFS Support Facility is called upon.::::::There has been no mention that JH has negotiated this payment. Regards,Seamisty




I believe she is / will negotiate is and hopefully it will be in a cash up front figure + a further payment schedule as asset sales are carried out in an orderly fashion. We will hopefully get the same ratio as Challenger, Note Holders (PTQ) and the other unsecured mentioned creditors..the only thing is they only have $170mil in cash in the bank and this has to satisfy all creditor agreements..but they do have to start coming to terms soon or they will have a receiver in there by mid next month, it will be hard but it's the only way!!


----------



## akernst (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Looks like Wellington is now in control. Is this true? I assume it is, as was is in the Australian Financial Review.

Does that mean Wellington handed over $20 Million to Octaviar, and then Octaviar will hand over $50 Million, so as to keep everyone at Wellington
encased in their mansions and jobs?

Was some arrangement between Wellington and Chris Scott?

I have good news, in that the meeting will soon be scheduled.

Cheers,


----------



## zixo (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have asked the question many times and I was also always led to Believe Perpetual were the Custodians of the MFS/Octaviar premium Income fund and as such the RE were not allowed trade or sell assets unless it had the explicit consent from the Custodian.
I don’t understand how the RBOS and LLA can access our funds for debt and loans which were never disclosed until after the stopping of distributions to Investors. 
 Does anyone know if Perpetual are doing anything on the Investors behalf?
 Perhaps there’s a legal question that needs to be asked in regards to the custodian.

If  Octaviar does goes into liquidation. I’m sure Wellington Capital will also be vying for the properties which the PIF have helped finance. They would be crazy if they didn’t.
My guess is Artic Capital will be stalling as long they can as well.


----------



## wally3218 (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Have just read this on Business Spectator - Abstracted from The Australian Financial Review

Premium cheques on the way
Things are looking up for investors in the frozen Premium Income Fund, as several borrowers have agreed to refinance and reduce the debt facility by $A35 million. On 11 June 2008 Jenny Hutson of Wellington Investment Management said the 10,300 investors can expect some payments within months. Since she acquired the fund in early May 2008, Hutson has been at pains to restructure operations to distance the fund from its previous association with Octaviar

I cant read the full article as you need to be a paying subscriber to AFR at a cost of $109


----------



## seamisty (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Try this link Wally, Cheers, Seamistyhttp://afr.com/home/viewer.aspx?EDP://20080612000020774986&magsection=news-property&source=/_xmlfeeds/property/feed.xml&title=Premium%20cheques%20on%20the%20way


----------



## wally3218 (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Seamisty, it makes very interesting reading.
This is a extract of the interview
"Ms Hutson said investors could expect expect some returns before the end of the year"
"Right now we have investor funds of $690 million but not all that is recoverable" she said 
"She said Wellington had excercised a call option yesterday, which meant that Wellington Capital now had control of the responsible entity of PIF"
"Our great desire is to sever all connection with Octaviar"

What does this mean for us


----------



## Ivor Watt (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



wally3218 said:


> Thanks Seamisty, it makes very interesting reading.
> This is a extract of the interview
> "Ms Hutson said investors could expect expect some returns before the end of the year"
> "Right now we have investor funds of $690 million but not all that is recoverable" she said
> ...




If the remaining value is currently $690m but not all recoverable, then the most we will see is 88 cents in the dollar providing that the value is not eroded from this point. However if not all of the $690m is recoverable then we are looking at some figure below this who knows what that will be. For us personally we have $85K in the PIF and $30k in LLA which has gone. If we can get 85 cents in the dollar back on our PIF investment I will be surprised.
If there was anyone with any money that we could sue we would, but I'm afraid we are wasting our time and sending good money after bad.
If the $35m paid back by borrowers was put into the RBOS loan then the remaining value to be paid would be some where in the vicinity of $32m.?? If something could be done to refinance this amount and free the fund from RBOS control then perhaps it would not fall into the hands of the hatchet men (liquidators), and possibly see an orderly trade out of the problems and we get more of our money back.


----------



## zixo (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for the link Seamisty,

I'm not too sure what the NSX comment means.
Is it JH's plan to convert all $1.00units into shares and its up to the Investors to use those "15 stockbroking firms" mentioned to try and then on-sell those shares at whatever the market value is then given to them?

Got a flashliight? we're still in the dark .Anyone got any ideas on what she was quoted on?


----------



## breaker1 (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Ivor Watt said:


> If the remaining value is currently $690m but not all recoverable, then the most we will see is 88 cents in the dollar providing that the value is not eroded from this point. However if not all of the $690m is recoverable then we are looking at some figure below this who knows what that will be. For us personally we have $85K in the PIF and $30k in LLA which has gone. If we can get 85 cents in the dollar back on our PIF investment I will be surprised.




From a* guestimate *comment made by an ASIC officer to an investor it may be around 80c in the $ - *but don't quote me on that!*


----------



## selciper (12 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I dislike getting my news first on what's happening to this fund through the media. Why does Ms Hutson speak freely to the AFR before putting out a bulletin to PIF investors? From my point of view, this is a bad PR start by WC. Who counts more in JH's mind? An AFR interview or the investors? Thousands of  investors have no idea what's happening with the fund. This thread is the only sound source of information available - thanks to many contributors with a rare understanding of the complexities involved.

The agenda of Ms Hutson's forums is most important. The Past and the Present must not be sidelined by the Future. Watch out for verbiage telling us that the past is the past.!


----------



## mgr2118 (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Below is information from todays Herald Sun (Melbourne).

Given that the WC deal was announced yesterday, and we now have this announcement today, could I be sceptical enough to think that they know something about the future of Octaviar that we do not know??



_THE Kiwi arm of teetering Gold Coast financier Octaviar has decided that a guarantee with a face value of $NZ415 million ($A333 million) provided by its parent is now worthless.

In a deal that sees no cash change hands, OPI New Zealand has decided to cancel the guarantee in return for the refund of a $2 million fee. 

In a statement to the New Zealand Exchange on Wednesday, OPI New Zealand said there was no "reasonable prospect" the deeds could be exercised or "be assigned for value". 

"Accordingly, a release and discharge has been provided," the company said. 

It said the $2 million fee it paid Octaviar for the options had been rebated "against existing debts owed by subsidiaries . . . to Octaviar". 

The company said it had entered into the "call option deeds" with Octaviar, then known as MFS, in December 2006. 

Corporate filings show that under the terms of the options, Octaviar said it would "purchase any of Pacific's (an OPI subsidiary) assets at cost under certain circumstances". 

Octaviar's half-year financial report for the period ending December 2006 valued those assets at $NZ415 million. 

But since then, OPI New Zealand has been hard-hit by the wave of collapses that has swept the Kiwi finance sector. 

Last week, its stock was suspended from the New Zealand Exchange after it failed to file its annual report on time. 

Octaviar could face liquidation at the hands of its creditors unless it can do a deal with them by close of business today. 

The Public Trustee of Queensland, acting on behalf of noteholders owed about $350 million, has launched winding-up action against the company in the Queensland Supreme Court. 

A hearing is scheduled for Monday._


----------



## sak (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Breaker 1 count me in,
having been caught up in the Westpoint debacle it is important that as a group we think things through intelligently and try to keep emotions in the background once there are investor meetings organised emotions can turn these meeting into a free for all and we loose all credibility.


----------



## R.H (Rick) Mason (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Folks, I have just joined this group on behalf of my elderly & frail Dad (87) who is now not capable of fighting his own battles. From what I have seen it is highly likely that his PIF units are now worthless but I will subscribe (on his behalf) to any group-based action that has a reasonable chance of forcing disclosure from Wellington Capital etc. provided that the cost is modest. Sadly, I tried to warn him of MFS' troubles back in January but he didn't want to hear it


----------



## Mary Lynch (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi to whoever can answer my questions,

I don't pretend to know anything but:
If the PIF is supposedly worth $690K, is that on the current market?...and what is the "current" market anyway?  I suppose the closest estimate will come from the Price Waterhouse assessment.

However, its of my understanding that a company has to go into receivership before they can choose to pay out existing creditors at a reduced redemption rate.  We should be receiving dollar for dollar plus all withheld distributions surely.

Is it because they are now a "fund" that if they dry up their "funds" then they can close and start up again?

Why do you all think that they can sell up all their assets, pay us out at a reduced rate and gaily take off, making a motsa again..... a year later rolling in money at our expense?

How angry will you all be if this happens?


----------



## seamisty (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



R.H (Rick) Mason said:


> Folks, I have just joined this group on behalf of my elderly & frail Dad (87) who is now not capable of fighting his own battles. From what I have seen it is highly likely that his PIF units are now worthless but I will subscribe (on his behalf) to any group-based action that has a reasonable chance of forcing disclosure from Wellington Capital etc. provided that the cost is modest. Sadly, I tried to warn him of MFS' troubles back in January but he didn't want to hear it



 Welcome to the forum and the Action Group Mason. Your fathers' units are not worthless,possibly worth somewhere between 80-90 cents in my opinion( don't hold me to that) It was probably too late to warn your father in January, to my knowledge the Fund stopped accepting money approx 19th Jan this year and also ceased distributions and redemptions at the same time. We are all watching Welllington Capital (WC) closely and there does seem to be a trickle of information released to the media and in private phone conversations betwween Jenny Hutson and unit holders, some of who have been kind enough to share information they receive to the forum. JH has stated she intends to hold meetings/investor forums in several locations in some states at the beginning of July. I agree with Selciper though, I dislike finding information being released through media outlets before PIF holders have been informed. This is quite insulting and shows a lack of respect and disregard to the very people she will be relying on for the future strength of the Fund. I am hoping the AG will bring this to her attention at some point in time. We may have been duped by former board members and staff at MFS/OCV (ie.King,White,Peacock and Guy Hutchings signing off on important notices/communications who showed a blatant mishandling of truth regarding the correct state of the PIF in my opinion) but this has strengthened our resolve to be more vigilant and less complacent. Please reassure your father that the PIF fund will be salvaged to some extent and hopefully JH has a good strategic plan in place to make up lost ground to holders. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Javier (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I need your help. Can someone please send me a copy of the PDS for MFS PIF via email (pdf), I need it asap as I have a solicitor as per my prevoius post and she needs it to get a few things rolling. jmcustoms@bigpond.com
Cheers!!


----------



## marcom (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Very, very unhappy about the prospect of PIF being listed on the NSX, particularly after seeing this post on another forum:

_" Very interesting.

Sell orders on the nsx are like corpses in an andean cemetary. They can lie undisturbed for thousands of years.

PIF shares will always trade at a big discount to net asset backing on the nsx.

There is a game you can play when reading the Finacial Review. It is called count the trades on the NSX. Some day's there may be half a dozen. Most days there are less than 5.

PIF might account for more than 50% of the trades on the NSX from the moment it lists."
_
*I did not subscribe to a listed property fund and I do not want my investment to be transferred to a moribund, second rate board where it will languish for years with next to no hope of getting my money back.*

This is a complete con job to keep investors locked into the fund.

So what can we do - 

Wellington Capital will provide information about the status of the fund in a few weeks time during the presentations. If there is not enough detail we can ask for more. By then we should know how much we have lost.

The next step for the PIF Action Group is to try to get us a better outcome by calling on the responsible entity to call in a receiver *who is legally obliged to to consider the best interests of investors*. The receiver can then consider  offers from others much better placed to fund the PIF debt and provide a better workout solution which would reduce the losses and hopefully get a full redemption of our investment.

The notice of motion for the EGM would be simple:

*"The 100 investors listed on this Notice of Motion are of the opinion that the objectives of the PIF can not be achieved under the current fund management and therefore move that Wellington Capital as the Responsible Entity (RE) of the Premium Income Fund  appoint a receiver to undertake the orderly wind up of the fund"
*

In my view the intention to list the PIF on the NSX exposes the utterly callous manner in which the RE is treating investors. Wellington Capital had a chance to prove that they could achieve a workout for investors, but this is a public relations disaster of biblical proportions.


----------



## Javier (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

That is what we are trying to achieve via a committee among the PIF investors FOR the investors, why get a nasty expensive receiver? We can do it ourselves with the right guidance and support, we just have to get it right from the get go. WC know what we are trying to achieve, so hopefully we can steer the ship with or without WC..we just need the information of we the fund stands FIRST and in the interim form a committee based on the AG and all the other investors that come on board. With a clear head and patience, we will get through this. Stay positive!!!!


----------



## Javier (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Got the PDS..thank you!!


----------



## erniel (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Javier,
Please could you help me with obtaining a copy of the pds as well.Is there a website that I can look it up.
Thanks Erniel


----------



## seamisty (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If anyone would like a copy by e-mail of the pds post your e-mail adress on here and I will foward it to you, Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## k.smith (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*




breaker1 said:


> *UPDATE*
> 
> This is my understanding under (correct me immediately if I am wrong in any facts):
> 
> ...


----------



## k.smith (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We are looking for any information re: a EGM for the PIF investors, we haven't heard anything in weeks, we have a right to join forces to look after our investments, I am very sceptical about anything anybody says, how can things go from so good to so bad so fast?  What are our legal rights? Surely we dont take all this without protest !!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## selciper (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Another point about these forthcoming forums. Who is to chair these gatherings? Surely a WC rep. can't be in the chair in present circumstances. Remember that a chairperson can rule questions out of order. Perhaps these sessions are envisaged as a type of group therapy - "let them blow steam for a while" sort of stuff. Or, on the other hand, we could face a restrictive agenda obstructing the asking of vital questions. Beware of smoke-screens.

An independent chairperson is needed.


----------



## marcom (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

k smith

Attached is the relevant section of the Corporations Act - I have the full division which is 20 pages in another attachment if you want it.

Javier is getting some legal advice which hopefully will clarify things regarding EGM action.


----------



## seamisty (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Business Update
13 June 2008
Octaviar Investment Management Limited

As announced on 8 May 2008, a wholly owned subsidiary of Octaviar Limited (ASX:
OCV) has entered into a call option deed granting Wellington Capital Limited an option
to purchase its shareholding in Octaviar Investment Management Limited, the
responsible entity of a number of income funds including the Octaviar Premium Income
Fund.

That call option has now been exercised and the shares in the responsible entity are now
held by Wellington Capital Limited.
The current staff of Octaviar will continue to work with the funds management team at
Wellington Capital to ensure an orderly transition for the benefit of unit holders.

David Anderson
Company Secretary


----------



## Duped (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Seamisty.  So that's it, WC is now the RE.  And according to your post #227, the $50M Support Facility is gone.  Unless PIF already got it - doubtful.


----------



## zixo (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All,

I received some dates from a helpful source at Wellington capital in regards to when the managers of the fund will be suppossedly addressing all Investor concerns.
I noted them down quickly so please check your letters thorougly as to where your relevant information session will be, Just in case some dates will be changed or my information is incorrect

I have been assured that Letters will be posted to all investors sometime mid-week.

The dates are;
7th July (BRISBANE)
Greek club 
29 edmonston street Brisbane

8th July (Melbourne)
Mebourne Conference Centre

9th July (Sydney)
Wesley Conference Centre
220 Pitt street

10th July  (Gold Coast)
Gold Coast Convention centre

14 July  (Newcastle)
Newcastle Panthers 

15th July (Port Macquarie)
westport club Port Macquarie 

I hope this information helps everyone to plan so they can attend - Hopefully we can get as many investors to the venues as possible.

Just because the new managers have organised dates. Its does not mean that this forum has done its job - Its exactly because of this forum that we have had some movement.

My thanks to all who have joined.

Its imperative, Now more than ever we need as many investors to get involved and join.  

cheers


----------



## Duped (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

NSX listing is fine by me.  If they only sell at a discount I can sell, book the capital loss, buy them again and claim the interest from my home mortgage as a deduction and come out ahead. (There's more than one way to skin a tax cat)


The real question is...what distributions does WC expect it can achieve. Actually, 'expect' is a bad word to use, too easy to back pedal from. What distributions WILL we get?

(I don't listen to that financial engineer blah blah about business models. Businesses are either sustainable or not ... end of discussion.)

PIF was attractive because it offered around 2% and more above term deposits offered by Banks. Was this really EVER achievable? Or did MFSIM always borrow to meet distributions.  Banks don't have that much fat.  The extra 2% MFS offered had to come from somewhere.  It would have to come from being better than banks - i.e. less running costs and/or making better investments than banks do.  Well, with activities like sponsoring the Australia Golf Open, Tennis Open etc, I doubt Peacock/King etc did either of these very well. Look how many MFS jobs have now been slashed and offices closed.

ING Savings Maximiser is paying 6.9% (no fixed term and all about as risk free as you can get).  

Commbank is offering 7.85% for 4 month term deposits (interest paid on maturity)

Bankwest is offering 8.0% / 8.5% for 3 / 6 month term deposits. (interest paid on maturity)

What are we going to get?

(Where did the $200M borrowed from the RBOS go?  I suspect a substantial chunk of it went to us Investors - for paying distributions & redemptions.  MFSIM wasn't performing and were borrowing to keeping up appearances.)


----------



## breaker1 (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have digested all the material of the last two days here on the forum together with email activity. I have collated it for a question / proposal and answer session with Jenny Hutson.

I rang her office today to speak to her, but she was busy, however I managed to secure a phone session appointment for Monday at which point I will discuss the concerns brought up by action group/forum members.

I might have too much material to discuss, so I have prioritised it with our major concerns in case we run out of time.


----------



## atlas1950 (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Breaker1. I would like to join the group as I too am a sorry investor with pif.

I would also like to register my daughter  as she is a investor as well.


----------



## breaker1 (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Congrats to all on the forum wanting to register for the PIF Action Group. 

I assume most of you have emailed me with your details first - I can not accept an Action Group enrollment via the forum main thread page. I would much prefer an email with your details to breaker1@aapt.net.au

If you don't have access to a personal email account for yourself and still wish to contact me please click on my forum name "breaker1" to the left of the page and scroll to "send a private message to breaker one" then I can read your details in my forum mail box and I can correspond with you to your forum mail box. If you do it this way, don't forget to regularly go to the top right hand corner of the forum page and click on "members welcome..........."
and click on your name to see if you have received a reply from me. That said, I would still prefer a direct email rather than a forum private message.

HAGW


----------



## erniel (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Seamisty ,thanks for your help in obtaining the PDS.
my email is lomaxfam@bigpond.com.
rgds,
erniel


----------



## breaker1 (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

An Action Group investor received a phone call from his brother Stuart who applied for early  redemption. Even just a small sum to keep him going.  This Action Group member has written this note in the hope that I might put it on the Aussie Stock Forums for them.  

" I pity anyone trying to get an early redemption under the hardship offer.  My brother received a curt letter dated June 5 refusing his request.  Not even an offer of $5000.00 out of $195000.00  to help him out.  He has no cash and lives on handouts from friends and family.  This might indicate the condition of the fund and type of people we are dealing with.  Letter was signed by Guy Hutchins

BRING IN THE ADMINISTRATORS A.S.A.P!"
or I might add - another RE.

I would agree that the criteria for at least partial redemptions should be re-evaluated by Wellington Capital for investors in serious need, especially now that Octaviar no longer run the show. I will be putting to Jenny on Monday that she on humane grounds, should immediately begin a fairer criteria for partial redemption or distribution payments for people in Stuarts position.  That is, not an unfair priority, it is simply humane. This means WC making a business judgement on fairdinkum positions of hardship. If someone can prove hardship, but not on the previous rediculous criteria (half dead on a slab with few to no assets) - then that persons distributions should recomence. This would disadvantage the rest of us very little, as it would appear distributions may recommence in several months, all going well, anyway.


----------



## seamisty (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> An Action Group investor received a phone call from his brother Stuart who applied for early  redemption. Even just a small sum to keep him going.  This Action Group member has written this note in the hope that I might put it on the Aussie Stock Forums for them.
> 
> " I pity anyone trying to get an early redemption under the hardship offer.  My brother received a curt letter dated June 5 refusing his request.  Not even an offer of $5000.00 out of $195000.00  to help him out.  He has no cash and lives on handouts from friends and family.  This might indicate the condition of the fund and type of people we are dealing with.  Letter was signed by Guy Hutchins
> 
> ...




The problem is while I am sympathetic to all holders that can demonstrate hardship, the majority of holders have arranged their budgets and structured their incomes  to incorporate the income they thought they were going to receive from their investment in the PIF. Every single holder is experiencing financial hardship in some form. Many do not have the back up from government pensions because they do not meet the criteria.The best solution is for the fund to resume distributions. We have to concentrate on an outcome beneficial for everyone as soon as possible in my opinion. Seamisty


----------



## breaker1 (13 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> The problem is while I am sympathetic to all holders that can demonstrate hardship, the majority of holders have arranged their budgets and structured their incomes  to incorporate the income they thought they were going to receive from their investment in the PIF. Every single holder is experiencing financial hardship in some form. Many do not have the back up from government pensions because they do not meet the criteria.The best solution is for the fund to resume distributions. We have to concentrate on an outcome beneficial for everyone as soon as possible in my opinion. Seamisty




That's just the point - this investor *has* worked hard for his lump sum and structured his income, which was reliant on the good faith of Octaviar and their PDF. They have been seriously let down and obviously caught out. Further, they have been let down by ASIC who have directed Centrelink to continue to count former distributions, now stopped, as if they were still being paid, simply because the PIF is not in receivership and so farcically classed as viable. So many investors on here are getting a double whammy - kicked in the head on one side by the PIF and then kicked in the guts by ASIC / Centrelink. Many pensioner PIF investors are in a serious financial position and need to be considered. That is why the hardship clause is in there under law anyway - I just want it relaxed a bit, because this has been dragging for about 4 months now.

I seriously think ASIC needs to pull it's finger out and step in now with C/L and the PIF.


----------



## wally3218 (14 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

ASIC and Goverment should be doing something about this, it's gone on to long for them not to have made a statement.
What pisses me of more is the emails I have sent to the goverment ministers get no reply at all.
Centrelink say there hands are tied but I'm sure there is something they can do if they want to.


----------



## zixo (14 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi,

 I was wondering if anyone can clarify this

I have been told  the ONLY Reason The Premium Income fund was put under strain was because of the WHOLESALE Premium Income fund  ( which we were never told was Linked). The Wholesale Investors suddenly redeemed their Money which is their right under their arrangement.

The Wholesale Premium Income Fund comprised of Institutional Investors who deposited more than $500,000.00.

In my opinion the ONLY reason MFS/Octaviar and all its affiliated companies exist is because or the PIF.  Cash that was injected by mum and dad investors is what has made it a popular fund. The assets held by the fund were working beautifully up until the point the mother company started having problems.


----------



## Mary Lynch (14 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We all have tales of hardship. It would be hard for anyone to measure this fairly, even ASEC. Not only are we living on very little, but this fiasco has COST us 1000s of $ to date, as we had just signed a contract to buy a house (having placed our proceeds fom our previous home with MFS) when our redemptions froze.  Our redemption date was 21st Jan. (to be paid out on the 31st). A NIGHTMARE it has been to say the least.


----------



## selciper (14 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty is right. To start sorting out who or who is not undergoing hardship is not a good idea. It will deflect WC from the real game - looking after everybody! It will just give them time to string out the whole mess for a longer period while they ruminate about who is doing it hard. Every time I use my ATM I wince. Let's concentrate on getting the this entire fiasco behind us and all of our money back immediately. WC have done nothing so far to prove themselves as the solution to our massive problem. Are they retaining the advisers who got us into this crisis in the first place?


----------



## seamisty (14 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> Hi,
> 
> I was wondering if anyone can clarify this
> 
> ...



Zixo I don't think this is correct because if the wholesale funds had cashed out on behalf of institutional investors there would have been a lot less than $690 million remaining in the PIF and I have spoken personally to people who invested through managed funds who are in the same position as 'mum and dad' investors. Also individual investors who have substantial  holdings in the PIF are classified as 'wholesale investors' as in they could negotiate a better rate of return. I think that when all is revealed I will be very surprised if the majority of the original loan of $200 million outstanding to the RBOS was not lent to MFS itself to prop up related company/subsiduaries. It is my understanding there was a loan of $50 million to the MFS subsiduary Causeway, a boutique fund manager and $67million to LLA . Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Ivor Watt (14 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Seamisty is right. To start sorting out who or who is not undergoing hardship is not a good idea. It will deflect WC from the real game - looking after everybody! It will just give them time to string out the whole mess for a longer period while they ruminate about who is doing it hard. Every time I use my ATM I wince. Let's concentrate on getting the this entire fiasco behind us and all of our money back immediately. WC have done nothing so far to prove themselves as the solution to our massive problem. Are they retaining the advisers who got us into this crisis in the first place?




I agree that we must move on from this point and concentrate all our efforts on getting back as much of our money as possible and compensation for loss of income.
It is obvious that the people who have been dealing with us up till now do not give a **** about us or our hardships.
What concerns me is that when redemptions are finally being paid who will get first chop, if past happenings are any guide it won't be you or I first in line.
There are so many disgraceful events in this legacy of ineptitude and underhanded operations that we cannot expect that to change now unless we change it ourselves.
There are so many ongoing and continuous disclosure breaches that we must not allow these people to continue to have control over our financial future without our input and knowledge of what is going on.
I congratulate Breaker1 and all of those who are working so hard to get us a voice, together we will get somewhere but as individuals we have no chance and will have to just have to cop what they finally dish up. It does not matter whether it is WC or OCV or individuals in these organisations it is obvious that they will look after themselves before they consider us. Every investor should  get involved to give us some chance of a better outcome.
That means sending out emails, making phone calls, sending letters, talking to the newspapers etc, and registering with breaker1 for the PIF action group


----------



## breaker1 (14 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Seamisty is right. To start sorting out who or who is not undergoing hardship is not a good idea. It will deflect WC from the real game - looking after everybody! It will just give them time to string out the whole mess for a longer period while they ruminate about who is doing it hard. Every time I use my ATM I wince. Let's concentrate on getting the this entire fiasco behind us and all of our money back immediately. WC have done nothing so far to prove themselves as the solution to our massive problem. Are they retaining the advisers who got us into this crisis in the first place?




Yes! WC has already said, they will retain certain staff from the PIF - I will confirm if this includes Guy Hutchings, Monday.


----------



## breaker1 (15 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

For those concerned about the vagueness of the PIF net assets:

If WC wants to list the PIF on the NSX (a budget version of the ASX) - then the PIF will have to be fully audited before the NSX will even allow the PIF to list on it.

This might be the main reason Jenny has contracted PWC to do an audit.

After this audit, any shortfalls in the PIF should be there to be seen by all investors.


----------



## communique (15 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> For those concerned about the vagueness of the PIF net assets:
> 
> If WC wants to list the PIF on the NSX (a budget version of the ASX) - then the PIF will have to be fully audited before the NSX will even allow the PIF to list on it.
> 
> ...




Breaker, Are you alluding to the fact that we may be paid back in shares? If you are, that is not how we invested. That would be unfair and manipulative.


----------



## seamisty (15 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



communique said:


> Breaker, Are you alluding to the fact that we may be paid back in shares? If you are, that is not how we invested. That would be unfair and manipulative.



 Good morning Comminique, it seems the general consenus of opinion, at this time, is that this action will not be acceptable to holders. This could be a key issue for holders, and this being the case, the Action Group is going to need very strong support to block/fight this. As many investors of the PIF that can possibly make it should attend the proposed Wellington Capital meetings/forums and voice their concerns. Perhaps Jenny Hutson's intentions are not to take this path with the PIF in the immediate future , this being the case we need to be informed either way. I am of the understanding Breaker1 is hoping to speak with her on Monday and will inform members of the outcome from this via e-mail. For investors who have not registered their details with the Action Group  and would like to, please contact breaker1@aapt.net.au   Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Mary Lynch (15 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just a note to anyone who has not paid their 2007 tax and is afraid of being fined.  It seems that unlike Centrelink the tax  department is sympathetic to our situation.  We have $13000 to pay, and they have said that we can pay it back at the rate of $75 per month until we have our $$ unfrozen, or are able to pay on or before that time.  Even though a fine will accrue (at a furious rate) they will deduct it after full payment....as long as we pay it ASAP.


----------



## marcom (15 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thought the Action Group might need a logo for consistency in presentation. Let me know what you think.


----------



## communique (15 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Thought the Action Group might need a logo for consistency in presentation. Let me know what you think.



Great work Marcom,  we think that all action group members should wear a badge to their respective meetings with 'ASK ME FOR DETAILS' and the investor id on it. 

Breaker, Please advise latest numbers for action group and what to expect now. i.e. formal process.  Numbers must be there now.  Would like to know questions posed to JS on behalf of action group tomorrow.
Many thanks again for your hard work.


----------



## zixo (15 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Guy Hutchins was the man at the helm of the Octaviar PIF when it suddenly started having problems. Guy Hutchins was the CEO who’s letters to Investors has been of news that was progressively getting worse.

Given the lack of disclosure of debt and loans, and the way Octaviar and Guy Hutchins have treated the Investors in the PIF I think Wellington should have major reasons to be concerned. 

Wellington Capital ought to be careful given the future legal action may act as a conflict.
Guy Hutchins is still working closely with Wellington who “may” be genuinely working in the best interest of Investors.

I ‘m not sure what everyone else’s view is ,but he is the man who saw the mess unfold.  Maybe he is the man who would be best to help fix it and also redeem his reputation.

JH and her close association with Chris Scott could be a concern for everyone, Particularly since Chris Scotts main Interest is to save Octaviar and JH’s Interest is supposed to be ONLY for the Investors, who have up untill now,  been ignored.


----------



## communique (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Has anyone heard from Breaker, we are waiting for instructions and have heard nothing.


----------



## seamisty (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



communique said:


> Has anyone heard from Breaker, we are waiting for instructions and have heard nothing.



 It is my understanding Breaker will be speaking with Jenny Hutson today and will contact members by e-mail with an update after that. I think he was going to try and reply to some new members yesterday and prepare himself for today's contact with JH.  It is hard to know what direction to take as a group until we have all the correct information regarding the PIF. The important thing is that we have as many members as possible on standby in the event that we will need to take extreme action regarding the management rights of the Fund, being the Resposible Entity. I personally am hoping this will not be necessary and that Wellington Capital prove to be competent and trustworthy and continue to run the Fund as it was originally intended. This does not include publicly listing the PIF. Love the logo Marcom! Regards, Seamisty


----------



## selciper (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There's a new announcenent by LLA this morning.


----------



## Rocky1 (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Can someone please post LLA announcement on this forum. I just had a look for any news and couldn't find anything.


----------



## Duped (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> Can someone please post LLA announcement on this forum. I just had a look for any news and couldn't find anything.




ASX link for LLA is (follw link 'Company Announcements) 
http://www.asx.com.au/asx/research/...s.jsp?searchBy=asxCode&allinfo=on&asxCode=LLA

It's full of weasel words like 'confident', 'understands', 'expects', 'every confidence' and 'BELIEVE'.  All legally safe words that can be back tracked from.  I should know, I teach others how to use such terms.  We haven't seen 'anticipate' yet.

NEVER FORGET these doosies: 
"MFSIM currently EXPECTS [emphasis added] to continue paying distributions at the target distribution rates*.  Whilst no specific date has yet been set for MFSIM to recommence the processing and payment of redemptions, the Board EXPECTS [emphasis added] this process to resume well before the 180 day period" Guy Hutchings 29 January 2008.

My opinion: This announcement says nothing we don't already know. So it could be tactical, e.g. either a hurry along for WC or, if WC is a party to it, a smoke screen to subdue the Action Group.  

Key phrase "We assure our stake holders that we believe the LLA recapitalisation proposal is in the best interest's of LLA's creditors and security holders".  This is a classic veiled threat. Don't forget that PIF is a creditor.

I EXPECT to be paid a fortune for my skills but... it aint' goig to happen.  Show me the money.

See www.weaselwords.com.au


----------



## Duped (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

WC website cites they had $600M under management.  But I couldn't find any info on what returns WC was distributing to those investors.  Anyone know?


----------



## Janiss (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

In regard to the proposed meetings for unitholders by WC - have these dates and venues been confirmed yet and can we wait that long?
There could be a lot of water under the bridge between now and the meeting dates. 
People have joined the Action Group because we want ACTION A.S.A.P.
I suggest that if meetings in each capital city are not confirmed by the end of the week, we organise our own, with or without the powers- that-be who are stuffing us around.


----------



## breaker1 (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have had in depth discussions with the PIF new managing director Jenny Hutson this morning & afternoon in two stages. 

Matters discussed have centred around our main concerns.

I will update all on these issues either this afternoon or tonight.

I have pressing matters to attend to in the mean time.


----------



## Duped (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Fantastic, thanks Breaker1.  Thanks for volunteering your time.  It's very much appreciated.


----------



## flatback (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> I have asked the question many times and I was also always led to Believe Perpetual were the Custodians of the MFS/Octaviar premium Income fund and as such the RE were not allowed trade or sell assets unless it had the explicit consent from the Custodian.
> I don’t understand how the RBOS and LLA can access our funds for debt and loans which were never disclosed until after the stopping of distributions to Investors.
> Does anyone know if Perpetual are doing anything on the Investors behalf?
> Perhaps there’s a legal question that needs to be asked in regards to the custodian.
> ...




I agree entirely ,which begs the question ,is this possibly the reason that wellington has become involved, do we now have another preditor within our midst.


----------



## zixo (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The whole Living and Leisure deal has me baffled.

I have No idea how LLA could get a "loan" through Guy Hutchins and the PIF management - Then Through Perpetual "The non-existant custodians" to the PIF, then channeled through to Octaviar who were happy to pass on our money to a business in financial meltdown who were/are part of the MFS/Octaviar group.

I've read the PDS and it specifically states that the PIF will not lend money to related entities....did I miss something?

I hope that LLA open their wallets pretty wide because I think PIF Investors are owed an awful lot of money in Interest if it was a "loan".


----------



## tiger50 (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi  Premium Income Investors,
I am an investor like  most of you and I am very concerned. I have a friend 
Jane, who  would like to be an active part of the Action Group immediately so could interested parties fax her on 0755337986 asap. There is a public meeting at the GC Convention Centre on 10th July and Jane wants to meet as many people before then and get the Action Group in full discussion well before that date.
Thanks, fax her info on how to reach you & she will get back to you. She lives here on the Gold Coast.
Cheers
Tiger50:

banghead:


----------



## wally3218 (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My only concern with all these proposed meeting in the capital cities and the venues there to be held at is the cost to travel and hiring of these venues that will be paid for by us the investors.
I wonder how much money we are paying WC for looking after PIF, we have allready lost our distributions and it looks likely we won't get the full price we invested back.
I'm glad that there are smarter people than me looking after our interests and want to give them a big thanks from me and my mother.
It be great if everyone that attended these meetings had the logo that marcom designed printed out on a sticker and attached it to there body for everyone to notice who we are.


----------



## Duped (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> I have No idea how LLA could get a "loan" through Guy Hutchins and the PIF management ...




Guy Hutchings was CEO. I'm guessing: because his boss told him to; i.e. MFS Ltd CEO King/MFS  Ltd Chairman Peacock.  And he didn't have what it takes to act against his board (MFS LTD) AND all his shareholders (MFS LTD) to prevent a breach of confidence with us that he was PAID to safe guard.  Or CEO King/Chairman Peacock may have simply lied to Hutchings about the standing of LLA.


----------



## loulou2 (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all Premuim Income Investors, Well said Wally3218. I too would like to say thanks to all you smart people looking after our interests. The lack of information available was very frustrating until I was directed to this forum by breaker1.  Thanks again.


----------



## Rocky1 (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear all 

Please read the attached document and note that this was sent to Advisors NOT investors. I wonder when we are going to be put first and get some personal attention. Please note I had to remove the application form as the document exceeded the upload limit for this Forum. I suggest we all call WC and personally ask for a copy. This will also gives us an opportunity to express our dissatisfaction.

*Wellington Capital Limited ACN 114 248 458

Head Office
Level 22 307 Queen Street
Brisbane Qld 4000

Sydney Office
Level 11, 6-10 O'Connell Street
Sydney NSW 2000

All Correspondence to
GPO Box 694
Brisbane Qld 4001

1300 368 848
T 07 3009 9800
F 07 3009 9893
E info@wellcap.com.au
*
Based on this I would like to propose that we crank the action group up, as I, like many others, do not want the PIF to be listed on the NSX (see details in attached doc) and be forced to receive pittance for my units compared to there true value. Unless JH can convince me this would be a good move, but she isn't doing a very good job at the minute

As such I want to get everyones thoughts on having AG meetings in all capital cities within the next week. At each meeting a rep can be elected. Once we have a committee I believe this gives us structure and power and a better meas of communication (SEAMISTY CAN YOU PLEASE ELABORATE HERE BASED ON OUR RECENT DISCUSSION - i.e TUARTS ADVICE).


----------



## seamisty (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Rocky I have just fowarded the contents of your post to Tuart and asked him would he please respond on the forum. I am extremely dissapointed in not being notified personally. I hope it is not the intention of WC to exclude holders from these meetings through lack of communication.Regards, Seamisty


----------



## zixo (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



wally3218 said:


> ASIC and Goverment should be doing something about this, it's gone on to long for them not to have made a statement.
> What pisses me of more is the emails I have sent to the goverment ministers get no reply at all.
> Centrelink say there hands are tied but I'm sure there is something they can do if they want to.




I imagine WC and Octaviar and those involved are soon going to be under enomous pressure from many fronts. Government Ministers and shadow ministers are aware of the lack of disclosure and have been verifying facts and are begining to ask for more details.

I urge everyone to contact their Local federal member and ask them to work on your behalf.  You might be surprised that some politicians sometimes do what they claim and actively work for their constituents.

 Follow up the e-mails with phonecalls and ask them If they have followed it through. Quote the last time you spoke to them and ask to speak personally to your member.


----------



## Tuart (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good evening all PIF investors

I agree that you should move forward with holding a meeting of your own. 

I have suggested to a few members privately that you should form a "not for profit incorporated body". This is a simple structure used by many clubs and sporting associations.

It provides a structure, constitution and governing rules that allow your elected committee to best represent your interests. It also provides some legal protection for your committee who as this things grow are taking on a serious responsibility on your behalf.

This body can hold a bank account and meet costs and allows the committee to act collectively on behalf of its members.

The only members pf this body can be PIF investors so it remains for your benefit only.

Membership would be say $5 plus it would allow additional contributions based on each members circustances to create a fighting fund.

It gives you a collective power base and an efficient means to represent what I think will become a very large group.

As suggested I am sure the press will love to offer a meeting room, telephone and microphone in the different states to allow you to get together.

You need 

- President
- Secretary
- Treasurer

Additional members in multiples of two

As also discussed I think that each member of the PIF Action Group (incorporated) should give a limited power of attorney to your committee that allowed them to call meetings with RE, negotiate with litagation specialists and other specified powers.

(A Slater and Gordan would love to know they can come to a committee and it represents a block of investors in any action)   

To establish this body and prepare the power of attorney we are not talking huge costs and we are not creating any form of structure that is unusual.

Javier has had a brief discussion with a solicitor I recommended and I have also given her a briefing. Apologies if you think we are jumping the gun but need to get the ball rolling. The initial tasks are straight foward but just need to get done.

On another subject WC has bought the shares in the existing company that is the RE.

They are not replacing the RE but bought the shares from OCV.

This I do not believe is a trigger to release OCV from its $50 million guarantee. Replacing the RE with another through a meeting and a majority voting is a trigger but legally the guarantee IMO is now payable by OCV so a future replacement of the RE if required should not impact on that right but it becomes a legal fight.

Hope this makes things clearer and try and keep your chins up


----------



## communique (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> Dear all
> 
> Based on this I would like to propose that we crank the action group up, as I, like many others, do not want the PIF to be listed on the NSX (see details in attached doc) and be forced to receive pittance for my units compared to there true value. Unless JH can convince me this would be a good move, but she isn't doing a very good job at the minute
> 
> As such I want to get everyones thoughts on having AG meetings in all capital cities within the next week. At each meeting a rep can be elected. Once we have a committee I believe this gives us structure and power and a better meas of communication (SEAMISTY CAN YOU PLEASE ELABORATE HERE BASED ON OUR RECENT DISCUSSION - i.e TUARTS ADVICE).




Couldn't agree more Rocky, we need transparency and a more organised front.
We are happy to organise an subsidiary action group committee in Qld.  
Currently waiting for outcome of Breaker discussions to JH.


----------



## Javier (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

"Transparent market place"..seems like a crock to me. I was checking out that NSX today..noone trades anything. Who the hell is going to buy our units..at the rightful value? The only way they will sell it at severely reduced prices. Now how is that any different to appointing an administrator and getting 30c per unit. No way, that NSX looks like a joke..only 15 brokers..that's a farce!! Jenny if this is the best way of looking after us, you will not be the long term solution to our problems madame!! Our money will rot there or be sold for a pittance..NO WAY! Let's get a meeting soon!! I am speaking to Tuart and a solicitor to get a committee formed legally and then try and get a meeting where press may be invited prior to the July WC meetings / forums. 

I would like to know why we can't vote on a moratorium whereby we get some funds when the bank is repaid, get returns in the interim and then me paid in a timely and orderly manner as all the assets are realised, better to wait a little now and get a decent and fair amount of our money back down the track, than to never be able to get it. I think we are in for a fight to try and own the fund as investors, as if the NSX is JH's answer, we are truly better off without her and WC...WHAT FOR???

I thought she was going to amalgamate her funds under management with ours..she keeps touting how much she controls in WC..so what, how does that help us? An experinced funds manager..she has been in business as WC for 2 years..WOW! Sorry but can anyone else see that this is really starting to stink. Why hasn't this letter gone to investors first???


----------



## Rocky1 (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Javier

When will we be in the position of being best informed about how to form our committee. I believe meetings in capital cities and other strong investor areas is the way to go as mentioned before.

Someone needs to put there hand up in each location and organise these meetings. I am in Melbourne and happy to be involved here but am very bust so don't want to let people down. 

ANYONE KEEN, LETS GET THE BALL ROLLING


----------



## Mary Lynch (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am in Melbourne Rocky. Only to happy to help in any way.  Just say the word...and let me know what needs to be done and I will be onto it.

Tel. no. 97754874 or 0414895799.


----------



## Mary Lynch (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am in Melbourne Rocky. Only too happy to help. Just say the word, and I'll be there.

email: mlynch48@bigpond.com  or ph. 97754874, or 0414895799


----------



## communique (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tuart - Thankyou for your regular advice, information and input. It is gratifying to know that people with integrity and honesty still exist.


----------



## breaker1 (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*MAJOR UPDATE  # 7     (Part 1)*

WE ARE NOW 103 INVESTORS IN THE PIF ACTION GROUP

A super thanks to all who have contributed to achieving this critical number - this gives us respectable potential.

*Matters of main interest outcomes from my discussions with PIF Managing Director - Jenny Hutson*

*The $50 million MFS LTD Support Facility (SF)*
There has been serious concern expressed that this SF would immediately expire on the PIF being transferred to a new RE, namely Wellington Capital (WC). Jenny has expressed to me that she advised Octaviar that she would not undertake the new RE role, as a condition, unless she could gain access to the SF. She therefore, negotiated a signing of an "amending deed" to the PDS, to extend PIF access to this SF. It should be remembered that the $50 m SF is part of the remaining assets of MFS LTD, it was explained that there are 5 creditors lining up for this MFS LTD money, so investors should not expect 100c (or anywhere near it, perhaps south of $25M). The ranking of all 5 creditors including the PIF is equal.

*Living and Leisure Australia (LLA)*
LLA owes the PIF approx $63 million and Jenny had begun negotiations with them on behalf of the PIF 02/05/08. She advised me that the NAB ranks first for any money available from its sale or liquidation, the PIF ranks second. When asked what she would expect the PIF to receive, the answer was, as negotiations continue, the % changes every day. I could not press her on the % $ value. The second creditor ranking is a plus for the PIF.

Some in the Action Group are pushing for the PIF to convert this L&L debt to us, into equity or a controlling share in L&L, possibly in a partnership with Packers Arctic. The idea being that it would be a cash producing business with PIF investors waiting longer for cash realization. Jenny advises that WC has explored this option and are looking at it from the view of what will provide maximum % return to the fund - this will be a matter of negotiation as well.

*Causeway Boutique Fund $50 *
This outstanding money owing to the PIF is often not addressed or even known. Advised this facility is not fully drawn and is considered by WC to be run by a good operator (ex Merrill Lynch people). Jenny feels confident that these moneys will be realized, probably 100% - the bad news being, it will take 4.5 years to do so.

*Centrelink / ASIC treatment of pensioner investors*
Centrelink to continue to count former distributions, now stopped, as if they were still being paid, simply because the PIF is not in receivership and so farcically classed as viable by ASIC. I pointed out to Jenny that ASIC are the decisionmakers on this ruling. I asked if she could liaise with ASIC to get them to re-consider this "classed still viable" ruling. She agreed that this ruling was harsh and would be prepared to discuss this with ASIC, so long as the Action Group would be kind enough to find the appropriate ASIC officer that has the decision making capacity on this ruling on the PIF. I said, I have been given one contact name at ASIC already and would approach that officer shortly and get talks between the two parties.

*ASIC involvement in PIF*Jenny would not be drawn into this and said that as a group we need to get that info from ASIC, but would comment only that. There was another point brought up by an AG member about ASIC, which I presented, but at present I feel it would be best kept to myself.

*Distributions *
After the contractual, RBOS, debt has been paid, recommencing distributions is Jenny's No.1 priority. It is seen by her as a matter of moral urgency.  These distributions will not be done monthly, but quarterly.  

The recommencement date of distributions will probably be advised at the forums in July but not before the Royal Bank of Scotland is paid out.

The percentage interest rate of the distributions is hoped to be similar to previous rates received, but the maximum will be the target and would be determined or defined by PWC view of the fund.

Will the distributions of interest lost by investors be backdated? No!  Sorry about the bad news here. However, this may be an angle with which we and Jenny could press ASIC / Centrelink to reconsider how pensioners are/were deemed, perhaps, try for a backdated payment from C/L of non received monies that were deemed, but this is just speculation on my part (breaker), see how it pans out.

Will there be sufficient funds available in the PIF to cover distributions? 
PWC need to complete there audit to allow a quality answer. It would not be totally paid out of profit or PIF derived income, but that distributions would be derived, part from 1] incoming profit and 2] part from existing capital (net assets). What percentage of each is up to PWC. This of course means that any of our % possible future redemption would be reduced by the proportion of the % coming out of existing capital assets in that distribution payment. In other words if the % was 50/50, and your monthly payment was $500, the amount taken off your investment lump sum would be (reduced) by $250 per mth - (an example only).

*Hardship Early Redemptions*
I put to Jenny the option of partial minor redemptions, immediate distributions or immediate distributions of investors own personal investment. No! Jenny said, she could not re-work this kind of debt within the broader fund interests. It was also felt that as recommencement of distributions are WC's main priority it was going to be answered that way.

*Redemptions*
Redemption request are pouring into the fund.

This is a major topic and will be complex.

This will be addressed under another header following.

*Proposed WC should buy out some of PIF debt to justify WC management rights.*
Felt that WC has already committed to pay OCV / MFS LTD for the management right. I said, should you not have paid any management rights payments to the PIF, the answer being that asset shares had to be bought to acquire the management rights and they are not in the PIF.

Jenny felt that her ability to negotiate the chance to acquire access to the $50 million MFS LTD Support Fund was her contribution to the PIF debt. She felt that the fund would may have gone into liquidation if she did not take quick action. Further, in that action, negotiating for the "deed amendment"  in the PDS, for access to the SF, she felt confident, would not have happened otherwise.

*Fee structure to be discussed under another header.*
Wellington Capital will give formal proposals and the difficult issues to tackle, to investors at the forums in July.

She is aware of AG efforts to line up another RE 

*Can creditors of OCV / MFS LTD now gain access to PIF funds (QPT, NAB, Challenger, etc)?*
No! The PIF is now a separate fund and isolated. Jenny felt that if it stayed there, there was the possibility of creditors accessing certain PIF monies if it went into receivership via receivers judgments on the matter.

*WC Board membership by Action Group members*
WC has several funds that are managed and it was considered unworkable for an AG member or two, to be on a board that represented more than one fund.

In the negotiation process, Jenny accepted the accommodation of a committee made up from the AG that could set up a formal structure of communication with Jenny and / or the WC Board for proposals for consideration. I pointed out our main goal was the maximisation of % return for investors. In that she said, we were in agreement. She offered that she did not have a monopoly of wisdom and agreed that we would not always agree.

*Refinancing creditor for remaining RBOS debt*
Confidential at present.

*Where did RBOS debt payments come from*
Selling assets - incoming payments from developers (customers) and selling actual physical assets (e.g., GEO $10.2 mill). Further debtors (customers) have that could have defaulted, have been encouraged to refinance (otherwise deficiencies in PIF would be higher.

*Is the PIF still loaning money*
No! The RBOS has first access to monies and incoming monies can't be recycled until RBOS paid off.

Will PIF loan monies again? All going well, it is hoped a good way down the track.




*PART 2 to be posted shortly (NSX listing + other matters)
part two is the more complex and the more important*


----------



## erniel (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It is most regretable that WC has not  liased with us the investors of the PIF directly to date.

I would like to know from the new board of the RE for the PIF what the financial position of the PIF is.
Please could they furnish us with the financial management accounts that were used for them to excercise their call option.
In other words they need to provide us with a balance sheet and income statement that is dated the same day as when the call option was exercised. Explanatory notes need to be attached to the financials .
They would be unaudited, however I am led to believe that auditors are currently examining the books of accounts.
As  investors in this fund we are entitled to them .

I would also think that if it can be proved that the RE board under Guy Hutchings acted in a irresponsible , negligent and fraudulent manner with our funds that we consider persuing them in the criminal courts.


----------



## seamisty (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



communique said:


> Tuart - Thankyou for your regular advice, information and input. It is gratifying to know that people with integrity and honesty still exist.



 Yes thankyou Tuart for all your help and advice. Communique what area of QLD are you? If Breaker does not have time I am willing to make phone calls on behalf of the Action Group to link up people in common areas if he will provide me with contact details.I am in WA so not much help here unless there are other WA investors? Regards, Seamisty


----------



## communique (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty, we are located at the Gold Coast.


----------



## seamisty (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



communique said:


> Seamisty, we are located at the Gold Coast.



Thanks, We lived there for 6 years and that is where we invested in the PIF. I will ask Breaker to supply me with details of other Gold Coast AG members if he is too busy and I will foward them to you or ask them to contact you, whichever you prefer. Please leave me a personal message on here with your phone or e-mail details and I will contact you tomorrow. Do you have any media contacts on the GC? I am hoping to get over there but not until a bit later in the year so won't be much help with support in attending meetings.Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Ivor Watt (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> "Transparent market place"..seems like a crock to me. I was checking out that NSX today..noone trades anything. Who the hell is going to buy our units..at the rightful value? The only way they will sell it at severely reduced prices. Now how is that any different to appointing an administrator and getting 30c per unit. No way, that NSX looks like a joke..only 15 brokers..that's a farce!! Jenny if this is the best way of looking after us, you will not be the long term solution to our problems madame!! Our money will rot there or be sold for a pittance..NO WAY! Let's get a meeting soon!! I am speaking to Tuart and a solicitor to get a committee formed legally and then try and get a meeting where press may be invited prior to the July WC meetings / forums.
> 
> I would like to know why we can't vote on a moratorium whereby we get some funds when the bank is repaid, get returns in the interim and then me paid in a timely and orderly manner as all the assets are realised, better to wait a little now and get a decent and fair amount of our money back down the track, than to never be able to get it. I think we are in for a fight to try and own the fund as investors, as if the NSX is JH's answer, we are truly better off without her and WC...WHAT FOR???
> 
> I thought she was going to amalgamate her funds under management with ours..she keeps touting how much she controls in WC..so what, how does that help us? An experinced funds manager..she has been in business as WC for 2 years..WOW! Sorry but can anyone else see that this is really starting to stink. Why hasn't this letter gone to investors first???




Javier, I agree with everything you have said. The NSX has only 36 companies comprising 61 listings. the value of our units would just sit there being diluted down to nothing over who knows what period of time.

With regard to organising investor meetings before the 7 July it does not leave much time. I think the other approach of all investors voting on a moratorium at the arranged meetings for time to finalise the debt to RBOS either by refinancing or asset sales and an orderly realisation of assets to follow would be a better way.

We still have not heard from Breaker1 on his discussions and I believe any decisions on which way we should go  will have to depend on what he has found out


----------



## communique (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty, breaker has all contact details.  Have worked in media and have contacts.


----------



## seamisty (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Ivor, Breaker has posted his results from his contact with Jenny Hutson on this thread, just read back a bit. Comminique, I will contact you as soon as I get details from Breaker. He is pretty busy, there is a lot of work involved in bringing this together. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## k.smith (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Rocky1.....we are in Melbourne also and we will be there. There is no way known we are interested in NSX....the orderly realisation of assets is the only stability we have left. I am reading everything I can, you people are amazing, thank you, breaker1 , you are an inspiration. It is good to read some concrete feedback.       ksmith


----------



## Rocky1 (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Ivor Watt

Please see entry #304 for breakers update. Well done breaker great job


----------



## Rocky1 (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

K.Smith

I will get your contact details off breaker (I assume he has them) and be in touch. If not let me know and we will arrange something else.


----------



## Rocky1 (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

THERE IS NO WAY I WANT ANY FUTURE DISTRIBUTION TO BE MADE UP WITH CAPITAL, THIS WOULD BE A JOKE.


----------



## Towbar (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tiger 50 I have been trying to contact Jane on her  Fax number, there seems to be some problem, can you ask her to send me an an email My e-mail is <tobacox@aapt.net.au> & i live at the Southern end of the GC  Cheers Towbar


----------



## k.smith (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> THERE IS NO WAY I WANT ANY FUTURE DISTRIBUTION TO BE MADE UP WITH CAPITAL, THIS WOULD BE A JOKE.




NEITHER DO WE!!!!!!ksmith


----------



## selciper (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It would seem that WC have grossly underestimated the dynamics of the Action Group. Thanks Breaker1 and others. JH may well be meeting her Waterloo.The risks being taken by WC with their brand image is incredible. NXS - no, no and no! Being paid back a proportion of my capital in distributions - no, no and no! An investigation into all this - yes, yes and yes!


----------



## Cookie1 (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My husband and I are already registered with Breaker for the Action Group. Thank you Breaker and all the others who are working so diligently on behalf of all PIF investors. We definitely don't want the fund listed on the NSX nor to receive distributions from capital. We have a substantial amount invested in the PIF and want to get it all back eventually.

Is anyone else in the AG in the Port Macquarie area? I'm willing to help out wherever I can and am happy to phone people to organise a meeting but am a behind-the-scenes kind of person.


----------



## Dexter (16 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We all appreciate the work done by Breaker1 on our behalf.

We are much wiser following his talk with JH.

Now that we have the numbers in AG I believe we should explore the possibility of appointing a liquidator to administer and wind down the PIF for a more expedient conclusion.  

Following is an extract from the Brisbane Sunday Mail June 15, 'Money Section'.

"A liquidator is appointed to wind down a company, sell all assets,and pay as much debt as possible.

There are three ways a liquidator can be appointed to a company: through a court, voluntarily by its creditors, or by its members or shareholders.

Unlike a receiver, a liquidator will usually carry out a detailed investigation into the company's affairs on behalf of all unsecured creditors.  

This includes looking at reasons why the company failed as well as possible offences.

Liquidators must lodge a report with the ASIC if they believe an offence has been committed.

They must call a meeting of all creditors within 11 days of being appointed and report their findings.  From time to time the liquidator will call further meetings to keep everyone informed.

The liquidator will generally make payments in the following order: Liquidation costs; wages and superannuation payments; and unsecured creditors."

Would we be better off in the short or long term?


----------



## Tuart (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dexter your talk of bringing in an administrator or liquidator send shivers down my spine.

Please have faith in the ability of this group to form a compenent committee to represent your interests and for the numbers in this group to snowball and deliver you real power in your own future.

Adminstrators and liquidators have incredible cost bases and these groups only know how to sell sell sell. They are not in the business of sourcing new funds to assist in fixing problems.

We are all travelling blind here but what if you (PIF) have a loan to a development that needed more money to finish it. An administrator is not in the business of being lateral  and finding commercial ways of completing the project and ensuring you get a full return. 

Either the existing RE can bring lateral solutions to the workout to make sure you get all of your money back or collectively investors should get  a group who can. This is not a role an administrator can do for you.

I know I sound like a broken record but you need a structure and an empowered committee.

How cool is it that you are over 100 people.  Now lets get a structure to your group and push for full disclosure.


----------



## Tuart (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I thought I would make a few comments on Breakers feedback from WC and things that dont make sense.

Firstly fantastic job done Breaker in terms of getting the information and WC position but also in presenting it in understandable manner.

The three things that stand out and dont make sense are:

1) The returns. PIF had $770 million plus the $180 million RBOS loaned out or invested and supposedly earning a return from interest of dividends.

Now to get rid of ROBS we know some damage was done but it must leave a balance of loans and investments earning a return and therefore able to pay investors a return. Why do you need to dip into capital to make up the return. This is not paying a return it is repaying a debt owed to investors.

The second point is in relation to the guarantee. 

The wording of the guarantee as posted in an extract reads that the guarantee remains as the RE has not changed.

WC has bought all of the shares in the the existing manager and it is now I assume a 100% subsiduary of WC and not replaced and so therefore OCV has no out clause.

For WC to become manager they would need to call a meeting and have you vote to have her existing AFSL replace the current company she has just bought.

Therefore the call that only WC could have aquired the RE and have the guarantee honoured potentially is saying that OCV was only prepared to hand management rights to a friendly party who would do a deal on the $50 million or else they would have put the sword to the PIF to avoid having to deal with a third party in relation to guarantee,. If that is true that would open up alll sorts of issues for the old and new board of OCV and the RE.

The other issue I am still grappling with is LLA

For those with an ability to read financials go and read the 31 December 2007report of this company.

This is a strong profitable business that if PIF converted its $63 million in debt to equity plus LLA raised another $27 million through a rights issue is a little powerhouse and in a position to refinance the bank.

WC needs to be able to replace NAB and based on NTA of LLA plus PIF conversion it would not be a major hurdle.

It is my firm belief that PIF can stand in the place of Artic and in one transaction claw back the damage that has been done.

LLA has real cashflow businesses plus enormous potential for development profits and can deliver ongoing returns to PIF.

Why take a haircut when you can capture value from the position of only ranking second to NAB. 

In putting money where my mouth is I am hopimg to have a financial institution contact WC tomorrow who is capable of replacing NAB in LLA should RE not receive a satisfactory offer from Artic and they exercise their power as second ranking creditor in LLA.

Artic is not in the box seat PIF is as long as WC has an alternative banking solution for LLA.


----------



## breaker1 (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*UPDATE  #7  (Part 2)   [see also Part 1, #304, page 16]*

*PIF LISTING ON THE NSX        *

Jenny wants to stabilize the fund first before listing, by refinancing away from the RBOS and getting them out of our hair - this should be done soon. Everything ($) is going to RBOS at present. WC apparently is not getting any fees from the fund as yet.

*Considering that the NSX listing diverges dramatically from the PIF PDS, doesn't WC have to put the listing of the PIF onto the NSX, to all investors first, for a vote at either a general meeting or by vote letters posted to investor?*
No! This is a matter for the board of WC to determine.

*What will be the structure of the PIF when listed?*
It will be a parallel structure - both structures will be in units - units in the PIF fund and same units on the NSX - not shares. Percentage units PIF to Percentage units NSX. 

*If units lose or gain value on the NSX will that change the value of one's units in the PIF?*
No! Units in the PIF will remain the same regardless of the value of your units on the NSX. 

*If I sell my units on the NSX, will my units vary in the PIF unit fund?*
Yes! When you sell your units on the NSX, your PIF units then will reduce according to the number of units that you sell on the NSX. 

*What is the benefit of listing to investors?*
A vehicle for capitalisation mainly and a vehicle for investors wanting to redeem parallel NSX funds urgently. Redemption of funds will be available to investors after listing. Jenny said, she knows there are a group of investors who are not prepared for a long workout to realize their funds (i.e., immediate liquidity). 

*Will investors be able to redeem units out of the PIF fund directly (as opposed to the NSX) and when?*
Yes! Jenny will advise investors of this at forum meetings, won't know the time of PIF redemption offers till at least 7 July. But it is not expected to be full redemptions, only part redemptions, and probably only a percentage every quarter along with distributions every quarter. Percentage amount not given ( have a gut feeling it will probably be a workout %, so probably low - breaker).  I think that might only be if redemptions are requested by the investor first (breaker). I assume, partial PIF redemptions will reduce NSX units, but forgot to ask (breaker). 

It appears redemptions will be delivered somewhat similar to Donovan, Oats, Hannaford Fund (Pt MacQuarie), which is already in receivership (PWC?) - which is a % payout quarterly, over time. Donovan Oats investors are being paid out over 3-4 years as the fund realizes (sold) assets coming in & they are expected to get 70% of their investment back, but if you take into consideration loss of interest and inflation over 4 years that will be closer to 50% in reality - (but don't quote me on info in this paragraph and the 50% / 70% amounts relate to Donavon Oats only - breaker)

PIF fund redemption will really need a more clear explanation at the forums.

*Can you project the value of $ units either on NSX or PIF now?*
No! PWC to advise - answer probably 7 July.

*Fee structure for PIF in paying WC for its services as RE manager*
Jenny will propose a fee structure that is expected to be less than 1%. Will you be structuring a bonus scheme for getting investors more than existing cents in $? Jenny didn't think of that & will consider it. A modest bonus structure would be an ideal incentive for Jenny to maximize our return above what it may be already after advised by PWC (breaker). Will need to discuss this when net assets are quantified.

A letter mailout will be required here by WC for investors to vote as to whether they agree or not to WC fee's structure as outlined.

WC can't get a fee till investors vote and not till after first investor distributions.



*What impartial body will handle the letter mailout and count the votes?*
Perpetual Nominees. 
I take it then, that they will still be the trustees of the fund? 
Yes!
Oh Boy!

*Why do you think that listing another middle finance income fund loaner on the NSX will be good, you know that they are on the nose with Super Fund managers and financial advisors, just take a look at City Pacific they are a similar fund listed and their share value has dropped from over $4 to around 35c in the last 4 months?*
The answer to this was in the vicinity of: we are approaching various financial market investors & stockbrokers, with specific interest in this kind of fund and interest in the NSX. After debt is paid & fund is stabilised, the fund will be presented as healthy & viable & very stable & with a complete transparency, that big investors like. (much healthier than the troubled CP, I took it). The NSX as opposed to the ASX, is considered less expensive and we will be the largest trust in their. It is considered better to be a big fish in a small pond, than vicaversa, for profitable functioning. WC feels confident it can generate buyer enthusiasm from the market for it's optional listing.

Jenny offered, that she doesn't see the NSX listing as a panacea - it is not going to solve all PIF problems. It is simply a part of the larger  formulae for getting maximum value for the fund and allowing choice for investors. [If you don't sell your NSX units, PIF fund units will remain the same and managed hopefully better than before - my interpretation (breaker)]

I pointed out to Jenny, that there has been an initial bad feedback from some investors in our AG and I gave fair warning that there was a problem here. She said, she did not want to proceed in a direction that everyone did not want. She seemed to want the opportunity to sell this NSX listing at forums, as she believed the choice being offered would be of interest to some investors, if they wanted it. Don't want to sell your NSX units don't sell - they will remain as is in PIF.

Jenny sees the fund as a long term business and the managers have to do what's best for the fund and adding the NSX option, is what's best. Believes in giving people a choice.

If memory serves me right, WC will not list till after investor forums.

*Jenny said that she will present to investors a plan to reshape the fund (forums and mailouts I guess) and that she is here to listen to investors. In addition to reshaping the fund for long term viability she wants to get cash into peoples pockets. *

*RECEIVERSHIP OPTION*
After my discussions with two finance experts (advisors)  and discussing the matter with Jenny - it is concluded that receivership would be a very bad option for investors of the PIF. It would cause fire sales not realizing anywhere near full value, high receiver and solicitor fee's sucking the fund dry. It would realize only 15c to 20 to 30c in $ depending on who I spoke to. 

We therefore as an action group could NOT support this option - it's out of the question. 



*Other points discussed;**
Will there still be a PIF office in Sydney?*
Yes! (I think the existing WC office)

*Will Guy Hutchings & Marilyn Watts still play a role with the new PIF?*
Yes! CEO and fund something??
Will Guy Hutchings attend the forums, as investors have questions requiring a historical knowledge of the fund?
Yes!

*Financial relationship between Chris Scott and J Hutson*
Chris Scott and Jenny did business together for a long time but went our separate ways 18 mths ago. Chris retired and went to Singapore and came out to deal with his loss on the ASX. Jenny asserts she will do all in her power to redeem funds from OCV / MFS entities owing to PIF. Jenny could see that plans were heading towards receivership for the PIF within Octaviar and considered this was the wrong option for the fund. That's where she decided to take up the challenge to make a go of the fund.


*As you can see,* Jenny gave me a very good hearing and excellent access to her, thus WC. I have to call it as I see it - she is a very pleasant and co-operative person to talk to. She did duck the odd question, but I certainly found her an easy going person, and she was happy to speak with me again and was happy with the idea of a formal communication set up with the AG. She does have a listening ear.

I did explain to Jenny that I represented the AG and thus had to take the view of the AG, so that we might not agree on matters. I did point out the suffering of many investors and the emails I was getting explaining such. Jenny said, she definitely saw the moral aspect of her position over the fund and was mindful of it.

Cover note: As there was a high volume information gathered & a good deal of complexity, please forgive me if I got something wrong or misunderstood some of the info given to me. At times Jenny used terms like: possibilities, only still defining, still juggling, will know by, etc - which can promote misunderstanding by the most intense listener. If errors have been made by me in translating, I will quickly endeavor to correct any mistakes big or small.


----------



## Mary Lynch (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thank you SO MUCH Breaker. You truely are amazing, and so generous with your time and energy. 

You othr guys(? or women), who are so involved, thank you very much too. 

It's made an enormous difference to our lives to KNOW a little about what's going on.  It has been intolerable having NO control whatsoever over our life savings.

Just wish I was more learned in the world of money management and the law, and could be of some help here.  Just have to be a passenger until you give me some direction in which I can be of service.

Warm Regards to all Mary Lynch


----------



## wally3218 (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well done breaker1 and thanks again for all this feed back if we the investors were left on our own, I for one wouldn't know where to start.
I'm glad to have you giving us your advice along and time your spending working for this group.
I also want to thank all the other major contributors to this forum and action group for there great input.


----------



## seamisty (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> "Transparent market place"..seems like a crock to me. I was checking out that NSX today..noone trades anything. Who the hell is going to buy our units..at the rightful value? The only way they will sell it at severely reduced prices. Now how is that any different to appointing an administrator and getting 30c per unit. No way, that NSX looks like a joke..only 15 brokers..that's a farce!! Jenny if this is the best way of looking after us, you will not be the long term solution to our problems madame!! Our money will rot there or be sold for a pittance..NO WAY! Let's get a meeting soon!! I am speaking to Tuart and a solicitor to get a committee formed legally and then try and get a meeting where press may be invited prior to the July WC meetings / forums.
> 
> I would like to know why we can't vote on a moratorium whereby we get some funds when the bank is repaid, get returns in the interim and then me paid in a timely and orderly manner as all the assets are realised, better to wait a little now and get a decent and fair amount of our money back down the track, than to never be able to get it. I think we are in for a fight to try and own the fund as investors, as if the NSX is JH's answer, we are truly better off without her and WC...WHAT FOR???
> 
> I thought she was going to amalgamate her funds under management with ours..she keeps touting how much she controls in WC..so what, how does that help us? An experinced funds manager..she has been in business as WC for 2 years..WOW! Sorry but can anyone else see that this is really starting to stink. Why hasn't this letter gone to investors first???



Javier do you think that by listing the PIF on the NSX( I had never heard of it before and have been trading shares for 5 years!) this is JH way of locking in investors? ie, making it so financially crippling if you cash out you have no other choice but to leave your money in the Fund long term. And will investors even receive notification? We invested on behalf of our self managed super fund and are classed as wholesale investors and have received no correspondence at all. As Tuart has pointed out, OCV is still responsible for the $50 million under the Support Facility regardless of what WC has negotiated because the Responsible Entity has not changed, WC bought only the management rights to the  PIF. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## pixierich (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hello to all PIF investors. My wife and I registered as members of the Action Group some time ago, and have been following this thread with great interest. Our thanks go to Breaker and all the other contributors who are able to shed some light on this catastrophic mess.

Like some of the others, we are not learned in financial matters, and do not always fully understand the complexities of the situation. Once again, thank goodness for the contributors who are knowledgeable in these areas!

Could Breaker or another please explain the ramifications of the NSX units as opposed to NSX shares. If, for instance, we currently have 1000 units in PIF, will we have 500 PIF units and 500 NSX units if this scheme goes ahead?

Breaker has made great headway with his J. Hutson interviews. Hopefully, she really is keen to listen to us as investors - only time will tell, of course.

One concern I have regarding the regional forums is that she will not be given a chance to either listen to investors, or clearly describe her own plans. Let's try to keep the emotions to a minimum and speak and listen carefully - shouting, threats, and fist-shaking will not get us anywhere.

I am also concerned that there will not be a balanced representation of knowledgeable investors at all the forums, giving Wellington the chance to say "Oh, well, the only real opposition we encountered was at the Gold Coast (for instance) meeting - all the others went along with us."

We live in sunny Tassie, so will have to fly up to one of the mainland forums. Not sure which one yet, probably Sydney, the airport being handy to the city. Are there any other Tasmanian investors out there?

Regards to all, and keep up the great work you guys, we are very grateful.


----------



## Ivor Watt (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> *UPDATE  #7  (Part 2)   [see also Part 1, #304, page 16]*
> 
> *PIF LISTING ON THE NSX        *
> 
> ...




Great job breaker1, we appreciate the tremendous work you are doing.
If the PIF is now separate and access to its money has been denied to QPT,NAB etc it is now ridiculous to
go into receivership and allow liquidators to give that access back to them.
Revival of the fund as a working entity appears to be a far better option and receiving our income again would allow us time for the fund to build up to full value. 

We do not see any value in the NSX listing perhaps there are benefits that we are not aware of. We agree that the option of  looking at LLA more closely has merit and may prove a better outcome than accepting whatever portion Arctic decide we should get of the $63m.    
It is important that the AG in various parts of Australia get together before any of the planned WC meetings start.
We are on the Gold Coast and would like to help if possible.

Keep up the good work breaker and everyone who is working toward a good solution for all of us investors.


----------



## Rocky1 (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear all

To help remove some of the work load from breaker people are welcome to email me on adam.thorn@optusnet.com.au. Whilst I am busy I will tryto reply ASAP.

I would also encourage all investors located in Melbourne who have not yet contacted me to do so via this email so we can get a Melbourne meeting organised prior to the forums due in July and elect a representative for our region to be part of the AG committee


----------



## Javier (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It's great we are growing in numbers. I believe Tuart is right that we need to get some sort of incorporated body together to create some sort of structure. A Sydney lawyer is currently looking into this and some other issues. She is in Sydney, maybe if we set up a committee then invite membership from other investors paying a small fee, to enable costs of legals, communication etc. (non profit), we can then be a point of receiving ideas, offers, opprotunities and general communication and then be able to feed back that information to members..just a thought. 

I think JH is looking for a way to keep us bound to the fund for as long as possible min 4-5 years and if you can't hold on you cash in your chips at the NSX for whatever someone is willing to buy them for. That is the way I read it..there must be a finite amount of time to redeem our funds and still get the max amount back. Don't like the idea of distributions being a combination of interest and capital..we might only get 2% interest and the rest a portion of capital..very deceiving and NOT attractive!

I believe LLA is the way to claw back value in PIF that has been lost BUT I fear that judging by today's article in AFR and the fact the LLA share price has risen, that JH has already done the deal with Arctic concerning how they will take on the $63m debt to PIF..and I bet it won't be with PIF taking on equity for debt..more like PIF taking a crappy deal of some money up front now (which will go to RBOS or whovever the new banker will be) and the rest 2 years down the track to MAYBE get back the $63m with no more value added. But of course JH is doing this behind closed doors, so come July 7 we will have NO say and all too late..this way debt is gone / reduced to a point she can recommence distributions, and of course start taking fees from us. What a joke, so predictable AND there is JACK we can do at this stage. It makes me sick.

Also, Breaker thanks for the info, even though she changes things a bit depending on what day you speak to her. Will the distributions be based on the % rate of the amount our unit was based before the turmoil or the reduced unit rate. Like say she decides we will get a 7% return paid qtrly, does that mean 7% of say you had $100k invested or 7% of the new "deemed" unit price like say $70k if new unit price is deemed at 70c in the $??


----------



## Rocky1 (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Javier

Agree with everything as i am sure lots of others do, this is why we need to get the ball rolling on forming an AG committee starting with meetings in capital cities and other high investor areas so we can elect reps from each region to form the committee (this needs to be completed in the next week or 2). 

I have spoken to someone at Octaviar this morning and he suggested that if investors don't want NSX then we could have the power to stop it but we need to move on forming a committe NOW, not next week.

I have put my hand up for melbourne and already have some supporters. We need organisers in other areas.


----------



## Javier (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am willing to put my hand up for Sydney, but for business reasons I don't want to be the chairman or anything like that, so as my name may appear in a publication of any sort. If Sydney people want to contact me email
jmcustoms@bigpond.com


----------



## seamisty (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> Javier
> 
> Agree with everything as i am sure lots of others do, this is why we need to get the ball rolling on forming an AG committee starting with meetings in capital cities and other high investor areas so we can elect reps from each region to form the committee (this needs to be completed in the next week or 2).
> 
> ...



 Breaker is understandably reluctant to pass on contact details so if a Brisbane and Gold Coast Action Group member is willing to  form a sub-committee they would have to provide a contact point on the forum and be willing to organise a meeting of sorts with other investors/members. Any takers? I am sorry I can't do it for you but distance is a problem. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All,

The NSX idea turns my stomach but I am wondering what the alternative is if we assume the majority of PIF investors are going to (and have probably already) asked for a redemption?  

Thanks again to everyone (esp Breaker, Rocky, Seamisty, Javier, Tuart) for your efforts!

Regards,
Dora.


----------



## Tuart (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Following on from some comments made by Javier regarding the debt owed by LLA to PIF.

In March/April of this year while the fund was frozen (ie RBOS calling shots) further advances were made by PIF to LLA.

LLA had already defaulted on its own NAB facility.

Now it appears that PIF is been forced to do a deal at a loss on this loan to allow Artic to get control of LLA and allow RBOS to be paid back. ( you take a loss so RBOS gets 100 cents in the dollar)

Given that RBOS green lighted the further advance to LLA could it not be argued that if they are now forcing investors to take a loss to get their money back they are a party to creating a loss and are now in the firing line for investor actions. 

THis whole LLA deal smells.

NAB are owed 125 million against $300 million plus of assets with LLA easily able to service this debt based on its cashflows. The default I believe relates to market capitilsation and nothing to do with underlying value of assets.

How did Artic get in the box seat as WC have stated they are. PIF is the second ranking creditor and WC should have the resources to bring in a banker and take Artic's place. If they cant they are the wrong people for this job.

I hope it is not the case that Packer through Artic gets control of LLA for going easy on OCV through Challenger position as major creditor of OCV.

WC would do better by PIF to bring in its own banker to replace NAB and exercise its rights as a major creditor of LLA. LLA if required could have an administrator put into it as PIF would be the driver of any reconstruction scheme as the major creditor assuming WC with their resources can line up a banker.

There is something very smelly going on here. WC needs to come clean with what deal they have struck or will strike and the real reasons why that deal was struck. 


Jenny Hutson had all the details on the consortium I was aware of who sought to acquire the RE and had extended their expression of interest to LLA and this group is only a phone call away. If WC does not have resouces they should be bring in partners who do.

I will find out if she has made a call to this consortium to seek assistance and those in contact with her should be putting pressure on her to find out what deal she has struck or proposes to strike with Artic.


----------



## Javier (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tuart, Just rang Jenny..she was in a meeting so I sent her an email. I copy / pasted your last post and asked her to comment. Hope we can get a good outcome for us all with LLA debt..we need some good news on a deal that will claw back some of the huge losses already incurred by PIF!!!


----------



## wally3218 (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am willing to place a public notice in the local newspaper to advertise this action group's forum site.
Before doing so does anyone think this is a good idea as I beleive there are other investors in PIF from Geelong that don't know whats going on and I think if they can read this forum they might get a understanding of whats happening and it might encourage them to join the action group.


----------



## Dexter (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The reason I suggested the appointment of a liquidator (as opposed to a receiver) is the Fund would be managed UNDER OUR INSTRUCTIONS.  The liquidator is our nominated RE.

We could control our own destiny. 

He would report to us and act on our behalf.  No fire sales or hidden agenda's.

The liquidator is also obliged to lodge a report with the ASIC if they believe an offence has been committed.

Last years annual report 2007 shows our Fund had operating expenses of $19,687,000 (including $1.26m to Perpetual Nominees).  These are annual expenses.

A liquidator would cost a fraction of this.  As capital flowed back into the Fund it would be distributed to Unitholders.

We would have immediate access to to all documentation and a true valuation of the assets.

While we would not receive quarterly distributions we would receive intermittent capital repayments.  When the last loan is payed back to the Fund and distributed, the Fund would be finalized, hopefully in my lifetime, as opposed to the alternative proposal with Guy Hutchings at the helm.

We could be kept in the dark for years without knowing the real value of our holdings.

I will happily bow to better judgement so would be pleased to hear your informed comments.


----------



## selciper (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just a small observation regarding this Breaker1 thread. If you type PIF Blog into Google (Aust. pages only), the thread is listed as number five on the Google index. It might be that there are far many more hits taking place than we imagine. Can only hope that's the case.


----------



## Rocky1 (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Is poke to the national manager of the PIF today and he said that in December last year the fund was worth $950 million. This included assets acquired using the loan facility from RBOS (i.e the loan was entered into to acquire assets). In December last year $40 million was paid out in redemptions, therefore according to my calculation this would make the fund worth $910 million. If to date approx $120 million has been paid back to RBOS (through various means including the sale of assets) this would make the fund worth $790 million less the outstanding debt (approx $65 million) therefore worth $725 million. 

I know these are broad figures but JH is now stating the fund is worth $690 million therefore where has the balance of $35 million gone.

Just a reminder Melbourne AG members can contact me on adam.thorn@optusnet.com.au and Sydney members can contact Javier on jmcustoms@bigpond.com to register interest in holding meetings prior to the July forums being arranged by WC for the purpose of consolidating a committee for the AG and to discuss questions to be raised at the forums to ensure we maximise the time


----------



## zixo (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A big thank you to breaker and Rocky for their hard work.

I'm adding my No vote to the NSX listing.
As much As I have tried to see what possible benefits the NSX may have such as transparency of assets.
I cant see how Investors can ever be happy on a unknown and untried service which will no doubt take time to realise our Investments and cost the Fund or Investors a fee to have our units sold through specific brokers. 

I am not too pleased that Hutchins and watts are still associated and collecting a fee. Its also dissapointing that perpetual have still got their hand in there for being trustee in name only.

I think It would be a good time to start organising ourselves - I'm in sydney, it would be good if we can start having some numbers to see who would like to be interested in committee representation.

Cheers


----------



## charles36 (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well done BREAKER1, hello everyone, seems a lot has been done but much more to do. 

The idea of taking over Living Leisure is a great idea and we should do all we can to force the issue.

I take it that JH wants to list the fund on the NSX to allow those that want to escape the fund and sell their units. I guess that is for the individuals concerned.

I am greatful to everybody that is taking part in the AG and if I can assist in anyway I will, I reside in the Forster NSW area.  I would be pleased to hear from anyone in this area.

Kinds regards to you all,


Charles36


----------



## iamspeed (17 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> Is poke to the national manager of the PIF today and he said that in December last year the fund was worth $950 million. This included assets acquired using the loan facility from RBOS (i.e the loan was entered into to acquire assets). In December last year $40 million was paid out in redemptions, therefore according to my calculation this would make the fund worth $910 million. If to date approx $120 million has been paid back to RBOS (through various means including the sale of assets) this would make the fund worth $790 million less the outstanding debt (approx $65 million) therefore worth $725 million.
> 
> I know these are broad figures but JH is now stating the fund is worth $690 million therefore where has the balance of $35 million gone.




I'd guess the $35mill has been lost.  How you might ask?  Examples.  Loss on sale of shares in MFS Diversifed Trust now called GEO Property Group.  Loss on some of Fixed Interest securities held in the portfolio.  Write down in the value of LLA shares held.  

I'd be happy to take the curent offer from LLA.  I'm concerned and just hope all loans are paid back this well - a large majority chunck now and the small balance in a couple of years. Plus some shares that may add some value down the track.  PIF needs to be wound up, not take over LLA.  If PIF investors want to own LLA, use their own 1/4 redmeption proceeds to buy LLA shares - don't go mixing things up, that got PIF into trouble in the first place.

My worry is the RBOS loan was used to buy assets (in the form of loans) from the struggling MFS New Zealand Funds.  Looking back you can see NZ was struggling before we had issues in Australia.  Maybe some loans were sold to PIF to provide $ to prop up struggling NZ Funds (breaker a question for JH next time you speak).  If this was the case, lets just hope they were good loans?


----------



## seamisty (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



tiger50 said:


> Hi  Premium Income Investors,
> I am an investor like  most of you and I am very concerned. I have a friend
> Jane, who  would like to be an active part of the Action Group immediately so could interested parties fax her on 0755337986 asap. There is a public meeting at the GC Convention Centre on 10th July and Jane wants to meet as many people before then and get the Action Group in full discussion well before that date.
> Thanks, fax her info on how to reach you & she will get back to you. She lives here on the Gold Coast.
> ...



I faxed 'Jane' on the above no. on Monday, received no reply and had my fax returned this morning. tiger50 either 'Jane' is non existant or the no. is incorrect. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## akernst (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I would like to guess the future of our money in the PIF.

I see there are 2 scenerios:-

1.  Liquidate the fund and we all get a percentage in the $1.00 back in a few years.

2.  Keep the PIF Fund functioning, via Wellington Capital.


The second scenerio would work, if everyone decides not to take their Redemption
for this year, and be happy with the Monthly Distribution. I think WC could then make
the Fund work again.

I know this is a simplification of the situation, but I think time is a healer.

I think we should let WC have a chance in fixing it.

Looking forward to an AG Meeting, whenever one is organised.


----------



## iamspeed (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I'd agree that liquidation isn't the best option but I also think PIF is effective broken and cannot function going forward.

It should be managed as an orderly wind up.  As loans are repaid to PIF, in addition to interest payment on loans, this money is accumulated and paid across all unit holders on a quaterly basis.

If WC want to start a Fund, they should start a fresh new Fund of their own.  They now have a data base of 11,000 investors they could market to.  But PIF should not become the play thing of WC - pay them a management fee to wind up PIF over time (they should still make a profit as they should have paid bugga all to Octaviar for the management rights to damaged goods).


----------



## Tuart (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Iamspeed

When you refer to the LLA loan been repaid are you certain PIF are getting full value for the loan.

The original terms proposed as reported in the paper saw a considerable loss to PIF and this is why the proposition of PIF as the major creditor to LLA standing their ground and either getting paid in full or taking the place of Artic should be considered.

You should take the time to look at LLA balance sheet, profit and loss and cashflow statements as at 31/12/2007 before you write off the idea.

As late as 3 months ago you money was going into LLA to support it and its expansion plans so why should PIF be forced to take a loss for the benefit of Artic, NAB and LLA.

Its time transactions started to occur that were a positive to your position not continuing to dig the hole deeper.

In terms of giving WC a chance they may prove themselves to be the best option for the workout but they must:
1) be open, honest and transparent
2) have available significant resources to apply to the workout
3) provide alternatives that allow those wishing to act together the ability to recover all of their funds overtime.

So far we have seen none of these and at the moment the only feedback we have had is that WC got the management rights because they were the only party OCV would trust to do a deal on the $50 million guarantee.

That decision was not in PIF holdewrs best interests it was in OCV best interests. So that is the starting point for WC which is not great as they closed the door on parties with more resources to address the issues. 

Now they are hiding behind waiting for a PWC report which is more money been spent which could be coming to you guys. Management know the position but I think they are trying to push revealing it into the new financial year for reasons that will become clearer soon.


----------



## Alan.Lowther (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hello All,

I found the forum yesterday and it took me hours to read through from the beginning. I've also been caught in this trap and have a significant investment hanging in the breeze.

I must say I was impressed with the number of active participants and many of the suggestions and ideas. My sincere thanks must go to Breaker1 for instigating this forum and also to people such as Tuart, Rocky, Seamisty, Javier, to name a few, for their insight and views.

I'm based in Sydney but am now in the process of starting a new company as reliance on returns from the PIF are out the window. Accordingly, my time will be limited, but I'm happy to help in any way I can and willing to attend meetings, when and wherever.

Keep up the great work and looking forward to our initial meeting.

Alan


----------



## iamspeed (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tuart

I hope these numbers can paint a better picture, my fault for not providing details from LLA announcements.

PIF is owed around $70mill by LLA as an unsecured creditor, sitting behind NAB.  PIF is going to get back $63mill now and $10mill in 2 years, 88mill LLA shares and 88mill LLA 12 month options.  That's around $0.90 in the dollar in say August if the Arctic deal goes ahead, with a another say $0.10 to come in 2 years plus the value of the shares/options.  As I said, you give me that on all the loans in PIF and it would be called the great escape.

Remember LLA isn't in a position to bargain.  They tried unsuccessfully to sell Acquariums to Village and I haven't heard of any other takers.  Property in general is on the nose at the moment, so they mustn't have been able to move any of the ski fields or bring in JV partners.

Yes the assest are good - when was the last time someone went to the snow and said gee that was a cheap holiday - you try an book now and you may as well being calling about 2009.  Acquariums are nice but local tourism is slowing and maybe people will be spending their admission price on petrol.  headwinds are out there for the economy.  Issues with overseas acquariums and developments were proposed which means more debt.

I guess the issue at the momment is debt and valautions in balance sheet.  LLA would have paid top price for all the assets and if they had to sell some (i.e. NAB wants their $ back) it would be a fire sale, with NAB first in line for the spoils.  PIF gets a huge chunk of the $ now!!

As I said, I hope all the loans in PIF work at this well because I am sure some won't.   I don't like seeing Packer make more money but this looks like a good deal for PIF and if people want to join the Packer gravy train they could use their own money to buy LLA shares.

The focus should be on the other 90% of loans in PIF we know very little about.  Look at the PIF February update on Octaviar website - what the hell is in the Octaviar Maximum Yield Fund No 1 which PIF has $85mill in - my guess crap loans bought from MFS NZ Funds with money frrom RBOS??


----------



## Tuart (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

iamspeed

They were proposed to sell $63 million of their debt but it has never been announced exactly how much cash they are getting.

Some newspaper reports had it as low as $30 million.

That is $30 million cash plus $10 million interest free two year note plus 88 million shares at 7.5 cents. If that was correct it is a 24 million loss.

This is why WC needs to come clean but I am sure nothing will be announced until deal is done.

LLA have announced they have a new banker ready to put in $75 million facility plus $10 million working capital.

So $50 million from the $90 million rights issue will reduce primary debt. Who is getting the other $40 million.

The point I was trying to make is that given cashflows of LLA why does PIF need to take a loss if the numbers as reported are correct when it could take say half of the position Artic is taking and become the vulture fund not be fleeced by a vulture fund.

Look at the firesale of the GEO securities. NTA over 80 cents and you got 25 cents. What did PIF pay and what is the loss.

The danger is that RBOS are forcing the sale of the quality assets and there will be all the cr-- left for you guys.

RBOS need to be brought to account and this can only be done in a tranparent open forum not behind closed doors


----------



## iamspeed (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Tuart said:


> Look at the firesale of the GEO securities. NTA over 80 cents and you got 25 cents. What did PIF pay and what is the loss.




I'd estimate they paid above $1?  They were sold to Trojan - did I read Chris Scott or WC had some sort of history with Trojan?

Yes, they could have got more on market versus the sale to Trojan.  I'd say a RBOS easy target to get some $ back.

PIF did negotiate (via WC) to recieve 40% of any profit when onsold . there is specualtion of some taking over GOE but what is specualtion worth to PIF investors and what might the ultimate price be.  Not many listed investments trading above NTA these days.


----------



## iamspeed (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Tuart said:


> iamspeed
> 
> They were proposed to sell $63 million of their debt but it has never been announced exactly how much cash they are getting.
> 
> ...




Surely WC haven't dropped PIF investors pants by that much.  I thought that was probably one of safeest unsecured loans they would have in the portfolio?  heaven help the rest.  Even if LLA was liquidated I was confident of full return but wouldn't want liquidation for suffering LLA holders (surely some hope for them is worth doing a workable deal).

If this is WC first big deal they need it to set a positive tone not have it be the beginning of the end?????


----------



## flatback (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Tuart said:


> Dexter your talk of bringing in an administrator or liquidator send shivers down my spine.
> 
> Please have faith in the ability of this group to form a compenent committee to represent your interests and for the numbers in this group to snowball and deliver you real power in your own future.
> 
> ...




Yes Tuart i believe what you say is quite correct ,i know as an investor that we have been kept in the dark for (it seems an eternity) for approximately 6months and IT IS worrying, the position this fund is in, we as a group must remain focused on the best possible result for all fund members,sensible outcomes must be strived for, and personaly liquidation should be furtherest from our minds.


----------



## Tuart (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Iamspeed

The final deal done by WC in relation to LLA is yet to be announced but the figures quoted came from the press.

Losses are only crystalised when sales are made. GEO and LLA have real businesses and will generate returns. Why take a loss when you can generate returns that can pay out bank and then start to flow distributions back to investors.

As much as investors want their money (capital) back the primary aim must be to start generating income and flowing that out to PIF investors.   

We are yet to here what damage was done to get RBOS down from $180 million to its current levels but for investors sake the losses need to stop.


----------



## Claire Doherty (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hello,

My name is Claire Doherty, I am the Policy and Research Manager at the Australian Shareholders' Association.  We are a not-for-profit organisation that represents the interests of retail shareholders.  

We are taking an active interest in the Octaviar Premium Income Fund, particularly given the stated intention of the Wellington Capital to consider listing the fund on the National Stock Exchange.

I am unable to find either the PDS or the consitution for the scheme.  I wondered whether any of the Action Group members might be able to send me these documents?  My email address is clairedoherty@asa.asn.au.

Kind Regards,

Claire Doherty
Policy and Research Manager

Australian Shareholders' Association
Phone 1300 368 448
Fax 02 9411 6663
Email clairedoherty@asa.asn.au 
Web www.asa.asn.au


----------



## Claire Doherty (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I now have a copy of the PDS.  Thanks to the forum member who sent it to me.  Still searching for the constitution.  

Unitholders are entitled to request the constitution from the responsible entity.  If the organisers of the Action Group don't already have this document, it would be a good idea to obtain it.

Kind Regards,


Claire Doherty
Policy and Research Manager

Australian Shareholders' Association
Phone 1300 368 448
Fax 02 9411 6663
Email clairedoherty@asa.asn.au 
Web www.asa.asn.au


----------



## marcom (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sorry been away trying to get some work to put food on the table.

Just went on the NSX website - -http://www.nsxa.com.au and found something very interesting. Wellington Capital Limited is one of the 32 Advisors registered by the NSX Australia wide to assist companies to list on the NSX - joined 2007. These advisors pay an application fee $2,500 and a annual fee $1,000. Issuers (companies that list) are required under the NSX Rules to obtain the services of the nominated advisor at all times while the listing is current. No wonder the PIF is headed to NSX - and yes another convenient source of fees for WC!!

But, guess who is also one of the registered advisors - McCullough Robertson Lawyers Brisbane- her husband's law firm and the practice where she was a partner for many years.

Talk about keeping it in the family!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the AG want to use the logo we designed it is attached in a word file in 2 sizes - just cut and paste or resize the logos.


----------



## Claire Doherty (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A member of the forum has contacted Wellington Capital who are going to send her a copy of the Constitution for the scheme, which she is going to pass on to me.  Thanks very much to everyone who has helped us out.  Good luck with your action group, I shall be keeping a keen eye on your progress.

Regards

Claire Doherty
Policy and Research Manager

Australian Shareholders' Association
Phone 1300 368 448
Fax 02 9411 6663
Email clairedoherty@asa.asn.au 
Web www.asa.asn.au


----------



## zixo (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all

If we think that JH took on the RE of the PIF from the goodness of her heart, we will be mistaken. I’m waiting to see what the fees are going to be.

In My opinion calling in liquidators is a very bad option when we consider that the fund was successful up until the MFS shares went south and we suddenly incurred unheard of debt and questionable loans.

From what we’ve read and heard of JH she will have lots at stake. Namely her and Wellington Capitals reputation. 

My concern is the sale of PIF’s stake in Geo and her association with CS who’s only interest is Octaviars survival.  I’m interested on how she is going explain the sale, debt and loans.

At this moment my thinking is, if anyone can turn the PIF around I think JH would be someone good to be working on our side. Time will tell.


----------



## Javier (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

WC is NOT the RE..a solicitor did some searches on our behalf and it seems that Octaviar Investment Management Limited is still the RE, but has just undergone a name change to Wellington Capital Investment Management..the RE licence is still Octaviar. She has merely purchased the management rights, this is just a way to try and keep WC as her being "accepted" by OCV means that the little clause in the PDS about a change in RE absolves OCV of the $50m Callable Facility, if we replace her then it's gone with another RE. All very smart BUT if she can't deliver on the $50m..or at least a good chunk of it..she is no different to any other RE that may present itself to us. JH better do a good deal for PIF and not a deal for OCV and Chris Scott. The solicitor also advises that there have been a zillion constitutional changes, which are only allowed without the consent of investors ONLY on the proviso these changes do not adversely affect investors. With all these losses, if there has been a constutional change that has adversely affected us, then there is cause for ASIC to investigate. Gee you know I wonder if JH really knows how much of a headache this is going to be for her AND to her rep?

She also advise us to request a list of all investors and a copy of the fund's constitution. I am hopefully meeting with her soon to advise me of other requirements and costs to move forward..will advise.


----------



## iamspeed (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> My concern is the sale of PIF’s stake in Geo and her association with CS who’s only interest is Octaviars survival.  I’m interested on how she is going explain the sale, debt and loans.
> 
> At this moment my thinking is, if anyone can turn the PIF around I think JH would be someone good to be working on our side. Time will tell.




Not sure if it has been mentioned on this (ever growing) thread before?  Trojan (buyer of PIFs holding in GEO) chairman is Andrew Kemp and he was on the board of S8 (Chris Scott's business taken over by MFS).  JH was also on the board of S8 or at the minimum an adviser to Chris.  I saw a report saying that Chris used to be a part owner of WC??

JH is yet to show any capabilities at all.  Was RBOS ever going to call in receivers when they were owed $180mill out of approx $900mill of assets?? Would have delayed them getting their money back and have been bad press (look at ANZ with Opes).  I could have told hem wait 6 months and we'll give you your money baqck + probably some penalty interest as well.  Although we are having a creidt crisis, banks still need to lend, if they don't they go out of business.  

JH has been gifted a one in a life time opportunity to double the size of her business in 1 transation.  If Chris Scott buys back into WC or buys units in PIF on the NSX (if we get there), that would be the last straw.


----------



## breaker1 (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> WC is NOT the RE..a solicitor did some searches on our behalf and it seems that Octaviar Investment Management Limited is still the RE, but has just undergone a name change to Wellington Capital Investment Management..the RE licence is still Octaviar. She has merely purchased the management rights, this is just a way to try and keep WC as her being "accepted" by OCV means that the little clause in the PDS about a change in RE absolves OCV of the $50m Callable Facility, if we replace her then it's gone with another RE. All very smart BUT if she can't deliver on the $50m..or at least a good chunk of it..she is no different to any other RE that may present itself to us. JH better do a good deal for PIF and not a deal for OCV and Chris Scott. The solicitor also advises that there have been a zillion constitutional changes, which are only allowed without the consent of investors ONLY on the proviso these changes do not adversely affect investors. With all these losses, if there has been a constutional change that has adversely affected us, then there is cause for ASIC to investigate. Gee you know I wonder if JH really knows how much of a headache this is going to be for her AND to her rep?
> 
> She also advise us to request a list of all investors and a copy of the fund's constitution. I am hopefully meeting with her soon to advise me of other requirements and costs to move forward..will advise.




Well done Javiar!
Your part of the proof this AG actually works.

Very smart - if only Jenny and Chris can put those smarts to the benefit of investors and not OCV.

I understand, last I brought it up, that to gain access to the investor list (if we are allowed), it will cost us approx. $14,000 (correct me if I got that wrong).


----------



## seamisty (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Well done Javiar!
> Your part of the proof this AG actually works.
> 
> Very smart - if only Jenny and Chris can put those smarts to the benefit of investors and not OCV.
> ...



Breaker I asked someone about this when it was first mentioned and was told that they could only charge for expenses incurred in supplying the list ie. photocopying so it would pay to make further enquiries. Interesting to see the Australian Shareholders Assoc. keeping a close watch on what is happening with the PIF re the listing on the NSX and that JH and her Husbands connection. The plot thickens!! Also Javier has just backed up Tuarts info concerning the RE and the Support Facility. We are becoming a very well informed group! regards, Seamisty


----------



## Javier (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I was told that there is only negligible costs that the RE can ask for. Now do we ask WC or OCV? I will send an email to JH now and ask her for the copy of the constitution. Let's hope she answers me as I still have not received an answer back about my LLA concerns and points raised by Tuart.


----------



## marcom (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hello Javiar

Yes, we need legal advice now. It's no good AG members researching in an uncoordinated way without a knowledge of the law. I propose that AG members pay $100 each into your Solicitors Trust Fund to pay for ongoing legal work. This is not big law, simply legal research and advice on relevant legislation - we are not going to court where the costs are beyond us all. But well armed with the FACTS and knowing our legal position we can achieve a lot through negotiation.

100 members X $ 100 + $10,000 - that will buy a lot of advice.

If your solicitor needs us to incorporate so that she has a valid client entity that's fine. Otherwise I am only too happy to put the money directly into your solicitors Trust Fund - just send me the BSB and A/C details. I know some AG members are in financial difficulties but be assured this is a very necessary investment in our future.


----------



## iamspeed (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> WC is NOT the RE..a solicitor did some searches on our behalf and it seems that Octaviar Investment Management Limited is still the RE, but has just undergone a name change to Wellington Capital Investment Management..the RE licence is still Octaviar.




That is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the attached.


----------



## Javier (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I was told by someone very high up in MFS when the whole RBOS thing was unravelling that they were NEVER going to get the liquidators in as it would be very bad publicity to put the sword thru a fund where the majority of the investors were retirees and mum & dad punters. Let's not forget that RBOS owns Bankwest here in Oz. Someone from Bankwest told me that RBOS was one of the richest banks in the world (I think 3rd largest in Europe) and that they could buy all the big 4 banks here in Aust and still have plenty of cash left over. So I don't think they were ever worried about not getting their money, especially with all the loans that were being paid back within an avg of 6.9 months.

The loan was in fact for $200mil to PIF not $184m, they took our $16m that was in cash held in deposits in one foul swoop..that's a lot of Scotch Finger Biscuits and Glenfiddich!


----------



## iamspeed (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Exactly my point Javier.

Then we get JH saying she saved the day and it would have all fallen in a hole without her.  She's done nothing (yet) and we owe her nothing.  I still have a feeling Chris Scott is somewhere behind this and will try to cash in at some stage down the track?  He must be fuming after dropping a few hundred million in MFS shares.


----------



## Rocky1 (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I support the $100 x 100 for legal advice. 

Also can anyone advise if we (the investors or AG) have the power to stop the PIF being listed on the NSX. I spoke to a national manager within OCV/PIF yesterday and he suggested we would

Very interesting to read that we would only have to pay minimal costs to get a copy of the list of investors. When I approached a PIF representative about this they mentioned a figure of $14,000.


----------



## selciper (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Marcom is spot on. $100 contribution by each of us is necessary now. We should view the $100 as an investment. Solicitors digging deep into all this may eventually save us thousands of dollars. If it turns out that all's well as it stands, we at least would have that legal reassurance. We need it to confidently plan future moves. My thanks to Javier for his efforts and, of course, Breaker!.


----------



## Janiss (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I agree - $100 is a very small price to pay for necessary legal advice, considering the amount we may stand to lose if we make an uninformed decision. 
Having an incorporated legal entity set up with proper legal backing will give the Action Group far more credibility and power, while protecting the individual members. Possibly the $100 per member can go into a general fighting fund account as there will also be costs associated with Action Group meetings which can be paid from this fund (e.g. advertising, printing, venue hire).


----------



## Juan Mortyme (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



iamspeed said:


> Not sure if it has been mentioned on this (ever growing) thread before?  Trojan (buyer of PIFs holding in GEO) chairman is Andrew Kemp and he was on the board of S8 (Chris Scott's business taken over by MFS).  JH was also on the board of S8 or at the minimum an adviser to Chris.  I saw a report saying that Chris used to be a part owner of WC??  .




On WC's website ("In the Press" link) there is an interview with JH from the 21st April 2007 GC Weekend Bulletin Paradise Magazine where she says the following about CS in the 4th column of page 3:  " 'He really encouraged me with Wellington Capital - in fact he owns half the business - so he backed me to do it and it was that push that I needed' ".
http://www.wellcap.com.au/articles/21-04-2007 - Changing focus - GC Bulletin.pdf

Cheers,
Juan


----------



## Javier (18 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It's not just legal advice we need to think about but also Power of Attorney. OK so we get 100 signatures, fine..but we must then get 100 signatures every time we have to deal with something. My legal advisor tells me that it's crazy and logistically impossible. We have to provide someone with that power of attorney. It can be revoked at any time if you all feel uncomfortable. Let's face it. noone here has even met one another, BUT hey we have never met JH either and she is wheeling and dealing with our money as we speak. I am seeing the lawyer in Sydney (CBD) very soon..who wants the power of attorney? Maybe she can even have it to deal with on our behalf, I am not ego driven plus as I said do not want my name in the papers, but someone has to be the man or woman (maybe 2 people) but it must be done this way or else we will get too bogged down. Does someone have any suggestions? She will also advise costs, and I will get account / trust details. Tuart is trying to get a meeting happening with a Sydney newspaper journo for me so that we may have an AG meeting in there . They have mics etc. and we will get a write up as the action group has not had any real exposure in the Sydney papers where supposedly (in NSW) is where most of investors are. Folks we really need to think about the whole Power of Attorney..very important in an incorporated committee scenario.


----------



## breaker1 (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> On WC's website ("In the Press" link) there is an interview with JH from the 21st April 2007 GC Weekend Bulletin Paradise Magazine where she says the following about CS in the 4th column of page 3:  " 'He really encouraged me with Wellington Capital - in fact he owns half the business - so he backed me to do it and it was that push that I needed' ".
> http://www.wellcap.com.au/articles/21-04-2007 - Changing focus - GC Bulletin.pdf
> 
> Cheers,
> Juan




"...in fact he owns half the business..so he backed me"

Chris Scott backed WC, with money no doubt, to own half. Amazing! So, if this still is the case (story only 2 months old) and the real RE is still OCVIM, Chris Scott must very well, still be in the picture with our PIF operations. Chris Scott should appear at the forum meetings, he has to be pulling some major strings with the PIF! 

Chris Scott may be the real decision maker in dealings with us!


----------



## Cookie1 (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Breaker1,

The interview with JH is from April 2007 (not '08) but that doesn't mean that CS is not still a major player. There are questions to be asked!

Cookie1


----------



## wally3218 (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

So with Chris Scott owning half of WC it was probably his idea for JH to get WC to take over the management rights.
He definately should turn up to the forum meetings and explain all this paper shuffling they are doing. I hope it's in our best interests and their not just looking after their own interests.
We do need someone independant checking up on these deals their making with our money. Legal advice seems very necessary since asic does'nt seem to do anything untill it's to late.


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> ... If anyone has any IT skills, perhaps we can set up a website and keep this info in one place and up to date.
> 
> .




Hi Everyone,

I would like to suggest we use Yahoo Groups for our discussions.  It can be used in the same way we are using this forum (i.e. lurkers are welcome to read discussion threads) but has heaps of other features for those willing to ‘join’ the group.

Joining the group means creating a yahoo account (just as you had to create an Aussie Stock Forum account if you wanted to post to this forum).  The extra features include:
•A group calendar
•A central location for attachments (currently it is too hard to go back and find attachments on this 16 page thread)
•It enables multiple threads to be created for each topic of discussion
•We can create polls and get an idea of how people feel about certain topics.
•We can create databases and other more advanced features if needed.

I think the group is going to grow quickly (especially after the WC updates in July) and so need a better way to organise our information and keep everyone up to date.

I have created an example Yahoo Group at this link http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/PIFActionGroup.   If you want to see the full features of the group you will need to ‘join the group’.   Please note this is just an example and it will be deleted (so not to cause confusion) if it’s decided not to use Yahoo.

Regards,
Dora.


----------



## marcom (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just read the Wellington PIF investor update posted as an attachment on iamspeed post No 367 re commencement of distributions:

*" When will distributions recommence?*

The new board is currently proposing to make *capital payments* to investors after the debt facility has been repaid or
arrangements have been made to refinance the debt".

That means we will only be getting what ever is left of our CAPITAL investment repaid over a period of time WITHOUT INTEREST is this correct???

I have not received the WC PIF Investor Update by email or mail and it is not on the WC website - has anyone else received it? Another appalling public relations blunder by WC

The Update refers to a registration form for attendance at the WC forums that has to be completed and returned before 30 June (11 days away) - Where's the form Jenny????????????


----------



## sak (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

As I understand it a pdf was emailed to your investment advisor late last week
sorry should have said all  investment advisors


----------



## Rocky1 (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Apparently letters with registration forms where sent late last week/early this week. 

As not all of us invested through advisor's what was the bloody use in sending it to them first - we have invested the money not advisor's.

The more I hear about the way WC is handling this the more I become annoyed.

Capital repayments may EVENTUALLY see us get SOME of our capital back but we joined this fund to receive DISTRIBUTIONS.

Enough is enough!!!!!!!!


----------



## DeliaMC (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Just read the Wellington PIF investor update posted as an attachment on iamspeed post No 367 re commencement of distributions:
> 
> *" When will distributions recommence?*
> 
> ...




Marcom, if you go to www.newpif.com.au you can download the Registration Form from Wellington's website.


----------



## seamisty (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I would like to suggest we use Yahoo Groups for our discussions.  It can be used in the same way we are using this forum (i.e. lurkers are welcome to read discussion threads) but has heaps of other features for those willing to ‘join’ the group.
> 
> ...



Hi Dora, I think this idea will be a very usefull tool in the management of the AG. I have asked Rocky and Breaker to have a look at it.Would certainly make the access of information much easier.I also just checked out the WC website www.newpif.com.au and it seems to be comprehensive though not quite complete. I am so over Perpetual Nominees being the Trustees of the Fund!! So what if quote:erpetual Nominees Limited is the custodian of the Premium Income Fund, and has been established for 122 years. Perpetual Nominees Limited holds the title to the assets on behalf of the Fund.::::: They have been as much use as t1ts on a boar pig to date!!!!!  Rocky I agree, enough is enough. The AG is at some stage is going to need  legal representation. As a member, I am all for contributing to a AG fighting Fund when and if it is set up.Regards, Seamisty


----------



## iamspeed (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have attached the 2 other documents (in additon to the one on post 367).

Apparently letters were delayed and left yesterday???  Octaviara budget cuts probably means only one monkey licking stamps these days.


----------



## Ivor Watt (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Janiss said:


> I agree - $100 is a very small price to pay for necessary legal advice, considering the amount we may stand to lose if we make an uninformed decision.
> Having an incorporated legal entity set up with proper legal backing will give the Action Group far more credibility and power, while protecting the individual members. Possibly the $100 per member can go into a general fighting fund account as there will also be costs associated with Action Group meetings which can be paid from this fund (e.g. advertising, printing, venue hire).




I agree with you, we need to have a coordinated informed approach and if this costs $100 each it will be money well spent.
We will get nowhere waiting for the likes of ASIC to get off their bum and do something.
I think nominating a power of attorney to act on our behalf is a good idea and one way of making sure there is a coordinated effort. We have to get this right and need good professional advice to do that.


----------



## Jenny (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I agree that we should have a fighting fund and am happy to contribute $100 for legal advice etc. Re: the forms for the meetings: our "financial advisor" (who helped us get in this mess in the first place) emailed me the form then when I expressed interest in attending the meeting in Sydney sent the following message:

"I have just made enquiries and have been advised that as your investment was made via an administration service ( ie The Avenue Investment Service) you are not reqiured to complete the invitation which was attached to the previous email. A seperate acceptance is required which I will send directly to them on your behalf."

So if you have also invested through Avenue or similar you may have to go through your financial advisor to register for the meeting.


----------



## Tuart (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good afternoon Investors

The solicitor I recommended to Javier acted on behalf of a group of investors in another scheme and it resulted in a positive outcome (positive in terms of making the best of a bad situation)

As I suggested forming the incorporated body gives real structure for your cause but I think membership joining fee should be lower or you need some discretion. There will be investors out there that due to this cannot even put food on the table and have no access to safety net of centrelink.

$100 will seem like a mountain right now so you hope other more well off members could put a bit more than $100 in so you get an average of $100 per member. You still want these people in dire positions as members.

Those in contact with WC can you find out if there will be a information pack sent out before the meeting, available at the meeting or distributed afterwards so that members can fully understand and study the position.


----------



## iamspeed (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tuart

This is on the www.newpif.com.au website

_The Board of Wellington Investment Management Limited is committed to answering all of investors’ questions in relation to the Premium Income Fund, and has set aside considerable question time after the presentation to address investors’ concerns.

If you are unable to attend

The presentation made to investors at the series of meetings will be posted to all investors at the conclusion of the meeting series. In addition, the presentation will be available for download from this site through Company Announcements._

If the presentation isn't posted on website on the 7th, whoever attends the Brisbance forum should post a copy of any handouts (am I too hopeful) on this forum??


----------



## Tuart (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Iamspeed

It will be interesting to see how much detail is provided on the individual positions of each investment


----------



## erniel (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Please advise solicitors name and trust bank account details in order for me to deposit the $100,00.
thanks .erniel


----------



## marcom (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jenny said:


> I agree that we should have a fighting fund and am happy to contribute $100 for legal advice etc. Re: the forms for the meetings: our "financial advisor" (who helped us get in this mess in the first place) emailed me the form then when I expressed interest in attending the meeting in Sydney sent the following message:
> 
> "I have just made enquiries and have been advised that as your investment was made via an administration service ( ie The Avenue Investment Service) you are not reqiured to complete the invitation which was attached to the previous email. A seperate acceptance is required which I will send directly to them on your behalf."
> 
> So if you have also invested through Avenue or similar you may have to go through your financial advisor to register for the meeting.





Thanks for this very interesting info Jenny - Yes THE PLOT THICKENS!!!!!

Avenue Capital Management (ACM) Chairman is/was Paul Manka who is also Chairman of Octavier. Another former Director of MFS is Michael Hiscock who is/was the partner in the ACM North Sydney office.

The reason for the is/was is that while I was trying to check these facts on the ACM website the names and details of both Manka and Hiscock seem to have disapeared. Now I wonder if it has anything to do with a certain court appearance yesterday the details of which are in this mornings article in The Business Spectator:

[_B]Octaviar Pair Dealt Court Blow[/B]_

_Abstracted from The Australian Financial Review

Two men involved with the Octaviar group in Australia have lost a court bid. Two family trusts controlled by Octaviar chair Paul Manka have been put into voluntary liquidation. The same thing has happened to a company controlled by former Octaviar director Michael Hiscock. The pair did not come up with a total of $A10.6 million they owed on failed margin loans. On 18 June 2008, the pair lost a bid for court orders that they pay the debt to be set aside. The judge in the case, Reginald Barrett, said that it would be fruitless to appeal against his decision. He ruled that Citi Smith Barney did not breach its $A10 million margin loan agreement with Hiscock. Five big creditors are watching Octaviar, which failed to make a payment to noteholders earlier in June 2008

_
And try this piece from Crikey today;

_Octavier's woes. Octaviar chairman, Paul Manka, and former director, Michael Hiscock, suffered yet another blow yesterday, with the NSW Supreme Court refusing to set aside their respective $5.7 million and $4.9 million debts to margin lender, Citi Smith Barney. Manka and Hiscock are both financial planners at Avenue Capital Management and have been long-time directors of the crippled MFS/Octaviar group. Octaviar chief executive, Craig Chapman, a close ally of Chris Scott, told the Financial Review that "the matter involved the personal affairs of Mr Manka and Mr Hiscock and would have no impact on the company." We respectfully disagree with Chapman’s views. If Manka’s margin loan (which was taken by a family trust and holding company) has recourse to Manka himself, Octaviar could very find itself with a bankrupt chairman. Given Octaviar’s current precarious position (the company hasn’t traded since January, with its auditors unwilling to sign-off on the business as a going-concern) that fact could be highly relevant to Octaviar. -- Adam Schwab_

So I wonder what is going on here?? The remaining Directors/Partners in ACM a little fearful that the bad press may frighten away clients????

For anyone who is interested in this ACM/Manka/Hiskcock connection with MFS/Octaviar, Crikey.com.au has a few enlightening articles on how ACM was a major supplier of investors for MFS and some other very interesting info.

So Jenny do you think that you got unbiased independent financial advice?


----------



## k.smith (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear AG , we are more than happy to put in our $100 shares, and feel we need the help of a good corporate lawyer to give us some insight as to what has happened to our monies, some of the theories being bandied around, esp. about the $200 million RBOS loan and the NZ connection, the NSX listing ,and is it $14,000 or is it the price of a postage stamp? to get the list of investors? I do know that JH was the chairman for S8, because her name is on City Pacifics company announcements on 15 July, 2004. And what was  the reports a few months ago re: MFS will buy City Pacific, then City Pacific will buy MFS>>> what was that all about? We need to know all the facts before we are channelled into decisions, we feel we have been duped enough already


----------



## marcom (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Here's one of the Crikey stories from the free list:

*Avenue's conficted connecton to toubled MFS*

_Tuesday, 1 April 2008

Adam Schwab writes

"While MFS changes its name to Octavier and continues its battle for survival, another piece of MFS is in even more strife.

The MFS Premium Income Fund -- technically a separate entity but managed by MFS -- has already suspended distributions and redemptions and is currently in breach of a $184 million loan facility with HBOS. Further, a report prepared by investment firm Lonsec noted that investors should expect to recover 95 cents in the dollar. However, that's assuming MFS stands by a $50 million support facility. Given MFS’s current situation, PIF unitholders won’t be holding their collective breath.

Auditor PwC was even less optimistic about PIF’s prospects, noting that there was uncertainty as to whether PIF will be able to continue operating as a going concern.

As with everything MFS, there seem to be double doses of clumsiness and conflict permeating the MFS Premium Income debacle.

The AFR’s Paddy Manning revealed on Saturday that:

    One financial planning dealer group with links to MFS/Octavier is Avenue Capital Management. Avenue director Michael Hiscock recently resigned from MFS/Octavier board, and MFS/Octavier deputy chairman, Paul Manka, is also a director of Avenue. 

Strangely, Manning didn’t go in for the kill, instead noting that:

    Avenue clients have about $51 million directly or indirectly invested in the MFS Premium Income fund – a small proportion of total $1.4 billion under advice. 

Despite board connections, Avenue Director Simon Clifford told the Weekend AFR on Friday that "MFS has nothing to do with us ... there is no link between MFS and ACM."

There are two points that should be corrected. First, despite Avenue’s claims, there do appear to be several key links between Avenue and MFS Premium Income Fund. And it appears that those links may have led to clients of Avenue investing a greater proportion of their savings in MFS PIF than if they'd been with a non-conflicted financial planner.

Avenue director Michael Hiscock was, until last week, a director of MFS. Hiscock was also a director of MFS Living and Leisure and was chairman of MFS Diversified. MFS PIF invested unitholders’ funds in MFS Living and Leisure and MFS Diversified (MFS Living and Leisure owes MFS PIF $67 million, due in May, although Lonsec claims repayment of the sum is in "significant doubt"). Even though Hiscock wasn’t a director of PIF itself, he was a director of the responsible entity of PIF (MFS itself) and chairman of a fund which owes PIF $67 million.

Similarly, MFS chairman-designate, Paul Manka, showed that he can be as conflicted as his fellow board member, simultaneously serving as an Avenue financial planner while also being a director of MFS Diversified, MFS Living and Leisure and MFS itself.

Further, the claim that Avenue’s investment of $51 million (out of what is actually $1.7 billion funds-under-management) in MFS PIF is a "small proportion" of funds under advice seems somewhat hopeful. Avenue director, Simon Clifford, told Crikey that any advice provided to clients to invest in MFS PIF came after the fund was recommended by research house Lonsec and that "everything was done by the book".

However, the fact remains that of the $754 million raised by MFS Premium Income Fund, $51 million came from clients of Avenue Capital Management. Avenue itself confirmed that across both PIF Wholesale and Retail funds it was the third largest investor in the funds despite it being far smaller than the likes of AXA’s Hillross (with FUM of more than $5 billion) or Count Financial (FUM of $12 billion).

Clifford also noted that PIF wasn’t the major avenue for its clients, with Avenue investing greater amounts in Macquarie Cash Management Trust (more than $120 million) and Perpetual Premium Income Fund. However, Avenue only started funneling clients' funds into PIF in early 2005 after Lonsec started recommending the fund.

By contrast, Avenue would presumably have been recommending clients invest in Macquarie and Perpetual since 2000. While not confirmed by Avenue, based on the numbers, it would appear that in the last three years, PIF may have been the largest recipient of Avenue clients’ funds.

It should be remembered that while MFS PIF has been frozen, there is still a chance that investors will receive some or most of their funds back. No doubt Avenue and their advisors at Lonsec will be hoping they do". _


----------



## iamspeed (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Tuart said:


> Thanks Iamspeed
> 
> It will be interesting to see how much detail is provided on the individual positions of each investment




This would either put minds at ease or cause nightmares.  Surely they have a summarised spreadsheet of loans - JH would have wanted this surely?  I don't need names of borrows (privacy issues maybe?) but would be nice to know - amount, interest rate, when due, if overdue, security (fingers crossed).  Same goes for the Fixed Interest component - what are the actual names of the holdings, if they have a maturity date?  Plus more detailed info on Causeway and Maximum Yield Fund (as per February update).


----------



## wally3218 (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The registration forms state
The forum venues are listed below. Please complete your registration details below, along with your investor ID number and advise
your preferred location. If you would like us to consider additional venues, please send your request to the address below. Entry will
be limited to registered Unit holders.
Does this mean that I am not able to go and help my elderly pensioner mother with any advice.
She will have trouble remembering all she will be told and even now she does'nt understand what has happened to her money, just that she not getting any income.


----------



## seamisty (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



wally3218 said:


> The registration forms state
> The forum venues are listed below. Please complete your registration details below, along with your investor ID number and advise
> your preferred location. If you would like us to consider additional venues, please send your request to the address below. Entry will
> be limited to registered Unit holders.
> ...



Wally could you perhaps get your mother to sign something to the effect that you will represent her ie.her proxy?Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Rocky1 (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just wondering how the AG member meetings in all locations are tracking.

We have 8 members here in melbourne (+ 1 investor from Tasmania who we have included in our group) and are hoping to meet up next week

Communique - I just emailed you some details of a non internet user who would like you to contact her for the GC meeting - thanks


----------



## breaker1 (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



wally3218 said:


> The registration forms state
> The forum venues are listed below. Please complete your registration details below, along with your investor ID number and advise
> your preferred location. If you would like us to consider additional venues, please send your request to the address below. Entry will
> be limited to registered Unit holders.
> ...




You should be able to attend as her proxy - you might need your mother to sign a made up proxy statement or u need to get a form from WC. I'd go regardless using your mums investor id number. It's worth a call to WC office.
WC office number: 1300 368 848


----------



## zixo (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> WC is NOT the RE..a solicitor did some searches on our behalf and it seems that Octaviar Investment Management Limited is still the RE, but has just undergone a name change to Wellington Capital Investment Management..the RE licence is still Octaviar. She has merely purchased the management rights, this is just a way to try and keep WC as her being "accepted" by OCV means that the little clause in the PDS about a change in RE absolves OCV of the $50m Callable Facility, if we replace her then it's gone with another RE. All very smart BUT if she can't deliver on the $50m..or at least a good chunk of it..she is no different to any other RE that may present itself to us. JH better do a good deal for PIF and not a deal for OCV and Chris Scott. The solicitor also advises that there have been a zillion constitutional changes, which are only allowed without the consent of investors ONLY on the proviso these changes do not adversely affect investors. With all these losses, if there has been a constutional change that has adversely affected us, then there is cause for ASIC to investigate. Gee you know I wonder if JH really knows how much of a headache this is going to be for her AND to her rep?
> 
> She also advise us to request a list of all investors and a copy of the fund's constitution. I am hopefully meeting with her soon to advise me of other requirements and costs to move forward..will advise.





Excellent research Javiar.

The RBOS are not blameless in PIF investor suffering 
I was Interested to note BANKWEST are the Subsidary of the ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND.
Bankwest will now be losing me as an Investor.
I can’t bank with a financial Institution who shuts down a fund for an undisclosed loan which may have had long term payment date.
The Premium Income Fund Incurred a loan to LLA whilst the bank had stopped distributions and redemptions and then behaved as if it was doing the PIF a huge service.  

I have been following the RBOS and it has had some financial heart attacks lately. Most the rating agencies have downgraded it because of their mismanagement. 
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11074947

I’m amazed that  MFS/Octaviar are still heavily Involved with the Fund. In effect it’s only just a name change. 
We still have Hutchins and Perpetual in the loop.
What’s to stop this all happening again if the same structure is there?


----------



## breaker1 (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This article below is a warning that listing on any stock exchange now maybe a bad idea - further, it is advice from one of the largest banks in the world RBOS.

*Royal Bank of Scotland issues global stock and credit crash alert *
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Telegraph
June 18, 2008

http://www.infowars.com/?p=2731

The Royal Bank of Scotland has advised clients to brace for a full-fledged crash in global stock and credit markets over the next three months as inflation paralyses the major central banks.




“A very nasty period is soon to be upon us - be prepared,” said Bob Janjuah, the bank’s credit strategist.

A report by the bank’s research team warns that the S&P 500 index of Wall Street equities is likely to fall by more than 300 points to around 1050 by September as “all the chickens come home to roost” from the excesses of the global boom, with contagion spreading across Europe and emerging markets.

*Such a slide on world bourses would amount to one of the worst bear markets over the last century.*

RBS said the iTraxx index of high-grade corporate bonds could soar to 130/150 while the “Crossover” index of lower grade corporate bonds could reach 650/700 in a renewed bout of panic on the debt markets.

“I do not think I can be much blunter. If you have to be in credit, focus on quality, short durations, non-cyclical defensive names.

Read article

Alex Jones LIVE, A Fourth Hour Now Added To The Infowars Radio Show For Members
Click here to get your subscription today! 



3 Responses to “Royal Bank of Scotland issues global stock and credit crash alert”
3 chris Says: 
June 18th, 2008 at 2:03 pm 
unfortunately the stock market crash will only be the beginning as the dollar and currencies that depend on the dollar crash and then completely collapse… If you have not begun preparing already, you may want to do so we most likely only have a few months left before things get bad

2 Jack Boot Says: 
June 18th, 2008 at 1:50 pm 
I think what people need to realize is that Citzens Bank (http://www.citizensbank.com) is the Royal Bank of Scotland in disguise.

1 NewsMediaLies Says: 
June 18th, 2008 at 1:40 pm 
I just saw this on CNN as well - Holy crapola!


----------



## breaker1 (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Regarding forum invitation letter delays, one AG member has received theirs today, so they are coming out:

"Hi Breaker, Surprise Surprise The letter & registration form turned up this am, only hope we get a good turnout of investors.to ask some pertinent questions Thanks again"


----------



## Javier (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am being swamped with numbers for Sydney. My initial plan is now out the window for location. Any suggestions will be more than welcome. Thanks!


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> I understand, last I brought it up, that to gain access to the investor list (if we are allowed), it will cost us approx. $14,000 (correct me if I got that wrong).





Regarding the Right to inspect and get copies of the Register.
Because this is a 'Managed Investment Scheme' Anyone can access the register.

I spoke to ASIC about this and how much it should cost.  This is covered under CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 173
Right to inspect and get copies
“(2)	A member of a company or a registered scheme, a registered option holder or a registered debenture holder may inspect a register kept under this Chapter *without charge*. Other people may inspect the register only on payment of any fee (up to the prescribed amount) required by the company or scheme.”

*Does anyone know if we are considered members of the registered scheme*?  I asked ASIC and they couldn’t answer and said I would have to ask a lawyer. (Javier?)  If we are not, then the “prescribed amount” is covered under ‘Regulation Schedule 4’ which says the scheme can charge $5 per entry (if not electronic) or if the Register is electronic they can charge a reasonable amount to cover costs.  If anyone knows how to find this “Schedule 4”  I would like to see the exact quote as I didn’t write it down and can’t find it.  It’s apparently on the comlaw.gov.au web site.  I can’t see how $14000 would be a reasonable fee.

I'm thinking we should be able to get this without charge as the definition of a "_member" "in relation to a managed investment scheme means a person who holds an interest in the scheme"._


----------



## communique (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Update from the Gold Coast.
We now have a group of approx 15.  
We are organising a face to face meeting within the next
week with all local members.  We will have representation at 
the up and coming meetings.


----------



## Javier (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Give me an idea of where you are meeting communique, so I can suggest a place to the Sydney investors. Syd guys please help me out..I live in the south and work near the airport..would a place near there be fine, or shall we make it round near the city. I have no idea where you all live, so please some suggestions would be of help.


----------



## breaker1 (19 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

An AG member who is a Financial guy, gave me these rough figures as the costs for listing on the National stock Exchange (NSX) as follows:

"Hi Breaker



Check out http://www.nsxa.com.au/listing_fees.asp for NSX fees.  This list is long and not sure exactly which ones would apply in our situation.



I put a few rough figures in their calculator.  I think the $0.80 price on listing is overly hopeful.



Application Fee - 690,000,000 @ $0.80 = $117,467.56



Annual Fee - 690,000,000 @ $0.80 = $20,484.20



Additional Fees - 690,000,000 @ $0.80 = $19,019



As you can see it isn’t going to break the bank (so to speak).  Feel free to put on the forum if you think appropriate?"

So a total cost to the fund of roughly $157,000 in the first year.

We discussed the possible scenarios of the motives behind the NSX listing - I will possibly make that available later as my formed thoughts on the matter - I feel we still need to get more expert opinion, before I take a fixed stance on the matter. 

I have discussed the matter of the NSX with two people in the Finance business and the picture is clarifying, but not ready for formal opinion from me yet. I want to get it right!


----------



## Alan.Lowther (20 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Javier,

Could you please advise on the approximate number of AG members that have contacted you. That will help us to try to locate a suitably sized venue.

As Avenue Capital are based in Parramatta and appear to have dragged in a large number of us, would it be suitable to most to seek a venue near to Parramatta where many people may have visited their office?


----------



## Tuart (20 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good morning all.

It feels like this process is starting to come together.

Your first meeting(s) everyone needs to stay focused on are in establishing your structure. I have recommended forming an incorporated body.

Your first meeting is going to be really only procedural as you do not want to end up asking questions to each other on what is not known which is the position of the fund.

The meeting process WC is conducting is a seperate process to establishing a united collective action group and what processes you need to do this. It will trigger the release of information that needs to be taken and analysed before your group can work out what is best.

In relation to the NSX listing it may or may not be a good mechanism to provide liquidity. The major issue is that it is a decison taken by WC with no consultation to investors and BEFORE THEY COME FORWARD AND PRESENT THE TRUE POSITION OF THE FUND.

The next step required to deal with the work out is dependent on the position of the fund in terms of income, time of repayment of loans etc.

The more you guys stick together the better the final outcome will be as time fixes many problems.

An alternative solution if a significant number of you are comfortable with the assets and longer term value is to allow early redemptions as capital is returned. Start with extreme cases and move from there.

We dont know what is best and we dont know the truth so how can you guys support the proposed listing or not.

You may also find that once the position becomes clearer there are investors who can provide a private secondary market without  exposing values to markets that at the moment appear to be subject to manipulation.  I would trust this group collectively to try and do the right thing over the market currently.

A final reason for getting on with incorporating your group is that like all procedures there is a process in establishment that must be followed. Once you start that process then you get get together a membership application which will incorporate the power of attorney as well as explanation sheet of PIF Action Group (incorporated) objectives and post or email as new people come forward.

New members must put faith in your proposed committee to get on and represent your interests and manage the collective power that is happening here for your best interests.

Still no news on LLA. SDomeone should ring NAB and ask them exactly why they are threatening to put LLA to the sword which is triggering PIF selling the debt.

Why doesnt PIF with its new banker which I believe may be in the wings go and take out NAB convert some of PIF loan to equity and finish rights issues.

As part of settlement of OCV debt to PIF try and get the hands on the LLA shares they hold. LLA produces cashflow and provided returns to unitholders as part of its stapled security. 

The position of LLA in terms of what is required which can be gleaned from the Artic deal when coupled with cashflow statements show LLA potential.

Have a good day


----------



## seamisty (20 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all, I am in WA and am willing to liaise with other Western Australian PIF holders on behalf of the AG. Due to distance here in the West it may not be practicle to hold a personal meeting although I manage to get to Perth on occasion. I can be contacted initially by e-mail   seamisty@westnet.com.au     If you would please leave your ph. no. I will call you to discuss any issues you may have and foward them on to other committee members who will be attending the forthcoming WC meetings. I still have not received formal notification of these meetings from WC or have not had recent e-mails answered from OCV or WC. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## communique (20 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Give me an idea of where you are meeting communique, so I can suggest a place to the Sydney investors. Syd guys please help me out..I live in the south and work near the airport..would a place near there be fine, or shall we make it round near the city. I have no idea where you all live, so please some suggestions would be of help.





We are accessing Community Centre Halls and meeting rooms.  Perhaps get in contact with your local councillor for assistance.  All the best.


----------



## DoraNBoots (20 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All,

I have a copy of the Register of Members coming to me which I will forward on to the solicitor. This is coming without charge (as per Section 173 of Corp act). 

BTW:  The constitution is already in the mail which I asked for earlier this week.

Regards,
Dora.


----------



## sak (20 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I live east airport or city is fine with me




Javier said:


> Give me an idea of where you are meeting communique, so I can suggest a place to the Sydney investors. Syd guys please help me out..I live in the south and work near the airport..would a place near there be fine, or shall we make it round near the city. I have no idea where you all live, so please some suggestions would be of help.


----------



## iamspeed (20 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I have a copy of the Register of Members coming to me which I will forward on to the solicitor. This is coming without charge (as per Section 173 of Corp act).
> 
> ...




Dora

Good work on the register of members.  

I managed to get an electronic copy of the constitution and have since emailed it to Javier for his solicitor and also Claire from Australian Shareholders Association.


----------



## Rocky1 (20 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Can anyone advise what power we might have, if necessary to block the PIF listing on the NSX. Surely this can only happen with a majority investor support as it is a major change to the structure we invested in


----------



## Ivor Watt (20 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> Excellent research Javiar.
> 
> The RBOS are not blameless in PIF investor suffering
> I was Interested to note BANKWEST are the Subsidary of the ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND.
> ...




Just to clarify, Bankwest is owned by HBOS who are considering selling it.


----------



## Tuart (20 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Rocky1

My understanding of it is that they propose to create effectively a parallel class of unit which is listed not your units.

The day you want to sell you effectively swap your units at the market price of the listed units to listed units and sell these.

The listed fund would overtime own a larger and larger portion of the original PIF units as more are traded.

Technically its a new issue and no change to your structure I think so WC can do it. 

Who pays the cost of this new structure makes an interest point to be considered.

I am also not sure if the new class of listed units would be under your scheme umbrella. If if is under this scheme this may be a grey legal area and open up the arguement and your rights to approve.

Proportional share of capital and interest returned to listed units will either be passed to new owner or the capital may be retained by new fund for re-investment. That will be a call made by WC I guess when the establish this scheme.


----------



## Rocky1 (20 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tuart 

Thanks for your response, I guess we will have to see what they dish up at the forums. 

Even if technically our units are not on the NSX ultimately our unit price will be governed by the NSX (is that what you were eluding to). If this is correct then it is one of the same, our unit price will be thrown to wolves.

Also I gather that you don't think we could stop this. There must be a way. If a majority of investors where against it surely they could not proceed


----------



## Tuart (20 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Rocky1

I just had a talk to an investor on that subject and they asked if an injunction could be placed to prevent it.

They made an excellent comment in that should investors wish to consider some form of formal reconstruction of the fund to change its nature to allow a future listing any early listing with the likely decimation of values through firesales shuts the door on this alternative.

Ultimately listing should be something investors as a group should consider but only from an informed position and weighted up against other options such as orderly wind up once the true financial position is provided.

I am not a lawyer but when you use the above arguement about protecting values I feel your incorporated action group could mount a challenge and seek to injunct. By court stopping who is losing ? only any investor trying to sell so if PIF AG could demonstrate that the investor base can create their own secondary market I cannot see any agruement mounted to say anyone would lose through injunction but PIF holders could argue that RE actions have potential to destroy collective value.

The solicitor who is doing some background work on this will pick this topic up as she is know an avid forum follower having PA provide daily copies of posts and will have a better view.   

The part I do not get is that WC seems to be adapting an arrogant I know best approach rather than a consultative approach. Why would you rush something like this through rather than getting the facts presented and presenting options.

As mentioned earlier I can think of two alternatives to provide liquidity but until you know the facts hwo so you know whats best.


----------



## Tuart (20 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

last bit was supposed to say "how do you know whats best"

sorry


----------



## DoraNBoots (20 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> Can anyone advise what power we might have, if necessary to block the PIF listing on the NSX. Surely this can only happen with a majority investor support as it is a major change to the structure we invested in





Hi Rocky1,

ASIC said the fund can be listed on the NSX without consulting investors.  If we feel we would be adversely affected we can lodge a complaint.

Regards,
Dora.


----------



## Rocky1 (20 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

DoraNBoots

I guess we won't know until the forums what we think of the NSX but my early feeling is that it won't be ideal if we want to redeem our money, which seems to be a general consensus from what people are saying on this forum.

This type of investment strategy is not what we originally poured our money into.

I can't see how they could proceed if enough investors objected


----------



## Javier (20 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I had a meeting with the lawyer in town today. She is very knowledgable in the area of managed investments. I think we will be VERY well served by her in the future. I am in the opinion that there is no real point in having Sydney investor meetings prior to the WC forums in less that 3 weeks away as we really only have speculation to work with. Once we know the hard facts we can then move forward and see where we stand.

She agrees with me, as do other Sydney investors that I have spoken to. I hope that WC is the way to go as it would make it easier in terms of not having to find another RE, protection of the OCV $50m facility. The lawyer will be at the Sydney forum, and hopefully we will have enough info from the Brisbane & Melb forums to know where we stand, therby being able to get even more info and where we stand from the benefit of legal representation. 

There is more to add, but I must go now..post soon!


----------



## DoraNBoots (20 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Rocky1, I feel the same way about the NSX.  I was looking at the NSX site today and there’s hardly any activity, it’s depressing.

I’m assuming Jenny has a huge pile of redemption requests and this is the only way she knows how to deal with them.  I’m sure she’s got more requests for redemption than she has liquid assets.  So what is she suppose to do?  Sell assets, go into debt or list the fund?


----------



## selciper (20 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If I were totally confident in the new managers of PIF, I would consider withdrawing my redemption requests for a year or longer. In my case, it's not the capital that I need urgently but the recommencement of distributions. There may be others in a similar situation. Remember Northern Rock in the UK - the bank was stormed, but once solid guarantees were in place, the crowd quickly dispersed. Where PIF is concerned, I would above all consider the track record of the "team" making future investment decisions on my behalf.


----------



## Duped (21 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

NSX website (http://www.nsxa.com.au/shareholder_default.asp) states "It now has over 90 entities listed and a combined market capitalisation exceeding $800 million."  Possibly only 61 entities worth $693M now.

If PIF lists at full value of $690M, it will all but DOUBLE the capitalisation of the exchange.  "BIG fish in a small pond" ... more like a behemoth.

I have no idea if this is necessarily a bad thing.  Either way, the NSX Ltd shareholders must be licking their lips in anticipation.


----------



## DoraNBoots (21 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



iamspeed said:


> If the presentation isn't posted on website on the 7th, whoever attends the Brisbance forum should post a copy of any handouts (am I too hopeful) on this forum??




Hi All,

Not sure if anyone has volunteered, but I’ll scan any handouts from the Brisbane update and post on the forum on the 7th.


----------



## 2CentsWorth (22 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hello to all,
I have been following these threads since early June, and many good suggestions and wise words have been proffered, regarding what we should do to restore the our PIF to its' functional purpose, under the conditions of the original PDS rules that we signed under. We presently find ourselves far from that position. It seems many of us, including myself, rather than withdrawing all of our units, would be happy just to have the fund paying dividends to live on again. Of course, for varying reasons, some require full withdrawal, to achieve their original investment purpose. The relative proportions of these two factors, are not as yet known, either to us, or JH, who for the most part, I think, is actually trying to do the best thing to suit everybody. As JH has already stated, WC has been inundated with "WITHDRAWALS," but no one saying, "Please keep my money, just stand the fund up again." I feel sure that this condition has strongly influenced some of her decisions of action. 
It is my vehement opinion, that under NO circumstances, must this Fund be listed on the NSX.  This exchange is the "Nursing Home" for frail and fading shares, with considerably far less movement than its' human counterpart.
Living on the Sunshine Coast, Qld., places me among the first to attend the opening meeting in Brisbane, hopefully Communique and DoraNBoots, will come up also, instead of waiting for the Gold coast one.
Somehow though, we have to find out, even if only in rough proportions, those wanting OUT and those willing to stay in, and possibly the best way to do this, would be through the meetings, by requesting JH to generate a letter of "enquiry and options," to be sent to all unitholders, filled in, and returned. This information would surely be valuable to assist in the actions to be taken.
I would be glad to hear any thoughts on this matter, from anyone. 
Good Luck to us all!


----------



## seamisty (22 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



2CentsWorth said:


> Hello to all,
> I have been following these threads since early June, and many good suggestions and wise words have been proffered, regarding what we should do to restore the our PIF to its' functional purpose, under the conditions of the original PDS rules that we signed under. We presently find ourselves far from that position. It seems many of us, including myself, rather than withdrawing all of our units, would be happy just to have the fund paying dividends to live on again. Of course, for varying reasons, some require full withdrawal, to achieve their original investment purpose. The relative proportions of these two factors, are not as yet known, either to us, or JH, who for the most part, I think, is actually trying to do the best thing to suit everybody. As JH has already stated, WC has been inundated with "WITHDRAWALS," but no one saying, "Please keep my money, just stand the fund up again." I feel sure that this condition has strongly influenced some of her decisions of action.
> It is my vehement opinion, that under NO circumstances, must this Fund be listed on the NSX.  This exchange is the "Nursing Home" for frail and fading shares, with considerably far less movement than its' human counterpart.
> Living on the Sunshine Coast, Qld., places me among the first to attend the opening meeting in Brisbane, hopefully Communique and DoraNBoots, will come up also, instead of waiting for the Gold coast one.
> ...



Excellent post 2centsworth. I have not put in a redemption form to date.If the general concensus  of opinion is that investors would be prepared to wait a couple of years  before considering to withdraw capital providing WC can give a projected indication of unit price after that time, then why waste money listing the PIF fund on the NSX? If WC resumes distibutions and they would have to be equal to current bank interest at the minimum (8.5%plus)I think most investors would accept that. People wishing to take redemptions prior to this could be offered an out if they accept a below unit value so as to not jeopardise existing unfinished projects within the fund thereby offering longtermers a bonus incentive to stay with the Fund.If the PIF  survives the next two years and remains a going concern reassess the options of listing on the sharemarket then, but on the ASX, not some obscure unheard of stock exchange. The fund is currently surrounded by negative publicity at the moment, there will have to be some favourable press and some positive results before it is considered a worthwhile investment in any shape or form.Other opinions welcome. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## marcom (22 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This quote by Theodore Roosevelt in a speech at the Sorbonne (1910) titled "Citizenship in a Republic" is on the home page header of the new Wellington PIF website and it is also on the main Wellington Capital site:

*It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face in marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.*

I'm not sure of the relevance of the quote in relation to the future of the PIF?

However after reading several recent posts in this thread I am sure that our relationship with our new RE is evolving, and with the right pressure from the PIF Action Group we may yet see a reasonable outcome over time.

This situation reminds me of that famous quote by Winston Churchill - but first some background: The triumvirate forces (Britain, Russia and the US) were advancing on Berlin at the end of World War 2. Russian Premier Joseph Stalin was becoming extremely sceptical of the Americans who he saw as moving in for an unequal share of the German assets. Stalin asked Churchill if the Americans could be trusted and Churchill famously replied:

*You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing ... AFTER THEY HAVE EXHAUSTED ALL OTHER ALTERNATIVES*


----------



## pixierich (22 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We have several mid-sized investments in the PIF, the maximum investment term being two years. Around Dec./Jan last, a couple of them came up for rolling over or redemption; we opted to roll over, not being aware at that stage that the proverbial was about to hit the fan. We assumed that our investments had been rolled over, but when in March we visited the MFS (as it then was) office in Southport, we were told that as the PDS had been withdrawn, the fund was legally not able to either roll-over existing investments, or accept new ones, and those particular investments had been listed for redemption (Thanks for telling us!). We have since had a couple more mature, and likewise have been asked to fill out redemption requests, being told this was our only choice, and join the 360 day queue. 
To my knowledge, maximum investment term with the fund is two years. Presumably all investors in due course will be asked to file redemption requests when their funds mature. Presumably also, 360 days is the maximum length of time the fund is legally able to take to refund investments.
It would appear then, that by the end of 2009 or thereabouts, the fund will have 100% redemption requests, and no option but to pay out, the first payouts being early 2009. The result of this will more than likely be insolvency, which will precipitate the winding-up of the fund, unless JH can think of a better option.
This is the dilemma that she faces, or any RE come to that, as I see it. 
Unless the fund can be put back on its feet, and operate under a viable PDS, there are legal restraints which the RE face. This is why she is pushing for the NSX listing.
I'm not suggesting this is a good thing, but does the above make sense? I'm only a simple printer, not a money whizz. Some enlightenment please?


----------



## Javier (22 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

As stated I met with our lawyer on Friday. She advised we need to keep growing because as a group we really do have power in numbers to protect our rights and keep the managers of our funds as honest and transparent as possible and really have a say in what our options are. I have met many people in my business life, and believe that we are very lucky to have this real pro on our side. She specialises in managed investments gone wrong..I think we qualify.
She has requested some documents, I have in turn requested the following from WC, but if anyone can help that’s fine too:
1.	Custody agreement with Perpetual Nominees Limited 
2.	Registry services agreement with PNL
3.	Annual and half yearly financial statements
4.	Copy of current / most recent target rates of return
5.	Compliance plan
6.	Copy of member’s  register
7.	The 4 modifications to the constitution that was lodged with ASIC on 24oct06. The 4 mods being on 19jun07, 5jul07, 28mar08, 3jun08.
I asked her if she could be the person that we nominate for power of attorney (POT), she said she would provided one other investor was to have POT as well. We really need this to save getting 100 signatures everytime we try to get something done.
Once she gets the client register, she will then be able to contact all clients. Let’s just say this is a major law firm and then she will give us a price for legal services based on what info is given on the direction JH wants to go and if that’s the way we as investors want to go to benefit us the most. Account details I guess will be provided and we will be asked to tip in!
She will be at the Sydney WC investor forum. My suggestion is we all wear our PIF logo and maybe have a gathering after the forum on the 9th of July, there is no real point at this stage of having a meeting as we need to here JH vision of where she believes the fund should go, then once we know what we are up against and what our true position is (not just speculation), we can then plan our moves and start having a direction2 and really start things rolling.
I spoke to another investor on Friday that we have a long history (10 years ago we were involved in another investment gone wrong – which luckily we managed a really good outcome and got all our money due to a smaller AG situation..so yes they do work!) and he also agreed that a wind up of the fund was the way to go. Orderly of course, we get redemption of funds as loans are paid out, assets are sold and investments mature over time and be paid a return based on interest coming in and investment returns on maturity etc.
It would be good if JH can provide that orderly wind up and get us a high unit value back, she would be paid a fee and even offered bonuses if she can get beyond a certain targeted unit value as an incentive. If that is not JH vision, and goes against that of the majority of investors, perhaps a liquidator like PWC who would know the exact health of the Fund as they are still doing the assessment / audit would also be a suitable candidate.
JH will pull the “but I can get you the callable facility” card. Well then let’s see how independent of Chris Scott she really is and see how much of the $50m she can secure for us AND if she really is willing to pursue legally MFS entities and former board to retrieve funds and possible damages through incompetence, professional indemnity insurance  on policy claims, as I am sure our funds have been invested in MFS entities that do not conform to the constitution of the fund and lack of disclosure to investors of those dubious investments. Time will tell indeed. See you at the forums


----------



## erniel (22 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All,
As per the financials of the MFS PIF fund dated the 31 December 2007,
below are investments with related parties of the MFS PIF.
The independence of the auditors was not compromised.
                                                                    $ 000
1.MFS Living and Leasure Group                        $57,489
2.MFS Pacific Finance LTD                               $23,586
3.MFS Causeway Private Debt opportunties Fund $23,180

Further to the above the RE of the PIF have also invested our funds in what they term equity securites which are investments in the following related entities.
                                                                     $000
1.MFS Living and Leasure Group                          $ 5,906
2.MFS Diversified Group                                     $34,469
3.MFS Blue Sky Development Trust                      $ 2,265
4.MFS Property Trust no.7                                 $ 1,056
5.MFS Maximum Yield Fund                                 $85,000
                                                                --------------
           Total exposure of the PIF to MFS/Ocv    $232 ,951 ,000.00

This amount was as 31 December 2007.
The SF will not cover a Quarter of this exposure.
I would strongly suggest that we look at appointing solicitors to act for us asap.
Should it also be proved that breeches to the constitution have occurred we should persue the RE board and trustees in the criminal courts.
Could someone please assist me in obtaining the constitution of the PIF.

erniel:


----------



## seamisty (22 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



erniel said:


> Hi All,
> As per the financials of the MFS PIF fund dated the 31 December 2007,
> below are investments with related parties of the MFS PIF.
> The independence of the auditors was not compromised.
> ...



Thanks for these figures Erniel, I always suspected that the $200 million owed to the RBOS  was money borrowed against the assets of the PIF to prop up MFS/OCV related entities/subsiduaries.OK so I was out about $33million. It also exceeds the 20% Fund Gearing Level.There is definitely grounds for criminal misconduct against the previous MFS/OCVboard members and the PIFRE. I will make sure ASIC receives these figures to add to their growing pile of complaints. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## breaker1 (23 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Seamisty, Erniel, Javier, pixierich, Marcom, 2centsworth,  for your recent posts - you can feel the serious level increase a notch.

*This might be a good time to make a call for those reading this forum to register for our **local* *PIF Action Groups meetings , in particular, for forum reader PIF investors in the following areas:*

Brisbane (still to report - a late start) email breaker at: breaker1@aapt.net.au

Newcastle (coming along fine, but could do with a few more) email breaker at: breaker1@aapt.net.au

Port MacQuarie (NSW) email breaker at: breaker1@aapt.net.au 

Sydney, Melbourne and Gold Coast appear to be doing doing well. 

For those who are in WA and Adelaide (SA) and want to join the AG, please advise? If we have trouble organising a local AG meeting group at these, because of the tyranny of distance - you can always feel at home by contacting fellow AG members there by email (or phone if given). I have AG contacts at these areas.

PS Emailing me first, as above, will allow entry in the AG central data base and then forwarding on to AG local reps, if desired.


----------



## Wolfgang (23 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi to all

We also had no other option but to fill out the redemption form this month.


----------



## DoraNBoots (23 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Javier,

Thanks so much for your time with the lawyer!  It’s very encouraging.  I agree (with my limited knowledge at this point) that an orderly windup of the fund is much better than listing on the NSX.

Could you let us know *exactly *what powers would be handed over to the power of attorney?  And what method the POT will use to make decisions?  Will they use their discretion or consult the group?

Regards,
Dora.


----------



## iamspeed (23 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



erniel said:


> Hi All,
> As per the financials of the MFS PIF fund dated the 31 December 2007,
> below are investments with related parties of the MFS PIF.
> The independence of the auditors was not compromised.
> ...




Of the above list we know what most of them entail (not that it makes it ok).  Causeway is a bit of a mystery but we are told good people running it blah blah blah.  What about the MFS Maximum Yield Fund?  Anyone been told anything or have any ideas?


----------



## Mary Lynch (23 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Several people have suggested that we have a leaflet/brochure to hand out at the Forums.  Maybe one uniform to all states would be good.  I have a contact in Tasmania (a PIF investor) who would be willing to run off a couple of hundred for Melbourne....if someone would volunteer to put a brochure together for him.

To all Melbourne investors: there seems to be a drift towards having a meeting straight after the Forum if necessary. So keep some extra time there up your sleeve.


----------



## charles36 (23 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi fellow Unit holders and AG members.

You are all doing a great job and collectively we will be a force to be reckoned with.

It is my belief that we should forge ahead as quickly as possible to get an EGM, regardless of what takes place as these so call meetings which will be held to tell us what they are going to do.

We should ensure that "OUR FUND"  does not get listed on the NSX.  You can tell now that the Unit price on this exchange will drop dramatically in value and that will become the Unit price of our investment. 

I appreciate all that is being done by Breaker1 and all you other kind people and united we stand, divided we will fall.


----------



## zixo (23 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All,

To the Sydney Investors and AG members

I’ve been informed that the Coogee Bowling Club who were recently put into receivership partly due to the MFS/Octaviar Premium income fund, are kindly allowing us to use their club as a meeting place if we need to hold meetings. 

Hopefully this might be a good location and suits anyone interested if its needed


----------



## Janiss (23 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Coogee Bowling Club sounds excellent and will probably attract a good turnup of club members who are indirectly affected.


----------



## breaker1 (23 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just to let you know, I got my letter from Jenny today, inviting me to the forum meetings

Trust everyones getting theirs? 

BTW - You only have till June 30th to register ("Please RSVP by 30th June")
You can register by fax to 1300 854 893 or by reply envelope. 
Considering the notoriously slow mail between QLD & NSW, I feel WC should cut a bit of slack for the short notice RSVP date - way to late for this RSVP date. I just got mine today and its already 23/06/08.

Further, I think we should be able to *scan *the "Registration Form" with our investor details and date / venue chosen and then, *email it back *- will follow this up with WC.

It comes with a PIF update June 2008 which really doesn't tell us much we don't know.

Under "How can I get my money out" - only the NSX is mentioned, NOT any starting of quartely payments via the PIF, at a later date, as I was advised. This maybe just those who want all their money out immediately. Need to verify this, either before the meetings or at the meetings. I was sure I did verify it - perhaps Jenny will mention the other quarterly option at the forum.


----------



## akernst (24 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am hoping after all this time, the managers of the PIF, should now have established the Fund back to a viable entity. 

If they cannot do this in our BOOMING economy in Australia, then they never will.

Probably a two year old could have done it by now!

We will never have such boom here ever again.

If they cannot, then they should resign.


----------



## sak (24 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Breaker,having been to a few distressed investor meetings,has Jenny mentioned what is the front door formalities with regards to entering the meeting,what information are they expecting from us.(Superfunds,Trusts etc )
Will the faxed form be sufficient proof of identity?



breaker1 said:


> Just to let you know, I got my letter from Jenny today, inviting me to the forum meetings
> 
> Trust everyones getting theirs?
> 
> ...


----------



## Jadel (24 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All 
           Am  co ordinating the AG for Brisbane but unfortunately beset by Server problems and am posting on limited time from local library

  Should be back on line tomorrow morning 

  Please contact me on chrisaaa@iprimus.com.au


I think the following post will give investors some idea why the PIF almost certainly recieved an ultimatum from the Royal bank of Scotland and was forced to fire sale assets.

  Regards Chris

The Royal Bank of Scotland has advised clients to brace for a full-fledged crash in global stock and credit markets over the next three months as inflation paralyses the major central banks.

"A very nasty period is soon to be upon us - be prepared," said Bob Janjuah, the bank's credit strategist.

A report by the bank's research team warns that the S&P 500 index of Wall Street equities is likely to fall by more than 300 points to around 1050 by September as "all the chickens come home to roost" from the excesses of the global boom, with contagion spreading across Europe and emerging markets.

Such a slide on world bourses would amount to one of the worst bear markets over the last century.

RBS said the iTraxx index of high-grade corporate bonds could soar to 130/150 while the "Crossover" index of lower grade corporate bonds could reach 650/700 in a renewed bout of panic on the debt markets.

"I do not think I can be much blunter. If you have to be in credit, focus on quality, short durations, non-cyclical defensive names.

"Cash is the key safe haven. This is about not losing your money, and not losing your job," said Mr Janjuah, who became a City star after his grim warnings last year about the credit crisis proved all too accurate.

RBS expects Wall Street to rally a little further into early July before short-lived momentum from America's fiscal boost begins to fizzle out, and the delayed effects of the oil spike inflict their damage.

"Globalisation was always going to risk putting G7 bankers into a dangerous corner at some point. We have got to that point," he said.

US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank both face a Hobson's choice as workers start to lose their jobs in earnest and lenders cut off credit.

The authorities cannot respond with easy money because oil and food costs continue to push headline inflation to levels that are unsettling the markets. "The ugly spoiler is that we may need to see much lower global growth in order to get lower inflation," he said.

"The Fed is in panic mode. The massive credibility chasms down which the Fed and maybe even the ECB will plummet when they fail to hike rates in the face of higher inflation will combine to give us a big sell-off in risky assets," he said.

Kit Jukes, RBS's head of debt markets, said Europe would not be immune. "Economic weakness is spreading and the latest data on consumer demand and confidence are dire. The ECB is hell-bent on raising rates.

"The political fall-out could be substantial as finance ministers from the weaker economies rail at the ECB. Wider spreads between the German Bunds and peripheral markets seem assured," he said.

Ultimately, the bank expects the oil price spike to subside as the more powerful force of debt deflation takes hold next year.


----------



## 2CentsWorth (24 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

SAK,
What if one has returned his form by post ?

I will be taking an MFS Dividend receipt which shows my ID number, and if need be, will produce my license against it. However, I don't think this amount of formality has been considered, probably just turn up and possibly, sign in. Who else would really be interested in going, other than bludgeoned unit holders.

Akernst,
could you please send me some of your tablets, they're rippers !!
Unfortunately, all monies gained by the fund over this time, have been given to RBOS, and such will be the case until their final payment is made. PwC are currently doing the figures on just how much money collectively, we have left. JH meanwhile, is trying to determine exactly what to do, to bring about what you hentioned. So far her answer is to run parallel units on the NSX, to give those who need or want their money back now, a method of doing so, but at price set by an external "BUYER," which no doubt, would a very much reduced one, assuming there are any BUYERS at all! 
Those of us who leave our money in the fund, will eventually start to receive dividends again, and as the fund builds up, should you desire to, you will be able to take up the offer of redemption in due turn. in real unit prices.
This is the reason I am vehemently agains listing on the NSX. This is an offer 
to the desperately needy, that comes with a razor in its' hand. Like myself, there are other members who just want the fund to stand up again, and start producing income. and that's good for us. 
However, I cannot possbly condone the offer, as it stands, made to those who require immediate withdrawal, by listing on the NSX...There has to be a better way for them...maybe it is, to wind up the fund. This I guess, is what 
we are really uniting in strength to fight for. 

Breaker1, you lit the torch, and we all see its' light, so let's get Javier rolling!

My thanks to all posters in this FORUM.


----------



## sak (24 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Jadel
Just wondering if stock investors panic and cash up, where do they keep there cash,hmmm Banks?



Jadel said:


> Hi All
> Am  co ordinating the AG for Brisbane but unfortunately beset by Server problems and am posting on limited time from local library
> 
> Should be back on line tomorrow morning
> ...


----------



## seamisty (24 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Morning all. There is a creditor update just been posted by the ASX under OCV. I can't paste it but will replicate this interesting snippet from the announcement:::In addition to the $50 million claimed under the Support Mechanism previously announced, the RE for PIF has now claimed damages against Octaviar Limited and an Octaviar subsiduary for $147.5 million in relation to investments made by PIF. A claim of this nature was noted as a possibility in the notes to the financial statements at 31 December 2007. ::::::At least the PIF is in the queue as a creditor in the event that OCV is wound up. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (24 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Another media update from Bloomberg.com regarding OCV:::Octaviar Faces More Than A$1 Billion in Claims From Creditors 

By Garfield Reynolds

June 24 (Bloomberg) -- Octaviar Ltd., formerly known as MFS Ltd., received fresh creditor demands boosting the total claims against the company and its units to more than A$1 billion ($952 million) after the Public Trustee of Queensland went to court seeking to liquidate the asset manager. 

Octaviar and a subsidiary received a A$147.5 million claim from the manager of the Premium Income Fund, adding to an initial A$50 million claim announced earlier, the Southport, Queensland- based company said today in a statement to the Australian stock exchange. OPI Pacific Finance Ltd. on June 19 told Octaviar it was seeking A$270 million. 

The company, which borrowed more than twice the value of its assets in the past two years, is being forced to sell assets after running foul of investors as the crisis in the credit markets heightens concerns about indebted firms. Its shares have been suspended since Jan. 18 after plunging 77 percent in the first 11 trading days of the year. 

``Octaviar needs to reach an accommodation with its large creditors so as to align the obligations to those creditors with the realization of the Group's assets,'' the company said. ``We continue in discussions with the large creditors regarding such an accommodation.'' 

The company has acknowledged that the holders of A$100 million in notes have the right to seek immediate repayment of the bonds, initially due in 2011, after the Public Trustee's suit triggered default clauses. The Public Trustee is seeking A$351.5 million from Octaviar. 

The Australian Taxation Office also is seeking A$60 million in taxes and interest for the 2007 financial year, exceeding the A$52.2 million tax liability Octaviar recorded in its Dec. 31 accounts. 

Octaviar is in discussions with National Australia Bank Ltd., which is seeking A$40 million. 

To contact the reporter for this story: Garfield Reynolds in Sydney at greynolds1@bloomberg.net


----------



## Javier (24 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We may be in line, but as an unsecured creditor, how much would we get? $147m (is this LLA etc??) damages the PIF made as investments in MFS subsiduaries...I thought under the PIF constitution it could not make direct investments to subsiduaries of parent co MFS? I reckon when all is settled we have a case for suing the professional idemnity policy for MFSIM board as I am sure there were breaches in the manner investments were done, with complete disregard of the constitution, the adverse effects that these decisions may have on investor funds and they were just down right INCOMPETENT..and that CEO of MFSIM is now with WC!!!!


----------



## phil lawrence (24 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi 
Just joined Aussie Stock Forums as one of the disaffected PIF investors. Put me on the action group - not even sure whether I have hit the right buttons to make this happen
Phil Lawrence for SMSF


----------



## seamisty (24 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



phil lawrence said:


> Hi
> Just joined Aussie Stock Forums as one of the disaffected PIF investors. Put me on the action group - not even sure whether I have hit the right buttons to make this happen
> Phil Lawrence for SMSF



Hi Phil, please contact breaker1@aapt.net.com and register your details, welcome to the forum and Action Group, regards, seamisty


----------



## selciper (24 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> We may be in line, but as an unsecured creditor, how much would we get? $147m (is this LLA etc??) damages the PIF made as investments in MFS subsiduaries...I thought under the PIF constitution it could not make direct investments to subsiduaries of parent co MFS? I reckon when all is settled we have a case for suing the professional idemnity policy for MFSIM board as I am sure there were breaches in the manner investments were done, with complete disregard of the constitution, the adverse effects that these decisions may have on investor funds and they were just down right INCOMPETENT..and that CEO of MFSIM is now with WC!!!![/QUOTE
> 
> Boy, are there sliding panels in this disgraceful saga! Every time I read a post by the likes of Javier and Breaker1, I am thankful. If ever there was a time for investors' cynicism to rise it's now. And WC shouldn't underestimate investors' desire to dig deep into all this. I guess WC overlooked the chances of such a strong-willed Action Group ever forming when they took us over.


----------



## Rocky1 (24 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Javier 

I spoke to a national manager at PIF a couple of months ago and he informed me that the loan with LLA had been negotiated to be secure - hopefully this was correct. From memory we where second in line.

TO ALL 

I have attached a draft flier which a member of our Melbourne group has put together for comment. The purpose of the flier is to distribute at local forum meetings to recruit more investors to the AG. Basically there are three fliers per A4 page which means it wont take long to run of and cut up a coupe of hundred.


----------



## DoraNBoots (24 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Wondering if the local representatives have considered creating email accounts specifically for their group?  It could be a free account like PIFActionGroupBNE at yahoo.com.  This would give you the freedom to pass the account on to another member should the need arise.  (I.E. holidays or PC problems, or you no longer wish to be the rep). Could also have more than one person monitoring the mailbox if things really get going.

Also, if you want to put an email address on this forum you might want to write it with spaces to stop spambots from collecting your address and spamming you.


----------



## wally3218 (24 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My biggest complaint is why has'nt ASIC done anything about the breaches OCV/MFS have made.

"ASIC is responsible for the supervision of operators of financial markets and clearing and settlement (C&S) facilities and of market participants"

When you read what they say on their web site I am amazed that they havent done anything. I suspose there waiting till it all goes bust before stepping in.

On another note my mother recieved her letter advising of the forum today and she phone and asked could I accompany her to the meeting and was advised just to add my name to the form and send it back to them.
I definately hope that I wont be refused entry.


----------



## seamisty (24 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> We may be in line, but as an unsecured creditor, how much would we get? $147m (is this LLA etc??) damages the PIF made as investments in MFS subsiduaries...I thought under the PIF constitution it could not make direct investments to subsiduaries of parent co MFS? I reckon when all is settled we have a case for suing the professional idemnity policy for MFSIM board as I am sure there were breaches in the manner investments were done, with complete disregard of the constitution, the adverse effects that these decisions may have on investor funds and they were just down right INCOMPETENT..and that CEO of MFSIM is now with WC!!!!



Javier I'm not sure that the loan to LLA is included in that $147million.I think that is separate again as LLA is a separate listed company and not included in the winding up orders listed by the  Public Trustee of Queensland(PTQ) The four affected are 1.Octaviar LTD, 2.Octaviar Investment Notes Ltd, 3.Octaviar Investment Bonds Ltd. 4.Octaviar Financial Services Ltd.,  So if you include the money owed to the PIF from LLA that accounts for all (plus more)of the $200 million that was owed to the RBOS I have kept several e-mails I received from OCV stating that OCV did not have a loan to PIF and that the money owed the RBOS was used to buy additional assets for the PIF. I also received a letter from Guy Hutchings on the 7th May stating::'There has been a recent change to the conditions of the LLA loan. The loan term has been extended by 1 month to the 30th June 2008 on condition that once LLA's main secured lender has been repaid , LLA grants an all assets fixed and floating charge and real property mortgages over the freehold and leasehold real property to the PIFto secure an amount of up to $45 million. This may provide unit holders with improved security for the loan facility to LLA.':::Regards, Seamisty


----------



## zixo (24 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



wally3218 said:


> My biggest complaint is why has'nt ASIC done anything about the breaches OCV/MFS have made.
> 
> "ASIC is responsible for the supervision of operators of financial markets and clearing and settlement (C&S) facilities and of market participants"
> 
> When you read what they say on their web site I am amazed that they havent done anything. I suspose there waiting till it all goes bust before stepping in..




Wally3218,

I agree with your view on the investigation and attitude by ASIC regarding the PIF.

Fincorp, ACR and Westpoint are companies who ASIC has been Investigating for years now, and as far as I know No-one has been convicted of any wrong doing... yet.

MFS/Octaviar PIF is bigger than all those companies with many more investors. 

My complaint also centred on the Auditors for The PIF. 
Did they do their job properly?


----------



## breaker1 (24 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Not looking good for OCV LTD:*

OPI joins the MFS litigation queue
By Mitchell Hall
Tuesday June 24 2008 - 05:43pm

OPI Pacific Finance will line up alongside two Australian companies, today suing stricken parent company Octaviar (formerly MFS) for A$270 million ($340 million).

The Public Trustee of Queensland, a trustee for investors with listed notes in Octaviar, has served the company with a notice asserting a default event has occurred. It sought repayment in full of its A$348 million notes, plus interest by June 5 this year. The notes would otherwise have matured in 2011.

*EDIT (from another article on same story) under:*
The claim for damages from Octaviar is related to the parent company's management of the Pacific Finance loan book. A Pacific Finance spokesman said it was believed Octaviar had breached the terms of its management contract, resulting in losses for Pacific Finance.

The spokesman said the legal action would not have any impact on the moratorium, which would continue.

Details of OPI's $446 million worth of loans outlined in the moratorium documents showed vast exposure to the subprime market - contrary to what had earlier been indicated.

The losses on the loan book were such that Pacific Finance investors would get less than half their money back if the Pacific Finance went into receivership.

The documents showed that only 13 per cent of loans had first ranking and the vast majority of the loans were advanced on a loan-to-value ratio of 80 per cent or more.

In addition, vast sums had been channelled through Octaviar, with about $167 million funnelled through a "loan securitisation vehicle".

"The loan book position is disappointing and investors will no doubt be very disappointed with it," Pacific Finance's chief executive Jason Maywald said last month.

At the time he put the state of the loan book down to general economic factors, a downturn in the Australian property market and an issue around the "origination of the loans by Octaviar in Australia".

"Octaviar's a large organisation. They were responsible for the origination and management of the loan book and the financial management of the company. And as a director I received information and reports and asked questions ... and some of the things that I know now today I didn't know in December or even in the beginning of January," he said.

A "creditor update" issued by Octaviar today showed that the beleaguered company now faces claims approaching A$1 billion, meaning its survival must be in huge doubt.

Its only significant remaining asset is a 35 per cent stake in property and travel group Stella, which among other things owns the Gullivers Travel Group in New Zealand.

- More BusinessDay.co.nz stories

Challenger Managed Investments, which holds A$100 million bonds from an Octaviar subsidiary, is also taking legal action to get early repayment of their bonds. A trial is set down for July 21.

The MFS suit alleges a breach of management contract by Octaviar that has led to massive losses. 12,000 Kiwi investors are owed over NZD$310 million.

Octaviar now faces claims approaching A$1 billion, threatening its survival. Octaviar has a 35 per cent stake in Stella, a property and travel group that owns the Gullivers Travel Group in New Zealand.


----------



## Brendo73 (24 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all, found this thread and thought i better get on, im also a pif investor, i cant do much to help out because im not right up with all this crap that is going on but im here if ya need anything. Thanks to all for trying to get things going so we can get *OUR* money back. Thanks again, 

Brendon.


----------



## seamisty (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All, Here is a media update regarding the PIF. ::ebts of $1 billion may sink OctaviarNick Nichols 

25Jun08 

EMBATTLED financial services group Octaviar's days appear to be numbered after a raft of new claims lifted the debt it owes creditors to more than $1 billion.

With only $170 million in the bank and remaining assets of little more than $400 million, the Gold Coast company appears destined to be liquidated after conceding it may have to immediately pay Challenger Financial Services $100 million in unlisted bonds not due to mature until 2011.

The trigger for the rush of claims has been winding-up action by the Public Trustee of Queensland earlier this month against Octaviar and a number of its subsidiaries over their failure to repay $351 million in listed notes.


The action is set to be heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland on September 9 and 10.

But before that, on July 21, Octaviar, formerly known as MFS, has to front up to the NSW Supreme Court to defend Challenger's claim.

The company yesterday admitted it would have to roll over in this case.

Until now, Octaviar has consistently denied its sale of 65 per cent of Stella to private equity group CVC Asia Pacific constituted a default trigger for the repayment of the bonds.

But Octaviar company secretary David Anderson, in a statement to the Australian Stock Exchange yesterday, said the Public Trustee's actions 'have triggered an event of default in relation to the unlisted bonds and we have agreed with the bondholders that the bondholders now have the ability to make the bonds due and payable'.

The latest blow has come on the heels of Octaviar's former flagship investment vehicle, the Premium Income Fund (PIF), boosting its claim against the company by $147.5 million.

The claim has been brought by Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital, which took control of the fund in May. It is on top of an original demand for $50 million in support pledged to the fund by Octaviar.

Ms Hutson yesterday said the latest claim involved loans forwarded from PIF to the then MFS late last year.

"Our determination now is that there is zero value in those loans," said Ms Hutson. "As a consequence there is a $147.5 million loss to be worn by PIF."

Ms Hutson said those loans were 'inappropriate' from PIF's perspective and the fund had retained a top Sydney barrister for PIF investors.

Ms Hutson said it was the 'right time for all and any claims (against Octaviar) to be properly in the ring'.

Ms Hutson said Octaviar indicated it would treat creditors 'in a fair fashion'; she remained opposed to liquidation.

 Octaviar yesterday said it continued to talk to its creditors to come to some agreement over payment of its debts.

Among the claims it faces is $56.5 million from the Australian Taxation Office, up from $52.5 million listed in its December 31 accounts. This was due to added interest.

Octaviar's New Zealand subsidiary, OPI Pacific Finance, last week lodged a damages claim seeking $270 million from Octaviar.

The move comes despite a three-year moratorium on the debt struck by Octaviar only last month. National Australia Bank is also owed $40 million through an Octaviar guarantee for funds forwarded to subsidiary Living and Leisure Australia (LLA).

That guarantee is planned to be released once LLA's recapitalisation plan with James Packer's Arctic Capital is completed.

Octaviar chief executive Craig Chapman did not return calls last night


----------



## seamisty (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Another relevant media article::Creditor claims weigh down Octaviar.Page: Print Fiona Cameron | June 25, 2008 
OCTAVIAR'S situation has worsened dramatically, with two creditors launching claims against the crippled investment manager for $393 million in damages. If successful, the claims will bring the debt of Octaviar (formerly MFS) to more than $1 billion.

OPI Pacific Finance and the Premium Income Fund are seeking, respectively, $270 million and $147.5 million from Octaviar and a subsidiary. 

Jenny Hutson, managing director of Wellington Capital, which in May took control of PIF (formerly an MFS satellite) said investigation of the fund's affairs had shown that in November-December 2007, MFS had drawn down $147.5 million from PIF. 

In exchange, PIF had received a series of pre-existing unsecured loans, which now appeared to have "zero chance" of recovery, Ms Hutson said. 

The loans accounted for 20c in the dollar of PIF's assets, she said. The actions of the former MFS in drawing the funds from PIF were "outrageous". 

The damages claim is on top of $50 million PIF previously claimed to be owed by Octaviar. 

The damages claim pits Ms Hutson against Chris Scott, the rebel shareholder who seized control of the Octaviar board in April and is now an executive director. 

Ms Hutson was an adviser to Mr Scott during his bid to win a board seat. 

New Zealand-based OPI Pacific Finance advised last Thursday of its $270 million damages claim, Octaviar told the ASX yesterday. 

In its financial statements to December 2007, released in April, Octaviar reported its $246 obligation to OPI Pacific Finance under a put option. 

In a moratorium agreement with OPI creditors, $20 million was paid in March. 

Meanwhile, the Public Trustee of Queensland's bid to wind up Octaviar over $349 million in unsecured notes has been put off until September after being moved to the Commercial Causes List of the Queensland Supreme Court. 

The matter previously was listed for hearing next month. 

This means the first court action facing Octaviar is that of James Packer's Challenger Group over its $100 million in unlisted floating rate bonds. 

Challenger Managed Investments is seeking to clarify guarantees Octaviar provided and the terms of the agreement over the bonds. That court hearing has been set down for July 21. 

It is understood Challenger executives were surprised to read in Octaviar's notice to the ASX yesterday that the public trustee's wind-up bid had "triggered an event of default in relation to the unlisted bonds". 

"We have agreed with the bondholders that the bondholders now have the ability to make the bonds due and payable," Octaviar secretary David Anderson told the ASX.


----------



## sak (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Todays front page Finanacial review is a must read .


----------



## iamspeed (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sak said:


> Todays front page Finanacial review is a must read .




I have attached the article.  Doesn't make for good reading.

I heard a rumour yesterday that the RBOS $ was used to buy out these loans from other people who wanted out.  I am sure some of this has ended up in the Maximum Yield Fund No1, which I rasied earlier (first time I heard about this $85 mill Fund was the February update). 

What position do Perpetual Trustees have after letting this happen?

How could Guy & Marilyn let this happen?  Surely they haven't allowed the money to be lent with no security and no chance of getting a return (atleast something?).

Is this a case for a claim on their PI insurance or do they go straight to jail?


----------



## Wolfgang (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all

I read Financial review today.

Is the Premium Income Fund PIF still a subsidiary of Octaviar?

Wolfgang


----------



## seamisty (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



iamspeed said:


> I have attached the article.  Doesn't make for good reading.
> 
> I heard a rumour yesterday that the RBOS $ was used to buy out these loans from other people who wanted out.  I am sure some of this has ended up in the Maximum Yield Fund No1, which I rasied earlier (first time I heard about this $85 mill Fund was the February update).
> 
> ...



 I'll settle for both, the insurance and jail for all involved in the fraudulent inept handling of the PIF!!!! Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Mary Lynch (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

On a lighter note! If Richard in Tasi sends key people copies of the finished flyer, and the key people send them out to all AG members...then we could all print out our own flyers to hand out, rather than a few doing the lot; it would be quicker and more efficient.

I, and others, are also wondering......can anyone tell us of other possible options for the PIF to consider outside: 
(a)earlier rather than later liquidation of assets, paying us all out, (and starting again.....maybe in a year's time back making mega bucks!!!).

(b) selling units on the NSX (obviously at a % loss)...for those who wish to get their $$ out urgently. (Let's bare in mind that anyone who has money anywhere just about, at the moment, has faced losses, if they sell now, of at least a quarter). 

(c) waiting the 360days, hopefully with distributions soon and then deciding what to do. 

(d) claiming severe hardship in order to redeem funds.


----------



## sak (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Mary
I think we need to understand point c of your question I am sure it was mentioned before that the so call distribution could be a small return of capital
hopefully the meetings will clarify this option.



Mary Lynch said:


> On a lighter note! If Richard in Tasi sends key people copies of the finished flyer, and the key people send them out to all AG members...then we could all print out our own flyers to hand out, rather than a few doing the lot; it would be quicker and more efficient.
> 
> I, and others, are also wondering......can anyone tell us of other possible options for the PIF to consider outside:
> (a)earlier rather than later liquidation of assets, paying us all out, (and starting again.....maybe in a year's time back making mega bucks!!!).
> ...


----------



## seamisty (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> On a lighter note! If Richard in Tasi sends key people copies of the finished flyer, and the key people send them out to all AG members...then we could all print out our own flyers to hand out, rather than a few doing the lot; it would be quicker and more efficient.
> 
> I, and others, are also wondering......can anyone tell us of other possible options for the PIF to consider outside:
> (a)earlier rather than later liquidation of assets, paying us all out, (and starting again.....maybe in a year's time back making mega bucks!!!).
> ...



Cross off d. Mary. I am in contact with a PIF holder who is terminally ill with cancer who has all the right paperwork to back up her condition and couldn't even get an appointment at MFS/OCV. So even if you are dying this is not considered grounds for early redemption. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## PIFholder (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I'm a unitholder that's just found this site too. 

The registration form can be downloaded from www.newpif.com.au - just found this Wellington website while searching for the forum.

Might be a faster way to make sure we are registered.



breaker1 said:


> Just to let you know, I got my letter from Jenny today, inviting me to the forum meetings
> 
> Trust everyones getting theirs?
> 
> ...


----------



## Mary Lynch (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

To Sak,

So as I understand you, you think that, at whatever stage you go to redeem your investment, that you will have whatever amount that you have received in distributions from now, withheld?   Otherwise, how does one distinguish this cash from that cash, or capital from distributions....its all just on paper in the end!


----------



## mairmy (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Greetings fellow investors

Maybe the fact that JH is taking legal action might end up working in our favor.

Thank you so very much to all of you who are doing so much behind the scenes with your expertise and knowledge of these financial matters.  Your time and effort is greatly appreciated.

I look forward to meeting you at the Melb meeting on 8th July.


Mairmy


----------



## selciper (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The most recent AFR report is truly alarming. I'm getting quite confused. Just how much of our money remains? Where the hell is our "custodian" (Perpetual)? Did they read the PIF constitution? Those signed, optimistic monthly newsletters of the past aren't easily forgotten. I don't think that OCV will ever have the money to pay us back. Hopefully, I'm wrong. Perhaps some better informed investor could explain the present position. It lools horrible to me.


----------



## sak (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We will need to wait to the meetings to try & understand what WC are actually offering we are coming from many different positions and I am sure none of the investors will be happy with what the final outcome will be,return of capital as close to 100C in the $ in the shortest possible time is something that we can only dream about.I fear that the legals are going to keep this on the boil for many years.




Mary Lynch said:


> To Sak,
> 
> So as I understand you, you think that, at whatever stage you go to redeem your investment, that you will have whatever amount that you have received in distributions from now, withheld?   Otherwise, how does one distinguish this cash from that cash, or capital from distributions....its all just on paper in the end!


----------



## Jabula (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*


It is our view that the proposal of listing the PIF on the NSX should be resisted by all investors.
No one will buy the PIF shares at a price higher than that reflected by the asset value and the listing will give an opportunity to underhand deals which are not going to favour the current investors.
The best and only solution is an orderly wind up of the PIF assets accompanied by realistic distributions and redemptions.


----------



## breaker1 (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*This latest Media Release from Wellington Capital is a jaw dropper:*

For further information please contact:
Wellington Investment Management Limited
as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund
Phone: 1300 854 885
Email: jhutson@wellcap.com.au
24 June 2008
*Wellington commences proceedings against Octaviar on behalf of Unitholders*
Jenny Hutson, Chairperson of Wellington Investment Management Limited, the responsible entity for the
Premium Income Fund said today that the board had commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of
Queensland against Octaviar Limited, Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd and OPI Pacific Finance Limited.
The Claim has been filed after detailed consideration was given to the issues by the board of Wellington
Investment Management Limited in conjunction with leading silk Matthew Walton SC. $147.5 million in
compensation is being demanded on behalf of unitholders.
The claim specifically relates to contraventions of section 601FD of the Corporations Act by officers of
Octaviar Limited, Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd and OPI Pacific Finance Limited in not carrying out their
duties honestly and with care and diligence, in relation to:
the investment of Premium Income Fund money in related party investments;
participation in loan agreements with related parties; and
compliance with the Australian Financial Services Licence, Constitution and Compliance Plan of
the Premium Income Fund
to ensure that any activities of the Premium Income Fund were undertaken in the best interests of the
members of the Premium Income Fund.
This represents 20 cents in every dollar invested by unitholders. This is a very serious issue. The board is
concerned to ensure that unitholders in the Premium Income Fund have the full benefit of their hard earned
funds.
This claim is in addition to the $50 million claimed in relation to the Support Facility with Octaviar Limited,
which continues to be vigorously pursued by Wellington Investment Management Limited, as responsible
entity for the Premium Income Fund.
Premium Income Fund
Media Release


----------



## breaker1 (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*REGARDING REGISTRATION FORMS FOR THE FORUM:*

If you feel that mailing the rego forms to Wellington Capital might not get there on time for the 30th June RSVP date you CAN do the following:

SCAN your filled out original of the rego form and then send / email Wellington Capital on: msutter@wellcap.com.au and a Ms. Sutter will process your forms - just forms, no questions.

In the Section "Unit holder names" you can put more than the unit holder, that is, if you want to bring along a partner or relative, just put their names in there as well.

Of course you can fax your completed form to 1300 854 893


----------



## Jadel (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Both  Seamisty and Myself have been working on this document for some time calling for a full investigation by ASIC 

 It is now patently obvious that our worse fears and suspicions have been realised .

  We need a major group  investor initiative to get ASIC to  find out how such a blatant abuse of investors trust could ever  be allowed to happen in a supposedly  Independant and diversified income Fund 


 Please contact me personally and i will append your names to the letter

chrisaaa@iprimus.com.au


                            Letter To ASIC

                           I have recently made  contact with a group of people who have invested  in the Premium           Income Fund .You will find their names appended to the bottom of this letter 

The Premium income Fund declared  purpose was to provide a secure monthly income for investors who are in the main superannuation funds and retirees.We believe that this risk profile has been greatly abused . Our common goal now is to try to understand why an Income  Fund that allegedly had a  balanced and diversified structure in order  to protect investors Capital has been ruined

As you are aware  we were of  the opinion that the loan  to Living And Leisure had been made prior to the 31st December 2007
It was inconceivable to us  that an  ASX listed Company would  make  a significant  business loan  whilst at the same time being in breach of the terms of a 184million loan  to Royal Bank of Scotland,  whereby that debt was repayable on demand  after  31st December2007.
Subsequently  to the above  event it appears that the  PIF continued to advance funds  to living and leisure (from borrowed money ) in the form of an unsecured second Mortgauge after that company  was  in  default  of a $123 million First morgagee senior loan to NAB . This is a clear violation of Company law.
In any event the provision in the PIF PDS states specifically that this loan facility can only be used for SHORT TERM  FUNDING for OPPORTUNISTIC  DEVELOPMENTS  also  it claims that all  COMMERCIAL loans have been secured by a FIRST MORTGAUGE over property 
We believe that the the OCV ,PIF responsible entity have flagrantly abused these guidelines , exposing investors in our fund to unjustifiable risks by continuing to make an  unsecured loan  to a Company that was   TECHNICALLY INSOLVENT.

This reckless action has now  brought the PIF to the brink of collapse and resulted in large capital losses for investors .WE consider their is considerable  evidence to prove that OCV  have in fact  used  the PIF as a de facto bank in order to  save an  associated OCV entity from defaulting on in debts ,whilst itself  under the burden of  a massive financial liability from the Royal Bank Of Scotland..
The sequelae  of events as is as follows
1/  September 2007 living and leisure defaults on bank loan to National Australia Bank
 2/ Diecember 31st 2008 PIF breaches   RBOS covenant 184 million payable on demand .Investors totally unaware of this debt., or its purpose
3/ January 2008 OCV announces it needs$550million dollars to pay off debts shares suspended from trading on ASX
4/ 13th January 2008 January ASX suspends Living and Leisure for failing to provide   audited accounts . 
 5/  February 2008 PIF investors advised that all redemption requests will be frozen
 6/ March 19th 2008  Price Waterehouse and Coopers states OCV related entities  are unable to repay debt and there is material uncertainty  as to whether The PIF can remain a going concern after examining the  half yearly accounts, Investors  first informed of 184million debt to RBOS
 7 /  May 2008  NAB threatens to Size Living and Leisure assets unless OCV pays 40 million loan Guarantee on Senior secured  loan of 123 million dollars 
 8/ May 2008  PIF  forced to sell unsecured living and leisure loan of 67 million dollars to Arctic Capital  resulting in large capital loss to investors 
9/ May 2008 Continued sale of PIF assets at fire sale prices to repay RBOS debt resulting in large capital loss to investors 
10/  May  2008 sale of the PIF to Wellington Capital in order to prevent imminent  seizure of OCV and  PIF assets by  creditors

 Let us now examine now examine the likely scenario .based on the above events. . If Living and leisure  defaults on its loan commitments their  is a  an immediate $40 million guarantee payable by the parent company OCV to the  National Austrialia bank .That   can not be allowed to happen as OCV does not have the money to repay that debt
However  the problem can be solved by simply borrowing  from the Royal Bank of Scotland through the Premium Income fund and loaning  that money to Living and leisure, until order is restored to the firmament . The problem was, the PIF was at its extreme limits having breached the RBOS Covenant.. And Living and Leisure was terminally bankrupt.
The risk was therefore effectively transferred to the PIF and its poor naÃ¯ve investors .Unfortunately like  changing the deck chairs on the Titanic  the end result was also entirely predictable.
Given this state of affairs we find it difficult to understand how the OCV PIF has  acted  responsibly and within risk parameters outlined for our fund in the PDS
We would  therefore respectfully request  a full and urgent  investigation into  these events  to determine  if this  ill conceived scheme could ever be construed as being made  in the  best financial  interests  of PIF  investors.
And  whether or not a breach of  ASX guidelines , Failure to disclose,conflict of interst and related party transaction.has occurred.


----------



## wally3218 (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

After reading the latest reports and newspaper articles I am still in disbelief that these Directors and board members are'nt facing criminal charges.
These BAS##### will get away with this once again the investors will loose money and the directors and board members will come out of this mess clean and maybe richer. I bet they got there money out before anyone elses.
Again why are ASIC not doing anything.


----------



## DoraNBoots (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I would have thought that the RE (i.e. MFSIM) by definition, was 'responsible' and therefore liable for the $147.5 million of bad loans to MFS Ltd.  Shouldn't WC be launching legal action against MFSIM and not MFS Ltd?

How do you force someone to handover $147.5 million, threaten their family?, hold a gun to their head??  Jenny, please explain!

_"Wellington is claiming the Gold Coast financial and tourism group *forced* its fund to acquire a package of loans without any security.
"It's a breach of the Corporations Act,of the product disclosure statement, the PIF constitution, the compliance plan - this is not how this fund was meant to run,"  Wellington director Jenny Hutson told The Australian Financial Review yesterday."_


----------



## DoraNBoots (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



wally3218 said:


> Again why are ASIC not doing anything.




This from Crikey today:
"Crikey spoke with ASIC today, who noted that no formal investigation has yet been announced into MFS/Octaviar/PIF or anyone else involved in the almighty mess."


----------



## 2CentsWorth (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Breaker1,*
*"Wellington Capital proceeds against Octaviar on behalf of unitholders"*

*I too, read this release earlier today. It kind of takes most of the wind out of our sails for the moment. I would imagine now, all withdrawals from the fund would be fully frozen, as a true  unit value could not be calculated until all retrievable monies were returned to it. *
*This however, should not prevent the Fund from starting to pay dividends again, after the debt to RBOS is finalised. Income from normal Fund investments, would then begin to build up to allow this.*

*I am also beginning to wonder if the listing of the Fund on the NFS, may come down to a vote between two developing factions of unitholders.*
*I have come to hear a lot of desperate stories of late.*

*Perhaps after attending the meetings to hear exactly what choices are currently now on offer, and **the reasoning behind them, we will know better what decisions to aim our fight against or for.*

*Cheers to all.*


----------



## zixo (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I think it’s a good move from Wellington Capital to move on Octaviar for compensation.
Possibly thought they would get the ball rolling before the AG would.

That said; I’d like to remind everyone that Guy Hutchins and Marilyn Watts are still Part of the Management team with Wellington Capital.

I really think we should be better informed.  At the moment Wellington Capital seem content in feeding Information to the media and Investors having to digest it without knowing all the details.

Heck …I keep forgetting we’re just the Investors. 

Wonder who’s going to pay for the Barrister? Could it be something that the Investors of PIF will have to wear as well?


----------



## breaker1 (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I would have thought that the RE (i.e. MFSIM) by definition, was 'responsible' and therefore liable for the $147.5 million of bad loans to MFS Ltd.  Shouldn't WC be launching legal action against MFSIM and not MFS Ltd?
> 
> How do you force someone to handover $147.5 million, threaten their family?, hold a gun to their head??  Jenny, please explain!
> 
> ...




Well, I guess the PIF will just have to wait in the que with other creditors *OR* is there a chance that in some instances, the directors of MFS LTD and MFSIM could be sued for monies via their insurance companies? (that is if they had such insurance coverage?)

Also, remember, that MFS LTD still ownes about a 35% share of Stella - would that be worth about 300 million? What would our % of that be? Hey! I'm starting to feel like a vulture!

All I can say folks, is, I really hope that the PIF is separated well and truly from MFS LTD /MFISM now!


----------



## iamspeed (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I would have thought that the RE (i.e. MFSIM) by definition, was 'responsible' and therefore liable for the $147.5 million of bad loans to MFS Ltd.  Shouldn't WC be launching legal action against MFSIM and not MFS Ltd?
> 
> How do you force someone to handover $147.5 million, threaten their family?, hold a gun to their head??  Jenny, please explain!




Hi Dora

Constitution mentions the RE and Compliance Committee (ha, ha, ha) having PI insurance.  Any changes to this in recent Constitution amendments?

Has WC in effect taken over MFSIM, therefore WC would have to claim on their own policy?  I wonder if premiums have been kept up to date?

I guess WC is simply making sure they are in the queue for any distributions from Octaviar, when it is wound up?  

Cheers


----------



## DoraNBoots (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



iamspeed said:


> Hi Dora
> 
> Constitution mentions the RE and Compliance Committee (ha, ha, ha) having PI insurance.  Any changes to this in recent Constitution amendments?
> 
> ...




Hi Iamspeed,

The amendments to the constitution don't mention any change to PI insurance.
Yeah, good to be in Octaviar's queue but I wonder if she is protecting the real culprits (who are still working for her).


----------



## Javier (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

OCV has $170m in bank + $400m in assets = $570m
They owe $1b to creditors incl. our $147.5m + $50m 
As an unsecured creditor we are entitled to the same as every other unsecured creditor. If we get say $75m that will add about 10c in the dollar back to investors allowing for a couple of $m for legals.
If we can get a good chunk from PI insurance from fund and if ASIC chips in (unlikely), we may get a fairly high % of our capital back. A simplistic calculation, I know, but hey I am trying to be positive!


----------



## breaker1 (25 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

1] Thanks Javier for those figures - lets hope Stella is worth double and we get 15c back lieu 10c

2] Compliments under of another AG member, who rang the WC office:

"I requested the possibility of taking a non-investor with me to the forum as I feel overwhelmed by all of this & may not be able to take in all that is presented. Apparantly this is possible, I just had to give the name of the person willing to accompany me & this info will be faxed to Wellington. 

She also advised me all at PIF are still employed by Octaviar & will be advised as to what is proposed & updates etc at the forums too, which I thought somewhat strange."


----------



## Javier (26 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Ms Hutson said yesterday her view on the goings-on at MFS Ltd had turned on its head since Wellington settled on its purchase of the Premium Income Fund management rights two weeks ago. 

From today's Australian...

"Absolutely it's changed," she said. "The situation is that there is zero value in the assets that have been transferred for $147 million." 

Ms Hutson said she was not aware of the full detail of the transactions when her company agreed to buy the PIF management rights, but it was now her job to recover the money for unitholders. 

PIF's $147.5 million damages claim is in addition to $50 million it is owed by its former parent. 

PIF has 10,700 unitholders who each invested an average of $70,000. 

"I will chase that $147 million to the end of the world," Ms Hutson said. "I will stay on the battlefield until I get it." 

Let's hope so Jenny, let's hope so!!


----------



## akernst (26 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It seems now that action is happenning by the current PIF management.

I hope that they are not using our funds to hire Solicitors, etc in getting the money
out of the Octaviar parent company. And I hope our funds are not still paying the former
PIF management salaries, etc. If so, then they have a moral obligation to resign now.
We all now, know who they are.

My prediction for the future is as follows:-

1.  The PIF by some miracle or staged, will get the money owing from Octaviar (approx $200 million).

2.  Octaviar parent company will be liquidated, after step 1.

3.  Certain people from the Octaviar parent compant Board, will join Wellington PIF in some form.

4.  These certain people will then get the money they lost, from the debacle of MFS collapse.


And one final comment, is that I am pretty sure that we all come under the prior PDS we signed up for,
and so we are all Unit Holders. The original PDS was withdrawn, so as no new investors could come in.

In that light we must be paid out our Redemptions after 360 days, depending on each unit holder's maturity
date. It is another matter whether we get 100% back, or the Unit Price will be reduced, as according to the
prior PDS.


Thanks for everyone contributing and lets never give up.

Loves you All.


----------



## Mary Lynch (26 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yes, it is confusing in that some time ago we were told that we would all HAVE to redeem our investment after 360 days. And yet it seems to be being implied now, that the longer we leave our money with them the more likely we are to get a better return.

Yes Breaker....I agree....I sure hope we are well and truely separate from Octaviar...it's certainly a worry that they are still paying PIF employees' salaries!


----------



## Tuart (26 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good morning all

It seems WC is happy to distribute info via the press but not in direct real communication with investors.

I may be cynical but JH became a director of the RE and undertook due dilegence but forgot to look at loans that amount to 20% of the fund. I think not !

How was the RE forced to take the loans on behalf of the PIF. 

The RE itself has to be included in this action as it was this board along with the independent compliance committee that signed off on the deal.

I am not sure how this should occur but either WC other RE or new independent RE needs to be brought in as the current RE entity and its policy must be sued.

PIF investors are entitled to more detail on these loans. If they have no value then fraud has being committed. Its time to stop this process of using the press to feed ego and provide full open communication with investors.

A loan was made to xxxx for $y. Security was --- and the reason we believe it has no value is ....

Detailed communication rather than press releases that go straight to the WC website.


----------



## Jadel (26 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Fellow AG members 

   We have 21 investors who have signed the letter of complaint.

  I have informed   my contact at ASIC that I will email the letter at 5pm tonight so  please get back to me before that deadline

  I made it plain that we were hoping mad and wanted immediate action, Or Else!

Just to give you an idea what we are up against ,I stated  that 147 million in unsecured loans was unaccounted  for by Wellington  Capital .

 The Analyst replied $147 dollars . No I said  please listen , ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTY SEVEN MILLION 

 If this situation  requires another letter to the media, government ministers, Nick Sherry etc  regarding ASIC, ASX incompetence, so be it.

We are not in the realm of the hypothetical any more,  their have been serious transgression of the law by certain directors and somebody will have to pay the price.


----------



## selciper (26 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Why oh why always these JH press releases/interviews to the AFR before informing PIF investors of the latest disaster? The AFR has a restricted readership. Any PIF investors who aren't linked to the internet would be well and truly left out of the loop. I notice that amongst JH's degrees, there isn't a Master of Communications listed. Understandably.


----------



## charles36 (26 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi folks looks like some positive action at last. 

However, when I invested with MFS about 8 years ago I was told that the Fund employed Perpetual Nominees as the Guardian of the Fund and they were to ensure that no monies were transferred or loaned without authority of Perpetual.

I have contacted Perpetual, unable to reach executive level, but was assured that their role was to pay distributions on behalf of MFS and later Octaviar.

Can anyone tell me the correct role of Perpetual?  I understand that they have large Funds and it may well be that they have acted contrary to our interests.

I would be interested to hear from anyone who can clarify the issue please.

regards,

charles36


----------



## The Mint Man (26 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi guys, I posted this in the OCV thread... thought it may as well go here too.

Anyone notice that 1 trade went through today? Or thats atleast what is showing up on my comsec.
It was for 123,500 shares... heres a pic:-
View attachment 21893


Please explain???

By the way any general news on this dog?

Cheers


----------



## white_goodman (26 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



The Mint Man said:


> Hi guys, I posted this in the OCV thread... thought it may as well go here too.
> 
> Anyone notice that 1 trade went through today? Or thats atleast what is showing up on my comsec.
> It was for 123,500 shares... heres a pic:-
> ...




surely thats a glitch...


----------



## The Mint Man (26 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



white_goodman said:


> surely thats a glitch...




Dunno...:dunno: anyone else?


----------



## erniel (26 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Messrs. Peacock and King who were chairman and managing director respectively of MFS and Mr Hutchings PIf ceo at the time that all these what appear to be transgressions and  fraudulant transactions took place with the PIF funds need to be hauled up to face a criminal enquiry.
In fact I would think that the new RE of the PIF that is WC should lay charges against them as soon as possible with the Police.
Perhaps a time of incarceration in the police cells would help loosen their tongues and jog their memories and assist all in recovering the $147.5 million owed to the PIF.
The buck stops at those who are ultimately responsible.


----------



## white_goodman (26 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



The Mint Man said:


> Dunno...:dunno: anyone else?




reads the same on the ASX, hows that possible, does that mean 126,000 was sold?


----------



## Bumblebee (26 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yes, OCV seems to trading again, 2 Trades listed. Here's a snap from NAB Trading today..

]Today's Trades 

Code:        Order:  Last to First First to Last        
OCTAVIAR FPO  Code Last   +/- % Bid Ask Open High Low Trades Volume OpEst SurVol VWAP Status  
 OCV 0  0.0 0.0% -  -  - - - 2 52,000 0 0 0 Suspended  


 Time      SSN   Price   Quantity   
 07:05 232 475 26,000  EP  [/I] [/I][/I] ...end quote

Can anyone explain what these trades mean when OCV is 'suspended'.

Back to PIF....I am an AG member and would like to see some sort of 'mission statement ' worked up for the AG. I feel it would help us stay focused on task.
Something like.....An Action group of concerned PIF investors who diligently monitor the events relating to our fund.
We keep fellow investors/members informed and interpret the direction and decisions made concerning the fund.
And where necessary challenge and effect new directions that may be in the best interest of Investors.

 This is only a very rough sugestion. Something like a clear mission statement would be good to represent the AG at the upcoming WC meetings. This could concisely and clearly indicate to newcomers what we are in fact about.

Any ideas ,comments.


----------



## BootsnAll (26 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Bumblebee said:


> Yes, OCV seems to trading again, 2 Trades listed. Here's a snap from NAB Trading today..
> 
> ]Today's Trades
> 
> ...


----------



## Mary Lynch (26 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

As long as they are not "internal" PIF units!!!


----------



## 2CentsWorth (26 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



The Mint Man said:


> Hi guys, I posted this in the OCV thread... thought it may as well go here too.
> 
> Anyone notice that 1 trade went through today? Or thats atleast what is showing up on my comsec.
> It was for 123,500 shares... heres a pic:-
> ...




Yes you are right about OCV moving shares. 
Both the Commsec and NAB listing are fothe same "TRADE" which shows the Condition Code: "EP."  This the code for Exercising a Put-Option, but I don't know who the recipient is, Possibly Wellington Capital, probably something to do with obtaining the PIF. 
The event was: At 7.05 this morning 26,000 OCV shares @ a value of $4.75 each,  were traded to whoever, as completion payment of a Put-Option between them.
This answer may raise more questions than it solves!

Best wishes to all.


----------



## Duped (27 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Forget about ASIC being a knight in shining armour.  ASIC  and similar institutions are about the giving the perception of public order. Punitive for deterant and all that.  Not providing counsel. 

We're on our own with this one.  Don't hold out ANY hope for Federal government help.

Don't forget that the tax office is ahead of us in the queue for recovering funds. To the tune of $56M.

Especially in our case where the Liberal Party brand is involved. Peacock was at the helm of MFS Ltd from January 07.


----------



## zixo (27 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Latest News from the Gold Coast Bulletin regarding Octaviar

This gets smellier with time

June 27, 2008 04:57pm


Mystery surrounds King's castle

Nick Nichols 

27Jun08 

WHO owns Elysian Fields, the plush polo complex set up by embattled MFS founder Michael King seven years ago?

According to property records, ultimately it is 36-year-old Benowa man Bradley Lloyd Jones.

Mr King is not the beneficial owner of Canungra Property and Subdivisions Pty Ltd, the company listed in RP Data as owning three lots that comprise the 187ha Elysian Fields which sits along Beaudesert-Nerang Road and the Mundoolun Connection Road at Wonglepong.

He is not even listed as a director of the company.

Mr Jones, along with Lee-Anne Kym Murray of Clear Island Waters, are directors, while Mr Jones is the sole shareholder.

Ms Murray is company secretary to several companies associated with Mr King, among them Australasian Investments, Moonlight Australia, Black Teak and Fortmore, through which Mr King and MFS co-founder Phil Adams hold shares in MFS, now known as Octaviar.

Fortmore was placed into liquidation last month with contingent liabilities of $112 million.

Mr King was reported to be selling Elysian Fields for between $25 million and $30 million in the face of insurmountable debts that, two months ago, he said would almost certainly bankrupt him.

Mr King's financial situation was triggered by a rush of margin calls on his MFS share portfolio after the company's share price imploded earlier this year.

But the vexing question that remains is: who is Mr Jones and what is his connection to Elysian Fields?

It is possible he holds the beneficial interest in the company on behalf of a third party under a separate agreement.

Bradley Lloyd Jones is director of 12 companies, including Canungra Property and Subdivisions. Elysian Fields appears to be the only Queensland property it owns.

There is a charge over the company, held by OPI Pacific Finance, the embattled New Zealand subsidiary of Octaviar.

Attempts to contact Mr Jones were unsuccessful yesterday.

Many of the companies he controls are headquartered at Gold Group Chartered Accountants in Southport.

A Gold Group representative yesterday said she would forward a message to Mr Jones.

A search of the Elysian Fields website shows the property's general manager is a Brad Jones.

It was unclear whether this Mr Jones was the same as the Canungra Property and Subdivisions director. 

The property manager also did not return calls yesterday.

Elysian Fields was assembled in two stages, beginning in 2000, at a total cost of $6 million.

Early sale records also show no connection to Mr King, although he has called Elysian Fields his home for most of his period at the MFS helm.

It has been reported that Mr King spent a total of $20 million on the property to develop it into one of the best polo facilities in the country.

But one agent yesterday described $25 million to $30 million understood to be sought for Elysian Fields as ambitious.

He said the market had softened for high-priced properties, with Elysian Fields seen by another as overcapitalised.

Mr King has been running the property as a business since his fall from grace, with the Elysian Fields website listing it as an accommodation, wedding and sporting venue.

In May, he told The Gold Coast Bulletin he had been holding fee-paying polo tournaments there in order to meet interest payments on the property.

Mr King could not be contacted for comment yesterday.

Meanwhile, the company he founded was rocked this week by a raft of new claims by creditors.

OPI Pacific Finance has launched a $270 million damages claim against Octaviar which, along with a further $147.5 million sought by its former flagship investment vehicle, the Premium Income Fund, brings total debts owed by the company to more than $1 billion.

The latest claims cast into doubt Octaviar's ability to stave off liquidation, although directors this week said they were still negotiating with creditors.

Jenny Hutson, who now controls the Premium Income Fund through Wellington Capital, this week said loans made by the fund to MFS last year were 'inappropriate' and she had enlisted a top Sydney barrister to fight the case.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission yesterday declined to comment on whether it was investigating the claims made by Ms Hutson.

It was also claimed yesterday that OPI Pacific Finance had been the recipient of a raft of 'non-performing loans' transferred from MFS.

The allegations form part of the claim by OPI against Octaviar, which is now in the hands of S8 founder Chris Scott, who controls about 8 per cent of the company's now worthless stock.


----------



## wally3218 (27 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It will be very interesting once the books of Octaviar/MFS are fully opened and we can see where all these loans have gone. 
I often wonder if the directors ever gave themselves loans to buy property like polo fields ect. without going thru the proper channels hoping they won't be found out or charged interest.
God I hate these BAST#### and hope they rot in hell.


----------



## erniel (27 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



erniel said:


> Messrs. Peacock and King who were chairman and managing director respectively of MFS and Mr Hutchings PIf ceo at the time that all these what appear to be transgressions and  fraudulant transactions took place with the PIF funds need to be hauled up to face a criminal enquiry.
> In fact I would think that the new RE of the PIF that is WC should lay charges against them as soon as possible with the Police.
> Perhaps a time of incarceration in the police cells would help loosen their tongues and jog their memories and assist all in recovering the $147.5 million owed to the PIF.
> The buck stops at those who are ultimately responsible.





Me thinks criminal proceedings are now becomming a realty after the article in the GC Bulletin today.


----------



## PIFholder (27 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi 2CentsWorth,

I saw this too and wondered, but after rereading Wellington's media release it says that they bought the shares from a 'subsidiary of Octaviar' so I dont think that would effect a trade in OCV shares?

Cheers



2CentsWorth said:


> Yes you are right about OCV moving shares.
> Both the Commsec and NAB listing are fothe same "TRADE" which shows the Condition Code: "EP."  This the code for Exercising a Put-Option, but I don't know who the recipient is, Possibly Wellington Capital, probably something to do with obtaining the PIF.
> The event was: At 7.05 this morning 26,000 OCV shares @ a value of $4.75 each,  were traded to whoever, as completion payment of a Put-Option between them.
> This answer may raise more questions than it solves!
> ...


----------



## breaker1 (28 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Dear Forum readers - this is the PIF Action Groups latest media release *- *thanks to our intrepid Action Group members, Joan & Mick Campbell and Sue Clifford of Port Macquarie.* Good on you and congratulations, dear folks, for your hard work on behalf of all investors. 
Media release via Port Macquarie News under:

*Fund failures sink Hastings families*
27/06/2008 4:00:00 AM
SOME Hastings retired people with their savings tied up in troubled investment funds are struggling to stay afloat.

While the 1750 locals who have money invested in Donovan Oates Hannaford Mortgage Corporation (DOHMC) are still receiving regular payments from the failed mortgage broker, an unknown number of Hastings investors in Gold Coast-based MFS have received no income from it since January.

Retired Pembrooke couple Joan and Mick Campbell are among those who have copped the “double whammy” by having retirement savings invested in both groups.

The former high-flying MFS investment and tourism group ran into trouble last year and its Premium Income Fund (PIF), with $755 million invested in it, was “frozen” in January; no withdrawals have been allowed or dividends paid since.

Mr and Mrs Campbell have close to $100,000 invested in PIF and the interest payments they received from it went towards their daily living costs.


Sue Clifford is another local PIF investor whose retirement was funded from dividends and who, without that income, is now juggling funds to stay afloat. She already has liquidated a superannuation fund to meet debts.

Some retired people had all their savings invested in PIF and there are some “real hardship cases” as a result, she said.

People with money invested in DOHMC and PIF who are receiving a part pension face an extra problem, Mrs Campbell said, as Centrelink still considers the money invested in these two companies as assets and assesses it as such.

This means some people are receiving little or no income from their investments but cannot qualify for an increased pension because their assets are regarded as being unchanged.

MFS is now called Octaviar and PIF is now managed by Brisbane-based Wellington Investment Management.

As an indication of the level of local investment in PIF, Wellington is holding a series of “forums” with investors at six centres: Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney, Gold Coast, Newcastle – and Port Macquarie.

The Port Macquarie forum will start at 10am on July 15 at The Westport Club.

Mrs Campbell is hoping to organise a meeting of Mid-North Coast PIF investors ahead of that date. But she has no access to a register of investors and is relying on them to contact her.

The Campbells can be contacted on 6585 9285.

In the latest development in the sorry saga, the financial press reported this week that Wellington is taking legal action against Octaviar to recover $147.5 million it alleges MFS siphoned from PIF in late 2007.

http://portmacquarie.yourguide.com....d-failures-sink-hastings-families/798681.aspx


----------



## selciper (28 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If, as it has been alleged, $147.5m. of our money was siphoned off, why has it taken so long to expose these alleged  7-8 months old worrisome transactions? I simply don't understand what the custodians, trusted managers and boards have been doing all this time if all this really happened. They were also circulating those cunning monthly newsletters to loyal investors.  I actually believed their content - redemptions would be withheld for only a limited period, that we held quality investments etc. Then wham! The RBOS loan repayment was announced - out of the blue. And now,  the latest losses. Obviouslty ASIC can no longer remain disinterested in all these events while we lose our savings.


----------



## Jadel (28 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All 

 Can anybody tell me the name of the chief  ASIC honcho in my experience you get better results going strait to the top 

  I think  we should now write a formal letter demanding an immediate investigation the lies deceit and misrepresentation are now tantamount to fraud  on a grand scale


----------



## seamisty (28 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Hi All
> 
> Can anybody tell me the name of the chief  ASIC honcho in my experience you get better results going strait to the top
> 
> I think  we should now write a formal letter demanding an immediate investigation the lies deceit and misrepresentation are now tantamount to fraud  on a grand scale



John Bligh named as new CEO of ASIC:::

Former IBM vice-president and executive director of services for Accenture Asia Pacific, John Bligh, has been appointed as the new chief executive of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

Mr Bligh, who took up the post in February, has also been appointed as ASIC's Victorian regional commissioner.

As chief executive, Mr Bligh will be responsible for IT, finance, HR and consumer service delivery.

His role as regional commissioner will see him liaising with the Victorian businesses, and taking responsibility for financial services and investor and consumer communities.

Maybe this dude? Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## marcom (28 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> If, as it has been alleged, $147.5m. of our money was siphoned off, why has it taken so long to expose these alleged  7-8 months old worrisome transactions? I simply don't understand what the custodians, trusted managers and boards have been doing all this time if all this really happened. They were also circulating those cunning monthly newsletters to loyal investors.  I actually believed their content - redemptions  would be withheld for only a limited period, that we held quality investments etc. Then wham! The RBOS loan repayment was announced - out of the blue. And now,  the latest losses. Obviouslty ASIC can no longer remain disinterested in all these events while we lose our savings.




I have been doing some legal research into this situation and have uncovered some very interesting information which I want to share with you:

Breaches of Corporations Act Section 601FD by Officers ( also S 601FC for the Responsible Entity and S 601FE for employees) of the corporations named in the WC action can attract the following penalties (Schedule 3):

Subsection 601FC(6)  2,000 penalty units or imprisonment for 5 years, or both.
Subsection 601FD(4)  2,000 penalty units or imprisonment for 5 years, or both.
Subsection 601FE(4)  2,000 penalty units or imprisonment for 5 years, or both.

Penalty Units are $100 - 2,000units = $20,000 fine.

Note that the WC media release only mentions S601FD in relation to Officers, which seems to cover Directors as well as other people in the organisation who were a party to the decision and those naughty boys and girls who failed in their duty to put their hand up when the breach was found.

The Act also provides for a court to make civil penalty orders - effectively banning directors for periods specified by the court, fines and any other nasties ASIC dreams up after the horse has bolted.

Imprisonment would presumably be reserved for blatant cases of what the Act describes as intentional or reckless contravention.

Then again I suppose deliberately dumping $147.5 million of worthless loans into the fund could be found to be both intentional and reckless. And remember that according to Wellington's media release these loans were *pre-existing* Octaviar loans, some of which went to PIF and some to OPI NZ. They were all known quantities - non performers - so I suppose that could be intentional and reckless!

Once a RE uncovers a breach of the Act, the RE is required to:

*S601FC(l) report to ASIC any breach of this Act that:
(i) relates to the scheme; and 
(ii) has had, or is likely to have, a materially adverse effect on the interests of members; as soon as practicable after it becomes aware of the breach;*

I'm sure the leading silk would have raised this one with JH. Enter the guys in trench coats!!

And if you have been wondering what ASIC has been doing all these months just look at Section 601FF appropriately titled Surveillance Checks by ASIC

*S601FF(1)  ASIC may, from time to time, check whether the responsible entity of a registered scheme is complying with the scheme's constitution and compliance plan and with this Act. *

With all the publicity surrounding the MFS/Octaviar situation you would expect ASIC to at least read S601FF. Then again, we may well have an action against ASIC for failing to check the situation - damn staff shortages.

So, WC goes off to the Supreme Court and seeks an declaration of contravention against named officers. With this in hand JH can start to sue all parties - the Officers, the corporations, Indemnity Insurance etc and any one left standing after margin loans actions or still in a job at Octaviar. If these actions do not recover sufficient funds the she can start on the borrowers - picket the Sheraton and refuse to ever buy groceries in Germany!

Next ASIC comes in for civil orders, fines and yes the dreaded terms of incarceration - no Xmas cards this year! Although it seems to take ASIC about 3 to 4 years to get the miscreants.

The attached paper is worth reading also - it summarises the relevant sections of the Act and raises the prospect of further legal action against the Responsible Entity. This is covered in S601MA:

"*CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601MA
Civil liability of responsible entity to members

(1)  A member of a registered scheme who suffers loss or damage because of conduct of the scheme's responsible entity that contravenes a provision of this Chapter may recover the amount of the loss or damage by action against the responsible entity whether or not the responsible entity has been convicted of an offence, or has had a civil penalty order made against it, in respect of the contravention.

(2)  An action under subsection (1) must be begun within 6 years after the cause of action arises.

(3)  This section does not affect any liability that a person has under other provisions of this Act or under other laws."
*

Funny no one mentioned this provision of the Act! Remember WC has bought all the shares in MFS/Octaviar Investment Management Limited and has only changed the name - therefore continues to be responsible for the past conduct of the RE.

I certainly believe JH's comment that she will diligently pursue our missing funds - firstly she is legally obliged by the Act to do so and secondly, at some stage she will have us investors to deal with if she can not bring home the beacon!

But to get this into perspective, I think we need to support JH in her efforts to recover our funds (at our expense). I'm sure no receiver would be as diligent.


----------



## Quincy (28 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> John Bligh named as new CEO of ASIC:::
> 
> Former IBM vice-president and executive director of services for Accenture Asia Pacific, John Bligh, has been appointed as the new chief executive of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).
> 
> ...




Hello.

I am a Noteholder with Australian Capital Reserve Limited (in Liquidation) ("ACR").

I am a member of (and have been running) the ACR Action Group which has been going for about 12 months now (NAG = Noteholders Action Group).

The contact you need to correspond with at ASIC (the so called "top dog") is Mr. Tony D'Aloisio. He is the Chairman of ASIC.

It is unusual to get a reply of any worth from ASIC but Tony D'Aloisio has himself actually replied to a couple of the many Letters that I have forwarded to him regarding ACR. He will probably delegate any request down the line though.


His E-mail address is (you will need to remove the spaces) : -

t o n y . d ' a l o i s i o @ a s i c . g o v . a u

Good luck to you all with your Action Group and I hope that you have some success in getting a suitable result in the return of your investment as well bringing the rogues in question to account. I've got to tell you that it is a long, hard road.

PS. my father has money invested in the Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund.


----------



## Jadel (28 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks  for taking the time and effort ACR Noteholder

 Very greatly appreciated 

  Regards chris


----------



## selciper (28 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Appreciated your research a lot. Hope that it's being read with discomfort by certain people.


----------



## selciper (28 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Oops! I meant to inlude this item from today's Mlbourne Age 
(28/06)  

Lift administrator tackles MFS pair over $13 million

    * Elisabeth Sexton
    * June 28, 2008
    *

THE administrator of margin lender Lift Capital has taken action to recover $13 million from the founders of the troubled property and tourism group MFS, Michael King and Philip Adams.

The case involves a $25 million margin-lending facility granted by Lift to a private company, Black Teak Pty Ltd, in July 2006. McGrathNicol partner Tony McGrath is suing Black Teak's two directors, Mr King and Mr Adams, and its secretary, Lee-Anne Murray, as guarantors of the loan.

Black Teak owns a little less than 1% of the shares in MFS, now called Octaviar.

In April, Octaviar said Mr King's total shareholding was 6.7% and Mr Adams held 6.5%. The shares have not traded since January, when they were suspended following a 75% plunge over two days.

Octaviar is under threat of being wound up by the Public Trustee of Queensland. A court hearing scheduled for September.

Mr McGrath's solicitor, Addisons partner Philip Stern, told the NSW Supreme Court yesterday he had been unable to serve papers on Mr Adams because he was living in Dubai.

Mr Adams, a former managing director of MFS, moved to the United Arab Emirates to head MFS International last year. Octaviar closed the office in March.

Mr King, who resigned as MFS chief executive in January, was disputing he had been served with the papers on the Gold Coast, Mr Stern said.

"My process server has given me a facsimile and affidavit of service, advising to the fact that he was served," he said.

"Mr King, in email correspondence, says he (the process server) is a liar."

Ms Murray had received her papers and she and Mr King had foreshadowed applying to have the case moved to Queensland, he said.

Lift Capital's directors called in Mr McGrath as voluntary administrator in April.

A boutique financier specialising in loans for share investment and managed funds, Lift's business model was unable to cope with the impact of the credit squeeze and sharemarket fall.

                                        ..........................................

.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (28 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> Latest News from the Gold Coast Bulletin regarding Octaviar




The following article also appeared in the same edition of the Gold Coast Bulletin yesterday (p.111) titled "CVC waiting to pounce on Stella for a second time".

Juan


----------



## DoraNBoots (28 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All,

We will be attending the first PIF investor information forum in Brisbane on the 7th of July.  If you would like the Brisbane group to ask any specific questions of the RE please send them to:

P I F Action Group BNE@gmail.com (remove all spaces before sending)

We will endeavour to ask any questions recieved and post the responses after the meeting.


----------



## Jadel (29 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear AG members

  I would like to inform investors in the Brisbane area that we will be holding an informal meeting prior to the meeting at the Greek Club to discuss all issues sometime next week 

 Pleae contact mailto:BNE@gmail.com to register your interst

 Regards Chris


----------



## DoraNBoots (29 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Dear AG members
> 
> I would like to inform investors in the Brisbane area that we will be holding an informal meeting prior to the meeting at the Greek Club to discuss all issues sometime next week
> 
> ...




The email address is:
PIFActionGroupBNE@gmail.com


----------



## Mary Lynch (29 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I could be good if, over the next week, we consider how we are going to proceed post forum.  

With the circulation of flyers at meetings and general exposure of the AG my guess is that our numbers could swell conservatively, to at least 10 fold.

That may be good in many ways, but containing and re-assuring disgruntled investors all over OZ could become just another nightmare.

What are your ideas on this fellow AG members?


----------



## seamisty (29 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> I could be good if, over the next week, we consider how we are going to proceed post forum.
> 
> With the circulation of flyers at meetings and general exposure of the AG my guess is that our numbers could swell conservatively, to at least 10 fold.
> 
> ...



Mary, I think DoraNboots idea of the Yahoo website, see post 378 will be the best way to deal with a large group of members and she /he certainly appear to have excellent IT skills. Thats just my opinion. Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (29 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> With the circulation of flyers at meetings and general exposure of the AG my guess is that our numbers could swell conservatively, to at least 10 fold.
> 
> That may be good in many ways, but containing and re-assuring disgruntled investors all over OZ could become just another nightmare.




Hi Mary,

We in Brisbane have the same concern so have setup a group mailbox with an auto reply giving people info about us and our website.  The group mailbox will be accessed by multiple members to share the workload responding to email.

We decided this weekend to go ahead with a Yahoo Group for Brisbane and would encourage all other regions to join the group.  We want to keep it public and have as many people give opinions and share resources as possible (even non investors such as Claire from the Australian Shareholders Assoc etc). 

The group site can be found here: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/PIFActionGroup.  Feel free to direct your members here if you wish.

All feedback welcome!


----------



## mairmy (30 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Greetings to all fellow investors

If details of the Brisbane meeting on 7th July are posted on this Forum later that day, we will all eagerly read them.

Then we will know what is going to come out of JH's mouth at our meeting in Melb the next day.

WE WILL WIN!!!!!!     THERE IS STRENGTH IN UNITY.

Once again, thanks so much to all doing so much behind the scenes.

Mairmy:


----------



## selciper (30 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Syd. Morning Herald 30/06

Trading Halt Request
Announced by: LLA
Announced on: 30/06/2008 10:05:00
	    	  	   	Words: 376
Status: Not market sensitive (N)
View original PDF

30 June 2008
Ms Kate Kidson
ASX Limited
Dear Kate
Living and Leisure Australia Group * request for trading halt
We request that ASX place the securities of the Living and Leisure Australia
Group (LLA) immediately into trading halt until the earlier of the commencement
of trading on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 or LLA being in a position to update the
market in relation to the progress of its recapitalisation. LLA remains in
discussions with its lenders and the underwriter of LLA's proposed rights issue in
relation to LLA's recapitalisation proposal.
We are not aware of any reason why the trading halt should not be granted.
Kind Regards
Julanne Shearer
LIVING AND LEISURE
AUSTRALIA GROUP
Living and Leisure
Australia Management
Limited
ABN 60 101 634 315
AFSL 280 985
Living and Leisure
Australia Limited
ABN 92 107 863 445
Level 2, 1 Lawson Street
Southport QLD 4215
PO Box 10405
Southport QLD 4215
p/ 07 5555 4338
f/ 07 5557 8606
www.livingandleisure.com.au


----------



## Mutchy (30 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Mary, I think DoraNboots idea of the Yahoo website, see post 378 will be the best way to deal with a large group of members and she /he certainly appear to have excellent IT skills. Thats just my opinion. Seamisty




I have joined the yahoo group and notice that there are a number of files lodged at this site and available for members to download. You may find some of them useful. For example there is Breaker's notes on his phone call with Jenny Hutson. Thanks to Dora for all the files uploaded to date.
I have a summary of all the posts from this site (Aussie Stock Forums) and will upload it after I have finished this message. I found it very helpful when composing my list of questions which is still in progress. A newcomer will find it helpful to quickly come up to speed with what has been discovered since the inception of this forum.
Mutchy


----------



## Mary Lynch (30 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for your responses guys.  Sounds as though things are well in hand.

Can all Melbourne AG investors take down the yahoo address that Dora has posted on 378 please?


----------



## Mary Lynch (30 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

PS. It could be good if all AG members wear name tags with the logo on them at the forum..What do you think?


----------



## stardust (30 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The NSX is essentially an illiquid market and does not attract the attention in any way from prospective investors in particular an income generating investment.  This index has halved in its total of equity index since 2007 and has a total market capitalization of $683m as of recent date.  There are only 37 shares/companies listed with some having multiple listings due to different classes of shares but essentially only 37 companies in all.  The majority of these are there for other reasons other than to expect trading in their securities.  It is understandable why the NSX would assist with this listing as it would double the capitalization value of that Exchange with this listing.

By listing the Fund on this Exchange I believe will leave the unit holders isolated with no one willing to buy their units for any real value unless it is at a very big discount.  The unit holders are very unlikely to get anything like their current NTA that they are entitled to if the Fund was wound up.

I consider there is only one party in this recommendation that would benefit and that is Wellington Capital Limited.  I consider this listing is a move by Wellington to warehouse the current unit holders’ funds in a publicly listed entity to retain that capital base within their management fund portfolio to draw on future Management Fees. The current unit holders who own the funds at present I believe will be greatly financially damaged through this listing.  This proposed listing would also double the funds under management of Wellington Capital Limited.

The whole thought of listing is tantamount to stealing.

We must have an agenda before the meetings begin. Is anyone doing this preparation - Can you advice re a Sydney representative email address?
Stardust


----------



## Jadel (30 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Completely agree Stardust and now that you have so eloquently highlited the
 dangers of listing on the NSX i will post a letter i have refrained from useing  for many  weeks . 

DEAR FELLOW INVESTOR

We represent a group of people who  invested in the Premium Income Fund for capital preservation and regular  monthly income  and like yourselves have suffered greatly,  both financially and emotionally as the result of recent events  

The primary aim of the group is dedicated to fighting for long term Capital preservation and the reinstatement of Dividend payments for Investors .

Following the shameless deception and deceit of  OCTAVIAR  by the previous  PIF Responsible Entity  which has now  brought the fund to this sorry state of affairs  we believe that investors who have the most to lose ought to have a voice in any future decisions that the Fund makes.

Unfortunately we are very disappointed at the recent statements by Wellington Capital and Jenny Hutson regarding  the future direction of the PIF  

For example we are of the opinion that the  proposal to list the Fund in its present form on an illiquid market secondary market  such as the  Newcastle stock  Exchange is  fundamentally unsound and fraught with danger 

This strategy will  almost certainly  result in THE IMMEDIATE CAPITAL; LOSS OF 50% OR GREATER  THAN THE NTA  VALUE OF THE FUND

Anybody  who has an interst in the  OCTAVIAR property Fund MFT now relisted as a separate entity  GEO Will understand  the risks  The NTA of that fund is approx 90cents on the ASX however the stock is  currently trading at 36cents (a 65%% loss)  another Octaviar entity living and leisure trading above $1 .20  in its heyday is  now trading at  the  absurdly low  price of  4 cents 

Indeed at this  time their are many  listed trusts on the ASX trading at large discounts to their NTA   consequently  we can see no logical reason why any new investors would be prepared to pay a fair price for a tainted income fund especially in an illiquid  secondary market  

Unquestionably the vast majority of  investors who in many cases entrusted  irreplaceable retirement and Superannuation Fund Capital in the  PIF, did so  precisely BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WISH to expose their investment to the PERILS  involved in a trading  market.

If in fact  Wellington Capital and Jenny Hutson  honestly believe that listing our fund is such a good idea why  then does she NOT LIST HER OWN INCOME FUND WELLINGTON CAPITAL ?

 The answer is of course that  she would not dare to do this  under any circumstances.
Investors in that Fund simply would not accept the risks involved

  However wounded Prey is an easy meal for a predatory scavenger therefore it is apparently acceptable conduct for Wellington Capital to recommend this arrangement to  PIF investors  regardless of the losses they  will inevitably  sustain  in the present financial environment

 We believe their are many other alternatives available that will allow investors to redeem the majority of their initial capital over time without the  inherent risk of  this ill conceived scheme .

Please Contact our group and will be more than happy to personally discuss  any the issues above


----------



## Mary Lynch (30 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A Question:   Say I were to sell 100,000 of my PIF units on the NSX for 70C, would the buyer have the option to convert them back into units in the PIF, or would they have to remain as shares on the NSX?

Also, would I be able to nominate a minimum price to sell them at on the NSX, and just leave them there to meet my price....until I maybe gave up and decided to convert them back into units to redeem in due course along with everyone else?


----------



## Jadel (30 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Mary 

  The two factors that drive an equities price is sentiment and liquidity 

    After the latest disastrous  revelations on the mismanagement of the Premium Income fund i conservatively estimate the best offer anyone will recieve will be no greater than (20c)twenty cents on the National Stock Exchange and as previously comprehensively explained by Stardust the liquidity is  practically non existent

 The end result will be a disaster for investors


----------



## Bumblebee (30 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thank you Stardust and Jadel for todays posts.
I totally agree with the point you are making about the listing of PIF on the NSX being  in JH/Wellingtons best interest and not the Investors.
 Our capital would be locked up under her mangement forever and a day( while she syphons off her management fee),... unless investors sold at paltry price on the NSX.
I have been weighing up the pros and cons of the NSX listing for some time. Now my opposition to this process has become paramount.
                    NSX.....IT"S NOT ON, JENNY HUDSON!


----------



## k.smith (30 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks to bath Jadel and Stardust, I believe we really do need to discuss this, what possible advantage do we have listing with NSX? The risks would  be  huge and the benefits? perhaps those that need their redemptions out now may get a return of 20-70%.....I fear that scenario.....we are exchanging our "secured investments" for no-mans land. Can someone tell me how we fight this?


----------



## DoraNBoots (30 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Want to add that listing on the NSX doesn’t just disadvantage the investors who need to sell immediately – it also disadvantages the rest of the unit holders.  Once we have fellow investors in the fund that only paid say 20c for their units we will have a hard time convincing those investors to agree to a special resolution if ever the need were to arise.  Also, the RE could suggest a workout where we only get 40c in the dollar back and those new investors who bought on the NSX would agree as they would double there money!

Wonder too if related parties could buy our units at these discounted prices just before they allow us to redeem at the real value?  It’s my understanding (after re reading Breakers interview with Jenny) that at some later stage the RE will allow redemption of units.  If you knew when redemptions will be allowed and how much each unit is really worth you could make a killing.


----------



## Jadel (30 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I assume you are a member of the Action Group K Smith if not contact Breaker and he will register you on the list . We can only have strength in numbers 

My worry is Jenny Hutson is going to attempt a coup d' etat before anybody gets a chance to organise opposition to stop the plan going through. She has allready put an application in to list on the NSX without any regard to investors wishes.

The only thing we can do is to immediately  call an EGM to ensure a democratic vote on the issue 

 Just as a point of academic interest lets take a poll on this forum 

 Those for and against . Then we can tell her in no uncertain manner what the prevailing sentiment is in this matter at the forthcomeing meetings 

 Regards Chris


----------



## DoraNBoots (30 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I’m new to all this but believe (after reading the schemes constitution) that our only rights as a group are to:
Replace the RE
Remove the RE  or
Force the RE to wind up the scheme

I don’t think we have any rights when it comes to telling the RE want to do (like listing on the NSX) except to tell them to wind up the scheme.  

*Javier*: would you please confirm if this is correct?  Could you please provide us with some feedback from your dealings with the solicitor before the WC meetings.

BTW:  The Yahoo Group has a poll asking members if they want to list on the NSX.  So far no one has said yes!  Please see http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/PIFActionGroup to check out the results and vote.


----------



## communique (30 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am sure we are at a point where the group would like to see clearly stated.

1. What are our options
2. Pros and cons for each
3. How do we achieve each option

Be interested to see opinions on this.


----------



## selciper (30 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

One of the main reasons that I invested in PIF was because it was NOT listed on the stock exchange! I think Ms Hutson should take into account the increasing aversion of PIF members to any listing. We who trusted MSF PIF have been battered enough as it is. WC, please just get on with the job of getting distributions going again and trying to get us back as much capital as possible! No fancy schemes please...now is the time for transparent, straight-foward work by WC which in no way could further disadvantages increasingly anxious and suffering members. The NXS proposition is an unfortunate start to this new business relationship between WC and us marooned investors.


----------



## Javier (30 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If you go back to the other week when i met with her, I already answered that YES she has a right to list on the NSX and yes Dora they are the only 3 choices we have. That is why I said WAIT and see what JH has to say. If we don't like it we can ask her to put it to a vote to wind it up. Changing the re is a choice. Look if she says that listing on the NSX is if you want your money now and that is the ONLY form at this stage of ANY liquidity, then so be it. Read your PDS folks, it states no guarantee of capital and no g'tee of distributions. So she is using the NSX as a way to unfreeze the funds and get something. NOW if this is only a secondary means and she has an orderly time frame for getting back our capital as investments mature and assets are sold and realised and it is a finite plan and we get distributions in the meantime, that is in effect winding it up AND in the meantime she tries getting misappropriated funds via the courts, then what is wrong with that. The NSX only screws people who have to sell their units, either way we get screwed, but if you can hold out, you get maximum value as the fund starts getting maximum value. This is the way I see it, and if she puts that to us and doesn't try and lock our money in forever in a day, then we should consider. Let's hear the woman out, then exercise our rights if we need to.


----------



## k.smith (30 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yes. Jadel we have registered for the AG some time ago.....I've just reread Breakers update #7 (17th June, #323), and I understand this NSX listing will happen, we will not be able to change that. However, the value of our PIF units will not change in line with our NSX units, but with the fund realizing(selling) the assests over time. If we sell our NSX units we will get our cash out, but probably at a great capital loss, or so I understand the general concensus is. In the meantime, %redemptions (and distributions) are coming our way again in a few months, perhaps we can recover a fairer proportion of our investments the long way round. It is the people who were counting on their  redemptions months ago who are going to really bear the worst of the loss, esp. while the markets are in the doldrums. I think this is going to depend on so many variables, and we really aren"t in a position to make any decisions until we have all the facts from the forum, see you there.


----------



## Bumblebee (30 June 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Re the NSX listing debate.
Can anyone explain this option that people keep referring to of, 'getting your money out as units at a later date when things improve",?
Doesn't the NSX work like the ASX. Once you list ,the only way Investors can realise your units into cash is to trade at whatever price another punter is prepared to pay on the Exchange: You can't go back to the managers(in our case the RE) and say I would like to have the value in cash that you guys attribute to the units (NTA) because its much greater than I can trade for on the NSX. I thought once you list,...that's it, you are at the mercy of 'the market' forever and a day.
How can you have it both ways?  Please Explain!


----------



## iamspeed (1 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Check http://www.aurorafunds.com.au/index.php?&pgname=adit_ts&show_news=n&cache=1214838440944 for an example of an investment listed on the ASX to provide daily liquidity (with the price set by market the forces of supply and demand) and also offering an off market monthly redemption facility (at net tangible asset backing).


----------



## Bumblebee (1 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

"Iamspeed", thank you for responding to my NSX query.
The example of the Trust Summary as laid on the Aurora website you gave has clearly demonstarted how both a trading price and a monthly redemption can be made available. Much appreciated? (a fellow AG member hadn't grasped this concept either). 
Is it reasonable to expect that JH/WC will be providing us with the sort of detail, e.g. (what's the time frame for redemption 'off market'), at the upcoming meetings... or has she already disclosed any further detail of 'her' NSX structure for PIF, that I haven't received or seen yet?


----------



## DoraNBoots (1 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Javier,
Thanks for confirming that these are our only options:
Replace the RE
Remove the RE or
Force the RE to wind up the scheme

I am not proposing we make any decisions prior to the WC meetings but think it’s very important we all understand our rights and options as a group.  We will then be able to ask more informed questions at the forums.  I got the impression some people thought they could put the NSX to a vote, so wanted to clarify this.


----------



## DoraNBoots (1 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



communique said:


> I am sure we are at a point where the group would like to see clearly stated.
> 
> 1. What are our options
> 2. Pros and cons for each
> ...




I would like to see this too communique.  Not sure anyone with this knowledge will comment before the WC updates.  So I've attached a document with extracts from the PIFs Constitution and the Corporations Act which I think explain some of our rights and how they would be achieved.


----------



## Duped (1 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

20c ?????  I *%#$@*#& well hope not.

The BIG question is: what returns will JH achieve for us. What will PIF pay out. 

Say the fund value is written down to say $500M by the independent assessment that we're about to be given.  $500M/755M units = 66c.

If the units pay 8% (5.3 c per unit) and are 'selling' at 20c on the NSX.  I'd extend my home mortgage and buy them as fast as they list because I'd be getting 26.5% return and nothing returns as much as that.

What is the JH team's investment performance history??  How good are they at making money for us? Anyone have a clue?  I couldn't find anything on the Welcap website aboiut return on investment (ROI) which is NOT A GOOD SIGN


----------



## Jadel (1 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yes we have a dual listing but it is the Double edged Sword of Damocles ,  unless you happen to believe Jenny Hutson is a philanthropist; I think not. She is a business woman with her own long term vested commercial interests. Which quite obviously is to make a lot of money.

 Stardust has already clearly explained that the liquidity on the NSX is ialmost non existent. Transpose something like GPM  an ex OCV entity trading at 30cents on the ASX with high liquidity and  a Net Tangible Asset backing of  90cents and dividend yield above 20cents and  then use your imagination to speculate on what the circling vultures  will offer the desperate  , panic stricken and weak minded , who are forced to sell on the NSX .Some people will be reduced to poverty after this debacle.

 Jenny Hutson is offering the same option that Indian women were given when they were forced to commit Suttee and throw themselves on the dead husbands burning funeral pyre. 


 I will have a two dollar scratche ticket with anybody on this forum if our units do not trade at a least 20cents or lower on the NSX after the latest revelations on the way our fund has been mismanaged and abused . 147 million of investor’s funds  in the  PIF  has now been described in her own words as worthless.

It all sounds so innocuous, we can hold on to our investment ,and we will be all right in the long term .Then we get a percentage of the NTA value that SHE WILL WORK OUT that the fund is worth over time ( some people are going to get a big surprise at that value) while the other poor desperate souls are forced to sell on the NSX.

 However it doesn’t work out like that .Slowly inexorably over years like an insidious long term malignant cancer the structure and composition of the original body of investors will begin to change. 

The long term grave robbers who average in an accumulate at 20cents or lower will jump at any deal proposed further down the track ;where they can profit, and as Dora has so compellingly pointed out ;they are not going to care two cents for what happens to the unit holders who purchased at full value. 

Remember ,Fund managers have a long history of changing the goal posts to suit their own commercial ends

And,do not forget my friends that Jenny Hutsons declared long term ambition is to Manage a listed Company.

 We as a group have other options that will not place us in danger of being ensnared in a honey trap that once closed  will leave us, as the original investors ,with the most to lose and incapable of choosing  our own destiny.

Please think carefully before making your decision.

 Regards Chris


----------



## Javier (1 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We have to really grill JH on this. I trust you will be at the forums asking all the right questions right Jadel. Which location will you be at? Once we get all the facts and cannot get assuarances from JH that the original investors will not be embroiled in another merged investment that will dilute our units (of $1) even further and really only benefit those that bought at a major discount on the NSX if listed, then we should I agree take immediate action to have an orderly wind up of the fund. It is important that as many investors go to the WC forums and ASK and be HEARD, then we can go away and take action. Wear your PIF AG logos and try and have a meeting after the JH forum, that is what we will do in Sydney. Newcastle should be easy as I believe there is only a small intimate group of about 30 or so investors..wish Sydney was like that!


----------



## Mary Lynch (1 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Chris, Thank you, and I read everything you say. However I want all my queries answered before I vote, ignorant and silly as they may seem to you and others!

My reservations are: Jenny was awarded QLD Business Woman of the Year last year, surely because she was the full package, rather than just a "tuppence a dozen clever money-maker....."

  Jenny has said in her interview with Breaker, that she is seeking buyers on the NSX, and one would think that if she has faith in her ability to save the PIF, that she would have enough connections in the business world who would be happy to buy units at a reduced premium. Surely this would produce a realistic incentive to interested buyers.   And, to create a win-win,and tempt us into selling, her prospective price would surely have to be attractive, then she gets not just the desperate, but a few others as well.  
otherwise too many will be happy to hang about for the long haul, as long as they are getting their distributions.

Also, as I undrestand it, she has said that we can nominate a price to sell, and if we don't get it, we can retain our units as before.  I can't see how this can be dangerous for us.  

I am more than happy to stand corrected by you.


----------



## Duped (1 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> JH is on the board of WC and MFSIM right?  Well that really worries me.  She sold PIFs GPM shares sale for 25.5 cents (+ 40% of capital gains thereabove) and they haven't traded under 32 cents since. (I don't hold out any hope for the 40%. Show me the money. What's stopping Trojan selling to a related entity when the share price is down?  Goodbye any CG. Its the MFS way.) She's quoted as saying '100 per cent sure history is going to show the judgement was right' (goldcoast.com 16 May 08).  Well the evidence is to the contrary for the moment.
> 
> Oh and don't forget the planned 2.225c per share distribution planned for the 1/4 ending June 30.  Have set up a little reminder to check up on that.
> 
> Lets make something very clear JH, you're  not paid to be right, your paid to maximise returns to the investors. That is your duty, your obligation.




Ann for GPM dated 18 June http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20080618/pdf/319pql5dtlr6vl.pdf

2.225 c per share dividend (for the QUARTER) will be paid. At 25c per share that's 35% pa return. PIF missed out on that. 

But GPM traded today at 25c.  That's POST ex-dividend date. What JH sold PIF's shares at.  

And the above mentioned GPM ann warns of write downs. Meaning any hope of seeing any 40% of capital gains JH negotiated is going going gone.

So far this is the only performance data I have seen and it's not particularly bad but it's certainly not great.


----------



## Jadel (1 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Mary you are certainly not ignorant or Silly

  I can only relate from previous bitter mistakes and experience in these matters and am no genius 

   If she is looking for buyers it would have to be from some institution or high net worth individual they  would only be only prepared to enter at a huge discount to the Net Tangible Asset value  for the long term .Hutson herself has stated she expects the fund to be a long term proposition over five years 

Look at the sort of value James  Packer is getting on living and leisure shares he has gained control of the  assets at a bargain basement price.    

This highlites the dangers i expounded in my previous post assuming one fund or person does accumulate a considerable amount of shares over time 
than that  gives them a considerable amount of voting power and a very real possibility of takeing control at a very low price at the expense of the initial investors in the Fund


Regards Chri


----------



## selciper (1 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Not having much sophistication in money matters, I find the daily opinions on this thread very important. They also help me to understand the possible traps. Thanks to all of you who set out the various scenarios. 

A great difficulty to face is the fact that most of the investors have very little info about the important choices facing us all. Some may just tick a risky "yes" box to get any sum of money into depleted bank accounts. There's undoubtedly growing despair in our ranks. Reaching other investors seems of paramount importance. 

If the likes of Breaker1, Chris and Javier and other knowledgeable AG members cross examine JH at the forums, it should result in lots of investors becoming alert to possible perils..

 And just how did our $147m.  disappear? I recall one MFSPIF guy telling me that the monthly income payout to investors was around $5m. Seems like a small sum compared to $147m (or about 29 monthly distributions).


----------



## Javier (1 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This highlites the dangers i expounded in my previous post assuming one fund or person does accumulate a considerable amount of shares over time 
than that  gives them a considerable amount of voting power and a very real possibility of takeing control at a very low price at the expense of the initial investors in the Fund


Regards Chri[/QUOTE]



= CHRIS SCOTT ??? Seems like a likely person if this were to occur, the man has lost over $200m from OCV, he'd be looking at ways to make it up, this would be a perfect vehicle and pretty simple over time.

This is the only thing I hate (at this stage) about WC been given pref to take PIF, the "good old mates" connection, it is something that scares me and is why we must get all the facts then make decisions. IT STINKS!!!!!!


----------



## DoraNBoots (1 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The attached article from Crikey explains the relationship between Jenny Hutson and Chris Scott.


----------



## zixo (1 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If theres anything I can gather from all the above Posts its that the trust for the "new" management of the PIF is questionable at best. 

JH's first priority is to instill trust back with the investors of the PIF.
JH isnt winning friends by Not working in favour of the people who are the fund - the Investors.
So far she has adopted the old Octaviar motto of - "tell the investors later" we havent been given ONE positive thread of feedback.

We've been screwed by the very people we entrusted to look after our interests. People with Law and business degrees who's occupation it is to manipulate money and to take a profit for themselves.

This has been going on since January, Just Now, Its been shown that the PDS and Constitution have been proven to be worth nothing more than a roll of sorbent. The Asic circus shows they couldnt distinguish their ass from their knee.

Throw in the information that Perpetual, Hutchins and Watts are still involved makes it all the harder to stomach.

Regardless of anyway JH may try and swing it, the sale of management rights for 20Million was a bargain to say the least, The sale of the GEO shares and mention of the NSX up to this point doesnt give faith to any of her/their decisions.

Any investor who seem to think that their assets and their money are now in safe hands and the very best will be done so we get $1 for $1 return need to think again.

We need to keep building up this AG


----------



## selciper (1 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A MUST READ

Dora's recent "Crikey" attachment is very relevant to recent posts.  It looks like the press searchlights are well and truly switched on and looking at our situation.


----------



## PIFholder (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi DoraNBoots,

This is really old news isn't it?  Crikey has been on the Octaviar bandwagon since January and any news is bad news. It's sensational media like this that makes our investments even harder to offload because of the speculation.

I mean shouldn't we give Wellington the benefit of the doubt at some level because Wellington has commenced legal action against Octaviar?

Hard to believe that can you be suing someone for $100 million for related party transactions and have a related party transaction of your own ... looks like Wellington are trying hard to communicate with us, and to be honest, after reading the forum, what other option have we got?

Frankly, liquidation never seems to work out for the little guys like us at the of the queue. We always get screwed.

I for one am going to reserve my judgement until I get to see what Jenny has to say at the forums. No point shooting the messenger until we've heard the message.





selciper said:


> A MUST READ
> 
> Dora's recent "Crikey" attachment is very relevant to recent posts.  It looks like the press searchlights are well and truly switched on and looking at our situation.


----------



## Tuart (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear "PIFholder"

The forthcoming forums is an opportunity for WC to sell itself and JH in particular as the person for the job. This is what the forums will be with all the hard questions deflected in finger pointing at the old board.

The major stumbling block is trust or lack of it.

WC was Chris Scotts advisor and then must have continued that role with OCV once they got CS on the board. To sell the management rights to your own advisor without even entering discussions with other parties has had huge ramifications for your fund.

I know of at least one other group who had lodged a formal expression of interest and OCV would not return phone calls or correspondence with this consortium (including JH who was provided a copy of the proposal before Chris Scott was even on board).

It is as Crikey suggests that no one got close to doing Due Dilegence as both the old and new board would not let any other party in the door.

Consider for one moment if a party had bought the management rights who had the resources to replace the RBOS facility. THis would have removed the number one threat to your fund. Deals like GPM would not be required as the fund would have had the luxury of time to hold this investment until the market returns to some form of normality which over time will occur. This was an income earning investment.

The proposal I am aware of may not of being the best offer on the table as I am sure other groups had also expressed an interest but to date I believe it was better than the WC offer as the consortium had the capacity to bring in new funding which WC has not put in one cent of their own money.

The sale process should have being transparent and not conducted in the manner it was.

There continues to be alternatives for the fund out there in terms of an ongoing management and if you formalise your group into a structure with a committee these groups I am sure would love to sit down and talk with your committee about alternatives. Sadly as time moves on they can help less as deals like GPM occur which makes the position worse not better and they have less assets to work with.

The bottom line is that the existing RE has to go as it should be the number company sued in relation to the 147 million in money that has disappeared. It has its own board and compliance committee who signed off on tranactions. No one is forced to do anything unless they had a gun at their head. If OCV threatened to sack these people if they did not undertake the transactions they should have ran to ASIC at that point.

I will also leave you with a final thought.

With this $147 million claim plus the $50 million the total claim against OCV is $197 million. Between this claim and the NZ claim in total dollar terms any scheme of arrangements put up for OCV (x cents in the dollar as full and final settlement) will be either agreed or voted on by your RE and between the RE and OPI Pacific Finance ?? they control the fate of OCV. (A scheme of arrangement is voted for by creditors and these two by total dollar value now out weight Challenger and Qld trustee)  

Do you trust the until recent advisor of Chris Scott to do the best deal for the fund and not in anyway compromise the outcome to benefit OCV. IMO it would be better to have a fully indepenent party protecting your interests and conducting these negotiations with CS and potentially voting on any formal scheme.

A question to ask WC on this is will they put any deal in relation to OCV either through a formal administration or negotiation to PIF investors first or will they just cut a deal and tell members after.


----------



## DoraNBoots (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for your post Tuart!

I’m wondering if *Javier *would mind letting the group know if he is working with the solicitor on formalising the action group into a structure with a committee.  I got the impression this was happening but haven’t heard anything.  Please advise if this isn’t being worked on as I’m sure we can get some members on to it.

I would like to think that the committee once formed would look at offers from other potential REs.  I have no doubt Tuart is correct in saying there were other offers which could have prevented RBOS’s restrictions on distributions and the sale of GEO.  All of this takes time so I see no point in waiting for WC updates or anything else.  We don’t want to wait till the fund is in such bad shape that no potential RE is willing to look at us.  Again, it’s just to look at offers and doesn’t mean we want to replace the RE but want to check they are the best for our fund.

I realise all of this also takes members’ time so please let us know if assistance is needed


----------



## Javier (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dora,
I have left things in the hands of the lawyer. JH is refusing to hand over the investor register unless I hand over $14000! I sent her a reply email stating that this is 1 not a prescibed charge and 2 insulting considering how we are getting screwed. I am flat out at work at the moment plus another personal issue has come up. So if you or anyone else can take over at this stage it would prob be better, the lawyer that I spoke to is of the opinion of wait and see what JH has to say. If you believe another angle / legal advise is appropriate, go for it. Noone is really in charge here I guess.


----------



## DoraNBoots (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for the update Javier!

Some Brisbane members are meeting today; I’ve asked if they will add this to their agenda.  Could other members please provide feedback on whether you want a formal committee established and suggestions on how to proceed?  


BTW:  The prescribed amount = a reasonable amount that does not exceed the marginal cost to the company of providing a copy.  I find that anyone quoting $14,000 is showing complete incompetence in understanding the law or that the person can’t be trusted.


----------



## Rocky1 (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear All

It would appear that most people on this forum are prepared to listen to what JH has to say, but at the same time are a little nervous as to her intentions and unhappy with the way things have unfolded to date. 

I personally believe she has got off on completely the wrong foot by communicating through the media or not communicating at all. To add to this I didn't even receive my letter RE: the forums and wonder how many other people did not receive the letter also. Maybe they drew our names out of a hat!!!!

From listening to everyones thoughts over the past couple of weeks it appears that investors are probably going to fall into four categories
1. Sell no matter what at a capital loss once the opportunity arises
2. Stay in the fund for the long haul and see if things improve
3. Push to have the RE replaced
4. Push to have the fund wound up via a process that maximises returns

Based on this I believe we should be looking at what is involved in 3 and 4 now just in case we are not happy with the outcome of the forums. I understand what Tuart is saying (we need to structure the AG) but I think we are at a point where this could happen fairly quickly, my point is we need to inform ourselves of the process for these two options (3 and 4 above).

Like Javier I have little time so if someone has the time (DOORA????) then I would suggest we push on, we have nothing to loose.

My concern is that if we don't push on then we are buying JH more time to make decisions without consulting us.

She may be good for the fund, but I believe there are too many negatives surrounding the whole deal (e.g association with Chris Scott and the fact other entities didn't even get a foot in the door)


----------



## Javier (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I AM GUTTED!!!!!!!

Dear Investor
PREMIT]M INCOME FTIND ARSN O9O 687 577
As foreshadowed in our last investor update, the board of Wellington Investment Management Limited is now able to
advise the revised unit value of the Premium Income Fund.
The board has determined the value of the Premium Income Fund on three different models:
Option 1: Value of unit assuming going concern and full recovery of $147.5 million from MFS
After assessment of the investments of the Premium Income Fund, the board of Wellington Investment Management
Limited is of the view that the units have a value of 65 cents per unit assuming the Fund remains a going concern and
there is full recovery of $147.5 million from MFS under the legal action commenced on 24 June 2008.
Option 2: Value of unit assuming going concern with no recovery from MFS
After assessment of the investments of the Premium Income Fund, the board of Wellington Investment Management
Limited is of the view that the units have a value of 45 cents per unit assuming the Fund remains a going concern and
there is no recovery from MFS under the legal action commenced on 24 June 2008.
Option 3: Value of unit on liquidation of the Fund
An orderly realisation of assets by a liquidator of the Premium Income Fund would in the opinion of the board of
Wellington Investment Management Limited see investors receive approximately 14 cents per unit.
It is the opinion of the board of Wellington Investment Management Limited that this is not the preferred option for
unitholders.
ttl
| 6s cents | 45 cents I 14 cents I
The future
The board of Wellington Investment Management Limited is committed to the implementation of a value recovery
strategy and restoring unit value in the Premium Income Fund and is taking steps to ensure that this is achieved. There
have already been substantial changes to the management of the Fund. Wellington's team of experienced and successful
professionals are now responsible for the Premium Income Fund.
I look forward to discussing the way forward with you at the investor forums which will be held throughout Australia
commencing 7 July 2008.
Kind regards
Jenny Hutson
Chairperson
Wellington Investment Management Limited
ACN 101 634146 AFSL246ss3
Level 22 307 Queen Street Brisbane Qld 4000 CPO Box 694 Brisbane Qld 4001
T 1300 854 BB5 F 1300 854 893 E enquiries@newpif.com.au W www.newpif.com.au


----------



## Rocky1 (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Javier

Where did this info come from

Again - broad figures, no detail.

My first impression is what a load of crap. I went through the Fincorp debacle which I perceive as being far worse than this and to date we have recovered 57 Cents in the $.

This fully reiterates  my previous post - we need to get active!!!!!!!


----------



## Javier (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Was sent to advisors today, we should all get it by end of week.


----------



## Rocky1 (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Javier

To be able to come up with these cents in the $ values they must have crunched some pretty accurate numbers.

As Investors can we request full details of our investment, because I am skeptical about receiving this information at the forums


----------



## Tuart (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I think waiting for the meetings before formalising your structure is wrong. There is a bit of work involved in puting together the rules and regulations of the body which would also be reflected in the power of attorney that was proposed to be incorporated in a membership application form.

It would have been good to have your membership pack ready for the forums but I think time has run out.

The benefits of an incorporated body is that it creates a committee who can represent your interests easily and is made up of members and is run for the members by the members.

For many people they do not have the time or understanding to help but joining the incorporated body is a simple step and they know they are helping.

As to the numbers just posted by Javier this is a disgrace and the following must be released:
1) exact nature of the $147million in loans (who when what etc)
2) what losses were experienced in clearing RBOS and is RBOS cupable in the creation of this loss.
3) In the value that is left is this inclusive of assets that have a reduced listed value and therefore potentially can have value restored over time.

There must be a time line of events and a full disclosure of assets left.

For example my understanding of the Ray Group to which funds were loaned as part of the 147 million is that they are a substantial group so how can the loan have no value of recovery.

The problem I have with the forthcoming forums is that it will be a sell job by WC and its team of "experienced profesionals "(how many are inherited from the existing manager they acquired).

What benchmark are you going to measure them against. If at the forum another RE group could also stand up and make a presentation about resources, experience and what they can provide investors then PIF holders can compare WC to others.

WC would never allow this as they are minnows compared to other groups who would take on this role.


----------



## pixierich (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This is bull****!  We were told in January that the fund was worth 770 million.
Even assuming that this was inaccurate, and that the assets have lost value in the meantime, how can the "orderly winding up" scenario be down by over 600 million, which is what 14cents suggests.

I believe that this is a ploy by WC to scare everyone into hanging in while they do what they like with our money. They assume that these appalling figures will have been digested by the time the Forums come up, and that investors will be even more susceptible to their suggestions.

As the song says,  "We're not going to take it, NO, we ain't going to take it!!"


----------



## PIFholder (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tuart,

with all due respect, I thought this forum was about everyone being able to have an opinion so that we could get all the information out in the open. Your response is aggressive. 

All of us haven't had distributions, can't redeem etc and are suffering as a result and all I'm saying is that maybe we have to put some faith in someone  that is actually willing to roll up their sleeves and have a go because the previously board absolutely stuffed up the management our PIF, and after looking at Javier's post lost our money as well.

We'll never know really if it is a related party transaction .... you'd think that the liquidators of MFS would have had a pretty big say in who got the fund. It's pretty clear from following OCV in the market that the directors can't make any decisions themselves ... ASIC would have been all over them

I've spoken with JH who has said the board will answer all questions and I know she's given that assurance to other investors I know who have spoken to her. It's going to be pretty hard for her to deflect questions in a capacity crowd and as investors we just need to be forceful in getting the answers.

I for one am going to give them a go because 14 cents in liquidation is a disaster.






Tuart said:


> Dear "PIFholder"
> 
> The forthcoming forums is an opportunity for WC to sell itself and JH in particular as the person for the job. This is what the forums will be with all the hard questions deflected in finger pointing at the old board.
> 
> ...


----------



## Duped (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

65 cents / 45 cents / 14 cents

Don't forget to add the lost distributions to these numbers. I.e. lost earnings, the earnings our investments could have made if they were sitting in a bank term deposit these last 6 months.   At 7% pa thats .583 cents per month per $1 unit.  So in the last 6 months I have already LOST 3.5 cents per $1 unit. I.e. $350 for each $10K invested in the PIF.  

For all of us that now have debts and are PAYING interest on those debts you can MORE THAN DOUBLE that amount when you calculate the financial damage MFS/Octaviar have caused.

Never forget that OUR lost distributions have been helping pay the RBOS debt for these last SIX MONTHS. To the tune of $28MILLION (755M units at and average of 7.5%)

I know I keep going on about it but the political angle in this is not to be ignored. The buck in any business always stops with the Chairman of the Board of Directors.  Which of course for MFS Ltd (who owned 100% of our RE) was Mr Andrew Peacock.  The man that the good people of the opposition Liberal Party chose to be their leader.  I would not be surprised if likes of ASIC have been told by their political peers to avoid helping us PIF investors if possible.  The greater our fall the greater the political value.  

'Former Opposition Leader Rules Over a Billion + Dollars of Investor Losses': that's a 6 inch gun for the battle against the coalition's image as the superior financial manager. (Does a little bit of damage every time it is fired.  Just like the Coalition never ceased reminding us about 18% interest rates under Hawke/Keating.)


----------



## PIFholder (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hear Hear Duped!

I agree that the political angle can't be ignored. Andrew Peacock was in charge of the company that owned the RE - the same RE that has lost our money.

The buck has to stop with MFS, Andrew Peacock and Michael King.



Duped said:


> 65 cents / 45 cents / 14 cents
> 
> Don't forget to add the lost distributions to these numbers. I.e. lost earnings, the earnings our investments could have made if they were sitting in a bank term deposit these last 6 months.   At 7% pa thats .583 cents per month per $1 unit.  So in the last 6 months I have already LOST 3.5 cents per $1 unit. I.e. $350 for each $10K invested in the PIF.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tuart (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear PIFHolder

I am sorry if I came across as agressive to you.

The point I was trying to make is that what benchmark are you going to use to determine if WC are the right group for the job.

There were over 25 expressions of interest lodged for the PIF management rights (direct quote Louise Edwards head of merger and acqusitions at OCV)

On what basis was it determined that WC offer was in the best interests of investors. They did not have the capacity (funds)  to remove RBOS which stops the requirement for having to discount assets to sell them.

WC were advisors to CS and I find it hard to believe that once WC got CS on the board of OCV they played no further part. So potentially you have an advisor turned acquirer of assets.  (IMO not good governance and makes new board as bad as old)

The other point I was making is that Korda Mentha (unofficial administrators/liquidators) to OCV may have formed the view that WC was the best option for *OCV shareholders*. But was this what was best for PIF investors or were there better alternatives out there.

WC have been handed a signifcant asset for effectively no consideration and will earn substantial fees over time and if they retain some or all of the funds have created millions of dollars of value for themselves out of a very questionable transaction.

PIF investors should be the only ones to benefit from any value the management rights bring until a party is prepared to contribute real value to fixing the problems.


----------



## Mary Lynch (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dora,
WAY back, in answer to your plea.....YES we definitely need some structure to this group....in individual states and on a national level. 

We can't have more than one legal practice to pay, and we will have to make a decision around that very quickly after the forum if we are pursuing that route.
At least we should have a lot more members to contribute then....but also we will have a lot more opinions!!

We need someone to put together agenda to be thoroughly discussed and voted upon at our meetings post forum. We will all be pretty well informed about what needs to be worked over after the first meeting in Brisbane.


----------



## marcom (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Given the news we have received today, it is worth while going back to what was said at the beginning of this year

"MFS responds to Stephen Mayne: ... *Guy Hutchings, CEO, MFSIM, MFS Limited, writes:....*

* Only 16% of the funds assets are invested in MFS related entities and *there are no funds invested in MFS Limited or its wholly owned subsidiaries. No assets in the Premium Income Fund are impaired in terms of generating income or recovery of principal and the fund continues to pay its distributions at the target rates.

* The deferral of redemptions by the Premium Income Fund is not caused by a deterioration in the quality of its assets. Distributions will continue to be paid from income generated by the fund. MFSIM has waived its management fee for the duration of the deferral".*

Crikey 31/1/08

Absolute BS!

And this piece in Feb on Crikey: ...

"All this cash will go to repay short term debt, *but the problems go a lot deeper because the MFS board basically used the suspended $770 million MFS Premium Income Fund as a private bank to fund development projects all over the place, including many with links to the broader MFS empire.

Word is starting to circulate that MFS was lending the funds and then recovering some of them in advanced profit sharing fees before the profits had actually been made:.*

Crikey 4/2/08

And those wonderful folks who came in to help us:...

"When former S8 founder turned MFS shareholder Chris Scott first started agitating for a spot on the board, MFS chairman Andrew Peacock came out swinging, telling The AFR three weeks ago: “For reasons well known to Mr Scott, I have absolutely no respect for him whatsoever.”

*Adam Schwab pointed to the possible reason for this position in Crikey on March 3 when he wrote:

    Peacock’s feelings towards Scott may have something to do with Scott’s scheduled appearance in the Southport Magistrates Court in August in relation to charges relating to commissions deducted at S8 apartments. If found guilty, Stella could be liable to pay $44 million in fines while Scott could face a two-year jail term.

What is it about these Gold Coast companies!"*

Crikey 19/3/08


----------



## Jadel (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I can inform Action Group Members  with absolute certainty that all you need to do to aquire  the registry for the fund is have 100 members or 5% of the total asset value of the fund and that you intend to  legally call an EGM 

  The only cost involved is the photocopying which you can do yourself .

 If Hutson continues with these obvious  delaying tactics contact ASIC immediately  .


----------



## Rocky1 (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Jadel

If this is true, lets not waste time. Lets formalise a list of AG members to prove we have the 100 (breaker would need to send a generic email to all members to confirm they are happy to be on the formalise list) and lets get a volunteer to get the registrar.

Clearly she is using a number of tactics to try and stall our progress and we are playing right into her hands by buying her time. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. 

I'm not saying she won't do a good job or we need to overturn her, but this is our money and we need to be smart, organised and prepared. As someone said earlier in this thread even IF WC do a good job, having a structured AG will keep WC on it's toes.

Is there anyone out there who can make this happen!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Mutchy (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> Dora,
> WAY back, in answer to your plea.....YES we definitely need some structure to this group....in individual states and on a national level.
> 
> We can't have more than one legal practice to pay, and we will have to make a decision around that very quickly after the forum if we are pursuing that route.





Yes we do need some some formal entity as previously discussed. I think we need to be seriously addressing the option of replacing the RE provided there is a way that this can be done whilst still retaining the ability to recover the $50 Million or part thereof from OCV which would lapse under the loan agreement if Octaviar Investment Management Limited was replaced outright. (WC own the management rights to OIML so OMIL are the RE licence holder) Potential Responsible Entities will be more likely to talk to a formally constituted group than a loosely aligned action group. 

Here is my understanding of our current situation from the last few days:

*Summary of PIF Posts from 1st July*

There are three options open to PIF Action Group members:
Replace the RE
Remove the RE or
Force the RE to wind up the scheme

It appears we do not have any rights when it comes to telling the RE want to do (like listing on the NSX) except to tell them to wind up the scheme. 

WC will be listing PIF on the NSX and there is nothing we can do about it.
The value of our PIF units will not change in line with our NSX units, but with the fund realizing(selling) the assests over time. If we sell our NSX units we will get our cash out, but probably at a capital loss. In the meantime, %redemptions and distributions are will be available again in a few months.

Listing on the NSX doesn’t just disadvantage the investors who need to sell immediately – it also disadvantages the rest of the unit holders. Once we have fellow investors in the fund that only paid say 20c for their units we will have a hard time convincing those investors to agree to a special resolution if ever the need were to arise. Also, the RE could suggest a workout where we only get 40c in the dollar back and those new investors who bought on the NSX would agree as they would double their money!

There is a suspicious relationship between Jenny Hutson and Chris Scott with some apparently just out of arms reach transactions having taken place and probably in process. There are past relationships and loans which are also suspicious and none of which have benefited PIF unit holders. There may be reason to sue the directors for their negligence in relation to clauses of the Corporations Act.

JH was Chris Scotts advisor and appears to have continued that role with OCV once CS was appointed to the board. OCV sold the management rights of PIF to the boards own advisor without entering discussions with other parties and without due diligence having been performed.

Wellington Capital are suing Octavia for a related party transaction for $100 Million. Can WC be suing Octavia for related party transactions and simultaneously be involved in a related party transaction of your own? Probably not.

The old RE should be sued in relation to the 147 million in money that has disappeared. It had its own board and compliance committee who signed off on transactions. Does WC. having bought the management rights also now hold responsibility for the $147 Million transactions? - Probably not.

With this $147 million claim plus the $50 million the total claim against OCV is $197 million. Between this claim and the NZ claim in total dollar terms any scheme of arrangements put up for OCV (x cents in the dollar as full and final settlement) will be either agreed or voted on by your RE and between the RE of OPI Pacific Finance. They control the fate of OCV. (A scheme of arrangement is voted for by creditors and these two by total dollar value now outweigh Challenger and Qld Trustee combined) 

On 2nd July WC issued a statement to Advisors outlining three options with three estimated values of unit values. 
Going Concern full recovery $147 Million - 65 cents
Going Concern No Recovery of $147 Million - 45 cents
Liquidation - 14 cents

There were over 25 expressions of interest lodged for the PIF management rights. Korda Mentha, unofficial administrators/liquidators to OCV may have formed the view that the sale of management rights of the PIF RE to WC was the best option for OCV shareholders, not PIF unitholders. 

WC have been handed a significant asset for effectively no consideration. WC will earn substantial fees over time out of a questionable transaction.

Please feel free to clarify any point which is in error or answer any questions raised.

Mutchy


----------



## BootsnAll (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

PIF Action Group should become a formally incorporated body, engage legal people and above all get a forensic accountant to delve through the whole sorry mess to ascertain what the true financial situation is.  If we all contribute  say, $100 we would have a decent fighting fund.
At the moment we are getting the mushroom treatment; being kept in the dark and fed bull***t.

We need people with expertise to step forward & get the ball rolling. Only wish I qualified!


----------



## Jadel (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Rocky

 We had a very pleasant informal meeting with  Brisbane  AG group members today  regarding our strategy  and i believe Dora is working on the problem 

 Suggest you contact through the site he has specifically set up for these problems


----------



## SPLITPIN (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

All

What are your thoughts on this from Corporations Act 2001 Vol 3

601FL  Retirement of responsible entity
	(1)	If the responsible entity of a registered scheme wants to retire, it must call a members’ meeting to explain its reason for wanting to retire and to enable the members to vote on a resolution to choose a company to be the new responsible entity. The resolution must be an extraordinary resolution if the scheme is not listed.

Obviously this did not happen when MFS handed over to Wellington


----------



## selciper (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Are these latest unit price estimates the ones set recently by Price Waterhouse? Hasn't JH already said that the chances of recovering 100 of the 147m is zero? Look, I cannot possibly trust any dollar figures anymore. Millions have been thrown out with reckless abandon by MSFPIF as if it were monopoly money. Tomorrow WC could make another "sudden discovery", say another $100m gone missing, and expect us to be philosophical victims of gross ineptitude (I can think of much stronger words). 

With all the due diligence going on since January, how is it that the lost 147m was announced just recently? Doesn't look too diligent to me. Remember 333Capital? They were brought in to REASSURE us! Never heard a word from them via MFS. The often mentioned behind the scenes associations, as described in Crikey, are increasingly concerning. 

Think about this: if a bus driver overlooks a sign and crashes over a cliff causing injury to passengers, does a new company quickly re-employ him/her to do the same job? As for the re-engagement of certain professional (hello!) investment advisers is concerned, the notion is beyond sound reasoning. Why is logic being defied? 14 cents! What have these experts been investing our money in? Tin sheds on distant drought plains or worse? We were told that our investments were to be "bullet-proofed" (newsletter August 07). Seems that there was a chink in the armour.

 There may be all sorts of reasons for the low unit prices being presently quoted. Perhaps if/when WC are in place with PIF, they will start to increase values as a signal that WC are the brilliant bullet proofers we seek. They might even recover "unrecoverables." Nothing surprises me any longer Ms Hutson. Try and convince me, the stage is yours. And just who is chairing the forums?


----------



## DoraNBoots (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Our rights regarding the Register of Members are:

Any member has the right to *inspect *the register *without charge*.
If a member wants a *copy *of the register they need to cover the costs of producing the copy (see the Yahoo! group documentation for exact wording of the act).

I don't forsee it's going to be a problem for us to get a copy, it’s just a matter of time.  I feel WC are doing everything they can to hider the process and stall - but I expect to get it.

It troubles me that the solicitor hasn't advised how to get it.  I see the quote for $14,000 as a stalling tactic and a means to stop anyone from getting it who doesn't have legal advice.

WC are not winning any votes here with the way they are handling this request.  I consider what they are telling me to be misleading;  and taking longer than necessary to process my request.  The current status is that they are negotiating a reasonable price with Perpetual and will get back to me by the end of the week!!  Unacceptable!!  They know full well that the 7 day limit they have to provide it doesn’t start till I cover costs – which is impossible if I don’t have a reasonable quote.

Luckily we aren’t desperate for this and we are getting it in advance of needing it.

BTW:  I am also following this up with Perpetual


----------



## marcom (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Point made by Mutchy:

_The old RE should be sued in relation to the 147 million in money that has disappeared. It had its own board and compliance committee who signed off on transactions. Does WC. having bought the management rights also now hold responsibility for the $147 Million transactions? - *Probably not*._

I think WCIM is still responsible - all they have done is to buy all the shares in MFSIM Ltd/OIM Ltd and change the name, everything else remains the same. The last Board and Officers are equally responsible, as is WIM. A formal change of RE has to be decided by a meeting of members. JH chose to buy all the shares in the RE as a means of avoiding having members decide at a meeting, where other offers may also be considered..

Section 601MA allows any member of PIF to sue the RE for loss or damage because of conduct of the scheme's RE that contravenes the Corps Act.

JH has already alleged contraventions of S601FD Corporations Act, including compliance with the Australian Financial Services Licence, constitution and Compliance Plan of the PIF.

All I need as a member is a declaration of contravention against the RE by the Supreme Court and I can sue WIM for my loss or damage.

JH is already pursuing this in the Supreme Court - we just need to watch that she also gets a declaration against the RE. Remember when all this happened Craig White was both MFS CEO and CEO of MFSIM.


_CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601MA
Civil liability of responsible entity to members

             (1)  A member of a registered scheme who suffers loss or damage because of conduct of the scheme's responsible entity that contravenes a provision of this Chapter may recover the amount of the loss or damage by action against the responsible entity whether or not the responsible entity has been convicted of an offence, or has had a civil penalty order made against it, in respect of the contravention.

             (2)  An action under subsection (1) must be begun within 6 years after the cause of action arises.

             (3)  This section does not affect any liability that a person has under other provisions of this Act or under other laws._


----------



## Duped (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mutchy said:


> With this $147 million claim plus the $50 million the total claim against OCV is $197 million. Between this claim and the NZ claim in total dollar terms any scheme of arrangements put up for OCV (x cents in the dollar as full and final settlement) will be either agreed or voted on by your RE and between the RE of OPI Pacific Finance. They control the fate of OCV. (A scheme of arrangement is voted for by creditors and these two by total dollar value now outweigh Challenger and Qld Trustee combined)




Hmmmm. So are you saying WC's true motivation for suing OCV is for CS to have friendlies in control of any break-up. That PIF is again being used for purposes other than ROI for investors. Was that CS' plan for JH all along?


----------



## sak (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If WC are playing hard ball on the register which is a side issue to the real game I feel we are in for a lot of legal hoop jumping,will WC be using our funds to fund there legals





DoraNBoots said:


> Our rights regarding the Register of Members are:
> 
> Any member has the right to *inspect *the register *without charge*.
> If a member wants a *copy *of the register they need to cover the costs of producing the copy (see the Yahoo! group documentation for exact wording of the act).
> ...


----------



## Tuart (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped

That was a copy of a post on a comment I made about impact the $147 million plus $50 million has on any future scheme for OCV.

It is something worth considering as it staggers me that $147 million has just disappeared.

On the surface of it CS former advisor got handed an asset (management of RE) and know they are going to kill the company CS fought so hard to get control of through legal action. Why would OCV have done the deal with WC ahead of alternative potential offers ? The only reason I can come up with is to put it in the hands of a friendly party.

JH has indicated in press that she does not support a liquidation of OCV so therefore would be open to some form of scheme of arrangements on creditors. 

The question is will it be the best deal for PIF or for OCV


----------



## DoraNBoots (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



BootsnAll said:


> We need people with expertise to step forward & get the ball rolling. Only wish I qualified!




Can we change this and ask for members with *time *rather than expertise to step forward.  We just need members who have time to follow things up *with experts *such as a solicitor, accountant, whoever.  I know my name was mentioned, I’m happy to assist but I am already in trouble (with boots) for the time I am speeding on this.  

Dora


----------



## marcom (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> All
> 
> What are your thoughts on this from Corporations Act 2001 Vol 3
> 
> ...




Correct SPLITPIN - See my post earlier. It was done through the sale of shares in the RE so they would not have to go to a meeting with other offers on the table.


----------



## SPLITPIN (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

All

So, from the Corporations Act 2001 to remove the RE we need our 100 + members etc to

2601FM  Removal of responsible entity by member

	(1)	If members of a registered scheme want to remove the responsible entity, they may take action under Division 1 of Part 2G.4 for the calling of a members’ meeting to consider and vote on a resolution that the current responsible entity should be removed and a resolution choosing a company to be the new responsible entity. 

and / or

A member (1 off) may

601FN  ASIC or scheme member may apply to Court for appointment of temporary responsible entity
		ASIC or a member of the registered scheme may apply to the Court for the appointment of a temporary responsible entity of the scheme under section 601FP if the scheme does not have a responsible entity that meets the requirements of section 601FA.

Thoughts please.


----------



## DoraNBoots (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi SPLITPIN,

Not sure what thoughts you want?  I think we currently have the power to call a vote on replacing the RE if we decide it necessary.  The act says it must be an extraordinary resolution. 

"extraordinary resolution" , in relation to a registered scheme, means a resolution: 
(a)  of which notice as set out in paragraph 252J(c) has been given; and 
(b)  that has been passed by at least 50% of the total votes that may be cast by members entitled to vote on the resolution (including members who are not present in person or by proxy).

This involves finding a new RE first.
See more info in the attachment Options.doc from post #549


----------



## PIFholder (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mutchy said:


> WC have been handed a significant asset for effectively no consideration. WC will earn substantial fees over time out of a questionable transaction.
> 
> Please feel free to clarify any point which is in error or answer any questions raised.
> 
> Mutchy




Mutchy,

When I spoke with WC, I was told that WC will not be taking any fees until distributions are made to investors. This to me seems to be something positive, isn't it? Afterall, WC can only make the 'substantial' fees it might want if it can return significant value to PIF, which is also good for us investors, is it not?


----------



## marcom (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



PIFholder said:


> Mutchy,
> 
> When I spoke with WC, I was told that WC will not be taking any fees until distributions are made to investors. This to me seems to be something positive, isn't it? Afterall, WC can only make the 'substantial' fees it might want if it can return significant value to PIF, which is also good for us investors, is it not?




No Mutchy WC are not doing the right thing. They are prevented from taking any fees while distributions are frozen by virtue of the PIF PDS.


----------



## selciper (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

MARCOM, re your post 578, page 28 - I'd been searching for those earlier Crikey pieces for some time. Thanks for posting them. Stephen Mayne was right on the ball. The references to August suggest a possibility of some eventful twists and turns yet to evolve. 

My instinct tells me that because of our AG, the future may not be as grim as it seems today. It's becoming a chess game as evidenced by Dora's problems with the register (somewhat petty and really poor PR). I fear that the forums' chairperson may rule some sharp questions as being out of order. He/she can claim confidentiality, possible defamation etc. to protect the speaker from having to answer the dicey ones. I've seen it happen before.

 My $100 plus contribution to the AG is ready to send.


----------



## Javier (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Changing the RE is not going to change the fact we have $150m in zero value loans and $250m in "very dubious" loans and assets. We have to wait and see what WC can deliver to us. 

Another area where I think we have to really look at is the ASIC card, Jadel has got the ball rolling with a letter with 30 odd signatures. It is an extraordinary situattion that OCV has $170m sitting in their bank account and we are owed $150 thru mismanagement.

Asic has the power to freeze these funds held by OCV, and the only way they will act, and quickly, is by 10300 investors putting enough pressure via media etc, to force them to action!


----------



## marcom (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My post 587 today should read "Remember when all this happened Craig White was both MFS CEO and Board Member of MFSIM."


----------



## Mary Lynch (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I HAVE TIME but little KNOWHOW.  I am also in Melbourne, which is a bit out of the way.  

However, if anyone wishes to instruct me clearly in what needs to be done, and I am able to do it from here, FEEL FREE to get in touch.

My email address is mlynch48@bigpond.com and my phone number 
03 97754874.


----------



## wally3218 (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

With the legal advice were getting has anything been said about taking out a class action against these BAST#####
We might have too, I don't see anyone else trying to take these people to court.
Even if we get the full amount back I still believe theses people acted illegally and should be held accountable.
You can bet JH and the the others will end up making money on our loses.


----------



## Duped (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Another area where I think we have to really look at is the ASIC card, Jadel has got the ball rolling with a letter with 30 odd signatures. It is an extraordinary situattion that OCV has $170m sitting in their bank account and we are owed $150 thru mismanagement.
> 
> Asic has the power to freeze these funds held by OCV, and the only way they will act, and quickly, is by 10300 investors putting enough pressure via media etc, to force them to action!




Jadel.  I don't think that'll be enough.  There is absolutely no way ASIC or equivalent Federal or State bodies will prosecute if there is any likelihood they'll end up prosecuting the former leader of the Liberal party. THE TOP MAN of Australia's conservatives.  Nothing like that has ever occured in this country; that I know of. 

Not without enormous pressure any way.  I'm guessing: ASIC would rather be criticized for acting slow than risk potentially being blamed for causing extensive damage to the Liberal brand.  Can anyone seriously believe Peacock the Chairman had no idea of his subsidiary MFS IM's breach of the PIF PDS when there was nearly ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION $ involved. If not then someone has to take the fall, rightly or wrongly.  Who's that going to be: MFS Ltd CEO King, MFS IM CEO Guy Hutchings? 

Thankfully we have an independent judiciary and our RE has initiating proceedings against OCV for the $147M.


----------



## marcom (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Jadel.  I don't think that'll be enough.  There is absolutely no way ASIC or equivalent Federal or State bodies will prosecute if there is any likelihood they'll end up prosecuting the former leader of the Liberal party. THE TOP MAN of Australia's conservatives.  Nothing like that has ever occured in this country; that I know of.
> 
> Not without enormous pressure any way.  I'm guessing: ASIC would rather be criticized for acting slow than risk potentially being blamed for causing extensive damage to the Liberal brand.  Can anyone seriously believe Peacock the Chairman had no idea of his subsidiary MFS IM's breach of the PIF PDS when there was nearly ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION $ involved. If not then someone has to take the fall, rightly or wrongly.  Who's that going to be: MFS Ltd CEO King, MFS IM CEO Guy Hutchings?
> 
> Thankfully we have an independent judiciary and our RE has initiating proceedings against OCV for the $147M.




Duped, there is a Labor Government in power - ASIC and other relevant state and federal bodies will be just waiting to get political mileage out of thrashing "the suntaned one " and the Liberal heartland in Victoria in the media. There was some press when MFS started to implode to the effect that Peacock's son in law Michael Krouger - Victorian Head of the Liberal Party - that he had cautioned Peacock not to take the MFS Chairmanship as he would regret it in the long term. Michael was right!

Its going to be interesting to see regular TV coverage of Peacock trying to avoid service of summons in Washington DC.


----------



## selciper (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I'm no fan of the ASIC crowd, but they do love trophies and the ensuing glare of publicity. I would have thought any former ambassador involved in a business crash would be worth some time spent by them in asking a few questions. Adler must know all about that.

If it really is possible for ASIC to freeze Octaviar's remaining funds, why hasn't WC asked ASIC to do so?


----------



## Jadel (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear fellow Action Group Members,

In the light of the recent disastrous revelations on our fund I have drafted another urgent appeal to ASIC as an adjunct to the original submission directly to the chairman and CEO Tony D'Alosio asking for his personal intervention on our behalf.

Unfortunately their is some sensitive material in this document so I will not post.  We have 37 signatures on the original submission, any investor who wishes me to append their name to this new appeal please email me on chrisaaa@iprimus.com.au


----------



## Mutchy (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



PIFholder said:


> Mutchy,
> 
> When I spoke with WC, I was told that WC will not be taking any fees until distributions are made to investors. This to me seems to be something positive, isn't it? Afterall, WC can only make the 'substantial' fees it might want if it can return significant value to PIF, which is also good for us investors, is it not?




 Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Quote:
Originally Posted by PIFholder  


Mutchy,
No Mutchy WC are not doing the right thing. They are prevented from taking any fees while distributions are frozen by virtue of the PIF PDS.

Marcom's reply should have been directed to PIfHholder.

Yes you are correct.
This provides some incentive to WC to begin paying dividends as soon as possible so that they can indeed earn a fee. However for the time being they are receiving nothing for their efforts in anticipation of future returns. The potential is however for a considerable future return. i hope their return is huge because this means ours will be too.
Mutchy


----------



## Javier (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> I'm no fan of the ASIC crowd, but they do love trophies and the ensuing glare of publicity. I would have thought any former ambassador involved in a business crash would be worth some time spent by them in asking a few questions. Adler must know all about that.
> 
> If it really is possible for ASIC to freeze Octaviar's remaining funds, why hasn't WC asked ASIC to do so?




JH probably already has BUT it has nowhere near the clout coming from an AG that hopefully will have a lot more support in the ensuing weeks. We really need to have an incoporated group that hopefully will have the ear of the media. Can you imagine if we get a program like Today Tonight (prob not Current Affair due to Packer), prime time. We give them a story as an incorporated structured group, then they can interview investors that are prepared to be interviewed with genuine hardship, these programs love that kind of story AND have a huge audience. They can help put a lot of pressure on ASIC, they will ask WHY they don't intervene if they have the power to do so. Any thoughts? These shows are always looking for stories. I am sure JH will help support this..maybe something to ask in the forums.
.


----------



## Cookie1 (2 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

To PIF investors on the NSW Mid-North Coast:

There is a PIF Action Group meeting organised in Port Macquarie at 11.30am Wednesday 9 July at the Port City Bowling Club on Owen Street in Port Macquarie. 

If you're not a member of the PIF AG, please send an email to breaker1@aapt.net.au 

Also email p.sclfrd@bigpond.net.au to let us know you'll be there, so we can cater for numbers.

Cookie1


----------



## breaker1 (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

65c / 45c /14c  Thieves & liars!

If we take the worst case scenario of no further monies being legally recovered, Jenny is telling us that we get 45c in the dollar - *this represents a shortfall in the PIF of a whopping $411.95 million (55%), *based on a fund originally worth 749M. That being the PWC case, *then where did this huge some of money go?? *


I will try and account for as many suspicious loans as I know under:

$50 M – [8] Boutique fund “Causeway’
$70 M – [1] Living & Leisure
$10.1 M [2] - Investment Enterprise (NZ fund manager)
$5.1M [3] - Sagacious (opportunity trust, fixed term investments, expire Feb. 2007)
$10M [4] – German Shopkeeper, retail assets, convenience stores
$24.3M  [9] – Young Village Estates (aged care)
$2.77M [5] – SPV construction group, Baulkham Hills (Sydney)
$37.5M [6] – Ray Group (joint MFS LTD venture) – owns Sheraton, Port Douglass
$10M -  [7] - Southport Holdings
$219.77M (STTL) = 29.34% of a fund valued originally @ $749M
+$180M  [10]   borrowed from RBOS
$399.77 TTL = 53% of the fund (close but approx 2% still unaccounted for in total shortfall)

The first question I ask is, are the above [1-7] items listed, the same items that Jenny sees as cause for the 7 loans she claims are in need of legal action to recover? Are these the loans Jenny says are of zero or no value? If so, does she mean by this, that ‘no value’ means “no recovery”, unless she takes legal action against OCV LTD and if legal action is successful, these above actually do have some value because of legal recovery? I assume it does.

Another important question still remains – where did the $180M the PIF borrowed from the RBOS go? If it wasn’t to forward on for loans to the above [9] named loans, then it could mean, it was to cover huge shortfalls in PIF income (defaulting loans/wages perhaps). If it was not for shortfalls in daily business income, then there must still be a good number more bad (junk) loans or investments still to be accounted for, over and above the [1-9] mentioned above, to a total value of approx $180M. We know that most of the $180M has been paid back (approx. $120M), which has been paid by incoming MFS PIF old clients, still paying off loans (thus reducing assets in the PIF). So it still remains, where are these other shortfalls?  (In other assets *or *sucked up by poor business operating cost shortfalls? Probably both.)

We have in my rough guide above a need to know the exact details of the further approx. 180M to $190M and where it went? If Jenny is counting some of the above [1-9] as in the 45% (e.g. possibly Causeway “a good operator”) then there are even more assets unaccounted for.

If we are PIF investors who are going to hold back in the PIF and NOT sell on the NSX and also expected to wait 3 to 4 years, getting paid via a drip feed (quarterly) as fund assets come in, then we are going to lose big time, because of inflation eating away our capital (4 years x 4% = 16%) + 55% (based on a 45c in $ return) = 71% in real terms. If you further add to that, loss of interest (4 years x 8% = 32%) it is a total loss = 103%   OF WHAT WE COULD HAVE EARNED had the fund remained viable at 100% operating redemption and continuing distributions as per normal over this same 4 years. THAT IS A BIG LOSS!! It is a tremendous argument against investors looking for an extra 1.5% over large, safer, bank, term rates. It is simply NOT worth the risk. I will never put my money in such a mutual fund company again!

The above is only a DRAFT rough idea of what I think is where our monies are in shortfall – if any other readers here can think of other loans/shortfalls towards the 55%, I will add them to my list above. This list is just my crude educated speculation, but I trust it gets some kind of perspective of what we’re dealing with. Please correct my errors - this is a work in progress.


----------



## BootsnAll (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I would like to bring the following (edited) ASX announcements to your attention:

*16/5/08*
• Arctic has, subject to satisfactory completion of due diligence and documentation on terms agreeable to Arctic, agreed to purchase $63 million of LLA’s unsecured debt from PIF.
• LLA has agreed, subject to completion of formal documentation, to issue PIF in exchange for the remaining balance of its unsecured debt to LLA (approximately $7 million plus capitalised interest):
  a $10 million zero interest note repayable two years after the completion of the Rights Offer;
  88 million new LLA securities, to be issued following the Rights Offer; and
  options to subscribe for a further 88 million new LLA securities at the Rights Offer issue price. These options will lapse if not exercised within 12 months of the close of the Rights Offer.
The issue of the securities and options to PIF is subject to LLA security holder approval which will be sought at LLA’s annual general meeting later this year.

*10/6/08*
RECAPITALISATION PROPOSAL UPDATE
In relation to the Recapitalisation Proposal announced on 16 May 2008, Living and Leisure Australia (LLA) advises that on Friday, 6 June 2008 Arctic Capital Limited (Arctic) confirmed to LLA, that it has conducted detailed due diligence on LLA, Living and Leisure Australia
Arctic notes that:
• it has not reached a definitive agreement with PIF in respect of the acquisition of the PIF Debt and that it still needs to obtain final settlement of the terms of, and security arrangements in respect to, the debt to be acquired

*16/6/08*
Replacement of Mezzanine Facility
LLA understands that agreement has been reached on the final commercial terms for:
• the replacement and reduction of the total debt owed by LLA to the Octaviar Premium Income Fund by various parties including Arctic Capital; and
• the acquisition from the Octaviar Group of Living and Leisure Australia Management Limited, the responsible entity of the Living and Leisure Australia Trust, by Arctic Capital subject to standard conditions precedent and final commercial due diligence, and expects that both acquisitions will be fully documented within the recapitalisation timetable.

*2/7/08*
The Living and Leisure Australia Group (LLA) has this morning requested that ASX voluntarily suspend trading in its securities while LLA continues in discussions with the underwriter of LLA’s proposed rights issue and with its lenders about its recapitalisation.
LLA expects to be able to update the market in relation to  its recapitalisation process *by Friday, 4 July 2008.

It appears the wheels are well & truly in motion and by the time the meeting in Brisbane takes place we may be well & truly screwed.
Where the hell is ASIC?
Probably sitting on their butt as usual, drinking coffee!

*


----------



## Bumblebee (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just wanted to share this article from the Gold Coast Bulletin today

*PIF's investors could get just 14c in dollar*

Nick Nichols 
03Jul08 
INVESTORS who have poured $770 million into the Premium Income Fund yesterday were 'gutted' by the news that they could receive as little as 14c in the dollar if the fund was forced into liquidation.
An update from Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital, being issued to 11,000 investors today, has alerted investors to three possible scenarios which, at best, would see them lose 35 per cent of their money.
The best outcome, which would involve the Premium Income Fund (PIF) recovering all of the $147.5 million it is claiming from struggling Gold Coast company Octaviar, would value the fund's $1 units at 65c each if PIF were to remain a going concern.
But Ms Hutson last night said that, given time, said she was confident of recovering all of the $770 million owed to investors and there were plans to resume paying distributions in October with a total of 3c per unit to be paid by Christmas.
Investors have not seen a cent from the fund since February, after which distributions stopped and redemptions were frozen for 360 days.
Ms Hutson said the value of PIF units at present stood at 45c 'plus whatever we can recover from MFS'.
Liquidation of the fund would slash that return to just 14c, but Ms Hutson, the former chairperson of Chris Scott's tourism group S8, said that she was hopeful unitholders would back Wellington Capital's efforts to rebuild PIF's value.
"I would not be here if I didn't think I could return everybody's full dollar and I think it's a three- to five-year program to get a full return of capital," she said.
"The S8 experience for me was a fabulous one. We took $1 and turned it into $16 in five years.
"I'd like to take 45c and turn it back into $1 as quickly as I can, and then move beyond that."
Wellington Capital, which assumed control of the fund in May, last month launched a Supreme Court of Queensland action to recover $147.5 million lent last year to Octaviar, which was then known as MFS.
Wellington has questioned the propriety of the loans and it is still seeking a $50 million guarantee for the funds from Octaviar.
The action is one of several being brought against Octaviar, which now faces creditors' claims of more than $1 billion, threatening the company's survival.
Ms Hutson said PIF had reduced debt from $100 million to $55 million since Wellington Capital had assumed control.
A $63 million payout from the recapitalisation of former MFS offshoot Living and Leisure Australia, which is expected to be detailed tomorrow, will wipe out that debt.
Ms Hutson said this had been 'the toughest year in 10 years in finance and property'.
"We have to put ourselves in the best position to ride out the market issues."
One investor, Lismore's Geoff Hobbs who has $880,000 invested in PIF, last night said he was not confident the fund could recover lost funds without embarking on 'risky' investments.
"No one has any confidence any more," he said.
Online investor forums have described the potential outcome of 14c in the dollar as not credible in light of the assumption that units were worth 45c if the fund remained a going concern.
Others have said they were 'gutted' by the prospect of receiving just 45c in the dollar.
However, Mr Hobbs said he would attend one of the planned meetings of PIF unit-holders next week before firming his opinion of Wellington Capital's proposals.
The meetings organised by Wellington are expected to draw a total of 4000 investors, kicking off with Brisbane on Monday.
About 600 are expected when the roadshow hits the Gold Coast next Thursday.


----------



## Rocky1 (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Breaker

I was told by Stephen Hart from PIF that the 180M from the RBOS was on top of  the 770M value of the fund in December (He told me that the fund was worth approx 950M in December), which makes there figures even more unrealistic

We really need to demand details on what these cents in the $ values are based on, to me they are playing games and these estimates are a load of crap.

Like I said yesterday, I went through the Fincorp debacle and perceive that as far worse than this and to date we have recovered 57 cents in the dollar


----------



## seamisty (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good morning all PIF holders, I have been away for a few days and am trying to digest the figures that have been released during this time. If these figures are correct, (why wouldn't they be, Korda Mentha has been employed for months, Wellington Capital was meant to be doing due diligence and Price Waterhouse Coopers has also been sniffing around) it is beyond doubt that gross misappropriations with the loans have occured!!! The  previous  MFSIM has FRAUDULENTLY and CRIMINALY used our money. It is these people we need to pursue, please don't lose sight of who committed the crimes!! There are many reasons to be extremely angry with regarding the PIF but just because the true state of affairs is slowly being revealed (at last)does not mean that those releasing the information are responsible. The lies and absolute BS that was being fed to holders from Jan onwards had nothing to do with Chris Scott or Jenny Hutson. I will post below part of a MFSIM adviser update from Feb 8th this year::::::MFS Premium Income Fund – related party investments
We have provided the following questions on the Fund’s related party investments; these reflect some of the matters that have caught the attention of the
press in recent days. MFSIM’s response to each of these questions follows.
1. Can you clarify Related Party exposure?
PIF has 17% exposure to MFS related entities. This comprises almost 5% in units in listed property trusts MFS Diversifi ed Trust (3.7%) and MFS Living &
Leisure Trust (0.3%) and units in two unlisted MFS property trusts (0.6%). The holdings in MFS Diversifi ed Trust and MFS Living & Leisure are marked at
their last traded price. The remaining 12% is in secured corporate debt pools of MFS Causeway and MFS Living & Leisure and MFS Pacifi c Finance (NZ)
unsecured notes.


MFSIM - ADVISER UPDATE 5 FEBRUARY 2008
2. Why do you regard MFS Diversifi ed and MFS Living and Leisure as appropriate investments for the Premium Income Fund?
Both MFS Diversifi ed and MFS Living & Leisure unit holdings form a part of the property trust sector of the Premium Income Fund. They were purchased
for their excellent diversification and income yields which met the Fund’s investment guidelines. These securities continue to meet the investment
criteria required for the Fund.
3. Have all the related party loans been disclosed?
Yes. PIF has almost 17% of assets in related party assets, being funds managed, but not controlled by MFS Group companies. PIF is prohibited from
making loans directly to MFS Limited, its wholly owned subsidiaries, or its Directors.
4. Are there any improper loans in PIF?
All loans and assets in PIF have met the strict criteria set by the Investment Approval Committee.
5. “The MFS Premium Income Fund has been a big investor in the MFS Living & Leisure Trust which has seen its units plunge from $1 to 36c since November,
although it has been suspended for over a week”
PIF owns units in MFS Living & Leisure (MPY), which represent only 0.3% of the fund.
6. According to the PIF annual report (page 54) ‘fair value of investment’ for MFS Living and Leisure was $8.3m and interest held was 4.72%. Has the unit
holding and value changed since then? What is it now? Is the 4.72% interest held the % of PIF FUM or MPY units on issue?
There has been no change to the number of units in MFS Living & Leisure that PIF holds.
4.72% is the percentage of MFS Living and Leisure units on issue and not a percentage of PIF.
7. Please clarify the question of repayment of the loan to MFS Living and Leisure that is due to mature on 31 March 2008. (Guy Hutchings was quoted as
saying that the loan is expected to be repaid).
Yes, that is correct. Full payment is expected on or before 31 March 2008.
8. What action is the Board of MFS Investment Management Limited taking to limit the period during which processing and payment of redemptions has
been deferred?
Immediately following the announcement on 29 January MFSIM commenced an orderly realisation of the liquid assets held in the Fund. These assets
include cash holdings in bank deposits and other liquid investments. The Fund has a number of loans maturing shortly and when these funds are
combined with the funds gathered from liquidation of the other liquid assets, cash holdings are expected to grow quickly. Readers will appreciate that
MFSIM will wish to commence repayment of redemption requests as early as possible to avoid the dilution effect of large cash holdings on investor
returns.
In earlier correspondence the Board of MFSIM has clearly stated its expectation to resume payment of redemptions well before expiry of the 180-day
deferment period.::::::::::What really worries me is that the MFSIM chief executive officer Guy Hutchings and Marilyn Watts are still associated with the PIF!!!!In my opinion they have proved that they are incompetant!!! In May 2007 Guy Hutchings was appointed to oversee the continued performance and growth of the PIF and other MFSIM managed funds. The Fund had provided consistant returns for 7 years prior to his appointment.Does anyone think for one moment that someone with 20 years investment management experience behind them DID NOT KNOW what was going on?!!!! I am also under the understanding that management fees will not be paid from the PIF while target rate of returns are not being met. While I am yet to be convinced that listing on the NSX will be of any benefit to holders, I do believe that Jenny Hutson in all probability will be working to the best of her ability to achieve the highest maximum outcome for the PIF. (I have yet to find any reference to her or Wellington Capitals incompetence)I also believe that it is in the best possible interest of the PIF to become an Incorporated Body AND have someone(a lawyer maybe?) who has power of attorney on behalf of the PIF. I would hope that both Chris Scott and Jenny Hutson would have just as much motivation as PIF holders to nail butts to cell seats!!!! Sorry if this is long winded! Seamisty


----------



## k.smith (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty, it does make us wonder what is ASIC's role all about? Why do we have corporation laws? I believe in a free market, and yes we did reap the benefits for the last 10 years, but these loses are NOT market related, we have had our investments plundered illegally. So where is the Law?


----------



## seamisty (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> Seamisty, it does make us wonder what is ASIC's role all about? Why do we have corporation laws? I believe in a free market, and yes we did reap the benefits for the last 10 years, but these loses are NOT market related, we have had our investments plundered illegally. So where is the Law?



I agree k.smith and Jadel and myself have hounded ASIC consistantly since April!!!We have made sure that they receive all relevant information to the PIF as it becomes available and Jadel has written many letters, had personal meetings and followed up continuously with phone calls and e-mails. Not just with ASIC, but with Nick Sherry and others. Rocky is right, we need TV coverage to shame them into action!! I would also think there is a case for the Fraud Squad to be involved, if ever anyone is guilty of Corporate dishonesty, in my opiniom Mickael King is a prime candidate. Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

For those that aren’t clear on Perpetuals role (which I wasn’t).  They are the custodian which is different to a trustee.  They hold the registers for the PIF and do what they are told by the RE.  They are not involved in approving loans etc.


----------



## Tuart (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Seamisty

Going back to an earlier post about not shooting the messenger you are correct they did not create this mess.

It may prove that WC is the best group for the job but representatives of the AG must have the right to inspect the books and get to fully understand the position and what is required to maximise the return. If need be down to the last $1.

I also think in the end the existing RE is so compromised that an replacement RE must be put in place which could be the other WC RE or third party.

In relation to the guarantee of $50 million you would think that the guarantee trigger has been pulled and its due and payable now by OCV. It is now a debt and changing RE now doesnt make debt disappear. Thats a good question for a lawyer.


----------



## Jadel (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear fellow members

 We would be absolutely crazy to accept what Jenny Hutson is telling us at this time. She has her own vested commercial interests, like listing on the God forsaken NSX at a huge discount for somebody that can accumulate these units at a bargain basement price 

She will give some poor souls the loaded pistol (NSX)they don’t have to shoot themselves of course but if they decide to take that option, it’s not her fault 

And Rocky you are entirely correct

Valuations given by new fund managers with their own agenda in these situations are not worth a roll of toilet paper 

  I have a brother in law , highly placed in the Valuation Industry and it is all based on  the sentiment expressed to him  by  the prevailing managers, often in no uncertain terms ,If he wants to keep permanently employed and feed the kids he has little choice in the matter , You could get a range in valuation  of anywhere between 30% To 50% in these cases 


             AND HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER, PLAYS THE TUNE



 That is why we need to desperately get the ball rolling and get a committee with Power of Attorney and an Incorporated body to get quotes from  our own Independent Valuers to determine with transparency and honestly exactly what our assets are worth


----------



## Duped (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Duped, there is a Labor Government in power - ASIC and other relevant state and federal bodies will be just waiting to get political mileage out of thrashing "the suntaned one " and the Liberal heartland in Victoria in the media. There was some press when MFS started to implode to the effect that Peacock's son in law Michael Krouger - Victorian Head of the Liberal Party - that he had cautioned Peacock not to take the MFS Chairmanship as he would regret it in the long term. Michael was right!




I forgot about AP being daddy in law.  Even more reason for ASIC not to move. Labour may be the ASIC pay master for the time being but ...

I know Labour is in government.  They'll get political mileage without ASIC help. At 65/45c MFS IM has already wiped $264M/$415M of PIF investors savings + $28M lost income to date.  Add to that the losses by MFS Ltd/OCV shareholders and the current shortfall between OCV's assets and the claims against it and the losses under AP's guidance are easily over the attention grabbing magic $ BILLION level.  

We're on our own so let's all back the AG.  We may be able to take our own legal action.  IMF and their legal muscle (Slater & Gordon etc) are not available because they're spruiking to back OCV shareholders.  We might be able to collectively accumulate a fighting fund or market ourselves for some pro-bono work. 

And forget having a go at the auditors.  They're the UNTOUCHABLES.

What I also want to know is when distributions recommence, how will they be calculated?  7/8/9% of $1 per unit or 7/8/9% of 65cents per unit.


----------



## DoraNBoots (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> What I also want to know is when distributions recommence, how will they be calculated?  7/8/9% of $1 per unit or 7/8/9% of 65cents per unit.




Not sure if this answers your questions:

But Ms Hutson last night said that, given time, said she was confident of recovering all of the $770 million owed to investors *and there were plans to resume paying distributions in October with a total of 3c per unit to be paid by Christmas.*


----------



## mgr2118 (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Extract from today's SMH.

Interesting to see that Perpetual have chosen to act on behalf of their retail investors in this case.

Also possibly a lesson in "do not invest in anything that has a former politician involved"


_The trials and tribulations of the good Doctor John
Ian Verrender 
July 3, 2008 

The onetime prime ministerial hopeful John Hewson seems to be having his very own Oscar Wilde experience.

With the imminent demise of yet another of his former companies yesterday, Hewson - to paraphrase Lady Bracknell - appears to be suffering from something slightly more than simple misfortune.

Elderslie Finance, of which the good Doctor John was executive chairman until his resignation in June, was yesterday handed over to PricewaterhouseCoopers, after the Federal Court decided it was insolvent.

Hewson was no bit player in this corporate disaster. He was executive chairman.

Most of the troubles appear to relate to $67 million that was lent upstream to Elderslie's parent, Hotel Nominees, which was then invested in real estate and equities, and we all know what has happened in those markets during the past year or so.

It was *Perpetual Trustees* that took the action against Elderslie - a financier and leasing company - on behalf of 3000 retail investors who had lent the company $148 million in the form of secured debentures.

The problems with Elderslie did not become apparent until February this year when new disclosure requirements - following the collapse last year of a raft of companies like Westpoint and Fincorp - forced all finance companies to issue new prospectuses.

Perpetual took immediate action.

It appointed PWC to trawl through the books. What it found was not pleasant, but Perpetual agreed to hold off because Elderslie was put on the market and some potential new owners were looking to inject money into the ailing business.

But the sale fell through and in early June *Perpetual* decided the business could no longer operate as a going concern.

Hewson appears to have come to a similar conclusion around the same time and, as a self-appointed champion of good corporate governance, resigned his position.

This is not Hewson's first brush with corporate difficulty.

Last November, he quit as chairman of Natural Fuel - a biodiesel company - after a disagreement with major shareholders following a plunge in the company's share price, citing corporate governance concerns.

Despite soaring global energy prices, Natural Fuel's share price has been on a downward trajectory since it listed in late 2006 - recently trading at about 10c from its $1.50 issue price.

It is often difficult for politicians to adapt to the rigours of corporate life. Just ask Andrew Peacock, who recently stepped aside as chairman of the Gold Coast finance group MFS - now known as *Octaviar* - which has been suspended from trading since January and which essentially is in the hands of its bankers.

But Hewson has experienced more than his fair share of troubles.

One of the worst was as the founding chairman of Network Entertainment. In 1996, Hewson helped the company raise $12 million from the public.

Unfortunately, the company was placed into administration after just seven months. Its share price headed south almost from day one, which, given it issued its first profit warning just weeks after listing, was not surprising.

Before it collapsed, it issued another two profit warnings, which prompted the corporate regulator to open an investigation into the disclosures the company made in it prospectus. No action was taken.

Hewson resigned as chairman shortly before the collapse, citing irreconcilable differences with senior management.

His next corporate outing, in 2000, as chairman of the dotcom hopeful CBD Online met a similar fate. Less than a year after his appointment, Hewson quit, following what he said were "fundamental disagreements with the direction the company was heading". That direction appears to have been towards oblivion._


----------



## BootsnAll (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hey folks,

Let us not get distracted by politics! I think speculating on that is a waste of energy and achieves nothing.

My suggestion is that we all email,call, write to our respective elected members of parliament and request that they put pressure on ASIC to get off their bum and start protecting the interest of investors. Collectively we can get things moving. Politicians are very sensitive if enough constituents apply appropriate pressure.


----------



## selciper (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Is it a fact that only ASIC can bring any possible charges against individuals
managing a Fund who are suspected of gross negligence by its investors?
Are there no other avenues available to chase down any persons suspected of corporate misbehaviour involving huge sums of money? A thief stealing a wallet containing fifty dollars is usually apprehended and quickly charged. If hundreds of millions are nicked from thousands of people, it's apparently a lot less important. We need legal advice on paths that may be open to us apart from ASIC..

Breaker1's outline is really worrying. After all, OCV are virtually broke, aren't they? Can it be that OCV are presently propped up by PIF moneys? It's getting too complicated for me to follow.


----------



## Javier (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

They aren't broke yet, they have approx. $170m sitting in their account as we speak. That IS our money. ASIC are the ONLY ones that have the power to freeze those funds NOW. They can then investigate our / WC claim. We need to treat this as a matter of URGENCY. We should really ask JH for her help in this matter, we should ask her in the forums.

I really think this takes priority over a change in RE and all the other biz, which really was not the fault of JH, let her do her job for now and see the long term plan, but really folks, ASIC is the #1 priority.

On their website, I see they have frozen the assets from many of the  directors of Fincorp. 
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.ns...sets+of+former+Fincorp+directors?openDocument

They also have open cases on Westpoint and ACR, and they did jail the big boys in HIH, so they do have the power, and DO use it when prompted by enough investors and media. I have got our lawyer to have a look at this avenue as an order of priority. Anything that anybody can think of..let's do it.


----------



## sak (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The proposed 3c distribution, i am wondering will it be treated as income or capital


----------



## seamisty (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There is an article in todays A Financial Review::Investors urged to keep faith with fund
03 Jul 2008 | The Australian Financial Review | Lisa Allen 

The managers of the $755 million Premium Income Fund will urge unit holders not to place the stricken entity into liquidation at a series of forums to be held next week. Instead, they will argue unit holders should back the fund for up to five years so they can get their investment back. ::::: I don't have access to the full story.I would be prepared to leave my money in the Fund if I was receiving the equivalent to bank interest and if Wellington Capital was prepared to return any surplus funds( after management fees and fund related expenses were deducted) back to holders as a bonus split pro rata with WC. It is my understanding that surplus money has been returned to the RE previously. Also in the unit price figures mentioned::On 2nd July WC issued a statement to Advisors outlining three options with three estimated values of unit values. 
Going Concern full recovery $147 Million - 65 cents
Going Concern No Recovery of $147 Million - 45 cents
Liquidation - 14 cents
There is still no mention of the $50 million Support Facility. OCV is still legally responsible for this outstanding payment to the PIF. These figures are very loose in my opinion. There should also be provision made for Public Indemnity insurance plus there is meant to be a certain amout of insurance with Lloyd's Underwriters. The maximum loss covered by Lloyd's Underwriters policy is 75% of the nominated loan amount or $3 million, whichever is the lesser. As at 30th June 2007, 61.5% of the commercial loan portfolio was insured. Would an AG member please bring this to the attention of JH at one of the meetings. There has been no mention of this to date.Seamisty


----------



## BootsnAll (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*We need to do something now.

Selciper, here is an excerpt from ASIC website:*
***​ *Who we regulate*
We regulate Australian companies, financial markets, financial services organisations and professionals who deal and advise in investments, superannuation, insurance, deposit taking and credit.

As the_ corporate regulator_, we are responsible for ensuring that company directors and officers carry out their duties honestly, diligently and in the best interests of their company.

As the _markets regulator_, we assess how effectively authorised financial markets are complying with their legal obligations to operate fair, orderly and transparent markets. We also advise the Minister about authorising new markets.

As the _financial services regulator_, we license and monitor financial services businesses to ensure that they operate efficiently, honestly and fairly. These businesses typically deal in superannuation,managed funds, shares and company securities,derivatives, and insurance.

A guide to how we work explains what we do, how we approach issues, how we consult with stakeholders and how we are accountable.


*Protecting consumers and investors*
We have powers to protect consumers against misleading or deceptive and unconscionable conduct affecting all financial products and services,including credit.
***​*The inescapable fact is that ASIC has to be goosed into action now.
Below is a link to all the parliamentarians. Click on an individual name to get all their contact details. There is also a form to email them. So, please everyone, as Nike says "Just do it!". We have to make ourselves heard.

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/mi-alpha.asp

*


----------



## Jadel (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear fellow members i have been asked to send a  copy of the adjunct to  the original asubmission by several AG  members

  Unfortunately i simply can not do this ,it has some sensitive material given to me in strict cofidentiality 

 I will however post the opening appeal of the letter to  ASIC

 If any person wishes me to remove their name please contact me 

 We have 37 signatures so far i would like to see 100 

 The letter will be sent tommorow morning so please contact me ASAP

Dear Sir 

 COULD YOU PLEASE TREAT THIS MATTER AS URGENT AND IMPORTANT PLEASE! WE DON’T KNOW WHO ELSE WE CAN TURN TO.
We represent a group of people who invested in the Premium Income Fund for capital preservation and regular monthly income and have suffered greatly, both financially and emotionally, as a result of recent events.  Most of us are retirees, with no way of replacing the capital we stand to lose as a result of this fund NOT being managed in accordance with its PDS and promotional material . We are not, and were not, highly risk tolerant investors , and we chose this fund because of its alleged security SECURITY. 

Today we received the news from Wellington Capital , which company has recently purchased  control of  the Fund, and has reported that  55% of the Premium Income fund total assets ;in excess of $ 400 million dollars , has been lost from both the unlawful activity and mismanagement of our investment. The repercussions of this tragedy on people’s lives, in the main pensioners and retirees, will be enormous. 


We are now making a desperate personal appeal for you to intervene and freeze the assets of Octaviar, the parent  company, until those responsible for this disaster can be brought to justice by you. 

We have appended all previous correspondence to ASIC officers on this matter for your perusal .PLEAE HELP US

For and on behalf of the Premium Income fund Action Group


----------



## Javier (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I will send you the members I have via email from the Sydney AG to add to your list. Please other states provide your members to Chris. Mate can you please give us your email once again. Let's knock on the door, they are in the Macq Bank building, although that palce is a bit of a fortress!


----------



## k.smith (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Jadel, pleases add our names to the list, Breaker and Mary have our details....have also forwarded our fax to Nick Sherry this morning. Surely  11000 investors are entitled to some government intervention!!!!!


----------



## Tuart (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good morning all

I just followed up with the solicitor that Javier has met with and she is preparing a comprehensive file and has done a fair bit of thinking/investigation and discussion within her firm on the form a structure of the incorporated body.

She wishes to attend the Sydney meeting and I hope that Wellington have no issue in this.

Immediately after the forum she believes she will be in a position of having the required information and PIF position to outline potential legal actions and a full understanding of what actions WC have launched or are launching on behalf of the fund.

So in answer to queries on the forum yes progress is happening on formalising the structure.

As Javier pointed out its not time to think about replacing the RE as WC may be the right group at the right time but creating a structure that has a committee of members that can act on the collective behalf will ensure the full detailed position of the fund is received and understood.

You will have to put your faith in your committee to investigate and come to a recommendation about how the work out is managed and the abilities of WC to undertake that task.

You would think that WC would welcome the formation of this body as it creates a committee of members who can be kept informed and idea's bounced off by WC in moving forward.


----------



## selciper (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well, I hope that everyone sharing this thread for information has at least made one phone call to ASIC. NUMBER: 1300 300 360 It's only a short wait to speak to someone. Silence won't get us anywhere. The ASIC guy I spoke to  very recently was politely circumspect with very little comment forthcoming. However, my gut feeling was that they weren't in any way closing their eyes to our complaints and opinions. It just COULD be that there is activity we know nothing about. (They are aware of this thread. Hopefully they are reading it, too.) 

Agree totally with Javier's newest observations. Seamisty, those were good  points you made. These past 24 hours may be the nadir of this hideous saga. It's up to JH to win us over with a combination of facts and 100% sincerity. 


.


----------



## Jadel (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thank you for reminding me Javier 

  I am afraid the old brain cells are deteriorating rapidly with the help of the daily bottles of Shiraz Cabernet to keep the stress levels under control after this debacle unfolded.


 My email is chrisaaa@iprimus .com.au


----------



## akernst (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I hope the current RE CEO and Co, have now resigned, as they reassured us last year that the PIF was bullet proof.

After all these months the PIF should be back as before and should have more funds, as they have not paid anything out.

So in this light, the Distributions should now be back in place. Or is the Forum another way of stalling, and making certain
OCV Board members get their losses back.

The Australian economy is BOOMING and will for the next few years courtesy of China and India.
As I have said, once before, if you cannot make big money now, you never will.

The next quote is from the ANZ Bank, on how property is looking:-
_
THE ANZ Bank says the growing housing shortage is setting Australia up for the "mother of all" housing booms. 
New home building figures showing slumping building approvals have sparked fears of a price and rent explosion that will price even more prospective buyers out of the market. 
The ANZ's senior economist, Paul Braddick, said yesterday Australia faced a critical and potentially chronic shortage of housing._


----------



## DoraNBoots (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Want to let you know that WC and Perpetual have been very co-operative in the last 24 hrs regarding the request for the register.  I have been assured and feel confident the solicitor will have it early next week.

Not sure if everyone knows but today is the day WC staff are allowed to release information they previous weren’t allowed to release.  So you might find a lot more questions get answered today if you ring the PIF call centre. 

I’ve been talking to WC today and one thing of interest is that PWC refused to provide an estimate of unit prices and left it to the board to determine.  WC said they would try and let me know why the refusal if possible this afternoon.  Is this normal for PWC to do this??

I told WC we want to hire an independent group to look at the books and determine unit prices.  They indicated this won’t be a problem.


Thank you Tuart for the feedback about the solicitor re group structure!


----------



## Jenny (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This is the article from today's AFR for those who haven't seen it.


----------



## Javier (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Getting an independent audit on the true value of the fund is an excellent idea that Chris has also brought up. That is awesome that JH is cooperating with investors. Well done Dora, I think that it is also in the interest of WC to allow an independent group to carry out that accounting exercise. It goes a hell of a way to her credibility and her ability to carry the ship forward knowing that that a high level of transparency has been availed to investors. It will also give us more figures to present to ASIC.


----------



## seamisty (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Want to let you know that WC and Perpetual have been very co-operative in the last 24 hrs regarding the request for the register.  I have been assured and feel confident the solicitor will have a copy early next week.
> 
> Not sure if everyone knows but today is the day WC staff are allowed to release information they previous weren’t allowed to release.  So you might find a lot more questions get answered today if you ring the PIF call centre.
> 
> ...



Thats interesting regarding PriceWaterhousecoopers since it was them that signed off on the PIF annual report 2007. They should be familiar with the structure of the Fund, were they involved with the Dec 31st 2007 report where it was stated quote:::As at 31 December 2007 the Fund had 3 loans in arrears with a total principal
value of $17,199,747. These loans represent 2.20% of the Funds total asset
portfolio as at 31 December 2007. Seamisty


----------



## selciper (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

DoraNBoots -

Really appreciate all the hard work you're doing for us. Your updates are a great help during these trying times. 
..............................................................................................
PRESS QUOTE: But Ms Hutson last night said that, given time, she was confident of recovering all of the $770 million owed to investors and there were plans to resume paying distributions in October with a total of 3c per unit to be paid by Christmas.

Does this mean that we don't see one cent until December? If that's the case. many of our fellow investors will suffer even greater hardship. Also, if JH thinks it's possible to attain $1 unit value in five years, it would mean a very high rate of return for PIF investments. I hope that she's realistic and right because I'm tiring of the results of gross ineptitude by the last MFS board and others associated with this disgraceful crash.


----------



## SPLITPIN (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

As for the Australian Finacial review today

As it goes in QLD, and as Joe used to say about the media;
"Going to feed the Chooks"

It appears JH in QLD has learnt well, don't worry about the poor down and out investors, feed the chooks instead.

And surprise, surprise it also appears a Unit Holders meeting in August.

But wait, there is more for sure.

Thanks to the AG for watching every media outlet in Aust. for the latest revelations and installments before Monday next.


----------



## Duped (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Thats interesting regarding PriceWaterhousecoopers since it was them that signed off on the PIF annual report 2007. They should be familiar with the structure of the Fund, were they involved with the Dec 31st 2007 report where it was stated quote:::As at 31 December 2007 the Fund had 3 loans in arrears with a total principal
> value of $17,199,747. These loans represent 2.20% of the Funds total asset
> portfolio as at 31 December 2007. Seamisty




Well said Seamisty. I'm sure they'll have a perfectly rational explanation though.  One that would make Yes Minister's Sir Humphrey proud.  It'll be full of the likes of credit crunch/squeeze/crisis, unforeseen, unanticipated, different capacity, not in a position.  Certainly won't say: we were deceived/lied to.  'This is such a delicate matter Minister, with many alternative positions to consider, some unforeseen, others that we simply cannot be expected to know ....' 

Latest Annual report I have is for year to 30 June 07.  No mention of $200M debt there. I don't have the 31Dec 07 report. Did PWC note the massive debt and that it breached the PDS?


----------



## Duped (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> ...plus there is meant to be a certain amout of insurance with Lloyd's Underwriters. The maximum loss covered by Lloyd's Underwriters policy is 75% of the nominated loan amount or $3 million, whichever is the lesser. As at 30th June 2007, 61.5% of the commercial loan portfolio was insured. Would an AG member please bring this to the attention of JH at one of the meetings. There has been no mention of this to date.Seamisty




I remember that and recall have a close look at the conditions a few years back.  Just had a look through my latest PDS (dated 2 July 2007) and couldn't find any reference to it.  Has it been cut out of the PDS?  It was a big part of the original sales pitch that duped me.


----------



## iamspeed (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> I remember that and recall have a close look at the conditions a few years back.  Just had a look through my latest PDS (dated 2 July 2007) and couldn't find any reference to it.  Has it been cut out of the PDS?  It was a big part of the original sales pitch that duped me.




Duped

See page 16, half way down right hand column.  I also saw this as a positive when I signed up.

I spoke to sonmeone at Octaviar today and they said the recent figures don't account for any Lloyds insurance, so hopefully some upside for us.

Also Livling & Leisure loan valued at lower amount as Packer is trying to back out of the deal.  Maybe the guys in Melbourne AG could picket Crown??

Cheers


----------



## iamspeed (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Latest Annual report I have is for year to 30 June 07.  No mention of $200M debt there. I don't have the 31Dec 07 report. Did PWC note the massive debt and that it breached the PDS?




Duped

My best guess is loan was drawn down in November??

If you look at the monthly updates (which I now wouldn't even wipe my you know what on), October says Fund Size $787.2mill, while November says Unitholder Funds $781.1 mill.  I take this as sneaky code to mean in November the size of the Fund was maybe $961.1mill, less $180mill loan and therefore a net Unitholder Funds of $781.1mill.

Cheers


----------



## selciper (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Something odd was happening inside the PIF during November 07.

My MFS "consultant" rang to ask me if I wanted to reinvest the usual sum on its maturity date (early January). I mentioned that he seemed to be calling much earlier in advance than was usual. "Tidying up for the Christmas break," he told me cheerily. I was slightly puzzled, but went ahead anyway and stupidly reinvested. Had I known about the RBOS loan I would have redeemed immediately. Some investors knew that something was wrong because redemption requests were beginning to flood in - this was PIF's cue to tie a noose around our necks. 

We should note that there were no PIF Xmas luncheons in December 07. And to think that I own a well-thumbed book describing Ponzi schemes!


----------



## Mary Lynch (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Selcipher, I rang the ASIC number today and talked brifly to someone, and then got hung up on!


----------



## pixierich (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Selciper  -  your observation about the Xmas lunches is bang on!  You will be interested to learn that my wife and I were being regaled with champers and canapes by our MFS rep (who I'm quite sure was as much in the dark as we were) at the MFS Royal Pines tennis in January, while behind our backs the "Titanic" was already well on her way to the bottom!  How stupid were we?


----------



## Rocky1 (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



iamspeed said:


> Duped
> 
> My best guess is loan was drawn down in November??
> 
> ...




iamspeed

as mentioned in an earlier post, I spoke to Stephen Hart from PIF about a month ago and asked what the RBOS loan was for. He said it was used to purchase "assets". He went onto say that the value of the PIF in Dec was approximately $980 Mill which is consistent with your "sneaky code".

Poor bloke, he is a national manager for the PIF, is an investor in the PIF and must have been misled himself


----------



## PIFholder (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good evening all,

I have to agree with a few other investors here who have said it certainly is not the time to replace the RE. WC appears to be committed to rebuilding PIF and returning value to our investment. We all just have to be very patient with everything that is going on. If we have to wait the 3-5 years JH suggests it will take to return to the $1 mark then that is what we have to do.

I certainly don't think liquidating the fund is a good idea at all. Liquidators will sell the assets with complete disregard to unit-holders, subtract their extravagant fees and with a market climate at the point where it is today, I hardly foresee them getting optimum market prices if PIF is liquidated. Plus, if the Fund remains as a going concern and the restrictions by financiers on PIF are loosened, then those other investors who are in a worse position than me will at least get some money. Three cents per unit by Christmas is something at least. And if WC isn't going to take management fees until distributions can be made, I have no doubt that they'll be doing their best.

I have faith in Ms Hutson when she says she can return the full value of the capital. In the Gold Coast Bulletin today, it mentioned how she was able to turn $1 into $16 in five years for the S8 group. She has done amazing things before, and I think we need to trust her to do it again. We certainly can't let this ship sink if it can still be saved.

As Dora said (at #635), try calling WC's callcentre. I spoke to someone there and they were really helpful in answering some questions. Give them a try. Their number according to the WC site is 1300 368 848.

Let's just  wait for the forums next week. I'm sure they will clear things up a lot better.

Patience is a virtue!


----------



## iamspeed (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



PIFholder said:


> I have faith in Ms Hutson when she says she can return the full value of the capital. In the Gold Coast Bulletin today, it mentioned how she was able to turn $1 into $16 in five years for the S8 group. She has done amazing things before, and I think we need to trust her to do it again. We certainly can't let this ship sink if it can still be saved.




I'd agree she does seem to be saying/doing the rights at the moment.  She is standing up to James Packer as he tries to screw us out of money.

We shouldn't get confused with turning S8 from $1 into $16 - it was a listed share.  This is much different to our situation.  Once money is lost on a loan it is lost for good (unless you can go after other security), you cannot make a profit on another loan to make up the difference.  I don't think things are as bad as she makes out but cannot see $1 coming back to us in the future.


----------



## selciper (3 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Iamspeed - 

It would seem to make sense to proceed with WC. Stability is what we need at present. Without being fully informed, my inclination would be to support the WC propositions placed before us (NSX? Don't know). But I have no accounting skills. Other writers to this thread seem very clued up on the mathematics of the Fund and can separate the emotional from the technical. Even if all the sums add up, the thought of certain ex-MFS employees still making decisions on my behalf does worry me. Will JH be a hands-on operator? These points need clearing up at the forums. A clean slate is certainly called for. In the end I'll be guided by an AG committee and its lawyer as to what to do.


----------



## DoraNBoots (4 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Two questions:

What rights do members of a scheme have to inspect the books?
Is it realistic for our AG to *fund *a professional to determine the value of the PIF’s units?

My 30 second search of the Corp Act indicates we either need a director’s approval or a court order.  Can this please be checked with the solicitor if we don’t get an answer on this forum?  Hopefully Jenny will approve access to the books.  At the least a professional could go over the PWC report and determine unit prices for the 3 scenarios in the same way the WC board had to determine them.


----------



## SPLITPIN (4 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Part 2F.3””Inspection of books

247A  Order for inspection of books of company or registered managed investment scheme
	(1)	On application by a member of a company or registered managed investment scheme, the Court may make an order: etc, etc

In regards to all this talk about "liquidation", it appears from the Corporations Act the only option for is "winding up". Please correct me if this opinion is incorrect.


----------



## LeonardG (4 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi guys...I just joined the forum.  Can someone please tell me whether there is an acotion group in Melbourne (preferably in the South East)?


----------



## seamisty (4 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



LeonardG said:


> Hi guys...I just joined the forum.  Can someone please tell me whether there is an acotion group in Melbourne (preferably in the South East)?



Good morning LeonardG and welcome to the forum. There is an action group in Melbourne. If you would like to join please e-mail breaker1@aaptnet.com and register your details and he will put you in contact with the Melb. rep. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## pixierich (4 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Marcom - while preparing flyers for the Melbourne forum, it occurred to me that perhaps no one had acknowledged your PIF logo.

So on behalf of all of us, thanks for taking the time - nice logo!


----------



## selciper (4 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

QUOTE OF THE DAY.

"I think investors this year [2007] have had quite a few surprises sprung on them and next year [2008] will probably be no different." 

Guess who said that in 2007! Answer is on page 2 within this February 11 Sydney Morning Herald story link.

http://business.smh.com.au/if-you-have-it-blow-it-20080210-1re9.html


----------



## marcom (4 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



pixierich said:


> Marcom - while preparing flyers for the Melbourne forum, it occurred to me that perhaps no one had acknowledged your PIF logo.
> 
> So on behalf of all of us, thanks for taking the time - nice logo!




Your welcome

Marcom


----------



## Jadel (4 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear fellow Action Group Members

   I would like to inform you that we have had a magnificent response with our appeal to ASIC

   We are  very close to the magic and elusive  one hunded names on the document ,however i am certain we can get that number given a few more days 

Therefore i have decided to defer sending in the Appeal until next Monday morning

 I would like to email and thank you all personally but at the moment the wife is threatening to bludgeon me over the head with a rolling pin  if i do not get of the computer and do some work around the house 

 Regards Chris


----------



## sak (4 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Having been involved with westpoint there is some interesting reading especially concerning ASIC & PWC on the Westpoint Investors Group site below,it will give you some idea of what we face

http://www.wig.org.au/


----------



## Rocky1 (4 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



LeonardG said:


> Hi guys...I just joined the forum.  Can someone please tell me whether there is an acotion group in Melbourne (preferably in the South East)?




Hi LeonardG

As well as sending your details to breaker please also forward them to adam.thorn@optusnet.com.au - myself and another member have been organising the Melbourne AG. We have an AG member meeting planned for immediately after the forum next Tuesday very close to where the forum is being held.

Happy to also have a chat to you via phone if you want to email me your phone number


----------



## DoraNBoots (4 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Here’s an update from my phone call with WC today:

Guy Hutchings won’t be at the WC Updates next week.  Reason why he’s still on board will be answered on Monday (in Brisbane).

We are not allowed to video the sessions, main reason was to protect the investor’s privacy etc.  WC will be providing a full transcript of the meetings (not sure if meeting was plural).  There was even talk of them providing video and placing on youtube, but this was very vague and didn’t sound credible.

It didn’t sound like we will get permission to inspect the books from WC.  Apparently this request is still with Jenny but it sounds like the answer will be No, to protect privacy of people they loan to (really not sure what was said exactly, privacy of someone).  They are saying they will provide as much info as possible to investors.  (Dora: I’m afraid this wouldn’t satisfy me!)

WC are saying Jenny will not leave the forums until every question has been answered so take all your questions and keep her to that.

To repeat what was said in an earlier post.  If anyone wants any questions asked at the Brisbane forum please send them to: PIFActionGroupBNE@gmail.com.


----------



## Jadel (4 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well thats no surpise i never thought he would appear on any  public forum again after the recent revelations.

 I still have a copy of his signed letter in January 2008  stating categorically that the fund had no major problems.

I think we can rely on a competent solicitor to handle all the legal proceedures.

 And AG members should be concentrating their efforts on that initiative at this stage

Jenny  Hutson will have to respond to a Subpoena if that is required.


----------



## Duped (4 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just had a look through th PIF annual report for year to 30 June 2007:

MFS IM paid itself $16Million ($7.7M in 2006 , $4.8M in 2005)
Perpetual was paid $1.27Million
Auditor got $45K
Other costs $897K.


The juicy stuff is at the end in the 'Notes on Financial Statements:'

page 45 - '11 Financial Assets held at fair value through profit or loss' - RELATED entities $37M (i.e 12.5% of the $297M total of this category of assets)

Page 52: 136M units in the PIF were owned by related parties (@ 30 Jun 07)
MFS WholesalePIF owned 75M(61M @30/6/06, 32M @30/6/05, 0M? @30/6/04)
MFS Administration Pty Ltd owned 60M (0M? in 2005)
I can't wait to see the 2008 report to see if THEY got their redemptions before the door was closed on the rest of us.
Were these two entities invented to keep buying PIF units?

Page 53/53:
PIF had $99M invested in/loans to related parties at 30/6/07. ($74M @30/6/06. $137M @30/6/05)  Attached is a spreadsheet of collated data on related party transactions for the last 3 annual reports.

I want to know how far the definition of 'related parties' extends.  Did PIF invest in/loan to 'unrelated' parties that had substantial holdings in 'related parties.


Can anyone tell me why on page 54 (17 Related Party Transactions (cont)) there are BLANKS (neither a dash or number) for:
Particularly for MFS Property Trust No 7 - received/receivable 2007: BLANK.
How can PWC have signed off on an annual report that had blanks? For such an important document???  What else was blank after they signed off but was subsequently filled in?


----------



## Duped (4 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just had a look through th PIF annual report for year to 30 June 2007:

MFS IM paid itself $16Million ($7.7M in 2006 , $4.8M in 2005)
Perpetual was paid $1.27Million
Auditor got $45K
Other costs $897K.


The juicy stuff is at the end in the 'Notes on Financial Statements:'

page 45 - '11 Financial Assets held at fair value through profit or loss' - RELATED entities $37M (i.e 12.5% of the $297M total of this category of 'assets')

Page 52: 136M units in the PIF were owned by related parties (@ 30 Jun 07)
MFS WholesalePIF owned 75M(61M @30/6/06, 32M @30/6/05, 0M? @30/6/04)
MFS Administration Pty Ltd owned 60M (0M? in 2005)
I can't wait to see the 2008 report to see if THEY got their redemptions before the door was closed on the rest of us.
Were these two entities invented to keep buying PIF units?

Page 53/54:
PIF had $99M invested in/loans to related parties at 30/6/07. ($74M @30/6/06. $137M @30/6/05)  These figures don't reflect what PIF funds MFS IM puts through related parties within a year. In 2005 PIF received $100M in repayments and still ended up holding $137M in related party assets/loans.  In 2005 PIF received $156M and still ended up holding $74M in related party assets/loans.  I note that the Investments & Payments During Year data was dropped from the 2007 annual report.
(I collated this data into a single spreadsheet.  If anyone can show me how to remove the stupid Windows meta data on the XLS file that identifies me then I'll post it.)

I want to know how far the definition of 'related parties' extends.  Does PIF invest in/loan to 'unrelated' parties that had substantial holdings in 'related parties'.


Can anyone tell me why on page 54 (17 Related Party Transactions (cont)) there are BLANKS (neither a dash or number) for:
Particularly for MFS Property Trust No 7 - received/receivable 2007: BLANK.
How can PWC have signed off on an annual report that had blanks? For such an important document???


----------



## Tuart (4 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

In response to DoraNBoots indication that WC is unlikely to allow the action group to inspect the books this has enormous implications.

How is WC going to win over investors trust if a large portion of the funds assets are going to be shrouded in secrecy. The solicitor in the work to date on the incorporation of the AG is I understand is including the ability to form a "forensic sub committee" and I believe the right for this committee to inspect and verify books even if this committee entered into confidentiality agreement with WC is fundamental to any long term role for WC as RE.

In the current position the only people PIF investors should trust is other investors.

The other key issues are:
1) WC to stop announcing everything to press ahead of direct communications with investors (rude, egotistical and arrogant)

2) How WC on behalf of PIF proposes to extract maximum value from OCV residual cash and assets. (They will vote I expect on a Deed of Company Arrangements)

3) Is the indicated 3 to 5 year workout to ensure maximum value in the fund to allow existing investments to be maximised or does it involve the reworking of funds as they come out of current investments into new investments and getting growth on new investments. If it is the later then how do you measure WC ability to re-invest funds against any other fund manager.


----------



## selciper (4 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sorry to read that the author of those MFS newsletters can't make it to the Brisbane meeting. 

DUPED - some good sleuthing there! The page 53 excerpt is eye-brow raising information. 

DORA - We all recall being told early this year that distributions couldn't be paid again until RBOS got off PIF's back. In effect, it was pretty all RBOS' fault that our income stream was cut off. So, that's between 25m-30m of our money frozen to this point. I guess it's already been used up to pay debt. Could it be that we are too compliant in accepting the WC edict that there will be no back-payments made? Why can't there be a retrospective payment? We must contribute urgently to a fund to employ as much legal help as needed.


----------



## DoraNBoots (4 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I like Tuart’s point 3.  If WC want a 3 year term to gain new investments then why would we not just find a better investment ourselves?

Tuart:  Would you mind explaining “Deed of Company Arrangements”.  Good to hear the solicitor is looking at the issue of inspecting the books as I feel this is going to take some convincing.

Selciper:  I’ve no doubt there will be no retrospective payments.  It’s my assumption that any available money had to go to RBOS until they were paid out.  Feels like WC are scraping the bottom of the barrel just to pay us 3c per unit by Christmas.


----------



## Tuart (4 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi DoraNBoots

Octaviar has I understand 5 major creditors and please excuse the numbers if they are out.

PIF 147 million plus 50 million (197 million)
OPI Pacific Finance               290 million
Challenger    100 million
Qld Trustee   340 million
ATO 60 million

The Qld trustee is seeking to appoint a liquidator through the courts which is due to be heard in September.

OCV is trying to negotiate I assume an unoffical scheme with its creditors (x cents in the dollar in full and final settlement of the debts)

They are sitting on about 200 million in cash plus 35% of stella plus other residual assets.

The directors themeselves can volantarily appoint what is known as an Administrator who takes effective control of the company.

The Administrators obligation is to ultimately call a meeting of creditors at which the creditors vote to either:
1) Appoint a liquidator who will sell off all assets and wind up the company.
or 

2) Allow the company to enter into a Deed of Company Arrangements (DOCA)

This DOCA could offer x cents in the dollar in full and final settlement of the debts and upon the payment of this the company is returned the control of the directors with all of the above debts wiped out as part of the payment.

DOCA's can be more sophisticated than that and creditors could push for the cash plus the assets through taking equity in OCV or the assets such as Stella placed in a trust for some or all of the creditors.

As the numbers above indicate ignoring ATO a DOCA could be constructed that works best for OCV or for 2 of the above major creditors if they work together.

PIF could end up with some cash and an interest in Stella for example which is why WC must convince investors that they will work for the best deal for PIF and not be swayed by any past relationships.  

I hope this helps


----------



## DoraNBoots (4 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thank you Tuart.  I wish you were going to be at the WC forum.

I want to thank Mary for volunteering her time!  Brisbane AG have taken Mary up on her offer and she has kindly agreed to monitor the Brisbane mailbox.


----------



## seamisty (4 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all. I am not sure if any of you have been following the James Packer Arctic Capital deal for LLA. There was 4 announcements posted on the ASX late this afternoon and it appears the recapitalisation proposal is on track to go ahead. I can't post the announcements but will copy an extract:LLA understands that agreement has been reached on the final commercial terms for the replacement and reduction for the total debt owed by LLA to the PIF by various parties including Arctic Capital.::: Hopefully this will release the Fund from RBOS, in view of these announcements I would expect several media articles to be released regarding this. regards, Seamisty


----------



## Tuart (4 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Evening all

I have just done a quick take on the LLA rights issue prospectus and this is what I think is happening

Its in section 2.5 for those who want a read.

PIF debt current $71 million

LLA will end up after its capital raising with 
Banking facility reduced using part of capital raising
2nd ranking loan provided by Artic and others for $25 million of which $10 million is repaid to PIF (part of which is to be deferred)
3rd ranking facility of $43 million which comes to PIF (Artic and others forgiving $5 million of this so ends up at $38 million on LLA balance sheet) 
4th ranking facility of $8 million provided by PIF

This gets to a total of $61 million so I do not quite understand what has happened to the last $10 million. I see no reference to any shares to be issued but may have missed it.

There is a reference to PIF paying a fee for the arrangement of this restructure and repayment of the PIF debts.

I am not sure if this means that will take a fee out of the $43 million or if you are paying a $10 million fee and this is where the last $10 million is accounted for.


A few blanks need to be filled in by WC on this one.

DoraNBoots about me been at the meeting you need like everyone to treat these forums only as a way to gather information so that investors can make a completely informed decision. You should not be there on the night ready to accept anything but only as another step to getting all of the facts.

There was talk of hiring an investigating accountant to review but the fighting fund must be held back for the legal work required IMO.

I am sure there are 10 members out there with the right skill set to undertake as a team a review of the position with access to the books from WC.

This team could sign a confidentiality agreement but as I keep telling the few investors I talk to directly right now you can only trust your fellow investors, and you need to get to a point where a fellow investor can look you in the eye and tell you the position and this is what we think is the best way forward.

You also want your overall committee to come back with a recommendation on whether WC is the one to undertake the role. The agreement to letting the AG forensic committee undertake review is a fundamental step forward in WC winning trust.

There has been so many experts over this now the group doesnt need to spend another $100k plus on what would be a drawn out process. This is not as complex as the people who want to control your money wish to make it.

Anyway a big week next week so good luck everyone


----------



## Mary Lynch (5 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dora, You embarrass me.

I will be eternally grateful to you, and all the rest of the amazing people who have been digging up all the details so important to us in our way forward in this mess.

I bless the day when I saw Adam Thorne's name in The Australian, and I tracked him down to become an AG member. Up until then I'd written off my MFS investment (of $500K!) ,and all of a sudden I had my hand held by all of you super people.

 I am hoping that my fellow retirees, will be mindful of the looming workload that will be upon us next week. Our numbers will swell X10 at least, and there will be prompt action needed. 

My guess is that most of our active members AT THIS POINT, are juggling work and family commitments, and, post forums, this is gong to become ALTOGETHER TOO MUCH for many of them.

 If the band of retirees who are set to join us next week can be called upon to help, especially in time-consuming tasks, it could lighten the work load considerably for the "activists".

I will do a posting of this nature next week, but in the meantime,how about, as you hand out your flyers, everyone tells incoming retirees that their input ill be enormously appreciated (one way or another).

PS Does anyone remember the lavish morning teas held in early September 2007? In Melbourne, I think it was at The Park Hyatt, where they were truely high flying to say the least. Trying to get more of our cash....lying through their teeth...Guy Hutchins out front!      Then, 2 months later, when I called them up to ask for a redemption form to be sent out, Judy Stead told me that if I left my money with them, that I would be eligible for a BONUS!!!!  Seeing we had signed a contract to buy an house, I had to decline. My redemption was due 21st Jan., 2 days after the freeze!


----------



## mb623 (5 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi, Could someone please e-mail me a copy of the pds.  My email address is mb623@ozemail.com.au
Regards
MB623


----------



## akernst (5 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

What happened about the Dubai connection.

Didn't someone from MFS go over there and spend some of the PIF funds
or is this incorrect. Is this where the money went and the return will not
appear until the development has been completed over there.

I think one Michael King's mates went over (his name was ?? Adams?).
What has happened to him?

Could it be tied up with the Sunland group, which used to be here on the
Gold Coast in  big way, until they went to Dubai and Sydney.

Can someone please enlighten me.

Loves you all.


----------



## seamisty (5 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



akernst said:


> What happened about the Dubai connection.
> 
> Didn't someone from MFS go over there and spend some of the PIF funds
> or is this incorrect. Is this where the money went and the return will not
> ...



Hi Akernst.It was another MFS subsiduary, MFS International LTD that opened approx middle of 2007 headed by Phillip Adams:quoteMFS International will focus principally on advisory and financial structuring services for M&A transactions, as well as providing an opportunity for local investors to tap into its attractive and innovative funds in Australia::: What a joke!! They would certainly be able to show others the skill of tapping into funds!!! There was some tie up with Sunland, a 50% joint venture I think. I dont recall there being any connection with the PIF.Interestingly though, the Packer family have?had a 13% interest in Sunland. Anyway, I am pretty sure the Dubai MFS office is no longer operating.Phillip Adams is probablly hiding from his creditors under a long white thobe (robe) and wearing a veil instead of the traditional headress!!! Seamisty


----------



## breaker1 (5 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Last chance call for Hunter Area forum readers to register for the Newcastle PIF Action Group local meeting for tomorrow, 2.30pm,  Sunday 6th, at the Joy Cummings Centre top of town Newcastle. We could do with a couple more. Tea & coffee will be provided.

Contact: breaker1@aapt.net.au


----------



## selciper (5 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Clearly, investors want to know what was happening with the operations of MSM/Octaviar PIF within that critical 2007-08 period. Already forum  members must be disappointed that the CEO/Investment manager during those times will apparently be absent. His presence might have been able to clear up some misunderstandings. Who else is available to tell us the story of the PIF capsize? Is a suitable sidekick free to take his place?                                                                              

It will be all very well to be told at the forums to concentrate on the future - "let's move forward" sort of stuff. I very much doubt that contributors to this thread will cast aside past events so easily. Inquiring minds are writing the posts on this thread.

The books must be opened to independent scrutiny.


----------



## selciper (5 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sorry, in my last post I should have typed: operations of MFS/Octaviar PIF


----------



## 2CentsWorth (6 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well, Queenslanders,
tomorrow is our big day. First into the fray, and then relay the news to as many eager ears as possible.
I wish to thank *ALL* others, for their tireless efforts, in bringing us to this point so well armed, against a hapless situation, totally foreign to most of us.

Temperance, patience and clearness of purpose for tomorrow, to us all.

Shields up! Mr. Spock.....Asteroids dead ahead.


----------



## Jadel (6 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks 2 Cents Worth 

 I  will need Mr. Spock and  Warp Shield Factor 10 for Tomorrow 

 Here I am with  my poor old Alzheimer’s  ridden brain ,(rapidly  losing more grey cells with  Bottles of  Shiraz Cabernet every night  to reduce the stress levels ) practicing my speech for tomorrow  

So take pity on me folks


----------



## Mary Lynch (6 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Every good wish Jadel.

We will eagerly await the outcome of tomorrow.


----------



## zixo (6 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi,

Any sydney Investors Interested in handing out flyers on the 9th I have managed to create something which resembles a flyer slip which can make 10 slips to hand out.

I opted for trying to save paper so you have to excuse my lack of computer nouse in trying this on my first attempt.

You'll probably have to cut the slips into 10 but it will be able to make alot with 10 pages of print given the amount of investors attending. perhaps help the environment and possibly help with information on the Action group.

I hope this works out okay


----------



## seamisty (6 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> Hi All
> 
> Any Investors Interested in printing and handing out flyer slips at the sydney forum I've managed to create something which may help add exposure to the PIF Action group.[
> 
> ...



Zixo thats great but I am sure it is now just Premium Income Fund no Octaviar since Wellington Capital has taken control. Looking foward to feedback from the Brisbane AG people tomorrow.(Jadel don't you hammer that red too hard tonight, we need you alert and well for tomorrow!!) Seamisty:bananasmi


----------



## Bumblebee (6 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

_JH has done it!_
_Here is the just released request to list *our* fund on the NSX._
_Fancy that!... right on the eve of our first meeting in Brisbane._

http://www.nsxa.com.au/float_details.asp?nsxcode=PIND


----------



## erniel (6 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just thought I would mention that reading through the December 2007 interim financials of the PIF, I came across a $5 million management fee advance.
I was under the impression that no management fees would be paid until we had our distribution.
Seeing we have not recieved a distribution since January I wonder whether this advance has been returned to the PIF.
Perhaps that devious CEO Hutchinson could elaborate on this advance.


----------



## Jadel (6 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Fellow investors 

Yes the listing will take place on th 21st July on the God forsaken NSX a masterfull tactical move by Jenny Hutson before we can organise our forces  and decide on a strategy at the group meetings 

 What we have to realise now is that the new buyers who purchase from the desperate and panic stricken at a pittence  will have no allegiance to our cause 

   That is what i was trying so hard to explain to investors ,the composition and structure of the investor base could change dramatically over a short period of time ,making it extremely difficult to get a majoirity vote on any motion that we the original investors put forward

 Action group members will have to now move really fast to have any chance of making any significant  decisions  regarding  our  own destiny .


----------



## selciper (6 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Jadel - I couldn't agree more. This latest NXS move by WC confirms my worst fears. We are being disenfranchised - unable to vote in a democratic manner on a truly important matter affecting our futures. How can WC expect us to feel confident in them if they start off a relationship in this way?

Good luck at the forum.!


----------



## Rocky1 (6 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Bumblebee said:


> _JH has done it!_
> _Here is the just released request to list *our* fund on the NSX._
> _Fancy that!... right on the eve of our first meeting in Brisbane._
> 
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/float_details.asp?nsxcode=PIND




Did anyone note the website listed on the NSX details for the PIF -  	 http://www.octaviar.com.au, why wouldn't it be WC?

Also does anyone know what 6month units means?

What power do we have on this issue - if enough investors contest it can we have the fund removed from the NSX. We certainly didn't sign up for it and I would have thought Jenny should have consulted investors first before making such a big change to the fund


----------



## seamisty (6 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> Did anyone note the website listed on the NSX details for the PIF -  	 http://www.octaviar.com.au, why wouldn't it be WC?
> 
> Also does anyone know what 6month units means?
> 
> What power do we have on this issue - if enough investors contest it can we have the fund removed from the NSX. We certainly didn't sign up for it and I would have thought Jenny should have consulted investors first before making such a big change to the fund



Hi Rocky, knowing Jadel is vehemently opposed to the NSX listing of the PIF I would imagine this will be high on the agenda of questions at tomorrows meeting. I hope Jenny Hutson has a very good reason to justify taking this path without consultation with investors.I am extremely interested to see the outcomes of tomorrows Brisbane meeting.Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (6 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all, Was just sent this snippet from a WA AG member, Brett Heading is Jenny Hutson's husband.::: Regards, Seamisty 
Brett Heading
Chairman of Partners / Partner
Telephone  07 3233 8956
Mobile  0409 608 966
Email  bheading@mccullough.com.au

Brett is Chairman of Partners and is a Partner in the Corporate Advisory Group. Specialising in capital raising, takeovers, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, Brett has managed numerous capital raisings over his career, including many ASX listings.
As one of Queensland’s most experienced corporate lawyers, Brett is a member of the Takeovers Panel, with other federal government appointments that include the Board of Taxation.
Brett has extensive boardroom experience gained over the past 15 years as a company director of listed and unlisted companies in the biotechnology, property and agribusiness sectors. His experience in agribusiness is both from a legal and commercial perspective. Private interests include chairmanship of wine producer Clovely Estate Limited, as well as Burnett Valley Vineyards Pty Ltd and Burnett Valley Olives Pty Ltd.
Brett has advised on many complex company restructurings including prominent Queensland organisations including Primac, Darling Downs Bacon, QIDC, First Australian Building Society, Grainco and Golden Circle.


----------



## Bumblebee (6 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> Did anyone note the website listed on the NSX details for the PIF -      http://www.octaviar.com.au, why wouldn't it be WC?
> 
> Also does anyone know what 6month units means?
> 
> What power do we have on this issue - if enough investors contest it can we have the fund removed from the NSX. We certainly didn't sign up for it and I would have thought Jenny should have consulted investors first before making such a big change to the fund




Rocky 1, Yes I did notice the Octaviar contact and JH is listed as the 'Advisor".
The 6 months refers to the term. There are seperate applications made for each option of term for your deposit that was originally offered, eg 6 month up to 24 month . Bumblebee


----------



## goldfinger38 (6 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> If you go back to the other week when i met with her, I already answered that YES she has a right to list on the NSX and yes Dora they are the only 3 choices we have. That is why I said WAIT and see what JH has to say. If we don't like it we can ask her to put it to a vote to wind it up. Changing the re is a choice. Look if she says that listing on the NSX is if you want your money now and that is the ONLY form at this stage of ANY liquidity, then so be it. Read your PDS folks, it states no guarantee of capital and no g'tee of distributions. So she is using the NSX as a way to unfreeze the funds and get something. NOW if this is only a secondary means and she has an orderly time frame for getting back our capital as investments mature and assets are sold and realised and it is a finite plan and we get distributions in the meantime, that is in effect winding it up AND in the meantime she tries getting misappropriated funds via the courts, then what is wrong with that. The NSX only screws people who have to sell their units, either way we get screwed, but if you can hold out, you get maximum value as the fund starts getting maximum value. This is the way I see it, and if she puts that to us and doesn't try and lock our money in forever in a day, then we should consider. Let's hear the woman out, then exercise our rights if we need to.




Javier you are correct and agree with you totally, I have been reading all of the forum comments to date and I support your thoughts and look forward to the AG meeting to discuss the  outcome of the unitholders meeting in Melbourne.


----------



## Jadel (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

One post on this forum on the eve of the meetings following the NSX listing ann by a Goldfinger !!!!!! Go figure
 .


----------



## DoraNBoots (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> Did anyone note the website listed on the NSX details for the PIF -  	 http://www.octaviar.com.au, why wouldn't it be WC?
> 
> What power do we have on this issue - if enough investors contest it can we have the fund removed from the NSX. We certainly didn't sign up for it and I would have thought Jenny should have consulted investors first before making such a big change to the fund




Isn't McCullough Robertson Lawyers the same solicitor Octaviar use?

I think we can rule out investors having a say in the NSX issue.  We know Jenny doesn’t have to (by law) ask us if we want to list and she has already told Breaker1 in his interview she does not plan on asking us, but that it is a decision for the board.  You must realise Jenny has her own agenda which she will follow though.  I don’t believe you would take on RE of a failing fund without having a plan of attack prior to taking in on.  I feel that if we don’t agree with the current REs plans we have little chance of changing their mind but do have the option of finding an RE that has the same vision as we do.  Lets just aim to get as much info as possible and as many members to our group to make sure our fellow investors are informed should a vote be needed.


----------



## Bumblebee (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Bumblebee said:


> Rocky 1, Yes I did notice the Octaviar contact and JH is listed as the 'Advisor".
> The 6 months refers to the term. There are seperate applications made for each option of term for your deposit that was originally offered, eg 6 month up to 24 month . Bumblebee




Sorry 'JH" should read 'WC'. Hard to understand this concept of seperation....Seems like 'people' are still in bed with each other???


----------



## goldfinger38 (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



goldfinger38 said:


> Javier you are correct and agree with you totally, I have been reading all of the forum comments to date and I support your thoughts and look forward to the AG meeting to discuss the  outcome of the unitholders meeting in Melbourne.





Sorry about the choice of name, an Austin Powers fan, in any case Guy Hutchings and Marilyn Watts have had theirservices terminated by wellington Capital as of Friday so no further conflict of interest with those two given they have been there since way back.  

And as you said how can the CEO NOT be aware of all that has gone on, if he wasnt aware he wasnt doing his job properly.

And yes, those related party loans that were lent out could not have honestly been approved according to the normal lending policy guidelines and procedure..


----------



## seamisty (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



goldfinger38 said:


> Sorry about the choice of name, an Austin Powers fan, in any case Guy Hutchings and Marilyn Watts have had theirservices terminated by wellington Capital as of Friday so no further conflict of interest with those two given they have been there since way back.
> 
> And as you said how can the CEO NOT be aware of all that has gone on, if he wasnt aware he wasnt doing his job properly.
> 
> And yes, those related party loans that were lent out could not have honestly been approved according to the normal lending policy guidelines and procedure..



 Goldfinger I am pleased to hear that Hutchings and Watts are no longer involved with the PIF.This is welcome news. Did they leave of their own accord or were they removed?Where did you get this information from please? Holders have no respect or trust left with people who were directly responsible for the PIF that let it deteriorate to where it is now. Lets hope their replacements demonstrate a higher standard of management. Seamisty


----------



## selciper (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

One thing is for certain, the departure of Guy Hutchings and Marilyn Wells doesn't mean that the recent benefits they bestowed on PIF investors will easily be forgotten. Far from it!


----------



## marcom (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

An intersting article on the plight of Westpoint Investors 3 years out, and the actions by ASIC and others. No doubt this is how the next few years will be for us! 

http://www.investordaily.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/4404.htm?rdeCOQ=SID-3F579BCE-6F1727D2


----------



## goldfinger38 (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Goldfinger I am pleased to hear that Hutchings and Watts are no longer involved with the PIF.This is welcome news. Did they leave of their own accord or were they removed?Where did you get this information from please? Holders have no respect or trust left with people who were directly responsible for the PIF that let it deteriorate to where it is now. Lets hope their replacements demonstrate a higher standard of management. Seamisty




Received advice from a BDM who formerly worked for MFS & Octaviar - Stephen Hart.  And their services were terminated, they did NOT leave of their own accord, in fact from as late as last Wednesday Guy Hutchings had indicated he was still intending to be present at the investors forums, in Melbourne.

Given his services have been terminated I will be interested to see if he shows up at all as I am sure there are a large number of investors who would like to vent their anger at his actions or lack of it.


----------



## seamisty (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



goldfinger38 said:


> Received advice from a BDM who formerly worked for MFS & Octaviar - Stephen Hart.  And their services were terminated, they did NOT leave of their own accord, in fact from as late as last Wednesday Guy Hutchings had indicated he was still intending to be present at the investors forums, in Melbourne.
> 
> Given his services have been terminated I will be interested to see if he shows up at all as I am sure there are a large number of investors who would like to vent their anger at his actions or lack of it.



Thanks for that goldfinger. If Hutchings had the gall to turn up at an investor meeting he would have to be heavily disguised or surrounded by body guards! If ASIC was doing it's job properly, he should be struck off from ever being able to hold such a position again!He was grossly incompetent and his actions in my opinion, weren't much better than King and White in regard to deceiving investors. Him and Watts will have plenty of time to drink coffeee and tea now(refer page 21 Issue 02 of MFS Investor magazine) and quote Watts:::"Well I think there are plenty of good fund managers who, like us, are well positioned for the opportunities which will no doubt arise over the next few months"::::I don't think they will be inundated with job offers!!!! Seamisty


----------



## iamspeed (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Anyone heard anything from Brisbane?

The meeting is probably still going?

The wait is killing me.


----------



## DoraNBoots (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All,

Just returned from the investor forum with the glossy handout (attached).  The first hour was a powerpoint presentation with background on Jenny/WC and the history of the PIF.  Investors were then given the floor for Q&A.  

We will post our observations and the answers to our questions later today.

Regs,
Boots


----------



## DoraNBoots (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

 Hi All,

The meeting is probably still going.  I had to leave at 2pm which was unfortunate.  Will write up as much as I can later and post.  If you plan to meet at the forum, you should meet before hand as the question time could go on forever and there aren't many people left 4 hours into it.

It was pretty frustrating.  Good questions were asked but I felt a lot of the time they weren't answered properly and then the microphone was gone and the next question is asked.

I think Jenny will stay till every question is asked.

There really wasn't any change from what Breaker1 reported in his meeting with Jenny.  One thing tho is that we will be asked to vote in August on the following:
Stay with the current RE and their direction for the fund OR
Liquidate

If we stay with CW it means, the fund will be listed on the NSX and this will be the only way you can 'redeem' your units.  It would mean all current redemption requests will be binned.  It will be a vote where they need 75% to liquidate.  Your voting power will be determined by the number of units you hold.  

They plan to pay out 6c per unit this financial year min and this will probably all be capital due to the fact that the fund is making a loss.

More coming when I get time on the computer….


----------



## breaker1 (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi All,
> 
> The meeting is probably still going.  I had to leave at 2pm which was unfortunate.  Will write up as much as I can later and post.  If you plan to meet at the forum, you should meet before hand as the question time could go on forever and there aren't many people left 4 hours into it.
> 
> ...




So I take it, that if we don't "redeem" via the NSX that we get a drip feed of our own capital over 5 years (each qtr?) till whats our's is paid back, is that it?

Did Jenny discriminate between the terms distribution and drip feeding of redemptions?

On distributions I take it, it will be our capital at first? If so, when will it be from PIF profit?

Great job so far Dora - thanks for getting back so quick.


----------



## mb623 (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yvette - thanks for the PDS.  I have been reading the material on the Octavier web site, and wonder whether any of the members of this forum can help me out with some of the initial queries I have:

(i) It appears that the bank called in the loan because an interest payment was missed.  Does anyone know the circumstances of this (i.e. how many interest payments were missed before the loan was called in, when were they missed, and why ?)

(ii) Is the loan to the bank secured, and if so, what specifically is the security ?

(iii)  Has anyone provided a guarantee with respect to the payment of the loan to the bank ? 

(iv) There is no mention on the web site about efforts to refinance the loan (the loan which was called in by the bank).  Perhaps the Trust was not viable at that stage (which would explain why the bank called in the loan).  Just wondering what anyone knows about this.

(v)  Has anyone done any research to determine specifically when (and why) the Trust first ran into trouble with its operations ?


----------



## seamisty (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks doraNboots, Well at 12cents per unit I don't consider liquidation of the PIF is an option. I would definitely like clarification of where the distribution will be coming from, capital or income.Also the flier states 3cents per unit before xmas, I think that is a total not 3centsX2. I hope I am wrong. The way I read it the distributions will be from profit, not capital. Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sorry this is rushed and stll more to come when I get my arms free.. 

*You have doubled the money that you now manage at WC.  Do you think you will cope? * I ensure I hire the best people to ensure we do a good job.  Went on to mention her values.

*Are you pursuing people like Guy for PI? * As a group they only have $20mill PI that could be pursued and this is a tiny amount in relation to the fund.  Dora: I find this kind of answer very frustrating.  She didn’t answer the question but it indicates to me the answer is no.  I think every cent should be pursued; $20mill should not be scoffed at!

*Will we get $65 mill from LLA? *Jenny has negotiated with Packers’ boys the following: $10mil in July plus $35mil over time.  Some of this $35 mil will be generating interest immediately and some won’t generate interest for 1 year (but a higher rate of interest). 

*Why did PWC refuse to value the units in the fund and how can we get an independent valuation of our units?*  Why PCW refused was not answered.  333 Capital were involved in helping the board determine the unit price.  (I’m told these guys are a subsidiary of a major liquidator)

Example of why the loans to MFS are worth nothing.  Money was leant to Sheraton in North QLD.  If they were to sell the Sheraton there would be no money to pay the PIF.

*Why was Guy working for you up until Friday and do you think he is incompetent?  *The answer was basically saying to assist with the transition.  Jenny said he was good to work with during the transition.

*What will your management fees be? * Once distributions start WC will take 0.7c.  I think she said this is 25% less than MFS were taking.

*All PIF staff are now employed by WC.*  The only people they retained from before are: Steven Heart, Chrisy Molsworth, Tom Griffith and Jason Chan.

*Jenny said 6 entities were approached to put in offers to be RE*.  The board decided WC should be given the option to take it.  No mention of who the other 6 were or what they could have offered.  During morning tea, one WC staff members said they were vultures or had nothing to offer.


----------



## Rocky1 (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The distributions had better be from profit and not capital.

Also did they offer any explanation as to how the Fund went from a "carrying value" in May08 of 691 mill to a "realisable value" of 413 mill in the same month (information supplied on flier 2)


----------



## DoraNBoots (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> So I take it, that if we don't "redeem" via the NSX that we get a drip feed of our own capital over 5 years (each qtr?) till whats our's is paid back, is that it?
> 
> Did Jenny discriminate between the terms distribution and drip feeding of redemptions?
> 
> ...




I think the drip feed of our capital is only until the fund is making decent returns again.  She wants to ensure we get some quarterly distributions and as there is no profit at the moment it has to come out of capital.  She didn't say when she expects the fund to be making a profit but she does see we will need 3 to 5 years to get back on track.

Jenny did say they will be redeeming hardship claims.  Apparently there are a lot and every one of them will be considered.


----------



## Rocky1 (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Dora

Like breaker said, great work so far, most appreciated, although the information is a little frustrating but expected.

How do they expect us to receive the idea of having distributions paid from capital. I assume this reduces our stake in the fund and therefore we are just living off our capital as we have done for months and not receiving any interest at all

Does the fund have any profit generating investments? and why should WC be paid a management fee when we aren't getting real distributions. If JH has so much faith in rebuilding the fund maybe she should pay herself some management fees out of her capital and see how she likes it


----------



## iamspeed (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dora

Any mention of valuation for Centrelink purposes??

Cheers


----------



## DoraNBoots (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> Hi Dora
> 
> Like breaker said, great work so far, most appreciated, although the information is a little frustrating but expected.
> 
> ...




Can you ask tomorrow if management fees will start when capital distributions or real distributions start?  I'm assuming it's when capital distributions start but could be wrong.

Jenny said that she was paid something like $750,000 by MFS to cover *management costs*.  She said they (MFS) used to spend this much per month to manage the fund.

*Why list on the NSX and not the ASX?*  Costs are a lot less and we would be a big fish in a small pond (same answer as in Breakers interview).  There are only 15 stockbrokers but some are very large brokers.

*Do you think the NSX listing leaves the fund open for some big investor to snap up a huge amount of units at a ridiculous price thus allowing them to take over the fund?*  You can’t control the market.  Jenny admits the NSX is just for the desperate.  She says it’s for emergency cases that must redeem.

One young guy had a good question that maybe someone else can elaborate on.  He was reading something that said *MFS related people have 60mil units*.  Jenny said she didn’t know about this and would look into it.  I think one of our AG members had the same document so hopefully can post regarding this.  She did say that the top 20 investors in the fund were not MFS related.

Jenny's comments regarding the bad loans involving MFS were annoying.  She seems not to blame the RE at the time but the parent company as the RE just handed over the money and it was MFS who gave back the rubbish loans!

I will put all my comments in one attachment and post later...


----------



## DoraNBoots (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



iamspeed said:


> Dora
> 
> Any mention of valuation for Centrelink purposes??
> 
> Cheers




Jenny has sent a letter to centrelink advising of the new unit value.


----------



## iamspeed (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> The distributions had better be from profit and not capital.
> 
> Also did they offer any explanation as to how the Fund went from a "carrying value" in May08 of 691 mill to a "realisable value" of 413 mill in the same month (information supplied on flier 2)




Rocky

The carrying value of a loan would be the initial loan amount, say you lent $10mill but if you think you are only going to get paid back $5mill, that $5mill becomes the realisable value.  You could actually get more than the $5mill - it is just a guestimate at the point in time.

The $691mill has been lent but WC only expect to get back $413mill.  No one event has happened overnight to drop the value, it has just been a result of WC going through the books and placing a value on things with the assistance of 333 Capital.  

If JH thinks she can get this thing back to $1 per unit, she is going to have to get the realsiable value back towards the carrying value.  Maybe given time borrowers have a better chance of repaying or if she takes posession of property she has a better chance of selling that at a value to recoup the full loan amount.  Also given time she will be able to claim on some of the Lloyds insurance.  Plus she gets some $ out of Octaviar.

We can only hope!


----------



## selciper (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks again, Dora. We won't shoot the messenger!  It all sounds rather familiar and disappointing. Our capital will just run down eventually to zero if no income starts to be generated. I'm looking forward to a legal opinion regarding any other options available, but I think we're in a corner.


----------



## Rocky1 (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> The distributions had better be from profit and not capital.
> 
> Also did they offer any explanation as to how the Fund went from a "carrying value" in May08 of 691 mill to a "realisable value" of 413 mill in the same month (information supplied on flier 2)




that should have been 341 mill realisable value


----------



## Duped (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

JH confirmed today that Hutchings is no longer involved with PIF.  I agree with her comment that it added value to keep him on til now [My words not JH's].  

Apart from that don't forget the saying: Keep your friends close, you're enemies even closer.

Don't sentence Hutchings yet, I suspect his worst crime was being a yes man to King and Peacock. 

RE the NSX listing application: probably can always be withdrawn.  If so, from a project management perspective, it's good to get the application in asap. JH noted that under AU law something has to be in place by the end of the 360 days (March 09) or liquidation will proceed.  March 09 really not far away. 

Many Q's were about the NSX listing & JH voiced that WC will look at other options. I wasn't convinced at first. Someone raised the fear of a take over if the NSX price is at too much of a discount.  At the very end someone asked about the option of current holders buying the units that anyone else wants to sell [Like an off market auction].  She was quite engaged in discussion about such an alternative.  So maybe the NSX is not the only option WC will look into.  [But time is tight.] I think she was surprised by the support she's getting from us. Others asked if it would help WC if we withdrew redemptions. Believe it or not redemptions are still only for 1/2 of the fund. 

You'd think we'd be once bitten twice shy but the general mood seems to be one of taking the leap of faith with WC.

Meeting finished at 2pm.  About 3hrs of questioning.

Hope I got my notes right. RBOS debt is down to $45M. Under the deal it has to be paid by (end of?) August.  The debt facility between PIF and RBOS has been there a while and was rapidly and fully drawn in Nov/Dec 07. [I would use the word RAIDED]

The RE requested the $50M debt facility in February. Still outstanding. If it is paid (all or in part) it will be distributed to unit holders. The $50M is NOT included in the 65/45/14 valuations.

The 45c is based on a valuation of $413.7M and doesn't include the $147.5 PIF is seeking from OCV.  65c valuation doesn't include the $50M.

WC opinion is that all OCV creditors are equal. (There was a question about the tax office having seniority which to me didn't seem to be definitively answered).  If all creditors are treated equally PIF would get a 1/5 of the OCV remnants.  (By my calcs we're looking at getting less than 1/2 of the $147.7+$50M. -don't quote me on that) 

JH voiced that the days of financial engineering are over. [Good to hear.]

Liquid assets have already been realised.  PIF is mortgagee in posession on some properties.  PIF has very big exposures to a very few positions.  37 loans which JH knows in intimate detail.  We have to ride out the cycle.

WC will be seeking to re introduce the 0.7% management fee.  Can some one ask at the next forum if the surplus profit clause that was introduced in 2006 will be removed.  I expect so but want to be sure.  I expect so because JH talked about growing the value of units AND paying distributions.

Q: for the 65c valuation where has the 35c gone.  
A: market movements

PIF RE staff are all now employed by WC. Only 4 came across from the old RE.  JH noted some names and responsibilities and they all sounded like operational/back office roles.  So that seems OK.

WC promise 3c by Christmas +3c end of financial? year per unit.  (Can someone confirm I heard right?).  But it will be return of capital, NOT interest/distribution.  At a valuation of 45c or even 65c per unit, 6c in a year is a sizeable precentage.

The 10 days between black friday and when PIF was frozen: JH opinion is that there was nothing unusual in the redemptions.

In last week of April Peacock asked 6 entities "to put their best offer forward" and then decided on WC after fast process. 

August: WC need 75% of the votes cast. 

WC have written to CentreLink. [Maybe they'll find time after lunch on the $250K BBQ at parliament house and 4.51 home time to read it.  Any suspicions I had that our Elected Officials won't lift a finger for self funded retires was re-inforced today.  It's an absolute abomination that Centrelink has taken such a hard line and not provide relief in this instance.  I'd be embarrassed to work for the Centrelink.] I think I heard right that WC might add their voice to an appeal for help to ASIC.  JH made it clear she is only pursuing legal action that will give a good return to the fund. [Good to hear.] Professional Indemnity insurance of the former directors is only worth $20M and would only yield 1c per unit.  [There are lower hanging fruit.].  Retribution will be up to unit holders to pursue through e.g ASIC. [Fair enough] So give ASIC a call.


----------



## Ivor Watt (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> The distributions had better be from profit and not capital.
> 
> Also did they offer any explanation as to how the Fund went from a "carrying value" in May08 of 691 mill to a "realisable value" of 413 mill in the same month (information supplied on flier 2)




It seems as though the distributions will have to be initially from capital as there is no profit, how long this goes on for is my concern.
The losses shown from 691m to 413m seem huge to me and the main areas are in alternative investments 267m to 96m and other managed investment units 93m to 5m. How on earth anyone could lose 90% in investment units in that period of time is beyond me, when the worst market falls in property has only been 20%.
We still need to pursue the people responsible for this total disaster and make sure they are brought to account.


----------



## breaker1 (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Jenny has sent a letter to centrelink advising of the new unit value.




Jenny should also advise Centrelink that there will be no backdated interest payment for PIF investors by WC to when most distributiond had ceased, which was at least 11/02/07. 

Jenny should strongly advise C/L that accordingly, there should be a *backdated C/L payment *to all those PIF, aged and disabled pensioners, who have had their *income based *pensions incorrectly deemed at a higher value than they were/are actually getting. The backdated period should be from when the new unit value kicks in with C/L, back to at least 11/02/07.

There should also be a similar backdated C/L consideration for those PIF pensioners on *asset based * C/L payments.


----------



## Jadel (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Fellow Action Group members 

 And Hi Dora it was a pleasure to meet you and other Action group members in person  

Well it was the Jenny Hutson show and of course, She is   a wonderfully kind and caring person   

You get 30 minutes complete with video footage of her accomplishments and pre arranged questions and answers    accompanied with half time   tea and bickies 

Followed by questions and answers

My evaluation is that it is going to be very hard to battle against this sort of group     propaganda and brainwashing   .  She is good ;Very good, may even  be related to Joseph Goeballs who did all the Hitler indoctrination rallies  ,poor  naive investors  are totally unaware their may be  other options . BECAUSE she doesn’t GIVE ANY 

Action group members are going to have to steel themselves to this honey trap and go for her throat as I did on the NSX which I am positive is her week point  

I have just found out there were  428 trades this Calendar Year on the NSX which averages at 3.5 trades a day AND SHE CALLS THAT PROVIDING LIQUIDITY 


Well I  did my best for you dear friends ,  and  gave her a hell of serve ,  in the short time span I had  ,and I think she was rattled, was basically unable to answer  with any  logical reason for the listing (  I suppose if I had really wanted to be nasty I could have mentioned  their may have been a  certain type of nepotism involved) You hear a lot of strange stories on the internet   


Unfortunately  unless we find some way of legally  getting hold of the books   and finding out what our assets are really worth before August NSX listing vote . I do not think we have a snowballs chance in   hell of stopping her plans for the Fund


----------



## breaker1 (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Jenny should also advise Centrelink that there will be no backdated interest payment for PIF investors by WC to when most distributiond had ceased, which was at least 11/02/07.
> 
> Jenny should strongly advise C/L that accordingly, there should be a *backdated C/L payment *to all those PIF, aged and disabled pensioners, who have had their *income based *pensions incorrectly deemed at a higher value than they were/are actually getting. The backdated period should be from when the new unit value kicks in with C/L, back to at least 11/02/07.
> 
> There should also be a similar backdated C/L consideration for those PIF pensioners on *asset based * C/L payments.




Sorry, dates above should be, backdated to 11/02/08 not /07 - well, it's worth a try!


----------



## Duped (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> One young guy had a good question that maybe someone else can elaborate on.  He was reading something that said *MFS related people have 60mil units*.  Jenny said she didn’t know about this and would look into it.  I think one of our AG members had the same document so hopefully can post regarding this.  She did say that the top 20 investors in the fund were not MFS related.




Was it from my post #664

Page 52 of the PIF Annual Report 2007
MFS Administration Pty Ltd held 60,000,000 units.  6.82% of the fund.

From what JH said it looks like MFS Admin got them out in time.  Where did the money come from and where did it go?  I'm guessing the 60M units were bought just to jack up the numbers. (Or perhaps to avoid a default!!!!) Look at the chart in the June investor update. (See  http://www.octaviar.com.au/managed-funds/investorupdates.html)  There's a nice fat little spike in $ (read units) in June 07 that cuts through the ugly flat line of the preceding 6 months.  Looks like a jump of $60M doesn't it.  Hmmmm.

Contrary to what I wrote in my #664 post, after what JH said, MFS Wholesale PIF is not really a related party.  It is just a group of investors like us, each with a stake $500K+.  Ouch.  They only make up 80M or 10% of the fund so their future is in our hands.  Treat your vote with respect.

JH noted a couple of times there were 200 companies in the MFS group.  WOW.  No wonder the overheads were through the roof.


----------



## 2CentsWorth (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Bumblebee said:


> _JH has done it!_
> _Here is the just released request to list *our* fund on the NSX._
> _Fancy that!... right on the eve of our first meeting in Brisbane._
> 
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/float_details.asp?nsxcode=PIND




Well Bumblebee,
when JH was asked about this at the meeting today, she replied that she had as yet, not been formally notified of the 21 July listing date , and as far as she was concerned, the date was still up in the air.

Methinks somebody at the NSX has bungled prematurely, because if you look there tonight, all trace and detail have disappeared.

Could this possibly be a sign of things to come ?


----------



## goldfinger38 (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Dear Fellow Action Group members
> 
> And Hi Dora it was a pleasure to meet you and other Action group members in person
> 
> ...





Thank you for the update and copies of handouts for those that attended the Birsbane unitholders session. It allows us investors who are attending the Melbourne Session to be pre armed with details so that we may be able to ask the hard questions although it appears she will either not give us too mcuh time or may not choose to answer those questions whe finds too tough.

However I wish to clarify some points about the proposed listing of the units on the NSX and the "fear" that once this happens it will allow the decimation of our unit values to those that are successfully traded on the exchange (if they are able to do so given the limited number of trades on a daily basis)

The NSX will allow those investors who for instance want to get their money out now no matter what the value might be to do so. Obviously if WC is going to propose to hold onto our money for a lot longer in order to recover as much value as possible there will be those that do not wish to wait around. Therefore they can choose to sell their units on the NSX provided they can get someone to offer a "buy price" that is close to what they may be asking for. It is no different to someone wanting to sell their shares but uses an "off-market" transfer system where they sell their shares to someone without actually trading them in a formal sense.

The unti price and value of the actual units held by the RE now being Wellington Capital will not alter from their $1 unit price at this stage. The current look through value is around 93c as per the balance sheet figures provided at the unit holder meeting in Brisbane assuming they recover all of the monies owed to the fund by all parties.

Therefore anyone choosing to sell their units in this manner will not affect our units or their value as all the investor is effectively doing is transferring their units over to someone else who then takes on the risk associated with the running of the fund by WC and those who may think that they will see an increase in their unit value or recovery via the fund over time.

Let me put is this way, you are in a car going on a road trip and along the way some one replaces your spot on the trip because you need to get out and do something else, the person who takes your place pays you part of your original cost to participate in the trip and they then benefit from the road trip, its sights and eventually ends up to where you were heading.

The reduced unit price was arrived at by Octaviar when it engaged liquidity and Solvency group 333 Capital ( a part of the Korda Mentha group) who are experienced in acting as administrators or liquidator of companies. The values arrived at are based on figures if they were to get *no value or recovery at all *out of the related entity loans to other MFS companies.  a severly written down value of the listed securites purchase again from related MFS groups or companies that have seen their share values significantly reduced in the current market.

The actual mortgage loan that are secured with a registered first mortgage over property and have the Lloyds of London mortgage insurance policy in all likelihood should be recovered fully as they were the type of loan that MFS typically lent on and recovered successfully in all cases. The estimated unit price on these loans once they are recovered over time according the the loan terms and conditions agreed upon when the funds were lent out should see a return of somewhere around 45 cents in the $ of our current unit price.

Therefore provided the liquidate option is NOT selected we should definitely see more than the 14c in the $ proposed for the less favourable option.

There is still a lot more to quizz WC and Jenny Hutson on with regard to potential conflicts of interests and related party transactions however it appears as though for the moment that she me appear to be assisting us with our desire to get th emost favourable outcome possible.

However there is still a long way to go.

I hope that this has cleared up some of the misconceptions that have been discussed and allayed fears for those concerned about the NSX listing.

With regard to capital distributions being paid to unitholders as opposed to income, if they pay us part of our $1 unit price in instalments it just means that we are getting some of our own money back sooner rather than later and therefore instead of expecting to get back a full $1 at the ned of the journey we may only get back the difference between the $1 invested and what we have received over time with the quarterly instalments received.

WC should provide a distribution advice to stat whether the payment we receive is a return of capital or an income payment.  Given the losses she has reports in the balance sheet in the Brisbane handout, it appears a the moment that there is not an income distribution to payout.

we should be asking her are the loans that are currently in the loan book paying their interest obligations and if so what are they doing with the money, how many of the loans are non-performing and what is the likelihood of getting both the loan amount and any interest plus penalties..

OK enough from me hope this helps.

see those tomorrow in Melbourne


----------



## erniel (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We need to be very clear on the distribution that JH has mentioned.
Is it capital redemption or a profit distribution, as this has tax ramifications for those who still pay tax.
Perhaps someone at the Melbourne meeting could get some clarity and post it here .
Thx to the Brisbane attendees for all the info you guys have provided after your meeting today, it is really appreciated.


----------



## seamisty (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all,thanks for the news from todays meeting. I was just reading a media article from the AFR 3 July, where JH states that "We don't propose to see any management fees from this fund until unit holders have received a 3cents return." If that 3cents is coming from our own capital, I don't class that as a return. Is the PIF is not generating enough income to pay this, where will WC's management fee be paid from? I would then assume that after the 3-5years our unit price will not be $1.00, but whatever remains after the 'distributions' have been deducted from capital until such times as the PIF is generating enough income to cover them. Mb623 has covered some good points in post no. 707. Perhaps thes could be relayed as questions at another investor meeting. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Dexter (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

As an AG member at the Brisbane meeting today I was embarrassed by our representative who attempted to harrass JH with a prepared written script.  He had made up his mind to attack JH before even hearing her out.  SHE IS NOT THE  VILLIAN.

I ask all unitholders to treat her fairly and with out preconcieved ideas.

Personally I believe she is going to prove to be our saviour.

PS:  Quote from the PIF Investor Update distributed at the Brisbane forum today states in part: "The Board of WC plans to reduce the current bank debt to zero and pay a  
DISTRIBUTION of 3cents per unit to each investor before Christmas.  It is currently anticipated the DISTRIBUTIONS will be payable on 31st October 2008 and 24th December 2008.  The PIF will then continue DISRIBUTIONS to unitholders on a quarterly basis."  

These payments are not referred to as capital repayments (redemptions).

Give her a go.


----------



## breaker1 (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

G'day - I am getting conflicting impressions from AG members over the phone and here on the forum today. So, we still need crystal clarity of understanding of the basics of today's meeting:

Distributions were prior to the freeze, 7%-9% interest paid from profit. 


Will distributions now be part profit (PIF earnings) and part our capital? If so what % of each?
OR
Will distributions be all from profit (PIF earnings)? If so (as one investor read it) - will it be 6c = 6% interest per annum on the full $ amount of our investment?
OR
Will distribution payments be all from our own capital? If so, shouldn't this, in fact, be called "part redemption payments" and not distributions? 

I fully understand that PIF investors won't get full, immediate, redemptions out of the PIF fund itself - for that clearly you would have to cash in on the NSX (no doubt at a loss), but to clarify, will investors still get their principle capital investment back (whatever % it ends up being after 4-5years) via a drip feed, part, redemption payments, quarterly from the PIF fund itself? If so, will the drip feed redemption be separate from 6c (6%) per annum 
distributions? 

We need to be clear on what the terms distributions and redemptions (full or in part) now mean - surely Jenny has not begun to morph these terms at the forum.


----------



## DoraNBoots (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Melbourne people will need to confirm this for themselves tomorrow but I can tell you that Jenny continually used the word distribution when talking about capital repayments.  It wasn't until she was specifically asked, that she admitted these distributions were coming from capital.  AND

The Handout says WC will start taking their proposed fee of 0.7% after the first 3 cents in distributions has been received by unitholders.  She was very clear that this first 3 cents would be capital, so managment fees will commence before the fund is making any income for us.

I've attached my notes from today in one file.  Some new stuff down the bottom.  I.E. that Lloyds insurance will not help to claim any money as none of the loans covered by Lloyds are in trouble.

My feeling from today is I want someone other than the RE (who makes it clear that they don't want to liquidate) to tell us what our units are worth.


----------



## Jadel (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Goldfinger thank you for taking half a page to tell us the patently obvious 

A Neanderthal with half a brain   can work our that any trades on the NSX is not going to effect the price of the units 

 That is not the POINT MATE we do want OUR UNITS BEING Sold on the NSX by the financially desperate and sick to predatory scavengers because over time it will inevitably reduce the existing base of Investors

And these  holders who enter at a pittance will not care TWO CENTS about what happens to the ORIGINAL HOLDERS  

Therefore we as a group will be disadvantaged on any decisions that we need to take to protect our LONG TERM INTERESTS  

Now if Jenny Hutson was too come up with some sort of original scheme whereby only existing unit holders buy from other unit holders that need to sell, at a discount that would be an excellent idea 

The existing holders have got the most to lose and we know that they are averaging down to save their original investment and will be in for the long term therefore as a group we retain our long term  investor base  .And that is the most important  point mate.


----------



## zixo (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A big Thank you to the Brisbane AG members for all their feedback.
No doubt many of the questions were never answered given the time frame and the amount of people at the forum

I think now is the time for the promised trust and transparency by WC to begin.
Any Brisbane Investors who want to ask questions from WC should start e-mails to clarify alot of the stuff which were not answered or avoided at their forum.

We may have to try to see how trusting WC really is.

email; investorrelations@newpif.com.au


----------



## Jadel (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dexter exactly who are you ?

  I can not represent somebody who has made 4 posts and never registered on the  Brisbane Action group list 

  However if you would  like to contact me personally , and register as a member , i am open to discuss all issues .

My main concern was  to infornm investors that their were other alternatives 
  and to try my best to save their money 

 I hade less than five minutes to make my points 

She had three hours,  video presentations and other Wellington capital Directors to back her up  

 Jenny Hutson is perfectly capable of defending herself as Action group members will find out shortly when they attend thier respective meetings.


----------



## iamspeed (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I don't think people should get too stressed over the income versus capital issue.  It sounds like a short term fix to get some $ in people pockets.  Whatever combination it ends up being will be accounted for in the end of year statement for tax purposes.  You will not be taxed on capital.

Think of it this way, something is better than nothing and it might just be enough $ to prevent someone getting desperate (your fellow investors) and selling for a pittance on the NSX.

The big issue is how is she going to turn $0.45 (maybe $0.65 if the Octaviar moons line up?) into $1 in 3 to 5 years.  If money is lost on a loan, you can't make profit on another loan to compensate (these aren't shares).  

Maybe a lot of the loans capitalise the interest (i.e. you repay principal and interest at the end of the term) and that is why there is no cash to pay distributions.  Were past distributions being paid out of new investment inflows?

Maybe we should garnish Peacock's parliamentary pension?


----------



## breaker1 (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



> Maybe we should garnish Peacock's parliamentary pension?




That of course would mean all 10,700 of us could live a very comfortable life on that alone!


----------



## Javier (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I don't think the possibility of recovering $20mil from the RE's PI should be overlooked by JH at all. This would represent her fee for at least 5 years. How dare she say it's not much when we have been robbed by so much already. Who is paying for the listing on the NSX..this should also be paid by OCV. It's this flippant view of the value of our money that has contributed to this debacle. She is a business woman, and I have been in business for a long time ..and any good business person will tell you when you are in trouble and struggling..MAKE EVERY PENNY A PRISONER!!!!!


----------



## selciper (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

That a promotional video should be being screened is inappropriate in these circumstances. The majority of the reports I'm reading don't fill me with optimism. My gut feeling tells me that I shouldn't let my guard down. JH"s reported response to the question re. $20m. from the RE's PI does not make any sense. That sum would cover a number of monthly distributions. We have to keep asking and looking.


----------



## seamisty (7 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> I don't think the possibility of recovering $20mil from the RE's PI should be overlooked by JH at all. This would represent her fee for at least 5 years. How dare she say it's not much when we have been robbed by so much already. Who is paying for the listing on the NSX..this should also be paid by OCV. It's this flippant view of the value of our money that has contributed to this debacle. She is a business woman, and I have been in business for a long time ..and any good business person will tell you when you are in trouble and struggling..MAKE EVERY PENNY A PRISONER!!!!!



Well said Javier, I have been in business(outside of OCV) extremely successfully for a very long time also..Every cent counts. To date, this debarcle is my worst ever, thus the reason to pursue those responsible for our current dilemma until they have been made accountable for their blatant disregard of the strict rules and regulations that were put in place by themselves. They will wear the result of their own misconduct. The investors of the PIF will not be the only ones finding it difficult to sleep at night. Seamisty


----------



## flatback (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> G'day - I am getting conflicting impressions from AG members over the phone and here on the forum today. So, we still need crystal clarity of understanding of the basics of today's meeting:
> 
> Distributions were prior to the freeze, 7%-9% interest paid from profit.
> 
> ...



I agree breaker1 let JH respond to the question (will these payments be called part redemption or distributions, i believe they cannot be termed distributions when in all probability the payments are going to come from our CAPITAL i have said before that we must take a very practical approach to this issue we as a group of concerned investors must think with our heads and not our hearts,we cannot have our members standing up like rabble at these meetings beating their chests, please be rational, if any person in our group cannot understand (and there are many) fear makes people say and do things that you would not normally say or do (we are all angry) but we must put that anger to good use and correspond through this forum with ideas that are constructive DROP the negative.
cheers Flatback


----------



## goldfinger38 (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Goldfinger thank you for taking half a page to tell us the patently obvious
> 
> A Neanderthal with half a brain   can work our that any trades on the NSX is not going to effect the price of the units
> 
> ...






Jadel all I was trying to state was that we need to stop harping in things that dont really have a significant impacg on the value of our investment and concentrate on the more improtant matters. 

I appreciate your input however it appeard that ther were some investors on the forum that felt the lsitign on the NSW was an important and integral part of the process when in fact it was not. there are other importantr and more pressing matters, I know it appears blatently obvious  to you but possibly not to others and therefore they need to be informed to correct some inaccuracies. At the end of the day we are all trying to provide some input with regard to a possible solution that may result in aq positive result for ALL invesotrs in the PIF, given thsat it appears that the management have been miselading us for some time now with incorrect comments and in fact thast have been sneaking cash out of our funds to cover their shortfalls in other related companies assiciated with MFS.

We all need to realise that in the end we want to come up with a positive result for ALL investors and that we are ALL working towards the sdame goal to recover as much of our $ invested in a reasonable period of time. Hopefully the Melbourne meeting will provide some further input given we have been pre warned with the information from the Birsbane investors. Sorry for the half page rhetoric previously given but felt it needed to be stated so that investors could concentrate on the more improtant matters at hand.

regards


godlfinger


----------



## seamisty (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Investor's $1.2m boom to gloomNick Nichols 

08Jul08 

DENNIS Chapman was once a high net worth investor in MFS, feted with free dinners, box seats at football games and invitations to lavish Christmas parties.

Now he has virtually written off the $1.25 million he invested in the failed Gold Coast-based financial services empire.

Mr Chapman, 62, thought he was diversifying his investment by placing money into MFS's Premium Income Fund, the company's New Zealand subsidiary MFS Pacific Finance and directly into another troubled MFS offshoot, ski-resort operator MFS Living and Leisure, now known as Living and Leisure Australia.

Have your say on the feedback form below
Gold Coast business news

The former Brisbane businessman concedes he was 'suckered' into pouring more of his retirement funds into the group, and regrets recommending the company, since renamed Octaviar, to his friends and family.

He said even a week before the company's spectacular share collapse, MFS was claiming it had no exposure to the US sub-prime mortgage crisis.

But, on January 18, when company founder Michael King was detailing a capital raising and company restructure, the markets lost faith in MFS's business model, sending the group into a tailspin that claimed its award-winning Premium Income Fund (PIF).

Yesterday was the first time investors in the fund could vent their anger at having their distributions stopped and their money frozen for at least 360 days.

On the front line was Jenny Hutson, head of Wellington Capital, which assumed control of the fund in May.

Wellington yesterday told Brisbane investors how, over the next three to five years, it planned to recover all the fund's $770 million left in limbo by the MFS collapse.

It was the first of five meetings that Ms Hutson hopes will sway sentiment of the fund's 10,300 investors towards a continuation of the fund.

The only other prospect is liquidation, which she said could leave unit holders with just 14c in the dollar.

Mr Chapman was among 300 investors at the Brisbane meeting yesterday.

Most were retirees, although there were a handful of young couples.

Each had their own story of hardship, including an elderly woman who was in tears before the meeting as she revealed her husband had recently been diagnosed with prostate cancer.

The woman, who declined to be named, had more than $200,000 invested in the Premium Income Fund and had only $5000 in the bank to meet her husband's expected medical costs.

Despite regaining her composure, and a sense of hope, by the end of the meeting, she said she found it hard to trust anyone in the fallout of the MFS debacle.

Mr Chapman, although equally sceptical, was philosophical. "You've got to be realistic about these things," he said.

Although he has counted his entire investment in the MFS group as wiped, he did concede he would get 'some money' back, based on Ms Hutson's presentation.

His anger, though, rests with previous MFS management, which he said enticed him as an investor with free corporate-box seats to football matches at the Gabba and Suncorp Stadium, as well as three-hour lunches at Omeros Brothers on the Gold Coast.

The giveaways were matched with generous interest payments and assurances that the business was able to ride out, and even benefit from, the global financial turmoil that was beginning to unfold.

His failed investment in the MFS group has effectively reduced his investment income from $100,000 a year to 'zero'.

The emphysema sufferer now lives on a disability pension, worth $200 a week.

But he said there were 'lots of people worse off than I am'.


----------



## seamisty (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Just returned from the investor forum with the glossy handout (attached).  The first hour was a powerpoint presentation with background on Jenny/WC and the history of the PIF.  Investors were then given the floor for Q&A.
> 
> ...



DoraNBoots, Would you please tell me how to send the attached file with the hand outs to my e-mail so I can foward it on.Thankyou, Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Seamisty,

You need to download (save) the files from this forum to your PC and attach to a new email message.  It depends on your email client as to how you attach a file.  Most email clients use a pic of a paperclip on the attachment tool.

If you want to send an email to the Brisbane mailbox I can reply with the files attached.

Regards,
Dora.


----------



## Tuart (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good morning all

A few comments and a few questions.

The four pages of information posted seem to have mostly self promotion on WC and JH and very little dedicated to real financial information. Pictures of JH and a quote from a US president ???

It seems like a gun is to be put to your head in august saying accept WC or liquidate. The reason that the PI cover was glossed over I am guessing is that as WC has taken control of the existing RE they would have to sue itself to get at insurance.

This is why IMO the RE must be replaced either by other WC RE or third party. $50 million guarantee is now due and payable by OCV as default clause has triggered so changing RE would not remove OCV obligations.

I am not sure about six other parties been invited to make an offer as JH herself stated in AFR that "no one else got close to doing due dilegence" so only one group was allowed inside the castle and all other parties had to make an offer basically blind.

I dont think JH is been truthful about this part as I know one of the parties who had expressed an interest was not a vulture and had available significant resources to rebuild value but that is another story for another day.

Questions

RE fees - on what basis is the fee to be paid 
0.75% on original value or on 45 cent estimated value of unit. This is a difference on fees from 5.6 million to 2.3 million and when the fund is not profitable every cent needs to be counted ?

Other costs - is the RE entitled to other expenses from the fund and what other costs come out of the fund. (audit NSX listing etc) ?

To rebuild value is this allowing existing investments to mature or is it the reworking of funds into other investments to get capital gowth ?

In retiring bank debt what losses have been suffered as I note reference is made to assets sold at "market value" ?

What fee has PIF agreed to pay Artic in relation to LLA and what is the overall loss estimated on this loan to be ?

Did WC approach any other interested parties specifically on LLA to take over Artic position and allow PIF to be vulture fund instead of the victim ?

At what stage did JH and WC become aware of 147 million loss. Korda Mentha had been in OCV for months when Chris Scott and his advisor WC arrived. JH became a director and took option on acquiring RE. Exercised the option and then found out true position ?? The timing of this does not stack up and it has baring on PI claim which at $20 million is not to be sneezed at ?

If someone could have a crack at asking these questions it would be appreciated.


----------



## BootsnAll (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> I agree breaker1 let JH respond to the question (will these payments be called part redemption or distributions, i believe they cannot be termed distributions when in all probability the payments are going to come from our CAPITAL i have said before that we must take a very practical approach to this issue we as a group of concerned investors must think with our heads and not our hearts,we cannot have our members standing up like rabble at these meetings beating their chests, please be rational, if any person in our group cannot understand (and there are many) fear makes people say and do things that you would not normally say or do (we are all angry) but we must put that anger to good use and correspond through this forum with ideas that are constructive DROP the negative.
> cheers Flatback





It amazes me that so many people who attended the Brisbane meeting are still debating whether the payments promised by Jenny Hutson are INCOME or CAPITAL. She initially said they were "distributions" but when my wife challenged that Jenny corrected herself and clearly stated the first two 3 ¢ payments were to be CAPITAL RETURN. 
The problem is that a lot of people seem to have a very short attention span and after the coffee break more than half of them left. That is why there is so much confusion.


----------



## selciper (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Having read all the posts re. the Brisbane meeting,
I can only notice that no contributors can come up with alternatives to the WC propositions. I mean what is left for the AG to do? Are any of our previous ideas still relevant? If the AG raises money what is to be done with it? Should we set our sights on pursuing the people who have caused us distress? Is there any action open to us to recover lost money? It looks like these missing funds have disolved into thin air. Nothing seems to have changed since JH's interview with Breaker sometime back, except that the road to any sort of decent recovery (say 70 - 80 cents) looks more distant than ever, even impossible.  So, what do we now do practically? Hope that I'm wrong, but do I sense a gloomy mood of resignation growing among us? If anybody can make my day brighter, they'll tell me that there's still a battle to fight.


----------



## selciper (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tuart's very recent post sets out possibilities! Thanks, Tuart.


----------



## DoraNBoots (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Tuart said:


> At what stage did JH and WC become aware of 147 million loss. Korda Mentha had been in OCV for months when Chris Scott and his advisor WC arrived. JH became a director and took option on acquiring RE. Exercised the option and then found out true position ?? The timing of this does not stack up and it has baring on PI claim which at $20 million is not to be sneezed at ?




Jenny said they took option to acquire RE before they became aware of the MFS loss.  Something about needing to rush to prevent liquidation.

Good luck Melbourne guys!  I actually think you might be better off only asking one question at a time otherwise Jenny tends to skip over the hard part.  She will often talk about the subject you bring up but not directly answer the question.:disgust:


----------



## Jenny (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This article from today's Australian written by the Chief Executive of the Australian Shareholders Association is interesting. He is not a fan of Wellington.

Thanks to those who have & will post information on the meetings.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jenny said:


> This article from today's Australian written by the Chief Executive of the Australian Shareholders Association is interesting. He is not a fan of Wellington.




Title of article seems to be quite alarming.

"Forget life support, put it down"

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23984530-30538,00.html


----------



## Duped (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tuart, JH said that PIF debt to LLA is 2nd in line behind NAB's $125M.  I don't know what LLA is worth but suspect that Peacock/King/Hutchings put WC in this miserable bargaining position.  Think about it all of you.  Do you think NAB cares about us?  NOOOOOOOOOOOOO WAY.

There is another option.  Another RE.  Who then?  There's still nearly HALF A BILLION dollars of value in the fund.  I'm speculating but even the big 4 don't snub such numbers. They can read this forum just like you and me.  And then there's the Financial Advisor Industry with a lot to lose in reputation from the Peacock/King/Hutchings shenanigans.  They could (and in my opinion SHOULD) spread the word to potential suitors.  But have we seen any other offers:  NO.

Think big picture.  Banks pay depositors around 7.5% and charge lenders around 9.5%. The 2% difference goes to operating costs and SHAREHOLDERS.  In my opinion the service our RE provides is similar.  At HALF the cost to us depositors. Albeit there's more risk; which JH acknowledged.  JH said she is a mrchant banker. 

The 3c+3c IS a return of capital. JH made that clear in the Brisbane forum. WC is effecively offering to REDUCE the funds under management by over $50M. JH in NO WAY hid the fact that she and WC are in the business of being in business. Even when directly asked if the 14c liquidation value was contrived to scare us into voting for WC. Can someone ask JH at the next forum if WC will offer unit holders the option to NOT receive the 3c + 3c.  I.e. to convert it to more units and hence a greater % of the fund.  That way, those who want to go with WC can increase their % of the PIF and those who don't can gradually step out.

JH also made it clear she was involved with setting up the PIF.  So if anyone is looking for a conspiricy or alterior motives then perhaps she wants to restore PIF's reputation. Not a bad thing for unit holders. She voiced the opinion a few times that it was a great fund. The question is of trust; hence the slide show presentation.


----------



## Javier (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

That's right Duped at this stage no-one else has stepped up to the plate that wants to take this vehicle forward. Tuart keeps mentioning he knows of a consortium, with big bucks etc etc..so where are they? If they are that wealthy then they could smash the likes of JH..but where's the offer..show me the MONEY. Money talks and b.s walks!!!


----------



## seamisty (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks duped. So  we are clear on the fact that there will be two 3cent distributions before the end of the year which will be paid from our own capital.OK, I can live with that but what happens after that? Will the future quarterly payments be made from our own capital as JH sells off assets from the PIF or come from income generated from the remaining assets?Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## selciper (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

None of us should overlook this article in today's Australian (already pointed tot by Jenny and others.). The writer is an experienced, objective observer.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23984530-30538,00.html


----------



## DoraNBoots (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Tuart said:


> I dont think JH is been truthful about this part as I know one of the parties who had expressed an interest was not a vulture and had available significant resources to rebuild value but that is another story for another day.




I think the day has come Tuart.


----------



## Tuart (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped

The whole idea of establishing a proper structure for the AG was to have a committee who could meet with other potential managers and return with a recomendation to stick with WC versus other alternatives.

The august meeting to me is a rail road as I believe even if you establish AG and go through a review process there is a 60 day statutory process for members to call their own meeting to force change.

WC will have called their own meeting where JH will give you a choice of 14 cents versus their own agenda. This is putting a gun to investors heads.

If the AG had a formal committee I know of a number of alternative managers that would like an opportunity to meet and present credentials. Then you can bench mark WC against these groups. Who do these people approach now WC  ??

As to the question on LLA once the committee is formed I can arrange for the credentials of the consortium who did lodge a formal interest to be provided to the committee which show that they had the resources to deal with RBOS and NAB in relation to LLA which would of put PIF in the box seat in regards to the LLA restructure.

Instead PIF IS PAYING A FEE TO ARTIC FOR THE PRIVILEDGE OF GETTING SOME OF ITS LOAN BACK.

Also as RBOS was not removed PIF took a substantial loss on GPM as well I believe on other assets.

I think RBOS is actually a party to the creation of PIF losses and there is potential to bring action against them. They allowed money to be advanced to LLA when LLA was in default on their NAB loan and PIF was already in default on the RBOS facility. They are now forcing the sale of assets at a loss.

This is why the AG must force full transparency and get a full understanding of what has happened over the last 12 months and what is left in terms of assets in the fund.

WC must accept this or be removed. There are plenty of managers who would love to add 2 to 5 million in fees per annum and perform the role WC got handed in what can only be described as questionable circumstances.

The other issue is how do investors ensure that PIF is best represented in its claims against OCV. Will the committee have an opportunity to review any deal WC will do with JH mate Chris Scott.

There are more choices ad opportunities than liquidation or WC so lets get on with formalising AG.


----------



## Mutchy (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I think the day has come Tuart.




Me too.
Mutchy


----------



## Tuart (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Javier

Seems that as I was writing you were posting. Who do alternative managers approach. You yourself said that you wanted to wait to after WC forums before moving forward with formalising AG into legal structure.

Do the alternatives ring JH ?


----------



## DoraNBoots (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Bet you are dying to use one of these Tuart 
You have been telling us this from the beginning and I agree.
Unfortunately the solicitor seemed to want to wait till after these WC forums before proceeding.  Luckily that is only one day away now so I look forward to some feedback tomorrow from the solicitor!


----------



## Mutchy (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Tuart said:


> Duped
> 
> The whole idea of establishing a proper structure for the AG was to have a committee who could meet with other potential managers and return with a recomendation to stick with WC versus other alternatives.
> 
> ...




Let me understand this. What you are saying is that even if we formalise our AG committee we would still have to vote in August to accept WC's planned management of our fund instead of liquidation. Is it then possible once the 60 day period has passed, say sometime in November at the earliest, for the AG committee to call a meeting of unit holders for the express purpose of replacing WC with another RE? What if the resolution in August is framed in language (legalese) which gives WC the unit holders approval to be the RE? 

Does anybody else get the feeling of helplessness?
Mutchy


----------



## Duped (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Thanks duped. So  we are clear on the fact that there will be two 3cent distributions before the end of the year which will be paid from our own capital.OK, I can live with that but what happens after that? Will the future quarterly payments be made from our own capital as JH sells off assets from the PIF or come from income generated from the remaining assets?Thanks, Seamisty




I think it was 3c by Christmas and 3c by June 09.  

After that? .... WC is asking us to trust them on that.  Truthfully, I'd love for JH to be the next Warren Buffet and PIF be the next Berkshire Hathaway with me in there from the start.  Reality ... i don't know.  One thing I do know, or at least I read, is that Warren Buffet is pragmatic and looks at the numbers while miraculously ignoring hype, cronies, establishment, institutions etc etc.  Boring I know but these are traits that JH seems to have.  So what if WC shareholders get rich in the process, (we are a reap-what-you-sow economy aren't we?  I certainly prefer a meritocracy) so long as JH takes me with her.  

Regarding the Australian article 'Forget Life Support, Put it Down' ... another article other potential suitors should have read by now.  

Maybe the Australian Shareholders Association can put their money where their mouth is and help find another suitor or help us get an independent valuation. I'll chip in for such a service.

What an irresponsible article anyway, encourage PIF unit holders to sell at the bottom of the market.  Ever single thing I've ever read about investing is to never sell at the bottom of a cyle if you don't have to. (Unless of course we're throwing good money after bad). Apparently we're heading towards or at the bottom of the property cycle. Our loss will be someone else's gain. 

I'm guessing the ASA is on the side of the OCV shareholders and not the PIF Unit Holders.  Crash the PIF and the $147.5M+$50M, i.e. 1/5 of, the claim against OCV shareholders assets all but vanishes.  

Maybe ASA is trying to disparage the PIF to keep other suitors away.  How's that for a juicy conspiracy theory.

I'm happy for anyone to prove me wrong.  I just want my savings back.

Keep it real.


----------



## iamspeed (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tuart

Your groups have had 2 months to maybe 'leak' something to the press to outline their interest?

What if Stuart Wilson of Australian Shareholders Association was approached to act on our behalf as some sort of assessor for alternitve proposals for PIF's future?  

Cheers


----------



## Duped (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Tuart said:


> The whole idea of establishing a proper structure for the AG was to have a committee who could meet with other potential managers and return with a recomendation to stick with WC versus other alternatives.




Agreed


----------



## Tuart (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

DoraNBoots

I dont know how investors can get a say at the table without formalising into legal structure. Its investors money but you remain in the dark about where your money is invested.

Individually an investor may not like what the committee decides but at least its a group of people in the same boat providing direction and if enough investors join then full transparency can be demanded of the manager or else a change can be made.

I am not a fan of WC as you may have picked up from my posts but I have also said that WC may be the right group at the right time. Investors should have the right to decide this.

The reasons I am not a fan is part of the "story" but that is not going to maximise your returns from here. 

Retribution will not put food on the table.

LLA and GPM I saw as opportunities to claw back value not add to losses but these have now gone.

The next opportunity is how your manager deals with OCV which has cash and residual assets that a clever manager working only for your best interests has to maximise. I remain nervous about how WC will deal on PIF behalf with PIF.

Maybe a question for JH is what discussions have been had to date in relation to OCV with OPI who as I have previously indicated control OCV fate in PIF and OPI work together.


----------



## Tuart (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

sorry meant to say how PIF proposes to deal in relation to OCV


----------



## Jadel (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thank you for your posts Goldfinger

  My nerves were a bit frayed yesterday after the Brisbane meeting.

  I wish you all the best for the Melbourne meeting 

  Regards Chris


----------



## seamisty (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I just re-read the handouts from yesterday. Two distributions before the end of the year, total amount 3cents.Quarterly distributions thereafter which hopefully will repay all of the capital over 3-5 years.There will be no interest paid at all, just a repayment of Capital. WC has been very clever in the wording of these fliers.It will be in the best interest of WC to spin the orderly realisation of assets at market value over a long period of time so WC can collect it's management fee. Seamisty


----------



## Duped (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Tuart said:


> LLA and GPM I saw as opportunities to claw back value not add to losses but these have now gone.




Agree about the LLA and GPM sales.  From my post #554 i think you can agree I'm a vocal critic.

Impression I got from BNE forum is JH wants to take the PIF back to its roots which are also her strengths: funding for property development and working with builders.  To me, the LLA and GPM 'investments' were out of step. 

Maybe PIF was a good fund in the early days ... I don't know.  Who was buying the properties being developed?  Other MFS entities?  Who was paying the interets on the PIF loans?  Other MFS entities?  I'd like to know.

Question is: Is there enough business out there for PIF?  That's for the analysts.   But one thing's for sure, our economy IS still growing, our population IS still growing and debt IS harder to get now.  The PIF IS a lender.


----------



## breaker1 (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I just re-read the handouts from yesterday. Two distributions before the end of the year, total amount 3cents.Quarterly distributions thereafter which hopefully will repay all of the capital over 3-5 years.There will be no interest paid at all, just a repayment of Capital. WC has been very clever in the wording of these fliers.It will be in the best interest of WC to spin the orderly realisation of assets at market value over a long period of time so WC can collect it's management fee. Seamisty




Jenny told me that our deal would be similar to the failed Donanvan, Oats, Hannaford receivership deal - those investors are getting paid quarterly and are ONLY receiving back their own capital over approx 4 years - they expect to get back 70% of their original investment. As they are no longer receiving interest payments of approx 8%p.a., they are losing that plus inflation @ 4%p.a. their real return will then be approx 54% of their original investment. 

If we PIF investors are realistically looking at a current unit value of say, 58% after Jenny gets back 50% of the $197M, then if WC DOES NOT PAY ANY PROFIT AS DISTRIBUTION (only our own capital like D.O.H.), then deduct the 20% inflation over 5 years and our real capital return will be around 38% - that would be a painful joke.

I am still struggling to work out how Jenny thinks she will get back 100%, if she can't even give us any idea of distributions out of business profits. Without a* real profit distribution *promise, inflation will hammer us. Personally, I recon real inflation is actually higher than the 4% touted by the media, just go shopping at woolies.


----------



## marcom (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Breaker1

It looks like JH is proposing to capitalise interest inflows to the fund and then "distribute" it to us along with some returned capital from borrowers over 3-5 years. This, along with the prospect of increased property values as the cycle rises is how she can say "WCIM is committed ( sic don't read this as promissed!) to the full return of investors capital in the next 3-5 years".

Take out underlying inflation 4% x 5 years = 20%
Also take out the opportunity cost of forgone interest (probably at a higher rate  of say 7.5% pa ) = 37.5%  interest loss, and any shortfall in recovery action against Octaviar etc.

The end result is south of 40% actual return.

The only plus in this equation is the returned capital can be reinvested with another organisation (bank) with no risk at say 7.25% cash rate, which will lift the 40% level according to the timing and amounts of capital " distributed " by WIM.

There's no white knight here, just one liquidators view of the situation!


----------



## Jenny (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

And another article in the AFR. JH says that at the end of yesterday's meeting "the mood of the meeting had swung round to one of hope".
I hope she's right! I am going to take a lot of convincing that it is worth leaving the money (such as it is) tied up for 5 years in the hope that things will be rosy again.

Go to www.afr.com and look under Property - Wellington implores unit holder to hang on.


----------



## flatback (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Goldfinger thank you for taking half a page to tell us the patently obvious
> 
> A Neanderthal with half a brain   can work our that any trades on the NSX is not going to effect the price of the units
> 
> ...



 now thats a good idea Jadel (now you are the predator) Have a nice day


----------



## SPLITPIN (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

All

The Corporations Act is very clear on non liquid funds;

_Part 5C.6””Members’ rights to withdraw from a scheme

Liquid schemes

A registered scheme is liquid if liquid assets account for at least 80% of the value of scheme property._

_601KB  Non‑liquid schemes””offers

The responsible entity of a registered scheme that is not liquid may offer members an opportunity to withdraw, wholly or partly, from the scheme to the extent that particular assets are available and able to be converted to money in time to satisfy withdrawal requests that members may make in response to the offer.

The withdrawal offer must be in writing and be made:etc. etc. and so on_

It appears everything being offered by JH does not bear much resemblance to the requirements of the Corporations Act.

Please correct me in my opinion is incorrect.


----------



## flatback (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



BootsnAll said:


> It amazes me that so many people who attended the Brisbane meeting are still debating whether the payments promised by Jenny Hutson are INCOME or CAPITAL. She initially said they were "distributions" but when my wife challenged that Jenny corrected herself and clearly stated the first two 3 ¢ payments were to be CAPITAL RETURN.
> The problem is that a lot of people seem to have a very short attention span and after the coffee break more than half of them left. That is why there is so much confusion.



thanks bootsnall but consider this, at no time did i indicate that i was at the brisbane meeting,i had informed the group that i was unable to attend any meetings because of my health and the distance to be travelled, i do believe your response to my statement ,should have contained an informative attachment of your observations from the meeting instead of such a derogative remark of assumption, remember we should be working together..
cheers Flatback


----------



## BootsnAll (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Flatback,
No personal derogatory remark was intended, I was just disappointed that as soon as coffee & Bikkies were gone, so was over half of attendees. Lot of valid points were raised in the afternoon.
Cheers


----------



## coppo (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all,
long time reader, first post. So go easy please.
Just had a phone call from Justine at WC. She did seem rather vague about it all. One thing that we talked about was the 3c distributions later in the year. She did tell me that I could re invest these distributions
And yes, I am confused!! Are these a distribution, or do they come from the capital investment.
She also did pump up JH tyres in a big way. I am not sure what to think as there are a few different views about her on here.
Justine was very confident that JH could get all our money back in the 3-5 years. Maybe that's part of her speel. I dont know wether to feel that way or not.
This all happens, after I got warned by a friend  that works in finance for the CBA 2 1/2 years ago.


----------



## Duped (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Forgot to mention, WC estimate of cost of liquidation is $31M. (That's the cost of selling, not loss of value)

Flyer advises that WC is "committed to the full return of investors capital in the next 3 to 5 years". Can someone ask at a forum if this commitment will be adjusted for CPI?  And what exactly will happen if things go well, will we have CPI adjusted value back (in our pockets or the fund) + some earnings or alternatively, will the fund simply be wrapped up sooner, or will we have a choice?  

Based on a current 45c valuation, a CPI adjusted return of 100% of our capital in 3/5 years would require an average annual return by the fund's investment activities of around 30%/17%.

Based on a current 55c valuation, a CPI adjusted return of 100% of our capital in 3/5 years would require an average annual return by the fund's investment activities of around 22%/13%.

Based on a current 65c valuation, a CPI adjusted return of 100% of our capital in 3/5 years would require an average annual return by the fund's investment activities of around 15%/9%.


----------



## Tuart (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

As an alternative to an NSX listing a constitutional change to scheme voted on by members would address the redemption issue with an agreed moritorium.

The proposed distribution of capital could be available for an early redemption policy. Those that go out know redeem at maybe a little above liquidation value.

Therefore those who stay in get the benefit of a bigger pie.

Vote should also bring this scheme to an end and roll into new scheme.

Why 
Because you accept a capital loss and have new units with a new reduced capital value so Centre Link issue is addressed.

Whoever is the manager would then have a benchmark value and reward for performance above this.

New fund has a new floor on value (ie 45 cents) and can pay a dividend and an accepted capital return programme.

New manager such as other WC manager can sue existing RE to pursue insurance policy. 

Key question is do investors allow manager to continue to work their capital for additional returns once current investments are realised. 

Talk of returning to loaning out to builders and developers send shivers down my spine. 

Good developers to complete a project need equity and a relationship with a bank.

Bad developers have no money so they lend from a non bank (ie PIF) and then top up with a mezzanine fund (OPI Pacific Finance) so often they have 100% funding with no external source of income to service debt.

So to get around lack of cashflow often the lending schemes lend not on as is value but on a "on completion valuation" which is something a bank would rarely do. A on completion valuation takes the end sale price and times it by number of units to be built to arrive a value. Different schemes have different mechanisms to control how much can be lent but issue is that on the way through the project is never worth what is lent against it for often the second and sometimes even first when you have half complete buildings are not fully covered.

An on completion valuation is fine as long as projects are finished on time, within budget and sell at estimated amounts but any variation to the above results in problems to lenders not developer as they start with little or no equity.

Whatever exposure you have to development loans must be worked through and not firesaled as you have a direct interest in OPI so it is in second position on many loans to PIF in first mortgagee position so everyone really needs projects to finish.

But to go back into this business other than a minor percentage of your funds is fraught with danger.

Funding developments not only takes a provision of a loan now but also a promise to deliver more funds progressively as project is constructed. So therefore you need to match your return of funds from other loans, bring in new capital or borrow from a bank to iron out cashflow.

Unless the fund become very large this matching is very difficult to manage. You need to charge higher interest on loans for when money is sitting waiting to go out on a draw down.

These higher rates and the fact that the majority of those develkopers that have equity have relationship with a bank narrows the prospective clients down. A mortgage fund is an unwieldy beast that IMO operates where all but the larger schemes plus banks should be.

Any stumble in a late payment from a developer flows into other developments as you dont have the money to pay the builder. A bank does not have this problem so a fund therefore borrows from a bank and we have seen impact of this at PIF when funds hit the rocks. 

For those that wish to stick around this fund should just become a more diversified investment fund and should investors leave their money on the table be put into a diversified high quailty portfolio of third party managed investments.

We will see the bottom of the market soon and if fund has surplus capital emerging and investors are happy to see it re-invested then opportunities abound for a manager that can sort the wheat from the chaff. Not in what is a high risk market of development loans.  

Sorry to harp on that I have met to many people who have lost to much in non institutional mortgage schemes and history is littered with them. 

Finally going back to the earlier subject of alternative offers as an experiment I contacted the CEO of a ASX listed fund management and property group.  Outlined history and idea of AG and would he like to present his companies credentials to proposed committee if an alternative manager was sought.
Answer was yes would love to and I think I could have got the same response from 20 more.

There is no point in this until AG understands the full financial position intimately. WC may be the right group for the job but AG must establish a mandate and a series of benchmarks and then ensure it has a real say in the outcome of its members.

Your committee must have access to all books and records as a primary negotiation point with the manager. You can only start at the beginning, incorporate you group and get the AG team into understanding the books.

That is not a lot to ask of the group asking for investors trust.


----------



## Javier (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Your committee must have access to all books and records as a primary negotiation point with the manager. You can only start at the beginning, incorporate you group and get the AG team into understanding the books.

That is not a lot to ask of the group asking for investors trust.

If JH refuses to let us look at the books due to "privacy issues" what then? We need to legally subpoena them..this will take money that we don't have and lots of time..who has that? If one of these managers are fair dinkum, they will put their money where their mouth is and  get on with it. You know our lawyer..they can contact her and take it from there. It's all well and good to say we should do this and that, but HOW..most people here are retirees mate, they have NO idea. They are pipe dreams unless someone with deep pockets comes in to play and can mount a challenge that IS in fact in the interest of investors and BETTER that WC. You may know the answers and have great ideas, but unless you know how to convert them to action, you are just another forum member expressing their opinion, with no money to lose. Of course you are more than welcome to express that opinion in this public arena and have every right to, but it that's all it will ever be, another opinion.


----------



## selciper (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

TUART keeps telling the AG to form a committee etc urgently. Obviously any committee candidates would have to have a good understanding of funds management processes and business in general. Several posts have revealed the existence of such qualified people. Every time I read a Tuart post I am fearful that valuable time is being lost. What's happened to the $100 contribution proposal? Have we enlisted many new AG members over the past few days? What happened to the idea of having OCV funds frozen? I'm truly grateful to all those who are and have been working and organising so hard in their private time. It's possible that the geographic spread is too much of a hurdle. An immediate AG mission statement mightn't be a bad idea. It could set clear objectives and time-lines.


----------



## Cookie1 (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

One of our AG members received a call yesterday from  a contractor/builder on a construction job in Port Macquarie - Aston Hill apartments in Mort St.  - he claims the project is Wellington Capital's and sub contractors are not being paid. He said he would be at our AG meeting on the 9th. He said he had no money in the PIF, did not go into detail & seemed to be in a hurry. He just said Wellington Capital was not paying.

The Aston Hill apartments are a development of luxury apartments that were being sold off the plan; construction stopped sometime last year (if I remember right) and the developer was desperately trying to work something out with his creditors. I haven't heard anything about it for months. My partner and I saw the promotional spiel 2 or 3 years ago and couldn't believe the prices and asked the guy if he really thought he'd ever sell the $1.7 million plus apartments. He said their market was the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney, Hunters Hill, Upper north shore etc. 

This project should really have no relationship to MFS/Octaviar and the PIF but it'll be interesting to hear what he has to say. Does anyone know anything about this one?

Cookie1


----------



## Jadel (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The primary issue in my mind is establishing the true value of the  Funds assets then we can proceed from that point 

   Brother in law in  valuation buisness tells me the usual policy is slash and  burn  the loan book , then any upside makes you look good 

  Getting a transparent , independent  valuation for investors , will give us a  much better idea of where we stand ,at far less cost, than her  her travelling road show ,video clips and shiny brochures ,


----------



## flatback (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

exactly! why can't we ,the group ,form a corporation become totally conversent with the where withall of the funds held and owing, this process i dont believe would be as dornting as it appears,as there are people out there who are professional in these areas,clean the sheets start afresh with our money with an honest fund manager and surely senior unit holders can oversee the honest distributions to all members.I don't believe this is impossible, at least we the members will be in control of our destiny, not somebody who has past connections with the group. I might add that the need to address our constitution in its present form is of paramount importance i quote ( MFS may vary the Constitution if the variation does not effect  investors rights and goes on to say if it does effect the members it will have to be approved at a meeting of unit holders to the tune of 75%) well we know that didnt happen dont we.I believe that NO changes should be made to CONSTITUTIONS without a common majority vote by at least a postal reply, any MAJOR decisions must have at least a postal vote of 75% .maybe the fund could be called UNITED ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED      (PIF)( ps with our money we are a very strong group.cheers have a good day


----------



## Jadel (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear  fellow Action Group Members 

 Had three phone calls so far dont know how the other members of our local group are goiing 

 As i stated in my previous posts  Jenny Hutsons got a powerfull   well organised propaganda machine going full bore 

  It is very difficult for a few brave souls standing at a doorways entrance  handing out leaflets to counter this .

 You have to have some damn good logical arguments in your flyers to convince people she is not the  new Messiah after the promotional videos bickies and cosy chats.

 Find a weakness , i think it is the NSX listing , once people get the idea that it has miniscule liquidity  (683 milionmarket cap  37 companies )and  a total average of 3.5 trades a day  for the year ,It makes any agument for a  fair price  and  liquidity for those have to exit ludicrous 

Most investors just do not have a clue what is happening , and that they will be trapped for a very long period with this sort of deal

You will definitely need a phone contact number.

 Good Luck  AND MAY  THE  FORCE BE  WITH YOU 


  .


----------



## marcom (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Cookie1 said:


> One of our AG members received a call yesterday from  a contractor/builder on a construction job in Port Macquarie - Aston Hill apartments in Mort St.  - he claims the project is Wellington Capital's and sub contractors are not being paid. He said he would be at our AG meeting on the 9th. He said he had no money in the PIF, did not go into detail & seemed to be in a hurry. He just said Wellington Capital was not paying.
> 
> The Aston Hill apartments are a development of luxury apartments that were being sold off the plan; construction stopped sometime last year (if I remember right) and the developer was desperately trying to work something out with his creditors. I haven't heard anything about it for months. My partner and I saw the promotional spiel 2 or 3 years ago and couldn't believe the prices and asked the guy if he really thought he'd ever sell the $1.7 million plus apartments. He said their market was the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney, Hunters Hill, Upper north shore etc.
> 
> ...




Here is some of the history on the Aston Hill project in Port Macquarie - yet another MFS success story!!

This article is 12 months old and the project is said to now be completed. EOI's for sale of the 24 units closed on 1/7/08 through CB Richard Ellis Metropolitan Investments Sydney.

We are owed $15million on this one.

http://www.portnews.com.au/news/local/news/general/plan-to-refinance-aston-hill-project/508724.aspx


----------



## Jadel (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

And Flatback i will be Flat on my back shortly as well 

  Half of mine was the wifes and i think she has started to give me Oleander Leaves in the Tea


----------



## iamspeed (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Here is some of the history on the Aston Hill project in Port Macquarie - yet another MFS success story!!
> 
> This article is 12 months old and the project is said to now be completed. EOI's for sale of the 24 units closed on 1/7/08 through CB Richard Ellis Metropolitan Investments Sydney.
> 
> ...




Marcom

Good investigation work.  I saw it advertised in the Financial Review a couple of weeks back - terrible time to be selling.  I think this sort of thing gives hope that assets are there to be realsied and money recovered - hopefully our $15mill and any penalty interest.  Pitty for the guys who put in the $5mill.  Maybe if we can't sell it we turn it into a time share for PIF unit holders??

These sort of posts add value.  This is how we are going to get the return of $1 (god help us).  Please everyone a deep breath and no more posts about NSX or distributions for at least an hour!!  

Cheers


----------



## Cookie1 (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Marcom and Iamspeed for the update on the Aston Hill project - didn't realise it was actually an MFS project and didn't know it was completed! These little projects seem to be everywhere! I was trying to remember David Bloomfield's name; he's the one who was promoting sale of apartments in the shop front here in Port.

Cookie1


----------



## seamisty (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Cookie1 said:


> One of our AG members received a call yesterday from  a contractor/builder on a construction job in Port Macquarie - Aston Hill apartments in Mort St.  - he claims the project is Wellington Capital's and sub contractors are not being paid. He said he would be at our AG meeting on the 9th. He said he had no money in the PIF, did not go into detail & seemed to be in a hurry. He just said Wellington Capital was not paying.
> 
> The Aston Hill apartments are a development of luxury apartments that were being sold off the plan; construction stopped sometime last year (if I remember right) and the developer was desperately trying to work something out with his creditors. I haven't heard anything about it for months. My partner and I saw the promotional spiel 2 or 3 years ago and couldn't believe the prices and asked the guy if he really thought he'd ever sell the $1.7 million plus apartments. He said their market was the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney, Hunters Hill, Upper north shore etc. BUY WHOLESALE - RE-SELL RETAIL OR HOLD AS AN INVESTMENTAston Hill is a recently completed residential development at 20-22 Mort Street and 26B Warlters Street, Port Macquarie.
> 
> ...


----------



## iamspeed (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Problem solved!!

I just saw the Super Sugar Strategy link at the bottom of the page. I checked the site and this is what it said:

*How to turn $3,000 into $2,000,000+ in the next 18 months using the Super Sugar Strategy™*** *

Quick someone let JH know!!

Am I the only person who has been sent mad by this experience??  Better get home to start drinking the 6 stubbies to help me sleep at night.  I might claim them as a tax deduction as they are somewhat investment related??

:alcohol:


----------



## Rocky1 (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My thoughts on the Melbourne Forum

We will receive in TOTAL a 3c "distribution" by Christmas. This "distribution" will be paid from capital. I couldn't quite understand exactly where the capital was coming from but when I asked this she kept mentioning "there are a lot of losses in the bottom line at the moment". Although the distributions will be from capital it will not reduce the number of units we hold. This type of distribution is likely to continue for some time. Distributions will be quarterly starting in 09. It is also likely that these distributions will be mostly non taxable (WC will provide us an explanation of how the distribution was funded to show to our accountants)

Most investors seemed to be leaning towards the option of leaving there money in the fund for JHs proposed 3-5 years in the hope she can return our $1 value. I guess most people are thinking if we liquidate they will get 14 cents (although I find this hard to believe), or they can sell via the NSX (if buyers present). If JH is able to restore $1 unit value then based on 5 years this a better return than taking 14 cents or 45 cents and reinvesting that money. I believe that she will make up certain ground through recovery from OCV (the 147.5 mill) and the realisation of true capital value (at the moment I think the 45 cents is based on deflated values).

I also asked her to provide us with more transparent figures on the state of the fund, e.g loan A is for $ at % and is secured or unsecured and the valuation of assets versus likely return when the economy recovers. She said she would provide this information in the next update.

I also asked her if the NSX would be the only way of redeeming our money in five years time and she said that it could be an evolving process where other options (e.g ASX) may become an alternative vehicle

Jenny also mentioned that she would look into unit trading between current holders and the possibility of an AG rep sitting on the board

Personally my gut feel is that JH will restore value to the PIF, maybe not a 1$, but hopefully close to it and waiting for this is better than the current alternative. For this to happen though we need to vote for her plan NOT liquidation.

Having said this though I would like to look at the option of other RE's. We are running out of time and if we wish to pursue this path need to get moving. As such we need to get to get our structure and POA happening. Whether we use this in the immediate future or not this structure will give us power moving forward and give us a way of keeping the RE more honest 

TUART - why couldn't you talk to "YOUR" people and in a confidential manner present us with a summary of what they are prepared to offer via this forum.

I haven't read back through all this so I hope it makes sense.....my son wants me to play trains. I will post more later if I think of anything


----------



## breaker1 (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Rocky1 Quote
Jenny also mentioned that she would look into unit trading between current holders and the possibility of an AG rep sitting on the board

The AG member on the board is a change of heart from Jenny, she originally said this was not an option, due to the multiple other funds looked after by the WC Board. Glad she is re-thinking it.

Trading units between existing investors, sounds a better idea than the NSX, this will allow existing investor interests to remain intact.

Great job Rocky - your a trooper!

I just had a flashback of my first train set at Christmas! My grandpa gave it to me - he was dressed up as Santa.


----------



## communique (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Please advise if anyone has asked the below questions at the forums and what response you get or got?

1. Why isn't winding up the scheme an option?
2. Did the changes to the constitution require a vote of the unitholders?
3. Who is liable if the fund liabilities are greater than the fund assets?

How were Q&A's officially documented and disseminated?


----------



## reasonable (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It seemed to me today at the Melbourne forum that Jenny presented extremely well and probably represents the best chance of some recovery of capital – certainly far better than the previous incompetent managers.

I was seeking to understand her motives for taking on this job.  It did not seem to be for money but for a new challenge to her.  A challenge that if met would enormously enhance her already good reputation and that of her company.

I wonder what an action group could achieve that she is already striving to achieve?


----------



## goldfinger38 (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> My thoughts on the Melbourne Forum
> 
> We will receive in TOTAL a 3c "distribution" by Christmas. This "distribution" will be paid from capital. I couldn't quite understand exactly where the capital was coming from but when I asked this she kept mentioning "there are a lot of losses in the bottom line at the moment". Although the distributions will be from capital it will not reduce the number of units we hold. This type of distribution is likely to continue for some time. Distributions will be quarterly starting in 09. It is also likely that these distributions will be mostly non taxable (WC will provide us an explanation of how the distribution was funded to show to our accountants)
> 
> ...




Hi all,

was an interesting meeting in Melbourne, considering the emotion and anger in the room of investors, it went very well and the proposals put forward appeared on the face of it to be fair.

However further investigation is warranted as in previous comments made by other members on this forum.

The August meeting proposed which will allow votes by unitholders either in person or by PROXY will allow the fund to continue as a going concern with the current RE being WC or to liquidate fund and return investors cash by March2009 at the suggested realisable value of 14c...

If we voted to continue as a going concern, we still have the ability to pursue an alternate RE at any point in time onwards and then itwould be put to a vote at an extrordinary meeting that can be called by the minimum 100 unitholders of those that hold up to 5% of fund as previously mentioned by someone here on forum. At least the going concern option allows us more time to look at any alternate strategy and also see how WC performs for us unitholders.

Am currently exploring some options for us to consider and will put forward on the forum once I have got ideas together, the NSX listing may provide unitholders with the ability to purchase other unitholders holdings ( for those who want to exist the fund now at whatever price is offered eg 14c - 45c or less depending on what is offered on the NSX) if Jenny is proposing an annualised return of 6% on our original $1 unit value then the return to an investor buying units at 14c - 45c is spectacular, it equates to around 13.3% on 45c unit purchase price to 42.8% for 14c purchase price.

Not good for those wanting to sell but at least those wanting to stay in the fund it may be beneficial.

JH also mentioned the possibility of a *special distribution* that may be paid to unitholders before June 2009 depending on the success to recover loans due in that time and how much cash is sitting in the bank account.  This then improves the return to investors significantly again.

NSX listing may also provide opportunity (again depending on the price being offered to purchase at) to sell some, part or all of your units, take say 45c assuming best price offered and invest this into quality stocks on the ASX since banks are presently providing dividends of up to 7% or more plus the franking credit which gives investors a potential gross return of anywhere between 9-11% paid 6 monthly. 

Then you can benefit form the recovery in the share price of the ASXstocks over a 3-5 year period which may appear to be more plausible given the history of the financials and banks and their underpinned security with the RBA ( reserve bank) and the stocks are more liquid on the ASX.

These are just some of the things running around in my head as possible options to consider and choose.

Some investors may be much more comfortable having their exposure and chance of recovery with the banks than with WC.. plus on the price that the sotck are currently being traded at they appear to be very attractive for yield currently and for us investors possible a more guaranteed hope of recovery.

From a vulture fund point of view, if investors in the early period choose to offer their stock on the NSW for sale and then accept ridiculously cheap offers below the Net Asset Backing then those that buy the stocks will pick up a very handing return indeed.

Problem is not everyone still has the spare cash to do this given their funds are tied up in the PIF units.

JH read out some investors letters sent to her today regarding their financial hardship and dire position, it was very hard to listen to them and not feel for them and I am sure there are those in this forum that may be in the same position so I am not trying to take away the significance of your own circumstances however I hope that they do NOT act too quickly in taking the easy way out of selling out at any price.

Back to you soon
Cheers Goldfinger


----------



## seamisty (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for a very informative post goldfinger and others that are sharing their info here.Much appreciated. Seamisty


----------



## Rocky1 (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



reasonable said:


> It seemed to me today at the Melbourne forum that Jenny presented extremely well and probably represents the best chance of some recovery of capital – certainly far better than the previous incompetent managers.
> 
> I was seeking to understand her motives for taking on this job.  It did not seem to be for money but for a new challenge to her.  A challenge that if met would enormously enhance her already good reputation and that of her company.
> 
> I wonder what an action group could achieve that she is already striving to achieve?




REASONABLE, 

clearly a new member but what do you mean by "_*I wonder what an action group could achieve that she is already striving to achieve?*_"


----------



## Jadel (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Rocky1 Quote

Jenny also mentioned that she would look into unit trading between current holders and the possibility of an AG rep sitting on the board

  Looks like a change of heart. Well perhaps all our efforts have not been in vain 

   I think this change would give investors a great deal of assurance that none of the exploitation and abuse of investors trust  will ever be repeated again  

   Lets see if she follows through ???


----------



## reasonable (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> REASONABLE,
> 
> clearly a new member but what do you mean by "_*I wonder what an action group could achieve that she is already striving to achieve?*_"




Exactly what I said.  

Jenny has the team, the experience, the incentives and the resources to get the best outcome for all.  What else can an action group do except monitor and challenge?

If Jenny is true to her word she will consult the membership fully about possible outcomes anyway.

I do not mean to knock the intentions of an action group which I will support and help with if it seems likely to be able to make a difference,

Regards


----------



## Rocky1 (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



reasonable said:


> Exactly what I said.
> 
> Jenny has the team, the experience, the incentives and the resources to get the best outcome for all.  What else can an action group do except monitor and challenge?
> 
> ...




*Reasonable*

I'm sure your help would be appreciated, but please note it was never the intention of the AG to try and run the fund, plus remember these are OUR funds so why wouldn't we take an interest in how they are managed and try and ensure the best outcome for ALL in whatever way we can. 

Many people have put hundreds of hours into the AG and keeping each other informed and have never looked for any praise. 

After today I feel Jenny may do a good job and praise her for putting her hand up, but If the AG simply keeps the RE on it's toes then it is a good thing in my mind.

*Jadel*

I agree her comments were positive but please note that I said "she would CONSIDER"


----------



## DoraNBoots (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> Jenny also mentioned that she would look into unit trading between current holders





Thanks for the update Melbourne guys!

Can anyone tell me if they are seriously considering putting more money into this fund by way of trading units as mentioned in the quote above?  I can't imagine putting more money into this thing unless it was for less than the liquidation value but then I don't think I could live with myself knowing some poor investor was so desperate.

Reasonable:  Welcome!  I think you answered your own question...  we aim to monitor the fund and challenge if necessary.


----------



## Tuart (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Rocky1

I dont currently support starting a process to remove the RE but can help with a process to get alternative offers so you have a fall back position.

I hope to see you guys put together your AG to empower yourselves to make change if this is required however the path of least resistence is to negotiate an acceptable outcome with WC.

Rocky1 if you send an email address I will provide you with the email address of the person I spoke with today and a brief that you can provide. I think like many they will all put their hand up to take on role and they are all looking for ways to create long term value for themselves and would give you guys an alternative third party RE. A group like this will look to overtime the opportunity to move you into their own managed funds as the work out of this fund occurs. 

 I will also get a reponse and proposal from original parties who lodged interest with OCV.

However your AG committee I think has the potential to guide WC to a more acceptable position. WC knowing you have a structure that can commence easily a path to change gives you a strong bargaining position. 

Your AG I believe if you have sufficient members could seek to injunct proposed August meeting to include the replacement of RE (and ASIC also has that power) if the WC ultimate proposal other than liquidate is not acceptable to AG and its members as it would be argued not to include a replacement RE if scheme changes are considered not acceptable or to onerous not in unitholders interest.

That would buy time.    

I hope it doesnt get to that.

One vital issue which I hope someone can bring up at forum tomorrow is unfinished projects.

WC needs to explain what steps are been taken to get projects finished. If PIF cant supply funds either project will get sold, refinanced or PIF would need to slip back to second position to get bank in to finish.

If this breached current constitution then this is one thing you would support WC getting changed in a hurry as getting the projects finished may be the only way to finish and ensure you get capital back.

Things like this is where your committee could work with JH to help improve the position of the fund once they understand more fully the position of the fund and issues it faced.

As suggested by Javier I will refer parties back to solicitor.


----------



## Mutchy (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Here is my summary of what has happened here since 1st July. ou may wish to print it off to take to the meeting in Sydney or later.

Mutchy


----------



## Mutchy (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Also some questions which I don't believe have been addressed yet.
Mutchy


----------



## Mutchy (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Thanks for the update Melbourne guys!
> 
> Can anyone tell me if they are seriously considering putting more money into this fund by way of trading units as mentioned in the quote above?  I can't imagine putting more money into this thing unless it was for less than the liquidation value but then I don't think I could live with myself knowing some poor investor was so desperate.
> 
> Reasonable:  Welcome!  I think you answered your own question...  we aim to monitor the fund and challenge if necessary.




Thanks also from me. 

There's no way I would put any more money into PIF when the local Building society is offering 8.2% for a 90 day deposit!

Mutchy


----------



## seamisty (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

investors like us, each with a stake $500K+. Ouch. They only make up 80M or10% of the fund so their future is in our hands. MFS Wholesale PIF is not really a related party. It is just a group of Treat your vote with respect. :::::    Mutchy,Some individual investors in the PIF were/are classed as wholesale investors and deserve the same treatment/respect as all holders in the fund. My husband and I are classified as wholesale investors and we are no different from any other investor. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Mutchy (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> investors like us, each with a stake $500K+. Ouch. They only make up 80M or10% of the fund so their future is in our hands. MFS Wholesale PIF is not really a related party. It is just a group of Treat your vote with respect. :::::    Mutchy,Some individual investors in the PIF were/are classed as wholesale investors and deserve the same treatment/respect as all holders in the fund. My husband and I are classified as wholesale investors and we are no different from any other investor. Regards, Seamisty




Hi Seamisty. Sorry if any offence was given: none was intended. Hope you found nothing else worthy of comment. I try to summarise the postings so that  I can remember what was said, sort the facts from the comment and avoid any duplication. 

Any correction or comment I will welcome.
Mutchy


----------



## seamisty (8 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mutchy said:


> Hi Seamisty. Sorry if any offence was given: none was intended. Hope you found nothing else worthy of comment. I try to summarise the postings so that  I can remember what was said, sort the facts from the comment and avoid any duplication.
> 
> Any correction or comment I will welcome.
> Mutchy



No mutchy, thought your summary was very comprehensive, most people wouldn't know that wholesale doesn't specifically relate to institutional investors. I value your imput, you have spent a lot of time collating your information. Forums like these are for the benefit of all. Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Excellent work Mutchy 

THe  time and effort you put into  that summary should be greatly appreciated by all Action Group Members 

 Regards Chris


----------



## goldfinger38 (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Excellent work Mutchy
> 
> THe  time and effort you put into  that summary should be greatly appreciated by all Action Group Members
> 
> Regards Chris







Hi all,  update from yesterdays meeting in Melbourne for your perusdal   plus a PIF HOTLINE PHONE NUMBER   1300 854 855


Wellington Capital still on track to payout RBOS by end of month.
The senior debt facility of $200 million was drawn down in the months of November and December 2007 and was used to purchase loans and/or investment into MFS related companies as per below:
MFS Living & Leisure Group				$57,489mil
MFS Pacific Finance Ltd				$23.586mil
MFS Causeway Private Debt Opportunities Fund 	$23.180mil

Plus also purchase of equity related MFS companies

MFS Living & Leisure Group				$5.906mil
MFS Diversified Group				$34.469mil
MFS Blue Sky Development Trust			$2.265mil
MFS Property Trust No 7				$1.056mil
MFS Maximum Yield Fund				$85mil

Total Exposure of the PIF to Octaviar/MFS		$232,951,000  AS AT THE 31ST December 2007.


There are currently 37 loan in the portfolio with longest dated loan being August 2009.

Distributions to recommence in October 2008, will be paid on a quarterly basis and expect to pay 3c for every $1 unit by end of year equivalent to annualised return of 6%.

Hope to continue paying at that rate moving forward. Also hope to pay a special distribution of an additional amount before June 2009.

Special meeting to be held in August to vote on keeping fund going or wind up.

Correspondence going out to investors with voting papers to allow proxy or attend meeting in person.

Wellington Capital to now pursue MFS/Octaviar for a further $147.5 million bringing total of monies owed to $197.5 million.

PIF will rank equally with all other creditors of Octaviar, there are 5 major creditors including PIF.

Current assets estimated at $400 million including cash, owe $1 billion therefore creditors may receive up to maximum of say 40c in $ therefore of the $197 being pursued PIF may receive up to $80 million of what is owed ( best case).

Wellington Capital will be charging management fees of 0.7% p.a. compared to 2.3% that MFS were previously charging.

10,345 investors in the PIF with avarage balance of $70,000

Living & Leisure Trust loan of $63 million. Expect to recover $45 million through James Packer recapitalisation deal so still taking an $18 million loss. Will wait to get more detailed information on this as it appears as though PIF may benefit from the $35 million being left in the LLA as part of the recapitalisation deal so will find out more information on this and report back.

One of other assets in fund such as Sheraton Mirage has been for sale for the entire year, PIF are third ranking creditor behind other banks and if sale went through at moment, PIF would not receive anything from sale, therefore may not be wise to sell at moment. Exposure to this is $47.5 million.

There are other properties similar to this where it is not in best interest of unitholders to sell properties. Other properties under construction will be completed with assistance from WC management to allow orderly sale and return of full value of loans outstanding on these properties.

WC have called on the mortgage insurers Lloyds on the loans that they can claim losses on and are in discussion witn them as to payment of monies.

Wellington Capital plan to provide more detailed information on the makeup of the fund now and its exposure to loans and assets.

I am in process of speaking to heads of Centrelink to get the unit price of the PIF units lowered to current Net asset Value of 45cents, this will assist unitholders who are currently not on full pension as the asset value will reduce and a corresponding increase in pension may be paid to those eligible. I will then forward to Jenny Hutson to speak with them directly.

Listing our units on the NSX will not increase risk in fund, value of the units is the Net Asset Value which is currently 45 cents. The listing will make the PIF one of the top 3 funds to be listed on the exchange and may give greater attention to the brokers using the exchange for trading of the fund which may allow some investors to get some of their funds out more quickly than the current planned payments.

WC plan to release audited accounts to validate this amount as at the 30th June ASAP once signed off by Price Waterhouse Coopers.


----------



## Jadel (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Goldfinger 

     Could you please inform members on this Forum if you are an unbiased Action Group Member or have any related party interests with Jenny Hutson or the National Stock Exchange( NSX)


----------



## flatback (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> And Flatback i will be Flat on my back shortly as well
> 
> Half of mine was the wifes and i think she has started to give me Oleander Leaves in the Tea



 Hi Jadel nice to see that we havent all gone raving mad and still have a sense of humour cheers flatback


----------



## flatback (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mutchy said:


> Here is my summary of what has happened here since 1st July. ou may wish to print it off to take to the meeting in Sydney or later.
> 
> Mutchy



HI mutchy an extremely good summary and questions report very enlightening, informative. cheers  Flatback


----------



## DoraNBoots (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All,

I received this question via email and want you to check my answer...


Question: you know how Jenny is promising 3% by Xmas, would that be a payment of 3% per annum on our whole investment, or 3% for a quarter of the year.  If we are to claim 6% on our tax return, then it must be 3+3 per annum. This will be a very big pay out.

Answer:  We will initially be getting a 3 cent per unit return.  This is not a 3% return as our units are no longer $1 units.  So if you have 10,000 units in the fund you would get back $300 (0.03 * 10,000= $300) .  If our units are now valued at 45 cents, then 3 cents is a 6.6% return.

This will all be capital so I assume our units will then be worth 42 cents?


----------



## stardust (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dora,wrong.Have just come from Sydney forum and the 3c is per is on the full value of your unit ie 500,000times .03c=15,000.This is what I understand.Any other thoughts.


----------



## iamspeed (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I received this question via email and want you to check my answer...
> 
> ...





Dora

Yes you are correct in terms JH is so far talking cents and not % - it doens't really matter what the unit price is.

People need to not get so caught up on this distribution issue.  Remember this 3cents is effectively for July to December 2008, a lot could change from Jan to Jun of 2009 in terms of distributions??  

The final break up for tax purposes will be made available to people in an annul tax statement (as it always was in the past).  Tax will be an interesting issue for the Fund going forward with losses on investments, assume interest on RBOS loan being dedcutible - gets a bit complicated so people shouldn't get hung up on it.

*As I said, it is some money $ now so it may prevent someone being able to hang in for a bit longer and not have to sell on the NSX.*

I'd would say the value of the units will alter on a monthly basis over the coming years.

Cheers


----------



## DoraNBoots (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Iamspeed,

I think the obsession with the distribution might just be that people want to work out how much money they will have in their pockets.


----------



## seamisty (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all, The Wellington Premium Income Fund site www.newpif.com.au has all the latest media articles posted on it for those who have not seen them. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## marcom (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



iamspeed said:


> Dora
> 
> Yes you are correct in terms JH is so far talking cents and not % - it doens't really matter what the unit price is.
> 
> ...




I think that I can clear up the continuing misunderstanding about the capital verses interest line.

First some history - Price Waterhouse Coopers did the audit of the fund for WIM.  PWC is also the receiver for the Donovan Oats Hanaford Mortgage Fund in Port Macquarie. It is not surprising then that JH is following exactly the path that PWC has mapped out for the DOHMC windup.

As part of that process a meeting of investors was called and an Action Group formed to respond to a report prepared by PWC regarding the windup. At that meeting the AG Chairperson Bob Todd made a number of proposals submitted by AG members to be put to PWC. As part of the wind up strategy investors had started to be paid 12 months of interest distributions that remained in the fund ( I think that DOHMC Managing Director Peter Hannaford wanted investors to have at least a year to plan their financial future as only quarterly CAPITAL payments would be made after the interest payments ran out.)

The DOHMC AG argued that as there was in excess of a 30% loss of capital it was counter productive for PWC to make the interest payments which would count as taxable income, when they should be treated as making up part of the lost capital. Therefore it should be paid as capital redemptions that would not be taxed, thereby giving a bit more value back to investors who have lost so much.

This is why JH has been a bit elusive on this question at the forums ( making only comments that there are "losses in the bottom line"). She is not in a position to  state this directly as the ATO might not be too happy with such an approach.

It would be a good idea for our AG to liaise with the DOHNC AG as they are further down the track than we are and  may be able to help with info etc.

PS I am originally from Port Macquarie and know the people involved.


----------



## iamspeed (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Marcom

Excellent post and a real value add for everyone.

Cheers


----------



## zixo (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all,

The sydney Forum meeting went well. I'd like to thank all those who helped distribute flyers. Many people were very interested in gathering more information and were also interested if we could as a combined group make a complaint to ASIC. 

Many of the questions were repeats of what was asked at previous meetings.

One question which was asked by JH was "Do Investors want a NSX listing of their units"? - with a show of hands sydneysiders overwhelmingly said they didnt.

To my surprise The forum group in melbourne was asked the same question and Investors said they would prefer a NSX listing.


Can someone from our melbourne group clarify this as it seems to be the polar opposite to the sentiment felt in sydney in regards to the NSX

Cheers


----------



## breaker1 (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Marcom,

My dads in Donnovan, Oats, Hannaford and I have to say that they (apart from collapsing) have done a great job via PWC in meticulously outlining how they are going to make distribution (now ceased) and regular quarterly capital payments. Very extensive documentation. Perhaps WC will produce the same documentation. I should ask my dad to give me a read of it all.


----------



## goldfinger38 (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Goldfinger
> 
> Could you please inform members on this Forum if you are an unbiased Action Group Member or have any related party interests with Jenny Hutson or the National Stock Exchange( NSX)




Hi Jadel,

I am an investor as is my mother and have no related party interests with Jenny Hutson (Wellington Capital) or the National Stock Exchange.


----------



## deano1 (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

hi there - hoping someone can help me out here - in the investor update July 2008 posted on the Wellington website there is a balance sheet setting out the various Asset classes - i sort of get the numbers associated with cash and Cash equivalents of 16mil, Mortgage loans of 351 mill  ( would really like to understand these in detail but not really my major concern)- what i'd like some help on is - what is represented by the 307 mill under alternative investments - units in managed investment schemes 160 mill - fixed income securities 117 mill and my alltime favourite of lazy accountants other ? 14 mill - last time i looked 14 mill didn't qualify as other with the mess that PIF is - now i'm sure there has been some clarification on some of these with all the discussion on this topic so far so if someone could point me in the right direction i'd be greatful - my mother and younger brother have money caught up in all this mess and i'd like to be able to explain to them the actual assets that represent these numbers so i can make an assessment of the assets myself - thanks


----------



## breaker1 (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> Hi all,
> 
> The sydney Forum meeting went well. I'd like to thank all those who helped distribute flyers. Many people were very interested in gathering more information and were also interested if we could as a combined group make a complaint to ASIC.
> 
> ...




Zixo,

You did a great job on behalf of the Sydney AG!

Thanks for the feedback on the show of hands against the NSX, being inthe overwhelming majority. Jenny said, she would not do what investors did not want.

Thanks also to those AG who helped Zixo - thanks for stepping out folks.


----------



## goldfinger38 (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> Hi all,
> 
> One question which was asked by JH was "Do Investors want a NSX listing of their units"? - with a show of hands sydneysiders overwhelmingly said they didnt.
> 
> ...




Hi Zixo,

I was at the Melbourne meeting and yes it appeared that the show of hands in Melbourne were happy to consider a listing on the NSX as it was explained it was a vehicle to allow those who wanted to exit the fund to do so as the sale of those units did not deplete diminish the actual assets held in PIF. 

Although as mentioned earlier by Jadel, if you have unitholders purchasing units at a significant discount to our $1 and there are motions in the future that need to be voted on, they may not be in favour of some resolutions considering they may be getting paid a very handsome return on their investment. Still it is a vehicle that allows those who vote to liquidate to get their money as they want.  Please refer to my earlier quote on page 40 about possible plausible strategies where the NSX listing may provide some possible strategies to be considered if the buyer offer price was reasonable.


----------



## Mutchy (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hello All.
Sydney meeting report:
*Contacts in AG and AG meeting.* 
It was nice to meet AG people Javier, the solicitor, Jillian, Steve, Alan, and some of the WC staff: faces to names. I apologise for not being able to stay and talk after the meeting as one of my Wollongong group had an appointment elsewhere in the city. The lunchtime discussion was most enlightening, especially the explanation of which sort of formal organisation is appropriate for the AG. More later on that, but I think AG meetings would be desirable after we have digested the forum information.
*AFR Article*
I met and spoke at short length to the deputy property editor of the Australian Financial Review. He is going to publish an article which will probably appear in Saturday's edition.
*General Observations.*
As the forums are held more details are being divulged and in the next few days we will get an even fuller picture of what our present situation is and what the future holds. Reality is quite sobering on some issues!
JH IMHO is best described as a white knight than a grave robber. She and her staff have the right attitude. 
Whilst handing out flyers I felt that many, many of the people present appear not to be computer literate. We of the AG have a problem that if we need to communicate with these people it will have to be by snail mail. Jillian suggested also that a hot line phone number may be appropriate for these people. I have no idea how to set up and communicate an AG hot line phone number. WC have a hot line phone number. Maybe WC could direct any AG enquiries to those of us in each geographic area who may volunteer to be AG phone contacts. 
JH did not see that it was WC role, at present, to pursue individuals for potentially fraudulent or illegal behaviour. WC have their hands full and have been very busy over the last eight weeks. ASIC have that responsibility and WC will fully support any and all actions taken by the AG in representations to ASIC for the purpose of bringing justice to bear. WC have given the necessary notices to the PI and Officers Insurance companies with respect to claims under the policies for alleged breaches of the law.
I handed my list of questions to Caroline - one of WC staff and she immediately passed it on to the MC. Whilst they were all answered in the general question time in sometimes circuitous ways, I was assured that the WC website will answer not only my written questions but all the written questions they receive, in detail and in about two weeks.
There have been changes over the years to the PDS which have altered, for example, the nature of the PIF from a capital guaranteed fund to a fund supported by the $50 Million MFS/Octaviar support facility, and these changes have escaped the notice of many unit holders, so that the fund many thought that they invested in is not now the same. I sensed some disillusionment among questioners on the nature of the security of their capital. 
The PIF does have a Construction Loss Insurance policy with Lloyds which covers the PIF for $3 Million per contract loss. WC staff are in the process of ensuring that in each case this insurance is in place and the necessary precautions are being taken to protect PIF interests. Construction loan contracts will terminate upon completion of construction progressively over the next 12 to 18 months. The policy will have to be claimed upon if the developer defaults on repayment of the loan in part or in full.

Sorry: dinner's ready. More later on "capital" distributions, form of AG organistion and the answers to my list of questions.
Steve


----------



## Rocky1 (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



goldfinger38 said:


> Hi Zixo,
> 
> I was at the Melbourne meeting and yes it appeared that the show of hands in Melbourne were happy to consider a listing on the NSX as it was explained it was a vehicle to allow those who wanted to exit the fund to do so as the sale of those units did not deplete diminish the actual assets held in PIF.
> 
> Although as mentioned earlier by Jadel, if you have unitholders purchasing units at a significant discount to our $1 and there are motions in the future that need to be voted on, they may not be in favour of some resolutions considering they may be getting paid a very handsome return on their investment. Still it is a vehicle that allows those who vote to liquidate to get their money as they want.  Please refer to my earlier quote on page 40 about possible plausible strategies where the NSX listing may provide some possible strategies to be considered if the buyer offer price was reasonable.




Zixo

I would probably say 25% voted for NSX (although there was some confusion by many around this part of the question, some though JH said "who is opposed to the NSX), 25 % against and probably 50% did not vote


----------



## Javier (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I stayed till the death in Sydney, here goes some new points:

An overwhelming NO for support to NSX listing from a show of hands of investors.

1 investor kept on JH and the NSX listing will now be put to a vote as per her fees and whether we want to liquidate or go down WC path.

0.7% WC fee based on Net Asset Backing at 45 cents per unit. This will cover all associated costs but not the legal fees arising from action to recover $147.5m and not the listing costs on NSX or the yearly $100k.

JH will prepare a more in depth account summary of assets and loans.

WC will look at action to recover insurance from PI and directors (didn't sound like it was her first order of priority.

If we vote next month to have the fund continue as a going concern, we will get 3c by Xmas, one payment late Oct then another just b4 Xmas.

Then another 3c b4 end of fin year with a possible 'special distribution' in Jun09 depending on cash on hand / health of fund.

The distributions will be classed as 'capital' for tax purposes as there are so many existing losses in the fund, the dists even thou income will be treated for tax purposes as capital, which means in 3-5 years we get miraculously our full unit value back, that value will be $1 not $1 less the amounts that were dist as 'capital'.

This will continue for quite some time due to the massive losses, good for people still working, not so good for retirees with super, as it was tax free anyway.

JH will work with action group to get as much info to ASIC, she has had 'extensive' talks she stated, yet when I spoke to a rep of WC last week, that person said that WC had nothing going with ASIC..go figure.

Whoever has asked for the investor register will get in 24 hours..free!

OK so if we go with JH 3-5 year plan it will incl stage 1 = stability 6-18 mths batten down maximise assets, finish projects (yes we have the funds) stage 2realise the most value via riding out this bad period and hope upturn in property and investments then build via new investments...this is the simplified version, JH does not have all answers but believes she can get it to min 45c as a going concern in 3-5 years, 65c if we get $147.7 and $1 and beyond if ALL the best conditions and outcomes go our way.

Realistically if we get 65c in 3-5 it will be a good outcome and in the meantime get at least 6c / unit tax free and get some other things like OCV & insurance etc as an added bonus.

Apparently there was some hardship cases paid out and more future ones at 45c which I feel must be EXTREME and GENUINE as they are saying liquidation will yearn only 14c..so no more duping.

NO investments will be to any WC related companies or deals..EVER.

OCV has only officially recognised as owing us $50m, we have launched legal action to be listed a creditor for the $147.5, this is being pushed as a matter of urgency. If OCV go into receivership tomorrow, we would not ne recognised as a creditor for anything but the $50m..disturbing considering Sep court hearing to wind up by PTQ!!

JH 'happy to be accountable'..welcomes action group..more on that soon!


----------



## Duped (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> It would be a good idea for our AG to liaise with the DOHNC AG as they are further down the track than we are and  may be able to help with info etc.
> 
> PS I am originally from Port Macquarie and know the people involved.




Can the PIF AG get a copy of the DOHNC AG mission statement and constitution to model ours on?


----------



## DStar (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I went to Sydney to see a full-house attendance.   I am sceptical about WC and the chances of any manager either giving investors a more tangible exit option than liquidation (as in DOHMC example) or in giving investors long term comfort thinking their money is safe for another 3-5 years.   

What PIF has as 'assets' is actually a 'loan book' complete with obligations and landmines set up by MFS.  Most experienced institutions would not touch PIF with a proverbial barge-pole.  Instead they are locking down for worse times ahead, cutting their losses now and preserving liquidity.  That's a clear PIF option for investors to get ‘bird in the hand’.  It may well be better than 14cents - after all we haven’t seen the WC worksheet or a Korda Mentha certificate of estimate.

Option B)  PIF investors are prone to wishful thinking of a white knight. Mind the rhetoric about commitment - I shudder seeing TV ads showing investments as a golden egg in a crib!  MFS shenanigans have far reaching consequences, that a 'bird in the hand' may be better than Jenny’s “hopeful” 3-5 year expectation based on her 'a glass half full' personal experience.

The white knight approach is attempting to lure a mandate to run 3-5 years based on a token 3 cents. It will take this to win votes bto beat liquidation, but there is no real 3-5 year strategy plan!  Another 3 cents may soothe investors for a year, but by then investors have no say at all.  

JH describes herself as country girl made good and boasts awards, but has been in this sector only a few years.  Michael King had similar credentials and background which both created and destroyed the baby before it matured.

Jenny argues future success for PIF because it was formerly a "very successful fund" in Top 10 funds in Australia. Crikey, when does the propaganda stop? King even promoted it as the next Macquarie Bank!   But Jenny has already said it was a private bank for MFS.  Profits were created in the books by movement of funds needed to draw in more investors that paid the interest. Please Jenny, which story are you sticking to?

As far as risk into the future, the PIF is not a diversified investment fund. WC figures show that, after the write downs, virtually all PIF interests remain in construction loans (37?).  This means WC has inherited a "loan book" – with contracts, obligations, legal issues. Up until the collapse of credit markets, such ‘books’ were packaged and traded happily with banks and super funds.  Now there is no market. No one will refinance the loans so PIF is stuck with an MFS legacy of fallen values and potential legal landmines. Its already started as WC stopped building payments, projects stalled, damages claims arise.  

Did anyone notice the litigation business is booming ?


----------



## Mary Lynch (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Zixo, 

 I was at the Melbourne meeting.  When Jenny asked for a show of hands on NSX listing, it all happened rather quickly. She may have even had a hand over her mouth, or was swishing her hair out of the way when I, and several others around me who were sitting in the back quadrant didn't here the first question clearly, and thought she had said "for" first rather than "against "first"!   Thus we didn't vote "for". Then were left not voting as the next option was "for"!


----------



## Duped (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There's a wikipedia entry for Return of Capital that was informative for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_of_capital

So is WC's proposal for a 'closed ended fund'?  For non-retiree investors the tax position is significant.

How much of the ATO's $52M+ claim against OCV is for the related party transactions that has caused so much damage to the PIF under the rule of Peacock/King/Hutchings?  That's salt in our wounds.


----------



## reasonable (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> Zixo
> 
> I would probably say 25% voted for NSX (although there was some confusion by many around this part of the question, some though JH said "who is opposed to the NSX), 25 % against and probably 50% did not vote




I would say that there were significantly more people who did not vote at all and it was unclear whether more voted for listing than not.


----------



## deano1 (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

can anyone tell me if there has been any specific details provided re the assets and the asset classess - do we know what specifically the assets are - until you know that you have no ability to attribute any value to the fund - if wellington are fair dinkum they should be providing this to unit holders - dont trust the white shoe brigade from the gold coast - i'm not directly impacted by this - but i do have 30 years experience in Investment banking and unless you get a specific listing of what the assets are you can 't value your fund - i'd also suggest from the related party transaction etc - the players here are too close too each other and the longer it all takes - all your doing is allowing the spin doctors to drag things out - time is money and the money is yours and they will keep sucking your blood whilst theres blood to be sucked - trust no one


----------



## Duped (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DStar said:


> As far as risk into the future, the PIF is not a diversified investment fund. WC figures show that, after the write downs, virtually all PIF interests remain in construction loans (37?).  This means WC has inherited a "loan book" – with contracts, obligations, legal issues. Up until the collapse of credit markets, such ‘books’ were packaged and traded happily with banks and super funds.  Now there is no market. No one will refinance the loans so PIF is stuck with an MFS legacy of fallen values and potential legal landmines. Its already started as WC stopped building payments, projects stalled, damages claims arise.
> 
> Did anyone notice the litigation business is booming ?




We know it's a loan book.  That's what the fund was set up to be.

What better person than to have a corporate lawyer in charge then.  Minimise legal fees.

Are you suggesting we sell everything in a depressed market?  Wow, that's sage advice. 

Are you a PIF unit holder?  Are you an OCV Ltd shareholder?  Both OCV Ltd and LLA will gain from PIF losing its bite.  Who'll chase the $147.5M+$50M from OCV? Who'll chase the $10M+$35M from LLA?  These actions need people on the ground not wishful thinkers.  And so far WC is the ONLY one to put their reputation on the line for a commitment.  And that's all we've got.


----------



## RickH (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi,
I was at the Melbourne presentation and I have no association with any RE.
Personally I felt that the Melbourne vote was heading towards an UN-listed Fund and so I made a simple presentation that I believed a listing on the NSX would probably be the better option. It then created a minimal vote.

I then mentioned my concerns to JH and felt that she could simply explain the difference and benefits of using either an UN-listed or NSX listed fund.
Unfortunately this did not happen.

It is my impression that the investors do not know the basic differences and benefits but believe that the UN-listed is 'safer'.

It would be great to hear what JH is really planning for the funds future from her business point of view.

I assumed that the NSX listing would create:
1) Cash flow for those who need the funds immediately, plus Centrelink valuations.
Unfortunately early sellers will probably loose more than their fair share and the buyers will possibly make a very good return.
2) JH may really want to help investors to recover 100% of capital together with a regular income of say 1.5 cents per quarter.
BECAUSE IN THE PROCESS SHE WILL CREATE A PROFITABLE FUND MANAGEMENT BUSINESS.............
3) She is a Merchant banker and has the ability to raise funds.
4) There are 10,000 unit holders and they will invest more money if the fund starts to achieve realistic goals etc....

In simple terms we need to consider the benefits created for long term fund managers such as - 

A SIMPLE COMPARISON:
1) ASX Listed Managed Share Fund.
AFI, Australian Foundation - The share market is crashing but there is no pressure on the fund managers to sell any shares. They can continue to follow their long term investment strategy.

2) UN-listed Managed Share Fund.
XYZ Fund has a very large number of capital withdrawal requests from unit holders. Unfortunately no-one is investing and this creates a situation for the fund managers because they will be forced to sell part of their portfolio to cover these withdrawal requests. The shares that are sold will probably be the Blue Chip shares because the others have already fallen off the cliff.
Basically the fund over time will hold a portfolio of shares that the fund managers really do not want to be holding and the portfolio could end up holding a selection of their spec shares. The long term investors may have future problems. If the fund cannot raise additional investor funds. The fund will be closed and the remaining unit holders will have to take what is left.

Please consider and then list the benefits and problems to make an informed decision: NSX Listed Fund Vs UN-listed Fund.

NSX LISTED FUND:
1) Major benefit is that a strategy can be created and assets can be held if desired for the longer term because there is no requirement to pay out capital withdrawal requests by investors. The transactions will completed outside of the fund between two or more NSX buyers and sellers.

UN-LISTED FUND:
1) May be forced to sell the best assets to repay unit holders withdrawal requests and hold onto the unsellable assets.
This may creat problems for the fund manager because they may not be capable of attracting further investors capital and the fund may need to closed. This will create a major financial problem for the remaining unit holders.


----------



## zixo (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks to all of you for your feedback re the NSX debate. 

At the meeting I mentioned the NSX was still a very grey area for many Investors given what was said about the Melbourne vote as opposed to a 95% + voted against in Sydney. I asked JH if she could give us the positives and negatives with Listing – she did not respond at the forum but she has promised to do it- hopefully other AG members could follow her up with the same question further down the track.

The vote to keep the fund running as a going concern needs a 75 % investor backing.
The question which I had difficulty in trying to express myself at the forum was “ if the fund is to be run as a going concern, will the going concern include the listing of the NSX as a MUST HAVE as part of the condition” thus becoming one question 

I am a little worried about how the question on the vote will be posed in August as I gathered most investors wish to fund to keep running but object to the NSX. And I don’t like the idea of mixing the two. 

I hope I’m making sense in my query this time.


----------



## Javier (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

You make a good point RickH, that's why we need more info from WC of the exit strategy once more of our capital comes in with or without NSX listing. I need more info as to how I will vote and she admitted that she has a lot more homework to do coming out of our comments and concerns from these forums.

I also believe that a structured action group is necessary to express concerns, for transparency and to work with WC to get what we need. One thing that was not mentioned (of course) is that another RE can also be voted by unitholders if objectives that have been mentioned by JH are not met or she tries to steer away from our best interest, but why would she I mean SO much scrutiny, her great rep.

She was actually asked today how her other funds under management were going..one fund 15% return another 8-10% and she had planned for the interest rate rises..very clever...she has her own cash in the funds..wish I had mine in there instaed of PIF too!!!

We need more info on stategies for exit and the assets to asceertain the true v-a-l-u-e then I have no prob in giving her the baton..as I believe the majority of that Sydney room...liquidation and possibly 14c is the flipside ouch!!


----------



## DStar (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

PIF fund's assets are not, as JH implied, like freehold properties that WC may hold and sell later at its discretion. Nor will properties left ‘on the vine’ by the mortgagee necessarily rise in value… even if the general market gets better in 3-5 years.  Construction loans have a short lifespan. Property values are hampered by mortgagee interference.  It’s a timing game.  Fund assets are trade debtors.  Borrowers may well resist WC self serving intentions. Jenny claimed she didn’t detect the $147.5Million hole in the accounts in due diligence.   What else is there to come out with 37 deals and its evident that not all borrowers have been ‘consulted to’ as Jenny said.  

Before collapsing, MFS and its structured finance arm VERSA reputation was "the lender of last resort" - a predator that manufactured 'defaults' to load borrowers with penalty interest and fees, to be later deducted from the asset sale.   When asked where does the earnings come from ? Jenny answered ‘capitalised interest’.  Fine, Jenny, if the property actually sold for more than the capital borrowed and the borrower didn’t take you to task for the rort.  Otherwise it’s an unsecured debt that probably has already turned to vapour.

Reading the MFS manual, King also specialized in ‘property litigation and debt recovery’. MFS was widely regarded as a ‘bully’ that took control of borrowers property using legal brute force and intimidation of security guards. Now that the army is gone, those affected may well bite back and cause a reversal of fortune for the predator.  PIF is inheriting a “can of worms”.  I’ll bet PIF legal budget are ‘disbursements’ and not included in 0.7% management ‘fee’.  

In terms of the $147.5Mill, if there is a breach of the Corp Act then an official Liquidator has greater singular power to persue that from MFS as well as the monies lent to LLA.  Jenny only spoke up a 'deal' with Arctic to stay in as creditor in return for a share of the LLA profit , if and when James Packer was ready. Thats hardly a ground breaking deal.




Duped said:


> We know it's a loan book.  That's what the fund was set up to be.
> 
> What better person than to have a corporate lawyer in charge then.  Minimise legal fees.
> 
> ...


----------



## deano1 (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

if you list on the NSX - a unit will be worth lets say 14c max whilst the uncertainty remains over the value of assets - so for 10,000 units thats a gross value of $1400 - then deduct the commission for selling - somewhere between $100 - $300 - you'd be nuts to list the thing - off market transfers between willing buyers and sellers controlled thru the unit registry is the best option to allow those who desperately need to liquidate the chance - listing it allows too many other leeches into the game to suck whats left of your money away - NSX is an illiquid market - few stocks - few brokers - you will not extract the best price for your asset via a listing on the NSX


----------



## k.smith (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi everyone, nice to have met a few of you at the Melbourne meeting. Regarding the show of hands business about the NSX listing, I was sitting in the second last row together with another AG member and when the question was proposed FOR listing there was a stunned hush amongst the crowd, and no more than 50 people put their hands up. To me people seemed shocked and embarassed to "go public". Even Jenny seemed to pause and hesitate. A few minutes later....enough time for everyone to compose themselves...we were asked for a show of hands against listing....even less people put their hands up.....I  don't believe we got a good indication how people  in Melbourne really feel about NSX listing.Most people I spoke to are really desperate for information, they are mostly elderly plus! and probably don't get on the net much.


----------



## Javier (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Is the D in Dstar short for "Doom"..sheesh matey are you an investor? What is you solution then?


----------



## Mutchy (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hello again.
Javier has given a report which covers all the points I intended to cover.

On the nature of the 3 cents capital payment:
JH said today that there were three concepts necessary to embrace concerning the 3 cents payment. There is the common concept of cash, the accounting concept of dividend/capital and the taxation concept of dividend/capital. Three cents in the hand is cash to all of us. Three cents return on a $1.00 investment is a dividend in accounting parlance. The PIF balance sheet now holds large amounts of money as losses which may for taxation purposes be offset against earnings. When the earnings are offset by a corresponding loss and then given to unit holders they are said to be capital. The 3 cents as Javier has reported is not capital to be subtracted from our $1.00 nominal unit value and for most of us will be tax free.
As time goes by and earnings which cannot be offset by losses form part of the dividend then this will be clearly stated in the end of financial year statement and correspondingly tax may be payable on a proportion of the funds received in your hands depending on your own particular circumstances.
Mutchy


----------



## SPLITPIN (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

As it can only happen in QLD for us old enough to remember.

_Now that the media chooks were now fat and well fed by Joe, some hungry chickens begin to ask some embarrassing questions to which Joe replied;

"Now don't you go and worry yourself about that"._

Does this story sound familiar to what is happening to us. 

If history repeats itself in QLD, we about the witness the biggest investor upset and enquiry ever in Australia.


----------



## seamisty (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> As it can only happen in QLD for us old enough to remember.
> 
> _Now that the media chooks were now fat and well fed by Joe, some hungry chickens begin to ask some embarrassing questions to which Joe replied;
> 
> ...



 Bring it on!!!! Seamisty


----------



## iamspeed (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



deano1 said:


> if you list on the NSX - a unit will be worth lets say 14c max whilst the uncertainty remains over the value of assets - so for 10,000 units thats a gross value of $1400 - then deduct the commission for selling - somewhere between $100 - $300 - you'd be nuts to list the thing - off market transfers between willing buyers and sellers controlled thru the unit registry is the best option to allow those who desperately need to liquidate the chance - listing it allows too many other leeches into the game to suck whats left of your money away - NSX is an illiquid market - few stocks - few brokers - you will not extract the best price for your asset via a listing on the NSX




Deano - We've been over that on about 100 past posts.  Have a read.  

Dstar - you aren't an incarnation of Tuart are you?  

We are looking for answers/solutions, not throwing more fuel on the fire of already angry investors.


----------



## selciper (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Many thanks to all who have been reporting on the meetings which many of us were unable to attend. Except for a couple of the posts, I feel moderately encouraged by the impressions. This AG, in the circumstances, is a Godsend. And it's good news to hear that ASIC is a growing priority.


----------



## seamisty (9 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



iamspeed said:


> Deano - We've been over that on about 100 past posts.  Have a read.
> 
> Dstar - you aren't an incarnation of Tuart are you?
> 
> We are looking for answers/solutions, not throwing more fuel on the fire of already angry investors.



Tuart is on holidays so cross him off the list!! At the end of the day it is simple arithmatic.If in the next 12 months we can realise 50-65 cents value in our units and can cash them out  somehow and re-invest that capital we would be better off than being locked into a fund that will just dribble a 5-6% return if we are lucky over 3-5 years with the uncertainty of the end result of a lesser unit value.  If JH is half the business woman she has been given credit for,she would have an ace up her sleeve, whether it be in the way of having secured money relating to the $50million Support facility or another avenue.Gone are the days of ignorant unsophisticated investors!!! Rest assured that even if the PIF Action Group only represents a small minority of holders in the PIF, we will endeavour to keep others informed in any way possible. I am still hoping to be proven wrong and that WC will prove itself worthy of making the best of an already tainted product. If ever an opportunity was made available to make a name for yourself as an enterpreneur this is it WC, go for it!! seamisty


----------



## R.H (Rick) Mason (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Folk,

Frustratingly I was unable to attend today's PIF forum in Sydney, but must commend WC on the prompt & courteous reply to my emailed apology. I received (on Dad's behalf) the '3 scenarios' letter from WIML in today's mail: in my mind, the current/realisable value of PIF units net of costs is $0.14 and anything else is highly speculative. I have NO doubt that this figure allows for generous compensation for the liquidator and all other parties involved in the wind-up should this be the sorry outcome by 31-Mar-09.

Sorry to be harsh, but look around you - the value of any 'assets' (other than cash) held by PIF are declining in the current market with no upside in sight. The real value of an asset is what it sells for (net of costs) NOT what you think it might be worth - rampant speculation and 'imaginary' valuation of assets is what got the fund where it is today not to mention some highly questionable 'smoke and mirrors' loan transactions - from which, I'm sure, various 'facilitation fees' etc. were siphoned off at every possible stage.

I am resigned to the fact that Dad's investment has been lodged with an industry that can't tell corporate governance from a hole in the ground, run by people who don't give a damn about their investors' livelihoods or circumstances. It is not the nature of this industry to be transparent (or, it seems, even accountable) and I don't see Jenny Hutson as being sufficiently removed from the MFS/Octaviar gene-pool to be free of the taint despite the very public posturing of recent days.

My suggestion, unsavoury though it may be, is to regard the realistic value of PIF units as being $0.14, and question in the strongest terms the lkelihood of any further REAL value being added to this in 3~5 years. I would regard as delusional the 'Going concern with full recovery of $147.5m from MFS' scenario, and I would strongly question the asset-backing that supports the $0.45 unit valuation as a 'Going concern with no recovery from MFS' based on the ongoing write-downs and write-offs which are the order of the day.

As for transparency, I wonder how much of the Price Waterhouse Coopers report will ever see public scrutiny? Let's face it, this is an industry driven by greed and opportunism not ethics or altruism.

Sorry for the pessimistic view,

Rick.


----------



## Javier (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well Rick you will vote for liquidation then, and since you won't get that, you may get NSX, where you will sell your dad's unit for 14c or less then. Good choice for your dad!


----------



## DStar (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Someone has to take up the “no” debate.  For the record I have a large stake in this fund, and have some insights into the industry workings and its drivers, and in MFS legacy. Other AG members also do, so don’t shoot the messengers. We have yet to see those explicit risks shared with the investor base and that is critical to protecting our current (liquidated) fund value.  I haven’t heard an impartial expert observer support WC strategy moving forward, and yet several that dispel it as nonsense.

Opinions expressed by Jenny are qualified in her own words, as “hopes and commitment” but not backed by either track record or disclosures to hang your hat on.  E.g. WC was ‘picked’ out of 6 to manage the fund - however that doesn't say anything about WC or the undisclosed other bidders. When promoters speak, listen also to what is not said.  Remember JH legal background and business agenda. I recall days with my rebellious young children having to say “I love you all but this is not a democracy ….”  

The alternative is not all doom. It's not a zero return like some other funds. There is still the option of a return in the short term, with a degree of certainty. The is still claw back possible from MFS with/without WC.   We all want to hope in 'white knight' but can anyone identify one bailing out any mis-managed funds having turned to dust?  

There is no benefit in sentiment after a bad investment, or sense in risking an opportunity compared to, say, taking a stop-loss position.  

Considering all, ask whether you would recommend someone else to buy into this PIF for another 3 years?     Bird-in-the-hand vs (?) in the bush. 



iamspeed said:


> Deano - We've been over that on about 100 past posts.  Have a read.
> 
> Dstar - you aren't an incarnation of Tuart are you?
> 
> We are looking for answers/solutions, not throwing more fuel on the fire of already angry investors.


----------



## Javier (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

14c is a dead bird in the hand bud! You know you are in the minority, your stake in the fund is NOT as an investor me thinks! You have another agenda here with MFS!


----------



## deano1 (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Rick & Dstar - i agree with you both - forget 65c valuations - forget 45c valuations thats the hope wellington are selling you to keep the thing alive so they can generate a fee / income for themselves out of your money - Rick i'm in the same boat as you - my mum and little brother both done their shirts in this thing after being told 12 months prior to get their money out - they said to me those people were so nice and convinced us to stay in the fund - hope the people doing the convincing have a proper authority to provide investment advice otherwise those people can be persued quite easily by ASIC - you can't give anything that would be considered advice or a recommendation without authority. 

the value of the fund is 14c until they come clean on the asset side of things and tell everyone what the actual assets are that back the valuations they have provided - once you know what the assets are then it will be very easy to work out whether the valuation of the particular asset is real and over what time frame its realiaseable ( thats what you have to find out to make your decision on which way to head with your investment)

Investment banks around the world are shedding staff hand over fist at the moment because there is no work around - these are the best investment banks in the world and they are struggling to write a ticket - why should you freely hand control to someone - who i think is providing lip service to the key issue - is definitely conflicted with her involvement - i hope i'm wrong - but having worked with many investment bankers in my day - there all in it for the thrill of closing the deal and bragging about the fee - very few of them really care about the end investor - if it can be spun and sold it works for them - and i'm getting a wiff of that the more i read on this.

Wellington must provide a detailed summary of all assets and provide details on the process for coming up with their valuations - if they do that then i think there is some credibility there - if they don't - i smell a rat


----------



## selciper (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

More Scott-Octaviar entanglements reported today in Business Spectator.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/ANZ-nets-Octaviar-chiefs-stake-GDN64?OpenDocument


----------



## seamisty (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> More Scott-Octaviar entanglements reported today in Business Spectator.
> http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/ANZ-nets-Octaviar-chiefs-stake-GDN64?OpenDocument



Here is the article:::Octaviar Ltd chief executive Chris Scott has been caught up in the collapse of Primebroker, resulting in Australia and New Zealand Banking Group seizing most of his holding in the stricken firm. 

A significant portion of Mr Scott's 4.64 per cent stake in Octaviar, formerly MFS, is understood to have been placed in stock lending agreement with Primebroker, Herald Sun reports. 

According to the report, Chimaera management failed to notify Mr Scott that his margin lending account had did not meet its loan-to-valuation requirements. 

Last week ANZ placed Primebroker, a subsidiary of Chimaera Financial Group, into receivership. On Tuesday, ANZ revealed it had acquired control of 5.05 per cent of Octaviar, and significant stakes in nine other companies. 

While said it will ANZ proceed with the sale of its newly-acquired stock, there may be some problem in moving Octaviar's scrip with the company presently suspended from the ASX. 

Earlier this week, ANZ also gained control of 13.2 per cent of Bill Express after the payment company collapsed owing the bank $53 million.


----------



## Duped (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



R.H (Rick) Mason said:


> I have NO doubt that this figure allows for generous compensation for the liquidator and all other parties involved in the wind-up should this be the sorry outcome by 31-Mar-09.




JH quoted $31M in the forum.


----------



## iamspeed (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



R.H (Rick) Mason said:


> Folk,
> 
> Frustratingly I was unable to attend today's PIF forum in Sydney, but must commend WC on the prompt & courteous reply to my emailed apology. I received (on Dad's behalf) the '3 scenarios' letter from WIML in today's mail: in my mind, the current/realisable value of PIF units net of costs is $0.14 and anything else is highly speculative. I have NO doubt that this figure allows for generous compensation for the liquidator and all other parties involved in the wind-up should this be the sorry outcome by 31-Mar-09.




The $0.14 is a liquidation value if it was all sold today, not a windup to 31/3/09.

They've had 333 Capital (division of Korda Mentha) helping work through this.  With the attention this is going to get from ASIC/Press, do you think WC are going to make statements (i.e. $0.45) they cannot support in terms of valuations??  

If you want to vent some anger, maybe scream in the backyard.  We are looking for solutions not more negativity.

Any property developers felt aggrieved by MFS in the past need not post on this forum.

Cheers


----------



## Rocky1 (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



deano1 said:


> Rick & Dstar - i agree with you both - forget 65c valuations - forget 45c valuations thats the hope wellington are selling you to keep the thing alive so they can generate a fee / income for themselves out of your money - Rick i'm in the same boat as you - my mum and little brother both done their shirts in this thing after being told 12 months prior to get their money out - they said to me those people were so nice and convinced us to stay in the fund - hope the people doing the convincing have a proper authority to provide investment advice otherwise those people can be persued quite easily by ASIC - you can't give anything that would be considered advice or a recommendation without authority.
> 
> the value of the fund is 14c until they come clean on the asset side of things and tell everyone what the actual assets are that back the valuations they have provided - once you know what the assets are then it will be very easy to work out whether the valuation of the particular asset is real and over what time frame its realiaseable ( thats what you have to find out to make your decision on which way to head with your investment)
> 
> ...




Deano1

Not sure how far back you go with reading this thread but after the Melbourne forum I posted that I had asked jenny to provide a transparent break down of the fund- assets, loans etc (I understand that due to confidentiality reasons she can't provide the names of lenders so I asked if she could provide it in a Loan A, Loan B type format). She committed to providing this information when she releases information regarding her plan to take the fund forward upon which we are to vote in August.

I think people need to remember that JH is only 40 (young), she has a very good resume and has a very good reputation, which i am sure she wants to uphold.

By the end of next year we will have hopefully received 9 cents in predominantly tax free distributions and our remaining units will be worth at least the current 45 cents , so to sell now at 14 cents would be outrageous.

Whilst on the 14 cents if you believe that is all this fund is worth, you are kidding yourself. As I have openly stated on 2 or 3 occasions on this thread, I went through the Fincorp debacle, which I perceive as far worse than this and to date through ADMINISTRATION (different to liquidation) we have received 50 cents with a further 7 cents due shortly and potentially more in the future pending legal action.

A large amount of the current losses in the fund are due to capital devaluation, which is something that has occured across the board, so if you want to sell $11 million properties for $1.1 million (example used by JH - true value of one of our properties v a recent offer) then go ahead and vote for liquidation but this would be completely sacrificial and clearly you have not considered everyone else, especially those in the wholesale fund and expect A fight from those who want to continue the fund.

Do the maths first!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Rocky1 (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> JH quoted $31M in the forum.




I am sure the 30 Million quoted by JH would include agent fees and other costs associated with selling (legal etc....)

The whole 30 million would not go in the liquidators hand

I agree with iamspeed - POSITIVITY - be negative somewhere else and put some thought into things


----------



## deano1 (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Rocky dont get me wrong i honestly think the value could not have diminished to the point of 14c - but until we get a full listing of the assets i'll start from a worst case scenario - which in the grand scheme of things is atleast some value there - once we can understand the assets then everyone will be in a better position is determine whether its 14c - 65c or somewhere in between and how quickly that can be realised - i'm skeptical on the how value can be improved - remember a 40 year old hasn't really seen anything but economic growth in this country for their entire working adult life - we are in the midst of the biggest economic decline this country has seen in 40+ years so making any promises without all the facts on the table is just a case of trust me - the only two issues i have with wellington are 1 - conflict situation - is this in the best interest of unit holders 2 - whether there is enough experience there to really make a difference - the alternative is not good - but until we get all the facts on the table - no one can make a decision with any sort of reasonable basis to it.

I really want to understand what the $300 mill of alternative investments is - the majority of investors in the fund would not qualify to invest in an alternative investment and why were these considered appropriate investments for the fund - ASIC /APRA need to be involved here and that is the responsibility of the Responsible Entity and Wellington need to get on the front foot here - the longer this stuff takes the more difficult it is to freeze assets - which in the light of day maybe accessable by the fund holders.


----------



## DoraNBoots (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Article from todays ARF attached.


----------



## R.H (Rick) Mason (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Well Rick you will vote for liquidation then, and since you won't get that, you may get NSX, where you will sell your dad's unit for 14c or less then. Good choice for your dad!




No, I will vote on the merits of the FACTS (not speculation) that are presented to us when the vote is called. My Father is beyond caring what happens, and I doubt that he will live to see this resolved. Your sarcasm aside, I will still act in his best interests.

Rick.


----------



## DoraNBoots (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Any feedback from (or on) the solicitor?  I believe Sydney members met her yesterday?


----------



## Duped (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> I am sure the 30 Million quoted by JH would include agent fees and other costs associated with selling (legal etc....)
> 
> The whole 30 million would not go in the liquidators hand




I never implied it would all go to liquidators.


----------



## Rocky1 (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> I never implied it would all go to liquidators.




Duped 

sorry if you got the wrong end of my post. I actually value a lot of what you have to say, I was merely pointing out to others that the 30 mill in liquidation cost would be made up of many factors and not all would go the liquidator.

My "be negative somewhere else" was actually aimed at those being negative. Whilst we are all entitled to our opinion some negativity clearly has had little thought put into it


----------



## Javier (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dora at this stage the lawyer has gone away and has to come back with thoughts etc. It will take some time and plus there are still too many vague details as to assets and other issues that have arisen from questions by investors at the forum, we just have to be VERY patient, it is most tricky as you we can all appreciate.


----------



## deano1 (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Article from todays ARF attached.




this seems to be a positive result - whilst they have to focus time and effort on the quick wins - the heavy lifting needs to be done as well - can anyone confirm to me that they have recovered $25mill on a $30 mill exposure here and thats it or is there still further sales to go that could improve that situation even further on this particular asset


----------



## Duped (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Rocky1.


----------



## seamisty (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



deano1 said:


> this seems to be a positive result - whilst they have to focus time and effort on the quick wins - the heavy lifting needs to be done as well - can anyone confirm to me that they have recovered $25mill on a $30 mill exposure here and thats it or is there still further sales to go that could improve that situation even further on this particular asset



Hi deano and welcome to the thread. This  information has only just come out via the media, your question is a good one. Perhaps an investor who will be attending the next WC meeting could ask it. Or you could e-mail  investorrelations@newpif.com.au or call WC on the info hotline 1300 854 893
Regards, Seamisty


----------



## flatback (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> Deano1
> 
> Not sure how far back you go with reading this thread but after the Melbourne forum I posted that I had asked jenny to provide a transparent break down of the fund- assets, loans etc (I understand that due to confidentiality reasons she can't provide the names of lenders so I asked if she could provide it in a Loan A, Loan B type format). She committed to providing this information when she releases information regarding her plan to take the fund forward upon which we are to vote in August.
> 
> ...



 have to agree very strongly Rocky1 it seems we have a couple of very frustrated people here (as we all are ) and reading between the lines , one is playing with somebody else's money,one appears to be a developer, and not sure about the other but whatever, they are only concerned about their immediate pulling of funds no matter what the consequenses if you can't be constructive you are not worth much to this forum, i could be very wrong in saying that ,but i have been reading these threads for a while now ,and on occassion put my own 10% in, and i must say, i am only now seeing this kind of attitude,for mine i hope this feeling does'nt gain any ground. cheers Flatback


----------



## iamspeed (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



deano1 said:


> I really want to understand what the $300 mill of alternative investments is - the majority of investors in the fund would not qualify to invest in an alternative investment and why were these considered appropriate investments for the fund - ASIC /APRA need to be involved here and that is the responsibility of the Responsible Entity and Wellington need to get on the front foot here - the longer this stuff takes the more difficult it is to freeze assets - which in the light of day maybe accessable by the fund holders.




Deano1

Half of it is the crap loans MFS shovelled into the Fund (from their balance sheet) in Nov/Dec when they drew down on the Fund's line of credit with Royal Bank of Scotland.  Sounds like some sort of fraud to me.

Good luck with ASIC/APRA.  When was the last time a listed company (although suspended indefinitely) had their assets frozen?  They'll wait until it is too late, they always do.  At the end of it they'll go after Financial Advisers in the great fee versus commission debate, then they'll beat their chest (even though most people probably invested directly with MFS).

My shout (paid when I get the $1 back) if you get ASIC to move on Octaviar to get back what was effectively stolen from the Fund late last year.

Cheers


----------



## iamspeed (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hi deano and welcome to the thread. This  information has only just come out via the media, your question is a good one. Perhaps an investor who will be attending the next WC meeting could ask it. Or you could e-mail  investorrelations@newpif.com.au or call WC on the info hotline 1300 854 893
> Regards, Seamisty




Seamisty

Already ahead of you.  Am waiting on the response.  Don't you love how they quote "property executives".

Cheers


----------



## deano1 (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

iamspeed,

you hit the nail on the head with the fraud angle - there is definitely fraudulent activity that has gone on here - and that is why ASIC /APRA need to be involved now - the directors of MFS / Octavier who presided over this are personally liable if they have participated in this fraud - its not MFS assets i'm talking about getting frozen it the assets of these thieves - and i garuuntee you they are hidden offshore - in trusts etc - but someone needs to be getting these people under a spotlight and work out where all this cash has gone - in respect of the alternative investments - if as i suspect your spot on right there - there is no way the fund had the authority or mandate to do this and therefore they are fraudulent transactions - i hope the MF /Octavier directors have their PI insurance paid up - thats got to be an angle to persue - Wellington have to get to working with the regulators

Regards

Deano1


----------



## Jenny (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have just received the following email from my financial advisor. We were put into the PIF through Avenue Capital Management, as I think many others were. I did not realise until now that we will not have a vote.

"I have attached the investor update which I assume you would have. Not mentioned in the attachment, however, is that retail unitholders will be given the opportunity to vote in August on the future of the fund (wholesale unitholders, of which you are one, cannot vote, though their custodian will vote on their behalf). THe custodian is Bond Street Custodians ( Macqaurie Bank). I am seeking further clarification on this point and will advise you in due course."

Any guesses about which way the custodian will vote, considering they are still charging us management fees and we don't seem to be able to extricate ourselves?

BTW I much appreciate the summaries and information AG members are posting. However I am becoming a bitter and cynical old woman!!


----------



## Jadel (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Fellow Action group Members  

  Some quick thoughts and please if anybody is more competent in this area let know if any of my reaoning or facts are incorrect 

 I am not a financial expert i just  have a gut feeling on this subject . 

 As you all know from reading my posts I am totally opposed to listing on the NSX 

I outlined to Jenny Hutson vigorously at the Brisbane meeting the reasons for my opposition to the proposal,  

Sentiment and liquidity are the primary drivers of price regardless of the net tangible asset value of stock. At this time   world markets at their rock bottom in this regard 

The decision then to place us in a market, which is practically unknown and has the bowel movement of a one hundred year old year old tortoise, is ill conceived and fraught with danger.

I have nothing against Jenny Hutson personally, she is a very successful and intelligent businesswomen therefore I believe she will be able to evaluate the merits and benefits of the proposal for keeping the fund as a unified group of original investors 

 1/ Firstly no listing costs on the and associated unit conversion costs to the NSX


  2/ the minimum fee for a NSX trade is 2.5% Wellington capital could easily reduce this fee to 0.5 % or less and make an internal profit on the transaction


3/ the yield would effectively increase relative to purhasing on the NSX by 2% for the year
 4/ Markets especially small illiquid markets can easily be manipulated by trading activity designed to cause panic.

5/ / Wellington Capital could estimate a set discount to NTA for new buyers on a half year basis... This would again stabilize and prevent panic

6/ Transparency the certainty that the fund will not be sold out by new Vulture accumulators at a later date

7/ Investors understand that they are totally committed to a long term capital growth project...


Now some people are going to question my motives but I can assure you I will not be buying more units at this time. I have a twenty three year old daughter studying at university that I can not marry off to anybody at any price and she eats like a horse,

I am an average investor with no hidden agenda other to get the best possible return out of this disaster for myself and other fund members 

Regards Chris


----------



## deano1 (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Jenny - the advice you are getting is wrong - Bond Street custoian is mearly the registered holder of the units - you remain the owner and bond street custodians ( read Macquarie Bank) should be contacting all beneficial owners and asking them to provide their voting intentions and then they will be able to direct the vote in the manner in which the beneficial owners request - they dont have the right to vote your units without your authority - one caveat on that - unless you have signed something in an agreement giving them that authority to vote on your behalf without contacting you - Macquarie Bank wont want bad press on this - thats the angle to persue - go to the top of Macquarie Bank - easy win for macquarie to contact all unit holders and obtain their voting intentions they look like the good guys for a change


----------



## RickH (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi,
> I was at the Melbourne presentation and I have no association with any RE.
> Personally I felt that the Melbourne vote was heading towards an UN-listed Fund and so I made a simple presentation that I believed a listing on the NSX would probably be the better option. It then created a minimal vote.
> 
> ...




Further to my original statement (new to this type of communication).

I am confused with some of the discussions. There will be a vote in August. There appears to be a chance that the fund may be run down and then closed. My logic tells me that we need to understand what the potential benefits from the available options. 

PREMIUM INCOME FUND started as a First Mortgage Income Fund with Lloyds insurance.
It has evolved into being a diversified fund but ended up supporting MFS with unsecured loans. 
(I thought that all loans had to be secured by a first mortgage - check legal.)
We are talking about money and nothing else. Our emotional feelings should not become the major source of communication. The problem has occured now move forward.

LEGAL:
Obviously all legal actions should be followed against MFS and their decision makers.

FUND STRUCTURE:
Question - How many choices do we really have?
1) Immediate forced sale of all assets and receive about 14 cents.
2) Reasonable time to sell assets and collect 45 cents
3) Create a new UN-listed Income Fund - RE unknown.
4) List on the NSX and let Wellington try to achieve their goal of 6 cents per annum and $1.00 value within 3-5 years.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER OPTIONS??

I personally believe that there are only two options:
List on the NSX or UN-listed.
My preferance at this point in time to go with NSX subject to presentations..

GOING FORWARD:
Consider if an $11 m property can attract a bid of only $1m - How many other properties are available for forced sales?
My current view is that JH would need to be incontrol of a vehicle that has the ability to grow a diversified investment portfolio with asset allocation guidelines.


----------



## Jadel (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Cant find the damn System Administrator to edit my post

 In point 3  I meant to say the the yield would effectively increase relative to purchasing on the NSX for a yield 

    2.5% commission on the NSX  effectively gives any purchaser a 3.5% yield for the first year  who in the hell is going to buy for yield  when you can get a 3 month bank return above 8% unless the price falls by at least 50% or more


----------



## Duped (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I'm totally with WC about not making the loan positions public. It's comercial in confidence. I'd be livid if my bank made the details of my debt position public.  It instantly and single handedly puts potential buyers in a position of knowing how hard they can push on a selling price.  Obviously not going to be good for PIF either.

I'm certain that if an AG committee gets to see the loan book they'll be bound by an NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement).  The purpose of such an exercise will be about trust.  If you don't trust WC then you may trust a group of fellow units holders.  I won't be on that committee because I don't trust myself to understand what I see.  I needed a friend to explain to me what 'Financial assets held at fair value through profit and loss' means in the PIF 2007 annual report.  (I outsourced those tasks to my financial advisor and trusted them to do their job)

Trust is one of the most valuable commodities. Look how well Swiss banks do out of it. (Imagine a life where you need a contract in place every single time you asked someone to do domething for you.)  I'm guessing, that is why JH's presentation covered so much about herself.  She's asking us to trust her.

One of my favourite quotes: the fish rots from the head down. 

I'm from the Paul Keating school of thought - the only thing you can trust is self interest.  The only true motivation is self motivation. Be pragmatic. Why fight it when you can harness and put it to good.  (My words)  

JH volunteered she was involved with setting up PIF. She was involved with S8. Her name's all over all of this.  Her Fund Management reputation is at stake.  She's put WC's name behind it. Think about how much negative sentiment 10,000 investors can spread. Adds up to a lot of motivation to do OK by us. All this counts for a lot to me. 

But I could just be a sucker.


----------



## Duped (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Cant find the damn System Administrator to edit my post
> 
> In point 3  I meant to say the the yield would effectively increase relative to purchasing on the NSX for a yield
> 
> 2.5% commission on the NSX  effectively gives any purchaser a 3.5% yield for the first year  who in the hell is going to buy for yield  when you can get a 3 month bank return above 8% unless the price falls by at least 50% or more




WHAT!!! 2.5% commission. That can't be right.  That's HUGE.


----------



## seamisty (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> I'm totally with WC about not making the loan positions public. It's comercial in confidence. I'd be livid if my bank made the details of my debt position public.  It instantly and single handedly puts potential buyers in a position of knowing how hard they can push on a selling price.  Obviously not going to be good for PIF either.
> 
> I'm certain that if an AG committee gets to see the loan book they'll be bound by an NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement).  The purpose of such an exercise will be about trust.  If you don't trust WC then you may trust a group of fellow units holders.  I won't be on that committee because I don't trust myself to understand what I see.  I needed a friend to explain to me what 'Financial assets held at fair value through profit and loss' means in the PIF 2007 annual report.  (I outsourced those tasks to my financial advisor and trusted them to do their job)
> 
> ...



Duped I agree with what you are saying about not alerting vultures to distressed projects. I am sure JH could compose a list of our investments by type, money lent from the fund, money outstanding,progress of the project, security, expected loss(dare i even mention profit?), maturity, etc. without specifying the borrower. The media will probably fill us in on specifics over time LOL!!!! Seamisty


----------



## RickH (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Cant find the damn System Administrator to edit my post
> 
> In point 3  I meant to say the the yield would effectively increase relative to purchasing on the NSX for a yield 2.5% commission on the NSX  effectively gives any purchaser a 3.5% yield for the first year  who in the hell is going to buy for yield  when you can get a 3 month bank return above 8% unless the price falls by at least 50% or more




Hi Jadel,
The Premium Income Fund is currently a Diversified Investment Fund and when/if it is listed on the NSX will I assume be a Diversified Investment Fund.
Personally I believe that current investors will buy because they will know the assets and have a better understanding.
Example. If someone wants to sell at 30 cents based on a 6 cents is 20%..
Regards,
RickH


----------



## Jenny (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



> Jenny - the advice you are getting is wrong




Thank you Dean01 - I will follow this up.
Regards
Jenny (wish I hadn't picked this name)


----------



## selciper (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Streaming video of Melbourne forum on NPIF link.
http://www.newpif.com.au/investorforumjuly.html


----------



## Jadel (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Ok Duped thats why i want people to check the facts 

   I  had an investor call me after the  Brisbane meeting and tell me as their were only 15 brokers he could not find anyone to give him a discount on trades 2.5% was the best he could get 

  but please check it out yourself.


----------



## DoraNBoots (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Below is an email asking for comments...

Hi,
I attended yesterday's meeting, and proposed a "win win" situation regarding the subject of listing on the NSX. A register could be set up whereby people who want to buy and sell can contact each other, and do so privately.  I have now sent a fax to Jenny Hutson with another proposal, which states that "Perhaps it would be possible to change the constitution to split the entity whereby we have 2 classes of unit holders -one where there is an exchange listing, and another where the entity continues as is, with the 3-5 year time frame for capital return.  Unit holders can then decide into which class they would place their units.

I tried to put this info on the aussiestock forums, but I am having difficulty logging in, so I gave up as it happens all the time.  I am too old for this chatroom business!  However, your thoughts on this e-mail would be appreciated.

Regards,
Name removed.


----------



## Jadel (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

yep your right Rick 

But its 22.5 %  if you are allowed to buy your units with other  sellers through the fund  at no  trading commission  for the first year



   s


----------



## breaker1 (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I just rang the NSX Newcastle and the PIF is still due to be listed on 21/07/08

That's only 11 days away, perhaps Jenny may withdraw from this date, if she is listening to the majority of investors.


----------



## RickH (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> yep your right Rick
> 
> But its 22.5 %  if you are allowed to buy your units with other  sellers through the fund  at no  trading commission  for the first year
> 
> ...




Hi Jadel,
I think that we are worrying about very minor points and we should be concentrating on the big picture - end result.
At this point in time I do not think that a 2.5% fee should be a serious consideration. We may only receive 14 cents in the dollar or 45 cents in the dollar.
The major focus should be on the extra 86 cents or 55 cents plus the 6 cents per annum.
How is/can JH proposing to create this extra capital and ongoing income?
Regards,
Rick


----------



## Jadel (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Ok Breaker

  I suggest we send her a  Action Group letter stating we will challenge that decision with an EGM for a democratic vote on thew issue immediately


----------



## Jadel (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Rick 

  Do you honestly want to see this trade at 15cents 

My two dollar scratchee ticket bet is open to all comers mate


----------



## Jadel (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yes thats a great idea Dora 

    I think we should get a quick consensus on this site on the issue 

    what shr is doing is ethically and morally indefensible


----------



## DoraNBoots (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Ok
> I suggest we send her a  Action Group letter stating we will challenge that decision with an EGM for a democratic vote on thew issue immediately




Jadel,

Can you please explain this?  Are you saying we can force a vote on the NSX proposal?  I don't believe we can.

I think the only thing you could force would be the removal of the RE but if you do that without having a replacement you are effectively winding down the fund.


----------



## RickH (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Rick
> 
> Do you honestly want to see this trade at 15cents
> 
> My two dollar scratchee ticket bet is open to all comers mate




Hi Jadel,
Does the price that it trades at really matter if we are going to hold onto our units/shares for five years.
JH believes that she and her team produce returns to growth the NTA to $1.00 while paying 6 cents per annum to investors would really be a fantastic result. Let us assume current value 50 cents - Then 12% per annum distribution plus a simple 10 cents per annum growth is 20% per annum simple over five years or 12% plus 33%per annum simple interest - not compounded returns.
I think that everyone would be very happy with this result.
Regards,
Rick.
PS: How is she going to do this. Probably raise extra funds via loans or new investors. I do not care if other people also make money over the next 3-5 yaers if $1.00 is achieved. Then most people will continue to invest anyway.
PPS: This return is probably only achievable if listed on the NSX - due to the protection of the startegy by having buy/sells transacted  by a third party.


----------



## Javier (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Someone else stated the 21 July NSX listing, she said that their was wires were crossed and then categorically stated NO LISTING ON NSX 21 JULY..in fact no NSX listing now until vote put to unit holders in August..but hey call the WC HOTLINE.


----------



## SPLITPIN (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

All

The Gold Coast forum attracted approx. 900 members and well run quite affair with many hardship issues regarding the elderly.

Nearly identical format and very similar questions to previous forums plus what appeared a few new ones.

Wellington to publish a booklet with all forum questions and answers and make available ASAP.

No request for a show of hands on NSX issue.

Action Group handed out flyers.

On question for Action Group involvement JH indicated Wellington were prepared to consider to facilitate the request and will get back to the Action Group.

So in simple terms the way I see it from a timing perpective at present is.

A. RE calls a meeting in August to;

1. Rewrite the constitution and remove the redemption system, use the NSX as the only method of withdrawing from the scheme now or later and put it to the vote with 75 % vote.

2. With less than 75 % vote, a wind up using professional liquidators.

B. We can call our own meeting (100+) by the RE for whatever reason and 75% vote. 

Please correct me in simple "one liner terms" if my assumptions are incorrect.


----------



## Javier (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Pretty much like Sydney..wow 900 members. I hate the sound of the only way to get your money is NSX. I don't have a problem with NSX as long as there is another exit strategy down the track for when / if we get value back above 12-45c after x amount of years, in other words the ability to get orderly % of redemptions if that individual investor chooses to do so of his units as capital comes back. That strategy must be presented up front so we know going in with WC what that will be, and if someone wants to sell prior to those strategic 'trigger' dates then they are welcome to do so on the NSX. I am sure that JH will have something in the pipeline to present us as she must have known there may be resistance by us of the NSX, just probably not as much as what appears to have transpired. You guys up on the GC should have pushed the point and got a show of hands like MEL and more so SYD..N/C and PortM guys..get the NSX hands please!


----------



## breaker1 (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> All
> 
> 
> On question for Action Group involvement JH indicated Wellington were prepared to consider to facilitate the request and will get back to the Action Group.
> ...




Splitpin,

Is Jenny seriously saying that there will be NO redemptions except through the NSX, at any time, over the next 5 years? Are we not to get part capital payments of our investments every 3 months as loaned monies comes back from developers and asset sales, until our investment is paid back at whatever cents in the $ our investment is eventually gauged to be worth?


----------



## goldfinger38 (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi,

Update, I have passed on details of the Centrelink 
Means Test Team - Seniors, Carers and Supplementary Payments Branch in Centrelink National Service Office in Canberra to WC in order to get the reduced unit price used for those pensioners suffering hardship beacuse of their continue assessment of their PIF units at $1. Upon speaking to a friendly FIS officer at Centrelink who is a firend of mine, he suggested that if an individual were to take in the Revised Balance Sheet Summary which now shows the Net Asset Backing of 0.45c that they may use this reduced price for that individaul if they wanted to get some relief sooner. Hopefully WC will get onto this ASAP in order to get it reduced for all pensioners.


----------



## RickH (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Splitpin,
> 
> Is Jenny seriously saying that there will be NO redemptions except through the NSX, at any time, over the next 5 years? Are we not to get part capital payments of our investments every 3 months as loaned monies comes back from developers and asset sales, until our investment is paid back at whatever cents in the $ our investment is eventually gauged to be worth?




Hi,
I am starting to get very worried by what I am reading. Please be serious. There is possible a chance of getting all of our money back.
QUESTION - How on earth is the investment pool going to grow and recover over the next 3-5 years if capital payments are distributed above the announced 6 cents per annum.
Do you want a chance of getting $1.00 back plus 6 cents per annum or not?
Regards,
Rick


----------



## breaker1 (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Someone else stated the 21 July NSX listing, she said that their was wires were crossed and then categorically stated NO LISTING ON NSX 21 JULY..in fact no NSX listing now until vote put to unit holders in August..but hey call the WC HOTLINE.




Will do tomorrow Javier.


----------



## Jadel (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Splitpin,
> 
> Is Jenny seriously saying that there will be NO redemptions except through the NSX, at any time, over the next 5 years? Are we not to get part capital payments of our investments every 3 months as loaned monies comes back from developers and asset sales, until our investment is paid back at whatever cents in the $ our investment is eventually gauged to be worth?





 Yes basically that is what is going to happen we will effectively be  tied to NSX hook line and sinker buy the end of five years their will probably none of the original investors that even remember or care a damn what happens to this fund


----------



## breaker1 (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi,
> I am starting to get very worried by what I am reading. Please be serious. There is possible a chance of getting all of our money back.
> QUESTION - How on earth is the investment pool going to grow and recover over the next 3-5 years if capital payments are distributed above the announced 6 cents per annum.
> Do you want a chance of getting $1.00 back plus 6 cents per annum or not?
> ...




It is a matter of knowing exactly how Jenny plans to do all this. If we stay in the PIF, I do not want to access my investment via the NSX. IF not via the NSX, then exactly *when *do we get our investment lump sum via the PIF - in part payments starting soon or in a lump sum years down the track?

If the NSX is the ONLY redemption method, whole or in part, at any time, even years down the track - then the NSX listing MUST be blocked!


----------



## goldfinger38 (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi,
> I am starting to get very worried by what I am reading. Please be serious. There is possible a chance of getting all of our money back.
> QUESTION - How on earth is the investment pool going to grow and recover over the next 3-5 years if capital payments are distributed above the announced 6 cents per annum.
> Do you want a chance of getting $1.00 back plus 6 cents per annum or not?
> ...




Hi,

remember what Rocky1 stated in earlier post

We will receive in TOTAL a 3c "distribution" by Christmas. This "distribution" will be paid from capital. I couldn't quite understand exactly where the capital was coming from but when I asked this she kept mentioning "there are a lot of losses in the bottom line at the moment". Although the distributions will be from capital it will not reduce the number of units we hold. This type of distribution is likely to continue for some time. Distributions will be quarterly starting in 09. It is also likely that these distributions will be mostly non taxable (WC will provide us an explanation of how the distribution was funded to show to our accountants)


Therefore it may be called a capital payment but not coming from our investment capital, as the funds is currently running losses in its profit and loss statement not beneficial to pay a distribution which is taxable to investors, better to call it a return of capital and offset against losses to assist investors where able.

So she was supposedly still suggesting these quarterly payments to us plus a possible special distribution before June 2009 and also returning unit value to $1 in 3-5 years time if that is possible


----------



## RickH (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> It is a matter of knowing exactly how Jenny plans to do all this. If we stay in the PIF, I do not want to access my investment via the NSX. IF not via the NSX, then exactly *when *do we get our investment lump sum via the PIF - in part payments starting soon or in a lump sum years down the track?




Obviously many investors are not interested in even considering Wellington's propsal and will be happy to receive probably about 50 cents in the dollar.
If 26% of investors feel similar to yourself. No one can help and everyone has to accept 14 to 50 cents in the dollar. Not happy. I really feel sorry for those investors who placed more than 50% of their investments into this fund. Fortunately my clients limit their investments to a portfolio of investments.
Please re-consider your goals and expectations.
Regards,
Rick.


----------



## Jadel (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Fellow Action group Members  .

 Now is the time to seriously  consider forming a committee to represent the group

The committee could be comprised of  existing  acting area group coordinators   or  some  bright ,dedicated and commited  Action group members  to act on our behalf  investors to negotiate  a binding  agreement  with Jenny Hutson before the vote in August.

 I would only be prepared to go on the committee under duress, I have the second and third qualities but Alzheimers and  Shiraz Cabernet are  rapidly dimishing the first .

 As you all know from reading my posts I am totally opposed to to listing on the NSX 

I outlined to Jenny Hutson vigorously at the Brisbane meeting the reasons for my opposition to the proposal ,  

Sentiment and liquidity are the primary drivers of price regardless of the net tangible asset value of  stock . At this time m  world markets at  their rock bottom in this regard 

The decision then  then to  place us in a market   , which is practically unknown and has the     movement  of  a  one hunded year old year old  tortoise is ill conceived and fraught with danger .

I have nothing against Jenny Hutson personally ,she is a  very successful and  intelligent  businesswomen therefore I believe she will be able to evaluate the merits  and benefits of the proposal For keeping the fund as a unified group of original investors 

 1/  Firstly  no  listing costs on the  and associated unit  conversion costs to the NSX

  2/ the minimum fee for a NSX trade is 2.5%  Wellington capital could easily reduce this fee to 0.5 % or less and make an internal profit on the transaction

 3/ This would have the ability to stabilize the price as the yield would effectively increase to 8 %  per annum  for the first year  and become more attractive as hopefully the  dividends  improve...

 4/ Markets especially small illiquid markets  can easily be manipulated  by trading activity designed  to cause panic.

 5/  Transparency the certainty that the fund will not be sold out by new Vulture accumulators at a later date

6/ Investors  understand that they are  totally commited to a long term capital growth  project..







As investors we must insist that we have an Action Group member on the Board with a vested interst in the company future so we can never deceived and exploited  again.

I would be happy to see Javier or Sea misty elected to this position  anybody with   a successful  business  background

We have over one hunded original  members in the Action Grooup and can call a motion for an EGM at any time  this would make things extremely difficult for Wellington Capital however  this power would  rapidly diminish after August when   the liquidation vote and I assume  subsequent  NSX listing  will take place.


 The time element is therefore  a CRITICAL FACTOR  particularly if new buyers enter the fund who have no allegiance to our cause 


Now some people are going to question my motives but I can assure you I will not be buying more units ar this time . I have a twenty three year old  daudgterv studying at university that I can not marry off to anybody  at any price and  she eats like a horse,.

I am an average investor with no hidden agenda  other to get the best possible return out of this disaster for  myself and other fund members 

Regards Chris


----------



## DoraNBoots (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Jadel,

I've read your post twice now.  I think you are saying you don't want the fund listed on the NSX. :  If so, do you have an option for people that NEED to get out of this fund before the 3 to 5 year period WC are proposing?


----------



## RickH (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



goldfinger38 said:


> Hi,
> 
> remember what Rocky1 stated in earlier post
> 
> ...





Hi goldfinger38,
JH is very well qualified. Already managers funds and at this point in time We need to believe that she is telling the truth. Please remember that she is a solicitor and realises that whatever she says could create litigation down the track. In my opinion she is a female who is trying to achieve her best and maybe even prove that she is a leader in her field and wants to prove that she knows what she is doing. Probably everything that she has already achieved is on the line. At this point in time until I hear her true fund strategy I believe that we should assume that at this point in time she is telling the truth.
Regards,
Rick.
PS: She was captain and dux of her High School etc................
Sounds pretty good to me.
PPS: A good question would be - Would you take your friend to court if you believed that he was involved in the potentially illegal Nov/Dec loan transfer etc.


----------



## SPLITPIN (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Splitpin,
> 
> Is Jenny seriously saying that there will be NO redemptions except through the NSX, at any time, over the next 5 years? Are we not to get part capital payments of our investments every 3 months as loaned monies comes back from developers and asset sales, until our investment is paid back at whatever cents in the $ our investment is eventually gauged to be worth?





This is only my assumption after JH stated several times the redemption system was to go.

JH indicated a vision of NSX then maybe to ASX.

If the fund is to go on indefinately (as per JH vision) with no remption scheme in place, how does an investor withdraw in time from the scheme.

A good question for the next forum.

The 3 cents are distributions and JH stated could be capital or earnings or combination and she would clarify further.


----------



## RickH (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> It is a matter of knowing exactly how Jenny plans to do all this. If we stay in the PIF, I do not want to access my investment via the NSX. IF not via the NSX, then exactly *when *do we get our investment lump sum via the PIF - in part payments starting soon or in a lump sum years down the track?
> 
> If the NSX is the ONLY redemption method, whole or in part, at any time, even years down the track - then the NSX listing MUST be blocked!




Hi breaker1,
Obviously you are allowed to have your opinion and that is life.
Unfortunately you have made a decision that is going impact on every one elses return of capital.
AND YOU HAVE MADE YOUR MIND UP EVEN BEFORE ALL OF THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED.
Please re-consider.
Regards
Rick.
PS: I recommend that you should speak with a fee for service adviser. It appears to me that you may be letting your emotions control your decision making processes before considering the total facts.


----------



## seamisty (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi goldfinger38,
> JH is very well qualified. Already managers funds and at this point in time We need to believe that she is telling the truth. Please remember that she is a solicitor and realises that whatever she says could create litigation down the track. In my opinion she is a female who is trying to achieve her best and maybe even prove that she is a leader in her field and wants to prove that she knows what she is doing. Probably everything that she has already achieved is on the line. At this point in time until I hear her true fund strategy I believe that we should assume that at this point in time she is telling the truth.
> Regards,
> Rick.
> ...



Rick, Chris Scott was in no way involved with the running of the PIF when the funds were misapropriated. He has only been on the scene since mid March and the damage was already done.Jenny Hutson would not be working in the best interests of the PIF if she did not get in the queue along with other creditors. Seamisty


----------



## RickH (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Rick, Chris Scott was in no way involved with the running of the PIF when the funds were misapropriated. He has only been on the scene since mid March and the damage was already done.Jenny Hutson would not be working in the best interests of the PIF if she did not get in the queue along with other creditors. Seamisty




Hi seamisty,
Thank you.
Then we can assume that she will take legal action if there was problem with this loan transfer and there may be a chance of receiving extra capital.
Regards,
Rick.


----------



## breaker1 (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi goldfinger38,
> JH is very well qualified..... :




Blah Blah - If i have to go through the NSX it's not worth a pinch of ****!



goldfinger38 said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> So she was supposedly still suggesting these quarterly payments to us plus a possible special distribution before June 2009 and also returning unit value to $1 in 3-5 years time if that is possible




Whats the good of we investors getting piddling payments over 5 years, with inflation eating away our monies, if the only way we can redeem our lump sum investment, whether 45c/65c or even the magical $1, is via the NSX, only to find 6 months down the track that an NSX redemption is ONLY worth 5c-15c a unit.

Surely the feedback from the Gold Coast about this must be an error. Jenny told me that we would see distributions *and* our own invested capital returned (in part), hopefully quarterly, over 3-5 years, as returned PIF monies came in and that it would partially follow the DOH model, which is exactly that, part investor capital paid back, quarterly, as monies are received by the DOH fund. If not, I must have heard her wrong, but I did verify it with her - unless Jenny misunderstood me. At the time, she did not state or know what our unit value was as we spoke.


----------



## goldfinger38 (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Rick H,

I was only trying to clarify for others that the payment we hope to receive from October and beyond may be noted in paperwork as a capital return ( for the purposes of minimising tax on earnings and may also benefit the fund moving forward based on accounting principles) but it will stillmost likely still be from the earnings created within the fund.

She cannot be expected to payout a physical capital repayment from the sale of assets that at present may not be able to besold in this current economic climate as the property market in general is being "slaughtered" with investors seeing the value of good quality listed funds such as GPT and others  reduced by 45% or more. Especially if she is suggesting she hopes to grow our current unit value over time back to the $1.

Just trying to provide some explanation of terms for those that dont fully understand, remember there is still a number of meetings to yet be held and then we will get more detailed information on all questions and answers from these meetings and then we may also hopefully get the other detailed information we requested about the actual assets of the fund and so forth. then we can make a more informed decision. including this proposed NSX listing, how it may impact on those in the fund and what it may provide to those wanting to exit the fund now or later.


----------



## goldfinger38 (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Blah Blah - If i have to go through the NSX it's not worth a pinch of ****!
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I am now going to have to go through these utube links to see what she did actually say as I cannot remember exactly either , hopefully it may clarify as I thought she said she was going to attempt to grow out unit value back to $1, therefore not sure how that would be possible if actual assets are sold and then paid down to investors if any proceeds are received from sale.


----------



## Jadel (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dora 
        My  second post specifically addresses the need for an action group committee to be formed immediately 

 My apologies for the rehash 

My wife keeps telling me to get of the computer so we can go to indoor bowls 

And am a bit flustered at the moment

So this is going to have to be quick 

 We have all seen what panic can do to a stock price

 That is partly why we are in this predicament  with OCV price being annihilated 

I  not know just how much panic their will be to exit at any cost when we list on the NSX 

However I am certain it will result NSX  in an  immediate capital loss of at least 50%  or more. For many years 

Their has to be a better way 

Regards Chris


----------



## SPLITPIN (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> You guys up on the GC should have pushed the point and got a show of hands like MEL and more so SYD..N/C and PortM guys..get the NSX hands please!




Please note these are forums, not members meetings and most GC people would not be drawn on that one, even if it was put forward.

From Coffs Harbour to Mid QLD, JH is probably the most highly respected country girl "made good" in the area.

From my observations of the GC members today I would estimate she would have at least a 75 to 85 % approval rating.

Please do not take this as a position of mine, only as observations.


----------



## goldfinger38 (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Rick, Chris Scott was in no way involved with the running of the PIF when the funds were misapropriated. He has only been on the scene since mid March and the damage was already done.Jenny Hutson would not be working in the best interests of the PIF if she did not get in the queue along with other creditors. Seamisty




Good point Seamisty, some of us think that because of the links between Jenny Hutson and Chris Scott with their previous dealings that there may be not enough independance to allow her to chase the $, but yes, Chris was NOT on the board when all the bad things happened. He got onto the board with her help to try and rescue the company in an attempt to salvage some value out of his shares he held. A significant amount I believe. In any case he is not the "bad egg" in the hen house.

So WC may (??) be able to act according to our bests interests in recovering as much value as possible. Will have to wait and see what information they provide us with and what their actual proposal is, In any case we as an action group do still have the power to call an EGM of things arent being done for our best interests and appoint a new RE.

We are a long way from this point at the moment.


----------



## kogo (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi. I have just registered as I went to the Melb meeting and have been following some of the posts over the last couple of days. 
Couple of quick observations.
1. This fund was pretty much dead prior to WC/JH showing up. Nobody on the planet is going to take on this kind of risk without some reward and business is business so I say all the power to her if. 
2. I'm not totally clear on the NSX issue however basically if my orginal sum is what my distribution is based on quarterly and people have an opportunity to access there funds more quickly (hardship etc) without a run on the fund and then freezing everything I say why not. I say this without a lot of knowledge however and hopefully all will be somewhat laid out prior to an Aug vote. I should state that I'm a long term investor on this thing. I pretty much wrote off my amount a few months ago so anything they do is great by me. I certainly won't add to my position though.  
3. There is a lot of speculation on these posts which I don't think helps too much however under the circumstances people do need to vent somehow I guess. I beleive WC is to issue a syllabus of sorts outlining all questions/answers in about 2 weeks. Can we not wait until this come's out before worrying about a 2.5 % commision rate on the NSX or accessing loan agreements etc. Once they have outlined there position in writing we should have a slightly clearer view I believe and therefore can assess our positions based on their answers to all our questions.

Lastly I have to say that JH probably didn't need to put her name on this thing but has and in my books that has to count for something. The other parts of her organization seem to be doing okay so adding this thing certainly would be something I would jump at so I say give her a chance to show us. There certainly needs to be a good line of communication between investors and managers but someone on the board, I don't see it. The AG is a great thing and the communication line needs to be with the AG but a single person on the board. Sorry I don't see the point. Probably my knowledge base I guess

Cheers


----------



## Ivor Watt (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

some notes from Gold Coast meeting
Tax dept claim does not take precedence, unsecured like the others.
Distributions/payments out of combined capital/income, split not known at moment. same for WC fees.
3c total payment by end Dec. one October, one end of year, value of each not confirmed at moment.
WC will follow up all avenues of income including PI and Lyoyds insurance
There will be a full statement of fund status prior to August meeting which will show all developments and position of each plus all outgoings, completed and expected and all incomings likewise. An undertaking to fully explain drop in value from carry value to realisable value in each of the asset classes shown on handout.
I understand that regarding LLA & Arctic that the fund receives 10m cash, 30m sharesLLA and the rest written off, seems this is the best outcome available from Packer, this is my understanding of her reply I stand to be corrected.
Center link valuation purposes 45c NAV confirmed.
No decision on NSX until meeting in August determines future direction of fund, ie liquidation or continuation.
Open to AG member on board.
Will consider buy/sell within the fund as alternative to NSX.
Mentioned further lump sum payments down the track as payment of capital as money came into the fund while simultaneously working to grow unit value.
WC fees will be based on 45c valuation.
lots more but lost it on this post, will top up on another post


----------



## zixo (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi,

It’ keeps it interesting reading different contributors opinions on the NSX vs NON NSX.

I still am of the opinion that people who do want to sell will automatically lose money the moment they wish to sell their units on the NSX. So I am against listing it and am uncomfortable if I have no other options and no choices.

Things to consider are.

Some Investors may be in financial crisis and in need of their funds immediately - Possibly losing money 
Some may just have had enough of the Premium income fund and wish to cut their losses - Possibly losing money
All redemptions withdrawn from the fund will impact the remaining investors - possibly losing money
JH can give no guarantees that the $ value will be restored and as most people are aware assurances come cheap.

The comment which was said by JH at the Sydney Forum was that further down the track the NSX listing of PIF units “may” be discontinued so units “may” be sold in other forms. It was a topic which was not elaborated on yet the NSX subject was hammered home continually by many investors.

It still remains a vague subject and I think it’s become a matter of priority to have the pros and cons clarified


----------



## selciper (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I'm not an accountant. Obviously by having placed a considerable sum of my capital into PIF, I'm a also bit dumb. However, my gut feeling as an AG member is that the posts are becoming very emotional. We need to step back a little and think this through objectively. If investors want to get out at 14 cents, is there any way they could do so without the NXS? Unless you are on your death bed, 14 cents in the dollar won't last very long. It's a ludicrous price, but backed by experts, so it has to be accepted.

Also, it's hard to disagree with the proposition that JH is taking a big risk with her business reputation. A PIF fiasco would do untold damage to her business reputation. Let's calm down and get to work forming a committee. Otherwise it's just words typed into the biosphere...lost in space.


----------



## Ivor Watt (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Continued
Undertaking to drop in value from carry value to realisable value in each of the asset classes  shown on handout

LLA & Arctic, I understand that the offer consists of 10m cash, 30m LLA shares and balance who knows, I may not have got these figures correct, if any one has others please let me know.
Centrelink valuation purposes 45c NAV
No decision on NSX until after August meeting determines future direction of fund, IE liquidation or continuation.
WC will consider buy/sell within the fund members as an alternative for members in hardship.
JH open to AG member on the board
Mentioned lump sum payments further down the track as payment of capital as money came in while she was simultaneously to grow unit value.  
This is the remainder of the original post, hope it is helpful.


----------



## breaker1 (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Ivor Watt said:


> some notes from Gold Coast meeting
> Tax dept claim does not take precedence, unsecured like the others.
> Will consider buy/sell within the fund as alternative to NSX.
> *Mentioned further lump sum payments down the track as payment of capital as money came into the fund while simultaneously working to grow unit value.
> WC fees will be based on 45c valuation.*lots more but lost it on this post, will top up on another post




Well that tends to contradict that no redeeming of our investor funds will take place except through the NSX. Is Jenny saying here, if you don't want to redeem via the NSX, I will try and give you back "further lump sum payments down the track" as payment of capital as money (part redemptions)? OR is she saying that this will simply be a distribution capitalised for tax, because of PIF losses?


----------



## kogo (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> I'm not an accountant. Obviously by having placed a considerable sum of my capital into PIF, I'm a also bit dumb. However, my gut feeling as an AG member is that the posts are becoming very emotional. We need to step back a little and think this through objectively. If investors want to get out at 14 cents, is there any way they could do so without the NXS? Unless you are on your death bed, 14 cents in the dollar won't last very long. It's a ludicrous price, but backed by experts, so it has to be accepted.
> 
> Also, it's hard to disagree with the proposition that JH is taking a big risk with her business reputation. A PIF fiasco would do untold damage to her business reputation. Let's calm down and get to work forming a committee. Otherwise it's just words typed into the biosphere...lost in space.




Well said. I'm of the same opinion. I think some of the posts are getting way ahead of themselves.


----------



## Ivor Watt (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

For everyones interest, WC sold 32 apartments yesterday in Sylvania, Sydney for $25m, exposure for PIF $30m, article in AFR today.


----------



## SPLITPIN (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

May I quote from the bottom of the first page of the handout today under Industry Leader..... My aim is to;........."offer unitholders a choice about whether they will remain unitholders by listing the Fund on the NRX."

Anyhow we need to sort this one out slowly and in definitive detail with JH so we clearly understand how this ties in with todays statements that there will be no redemption system in a new constitution proposed for an ongoing scheme.

A response on this issue from the next forum meetings would be most appreciated.

I am sure our forum is "all good".


----------



## seamisty (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks to all who are contributing, I know there are many who don't post but follow the forum and find it a useful tool for keeping informed on the PIF. As has been said there is quite a few key issues that investors are still finding confusing. Once WC has finished with the forums JH will know the main concerns investors have regarding the future direction of their funds. At least there will be an income stream resumed (albeit a tad smaller than previous distributions) and the centrelink issue addressed, so hopefully this will negate the need for investors to have to cash out in the event the fund  is listed.Perhaps if  WC get a vote of confidence that the majority will be prepared to stay with the Fund for a minimum of 2 years with a lesser distribution and part re payment of capital there would be no need to list at all. I read on a daily basis of other similar type investments that are in much worse shape. I am an investor and have been invested in this fund since it started. I also invest in many other fields. They all have cycles.Even without the mismanagement prior to Chris Scott coming on board at OCV, this fund would have been facing tough times but to a much lesser degree. The damage has been done but it's impact can be reduced with good management and the sensible attitudes of investors. I am prepared to give JH a go, I think the woman is well respected and has good credentials. If she can turn this debarcle around I'll stick with WC long term. Seamisty


----------



## selciper (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty - You're offering some solutions in a very calm way. That's what we need to have in abundance - calm. As has been pointed out, $25-$30m was very recently gained from the Sylvania unit block. I remember the recently departed Mr Hutchings earlier this year wanting $4.5m from MFS. $25m is six times that amount.


----------



## Mutchy (10 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Well that tends to contradict that no redeeming of our investor funds will take place except through the NSX. Is Jenny saying here, if you don't want to redeem via the NSX, I will try and give you back "further lump sum payments down the track" as payment of capital as money (part redemptions)? OR is she saying that this will simply be a distribution capitalised for tax, because of PIF losses?




Hi Breaker1.
In the Sydney meeting, in answer to a question concerning what I think are the dates of maturity of investments, someone having two investments due for renewal at different times but wanting to redeem their investment sums simultaneously, Jenny said that the process for redemptions would be the subject of further thought and that a proposal would be put to the August meeting. She had previously said that she had already made some redemptions in the case of extreme hardship and in those cases recognised the need for discretionary WC redemptions.
She took into consideration another investors (Dora?) proposal for a win - win system of a WC facilitated off - market sell and buy scheme and said that she would consider this scheme of trading also and make a proposal at the August meeting. 
With respect to the nature of the initial 3 cents payment you are correct in that it will be a distribution capitalised for tax. She went into an explanation of the three concepts necessary to understand the nature of the 3 cents distribution. Please see my (perhaps poor) explanation in post #845 on page 45.
There are many things which are unclear at present because she has made promises to reconsider many of the original pre-meetings WC propositions like NSX listing (where she said clearly in Sydney that the listing on 21st July would not occur) and I think we should not be drawing conclusions at present but asking those who are going to the Newcastle and Port Macquarie meetings to seek clarification.
The issues which need clarification can be gleaned from the previous three pages of posts. They are the matters where obvious confusion exists.
I hope someone can take up our cause at these next two meetings and get clarification.
Mutchy


----------



## seamisty (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The following is an excerpt from today's Gold Coast Bulletin, it is conflicting to some other figures being bandied around regarding LLA's debt to the PIF and needs clarifying::::An additional mezzanine finance facility totalling $71 million has also been put into place, replacing most of the $63 million owed to the Premium Income Fund, formerly controlled by MFS, which is now known as Octaviar.

The fund will be repaid $53 million from the new mezzanine funding facility and a further $8 million will be retained by LLA to form another plank in its mezzanine finance facility.

The $8 million will be repayable in six years.

The deal appears to have discounted the amount owed to the $770 million Premium Income Fund which froze redemptions to investors earlier this year for 360 days.

Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Media article from GCB:::Angry locals want action over MFS fund:::Shannon Willoughby 

11Jul08 

EVERY individual had a different story and had invested a different amount for a different reason.

But they all wanted to know one thing: where was their money and when and how would they get it back.

More than 600 investors yesterday flocked to the Gold Coast Convention and Exhibition Centre to hear what their options were and where they stood.

In the firing line was the calming Jenny Hutson, head of Wellington Capital, the company which, for the time being, has assumed control of the impoverished MFS Premium Income Fund.

For more than three hours she fielded questions from concerned investors, mostly retirees, many of whom were still putting money into the fund as late as January this year.

One man said his redemption was due two days before the fund was frozen.

"I invested $100,000 and the only thing I have got in return from MFS is a cap," said another angry lady.

Unintentionally, the statement was an icebreaker and was met with laughter from the floor. Later on, another investor asked where his cap was.

Most of the crowd agreed on one thing: Jenny Hutson is their only hope in making an improved return on their lost funds.

"I think she's (Ms Hutson) proposing the best idea," said Margaret Kaddatz, of Burleigh Heads.

Friend Neveda Sommervelle agreed: "Having spent the best part of life raising a family, you look forward to retirement. It was a hit in the guts (losing the money)."

Another man, in his mid-40s, said his money was invested for his son's education.

"I just feel sorry for all the pensioners. They have been defrauded and the Government should step in," he said. 

Ron Haggart, acting chairman of the Gold Coast PIF Forum action group and who has more than $1 million in the fund, said tragic stories had arisen from the fund's demise.

Leonard Krawczyk said he wanted retribution.

"There should be people in jail," he said.

Varsity Lakes couple Sid and Jenny Waugh, who have a 'significant amount' invested, said they 'felt confident' with Ms Hutson's proposal.

But for some, all was still lost. One man is understood to have lost more than $4 million in the fund. He has since had to go back to work.

Dennis Chapman, who on Monday featured in The Bulletin after attending the first meeting in Brisbane, went to the Gold Coast meeting.

Mr Chapman had more than $1.2 million invested the fund and now cannot afford to fill his car with fuel.

"It was the same as the last one. It will be so long before we may see any money and by then I might not be here, many of us might not," he said.

"If I died tomorrow, I don't know how they would afford to bury me."


----------



## akernst (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I attended yesterday's meeting on the Gold Coast and looks like the PIF would have been in a down turn this year no matter who were managing it.

I hope Wellington get the vote to continue on the next 3 years. I certainly trust a woman more than a man and she is local. There will be another upward
cycle in the property market coming up and so we should let Wellington get on with the job, as long as she communicates with us, every set of the way.

This is my final posting on this forum, as I have noticed vultures already circling on this forum, thinking if we liquidate, they will get some bargains, and
later make a fortune in the upswing.

*I would advise to close this forum, as it has now been compromised badly.*


----------



## Jadel (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I do not know who you are or what your agenda is but i have never seen anybody post on this forum  who has expressed an opinion in favour of liquidating the Fund 

              And believe me I have read every post 

              Liquidation would be a disaster 

            THIS FORUM IS ABOUT ALTERNATIVES MATE


----------



## seamisty (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



akernst said:


> I attended yesterday's meeting on the Gold Coast and looks like the PIF would have been in a down turn this year no matter who were managing it.
> 
> I hope Wellington get the vote to continue on the next 3 years. I certainly trust a woman more than a man and she is local. There will be another upward
> cycle in the property market coming up and so we should let Wellington get on with the job, as long as she communicates with us, every set of the way.
> ...



Don't be put off by a couple of negative posts Akernst,the forum is still a very useful tool for information, sharing of ideas, venting frustration, moral support etc. All public forums are at risk of attracting vultures and cuckoo's but they are usually recognised and are far outnumbered by the genuine posters. I very much doubt the PIF will be liquidated and Jenny Hutson can get on with the job of realising as much value as possible for unit holders. It has been a very stressfull, frustrating saga for all involved. I am extremely dissalutioned by the lack of intervention of the Powers that be, ie ASIC in regard to what has happened. They have proved to be grossly inadequate to date in dealing with this situation. You have contributed some good posts, we need people like you on board. seamisty


----------



## SPLITPIN (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Another article from GCB

Shannon Willoughby 

11Jul08 

JENNY Hutson, the woman at the helm of the impoverished MFS Premium Income Fund, has not ruled out pursuing legal action against former directors Michael King and Phil Adams.

Ms Hutson, who has taken control of the fund through her vehicle Wellington Capital, yesterday told more than 600 investors she would take the 'appropriate course of action' to try to recoup money she claims is owed to the fund by Octaviar (formerly MFS).

Ms Hutson is on a week-and-a-half long tour, addressing investors of the fund, once the flagship fund of MFS, on their options for recovering their money.

The 40-year-old said investors, mainly retirees, had the choice to liquidate the fund, in which she believes will deliver a 14c return, or stick with Wellington Capital as it works to recover between 45c to 65c per unit.

The group will vote next month and, for Wellington to remain at the helm, approval of 75 per cent of the 770 million units is needed.

Ms Hutson, the 2007 Business Woman of the Year who founded Wellington Capital three years ago, took control of the fund in May.

Since then, she has reduced the PIF bank debt from $100 million to $55 million and hopes to have the remainder paid by the end of the month. 

She has also instigated legal action against MFS and MFS administration for $147.5 million in loans the group forwarded last year against property assets, among them the Sheraton Mirage at Port Douglas.

Many of the investors who attended yesterday's meeting at the Gold Coast Convention and Exhibition Centre demanded to know why Mr King and Mr Adams -- former directors of MFS who resigned earlier this year -- had not been held liable for the fund's demise.

"At this stage I have only taken action again MFS and MFS administration. I wanted to see if ASIC (the Australian Securities and Investments Commission) was dealing with it in a different way. (We will take the) appropriate course of action if things unfold," she said.

She said her lawyers had told Wellington Capital the prospects of success were 'high'.

The majority of investors have conceded Ms Hutson's proposal was the only way forward.

Part of the proposal outlined to investors was a promise to deliver 3c in distributions by December and 6c the year after.

Ms Hutson also has applied to list PIF on the National Securities Exchange, allowing investors who needed to bail out the option to sell.

Yesterday's meeting, the last one for this week, attracted the largest number of investors, coming from Ballina to Hervey Bay.

For more than three hours, the embittered crowd fired questions at Ms Hutson over the future of PIF and demanded to know how they came to lose their earnings.

One man, who has 17 different investments in Octaviar, wanted to know why the fund accepted money from him after it knew it was heading downhill.

He said the fund took $45,000 on January 30, two days after it froze its redemptions.

"To me, that was fraud," he said.

"What chance have I got in making a claim when they knew (the money) was gone."

It is understood the investor was not alone, with money from several others being accepted into the fund immediately after it froze redemptions.

Others were frustrated with Centrelink and the Department of Veteran Affairs, which see the fund as asset rich and refuse to pay pensions.

Ms Hutson said she had written to both the bodies explaining the situation and would have her staff follow it up.


----------



## RickH (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> This is only my assumption after JH stated several times the redemption system was to go.
> 
> JH indicated a vision of NSX then maybe to ASX.
> 
> ...




Hi Splitpin,
SELL:
Hopefully, when WPIF is listed on the NSX a person could sell their units/shares on this exchange. The 2.5% brokerage is high but it would be a once off cost. People who need capital and own Commonwealth Bank Shares must sell them on the ASX and pay a smaller brokerage fee. But it is really the same situation.

Then further down the track we wishfully pray that the fund is listed on the ASX after becoming a great and successful listed managed fund with a base cost of say 0.7% and life will be back to normal.

ANOTHER CONSIDERATION FROM LEFT FIELD – UNITS/SHARES USED AS SECURITY FOR LOANS.
If the fund is truly valued at 14 cents then some investors may consider using their units/shares as the security for a loan and plan on the future valuation rising to 45 cents and more within two years.
This loan could be based on say 50% of the NTA.

Regards,
Rick.
PS: I still believe that we should follow JH if her presentation and planning sounds reasonable and list onto the NSX.


----------



## RickH (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Blah Blah - If i have to go through the NSX it's not worth a pinch of ****!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hi Breaker1,
You are being way too negative. Obviously we disagree with what should happen. PIF has changed from being an Insured First Mortgage Income into current mess/Diversified lack of Premium Income Fund.
If it was a football match and your team was behind at half time we would all hope that our coach would present confident strategies designed to improve our performance with a potential goal of actually winning the game. At this point in time is up to the players to join together as a team and follow the instructions of their coach.
IF WE BELIEVE THAT JH IS THE PERSON TO LEAD US THROUGH THIS SITUATION - THEN WE MUST LET HER DO IT HER WAY. IF WE FORCE HER TO COMPROMISE ON HER PLANNING SHE CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO ACHIEVE HER GOALS OF 3 cents by Xmas, 6 cents per annum and maybe $1.00 value within 3-5 years. This would be the ultimate results. Give it a try, If her presentation is realistic.
Regards,
Rick.
PS: Yes, PIF is complete disaster at this point in time but we just cannot rollover and die.


----------



## deano1 (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

disappointed in the comment that she will wait to see how things unfold, with respect to the former directors etc  - if she wants to be really taken seriously by the business community she needs to show she is uncompromising when it comes to pursuing the thieves - if she took legal action against all the former directors and chairman of MFS / Octavier - she is 1 - sending a message to everyone - dont mess with me i will sort you out - 2 - i think her ability to negotiate better value from the assets is enhanced by this action.

I know she is busy selling her plan - but as i said yesterday - she needs to get the heavy lifting started and fire a couple of shots at the thieves - if she takes the lead - ASIC and APRA the car accident spectators will be forced to pull their fingers out and start kicking some heads.


----------



## RickH (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> I'm not an accountant. Obviously by having placed a considerable sum of my capital into PIF, I'm a also bit dumb. However, my gut feeling as an AG member is that the posts are becoming very emotional. We need to step back a little and think this through objectively. If investors want to get out at 14 cents, is there any way they could do so without the NXS? Unless you are on your death bed, 14 cents in the dollar won't last very long. It's a ludicrous price, but backed by experts, so it has to be accepted.
> 
> Also, it's hard to disagree with the proposition that JH is taking a big risk with her business reputation. A PIF fiasco would do untold damage to her business reputation. Let's calm down and get to work forming a committee. Otherwise it's just words typed into the biosphere...lost in space.




Hi selciper,
Your thoughts are realistic. We are all a bit dumb but that is why we all need to listen and learn. We must try to take the emotion out of our decision making process.
I agree 14 cents is way too low a price to sell out of PIF.

If we are all good samaratins and decided to help those who really need immediate cash flow help and not those that just want their money back - what can we do?

I know that we cannot pay them $1.00 for all of their units because that means the remaining unit holders actually lose more money.

The current value is 14 cents if the assets are sold off in a liquidation sale and the two year conservative value is say 45 cents.

WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS:
Yes, We should still consider listing on the NSX and then we may be able to organise loans using the units/shares as security.
Basically we could say that we are expecting 200% NTA return based on the current 14 cents to 45 cents within two years.
WIN/WIN SITUATION:
Subject to the amounts involved - How about a loan advanced by PIF based on say 15% interest. It has to be a realistic interest return to be capable of helping the fund achieve its objectives.
The destitute unit holder gets immediate cash flow on the drip feed system, while still holding but not controlling the unit/shares and when the value returns to say 45 cents PIF could sell part of their units to recover the interest costs.
PIF would be secured by a charge over the units/shares.
Regards,
Rick.


----------



## RickH (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



goldfinger38 said:


> Hi Rick H,
> 
> I was only trying to clarify for others that the payment we hope to receive from October and beyond may be noted in paperwork as a capital return ( for the purposes of minimising tax on earnings and may also benefit the fund moving forward based on accounting principles) but it will stillmost likely still be from the earnings created within the fund.
> 
> ...




Hi goldfinger38,
Thank you.
Your comments are always reasonable.
Regards,
Rick.


----------



## Javier (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Totally agree she really does have to take an aggresive step to bring ASIC into the picture and go after anything and anybody that will bring our rightful funds back as well as any compensation. Yes of course some things must take some priority, but ASIC involvement IS an order of priority if we have even the faintest chance of having the $170m in OCV bank frozen before the siphoning begins. Good point as other creditors would treat her recovery a lot more seriously.

Jenny, I ask you as I know your team reads this forum regularly, if it were your own money, and knowing how gifted you are in the finance world, wouldn't you go after the directors to get money back AND hopefully justice as a means of being served with a sense of relief that the people that have done you wrong are being dealt with, well then PLEASE extend that courtesy to us as well. Thank you.


----------



## RickH (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



deano1 said:


> disappointed in the comment that she will wait to see how things unfold, with respect to the former directors etc  - if she wants to be really taken seriously by the business community she needs to show she is uncompromising when it comes to pursuing the thieves - if she took legal action against all the former directors and chairman of MFS / Octavier - she is 1 - sending a message to everyone - dont mess with me i will sort you out - 2 - i think her ability to negotiate better value from the assets is enhanced by this action.
> 
> I know she is busy selling her plan - but as i said yesterday - she needs to get the heavy lifting started and fire a couple of shots at the thieves - if she takes the lead - ASIC and APRA the car accident spectators will be forced to pull their fingers out and start kicking some heads.




Hi Deano1,
There is a time and place for everything. Now is not the time. But it must be considered in the near future.
Lets keep to main subject which is the structure and plan before we go into that area.
Regards,
RickH


----------



## Jadel (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Rick h 

 You have allready indicated that you are some sort of a financial advisor

  Therefore i seriously doubt that your opinion is based as a investor in the fund 

   You have an agenda mate that is plain as DAY

 2.5 % buy sell = 5%  THAT IS ALSO EASY TO UNDERSTAND


----------



## Duped (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Lets put it in a different perspective.

OPI investors voted on a 3 year moratorium. Which is permitted under NZ law. Now, I'm going to assume that none of the investors can get their money out. So what's happened with OPI is the majority of the investors have locked into the fund, for 3 years, all those investors that just wanted to get out at any cost.

At the BNE forum JH specifically noted that Australian law doesn't have such a generous provision.  In AU the limit is 360 days. Which for us presumably ends in March 09. (Who does this shorter period benefit? Unit holders? Establishment vultures perpetually hovering for distressed sales? I'm not decided.) 

If we vote to go with WC, i.e. to continue the fund, AND there is a mechanism to sell (e.g. NSX, ASX, off market, inter holder) or slowly step out by return of capital within 2 1/2 years, then those who want out of PIF are still better off than if this happened under NZ law. 

These are just my thoughts.

The other matter is the state of the portfolio. (Listed property trusts are reportedly down 45% and JH noted that 35c (equiv to 35%) of our loss is due to the drop in market sentiment). This is in part a result of the Reserve Bank's monetory policy. The RBA interest rate rises you hear about are DELIBERATE & DESIGNED TO CAUSE PAIN. (Take money away from spenders and give it to savers).  Designed to put downward pressure on prices; on things like properties like the ones PIF is trying to sell.  We're just caught up in the blunt instrument that is the RBA setting of interest rates.

Please correct me if I'm wrong?


----------



## deano1 (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Deano1,
> There is a time and place for everything. Now is not the time. But it must be considered in the near future.
> Lets keep to main subject which is the structure and plan before we go into that area.
> Regards,
> RickH




Rick i understand there is a time and place for everything - but this shermozzle needs to be on the front page of every newspaper in the country what better way to get the people responsible for protecting the mum & dad investors in getting a photo of say Andrew Peacock being served - you dont reckon the regulators wouldn't  want to be involved in that party - time is money and the longer it takes the more distance is put between these thieves and the money that is rightfully the investors - draw a line in the sand - god helps he who helps himself - whilst Jenny may not be able to finish the process - at least she is the only one with all the information at this point in time to get the process started - if she gets it started and gets the media hounds onto it - then you will emabrass the regulators into getting involved - Action is what is required and the sooner the action starts the closer you start to get to a 65c valuation than a 14c valuation - there has been criminal activity here and we need to stop dilly dallying and get a head kicker in there - i think Jenny is probably that person - but its got to start from somewhere - the unit holders own a dog - what we have got to do is point that dog in the right direction and start barking and biting - you watch the groundswell of support you will get once a start is made.


----------



## RickH (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Rick h
> 
> You have allready indicated that you are some sort of a financial advisor
> 
> ...




Hi Jadel,
Yes. I am an adviser. We rebate commissions and charge a fee for service.
And yes we do have over 150 clients in this PIF but fortunately due our realistic strategies of spreading the risk the overall majority of these clients have only $10,000 to $20,000 invested.
The majority of our clients are invested into direct shares, Listed Managed Funds suchas AFI, Australian Foundation and ETFs.
You make too many observations that are not based on facts. You shoot from the hip and you have your eyes closed.
Do some research before you create havoc and scare investors away from a logical and realistic decision making process.
Kindest regards,
RickH
PS: I am in the process of trying to organise a discount buy/sell service...
Give it time to evolve.


----------



## SPLITPIN (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Splitpin,
> SELL:
> Hopefully, when WPIF is listed on the NSX a person could sell their units/shares on this exchange. The 2.5% brokerage is high but it would be a once off cost. People who need capital and own Commonwealth Bank Shares must sell them on the ASX and pay a smaller brokerage fee. But it is really the same situation.
> 
> ...





Rick

JH Indicated yesterday she choose NSX in liue of ASX because of cost etc.

Best Solution may be straight to ASX. May take more time and cost more, so what.

Comments, please as this would not change her vision plan.


----------



## Robert McNaught (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Previously a 2 year investment in the PIF returned us 9% pa and now we are to receive 6c per unit (6% return on the original $1.00 unit value). OK, so it's dropped back but so has the distribution rate from many other managed funds. Access to our funds via redemption has also been interrupted for a few years but in my opinion we should count our lucky stars that Wellingto Capital has taken our fund on. Jenny Hutson is obviously aiming to build a reputation within financial circles as a manager who can act decisively and carefully resurrect a failing fund. There is nothing wrong with this...she is a business woman and has a long term career focus. To me, a return of 6c per unit per annum with fairly good prospects of a full capital return deserves a strong YES vote.


----------



## selciper (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well, time is running out. Is there any sign of an AG committee being formed and a chairperson elected? We can chat away on this thread till the day of the EGM and just be swapping ideas amongst ourselves while thousands of other investors are left out of the loop.

Who is the AG rep. to speak on our behalf to WC? Is it still Breaker1?

My $100 contribution awaits a destination.

At present this is a blog without a moderator. It's been incredibly useful with clever people helping others to understand the complexities. But what is to be done next?


----------



## goldfinger38 (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi,

Just got message from my friend at Centrleink as per below,
He is recommending those investors that are pensioners who are NOT on full benefits or on any benefit because of the funds they hold in PIF , to notify Centrleink immediately of the reduction in the unit price value and to provide the Balance sheet particulars provided to PIF investors with the Net Asset Backing to prove the value at only 45c currently.

reply from Centrelink contact as follows:

_MFS (now Octaviar) Premium Income Fund 
MFS Ltd has frozen redemptions of its Premium Income Fund and ceased to pay distributions. MFS advises that this is a temporary measure aimed at protecting the assets of the fund. 

Effective from 1 July 2008, the value of a customer's investment in the MFS Premium Income Fund should be re-assessed on their record at a value of 45 cents in the $1.00 per unit. 

Deeming will continue to apply to this investment. A deeming exemption can not be granted at this point as the freezing of distributions and redemptions is continuing as a temporary measure. 

MFS (now Octaviar) Ltd Shares
Shares in MFS/Octaviar Ltd have been suspended from trading on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). The last trading day was 18 January 2008. 

Customers should continue to have their shares in MFS Ltd (ASX code MFS is now OCV) assessed at 99 cents per share. 

Other MFS/Octaviar investments
There is no change to the assessment of other MFS/Octaviar investments_.


*Now we have no real way of knowing which of our customers have investments with MFS. We can only reassess their benefits when they bring their MFS investments to our attention. 
Is it possible that you could inform those investors advising them of this change in their Centrelink assessment, and that they should contact Centrelink as soon as possible.?*


----------



## RickH (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Rick
> 
> JH Indicated yesterday she choose NSX in liue of ASX because of cost etc.
> 
> ...




Hi Splitpin,
Probably best left with JH.
Let her run the show if her plans are reasonable etc.
You know what it is like if some one is telling you how to drive when they are in the back seat of the car.
Regards,
Rick.


----------



## Mary Lynch (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There is a pressing need to get some structure in our group.

How about you make a time to have a congress on Skype with a max possible of our key people involved, and have a nomination process where by willing nominees get posted here. Then whoever wishes to vote for, say, President (and possible board member) and other members of a (probably) smallish committee, here can do so.

I suggest Breaker, Dora, Seamistry, Rocky etc as obvious choices, as well as several of the legal eagle and financiers people on board for that end of the line-up.

Let's do it, and soon.
How about you make it 8.30 tonight???!! Constructive action is what's needed from now on....cut the waffle!!!all it serves is (mostly) a questionable booting of (mainly) male egos!!


----------



## seamisty (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Well, time is running out. Is there any sign of an AG committee being formed and a chairperson elected? We can chat away on this thread till the day of the EGM and just be swapping ideas amongst ourselves while thousands of other investors are left out of the loop.
> 
> Who is the AG rep. to speak on our behalf to WC? Is it still Breaker1?
> 
> ...



I agree Selciper, We appear to be running around in circles like a headless chook!!It is becoming quite obvious that the enormity of running the AG as a united body is becoming increasingly difficult. I agree with R.M's post 951, and it seem's there is strong support growing for JH. Javiar has already stated that the lawyer has gone away to digest information regarding the PIF. There is conflicting opinions in regard to the listing of the Fund on the NSX but I think JH will probablly take this on board and either offer an alternative or explain the for's and against the reasons for doing this or postpone the listing altogether until the PIF has stabilised. If it becomes an option further on the ASX would be a far better alternative even if it is more expensive. I think the AG need to compose a letter as a united group in regard to getting ASIC involved NOW!!!We have the facts, the letter needs to be endorsed by JH on behalf of investors and presented to the Fraud and Corporate Crime Group as well as ASIC. JH has already indicated she is willing to work with the AG. I don't see why we can't work together on resolving these issues at ground level as a TEAM. A bit of flexibility from both sides may be a far greater tool at this present time, with so many people involved we will never satisfy everyone but I am sure compromises can be worked out. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> There is a pressing need to get some structure in our group.
> 
> How about you make a time to have a congress on Skype with a max possible of our key people involved, and have a nomination process where by willing nominees get posted here. Then whoever wishes to vote for, say, President (and possible board member) and other members of a (probably) smallish committee, here can do so.
> 
> ...



That sounds constructive Mary, I am willing to be involved. Seamisty


----------



## Duped (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Following is from another Forum.  Can anyone confirm the facts?  If true, will it effect CS' term as OCV's chairman?

"ANZ nets Octaviar chief's stake

The Spectators

Octaviar Ltd chief executive Chris Scott has been caught up in the collapse of Primebroker, resulting in Australia and New Zealand Banking Group seizing most of his holding in the stricken firm.

A significant portion of Mr Scott's 4.64 per cent stake in Octaviar, formerly MFS, is understood to have been placed in stock lending agreement with Primebroker, Herald Sun reports.

According to the report, Chimaera management failed to notify Mr Scott that his margin lending account had did not meet its loan-to-valuation requirements.

Last week ANZ placed Primebroker, a subsidiary of Chimaera Financial Group, into receivership. On Tuesday, ANZ revealed it had acquired control of 5.05 per cent of Octaviar, and significant stakes in nine other companies.

While said it will ANZ proceed with the sale of its newly-acquired stock, there may be some problem in moving Octaviar's scrip with the company presently suspended from the ASX.

Earlier this week, ANZ also gained control of 13.2 per cent of Bill Express after the payment company collapsed owing the bank $53 million.
ASX Stock Chart for ANZ ASX Stock Chart for BXP"


----------



## seamisty (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Following is from another Forum.  Can anyone confirm the facts?  If true, will it effect CS' term as OCV's chairman?
> 
> "ANZ nets Octaviar chief's stake
> 
> ...



I think Paul Manka is the Independant Chairman, Chris Scott is an Executive Director. Seamisty


----------



## Duped (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I think Paul Manka is the Independant Chairman, Chris Scott is an Executive Director. Seamisty




Thanks Seamisty. My error.  You're right.


----------



## Jadel (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Fellow Investors 


Thank goodness we are  finally getting started  with a  working Commitee  

 Excellent Choice Breaker ,Rocky , Seamisty, Dora,

 I will second and third those nominations


----------



## Mutchy (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> There is a pressing need to get some structure in our group.
> 
> How about you make a time to have a congress on Skype with a max possible of our key people involved, and have a nomination process where by willing nominees get posted here. Then whoever wishes to vote for, say, President (and possible board member) and other members of a (probably) smallish committee, here can do so.
> 
> ...




I agree with Seamisty. We need to do something positive. I did have a short conversation with Javier and the solicitor on Wednesday at the Sydney meeting. It is apparently not that easy to formalise our organisation and I am reluctant to expand on the reasons because I may have not understood the reasons fully. The most appropriate body apparently is an incorporated entity. I would prefer it be explained in proper terms. 

I think it's like a garden club or a BMX club which has statutory officers such as a Public Officer, President, Secretary, Treasurer and other seconded committee members, and be registered with Dept of Fair Trading. From my ten or so years of being most of these positions in an organisation it needs Officers Liability Insurance, Taxation Dept. exemption as a non profit organisation, GST exemption or at least annual assessment for GST, Annual meetings, formal election of officers, annual returns to Fair Trading, probably not a formal audit of the books but that may be voted upon by members. 

Can you confirm please Javier?


----------



## Javier (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Pretty much, it is very involved. It is not easy with all the red tape and of course with so many investors, you have to be accountable. We can have as many meetings as you want..but to do it in an incorporated and structural manner is a whole different kettle of fish. It's not as easy as sticking your $100 cheque in the envelope Selciper and away you go..not at all!


----------



## flatback (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> It is a matter of knowing exactly how Jenny plans to do all this. If we stay in the PIF, I do not want to access my investment via the NSX. IF not via the NSX, then exactly *when *do we get our investment lump sum via the PIF - in part payments starting soon or in a lump sum years down the track?
> 
> If the NSX is the ONLY redemption method, whole or in part, at any time, even years down the track - then the NSX listing MUST be blocked!




Again i agree breaker1, WE MUST STOP NSX if we don't, we do not have any other way to retrieve our units, JH has not indicated that we have any other avenue to retrieve them or have i missed something??? Flatback


----------



## RickH (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> Again i agree breaker1, WE MUST STOP NSX if we don't, we do not have any other way to retrieve our units, JH has not indicated that we have any other avenue to retrieve them or have i missed something??? Flatback




Hi,
What is soooooo wrong with the listing of PIF on the NSX?
Please consider and reply with all your reasons.
Regards,
Rick


----------



## Jadel (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear fellow investors

 Am just makeing some enquiries to  a good friend of mine who is uniquely qualified in this regard .


----------



## Jadel (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Rick H

   Ever try selling Viagra to a Eunach or Ice Cubes to an Eskimo ?????


----------



## SPLITPIN (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Rick H
> 
> Ever try selling Viagra to a Eunach or Ice Cubes to an Eskimo ?????




Jadel

May I make a suggestion.

We are trying to resolve this rationally and think it through.

JH appaears to at least has the b...ls (a compliment and not intended to be derogatry) to have a go on our behalf, and this is a part of her proposed vision plan for an ongoing successfull fund which some may or may not wish to remain with.

We need to suggest alternatives that at least attempt to solve this problem, not put impossible hurdles for us all that may drag us into winding up and liquidation.

Remember, JH needs a 75 % vote and that is a tall order even in the best of circumstances. 

Splitpin.


----------



## RickH (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Rick H
> 
> Ever try selling Viagra to a Eunach or Ice Cubes to an Eskimo ?????




Hi,
You previously mentioned that I had an agenda.
I am an adviser who charges a fee for service and rebates commissions and yes I do have an agenda.
My agenda is to act as a professional and try to help my 150 plus clients get all of their money back.
I believe that JH has stated her goal is to list onto the NSX.
Distribute 3 cents by Xmas.
Then distribute 6 cents a year.
Goal to grow the fund from its present 14/46 cents value to $1.00, within 3-5 years.
This sounds fantastic to me and I believe that my 150 plus clients would agree.

What is your agenda?
Regards,
Rick


----------



## breaker1 (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Breaker1,
> You are being way too negative. Obviously we disagree with what should happen. PIF has changed from being an Insured First Mortgage Income into current mess/Diversified lack of Premium Income Fund.
> If it was a football match and your team was behind at half time we would all hope that our coach would present confident strategies designed to improve our performance with a potential goal of actually winning the game. At this point in time is up to the players to join together as a team and follow the instructions of their coach.
> IF WE BELIEVE THAT JH IS THE PERSON TO LEAD US THROUGH THIS SITUATION - THEN WE MUST LET HER DO IT HER WAY. IF WE FORCE HER TO COMPROMISE ON HER PLANNING SHE CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO ACHIEVE HER GOALS OF 3 cents by Xmas, 6 cents per annum and maybe $1.00 value within 3-5 years. This would be the ultimate results. Give it a try, If her presentation is realistic.
> ...




I do not agree that the NSX should be the *only *way for investors to redeem their funds, especially long term. Jenny has presented as an either / or sales pitch. Either you get 14c or you take the NSX +. I believe there are genuine alternatives, besides the either/or, yet for the AG to propose to WC, which we will, but it is for consultation first with AG organisers.

RickH, my apologies for my inapropriate comment in reply to your post yesterday, you are more than entitled to your comments.


----------



## Duped (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi,
> What is soooooo wrong with the listing of PIF on the NSX?
> Please consider and reply with all your reasons.
> Regards,
> Rick




From what I've read and heard from this and the WC forum there are concerns that in an innefficient market an NSX listing will push the purchase price too far down which:

A: Creates two classes of investors, one who paid $1 per unit and another that paid 20c or less.  Opening up the opportunity for the latter to put downward pressure on WC's commitment to return $1.  Particularly if large numbers of units are sold.  (How can you blame WC for not performing if you bailed out?)
There is also the question of who gets the capital losses. Keep it in the fund and offset it against capital gains for the benefit of all unit holders. 
Or how to treat distributions - as income or capital.   I'm not sure how that all works. It seems to me there are already differences between unit holders. Those that don't have any other income and aren't ever likely to be able to offset a capital loss against a capital gain and those that do and are. Don't forget that some investors had to take on debts, the interest of which can be claimed against PIF holdings. 

B: Opens the door for downward pressure on WC's valuations.  Something is only worth what another person will pay for it.  Right?  Makes it more difficult for WC to justify a valuation of 45c+ when they're only selling for 20c.  When a valuer sits down to undertake their subjective task, the NSX price will influence the valuer decision.  Hard to go against what the market says.  Depends on one's motivation doesn't it.

That's my summary.


----------



## mfsperth (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am a Perth MFS investor. How many others are in WA, which missed out on the update meetings?



When I first asked Octaviar for the members register as any member is entitled to do by Corporations Law, Octaviar told me Perpetual Nominees, the trustee, wanted $14000. (The cost by law is supposed to be what it costs to download to a CD).



After further discussion and ASIC (Neale Paterson) intervention it came down to $200. Then Wellington took over so I didn’t pursue it.



There have been a number of strange goings on – 



A loan from a Scottish bank for $180m which ranked ahead of us as members for repayment. 


The $147.5 m in unsecured loans (ie. ca. 20% of the fund) to seven entities in November December according to the AFR. (see AFR 16april and 25 June). 


A Lonsec (ratings agency) thumbs up for the fund sent to us in early November. 


The disappearance from the Octaviar website of the PDS (even though Guy Hutchings sent me a hard copy on Feb 16, 2008). 


Also the related party transactions (loans to other bodies within the MFS umbrella) were supposed to be on the website. 


the NZ MFS Pacific fund went down late last year, and I believe our fund had some money in MFS Pacific. 


There were supposed to be two committees with independent members- the Compliance Committee (ie. does the fund operate as stated) and the Related Party Transactions Committee (loans to other Octaviar entities). Perhaps someone knows who was on those.



Also how much did the auditor know as at 30 June 2007?



Maurice Blackburn, the law firm,  is taking a class action for some Octaviar shareholders (not PIF fund members) against Octaviar Ltd, so they are looking for money we are also looking for.



For those who want to do a bit of research  look at Pt.2G.4 of the Corporations Act, and also at S.252E(2)(b) – any member can get a court order for a meeting of the fund. If you want to look go to: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/



There’s S.197 re the trustee, S252C re official scheme meetings (S.252E(2)(b) gives any member the right to get a court order for an official meeting of the fund), S. 208 re approval for a related party benefit,  S.283A (trustee for debentures which some of PIF activity was), S 209(3) re dishonesty, 601JG ( compliance committee and liability of its members, as well as possible professional indemnity  insurance for them), S601JC(1)(c) ( compliance committee report to ASIC), 601 A re removing the responsible entity, 601HG (auditor), 601FD(1)(c), and Pt 9.4B which deals with prosecutions for breach of the Act.  



Some people who might have some idea of what went on are Andrew Peacock, Phil King, Marshall Vann, Stuart Donaldson, Craig White, Guy Hutchings, and Chris Gavras-Moffatt (corporate lawyer Business Legal for Octaviar Ltd.)


----------



## SPLITPIN (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> I do not agree that the NSX ...... I believe there are genuine alternatives, besides the either/or, yet for the AG to propose to WC, which we will, but it is for consultation first with AG organisers.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## RickH (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> I do not agree that the NSX should be the *only *way for investors to redeem their funds, especially long term. Jenny has presented as an either / or sales pitch. Either you get 14c or you take the NSX +. I believe there are genuine alternatives, besides the either/or, yet for the AG to propose to WC, which we will, but it is for consultation first with AG organisers.
> 
> RickH, my apologies for my inapropriate comment in reply to your post yesterday, you are more than entitled to your comments.




Hi breaker1,
That is OK. This takes up a lot of time. The only reason I started to comment was that my goal is for my clients to get 100% of their money back and some of the comments are going to create a minimal chance for JH to receive a 75% acceptance vote.

I am assuming that the reason JH prefers to use the NSX is:
1) Ability to help out those who need immediate cash flow/withdrawals. Hopefully only partial withdrawals to enable time to grow the NTA.
2) Centrelink - but may have fixed.
3) Ability for her to raise capital to enhanced investment return and grow the NTA back to $1.00 and then above.
4) Long term investors should be Ok receiving 6 cents per annum only little below their current tax assessable interest returns.
5) Ability for JH to provide a professional service rather than throwing everyone to the wolves.
6) JH may also create a very good listed managed fund etc.

The major problem I see with this structure is that I would like to see an ability for the PIF to create loans to those in desperate needs secured by their unit/share holdings as stated previously.

An Un-listed managed fund probable would not attract further funds to grow the NTA until some time in the future.

I believe that if JH does not achieve the 75% vote and cannot take full control of PIF the unit holders will probably receive a maximum of 70 cents over a three year period.

In fact I believe that JH would consider walking away from the PIF problems.

JH needs to be given the opportunity to do what she thinks is the best action for unit/share holders.

The real return is going to be based on her ability to produce profits from this managed fund for the unit/share holders over 3-5 years and then she would hope that most investors would stay the very long term.
And we all would if JH did achieve her goals.
Regards,
Rick.
PS: This is all subject to her goals and presentation etc..


----------



## Javier (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hmmm this has me thinking..do you think WC will get the overwhelming 75% vote based on units held? Will she romp it in or will she just make it?? This is now another worry!


----------



## breaker1 (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Disadvantages of listing*
* The structure of the fund will be irrevocably changed - PIF fund investors will have to compete with the interests of NSX unit holders who's interests may be different to existing PIF holders e.g., NSX investors may be happy with only a small % increase in unit value as they may have bought cheap.

* Control of PIF may fall into the hands of a major NSX buyer, or group of friendly aligned NSX buyers - this buyer or group of united buyers may hold a majority % of units, thus denuding existing PIF investor vote power.

* NSX unit value highly likely to drop because of panic buyers, low volume NSX sales, low volume NSX buyers. 

* also a moral aspect to encouraging panic stricken investors in selling at a loss?

* early NSX sellers may only get a unit value based on what is in the fund now and not on what it could be worth after legal action is undertaken to recover the $147.5M - not to mention the $50 Support facility + other $ recoveries to the fund.

* Shocking time to list a new mutual fund - they are on the nose, at present, with fund managers and financial advisors. Take a look at City Pacific, they have gone from over $5 to approx 45c over the last 5 months.

* RBOS and Fortress banks have placed a warning that it is going to be a bear market for the next 3-6 months, especially on financial listings

* economy likely to go into recession 

* Jenny told me that she doesn't want to do anything that investors don't want - so far most investors don't want the NSX - it would be very bad PR to go against the desire of the majority of investors. This would be a bad start for a new RE.

* Having the PIF as the *only* vehicle for redemptions years down the track is off-putting because Jenny could have achieved a reasonable price on the unit value through the sacrifice of investors getting small 6c p.a. or less payments, whilst inflation eats at that lump sum, then when desiring to redeem their invested lump sum, *after 5 years of this*, only to realise you can only get a lesser amount on the NSX unit redemption, than the PIF unit is worth.


----------



## mfsperth (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

1.       I approached Tony D’Aloisio head of ASIC on 1st April asking him to help to facilitate the formation of a small investors’ consultative group to work alongside the responsible entity while the PIF problems were resolved. If the fund had gone into administration, a Creditors Committee of Reference would be set up by members’ vote.



2. If there is about 41c in value in a PIF share by continuing (if Octaviar Ltd coughs up) , then if it goes on the NSX, there has to be a total ban on short selling. Market manipulation only becomes apparent when it is too late, after the event, and if there’s 41c to be had by forcing down the price and frightening PIF members into selling out, there’ll be some people trying.


----------



## RickH (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> From what I've read and heard from this and the WC forum there are concerns that in an innefficient market an NSX listing will push the purchase price too far down which:
> 
> A: Creates two classes of investors, one who paid $1 per unit and another that paid 20c or less.  Opening up the opportunity for the latter to put downward pressure on WC's commitment to return $1.  Particularly if large numbers of units are sold.  (How can you blame WC for not performing if you bailed out?)
> There is also the question of who gets the capital losses. Keep it in the fund and offset it against capital gains for the benefit of all unit holders.
> ...




Hi Duped,
A)
Yes - you say there will be two classes of unit/share holders but I would hope that a loan type agreement could minimise some losses to those most vulnerable.
Capital Gains Tax will be claimed by the investor based on the original purchase and the final selling price - no problems.
B) The share price will probably not be taken in consideration for the fee charged by WC - The real NTA value of fund itself. It may also be possible for PIF to buy its own shares on the NSX and increase the NTA for the remaining investors. 

There are potentially good and bad sides to everything nothing is perfect.
But the best option at this point in time appears to JH hands down.

Also we must remember that a little knowledge is dangerous and I would prefer to listen to what JH was planning and saying than anyone else at this point in time.
We are not solicitors and most of our discussions are very legally based. Leave this to the professionals.
We need to back JH all the way - after a reasonable presentation and goals.
Regards,
RickH


----------



## breaker1 (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> breaker1 said:
> 
> 
> > I do not agree that the NSX ...... I believe there are genuine alternatives, besides the either/or, yet for the AG to propose to WC, which we will, but it is for consultation first with AG organisers.
> ...


----------



## breaker1 (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Duped,
> We need to back JH all the way - after a reasonable presentation and goals.
> Regards,
> RickH




Rick, please don't get the impression that either the PIF AG or other posters on this forum are against Jenny as the RE. The main objection is using the NSX as the only vehicle for redemptions and that to us, is still seen as negotiable with WC.


----------



## breaker1 (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Hmmm this has me thinking..do you think WC will get the overwhelming 75% vote based on units held? Will she romp it in or will she just make it?? This is now another worry!




If Jenny comes across to the PIF AG desires and proposals, we could be leaders in backing Jenny as the new RE and thus ensure 75% +. It would be great if WC would include our proposals into a new PDS, before any vote.


----------



## RickH (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Rick, please don't get the impression that either the PIF AG or other posters on this forum are against Jenny as the RE. The main objection is using the NSX as the only vehicle for redemptions and that to us, is still seen as negotiable with WC.




Hi breaker1,
That is fine for us to discuss a vehicle.
I have assumed that she has actually spent a considerable time on this issue before she decided to use the NSX.
JH appears to be a person who thinks things through completely before making any comments at all.
She may change the vehicle just to please us.
But we may may have taken her away from her prefered MG sports into a semitrailer and obviously they may not be capable of achieving the same results.
Regards,
Rick.
Thank you for your time and patience. It is now up to the PIF AG.


----------



## seamisty (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

mfsperth, I am in WA and know of 3 others in the Perth area(thats if you are not one of them!!) Do you think JH would come talk to us LOL? Seamisty


----------



## Javier (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A new PDS is a HUGE task, time consuming and very costly due to all the legal input necessary. I think someone in the SYD forum asked to keep the status quo of the fund as is and try and iron out issues till end of year. JH response was that people wanted certainty as to the direction of the fund and who would take the role of RE..this is why, and I have to agree a vote in August is right..sooner rather than later so that we can (and let WC) get on with it. I feel if another exit strategy as well as NSX for the fund down the track is the only huge stumbling block and believe will be resolved.


----------



## Jadel (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Breaker have just emailed you a message 

 Can you confirm you have recieved

 Thinking twice about posting anything on this site since we have been infiltrated


----------



## mgr2118 (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I was at the Sydney meeting - been out of action for last two days, so this is the first opportunity I have had to provide my comments on the Wednesday Meeting.

I left the meeting with the following understandings:-

*  following a call to vote on NSX listing when there was at least a 95% NAYE vote, Jenny said she was surprised, as she said that Melbourne was the opposite;

*  when consistently pressured on whether she was listing on the NSX on 21Jul08, she said that, given the response from Sydney, that there would be NO listing on 21Jul08;

*  when pressured again, she said that they would need to go away and review the whole redemption strategy, and that their proposal would form part of the documentation package to be offered to PIF investors prior to the August vote;

*  she mentioned that at other meetings, that some investors had said that they would be willing to purchase units - issue is at what price;

*  there was also some discussions about whether WC could create a mini exchange via their web site where there could be a listing of willing buyers and sellers - suggested that the $0.45 valuation would be the price;

*  JH is genuinely seeking proposals which would allow some liquidity for unitholders who are not able or willing to stay with the fund, in whatever form - the real issue is the "fairness" test for short term vs long term redemptions.

*  JH re-affirmed that WC were in possession of a number of "hardship" redemption requests. JH said that WC had already paid against a number of these requests, following due diligence on the degree of hardship, at the $0.45 per unit - there was also the commitment that, should there be further upside on all the investments, that additiional payments per unit could be made.

On balance, I found that she was prepared to consider all valid and fair comments from the floor - in Sydney, one investor even suggested that she should amend her fee structure, based on performance - i.e. rather than a flat 0.7%, have a progressive structure which pays more the closer she gets at returning the $1.00 per unit - she thought that was very interesting.

Right at the end, a suggestion was made that WC create a forum on their web site, complete with a Moderator - in this way, WC could hear the comments and suggestions from groups such as this. JH mentioned that the Investor base was many and varied, and that some preferred letters, some emails, some telephone calls - she said that she would seriously look at this proposal.

Anyway, these are my recollections from what I heard in Sydney - please advise if you heard anything different?


----------



## 2CentsWorth (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



goldfinger38 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Just got message from my friend at Centrleink as per below,
> He is recommending those investors that are pensioners who are NOT on full benefits or on any benefit because of the funds they hold in PIF , to notify Centrleink immediately of the reduction in the unit price value and to provide the Balance sheet particulars provided to PIF investors with the Net Asset Backing to prove the value at only 45c currently.
> ...





Goldfinger,
I just wish to thank you for your time and effort regarding the above result.

This morning I took a copy of the above post together with the Balance sheet statement from WC, and presented them to Centrelink. They were not aware of the changes, but on the strength of your post, the C/L officer dealing with me, went and searched his computer and found the new instructions, verbatim to your Post. I then told him the whole sad story.
My Unit value was immediately changed to 0.45c, considerably raising the amount of my then meagre, Age pension. Once again, I am most grateful.

After the officer finished my adjustment, he reached into his work tray and pulled out a bunch of WC statements. He then advised me that he had four other applications, waiting on a ruling from a copy he had sent to Canberra. He then proceeded to process these applications also. That will make
another four, very happy "Little Black Ducks," come next Thursday.

You certaily fixed their little red wagon !


----------



## Duped (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Duped,
> A)
> Yes - you say there will be two classes of unit/share holders but I would hope that a loan type agreement could minimise some losses to those most vulnerable.
> Capital Gains Tax will be claimed by the investor based on the original purchase and the final selling price - no problems.
> ...




You asked.  I summarized.  You responded.

I'll have to take your word for the loan type agreement.
I'll have to take your word for the CGT.
I'll have to take your word for the true NTA valuation 
Agree with you on unit buyback. 
Agree with you that nothing is perfect.
Agree with you that that WC is presently by far best option.
Agree with you that we are not professionals.

But JH asked for feedback and how the blazes would I know how I feel about NSX listing if I don't know anything about it.  And that's what a non-pro poster like me is here for.  Far as I recall, none of us non-pros has passed ourselves off as pros.

Good to have you on board with some answers.


----------



## Dexter (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I would like to test AG members sentiment to the following: 

It appears we want to keep the units among existing 
unitholders so as not to create two unit classes by value (purchase price).

In the past our cheques were made to Perpetual Nominees who in turn issued the certificates.

Could we suggest to JH that Perpetual mediate sales between those who wish to exit the Fund and existing unitholders to increase their stake to average out their unit cost.

If we could strike a fair market value it would encourage a vote against liquidation.  

I am a buyer as I have faith in the new management and would like to see the NSX scapped.  Once trading commenced it would find a level of the true value of our units.

Comments please.

I would also like to nominate Mutchy to the committee.


----------



## flatback (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi,
> What is soooooo wrong with the listing of PIF on the NSX?
> Please consider and reply with all your reasons.
> Regards,
> Rick



 Hi Rickh, until somebody with a lot of power meaning JH, is prepared to investigate your proposal to assist those with dire financial problems,(which i might add looks to maybe be an answer for them)the way you appear to have proposed it. and she can give an answer about nsx>asx further down the track, you will not convince me that going the way of NSX is the right way to go,i believe we must have a clear direction from her which way she intends to go,i believe she could enlighten us tomorrow about this concern, for some reason she won't commit. i have no argument with your theory ,but its coming from the wrong person, cheers Flatback


----------



## Mutchy (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mgr2118 said:


> I was at the Sydney meeting - been out of action for last two days, so this is the first opportunity I have had to provide my comments on the Wednesday Meeting.
> 
> I left the meeting with the following understandings:-
> 
> ...




I agree with all your observations about the Sydney meeting, mgr2118. That is a good report.

I too expect JH to come up with an alternative to listing on the NSX as a means of providing redemptions to those who are in dire straits, based on what she said at the meeting.

I am firmly against listing on the NSX because, in addition to all the dilution of original unit holders with new low price unit holders and the potentially awful result, when we do get some way down the track with WC doing what JH proposes (historically share market downturns have not lasted more than 4 years and usually recover much more quickly) the NSX will be a very poor medium for trading units. I understand that the fund could unlist itself from what was said in discussion at Sydney but I don't know if that is possible and how hard it is to do ie constitution changes, other legal matters. IMHO better not to list at all and have a trading scheme run by WC.
Mutchy


----------



## SPLITPIN (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Dexter said:


> I would like to test AG members sentiment to the following:
> 
> I would also like to nominate Mutchy to the committee.




Dexter

It appears there is no elected committee, apart from only one area acting GC chairman Ron Haggart as per the GC news today with a $1M investment prepared to show his face in public at a public forum.

Please stop nominating non elected candiates.

Splitpin


----------



## breaker1 (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Dexter
> 
> It appears there is no elected committee, apart from only one area acting GC chairman Ron Haggart as per the GC news today with a $1M investment prepared to show his face in public at a public forum.
> 
> ...




Gold coast, Port Macquarie and Newcastle have elected chairs, etc.

The others are planning to hold local meetings, after all the details of the forums come through.


----------



## SPLITPIN (11 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Breaker have just emailed you a message
> 
> Can you confirm you have recieved
> 
> Thinking twice about posting anything on this site since we have been infiltrated




Jadel

What is this nonsense.

After 50+ entries you cannot run away now when we need you most to be part of a balanced forum.

Everything must be fully transperant and within the law.

This is about democracry, a fair go, what our forum and Aust. is all about.

Hang in, have another glass and I am sure you will see it differently in the morning.

Splitpin


----------



## mgr2118 (12 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mutchy said:


> I agree with all your observations about the Sydney meeting, mgr2118. That is a good report.
> 
> I too expect JH to come up with an alternative to listing on the NSX as a means of providing redemptions to those who are in dire straits, based on what she said at the meeting.
> 
> ...




Thanks Mutchy for your comments.

As we both heard, the NSX option is no longer the only option being considered by Jenny.

What we should be now doing is to use this forum to "constructively" provide alternatives that meet both the short term and long term objectives of the members.

Ideally, we would all love to get back to the monthly interest and return of capital after a set period - this was the basis of all of our initial decision making to participate in the PIF. 

*The resolution of this, I believe, is the fundamental issue that needs to be addressed by this forum.*

My reading of the forum to date indicates that there are three (main) groups of investors representative of the forum:-

Group 1  -  mainly interested in an income stream, with a hope that they get most of their capital back after a period (to be defined);

Group 2  -  because of changes in circumstances, or because of the (previous) timing of their redemptions, they require their capital back ASAP;

Group 3  -  dissillutioned - not happy - don't believe that there is any future for the PIF, so want to get out NOW.

Happy to hear if there are any other major groups.

All these groups want a clear statement on redemptions, and the value per unit on redemption.

The problem is that the PIF is no longer a LIQUID fund - there are no longer any new investors whose funds can be used to pay out those who want to leave.

SO

We all need to think about a FAIR methodology that can meet the requirements of all the groups (in listening to Jenny, I think that she thought the NSX would achieve that goal).

I believe that we have enough intelligent thinkers on this forum to put forward constructive proposals that can meet the requirements of all the groups - we can then use something like the Yahoo forum to vote on these proposals.

We don't have a lot of time between now and the vote in August, so, if we all believe that this is our key goal, then we should be spending our time working on this.

Happy to hear any other comments.


----------



## mfsperth (12 July 2008)

*Youtube presentations on the MFS PIF*

Here is the URL to watch the Wellington Capital presentation on plans for the MFS PIF:

http://www.newpif.com.au/investorforumjuly.html


----------



## marcom (12 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Effectively what JH is proposing is a normal STAPLED SECURITIES senario - you have fund units and listed units as has been proposed. Stapled securities are issued with an end date for total redemption (usually 5 years). In this way there is an ongoing market for the shares and a clearly defined conclusion for the fund. At the end of this date if you want to reinvest you simply invest in a new stapled securities issue.

Remember the Public Trustee of Qld is suing Octaviar over stapled securities that expire in 2011.

And yes the the trustee custodial role still applies to stapled securities.

This is not new to WC as all of the funds they operate are stapled security funds - just read the prospectus on the WC website.

It would seem to me that in our situation that 5 years would be the appropriate time frame for a stapled security fund. Effectively this imposes a 5 year moratorium on our fund which is not provided for in AUS legislation.


----------



## SPLITPIN (12 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Effectively what JH is proposing is a normal STAPLED SECURITIES senario - you have fund units and listed units as has been proposed. Stapled securities are issued with an end date for total redemption (usually 5 years). In this way there is an ongoing market for the shares and a clearly defined conclusion for the fund. At the end of this date if you want to reinvest you simply invest in a new stapled securities issue.
> 
> Remember the Public Trustee of Qld is suing Octaviar over stapled securities that expire in 2011.
> 
> ...




Marcom

Could you please give us an example caulation of how you would see this working if say I had 100 units now tied up in the fund and wished to sell say 20 immediately on the stock exchange, sell say another 20 next year on the stock exchange and assuming I get dividends as per the current WC offers and with a fund duration of say 5 years and wish to reinvest again.

This sample calculation would be greatly appreciated.

Splitpin.


----------



## marcom (12 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Marcom
> 
> Could you please give us an example caulation of how you would see this working if say I had 100 units now tied up in the fund and wished to sell say 20 immediately on the stock exchange, sell say another 20 next year on the stock exchange and assuming I get dividends as per the current WC offers and with a fund duration of say 5 years and wish to reinvest again.
> 
> ...




If you read the PDS for the WC funds on their (WC not PIF) site it will tell you all you need to know.


----------



## great dame (12 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Effectively what JH is proposing is a normal STAPLED SECURITIES senario - you have fund units and listed units as has been proposed. Stapled securities are issued with an end date for total redemption (usually 5 years). In this way there is an ongoing market for the shares and a clearly defined conclusion for the fund. At the end of this date if you want to reinvest you simply invest in a new stapled securities issue.
> 
> Remember the Public Trustee of Qld is suing Octaviar over stapled securities that expire in 2011.
> 
> ...



           Thats news to me where on earth did you get that information    Eric


----------



## great dame (12 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> If you read the PDS for the WC funds on their (WC not PIF) site it will tell you all you need to know.




         I had a look on that site & cant find that information   JH never said anything at the Brisbane meeting  about stapled shares  with a 5 year distance   Tell us all when she said this please     Eric


----------



## great dame (12 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mgr2118 said:


> Thanks Mutchy for your comments.
> 
> As we both heard, the NSX option is no longer the only option being considered by Jenny.
> 
> ...




         None of you get it do you Wellington is in the business of making money for Wellington NOT US Eric


----------



## RickH (12 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Goldfinger thank you for taking half a page to tell us the patently obvious
> 
> A Neanderthal with half a brain   can work our that any trades on the NSX is not going to effect the price of the units
> 
> ...




Hi Chris,
From RickH. - Financial adviser to more 150 clients invested into PIF.
I wish to refer to your previous statement and I agree completelywith your statement "A Neanderthal with half a brain can work our that any trades on the NSX is not going to effect the price of the units" on the understanding that we are both talking about the NTA value.
I believe that you may be looking at my statements incorrectly. Please refer to everything that I have listed.
1) My agenda is to try and recover 100% of my clients funds and in the process that will recover 100% of all investors funds.
2) 'Original Scheme' - It may be possible to create a loan type fund within PIF to advance on a drip feed basis to 'original' investors who have a desperate need for a regular cash flow to cover regular on-going living expenses.
The loan could possibly be organised within PIF using the borrowers' units/shares as security based on the current net value 14 cents and up to 45 cents within 24 months? This will at least defer and may even stop the need to sell units.
3) The listing of the MFS units on the NSX is just a vehicle that may help JH to raise extra funds (being a Merchant Banker) to enable this vehicle to grow to the value of at least $1.00 over the next 3-5 years. IF she has a reasonable plan to present to all unit holders it should be considered because at this point in time the quick sale value of the units is 14 cents and say 46 cents in 2-3 years.

My agenda does not include the selling of units at 14 cents becaues this may decimate a persons life savings. I want at least $1.00 returned and if we can also receive 6 cents per annum that would be a fantastic result for everyone and that includes you, my clients and me.

*Please remember that the major problem at this point in time is to get 75% of the actual votes to be positive and continue the PIF for at least five but preferably a longer term because I believe that this will benefit everyone currently involved in the PIF that is a regular income investment fund[/U]*

Kindest Regards,
Rick

PS: IF the November & December 'loans/gifts' or any other investments are not covered by the PDS etc – I believe that those people should be held fully accountable - via monetary plus jail terms. But let us get the correct structure to enable JH to do her best and not be hindered in any way – subject to a reasonable presentation and plans…


----------



## mfsperth (12 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

1. I am a Perth MFS investor. How many others are in WA, which missed out on the update meetings?




When I first asked Octaviar for the members register as any member is entitled to do by Corporations Law, Octaviar told me Perpetual Nominees, the trustee, wanted $14000. (The cost by law is supposed to be what it costs to download to a CD).



After further discussion and ASIC (Neale Paterson) intervention it came down to $200. Then Wellington took over so I didn’t pursue it.



There have been a number of strange goings on – 



A loan from a Scottish bank for $180m which ranked ahead of us as members for repayment. 


The $147.5 m in unsecured loans (ie. ca. 20% of the fund) to seven entities in November December according to the AFR. (see AFR 16april and 25 June). 


A Lonsec (ratings agency) thumbs up for the fund sent to us in early November. 


The disappearance from the Octaviar website of the PDS (even though Guy Hutchings sent me a hard copy on Feb 16, 2008). 


Also the related party transactions (loans to other bodies within the MFS umbrella) were supposed to be on the website. 


the NZ MFS Pacific fund went down late last year, and I believe our fund had some money in MFS Pacific. 


There were supposed to be two committees with independent members- the Compliance Committee (ie. does the fund operate as stated) and the Related Party Transactions Committee (loans to other Octaviar entities). Perhaps someone knows who was on those.



Also how much did the auditor know as at 30 June 2007?



Maurice Blackburn, the law firm,  is taking a class action for some Octaviar shareholders (not PIF fund members) against Octaviar Ltd, so they are looking for money we are also looking for.



For those who want to do a bit of research  look at Pt.2G.4 of the Corporations Act, and also at S.252E(2)(b) – any member can get a court order for a meeting of the fund. If you want to look go to: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/



There’s S.197 re the trustee, S252C re official scheme meetings (S.252E(2)(b) gives any member the right to get a court order for an official meeting of the fund), S. 208 re approval for a related party benefit,  S.283A (trustee for debentures which some of PIF activity was), S 209(3) re dishonesty, 601JG ( compliance committee and liability of its members, as well as possible professional indemnity  insurance for them), S601JC(1)(c) ( compliance committee report to ASIC), 601 A re removing the responsible entity, 601HG (auditor), 601FD(1)(c), and Pt 9.4B which deals with prosecutions for breach of the Act.  



Some people who might have some idea of what went on are Andrew Peacock, Phil Adams, Michael King, Marshall Vann, Stuart Donaldson, Craig White, Guy Hutchings, and Chris Gavras-Moffatt (corporate lawyer Business Legal for Octaviar Ltd.) Also David Anderson is Octaviar company secretary.



2.       I approached Tony D’Aloisio head of ASIC on 1st April asking him to help to facilitate the formation of a small investors’ consultative group to work alongside the responsible entity while the PIF problems were resolved. If the fund had gone into administration, a Creditors Committee of Reference would be set up by members’ vote.



3. If there is about 41c in value in a PIF share by continuing, then if it goes on the NSX, there has to be a total ban on short selling. Market manipulation only becomes apparent when it is too late, after the event, and if there’s 41c to be had by forcing down the price and frightening PIF members into selling out, there’ll be some people trying.


 4.

Looking at the late 2007 loans made by our MFS PIF, can anyone confirm that these are the companies they were made to?



SPV Pty Ltd registered as a company 17.12.07 ACN 128 946 494. Reg office Adelaide.

OR

SPV Co Pty Ltd ACN 127 289 098 registered 29.8.07 Reg office Pt Macquarie. 



Ray Group ACN 057 883 511registered 26.10.92 Reg Office Robina Qld.



Investment Enterprises Pty Ltd ACN 070 041 413 reg’d 26.6.95 Reg office Sth Yarra



Southport Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 009 224 275 reg’d 18.3.87 Reg office West Perth



Young Village Estates ACN 124 564 772 reg’d 22.3.07 Reg office Southport.



Perhaps someone who has full access to ASIC co. info can find out who the directors are.



5.

Interestingly says the AFR, ABN Amro Morgans, UBS and Macquarie Research all gave MFS a thumbs-up for fund managers. Opis Capital also liked them.



6.

According to the AFR on April 16, $100m was lent by the PIF to MFS Living and Leisure, at 14% interest. The PIF put $17m into the water fund. However the PIF owes MFS Living and Leisure $67m.



7.

As at 30 June 2007, the PIF was, according to Property Investment Research, 31% mortgages (if only they’d stuck to what they knew), 22% in managed investment schemes, 21% in asset-backed investments, 13% in fixed interest, and 13% in cash, with about 11,000 investors.


----------



## reasonable (12 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Interestingly I emailed the contact given by the AG at the Melbourne forum to enquire about joining.  This was on Tuesday last but have received no reply.


----------



## selciper (12 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

MFSPERTH -

Interesting to read your well-compiled list. It's difficult to believe that ASIC aren't working on this already

Perhaps you could add a paragraph with your conclusions and solutions (if any).


----------



## Jadel (12 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Reasonable

             Contact mailto:breaker1@aapt.net.au to join AG


----------



## Rocky1 (13 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Reasonable

Rest assured I have responded to everyone who has contacted me from the Melbourne Forum. The only person I received a non deliverable return email from was a person named Jon. If this was you I apologies so please try again, nothing interesting about this, merely an email/internet issue.

As i mentioned please email me again, with contact phone number if you wish and I will call you personally


----------



## kogo (13 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi
Can anyone tell me what the process will be for the august vote in regards to voting power.
Example: there seems to be a few fund managers in this acting for a number of clients. Have these investments by them been set up as individual accounts/investments for each investor or a large sum investment account by the fund manager/Firm? Would they have 1 vote or say 150 votes if that was the total number of investor's in the fund? To continue I am a reasonably large individual investor although I have 4 investments accounts with different maturities and interest rates. Does this mean that I have 4 votes or just 1. What would be the difference between this and a fund manager having one account but adding to his position each time an idividual investor wanted to invest.

On another point there have been a few statements made in regards to peoples agenda's. If there are fund managers,retiree's,individual large and small investors and investors still working there HAS to be a multiple of agendas out there. From people wanting to stay with the fund long term, who work and have the time on their side to go down this road to possibly terminally ill looking to cash out for obvious reasons, to investors that need cash to stave off creditors/mortgage payments/food/petrol etc. I have no problem with any of these agenda's as they are all important to each individual. My point is has there been any discussion in the AG or WC (if you're reading/listening to this forum) in setting up different classes of investors. I think the AG/WC needs to at least get some sort of show of hands now on certain positions if possible so that there is not a potential blind side come August with a few people showing up with a number of proxies and changing things without anyone knowing and believe me I've seen it happen. Remember there are some 10300 investors out there but what is the voting register going to total if there is one account but with 150 different investors in that account or 1 investor with a number of different accounts.


----------



## great dame (13 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



kogo said:


> Hi
> Can anyone tell me what the process will be for the august vote in regards to voting power.
> Example: there seems to be a few fund managers in this acting for a number of clients. Have these investments by them been set up as individual accounts/investments for each investor or a large sum investment account by the fund manager/Firm? Would they have 1 vote or say 150 votes if that was the total number of investor's in the fund? To continue I am a reasonably large individual investor although I have 4 investments accounts with different maturities and interest rates. Does this mean that I have 4 votes or just 1. What would be the difference between this and a fund manager having one account but adding to his position each time an idividual investor wanted to invest.
> 
> On another point there have been a few statements made in regards to peoples agenda's. If there are fund managers,retiree's,individual large and small investors and investors still working there HAS to be a multiple of agendas out there. From people wanting to stay with the fund long term, who work and have the time on their side to go down this road to possibly terminally ill looking to cash out for obvious reasons, to investors that need cash to stave off creditors/mortgage payments/food/petrol etc. I have no problem with any of these agenda's as they are all important to each individual. My point is has there been any discussion in the AG or WC (if you're reading/listening to this forum) in setting up different classes of investors. I think the AG/WC needs to at least get some sort of show of hands now on certain positions if possible so that there is not a potential blind side come August with a few people showing up with a number of proxies and changing things without anyone knowing and believe me I've seen it happen. Remember there are some 10300 investors out there but what is the voting register going to total if there is one account but with 150 different investors in that account or 1 investor with a number of different accounts.



The way it will be voted on i believe is  if your total amount of units in the fund is say $100.000 that gives you a 100.000 votes  so the so the bigger the invester you are the more votes you have    The managers do not have a vote at all only  there investers   ////////


----------



## kogo (13 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> The way it will be voted on i believe is  if your total amount of units in the fund is say $100.000 that gives you a 100.000 votes  so the so the bigger the invester you are the more votes you have    The managers do not have a vote at all only  there investers   ////////




Thanks. Would be nice to confirm the process though. I did read an article quoting JH saying it would be a value vote requiring 75% which would support your quote. I think I will send an e-mail to WC to confirm the process.


----------



## JohnH (13 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



kogo said:


> Thanks. Would be nice to confirm the process though. I did read an article quoting JH saying it would be a value vote requiring 75% which would support your quote. I think I will send an e-mail to WC to confirm the process.





Kogo, This question was asked at the Gold Coast Forum, and Jenny confirmed that it would be one vote per share.


----------



## 2CentsWorth (13 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Kogo, This question was asked at the Gold Coast Forum, and Jenny confirmed that it would be one vote per share.




Yes John, that is correct. One vote per Unit, and Managers must contact all of their clients to receive and forward, their individual voting power on the choice they have decided. 
But remember....only 75% of units who actually vote, is required to make a decision, hence if only 50% of us vote, it will only require 75% of that 50%, to confirm whatever the voting choice concerned is. ie: to go with JH, or to Liquidate. (God forbid !!)


----------



## great dame (13 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> I had a look on that site & cant find that information   JH never said anything at the Brisbane meeting  about stapled shares  with a 5 year distance   Tell us all when she said this please     Eric






JohnH said:


> Kogo, This question was asked at the Gold Coast Forum, and Jenny confirmed that it would be one vote per share.






kogo said:


> Thanks. Would be nice to confirm the process though. I did read an article quoting JH saying it would be a value vote requiring 75% which would support your quote. I think I will send an e-mail to WC to confirm the process.




          I would rather have the vote delayed  till we know if JH  can get back our $147,5 Mill   as that would give us a better understanding  what the fud is realy worth for those who want to  vote to bail out    remenber the old saying a bird in the hand is better then maybe  3 or 4 in the bush


----------



## great dame (13 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I dont believe any sane invester  will buy our shares or units  on the NXS or ASX for that mater  when the fund is not producing income  at all  and the asset base is just going down with the 3 cents handouts  & the fees WC  will be getting   All sane share buyers always look to forcasts growth   & income growth in companys before they buy  there is none of that in PIC at all   JH will not give us any future forcasts  She cant   WE have to believe in her in BLIND FAITH   Have a happy day   Cheers GD /


----------



## great dame (13 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



2CentsWorth said:


> Yes John, that is correct. One vote per Unit, and Managers must contact all of their clients to receive and forward, their individual voting power on the choice they have decided.
> But remember....only 75% of units who actually vote, is required to make a decision, hence if only 50% of us vote, it will only require 75% of that 50%, to confirm whatever the voting choice concerned is. ie: to go with JH, or to Liquidate. (God forbid !!)




          JH needs 3 out every  4 votes to swing it & get over the line  pretty tall order i would think  I just wonder what her odds are   I might start a book on this  Might help me make a few bucks i have lost in this mess     ////////


----------



## flatback (13 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> None of you get it do you Wellington is in the business of making money for Wellington NOT US Eric



Eric i dont see how you can make such a high and mighty call and roll the whole lot of this group into such derogertive statement, where do you get off saying such a thing,we know that JH is going to use this vehicle to make money for both herself and we the FUND holders,my friend you are tarring yourself with the same brush you idiot because you also lost money on this deal,keep your remarks to your self if they cannot be constructive


----------



## kogo (13 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Kogo, This question was asked at the Gold Coast Forum, and Jenny confirmed that it would be one vote per share.




So if you have 500k in the fund is to say you have 500k voting power?

So if there are some managers out there that could/may persuade there clients that this fund has no chance under the present economic climate and that liquidation is the only answer and show up to the meeting with a large number of proxies we could all be getting 14(+-) cents on the dollar in March 09.??


----------



## kogo (13 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Based on this 75% of the total votes on the day can I ask if the AG will also be issuing any documentation regarding it's position.?

What worries me is that on the day you can be guarranteed that all fund managers etc will be doing their voting for there clients and probably based on a fair amount of communication between themselves and rightly so. I don't know what the percentages of fund manager monies verses individual investors make up the PIF but if the individuals are not following this forum (some don't have computer access for instance)or keeping up with WC news etc how can we be guarranteed that a large number of the 10300 investors will be well enough informed to vote one way or the other. 

Has the AG formed a position on how it would like to see the voting??
Will it publish it's position and reason's for/against??

I do somewhat apologize if it looks like I'm picking on Fund managers but when it comes to voting there is strength in numbers not individuals.

My position is to stay with the fund , go with WC as RE's and trust that they are professional enough to do the best job they can do for us and along the way make a few bucks for themselves because if they make it - it should mean that we are too.
I still have not formed an opinion on the NSX thing as yet. There are compelling arguments for and against.


----------



## seamisty (13 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



kogo said:


> Based on this 75% of the total votes on the day can I ask if the AG will also be issuing any documentation regarding it's position.?
> 
> What worries me is that on the day you can be guarranteed that all fund managers etc will be doing their voting for there clients and probably based on a fair amount of communication between themselves and rightly so. I don't know what the percentages of fund manager monies verses individual investors make up the PIF but if the individuals are not following this forum (some don't have computer access for instance)or keeping up with WC news etc how can we be guarranteed that a large number of the 10300 investors will be well enough informed to vote one way or the other.
> 
> ...



Well Kogo, If I had my funds invested under a funds manager that voted for liquidation in these circumstances I would be seriously concerned as to the competence of those in charge of my investment!! The managers should be gratefull and endorse all efforts of the only party that has put its reputation on the line and is willing to pick up the pieces and make the best of a bad situation. Going on some of the figures put in the public arena, there are a few private investors that have just as much as stake as the combined net value of wholesale funds.Seamisty


----------



## great dame (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> Eric i dont see how you can make such a high and mighty call and roll the whole lot of this group into such derogertive statement, where do you get off saying such a thing,we know that JH is going to use this vehicle to make money for both herself and we the FUND holders,my friend you are tarring yourself with the same brush you idiot because you also lost money on this deal,keep your remarks to your self if they cannot be constructive




  My friend Mr Flatback  it seens you dont know much about business    When one buys a business as WC has done  they want to get a return from it   A return of there capital  then profits from there on   If JH gets over the line  75% WC  are in a win win  cant lose  It wont mater if PIF never make another buck WC fees will just keeping eating away at MIF asset base   They cant lose   Gee would i love to have a business like that     The 3 cents  be for Xmas & aother next year  is just the bait to get suckers like you in   That money is coming from the asset base   not income  it just reduced the our pile   AS for you saying JH is going to make money for us all    Of cause she must say that     I might be dumb but i am sure not stupit ////////


----------



## RickH (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> My friend Mr Flatback  it seens you dont know much about business    When one buys a business as WC has done  they want to get a return from it   A return of there capital  then profits from there on   If JH gets over the line  75% WC  are in a win win  cant lose  It wont mater if PIF never make another buck WC fees will just keeping eating away at MIF asset base   They cant lose   Gee would i love to have a business like that     The 3 cents  be for Xmas & aother next year  is just the bait to get suckers like you in   That money is coming from the asset base   not income  it just reduced the our pile   AS for you saying JH is going to make money for us all    Of cause she must say that     I might be dumb but i am sure not stupit ////////




Interesting statement great dame,
I might be dumb but i am sure not stupit ////////
Any business person would want to increase their profits that means to grow the assets under management via responsible fund mangement. Please remember that if JH completely fails as the RE/Fund manager she may lose the respect and leadership qualities that she has worked so hard to achieve. Fund managers, financial planners and investors all want the same thing - that is good returns on invested capital.
Unfortunately there are some people who have no idea and maybe even invested more than 50% of their capital into one investment. I am concerned for my clients funds because there may be some very stupid people around who may scare other people into voting to liquidate the fund.
JH wants all investors to recover their capital within 3-5 years while receiving 6 cents per annum plus she would want to continue to grow PIF into one of the biggest and best managed funds in Australia.
To me that would be a perfect outcome.
Obviously there are no guarantees but 14 cents is not an option.
RickH.


----------



## Mary Lynch (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

'Spose it's difficult to do anything about it, but, has anyone noticed the wording in several articles?    "Jenny says"......seems particularly  the GC News...eg...The 40 yrs old says "stick with WC as it works to recover 45-65c per unit".     Article: "Legal Action Hangs over King, Adams."

Is it just me, or does that imply to you guys that she "intends" to recover 45-64c over the 3-5 yr timeframe?

WE know this is not right, but I am wondering about all our fellow investors, who weren't at the meetings, or even misheard and read newspapers to confirm what they "heard" at the meetings......how will THIS understanding , or MISunderstanding effect their vote?


----------



## DoraNBoots (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I think I've read in two different media articles that the fund will be listed on the ASX.  I'm sure this was a mistake but it's a worry if some investers don't realise this is a mistake or assume the NSX is the same as the ASX.

I really don’t know what Jenny is expecting the fund to do over the 3 to 5 yr term.  A lot of comments are being made here that I personally didn’t hear Jenny say in Brisbane.  I know she may be refining her strategy as she goes but I find it very confusing to hear so many different opinions on what she is doing.  It would be nice if WC could put something on the newpif web site clearly explaining the 3 to 5 yr strategy for the fund including the expected returns, expected capital and exit strategies.  I realise these will be estimates but that’s better than nothing.  Let me know if this info is already available somewhere.

I'm looking forward to feedback from the Newcastle meeting.


----------



## great dame (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*




RickH said:


> Interesting statement great dame,
> I might be dumb but i am sure not stupit ////////
> Any business person would want to increase their profits that means to grow the assets under management via responsible fund mangement. Please remember that if JH completely fails as the RE/Fund manager she may lose the respect and leadership qualities that she has worked so hard to achieve. Fund managers, financial planners and investors all want the same thing - that is good returns on invested capital.
> Unfortunately there are some people who have no idea and maybe even invested more than 50% of their capital into one investment. I am concerned for my clients funds because there may be some very stupid people around who may scare other people into voting to liquidate the fund.
> ...



    Tell me RickH do you believe in the tooth Fairley    Have you seen pigs flying lately  Or water running up hill   We are in a propley slump could be for 3 to 5 years   But your wonder women JH will over come all this & increase the fund by 46% O come on ypur not that nave sureley    RichH that will not happen    People like you only believe want to beleve in  /////////


----------



## great dame (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I think I've read in two different media articles that the fund will be listed on the ASX.  I'm sure this was a mistake but it's a worry if some investers don't realise this is a mistake or assume the NSX is the same as the ASX.
> 
> I really don’t know what Jenny is expecting the fund to do over the 3 to 5 yr term.  A lot of comments are being made here that I personally didn’t hear Jenny say in Brisbane.  I know she may be refining her strategy as she goes but I find it very confusing to hear so many different opinions on what she is doing.  It would be nice if WC could put something on the newpif web site clearly explaining the 3 to 5 yr strategy for the fund including the expected returns, expected capital and exit strategies.  I realise these will be estimates but that’s better than nothing.  Let me know if this info is already available somewhere.
> 
> I'm looking forward to feedback from the Newcastle meeting.



JH is not telling us a thing   If she gets the 75%  we are all locked in  And the only out is to sell give your units away then for nealey nothing if you want out She will have us all in the bag then /


----------



## Duped (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> None of you get it do you Wellington is in the business of making money for Wellington NOT US Eric




Of course WC should make profit out of the PIF.  At the BNE forum, JH VOLUNTEERED (IMO to her enormous credit given the circumstances) that WC is "in the business of being in business". 

See if you can get hold of a book called The Warren Buffet Way.
Almost every business has three groups it needs to keep happy. Clients, Shareholders and Staff.  Their interests conflict. Who gets the spoils?  That's the question.  A well run business gets the balance right.

I don't have the 2006 voting papers on me but based on my recollection, WC is proposing to RESTORE the fee structure that was in place prior to the 2006 amendment to the constitution.
At a fund value of $413M, 0.07% would yield WC a revenue of around $2.89M. IMO: not unreasonable when a general admin staff costs around $40K, then there's rent, IT hardware+software+staff, accounts software & staff, payroll, payroll tax, WC's own auditors, insurance premium, electricity bills, all those Council & State govt levies etc etc etc.  Compare this to the $16M MFSIM took in 06/07  ($7.7M in 05/06 , $4.8M in 04/05)

We should all be very careful with how we treat info from this forum. There are parties who will benefit from the PIF being liquidated. More particularly, from a weakened resolve. Particularly, OCV Ltd shareholders and rival creditors.  Who's going to be motivated to chase the $147.5+$50M after PIF is liquidated.  

Artic could possible also benefit from a collapse of PIF.  My understanding is the $45M will be paid back in tranches and after measures are met.  Who's going to be motivated to chase the debt when the PIF's being wrapped up.  Last time I checked, the main beneficiary of Artic owns a few newspapers doesn't he.  I'm not saying that the press is engaged in dodgy reporting.  I'm just pointing out the potential for conflict of interest.

And before you throw 'it's their obligation to ... ' at me: what ... like MFS IM CEO Guy Hutchings' obligation (as stipulated in the PDS), like ASIC's obligation etc etc.  Look what they're worth to us at present.

Do your own research (DYOR)


----------



## seamisty (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I think I've read in two different media articles that the fund will be listed on the ASX.  I'm sure this was a mistake but it's a worry if some investers don't realise this is a mistake or assume the NSX is the same as the ASX.
> 
> I really don’t know what Jenny is expecting the fund to do over the 3 to 5 yr term.  A lot of comments are being made here that I personally didn’t hear Jenny say in Brisbane.  I know she may be refining her strategy as she goes but I find it very confusing to hear so many different opinions on what she is doing.  It would be nice if WC could put something on the newpif web site clearly explaining the 3 to 5 yr strategy for the fund including the expected returns, expected capital and exit strategies.  I realise these will be estimates but that’s better than nothing.  Let me know if this info is already available somewhere.
> 
> I'm looking forward to feedback from the Newcastle meeting.



Good morning DoraNBoots, In view of all the discussion regarding these issues on here over the past week,  the investors attending today's meeting hopefully will ask for better clarification and share the answers received on this forum. Also JH has had time to digest feedback from investors and should have a much clearer picture of what is and is not acceptable to us.She will be aware that she doesn't have much time left to fully inform holders before the 75% vote will be called for in August. Should be an interesting week ahead I think. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Duped (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> JH is not telling us a thing   If she gets the 75%  we are all locked in  And the only out is to sell give your units away then for nealey nothing if you want out She will have us all in the bag then /




So what's your solution?


----------



## great dame (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Interesting statement great dame,
> I might be dumb but i am sure not stupit ////////
> Any business person would want to increase their profits that means to grow the assets under management via responsible fund mangement. Please remember that if JH completely fails as the RE/Fund manager she may lose the respect and leadership qualities that she has worked so hard to achieve. Fund managers, financial planners and investors all want the same thing - that is good returns on invested capital.
> Unfortunately there are some people who have no idea and maybe even invested more than 50% of their capital into one investment. I am concerned for my clients funds because there may be some very stupid people around who may scare other people into voting to liquidate the fund.
> ...



 boy am i sure glad i am not one of your clients   The poor things  6 cents a year  Coming out of our capital    VERY BAD    How on earth can a fund grow when it is being bleed that way    Sorry RichH  you will have to do better then that to covince me //


----------



## great dame (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> So what's your solution?



      Well i would like JH to come clean  & be honest & tell us just wat the fund is realy  worth  I cant accept that 14 cents  sounds like a scare tacket she wont open the books for all to see   A Solution  well the experts all say propley is going to sink down in the years to come  So JH must be a swimer to swin against the tide


----------



## Duped (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Well i would like JH to come clean  & be honest & tell us just wat the fund is realy  worth  I cant accept that 14 cents  sounds like a scare tacket she wont open the books for all to see   A Solution  well the experts all say propley is going to sink down in the years to come  So JH must be a swimer to swin against the tide




And how do we go about that?


----------



## great dame (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Of course WC should make profit out of the PIF.  At the BNE forum, JH VOLUNTEERED (IMO to her enormous credit given the circumstances) that WC is "in the business of being in business".
> 
> See if you can get hold of a book called The Warren Buffet Way.
> Almost every business has three groups it needs to keep happy. Clients, Shareholders and Staff.  Their interests conflict. Who gets the spoils?  That's the question.  A well run business gets the balance right.
> ...



   People that i never have much trust in    Estate agents  Used car salesmen  & people standing on stagers saying  I WILL SAVE YOU ALL  & MAKE YOU MONEY      JUST BELIEVE IN ME  I guess we will grab anything to save us if we are falling down a steep hill    So far its been all talk  & talk is cheap  i realy want to see it all on paper  in easy to read print    And that means everything   What little we have had so far on paper is very vage & not worth a thing  /////////////


----------



## great dame (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> And how do we go about that?



 Well for one thing i dont go round telling people  that i am  the saviour  & will save you all  I just want to be told the truth  how you can bring the fund back to life  After loosing $347.5Mill     The average return from propley over the last 40 Years is about 12,5%  so even if we all dont take any income from mhe fund it going to take a bloody long time to get that money back then if any of us are around then our money will not be worth much because of inflation   Sad reading i know but must always be reliestic  /////////


----------



## great dame (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Interesting statement great dame,
> I might be dumb but i am sure not stupit ////////
> Any business person would want to increase their profits that means to grow the assets under management via responsible fund mangement. Please remember that if JH completely fails as the RE/Fund manager she may lose the respect and leadership qualities that she has worked so hard to achieve. Fund managers, financial planners and investors all want the same thing - that is good returns on invested capital.
> Unfortunately there are some people who have no idea and maybe even invested more than 50% of their capital into one investment. I am concerned for my clients funds because there may be some very stupid people around who may scare other people into voting to liquidate the fund.
> ...



Now we all know that 14cent is wrong  Closer to 30 cents is more like it   RickH  you know the old saying  SOMETHING IS BETTER THEN NOTHING But if you wish to try your luck at nothing  then go for it ////////


----------



## seamisty (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Well for one thing i dont go round telling people  that i am  the saviour  & will save you all  I just want to be told the truth  how you can bring the fund back to life  After loosing $347.5Mill     The average return from propley over the last 40 Years is about 12,5%  so even if we all dont take any income from mhe fund it going to take a bloody long time to get that money back then if any of us are around then our money will not be worth much because of inflation   Sad reading i know but must always be reliestic  /////////



Yes  great dame, very frustrating all round. The problem is at this point in time JH is our only option ( I know this has been said before)so we will have to hope she does live up to her past reputation. Saviours are thin on the ground at present and there will be many other fund managers in the same predicament as JH. She does have a past history of empire building in what was achieved with S8 so the woman has already demonstrated that she is no fool.I am sure we will get more information in due course, meanwhile we need to remain patient. No harm in being optimistic  under the circumstances. Seamisty


----------



## SPLITPIN (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Now we all know that 14cent is wrong  Closer to 30 cents is more like it   RickH  you know the old saying  SOMETHING IS BETTER THEN NOTHING But if you wish to try your luck at nothing  then go for it ////////




Great Dame

Thank you for your numereous colourfull entries of your view of the world.

Are you a member of your local action group.

And if not / why not.

And if so, is your opinion generally the same as your local group.

Splitpin


----------



## Rocky1 (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Well i would like JH to come clean  & be honest & tell us just wat the fund is realy  worth  I cant accept that 14 cents  sounds like a scare tacket she wont open the books for all to see   A Solution  well the experts all say propley is going to sink down in the years to come  So JH must be a swimer to swin against the tide




Great Dame

Please do us all a favor and take your negativity else where. Things you haven't considered of digested from this forum
1. JH is going to provide us a more transparent breakdown of the funds loans and investments. From this we will get a better feel for it's state and potential to recover.
2. The fund will over time recover in part from realising true capital value (property prices are deflated at the moment). I would rather wait 3-5 years to realise $11 mill than take $1 mill through liquidation at the moment.
3. a 3 cent (most likely tax free) distribution by December is probably worth 4.25 cents before tax (8.5%)
4. Once RBOS is out of the picture (predicted end of August) the fund will in fact be making money. Lets say the fund is worth $430,000,000 and is conservatively returning 8% that equates to $34,400,000. (if JH takes 2.89 mill there is a little bit of change).
5. If we bail on the fund what is the likely recovery of the 147.5 Million and 50 Million owed by OCV - NOT VERY HIGH!!!!!. JH has already moved to make us an equal creditor of 5. She has predicted OCV is probably worth 400 mill in cash and assets. I for one would rather back JH and get 80 mill (1/5th of 400 mill) than $0.

I am big believer in the fat we can all have an opinion, but lets work with facts and stop going around in circles posting the same old negativity. 

Yes things aren't ideal, but we are all in the same boat and the only way we can move forward is to back JH. She might not get to $1 in 5 years but I am backing she will go close - POSITIVITY!!!!!!!!!


----------



## selciper (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty is on the right track. Originally I wasn't convinced at all that WC was the best way to go. However, it's clear by now that JH is really putting her reputation on the line. You simply don't take on a heavy burden like this Fund's management unless you see a very good chance of success in the (fairly distant) future. There are always business cycles which she has underlined. Is it wise to sell property worth $11m for $1m? You'd have to be crazy to do so.

I agree that we need more detail, but really beggars can't be choosers. And in a few years we might even be thanking our lucky stars that she took us on. What is the alternative? Sell property at 90% below its value?


----------



## great dame (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Yes  great dame, very frustrating all round. The problem is at this point in time JH is our only option ( I know this has been said before)so we will have to hope she does live up to her past reputation. Saviours are thin on the ground at present and there will be many other fund managers in the same predicament as JH. She does have a past history of empire building in what was achieved with S8 so the woman has already demonstrated that she is no fool.I am sure we will get more information in due course, meanwhile we need to remain patient. No harm in being optimistic  under the circumstances. Seamisty



    The big trouble is There is no new money coming  And a lot of investers will cut there lossers & exit the fud  & get next to nothing   Most of the investores have not got time  They are eldery    The growth years have gorn in propley  So as good as you say JH has been in the past  & remenber they were in the boon years  i find it hard to see her do a repeat performance  I am not pinning much hope on her   Till i see her plans on paper ////////


----------



## RickH (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



goldfinger38 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Update, I have passed on details of the Centrelink
> Means Test Team - Seniors, Carers and Supplementary Payments Branch in Centrelink National Service Office in Canberra to WC in order to get the reduced unit price used for those pensioners suffering hardship beacuse of their continue assessment of their PIF units at $1. Upon speaking to a friendly FIS officer at Centrelink who is a firend of mine, he suggested that if an individual were to take in the Revised Balance Sheet Summary which now shows the Net Asset Backing of 0.45c that they may use this reduced price for that individaul if they wanted to get some relief sooner. Hopefully WC will get onto this ASAP in order to get it reduced for all pensioners.






great dame said:


> Now we all know that 14cent is wrong  Closer to 30 cents is more like it   RickH  you know the old saying  SOMETHING IS BETTER THEN NOTHING But if you wish to try your luck at nothing  then go for it ////////



Hi Great dame,
I do not disagree with everything that you say because many people make promises that they never intend to keep AND we do need to see what JH is planning.

I will refer to the 6 cents annual return with the potential to recover $1.00.

You have stated that you would accept 30 cents in the dollar.
Point 1) IF the already mentioned regular 6 cent annual payment is a possibility together with the value of units/shares growing to $1.00 within 3/5 (even 7 years).
Please consider - IF you accept 30 cents you will need to receive 20% per annum to equal the potential 6 cents regular annual return.

The better risk reward option may be to go with JH and receive the 6 cents per annum regular plus the goal to grow to $1.00 value.

After JH has completed her presentation and consider voting for JH to be the RE even if she does want to list on the NSX.
I am reasonably sure that there are many existing investors who will analyse the assets held within the PIF plus the potential legal claims and pay you your desired 30 cents or it may even be advantageous PIF to purchase your units at 30 cents and increase everyone elses chances of growing the NTA to $1.00 and above.
IF I was your financial planner I would recommend that you probably should not accept such a low return on your $1.00 invested and IF you have invested most of your funds into MFS I would recommend the loan strategy would be your better option.
PS: I really want to follow this fund and encourage the RE to grow the fund to $1.00 plus AND also to take all legal actions to claim against those responsible for the Nov/Dec loans/gifts to MFS. There may be time to make a stand and try to send these people to jail after we have collected as much money from them as possible.

OUR MAJOR PROBLEM IS THE 75% VOTE. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN TO LIQUIDATION AND 14 CENTS EVEN 30 CENTS IS TOO LOW.

Everyone needs to pull together to achieve a suitable outcome. We have very limited time - 
We should consider the following:

AT the start of the meeting have a vote
1) VOTE: (Needs 75% to not liquidate)
a) Not to liquidate PIF.
b) To liquidate PIF.


Vote should be - a) Not to liquidate PIF.

2) VOTE:
a) To elect JH as RE and fund manager at 0.7% fees per annum.
b) Vote for another RE.

Vote should be - a) To elect JH as RE and fund manager at 0.7% fees per annum.

Then we can consider the better options in detail without the need to liquidate PIF.

3) OPTIONS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE NEW RE - JH.
a) Benefits for the listing on the NSX.
b) Benefits for staying as an UN-listed fund.

This vote can then be deferred etc.

But it all depends - JE may only want to be the RE if PIF is NSX listed????
Regards,
RickH


----------



## Jadel (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yes  I can confirm that Great Dame is a Registered member of the Brisbane Action group  

 He has been very badly affected both financially and emotionally as a result of the abuse of investors money in the fund as have many people

  So i think he needs to be allowed to vent his frustrations

  We need to remember that the Fund although heavilly exposed to the property sector does has some diversified  income  assets in cash and bonds that should at least stabilise the returns untill the property cycle recovers 

 Regards Chris


----------



## Duped (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> People that i never have much trust in    Estate agents  Used car salesmen  & people standing on stagers saying  I WILL SAVE YOU ALL  & MAKE YOU MONEY      JUST BELIEVE IN ME  I guess we will grab anything to save us if we are falling down a steep hill    So far its been all talk  & talk is cheap  i realy want to see it all on paper  in easy to read print    And that means everything   What little we have had so far on paper is very vage & not worth a thing  /////////////




Agreed.  But what's your plan for going about getting a better solution.

Can I add more to that list?  Recruitment agents, Microsoft, leaders who have introduced us to concepts like 'core promises' and WMDs, clients of PIF that would benefit from a WC breach of contract by disclosing commercial-in-confidence provisions of their loan agreements etc etc.


----------



## great dame (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> Great Dame
> 
> Please do us all a favor and take your negativity else where. Things you haven't considered of digested from this forum
> 1. JH is going to provide us a more transparent breakdown of the funds loans and investments. From this we will get a better feel for it's state and potential to recover.
> ...



   You intitled to your view   But you are dead WRONG in everything you say above  I hate to see people get conned& given fauce hope   She will go down in history as the a the first person to bring back  from almost death    I wont hold my breath /


----------



## goldfinger38 (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am seeing these latest comments on the forum and there is a lot of emotion and anger present with some of the comments, this forum is meant to be constructive and informative to those who have an interest in what is happening with our money and to those who may not have been able to attend andy of the meetings and hopefully to gain some clearer explanation of what is going on moving forward.

I dont see any value in making emotive statements that are negative at this time until we do actually see the information that we have asked for at the forums.  Especially when ALL of the facts have yet to be put out to all of us to digest. JH stated that the audited account as signed off by Price Waterhouse Coopers would be made available to investors when they bacame available and they would back up the valuations provided under the three scenarios. Remembering it wasnt JH that provided the valuations it was 333 Capital a part of Korda Mentha who are experts in solvency and liquidation of companies and were contracted by Octaviar and PIF to provide their assessment and valuations.

She has stated that after the final meeting this week they would be putting out as much information as possible with regard to the questions raised and answers provided. They have already put in links on their webiste for the PIF about the meeting held in Melbourne so those who didnt attend could here the presentation.

In any case she hasnt even been given the vote of approval by us as investors yet to be able to do anything with the fund. if she doesnt get the 75% for vote she wont be doing anything for us and the liquidation of the fund will proceed.

Re LEGAL proceedings or Action

She has already mentioned that she has engaged the services of a legal silk with regard to the claim against Octaviar for the $147.5 million on top of the $50, million that they are already asking for from Octaviar in order to increase the level of claim that may be payable to creditors when/if Octaviar are forced into Administration by the other creditors. So she is demonstrating she is trying to maximise our potential to recover as much as possible as a creditor to Octaviar as 20c - 40c in the $ from the spoils is better on $197.5 million than $50 million only.

In any case again she wont be able to do too much until she get our vote to continue with the fund and its ongoing operation. If along the way in the running of the fund investors find that she may not be the right person together with WC to run our fund, investors have the ability to call an EGM to appoint a new RE. So we still have the ability to control our destiny.

We want the best possible outcome for us as investors and yes there are those with differing agendas, but if the majority are for a positive outcome then I can see no reason to doubt her current assertions with the continued running of the fund. Lets at least give her a chance to provide the information so we can make an "informed decision".


----------



## Rocky1 (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> You intitled to your view   But you are dead WRONG in everything you say above  I hate to see people get conned& given fauce hope   She will go down in history as the a the first person to bring back  from almost death    I wont hold my breath /




Great Dame

I appreciate what Jadel said about your position, but most people are in a similar situation, some worse than others and I feel for these people greatly

But please read my post again I am not DEAD WRONG on anything, you obviously didn't read it properly


----------



## Janiss (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

MFS is really in dire straits and it is very unlikely that we will see a cent of the $147.5 Million plus $50 million.
At the moment there are over $1 billion worth of claims against MFS, the most significant being:
1. $50 Million shareholder Action by IMF
2. $349 Million Public Trustee of Queensland - court hearing on 9/10 September
3. $100 million in bonds - Challenger  - hearing 21 July


----------



## seamisty (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for a balanced post Goldfinger38.Can anyone tell me if the the IMF shareholder action is successful, do they rank as equal creditors? Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## Janiss (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Octaviar is really in dire straits and it seems very unlikely that we will see a cent of the $147.5 Million plus $50 million.

According to IMF (Australia) Ltd, Legal firm, at the moment there are over 
$1 billion worth of claims against Octaviar/MFS, the most significant being:

1. $50 Million shareholder Action by IMF
2. $349 Million Public Trustee of Queensland - court hearing on 9/10 September
3. $100 million in bonds - Challenger - hearing 21 July
4. $270 Million - OPI Pacific Finance - damages claim
5. $197.5 Million - PIF - September hearing for 147.5
6. $60 million - ATO (tax + interest)
7. $40 Million NAB - loan LLA

As at 30 Dec 2007 MFS balance sheet showed $3.8 Billion of assets and $2.6 billion liabilities. On April 28 $1 billion of assets were written off leaving expected net assets of $240 million!! There are also more damages claims expected.


----------



## deano1 (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

yes all getting very emotive as everything comes to a head - i'll come back to the points i have raised here before - before anyone can make an informed decision - WC have to come out and explain exactly what the assets are that are supporting the loans - they dont have to break and commercial confidentialities to do this - like i think Rocky1 has said loan A is supported by an asset in X state ie QLD / Gold coast - the loan value is X and we value that asset at Y - the liquidators value that asset as Z - we think we can achieve Valuation Y over X number of months years ( dont forget the result she has achieved in the liquidation of the 32 apartments last week - that should give people confidence on her valuation models) - 2 liquidation is not necessarily the worst case scenario - Korda Mentha is still liquidating the Ansett debacle and when it all washes up most of the employees will end up getting most of their cash back - ( yeah inflation has made their $1 less than what it is but they still look like getting their money out) a liquidation / or administration doesn't have to be cut and run - it can be an orderly process - i'm not decided on my mums and brothers behalf which way they should go yet as i really want to see what is in this fund before decisions get made - but what i really do want to see is the thieves who have stolen the money - if they have 1c buried somewhere - i want that recovered - the directors of MFS are personally liable for the criminal activity if they knowingly permitted it to occur and from what i have heard, read - seen - they knew - they are guilty - and they need to be persued - i think you will find they have money buried everywhere and the longer they have to shift this away from recovery - the harder and more expensive it becomes to recover it. persue whats nearest and dearest to these thieves - their wallet and listen to the scream - i'd like to hear some fighting words from WC on this front - I'd be anti listing on any exchange if you can keep the process in house your not opening yourself to any sort of market manipulation - remember someone offering 20c is probably going to get hit on the bid at the moment - and if the fund is worth say 45c now they are in front and do not share the same objectives as the current unit holders - although i do recognise the need for some sort of facility to allow those desperatly in need of some cash to get access to it. 
My final comment yes WC are in it to make money for themselves - i hope they make a fortune as they will make a silk purse out of a sows ear - and the unit holders will ultimately benefit - but if they can't turn it around its going to be your money going to pay them for something that could have been done via administration.

Until you see the loan book, assets and a valuation comparison all this is just venting over a bllody disgraceful set of circumstances - once you get the details then you can make an informed decision - and JH, WC or anyone else cannot suggest / infer whats best for you - you need to make the decision based on having access to all the facts you need to make that decision.

Hope i havent stirred up any hornets nest - as i have said before i have 30 years experience in Investment banking have been a director of over 40 public companies and whats happened here is the worst example of governance i have ever seen from people claiming to be professionals in my life time.

Regards


----------



## Rocky1 (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Janiss said:


> Octaviar is really in dire straits and it seems very unlikely that we will see a cent of the $147.5 Million plus $50 million.
> 
> According to IMF (Australia) Ltd, Legal firm, at the moment there are over
> $1 billion worth of claims against Octaviar/MFS, the most significant being:
> ...




I thought I heard JH say at the melbourne forum that we (PIF) were one of five creditors inline for an equal share of any OCV windup, liquidation (or she was in the process of trying to make us 1 of 5).

OCV also has 170 Mill in cash in the bank and therefore have 400 mill in total assets and cash. IF we are 1 in 5 doesn't this equate to 80 mill


----------



## SPLITPIN (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



deano1 said:


> yes all getting very emotive as everything comes to a head -
> 
> Hope i havent stirred up any hornets nest - as i have said before i have 30 years experience in Investment banking have been a director of over 40 public companies and whats happened here is the worst example of governance i have ever seen from people claiming to be professionals in my life time.
> 
> Regards




Deano1

It appears we all need a good strong fully represented action group to carry all these forum messages direct to WC / ASIC warts and all.

From what I am hearing and reading, the AG's are well underway awaiting for the final meetings today and tomorrow.

About poking a stick into the hornets nest, try stamping on a bull ants nest without getting bitten.

There are a lot more prickly questions to be answered yet. 

All will be revealed at some point of time.

Splipin


----------



## deano1 (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Deano1
> 
> It appears we all need a good strong fully represented action group to carry all these forum messages direct to WC / ASIC warts and all.
> 
> ...




i like the analogy - but someones got to start stirring up the bullants - it all starts with the first domino - $350 mill just doesnt vanish into thin air - there has to be something hidden somewhere by these clowns - i hope the AG group and i say this with all the best intentions - make an absoulute pain in the A@#$ of them selves so the message gets reinforced and reinforced again - the directors for a start should be facing a banning action from ASIC right now


----------



## flatback (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> So what's your solution?



 Duped i dont believe this guy has an answer for anything in life henceforth i have dubbed him Mr Magoo, i really would not like to be in need of life threatening help with this person around ,even he or she if they were to take the time to look at their contributions to this forum must see how negative they appear to most others who contribute, i actually am not very happy with myself for responding like this,because idiots like this should not be given a moment of anybodys time.(i have resolved not to respond any more until they stop children from logging threads on this forum)i shall correspond through Breaker1 via E/mail keep up the good work those in the positive cheers Flatback


----------



## Duped (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



deano1 said:


> ...  before anyone can make an informed decision - WC have to come out and explain exactly what the assets are that are supporting the loans - they dont have to break and commercial confidentialities to do this ...




As you can see from my previous posts - I don't think this is the case. But I'll be absolutely thrilled to be wrong.


----------



## selciper (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Deano1 - I keep thinking of Christopher Skase's escape. History could repeat itself.


----------



## flatback (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



deano1 said:


> yes all getting very emotive as everything comes to a head - i'll come back to the points i have raised here before - before anyone can make an informed decision - WC have to come out and explain exactly what the assets are that are supporting the loans - they dont have to break and commercial confidentialities to do this - like i think Rocky1 has said loan A is supported by an asset in X state ie QLD / Gold coast - the loan value is X and we value that asset at Y - the liquidators value that asset as Z - we think we can achieve Valuation Y over X number of months years ( dont forget the result she has achieved in the liquidation of the 32 apartments last week - that should give people confidence on her valuation models) - 2 liquidation is not necessarily the worst case scenario - Korda Mentha is still liquidating the Ansett debacle and when it all washes up most of the employees will end up getting most of their cash back - ( yeah inflation has made their $1 less than what it is but they still look like getting their money out) a liquidation / or administration doesn't have to be cut and run - it can be an orderly process - i'm not decided on my mums and brothers behalf which way they should go yet as i really want to see what is in this fund before decisions get made - but what i really do want to see is the thieves who have stolen the money - if they have 1c buried somewhere - i want that recovered - the directors of MFS are personally liable for the criminal activity if they knowingly permitted it to occur and from what i have heard, read - seen - they knew - they are guilty - and they need to be persued - i think you will find they have money buried everywhere and the longer they have to shift this away from recovery - the harder and more expensive it becomes to recover it. persue whats nearest and dearest to these thieves - their wallet and listen to the scream - i'd like to hear some fighting words from WC on this front - I'd be anti listing on any exchange if you can keep the process in house your not opening yourself to any sort of market manipulation - remember someone offering 20c is probably going to get hit on the bid at the moment - and if the fund is worth say 45c now they are in front and do not share the same objectives as the current unit holders - although i do recognise the need for some sort of facility to allow those desperatly in need of some cash to get access to it.
> My final comment yes WC are in it to make money for themselves - i hope they make a fortune as they will make a silk purse out of a sows ear - and the unit holders will ultimately benefit - but if they can't turn it around its going to be your money going to pay them for something that could have been done via administration.
> 
> Until you see the loan book, assets and a valuation comparison all this is just venting over a bllody disgraceful set of circumstances - once you get the details then you can make an informed decision - and JH, WC or anyone else cannot suggest / infer whats best for you - you need to make the decision based on having access to all the facts you need to make that decision.
> ...



Deano 1 the most sensible post for some weeks now without the above we may as well pack the bags and go home, i believe the above will be address'd in the next week or two and all of our questions will be answered whether they will be what we want? who knows , but we have to stop beating ourselves up,just a few more weeks then we will know which way to go,final post Flatback


----------



## breaker1 (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Update: Newcastle WC Forum at Panthers Club 14/07/08*

* Jenny still wants to list on the NSX early September, if she gets the RE 75% vote. She said it would be only part of the August proposal coming. NSX only part of the solution - WC will endeavor to encourage PIF unit buyer interest

* NSX show of hands on my request to Jenny was about 95% against listing and 5% for listing - Jenny looked a bit taken aback by that. That thoroughly backs up Sydney hands show and proves Melbourne hands show was because of confusion. Jenny should pay careful attention to this vote outcome and consider her homework before August vote accordingly.

* 1.5 cents capital distribution October, then December and quarterly 1.5c capital distribution thereafter, with the possibility of some kind of special distribution payment before end of next financial year, if extra monies come in. These payments were called capital payments, but are a mix of new income and capital, but will be called all capital because of the losses in the fund. I didn't hear her mention it was tax free, but other forums did. (Breaker> I'm not really trying to sell this folks, but based on the 45c valuation that actually works out at a payment of 13% per year - too bad its mostly our own money)

* Someone asked - "what's if someone buys PIF units on the NSX, will they be able to get in on the 1.5c per quarter and even the special distribution. "good question said Jenny. Yes! They will and that will be part of the incentive for investors to buy on the NSX, we need something to encourage investors" That's why we really need to know the exact break up of this 6c p.a payment, because if you do, you will find out your % real interest p.a and tax free for a good while to boot.

* Related MFS LTS party investments in the fund ad up to a total of 20% of all assets in the PIF

* If PIF fund liquidated, Korda Mentha would probably be hired as they have already a good knowledge of the PIF

* 14c liquidation is based on the fund being liquidated between August 08 and 31 March 09

45c & 65c figures both an a recovery over 3-5 years

* PIF is " not as liquid as it might be and therefore needs a 3-5 year recovery timetable

* NSX has 66 entities listed on it

* MFS charged 2.3% Jenny charging 0.7% fees

* 14c price on liquidation must be an scare exaggeration, surely it's worth more than that - answer:" unfortunately a reality" and with the 14c you would have to deduct the costs of liquidation as well .

* 6 different parties had a go at RE (didn't mention the other 5 parties)

* Original Lloyds of London security deal ceased 5 years ago and it was replaced with the 50M support facility. (but apparently Lloyds still has some kind of policy in place, either partly re-instated or much revised )

* Assets that have been hurriedly liquidated already by WC PIF to pay back PIF debt, are at a net loss of assets (to previous value of assets) of $63 Million

* Mathew Walton QC WC litigation will cost $25,000 or thereabouts 

* I proposed the following: One of the main concerns of the PIF Action Group is the question of the NSX listing ......We request that the NSX not be the only method of redemption in part or in full. That it be a separate option at best. 

Answer: We hope to have a different model in 3-5 years

I asked the question: Jenny, have you thought of any other long term redemption vehicles besides the NSX?

Answer: Hope to have a better solution than just the NSX listing

I pointed out a redemption moratorium with 6c payment pa for 2-3 years and after that allowing redemptions for those who want it OR some kind of promissory note scheme (the longer you stay in the fund, the more you get back on redemption) OR a work out of profits and sale of assets if necessary (after fund stabilised) and then redemptions.

Answer: We have a bit of homework to do before August vote and will hopefully advise our answers.

From the above you can see that Jenny specialises in answering in part, but not really answering.

I gave her the example of sometime down the track, after 5 years of sacrifice and staying with the fund, that WC may have built the fund up to 80c and then we want to redeem via the NSX only to find the NSX is only offering 40c (then you have to deduct inflation @ 4x5%=20% + 2.5% NSX fee) - I said, so what's the good of that, whats the good of bragging about the 80c when in reality it is NOT 80c if you have to redeem via the NSX?

Answer: I appreciate your comments and understand that any stock exchange has volatility, it can go up or down, (and the NSX is only part of our plan or something to that effect)

* How has WC been performing apart from PIF - well!, 5.5% to 8.75% for a couple of funds (more for another fund)

* one investor complained of the "forced risk shift" placed on us by listing on the NSX - we never wanted to be in volatile investments

* Asked about going up from 45c to 65c via the recovery of the 197.5M from MFS. Jenny, for the first time, admitted that she did not think so was going to be able to get all of it back. That 65c appeared false advertising to one investor, by Jenny suggesting she might get it, but knew she couldn't. 

* Another investor asked, what about DELISTING from the NSX when those needing desperate redemptions via the NSX are done about 12-18 mths from now.

Answer: WC will keep an eye on the fund. Being listed forever is NOT the idea.

* I asked, what main capitalisation vehicle are you going to use to bring the fund up from 55c/65c to your targeted $1?

Answer: "When all PIF debt is paid, we are going to be in a strong position to buy assets on the market at a discount and manage that asset to make a profit". Sounds like she was saying, when strong and respected, we then become a vulture fund? OR perhaps acquire assets that earn a regular income for profit.

* Investor question: If you get a bargain, will you put the best bargains in the PIF or your other WC funds?

Answer: Two funds including the PIF. To put bargains in whatever fund is the most suitable - the PIF has a basic mandate and we will put bargains that suit it in the PIF.

* I pointed out that Chris Scott owned 50% of WC, about 14 months ago, is that still the case?

Answer: Chris Scott sold out his share in WC, when he moved to Singapore, he no longer has an interest.

He was supposedly your mentor? Yes he was. I ring him regular re the Support Facility and how its going.

* Regarding an AG member on the board?

Answer: She didn't exactly say that she would accept an extra member on the board, but she did say, that if the AG organise a committee, that they could get access to board meetings.  >That's different to being on the board I thought

* About 220-250 people turned up at Newcastle Panthers Club WC forum and it was a rather conservative audience, except for one or two One poor fellow claimed that he was "not into all this financials crap and just want to know where all my money is now." He had a car or bike accident some time ago and lost a limb or two, got a payout and put it all in PIF and said he desperately needed his $120,000 to buy new limb/s. Jenny was halted by that and had a quick thought and asked if she could talk with him during the break. On leaving myself, I saw he was in audience with Jenny and several other WC staff.


----------



## Rance (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I'm a newcomer to this forum. Just testing to see whether I've registered properly.

Rance


----------



## Rocky1 (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for the update breaker.

It seems JH said the same thing a number of ways regarding future exit vehicles - "not the only model they are looking at"

I truly hope she elaborates on this before August and strongly believe the AG should push her on this as soon as Forums are complete

Also RE: snapping up bargains, surely if she uses PIF money they must go to the PIF


----------



## breaker1 (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> Thanks for the update breaker.
> 
> It seems JH said the same thing a number of ways regarding future exit vehicles - "not the only model they are looking at"
> 
> ...




Mate, I've got this awful feeling that another genuine redemption plan besides the NSX won't materialise.

I guess if she sees a bargain, she will decide what fund to put it in and then take the money out of the appropriate fund to pay for it, that she wants to favour.


----------



## seamisty (14 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Mate, I've got this awful feeling that another genuine redemption plan besides the NSX won't materialise.
> 
> I guess if she sees a bargain, she will decide what fund to put it in and then take the money out of the appropriate fund to pay for it, that she wants to favour.



Don't lose sight of the fact that the Fund would have to have the appropriate 'Funds' available to take advantage of these opportunities as they arise. JH is going to be under enormous scrutiny from every direction, I don't think this will be an issue. Welcome to the forum Rance. Seamisty


----------



## great dame (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Great Dame
> 
> Thank you for your numereous colourfull entries of your view of the world.
> 
> ...



        No i am not a menber of the AG group  Would you like me to be ?    Look Splitpin any DH can get up on the stage and say they save us all  guves us no detail what so ever how its going to be done  untill i see it in detail in print how its going to be done its just cheap talk  to win us over  Sorry if i upset a few folk by being blunt   But thats me /////////


----------



## great dame (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rocky1 said:


> Great Dame
> 
> Please do us all a favor and take your negativity else where. Things you haven't considered of digested from this forum
> 1. JH is going to provide us a more transparent breakdown of the funds loans and investments. From this we will get a better feel for it's state and potential to recover.
> ...



   ROCKY i must speak to JH & get you on her Payroll  Your doing a good job for her    First what i am saying on these posts is nothing to what im giving to her in my emails to her i will keep the pressure on her till i get the truth   Gee Wiss Woopee  we are going to get 3 cents tax free  she said maybe another 3 cents next year   That is not a real Div  she has to sell the faimley silver to pay for it  Then sell a bit more to get her fat fee   I want her fees to come  performence not eating away at the fund     You are wrong about the $147.5 Mill not getting it back if we bail out      Look i want my money back like the rest of us  But the way i see it it will be more like 10 years not 5   Now rocky my friend if you dont like what i send then dont read the truth SIMPLE /////


----------



## kogo (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> No i am not a menber of the AG group  Would you like me to be ?    Look Splitpin any DH can get up on the stage and say they save us all  guves us no detail what so ever how its going to be done  untill i see it in detail in print how its going to be done its just cheap talk  to win us over  Sorry if i upset a few folk by being blunt   But thats me /////////




I thought  JADEL said you where a registered member of the Brisbane AG?? in a previous post.

I'm afraid I've had enough of the tripe in this forum. See you all in August and good luck to all


----------



## great dame (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Great dame,
> I do not disagree with everything that you say because many people make promises that they never intend to keep AND we do need to see what JH is planning.
> 
> I will refer to the 6 cents annual return with the potential to recover $1.00.
> ...



          RICH untill we all see in detail  on paper  it is all TALK  iven if our mony goes back to a $1 maybe 7 years  (some of us could be dead by then) Tell me Rick how to we cash that in  it wont work on the NSX & you should know that surley  ???///


----------



## great dame (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



goldfinger38 said:


> I am seeing these latest comments on the forum and there is a lot of emotion and anger present with some of the comments, this forum is meant to be constructive and informative to those who have an interest in what is happening with our money and to those who may not have been able to attend andy of the meetings and hopefully to gain some clearer explanation of what is going on moving forward.
> 
> I dont see any value in making emotive statements that are negative at this time until we do actually see the information that we have asked for at the forums.  Especially when ALL of the facts have yet to be put out to all of us to digest. JH stated that the audited account as signed off by Price Waterhouse Coopers would be made available to investors when they bacame available and they would back up the valuations provided under the three scenarios. Remembering it wasnt JH that provided the valuations it was 333 Capital a part of Korda Mentha who are experts in solvency and liquidation of companies and were contracted by Octaviar and PIF to provide their assessment and valuations.
> 
> ...



      IT makes my heart feel good when the fish are biting   It makes for a stronger debate all round  Chees


----------



## SPLITPIN (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> No i am not a menber of the AG group  Would you like me to be ?




Great Dame

Jadel says you are a member with great mental strain and you say you are not.

If you are a typical text message representation of the no vote for JH, she has nothing to worry about.

Why don't you stop cluttering up ciberspace with your views and give sombody else a go.

Splitpin


----------



## RickH (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> RICH untill we all see in detail  on paper  it is all TALK  iven if our mony goes back to a $1 maybe 7 years  (some of us could be dead by then) Tell me Rick how to we cash that in  it wont work on the NSX & you should know that surley  ???///




Hi Great dame,
Please consider and then answer the question truthfully.

When you *originally* invested your hard earned money into PIF was it your intention to 
1) Invest for the long term and be happy to receive say 8% plus per annum and leave the capital in a safe haven.
2) Invest your money for a very short term because you intended to spend all of this capital over the following 3, 5 OR 7 YEARS.
What were your goals when you originally invested into PIF?
Regards,
RickH


----------



## erniel (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I would like to see what in my opinion are dispicable rogues of primarily pensioners money ,the ilk of Peacock,King,white hutchings and the rest charged for fraud.
jh should really start proceedings as she is privvy to what she termed "inappropriate "
King is playing polo under a nom de plume while our investors are going through financial hell.( Bulletin)


----------



## selciper (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It's worth reminding ourselves that this blog is not moderated. Therefore, it's prudent not to post anything which might be regarded as defamatory.


----------



## SPLITPIN (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Mate, I've got this awful feeling that another genuine redemption plan besides the NSX won't materialise.
> 
> .




Breaker 1

Thanks for your detailed report.

That's the way I have been reading it, as set out in my previous communications.

Was there not a previous communication (of the 1,000 +) on this forum regarding the interconnection between NSX and WC etc.

From memory it made interesting reading and may explain why WC does not wish to change the plan from NSX etc.

Your continued work is greatly appreciated by all.

Splitpin


----------



## Ivor Watt (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Breaker 1
Thanks for your report, very similar to Gold Coast information.

It seems that JH has got her story pretty well sorted out now except for a few items and i doubt if there will be much more information from the meeting today.
Until the full details promised, are released, there is not a lot more that can be done before preparing for the August meeting.

Have you heard any further clear details on the LLA/Arctic deal?

Thanks for your ongoing work, we have to stick together as a group and can't afford any splits to occur which will weaken our efforts to get the best possible result for the unit holders which I believe is the continuation of the fund
with some income and some capital for those in proven dire straits. 
How this is achieved should be our only focus at the moment.


----------



## great dame (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



deano1 said:


> yes all getting very emotive as everything comes to a head - i'll come back to the points i have raised here before - before anyone can make an informed decision - WC have to come out and explain exactly what the assets are that are supporting the loans - they dont have to break and commercial confidentialities to do this - like i think Rocky1 has said loan A is supported by an asset in X state ie QLD / Gold coast - the loan value is X and we value that asset at Y - the liquidators value that asset as Z - we think we can achieve Valuation Y over X number of months years ( dont forget the result she has achieved in the liquidation of the 32 apartments last week - that should give people confidence on her valuation models) - 2 liquidation is not necessarily the worst case scenario - Korda Mentha is still liquidating the Ansett debacle and when it all washes up most of the employees will end up getting most of their cash back - ( yeah inflation has made their $1 less than what it is but they still look like getting their money out) a liquidation / or administration doesn't have to be cut and run - it can be an orderly process - i'm not decided on my mums and brothers behalf which way they should go yet as i really want to see what is in this fund before decisions get made - but what i really do want to see is the thieves who have stolen the money - if they have 1c buried somewhere - i want that recovered - the directors of MFS are personally liable for the criminal activity if they knowingly permitted it to occur and from what i have heard, read - seen - they knew - they are guilty - and they need to be persued - i think you will find they have money buried everywhere and the longer they have to shift this away from recovery - the harder and more expensive it becomes to recover it. persue whats nearest and dearest to these thieves - their wallet and listen to the scream - i'd like to hear some fighting words from WC on this front - I'd be anti listing on any exchange if you can keep the process in house your not opening yourself to any sort of market manipulation - remember someone offering 20c is probably going to get hit on the bid at the moment - and if the fund is worth say 45c now they are in front and do not share the same objectives as the current unit holders - although i do recognise the need for some sort of facility to allow those desperatly in need of some cash to get access to it.
> My final comment yes WC are in it to make money for themselves - i hope they make a fortune as they will make a silk purse out of a sows ear - and the unit holders will ultimately benefit - but if they can't turn it around its going to be your money going to pay them for something that could have been done via administration.
> 
> Until you see the loan book, assets and a valuation comparison all this is just venting over a bllody disgraceful set of circumstances - once you get the details then you can make an informed decision - and JH, WC or anyone else cannot suggest / infer whats best for you - you need to make the decision based on having access to all the facts you need to make that decision.
> ...



         Now there is somebody who knows what it is all about  puts it into words much better then in can  Thank you //////////


----------



## Rocky1 (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> ROCKY i must speak to JH & get you on her Payroll  Your doing a good job for her    First what i am saying on these posts is nothing to what im giving to her in my emails to her i will keep the pressure on her till i get the truth   Gee Wiss Woopee  we are going to get 3 cents tax free  she said maybe another 3 cents next year   That is not a real Div  she has to sell the faimley silver to pay for it  Then sell a bit more to get her fat fee   I want her fees to come  performence not eating away at the fund     You are wrong about the $147.5 Mill not getting it back if we bail out      Look i want my money back like the rest of us  But the way i see it it will be more like 10 years not 5   Now rocky my friend if you dont like what i send then dont read the truth SIMPLE /////




Great Dame

I think for the sake of this Forum we are just better off to agree to disagree, but take a look around at other posts I am not the only one who thinks this way, you are in a bitter minority


----------



## great dame (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Great dame,
> I do not disagree with everything that you say because many people make promises that they never intend to keep AND we do need to see what JH is planning.
> 
> I will refer to the 6 cents annual return with the potential to recover $1.00.
> ...



           Before i start i have now joined the AG  HECK if they take me  there is hope for others  but its nice to be abord   Thanks  & thanks Chris     Rick I am sure JH will have an answer for each one of your questains Weather we like them is a difference story   I realy hope you have an open mind when you get the answers    There is much better ways to the what JH is giving us at the monent  It hase to be better then a Yes or No vote ////////


----------



## great dame (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Janiss said:


> MFS is really in dire straits and it is very unlikely that we will see a cent of the $147.5 Million plus $50 million.
> At the moment there are over $1 billion worth of claims against MFS, the most significant being:
> 1. $50 Million shareholder Action by IMF
> 2. $349 Million Public Trustee of Queensland - court hearing on 9/10 September
> 3. $100 million in bonds - Challenger  - hearing 21 July



         Not forgetting the poor share holders   Any of you poor hold shares shares in beside silly me ????????//


----------



## Duped (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> ROCKY i must speak to JH & get you on her Payroll  Your doing a good job for her    First what i am saying on these posts is nothing to what im giving to her in my emails to her i will keep the pressure on her till i get the truth   Gee Wiss Woopee  we are going to get 3 cents tax free  she said maybe another 3 cents next year   That is not a real Div  she has to sell the faimley silver to pay for it  Then sell a bit more to get her fat fee   I want her fees to come  performence not eating away at the fund     You are wrong about the $147.5 Mill not getting it back if we bail out      Look i want my money back like the rest of us  But the way i see it it will be more like 10 years not 5   Now rocky my friend if you dont like what i send then dont read the truth SIMPLE /////






great dame said:


> IT makes my heart feel good when the fish are biting   It makes for a stronger debate all round  Chees




LOL!!!  Love your posts.  Got them all diving for cover.


----------



## Duped (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> There is much better ways to the what JH is giving us at the monent  It hase to be better then a Yes or No vote ////////




Fantastic.  What are these better ways?  I've got a big fat mortgage now. I've had a look at the numbers and if I can get the 45c out by this time next year I'm soooooooooo taking it.


----------



## great dame (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Great Dame
> 
> Jadel says you are a member with great mental strain and you say you are not.
> 
> ...



              O gee whiss SplitpinYou have upset me now the tears are running down my face  But dont worry i have a forgiving natuare   And i forgive you   Look i am on your side & will fight harder then most to get our money I am hounding WC ever day for answers with emails I am doing this on my behalf not the AG  i have been to my local Fed menber & state Menber fighting like hell for all of us   I feel a bit JH is doing whats she wants  Listing on the NSX is not an option with me at all i will have no part of that  She must lision to reason  yes i know i cant spell   Cheers /


----------



## great dame (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Great dame,
> Please consider and then answer the question truthfully.
> 
> When you *originally* invested your hard earned money into PIF was it your intention to
> ...



           Good afternoon RickH  I always speak the truth  but it seen to get me into trouble some times But back to your questains (1) Short term  at 9%  9 months    no longer   Its was unrated remenber /


----------



## great dame (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Fantastic.  What are these better ways?  I've got a big fat mortgage now. I've had a look at the numbers and if I can get the 45c out by this time next year I'm soooooooooo taking it.




        If there is 45 cents for me too i will walk backwards bare footed over brocken  glass to get it ///////


----------



## Duped (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> If there is 45 cents for me too i will walk backwards bare footed over brocken  glass to get it ///////




So what are the better ways?  So we can both get what we want.


----------



## RickH (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Not forgetting the poor share holders   Any of you poor hold shares shares in beside silly me ????????//




Hi Great dame,
Thank you,
We will probably always disagree because I am only interested in getting all of my clients funds back over the next 3, 5 to 7 years with a regular cash flow distribution.
You may consider yourself to be more of a share holder than you are a PIF investor and therefore you may even be more interested in the liquidation of the fund to possibly enhance shareholders entitlements.
I am still interested in hearing the answer to my previous question.
Why did you invest into the PIF - Long or Short term?
Regards,
RickH


----------



## ozzy (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Ok - I finally managed to find this forum...felt very lonely and VERY frustrating to deal with the MFS/Octaviar/Wellington events the last 7 month..... Well, actually found the problems going waay far back..

Frontline staff at MFS/Perpetual has been either brainless or very well drilled monkeys.... and now it seems that the back-line (board members) have not been the best breed of bunch either...

Have lots to read up on in this forum but the truth is that all these events is just about beyond of what I thought was possible and certainly have drained the little fighting-spirit I had left..

I agree with Erniel, the board members that jumped the ship one by one and eventually handed the sick cow over to Wellington should be scrutinized to bits! All this has been a farse and seem to be a high-level criminal act to me.

There's gotta be some governemt interest in fully look into serious fraud and business ethics in this???

If the ship sinks I would like to see any previous captain(s) go with it and stick with personal debt to investors for the rest of their days...




erniel said:


> I would like to see what in my opinion are dispicable rogues of primarily pensioners money ,the ilk of Peacock,King,white hutchings and the rest charged for fraud.
> jh should really start proceedings as she is privvy to what she termed "inappropriate "
> King is playing polo under a nom de plume while our investors are going through financial hell.( Bulletin)


----------



## RickH (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Fantastic.  What are these better ways?  I've got a big fat mortgage now. I've had a look at the numbers and if I can get the 45c out by this time next year I'm soooooooooo taking it.




Hi Duped,
Thank you,
We will probably always disagree because I am only interested in getting all of my clients funds back over the next 3, 5 to 7 years plus a regular income of say 6 cents per annum and I do not consider that 45 cents is a reasonable return.
Regards,
RickH
*PS: YES THERE ARE AGENDAS.*
I am grateful that Great dame and Duped have been truthful and said what they really want.

*75% OF THE VOTE IS GOING TO BE VERY HARD TO ACHIEVE.*

Unfortunately the odds may be heading towards - Liquidation.

For my clients to win the 75% vote we probably need to back JH 100%.
We cannot split the vote for the possibility of at least trying to grow the remaining fund to a $1.00 value.

IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO KNOW WHO WANTS TO TRY TO RECEIVE THEIR 100% AND THOSE WHO WANT A QUICK 14 TO 30 OR MAYBE EVEN 45 CENTS IN THE DOLLAR.
If more than 25% want to collect fast money then the liquidation will win.
It amazes me that these people do not organise loans, but if they already have too much debt then they really do have a problem.

I feel that most invested into PIF for a regular income and if that is your position we need to consider the JH offer.


----------



## great dame (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Great dame,
> Thank you,
> We will probably always disagree because I am only interested in getting all of my clients funds back over the next 3, 5 to 7 years with a regular cash flow distribution.
> You may consider yourself to be more of a share holder than you are a PIF investor and therefore you may even be more interested in the liquidation of the fund to possibly enhance shareholders entitlements.
> ...



       Well i cant say i realy felt real  easy when i invested  It being unrated and all  but greed got the best of me 9% sounded preety good at the time  RickH you should know of all folk  that one never invests long term   How are you /////


----------



## great dame (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Duped,
> Thank you,
> We will probably always disagree because I am only interested in getting all of my clients funds back over the next 3, 5 to 7 years plus a regular income of say 6 cents per annum and I do not consider that 45 cents is a reasonable return.
> Regards,
> ...



      To be honost i realy dont have a clue which way the vote will go  The NSX is the BIG sticking point I hate it And wont have anything to do with it  & it seems they with most of us it seeme  If JH dont get the vote i am sure your clients wont hang you  you might miss out on the Xmas cards though   /////////


----------



## RickH (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Well i cant say i realy felt real  easy when i invested  It being unrated and all  but greed got the best of me 9% sounded preety good at the time  RickH you should know of all folk  that one never invests long term in unratered products     And  talking about Bangheads   How are you /////




Hi Great dame,
Thank you for asking.
I am very cheesed off because many people are saying that they really care for those disadvantaged but I believe that is really not the case.
I believe that loans can possibly be organised for those in desperate need for living expenses cash flow within the PIF structure as previously presented as a regular monthly advances based on say 15% loan interest rate.
It appears to me that you may only be interested in your personal financial position and that you understand more than the basics to risk and return.
I will assume that you have other funds invested elsewhere. That is fine.
But some of these PIF 'investors' are pensioners and may not have any other money to help them to meet their day to day expenses.
I believe that they should come first.
That does not mean $1.00 now but a drip feed loan and the 'chance' to get all of their money back over 3,5,7..
But if they can receive say 6 cents per annum. They may achieve close to their personally expected cash flow.
We all need to consider the less fortunate at this point in time.
I also believe that if the MFS executives acted improperly they should be dealt with to the absolute full extent that the law can punish via monetary and prison terms if at all applicable. The longer this fund runs the better chance we will have of legal action, if applicable.
JH may do it???? Who knows the future? But we should at least try.
LET US ALL WORK TOGETHER AND TRY TO RECOVER $1.00 PLUS 6 cents p.a.

TOGETHER WE CAN MONITOR JH' PLANS, PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS. SOME PRESSURE.


----------



## great dame (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> So what are the better ways?  So we can both get what we want.



     You will have to wait and be pationt  //////////


----------



## Duped (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Duped,
> Thank you,
> We will probably always disagree because I am only interested in getting all of my clients funds back over the next 3, 5 to 7 years plus a regular income of say 6 cents per annum and I do not consider that 45 cents is a reasonable return.
> Regards,
> ...




I understand your position. You've got me wrong. I hold absolutely no hope of seeing 45c by this time next year and hence see no harm in stating my position. My vote will well and truly, albiet reluctantly, be with WC until I see a better option.
Some unit holders believe there are better options.  Well I say - what are they?  You can't say I haven't asked.

My exposure to PIF is far short of a tenth of others.  Some are facing losses closer to a MILLION than half thereof. And have far less time to recover from their losses than I.  With so much to lose, what are these individuals doing about courting alternatives to WC, or checking WC's figures? What I don't have, is spare time. Others do and I've already volunteered to help contribute financially to support activities of the AG.


----------



## great dame (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Great dame,
> Thank you for asking.
> I am very cheesed off because many people are saying that they really care for those disadvantaged but I believe that is really not the case.
> I believe that loans can possibly be organised for those in desperate need for living expenses cash flow within the PIF structure as previously presented as a regular monthly advances based on say 15% loan interest rate.
> ...



  AS your greadt leader Jenny  tell you if your poor clients want to get some cash out ofthe fund you gon to  a stockbrooker  and sell you units on the DOPy NSX she cant go depleting the fund with handouts  the fund to suvise has to get new money into that means new investers   if she starts gearing the fund that could lead to more trouble /


----------



## Duped (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> You will have to wait and be pationt  //////////




Eh! What's this 'be patient' all about?  I was simply responding to your post that there was a better way. I'm happy to drop the question if you haven't already got a better way.


----------



## seamisty (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> AS your greadt leader Jenny  tell you if your poor clients want to get some cash out ofthe fund you gon to  a stockbrooker  and sell you units on the DOPy NSX she cant go depleting the fund with handouts  the fund to suvise has to get new money into that means new investers   if she starts gearing the fund that could lead to more trouble /



With all due respect great dane, JH has already said she is willing to look at extreme hardship cases for some investors. Others have had their Centrelink payments adjusted and some self funded retirees will be eligible for part pensions to supplement incomes. Also there won't be too many other funds returning 6% plus for the next financial year. Could we at least wait and see what she is prepared to offer?The final investor forum was held today,  everyone is entitled to their view and opinion and that can differ with each individual. We are all waiting for her presentation so as to make our decisions. Please at least hear her out. Thankyou, Seamisty


----------



## RickH (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> AS your greadt leader Jenny  tell you if your poor clients want to get some cash out ofthe fund you gon to  a stockbrooker  and sell you units on the DOPy NSX she cant go depleting the fund with handouts  the fund to suvise has to get new money into that means new investers   if she starts gearing the fund that could lead to more trouble /




Hi Great dame,
We could approach JH to enable this loan process to be made available before the RE vote etc. We can help design part of the structure.
PIF can probably borrow funds at much lower rate than 15% and still make a profit going forward.
There is always a way to do something because we do have the time and the voting power to help organise the internal operations of the PIF.
I understand the problems associated with the NSX listing but at this point in time they are not as important as the upcoming 75% vote to continue PIF and not to liquidate. If JH cannot produce the results we could then vote to organise a new RE but in the future. JH is placing her credibility on the line. Let her have a go. But we need the loan clause in the basic structure.
The loans are only to be made available to those who are living expense cash flow desperate. They must prove that they are living expenses desperate.
1) Complete an in-depth loan application with assets, liabilities and sob story. 
2) Provide two years tax returns.
3) Up to date Centrelink assets and income record.
4) The loan is to be based a drip feed system to help with their living cash flow requirements. etc...............
IT IS WORTH A TRY. IT COULD EVEN WORK 6 cents p.a. and $1.00 3,5/7 yrs is probably better than 30 cents next year.
Please consider. 
$20,000 to some people is worth more than $1 million to another.
Regards,
RickH.
PS: We do have a problem with share holders because they will want to hinder any financial legal claims against their company’s' 'value'.

THE 75% VOTE IS NOT GOING TO BE EASILY ACHIEVED TO TRY FOR THE 6 CENTS & $1.00 VALUE.
WE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER.


----------



## Javier (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I would think that shareholders are the least of our problem. Creditors will only receive part of their money, how the hell will shareholders ever see a cent. That company will never be revived again, you had to actually pay a company to buy scrip from you prior to 1 Jul to crystalise a loss to counter any capital gains you may have..that tells you what your MFS shares are worth!

If JH can come up with another exit LONG TERM strategy and NSX for those wanting cash now..she will get the 75% unit vote. You would think if she wants this bad enough she will impress us with what that strategy is.

If she can't then NSX was prob a way of manipulating that market to make money out of us and keep us in there forever in a day and this would be a way then for us to see beyond her 'stick with me' with no real meat to back it all up apart from just blind faith.

We have a right if we don't like what we hear before the vote to call an EGM..but we have to come up with resolutions that are superior than NSX, if we want to replace RE..with who? Liquidate can be an orderly wind up not just firesale and liquidator can also work with courts and NSX.

It would be easier to stick with WC..she just has to offer us some more than JUST NSX if she wants us to stick with her for the long haul and at the same time get income.


----------



## SPLITPIN (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

All

It was a big big day at the NXS today.

Two companies traded with a total value of $ 50 K.

One must ask the question in more depth why WC is pushing this dead end to nowhere against all logic.

It may well destroy any chance of 75% or is this part of another plan.

Comments please.

Splitpin


----------



## Jadel (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Absolutely agree Split Pin 

    Jenny Hutson  would undoubtedly get control of the RE without the NXS strategy . She is playing a very dangerous game by trying to force this down investors throats . It defies logic


----------



## breaker1 (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From our local AG Port Macquarie secretary, part of the WC forum feedback is:

When queried about another option besides the NSx and that the AG was tired of Jenny dancing around the issue, Jenny responded, "I am getting my legal team to look at what is possible, I understand that you want an answer and will try and give it". Further, "If the NSX is working well, we will keep it going." *I presume *that means if it isn't working well, Jenny might DELIST from the NSX, but Jenny would have to specifically say that herself.

As to the strange short time frame (7 mths) of the liquidation, August 08 to March 31st, 09, if WC does not receive the 75% vote, a response from Jenny today, said it had something to do with "the 360 day time cycle coming up from the start of the freezing of our funds". My speculation is that that could be that we can then (possibly) make redemptions on the fund and send it into a tailspin, but that's only my guess.

As to the 75% requirement on the vote, instead of say, 51%, this is not some sort of tactic, but a requirement of the constitution.

A big thank you to all members of the Port Macquarie AG - you did us proud today. 

Looking forward to any other contributions from Port Mac AG re todays WC forum meet.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Not sure if the following article by Ben Butler in today's Herald Sun has been mentioned.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24019961-664,00.html

-----beginning of article------

Octaviar Share Mystery

by Ben Butler

July 15, 2008 

OCTAVIAR boss Chris Scott is not obliged to reveal what has happened to his own shareholding in the teetering Gold Coast financier after the regulator yesterday said the company was in compliance with listing rules.

An unknown amount of Mr Scott's shareholding was seized by the ANZ last week. However, the company has yet to disclose the amount taken by the bank.

Last week ANZ revealed it held 5.05 per cent of Octaviar after it took control of scrip held by collapsed stock lender Primebroker.

In a statement on April 1, Octaviar said Mr Scott had 3.56 per cent of the company pledged as security on a margin loan, but since then the company has been silent on the fate of his stake.

Mr Scott used the scrip to raise a $19 million loan with Primebroker.

Yesterday stock exchange spokeswoman Roula Rodopoulos said it was up to the courts to decide who owned the shares.

But ANZ spokesman Paul Edwards said the bank did not know of any action against it over Primebroker. "There are not any court actions underway at this time with regard to Primebroker," he said.

Ms Rodopoulos said Octaviar was not in breach of the ASX listing rules covering lodging director interest notices.

"ASX is satisfied at this point in time that Octaviar is complying with its continous disclosure obligations with no current requirement to lodge a directors' interest notice," she said.

"It is up to the courts to decide who has legal ownership of the shares between ANZ and Octaviar (due to the Primebroker matter) and this is an area that ASX will not get involved in."

Before the ANZ seizure, Mr Scott's last declared stake in the company was 4.64 per cent.

He did not return calls yesterday.

Octaviar has been suspended from the stock exchange since January, when a debt crisis sent its share price into freefall.

--------end of article---------


----------



## breaker1 (15 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Wellington Capital Meeting by Port Macquarie AG*
July 15, 2008

Westport Bowling Club Port Macquarie

General summary: I thought the meeting was encouraging. A lot of questions were answered – but not all. There are a lot of “ifs”. Much, I feel, depends on the state of the economy over the next 12 months, especially the property market.

Jenny Hutson came over as a strong intelligent and experienced woman. She promised us transparency.

She said she would treat the fund as if it was her own money.

She said her strategy was “Steady as she goes.”

She pointed out PIF had been a good fund in the past and she aimed to bring it back to its formed status.

We have little alternative but to trust her judgement and hope we get a better deal than we have had from MFS.



Meeting notes:

Jenny Hutson outlined history of the PIf and listed following facts – 

PIF has 10,300 investors. Established 1998. First capital invested 1999. $400m under management.

Jan. 29 08 redemptions frozen for 180 days and distributions ceased.

May 2  2008 new board. Management taken over by WC.  $100m debt reduced to $65m by May 30. Reduced to $40m by end June 08.

WC has talented team of 30 committed for the long term. WC has over $1b in assets.

Aim to reduce debt to bank by August 08 and list on NSX so investors who want to sell can do so.

Plan for 3cents distribution during first half of this financial year, in October (1.5) and December (1.5). Plan to distribute 6 cents next year in quarterly payments Hope to make a special one off distribution providing sale of assets allows.

Distribution will be part interest and part capital -but will be treated as capital for tax purposes.

Most Common Questions:

Is our money safe? A. We are working to that outcome.

Why freeze returns?  A. Need to repay debt first.

How long before we get money?  A.  3-5 years.

Management fees?  A. MFS charged 2.3% we charge .75 cents.

Chris Scott of MFS and Jenny Hutson connection?   A. We were in business together successfully but we are no longer in business together.

How did you arrive at 14 cents if company liquidated?  A. Dreadful market at present.

Why allow meeting to decide re liquidation?  A. It is up to investors.

Why should we trust you? A. Been in fund management for past 10 years.  Track record of returning 7%  - 15%. Grew S8  from $1 unit to $16.

Answers to Questions from floor
 Centrelink: Have been in touch with Centrelink re fund’s position and trying to get a uniform adoption by Centrelink of 45 cents. Different branches appear to have taken different view. Will try to get a consistent approach.

6 cents will be paid in 4 parts over 12 months.

Insurance policy remains in place and covers legal claims. Made approach to Lloyds of London.

Re legal claim on $147.5m owed to fund by MFS – MFS has $450m in assets and debts of $1b.  PIF one of 5 making claims Hope to make partial recovery – possibility of full recovery.

MFS has assets and has acknowledged $50m owing to fund – have had discussions re full return but cannot guarantee.

ASIC is looking at modifying the rules to better protect investors in future but not possible to protect everyone.

I have no units in the fund (J. Hutson).

Some of the commercial loans made by PIF have been renegotiated.

Perpetual remains custodian and has carried out what was required of them.

WC will communicate monthly with investors, plus face to face meeting will be held annually.





2.

I undertake there will be no transactions between this fund and other funds I am involved with.

Constitution requires a 75% vote in August on the question of liquidation.

Looking at alternatives to listing on NSX for those wanting to redeem capital.

Debt will be reduced to zero by end of July 08. Recovery of loans has been good and some loans renegotiated. Good relationship with bank.

Some projects owe the fund over $50m = larger projects are a problem.

Aim is to keep fund debt free in the future.

Will provide general but not specific details of assets, loans, due dates, etc.

Will supply unit holders with set of questions and answers from all forums.

Will be  6-9 months before fund looks for new investments.

MFS does not hold any units in fund now – units held were redeemed in August 2007.

Agreed local loan deal was bad (Aston Hill apartments in Mort St)

Moving from NSX to ASX is possible in year or two.66 entities listed on the NSX. 15 brokers.

Cash flow into fund - $1m last month. All funds being used to repay the bank to avoid receivership.

3 cents is coming from income and capital but will be paid out as capital. Distributions will not attract tax.

Unit numbers held by investors will remain the same.

WC has not taken over the debts but has purchased the management of the fund on behalf of unit holders.



Joan 
Acting Port Macquarie AG secretary during Sue’s absence.


----------



## great dame (16 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> With all due respect great dane, JH has already said she is willing to look at extreme hardship cases for some investors. Others have had their Centrelink payments adjusted and some self funded retirees will be eligible for part pensions to supplement incomes. Also there won't be too many other funds returning 6% plus for the next financial year. Could we at least wait and see what she is prepared to offer?The final investor forum was held today,  everyone is entitled to their view and opinion and that can differ with each individual. We are all waiting for her presentation so as to make our decisions. Please at least hear her out. Thankyou, Seamisty



     WC will decide on hard ship cases HEY    And what will they get  ?? not much i guess    The fund is not returning 6% at all that is a return of capital  of the fund bleading it in other words /////////


----------



## great dame (16 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Great dame,
> We could approach JH to enable this loan process to be made available before the RE vote etc. We can help design part of the structure.
> PIF can probably borrow funds at much lower rate than 15% and still make a profit going forward.
> There is always a way to do something because we do have the time and the voting power to help organise the internal operations of the PIF.
> ...



     Riickh  if i wgas an invester advicer i might say the things your saying too to your clients that are in a bad way  i feel sorry for them   But right now i feel more sorry for my self   Are you passing all this information to JH ?????


----------



## seamisty (16 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> WC will decide on hard ship cases HEY    And what will they get  ?? not much i guess    The fund is not returning 6% at all that is a return of capital  of the fund bleading it in other words /////////



Good morning great dame, I have tried to stay reasonably positive on this thread but I'm beginning to wonder how many investors are being deterred from this forum from your constant negative posts.It doesn't matter what anyone posts, you immediately follow it up with a downramp!!! Please start showing some consideration and respect for others  it or you will find yourself posting on your own here. Seamisty:bad::bad:


----------



## great dame (16 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Good morning great dame, I have tried to stay reasonably positive on this thread but I'm beginning to wonder how many investors are being deterred from this forum from your constant negative posts.It doesn't matter what anyone posts, you immediately follow it up with a downramp!!! Please start showing some consideration and respect for others  it or you will find yourself posting on your own here. Seamisty:bad::bad:



    Look all we have got is just TALK  TALK from JH   I would love to believe her But i wont to see results not promises  nothing wrong with that  I will not except listing on the NSX  I trade shares And that exchange would be the worst possable outcome  for us believe me   I will lean more to her if she dumps the NSX /////


----------



## DoraNBoots (16 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Great Dame,

We hear you!  We acknowledge you!  Some even agree with you!

I agree with a lot of what you say but would it be possible for you to hold back from posting a little?  Maybe limit yourself to one post per page instead of every second post.  

I want the same information you want from WC.  I’m thinking if you are writing to WC as much as you are here then you might just be successful.  If I were JH, I would pay you out immediately for $1.10 a unit just to silence you.


----------



## Wolfgang (16 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Breaker1

This is from your post 1099
“As to the strange short time frame (7 mths) of the liquidation, August 08 to March 31st, 09, if WC does not receive the 75% vote, a response from Jenny today, said it had something to do with "the 360 day time cycle coming up from the start of the freezing of our funds". My speculation is that that could be that we can then (possibly) make redemptions on the fund and send it into a tailspin, but that's only my guess.”

I think you have a good point on “redemptions on the fund and send it into a tailspin”
Breaker1 can you please elaborate further on this point

At the moment I see no other options but to stay with Jenny Hutson and hope for the best.

I am staying positive on this thread I'm learning a lot but I am now skipping over sum of them.

*Stay positive*
*Wolfgang                                           
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



*


----------



## RickH (16 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Riickh  if i wgas an invester advicer i might say the things your saying too to your clients that are in a bad way  i feel sorry for them   But right now i feel more sorry for my self   Are you passing all this information to JH ?????



Hi Great dame,
I have no association with JH and NO, I am not passing on this information directly to JH.
BUT I would hope that she is monitoring and listening to the concerns posted on this site and I believe that it would be very wise move for JH to consider all of the concerns registered by all PIF investors.


----------



## selciper (16 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Breaker1's #1101 objective report gives us reason to remain positive! The recent descent into gloom in many posts is understandable, but pessimism doesn't produce one cent. JH appears to be setting out a realistic process while having the right qualifications to do so.

Imagine if MFS had liquidated the PIF at the time we were receiving those ridiculous newsletters! Be thankful. 

If it weren't for Breaker1's initiative we'd be without this informative thread. Let's calm down and be realistic. The world economy, after all,  is in tatters. We have a manager trying to help us through this period.


----------



## Rance (16 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thank you Joan (Breaker1) for your clear and concise (non-emotive!!!) report on the Port Macquarie presentation.  I'd like some of my capital back now but not at 14 or 45 cents per unit. Therefore my decision is a "no-brainer"... I'm all the way with WC. If WC receive a 75%+ vote majority, I'll cancel my withdrawal request and let JH get on with restoring the fund's finances; pay 6 cents pa distributions, etc etc.
I think what she has done to date (liquidated debts and initiating legal action) is commendable and she deserves our support.

Rance:iagree:


----------



## Mutchy (16 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> From our local AG Port Macquarie secretary, part of the WC forum feedback is:
> 
> 
> As to the strange short time frame (7 mths) of the liquidation, August 08 to March 31st, 09, if WC does not receive the 75% vote, a response from Jenny today, said it had something to do with "the 360 day time cycle coming up from the start of the freezing of our funds". My speculation is that that could be that we can then (possibly) make redemptions on the fund and send it into a tailspin, but that's only my guess.




Hi Breaker,
I believe the time frame to the end date for liquidation is dictated by the requirement of the constitution that the freeze on the activities of PIF can only be extended to 360 days total duration. So that's 360 days from when normal operation of the fund ceased and that ends in March 09.

Hello All
I have patiently read all posts lately and have declined to try to summarise the facts arising because there has been little if anything worthwhile to record. I see no benefit in most posts recently, as many have been almost entirely devoid of facts which increase the sum of our knowledge. Those referring to the WC meetings where some clarification has been made to earlier posts regarding JH's statements have been beneficial.

Could respondents please keep the discussion to facts, not opinion and resist the temptation to make them personal?
Mutchy


----------



## Duped (16 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Breaker1's #1101 objective report gives us reason to remain positive! The recent descent into gloom in many posts is understandable, but pessimism doesn't produce one cent. JH appears to be setting out a realistic process while having the right qualifications to do so.
> 
> Imagine if MFS had liquidated the PIF at the time we were receiving those ridiculous newsletters! Be thankful.
> 
> If it weren't for Breaker1's initiative we'd be without this informative thread. Let's calm down and be realistic. The world economy, after all,  is in tatters. We have a manager trying to help us through this period.




Excellent work Breaker 1.  V v v much appreciated. At BNE forum, JH inferred that the 360 days is legislated whereas the equiv law in NZ is 3 years.  OPI is a NZ fund and the NZ unit holders voted to use the 3 year period that was available to them to see out the cycle; hence the moratorium. The AU equiv is 360 days. I'm just reporting what JH said. This 360 days has been imposed on us. What's not confirmed for me is why JH gave a 31 March 08 deadline.  Redemptions were stopped in January weren't they? 

Selciper, 
IMO and I'm not an accountant or economist and definitely not a Financial Advisor:
The world economy is NOT in tatters.  Far from it. There is growth everywhere (just not in the US) and AU is cashing in on it, BIG time. And will continue to provided we aren't fooled into the panic and flog off the best assets (our minerals resources). (Look at the Xstrata takeover of Mount Isa Mines in 2003 - at the beginning stages of this boom - smart move eh! You don't make a $5B move like that by acting on what you read in the Pop Press)
The high interest rates in AU have been put there by our Reserve Bank to COOL our economy.
There's no doubt, there are big changes going on in the gobal economy and this creates teething problems. Changes such as a shift away from the dominance of the US consumer. But the US (IMO and supported by the image our Pop Press paints) is like a demonstrative child that doesn't want to give someone else a go without a lot of WAAAAAAAAAAA!. They've holed and overloaded their boat through their excess debt and like the graceless and desparate shipwrecked in the water, are clinging to whoever or whatever they can to avoid falling behind. But can we, or should we, cut them free so they can fix up their boat while the rest of us continue on?

Stat I heard on ABC's News Radio a few months back: there are a MILLION US$ millionaires in India.  And just like you and me those people want to have kids, buy strollers and toys, go on holidays, buy Plasma TVs, video games and hybird cars, have bigger houses with guest rooms filled with furniture that's rarely used, etc etc.

There are few consumers that embrace doom and gloom like Australians.  Makes the RBA's job easier doesn't it.  Not necessarily a bad thing.

There's a lot of negative press about the 18% interest rates under Hawke/Keating.  Well the self funded retirees and all other savers certainly weren't complaining. With low inflation their buying power just kept on going UP and UP and UP.

Can PIF take advantage of the current market?  I don't know. BUT it seems that the higher interest rates go to push down inflation, the easier it will be for PIF to make money. Credit squeeze - the harder it is for quality borrowers to get loans, the better it is for PIF. Or not?


----------



## JohnH (16 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thank you "Duped" for the needed, positive common sense.

Recession and Depression are results of attitudes of mind.


----------



## flatback (16 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

G'day Breaker1, mate i now get whats going on,have a look at all of the posts by great dame (mr magoo) now have a look at the majority of replies they are from rickh, there are a sprinkling of other replies from unit holders who wish to, rightly, voice their concerns via this forum but are responding to these idiots retoric to try and get them to tone down their negativity i think one of them is trying to show everybody how clever he is by replying to mr magoo by telling him how many of his clients he is working so hard for, and also influence others with this same retoric, this pairs agenda is to disrupt this forum,and make it more difficult for those who have an honest interest in moving foreward and meaningful.i know i said i would not respond on this forum again because of the above,but somebody had to say it ,the whole thing to me is like an organised exersize to distrupt fair and honest comment.:nosympath


----------



## RickH (16 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> G'day Breaker1, mate i now get whats going on,have a look at all of the posts by great dame (mr magoo) now have a look at the majority of replies they are from rickh, there are a sprinkling of other replies from unit holders who wish to, rightly, voice their concerns via this forum but are responding to these idiots retoric to try and get them to tone down their negativity i think one of them is trying to show everybody how clever he is by replying to mr magoo by telling him how many of his clients he is working so hard for, and also influence others with this same retoric, this pairs agenda is to disrupt this forum,and make it more difficult for those who have an honest interest in moving foreward and meaningful.i know i said i would not respond on this forum again because of the above,but somebody had to say it ,the whole thing to me is like an organised exersize to distrupt fair and honest comment.:nosympath




Flatback,
I would have thought that my comments were positive and I have tried to create a base for the structure of the PIF going foward. The loan agreement is a good way to help those in desperate need. But obviously you think that I am not providing any benefit to this forum. I disagree but if others feel the same please reply and I will stop offering any comments at all.
May clients want their money back plus.:1zhelp::venus::1zhelp:


----------



## Duped (16 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Thank you "Duped" for the needed, positive common sense.
> 
> Recession and Depression are results of attitudes of mind.




Thanks JohnH.

Or attitudes of governments.  

Remember Paul Keating's: "the recession we had to have".  

Some argue that the Great Depression could have been far shorter and less severe than it needed to be.  Basically everyone had to suffer in order to preserve the interests and hence relative standing of a select, albeit large, part of the community. No one wanted to act in case such action would reduce their standing in the community.

I once read a book about the depression of the late 19th century.  Conclusion was that it wasn't a depression at all, just a shortage of money which consequently was holding back growth.

All were only in the power of governments to remedy or at least steer.


----------



## SPLITPIN (16 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Flatback,
> I would have thought that my comments were positive and I have tried to create a base for the structure of the PIF going foward. The loan agreement is a good way to help those in desperate need. But obviously you think that I am not providing any benefit to this forum. I disagree but if others feel the same please reply and I will stop offering any comments at all.
> May clients want their money back plus.:1zhelp::venus::1zhelp:




RickH

I find your comments informative and positive from your world.

Hang in.

Splitpin


----------



## great dame (17 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi Great Dame,
> 
> We hear you!  We acknowledge you!  Some even agree with you!
> 
> ...



     I am deeply hurt i hope i can recover  Tell me DoraNBoots  are you writing to JH too  I have found if you keep the drip method up long enough you sometimes get reslts & thats what i entend to  do  Try & lose is betting then not trying at all///////


----------



## Javier (17 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I rang Jenny yesterday, she was busy in meetings. I spoke to her very pleasant PA and she told me she is speaking with her legal eagles about alternate possibilities for redemption.

She told me Jenny remains very positive and so should WE. So chin up folks and remain positive, she will come up with something great I am sure and will then be able to get 100% of our support. STAY POSITIVE and don't listen to people with NO facts!


----------



## Ivor Watt (17 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Flatback,
> I would have thought that my comments were positive and I have tried to create a base for the structure of the PIF going foward. The loan agreement is a good way to help those in desperate need. But obviously you think that I am not providing any benefit to this forum. I disagree but if others feel the same please reply and I will stop offering any comments at all.
> May clients want their money back plus.:1zhelp::venus::1zhelp:




Rick H, i agree that your comments are positive and am glad that you are making them.
We do not want this forum to degenerate into a bickering arena between people, we want it to provide positive direction and comment that will avoid any split in our ranks and provide a united front for the achievement of a better result for all concerned.


----------



## simgrund (17 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> I am an investor in the PIF with many millions of $ of my own money in there, so I am extremely nervous to say the least. I have spoken to Guy Hutchings dierctly on a couple of occassions in the last 2 months, and whilst he assures me that we will recoup most, if not all our caiptal..I have my doubts. He himself has some of his own money in there.
> 
> What I can't work out is why Wellington Capital (WC) is now in the picture. I mean what is the financial advantage to them. I am hoping that they will be a white knight and at least pursue the $50m from the parent co to cover the shortfalls..but what does WC have to gain apart from a client list of investors that would not re-invest as a going concern?? I am more than happy to talk with other investors to get an action group started..I am in Sydney.




Dear Javier
I am Simon: my Email is <simgrund@rabbit.com.au> and you may include me in any future group you may think helpful.
I too believe, as others do, that Custodian's role in releasing funds for related party loans is actionable in court as it was in direct contravention of known 
prohibitions (Page 6, Lonsec Report, Oct "07).
Wishing well, Simon


----------



## breaker1 (17 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Re Centrelink and Veteran Affairs re-working your PIF unit value from $1 to 
45c:

Some C/L staff are unaware of the revaluation, so if they tell you it's still @ $1, just tell them that WC managing director has had the 45c approved and that many pensioners have already had it changed from $1 to 45c. C/L staff then usually ring around, find out it's a fact and immediately change it. They can get confused with MFS LTD and tell you it's worth the 99c share value. Tell them it's not MFS or Octaviar, it's Wellington Capital and an instruction from them to C/L as to the 45c new value. 


My dad rang Veterans Affairs and they told him it was $1, so dad rang Jenny (herself I think) and she said she would immediately ring Veteran Affairs and iron it out.

So don't take NO for an answer!

Make sure you ask them to backdate it to July 1st, '08, the devaluation date.


----------



## seamisty (17 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All, would anyone be able to help me on behalf of another investor, AG member who has been trying to contact the MFS/OCV Southport office? Member has been unable to make contact and would like to know if the office is still operational. I was under the impression that Chris Scott moved back to the original premises when he was cost cutting. The phone is not being answered. Any help or information will be greatly appreciated. Thankyou, Seamisty


----------



## pixierich (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty  - I rang OCV on Monday morning, 07 5557 7700. Spoke to receptionist (not a machine!) and was put through to a very helpful person called Julie.


----------



## seamisty (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



pixierich said:


> Seamisty  - I rang OCV on Monday morning, 07 5557 7700. Spoke to receptionist (not a machine!) and was put through to a very helpful person called Julie.



Much appreciated Pixierich, will pass that on. Seamisty


----------



## Wolfgang (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All
*Creditor Octaviar Update*

*Announced by:* OCV 
Announced on: 18/07/2008 12:19:00

http://newsstore.smh.com.au/apps/previewDocument.ac?docID=GCA00861380OCV&f=pdf

Wolfgang


----------



## seamisty (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all, Would one of the fund managers or someone with some financial expertise and a bit of spare time please study the latest ASX release regarding OCV, summarize it and make comment please. Looks like OCV is trying to keep going or cut some sort of a deal with creditors and shareholders. I have to work today and because I am one of the boss's I can't get the sack!! Thanks Seamisty


----------



## deano1 (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

haven't read thru all of the document yet - but in short  the statement on page two says it all 

"Other large creditors
The company will make offers next week to the Australian Taxation Office and the Premium Income
Fund. Such offers will be on broadly similar terms to the proposal put to the holders of the listed notes.
Discussions are currently taking place with OPI Pacific Finance Limited and its Trustee in order to
make a broadly similar offer to OPI Pacific Finance Limited and its investors."

Effectively what they are saying they are going to offer 22.5c in the dollar - i will keep reading to determine whether this means 22.5c on the dollar for the entire $197.5 mill identified as being owed or just on the $50mill that has been acknowledged by Octavier.

In simple terms $50 mill = $ 11,253,875 based on the formula for the note holders or $197.5mill = $44,437,500.

Let me keep reading and i will update as i read thru it.

Premium Income fund appears to be owed $210 mill by the financial statement attached - not the $197.5 thats being published in wellington documentation - i'm pretty certain the offer is only going to be on the $50 mill


----------



## deano1 (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

this is getting better by the minute!!!

• PAC:
– 50% of PAC’s secured debentureholders (being $85 million) will
accept 22.5c / $1;
– 75% of PAC’s unsecured non-related noteholders (being $18 million)
will accept 15c / $1;
_– PIF will accept 22.5c / $1 for its $123.7 million direct and indirect
participation loans with PAC, and assign the participation loans to the
Octaviar Group;_
*$27,832,500 to be paid to PIF and PIF can write off the rest and hand back the keys on this asset* 
_– PIF will accept 15c / $1 for its unsecured PAC notes (being $23.6
million); _
*$3,540,000 to be paid to PIF in exchange or cancellation of these notes - balance to written off by PIF*
_and
– PAC will release the Octaviar Group from all other claims including the
damages claim for approximately $270 million;
• PIF: in addition to the above, PIF will:
– accept 22.5c / $1 for its $50 million Support Mechanism claim;_*$11,250,000 to be paid to PIF in in full and final settlement of this amount - PIF w/o's balance*

_– accept 22.5c / $1 related to the Maximum Yield investment ($30
million) and assign this asset to the Octaviar Group;_
*$6,750,000 to be paid to PIF and asset is assigned to Octavier to further claim permitted by PIF - PIF to w/o balance *
_– accept 22.5c / $1 for its further claim of $5.5 million;_*$1,237,500 to be paid to PIF and claim to be revoked - bal to be written off by PIF*

_and
– release the Octaviar Group and PAC from all claims (including the
litigation claim commenced);_
*PIF will then agree to release Octavier from any further legal proceedings / litigation claims etc*

• ATO: liability of $52.4 million will be satisfied by the payment of cash
consideration at 22.5c / $1; and
• Interest

So in a nutshell the boys over at Octavier are going to offer you $50.6 mill in exchange for full and final settlement with PIF versus the $232.8mill they have disclosed in the above as being / owed / claimed by PIF.

If you agree to this - this will leave octavier with approx $30 mill in the bank and some sort of ongoing interest in Stella and some other business's - but PIF are out of their hair - there is no further correspondence to be entered into in so far as Octavier and PIF is concerned.

the financial assumptions in the report are based on the premise that creditors accept the proposals.

More to follow


----------



## wally3218 (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Have just been sent this .

Subject: Media Release from the Minister for Human Services, Senator Joe Ludwig [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Help available for pensioners affected by failed investments

Minister for Human Services, Senator Joe Ludwig, said help is available for Age Pensioners whose investments may be affected by the collapse of financial investment companies.

He said Age Pensioners’ income and assets may be revalued following a collapse, in some cases resulting in higher payments. 

“The demise of several high profile finance companies last year had a significant impact on some Centrelink customers,” Senator Ludwig said.

“For example, around 20 per cent of retail investors caught up in the collapse of Australian Capital Reserve (ACR), Bridgecorp and Fincorp were Centrelink customers.”

“These customers had investments with the companies worth $134 million, or an average of $35,000 per person.”

More recently, the collapse of the Donovan Oates Hannaford Mortgage Corporation and Elderslie finance has created a great deal of uncertainty among investors, with   receivers still involved with the arrangements for both these companies.

Senator Ludwig said Centrelink offers a number of useful free services which may assist customers with failed financial investments.

“Customers affected by a collapse are always encouraged to contact Centrelink on 13 2300 to discuss possible changes to their entitlements,” Senator Ludwig said.

“Regardless of whether a person’s payments are affected, the Financial Information Service is available to both customers and other members of the public. It’s free, and the specialist staff can provide financial information options and strategies.”

“The agency also has a network of social workers available who can provide additional assistance and referrals to other support services.”



Minister’s Media Contact: Joe Scavo  0413 800 757


----------



## deano1 (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

just quickly sum up the octavier statement in respect to PIF

PIF owed $232.8 mill thru various facilities

Octavier offer $50.6 mill

Octavier stay in business - but have no further liability to PIF

If i was JH - i'd be saying yes i will take your $50 mill off you now - but i also want some sort of additioanl payment in the future when the stella asset is sold ( maybe  some sort of % of gross consideration).

The liquaidation off is approx 12c in the dollar - so getting 22c in the dollar now is probably reasonable - but if JH is half the business woman she thinks she is - she needs to keep an option open to get some more money back for PIF investors in the future - it cost PIF nothing for the option and if the asset kicks a goal PIF gets some of the upside - if it goes guts up and you get nothing back on the option - hey it cost nothing - but to just accept this offer without negotiating something for the agreement - she needs to show the Unit holders what shes capable of here.

Dont forget the fact that they are offering money to PIF on all these items is literally saying we are guilty - here take some money and go away - don't take the soft option - get the $50 mill in the tin - but make them keep working for the unit holders and hopefully the retun on this investment can improve over the next few years.


----------



## DoraNBoots (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for the info Deano1!
Are you able to answer these questions:

Whose decision is it?  PIF unit holders or WC?  
Do all Octaviar’s creditors have to agree to a deal to prevent OCV liquidation?
Does taking the deal mean we can’t sue or imprison an individual that is found to be fraudulent? (RE or OCV)


----------



## deano1 (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Thanks for the info Deano1!
> Are you able to answer these questions:
> 
> Whose decision is it?  PIF unit holders or WC?
> ...





DoraNBoots 

WC as Responsible entity is the one who makes the decisions on behalf of the unit holders so effectively the unit holders have given that responsiblity to WC as RE to make that decision - i'd think it would be prudent of WC to put this to unit holders at the up coming meeting?

No the directors of the company make the decision to go into liquidation - so thats why they are trying to convince creditors to accept the deal to avoid liquidation.

Taking the deal will pretty much in effect cease PIF from any further action - if there has been criminal activity or illegal activity then its going to be up to the regulators to persue that course of action - that said PIF / WC will be able to assist the regulators in those actions.

Hope that helps


----------



## DoraNBoots (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Deano1,

Question 2 (again).  If one of the 5 creditors don't take a deal, would that force OCV into liquidation and prevent the others from taking a deal?


----------



## deano1 (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

its possible - i think from reading thru the documentation its probably likely that its going to be accepted - ( just my gut reaction) - but hopefully JH will be communicating to everyone soon that she has been contacted with regards to an offer of settlement and we can then see how she wishes to play it out - PIF unit holders probably have the strongest position to stop the scheme from going ahead of all the creditors - so if the unit holder of PIF are happy to accept the offer i'm pretty sure you will see the deal proceed - JH just needs to negotiate some better terms for the potential left in Octavier to produce some sort of dividend for units holders later.


----------



## seamisty (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for that Deano1. A far cry from what is owed to the PIF. I am interested to see how long it will take JH to respond to the proposal from OCV and what her intentions are regarding the offer. I am also looking foward to feedback on here as to what other investors think of the offer. I guess at least this way if OCV can continue to operate it will give the shareholders a chance to not be left with nothing. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Javier (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

More like Chris Scott to be left with nothing. Let's see if JH squeezes him to get us a better deal with perhaps some future upside, thou I daresay if OCV gives us a better deal, then the other creditors will want that too..I think that ALL the creditors have to ask for future upside of OCV / Stella asset. This is the 1st offer to creditors..you NEVER accept the 1st offer in business, unless it's just so good to pass up, I think they can offer more! But yes $50m at this stage will help prop up our fund. JH stated that any proceeds from the $50m support will go straight to investors immediately, I think the 'special distribution' she had planned should come to us as soon as it comes in the door from OCV to cover the fact we have not had 1 cent in income apart from Jan all year..this will be of great reLief to a lot people!!!


----------



## Rocky1 (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Deano1

thanks for your analysis

can you explain why all notes are not worth the same? why do those people with less notes get a better return (cents in $)


----------



## deano1 (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

i think thats probably got more to do with PR than anything else - i think their logic is the smaller parcels of notes are probably held by mum & dad investors and they can keep 200 of them happy by paying them out in full - and probably garuntee themselves 40% vote in favour from these people alone ( not quite sure what the constitution of the note holders says re vote 75% of notes on issue or more likely 75% of individual noteholders vote in favour it goes ahead) i'd put money on it they have already sounded out the larger note holders and i think they feel pretty confident they will get this up - theres no rhyme or reason why they chose $5000 as the number - but like i said more to do with PR than anything else


----------



## Rocky1 (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



deano1 said:


> i think thats probably got more to do with PR than anything else - i think their logic is the smaller parcels of notes are probably held by mum & dad investors and they can keep 200 of them happy by paying them out in full - and probably garuntee themselves 40% vote in favour from these people alone ( not quite sure what the constitution of the note holders says re vote 75% of notes on issue or more likely 75% of individual noteholders vote in favour it goes ahead) i'd put money on it they have already sounded out the larger note holders and i think they feel pretty confident they will get this up - theres no rhyme or reason why they chose $5000 as the number - but like i said more to do with PR than anything else




Thanks Deano1, really appreciate your time on this matter

I understand about the PR stunt but would ask the question aren't mum and dad and retirees the investors in the PIF?


----------



## deano1 (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

yep but dont forget octavier have no relationship to the PIF unit holders anymore - ( they have a moral obligation and thats about it ) they care about their shareholders - and getting an outcome that allows octavier to survive - PIF unit holders as they say are collateral damage - dont forget - Octavier gets liquidated the people running it are all out of jobs and the ones that have been involved with it for a while are virtually unemployable in their field of so called expertise - they need to get this deal done so they can start working on repairing their reputations ( if its possible) - if they need 75% of note holders to vote in favour - they have 40% of that total vote in the bag and only need to get another 35% - take a look at the liquidation valuations they have provided - i'd say anyone up to $25,000 is going to vote in favour as they are miles better off - and if theres 75% of total note holders that fall into that category they are home and hosed - PIF unit holder just need to make sure that when the offer is made JH is really twisting every drop of blood from the stone and leaving nothing on the table - hence my thought about getting an option of a future payout.


----------



## Javier (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yes Deano, BUT will she give her old mate that squeezing? This will separate the BS from the truth as to whether she is TRULY working for us, or she will let CS off easily..meaning he keeps all of 35% of Stella and $30m cash in bank to live another day..that is just too easy for all the wrongs OCV have done..way TOO EASY!!!


----------



## deano1 (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

javier - its not all beer and skittles for octavier there is literally no value left in it and they have to really make that stella asset work out for them - there is a little poison pill in there that could result in CVC ending up with all of stellar - theres a potential contingent liability in there that literally could wipe out that investment pretty much and trust me - i have dealt with CVC before there are pretty much no better negotiators than these guys and if they can get hold of all of stellar they will - everyone needs to take the emotion out of the issue now - look at it logically and say 22c is better than 12c - 22c plus some upside is better than 22c - WC / JH really get to prove to you unit holders how fair dinkum she really is now - and if she is serious in saying there is no conflict of interest - then nows the time to prove it to the people who have invested money in PIF and extract some extra value over and above the $50 mill thats on the table - she likes quoting teddy roosevelt - when nows her opportunity to prove how presidential she is and lead on this issue and lead strongly - if she does - back the woman with everything you've got - if she doesnt then - we really are up that creek without a paddle


----------



## breaker1 (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*OCV proposals:*

– PIF will accept 22.5c / $1 for its $123.7 million direct and indirect           =  $27.83M

participation loans with PAC, and assign the participation loans to the      

Octaviar Group;

– PIF will accept 15c / $1 for its unsecured PAC notes (being $23.6         =  $3.54M

million); and

– PAC will release the Octaviar Group from all other claims including the

damages claim for approximately $270 million;

• PIF: in addition to the above, PIF will:

– accept 22.5c / $1 for its $50 million Support Mechanism claim;             =  $11.25M

– accept 22.5c / $1 related to the Maximum Yield investment ($30           =  $6.75M

million) and assign this asset to the Octaviar Group;

– accept 22.5c / $1 for its further claim of $5.5 million; and                       =  $1.2M         *TTL = $50.57M

– release the Octaviar Group and PAC from all claims (including the

litigation claim commenced);

I don't know about anyone else, but I expected more than $50.57 million. I would hold out for extra - it's NOT enough, sorry Chris Scott, most of us are in this for the long term and that needs lots  more $M. What else can you offer for the long term??


----------



## sak (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Nobody cares how much you know, until they know how much you care. 
Theodore Roosevelt 
It is time for JH to show that it is the investors in PIF that comes 1st.


----------



## breaker1 (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Extract OCV ASX announcement under:

The Company will today be forwarding by mail to all holders of the listed notes (ASX code: OCVG) a
proposal to amend the existing terms of issue of those notes. That proposal will require the approval of
the Trustee and 75% or more of the Noteholders by value. Noteholders have been asked to respond by
7pm 11 August 2008. A copy of that proposal is attached to this announcement.
Should the terms of issue of the Notes be amended then Noteholders will need to chose between:
• accepting an immediate cash payment in exchange for their notes
• remaining a Noteholder until June 2011 and enjoying the benefit of security over all available
group assets, or
• a combination of the two
Should a Noteholder accept the cash payment option for all of their notes they will receive $100 for
each of their first 50 notes and $22.50 for any additional notes. Other Noteholders will receive $22.50
for any notes they wish to exchange for the immediate cash consideration. The proposal contemplates
that 200 of the just over 500 Noteholders would receive an immediate cash payment for the full face
value of their notes.
.

Noteholders have been asked to respond by 11 August 2008, that puts added pressure on Jenny to amend her PIF vote deal for us. Trusting she has time to negotiate the best deal possible for the PIF and hopefully include it in the PIF vote deal in August.


----------



## SPLITPIN (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sak said:


> Nobody cares how much you know, until they know how much you care.
> Theodore Roosevelt
> It is time for JH to show that it is the investors in PIF that comes 1st.




Sak

This is pure and simple politics.

A classic "Yes Minister"

You do not publish something like this unless you have everything organised and risks assessed.

Is it a deal done already or is JH really going to show us her true capabilities.

Let us hope, that we are fully infomed of progress through the WC website (very quite lately) and through this forum.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## DoraNBoots (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Didn't CVC buy 65% of Stella for 400M cash + 900M debt a few months ago?  Wouldn't that make the 35% share worth around 650M?  Keep in mind this was a fire sale price at the time.  Then in recent weeks reports of the 35% Stella stake being worth 400M with OCV having another 170M in cash?  In no time at all the stake in Stella lost another 250M somewhere...  Now looking at the balance sheet page 18 of the OCV announcement it appears that the 35% stake in Stella is valued at 215M?  Another 185M up in smoke and that's if OCV retains it's stake and doesn't liquidate?  Would anyone be able to explain this?

To me it looks like OCV is crying poor in an attempt to rid OCV of certain creditors and legal claims against it.  Once that's taken care of OCV will have an asset which could be sold in the not too distant future for, say, 650M to the benefit of OCV and any note holders that are willing to hang on, leaving creditors like the PIF out in the cold.

Why should OCV be forgiven any debt or legal claim against it and be allowed to continue as a going concern and possibly reap profits from our loss after its crimes?  I pity the OCV shareholders however, these people had access to MFS balance sheets prior to investing whereas we have been outright lied to and stolen from.

Currently the difference between continuation of OCV and liquidation equates to roughly 2c per PIF unit.  You are going to need to do a lot better that that!  Let us call their bluff and liquidate them to see what Stella is really worth!  Plus there's the added benefit of making the world a better place 

OR 

Why doesn't OCV just admit defeat, carve up their stake in Stella plus their remaining cash and give it to the creditors?  At a guess the PIF would get roughly 20% of the 35% stake or 7% of Stella, plus 30M cash which sounds a lot better than 50M to me.

This is a perfect opportunity for JH to demonstrate to us all that JH is not in CS' pocket!

Boots


----------



## Juan Mortyme (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sak said:


> Nobody cares how much you know, until they know how much you care.
> Theodore Roosevelt
> It is time for JH to show that it is the investors in PIF that comes 1st.




"If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn't sit for a month." - Theodore Roosevelt

"Obedience of the law is demanded; not asked as a favor." - Theodore Roosevelt

My favourite:
"A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad." - Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## breaker1 (18 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> "If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn't sit for a month." - Theodore Roosevelt
> 
> "Obedience of the law is demanded; not asked as a favor." - Theodore Roosevelt
> 
> ...




I guess Michael King went to that university!


----------



## seamisty (19 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Coolangatta 9C - 22C. Fine Weather 

July 19, 2008 04:59am

Octaviar wind-up case now next weekEmmaline Stigwood 

July 19th, 2008 

A WINDING-up application against Octaviar and several subsidiaries will be heard next week in Brisbane after concerns about the rate the Gold Coast company was chewing up cash.

Lawyers for the Public Trustee of Queensland yesterday asked the Supreme Court in Brisbane to urgently list the case instead of the planned hearing date in September.

Walter Sofronoff, QC, for the trustee, argued financial statements showed Octaviar (formerly MFS) companies were still spending millions, leaving less and less for creditors.

"The more time that rolls on, the more tens of millions of cash that are being spent," he said.

Mr Sofronoff noted more than $15 million had been spent on external consultants including a 'turnaround specialist' and the Public Trustee was 'not minded to place great faith' in an 'unofficial winding-up scheme' offer sent to creditors on Thursday night and yesterday.

Lawyers for Octaviar argued it needed until September to see if creditors would take up its deal under the unofficial scheme.

Barrister Brian O'Donnell, QC, for Octaviar, said the companies had been operating prudently since January in a bid to stem loses and meet debt-repayment obligations.

However, Justice Richard Chesterman said the company had already sold its major asset, a 65 per cent stake in the Stella tourism group, and expenses seemed to be still eating into the asset base of the company.

He ordered the case be heard on July 24 and 25, with advertisements to be placed in the media today to notify creditors.


----------



## seamisty (19 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Octaviar boss says accept deal or he'll liquidate
July 19, 2008 

THE chief executive of embattled property group Octaviar has thrown down the gauntlet to creditors owed more than $1 billion by threatening to place the crumbling empire in liquidation if they do not support a payout of 22.5 ¢ in the dollar.

Octaviar boss Chris Scott said the company's creditors, who include noteholders, investors in unlisted managed funds and the Australian Taxation Office, would be better served by allowing Octaviar to trade its way out of its troubles.

"For months and months we have said that the worst option is liquidation, and I've always said that professional investors are rational. Now, this is going to test that theory," he said.

Yesterday Octaviar said it had sent a letter to its 560 noteholders asking them to vote on a payout that would see them either accept an immediate cash payment in exchange for their notes, remain a noteholder until June 2011 and enjoy the benefits of security over available group assets or a combination of the two.

If they accept the cash offer, noteholders will receive $100 for each of their first 50 notes and $22.50 for any additional notes.

The proposal contemplates that 200 of all the noteholders would receive an immediate cash payment for the full face of their notes. Noteholders have been sent a lengthy document and have been asked to respond by August 11.

"This document shows that the worst option is in fact liquidation and we are providing an alternative which is a better option that liquidation," Mr Scott said.

He added that this payment formula also would be offered to all outstanding creditors in a take-it-or-leave it proposal to rescue the company from complete collapse.

"We are going to make this offer to all creditors, not just the noteholders, so that includes the Premium Income Fund … to Pacific Finance in New Zealand, the ATO and to the bondholder, which is Challenger," he said.

He said if successful, the offer could erase $600 million in debt.

"If you don't like either then don't accept the offer and we will go into liquidation … the whole company, the whole of Octaviar will go into receivership … because we roughly owe people $1 billion and only have $400 million with which to pay them," he said.

"I think it's a brilliant offer because if we go into liquidation across the board, the average they (creditors) will get on best analysis is 13.9 ¢ in the dollar."


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Is anyone able to answer these quetions:


Are we sure the $147.5 mil in loans are really worth *nothing*?  OCV are offering to give us 22.5c/$1 in exchange for these loans.  What could we sell these assets for now or in a few years?

If we are equal creditors with Notes holders we should be getting the same offer as them.  They are getting between 30c/$1 and 100c/$1.  We are getting 15c/$1 up to 22c/$1.  

Can anyone tell me if the claim for $147.5mil is successful in the courts if we would be considered equal creditors (for that money) with the other 4 creditors?  And would we have to give back the assets which are supposedly worth nothing?

Why would they show "Liquidation - All Assets (*excluding Stella*)" on the table on page 21?  Is it an option for them to liquidate and not sell Stella?  

Why is there a big difference in returns for each of the 5 creditor on page 21?  I thought we were all equal creditors?  It says Notes holders would get 43.3c/$1 but ATO only 17.4c/$1.

It concerns me that the Note holders already have an offer which they have been asked to accept by Aug 11 and if they do they will be paid by 25th Aug (14 days later).  They could be paid out before our deal is negotiated or falls though.  Will OCV be allowed to pay out this money to Note holders if PIF doesn’t accept a deal?  Surely paying out the Note holders at this rate will leave less money for other creditors (us) if they liquidate.

Thanks in advance,
Dora.


----------



## k.smith (19 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Didn't CVC buy 65% of Stella for 400M cash + 900M debt a few months ago?  Wouldn't that make the 35% share worth around 650M?  Keep in mind this was a fire sale price at the time.  Then in recent weeks reports of the 35% Stella stake being worth 400M with OCV having another 170M in cash?  In no time at all the stake in Stella lost another 250M somewhere...  Now looking at the balance sheet page 18 of the OCV announcement it appears that the 35% stake in Stella is valued at 215M?  Another 185M up in smoke and that's if OCV retains it's stake and doesn't liquidate?  Would anyone be able to explain this?
> 
> To me it looks like OCV is crying poor in an attempt to rid OCV of certain creditors and legal claims against it.  Once that's taken care of OCV will have an asset which could be sold in the not too distant future for, say, 650M to the benefit of OCV and any note holders that are willing to hang on, leaving creditors like the PIF out in the cold.
> 
> ...



WHO is telling us what Octaviars 35% stake in Stella is really worth? In an MFS ASX announcement in Aug,07 MFS said..."the Stella Group PRESENTLY contributes more than 55% of the company's recurring earnings ...." In a June 23, 2008 .com news report...Stella owns and franchises Austalian hotel brands including Peppers and Saville as well as travel agencies including Harvey World travel and HRG.With a 74% stake in Africa's Protea Hotels, which runs 126 hotels in 13 countries, and 40% of the Golden Tulip chain, the company manages about 49,000 rooms and provided almost half of Octaviars sales last year.." Are the 49,000 rooms still PRESENTLY contributing?(they must produce a nice return!!!) How much of these assets are still there? If, mostly, they are, surely they are worth more than $215 million?


----------



## marcom (19 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

_"Although it values its 35 per cent of tourism group Stella at $212 million in its books, Octaviar said the stake is forecast to be worth $*744 million by 2010*, based on independent estimates in February prior to the sale of 65 per cent of Stella to private equity player CVC Asia Pacific."_ GCB 19/7

_"If the creditors reject it, it's off to the knackery," Mr Scott said._ Courier Mail 19/7


----------



## Rocky1 (19 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Based on simple analysis (k.smith, Dora) one would suggest that 35% of stella would have to be worth more than 215 mill. Of course OCV is going to talk down its value

JH is also quoting 215 mill - is this simply because this is what she has been TOLD it is worth. If she is a shrewd business woman then she should be able to determine roughly what it is worth and base her decision on wether to accept OCV 22.5 cents/$ on this or be ruthless and go for the throat. 

The flip side is $50 mill to the PIF now would make a big difference and we could put that money to good to use + fighting in the courts may take a long time to recover anything and will be costly and liquidation of OCV may result in less $$$

DILEMMA!!!!!!!


----------



## deano1 (19 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

i think the best course for PIF to steer is take the $50 mill now and if the Octavier assets appreciate over time - (and have some real confidence in the partner Octavier have in that deal CVC )- they are the best in the business at this type of transaction - liquidation of Octavier means the upside potential is gone - JH has to work hard to get PIF cut into an ongoing interest in the success of that asset - if that can happen then there is hope for a better than $50 mill return on your funds - take what is tangible / liquid and at risk off the table now - keep the blue sky in Octavier - but get some sort of participation in the upside of the remaining assets in Octavier - they can't just wipe their hands and walk away - thats too easy - JH has to earn her money now - if she is serious about growing her 45c into a buck - this is an option to get started now - the alternative - is less cash now and no potential upside in Octavier assets.

Plus no further money needs to be sunk into Octavier to keep it going as far as PIF is concerned

Please dont think im pushing the just accept it wagon - we need to be pragmatic here - get our cash off the table thats there now - but get upside participation in remaining octavier assets.


----------



## k.smith (19 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Deano1...I don't believe that liquidating Octaviar or the PIF is in our best interests, but accepting 15-22.5 cents isn't good enough. I would much rather negotiate an ongoing share in the returns on 1/3 of 49,000 hotel rooms!!!!!!!!!


----------



## deano1 (19 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

my point is why not both - get your $50 mill off the table and get a share in the upside as well - that can only come thru negotiation with octavier - they have literally admitted that something wrong has occurred in being prepared to make the offers they have already - instead of being exposed to current risk of $233 mill - get that down to $182 mill by taking the $50 mill on offer - but as they have admitted they have done something wrong - screw them down to see if over the next 3-5 years theres not another say $90 mill dividend to come out of the realisation of the residual Octavier assets - i dont think your going to get too much of a better deal than whats on the table at the moment - no one else in the space really is going to be too interested in taking a 35% stake in Stella and being a minority -  other than CVC and if CVC can get 100% control of that asset for next to nothing - liquidation will play into their hands - best outcome is PIF holders have some entitlement without and capital committment to the residual Octavier assets then you could be looking at better than 60c in the dollar or more.


----------



## Javier (19 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Totally agree with Deano, no sense in liquidation of OCV or PIF in this environment..I mean if the market was good, OCV, Centro, Babcock, Allco would not be in the mess they are in now. It's suicide to sell anything, you are just making the fat cats, fatter. 

What JH has to do is stand up for us and show us she IS in it for US, and if she can take the $50m that's offered now AND get us a stake of Stella when it starts churning out the profits..then she  goes a hell of a long way in capturing that 75% unit vote next month.

We just can't keep taking hair cuts with no chance to recoup down the track when things start getting rosey again. She keeps saying have faith in her, I will turn your 45c back to $1 and beyond. Well here is your chance to shine Jenny and show us that you are the one to back for the next 3-5 years. By the end of this month the bank is paid off right? So that excuse is gone. If not then it is all BS and quotes from a dead president.

MFS has taken sooo much from us already, it's about time that someone like JH makes them pay it back and not just scraps, we want a lion's share that is owed to us down the track. If WC can't do that for us now, what hope have we got when this door closes..money doesn't just come by blind faith and speeches alone!!


----------



## seamisty (19 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Coolangatta 9C - 22C. Fine Weather
> 
> July 19, 2008 04:59am
> 
> ...



So where does this leave the OCV proposal if the PTQ step in and say ok, thats it folks, all over. Or can OCV secure an undertaking from its 5 major creditors to the effect that thay are willing to take the deal in principle prior to next weeks meeting so that they can present it and ask for more time? This is too complicated for me! Does JH need approval from PIF investors or can she accept the deal on behalf of the RE? If OCV are not ordered to liquidate I agree with what deano1 and Javiar are saying. Seamisty


----------



## k.smith (19 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Javiar, it seems to me that we are being confined by the imminent closing of doors from a number of directions, it all seems to hinge around the magic month of August, and %?$?and Millions are bandied about in an almost haphazard fashion.Can anybody tell us how Stella is performing at the moment? If they were contributing the major amount to Octaviars profits, how different is this scenario now? Perhaps there is still a lot more $ being earnt there that we dont know about.....do we get a better insight when they release their yearly report....in September!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Juan Mortyme (19 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> ......Can anybody tell us how Stella is performing at the moment?.....




Excerpt from yesterday's Creditor Update from OCV announced to the ASX:
"The Stella Group has been reported in the press to be presently performing behind its earnings forecast" (p.19)


----------



## selciper (19 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It's difficult to argue against Deano1's ideas. In our present situation every dollar helps and the very modest $50m offer can assist a bit. To get a portion of Stella's action would be encouraging and, as everyone seems to be saying, this is JH's chance to show us WC's negotiating skills. Unfortunately any optimism is usually short-lived and overtaken by a fresh batch of ugly numbers.. 

PS What's happening with LLA and our money? ASIC seem to have filed us away in their "too hard" section. Surely justice will prevail!


----------



## Jadel (19 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Public trustees of Old appear to be hell bent on winding up the company, they have not draw back from that position one iota, judging by the recent legal action ,so that is the primary problem .

I don’t think it’s going to come down to whether or not we agree to accept the deal with caveats attached 

If by some miracle we can get a consensus from the major creditors I would be taking the 50 million in cash with a sigh of relief . “bird in hand theory” 

In any event if they cut a special deal with us the other creditors will be up in arms , consequently  I do not  think JH is in  a strong position to negotiate an individual  arrangement .

And as you all know i am not particularly a big JH fan 

 I think this is about the best deal we can  get under the circumstance.

 Apart from  throwing in 50 strokes of the Ratan for the instigators of this disaster.


----------



## breaker1 (19 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Public trustees of Old appear to be hell bent on winding up the company, they have not draw back from that position one iota, judging by the recent legal action ,so that is the primary problem .
> 
> I don’t think it’s going to come down to whether or not we agree to accept the deal with caveats attached
> 
> ...




Yeah! Chris Scott said, ""I think it's a brilliant offer because if we go into liquidation across the board, the average they (creditors) will get on best analysis is 13.9 ¢ in the dollar." Is that another 14c scare tactic? I have a funny feeling our 14c came from Chris, because there it is again.

Nevertheless, I still want more than $50M and more than 50 strokes of the Ratan!!  

We're not being greedy, we're losing big time here!

Jenny has a special relationship with CS & just may be able to do something extra.


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Let's see if JH squeezes him to get us a better deal with perhaps some future upside, thou I daresay if OCV gives us a better deal, then the other creditors will want that too..I think that ALL the creditors have to ask for future upside of OCV / Stella asset.






Jadel said:


> In any event if they cut a special deal with us the other creditors will be up in arms , consequently  I do not  think JH is in  a strong position to negotiate an individual  arrangement .




The other creditors are getting a much better deal than the PIF.  Tell me if I’m reading this wrong but doesn’t the attached table show Noteholders, Bondholders and PAC doing just fine over the long term (96.5c\$1 by 2011), with the PIF with no other  option (yet) but to take 22.5c/$1.

Can anyone explain why the table claims the 3 creditors mentioned above would get more cents in the $ than the PIF if liquidation were to take place?  

View attachment 22590

View attachment 22592


----------



## k.smith (19 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty...in regards to the Public Trustee of Queensland bringing forward their court agenda...can anyone tell me why they are all FOR liquidation? I find this all very contradictory.If CS is telling us the best result is 13.5c, why are they(PT) going down the dreaded liquid path? It isn,t  exactly a bird in the hand, is it?


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Yeah! Chris Scott said, ""I think it's a brilliant offer because if we go into liquidation across the board, the average they (creditors) will get on best analysis is 13.9 ¢ in the dollar." Is that another 14c scare tactic? I have a funny feeling our 14c came from Chris, because there it is again.




This 13.9c in the dollar is what an average creditor would get if they exclude Stella in the liquidation.  Why is this even an option?  Surly the liquidation figure has to include Stella and this is 28.5c in the dollar.  A big difference and more than they are offering the PIF under all 3 senarios!  (see table from my previous post).

If I am reading this table right then I find Scott's comments in the media very misleading.


----------



## SPLITPIN (19 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> Seamisty...in regards to the Public Trustee of Queensland bringing forward their court agenda...can anyone tell me why they are all FOR liquidation? I find this all very contradictory.If CS is telling us the best result is 13.5c, why are they(PT) going down the dreaded liquid path? It isn,t  exactly a bird in the hand, is it?




K Smith.

If you read back through the media (plugger.com.au etc), as I remember it, MFS was not very forthcoming with details to the PTQ when requested, thus the start of the Court Actions.

Also being the QLD government they would probably want this mess cleaned up quickly for political reasons only they would know.

But I suspect the bureaucrates have very strict policies and procedures they are bound to follow.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## breaker1 (19 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> The other creditors are getting a much better deal than the PIF.  Tell me if I’m reading this wrong but doesn’t the attached table show Noteholders, Bondholders and PAC doing just fine over the long term (96.5c\$1 by 2011), with the PIF with no other  option (yet) but to take 22.5c/$1.
> 
> Can anyone explain why the table claims the 3 creditors mentioned above would get more cents in the $ than the PIF if liquidation were to take place?
> 
> ...




1]   OCV offer to PIF for a quick deal for monies owed 
– PIF will accept 22.5c / $1 for its $123.7 million direct and indirect           =  $27.83M       25.8c  =  31.9M   

participation loans with PAC, and assign the participation loans to the      

Octaviar Group;

– PIF will accept 15c / $1 for its unsecured PAC notes (being $23.6         =  $3.54       25.8c  =  6.1M
million); and

– PAC will release the Octaviar Group from all other claims including the

damages claim for approximately $270 million;

• PIF: in addition to the above, PIF will:

– accept 22.5c / $1 for its $50 million Support Mechanism claim;             =  $11.25M      25.8c  =  12.9M

– accept 22.5c / $1 related to the Maximum Yield investment ($30           =  $6.75M   

 25.8c   =  7.74M
million) and assign this asset to the Octaviar Group;

– accept 22.5c / $1 for its further claim of $5.5 million; and                       =  $1.2M     TTL = $50.57M     25.8c  TTL  =  $58.64M
– release the Octaviar Group and PAC from all claims (including the

litigation claim commenced);

Liquidation including Stella and waiting 3-5 years only gets us another $8M over CS's immediate payment offer. Inflation over 3-4 years would pretty much eat that away.


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Liquidation including Stella and waiting 3-5 years only gets us another $8M over CS's immediate payment offer. Inflation over 3-4 years would pretty much eat that away.




I think it's worse than that as the "PIF Claim - participation loans" and "Max Yield investment" are considered "Contingent liabilities" which the table says would only return 16.2c \$1.  

But I still don't understand why there is such a difference between the 5 major creditors if we were all supposed to be equal.


----------



## zixo (20 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

WC seemed to of been doing the right thing by ditching Hutchins and Watts. 

Lately things only seem to of been getting worse with vague and unclear information coming from the Investor forums regarding our standing as creditors and the NSX listing from Wellington.

Given all the news relating to Octaviar and how they wish to distribute a insulting token amount so they could survive at the expense of siphoned funds from the PIF only reinforces the fact that 65 cents in the $ was only a figure thrown out to try and resurrect a fund that has been professionally pilfered.
I cant understand why JH would come out with a figure of 65 cents if there has been nothing said and undertaken that would back that up?

Coupled with the lack of any solid facts or credible information coming from Wellington regarding the NSX listing only adds to the growing skepticism that Investors will actually benefit with sitting things out.

Now is the time any Investor is re-evaluating what should happen to their their distributions and if further participation in the PIF should be prolonged.

have any investors been given information as to why we should sit through the agony of watching quoted return of Investors capital when its been said its not achievable and then watching our investments artificially rise only to fall the moment the units are sold.

What happened to that positive vibe and Information that wellington tried so hard to sell us at the forums.  Wheres that promise of disclosure and trust they want us to give if they are taking the MFS/octaviar path of no information.


----------



## simgrund (20 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My plug would be for all of the above; no release from proven obligations.
How can I help???
   I also keep plugging CUSTODIAN's (Perp. Noms.) culpability; releasing funds without due diligence checks and against Lonsec's recommendations/ warnings; and a potential of a court case against them for substantial damages.

   Could somebody with a REAL CLOUT present this to WELLCAP as a legitimate pursuit of PIF interests? As a motion for adoption at forthcoming meeting or sooner?


----------



## selciper (20 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Simgrund -

I share your feelings about Perpetual, but I think that they couldn't actually ever direct the RE. Could be that under the rules the key to our safe didn't have to be guarded by the Nominee. Still, the big pitch I received over the phone from MFSPIF when things started falling over was the opposite: "Remember, you have a custodian." Seems to me that if there were a chance of damages in this matter, some lawyer would have alerted us by now. And I believe WC are still employing the company as our custodian.  One might well ask what is the meaning of the word "custodian." They seem to simply post out the distributions and prepare tax material. I always believed that the Trustee/Nominee was there to oversee the constitution. Silly old me.


----------



## great dame (20 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> WC seemed to of been doing the right thing by ditching Hutchins and Watts.
> 
> Lately things only seem to of been getting worse with vague and unclear information coming from the Investor forums regarding our standing as creditors and the NSX listing from Wellington.
> 
> ...



           ZIXO  very well said I could not have put it any better   Thank you  Hope to more from you  more Great Dame


----------



## Jadel (20 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Absolutely correct regarding Perpetual  (((Trustees ))) !!! role in this affair, my wife telephoned  on numerous occasions and was reassured the money could not be touched and was held in trust.

    Every time I contact them now .they desperately run the line that they were only a registration service for OCV, and that they had no power whatsoever over the Funds money. In fact they were providing, nothing more than a data base, for a mailing service. 

  It looks like we were all well and truly  conned in a clever scam,  that could only have been  set up  originally by  King and  Adams and was cunningly designed   to give investors confidence that their money was entrusted to an  independent body run  arms length from the PIF.

The fact of the matter is we were caught in a Sting, worthy of the Robert Redford and Paul Newman Movie. The arrangement with Perpetual was nothing more than an empty shell.

 That Perpetual were prepared to put their good name to this misleading and deceptive scheme is beyond belief. 

If there is any justice in the world the people behind this underhanded plan will rot in hell


----------



## Bumblebee (20 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Absolutely correct regarding Perpetual  (((Trustees ))) !!! role in this affair, my wife telephoned  on numerous occasions and was reassured the money could not be touched and was held in trust.
> 
> Every time I contact them now .they desperately run the line that they were only a registration service for OCV, and that they had no power whatsoever over the Funds money. In fact they were providing, nothing more than a data base, for a mailing service.
> 
> ...






JADEL, Don't forget that at the Bribane presentation, JH said that she was involved with King in the setting up of the PIF. JH also stated that King was a very clever man.

I anxiously wait for JH to prove that she is really far enough removed from King,MFS, Scott and Octaviar to be credible in her claim of so strongly pursuing our money .... I'm still waiting. come on Jenny! So far from you only words and promises.


----------



## selciper (20 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Jadel -

Just a layman's take on your last post. The Custodians should have sensed that their role was being exaggerated to PIF investors. You'd think in the circumstances that they would be expected to immediately spell out the limitations of their responsibilities to us. Yes, it may be that the "custodian" was simply a bank of programmed computers with laser printers, but there had to be human managers too.   I invested money in November 07 when things were turning bad and my certificate bears the Custodian's letterhead. Perhaps Simgrund's points do need a professional follow-up.


----------



## DoraNBoots (20 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Something that bothers me about Perpetual (and of course MFS and WC) is that they were willing to let MFS and WC tell us that we needed to pay $14,000 for Perpetual to provide a copy of a register.  Perpetual knew this fee was being asked on their behalf and knew the law states they must not make a profit when supplying it.

When I asked Perpetual who came up with such a ridiculous number they said that both companies agreed on it but admitted it was not right.

Dora.


----------



## Javier (20 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

And yet Jenny stated to me that is was Perpetual that was asking the 14 grand!! Someone is lying!!!


----------



## DoraNBoots (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> And yet Jenny stated to me that is was Perpetual that was asking the 14 grand!! Someone is lying!!!




When I said both companies agreed on the $14,000, I mean Perpetual and the RE (MFS and WC) agreed to quote this figure.  I found Perpetual to be very up front.  They were good in answering all my questions without playing games.  But as I was saying previously I think it shows bad judgement on Perpetuals part to have agreed to this and allow WC to blame them for the high price.


----------



## great dame (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Bumblebee said:


> JADEL, Don't forget that at the Bribane presentation, JH said that she was involved with King in the setting up of the PIF. JH also stated that King was a very clever man.
> 
> I anxiously wait for JH to prove that she is really far enough removed from King,MFS, Scott and Octaviar to be credible in her claim of so strongly pursuing our money .... I'm still waiting. come on Jenny! So far from you only words and promises.



 I am still waiting too Bumblebee But i am not holding my breath   O by the way  the value of PIF is stated at 45cents  a drop of 55% from a $1  It deeds to gain 122% to get back to a $1 agaion    I cant find any company or fund  that has fallen that much got back to any where they were  in 7 to 10 years   Questain now for unit holders out there  If it has to be listered on  a exchange  which one whould  you want the NSX or the ASX  ???????????????


----------



## DoraNBoots (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Those that don’t like old news or negativity should look away…

This is a link to a 7:30 report (on ABC) featuring JH and CS in March.  http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2186788.htm  Jenny is the lawyer representing the MFS shareholders doing her best to provide the best outcome from these people whose “lives have truly been destroyed in a financial sense”.  Just 4 months ago Jenny was representing the people we are now expecting her to play hard ball with.  Some might think she is in a unique position to negotiate for us but I would much prefer an unrelated party be doing this.

We are seeing this as a test for Jenny to prove she is looking out for the PIF over OCV but I fear if she proves not to be looking out for our best interests that she will have got what she wanted in a few weeks and won’t care about the Aug PIF vote.

I don’t have any constructive solutions but would like some reassurance from CW or at least some of the information they’ve promised.


----------



## goldfinger38 (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Those that don’t like old news or negativity should look away…
> 
> This is a link to a 7:30 report (on ABC) featuring JH and CS in March.  http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2186788.htm  Jenny is the lawyer representing the MFS shareholders doing her best to provide the best outcome from these people whose “lives have truly been destroyed in a financial sense”.  Just 4 months ago Jenny was representing the people we are now expecting her to play hard ball with.  Some might think she is in a unique position to negotiate for us but I would much prefer an unrelated party be doing this.
> 
> ...




Hi Dora,

Jennys position in this report appeared to be on the side of the shareholders, not the company and in fact she was instrumental in getting Chris Scott appointed to the board. It definitely didnt appear to favour the MFS board in any way, rembering her links to MFS are through her previous dealings with Chriss Scott. Yes she did assist in the early days with the formation of the Premium Income Fund but that in no way could be held against her at this point in time.

Now she has been placed in the position of making this a good or bad result for us as investors and yes she has to prove to us that she is the person for this job. Lets hope for our sake she performs admirably, up to this point in time I cannot see any reason to not let her have a go given that the liquidation option gives us no opportunity to lessen the pain and recover some of our lost value over time.

She just has to come up with a solution for those that want to exit from the fund without impairing our exposure to the  losses already experienced, then we will have a solution for both sides of the investors.

I see they will be mailing out a DVD compilation of the meetings held together with a detailed report of the questions and answers raised at the meetings and hope to have the meeting and voting papers out by mid August, given investors have to be given 21 days notice of a meeting, this will mean the proposed meeting for the vote should be around first week of September.


----------



## Jadel (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Something that bothers me about Perpetual (and of course MFS and WC) is that they were willing to let MFS and WC tell us that we needed to pay $14,000 for Perpetual to provide a copy of a register.  Perpetual knew this fee was being asked on their behalf and knew the law states they must not make a profit when supplying it.
> 
> When I asked Perpetual who came up with such a ridiculous number they said that both companies agreed on it but admitted it was not right.
> 
> Dora.






AND HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER PLAYS THE TUNE


----------



## Tuart (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good morning everyone

In relation to the OCV offer which seems to be expressed in a manner of take this or OCV will be liquidated.

Even if a liquidator is appointed the law allows a "deed of company arrangements" to be put up by any party including WC which could be on better terms for PIF than is been offered. 

As others are pushing for some cash and a share in the upside could be established through a DOCA which appears at the moment to be only offered to the OCV note holders.

It is not choice A versus choice B as Chris Scott is trying to push and WC is in a position to push for a better deal.


----------



## Jadel (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I hope you are correct Tuart , however i see the main problems as angst by  the other creditors if she tries to cut a sweetheart deal with Scott.


----------



## Duped (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I think it's worse than that as the "PIF Claim - participation loans" and "Max Yield investment" are considered "Contingent liabilities" which the table says would only return 16.2c \$1.
> 
> But I still don't understand why there is such a difference between the 5 major creditors if we were all supposed to be equal.




I'm guessing:
CS has crunched the numbers and come up with the formula to get the most number of votes to keep the company going (to save him from huge losses from his margin loans?)  PIF is a single vote - JH.  And JH is not the one pushing for an earlier court date, the Note Holders are pushing PTQ (& Challenger?) This weakens their case. The fact that PIF & PAC are getting screwed in the deal and that this should present an insurmountable hurdle to the whole deal will be all but lost when a receiver/magistrate/court is looking at a case between OCV and the note holders.

I see this offer as a desperate move to stay in control. Predicatable move.  Predicatably calculated.  JH just needs to say no.

There is no way WC should accept this deal.  On the one hand JH told us at the BNE forum that by liquidating PIF , the unit holders will miss out on all of the upside.   If JH go with this OCV offer, with no options over future growth of OCV/Stella, then she will be contradicting the advice she's giving us unit holders.


----------



## Duped (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Those that don’t like old news or negativity should look away…
> 
> This is a link to a 7:30 report (on ABC) featuring JH and CS in March.  http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2186788.htm  Jenny is the lawyer representing the MFS shareholders doing her best to provide the best outcome from these people whose “lives have truly been destroyed in a financial sense”.  Just 4 months ago Jenny was representing the people we are now expecting her to play hard ball with.  Some might think she is in a unique position to negotiate for us but I would much prefer an unrelated party be doing this.
> 
> ...




Excellent research DoraNBoots.  So glad you're back - I thought that basher had pushed you away.

I'd like to add that - Yes the OCV shareholders will also lose.  But they had something us PIF unit holders didn't have - A VOTE.  A vote over the running of OCV Ltd.  They had a FAR greater say in the running of OCV Ltd than PIF unit holders. The ONLY action that PIF unit holders had was not to invest/re-invest.


----------



## Duped (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Absolutely correct regarding Perpetual  (((Trustees ))) !!! role in this affair, my wife telephoned  on numerous occasions and was reassured the money could not be touched and was held in trust.
> 
> Every time I contact them now .they desperately run the line that they were only a registration service for OCV, and that they had no power whatsoever over the Funds money. In fact they were providing, nothing more than a data base, for a mailing service.
> 
> ...




AND they got paid a BOMB to attend to these ADMINISTRATIVE services:

Acording to the PIF Annual reports:
2007 - "Custodian & registry fees $1,266,000"
2006 - "Custodian & registry fees $1,132,000"
2005 - "Custodian & registry fees $1,256,000"

Far as I can tell these amounts are ON TOP OF what MFS IM paid itself. Seems to me that us unit holders were just cattle to be milked by anyone who had a bucket.


----------



## Jadel (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yes Duped 

          It was only the name OCV  were after Perpetual Trustees   just like Peackock was hired as a Show Pony for his name       

     For all that money paid in fees we got something like an imitation Rolex watch


----------



## Duped (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> 1]   OCV offer to PIF for a quick deal for monies owed
> – PIF will accept 22.5c / $1 for its $123.7 million direct and indirect           =  $27.83M       25.8c  =  31.9M
> 
> participation loans with PAC, and assign the participation loans to the
> ...




Hang on:
$123.7M + $23.6M + $50M + $30M +$5.5M = $232.8M (Have I double counted anything?)

I think this offer will REDUCE the 45c valuation that we have been given by WC.

JH wrote in her most recent flyer that the difference between the 45c and 65c valuations was the $147.5M claim against OCV.  The $50M doesn't seem to be calculated into the 65/45/14c valuations.

So where is the other $36M coming from.  Where are those writedowns going to be recorded? From the numbers I've seen this offer by OCV will take another big chunk out of the 45c valuation.

If so, we need to ask for a revaluation of the fund in the light of this offer by OCV.


----------



## DoraNBoots (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped that's a terrible realisation!  I'm thinking WC have included the $50 mil SF and the PAC notes in the current 45 cent valuation. If this is the case our units would be valued at less than 45 cents if WC takes the current OCV offer.

I've left a message on the WC hotline to see if they can clarify this.  No idea when they will get back to me.


----------



## Duped (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

How funny is this: CommSec is spruiking a premium income fund.

Risk Category: DEFENSIVE. (Heard that before)

"
What’s New At CommSec?

Hi Q2 is an income rich property securities fund, designed to deliver a consistent premium income yield for investors.

Real Estate Capital Partners (ReCap) is a boutique fund manager, specialising in the structure and management of innovative property-related funds.

Hi Q2 seeks to optimise opportunities and value in the property market, whilst providing a regular, quarterly income stream.

Why invest in Hi Q2?

 Investment portfolio comprising 75% property securities and 25% property security based derivatives.
 Income return benchmark of 3.0% above the cash rate.
 Hi Q has provided an income distribution since inception of 10.63%*pa.
 Regular quarterly income distributions.

Exposure to the listed property securities market, which may offer
some attractive value based investments

Key Features
Minimum Investment: $10,000
Recommended Timeframe: 3-5 years
Income Distribution: Quarterly
Risk category: Defensive
Save on entry fees:  100% rebate on the entry fee is available when you
invest with CommSec Direct Funds
Offer Close Date:  15 October 2008
"




Sound like a familiar story to any other of you unit holders? 

Anyone interested 

Maybe RECP will be interested in our PIF.  Save on the marketing costs.


----------



## Mary Lynch (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just on aother note;  There seems to be a question mark around whether the Packer (ski fields etc) deal with Living and Leisure has been absolutely finalised.  Can someone re-assure me that it has please!


----------



## PIFholder (21 July 2008)

*Centrelink - this is good news*

I just went into Centrelink to talk to them about my PIF investment and they said that there was a decision about PIF ... got home, got onto the PIF website and found this:

21 July 2008

*Unit valuation – Centrelink and Department of Veterans’ Affairs*
Jenny Hutson, Chairperson of Wellington Investment Management Limited, the responsible entity for the Premium Income Fund is pleased to advise that Centrelink has issued a nationwide determination broadcast to its offices to ensure that all Centrelink and Department of Veterans’ Affairs branches recognise a unit in the Premium Income Fund at the revised value of 45 cents per unit.
This is a significant outcome for a large number of 10,345 unitholders in the Premium Income Fund who had their distributions and redemptions frozen in early 2008. 
Jenny Hutson said ‘Wellington appreciates the prompt assistance that Centrelink has provided in ensuring that the revaluation figure of 45 cents is being communicated to its national network of branch offices, acknowledging that it is of utmost concern to investors to ensure that they receive the benefits to which they are entitled.
I have met with over 4,000 of our 10,385 investors over the past ten days. This is a very positive step forward for those who are enduring financial hardship.’
Wellington is committed to restoring payments to investors, commencing in October 2008, at a minimum of 3 cents per unit for the 6 months ended 31 December 2008. Thereafter, payments will be made quarterly.
The recommencement of payments to investors is reliant upon unitholders voting to continue the Premium Income Fund as a going concern at the upcoming extraordinary general meeting. Information in relation to the
meeting will be posted to unitholders in coming weeks.
Investors with additional questions in relation to their investments should contact the Wellington Hotline on 1300 854 885.

This is seriously good news for me - my pension has been adjusted to show 45 cents instead of a dollar.


----------



## Duped (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> Just on aother note;  There seems to be a question mark around whether the Packer (ski fields etc) deal with Living and Leisure has been absolutely finalised.  Can someone re-assure me that it has please!




Closing date for the rights offer is 31 July.  

Following is a post of 11 July from another forum 'hot copper'
"I am a little surprised that there is no buyers for the rights LLAR, to be able to pick up shares at 4c is going to look very cheap in the not to distant future. James Packer is willing to buy at 4c AND lend the company money."

LLA Shareholders can sell their entitlements to the rights issue from 9 to 24 July.  Commsec shows that no one has bought any of the entitlements.  Even at 0.1 cents per entitlement.

Last trade for LLA was 3.8cents

I don't know what happens if all the rights don't get taken up. I.e. if Artic walks away from the deal or it merely means the LLA shareholders equity is diluted and the payments to PIF go ahead as planned.


----------



## PIFholder (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Closing date for the rights offer is 31 July.
> 
> I don't know what happens if all the rights don't get taken up. I.e. if Artic walks away from the deal or it merely means the LLA shareholders equity is diluted and the payments to PIF go ahead as planned.





I'm sure I read somewhere that the issue is sub-underwritten, so that might give us some hope that the deal goes ahead.


----------



## seamisty (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



PIFholder said:


> I'm sure I read somewhere that the issue is sub-underwritten, so that might give us some hope that the deal goes ahead.



The offer is fully underwritten by Arctic Les (Ireland) Limited (underwriter) That means any shortfall that is not taken up will be funded by Arctic. There are  still conditions that have to be met from LLA, but should go ahead regardless. (I think) Seamisty


----------



## Duped (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Further to my post #1195 regarding the ReCap Hi Q2 fund.



Duped said:


> "
> Exposure to the listed property securities market, which may offer
> some attractive value based investments
> "




I.e. I read this as other investors are firing up to profit out of our suffering.  To buy our distressed stocks.  This suggests to me that some investment houses believe that property securities are oversold. (The bulk of the risk is still on the investors though, not on the fund managers, so it'll be interesting to see how many investors the Hi Q2 attracts.)

Perhaps they'll buy PIF stock on the NSX.


----------



## selciper (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

ABC Four Corners tonight will probably give us a bit of a glimpse of ASIC .


----------



## Duped (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Article in the Age about financial planners' commissions.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/planning/cheques-and-balances/2008/07/14/1215887537627.html

Westpoint gets a lot of press.  So they lost $300M of investors money.

Sad to say but - We can top that!!!!!!!


----------



## wally3218 (21 July 2008)

*Re: Centrelink - this is good news*



PIFholder said:


> I just went into Centrelink to talk to them about my PIF investment and they said that there was a decision about PIF ... got home, got onto the PIF website and found this:
> 
> 21 July 2008
> 
> ...




I took my mother in to centrelink this morning it comes up on there screen that it is ok to revalue the unit prices.
It is good news for mum as she now has a few extra bucks to spend on her living expenses.


----------



## seamisty (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Further Octaviar offer on way for OPI Pacific
by Fiona Robertson

Monday July 21 2008 - 12:29pm 

ASX-listed Octaviar is set to make another payout offer to OPI Pacific Finance investors in line with its latest offer to bond and note holders.

Its bond offer document shows debenture holders in OPI will be offered a 22.5c in the dollar cash sum to cancel their investments while noteholders will be offered 15c in the dollar.

It’s not yet clear if this would be on top of or deducted from the initial lump-sum of around 9c in the dollar, paid when OPI investors accepted a moratorium.

But this would be key to whether the buy-out offer topped the forecast returns from liquidation at 26.8c in the dollar.
Any investors who do not sell up through the offer, or only part-sell, will become ‘participating creditors’ with the lure of a 92.6c in the dollar return by 2011.

Meanwhile, Hanover Finance has emerged as one of the financiers with exposure to guarantees provided by Octaviar, formerly MFS.

But the $7.2 million guarantee is a small one compared to both the $257 million in guarantees Octaviar has made and Hanover Finance’s $646 million in loans at the end of 2007.

It relates to a Kingscliff South development that Hanover subsidiary HFL Australia financed.

HFL’s loan had expired and the parties were in discussions about its extension, Octaviar’s last financial results noted.


http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/further-octaviar-offer-way-opi-pacific-33228


----------



## seamisty (21 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

ASX announcement:::Octaviar Limited
ABN 90 107 863 436
For further information please contact
Investor Relations:
E-mail: mail@octaviar.com.au
Website: www.octaviar.com.au
Telephone: 1300 787 650
SHARE REGISTRY
Computershare Investor Services Pty Ltd
Level 3, 60 Carrington Street
Sydney NSW 2000
ASX Announcement
_______________________
Creditor & Business Update
21 July 2008
Creditor issues
Offers made
The Octaviar Group needs to reach an accommodation with its large creditors so as to align the
obligations to those creditors with the realisation of the Group’s assets.
As announced on 21 July 2008 the company has forwarded a proposal to the holders of listed notes
(ASX code: OCVG) under which the terms of issue of those notes would be amended allowing for
either an immediate cash payment to cancel the notes or Noteholders continuing to hold the notes until
June 2011 and enjoy the benefits of security over the Group’s available assets.
Should the proposal proceed it is expected that 200 smaller Noteholders will receive $100 pre note
held, being the full face value. Noteholders have been asked to respond to the proposal by 7pm
11 August 2008.
The Company is currently finalising the documentation to allow it to make broadly similar offers to
each of:
• the holders of the unlisted bonds,
• the Australian Taxation Office, and
• the Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund.
Discussions have been held with the relevant creditors and the formal offers will be made imminently.
The investors in OPI Pacific Finance Limited (OPI Pacific) have entered into a moratorium and as a
consequence the Company is to provide OPI Pacific with a secured debt agreement alongside other
Company creditors. Details of the Company’s offer to OPI Pacific to participate alongside the listed
Noteholders until June 2011 and enjoy the benefits of security over the Group’s available assets were provided to OPI Pacifis last week:Octaviar Limited
ABN 90 107 863 436
For further information please contact
Investor Relations:
E-mail: mail@octaviar.com.au
Website: www.octaviar.com.au
Telephone: 1300 787 650
SHARE REGISTRY
Computershare Investor Services Pty Ltd
Level 3, 60 Carrington Street
Sydney NSW 2000
PTQ action
As previously announced, the Public Trustee of Queensland (PTQ), as the Trustee for the holders of the
listed notes (ASX code: OCVG), asserts that the notes are currently due and payable and the PTQ has
made applications to the court to have Octaviar Limited and two subsidiaries wound up. The Company
considers that all interest on these notes has been paid in full and on time, that the relevant companies
are not in default under the Note Terms and that the Notes are not due for repayment until the agreed
maturity date of December 2011.
The winding up applications were set down to be heard on 9 & 10 September 2008, a date well after
the views of Noteholders and other creditors regarding the offers put to them by the Company were
expected to be known.
On Friday 18 July 2008 the PTQ, despite knowing of the proposal made, sought and obtained an order
bringing forward the hearing of the winding up applications. The hearings are now scheduled for later
this week - 24 & 25 July 2008. The Company is in discussions with the other large creditors regarding
this disappointing development.
Business update
The Company has previously announced the closure of one of its two Gold Coast offices, the closure of
its Melbourne and UAE offices and a significant reduction in staff numbers and operating costs
generally. The Company now announces the closure of its Sydney office and that further staff
redundancies have taken place. Leaving to one side those staff employed in the standalone Q Deck and
SunKids businesses the group now employs only 34 staff; 5 of whom work solely in relation to the
listed Living & Leisure Group (ASX code: LLA) where the relevant company acting as responsible
entity is expected to be sold shortly to Arctic Capital.
The Company is unlikely to be in a position to outline the timing of the release of its annual financial
statements or discuss with the ASX the lifting of the current suspension of trading in its securities until
an accommodation with the Group’s large creditors is determined.
David Anderson:::::::


----------



## Juan Mortyme (22 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Article in NZ's National Business Review
Link: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/octaviar-bid-avoid-liquidation-strikes-trouble-33265

*Octaviar bid to avoid liquidation strikes trouble*
by Fiona Robertson
Tuesday July 22 2008 - 12:25pm

Stricken ASX-listed Octaviar’s bid to avoid liquidation by offering to buy out creditors at 22.5 cents in the dollar has struck a hurdle, with Australian media reporting that Queensland’s Public Trustee has succeeded in bringing a court hearing to wind up the company forward to this week.

Public Trustee’s case will now be heard on Thursday and Friday, rather than the date originally set down for September.

Public Trustee represents holders of Octaviar listed notes and claims the company has defaulted on the notes.

Octaviar maintains the notes are not due for repayment until 2011 and it has not defaulted on them.

Under its buy-out offer released this week, Octaviar offered noteholders and bondholders full repayment of the first $5,000 of their investments (if their full stake was sold) and 22.5 cents in the dollar on any notes above that level.

But under liquidation bond and note holders could get 43.4 cents in the dollar back by 2011, which would be a better return than the cash offer for those with around $A20,000 or more in the company.

Octaviar estimated it could wipe out around $A550 million of its $A850 million liabilities with the preliminary offer of up to $A135 million cash. This would leave creditors who did not accept the offer with the prospect of recovering 92.6 cents in the dollar by 2011.

A similar offer was due to be made to investors in OPI Pacific Finance.

-------------end of article----------------


----------



## DoraNBoots (22 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I spoke to someone on the WC hotline and they said the $50 mill SF hasn't been factored into any of the valuations.  She said that whatever money we get from the SF will be distributed to unit holders and won't alter the unit price.  I don't know about the $35 mill.  I tried to ask but the answer was basically to ignore the offer published by OCV on Friday.  They said that offer was unaudited and is just confusing people (they've had a lot of questions about it).  She kept referring to the legal action being the only relevant thing at this time.  OCV have 28 days to respond to the legal action which should be end of this week.

As far as investors getting more info goes -  WC are putting together the full 5 hrs of the Melb forum on a DVD and also someone is writing all the questions and answers from all forums which will be available in a week or two.  We should get notification of the next meeting (vote) early August, which will be at least 21 days before the meeting.


----------



## seamisty (22 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all PIF investors an AG members. I have spent considerable time over the past two days in telephone conversation with WC discussing the proposed offer from OCV in regard to the outstanding debt to the PIF. Please be aware that the figures on the document from OCV are unaudited and possibly not correct. Also please read the media release posted on the newpif website dated the 24th June in regard to legal action being taken by WC on behalf of the PIF. I would post it but am having computer problems, I would appreciate it if someone would copy it and post it on the forum. Regardless of what happens to OCV, if it remains as a going concern or is liquidated, the legal action will still take place. Meanwhile, the unit value is 45cents as is as a going concern. This will increase depending on what is recovered from the legal action. The legal action is for $147.5million in compensation and for $50 million still due and payable from the Support Facility. Whatever is recovered from the $50million SF will be distributed back to investors at so much per unit in addition to the 6cent annual distribution.The 6cent distribution will remain in place until the PIF is stabilised.The loan to RBOS should be cleared by August end thus contributing to the stabilisation of the PIF. I don't think the NSX issue is  going to be resolved so we may have to just accept that this and off market transfer of units will be the only exit strategy for the interim. The reason being is simple, the PIF cannot regain lost ground if there is a rush of redemptions, especially in a very depressed economic climate. The PIF needs to recover and grow for the benefit  of all unit holders. The stucture of the PIF has changed and can no longer be looked upon as an alternative term deposit. Because the security of the PIF has been compromised and the assets worth less, the value will fluctuate making it difficult to guarantee a fixed return until such time as stabillity is restored to the PIF and the economy is stronger. Liquidation is not an alternative unless unit holders are prepared to accept 14cents now and never regain that loss or let WC get on with the job of rebuilding the PIF with the possibilty of regaining all capital with a quarterly distribution along  the way . WC is in the process of sending a DVD to all unit holders with the Melbourne forum recorded and a list of questions and answers resulting from all the forums.ASIC is in continuous contact with WC regarding the outcome of any legal action involving OCV so as to be kept fully informed.The WC staff is currently working non stop trying to answer all e-mails and phone calls from investors. I am feeling confident that JH will do her utmost best to take the PIF foward and at a fraction of the fee we used to pay MFS.Don't expect free dinners and glossy magazines (or free caps!) she intends to operate a no frills show so our money is not wasted!! Regards, Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (22 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

DEAR ALL!

re: Perpetual Nominees on the list of parties for recovery of damages

Could I please get advice regarding a way to list a resolution for adoption at a yet to be announced WELLCAP/PIF meeting.
Purpose of such Resolution would be, if adapted, 
to have the courts determine clearly, once and for all, the regulatory roles "Custodians" are assigned by "Responsible Entities".
Many of us were told of "capital funds being held in trust", "at arm's length" and so on.
It is high time we make a truly concerted effort to push this to the front as a prime example of being misled.
Simply put, majority of us invested ONLY after being assured of the Capital's security within PERPETUAL NOMINEES jurisdiction. Let's recall "Capital Insured Income Fund" titling of the November 2003 PDS.

And to SELCIPER, re 4 corners Firepower case; ASIC did in the end start raking through this rampant deception fiasco. So all may not be lost there.

We are no different. We were misled and ASIC must be drawn into this. 

Could legal and other concerned minds among us form alliances, perhaps with PIF ACTION GROUP to press on. Mine is too small a voice to be heard.
Together, we could open another gate to PIF overall recovery.


----------



## breaker1 (22 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Octaviar's bail out plan demolished by Queensland Public Trustee
Tuesday, 22 July 2008


The Public Trustee of Queensland is claiming that Octaviar owes it $348 million in listed notes and has defaulted on payment, Octaviar on the other hand claims that it hasn’t defaulted, and that they are continuing to pay interest on the notes which are not due until 2011.

Accelerating the wind-up procedures were necessary, the Public Trustee said, because Octaviar was spending its cash at a rate which would soon leave nothing for investors.

“The more time that rolls on, the more tens of millions of cash that are being spent,” said Walter Sofronoff, QC for the Public Trustee.

Brian O'Donnell, QC for Octaviar, defended the companies actions, saying that the company has been acting prudently since January, when it froze all stock in the company, in order to save funds and raise capital.

The expedition on the wind-up claims had been awarded by Justice Richard Chesterman who said he felt the company had already sold its major asset, a 65% stake in the Stella tourism group.

It's going to be very tight for CS now! Trusting WC is fully across all this.

BTW Great chase up job Seamisty, thanks for that update.

WC really needs to get a good chunk of what's left of the 35% of Stellla. If we have to wait, so be it!


----------



## Duped (22 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I tried to ask but the answer was basically to ignore the offer published by OCV on Friday.  They said that offer was unaudited and is just confusing people (they've had a lot of questions about it).




DoraNBoots, your news is a relief.  IMO: that offer to the OCVG (listed) notes is a command to bend over fellow PIF unit holders because MFS/Octaviar Ltd is doing it to us again. OCV Ltd continues to treat PIF as its own Piggy Bank with no regard for its contributors - like a stupid fat cow periodicly herded for milked.  

The offer to the OCVG (listed) notes holders: "Should a Noteholder accept ... for  ALL [emphasis added] of their notes they will receive $100 for each of the first 50 notes and $22.50 for any additional notes.  ... contemplates that 200 of the just over 500 Noteholders would receive an immediate cash payment for the FULL FACE VALUE [emphasis added] of their notes".  

I read this as: 200 OCVG noteholders can get ALL of their money back - up to the tune of $10M (200*50*$100). Why - simply because they're making the most noise?  Because they have the clout of the ASX rules behind them?

OCV's valuation of $215 for 35% Stella in the OCV Creditor Update of 18 July is totally unacceptable.  What a joke.

Page 15:"The current book value of the remaining 35% of the Stella Group is $215 million on a fully diluted basis, based on the sale price of $400 million for the 65% interest." Yeah - that was a rushed sale wasn’t it. Oh how CONvenient it is to be able to pick and choose the valuation method.  If this is legal then the financial reporting standards in this country are a JOKE. 

Page 16: forecast value of OCV's share of Stella in June 2010 is between $744M and $823M. Well that’s a TRUCK LOAD more than the $215M valuation. 

In his 'UBS Presentation' (ASX Ann dated 17Oct07 - http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistic...ssuerCode=ocv&timeFrameSearchType=Y&year=2007)
Rolf Krecklenberg presented an estimated value of Stella of $2520M and 
"Stella Achievements to date:

First quarter ahead of plan, achieved $45m EBITDA (traditionally slowest quarter).
Stella Group Cash on hand $217m, ahead of Plan by 30%.
Revenue Growth across all brands.

Stella Group Revenue $1.976BILLION"

So what I'm hearing is, Stella, a company that in late 07 had $217M CASH and forecast EBITA of $210M  on a debt of $930M was only worth $645M in February 2008 (when 67% was sold to CVC).  Is that a fair valuation? Probably neither is.  But the truth is in between there somewhere.


----------



## Javier (22 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The QLD courts should get an independent administrator in there to oversee the operations and get the max value even if it takes 3 years and then slowly pay ALL creditors equally in that 3 year period after all sales and revenue has been realised, then if there is anything left after we have all been paid, give the thing back to Chris Scott, this way the true worth of the assets will be realised..none of this.."I reckon it's only worth this, so take this pittance now"..thats crap and totally unfair. I say bugger CS and let's see what it's REALLY worth, he knows it that's why he is vehemently defending the notes payability timeframe. This MFS needs to be taken off people trying to milk it and back to a neutral manager, a smart judge will see that hopefully.


----------



## Mutchy (22 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hi all PIF investors an AG members. I have spent considerable time over the past two days in telephone conversation with WC discussing the proposed offer from OCV in regard to the outstanding debt to the PIF. Please be aware that the figures on the document from OCV are unaudited and possibly not correct. Also please read the media release posted on the newpif website dated the 24th June in regard to legal action being taken by WC on behalf of the PIF. I would post it but am having computer problems,
> 
> SNIP.....
> we used to pay MFS.Don't expect free dinners and glossy magazines (or free caps!) she intends to operate a no frills show so our money is not wasted!! Regards, Seamisty




Thanks Seamisty. 

Here is the link to the June 24th Announcement:
<http://www.newpif.com.au/releases/240608%20-%20Legal%20Action%20against%20OCV.pdf>

It is interesting to note that, whether or not the winding up proceedings are successful, the PIF action claiming 175.5 million from OCV is still on foot.


Noting that there have been offices closed in all the major cities and redundancies made everywhere it appears that Octavia are cleaning up their  liabilities to pay staff their due entitlements before the wind up hearing starts. I can only assume they are expecting to be wound up.

Mutchy


----------



## selciper (22 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

SIMGRUND -

I can only agree with you.

Yes, ASIC have acted regarding Firepower. IMF, the legal firm, have been mentioned in the press today.

Their site is worth an exploration.

http://www.imf.com.au/funding.asp?content=fundinginfo


----------



## flatback (22 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Octaviar's bail out plan demolished by Queensland Public Trustee
> Tuesday, 22 July 2008
> 
> 
> ...



I hope what your saying is right breaker1,it couldn't happen to a worse bloke, and thanks Seamisty good update hang in there cheers flatback


----------



## Juan Mortyme (22 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Another related article which appeared in the GC Bulletin over the weekend which I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else.
---------------------------------
*Liquidator to sink 70; resort jobs*
by Nick Nichols
Edition: B - Main
LIQUIDATORS will shut down Kooralbyn Hotel Resort from midnight tomorrow
after taking control of the cash-strapped business 
on Wednesday.

The news is another blow to the former MFS-controlled Premium Income
Fund which has an unspecified exposure to Kooralbyn International
Hotels, now in the hands of liquidator Peter Lucas.

The closure means the loss of about 70 jobs for the Beaudesert community.

It was widely believed faltering financial group MFS, now known as
Octaviar, had an interest in the property.

But according to Octaviar director Chris Scott, Octaviar has no links
to Kooralbyn International Hotels, a company associated with
former New Zealand businessmen Ray Schofield and Ron Lane.

But MFS is understood to have proposed a joint venture last year with
Mr Schofield, who has owned the resort since 1997.

The venture did not proceed.

It is unclear how much is owed to the Premium Income Fund, now in
the hands of Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital. Ms Hutson could not
be contacted for comment last night.

Mr Lucas, of PA Lucas and Co in Brisbane, yesterday declined to detail
the circumstances surrounding the liquidation move or the total
debts owed by the company.

All he would say was: ``We don't have the resources to be able to
continue to operate (the business).''

But he confirmed a wedding scheduled to be held at the resort hotel
today would go ahead.

Three other Kooralbyn companies associated with Mr Schofield's wife
Judith are also being liquidated.

They are Kooralbyn Resort House Pty Ltd, Kooralbyn Resort Services
Pty Ltd and Kooralbyn Resort Food and Beverage Services Pty Ltd.

Kooralbyn International Hotels fended off a winding up application
in 2004 by the Australian Taxation Office.

The latest move is a voluntary winding up after directors decided
`that the company cannot continue its business as it cannot meet
its liabilities', according to Australian Securities and Investments
Commission documents.

Neither Mr Schofield nor Mr Lane could be contacted for comment last
night.

Mr Schofield bought the Kooralbyn hotel, 36-room golf lodge, golf
course, tennis centre, polo fields, equestrian centre and 310ha of
development land in a $12 million deal in 1997.

The holdings were bought from Towa Resorts, a Japanese-owned company
which had acquired the 4000ha Kooralbyn resort property for $18
million from Westpac arm AGC in 1987.

In 2002, an unrelated business, the Kooralbyn International School,
was closed, leaving parents of 100 foreign students from China,
Hong Kong, Thailand, Japan, Korea, Canada and New Zealand out of
pocket.

--------------end of article-----------------


----------



## DoraNBoots (23 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> Another related article which appeared in the GC Bulletin over the weekend which I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else.
> 
> *Liquidator to sink 70; resort jobs*




More info on Kooralbyn resort here...

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2008/07/22/13971_gold-coast-business.html
Buyers circle troubled Kooralbyn
July 22nd, 2008


----------



## JohnH (23 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Nine MSN a few minutes ago:-  
OPI to oppose winding up of Octaviar
The directors of OPI New Zealand are heading to the Supreme Court in Brisbane on Wednesday to try to stop Queensland's Public Trustee from liquidating 38.8 per cent stakeholder Octaviar.

Queensland-based property and finance company Octaviar owes millions to OPI New Zealand's subsidiary OPI Pacific Finance.

The Public Trustee is taking legal action on behalf of Octaviar's listed noteholders who have $A348 million ($NZ451 million) tied up in the troubled company.

If a liquidation proceeds, OPI Pacific Finance investors could get back as little as 12.4 cents in the dollar, The New Zealand Herald reported on Wednesday.

The case was to be held in September but the Public Trustee applied to have it brought forward after Octaviar announced a creditors' proposal.

A spokesman for OPI New Zealand said the directors did not support the liquidation proceedings.

"The directors have not yet had sufficient time to consider the offer that Octaviar is making to its creditors.

"OPI Pacific has advised the Public Trustee that it intends to appear at the proceedings and oppose the making of any winding-up orders."

OPI Pacific Finance was forced to default on repayments in late January when Octaviar declined to provide further support, because of its own difficult financial position.


----------



## DoraNBoots (23 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Nine MSN a few minutes ago:-
> ...
> 
> If a liquidation proceeds, OPI Pacific Finance investors could get back as little as 12.4 cents in the dollar, The New Zealand Herald reported on Wednesday.
> ....




Here's the full New Zealand Herald report...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10522944&ref=rss
*OPI in court bid to keep Octaviar afloat *
5:00AM Wednesday July 23, 2008
extract...
_“However, Octaviar said liquidation estimates could see only 12.4c in the dollar returned to OPI Pacific Finance investors, although the sale of its 35 per cent stake in the Stella tourism business could boost that to 26.8c.”_

Can anyone tell my why liquidation figures are mentioned that don't include Stella?  Is it possible for liquidation to not include the sale of Stella?


----------



## DoraNBoots (23 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I think this article answers the question of why the Public Trustee’s are pushing for liquidation…

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/octaviar-bid-avoid-liquidation-strikes-trouble-33265
*Octaviar bid to avoid liquidation strikes trouble*
Tuesday July 22 2008 - 12:25pm 
Extract…
"_Under its buy-out offer released this week, Octaviar offered noteholders and bondholders full repayment of the first $5,000 of their investments (if their full stake was sold) and 22.5 cents in the dollar on any notes above that level.

But under liquidation bond and note holders could get 43.4 cents in the dollar back by 2011, which would be a better return than the cash offer for those with around $A20,000 or more in the company._"

Plus the fact that the Public Trustee’s claim OCV are chewing up money in the attempt to kept things going.


----------



## RickH (23 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hi all PIF investors an AG members. I have spent considerable time over the past two days in telephone conversation with WC discussing the proposed offer from OCV in regard to the outstanding debt to the PIF. Please be aware that the figures on the document from OCV are unaudited and possibly not correct. Also please read the media release posted on the newpif website dated the 24th June in regard to legal action being taken by WC on behalf of the PIF. ............. I am feeling confident that JH will do her utmost best to take the PIF foward and at a fraction of the fee we used to pay MFS.Don't expect free dinners and glossy magazines (or free caps!) she intends to operate a no frills show so our money is not wasted!! Regards, Seamisty




Thank you Seamisty,
Well said.
We do need to follow JH/WC all the way to the NSX, if that is what she wants to do. We cannot split the vote - Remember 75% to continue PIF.
It has been interesting reading the comments and I will say again "a little knowledge is very dangerous." Leave the work to professionals.
Regards,
RickH.:iagree:


----------



## great dame (23 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Thank you Seamisty,
> Well said.
> We do need to follow JH/WC all the way to the NSX, if that is what she wants to do. We cannot split the vote - Remember 75% to continue PIF.
> It has been interesting reading the comments and I will say again "a little knowledge is very dangerous." Leave the work to professionals.
> ...



    RickH If it was all the way to the ASX  Not that dumb NSX  things would be better    You surley much adree with me on that point  Cheere ////////


----------



## DoraNBoots (23 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> It has been interesting reading the comments and I will say again "a little knowledge is very dangerous." Leave the work to professionals.
> Regards,
> RickH.





_Leave the work to professionals_


Rick: is that what you told your clients when recommending they invest in the PIF?  You can't blame us for trying to keep informed and ask questions.  Feel free to elaborate on the "interesting comments" and enlighten us.


----------



## seamisty (23 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It is my understanding that MFS/OCV received $409million from CVC Asia Pacific for the 65% stake in Stella, BUT, an extra $900million of debt attatched to Stella also went with the deal. So when I went to school (ok ok so it was a while ago!) that equates to $1.39Billion for two thirds, so one third would have to be valued at considerably more than $200+mill, even in a depressed market. So DoraNBoots, maybe  that is why the value of Stella has not been factored into the liquidation of OCV valuations. Either no one has a clue what it is worth or the true value is being concealed behind un-audited figures. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## great dame (23 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Thank you Seamisty,
> Well said.
> We do need to follow JH/WC all the way to the NSX, if that is what she wants to do. We cannot split the vote - Remember 75% to continue PIF.
> It has been interesting reading the comments and I will say again "a little knowledge is very dangerous." Leave the work to professionals.
> ...



              Leave the work to the professionals ?????   well we all sure did  that and now just look at the mess we are in  Ney Rick /


----------



## Javier (23 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

That's why PTQ is so hell bent on liquidating, because they have a fair idea of the worth of Stella and that the noteholders will get back twice as much as what CS is offering as a cash settlement now.

If the noteholders benefit from the liquidation and a 3 year wait with the sale of Stella..so do we..let the dice roll I say and let the PTQ QC and the courts determine what the best result is for stakeholders and investors not CS.


----------



## Duped (23 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Can anyone tell my why liquidation figures are mentioned that don't include Stella?  Is it possible for liquidation to not include the sale of Stella?




My guess: you can do what ever you want if you control your own liquidation.  Anything that your creditors will let you do.

I did some more digging re the value of Stella.  In his Chairman's Address at the 7Nov2007 AGM Peacock said "this business, operating under the Stella Group Banner, now generates more than 55% of the company's [MFS/OCV Ltd's] ongoing recurrent earnings"  AND
 "For the year under review [Jul06-Jun07], MFS reported:

Net profit after tax of $185 million, up 89.9%
Earnings per share of 53c, up more than 23%, and
Total dividends of 28c per share, up from 26c per share despite a doubling of the number of shares on issue

MFS is now firmly a member of the benchmark S&P/ASX 200 index and has a market capitalisation exceeding the $2 billion mark"

No wonder the MFS/OCV Ltd share price went so high if they were paying out "dividends" like that.  So if the money for the "dividends" didn't come from Stella, where did it come from? C'mon you financial advisors, tell me.  

There's only 3 scenarios IMO:
Stella is worth far more than $645M OR

MFS/OCV Ltd was using borrowed money from the likes of PIF and PAC and the OCVG note holders to pay "dividends"  (in effect a capital return).  And conveniently jacking up the price of the shares at the same time. This is exactly the sort of BS organisation that I expected my financial advisor to steer me away from. OR

The MFS/OCV Ltd Board and Exec were totally blind sided by the changed market conditions.  But isn't that what they're paid to do - to plan and forecast.  Well I certainly was planning to reduce my debt and spending in the light of the RBA warnings.  The run of interest rate rises and my subsequent reduction of spending was no surprise to me.
Pages 35-36 of the MFS/OCV Ltd 2007 Annual Report - this is what they were paid in cash (shares/options are extra):
Non-Exec Directors TOTAL for all 6:$470K
CEO King : $2.97M
Stella Group CEO: $749K
Adams (resgnd): $1.3M

Deputy CEO White: $635K
CFO: $819K
Hd Corp & Investment Banking: $973K
L&L: CEO $604K
Hd Mergers & Acquisitions: $486K
Intnl CEO: $542K

So with all that high paid fire power, all those bonuses, they were still blindsided?


----------



## LPTGUN (23 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Does anyone have a list of the actual tangible assets that Octaviar controls... have these book values been re-assessed in the current market???


----------



## k.smith (23 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



LPTGUN said:


> Does anyone have a list of the actual tangible assets that Octaviar controls... have these book values been re-assessed in the current market???




.....re: re-assessing...what about ocv asx announcement 18 July, pg.18..3.2a,3.2b,3.2c? We really don"t know anything!!


----------



## DoraNBoots (23 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Article in AFR today...
View attachment 22659


----------



## DoraNBoots (23 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I found the 9 min audio at the following link from the 2008 MFS EGM on March 28, 2008 in Melbourne entertaining...
http://www.maynereport.com/articles/2008/07/04-1136-6694.html

Some other info that might not be easy to access is attached.  
Extract from attached:
_"Craig White revealed that the fund has indeed called on MFS to pay up on a $50 million back-up facility but this is being resisted so far. With the more aggressive Paul Manka and Chris Scott set to take control, expect a tough stand on this dispute. "_


----------



## SPLITPIN (23 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> That's why PTQ is so hell bent on liquidating, because they have a fair idea of the worth of Stella and that the noteholders will get back twice as much as what CS is offering as a cash settlement now.
> 
> If the noteholders benefit from the liquidation and a 3 year wait with the sale of Stella..so do we..let the dice roll I say and let the PTQ QC and the courts determine what the best result is for stakeholders and investors not CS.




Javier

Spot on and why should PIF accept anything less also.

Maybe WC should assist PTQ in the action.

Now may be very testing.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## zixo (23 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Thank you Seamisty,
> Well said.
> We do need to follow JH/WC all the way to the NSX, if that is what she wants to do. We cannot split the vote - Remember 75% to continue PIF.
> It has been interesting reading the comments and I will say again "a little knowledge is very dangerous." Leave the work to professionals.
> ...




Hi Rick,

I see that you have been pushing for the NSX listing for quite a while and I was wondering if there is something you may know that we all dont.

Perhaps you can answer me/us some questions that Wellington have failed to supply me regardless of the amount of times I have requested a response since Ive e-mailed and followed up with phonecalls since the 9th of July

I, like many, cant say that the NSX is bad or good unless we know all the pro's and cons associated with listing it. I mentioned to Jenny at the forum that it remains a very grey area for many investors and she said she would supply information in that respect and the way the NSX question would be asked. 

Please share whatever info you have because at this moment. I have no idea which way forward is regarding the NSX and the way the question will be submitted to investors.

Cheers


----------



## breaker1 (23 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

OPI Pacific Finance to oppose liquidation of Octaviar
Wed, 23 Jul 2008 8:41a.m.
The directors of OPI New Zealand are heading to the Supreme Court in Brisbane tomorrow to try to stop Queensland's Public Trustee from liquidating 38.8 percent stakeholder Octaviar.

Queensland-based property and finance company Octaviar owes millions to OPI New Zealand's subsidiary OPI Pacific Finance.

The Public Trustee is taking legal action on behalf of Octaviar's listed noteholders who have $A348 million ($NZ451 million) tied up in the troubled company.

If liquidation proceeds, OPI Pacific Finance investors could get back as little as 12.4c in the dollar, The New Zealand Herald reported today.

The case was to be held in September but the Public Trustee applied to have it brought forward after Octaviar announced a creditors' proposal.

A spokesman for OPI New Zealand said the directors did not support the liquidation proceedings.

"The directors have not yet had sufficient time to consider the offer that Octaviar is making to its creditors.

"OPI Pacific has advised the Public Trustee that it intends to appear at the proceedings and oppose the making of any winding-up orders."

OPI Pacific Finance was forced to default on repayments in late January when Octaviar declined to provide further support, because of its own difficult financial position

I find it strange that OPI in one sentance says it has NOT had enough time to consider the offer that has been made to creditors, but in the next sentence it says it will oppose the QPT "making ..windup orders". Either they want more time to consider or that it is obvious that the OPI is much better off with OCV trading out (not being wound up).

So whats best for the PIF? Jenny & team need to consider this carefully. Is Stella worth much more than CS has quoted? If so, would the PIF be better with a liquidation? Jenny should have the resources to find out and make a totally CS free independant evaluation that is best for we the investors.


----------



## SPLITPIN (23 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

All

I must thank Seamisty and DoraNboots (who must be real ladies with names like that) in their excellant research and contributions.

I am not so sure about Great Dame (Mr. McGoo), but I do miss lately his ?? colourfull text.

I trust ASIC / WC and others by are by now hopefully hanging on our every word.

Splitpin


----------



## Rance (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> I trust ASIC / WC and others by are by now hopefully hanging on our every word.
> 
> Splitpin




I certainly am Splitpin, BUT to what effect I'm not sure!!!


----------



## great dame (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> Hi Rick,
> 
> I see that you have been pushing for the NSX listing for quite a while and I was wondering if there is something you may know that we all dont.
> 
> ...



           Zixo  I want to know also why WC is hell bent on listing on that DUMB NSX  Instead of the ASX   If  Rick thinks we can sell any units on the NSX You better think again    Rick just take a look at there web site  NSXA.COM.AU   Complet lake of buyers of the 60 odd  companys listed there would be buyers for less then half of them   And those buyers there bids are next to nothing   I can not support  Listing on the NSX at all   If it has to be listed it must be the ASX    YES RICK  Please explaine to us all why you want the NSX instwad of the ASX   Waiting your reply  /////////


----------



## great dame (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> All
> 
> I must thank Seamisty and DoraNboots (who must be real ladies with names like that) in their excellant research and contributions.
> 
> ...



       Good morning Splitpin   I wish i could could put words to geather  like the above  but i cant   I must add this to my 2 bits worth though  Listing on the NSX will be like going back to buying at the corner shop  instead of supermarkets   I think a lot of the unit holders dont know much about stock exchangers   The ASX is the ONLY way to have our units listed   Believe me i am right about  this /////////


----------



## goldfinger38 (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Good morning Splitpin   I wish i could could put words to geather  like the above  but i cant   I must add this to my 2 bits worth though  Listing on the NSX will be like going back to buying at the corner shop  instead of supermarkets   I think a lot of the unit holders dont know much about stock exchangers   The ASX is the ONLY way to have our units listed   Believe me i am right about  this /////////




Can we at least wait until we see what information JH supplies about the proposal if any to list on the NSX. which should come out with the voting papers being forwarded mid-August.

Just some general comments, 

if I was a buyer whether it be on the NSX or the ASX, why would I pay more for a stock simply because it is listed on the ASX? Wouldnt I be looking at the company financials etc to work out what I am prepared to offer to buy the units, or I am just one of the many investors that may want to buy more units and therefore it wouldnt matter which exchange the units were listed on.

Obviously there is a significant cost difference to list on ASX compared to NSX, I think JH mentioned about half the cost on the NSX.

But either exchange still allows an investor to offer their units for sale, it is up to the brokers to offer the units to their clients and or WC and JH to provide information to current unitholders if they wish to sell or buy units.

Listing on either exchange does not materially change the value for the units, they both can allow purchaser to offer what they want for the units being offered for sale. It is still a free market ( meaning price is determined by b uyers and sellers).


----------



## Duped (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> It is my understanding that MFS/OCV received $409million from CVC Asia Pacific for the 65% stake in Stella, BUT, an extra $900million of debt attatched to Stella also went with the deal. So when I went to school (ok ok so it was a while ago!) that equates to $1.39Billion for two thirds, so one third would have to be valued at considerably more than $200+mill, even in a depressed market. So DoraNBoots, maybe  that is why the value of Stella has not been factored into the liquidation of OCV valuations. Either no one has a clue what it is worth or the true value is being concealed behind un-audited figures. Regards, Seamisty




Mmmm interesting. I'm going for CONCEALED.

See clause c) of the 18Jul offer to OCVG note holders: "Due to confidentiality clauses in the shareholders' agreement the Octaviar Group is unable to provide current information relating to the Stella Group or commission an independent valuation of the Stella Group"
Hiding behind confidentiality clauses - bodes well for the quality of financial reporting in this country doesn't it.  Makes a total mockery of it.  This country is a back water.

According to page 15, Stella is actually owned by a company called Global Voyager Holding Pty Ltd (GVH) with CVC owning 65% and OCV owning 35% of GVH.

Para 3.3 b) 'Current Stella Group book value as at 31 May 2008' states "The implied enterprise value on the sale for 100% of the Stella Group was approximately $1.5 billion"

Maybe the $900M debt is with GVH now. 
$900M debt + $400M CVC share + $215M OCV share = $1.515B (or "approximately $1.5 billion".

Or maybe the implied value is still $2.4B ($1.5B + $900M debt)

Clause 3.3 "No dividends or distributions will be received in relation to the Stella investment"  
That's fine but provides NO insight into the performance of Stella.  
Is it accumulating cash/businesses? Is it paying off debt?

Clause 2.2f) "The timing of sale of the [OCV's] 35% interest in the Stella Group is ultimately dependent on CVC"


----------



## Duped (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



goldfinger38 said:


> ... if I was a buyer whether it be on the NSX or the ASX, why would I pay more for a stock simply because it is listed on the ASX? Wouldnt I be looking at the company financials etc to work out what I am prepared to offer to buy the units, ...




In an efficient market: yes.  But such a thing doesn't exist and NEVER will.  Did any of us read through and interrogate all of the PIF PDS, PIF constitution, PIF annual reports, MFS/OCV Ltd annual reports etc?  I doubt even the Financial Advisors did.  And anyone who thinks they make informed decisions: have you EVER listened to Parliamentary debate (read Hansard), read a Senate Select Committee report, read Senate Estimates Committee reports, read RBA Board minutes etc etc etc?

Fact is, no one has the time.  We need trust.

Looking at financials of an invetsment is those going Long.  There are others out there.  Like Short sellers (selling what you don't have and then buying later, when the price has dropped). It's legal and happens every day.  It is in their interest for the price to drop, NOT for the price to go up.



goldfinger38 said:


> Obviously there is a significant cost difference to list on ASX compared to NSX, I think JH mentioned about half the cost on the NSX.




At BNE forum she quoted $100K to list and $40K annual costs.  Which is a very small cost.  Try getting a quality office admin staff for under $40K total cost.


----------



## k.smith (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped....Thank you for relating this information to us so clearly. Could you also look at a Bloomberg.com article "Octaviar Faces A$1 Billion in Creditor Claim(Update1) June 23,2008, it might also be relevent.


----------



## DoraNBoots (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I'm bumping this post up by Boots as I think it gives a good idea of the Stella situation.

But I am biased 
Dora.




DoraNBoots said:


> Didn't CVC buy 65% of Stella for 400M cash + 900M debt a few months ago?  Wouldn't that make the *35% share worth around 650M?*  Keep in mind this was a fire sale price at the time.  Then in recent weeks reports of the 35% Stella stake being worth 400M with OCV having another 170M in cash?  In no time at all the stake in Stella lost another 250M somewhere...  Now looking at the balance sheet page 18 of the OCV announcement it appears that the 35% stake in Stella is valued at 215M?  Another 185M up in smoke and that's if OCV retains it's stake and doesn't liquidate?  Would anyone be able to explain this?
> 
> To me it looks like OCV is crying poor in an attempt to rid OCV of certain creditors and legal claims against it.  Once that's taken care of OCV will have an asset which could be sold in the not too distant future for, say, 650M to the benefit of OCV and any note holders that are willing to hang on, leaving creditors like the PIF out in the cold.
> 
> ...


----------



## goldfinger38 (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> In an efficient market: yes.  But such a thing doesn't exist and NEVER will.  Did any of us read through and interrogate all of the PIF PDS, PIF constitution, PIF annual reports, MFS/OCV Ltd annual reports etc?  I doubt even the Financial Advisors did.  And anyone who thinks they make informed decisions: have you EVER listened to Parliamentary debate (read Hansard), read a Senate Select Committee report, read Senate Estimates Committee reports, read RBA Board minutes etc etc etc?
> 
> Fact is, no one has the time.  We need trust.
> 
> ...




Yes I agree with you but it is the unitholders who will be holding the units not the company and I am sure the unitholders *WONT *be lending their stock to traders in the first place for them to short in the first place.

The reason compnaies have gotten into trouble like ABC Learning is that they allowed their stock to be lent out ( at a price so they got a form of rent payment) to hedge funds to trade and "short" and this allowed the traders to manipulate the stock down.

I dont think any of us would be lending out stock to those traders, therefore I would have thought either exchange is still only seen as a mechanism to allow those who need to sell to raise some cash to get their funds, also as mentioned earlier by someone, it may allow those considering to vote for liquidation an option where they may choose to vote to continue business but have a vehicle to sell in any case as we still need to get 75% vote to allow JH to continue with fund.


----------



## Duped (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I'm bumping this post up by Boots as I think it gives a good idea of the Stella situation.
> 
> But I am biased
> Dora.




I agree.  And admit my investigations have been inspired by Boots.  I don't purport to replace Boots' posts, merely to supplement it.

JH must act in PIF's interests which are directly opposed to MSF/PCV Ltd's interests.

Nothing's changed - MSF/OCV Ltd continues to decieve us.  Concealing the Stella Financials and then picking a 6month old valuation using a valuation method different from the one they were using before - is a Deception.  It is INTENDED TO MISLEAD.  It is intended to lead us away from a likely higher valuation.

Don't feel too sorry for the MSF/OCV Ltd shareholders (except perhaps the those who bought within the last year - but many of them have the IMF championing their cause).  I'm guessing that many of them went close to getting their entire investment make in dividends etc.  Paid for out of what .... ? If it was paid out of borrowings then their risk was shifted to creditors like us PIF investors.


----------



## selciper (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Business Spectator, today.

Abstracted from The Australian Financial Review


The Supreme Court of Queensland will hear a request to stop the liquidation of Octaviar. On 23 July 2008, Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital said that such a move by the Public Trustee of Queensland could damage the offer for the Premium Income Fund if Octaviar folds. Similar legal action is being taken by the directors of OPI New Zealand over the liquidation's impact

Distributed by News Bites.  © Lexis-Nexis


----------



## Duped (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



goldfinger38 said:


> Yes I agree with you but it is the unitholders who will be holding the units not the company and I am sure the unitholders *WONT *be lending their stock to traders in the first place for them to short in the first place.




I know very little about Short selling so you're likely correct that NSX listed units wouldn't be the target of such trading.

But I still maintain that the markets are not efficient and will be highly suspicious of anyone who tries to argue that they are. I can give you pages of broker/advisor buy/sell recommendations to prove it.


----------



## Duped (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> Duped....Thank you for relating this information to us so clearly. Could you also look at a Bloomberg.com article "Octaviar Faces A$1 Billion in Creditor Claim(Update1) June 23,2008, it might also be relevent.




One of the paras:
"The company in February agreed to sell 65 percent of its Stella Tourism Group for about half of the unit's previous estimated value, allowing Octaviar to *remove about A$905 million of debt from its balance sheet*."

Sounds like the A$905M was shifted to Global Voyager doesn't it?  But there's no quotations so the words are those of the reporter.

Does anyone know if any of the MSF/OCV Ltd Directors, particularly those likely involved in the Stella sale have interests in CVC?


----------



## RickH (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> Hi Rick,
> 
> I see that you have been pushing for the NSX listing for quite a while and I was wondering if there is something you may know that we all dont.
> 
> Cheers




Hi Zixo,
Point one - I am not pushing the NSX listing but I am pushing the 75% vote for JH because she appears to be the very best option at this point in time.
IF WE AGREE THAT JH IS OUR BEST OPTION SHE MUST BE GIVEN OUR FULL SUPPORT AND THAT MEANS 100% CONTROL. LET HER DO WHAT SHE BELEIVES TO BE THE BEST STRATEGIES OR SHE WILL ALWAYS HAVE AN EXCUSE FOR NON-PERFORMANCE.

*JH Current Strategy:
a) Continue the fund and try to grow the value back to $1.00 - 3/5 years.
b) Pay regular income distributions of 6 cents per annum.
c) List on the NSX.*

a+b) FANTASTIC RESULT FOR LONG TERM INCOME INVESTORS.
Personally I believe that JH will take longer than 5 years to recover the $1.00 value but with a 6 cents per annum distribution, 5/7 years to $1.00 is fine.

a+b) POSSIBLY A POOR RESULT FOR SOME WHO MUST HAVE THEIR TOTAL CAPITAL TODAY TO PAY OFF LOANS OR WANT TO INVEST SOMEWHERE ELSE.

c) NSX gives the opportunity for JH to run her PIF strategies without having to sell assets at throw away prices to cover withdrawal requests.

i) NSX is not perfect but maybe the better option at this time.
ii) Ability to sell on market or to transfer off-market.
iii) JH may consider drip-feed loans within the fund to cash flow the income desperate.

No-one can produce good results if they are not empowered to act as they see fit. We need to back JH 100% and she needs 75% vote continue the fund.:couch


----------



## Duped (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> But I still maintain that the markets are not efficient and will be highly suspicious of anyone who tries to argue that they are. I can give you pages of broker/advisor buy/sell recommendations to prove it.




Having said that, I'll add that I was impressed with JH at the BNE forum because  IMO JH appeared pragmatic and honest in selling the idea behind the NSX listing. What a welcome relief it is to hear someone not overselling everything?


----------



## RickH (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> I know very little about Short selling so you're likely correct that NSX listed units wouldn't be the target of such trading.
> 
> But I still maintain that the markets are not efficient and will be highly suspicious of anyone who tries to argue that they are. I can give you pages of broker/advisor buy/sell recommendations to prove it.




Hi Duped,
I am surprised that you could find some SELL recommendations from the research houses because they usually do not recommend selling until the value has been eliminated.
We prefer to use Technical Analysis / Share price movement charts to confirm Buy/Sell. The share price direction/trend is the better way to buy and sell.  - In my opinion we should always use a stop loss strategy.
A simple system to save money and reduce losses.
Regards,
RickH.:couch


----------



## seamisty (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Zixo,
> Point one - I am not pushing the NSX listing but I am pushing the 75% vote for JH because she appears to be the very best option at this point in time.
> IF WE AGREE THAT JH IS OUR BEST OPTION SHE MUST BE GIVEN OUR FULL SUPPORT AND THAT MEANS 100% CONTROL. LET HER DO WHAT SHE BELEIVES TO BE THE BEST STRATEGIES OR SHE WILL ALWAYS HAVE AN EXCUSE FOR NON-PERFORMANCE.
> 
> ...



I agree Rick, while this scenario is not going to please everyone it is the most practical to date and so far apart from liquidation, is our only option. No other interest or offers from other parties. Even if we had control of the PIF to approach other parties for expressions of interest what will we have to offer them at the present time? A fund that  had half its assets/value stripped in 6 months, some of which is going to be tied up in complicated legal proceedings for years with the chance of little or no recovery?  The rest floundering in an economic meltdown? Until such times as the PIF has been stabilised the only way foward is to let WC get on with the job with our full support. We can harp on about alternate exit strategies until the cows come home, but it is not going to change the outcome unless unit holders are prepared to accept 14cents per unit and liquidate the Fund. Sorry people, but it is time to face the truth and make a decision.We have the voting power to  reassess the situation at a future date. We will receive information packs in the mail shortly so hopefully this will give  investors a better overall picture as to the future JH proposes for the PIF. regards, Seamisty


----------



## great dame (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



goldfinger38 said:


> Can we at least wait until we see what information JH supplies about the proposal if any to list on the NSX. which should come out with the voting papers being forwarded mid-August.
> 
> Just some general comments,
> 
> ...



   Answer to some fo the points you have made Goldfinger  It is cheaper to list on the NSX  then the ASX    You pay for what you get & that nothing on the NSX    83% of share buyers  now go through web brockers  like CommSec  etc so for a start you have lost all of those share buyers  Buyers looking to buy income stocks like the PIF  will never go looking for them on the NSX  will go to the  ASX    Most Folk have never heard of the NSX its so tiny     The buyer will certanely determine the price on the NSX  becase of the lask of buyers if any at all  Goldfinger  please visit the NSX Web site & you will see what i meane ///


----------



## great dame (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Zixo,
> Point one - I am not pushing the NSX listing but I am pushing the 75% vote for JH because she appears to be the very best option at this point in time.
> IF WE AGREE THAT JH IS OUR BEST OPTION SHE MUST BE GIVEN OUR FULL SUPPORT AND THAT MEANS 100% CONTROL. LET HER DO WHAT SHE BELEIVES TO BE THE BEST STRATEGIES OR SHE WILL ALWAYS HAVE AN EXCUSE FOR NON-PERFORMANCE.
> 
> ...



   Well said Rick the jobs yours at WC  as there markeri gnmanager


----------



## seamisty (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all PIF investors and AG members, In view of concerns regarding the offer from OCV and as to how the PIF will be effected if the company remains solvent or is liquidated, I decided to ask WC for some clarification. The following is my understanding of the conversation I just had from WC. If OCV is liquidated  PIF unit holders will receive 13cents per share at a later date where as if OCV remain solvent we will receive 22cents as a base with a platform in place for JH to negotiate possible further upside. The reason being, as always, the true value of assets are always diminished in fire sale liquidations. Not to mention the $30+million in fees associated with administration which are deducted from monies received before creditors are paid. So there is no ulterior motives or hidden agendas, JH is not in court today to offer Chris Scott support, she is there on behalf of PIF holders and of course WC to ensure the best possible outcome is achieved for us both. We win, she wins. Hope this answers a few questions.Regards, Seamisty


----------



## great dame (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Zixo,
> Point one - I am not pushing the NSX listing but I am pushing the 75% vote for JH because she appears to be the very best option at this point in time.
> IF WE AGREE THAT JH IS OUR BEST OPTION SHE MUST BE GIVEN OUR FULL SUPPORT AND THAT MEANS 100% CONTROL. LET HER DO WHAT SHE BELEIVES TO BE THE BEST STRATEGIES OR SHE WILL ALWAYS HAVE AN EXCUSE FOR NON-PERFORMANCE.
> 
> ...



         Sorry Rick my friend i wont let you off the hock with just what said  Get the Fund back to a $! in 3 to 5 yeas  Pay 6% Div every year  Thats a total return in 5 years of  152%  A total return of 30.4% a year  Now Rick you & i both know that will never happen   But just say the impossible did happen And it is valured at a Doller a unit   So off we go to a stock brocker to sell our unit on the NSX  If he or she can get a buyer to buy it you will be lucky to get 75 cent for your $1 unit  out of that 75cent comes 2,5% for the brooker    Guess it costs nothing to dream  thank goodness ///////////


----------



## Javier (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hi all PIF investors and AG members, In view of concerns regarding the offer from OCV and as to how the PIF will be effected if the company remains solvent or is liquidated, I decided to ask WC for some clarification. The following is my understanding of the conversation I just had from WC. If OCV is liquidated  PIF unit holders will receive 13cents per share at a later date where as if OCV remain solvent we will receive 22cents as a base with a platform in place for JH to negotiate possible further upside. The reason being, as always, the true value of assets are always diminished in fire sale liquidations. Not to mention the $30+million in fees associated with administration which are deducted from monies received before creditors are paid. So there is no ulterior motives or hidden agendas, JH is not in court today to offer Chris Scott support, she is there on behalf of PIF holders and of course WC to ensure the best possible outcome is achieved for us both. We win, she wins. Hope this answers a few questions.Regards, Seamisty




JH needs to do that now rather than later provided PTQ are not successful with their liquidation ruling. In other words JH must say yes thank you we will accept your 22.5c/ 15c now, but we will not just sign a waiver for any further compensation and just go away never to be heard from again.

We need to take the cheque now for the near $50m but when there is an upside with Stella and other sales of OCV assets, then we want more cheques, THAT'S the big test for JH as the bank will be paid off soon, so all the cash we get now is for the fund to keep and to rebuild to $1 and hopefully beyond. No need to keep taking huge hair cuts and use RBOS as the excuse.

With the current economic climate money and growth will come VERY slow, so it is imperitive for her to get us as much of lost funds that were 'stolen' as possible as this will be the easiest form of cash for now to build it up.


----------



## seamisty (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I agree Javiar, Seems there has been a reprieve for OCV, PTQ has found a new trustee(who remains nameless, any guesses?) who is willing to take over the case from the PTQ and wants to meet creditors before deciding to proceed with efforts to wind up OCV, so the case has been adjourned to the original hearing in Sept. Regards, Seamisty Lets see how good JH's negotiating skills are


----------



## Javier (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

great dame
If the units are worth $1 in 3-5, JH will have done an awesome job and the NSX option would have been totally delisted.

Matey, I think you are missing the point of WC strategy for listing on the NSX..it is for people wanting their money NOW. They will probably only get about 10-14c..but that's all they would get if it were liquidated now anyway.

So just give the whole NSX a rest because it WILL happen and is a quickfix (albeit a flawed one) option for the interim..it's TEMPORARY.

If the fund is worth $1 and the NSX is still the only way to redeem (which I doubt), then we will be in a future position to vote for change, just like we will have next month. But for now we need to get behind WC and JH's team.

People that are in it for the long haul will see the benefits, the NSX is for those unfortunate to not be in the position to wait, however, all units must stay in the fund to be enable WC to rebuild it. So please let's talk about something else other than the NSX.


----------



## DoraNBoots (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> If OCV is liquidated  PIF unit holders will receive 13cents per share at a later date where as if OCV remain solvent we will receive 22cents as a base with a platform in place for JH to negotiate possible further upside. ...
> Regards, Seamisty




Hi Seamisty,

It troubles me that WC are telling us the OCV offer is unaudited and we should ignore it and then to hear them quote a liquidation figure of 13 cents.  13 cents is OCVs estimate if Stella is *excluded* in the liquidation.  (see table in section 3.7 of the offer).  For WC to be mentioning a figure which excludes Stella is a huge concern.

I wonder if the PIFs 14 cent liquidation valuation is excluding anything.

Dora.


----------



## seamisty (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Todays AFR
Embattled fund manager Octaviar has won a brief reprieve against legal efforts to wind up the company.

The Public Trustee of Queensland (PTQ) applied to the Queensland Supreme Court last month to have the stricken financial services company, formerly known as MFS, wound up.

PTQ is representing the interests of more than 500 noteholders owed more than $351 million.

The matter was due to be heard in September but Solicitor-General Walter Sofronoff, acting on behalf of the PTQ, this week applied to have the hearing brought on early.

However, Mr Sofronoff on Thursday told the court another trustee had now been found who was willing to take over the matter from the PTQ.

He said PTQ had resigned as trustee last year but had not been able to find anyone to take over until now.

The new trustee, who was not named in court, had sought a meeting with creditors before deciding whether to proceed with efforts to wind up Octaviar.

Supreme Court Justice Richard Chesterman adjourned the hearing to its original dates of September 9 and 10.

http://news.smh.com.au/business/embattled-fund-manager-wins-reprieve-20080724-3k96.html


----------



## great dame (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> great dame
> If the units are worth $1 in 3-5, JH will have done an awesome job and the NSX option would have been totally delisted.
> 
> Matey, I think you are missing the point of WC strategy for listing on the NSX..it is for people wanting their money NOW. They will probably only get about 10-14c..but that's all they would get if it were liquidated now anyway.
> ...



     OK i shall roll my self up into a ball & pull my head in for a while ///////////


----------



## DoraNBoots (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Old news now but still interesting to see JH mention the OCV offer

View attachment 22680


----------



## simgrund (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*




seamisty said:


> I agree Rick, while this scenario is not going to please everyone it is the most practical to date and so far apart from liquidation, is our only option. No other interest or offers from other parties. Even if we had control of the PIF to approach other parties for expressions of interest what will we have to offer them at the present time? A fund that  had half its assets/value stripped in 6 months, some of which is going to be tied up in complicated legal proceedings for years with the chance of little or no recovery?  The rest floundering in an economic meltdown? Until such times as the PIF has been stabilised the only way foward is to let WC get on with the job with our full support. We can harp on about alternate exit strategies until the cows come home, but it is not going to change the outcome unless unit holders are prepared to accept 14cents per unit and liquidate the Fund. Sorry people, but it is time to face the truth and make a decision.We have the voting power to  reassess the situation at a future date. We will receive information packs in the mail shortly so hopefully this will give  investors a better overall picture as to the future JH proposes for the PIF. regards, Seamisty




I can only agree wholeheartily with Seamisty's and similar caliber conclusions of our real direction at forthcomig vote-meeting.
Let us recall the last voting opportunity we had at June 23, '06 in Melbourne where resolutions 1 & 2 were (infamously in hindsight) adapted.
That was in respect of changes to Constitution re Remuneration structures;
extension of redemption periods; substitution of Capital Insurance with "Support Facility" and so on.
There were no Lonsec's analysis on the proposals to guide us and to present to us landscapes of yes/no outcomes; I state this as I personally received none.
Consequences of those adaptions are haunting us today.
I will welcome sensible corrections to my understanding of this recent history.
My main point though is:  that reasoning by SEAMISTY needs to be popularised to the point of ensuring that no fractured voting will occur on the day crucial for our unity. 
This forthcoming voting WE MUST get it right.


----------



## SPLITPIN (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> I can only agree wholeheartily with Seamisty's and similar caliber conclusions of our real direction at forthcomig vote-meeting.
> Let us recall the last voting opportunity we had at June 23, '06 in Melbourne where resolutions 1 & 2 were (infamously in hindsight) adapted.
> That was in respect of changes to Constitution re Remuneration structures;
> extension of redemption periods; substitution of Capital Insurance with "Support Facility" and so on.
> ...




Simgrund

Apparantly the last entry to ASIC on 2 June 2008 for the name change to PIF was signed and sealed for for and on behalf of Octaviar Investment Management Limited ACN 101 634 146 by authority of the directors in the presence of Directors Jennifer Joan Hutson and Sydney Robert Pitt.

Does this mean the fund is still registered in the name of Octaviar Investment Management Limited.

It appears there was a share transfer in ASX to buy the managment rights but where is ASIC notified of the change of RE.

Can somebody answer this query.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## DC1 (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Old news now but still interesting to see JH mention the OCV offer
> 
> View attachment 22680




Hi all,
I've been following this forum for a while as my mum has invested in PIF. I appreciate all the time people are putting into this. My only interest is to see us all get max return on our $, even if it takes a while.

My mum has a financial advisor (who put her into PIF) and in his opinion PIF should be ranked near the top of the list of OCV creditors; higher than shareholders if it can be shown that this money was stripped from the fund against the funds rules.

Can anyone confirm this?

I just saw JH response to the OCV offer to PIF of 22.5 c in $.

Does anyone else get the sinking feeling she will accept this on our behalf and walk away from probably an equal amount left in Stella?

As far as I can see if JH accepts the 22.5c payout it is less than half of what OCV is worth (and would allow OCV to keep the 35% Stella share).

We have not heard any news on what JH is doing to recover this huge amount? 

I would trust that JH knows what she is doing in trying to keep OCV going rather that letting it be wound up and installing an administrator.

Has any of you heard directly from JH about this? Would be good to know she's doing all she can to recover it (and worth following up next time anyone is talking to JH?)

I'm also struggling to understand how (I think I read) OCV are now offering most creditors 22.5 c or more per $ and at the same time saying if wound up the value is only 12 c in $ for all. If I got this wrong I apologise, but if correct and it's just a tactic from OCV to keep creditors at bay...why is it so obvious?

As far as the PIF goes, I'm in favour of not winding up the PIF in a big rush...I think everyone agrees it will result in forced sales etc and lower returns to us.

regards
DC1


----------



## selciper (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Does the AG have recourse to any legal advice?


----------



## gazzan57 (24 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Can anyone tell me please...I too have a financial adviser who put my money into PIF... can I sue him?


----------



## Duped (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Welcome DC1.

You can read the OCV offer to the OCVG note holders dated 18July on the ASX.AU website.

From my reading of the offer to OCVG Noteholders, the complete offer to PIF was still to be put forward to PIF (WC).  But that's probabaly been done now - we won't have seen it and may never see the full offer. 

There were some details in the 18 July OCVG offer relating to what would be offered to PIF.  The problem with those details is that PIF would be left with NO UPSIDE.  All the upside would go to the OCV Ltd shareholders who have been swamped with 'dividends' over the years which IMO were paid out of creditors' money, PIF money.  (PIF paid MFS $16 MILLION in 06/07.) Totally unacceptable to me.  But there might be more of the upside for PIF in the formal complete offer to PIF.  Only JH will know.

IMO the OCVG offer naturally fails to mention a third option, where the creditors take control of the assets.  OCVG, Voyager, NAB, PIF and PAC get together (do a better deal with the ATO) and bankrupt OCV Ltd (so the shareholders get nothing more) then re-combine the divided assets into a new company hire all the old staff/board and then say, hello "we're your new shareholders, now get to work and get our money back over the next three years like you said you could".  Us creditors get the UPSIDE, not the current shareholders, and there's NO FIRE SALE.

Fact is the $450M for OCVG & Voyager wasn't due back for 3 years anyway, PAC has voted on a 3 year moratorium and PIF ... well I'm certainly in for 3 years if it means I get all my money back and guess what: that's what WC is aiming for as well.  So to me the 3rd option is a no-brainer.  But of course the current OCV shareholders won't like it one bit, but frankly, they've had their turn with the feed bag, it's our turn now.

IMO OCVG & Voyager only got litigious because they were concerned that OCV Ltd would be stripped while they stood by and they'd be left with nothing.  OCV Ltd's integrity was shot, they'd sold the family jewels, IMF was offering a fighting fund and then CS goes and gives the PIF RE to WC for a song.  No wonder OCVG & Voyager were a bit miffed.


----------



## seamisty (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Change of trustee gives Octavier survival plan hopeArticle from: Font size: Decrease Increase Email article: Email Print article: Print Submit comment: Submit comment Anthony Marx

July 25, 2008 12:00am
OCTAVIAR has avoided liquidation at the hands of the Public Trustee of Queensland after a new trustee agreed to take on the overseeing of the embattled finance and tourism group formerly known as MFS.

A Brisbane court heard yesterday that listed Trust Company will now act as trustee of the company if a meeting of creditors owed more than $1 billion support an Octaviar plan to pay back just a fraction of that amount. 

Sydney-based Trust is one of the nation's oldest and biggest financial management companies and had first flagged interest in taking over after the PTQ sought to resign last year. 

Octaviar executive director Chris Scott hailed the apparent collapse of the PTQ's legal challenge yesterday as "a win for everybody". 

"Common sense has prevailed. Now we can sit down and talk to everybody and fully explain the proposal to everybody without this hanging over our head," he said. 

Seven creditors - including Challenger Management Investments, Fortress Capital and Wellington Capital - joined Octaviar in calling for an adjournment of the case until September 9. 

The Australian Taxation Office had supported a wind-up but later agreed to the adjournment, which was approved by Justice Richard Chesterman. 

Most creditors believe a settlement offer put forward last week by Octaviar will provide better returns than any money squeezed out through a costly liquidation process that could take three to five years. 

Mr Scott said creditors would receive just 13.9 in the dollar under a wind-up scenario. 

The PTQ filed suit in the Supreme Court in early June to appoint a liquidator over $351 million owed to 560 listed noteholders and raised fears about possibly improper disposal of assets. 

Queensland solicitor-general Walter Sofronoff QC, acting for the PTQ, told the court that his client still believed that Octaviar was insolvent and supported a scheme of arrangement under court supervision. 

The PTQ also wanted undertakings to preserve assets, a key reason for bringing forward yesterday's hearing from September 9, he said. 

Mr Scott said last week that Octaviar had set aside $130 million to pay back creditors owed $560 million, with another $400 million to be sourced from asset sales over the next three years. 

About 200 of the noteholders at the heart of the PTQ case would receive full payment of monies owing if they accept the deal by August 11. 

Brisbane merchant banker Jenny Hutson, whose firm Wellington Capital is the responsible entity of the former MFS Premium Income Fund, said yesterday she was ready to accept $47.8 million of the $197.5 million owed to her 10,385 clients. 

She said liquidation would deliver only half that. "This is about economic rationality. It's a clever solution to a complex problem," she said.


----------



## seamisty (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Court decision lets Octaviar fight on::::::July 25th, 2008 

Nick Nichols and Emmaline Stigwood

OCTAVIAR won a major reprieve yesterday after a winding-up action against the company was adjourned so that creditors could consider a payout offer from the embattled Gold Coast company.

In an extraordinary scene, a dozen high-priced silks and their associated solicitors crammed into Court 16 in the Queensland Supreme Court yesterday morning, all vying for the same outcome: saving Octaviar, formerly known as MFS, from collapse.

Have your say on the feedback form below
Gold Coast business news

After the Queensland Public Trustee last week moved to speed up a winding-up application against Octaviar, all creditors to the company, including the Public Trustee and the James Packer-backed Challenger Financial Services, yesterday backed off.

Although Octaviar director and key shareholder Chris Scott welcomed the outcome yesterday, he blasted the Public Trustee for draining 'hundreds of thousand of dollars' from Octaviar's precious cash reserves in its defence of the action.

"This thing has cost us a bomb," said Mr Scott. "I think it's outrageous."

Yesterday's bill for silks alone would have been about $60,000, said one court observer.

Among the barristers was Tony Morris, QC, representing Octaviar's New Zealand subsidiary OPI Finance.

Mr Morris is better known for his probe into the malpractice allegations against former Bundaberg surgeon Jayant Patel.

Mr Scott said winding-up Octaviar, which has debts of more than $1 billion and cash in the bank of $150 million, was never a viable option. 

110 He said insolvency specialist Korda Mentha, after a review of Octaviar's operations earlier this year, forecast a January liquidation of the then MFS would have delivered creditors just 5c in the dollar.

Last week, Octaviar put forward a plan to pay out all of its unsecured creditors, some of them in full.

Holders of listed Octaviar notes, owed $351 million and represented by the Public Trustee, were offered 100c in the dollar for the first $5000 they invested, and 22.5c in the dollar for anything above $5000.

Acceptance would see 200 of the 560 noteholders, with small investments, repaid in full.

The same offer has been extended to Challenger, owed $100 million, and the Jenny Hutson-controlled Premium Income Fund, owed $197.5 million.

Octaviar also owes OPI Pacific Finance $246 million, the National Australia Bank $40 million and the Australian Taxation Office $53 million.

The Supreme Court yesterday adjourned the winding up action against Octaviar until September 9, giving creditors time to consider the payout offer.

The consensus among creditors yesterday indicated a permanent stay of proceedings was likely.

Ms Hutson, a corporate lawyer, described yesterday's proceedings as 'an extraordinary legal event'.

"It's unfortunate that it had to happen, but the reality is there was something big to defend."

Ms Hutson said the Premium Income Fund would accept the payout offer from Octaviar.

"If it had been wound up, the analysis we've done indicates that of the $200 million owed to the Premium Income Fund, we would have received just $26 million.

"Under the arrangement that's on the table, we'll get $48 million.

"What I found extraordinary was that it was economically irrational for anyone to want to wind up the company."

The proceedings against Octaviar apparently hinged on a new trustee being appointed to the noteholders.

The Trust Company of Australia (TCA) yesterday agreed to take over from the Public Trustee of Queensland.

TCA was ready to assume management of the notes in January after the Public Trustee tendered its resignation last year.

But the 'Black Friday' collapse of MFS and the subsequent freeze on the company's shares warded off the TCA until a clearer picture of MFS's financial position could be determined.

Mr Scott would not be drawn on the ultimate fate of the company following yesterday's reprieve.

He said Octaviar's future was still in the hands of creditors, although he noteholders and bondholders with smaller sums invested would likely accept the offer.

Along with the cash offer, Octaviar has given creditors the option of staying with the company as a secured creditor for the next three years.

"In terms of the investrment profitle of the fund, the cash offer is much more desireable," said Ms Hutson.

The payout from Octaviar will wipe out the remaining $35 million debt owed by the Premium Income Fund.

Ms Hutson yesterday said a surplus of funds after the payout would be returned to unit holders as a special distribution.

This will be on top of the proposed 3c a unit they are expected to receive by December.

Ms Hutson would not quantify the special distribution.


----------



## DoraNBoots (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

DC1  I agree with everything you wrote.  I have the same fears and I think they are being realised!  I can’t believe what Jenny has said in the last two articles posted!  It’s exactly my worst fears!  


_“Ms Hutson said the Premium Income Fund would accept the payout offer from Octaviar…..
"Under the arrangement that's on the table, we'll get $48 million.”_

Is anyone else disgusted by this?  To me this proves Jenny is unable to remove herself from the interests of the OCV shareholders and get the best outcome for the PIF.   I don’t believe Jenny’s OCV liquidation figures of 13 cents and think she is just trying to scare us.  Doesn’t sound like she is going for any cut of Stella!  And the mention of special distribution thanks to taking the deal is no substitute for getting as much money back that was taken from us.

I was thinking the PTQ were on the right track and I am disappointed they are now out of the picture.  Interesting how PTQ and ATO were both preferring liquidation over the pathetic OCV offer.

Dora.


----------



## great dame (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> DC1  I agree with everything you wrote.  I have the same fears and I think they are being realised!  I can’t believe what Jenny has said in the last two articles posted!  It’s exactly my worst fears!
> 
> 
> _“Ms Hutson said the Premium Income Fund would accept the payout offer from Octaviar…..
> ...



           Your right on the money what you say Dora  I fully agree with you ////////


----------



## Javier (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Along with the cash offer, Octaviar has given creditors the option of staying with the company as a secured creditor for the next three years.

Does this mean PIF as well or just refers to the noteholders, I hope it means ALL creditors, if JH is happy just taking this cash now she will lose a lot of credibility. Surely she can't show that much disregard to us with no further upside for us.

She loves making comments to the media, why can't she just say "yes we will thake this $48m now as a platform for further negotiations and we will not push for OCV to be liquidated".

I note we still owe $35m to RBOS, if this did not come from OCV, where would it have come from by the end of this month, as was the date JH mentioned that we would be rid of the debt??


----------



## seamisty (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Along with the cash offer, Octaviar has given creditors the option of staying with the company as a secured creditor for the next three years.
> 
> Does this mean PIF as well or just refers to the noteholders, I hope it means ALL creditors, if JH is happy just taking this cash now she will lose a lot of credibility. Surely she can't show that much disregard to us with no further upside for us.
> 
> ...



When I spoke to WC yesterday I was told that Jh would be using the OCV offer as a platform to negotiate further upside on the deal on behalf of the PIF. I think the RBOS debt was to be cleared from money that will be paid to the PIF from Arctic Capital in the LLA deal. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yes,  seems like JH had planned to take this deal all along to get rid of the RBOS debt.  The OCV offer released on the 18 July says PIF will take the $50mil now and be gone, no upside of Stella, no more legal action, no more money.  It's possible another offer has been given to JH privately or that she is negotiating a better deal but her comments in the media do not indicate this.  She has referred to the figures in the OCV offer at this link: 
http://newsstore.smh.com.au/apps/previewDocument.ac?docID=GCA00861380OCV&f=pdf

I recall Jenny saying they would only get $10mill upfront from the LLA deal.  My Brisbane notes say "$10mil in July plus $35mil over time."  (JH said in the media article above, the OCV offer will clear the RBOS debt)


----------



## Javier (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well if this was the case Seamistry, she had a perfect opportunity to state that in the media where everybody reads papers, that would have given us all some good news FOR A CHANGE!!!

But no, not to be..I think Ms Hutson still has a very strong bond with Mr Scott, I don't care what she says. Who knows for all we know she might still have a truck load of shares in OCV.


----------



## Duped (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Today is OUR black Friday.:bricks1:


----------



## SPLITPIN (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Well if this was the case Seamistry, she had a perfect opportunity to state that in the media where everybody reads papers, that would have given us all some good news FOR A CHANGE!!!
> 
> But no, not to be..I think Ms Hutson still has a very strong bond with Mr Scott, I don't care what she says. Who knows for all we know she might still have a truck load of shares in OCV.




Javier

If the fund is still registered in the name of Octaviar Investment Management Limited and WC is only the manager, your would certainly need a lot of convincing that the RE is acting in our best interests.

And if Octavia were to be liquidated , does that mean the liquidator would automatically get PIF. 

Looks like a lot of risk mitigation (particually for Octaviar shareholders) and financial engineering.

Interesting times, but more to come yet.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## great dame (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Javier
> 
> If the fund is still registered in the name of Octaviar Investment Management Limited and WC is only the manager, your would certainly need a lot of convincing that the RE is acting in our best interests.
> 
> ...



           You know we are all forgetting a lot of PIF unit holders could have a lot of shares in Octaviar  as well  As you say Splitpin  interestings times //////////


----------



## DoraNBoots (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> You know we are all forgetting a lot of PIF unit holders could have a lot of shares in Octaviar  as well  As you say Splitpin  interestings times //////////




Hi Great Dame,

I know you have said you have shares in OCV.  Can you tell me how you feel about the OCV offer to the PIF in your situation?

Thanks,
Dora.


----------



## seamisty (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

.Quote from this mornings AFR:-:::: " Another Octaviar creditor, Double Knob Pty Ltd, also hired a silk to help stop the winding up. Double Knob is headed by Brett Heading, chairman of Bribane law firm McCullough Robertson."  :::: For those of you who don't already know, Brett Heading is JH's husband. JH has already said she will do her utmost best  to restore stability and value to the PIF, so if she gets assistance from her husband to achieve this, I don't have a problem with that. (please don't shoot the messenger!:hide Seamisty


----------



## oldjap (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi there fellow PIF investors,
I have been following this forum for some time and appreciate everyones input, I would like to add my support to Jenny Hudson, she in IMO is doing a very fine job in a difficult set of circumstances, had we had another RE would they have had the forsight to sue for the 147.5 mill so quickly thus having it included in the offer by Octaviar, this offer could still have some up side if we are included in the list of creditors that will be recognized in the next three years to follow.

We MUST all get behind Wellington and give them the 75% vote they need as there really is no other option


----------



## Mutchy (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hello All,
For completeness here is the article from 'The Australian' this morning:

OCTAVIAR has narrowly escaped liquidation, but it might be only a temporary reprieve for the debt-laden fund manager.

The former MFS was in the Supreme Court of Queensland yesterday, facing a wind-up claim from its biggest creditor over $350 million of unsecured notes. But the hearing was adjourned until September.

Ironically, the creditor seeking the wind-up, the Public Trustee of Queensland, will have washed its hands of the tortuously complicated saga bythen.

Solicitor-General Walter Sofronoff, on behalf of the Public Trustee, told the court the trustee had sought to resign from the role more than a year ago. It had not been able to do so until a willing and able replacement was found, which happened just this week.

Judge Richard Chesterman adjourned the wind-up application to its original hearing dates of September 9 and 10.

The note holders represented by the trustee are set to meet before then to determine whether they want to push ahead with the liquidation claim.

Seven other creditors were represented by their own counsel in court yesterday, including the Australian Tax Office, OPI Pacific Finance, Wellington Investment Management and Challenger Managed Investments.

The new trustee is the Trust Company. Its executive general manager of institutional services, Vicki Allen, said the note holders' meeting would determine whether they would join the workout proposal or if Trust would pursue the wind-up application.

The Public Trustee confirmed it had tendered a letter of resignation more than a year ago. "The appointment of a new Trustee by Octaviar Investment Notes Ltd is a matter beyond the control of the Public Trustee of Queensland," it said in a statement.

This does not add to our knowledge regarding PIF but reflects a different attitude to the future of Octavia, being a temporary stay of an ultimate liquidation.

I too am disappointed in JH's remarks about accepting $48 million without mentioning anything about trying for a share of any future earnings from a potential Octavia recovery. 
However on second thoughts I don't think she would be making a public statement about any negotiations in progress for fear of generating false hope. There was no mention specifically of the action to recover the 147.5 million either which we are assured is still stands even if Octavia is wound up. 
Perhaps there may still be some cause for optimism.
Mutchy
PS I am very impressed with some of the Smiley icons being used!


----------



## Jadel (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Fellow Action Group Members

If any members of the Brisbane Action Group are interested in attending the Gold Coast AG meeting at 2 pm tomorrow please let me know . 

I and one other member will be going , we may be able to organize something regarding transport. 


Regards Chris


----------



## great dame (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi Great Dame,
> 
> I know you have said you have shares in OCV.  Can you tell me how you feel about the OCV offer to the PIF in your situation?
> 
> ...



          Sure First OCV offer is the one & only offer  JH had no choice it was take it or leave it    If JH got more others would want the same   AS for my situation I have given up of ever seeing any money coming back to me from OCV   Thats life win some loose some   I only hope i live long enough to see money come back to me from PIF  i am not holding my breath though /


----------



## DoraNBoots (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I spoke to the WC hotline.  They are saying JH has not accepted an offer.  They said the media over the last day got it wrong.  They said all creditors would need to agree to an offer and WC couldn’t accept if the others don’t.  Anyone know if this is true?

They were not able to give any info except that no offer has been taken.  No timeframe expect to say it could take a while for all creditors to accept although I do recall the Noteholders only have until Aug 11 to respond.  I expressed my disapproval of JH mentioning the 13 cent liquidation figure which excludes Stella and the WC person agreed you can’t liquidate OCV and exclude Stella.  

All of JHs quotes seem to fit with her plan to reduce the RBOS debt and give us special distributions so I don’t see how the media reports can be that wrong. I'm just hoping JH is getting some of Stella in the deal.


----------



## Ivor Watt (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

In the Business spectator it states that WC application for the appointment of a new trustee was approved by the supreme court.
So it seems that JH made the application for a change of trustee which has resulted in the delay in the winding up and seems to show she is much more involved than we think. 
However i still believe that our best way forward is with JH and will be voting that way. If, as she says, the $47m is a start and she continues to chase the balance of our money then I am of the opinion that a bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush.
We have personally already lost a heap in the LLA debacle and hope to get a better result over time from our PIF investment and that is certainly not going to happen through liquidation.


----------



## DoraNBoots (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Here's the article.  Wonder if this is 'wrong' too.  Check out the text I made bold...

Octaviar survives bid to wind it up
Colin Kruger 
July 25, 2008 
AN ATTEMPT to wind up the ailing property group Octaviar - formerly known as MFS - appeared to have been derailed yesterday with the removal of the Public Trustee of Queensland as trustee for Octaviar's listed noteholders who are owed $348 million.

Wellington Capital, which manages the noteholders' investment via Octaviar's Premium Income Fund, successfully applied to Queensland's Supreme Court yesterday to appoint a new trustee for the noteholders and derail the Public Trustee of Queensland's bid to have Octaviar put into liquidation.
The trustee issued a statement last night saying it had not consented to the appointment of a new trustee and would "seek an order" to determine whether its "removal is valid".

"The Public Trustee of Queensland has no power to object to the appointment or to participate in the decision-making process. His consent to the proposed appointment is not required and has not been provided," it said.
The trustee said the new trustee was qualified for the role and it had "no reason to think that the proposed new trustee is not a fit and proper person to act as trustee of the deed in the interests of the noteholders, whose opinion the new trustee intends to seek immediately."
The new trustee was not named.

The trustee claims Octaviar defaulted on the listed notes which are now payable. The trustee has expressed concern about the "outflow of cash from the group" and said noteholders would be better off with the company in the hands of an "independent liquidator whose first duty is to the creditors".
Wellington Capital's chief, *Jenny Hutson, has expressed support for a proposal by Octaviar's management to avoid liquidation and have its creditors accept a reduced payout.*

Wellington Capital did not return the Herald's calls yesterday.
Octaviar's management has proposed a settlement with creditors - owed nearly $1 billion by the group - that would pay out 22.5c in the dollar for most creditors and up to 100 per cent of claims by small investors.
According to Octaviar's chief executive, Chris Scott, creditors would receive 13.9c in the dollar if the company was put into liquidation.


----------



## RickH (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mutchy said:


> Hello All,
> For completeness here is the article from 'The Australian' this morning:
> 
> Solicitor-General Walter Sofronoff, on behalf of the Public Trustee, told the court the trustee had sought to resign from the role more than a year ago.
> ...



Hi Mutchy,

This may be all based on dollars now and legal action later.

1) Interesting to know why Public Trustee wanted to resign.
Is there a potential legal claim against the Public Trustee?
2) The loans/gifts in November & December 2007.
Is there a potential legal claim against directors etc...?

Please remember that JH is a solicitor and will always think like a solicitor.
Always consider the Law and use litigation at a later time.

Regards,
RickH:couch


----------



## Duped (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It's probably all been said before but the OCVG offer doc lists $232.8 of 'value' owed by OCV Ltd to PIF for which OCV Ltd is offering $50.61M.

I.e. we're being offered 21.74 cents in the dollar.  Even the Tax Office, who pays ASIC to do nothing & Centrelink to not go out of their way to help us, get more than PIF.

What's the 'n/a' mean in the table in clause 3.7?  Not Available or Not Applicable.  If it's Not Applicable then OCVG , $100M BondHolders (Challenger) AND PAC are ALL being offered the upside - namely a return of 92.6c in 3-5 years.  Just not PIF.  Why NOT?  Does JH think she can turn our $50.61M back into $215.6M ($232.8 * 92.6c) in 3-5 years herself? Fine, but I'll hold her to it.  And it's going to be difficult for WC if large chunks of the capital is returned to us up front - or is that how WC can excuse themselves from the commitment.


----------



## DoraNBoots (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> What's the 'n/a' mean in the table in clause 3.7?  Not Available or Not Applicable.  If it's Not Applicable then OCVG , $100M BondHolders (Challenger) AND PAC are ALL being offered the upside - namely a return of 92.6c in 3-5 years.  Just not PIF.  Why NOT?  Does JH think she can turn our $50.61M back into $215.6M ($232.8 * 92.6c) in 3-5 years herself? Fine, but I'll hold her to it.  And it's going to be difficult for WC if large chunks of the capital is returned to us up front - or is that how WC can excuse themselves from the commitment.





Yes Duped, everyone has been offered an upside in Stella except the PIF and the ATO.  And even so the PTQ claim they can do better if OCV are in the hands of an administrator.  From what I can gather from the media reports Challenger, ATO and PTQ were all in court to support liquidation,  WC and PAC were opposed.  I personally think the first bunch are more likely to know what they are doing and have no conflict of interest.


----------



## Duped (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



oldjap said:


> Hi there fellow PIF investors,
> I have been following this forum for some time and appreciate everyones input, I would like to add my support to Jenny Hudson, she in IMO is doing a very fine job in a difficult set of circumstances, had we had another RE would they have had the forsight to sue for the 147.5 mill so quickly thus having it included in the offer by Octaviar, this offer could still have some up side if we are included in the list of creditors that will be recognized in the next three years to follow.
> 
> We MUST all get behind Wellington and give them the 75% vote they need as there really is no other option




Agreed that we must avoid PIF being liquidated and if that means a vote for WC then so be it.

But I must disagree regarding the $147.5M. IMO an offer to creditors needs to include all creditors, not just those who sue.  So IMO the offer to PIF would have been the same irrespective of whether PIF sued or not.  In fact the offer covers $232.8M owed to PIF.  Cheers.


----------



## Duped (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Yes Duped, everyone has been offered an upside in Stella except the PIF and the ATO.  And even so the PTQ claim they can do better if OCV are in the hands of an administrator.  From what I can gather from the media reports Challenger, ATO and PTQ were all in court to support liquidation,  WC and PAC were opposed.  I personally think the first bunch are more likely to know what they are doing and have no conflict of interest.




Are Challenger, ATO and PTQ after liquidation or administration?  I suspect there is a big variation in how an entity can be wound up.  But I'm no corporate lawyer.  My only wish is to be sure that shareholders like King who created this farce get NONE of the upside.


----------



## DoraNBoots (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Attached is a statement released by PTQ in relation to the change of Trustee.

Anyone done any digging on the new trustee to see if the CEO is CSs son?


----------



## seamisty (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

MEDIA STATEMENT
27 July 2008
The appointment of a new Trustee by Octaviar Investment Notes Limited is a matter beyond the control of the Public Trustee of Queensland.
The circumstances permitting the Company to remove the Public Trustee of Queensland were outlined to the Supreme Court of Queensland today. They include the fact that the Company relied upon a letter of resignation tendered by the Public Trustee of Queensland to the Company over one year ago. That letter remained in abeyance because the Company was unable to find a replacement Trustee until very recently.
The proposed new Trustee is a qualified Trustee Company and the Public Trustee of Queensland has no reason to think that the proposed new trustee is not a fit and proper person to act as Trustee of the Deed in the interests of the Noteholders, whose opinion the new Trustee intends to seek immediately. The Noteholders can direct the new Trustee in accordance with the terms of the Trust Deed.
The Public Trustee of Queensland has no power to object to the appointment or to participate in the decision-making process. His consent to the proposed appointment is not required and has not been provided.
The only role the trustee has is to put the circumstances leading to the proposed appointment before the court and, once he is replaced, seek an order pursuant to his controlling Act that his removal is valid.
The Public Trustee of Queensland intends to take that step.
Ends...  Typical of the media, they can't even get the date right!!!


----------



## selciper (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There are so many twists and turns in this saga that I am learning not to react instantly to every event. My gut feeling is that there is a great deal going on behind the scenes at present. JH with all her forums and commitments is in this deeply. Her business reputation is being risked. It's healthy for us marooned investors to question all the moves, but in the end we're probably lucky not to have gone down completely under the the care of the previous lot. In other words, it could be a great deal worse!


----------



## breaker1 (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Chris Scott said, "Octaviar had set aside $130 million to pay back creditors owed $560 million, with another $400 million to be sourced from asset sales over the next three years."

Jenny Hutson said, "It's a clever solution to a complex problem." 

Clever for who?

If WC accepts the immediate $48M offer, why should PIF investors be excluded from the other $400 million to be sourced over the next three years? We in the PIF are tired of being done-over! 

Jenny Hutson, please get in there and FIGHT FOR US like you said you would! Your performance & PIF loyalty is now being judged.


----------



## Javier (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

In one of her many brave and colorful quotes emerging from the media Jenny said something like "I will go to the ends of the world to find that $147.5m and not emerge from the battlefield till I get it".

This was just one month ago..here's your chance, you don't have to go far down the highway from Brisbane to get our money. 

'Time tells all..you just have to live long enough'..quote from my grandmother!


----------



## SPLITPIN (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Jennifer Joan Hutson 

Joan middle name, reminds me of "Joan of Arc", another lady on a mission.

But she got burnt at the stake, and that's not a nice ending.

When you manage say 50% of $ .75 B, I suppose that is quite a mission.

I trust this mission will have a much better ending.

Splitpin.


----------



## Rocky1 (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The next time someone speaks to one of JH's reps at WC ask if they will join this forum and post once a day with an update. That would certainly clarify a lot of the unknowns, stop speculation and help clear certain matters up. A post once a day or even every second day would go along way.


----------



## DoraNBoots (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Rocky,

It's worth asking but I think anything written will need to go though their legal guys.  I discussed getting info to us with them today and they say how expensive it is to mail us and that only 10% of us have Internet access.  And that anything put on their web site needs to go through legal so it's not a process they can quickly do to respond to our concerns.


----------



## zixo (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Jenny tells us she needs our trust. She tells us her financial and business expertise will enable her to "AIM"  to fix the PIF to its former glory.

Jenny really has done a wonderful Job selling herself at these forums, Up to date she hasn't failed in her correspondence in quoting Roosevelt and telling us about her successful upbringing and telling newspapers how hard she'll work for the PIF.

In every letter to Investors She's continally plugging the 65 cents when, or if , or maybe, she does what she sprouted to the media about chasing OUR funds to the ends of the earth.  

Up to date this has proven to be alot of hot air. Its easier talking and big noting yourself than trying to chase the 20 million in PI and sticking to the promises she already appears to be breaking by accepting a pittance for the investors with our money that was Stolen.

Wellington capital wish to change the complete makeup of the Premium Income fund. Theres no insurance, no support facility, we're keeping  Perpetual "the trustees" who have proven to be of no use and IMO do not deserve to be paid and owe us money. 
We are now moving forward and have to trust an unlisted Merchant Bank that up until mid march no-one had heard of. There is no guarantees our money will go up, it could go down. All Investor newsletters claims are "AIMS. The NSX everyone is so nervous about will not ever have the same checks and balances and outside scrutiny that the asx can offer and jenny has done her utmost to become vague regarding what her tactics are, 

I dont want anymore quotes from dead presidents taking up half a news letter. I want INFORMATION from someone who is actively participating for investors, who's promises can be counted upon and trusted.

"United we stand, Divided we fall" doesnt count for diddly squat if the rot starts from the base


----------



## Jadel (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Zixo

    I agree with your comments.


----------



## flatback (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Today is OUR black Friday.:bricks1:



WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE ,she openly stated that the RBOS had to paid before she could start to put a process into place to plan a strategy to recover our money (large or small) better than liquidation dont you think???????, no i dont think many of you are being very realistic here , most of you are harping on the same old retoric, retoric,retoric.Please tll me this, WHO else is going to ,or has put their hand up to pull us out of the **** nobody!!.why do you think she is going to disclose her strategy to you or anybody else for that matter,before she is in full control of our destiny.WAKE UP,WAKE UP for gods sake some of you make me sick with your constant whining.GIVE HER A BREAK


----------



## oldjap (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good on yer Flatback, I agree with you  How can Wellington give us their strategy when we haven't even voted for her to get the 75% she needs and start making some headway.::


----------



## Jadel (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Flatback I understand you frustration 

  However please understand that many people on this forum are bitterly disappointed that they will only recieve 22,5 cents in the dollar for money that was unlawfully pilfered from our fund when OCV note holders will recieve 
practically all of their money back in 3 to 5 years under the terms of Chris Scotts deal  

 If you could inform the Forum  members exactly why this can be allowed to happen legally we would be most obliged  


I have one my  in my AG members who has literally had money  removed from one of the Funds in which he invested in the PIF and placed in OCV which has now left him with nothing . This has gone beyond breaking corporate law it is a matter of major fraud. 

 Regards Chris


----------



## zixo (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Heres another great quote for the legion of Theodore Roosevelt fans.
...Sadly I doubt if it make our next newsletter.

"I have a perfect horror of words that are not backed up by deeds."
Oyster Bay, NY, July 7, 1915. 

Black is not white. 7.00am is not 10.00pm. 197 million shouldnt be accepted as 48 million. 65 cents should not be sold when the PIF has eaten a loss on every investment and loan.

JH hasnt invested one iota of her own money which hasnt come back 10 fold from the PIF.
Perhaps if JH had a REAL vested interest in the PIF she would actually start telling everyone whats realistic and whats just plain old fashioned manipulative BS.

WC may now own the management rights - nothing gives them the right to treat us like dills...its exactly something Octaviar management past, and present, are so fond of doing.


----------



## sugar3157 (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Flatback I understand you frustration
> 
> However please understand that many people on this forum are bitterly disappointed that they will only recieve 22,5 cents in the dollar for money that was unlawfully pilfered from our fund when OCV note holders will recieve
> practically all of their money back in 3 to 5 years under the terms of Chris Scotts deal
> ...




I too would like someone to explain to me how they can get away with this please....


----------



## SPLITPIN (25 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Ok, we have just about flogged and burnt "Joan of Arc - JH" to death.

Lets go forward, one of the processes for the PIF RE is the Compliance Plan, the last audit logged with ASIC 26 Sept 2007.

I would expect that WC would at least invite the AG to be part of the compliance committee as members of that committee to ensure transperancy and all operational processes are in place to Corp. Act 2001 & ASIC. 

This should remove all the inuendo and fears for the future in regards to RE responsibility  and accountablility.

Is this a reasonable and acceptable request?.

Regards

Splitpin


----------



## great dame (26 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> Jenny tells us she needs our trust. She tells us her financial and business expertise will enable her to "AIM"  to fix the PIF to its former glory.
> 
> Jenny really has done a wonderful Job selling herself at these forums, Up to date she hasn't failed in her correspondence in quoting Roosevelt and telling us about her successful upbringing and telling newspapers how hard she'll work for the PIF.
> 
> ...



       I agree with every word you have said  ZIXO  Everything you say is true   Very well said THANK YOU ZIXO ///


----------



## great dame (26 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE ,she openly stated that the RBOS had to paid before she could start to put a process into place to plan a strategy to recover our money (large or small) better than liquidation dont you think???????, no i dont think many of you are being very realistic here , most of you are harping on the same old retoric, retoric,retoric.Please tll me this, WHO else is going to ,or has put their hand up to pull us out of the **** nobody!!.why do you think she is going to disclose her strategy to you or anybody else for that matter,before she is in full control of our destiny.WAKE UP,WAKE UP for gods sake some of you make me sick with your constant whining.GIVE HER A BREAK



     So far JH has chewered up a packet of our money going round the country with her road show  And thats only the start  She may have won you over  with her talk talk talk    Please read ZIXO POST  ///////////


----------



## great dame (26 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE ,she openly stated that the RBOS had to paid before she could start to put a process into place to plan a strategy to recover our money (large or small) better than liquidation dont you think???????, no i dont think many of you are being very realistic here , most of you are harping on the same old retoric, retoric,retoric.Please tll me this, WHO else is going to ,or has put their hand up to pull us out of the **** nobody!!.why do you think she is going to disclose her strategy to you or anybody else for that matter,before she is in full control of our destiny.WAKE UP,WAKE UP for gods sake some of you make me sick with your constant whining.GIVE HER A BREAK



    O yes we must all stand bow our heads & be grateful when our great leader walkes into the room  ///////////////


----------



## JohnH (26 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

So Great Doom,  What is your constructive alternative??


----------



## selciper (26 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Splitpin -

The ongoing participation of the AG with WC is very important. By the way, what is the official status of the AG? Does WC have to recognise it? If so, up to what point?

....................

Am surprised to read that WC believe that only 1000 PIF investors are on the internet. This is way, way below the national average. Something is a bit odd about that figure. More regular on-line WC bulletins could quell a lot of understandable speculation on this blog

Any chance of Breaker 1 arranging another interview with JH?


----------



## RickH (26 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> I too would like someone to explain to me how they can get away with this please....




Hi Sugar,
1) Octaviar is in trouble and appears to have limited capital/assets.
2) JH has all of the available information and we need to trust her judgement or we need to find another RE.
3) We do not have all of the information and therefore we cannot realistically make a fully informed decision.
We are only presenting an emotional guesstimate.

*Who said they can get away with it?*

If there is fraud the individuals concerned will hopefully be taken to court and their assets should be targeted for the benefit of PIF plus jail terms if at all possible.

Please remember that JH is a solicitor first and probably will always consider legal action. 

*Remember that JH needs 75% of the vote.*

RickH:couch


----------



## great dame (26 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> So Great Doom,  What is your constructive alternative??



 Great Doom/// Thanks for that gave me the best laught all day /// thats a good one //   Maybe we should have a new manager  one that will gives us the wishrs of the unit holders   I want you to go back &  readthe full page post of ZEXO  & read all the things we should  not have    I am not getting paid to run PIF WC is & so far i am not impressed  A complete lak of information  Remenber its our money  they are playing with ////////


----------



## great dame (26 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Splitpin -
> 
> The ongoing participation of the AG with WC is very important. By the way, what is the official status of the AG? Does WC have to recognise it? If so, up to what point?
> 
> ...



          WC have pulled that 1000 out of thin air it would be closer to 8300  accourding to the latest Stats ///


----------



## great dame (26 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Sugar,
> 1) Octaviar is in trouble and appears to have limited capital/assets.
> 2) JH has all of the available information and we need to trust her judgement or we need to find another RE.
> 3) We do not have all of the information and therefore we cannot realistically make a fully informed decision.
> ...



    I agree with one thing you say RICK  WE NEED TO FIND ANOTHER  RE   Have you anybody in mind ??????????? //


----------



## flatback (26 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Flatback I understand you frustration
> 
> However please understand that many people on this forum are bitterly disappointed that they will only recieve 22,5 cents in the dollar for money that was unlawfully pilfered from our fund when OCV note holders will recieve
> practically all of their money back in 3 to 5 years under the terms of Chris Scotts deal
> ...



Chris you are at it again, and you are putting suggestions and assumptions to people on this forum without any evidence to support what you are saying,WHO said we will get 22.5cents is this cast in stone somewhere ,sorry i cant remember anybody saying this to be factual,and as to my ability to inform members of this forum how this can be legal (get a life) if those that have perpetrated this mess get away with it, i'll be very surprised. thirdly i feel for your friend ,but let us have no delusions here ,my needs, and all of us in this predicament, are  important to each and every one of us as individuals. i believe this is why we cant go down the track of Magoo and the like or we WILL self destruct.We are hearing to many snippets of information without any substance all inuendo,i believe we must keep clear heads and be patient.


----------



## simgrund (26 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Ok, we have just about flogged and burnt "Joan of Arc - JH" to death.
> 
> Lets go forward, one of the processes for the PIF RE is the Compliance Plan, the last audit logged with ASIC 26 Sept 2007.
> 
> ...




To SPLITPIN, SELCIPER, BREAKER1, SEAMISTY, RICK-H & many other true fighters out there:::
Please do not get distracted with petty sniping at targets of no consequence. Your forum time is far too valuable. We all truly appreciate  everybody's efforts to date and are that much more informed thanks to these efforts.
SPLITPIN's call for  Action Group to be part of the compliance committee is a real step forward. 
It would allow a responsible AG member to post on the forum (If permitted to do so) latest bulletins of relevance without the need for "legal eagles" raking over their veracity with whatever distortions that may imply. 

There may be other ways for PIF inclusion in the circles that matter, however this call is a true start. Let's support it.

With best regards


----------



## zixo (26 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The problem stems that Jenny touted herself off as the PIF saviour at the forums and then progressively has lacked in promised information or actions. 
The PIF is neither a charity nor is it a Cash Cow to prop up struggling companies which have only ever resulted in losses to our fund. 
Her optimistic viewpoint of seeing a glass half full rather than a glass half empty has become a mute point. The fund is what it is, It may simply be half of a glass which is happily being sloshed around.

I’m open to any feedback. What have WC done since they have “managed” the fund which has factually benefited the Investors of the PIF.

Any takers?


----------



## RickH (26 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> I agree with one thing you say RICK  WE NEED TO FIND ANOTHER  RE   Have you anybody in mind ??????????? //




Hi Great Dame,
I believe that we should stay with JH because she does have an agenda and that is to prove that she is one of the best in her industry and I believe that she will do everything within her power to achieve 6 cents per annum and $1.00 value within 3/5 years but 7 years does sound achievable to me based on borrowings to purchase really good assets at low prices.
Remember 75% vote is mandatory - We cannot afford to split the vote.
RickH:couch


----------



## Jadel (26 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Flatback 

   I agree with most of what you have stated

   However as i understand the situation at this point in time a clear offer has been made by Chris Scott to the PIF and other creditors which equates to approximately the figure mentioned .

   I am more than happy to stand corrected if you can supply the necessary information.


----------



## SPLITPIN (26 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Splitpin -
> 
> The ongoing participation of the AG with WC is very important. By the way, what is the official status of the AG? Does WC have to recognise it? If so, up to what point?
> 
> ...




Selciper

From what I hear, the AG is going very well.

At the GC forum, JH did indicate she would facilitate the AG.

I would hope that may involve the AG within the compliance committee as suggested previously. 

I trust the AG will inform us on further developments.

Regards


Splitpin.


----------



## flatback (27 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Breaker1 its good to see that some common sense has prevailed, and upon reading your e/mail,please except my full approval for the road upon which you intend to travel,others may not agree, but you have my full support, this is at last, a work in progress which ask's the questions of JH to address these issues as soon as practicable,personly i cannot see why she cant give us an answer to the majority of these questions in the near future. thanks friend keep up the good work.
flatback


----------



## DoraNBoots (27 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There was some confusion at the QLD meeting yesterday about how JH could tell us that we have to vote for her or wind up the scheme.  If 75% of those that vote don't want WC to be the RE then the scheme will be wound up unless we appoint another RE.  I've attached some extracts from the Corp Act and the PIFs constitution which I think are relevant to yesterday’s discussions.  You can also see JH's quote (here http://www.newpif.com.au/articles/AFR_8july2008.pdf) from the BNE meeting saying she needs 75% of the votes of those that *choose *to vote.

On another topic, I had a discussion with a member last week about how the wholesale investors vote.  I checked with WC and the class of investors who invested directly will vote in the usual way but the other class will vote though their rep or what ever platform they used to get into the fund.  *WC does not have any voting power in Aug*.

I'm wondering if anyone can explain this statement made to Breaker at his interview with JH.  "She therefore, negotiated a signing of an "amending deed" to the PDS, to extend PIF access to this SF"  The Octaviar updates stated the $50mil SF was already called on Feb 26 2008 before she was in the picture so was there a need for an amending deed?.  
Quote from the OCV updates:
_"On 26 February 2008, Octaviar IM provided Octaviar Limited (formerly MFS Limited), with 3 Option Notices to notify Octaviar Limited that it was calling on the full value of the Support Facility. The Support Facility has a callable value of $50m. The Fund has not yet received this payment and Octaviar IM continues to be a major creditor to Octaviar Limited. Repayment of the loan balance owed to the third party bank is not dependent on receipt of the $50 million in the near term."_


----------



## DoraNBoots (27 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> I have asked a capable fellow OPIF investor in our action group to follow the NSW Bookmakers Super Fund up, to join us. An email was sent by him and I have subsequently asked him to chase the email up with a phone call to management of the Super Fund - should get a reply from him this week I hope.




Did anyone get a response from the NSW Bookmakers Super Fund?


----------



## Mutchy (27 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> There was some confusion at the QLD meeting yesterday about how JH could tell us that we have to vote for her or wind up the scheme.  If 75% of those that vote don't want WC to be the RE then the scheme will be wound up unless we appoint another RE.  I've attached some extracts from the Corp Act and the PIFs constitution which I think are relevant to yesterday’s discussions.  You can also see JH's quote (here http://www.newpif.com.au/articles/AFR_8july2008.pdf) from the BNE meeting saying she needs 75% of the votes of those that *choose *to vote.
> 
> On another topic, I had a discussion with a member last week about how the wholesale investors vote.  I checked with WC and the class of investors who invested directly will vote in the usual way but the other class will vote though their rep or what ever platform they used to get into the fund.  *WC does not have any voting power in Aug*.
> 
> ...




Hello All,
Thanks for your information, Dora. I was intrigued by the expression " ride on the coat tails of the Packer Empire" in the AFR article. Packer has done very well in divesting himself of media interests which are doing very poorly and in acquiring LLA at very good terms. As long as we (PIF)have an interest in LLA I am very happy to give Packer the opportunity to manage that part of our future.
Having read the extracts from the Corporations Act I see the mechanism as follows:
1) WC will put a Special Resolution to all unit holders asking for their vote either in person or by proxy. Special resolutions have to be voted on by a poll and at least 75% of all unit holders entitled to vote must approve the resolution. The words of the resolution should ask for approval by PIF unit holders for WC to  to continue to act as the Responsible Entity.
2) At midnight on 21st August WC will have counted all the proxy votes and know whether or not 75% has been achieved or is likely to be achieved. If 75% or more approve then PIF lives. If it looks likely that 75% will  not be achieved there is no possibility that a special or extraordinary resolution could be put to the meeting to delay winding up as voting by poll of all unit holders is required, not just those at the meeting.
3) If less than 75% of unit holders vote for WC to continue as RE, at the meeting on 22nd August WC will tender at least 3 months notice of termination of the scheme. 
I can not think of a second extraordinary resolution or special resolution which can be put in conjunction with, or dependent on the first one asking for WC to continue as RE, which would give life to PIF and avoid termination.
JH is quoted as saying "choose to vote" which could merely refer to the likelihood that not all unit holders will vote. I know that here in Wollongong not all will vote as some are overseas and will not get their voting papers. I assume those that do not vote are not counted when the 75% is calculated.

I have no legal knowledge about deeds but could only propose that a new deed would be required so that WC, having assumed the role of RE and bought all the shares in MFSIM becomes the entity responsible for the execution of any actions on behalf of the PIF in relation to the Support Facility.

Mutchy


----------



## goldfinger38 (27 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I'm wondering if anyone can explain this statement made to Breaker at his interview with JH.  "She therefore, negotiated a signing of an "amending deed" to the PDS, to extend PIF access to this SF"  The Octaviar updates stated the $50mil SF was already called on Feb 26 2008 before she was in the picture so was there a need for an amending deed?.
> Quote from the OCV updates:
> _"On 26 February 2008, Octaviar IM provided Octaviar Limited (formerly MFS Limited), with 3 Option Notices to notify Octaviar Limited that it was calling on the full value of the Support Facility. The Support Facility has a callable value of $50m. The Fund has not yet received this payment and Octaviar IM continues to be a major creditor to Octaviar Limited. Repayment of the loan balance owed to the third party bank is not dependent on receipt of the $50 million in the near term."_






Mutchy said:


> Hello All,
> 
> I have no legal knowledge about deeds but could only propose that a new deed would be required so that WC, having assumed the role of RE and bought all the shares in MFSIM becomes the entity responsible for the execution of any actions on behalf of the PIF in relation to the Support Facility.
> 
> Mutchy





To answer your query regarding the amendments to the deed of the PDS, if she didnt do this as new RE for the PIF it would have released the obligation of Octaviar to "cough up" the $50 million it was obliged to pay to us. Therefore she had to get the amendment through to allow this obligation to stand.

On another note, lots of emotion and angst is present in these forums notes and at the end of the day if WC cannot get the 75% vote to continue as RE, all that we have been talking about may have been in vain, regardless of whether we like JH or not.... at least if she gets approval to continue as RE we can then make moves to have an active and supporting role in the continuation of the fund to maximise our possible return. Then we can approach her with our thoughts, ideas, suggestions etc....

I truly hope that there is enough support when it comes to "the crunch" otherwsie we truly are beating a
:horse:


----------



## simgrund (27 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mutchy said:


> Hello All,
> Thanks for your information, Dora. I was intrigued by the expression " ride on the coat tails of the Packer Empire" in the AFR article. Packer has done very well in divesting himself of media interests which are doing very poorly and in acquiring LLA at very good terms. As long as we (PIF)have an interest in LLA I am very happy to give Packer the opportunity to manage that part of our future.
> Having read the extracts from the Corporations Act I see the mechanism as follows:
> 1) WC will put a Special Resolution to all unit holders asking for their vote either in person or by proxy. Special resolutions have to be voted on by a poll and at least 75% of all unit holders entitled to vote must approve the resolution. The words of the resolution should ask for approval by PIF unit holders for WC to  to continue to act as the Responsible Entity.
> ...





Hello Mutchy,
In respect of "members overseas", can a system of nominated proxies be devised beforehand to capture votes of those unable to be present??? 
Regards


----------



## Javier (27 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have just created a poll to get an idea of what people on this forum are thinking..it's a bit of a novelty, but it's FREE to vote..so spread the word and have a say. Here's the link:

http://pub33.bravenet.com/minipoll/viewservice.php


----------



## Mutchy (27 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Hello Mutchy,
> In respect of "members overseas", can a system of nominated proxies be devised beforehand to capture votes of those unable to be present???
> Regards




Hi Simgrund,
Thanks for your question. I talked to one unit holder about this. He could have left me a letter assigning me as the proxy vote holder however he was unsure of how to vote until he saw the proposal and any figures provided by WC. Whilst he is quite technically literate and has the ability to do as follows, he did not take a computer with him and was not prepared to spend the effort necessary to monitor his mailbox at Internet Cafes whilst in foreign parts. For the other I will see what the situation is over the next week or so.
C'est la Vie!

All,
There are a few milestones coming up. 
On Friday 1st August we need to know whether the Royal Bank of Scotland has been repaid their loan. This should be important enough for someone at WC to post a notice on the newpif.com.au website. It would be nice to know how liquid the fund is after this event and also to have enough information to gauge how well WC has performed in managing the asset sales.

I believe that we have to be given notice of a general meeting and while WC have spoken about a meeting to be held on 22nd August I have not seen anything which resembles a formal "Notice of Meeting". For organisations where I have been Public Officer in NSW the notice required is 21 days. I believe we should receive a formal "Notice of Meeting" with the details of and supporting arguement for a motion to accept WC as RE and for them to proceed to implement their recovery plan. The due date for that notice to be in our hands is Friday 1st August by my reckoning. Can anyone clarify that?  What is the period required in Queensland or by the PIF constitution?

I, and most other unit holders I have spoken to are quite happy to have WC act as Responsible Entity for the PIF. However for the benefit of those doomsayers who post on this form, and those that just lurk, I also point out that Friday next is also the day by which you must have notified all unit holders of any motion to have WC replaced as RE for the PIF. You will also have had to find a firm willing to be the RE and have their agreement in writing. You also need 100 signatures for the petition to hold a general meeting and to have submitted that petition to the existing RE.


Mutchy
:fan


----------



## Javier (27 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> I have just created a poll to get an idea of what people on this forum are thinking..it's a bit of a novelty, but it's FREE to vote..so spread the word and have a say. Here's the link:
> 
> http://pub33.bravenet.com/minipoll/viewservice.php




User name: PIFpoll
Password: spain123


----------



## Javier (27 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> User name: PIFpoll
> Password: spain123




Sorry one more under Web Tools go to Web Poll then hit the "view service" button.

Sorry a little more complicated than what I thought


----------



## gazzan57 (27 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Javiar, what a great idea....I have just voted... the stats so far look good....well done,,,,,:bowdown:


----------



## breaker1 (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Javier, if your poll shows a real trend, Jenny is a shoe in!

See how many more votes you get, as the numbers grow, the poll should become more accurate.

Trusting those trying to win us over to Jenny on the forum start to relax a bit.

Trusting you can't multiple vote - haven't tested that?


----------



## great dame (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Great Dame,
> I believe that we should stay with JH because she does have an agenda and that is to prove that she is one of the best in her industry and I believe that she will do everything within her power to achieve 6 cents per annum and $1.00 value within 3/5 years but 7 years does sound achievable to me based on borrowings to purchase really good assets at low prices.
> Remember 75% vote is mandatory - We cannot afford to split the vote.
> RickH:couch



    Good morning Rick  A few points i want to bring to your attentian     You say let JH have her way by giving ys all 6% divedend  a year & listing our units on the NSX  for those folk who wish to bail out   And let the fund grow to a $1  Sounds pretty good Hey   LIKE HELL IT DOSE    Rick if any of your clients want to bail out & go to the NSX they are in for a rude shock   You would be lucky to find a buyer there & if you did you would get next to nothing for your stock believe me i know    Another point  is this When a company has lost so much value as the PIF has 55%  it stops paying divedends  And plowered that money back into to company to help it grow      That 6 cents should stay in the fund   not used as bait to get WC over the line  Also i think its capital return  Not income produced by the fund      Rick please dont give your clients false hope   By for now ///////


----------



## JohnH (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

G.D.   you are forgetting that it is 6 cents - not 6%.

6 cents return on say 45 cents - is over 13% return.  This would certainly be attractive to some investors on the ASX


----------



## JohnH (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

....NSX


----------



## akernst (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Wellington reckon they will take 3-5 years to restore the fund back.
That is nonsense, in a booming economy like Australia, getting trillions from our resources, Wellington should be able to invest in areas like Macquarie Bank do and recover easily by the end of the year! Why do you think some banks can offer over 8% term deposits now.

I think there is enough funds in the PIF to pay all redemptions and more.
Wellington are just trying to keep their jobs, by having our PIF, to themselves.
Why would they to all the trouble to acquire it and then go around the country promoting themselves, as some great saviour.

They have had our money for over 6 months, without paying out a cent, so if they have any morals, they should pay us out now and close down the fund.


----------



## goldfinger38 (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



akernst said:


> Wellington reckon they will take 3-5 years to restore the fund back.
> That is nonsense, in a booming economy like Australia, getting trillions from our resources, Wellington should be able to invest in areas like Macquarie Bank do and recover easily by the end of the year! Why do you think some banks can offer over 8% term deposits now.
> 
> I think there is enough funds in the PIF to pay all redemptions and more.
> ...





I can understand your angst but please note a few things,

The RBOS ( third party bank) has been collecting all payments being made back to PIF whether it be income or return of loans that have been repaid in order to pay back the loan of $200 million otherwise there was a risk that they would realise the loan assets and recover monies through their own action which they have the right to do, so they have been collecting our money and WC or JH could do nothing about that.

Secondly they cannot just go out and invest in anything they wish to, the PDS does not allow that although it sadly didnt stop MFS taking out money via the "so called loan" to its related companies.

JH was mentioning 3-5 years as a suggested time line because that is how long the property market may take to recover from its current level of losses with some property funds dropping in unit price value by as much as 45% or more, and those are the long term property funds such as GPT etc.. it could happen quicker but probably not likely.

Thirdly, if you read the comments on this forum from day 1 you may realise that to close the fund appears to be th eleast favoured option due to the fire sale that would happen of assets currently being held and in this market where property values have significantly reduced that doesnt seem sensible. She wants to hold onto the assets that are qood quality and then sell them at a time that is more appropriate so that it minimises any losses and the fund may be able to fuly recover its exposure on that particular asset.


Hopefully if you want to cash out your unit holding there will be a facility to do so but as most are saying the unit price you may receive as an offer to purchase may be substantially lower than your expectations, that may change you mind and you may wish to remain in the fund a bit longer while further legal proceedings are continued against MIF Directors and its management for the blatent "corporate theft" of our funds.

OH, there was a question raised about the 21 days notice for a meeting, my understanding is that they hope to have the notice of meeting out by mid August and then hold the meeting sometime aorund the first week of September. This was also mentioned in earlier posts.
:goodnight


----------



## flatback (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Javier, if your poll shows a real trend, Jenny is a shoe in!
> 
> See how many more votes you get, as the numbers grow, the poll should become more accurate.
> 
> ...



Yes Breaker 1 that is my question , what tools are in place to stop multiple votes by the same person,i have gone onto the site and voted and thought the same thing,though, in reality it wouldnt be in the interest of any unit holders in PIF to fudge the figures.cheers flatback (the figures do look good we are a shoe in if they are correct)


----------



## Duped (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Sorry one more under Web Tools go to Web Poll then hit the "view service" button.
> 
> Sorry a little more complicated than what I thought




Nice Work Javier.
Have just voted.

Quick Q: does the service allow us to weight our votes according to our holdings?

But I disagree with comments that JH is a shoe in. Currently the yes votes come in at 82%.  This is VERY close.  Don't forget that when one person changes their vote from YES to NO this not only reduces the YES vote, it adds to the NO vote.


----------



## akernst (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seems to me there is enough skills on this forum, to manage this Fund ourselves, no worries. Why are we pussy footing around with Wellington and
being at their mercy.

I thought this forum was about forming a group of more than 100, so that we
can take control of the Fund ourselves. What happened about that, or were some people scared off by the new clauses in the Constitution, about other
3rd parties.

You are all talk at this stage and have not seen any action. My shoulders are big enough to fix this Fund myself. Making money from money is a no brainer in a capitalist economy.

Or is it a case, you are all afraid of success.


----------



## Duped (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> WC have pulled that 1000 out of thin air it would be closer to 8300  accourding to the latest Stats ///




Maybe so but I doubt the cross section of PIF investors matches the cross section of the AU population. Did you go to a forum? From what I saw in Bris most looked like retirees from my parents generation and my folks still struggle with the concept of maximising and minimising windows.


----------



## Duped (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

RikH. I think I've made it very clear that I will vote for JH to avoid a wind-up.  (Whether JH gets us the upside or OCV - I don't care)

But I'm thinking of doing some research on OCV. To back up my accusation that the whole OCV empire was a load of BS - that they just kept borrowing money to pay out in 'dividends' iun order to jack the share price up. Namely, where the revenue/income came from but more particularly: when and how many shares there were and how much was paid out in 'dividends'.

I was just going to look through all the ASX announcements.  Being a finance guy - can you recommend a more efficient way for me to do this?


----------



## Javier (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have tried many scenarios, trust me you can only vote ONCE per one computer, so happy voting!

Here's the link:

http://pub33.bravenet.com/minipoll/viewservice.php 

User name: PIFpoll
Password: spain123 

Then under Web Tools go to Web Poll then hit the "view service" button.


----------



## SPLITPIN (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Some very interesting information now coming on the WC site

http://www.newpif.com.au/investorforumjuly.html

including the Compliance Plan, Fund Overview (with investor summary information) and the Investment Allocation.

The trend from last year / Jan is very clear to see. 

Problem appears that it had too many short term redemptions, a nice OD facilty (approx $200m), so somebody may have decided to use it as a bank and gave it away (approx $400m) before crunch time being Jan 2008.

The compliance plan looks fine, but who were all the players etc. and why was ASIC not notified as per the plan.

Where was the Custodian in all of this.

Where is ASIC on MFS, the detail is right under their nose.

This is not WC's problem as most think, as they were not there at the time. 

I don't think WC's as RE is such a big issue, I think the past is.

Splitpin


----------



## Mutchy (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



goldfinger38 said:


> I can understand your angst but please note a few things,
> 
> 
> OH, there was a question raised about the 21 days notice for a meeting, my understanding is that they hope to have the notice of meeting out by mid August and then hold the meeting sometime aorund the first week of September. This was also mentioned in earlier posts.
> :goodnight




Thanks goldfinger. It looks like 22nd August may have been mentioned because it's the earliest date that a meeting could be held following repayment of the RBOS loan and that would depend on WC being able to predict the finalisation of the debt obligations to RBOS this week and get voting documents into our hands by Friday. 

Mutchy


----------



## selciper (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It's impossible to forget  the number of times MFS said over the phone that our funds were looked after by the custodian. Now we discover that the custodian was no more than a kind of despatch office sending out distribution slips and certificates etc. How could the word "custodian" be justified in those circumstances? If this was not the case, there should be a denial. 

It was a farce and leads me to ask what exactly WC's custodian's obligations will be  in the new PIF.


----------



## DoraNBoots (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



goldfinger38 said:


> To answer your query regarding the amendments to the deed of the PDS, if she didnt do this as new RE for the PIF it would have released the obligation of Octaviar to "cough up" the $50 million it was obliged to pay to us. Therefore she had to get the amendment through to allow this obligation to stand.




The RE hasn't changed.  The OCV IM board was replaced by JH (and two of her colleges) and then OCV IM was renamed to WC IM but no change in RE.  Plus even if the RE changed or the fund was liquidated I think since the Support Facility was already called on in Feb that it is owed to the PIF regardless.  Let me know if you disagree.


----------



## akernst (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Since the 31st July is the big date, which from then, our distributions should start being paid again. This I was told a few months back. As far I know I am under the current PDS, and I look forward to my distribution next month.

If this does not happen, then I will not be voting for Welliington, and will be
telling many other investors I know, to do the same.
Lets manage this fund ourselves, which is not as hard as people make out.

And looks like Wellington is going the same road as MFS, in telling us nothing.

Lets do something constructive and picket the Wellington offices, and maybe
get some TV media exposure, which might help our cause. I think we should do something now, instead of all this talk. I know there would many people interested doing a picket, if we got organised. 
We still live in free country, where anyone can form a group and demonstrate.


----------



## great dame (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



akernst said:


> Since the 31st July is the big date, which from then, our distributions should start being paid again. This I was told a few months back. As far I know I am under the current PDS, and I look forward to my distribution next month.
> 
> If this does not happen, then I will not be voting for Welliington, and will be
> telling many other investors I know, to do the same.
> ...



    TRhanks Akernst  And i thought i was the S  stirrer   You sure leave me for dead   I like you believe in keeping the presser on Wellington  Getting the medio involed sounds good  too    I sometimes feel WC is holding us at bay  with vote for us or else  ///////////


----------



## Jadel (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Fellow Investors

The more I think about this ultimatum 75% vote for JH or be liquidated at 14 cents the angrier I become

 I do not know how other investors feel on this forum but personally I have an aversion to threats.
. 
As far as Wellington Capital is concerned; it’s either take what I give you, or off to the Knackery. 

Of course nobody wants liquidation it would be a disaster under the current downtrend in the property cycle and Jenny Hutson Knows that only to well.

That is why this ultimatum is morally and ethically wrong 

If Wellington Capital does not want the fund why do they not ask other mangers to step in and make an alternative offer? 

 I think it is the same reason that  they  asked for  14000 dollars for  a data base of investors that  should cost  only a  few dollars  to put on a hard disc 

And why they will not allow any other manager to look at the books.

Wellington Capital is hanging on to us for dear life like a flys trapped in a spiders web 


It is now patently  obvious that the  modus operandi of  the  previous mob , King ,Adams Etc changed the Constitution of the PIF  on a yearly basis to suit themselves  .

 Want more money ,no worries we will just change a few things, like enabling us to borrow 200 million from the Royal bank of Scotland without telling investors, etc, etc .

Remember the very act of turning the fund from an unlisted to a listed entity changes the Constitution per se.

So I ask myself  , is it that difficult to change the Constitution of a fund ,why are we being placed with  a loaded pistol at are heads asked to make a  life and death decision with no reasonable choice other than listing .

Are we also to believe that their are no other available option that would give investors  some rational  alternatives.

 One of Jenny Hutson publicly avowed goals in life is to control a listed entity 


Therefore I  think there is a very high probability that Wellington Capital intends to list us on the NXS as a precursor to a full listing on the AXS

I have refrained from posting this missive for some time, however some people have informed me that they do not understand the full potential ramifications as a listed Entity and have asked me to post.

 Lets say WC want to raise some capital .

 Well that is quite easy once you are listed you simply manufacture some more paper(shares) effectively diluting the capital value of the fund  its called a, Placement , or a Non Renounceable Rights Issue .

 The only problem is the existing shareholders will  pay a heavy price .Our assets will be effectively devalued 

 If you want an example have a look at the price  Arctic Capital (Packer) is picking up shares in living and Leisure at the present time with a Rights Issue at  Four cents 

 Of course many of the investors who originally invested in Living and Leisure can not afford to take up the issue which means Packer will acquire the asset for a pittance. 

I am of the belief  that the vast  majority of investors who entered the PIF are conservative and not  highly risk tolerant .

They invested in this Fund specifically because they did not wish to expose their capital  to the perils of  a trading market  . 

Their primary requirement is a guaranteed exit at Net tangible asset value not a price dictated by market manipulators ,which will almost certainly  be in the range of 10 to 20cents for many years to come as a listed entity 

If Jenny Hutson is prepared to negotiate some form of reasonable Redemption Policy that will allow the many pensioners and self funded retirees in the PIF to redeem their capital at NTA value (which I am certain was always the intention of every person who originally invested in the fund) I can assure you I will be the first in the queue to pay tribute to her virtues. 

Believe me I am praying hard that this will happen.


----------



## Javier (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

All I can say is if WC can't get 75% of the value vote with their media exposure, $750k to play with from OCV to pay staff, team of legals, literature to all unit holders, a national roadshow, website dedicated to PIF, privy to all the information of the financial positions of the fund AND the fact she is a young, clever merchant banker / lawyer..what the hell chance do any of us or any other possible RE that may be daft enough to enter the picture have??

GET REAL people, there is no other choice at present so get behind Wellington Capital, sure ask as many questions to have as much information, that is very important in the future transpareny stakes, but for now let's get the priorities..we need to keep this fund going to get a better return than what liquidation will offer us. 

We can worry about the rest LATER, all in good time, but if you want NO liquidation NOW then please vote for WC to be our RE.


----------



## Javier (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Here's the link again:

http://pub33.bravenet.com/minipoll/viewservice.php 

User name: PIFpoll
Password: spain123 

Then under Web Tools go to Web Poll then hit the "view service" button.


----------



## Duped (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> It's impossible to forget  the number of times MFS said over the phone that our funds were looked after by the custodian. Now we discover that the custodian was no more than a kind of despatch office sending out distribution slips and certificates etc. How could the word "custodian" be justified in those circumstances? If this was not the case, there should be a denial.
> 
> It was a farce and leads me to ask what exactly WC's custodian's obligations will be  in the new PIF.




Yep.  And Perpetual got paid $1.2M for those services in F06/07.  BS isn't it.  Who do you think pays those high rents in those ivory towers in the CBD's?  The likes of Perpetual; 123 Pitt St SYD and 360 Collins St MEL.  If Rudd/Swan and the RBA want to put pressure on someone to keep inflation down maybe they should start there.  What's the competition for 'custodian' services like? Maybe Perpetual could help out and rent some of the PIF funded office developments instead.


----------



## DoraNBoots (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> All I can say is if WC can't get 75% of the value vote with their media exposure, $750k to play with from OCV to pay staff, team of legals, literature to all unit holders, a national roadshow, website dedicated to PIF, privy to all the information of the financial positions of the fund AND the fact she is a young, clever merchant banker / lawyer..what the hell chance do any of us or any other possible RE that may be daft enough to enter the picture have??
> 
> GET REAL people, there is no other choice at present so get behind Wellington Capital, sure ask as many questions to have as much information, that is very important in the future transpareny stakes, but for now let's get the priorities..we need to keep this fund going to get a better return than what liquidation will offer us.
> 
> We can worry about the rest LATER, all in good time, but if you want NO liquidation NOW then please vote for WC to be our RE.




I think if the vote in August has an option to vote for WC with the only exit strategy being NSX or some other RE with another realistic exit strategy then people would vote the other RE.

I don’t think the July Investor forums impressed many people and if the other RE were a known entity that was clearly independent of CS and Octaviar I think they would come out a mile ahead of WC.

It’s fine for you to push support for WC but wouldn’t you like a backup plan if WC don’t get 75% in August?  I don’t know if it’s possible but I wouldn’t discourage anyone from trying.


----------



## Javier (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Like I said Dora if WC can't do it with all the $ and resources who will?

What back up plan can we realistically employ between now and the vote?

I am saying embrace the REALITY that WC IS the only alternative at the MOMENT..that is fact, the rest is emotional heresay!

We have to vote for WC and that is where all our energy must go to, cos I sure as hell don't want my savings to come to be liquidated at a possible outcome of 14c or less, NO FREAKING WAY!

After WC is voted we get to live another day and have the possibility to kick up as much stink as you want to keep the ba&%4tards honest. We have dodged a bullet and have bought the most prescious commodity in the world...<T-I-M-E> We have to understand that there is NOTHING else at present. 14 cents or WC..that's IT NOW!!!


----------



## DoraNBoots (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Like I said Dora if WC can't do it with all the $ and resources who will?
> 
> What back up plan can we realistically employ between now and the vote?
> 
> ...





There were 5 others invited to be RE.  I have no idea if they were interested or what their strategy would have been for the PIF.  I don’t necessarily believe OCV gave the PIF to WC  because they were the best of the 6 approached.  I think it had more to do with how the PIF as a major creditor of OCV would treat them.

The backup plan is to have another RE to vote for (with a different strategy) if WC don’t get the vote.  As I said it may not be possible to find another RE with a different strategy but worth a try.  For you to know there is no other alternative leads me to think you must have already approached people?

Not sure what you mean by putting our energy into getting WC their 75%.  I don’t think we can influence people to vote a particular way, it’s all going to come down to her strategy for the PIF which we still don’t know (or we are hoping we don’t know and that she is revising what she told us at the forums)


----------



## Duped (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



akernst said:


> If this does not happen, then I will not be voting for Welliington, and will be
> telling many other investors I know, to do the same.
> Lets manage this fund ourselves, which is not as hard as people make out.
> 
> And looks like Wellington is going the same road as MFS, in telling us nothing.




Agreed but after 2 1/2 months of this forum we haven't even managed to get a mission statement for an AG, let alone a constitution, board/committee and incorporated it.  These things are beyond my skills.


----------



## Duped (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Some very interesting information now coming on the WC site
> 
> including the Compliance Plan, Fund Overview (with investor summary information) and the Investment Allocation.
> 
> ...




Thanks SPLITPIN.  Have had a look but can't see where your getting the Compliance Plan info from.


----------



## Javier (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I do not agree how WC got the gig, of course she has emerged from her past dealings with Chris Scott..I mean who the hell was WC before this?? Just another operator in QLD, sure she is a friendly creditor to OCV..this blind Freddy can see, it is past history..nothing we can do about it for now.

We just have to accept this as the best of a bad deal. We have to have more time..WC is the only way, trust me there is noone else that will emerge between now and the vote, after that if WC aren't true to their word is a different story..for ANOTHER day. 

When I say 'put our energy', I mean just save it it for now..suck it up, a vote for WC is really a vote for PIF to not be liquidated, we will need our energy for AFTER that, cos folks that's when this AG will really shine. To ensure that WC are kept to their promise and strategy. To ensure that they work for US, and if they don't, that's when the guns will come out..we REALLY do have them, we just have to be a little patient and accept the reality of NOW.

There is a means to an end, but we have to do it in a sequence of events, it starts with the vote not to liquidate, and that for now means WC. Stick solid and have trust in some of the people behind the scenes that will never be seen in the media or be heard quoting dead presidents.


----------



## selciper (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Perpetual should offer a free mail-out by the AG to all investors before the vote. That's the least they can do to repair their image.


----------



## Rance (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> G.D.   you are forgetting that it is 6 cents - not 6%.
> 
> 6 cents return on say 45 cents - is over 13% return.  This would certainly be attractive to some investors on the ASX




Yes, any price up to 60 cents yielding 6 cents/per unit (10%) will be attractive and vultures like me are circling... 

Rance


----------



## DoraNBoots (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

What an intriguing post Javier!  (I hope that doesn’t sound sarcastic cause I’m genuine)  

I’ve been wondering why we are even being asked to vote.  Here are the options I was thinking:  
* Vote to remove RE?  No, that would require a 50% vote.
* Vote WC to be RE?  No,  they are already the RE.
* Vote to wind up the fund?  No that would require 75% of vote wanting to wind it up (as opposed to %25)
* Vote to change the constitution?  Yes, and I assume the RE considers the change will adversely effect the PIF members rights.  The Corp Act (and constitution) says that the constitution can be changed by the responsible entity if the responsible entity reasonably considers the change will not adversely affect members' rights. (Otherwise a special resolution is needed i.e. 75% vote)  I realise if the constitution isn’t changed to address the redepmtion issue the fund will need to be wound up early next year. ASIC said they didn't think listing on the NSX needed a vote of members and JH said the same thing to Breaker, saying it's a matter for the board to decide.  So why are we being asked to vote?  Is it to protect WC in case they are adversely affecting our rights?  Or is it just a courtesy?

Of course there could be other options and I would be interested to know them; this is just my inexperienced view on things.  Obviously I have trouble waiting for WCs info pack.


----------



## zixo (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> I do not agree how WC got the gig, of course she has emerged from her past dealings with Chris Scott..I mean who the hell was WC before this?? Just another operator in QLD, sure she is a friendly creditor to OCV..this blind Freddy can see, it is past history..nothing we can do about it for now.
> 
> We just have to accept this as the best of a bad deal. We have to have more time..WC is the only way, trust me there is noone else that will emerge between now and the vote, after that if WC aren't true to their word is a different story..for ANOTHER day.
> 
> ...




Javier,

I agree with what you've said. 
We are asked to trust people who have not shown their true worth.
Yet, Every asset that the PIF has owned has been selling at liquidated prices. The biggest insult is that JH has accepted a deal which is well below any liquidation price from the company that led us to the situation we are in now. It's the same Company she vowed to chase to the ends of the earth. 

We may not want to get liquidated but we sure as hell are getting liquidated values to match a liquidaters mindset. what is going on?


----------



## SPLITPIN (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Thanks SPLITPIN.  Have had a look but can't see where your getting the Compliance Plan info from.




Duped

Please look under Coporate Goverance.

Certainly a lively forum today.

Regards

Splitpin


----------



## Duped (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I’ve been wondering why we are even being asked to vote.




My understanding is: to amend the constitution to e.g. amend the redemption clauses etc. Such clauses affect members rights.  If these aren't amended the fund must be wound up after 360 days of the freeze.  My bet is we'll be voting on amendments to the constitution.


----------



## Javier (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Spot on Duped..it's all about the 360 days in the constitution. This vote is an amendment of that AND the fact that in my opinion OCV are still the RE per the constitution and WC is the manager for the RE being OCV via WC buying all the units for the management rights for the former MFSIM entities of which our PIF is one of those entities.


----------



## goldfinger38 (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



akernst said:


> Since the 31st July is the big date, which from then, our distributions should start being paid again. This I was told a few months back. As far I know I am under the current PDS, and I look forward to my distribution next month.
> 
> If this does not happen, then I will not be voting for Welliington, and will be
> telling many other investors I know, to do the same.
> ...




Sorry Akernst to be the bringer of bad news, but it has no meaning to be under current or previous PDS. ALL current unitholders are impacted equally based on the number of units they hold. Distributions wont commence until cash has built up in bank account once RBOS has been paid out in full as they need to hold a minmum of 5% in cash in bank and this hasnt happended lately as they have been paying anything going into the bank account to the RBOS loan.

Based on some of the information we have been receiving and from what was said at the forums, she hopes to recommence distributions in October with a further payment by December and Quarterly payments thereafter and given the news about the potential settlement of $50 million from OCV so we dont ask for more money JH will have the funds to payout any remaining debt to RBOS which I think was around $15 million and the remainder in a special distribution to ALL unitholders. And this only applies if she is allowed to continue with fund otherwise liquidation option proceeds.... with a payment by March 2009.utthedoor:


----------



## RickH (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*WELLINGTON ADVICE: Events coming up. *
DVD of the recent Investor Forums to be dispatched by post this week to all investors together with copy of announcement concerning Centrelink valuation and Q and A. 
Information packages along with proxy forms for dispatch to all investors (and wraps) mid-August. Unit holder meeting due 21 days later (early September). 

*If resolutions passed: 

First 1.5c distribution in October 2008 
Second 1.5c distribution due in December 2008. 
Special distribution before Christmas possible if legal action against Octaviar settled promptly. 
Thanks Rick.   
Kind regards 
Stephen Hart
National Manager - Adviser Services  |  Funds Management 
Premium Income Fund *

Yes. I sent an email to JH suggesting the drip feed loan option. I have been advised by Stephen Hart that it will be considered. I then requested the above an email update received at 5.15 pm today Monday 28/07/2008.

Let JH and WC get on with the job and then we can monitor her all the way.
75% vote for JH must succeed. RickH:couch:


----------



## Bumblebee (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Whatever happened to the Shades of Grey*

It appears that we are falling for the old ‘it’s all black or its all white’ scenario. And it’s not surprising because this is exactly how Wellington Capital is presenting.

JH is saying come with me and let me manage the PIF back to its former glory days, pay you dividends and get your unit value back (all white). The only other option is (if you don’t vote for me) Liquidation @ 15 cents (All black).

Like some other forum members I don’t like being dictated to or bullied either. And I find it hard to embrace that JH has the investors interests at heart when she fails to mention all the ‘in-between’ (grey) possibilities.

For example, an *orderly wind up *of the PIF. This would see the fund go under an administrator who, over time, perhaps 2 to 3 years would realise the investments and in a timely way sell assets returning the capital back to investors. This is not a fire sale process.

It would mean that as borrowers paid capital back into the PIF the money would be returned to us and not reinvested, (nothing lost here). It would mean that tangible assets would be sold in a timely way when the market meets fair price and this could be some years down the track. These monies also would be returned to us investors and not relent.

I have recently seen this happen with another of my investment funds Lehman Brothers High Income Fund just a couple of months ago. The RE closed their Australian office and the decision was made to pay an administrator to wind the fund up in an *orderly way*. Already 5 cents has been returned as capital (no tax) and the unit price has decreased by the same amount 5 cents. It is anticipated that full value of the units will eventually be returned (2 to 3 years) until the unit value reaches zero and the fund ceases to be.

I am still very much concerned that JH is too close to Scott and OCV. She has not demonstrated that she is an aggressive creditor of OCV and this is what the PIF needs to get the very best deal for us, now re Stella etc. and down the track re further court cases etc...

So, yes, I am leaning towards a ‘grey’ option. Best value return for what is left of our fund. *Not a fire sale liquidation*. but An *orderly wind up *and we can get on and utilise our money in our way not being tied to WC and have them reinvesting our money in ways they haven’t even alluded to as yet.


----------



## Duped (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Some very interesting information now coming on the WC site
> 
> http://www.newpif.com.au/investorforumjuly.html
> 
> including the Compliance Plan, Fund Overview (with investor summary information) and the Investment Allocation. ...




Good find.

Last para of page 8 "All breaches required to be reported to ASIC in accordance with section 912D and section 601FC(1XI) of the Corporations Act. ..."
So if the current breaches weren't reported to ASIC (or even reportable) and ASIC don't prosecute the individuals responsible then this whole document is a joke.  A waste of Australian resources.  64 pages of fluff.

Page 13 - all signatures are Michael King. What a joke!  Hints towards the truth doesn't it Ladies and Gentlemen.  PIF was King's piggy bank.

My favourite is the last page (page 60): 
Operating Procedure 35.
Function: To ensure that scheme assets are invested in Authorised Investments in accordance with the Disclosure Document and the Constitution.
Risks: Investment portfolio differs from the Disclosure Document providing *a different risk profile to that which Members expect.* Investments are not made in accordanrce with the Constitution. Investments are not in the *best interests of members*.

And handing over $180M+ to the parent company in return for unsecured 'investments' was EVER going to satisfy this????  If so then no wonder there's a skills shortage in this country with so much of our human capital tied up with BS documents and processes like this.  What a collosal waste of resources!!!

Don't you just love how this operating procedure was put LAST.


----------



## RickH (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> If you can get any invester to buy he units for 45cents  i will walk bare footed over brocken glass from Brisbane to Sydney  Ask your self would you buy them for 45 cents  If the answer is yes tou can have all mine today ////






great dame said:


> John  i buy & sell shares for a living  The bid i would put in to buy these units would be about 15 cents   But dont take my word for it just you wait & see  when they are listed on the NSX /////////




Hi Great Dame,
Being a financial planner I will give you some free *general financial advice *because I do not know your true personal financial position. I am personally recommending to my clients that they should vote for JH and take a longer term view and I give you the same advice.
As an investor myself, I am happy to hear that you are a share trader because as an investor I usually base my investments on Technical Analysis/Share Price Charts supported by reasonable fundamentals.
I note that you would walk over broken glass for 45 cents and that you would place a bid for 15 cents to buy these units on the NSX.
AS an investor I will offer you 30 cents for each of your $1.00 units in PIF on the following two conditions:
1) JH achieves her 75% vote to be the RE and list on the NSX.
2) You will receive the full 30 cent payment per $1.00 unit within 30 days of the positive vote or as soon as off market transaction can be completed after the 30 days.
If you are a great trader you will be able to recover your money on the share market within a reasonable time.
We can organise the solicitors to draft the sales contract.
Please consider, this a genuine offer.
Thank you.,
RickH:couch:


----------



## DoraNBoots (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I like Bumblebee's post!  I keep hearing the “come with me” quote in my head and wonder why it has to be about JH.  If the emphasis was more on the fact that the constitution needs to be changed in order for the fund not to be liquidated by March 08 then perhaps there would be more votes in favour in Sep.  Another quote was “vote for WC and our strategy or liquidate”.  I’m sure WC are already RE as they just took on OCV IM and renamed it so surely the only change (that adversely effects us) is the change in redemptions and that doesn’t have to be about JH and WC.  

Does anyone know how the option of an orderly wind up as Bumblebee mentions could be voted on?  Would this automatically be an option if the Sep vote doesn’t get 75%?  (Don’t freak out Javier!)  I'm thinking a vote would be needed so that the wind up didn't need to happen before March 09.

Rick, you should change your marketing strategy and say something like vote to save the PIF rather than placing emphasis on JH.


----------



## Rance (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Let JH and WC get on with the job and then we can monitor her all the way.
> 75% vote for JH must succeed. RickH:couch:




Agree with you RickH...  Most of the chat on this forum is just piffle and waffle... with blame for what happened referred to wrong party ie: JH/WC... I'm a 74 year old in need of cash and JH's distribution and going forward plans are ok with me.

Rance :iagree:


----------



## RickH (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I like Bumblebee's post!  I keep hearing the “come with me” quote in my head and wonder why it has to be about JH.........
> Rick, you should change your marketing strategy and say something like vote to save the PIF rather than placing emphasis on JH.



Hi DoraNBoots,
I have been reading these listings and I believe that most of what is being discussed is based on emotion and not financial logic.
JH appears to the best qualified quality option that we have to act as the RE.
We should let her get on with the job. JH has stated her goals. Let her go for it. We can get our revenge later.
*Now we need to only consider the 75% vote.*
RickH:couch:


----------



## flatback (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Nice Work Javier.
> Have just voted.
> 
> Quick Q: does the service allow us to weight our votes according to our holdings?
> ...



Duped im starting to wonder if somebody said something was black it appears you would say its white just to be different, tell me this, is  82% more than 75% and on top of that why would somebody who has thought very long and hard about their vote (change it) only somebody like you would change your vote on a whim dont bundle everybody along with yourself,i dont consider 82%/75% to be close, i consider it to be a shoe in .flatback


----------



## Javier (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

That may be an option, but then there will be no distributions, and people like me and Rance (and I am sure many, many more) need money that has not come to us since the end of January. At least we know with WC the cash will start coming to us by end of October and then again a nice payment just before Chrissy..and that's all good for now. We then see how WC go. Not a bad deal..could be a LOT worse.

We can't keep complaining about the cards we have been dealt (that will be for another day), we have to play the hand the best we can to have a chance at the pot.


----------



## flatback (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> I have tried many scenarios, trust me you can only vote ONCE per one computer, so happy voting!
> 
> Here's the link:
> 
> ...



thanks javier! great concept we now have a tool to gauge our honest voting, and cant be got at by those who dont believe we have a great product to sell through WC ,using the great knowledge that JH obviously has.Flatback


----------



## Rance (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> We can't keep complaining about the cards we have been dealt (that will be for another day), we have to play the hand the best we can to have a chance at the pot.




Eloquently said Javier 

Rance


----------



## SPLITPIN (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Great Dame,
> Being a financial planner I will give you some free *general financial advice *because I do not know your true personal financial position. I am personally recommending to my clients that they should vote for JH and take a longer term view and I give you the same advice.
> 
> ........
> ...




Rick 

As a financial planner could you please explain how you insure yourself against a class action by your clients in this debacle.

I would think great dame (as now maybe one of your clients) may seriously consider your proposal. 

Splitpin


----------



## Rocky1 (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I like Bumblebee's post!
> 
> Does anyone know how the option of an orderly wind up as Bumblebee mentions could be voted on?  Would this automatically be an option if the Sep vote doesn’t get 75%?  (Don’t freak out Javier!)  I'm thinking a vote would be needed so that the wind up didn't need to happen before March 09.




As the PIF currently stands our units are worth 45 cents. If there is an orderly wind up over 3 years how much do you think you might get?. Lets be generous and say 60 cents.

Now consider this

If you have 100,000 units you will receive $3000 by Christmas, $6000 next year and the year after and by the time 3 years is up maybe $3000 more. That is a total of $18000 (or 18 cents), some of which will be tax free for reasons already explained on this forum. JH has also promised that any money paid by OCV related to the Support Facility will be given to investors as a special distribution 

The distribution over 3 years of administration ???????, very little I am guessing, if anything

If JH can get our support I am sure she will be able to have our units worth ATLEAST 60 cents in 3 years time, partly through the realisation of true capital value alone. So in 3 years time your units would be worth the same plus you have made $18,000 along the way + extra if the special distribution is paid. 

I know the NSX is an issue for some, but it is a vehicle for those who need some cash NOW. Trust me there will be people out there doing the same math as that above who will buy units in the PIF, there has been an offer on this forum already.

Please people, think logically and do the math. I know people are angry and frustrated, but JH/WC is the right way to go and as some people have pointed out if we are not happy in time we have the power to do something about it (the AG has enough members alone and we now have a connection through this forum), just as we have the power now to vote for JH. I don't believe the liquidation figures for a minute, but the result of liquidation would not even compare to keeping the PIF alive through WC.


----------



## selciper (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well, Rocky1 I hope that WC set out their maths in the clear manner you have done. It's quite likely that thousands of PIF investors haven't done their own calculations. A simple leaflet would be enough to help many understand the folly of liquidating. The circumstances of our PIF crash are different, but look at the Australian banks today! I heard a broadcast quoting that a couple of them are 40% down from their highs.


----------



## SPLITPIN (28 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi DoraNBoots,
> I have been reading these listings and I believe that most of what is being discussed is based on emotion and not financial logic.
> JH appears to the best qualified quality option that we have to act as the RE.
> We should let her get on with the job. JH has stated her goals. Let her go for it. We can get our revenge later.
> ...




Rick

As per my previous comments, I think you may be more worried about a class action later on.

There is nothing wrong with DoraNBoots comments and they do not appear to be based upon emotion, just a searching for the facts.

Revenge is a serious word, and nobody on this forum is suggesting anything like that.

If we vote for JH we go "boots (DoraN??) and all".

So be it.

Splitpin


----------



## great dame (29 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Bumblebee said:


> *Whatever happened to the Shades of Grey*
> 
> It appears that we are falling for the old ‘it’s all black or its all white’ scenario. And it’s not surprising because this is exactly how Wellington Capital is presenting.
> 
> ...



            Your my kind of person  Bumblebee I agree with you al the way   I am on your side  What your saying is realy the only way /////////


----------



## great dame (29 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I like Bumblebee's post!  I keep hearing the “come with me” quote in my head and wonder why it has to be about JH.  If the emphasis was more on the fact that the constitution needs to be changed in order for the fund not to be liquidated by March 08 then perhaps there would be more votes in favour in Sep.  Another quote was “vote for WC and our strategy or liquidate”.  I’m sure WC are already RE as they just took on OCV IM and renamed it so surely the only change (that adversely effects us) is the change in redemptions and that doesn’t have to be about JH and WC.
> 
> Does anyone know how the option of an orderly wind up as Bumblebee mentions could be voted on?  Would this automatically be an option if the Sep vote doesn’t get 75%?  (Don’t freak out Javier!)  I'm thinking a vote would be needed so that the wind up didn't need to happen before March 09.
> 
> Rick, you should change your marketing strategy and say something like vote to save the PIF rather than placing emphasis on JH.



     I am all the way with you too Dora  I love reading your Posts //////


----------



## akernst (29 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I agree with an orderly windup of PIF.

After seeing JH at the courts last week, in defence of Octaviar, I can see she
is in with Octaviar management.

How can we have this orderly windup happen. Should we contact ASIC on how this can be achieved.

I will be posting this reply everyday from now on.


----------



## DoraNBoots (29 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Boots has banned me from posting today so this is it from me...

It seems it worries people to talk about other alternatives, I’m assuming because they think it might influence people not to vote for the Sept changes.   I just want to know what our options are if the Sept changes don’t go ahead.  There are probably only 200 investors reading this forum so we can’t assume we know the vote will be in favour of the changes.  For those that are annoyed by this type of post, just look away 

I have no experience with liquidations or orderly wind ups so would like more information on these.  Here’s my clueless comparison of having an RE compared to appointing an administrator.


Admin would cost a lost more than an RE (I think I’ve heard Admin $30mil, RE.7%)
RE would reinvest our money however they choose, Admin would distribute capital to investors as it is realised.
Both would distribute any money received from the support facility.
Both would distribute any income (money coming in after expenses are paid)
With an admin we would be out of the fund within about 3 to 5 years depending on the term of investments.  With an RE will are in until we decide to sell our units either on the NSX or some other way if allowed.

I don’t see why there would be any less distributions if an administrator took control except that there would be more costs involved and therefore less ‘income’ distributions.  I would think there would be more distributions (or bigger ones) due to the fact that all capital is coming back to us as it is realised.  I know people like the distributions JH is promising and I don’t see why these wouldn’t be possible under an administrator.

If anyone is still reading and knows about this type of thing I would be interested in your comments.  Please state if you are just guessing like me or if you have real experience in this type of thing.


----------



## Duped (29 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> Duped im starting to wonder if somebody said something was black it appears you would say its white just to be different, tell me this, is  82% more than 75% and on top of that why would somebody who has thought very long and hard about their vote (change it) only somebody like you would change your vote on a whim dont bundle everybody along with yourself,i dont consider 82%/75% to be close, i consider it to be a shoe in .flatback




Have looked back through my posts and see your point.  In general I would say I've been consistently critical of the previous MFSIM regime and current MFS/OCV Ltd.  But in general, not without exception, I've been supportive of WC in the absence of a better option.  Harsh and demanding yes, but I don't want to become friends with WC, I'm looking at doing business with them. 

I understand your assessment that the detail of my postings here may not be in my interests.  Point taken. Tell me: are you still of the opinion that "WE MUST STOP NSX".

82%-75% represents a spread of 7%.  My posting re the poll not being a shoe-in was intended to encourage yes votes. Seems it wasn't received this way. I assumed there's a risk that if the take home message was that WC was a shoe-in, some unit holders might not feel so much pressure to vote Yes or worse, feel more comfortable lodging a protest vote in a pointless effort to send a message to WC that they only just got through. That's a risk I'm not prepared to take - so I posted. But I'm not a pollster so I stand corrected by you.


----------



## great dame (29 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Boots has banned me from posting today so this is it from me...
> 
> It seems it worries people to talk about other alternatives, I’m assuming because they think it might influence people not to vote for the Sept changes.   I just want to know what our options are if the Sept changes don’t go ahead.  There are probably only 200 investors reading this forum so we can’t assume we know the vote will be in favour of the changes.  For those that are annoyed by this type of post, just look away
> 
> ...



            Dora the only think i can add is I dont believe the31Mill JH Quoted to wind up the fund that would be the highley inflated price  i would knock about 11 or 12 mill off that price  //////////////


----------



## SPLITPIN (29 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Boots has banned me from posting today so this is it from me...
> .........
> I have no experience with liquidations or orderly wind ups so would like more information on these.  Here’s my clueless comparison of having an RE compared to appointing an administrator.
> ......
> If anyone is still reading and knows about this type of thing I would be interested in your comments.  Please state if you are just guessing like me or if you have real experience in this type of thing.




DoraNBoots

This may give us clue as the correct proceedure the RE must use and our method of response.

_601NC  Winding up if scheme’s purpose accomplished or cannot be accomplished
	(1)	If the responsible entity of a registered scheme considers that the purpose of the scheme:
	(a)	has been accomplished; or
	(b)	cannot be accomplished;
it may, in accordance with this section, take steps to wind up the scheme.
	(2)	The responsible entity must give to the members of the scheme and to ASIC a notice in writing:
	(a)	explaining the proposal to wind up the scheme, including explaining how the scheme’s purpose has been accomplished or why that purpose cannot be accomplished; and
	(b)	informing the members of their rights to take action under Division 1 of Part 2G.4 for the calling of a members’ meeting to consider the proposed winding up of the scheme and to vote on any extraordinary resolution members propose about the winding up of the scheme; and
	(c)	informing the members that the responsible entity is permitted to wind up the scheme unless a meeting is called to consider the proposed winding up of the scheme within 28 days of the responsible entity giving the notice to the members.
	(3)	If no meeting is called within that 28 days to consider the proposed winding up, the responsible entity may wind up the scheme._


This is what we must consider if 75 % is not achieved and we wish for the fund to continue etc.

It appears WC is trying to say using the words "liquidate" that as "RE" WC are not interested in an orderly wind up and intend to use professional liquidators.

This appears to be a real sticking point to many and may not be helping the WC cause.

I would assume WC by now, would have read between the lines and trust that the members meeting package would redefine this prickly item.

Also I received in the mail yesterday the WC meeting July handout update.

This means that only now have all members been finally notified of the WC forum details and intentions. 

Regards

Splitpin


----------



## great dame (29 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> *Thank you Great Doom... your offer is welcomed... it seems there will be buyers and sellers after all! Bring on the Sept meeting... our destiny awaits...
> 
> Rance
> 
> ...



     I have changed my mind Rance  the sale is off  anyway My sparring friend has been talking to me & he said everything will be OK going forward  I think he knows something we dont know  Cant wait to the Sept meeting  now /////////


----------



## Javier (29 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just spoke to a very friendly and switched on rep from the WC call centre. Turns out they are briefed everyday on developments. Seems the media love twisting and getting wrong what JH says. Here are some facts:

*All creditors are considering the OCV offer to them.

*JH has not accepted any offer from OCV and is trying to get as much value for PIF including possible upside of future Stella business.

*Irrespective of any offer accepted our action against directors of OCV will go ahead in respect to the $147.5m

*There will be literature sent to all PIF unitholders in the first week in August that will give us possible further redemption alternatives along with NSX and will ask for opinion / comment.

*They have taken 1200 calls since the hotline, and they believe 90% of those they have spoken to want PIF to continue as a going concern.

*The person I spoke with said she spoke to an 80 y.o s/f retiree and even they don't want the fund liquidated and are willing to hang on, even if they can get only 45c via NSX, better than 12c.

*The only real interest in a quick liquidation are unfortunate investors who have died since last year and the estates of those people are pushing, luckily this is only a very small percentage of the units in the fund

Anyway, the person I spoke with was very willing to answer all my questions, but don't just take my word, give them a call, leave a message and they will call you within a few hours..pretty damned good considering the sheer volume of calls they are getting!


----------



## Jadel (29 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have just been going over some of the old posts on this forum and i have dug out a few  which i have taken the liberty of reposting below 

 We are accepting everything regarding, liquidation the current  NTA value of our units , the  absolute need for a NSX  listing on one source only , Jenny Hutson and Wellington Capital witout any form of verification or confirmation.

 I think the  last lot of people who did that were the Germans under Adolf Hitler and we all know the consequences of that decision.

 How times have changed 

 Regards Chris 




  The primary issue in my mind is establishing the true value of the Funds assets then we can proceed from that point 

Brother in law in valuation buisness tells me the usual policy is slash and burn the loan book , then any upside makes you look good 

Getting a transparent , independent valuation for investors , will give us a much better idea of where we stand ,at far less cost, than her her travelling road show ,video clips and shiny brochures , 




Jadel 
View Public Profile 
Send a private message to Jadel 
Send email to Jadel 
Find all posts by Jadel 
Add Jadel to Your Buddy List 



 8th-July-2008, 03:42 PM    #784  
flatback 


Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 23   Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

exactly! why can't we ,the group ,form a corporation become totally conversent with the where withall of the funds held and owing, this process i dont believe would be as dornting as it appears,as there are people out there who are professional in these areas,clean the sheets start afresh with our money with an honest fund manager and surely senior unit holders can oversee the honest distributions to all members.I don't believe this is impossible, at least we the members will be in control of our destiny, not somebody who has past connections with the group. I might add that the need to address our constitution in its present form is of paramount importance i quote ( MFS may vary the Constitution if the variation does not effect investors rights and goes on to say if it does effect the members it will have to be approved at a meeting of unit holders to the tune of 75%) well we know that didnt happen dont we.I believe that NO changes should be made to CONSTITUTIONS without a common majority vote by at least a postal reply, any MAJOR decisions must have at least a postal vote of 75% .maybe the fund could be called UNITED ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED (PIF)( ps with our money we are a very strong group.cheers have a good day


----------



## flatback (29 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Have looked back through my posts and see your point.  In general I would say I've been consistently critical of the previous MFSIM regime and current MFS/OCV Ltd.  But in general, not without exception, I've been supportive of WC in the absence of a better option.  Harsh and demanding yes, but I don't want to become friends with WC, I'm looking at doing business with them.
> 
> I understand your assessment that the detail of my postings here may not be in my interests.  Point taken. Tell me: are you still of the opinion that "WE MUST STOP NSX".
> 
> 82%-75% represents a spread of 7%.  My posting re the poll not being a shoe-in was intended to encourage yes votes. Seems it wasn't received this way. I assumed there's a risk that if the take home message was that WC was a shoe-in, some unit holders might not feel so much pressure to vote Yes or worse, feel more comfortable lodging a protest vote in a pointless effort to send a message to WC that they only just got through. That's a risk I'm not prepared to take - so I posted. But I'm not a pollster so I stand corrected by you.



Duped i weighed up the pros and cons early in the piece,i am still of the opinion that NSX should be stopped,we have not been told anything to the contrary from JH, i will not change my view on this subject,we must have another avenue to sell our units at a later date,JH in my view must indicate to us that she has an alternative to NSX down the track, only when she can will i change my stance,i dont believe she will disclose anything at this stage for the reasons i have said in my previous postings. duped i didnt mean to go so hard on you in regard to the voting, i misread your intention, except my apology.cheers Flatback


----------



## flatback (29 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I think if the vote in August has an option to vote for WC with the only exit strategy being NSX or some other RE with another realistic exit strategy then people would vote the other RE.
> 
> I don’t think the July Investor forums impressed many people and if the other RE were a known entity that was clearly independent of CS and Octaviar I think they would come out a mile ahead of WC.
> 
> It’s fine for you to push support for WC but wouldn’t you like a backup plan if WC don’t get 75% in August?  I don’t know if it’s possible but I wouldn’t discourage anyone from trying.



Thats a big call dora boots ,that these unknown faces would come out ahead of WC,you may remember that in an earlier post from me that i had proposed that we form our group into an incorporated association,nobody took up on it ,i do remember somebody said in the forum space that if we did that, it would be like a chook raffle group,i didnt respond at the time because it was placed by somebody that i thought was unable to grasp the severity of our problem,or the fact that the same laws which apply to chook raffle groups apply to big business,tax  abns etc etc but because of the time which is now involved with meetings and whatever this avenue is out of the question cheers Flatback


----------



## flatback (29 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> My understanding is: to amend the constitution to e.g. amend the redemption clauses etc. Such clauses affect members rights.  If these aren't amended the fund must be wound up after 360 days of the freeze.  My bet is we'll be voting on amendments to the constitution.



Duped this has been a problem which i have had a bit of difficulty getting my head around, from all that i have heard on these forums, i quite strongly stated in an earlier forum of mine that we were duded in regard to the constitution which was in place with MFS earlier and then OCT i do not believe that we as the unit holders in this mess were ever given the opportunity to vote on any of these issues that have created this mess,and because of that fact i believe that these people will have a hard time to convince the courts that they are innocent of any wrong doing,you cannot play around with constitutions willy nilly,after all of that YES the main issues here are to rectify any anomalies (in the constitution) which have to be repaired before we continue.


----------



## Dexter (29 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

For want of a better alternative I am a believer in JH.

For the non believers who think liquidation is the best way out I may be able to assist.

We are told liquidation will return approximately 14c/unit by March next year.  For the next 14 days I am offering 20c/unit payable on completion of transfer forms.  I have arranged for the transfer of units to be executed by Perpetual *free of charge.They are posting tranfer forms to me today.

I am an existing unit holder in PIF.

Please contact Ian on 02 6629 6092 or 0418 724 661.*


----------



## Jadel (29 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks but no thanks Dexter

 We all realise that JH is telling us a huge Pork Pie regarding the value of the units at liquidation of 14cents which is ridiculous.

   And this offer confirms you must also have worked that out.?

   I would prefer to take my chances with an Administrator if it comes to the crunch.


----------



## Javier (29 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

WC confirmed with me today that PWC was in a separate room in their office still auditing the PIF..and they still were not close to completion!

What the hell did those MFS bas.tard.s do with our money for it to be soooo complex?????


----------



## great dame (30 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> Duped i weighed up the pros and cons early in the piece,i am still of the opinion that NSX should be stopped,we have not been told anything to the contrary from JH, i will not change my view on this subject,we must have another avenue to sell our units at a later date,JH in my view must indicate to us that she has an alternative to NSX down the track, only when she can will i change my stance,i dont believe she will disclose anything at this stage for the reasons i have said in my previous postings. duped i didnt mean to go so hard on you in regard to the voting, i misread your intention, except my apology.cheers Flatback



        Flatback there is an alternative to the NSX  its the ASX   If if has to be lited the ASX is the only way believe me /////////


----------



## SPLITPIN (30 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> WC confirmed with me today that PWC was in a separate room in their office still auditing the PIF..and they still were not close to completion!
> 
> What the hell did those MFS bas.tard.s do with our money for it to be soooo complex?????




Javier

The term I believe is called "financial engineering".

In other words you have to be a forensic expert to even think about how it was designed to deceive, hide away, etc. etc.

They certainly did a number on us.

It will unwind and all will be reveiled "slowly but surely", one way or the other. 

Rest assured.

Splitpin


----------



## sugar3157 (30 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Javier
> 
> The term I believe is called "financial engineering".
> 
> ...




Hi all..does this mean that we will eventually get all our money back...and will the directors etc be made to pay out of their personal accounts and hopefully go to jail?.....


----------



## Jadel (30 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Unfortunately Sugar

We will not get all our money back 

A good portion of it is feeding the ponies at Elysium Fields 

You  do need to rob a bank these days .

 Just become a Fund manager  and rip of naive pensioners and retirees

 Directors rarely to to jail in these circumstances and if they do its not for very long


----------



## RickH (30 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Hi all..does this mean that we will eventually get all our money back...and will the directors etc be made to pay out of their personal accounts and hopefully go to jail?.....




That should be the goal.

The first hurdle is the 75% vote for JH.

Regards,
RickH:couch:


----------



## JohnH (30 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Unfortunately Sugar
> 
> We will not get all our money back
> 
> ...




Hardly...ELYSIUM (ELYSIAN FIELDS)A beautiful meadow where the blameless dead spend a bliss-filled eternity


----------



## selciper (30 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This is a key sentence from yesterday's Sydney. Morning Herald story about a very recent alleged internet scam: "ASIC does not say whether it is investigating a company unless it has taken action." Patience will be our virtue!


----------



## Rance (30 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Hardly...ELYSIUM (ELYSIAN FIELDS)A beautiful meadow where the blameless dead spend a bliss-filled eternity




Not so, JohnH!

In our case, Elysian Fields is the Polo Club and grounds, 15 minutes from the Gold Coast bought/built/improved and privately owned by our beloved Michael King, the founder of MFS who sucked millions out of MFS to make the grass at Elysian Fields even greener than they were and left us for Dubai (where he had a swish wedding) and England (to play polo with Charlie and Co.) and left us with the mess we are now in. You will recall Peacock sacked him in January when MFS shares went into free fall and distributions to unit holders were suspended because of King's debt's and dealings with MFS money. I don't think we know where he is now... but it ain't Australia!!!

Rance


----------



## JohnH (30 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yes I Know Rance, but you must appreciate the irony of the definition!!


----------



## Rance (30 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Yes I Know Rance, but you must appreciate the irony of the definition!!




Yes i did John and i thank you... just thought i'd remind others where most of the blame lies, because Paul Manka and Chris Scott (who are working to stop Octaviar (MFS) going down the gurgle) seem to be copping a lot of undeserved flack for the debacle... they weren't on the MFS board in January! Scott accepted MFS shares for the sale of his Leisure company to MFS... that made him the major shareholder but i feel he'd wished he taken cash in view of what subsequently happened...

Ah, if only we could turn back the hands of time...

Rance


----------



## breaker1 (30 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Unfortunately Sugar
> 
> We will not get all our money back
> 
> ...




Your on to something now Jadel - our monies are tied up in Michael Kings old polo ponies and PWC can't work out whether they should go to stud for 45c or the glue factory for 14c!


----------



## Duped (30 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> Yes i did John and i thank you... just thought i'd remind others where most of the blame lies, because Paul Manka and Chris Scott (who are working to stop Octaviar (MFS) going down the gurgle) seem to be copping a lot of undeserved flack for the debacle... they weren't on the MFS board in January! Scott accepted MFS shares for the sale of his Leisure company to MFS... that made him the major shareholder but i feel he'd wished he taken cash in view of what subsequently happened...
> 
> Ah, if only we could turn back the hands of time...
> 
> Rance




Until someone provides evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe that OCV/MFS Ltd paid 'dividends' to shareholders out of an ever increasing size of debt/obligations. Blame must also go to all shareholders who saw $$$ and kept holding or accumulating shares and pushing the share price up without a realistic look at the financials. And that includes CS.

IMO OCVs collapse has got nothing to do with the current 'credit crunch'. It was always going to happen just like it has happened a dozen times to companies over the last decades. (See wikipedia entries for e.g. Quintex, Bond Corp, Pyramid Building Society etc  MFS is just another such story.) This credit crunch was just the trigger.

Prove me wrong.  My financial advisor can't. Where are the obligation free 'earnings' that backed the OCV Ltd 'dividends'? When someone does, I will stand corrected. "Independent valuations" of the assets are all good and fine but what about the PE ratio, the 'show me the money' ratio? Where is the obligation free return on capital for each of the 'assets'?

Of course, none of this helps PIF now.

Cheers.


----------



## BABIHUTAN (30 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We,the home minister & I are long time PIF Investors and for many years hv rolled over n paid tax on those distributions that we may never see, not to mention significant Capital losses tt appear inevitable. 
I hv been following this forum off n on fm day 1 but don't recall seeing what if anything the regulatory Authorities hv done or not done to protect Investor interests against what would appear to be very very questionable practices, not acceptable in many other jurisdictions. Have Passports of responsible Company Officers been surrendered and personal assets frozen pending their responding satisfactorily to questions put to them by such Authorities?


----------



## DoraNBoots (30 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Challenger was taking OCV to the NSW Supreme Court to liquidate on July 21.  Does anyone know what happened to that?  I read last Friday they were in the QLD court for the PTQ case and that they decided to back off when the trustee was replaced but what happend on the 21st?

On another topic I’ve attached an old article.  Does anyone know anything about the companies mentioned in this article?
Extract from the attached article...
_"TEETERING Gold Coast financier Octaviar has moved to shut down a clutch of subsidiaries and transferred others to a new mystery owner."_


----------



## flatback (30 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Challenger was taking OCV to the NSW Supreme Court to liquidate on July 21.  Does anyone know what happened to that?  I read last Friday they were in the QLD court for the PTQ case and that they decided to back off when the trustee was replaced but what happend on the 21st?
> 
> On another topic I’ve attached an old article.  Does anyone know anything about the companies mentioned in this article?
> Extract from the attached article...
> _"TEETERING Gold Coast financier Octaviar has moved to shut down a clutch of subsidiaries and transferred others to a new mystery owner."_



Doranboots where do you keep getting these wonderfully informative snippets of information, i applaud you for the research and results, which you make available to all on this forum, its this kind of information which does indeed show the depth of ineguity which is surrounding the problem we face cheers Flatback


----------



## DoraNBoots (30 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This extract is from the OCV announcement on the ASX web site on the 24th June 2008. (http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20080624/pdf/319spkwhmfbqy3.pdf) I've underlined the bit of interest.  Was this claim known in Dec 07?  Anyone got the financial statements mentioned?


----------



## k.smith (30 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Challenger was taking OCV to the NSW Supreme Court to liquidate on July 21.  Does anyone know what happened to that?  I read last Friday they were in the QLD court for the PTQ case and that they decided to back off when the trustee was replaced but what happend on the 21st?
> 
> On another topic I’ve attached an old article.  Does anyone know anything about the companies mentioned in this article?
> Extract from the attached article...
> _"TEETERING Gold Coast financier Octaviar has moved to shut down a clutch of subsidiaries and transferred others to a new mystery owner."_




DoraNBoots....we have just looked up the companies mentioned in this article on the Asic Free Company Name Search, and there are so many companies and so much paperwork presented it is no wonder that PWC is STILL working on the books......a lot of these companies were set up less than a year ago, would anyone have any ideas why?


----------



## flatback (30 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> DoraNBoots....we have just looked up the companies mentioned in this article on the Asic Free Company Name Search, and there are so many companies and so much paperwork presented it is no wonder that PWC is STILL working on the books......a lot of these companies were set up less than a year ago, would anyone have any ideas why?



K smith it will never ever cease to amaze me that our great financial

institution ASX , and our governments whatever Labour or liberal etc,etc,etc  allow a company with supposedly good credentials MFS,OCT to be allowed to creat bogus $ 1 companies to suck the life out of the parent company, because to the majority of us people on the street this is why these companies are created ($1 companies)why cant the powers that be, stop this criminal activity,surely there is no other reason these companies are created?????????? and i dont just bundle our predicament into this ,this is a nation wide practise, i will tell you something now, I WILL NEVER EVER AGAIN INVEST IN A FUND that comes out of the gold coast,probably anywhere for that matter, my next avenue will be shares, something i can only blame myself for if i  make a bad judgement. cheers Flatback


----------



## BootsnAll (30 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Dexter said:


> For the non believers who think liquidation is the best way out I may be able to assist.
> 
> We are told liquidation will return approximately 14c/unit by March next year.  For the next 14 days I am offering 20c/unit payable on completion of transfer forms.  I have arranged for the transfer of units to be executed by Perpetual *free of charge.They are posting tranfer forms to me today.
> 
> ...




 Dexter
    I think your idea of selling shares to existing PIF holders is good. I suggested this to one of WC staff at the GC forum. 

Sometime ago I  was interested in buying units in an unlisted trust. The company gave me the name and details of  someone wanting to sell. For anyone needing immediate access to their money this would be a simple way of doing it. It would be up to the parties to negotiate a price.  Perhaps WC  or Perpetual  could keep a list those wanting to sell.  As for winding up the fund I doubt if this would be finalized by March. From past experience this process seems to take years.
  BTW has anyone looked at LLA trades on ASX? Pretty depressing!


----------



## iamspeed (30 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I've underlined the bit of interest.  Was this claim known in Dec 07?  Anyone got the financial statements mentioned?




Dora

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20080428/pdf/318scvzmpdsh76.pdf

See ASX announcement 28/4/08. I couldn't find any mention of the claim?

I don't believe it was known as at Dec 07.  When a company releases a set of accounts for a 6 month period (usually a couple of months after the period ends) they are required to make disclosures of material events that may have occured after the books were rulled off for that end of 6 month period.  That make sense?


----------



## gazzan57 (30 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



iamspeed said:


> Dora
> 
> http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20080428/pdf/318scvzmpdsh76.pdf
> 
> ...




Hi all, I was just wondering if it was possible to access OCV ,MFS or PIF accounts or in-house memo's from June '07 to date?


----------



## DoraNBoots (31 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



iamspeed said:


> Dora
> 
> http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20080428/pdf/318scvzmpdsh76.pdf
> 
> ...




Thanks for the link Iamspeed!  For those that haven't looked at the link it's Octaviar's Interim Financial Report for the half year ended 31 Dec 07.  I think the screenshot below with my underline is what the 24 June 08 announcement was referring to.


----------



## sugar3157 (31 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Thanks for the link Iamspeed!  For those that haven't looked at the link it's Octaviar's Interim Financial Report for the half year ended 31 Dec 07.  I think the screenshot below with my underline is what the 24 June 08 announcement was referring to.




Hi all, I just can't understand why we can,t sue either our financial advisers or our investment company for negligence...? Isn't that what we pay them for to watch for things like this and get our money out in time?....I feel so sick and frustrated over this I can't sleep....I someone's head!!!!!


----------



## Jadel (31 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sugar

   You can definately sue your financial Advisor if you  paid  for advice to enter the Fund especially if it was after November 2007


----------



## simgrund (31 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Agreed but after 2 1/2 months of this forum we haven't even managed to get a mission statement for an AG, let alone a constitution, board/committee and incorporated it.  These things are beyond my skills.





SO WHAT IS PROGRESSING ON THIS FRONT?
CAN Action Group PLEASE GIVE AN UP TODATE REPORT.
AND I TRIED TO JOIN 'AG' through yahoo group, no luck.
Please help me with instructions.

Regards,


----------



## gazzan57 (31 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Sugar
> 
> You can definately sue your financial Advisor if you  paid  for advice to enter the Fund especially if it was after November 2007




Hi Jadel, I too was told by my Financial adviser to invest all my money in a Netwealth Fund that fund then put $100.000 into PIF as part of their portfolio.Safe as houses I was told...grrrr....can I sue too? It was done in Oct 06...then each 12 months re invested....Who and how do I go about sueing?


----------



## breaker1 (31 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> SO WHAT IS PROGRESSING ON THIS FRONT?
> CAN Action Group PLEASE GIVE AN UP TODATE REPORT.
> AND I TRIED TO JOIN 'AG' through yahoo group, no luck.
> Please help me with instructions.
> ...




Contact me on breaker1@aapt.net.au

I'll try and fill you in.


----------



## breaker1 (31 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Some feedback from Wellington Capital via an intrepid AG member, as under:*

*Need to change the constitution of the fund to be able to list on the NSX.

*WC appears gives at least some commitment to options for redemption apart from the NSX at NTA, but only "if possible": "The true value of a unit in our opinion is the net asset backing of that unit, which as you know is dependent on the assets of the Fund. As mentioned above the Board is currently considering options put forward by investors at the forums and if possible will offer alternative options to investors at a future point in time."

*I can't believe that only, "more than half of investors have lodged redemption forms" - now you know the apathy were dealing with. 

*The 360 days expire in early 2009!

*The PIF breached the max 20% loan by going upto 20.7% because, "The Fund experienced difficulties after 19 January 2008 when a large number of redemptions were made by investors as a consequence of the adverse market events surrounding MFS Limited. The Premium Income Fund proved illiquid and market movement resulted in the loan to valuation ratio being 20.7%"

*WC has had "discussions" with ASIC.

*WC is happy with the role Perpetual played and found them "diligent".

*Appropriate notification has been made to Lloyds for any relevant matters -75% loss or 3M, whichever is the lesser.

*OCV LTD *do *have directors & officers insurance cover.

*New arrangements negotiated with LLA subject to finalisations with Arctic, expected end July.

*With GEO via TROJAN, if any shares are sold above 25.5 c, PIF gets 40% of the profit.


----------



## gazzan57 (31 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> *Some feedback from Wellington Capital via an intrepid AG member, as under:*
> 
> *Need to change the constitution of the fund to be able to list on the NSX.
> 
> ...




Hi breaker 1, I do not exactly understand what all f this means....but what do you mean when you say..."OCV LD do have directors and officers insurance cover"?


----------



## breaker1 (31 July 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



gazzan57 said:


> Hi breaker 1, I do not exactly understand what all f this means....but what do you mean when you say..."OCV LD do have directors and officers insurance cover"?




To me, at least, it means that investors can take legal action against certain senior MFS/OCV staff if they feel they have behaved illegally/inappropriately according to the PIF constitution / corporate law and if successful, you can claim compensation from their insurance company. I have noticed that these sort of actions are usually done as class actions.

My apologies gazzan, over time, posters have been using in-house jargon and making assumptions that we all understand the topics being discussed here and we are tending not to expand known issues brought up.


----------



## DoraNBoots (1 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> *Some feedback from Wellington Capital via an intrepid AG member, as under:*
> .....



Thanks Breaker and the AG member for the info above.  I have some comments and questions.

I supposed we don’t know exactly what happened but can anyone explain what might have happened in Nov and Dec with the $147mill the PIF is now claiming from OCV?  I’m wondering if this would have been a bunch of bad loans that OCV had that they exchanged with the PIF for cash or some other kind of asset?  I find it strange that WC don’t blame the illiquid state of the fund at least partly on this activity.  (they just mentioned the rush on redemptions which would have only been those that were due to redeem that month) 

No mention of public Indemnity for the people that handed over the money.  Does anyone know the implications of suing the former directors of the current RE?  Is PI attached to an individual or a company?

Having over half of investors with redemption requests doesn’t necessarily reflect our views (although I don’t disagree there is apathy).  We are unable to rollover so are automatically sent redemption papers and asked to complete them. Plus I remember getting a letter when we were first told redemptions were being delayed that they would be processed in order of receipt, I'm sure this would have prompted people to send in a request.


Regarding WC’s comments on the NSX.  It  sounds to me like it won’t be possible for an alternative to NSX right away and IF POSSIBLE there will be later on if things improve.   “ if possible will offer alternative options to investors at a future point in time”  Imagine if the market doesn’t improve for another 5 years!

Is the comment on Lloyds saying we can only claim a max of $3mill (total) from Lloyds for any relevant matters?


----------



## great dame (1 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A few points of intrest  If WC lists on that hole in the wall NSX   A invester befiore buying shares if he or she is sane dose some resurch into a company he or she    may want to invest into   He or she will look at the PE ratio PIF unknown     Forcarst  EPC UNKNOWN    Forcarst DPS UNKNOWN  Divend Cover  NONE  All we know is a 6 cents  Div a year Unknown if its coming from capital return or growth ??   So dont expect an invester to bid for much on that dopey NSX  for a unit  I realy dont think there will be any buyers out there at all to buy our units     The price will have to be pretty low to attract a buyer  Sorry to be a carrier of grim news /////////


----------



## seamisty (1 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Having over half of investors with redemption requests doesn’t necessarily reflect our views (although I don’t disagree there is apathy).  

Is the comment on Lloyds saying we can only claim a max of $3mill (total) from Lloyds for any relevant matters?[/QUOTE]
Good Morning DoraNBoots, I have never been sent redemption forms as our investment was for 2 years so I guess the 360 days is irrelevant. Term options were for 6, 12, 18, and 24 months so rather than some investors being called 'apathetic', I think it is more a case of some unit holders were not due to redeem until Jan 2010 regardless of what happened. Regarding the Insurance through Lloyd's Underwriters,the maximum loss covered by the policy is 75% of the nominated loan amount or $3million, whichever is the lesser. As at 30 June 2007, 61.54% of the commercial loan was insured. Who knows what happened after that, lets hope MFS didn't let the policy lapse!!! Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (1 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Dora

      I have made extensive investigations re sueing with Maurice Blackburn & Cash and also Litigation Funders IMF regards PIF Indemnity Insurance. 

    Their are two problems :

 Firstly Indemnity Insurers refuse to pay on an hint of unlawfull activity in these cases ;

  Secondly , You have to find somebody with deep pockets to sue the costs for IMF to provide the Funding would be in the 17% to 30% range.


----------



## sugar3157 (1 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Dear Dora
> 
> I have made extensive investigations re sueing with Maurice Blackburn & Cash and also Litigation Funders IMF regards PIF Indemnity Insurance.
> 
> ...




Good morning all, can't ASIC make them pay us back our initial money?....I just don't understand why their insurance co doesn't just pay us out....we all know now that there was some very dodgy dealings going on last year...so if we can see that...so can ASIC and insurers.....please explain....


----------



## Rance (1 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Regarding Redemptions*

*Don't forget you could redeem your units at any time but incurred a penalty on a sliding scale for redeeming earlier than maturity. When MFS's shares went "south", many savvy unit holders would have exercised this option; hence the higher than normal number of redemption requests and the drain on available funds leading to the 180 days then 360 days moratorium. Unfortunately, I was not among those who got away quickly before the avalanche!!

Rance
*


----------



## DoraNBoots (1 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> *Regarding Redemptions*
> 
> *Don't forget you could redeem your units at any time but incurred a penalty on a sliding scale for redeeming earlier than maturity. When MFS's shares went "south", many savvy unit holders would have exercised this option; hence the higher than normal number of redemption requests and the drain on available funds leading to the 180 days then 360 days moratorium. Unfortunately, I was not among those who got away quickly before the avalanche!!
> 
> ...





Hi Rance,

I know the pds reads that way but I can tell you MFS were not allowing redemptions before the term was up unless you had a real hardship case.  I know people that tried to redeem in Oct 07 and were not able to.  The MFS contact at the time said to not even bother to fill in the form.  Of course they did and it was rejected.


----------



## Jadel (1 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sugar

    Insurance companies do everything in their power to prevent people from litigating agaist them in these circumstances. That is why they make money.

  ASIC could instigate legal action  if Corporate law has been breached  , However it may be argued that Jenny Hutson is litigating for unit holders in respect of the 197 million dollars. Therefore they may not be inclined to take any further action in the matter.

 Unfortunately investors really have very little protection from government  authorities when it comes to corporate malfeasance.


----------



## Calliope (1 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yes Dora you are quite right. My units were due for redemption in Jan 08. I tried to redeem in Oct 07. I was prepared to pay the penalty. I spun them a real hard luck story. I didn't even get a reply and when I rang them I found out that that option was closed.


----------



## Mary Lynch (1 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

When I called in November to ask for the redemption form to fill out for funds due 2 days after the freeze (we were about to buy a house)I was  offered a bonus if I stayed on!


----------



## dantra (1 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

hi, im not sure whether or not this could apply to us but i have kept it just incase. it was posted in the herald sun on june 3rd. 
ps. i hope it works.


----------



## PIFholder (1 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My adviser just sent me this ...
EGM is 18 September 



Investor Update: 1 August 2008
*Unitholder meeting*


Jenny Hutson, Chairperson of Wellington Investment Management Limited, the responsible entity for the Premium Income Fund is pleased to advise that the unitholder meeting to consider proposed changes to the operation of the Premium Income Fund will be held:

Date: 18 September 2008
Time: 10.00am
Place: Gold Coast Convention and Exhibition Centre, Cnr T.E. Peters Drive and Gold Coast Highway, Broadbeach

Meeting material will be forwarded to all unitholders by mid-August, and will be available for download from our website www.newpif.com.au.

It is important that each unitholder votes, either by proxy or in person, to ensure that each investor has a say in the future of your investment in the Premium Income Fund.

*Debt arrangements*

The Premium Income Fund has undertaken debt repayments in the month of July which have seen the debt position of the Premium Income Fund reduce from $55 million at the end of June to $20 million as at 31 July 2008. The remaining $20 million has been refinanced and will be repaid from asset realisations and borrowers from the Premium Income Fund refinancing over the next 90 days.

The new arrangements provide flexibility for the Premium Income Fund and it is the view of the board of Wellington Investment Management Limited that the refinance was consequently the optimal outcome for unitholders. 

*Offer from Octaviar Limited*

Octaviar Limited has made an offer to each of its five creditors.

The board of Wellington Investment Management Limited has received an offer from Octaviar Limited in similar terms to the other creditors and is currently considering the proposal. The board remains in discussions with Octaviar Limited and its advisers in relation to an outcome.

The offer is for 22.5 cents per $1.00 outstanding or a secured debt position with the Octaviar Limited, with the debt to be repaid in 3 years from the proceeds of the sale of Octaviar Limited’s 33.3% ownership in the Stella travel business. The value of the debt alternative is almost entirely dependent on the value of the Stella travel business in 3 years and is therefore difficult to determine.

Octaviar Limited’s offer to the Premium Income Fund is also dependent upon all other creditors of Octaviar Limited agreeing to compromise what is currently due to them. If for example, only 4 of the 5 creditors owed money by Octaviar Limited reached agreement the offer to the Premium Income Fund could not proceed.

Octaviar Limited has clearly indicated that if agreement is not reached, Octaviar Limited will be wound up. This alternative is not economically desirable from the Premium Income Fund’s perspective as on a winding up it is estimated that the return to the Premium Income Fund would be 11.8 cents per $1.00 outstanding. The timing of the payments would also be very uncertain.

Wellington Investment Management joined all of the other creditors in the Supreme Court of Queensland on Thursday 24 July 2008 opposing the application to wind up Octaviar Limited. The application for winding up of Octaviar Limited has now been adjourned to 8 and 9 September 2008.

Full documentation in relation to the offer from Octaviar Limited is now available on Premium Income Fund website www.newpif.com.au.

If investors have any questions in relation to the Octaviar Limited offer or the upcoming Unitholder meeting, please contact the Wellington Hotline on 1300 854 885 or investorrelations@newpif.com.au.


----------



## Duped (1 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Custodian: PDS Page 37 "has no independent discretion with respect to holding assets".  Technically JH is likely correct that Perpetual was diligent.  But this doesn't mean that Perpetual didn't overcharge for this substantially administrative service or that Advisors or even MFSIM/MFS Ltd over sold Perpetual's role.  Question is: did Perpetual know its role was being oversold AND then did nothing about it?



DoraNBoots said:


> I find it strange that WC don’t blame the illiquid state of the fund at least partly on this activity.  (they just mentioned the rush on redemptions which would have only been those that were due to redeem that month)




I agree. It's concerning. Unfortunately I'll have to agree with CS in that legal actions are expensive and consume resources. You have to balance the cost against the returns+the likelihood of success. One thing I trumpet is that our court system on the whole doesn't dispense justice, it dispenses the law. I'm not happy about it but, there it is. It's beyond the scope of what can help PIF.  And JH should have a better feel than me for which battles would be best to fight.  One thing is for sure, insurance companies IMO are more like law firms in disguise, they have a formidable force of lawyers.  While JH may be an awesome lawyer, she'd be coming up against specialised peers and deep pockets.  They'd certainly be no Denis Denutos to be seen. 

At the Bris forum JH appeared to be saying we'll get better returns from engaging the current investment market than if she allocates those same resources to fighting legal battles. Without having seen any of the facts I have to tend to agree. I'd rather she make money than dispense justice. Hence the question I'm constantly asking myself is, do I trust WC enough.  (Since Jan 08 my BS-ometer has been on max sensitivity)

Technically JH is correct about the demise of PIF being due to illiquidity. And from my spiel above, I can see why she's saying it. This reason for PIF's freeze doesn't change the road forward. 

But it's like saying that cause of death is 'lack of oxygen to the brain'. Doesn't tell us anything. Almost every injury/ailment eventually causes lack of oxygen to the brain and hence death of the brain. 

IMO MFSIM's abuse of PIF turned it into a morbidly obese, binge drinking, chain smoking, junk food binger.  With such risky behaviour it was only a matter of time before heart failure i.e. illiquidity.  This over blamed 'credit squeeze' was just the trigger, akin to making the binger walk the stairs rather than taking the elevator. If PIF was in good shape it would have climbed the stairs, slower than the elevator, but within its capability when stretched.  MFSIM were morons to think the elevator would never fail. Duh.  And I was a moron to believe that 2% above a bank deposite rate was sustainable by a newby.

Don't forget that sometime between 30 June 2007 and Jan 2008, MFS Management Pty Ltd redeemed SIXTY MILLION units. This represents about 7.5% being whipped out of the fund. What did this do to the fund's liquidity? 

But this doesn't change WC's plan for the road ahead.



DoraNBoots said:


> No mention of public Indemnity for the people that handed over the money.  Does anyone know the implications of suing the former directors of the current RE?  Is PI attached to an individual or a company?




Good question. Don't know. Shouldn't be difficult to answer.  Any of you posters have your own PI insurance? Can you ask the issuer? But even if it does attach to individuals, WC holds all the evidence and would have to allocate resources during a case, particularly during the 'discovery' phase of a case. Sucks. I'm not decided on the PI issue.



DoraNBoots said:


> Is the comment on Lloyds saying we can only claim a max of $3mill (total) from Lloyds for any relevant matters?




I vaguely recall , each loan/investment (i.e. matter) is really covered by separate policy. MFSIM could pick and choose which 'matters' to cover; up to a max of $3M. Years ago I pulled up my financial advisor for his spruiking of this "feature" of the fund because I calculated the max cover to be merely around $20M; for a $600M+ fund.  Pittance.

Bit if a thesis but hope this info helps. Cheers


----------



## Javier (1 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well if sanity prevails and OCV is not wound up upon all 5 creditors agreeing, I would think JH will take the wait 3 year option and get hopefully all the $220.5m that we are claiming.

If the market picks up, and Stella is worth a bundle like it should then our fund should look closer to that 70c/$ and hopefully her 5 year full return will be a reality. 

We REALLY need for all to vote for WH on Sep 18 to get the 75% vote..and think some money returned the next month after that.

I see this as some positive news for a change..fingers crossed!!


----------



## PIFholder (1 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I must agree Javier. Voting for JH in the current situation is IMO the best way forward ... and I really need my distribution in October!



Javier said:


> We REALLY need for all to vote for WH on Sep 18 to get the 75% vote..and think some money returned the next month after that.
> 
> I see this as some positive news for a change..fingers crossed!!


----------



## Bumblebee (1 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have been plodding through the "Creditor Offer Document" now available on the Wellington website.
It says under "Liquidation Senario" for OCV on page 20 that PIF will get 11.8 cents in the dollar *without* Stella.
My understanding is that OCV cant liquidate without selling Stella, (surely that's right).
...and would'nt that give PIF a better "liqidation" payout from OCV than we have been told to date??
I am getting befudled with all this......anyone help?


----------



## DoraNBoots (1 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> .... I would think JH will take the wait 3 year option and get hopefully all the $220.5m that we are claiming.
> ...




The secured debt agreement alternative is pretty vague (section 4 of the TermSheet).  Anyone know what the dollar amount might be?  The document this section refers to doesn’t really help much dose it?

I don't like how it's one or the other for each claim.  I would like to take the 15 or 22 cents in the dollar now and the rest as it becomes available.  Wouldn't this happen if ocv had an orderly wind up?  I'm glad all creditors have to agree.


----------



## DoraNBoots (1 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Some articles from http://www.goldcoastbusinessnews.com.au attached.


----------



## selciper (1 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

All the way with you, Javier. We need to maintain a positive outlook while taking care of our interests at the same time. There's a long road to travel. You never know what lies ahead, hopefully it will work out very reasonably for us all. Clearly, WC would by now realise that the AG will continue its monitoring role in the future which is very important for all PIF investors. The exchange of information in this thread is instructive and valuable. Thanks, Breaker1, for the terrific initiative in commencing it.


----------



## breaker1 (1 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



PIFholder said:


> My adviser just sent me this ...
> EGM is 18 September
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks PIFholder.

Part of the statement above that needs clarification is the paragraph in blue. 

The offer seems to have changed from:
1] a] An immediate payment of approx. $48M, valuing debt to the PIF @ 15c & 22.5c in the $, excluding Stella & any further legal action OR a b] liquidation over 3 to 5 years, which appears to give only an extra 8M, including Stella.
TO including an additional new option c] "or a secured debt position with the Octaviar Limited, with the debt to be repaid in 3 years from the proceeds of the sale of Octaviar Limited’s 33.3% ownership in the Stella travel business. " Is this how you read it?

If that is the case, I would really like to get a handle on a rough ball park figure as to what that "secured debt position" may pay after about 3 years? This is a very interesting new offer and I would really like to be filled in more. I know that it depends on the "value of Stella in 3 years" but surely estimations can be made? Does it exclude access to the rest of OCV's assets besides Stella? We need more detail here?

Have other creditors received an enhanced offer like this one to the PIF?

Nevertheless, OCV LTD still has to pass the test of having ALL 5 creditors agree to the OCV LTD new offers before we can seriously consider the new offer, otherwise it's liquidation on OCV.

Who is the $20M refinancer and hoping no strings attached?

What is the procedure for Action Group members giving their proxy votes to other AG members? Will votes be accepted by mail or only at the September 18 meeting?

This WC announcement viewable on: http://www.newpif.com.au/        then click on company announcements "EGM date......"


----------



## Javier (1 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Stella must be able to be worth over what will be paid to the creditors if most decide to wait for the sale in 3 years. I mean just say we are all paid out..there would have to be something left for CS and co to keep OCV going or else what is the point for him..he is like 60 or 65 isn't he? I think he has a young family & Asian wife living in Singapore. He may even be looking at jail time if things go a bit pear shape for him in court soon with some dodgy S8 past dealings.

So is the payments as board member / CEO for as long as he is there all he will get? There is NO chance of his $200m plus ever coming back to him. What a greedy goose..he should have taken that sale in cash and rode off into the sunset..instead he took it in scrip and is in the doodoo. JH really should have advised him a little better there!!!


----------



## breaker1 (1 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Bumblebee said:


> I have been plodding through the "Creditor Offer Document" now available on the Wellington website.
> It says under "Liquidation Senario" for OCV on page 20 that PIF will get 11.8 cents in the dollar *without* Stella.
> My understanding is that OCV cant liquidate without selling Stella, (surely that's right).
> ...and would'nt that give PIF a better "liqidation" payout from OCV than we have been told to date??
> I am getting befudled with all this......anyone help?




Yep! That was an aspect brought up before - how can you have two liquidation options, one without Stella & one with Stella? If OCV is liquidated, surely the liquidator doesn't come along and say, this creditor gets a bit of Stella and that creditor doesn't! Doesn't make sense! Unless it's there to show investors what Stella is worth on liquidation i.e., an extra 14c in the $ over the 11.8c??

PIF, Immediate payment - 15c & 22.5c / liquidation without Stella -$1 11.8c / liquidation with Stella - $1 25.8c / Participating creditor return - $1 n/a 
Is this last one "participating creditor return" the same as OCV's new offer, but in different words of "secured debt position" ??


----------



## seamisty (2 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

New owner coming for Kooralbyn:::::August 2nd, 2008 

A NEW owner is poised to take over the Kooralbyn Hotel Resort as early as next week.

The resort closed its doors two weeks ago under the instructions of liquidator Peter Lucas and they remained closed yesterday.

Mr Lucas, of PA Lucas and Co in Brisbane, was appointed liquidator to Kooralbyn International Hotels, which is understood to have accumulated debts of up to $60 million.

The liquidator did not return calls yesterday, but sources close to the deal said it was likely the resort would be open for business by next weekend if the deal proceeded.

The buyer is understood to be taking over both the resort business and the operation of the golf course.

Kooralbyn International Hotels is directed by New Zealand businessman Ray Schofield, who still controls the resort's property assets, which include the hotel, a 36-room golf lodge, golf course, tennis centre, polo fields and equestrian centre.

The Premium Income Fund, formerly controlled by troubled financial services group Octaviar (ex-MFS) and now in the hands of Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital, is understood to have a $20 million exposure to Kooralbyn International Hotels.

The ownership of the resort remains clouded, with MFS at one stage touted as having an interest.


----------



## DoraNBoots (2 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The 11.8 cents in the $ liquidation estimate provided by JH in her communication to investors is if OCV assets (excluding Stella) are realised in the period to 31 Dec 2008.  Again JH is quoting liquidation figures which exclude Stella!

Would be good if someone with experience reading these reports can read “KPMGs independent report of factual findings which noted no expectations” (see section 3.8 of creditor offer to request this)

Section 3.7 says "a Participating Creditor (i.e participating in the Secured Debt Arrangements)".  But the table isn’t very helpful for the PIF as it says this option isn’t available for us.  Do we assume we would also get 92.6c in the $.  I think the term sheet reads like this will be negotiated between WC and OCV.


----------



## Javier (2 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I would hope 92.6c / $1 would be the case, (though there needs to be more concise figures) for PIF in three years..yes please where do we sign for that?

One thing I must say that it is finally good to see that JH has opted to inform us first via the WC website and not via the media, keep it up!!


----------



## breaker1 (2 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> The 11.8 cents in the $ liquidation estimate provided by JH in her communication to investors is if OCV assets (excluding Stella) are realised in the period to 31 Dec 2008.  Again JH is quoting liquidation figures which exclude Stella!
> 
> Would be good if someone with experience reading these reports can read “KPMGs independent report of factual findings which noted no expectations” (see section 3.8 of creditor offer to request this)
> 
> Section 3.7 says "a Participating Creditor (i.e participating in the Secured Debt Arrangements)".  But the table isn’t very helpful for the PIF as it says this option isn’t available for us.  Do we assume we would also get 92.6c in the $.  I think the term sheet reads like this will be negotiated between WC and OCV.




Well, Noteholders, Bondholders and PAC are getting promised 92.6c of OCV debt, what are we, chopped liver, that we shouldn't get the same? If your right about participating creditor being the same as  secured debt arrangements, then we better pray that OCV LTD doesn't get liquidated!

Why were we not offered that option before?

Did Jenny subsequently negotiate that for us?


----------



## Javier (2 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I think that that is pretty much all she was doing just prior to and after the court hearing last week, Breaker. Negotiating the fund the same deal as everyone else. We are not chopped liver, and Ms Hutson can have caviar on toast for breakfast for the rest of her life if it means getting us all our money back in due course. She doesn't strike me as a person that wants to end up with egg on her face at the end of all of this..very much goal and success driven.

I would like to think that the people on this forum, and investors out there would have had something to do with driving her to get the best deal, I know for a fact that heaps of people have rung WC about our concerns for OCV to give us a fair go and for JH to show us that she may be good mates with CS, but business is business and this fund should be at the forefront.

I applaud you Jenny, and I applaud the efforts and work of the people here and beyond. I know this long journey has only just started and there will surely be many twists and turns ahead, but for the first time since this fund was frozen, I feel a slight glimmer of hope.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (2 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This from today's GC Bulletin.
Link: http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2008/08/02/14471_gold-coast-business.html

----------------------------
Surprise 'visit' part of S8 probe

Nick Nichols

August 2nd, 2008

INVESTIGATORS from the Office of Fair Trading made a surprise visit to the Phoenician building at Broadbeach yesterday ahead of a court case this month involving former S8 boss Chris Scott.

The investigators are understood to have spent several hours at the resort, which is now owned by the Stella Group after tourism company S8 was taken over by MFS in 2006.

An OFT spokesman yesterday the visit was not a 'raid', like those conducted on S8 offices in 2006.

"The Office of Fair Trading undertakes compliance inspections of businesses from a range of industries regulated under fair trading legislation," said the spokesman.

Bob East, chief executive of the Stella Hospitality Group, which operates 38 apartment buildings on the Gold Coast, yesterday confirmed the OFT visit related to the S8 investigation.

The OFT has brought the action against S8 company Driftcove and Mr Scott, as director, alleging more than 2900 separate breaches of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000.

The allegations suggest Driftcove 'double-dipped' on accommodation revenue by diverting reservations through subsidiary booking companies and then receiving up to 42 per cent commission at some buildings.

Mr East said Stella had been given 'a clean bill of health' from the OFT.

"We are not under investigation," he said. "(The OFT officers) are investigating historical (events) before we bought that company."

Mr Scott is scheduled to appear in the Southport Magistrates Court on August 18 to face the charges.

The OFT said yesterday it was 'not appropriate' to 'comment on any matters currently subject to investigation or before the courts'.
-------------END------------


----------



## sugar3157 (3 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Well, Noteholders, Bondholders and PAC are getting promised 92.6c of OCV debt, what are we, chopped liver, that we shouldn't get the same? If your right about participating creditor being the same as  secured debt arrangements, then we better pray that OCV LTD doesn't get liquidated!
> 
> Why were we not offered that option before?
> 
> Did Jenny subsequently negotiate that for us?




Hi all, 96c would be awesome....but i think we are dreaming....If OCV is liquidated does that really matter being as WC now owns PIF...can we not still keep trading in the hopes that the market will go up?


----------



## flatback (3 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> My understanding is: to amend the constitution to e.g. amend the redemption clauses etc. Such clauses affect members rights.  If these aren't amended the fund must be wound up after 360 days of the freeze.  My bet is we'll be voting on amendments to the constitution.



I hope it is not only to amend the redemption clauses,i hope we shall also look at the changes required to stop any loans being made available to the RE from our fund ,to stop the out of control company forming to suck money out of our fund,i do strongly believe that the money that we pay the RE of the day, to oversee the operations of the fund are quite adequate,and the roll of the RE is to use our money to build our fund ,not line their pockets by forming bogus companies(no loans should be made by the RE if that money knowingly is going to a person closely related to the RE, and no exceptions). i have been on about this, before on this forum, and do firmly believe that without this clause being added to our Constitution,we may as well give our money away now,this kind of proposal must be looked at and excepted by JH, worded differently quite obviously, but needs to be put in place no matter what jargon is applied cheers Flatback


----------



## Mutchy (3 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

QUOTE=Duped;320215]
Good question. Don't know. Shouldn't be difficult to answer.  Any of you posters have your own PI insurance? Can you ask the issuer? But even if it does attach to individuals, WC holds all the evidence and would have to allocate resources during a case, particularly during the 'discovery' phase of a case. Sucks. I'm not decided on the PI issue.

Hello all,
I used to have PI insurance when running my consultancy and am currently insured for "Officers Legal Liability" being a member of the committee of a recreational club incorporated under the NSW Dept. of Fair Trading. I am in no way a qualified person to give advice on this matter but a previous and present customer.

PI Insurance and Officers Liability covers the person or persons in the organisation, not the organisation. It covers you only while you continue to pay the premiums. For example: the architect who designed the Newcastle Workers Club building which fell down when the earthquake hit Newcastle a few years ago had retired and wound up his business some 15 years prior to the earthquake. He had stopped paying his PI insurance at about the same time. His PI Insurer had no responsibility to cover him because the policy had lapsed even though at the time of doing his design he was covered. 
PI insurance will benefit the insured when it can be proven that the insured acted professionally ie in accordance with good practice and did not commit a crime. Officers Insurance is generally bundled with accident and Public Liability and is not readily identifiable from my experience. PI insurance is very very expensive. It is usually calculated on a percentage of the insured expected earnings and the factors for calculating that percentage vary from industry to industry. The construction industry in which i worked is one of the highest at about 13% I think but it's many years since I retired and I am not up to date with the figures.
It's only worthwhile suing someone if they have enough money to satisfy your requirements. If they have no money - ie done an Alan Bond and put all assets in a relatives name or transferred it into a secret bank account somewhere then you'll get what Bonds creditors got: SFA. 

I think it's a futile hope that any sums can ever be obtained under either PI or Officers insurance as I think they will have either committed an unlawful act, not be eligible otherwise be covered by insurance, or it will have lapsed, or they will own insufficient assets to be worth the expense of pursuit.

Mutchy


----------



## Mutchy (3 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Well, Noteholders, Bondholders and PAC are getting promised 92.6c of OCV debt, what are we, chopped liver, that we shouldn't get the same? If your right about participating creditor being the same as  secured debt arrangements, then we better pray that OCV LTD doesn't get liquidated!
> 
> Why were we not offered that option before?
> 
> Did Jenny subsequently negotiate that for us?




Hi All,
Looks like JH has negotiated a better deal for us. The position now is much better than when first offered by OCV. Compare the offer by OCV when it was first posted on their website with what we have seen above. 
Its heartening to see the linking of our future remuneration with OCV's future returns. This is what we on this group had been talking about a few weeks ago and it is good to see happen. Taking the long term view rather than a predators view, I hope there are not too many Great Doom's out there either in OCV or PIF, that common sense will prevail and that both organisations will trade out of the present market downturn. 

Mutchy


----------



## sugar3157 (3 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mutchy said:


> QUOTE=Duped;320215]
> Good question. Don't know. Shouldn't be difficult to answer.  Any of you posters have your own PI insurance? Can you ask the issuer? But even if it does attach to individuals, WC holds all the evidence and would have to allocate resources during a case, particularly during the 'discovery' phase of a case. Sucks. I'm not decided on the PI issue.
> 
> Hello all,
> ...




HI Muchy, when I gave my Investment Adviser my money I told him to make sure that there was a cut off point of 10% for all the investments he put my money into...he said yes of course....I queried him about putting 100k into one place PIF and he told me ...safe as houses....he did not inform me of the PIF mess til last month...can I sue him?


----------



## Dexter (3 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good news!  As no one has taken up my offer of 20c/unit cash in hand we can only presume that we have 100% vote against liquidation.  Let hope this applies across the board.


----------



## sugar3157 (3 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Dexter said:


> Good news!  As no one has taken up my offer of 20c/unit cash in hand we can only presume that we have 100% vote against liquidation.  Let hope this applies across the board.




there is no other way to go forward to try and recoup any of our money..except to vote for JH...even I realise that...like it or not....


----------



## DoraNBoots (3 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Hi all, 96c would be awesome....but i think we are dreaming....If OCV is liquidated does that really matter being as WC now owns PIF...can we not still keep trading in the hopes that the market will go up?




Hi Sugar,

The 96 cents mentioned in this forum is the amount we are hoping the PIF might get back for every dollar OCV owe us (under the secured debt arrangement).  If we were to get all this money it would add just under 20 cents to our unit price taking it up from 45 cents to somewhere just under 65 cents.  It is not known yet just how much we would get from a secured debt arrangement – WC are saying it depends how much Stella sells for.  As far as we can tell it shouldn’t matter if OCV is liquidated except that the money we get from them would be a lot less than 96 cent for every dollar they owe us.  OCV getting liquidated shouldn’t have any effect on whether the PIF is liquidated.  It’s the Sept vote that will decide if PIF is liquidated or not.

It seems like the secured debt arrangement will be an agreement where OCV will agree to give the PIF a cut of Stella once it's sold.  I don't see why the deal should be limited to Stella and not all OCV assets - that's what would happen if they were liquidated.

Thanks for the info on PI Mutchy!


----------



## Javier (3 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If we were to get $147.5m would see the 45c unit value go to 65c. Our claim is for $220.5m, if we were to get 96c for each of those $220.5m claimed you are getting up to around the 75c mark as a unit value. Add to that some good investments made in that 3 year period and some favourable movement in our current asset portfolio and I guess JH claim to $1 in 5 years is very do-able.


----------



## DoraNBoots (4 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

WC have said any money from the $50mill FS will be distributed to unit holders (rather than be added to the unit price)


----------



## DoraNBoots (4 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have questions about the Revised Balance sheet on the back of the July Handout...

How can the realisable value estimated at 31 May 2008 be 45 cents but an orderly realisation of assets by a liquidator be 14 cents?

Also, the Units in managed investment schemes dropped from $161 mill in Dec 07 to $93 mill in May 08 to $5 mill realisable value.  Can anyone explain this other than saying it’s due to market downturn?  The Alternative investments are just as shocking but I’m assuming most of this write down is due to the OCV junk they gave us.

I’m assuming it’s normal for a fund to adjust unit values according to the market as has been done but I’m wondering why PWC wouldn’t do this for WC (WC said PWC refused to provide estimate unit prices).  Anyone have any idea why PCW refused?  Is it because the previous valuation of our units (which I assume they did) would be shown to be wrong?  Or do they not agree with this 45 cent valuation, or do they just not do this kind of thing?

The PIF overview on the newpif website still says the units are $1 so I don’t think any of the info is up-to-date.  Funny how it says “Perpetual Nominees Limited is the custodian of the Premium Income Fund, and has been established for 122 years. Perpetual Nominees Limited holds the title to the assets on behalf of the Fund.” That means nothing!


----------



## selciper (4 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It really is time for WC to clear up this obvious misunderstanding about Perpetual's role. As far as I'm concerned in the past they were keeping a watch on events as custodians. Not so, it seems - so WC please make it clear - what exactly do Perpetual do apart from posting letters?


----------



## Mutchy (4 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> HI Muchy, when I gave my Investment Adviser my money I told him to make sure that there was a cut off point of 10% for all the investments he put my money into...he said yes of course....I queried him about putting 100k into one place PIF and he told me ...safe as houses....he did not inform me of the PIF mess til last month...can I sue him?




Hi Sugar3157,
I don't know. Better ask a lawyer. They very often will talk to you for free when exploring whether there is a possibility of work/litigation.
Mutchy


----------



## Jadel (4 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Dora 

 In most instances ,where a company is placed in our predicament ,they are able to appoint an Administrator and  the true asset value of the fund can be realized, in an orderly sale over time,. 

Investors in the PIF ,for some reason are not allowed the common decency of that option, instead we are told that their will be a piecemeal firesale in which we must accept 14cents ,by a company with a vested interst in the management rights . 

In any event it appears that some people are still unable to grasp the concept, that whether or not we get 45cents or 65 cents NTA value, once we are a listed entity; either on the NSX or ASX the  actual price we get for the units is entirely dictated by what investors are prepared to pay ,which I believe will only be a fraction of the true value for many years to come.

Interesting  observation on Perpetual , my daughter is  doing a business degree and she has to do a study  on marketing this week   I have informed  her it is just about Gilding the Lily ( telling lies). She is going to use Perpetual as as an example of how you can get away with deception and deciet without any recourse to legal action by investors.


----------



## great dame (4 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Dear Dora
> 
> In most instances ,where a company is placed in our predicament ,they are able to appoint an Administrator and  the true asset value of the fund can be realized, in an orderly sale over time,.
> 
> ...



     Jadel everything you say is spot on  i would just like to add  even if our units are valuered over a Dollar each  try getting that on the NSX  I wont be but a lot of the unit holders are in for one big mighty shock if you thinkjyour going to get a buck for them       Foot Note  maybe in twenty years time you might ////////


----------



## SPLITPIN (4 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The custodian Perpetual Nominees holds the title to the assets.

I refer to WC comments on the forum information sheets in which they refer to receivership by the previous RE as the only option.

In other words they were prepared to let the bank appoint an administator.

It appears that the fund credit facility with the bank must have had security over our assets which would have been under the care of Perpetual Nominees.

A strange way for a custodian to look after our assets. 


Splitpin


----------



## kanni (4 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I can't believe this has happened to our money. The company was reliable & trustworthy when I did my due diligence before investing. Well that's water under the bridge now. I guess we're lucky to have KH on our side & fighting for us. Hope the September vote sees the company go ahead & trade back to maximum value plus some  You don't think anyone will vote for the liquidation option, do you?


----------



## Javier (4 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am planning on flying up for the day for the Sep 18 meeting / vote. Can someone who lives on the GC tell me how far the meeting place is from GC airport and if we are planning a meeting of the AG after the meeting? Just so I can make some plans. Thanks


----------



## DoraNBoots (4 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Dear Dora
> 
> In most instances ,where a company is placed in our predicament ,they are able to appoint an Administrator and  the true asset value of the fund can be realized, in an orderly sale over time,.
> 
> ...




Thanks Jadel,

WC are talking about an orderly realisation of assets.  This is a quote from the newpif website (and handout)
"An *orderly realisation of assets* by a liquidator of the Premium Income Fund would in the opinion of the board of Wellington Investment Management Limited see investors receive approximately 14 cents per unit"

The 14 cents is supposedly for an orderly realisation of assets.  Do you think it's possible an orderly realisation would only be 14 cents if the Realisable value (as at 31 May 08) is 45 cents.


Another topic..

WC took on OCV IM which along with the PIF managed:
•	Octaviar Cash Enhanced Fund ARSN 118 285 760 
•	Octaviar Maximum Yield Fund ARSN 109 106 658 
•	Octaviar Dynamic Growth Equity Fund ARSN 121 883 020.

Do you know anything about these other funds?  I noted the OCV offer refers to the Maximum Yield Fund saying "PIF has commenced proceedings ... The damages specifically relate to direct or indirect participation loans to PAC ($117.5 million) and an investment in the Maximum Yield fund ($30 million)."

I would still like your thoughts on the loss under "Units in managed investment schemes" on the Revised Balance Sheet.  I suppose $30mill is from the Max Yield Fund as just mentioned.  Surely this information on schemes the PIF has invested in isn't confidential and could be provided by WC.


----------



## DoraNBoots (4 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Do we have any OCVG Noteholders?  I requested access to Octaviar's liquidation distribution analysis model and supporting schedules as outlined in the document "Proposal to amend the terms of issue of the Octaviar Notes to include (a)..."  but you have to be a noteholder to get it.

Can anyone help with this?  You will need to provide 333capital your Holder Identification Number and registered name under which you are an OCVG Noteholder.


----------



## Duped (4 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> I am planning on flying up for the day for the Sep 18 meeting / vote. Can someone who lives on the GC tell me how far the meeting place is from GC airport and if we are planning a meeting of the AG after the meeting? Just so I can make some plans. Thanks




19km from Coolangatta airport.  Striaght up the Gold Coast Hwy.

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?dadd....098332,153.473167&spn=0.214121,0.303154&z=12


Well well, I never knew that the runway crosses the QLD/NSW border.


----------



## Jadel (4 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Dora

 Sorry late in replying have this dreadful virus that going around .

  I think we are talking timescales here , obviously selling units in  listed property trusts at this time ,with one of the worst disasters in history the Sub prime Crisis( which has shaken the financial system  to  its core )would be foolhardy .

 Once America and the world recover from this catastrophe the property sector will recover, we also need to complete and sell the projects under development.

 Therefore, In my opinion we need at least three years to enable the assets to regain value. That is why I an in favor of an incentive based scheme on any asset sales with a chosen Manager or Administrator, under those circumstances I am certain we would receive a fair price for the funds assets.

This is a very different proposition from the piecemeal sell off at fire sale prices given as our onlyoption ,which to answer your question may indeed receive less than the 45cents value .

In any event  , any rational alternative is now only of academic interest ,we have only been given two choices, the “Devil or the Deep Blue Sea” and I think most people intend to take the former.   If that is the democratic vote then so  be it.

However ,  people need to understand the harsh realities of the situation  ,Jenny Hutson can not  make a fair price at NTA value in a trading market.

Now you may ask, why is this guy is so frightened of being listed , well apart from all the previously mentioned dangers of a Placement or Non renounce able Rights Issue  which can devalue our assets at the stroke of a pen  ,I also  happen to have  a nephew who  only purpose in life is to write Quantum  Algorythyms ( mathematical formulae ) for a major investment Bank trading in listed equities   

 The price of a listed asset value can and is manipulated  by these financial groups either upwards or downwards to suit  their purpose.

 If you have any doubts check out how Goldman Sachs made a its main profit for the last few years (it wasn’t from investment banking )

In respect of the other investment schemes I do know something about the Maximum yield fund as one of our AG members had  a major investment in this scheme .

The money was invested at a stated return of 15% anything over would go to OCV and the investment could only be withdrawn on a group vote. 

Basically their is nothing left in the Maximum Yield Fund all of the money was unlawfully withdrawn and placed in OCV. Jenny Hutson herself has admitted to him verbally that this  is a case of fraud. 

Regards Chris.


----------



## gazzan57 (4 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Dear Dora
> 
> Sorry late in replying have this dreadful virus that going around .
> 
> ...




Hi Jadel, if as you say there is definately fraud..then how come ASIC or some other body can't make them give the money back and prosecute them?


----------



## Jadel (5 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



gazzan57 said:


> Hi Jadel, if as you say there is definately fraud..then how come ASIC or some other body can't make them give the money back and prosecute them?





 Gazzan 

 The person mentioned does intend to to take the matter to the police and take legal action . In respect of ASIC i believe they are conducting an investigation into the PIF.


----------



## great dame (5 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good afternoon all Rang WC today asked when we would get our tax statements  Was told end of this Month or early next Month   They thionk the vote will go down to the wire & will be a cliff hanger  Dose anyone know how many people will fit in that meeting  room on the Gold Coast  They are expecting a crowd   Could not give an answer if we all cant fit in  I asked who will count the votes  she did not know  said maybe Perputal   //////////


----------



## Javier (5 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

That contradicts what they told me last week in which they said 90% of the 1200 callers they had spoken to would be voting for wc to continue being re. Maybe they are now telling people the close to wire spiel to ensure they get a landslide.


----------



## great dame (5 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> That contradicts what they told me last week in which they said 90% of the 1200 callers they had spoken to would be voting for wc to continue being re. Maybe they are now telling people the close to wire spiel to ensure they get a landslide.



        I am only repeating what the lady told me on the phone   I agree what your saying Javier  About a landslide   And if it is  Its all the way with  the  Dopey NSX ///////


----------



## zixo (5 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

ATTENTION  ALL SYDNEY AG MEMBERS

We're in the process of organising a meeting for the sydney leg of the action group. Anyone wishing to be part of the group or to participate in part of the committee please email me on.

zixo7@hotmail.com


----------



## Rance (5 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Dose anyone know how many people will fit in that meeting  room on the Gold Coast  They are expecting a crowd   Could not give an answer if we all cant fit in  I asked who will count the votes  she did not know  said maybe Perputal   //////////




Great Doom, welcome back...  i understand the convention centre has two auditoriums; capacity of each is 6,000 seats as well as smaller ones which, depending on configuration, can hold up to 3,500. Go to: http://www.gccec.com.au

Rance


----------



## RickH (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> Great Doom, welcome back...  i understand the convention centre has two auditoriums; capacity of each is 6,000 seats as well as smaller ones which, depending on configuration, can hold up to 3,500. Go to: http://www.gccec.com.au
> 
> Rance



Hi everyone,
I do not believe that it matters how many attend the meeting because the vote will probably be won or lost before the meeting is conducted. I would assume that the majority of voters will have already posted their votes being either for JH or against. If the vote is split - say because some people do not want a listing on the NSX. JH could possibly lose.
At this point in time we should not confuse the major issue and remember that it will take a 75% vote for JH or PIF could liquidate. Everything else can be completed and discussed and processed in the near or longer term future.
RickH.
*JH MUST GET A 75% VOTE TO HAVE ANY CHANCE OF GETTING $1.00 PLUS 6 CENTS PER ANNUM.*:couch


----------



## great dame (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

RICK there is no need to yell we can all hear you /////////////


----------



## DoraNBoots (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Jadel for your post.  I hope you are feeling better!

I’m wondering what peoples thoughts are on the attached figures.  WC said of the 32 commercial loans totalling $360mill only 12 are in compliance.  Is this normal?  Also would some of these be the dud loans from OCV which we have a claim for?

So the 14 cent figure is if the fund must be wound up by end of March 09 (I can’t see how WC call this an orderly realisation of assets).  Does anyone have an estimate what an orderly wind up over a number of years might give us?  Can anyone explain how this would happen?  Most of the loans mentioned in the attachment are overdue anyway so would the administrator just wait for the projects to be completed to pay us out rather than reinvesting if the fund continues?


----------



## Jadel (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks  Dora 

 Am on the mend I think.

I am   beginning to question, whether or not Jenny Hutson fire sale  liquidation  proposal at 14 cents  would be considered  by a Court of Law as  a rational alternative,  and in the best interest of investors ,as opposed  to a  long term Administrator or Manager,  who  if appointed  ,could undertake an orderly wind up and certainly sell  our assets  at  better  value than that paltry sum over say, a three year period  . 

Of course it is impossible to speculate on what that figure would be .

In my opinion  investors  are being placed under unwarranted intimidation to vote for her plans .


----------



## Rance (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*


Jadel said:



			In my opinion  investors  are being placed under unwarranted intimidation to vote for her plans .
		
Click to expand...


*
*Eh?  Jadel, if you don't agree with JH's plan, don't feel "unwarrantly intimidated"... just don't vote for her!

I don't feel intimidated (unwarrantly or otherwise).... I like her plan and the legal and other actions she has initiated and I will vote for her...

Rance *


----------



## Javier (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I also like the fact that we will get a 3 cent return by Christmas, god knows when we would get anything from anybody else. I will vote for JH too!!


----------



## Jadel (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good on yer Rance

    Thats democracy mate .


----------



## DoraNBoots (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I understand the intimidation comment because if you are told you only have two options and one is to get 14 cents then most will go with the other option.  But what about a 3rd option?  Why isn’t WC giving us the information to make an informed decision on the option to have the constitution changed to allow an orderly windup of assets over a number of years?  WC are the only ones with the information that could give us details on estimate returns for this option but seem to not even want us to consider it.  I realise they want the fund to keep going and are not interested in an orderly wind up (long or short) but I think we should be given all the details and options so each of us can decide which best suits OUR circumstances (not theirs).


----------



## SPLITPIN (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Thanks Jadel for your post.  I hope you are feeling better!
> 
> I’m wondering what peoples thoughts are on the attached figures.  WC said of the 32 commercial loans totalling $360mill only 12 are in compliance.  Is this normal?  Also would some of these be the dud loans from OCV which we have a claim for?




DoraNBoots

I feel like a goobsmacked mullet with a loan book like ours.

Why don't we put it in the correct perspective of "22 loans in default with an outstanding loan value owning of approx $280M of a total of 32 loans.

So much for the compliance plan and committee.

It will be interesting to see WC's plan for this lot.


Splitpin


----------



## Javier (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The big loan there for Sylvania will be settled soon when they finalise the sale. PIF sold the property as mortgagee in possesion and we will get all that loan back I think. The rest we have to go to completion and do the same..that's why WC is the way to go rather than just fire sale these projects at whatever stage they are at!


----------



## great dame (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I understand the intimidation comment because if you are told you only have two options and one is to get 14 cents then most will go with the other option.  But what about a 3rd option?  Why isn’t WC giving us the information to make an informed decision on the option to have the constitution changed to allow an orderly windup of assets over a number of years?  WC are the only ones with the information that could give us details on estimate returns for this option but seem to not even want us to consider it.  I realise they want the fund to keep going and are not interested in an orderly wind up (long or short) but I think we should be given all the details and options so each of us can decide which best suits OUR circumstances (not theirs).



            Easy to answer that one Dora  WC thinks that we all pretty dumb & dont know any better  & we are all easley lead   SIMPLE //////


----------



## Mutchy (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Thanks Jadel for your post.  I hope you are feeling better!
> 
> I’m wondering what peoples thoughts are on the attached figures.  WC said of the 32 commercial loans totalling $360mill only 12 are in compliance.  Is this normal?  Also would some of these be the dud loans from OCV which we have a claim for?
> 
> So the 14 cent figure is if the fund must be wound up by end of March 09 (I can’t see how WC call this an orderly realisation of assets).  Does anyone have an estimate what an orderly wind up over a number of years might give us?  Can anyone explain how this would happen?  Most of the loans mentioned in the attachment are overdue anyway so would the administrator just wait for the projects to be completed to pay us out rather than reinvesting if the fund continues?




Thanks for the spreadsheet Dora    - very helpful.

Hello All,
A sort by due date payable shows that there are 11 loans yet to fall due and 21 are overdue: a value of nearly $242 Million.
If they are all like the Wollongong property (if it's the one I think it is) it is incomplete and in the heart of a development where the supply of units has exceeded demand in the current housing market. There are still units available in new high rise blocks in Wollongong which were completed a year ago. 

Considering the commercial options for this property, there are a number of scenarios:

1) Determine the contract and sell the building to a contractor/developer for his completion. It is about 75% complete. The value of progress payments will probably be in excess of the value of work done and in todays market the asset value to a contractor/developer will probably be a maximum of 75% of the value of work completed. So I reckon the $57 million loan may realise $31 million if the sale is not forced. 

2) If it has to be sold before 1st March 2009 we could get less than half the value of work completed at say less than $21 Million. 

3) Await the completion of the units and the eventual sale with perhaps some of the units being sold at discount and in two or three years we could get most of our $57 Million, maybe $51 Million. 

The order of magnitude of the figures based on my knowledge of the construction industry - albeit factories rather than high rise residential - are about what JH quotes as being applicable to the unit values under her three scenarios -$1.00 (3 above), 65 cents (1 above) and 45 cents (2 above). There must be some write-downs and huge receivership fees involved for us to get only 14 cents for our units.

I have no idea how to get from where we are to an "orderly wind up". We have only the trade out and the fire sale options on offer from JH. Maybe there is no orderly wind up option because the 360 day law regarding suspension of payment of dividends means termination of the fund and payment to us within 360 days from the start of the suspension period. I am just guessing. Any one know why? I tried ringing the hotline but it was busy.

I also wanted to know whether or not interest payments were being made on those outstanding loans. Any one know?

Mutchy


----------



## SPLITPIN (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mutchy said:


> Thanks for the spreadsheet Dora    - very helpful.
> 
> Maybe there is no orderly wind up option because the 360 day law regarding suspension of payment of dividends means termination of the fund and payment to us within 360 days from the start of the suspension period. I am just guessing. Any one know why? I tried ringing the hotline but it was busy.
> 
> Mutchy




Mutchy

Do you know where the 360 day law etc. is coming from.

JH mentioned it at the forums.

Thanks 

Splitpin


----------



## selciper (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Assuming that the PIF continues under WC, I understand that the two distributions before Xmas will be on October 31 and December 24. I must admit that I can well do with that cash injection into my bank account. I doubt if I'm the only one with that growing sentiment - the months of austerity slowly grind on. Where would we be today if Octaviar had earlier liquidated the fund?


----------



## DoraNBoots (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Mutchy for your info!

The schemes constitution says redemptions cannot be delayed longer than 360 days but I don’t think there is any ‘law’ preventing this from being modified.  Obviously WC are proposing a modification to redemptions (i.e. scaping them) with their changes.

Here’s what WC are saying.  It gives the impression you can’t do it but it actually just says you need to modifiy the   constitution. I called ASIC and they said they can’t see anything in the Corp Act which would prevent the constitution from being modified in this way.

selciper: if OCV wanted to liquidate the fund they would have had to notify us and we would have had a chance to put forward a resolution and I think we could have found another RE and certainly could have put forward the option for a long winding up of the scheme.


----------



## seamisty (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All, Time is of essence now to secure a 75% vote and there still seems to be a certain amount of confusion surrounding future outcomes for the PIF. I have just had a long phone conversation with WC and will share the information I received in the hope that it will clarify a few issues and uncertainties concerning our investment. Some are wondering why WC won't simply sell off all of the PIF assets in an orderly fashion and return the money to unit holders. The answer is because they have taken on the role as FUND MANAGERS, not ADMINISTRATORS!!!  WC is not a benevolent society!Taking on the PIF is purely a business decision made by WC in the hope to make money and in doing so, PIF holders will share in the upside. Shortly all unit holders will receive their information packs where many questions are answered and clarified. The pack will also contain an 80 page explanatory memorandum on the changed structure of the Fund, approved by ASIC. I am guessing this will replace the old PDS until such times as the PIF has been stabilised and the future direction determined. OCV new board provided $3million for WC to proceed with the information forums, extra staff, operating/legal costs etc. to get to where we are at present. If WC do not get the vote to continue as a going concern, then you better have the fire brigade on speed dial, because a bonfire is what we will get. From a business perspective, if JH doesn't get that vote, then she owes no loyalty to us and only has until March to wind the PIF up. Why would WC want to change the constitution and extend the 360 day winding up period if there is no long term benefit for them? The expenses involved in engaging another RE with no prior knowledge of the PIF would be staggering in as much as the work already done by WC and paid for by OCV would have to be duplicated at our expense. Regarding the Sept 18th meeting, it will be a structured formal event, involving  no discussion with guests as was the case at the Investor Forums.Anyone attending will be purely there as spectators.All votes will have been received and counted 48 hours prior to the meeting. In the event that the 5 main creditors of OCV do not accept the offer and OCV will be liquidated now as opposed to over a 3 year period, we will receive 11.8cents in the $ for only the $50mill support facility as this debt has been legally aknowledged! Even though OCV has recognised  the remaining $147mill it has not been legally aknowledged at this point! So if liquidators step in we are up the creek.JH is still in discussion with OCV to negotiate 22.5cents or better  for the whole amount. So even if OCV creditors accept the offer, it will still be wound up over the 3 year period. It will not remain an ongoing concern after that time, merely giving the company time to realize an orderly wind down. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Am I being naive, or is this what liquidation means? Let’s say we get not 14% but an optimistic 30% with an “orderly” liquidation. E.g. $30k on $100k investment.  What do we then do?  Invest the $30k at 8.5% to give a return of $2,500 p.a. on an inflation depleting asset.
With Jenny, a $100k original investment will return 6 cents or $6,000 with the chance of the original investment being recovered over time.  Please can somebody tell me if there is any logical reason we should go for any sort of liquidation??


----------



## sugar3157 (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Am I being naive, or is this what liquidation means? Let’s say we get not 14% but an optimistic 30% with an “orderly” liquidation. E.g. $30k on $100k investment.  What do we then do?  Invest the $30k at 8.5% to give a return of $2,500 p.a. on an inflation depleting asset.
> With Jenny, a $100k original investment will return 6 cents or $6,000 with the chance of the original investment being recovered over time.  Please can somebody tell me if there is any logical reason we should go for any sort of liquidation??




Hi all, JohnH you are correct..liquidation is not our answer...to liquidate would be financial suicide...only those investors who are mentally challenged won't vote for JH....cheers....


----------



## breaker1 (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*LA Group completed recapitalisation*

The Age, August 6, 2008 - 4:28PM

Living and Leisure Australia Group (LLA) says it has completed its recapitalisation, as described in its July prospectus.

The major elements of the proposal include new stapled securities under the rights offer to raise $100 million and the introduction of new securityholders.

The recapitalisation will refinance more than $200 million of debt, reducing gearing from over 50 per cent to 30 per cent and restructure unsecured debt owed to the Premium Income Fund (PIF).

The company will also complete the documentation by Arctic Capital Limited to acquire Living and Leisure Australia Management Ltd (LLAM), the responsible entity of the Living and Leisure Australia Trust, from the Octaviar group (formerly MFS).

In a statement, LLA said the company wanted to retaining maximum value for existing securityholders following the liquidity issues confronting its previous major security holder and the demands by LLA's former senior secured facility provider to repay debt.

Good to see LLA starting to get on its feet, but with the OCV offer to the PIF @ fixed rate for immediate cash, I guess it doesn't make much difference. But if the secured longer term offer is taken by the PIF, it should help our $ total return.


----------



## selciper (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Anybody expecting a quick response by ASIC to our woes might like to read an item by Michael Pascoe in today's edition of Crikey. It seems that, judging by example, we should be patient.


----------



## Javier (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thank you so much Seamistry. Thank you. Maybe now people here may start to understand what WC's role is and how much time and money it has taken to get to where we are now. How in the hell can people on here say, well why don't we just get another RE to liquidate in an orderly way. Answer: 'cos it ain't that easy!

Like I said in a previous post, if JH can't get 75% with now that we know $3m worth of effort, then what hope do we have with anyone else AND getting 75% of people's units to agree? Answer: NO CHANCE. DUCK EGGS!!


----------



## DoraNBoots (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> If WC do not get the vote to continue as a going concern, then you better have the fire brigade on speed dial, because a bonfire is what we will get.




If the changes WC are proposing don’t get 75% of the vote then WC will have to notify unit holders the schemes purpose cannot be accomplished and must be wound up. (I recall JH saying WC would not be involved if the scheme is to be wound up.)  We would have 28 days to call a meeting where it could be proposed that the constitution be modified to allow it to be wound up after the March 31 deadline.  This would require 100 unit holders putting their name to calling the meeting and then 75% of unit holders preferring a long windup over the March 09 deadline.  I know I sleep better knowing this is an option if "WC doesn't get the vote".


----------



## Jadel (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dora 

   I commend your character and initiative in regard  to asking ASIC a very basic question  on behalf of all investors which concerns our fundamental rights .

 This should have been investigated months ago by others.

I had previously mentioned in a post, the circumstances whereby OCV (King) were able to change the Constitution of the PIF at will and yet we were ,seemingly bonded to a clause in that same Constitution to permit a fire sale liquidation of our assets over a 360 day period as Jenny Hutson had led us to believe ,you have now proved to all that this is  blatantly untrue.

Somebody mentioned ,that Jenny Hutson is a businesswomen and her basic raison d'Ãªtre is to make a profit, therefore apparently that factor makes it acceptable that she does not have to extend the common decency of telling investors the truth regarding other alternatives .

In respect of liquidating the assets at fire sale price, I have stated repeatedly that course of action would be a disaster ,but apparently Jenny Hutson has no problems with her conscience on just how much destruction that would cause to peoples lives, as she is apparently more than prepared to carry out that option, if she does not get her way.

There is no doubt, that her traveling road show circus, at about 80000 dollars a venue has indeed cost the PIF a small fortune. However this was Public Relations exercise and was entirely unnecessary, any another replacement RE would simply have come in a done  due diligence  at negligible cost .

Perhaps instead of quoting Theodore Roosevelt JH   should take a look at Sir Walter Scott.

“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive” 

.  I have always believed that if our AG had a structure, we would have had the capability to look for another RE that would offer another alternative to the very unpopular NSX listing and a fair and reasonable redemption policy ,that would allow the many retirees and aged pensioners access to investment money  at NTA value in what little remains of their remaining years . 

In one week we will, see if  Wellington Capital  has agreed to make any concessions and  addressed the many  concerns of investors  in these matters.  I will suspend my judgment until that day.


----------



## seamisty (6 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

While I know there are some investors in the PIF who are not totally convinced of WC's ability to restore the unit value and bring stability to the Fund, I think good sense will prevail and the majority will vote in favour of non liquidation. Now is not the time to create instability and uncertainty, but to demonstrate a united front  and give support to the ONLY RE on the horizon at the present time!!! If in 6-12 months time WC prove to be incompetant and not working in the best interest of PIF holders we can reassess the situation and endeavour to make alternative arrangements. The Economic climate overall is currently looking rather dismal, there is no way the PIF would have been able to sustain the previous rate of return in view of property defaults and the downturn of residential and commercial developments. There are now also indications that bank interest rates have peaked due to the economic slowdown. There is a bigger picture emerging and all previous comfort zones are at risk of being de-stabilized, managed superannuation funds are a classic example, posting negative returns for the first time in many years.  Chris Scott and Jenny Hutson have become 'scapegoats' for a select few in my opinion, but I am fully prepared to put my support behind them at this time until proven otherwise. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Article in goldcoast.com.au today


----------



## Duped (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> I had previously mentioned in a post, the circumstances whereby OCV (King) were able to change the Constitution of the PIF at will and yet we were ,seemingly bonded to a clause in that same Constitution to permit a fire sale liquidation of our assets over a 360 day period as Jenny Hutson had led us to believe ,you have now proved to all that this is  blatantly untrue.




Hi Jadel.

P37 of the PDS "We may alter the Constitution if we reasonably consider the variation does not adversely effect the Unit Holder's rights.  Otherwise, the amendment must be approved by special resolution at a meeting of Unit holders".  The scope of the term 'adversely effect' would often have many shades of grey.

I believe this amount of Board freedom to amend a constitution is common. Boards need to be able to cost effectively make trivial changes because of laws changes and constitutions often have errors and omissions.  

All, 

What difference does our vote make anyway? Might as well give WC a go. How many of us even remember the 2006 vote let alone what we were voting on and let alone the ramifications? Changing the RE fees from a flat rate (0.7% I recall) to 'all surpluses' seemed like a good idea to me at the time. But it increased MFSIM's take from $11M ($7.8M + $3.2M) in 2006 to $17M ($16.1M + $0.9M) in 2007. That move cost us unit holders $6 million. And I'm suspicious that the $60M units bought by MFS Management in June 07 and whipped out before Jan 08 had something to do with artificially jacking up 'profits'. And where's the value to us in the $50M 'support facility' now?  In hindsight we weakened our position with the 2006 vote.  But now that the truth is out about PIF and JH is being relatively forthcoming and pragmatic - we don't want to weaken our position? Seems self depracating to me. Yes - once bitten twice shy - but in rejecting WC would we be punishing the 'sins of the father' to our own detriment? 

More importantly - where does it say a liquidation MUST be FINALISED by March 2009?  
My guess: if the redemption clauses in the constitution aren't amended by then, WC will no longer be able to operate the fund without breaking the law.  They won't want to do that so sometime after March 2009 somehow someone will appoint an administrator.  How an administrator manages a wind-up? I.e. over 6 months or over 3 years? I don't have a clue.

To me, JH was clear that the 14c was the extreme, that it was part of WC's sales pitch. I don’t regard it as a deception.  Insensitive/Oversell? - probably yes (and it would have been a difficult judgement call by WC). But in effect, the 3 to 5 years WC is asking for to try and achieve $1 *IS* an orderly wind-up.  At a cost to us of an industry competitive 0.7%.  Yes – we would be giving WC a freer hand than to an administrator but JH’s motives are clear to me, to maximise the funds under management and hence profitability for WC. And in a competative funds market, this motivation is profitable for investors too. Right? If we’re not happy with WC in 3 yrs time we can always get another RE, Correct?

I took a punt by re-investing in PIF.  I took a punt with the 2006 vote.  Here's to 3rd time lucky. Eeek.  

Looking forward to those voting papers.  Are we going to have some postings or what!


----------



## flatback (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hi All, Time is of essence now to secure a 75% vote and there still seems to be a certain amount of confusion surrounding future outcomes for the PIF. I have just had a long phone conversation with WC and will share the information I received in the hope that it will clarify a few issues and uncertainties concerning our investment. Some are wondering why WC won't simply sell off all of the PIF assets in an orderly fashion and return the money to unit holders. The answer is because they have taken on the role as FUND MANAGERS, not ADMINISTRATORS!!!  WC is not a benevolent society!Taking on the PIF is purely a business decision made by WC in the hope to make money and in doing so, PIF holders will share in the upside. Shortly all unit holders will receive their information packs where many questions are answered and clarified. The pack will also contain an 80 page explanatory memorandum on the changed structure of the Fund, approved by ASIC. I am guessing this will replace the old PDS until such times as the PIF has been stabilised and the future direction determined. OCV new board provided $3million for WC to proceed with the information forums, extra staff, operating/legal costs etc. to get to where we are at present. If WC do not get the vote to continue as a going concern, then you better have the fire brigade on speed dial, because a bonfire is what we will get. From a business perspective, if JH doesn't get that vote, then she owes no loyalty to us and only has until March to wind the PIF up. Why would WC want to change the constitution and extend the 360 day winding up period if there is no long term benefit for them? The expenses involved in engaging another RE with no prior knowledge of the PIF would be staggering in as much as the work already done by WC and paid for by OCV would have to be duplicated at our expense. Regarding the Sept 18th meeting, it will be a structured formal event, involving  no discussion with guests as was the case at the Investor Forums.Anyone attending will be purely there as spectators.All votes will have been received and counted 48 hours prior to the meeting. In the event that the 5 main creditors of OCV do not accept the offer and OCV will be liquidated now as opposed to over a 3 year period, we will receive 11.8cents in the $ for only the $50mill support facility as this debt has been legally aknowledged! Even though OCV has recognised  the remaining $147mill it has not been legally aknowledged at this point! So if liquidators step in we are up the creek.JH is still in discussion with OCV to negotiate 22.5cents or better  for the whole amount. So even if OCV creditors accept the offer, it will still be wound up over the 3 year period. It will not remain an ongoing concern after that time, merely giving the company time to realize an orderly wind down. Regards, Seamisty



Thank you seamisty, again commonsense comes to the fore,there are some, on this forum who are great on research but lacking in the reality of our situation,what you have just disclosed is exactly what i had discussed via E/MAIL with breaker1 yesterday,JH IS our only hope in this situation, the third option which wasn't given to us for the obvious reason, WAS, never an option,this woman is not the good fairy for us alone .Cheers Flatback


----------



## flatback (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> If the changes WC are proposing don’t get 75% of the vote then WC will have to notify unit holders the schemes purpose cannot be accomplished and must be wound up. (I recall JH saying WC would not be involved if the scheme is to be wound up.)  We would have 28 days to call a meeting where it could be proposed that the constitution be modified to allow it to be wound up after the March 31 deadline.  This would require 100 unit holders putting their name to calling the meeting and then 75% of unit holders preferring a long windup over the March 09 deadline.  I know I sleep better knowing this is an option if "WC doesn't get the vote".



And i thought Magoo had the only negative thoughtsFlatback


----------



## Jadel (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped, 

Trust me on this, in three years time this forum and all the personalities on it will just be a distant memory. 

 I will probably be in a nursing home with Alzheimer’s disease (am half way there already)

 The PIF will probably have very few of the original investor left in the fund after people sell out from because they have had a gutful .Or because of a Placement or Rights Issue.

And will be trading on the NSX or ASX at a pittance.

And JH will still be happily picking up her annual fees from the management Rights


----------



## great dame (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

        Hello all    been thinking  Yes i koow what your thinking   WHAT WITH  I wonder if our wonder women JH can extend the life of a lot of the unit holders As a lot of us have not got much time left   If its takes 5 to 7 years to get back something a lot of us wont be around     Please dont say there is the NSX    That is not going to work   Maybe the ASX  but no way the NSX   //////////////////


----------



## Rance (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Are we going to have some postings or what!



*Hello Duped
All quiet on the Western Front today.
I think most of us are exhausted from endlessly regurgitating the various permutations about the future of the PIF. Roll on the vote!  The result may give us more to talk about.

Rance *


----------



## great dame (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Duped,
> 
> Trust me on this, in three years time this forum and all the personalities on it will just be a distant memory.
> 
> ...



           Yes its Mr Bad News   I could not agree more what Jadel is saying   i was thinking of going to the meeting at th GC  but whats the point none of us can have a say  Its just take it or leave it . A lot of unit holders might just leave it they are that pi;;';' off   with the whole thing /////


----------



## great dame (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> *Hello Duped
> All quiet on the Western Front today.
> I think most of us are exhausted from endlessly regurgitating the various permutations about the future of the PIF. Roll on the vote!  The result may give us more to talk about.
> 
> Rance *



              Just had a great though Rance     Firesale all of PIF we give all the dough to my friend RickH  and we let Rick  make wonderful investments for us all  We will all be stinking rich in no time   Gee am kicking my self for not thinking of this before ///////  i wonder what Rich will charge us ?????


----------



## sundale (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Seamisty

I totally agree with you and appreciate your efforts in explaining (hopefully not in vain) how important it is not to liquidate.

regards

Sundale



seamisty said:


> Hi All, Time is of essence now to secure a 75% vote and there still seems to be a certain amount of confusion surrounding future outcomes for the PIF. I have just had a long phone conversation with WC and will share the information I received in the hope that it will clarify a few issues and uncertainties concerning our investment. Some are wondering why WC won't simply sell off all of the PIF assets in an orderly fashion and return the money to unit holders. The answer is because they have taken on the role as FUND MANAGERS, not ADMINISTRATORS!!!  WC is not a benevolent society!Taking on the PIF is purely a business decision made by WC in the hope to make money and in doing so, PIF holders will share in the upside. Shortly all unit holders will receive their information packs where many questions are answered and clarified. The pack will also contain an 80 page explanatory memorandum on the changed structure of the Fund, approved by ASIC. I am guessing this will replace the old PDS until such times as the PIF has been stabilised and the future direction determined. OCV new board provided $3million for WC to proceed with the information forums, extra staff, operating/legal costs etc. to get to where we are at present. If WC do not get the vote to continue as a going concern, then you better have the fire brigade on speed dial, because a bonfire is what we will get. From a business perspective, if JH doesn't get that vote, then she owes no loyalty to us and only has until March to wind the PIF up. Why would WC want to change the constitution and extend the 360 day winding up period if there is no long term benefit for them? The expenses involved in engaging another RE with no prior knowledge of the PIF would be staggering in as much as the work already done by WC and paid for by OCV would have to be duplicated at our expense. Regarding the Sept 18th meeting, it will be a structured formal event, involving  no discussion with guests as was the case at the Investor Forums.Anyone attending will be purely there as spectators.All votes will have been received and counted 48 hours prior to the meeting. In the event that the 5 main creditors of OCV do not accept the offer and OCV will be liquidated now as opposed to over a 3 year period, we will receive 11.8cents in the $ for only the $50mill support facility as this debt has been legally aknowledged! Even though OCV has recognised  the remaining $147mill it has not been legally aknowledged at this point! So if liquidators step in we are up the creek.JH is still in discussion with OCV to negotiate 22.5cents or better  for the whole amount. So even if OCV creditors accept the offer, it will still be wound up over the 3 year period. It will not remain an ongoing concern after that time, merely giving the company time to realize an orderly wind down. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Yes its Mr Bad News   I could not agree more what Jadel is saying   i was thinking of going to the meeting at th GC  but whats the point none of us can have a say  Its just take it or leave it . A lot of unit holders might just leave it they are that pi;;';' off   with the whole thing /////




 Well Great Dame

  If you come down with me i will shout you a beer 

  How are you with the ladies???

   Perhaps we could pick up a couple of rich widows together

  Then all our problems would be solved


----------



## Robert McNaught (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

As is the case with all of these internet forums, they start out being an information sharing platform but soon degenerate into a series of personal slanging matches. I would suggest we all KEEP TO THE POINT and only post if we have something constructive to add.
The most important item on the agenda at the moment is the upcoming VOTE to see if we will be continuing with Wellington Capital. I believe we should stick with them and hope that further postings by other rational unit holders may help convince thise who are unsure, to also vote for the retention of WC.


----------



## kitbee (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Jadel, don't bother with the old widows, crack onto JH (Grim Reaper) she will end up with the lot.


----------



## CableGuy (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am not reading this forum to be told how to vote.  Most JH believers have no substance behind their faith.  I am waiting to see what JH offers and if the NSX is the only way out I would rather get my money back in an orderly wind up.  What are the ‘positive people’ proposing if JH doesn’t get the vote?  Or is this too much for you to contemplate?


----------



## great dame (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Robert McNaught said:


> As is the case with all of these internet forums, they start out being an information sharing platform but soon degenerate into a series of personal slanging matches. I would suggest we all KEEP TO THE POINT and only post if we have something constructive to add.
> The most important item on the agenda at the moment is the upcoming VOTE to see if we will be continuing with Wellington Capital. I believe we should stick with them and hope that further postings by other rational unit holders may help convince thise who are unsure, to also vote for the retention of WC.



         Yes Robert what ever you say Robert  You are right  Now i want you to give us all some advice  and guird us which way we should be going    Are you in faviour of listing on the NSX??????? Or the ASX  Which one ?????????   Thats of couse if JH gets over the line  We would all love to hear your views on the whole thing  Thank You //////


----------



## great dame (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



CableGuy said:


> I am not reading this forum to be told how to vote.  Most JH believers have no substance behind their faith.  I am waiting to see what JH offers and if the NSX is the only way out I would rather get my money back in an orderly wind up.  What are the ‘positive people’ proposing if JH doesn’t get the vote?  Or is this too much for you to contemplate?



      Good Afternoon CableGuy  Just got off the phone from WC  Was told the NSX is the only way you will get any money  back if any there is to be no other way  //////////////


----------



## SPLITPIN (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



CableGuy said:


> I am not reading this forum to be told how to vote.  Most JH believers have no substance behind their faith.  I am waiting to see what JH offers and if the NSX is the only way out I would rather get my money back in an orderly wind up.  What are the ‘positive people’ proposing if JH doesn’t get the vote?  Or is this too much for you to contemplate?





CableGuy

Does your local action group have an answer for you.

I am sure there are "many positive people" contemplating just that. 

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## seamisty (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



CableGuy said:


> I am not reading this forum to be told how to vote.  Most JH believers have no substance behind their faith.  I am waiting to see what JH offers and if the NSX is the only way out I would rather get my money back in an orderly wind up.  What are the ‘positive people’ proposing if JH doesn’t get the vote?  Or is this too much for you to contemplate?



Your first post on here CableGuy and it comes across as hostile and sarcastic.How much money do you think you will get back via an orderly windup with an independant administrator once all the associated costs involved have been deducted? This is a genuine question and I  would appreciate other people with previous experience to post their opinions of final unit values in regard to the PIF if it is liquidated. Some of the 'positive people'  I know have been quietly working behind the scenes investigating other alternatives, some even getting legal advice at their own expense, and have still came to the same conclusion, listing on the NSX is nowhere near as financially detrimental as liquidation, orderly or otherwise. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If JH's fee is .7% of the value of the managed funds, Would not the NSX price be the current value on which her fee is calculated?


----------



## goldfinger38 (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> If JH's fee is .7% of the value of the managed funds, Would not the NSX price be the current value on which her fee is calculated?




The net asset backing represents the so called current value of the stock traded but not necessarily the price being traded at. Investors who offer their shares on any exchange at a price that they list at may not necessarly sell them at that price as the buyers will be generally offering a price much lower which is normally the case.
So if the current NAV is 0.45 cents that is not necessarily what the buyers will be prepared to offer given the current circumstances surrounding the funds current assets, loans etc etc. given uncertainty I suspect the price may be around the liquidation price, but hey I am not "the buyer".

If you dont offer your units for sale you dont suffer the loss, however if you need more money than what is anticipated as a distribution due to commence in October then you may be forced to sell in order to raise the cash needed.


----------



## JohnH (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I understand that, (and have no intention to sell).  My point is Jenny's fee. If it is .7% of the current value, is the value determined by the listing rather than arbitary valuation?


----------



## sugar3157 (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all, Well what a happy lot we are today...my my....was there a full moon last night?....All everyone has to remember is we are all in the same hole...some deeper than others....JH is our only hope I can assure you all...without her you can just call in the gravedigger to fill us all into our deep holes....Happy Days...


----------



## kitbee (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Now I'll let you all know before I start, I'm really, really, thick as a short plank. Can someone with a simple explanation tell me why we are dealing with JH. So far what she has done hasn't cost us a cracker. She says OCV shelled out a couple of million to get her show on the road and she paid CS or someone, "just north of $20million" for PIF. O.K. so we are now officially Wellington Premium Income Fund and there is $755million in the kitty as 29th Feb 2008,which JH is aware of , see the attachment:-


Wellington Premium Income Fund	   

General Information
Fund Name	Wellington Premium Income Fund
Fund Status	Closed 
APIR Code	MFS0001AU	 
Sector/Asset Class	Mortgages - Aggressive	 
Morningstar Rating	Not Rated	 
Standard & Poor's Rating	Not Rated	 
Legal Structure	Investment Fund	 
Fund Inception	1st Nov 2000
Fund Size	$755.88 million (as at 29th Feb 2008) 
Entry Price	$1 (as at 30th Apr 2008) 
Exit Price	$1 (as at 30th Apr 2008) 
Special Features	Distribution statement, performance updates, annual report, tax statement, 1800 number, Lloyds of London insurance.


The next query is the title of RE, Administrator, Liquidator, etc. I feel we are being advised that we should not consider opting for an administrator or any other form of management to handle our, (it is our?) fund. I feel our affairs are being treated esoterically and in petto.
If an administrator is of no use, then are we to expect WC and crew to do us better than these poor investors in the following attachment?:-


Planners have two choices over Lift Capital

By xxxxx
Wednesday 16 July 2008
Financial planners whose clients have had their assets seized due to the collapse of Lift Capital were given two options to recover their money by the firm's voluntary administrators yesterday. 
They could vote for the broker's voluntary administrator,yyyyy, to liquidate Lift, which would return about 62 cents in the dollar to creditors, yyyyy partner zzzzz said.
Choosing liquidation would leave yyyyyy with enough money for a class action against mmmmm, Lift's secured financier.
xxxxx would sue the United States-headquartered securities firm in a class action on behalf of Lift's 1019 clients - who are owed $220 million - for the way it handled the Lift situation.
Under the other option planners could vote for the voluntary administrator to implement a deed of company arrangement (DOCA), zzzzz said.
Voting for this option would boost returns to around 79 cents in the dollar, but creditors would give up the right to take class action against mmmmm and Lift's directors.
The returns would be higher as mmmmm had agreed to inject $1.4 million into the pool of funds to be redistributed back to planners, on the condition that it not get hit by a class action by xxxxx on behalf of 1019 clients.
However, creditors would be allowed to sue mmmmm in their own names.
Lift's directors had offered to put $1.15 million into the pool and remove their own claims as creditors of $1.29 million if administrators proceeded with the DOCA.
xxxxx partners' yyyyyy and jjjjjjj recommended the DOCA at yesterday's creditors meeting in Sydney.
Planners have until mid-September to vote.
Lift went into voluntary administration on April 10. mmmmm had sold $650 million of Lift's stock to replenish the money it lent to the broker.


Thanks to DoraNBoots, you're good value, should be more of you.


----------



## Jadel (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



kitbee said:


> Jadel, don't bother with the old widows, crack onto JH (Grim Reaper) she will end up with the lot.




 JH would not like me to much after the last meeting in Brisbane

  I still reckon my only chance is a rich widow ???


----------



## CableGuy (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Precisely my point Seamisty.  If people have consulted with experts then tell the actual facts that have come out of those meetings. Don’t just tell me how to vote.  I’ll decide that based on the data provided. 
 JH will take over $20 million over 5 years.  $3 million per year based on .45 cent unit but that doubles sometime before 5 years if JH reaches her goal.  Liquidator will take $20 million.  Octaviar quoted $20 million in their liquidation figures and that’s a lot more complex than the PIF.
The 6 cent per unit distribution is nothing out of the ordinary.  JH isn’t pulling this out of her pocket.  It comes from the interest on the PIFs assets.  If that interest is coming in under JH than it’ll still come in while the fund is wound up.  So here are my gestimates:
Liquidation by 31 March 09:  14 cents per unit
Liquidate over 3 to 5 years: 65 cents per unit (plus interest distributions which will reduce as the assets are sold.)
Stay with JH for 1 year: 45 cent units which will be sold for 14 cents on the NSX
Stay with JH for 5 years: $1 units which will be sold for 50 cents on the NSX
Of course the second option isn't available!


----------



## Javier (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I can handle people coming on here and expressing their view. Whether I agree with it or not, everyone has the right to express their opinion in a public arena such as this. You are allowed to be a misery guts, and believe that the sun may not come up tomorrow and have no ability to be optimistic about anything that may be upcoming in your life.

What I can't handle is people that come on here and talk tripe and basically just lie. This means you great dame. Today I have caught you on a second lie. You said that you spoke to WC today and they told you there is no other means of getting your money other than NSX.  I spoke to them today and they are awaiting advice from JH who is still going over options. Whether that means  NSX is the only avenue may prove be the case, but there is no way they could have told you that today; when the consultant that spoke to you was not in a position to know the answer. That is fact.

The other lie you told was the other day when you said that a WC consultant told you that the vote would come down to the wire in respect to WC securing 75% of the vote. That is just cr@p! I again spoke to a WC consultant about the vote and she confimed that as at 5pm when I spoke to her, WC has taken nearly 1500 callers and they always ask them at the end of the call if they would vote for WC to continue as RE and not ONE caller said they would vote to liquidate. Not one. How would they then tell you it looked tight?

I can take your non-constructive posts with nothing more than bitching about the NSX and how you want ASX, let's face it that is the sum total of them all, but please don't try and be "informative" with plain out lies OK. You can misspell all you like, as long as the content is either true or just opinion.

WC will try and contact most investors between now and the vote via phone to get a gauge how they will vote and answer as many concerns as they may have. JH is quietly confident, as I believe she would not be wasting her time if she didn't feel she had a good crack at getting 75% of the people that will vote.


----------



## gazzan57 (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

well said Javier....good for you!!!!!


----------



## gazzan57 (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



kitbee said:


> Now I'll let you all know before I start, I'm really, really, thick as a short plank. Can someone with a simple explanation tell me why we are dealing with JH. So far what she has done hasn't cost us a cracker. She says OCV shelled out a couple of million to get her show on the road and she paid CS or someone, "just north of $20million" for PIF. O.K. so we are now officially Wellington Premium Income Fund and there is $755million in the kitty as 29th Feb 2008,which JH is aware of , see the attachment:-
> 
> 
> Wellington Premium Income Fund
> ...




If there was $755.88m in our fund in Feb 08....where did it all go by May 08?


----------



## selciper (7 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Javier - Your post 97 is correct in its observations. I spoke with WC yesterday and asked some hard questions. There was no evasion or any attempt to dress up the deal. I was told, in answer to my question, that investors spoken to were seemingly favouring continuation of the Fund. Also, I've noticed some posts are becoming vindictive. That doesn't help anybody. It looks to me like a few contributors aren't reading the financial press sufficiently. Clearly, this would be a crazy time to liquidate.


----------



## kitbee (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Right,everybody has gone to bed, got to try and be positive about this PIF thing, JH is the girl, let's see what she has to offer on her website. Start with the term sheet,looks good...support claim $50mil...PAC $23mil+....another $62mil ....$85mill...$55....$30. My God this is lookin' good. Last page, bit of a slog but I'm getting there, but what is this in 6(a) pp4......"in reaching arrangements with any of the persons/entities listed in 4(a) above"......cant recall 4(a).....bugger can't find it, must be getting late. Hang on this document/draft has Freehills logo on it. Big law firm, they dont make errors like this, must be4(A) ...like a capital"A"......then the 4 could be substituted for1,2,3, 5 with the "a" attached. Oh well it's only a small legallity, can't be to pedantic, we are only talking about maybe five to eight hundred million bucks, small change!!
Remember Freehills were advisors to MFS on the takeover of S8 around the beginning of 2007, JH from WCL advised on the deal for S8. McCullough Robertson also advised S8 on its takeover by MFS. Brett Heading is Chairman of Partners and a Partner in the Corporate Advisory Group for the firm Mccullogh Robertson and also husband to JH.
Positive now, you bet 'um, can't wait for September and the vote, will be like getting into bed with Ozzy Osbourne and family. 
Will hopefully see the PWC report that was sorted behind locked doors the other week, my life is in turmoil!!


----------



## great dame (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> JH would not like me to much after the last meeting in Brisbane
> 
> I still reckon my only chance is a rich widow ???



     After my phone call to WC yesterday When i gave them a big blast about listing on the  hole in the wall NSX  & others things   A rich widow is my only hope too //////////////////


----------



## great dame (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



CableGuy said:


> Precisely my point Seamisty.  If people have consulted with experts then tell the actual facts that have come out of those meetings. Don’t just tell me how to vote.  I’ll decide that based on the data provided.
> JH will take over $20 million over 5 years.  $3 million per year based on .45 cent unit but that doubles sometime before 5 years if JH reaches her goal.  Liquidator will take $20 million.  Octaviar quoted $20 million in their liquidation figures and that’s a lot more complex than the PIF.
> The 6 cent per unit distribution is nothing out of the ordinary.  JH isn’t pulling this out of her pocket.  It comes from the interest on the PIFs assets.  If that interest is coming in under JH than it’ll still come in while the fund is wound up.  So here are my gestimates:
> Liquidation by 31 March 09:  14 cents per unit
> ...



        CableGuy thats what i have been saying all along   But you put it into words just right Everything you say is spot on    If Jh gets the vote we will all be lead by the unknown & blind faith    A questain for all Would any of you good folk buy into this fund if you had your chance again ???????????????????????


----------



## great dame (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> I can handle people coming on here and expressing their view. Whether I agree with it or not, everyone has the right to express their opinion in a public arena such as this. You are allowed to be a misery guts, and believe that the sun may not come up tomorrow and have no ability to be optimistic about anything that may be upcoming in your life.
> 
> What I can't handle is people that come on here and talk tripe and basically just lie. This means you great dame. Today I have caught you on a second lie. You said that you spoke to WC today and they told you there is no other means of getting your money other than NSX.  I spoke to them today and they are awaiting advice from JH who is still going over options. Whether that means  NSX is the only avenue may prove be the case, but there is no way they could have told you that today; when the consultant that spoke to you was not in a position to know the answer. That is fact.
> 
> ...



           I am not lieing  they did not ask me how i am going to vote   i asjked them how do you think the vote will go  And the answer i go whas it coud be a cliff hanger    As for getting your money back if any the answer was the NSX   When i told her what a worthless wast of time that would be she said Jenny has made up her mind about that    Look i dont give stuff  if you think i am lieing i am telling the truth  If anyones lieing its WC  to you  People like you only believe what they want to believe ////////////


----------



## DoraNBoots (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> I again spoke to a WC consultant about the vote and she confimed that as at 5pm when I spoke to her, WC has taken nearly 1500 callers and *they always ask them at the end of the call if they would vote for WC to continue as RE and not ONE caller said they would vote to liquidate*. Not one. How would they then tell you it looked tight?




I have called WC many many times and spoken to different people each time and I have not once be asked how I would vote.  And I wouldn't say it was obvious from our conversations how I will vote either.


----------



## rich4495 (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Trying to make sense of this post is making my head spin...


----------



## kitbee (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Fight you mongrels,fight.I'll bet more than 50% of the Piffies reside around the Gold coast area and you are all tiffying yourselfs up to head off to another sideshow presented by your great white goddess, sit there and gawk like a mob of bleaters waiting for another bit of garbage to be shoved down your throats. How many of you got of your horses yesterday and went down to listen to Wayne Swan give his speil on the super debarkle? Not one. Who bothered to go see the ASIC commissioner Belinda Gibson, she mentioned Centro,Allco, ABC and B & B, no mention about Octaviar. Why not? they were both in town, yes your town. Were we are all sitting down at the Bingo having chatties and sipping the old '82 vintage. Gawd Almighty it's laid at your feet and you shun the opportunity. Come on  give it a go, I never hear about AG meeting results, the ball is in your court, don't leave it to a few, go out and hunt the buggers down and get some results. Come home tonight and sit in front of the old monitor and tell everyone your acheivements. There is more than one way to skin the old pussy. While you are out there you may happen upon a couple of our good people doing the hard yards, I bet there is a few looking for alternatives. We have all been dudded and how, this mess didn't just happen, it was engineered and minipulated and if we don't move we are dead, not beaten by a short half head, but stone motherless. What about Kev, give him a call or write him a story, he is the one that told you when he got in he is there to listen, stir the bullants up. He is your man, he is full of steam give him a go!
Me today? Going to see a man about a dog then write a few letters tonight to stir things up.
Enjoy the sunshine.


----------



## Duped (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Trust me on this, in three years time this forum and all the personalities on it will just be a distant memory.
> 
> I will probably be in a nursing home with Alzheimer’s disease (am half way there already)




Thank Jadel.  Point taken. Didn't occur to me. I'm more your kids generation so 3-5 years is not a problem for me.


----------



## great dame (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Jenny & her hench men have decided whats best for us  Thet say its cheaper to list on the NSX  Then the ASX   looks like they have not heard 7 saying you pay for what you get  ( except us poor unit holders will be doing the paying)  Questain  whats it like to have a loaded gun held to your head  ??????????????????????????


----------



## JohnH (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Am I being naive, or is this what liquidation means? Let’s say we get not 14% but an optimistic 30% with an “orderly” liquidation. E.g. $30k on $100k investment.  What do we then do?  Invest the $30k at 8.5% to give a return of $2,500 p.a. on an inflation depleting asset.
> With Jenny, a $100k original investment will return 6 cents or $6,000 with the chance of the original investment being recovered over time.  Please can somebody tell me if there is any logical reason we should go for any sort of liquidation??




Well.......... the only answers I have had to this post 2 days ago have been all positive............ nobody seems able to give one solid reason why we should contemplate liquidation.  Would have thought Great Doom would have given me a mouthful!


----------



## selciper (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Business Sprctator 08/08/08:

The Kooralbyn Hotel Resort in Queensland has accumulated debts of approximately $A60 million and has gone into receivership. The property, which includes a 100-room resort, a golf course and a 36-room golf lodge, owes the troubled Premium Income Fund (PIF) an estimated $A50 million. PIF does not have security over the hotel operating business. Savills Gold Coast is attempting to locate a buyer for the resort in its entirety and says it is holding discussions with several interested parties

Distributed by News Bites.  © Lexis-Nexis


Share This Story


----------



## Mary Lynch (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Ho much supposed value in the Kooralbyn Hotel is included in our 45C?


----------



## seamisty (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Business Sprctator 08/08/08:
> 
> The Kooralbyn Hotel Resort in Queensland has accumulated debts of approximately $A60 million and has gone into receivership. The property, which includes a 100-room resort, a golf course and a 36-room golf lodge, owes the troubled Premium Income Fund (PIF) an estimated $A50 million. PIF does not have security over the hotel operating business. Savills Gold Coast is attempting to locate a buyer for the resort in its entirety and says it is holding discussions with several interested parties
> 
> ...



:::Hi Selciper, When I spoke to WC regarding this approx 4 weeks ago, I was told that what happened to the Kooralbyn Resort would not have any impact on the 45cent unit price, so I can only assume this had had already been factored in. Will also re-copy an article from the Gold Coast Bulletin from Aug 2:::New owner coming for Kooralbyn:::August 2nd, 2008 

A NEW owner is poised to take over the Kooralbyn Hotel Resort as early as next week.

The resort closed its doors two weeks ago under the instructions of liquidator Peter Lucas and they remained closed yesterday.

Mr Lucas, of PA Lucas and Co in Brisbane, was appointed liquidator to Kooralbyn International Hotels, which is understood to have accumulated debts of up to $60 million.

The liquidator did not return calls yesterday, but sources close to the deal said it was likely the resort would be open for business by next weekend if the deal proceeded.

The buyer is understood to be taking over both the resort business and the operation of the golf course.

Kooralbyn International Hotels is directed by New Zealand businessman Ray Schofield, who still controls the resort's property assets, which include the hotel, a 36-room golf lodge, golf course, tennis centre, polo fields and equestrian centre.

The Premium Income Fund, formerly controlled by troubled financial services group Octaviar (ex-MFS) and now in the hands of Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital, is understood to have a $20 million exposure to Kooralbyn International Hotels.

The ownership of the resort remains clouded, with MFS at one stage touted as having an interest.



Not sure if the 'New owner' is coming or not!!! Regards, Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

JohnH,

I thought CableGuy had a pretty good answer to your question.

I’m not sure anyone would tell you to go for liquidation but you have to realise it *is *a possibility. I don’t understand why a lot of people on this forum won’t allow others to discuss this possibility (without being abused) and try to come up with ways to minimise damage should it occur.


----------



## Javier (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Possibilty vs. Probability vs. Reality:

Anything IS possible. But let's assess the reality of that. More than 1 in 4 people (on average say) of those chosing to vote must willingly agree to it. If people are still believed to be sane out there in the greater population of investors, then how will this occur? Will it be that at the time people have a pen in their hand, casting off their vote, that each one of those 1 in 4 people voting will have a chronic mental attack and vote for liquidation. Because that is what you are basically saying.

There is also a possibility that Michael King will come out in the 6 o'clock news tonight and say that he has $400m dollars hidden offshore and that his conscience  no longer allows him to take another ride on his polo pony without giving it all back to the victims of the Premium Income Fund. That IS possible, but how probable is it, huh?


----------



## selciper (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty -

Thanks for the information. You make the news sound less dramatic in this instance. It might actually be positive for us.

Cheers


----------



## kitbee (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

DoraNBoots, this may interest you.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Inside-the-new-ASIC-HAS87?OpenDocument&src=sph


----------



## zixo (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

THE FIRST SYDNEY PIF AG MEETING WILL BE HELD AT 
THE COOGEE BOWLING CLUB
DOLPHIN STREET COOGEE
ON SUNDAY THE 17th OF AUGUST
At 11.00am till 1.00pm

(*WOULD BE GOOD IF EVERYONE ARRIVED AT 10.30am)*
They have kindly opened their Bistro for us for those of you who would like to Buy refreshments or Lunch  

Those of you who would like to attend so we can arrange seating please email me on 
zixo7@hotmail.com


----------



## CableGuy (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Javier, Chill dude!  If you are so sure of the situation you should just kick back to some Chris De Burgh.


----------



## Javier (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yeah, love 80's music. Chris D B sucked though..I like it a little louder. More like Metallica, Van Halen and Ozzy (most people here wouldn't know these bands). I just play my guitar to chill. I know I should just kick it back..just erks me that there is no logical reasoning to some comments. I know that noone here would really vote for the L word..they just stir, and I give it back..it's in my hard rock nature to.


----------



## seamisty (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Octaviar Limited
ABN 90 107 863 436
For further information please contact
Investor Relations:
E-mail: mail@octaviar.com.au
Website: www.octaviar.com.au
SHARE REGISTRY
Computershare Investor Services Pty Ltd
Level 3, 60 Carrington Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Telephone: 1300 787 650
ASX Announcement
_______________________
Creditor Update
8 August 2008
To remain as a going concern Octaviar Limited (ASX code: OCV) must reach an accommodation with
its large creditors so as to align the obligations to those creditors with the realisation of the group’s
assets.
Offers made to Creditors
As previously announced, an offer was made to the holders of listed unsecured notes (ASX code:
OCVG) on 18 July 2008. Pursuant to that offer, if the Trustee and 75% or more of Noteholders agree
to change the terms of the notes, then Noteholders can chose between either a “Cash Now” offer of
between 22.5 cents and 100 cents in the dollar, a secured debt position until 2011 for the full face value
of the notes, or a combination of the two.
Similar offers have now been made to Bondholders and the Responsible Entity of the Premium Income
Fund. An offer has also been made to the Australian Taxation Office. The Company will make a
secured debt offer to OPI Pacific Finance itself and a direct cash offer to individual OPI Pacific
Finance investors as soon as OPI Pacific Finance and its Trustee confirm the offers are within the
Moratorium terms already agreed.
Status and Timetable of Offers
Listed Notes
Noteholders had been asked to respond to the offer by 7pm 11 August 2008 however in response to
recent requests by a number of large Noteholders, including those who have now formed a Steering
Committee, the Company has agreed to delay the close of this voting process to give Noteholders more
time to consider the material provided and to determine their desired course of action. The revised
closing date for the offer is now 4pm 29 August 2008.
At the time of this announcement, the Company has received 184 voting forms indicating a preference
either for or against the proposed suggested amendments to the terms of the notes. The “Yes” votes are
running at more than 95% by number and more than 88% by value. Whilst the responses are more than
a third of the total Noteholders by number, the 20 largest holders account for more than 85% by value
and it is the majority of these large Noteholders who have asked the company to extend the timetable to
allow further time for analysis and consideration of the offer.
Octaviar Limited
ABN 90 107 863 436
For further information please contact
Investor Relations:
E-mail: mail@octaviar.com.au
Website: www.octaviar.com.au
SHARE REGISTRY
Computershare Investor Services Pty Ltd
Level 3, 60 Carrington Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Telephone: 1300 787 650
Unlisted Bonds
Bondholders have sought an extension of the original 11 August 2008 deadline and the Company has
agreed with them that the timetable will be consistent with that set for the holders of the listed notes.
Premium Income Fund
The Responsible Entity has advised that the cash offer is likely to be accepted, subject to the
acceptance by other creditors of offers put to them.
Australian Taxation Office
The Company has sought a meeting next week with Officers of the ATO to fully explain the offer
being made.
Other Creditor matters
With the successful recapitalisation of the Living and Leisure Australia Group (ASX code: LLA) in
recent days the advance by NAB to LLA guaranteed by the Company has been repaid in full. As aconsequence the NAB no longer has a claim against the Company


----------



## sugar3157 (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Seamisty, thanks for the info...but exactly what does that mean for us? I am so confused.... thanks


----------



## seamisty (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Hi Seamisty, thanks for the info...but exactly what does that mean for us? I am so confused.... thanks



I agree sugar, Its as clear as mud!!!!!It doesn't actually say, the last call I had from WC I was told that JH was negotiating 22.5cents per unit upwards, so it could mean that she will accept x amount now and participate in some upside at a later date. Any amount received in relation to the Support Facility is already owed to unit holders and she has already stated this would be passed on to us. The PIF is also due to receive $30mill from Arctic Capital in relation to the deal with LLA so hopefully this will help pay down the renegotiated PIF debt that released us from RBOS. I would imagine we will get some sort of an update before the proposed vote deadline, especially if there is some positive news. This is only my opinion, regards Seamisty:hide:


----------



## DoraNBoots (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If I have a choice between recieving 50M now or a secured debt position over income producing assets with an estimated value of 150M in 3 years, I choose the latter.  If all of the 50M was given as a special distribution it would equate to about 0.65 of a cent per unit (or $650 for every $100,000) with no upside, as opposed to three times that figure in 3 years.  You would need to get roughly 40% p.a. in order to turn 50M into 150M in three years by any other means!

Boots


----------



## seamisty (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> If I have a choice between recieving 50M now or a secured debt position over income producing assets with an estimated value of 150M in 3 years, I choose the latter.  If all of the 50M was given as a special distribution it would equate to about 0.65 cents per unit (or $650 for every $100,000) with no upside, as opposed to three times that figure in 3 years.  You would need to get roughly 40% p.a. in order to turn 50M into 150M in three years by any other means!
> 
> Boots



 DoraNBoots only the SF% component of any cash the PIF gets will be distributed and my understanding is that has to  by law as the SF was put in place to cover any short fall in distributions. So I am no expert but I would imagine that less than 1/4 of any money recieved would constitute the SF share. JH is not giving that to unit holders out of kindness, she is legally obliged to. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty,
We know that any money from the SF will be a special distribution and any money from the $147 mill claim will add to the unit price.  That’s not the point of Boots post.  What he was saying is that we would rather get $150 million from OCV over 3 years than take $50 mill now.  Unfortunately the "lady in red" (nice one CableGuy!) seems to be happy to take only $50mill from OCV.
Dora


----------



## seamisty (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Seamisty,
> We know that any money from the SF will be a special distribution and any money from the $147 mill claim will add to the unit price.  That’s not the point of Boots post.  What he was saying is that we would rather get $150 million from OCV over 3 years than take $50 mill now.  Unfortunately "out lady in red" (nice one CableGuy!) seems to be happy to take only $50mill from OCV.
> Dora



OK, sorry Dora, I just haven't interpeted the announcement correctly. Or perhaps if JH is as cosy with CS as some would have us believe, she knows which is the better deal. 0.7% management fee of $50mill now is better than 0.7% of FA in 3 years time! Seamisty


----------



## Javier (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Could JH be that dumb and just take $48.5m now and that's it...or does she anticipate huge lawsuits to come in the next couple of years that will mean that we would be in a secured position with everyone else as well as successful litigants ie. shareholders in the IMF action and the many, many other funds that we don't even know about yet that were fleeced by past OCV directors then fighting for 33% of the sale of Stella.

I mean, they are not just going to let OCV sell Stella and split it 5 ways in the appropriate ratio of the listed major creditors within 3 years, I don't think it will be that clean. Maybe it is better to get the cash now..as much as I hate to say that. Just wish she would negotiate MORE. Who knows how she will justify this??


----------



## Javier (8 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



CableGuy said:


> Javier, Chill dude!  If you are so sure of the situation you should just kick back to some Chris De Burgh.




Lady in Red. Hey Cable Guy, Don't Pay the Ferryman..till (s)he gets us to the other side. That is very clever and funny with that avatar. Nice one LOL LOL LOL!!!!!


----------



## great dame (9 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Yeah, love 80's music. Chris D B sucked though..I like it a little louder. More like Metallica, Van Halen and Ozzy (most people here wouldn't know these bands). I just play my guitar to chill. I know I should just kick it back..just erks me that there is no logical reasoning to some comments. I know that noone here would really vote for the L word..they just stir, and I give it back..it's in my hard rock nature to.



    Well Javier We both have some thing common anyway we both play guitar It sure helps me to relaz ///////


----------



## seamisty (9 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Could JH be that dumb and just take $48.5m now and that's it...or does she anticipate huge lawsuits to come in the next couple of years that will mean that we would be in a secured position with everyone else as well as successful litigants ie. shareholders in the IMF action and the many, many other funds that we don't even know about yet that were fleeced by past OCV directors then fighting for 33% of the sale of Stella.
> 
> I mean, they are not just going to let OCV sell Stella and split it 5 ways in the appropriate ratio of the listed major creditors within 3 years, I don't think it will be that clean. Maybe it is better to get the cash now..as much as I hate to say that. Just wish she would negotiate MORE. Who knows how she will justify this??



It's already started Javiar, and three years might just be long enough for ASIC to have started proceedings against former OCV board:::::::Octaviar staff seeks severance pay:::::Fiona Cameron | August 09, 2008 
AN Octaviar executive sacked in June has filed a court action seeking $54,353 severance pay from the besieged funds manager.

Nigel Fitzgerald, an internal audit manager for Octaviar until he was retrenched, was kept on staff for nearly six months after the fortunes of the once high-flying tourism and property conglomerate hit the wall in January. 

But Octaviar shortchanged him when it laid him off two months ago, according to the statement of claim Mr Fitzgerald has lodged in the District Court of Queensland, alleging breach of contract. 

The claim joins a long list of court matters where creditors are seeking a combined total of hundreds of millions of dollars from Octaviar companies. 

Mr Fitzgerald started work with Octaviar in August last year on a $260,442 package, made up of $247,313 base salary and $13,129 of superannuation. 

He was made redundant on June 8, and filed his claim on July 31. 

Octaviar, previously known as MFS Ltd, collapsed in January after it tried to stage a $550 million capital raising. 

The company technically is still alive, but only with the support of its lenders. Since January, chairman Andrew Peacock and the majority of the board have resigned, as have most of the executive team. 

Only a skeleton staff remains in the Gold Coast offices after the closure of the Melbourne and Sydney operations. 

Mr Fitzgerald asserts in his statement of claim that on or around February 11, his employment contract was varied by verbal agreement, and a written variation signed by Octaviar on February 19. 

Under the revised contract, Octaviar agreed to provide Mr Fitzgerald with six months' notice of termination or payment in lieu "at the defendant's discretion", according to the claim. 

Octaviar gave Mr Fitzgerald two weeks' notice of his redundancy and the equivalent of 14 weeks' pay, "leaving a shortfall of 10 weeks' pay", the claim states. 

In addition, according to the claim, Octaviar had miscalculated, setting the payments Mr Fitzgerald did receive on his base salary rather than on his total package. 

Mr Fitzgerald said yesterday it was "a relatively straightforward issue". 

"I'm obviously disappointed I've got to go through this to get them to pay me, but there's nothing I can do about it other than to proceed the way I am," he said. 

Octaviar company secretary David Anderson last night said the matter would be decided by the court and he declined to comment further. 

Octaviar's biggest creditor, the Public Trustee of Queensland, has a wind-up claim against the company listed for hearing in the Queensland Supreme Court next month. But the PTQ, representing noteholders owed $351 million, may not proceed with the action and is seeking a noteholders' vote on the issue. 

Other Octaviar creditors include OPI Pacific Finance ($246 million), the Australian Taxation Office ($100 million) and Challenger Managed Investments ($100 million).


----------



## seamisty (9 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

AS per above post:::AN Octaviar executive sacked in June has filed a court action seeking $54,353 severance pay from the besieged funds manager.

Nigel Fitzgerald, an internal audit manager for Octaviar until he was retrenched, was kept on staff for nearly six months after the fortunes of the once high-flying tourism and property conglomerate hit the wall in January. 

But Octaviar shortchanged him when it laid him off two months ago, according to the statement of claim Mr Fitzgerald has lodged in the District Court of Queensland, alleging breach of contract. 

The claim joins a long list of court matters where creditors are seeking a combined total of hundreds of millions of dollars from Octaviar companies. 

Mr Fitzgerald started work with Octaviar in August last year on a $260,442 package, made up of $247,313 base salary and $13,129 of superannuation. 

He was made redundant on June 8, and filed his claim on JUL 31::::::What is the role of an 'Audit Manager'? If this guy was audit manager at the time millions started to vanish from the PIF or be exchanged for worthless notes and were not disclosed, can he be held accountable for negligence? This will be just the beginning of much more to come IMO. Seamisty


----------



## SPLITPIN (9 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> AS per above post:::
> 
> He was made redundant on June 8, and filed his claim on JUL 31::::::What is the role of an 'Audit Manager'? If this guy was audit manager at the time millions started to vanish from the PIF or be exchanged for worthless notes and were not disclosed, can he be held accountable for negligence? This will be just the beginning of much more to come IMO. Seamisty




Seamisty

Part of the answer to your question for the PIF is within the compliance plan as available on the WC web site.

A very interesting document on what should have been done and what obviously was not done for the PIF.

Thanks for your continued research and contribution.

Splitpin.


----------



## seamisty (9 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Seamisty
> 
> Part of the answer to your question for the PIF is within the compliance plan as available on the WC web site.
> 
> ...



Thanks Splitpin, I just quickly read through it, I guess the outcome rests with ASIC (again), I can see why it takes so long for legal action to take place in the case of corporate fraud. I will paste an interesting article concerning ASIC I read yesterday, I feel that at least the spotlight is now focused more strongly as to what has happened to the PIF and other similar investment schemes. Regards, Seamisty::::::::Watchdog bares teeth in crackdown
By Nicola Berkovic | August 08, 2008 08:40am 

ASIC has listed areas it will target over the next few months 
The move follows months of turbulance on financial markets 
More investing news in our Money section 
MANAGED investment schemes, credit rating agencies and illegal trading activity face a crackdown by Australia's corporate watchdog, as it responds to investors' concerns over continued market turbulence, The Australian reports.

In a break with previous practice of keeping its warnings general, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission yesterday laid out five specific issues it would target in coming months, in a clear bid to put potential rule breakers on notice before investors are out of pocket. 

ASIC commissioner Belinda Gibson said the regulator would focus on listed investment funds and disclosures relating to complicated financial assets, particularly the ones subject to winding up actions. 

Ms Gibson, one of three commissioners (with Tony D'Aloisio and Jeremy Cooper) and head of ASIC's Capital Markets taskforce, said it would also work on stamping out illegal trading activities, including market manipulation, insider trading and false rumours. 

ASIC last month issued consultation papers on Australia's $42 billion unlisted mortgage fund sector and $32 billion unlisted property scheme sector. It followed the regulator's efforts to improve disclosure to retail investors in the $8 billion unlisted and unrated debenture market, which has seen the collapse of groups such as Westpoint with heavy losses. 

Ms Gibson said ASIC was also working with Treasury on a review of credit rating agencies, which had been heavily criticised in the fallout from the sub-prime mortgage market collapse. 

ASIC will examine how credit rating agencies operate, their level of diligence and management of conflicts of interest. 

"There have been questions raised as to the quality of the ratings process, particularly where ratings agencies have a conflict of interest in terms of the connection of fees to ratings outcome or product issue success,'' Ms Gibson said. 

"There is a wider market issue about the extent to which investors rely on the ratings agencies for their investment decisions and whether the level of diligence and discussion undertaken by the agencies warrants this reliance.'' 

Most of the worst examples of optimistic assessment by ratings agencies happened in the US and Britain because they related to bond insurance. 

Listed investment vehicles trading at a significant discount to their announced asset values will also attract ASIC's scrutiny, particularly those involving infrastructure. 

Ms Gibson said the regulator would examine privatisation, asset sales and wind-ups of these types of vehicles.


----------



## SPLITPIN (9 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Thanks Splitpin, I just quickly read through it, I guess the outcome rests with ASIC (again), I can see why it takes so long for legal action to take place in the case of corporate fraud. I will paste an interesting article concerning ASIC I read yesterday, I feel that at least the spotlight is now focused more strongly as to what has happened to the PIF and other similar investment schemes. Regards, Seamisty::::::::Watchdog bares teeth in crackdown
> By Nicola Berkovic | August 08, 2008 08:40am
> 
> ASIC has listed areas it will target over the next few months
> ...




Seamisty

That is the sort of good news we want to hear.

I trust WC will read it long and hard and start to feed us some real facts through the WC web site instead of the piece meal media gobblygoop we have been receiving.

I have been studing the investment allocation of the fund as set out in the WC web site and the first mortgage loan book as per the attachement to the  forums questions and nothing really adds up or makes any sense or indicates what WC is up to.

I don't believe for a moment the numbers being thrown around.

I think the fund with good management may be worth more than we are lead to believe.

Part of the answer is in the first mortgage loan book of $360M, but is WC a good possession developer / manager of this. 

Regards

Splitpin


----------



## sugar3157 (9 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Morning all, hope ASIC throws them all in jail....If I ring the hotline at WC is it possible to speak to JH personally?


----------



## kitbee (9 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Exactly Splitpin, in my thread 1568 on page 79 of this forum this was noted. It reads basically what OCV offered in the first place, with a few bits to dolly it up, and I guess this term sheet is, or hopefully is a first and not final draft. After reading the the March 2008 Investment Allocating on the Newpif website and having portions explained to me by an investment advisor (successful) of some 52 years, there is no way I will vote for JH, it does not mean liquidation!!


----------



## sugar3157 (9 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If we as investors own the fund....then why can't we have access to ALL the paperwork? .......maybe then we could run it ourselves and save a fortune....is this possible?


----------



## Jadel (9 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

ASIC commissioner Belinda Gibson said the regulator would focus on listed investment funds and disclosures relating to complicated financial assets, particularly the ones subject to winding up actions


Seamisty

One of the fundamental  issues i have repeatedly attempted to highlite on this forum is how vulnerable our position becomes when we have only  one source with a vested interst for a unbiased valuation of the Funds Assets

 Valueing assets is about as unpredictable as getting a diagnosis from a Psychiatrist . You will get a different interpretation every time depending on the person making the analysis .


----------



## kitbee (9 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hello Sugar3157, if you log onto the newpif site, which is pasted below.then click onto 'PREMIUM INCOME FUND' then 'INVESTMENT ALLOCATION'   I am sure a lot you are seeking is there, listed as March 2008. Of course this is not updated but should be roughly about it. As you know JH has reduced the RBOS loan greatly, and it is also good to see some of our funds are still working and putting a few shekels into the piggy, notably the 43% of total funds, which conservatively relate to about $300mil at good returns. Trust this helps a little.



http://www.newpif.com.au/investorforumjuly.html


----------



## kitbee (9 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The next time you hear a mention of Mr Fitzgeralds (I do feel for him) name will more than likely be in a sitting of parliament with Gillard asking Nelson with words to the effect " What are you going to do about this poor.... blah .....blah ....  under your AWA Scheme" This is media hype and irrelavent to the WPIF. His claim will more than likely go to a tribunal if necessary, methinks it will be settled well before that. Hopefull ASIC's sights are set a lot higher than this.


----------



## kitbee (9 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Yeah, love 80's music. Chris D B sucked though..I like it a little louder. More like Metallica, Van Halen and Ozzy (most people here wouldn't know these bands). I just play my guitar to chill. I know I should just kick it back..just erks me that there is no logical reasoning to some comments. I know that noone here would really vote for the L word..they just stir, and I give it back..it's in my hard rock nature to.




Javier, Would be nice if you would pick up your guitar and a bottle of something and toodle around to JH's pad and see if you can knock a bit of Johnny CASH out of her. I'm off on holidays soon.


----------



## CableGuy (9 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> ...How much money do you think you will get back via an orderly windup with an independant administrator once all the associated costs involved have been deducted? .... Some of the 'positive people'  I know have been quietly working behind the scenes investigating other alternatives, some even getting legal advice at their own expense, and have still came to the same conclusion, listing on the NSX is nowhere near as financially detrimental as liquidation, orderly or otherwise. Regards, Seamisty




Hey Seamisty,
I answered your question now it is your turn to tell us the details of the quiet investigations taking place behind the scenes regarding liquidation.  Hoping you provide conclusions and facts which back them up.


----------



## Bumblebee (10 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This is from the Gold Coast Bulletin Aug 9th. I have highlighted the relative PIF bit.

_Nick Nichols _
_August 9th, 2008 _
_OCTAVIAR appears to be winning over small creditors in its bid to stay alive._
_The embattled financial services company, formerly MFS, said it had received early support from note-holders on a payout offer which it has extended to all creditors, who are owed a total of $1 billion._
_Octaviar owes $351 million on its listed notes and has offered a 22.5c-in-the-dollar payout on all sums above $5000 owed to about 560 noteholders._
_It has agreed to pay the first $5000 in full, triggering a rush by smaller noteholders to accept._
_Octaviar has received 184 voting forms since it made its offer three weeks ago, with more than 95 per cent by number accepting the offer._
_Of the votes received, it said, 88 per cent by value had accepted._
_"While the responses are more than a third of the total noteholders by number, the 20 largest holders account for more than 85 per cent by value," said Octaviar company secretary David Anderson in a statement to the Australian Securities Exchange last night._
_The offer, which needs the support of at least 75 per cent of noteholders to proceed, had been due to close on Monday at 7pm, but the larger noteholders have sought an extension to consider the offer, said Mr Anderson._
_Octaviar has extended the offer until 4pm on August 29._
_The same offer has been made to the James Packer-backed Challenger Financial Services, owed $100 million in unlisted bonds._
_Octaviar owes $197.5 million to the Jenny Hutson-controlled Premium Income Fund, $246 million to its New Zealand subsidiary OPI Pacific Finance and $53 million to the Australian Taxation Office._
_It said the $40 million owed to the National Australia Bank through a guarantee for funds lent to former subsidiary Living and Leisure Australia (LLA) had been repaid._
_The repayment was made through the completion of a recapitalisation plan which this week delivered almost half of LLA to Mr Packer's private equity vehicle, Arctic Capital._
_*The Premium Income Fund has already indicated it will accept the payout offer,* while Octaviar is still working on its payout offer for OPI Pacific Finance. It also has yet to gauge the ATO's response._
_"The company has sought a meeting next week with officers of the ATO to fully explain the offer being made," said Mr Anderson._
_Last month, Octaviar averted a winding-up move brought against it by the Public Trustee of Queensland, which at the time was acting on behalf of the noteholders._
_Creditors have been warned by Octaviar director Chris Scott that liquidation would deliver, at best, 13.9c in the dollar to all unsecured creditors._

I’m sorry but I find it hard to swallow that the ‘press’ keep getting this wrong.

WC, via their phone line assures us that JH is in their boots and all for us, aggressively negotiating for PIF investors.
But time and again we hear that JH has accepted ‘the deal’ from Scott.

This apparent compliance with OCV still points to WC being “in bed’ with OCV…..and I don’t think that is in the best interest of PIF investors.

Part of me feels the move, way back, to place PIF at arms length from Octaviar is not sincere and that WC is either a puppet of OCV, or JH and Scott remain in strong cahoots.

It seems the other Major creditors, who now have until the 29 th August to accept, are very much still negotiating something better.

 Why have PIF straight away put their hand up for what must be the best deal for OCV ?


----------



## CableGuy (10 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We’ve already seen the believers justify the octavia deal  saying it’s better than nothing.  Spare us any more of this nonsense.  JH and  SC  have had their game of tiggy and are sitting at the ends of the earth right now laughing at you people.  Do ya think NAB took 22.5 cents in the dollar for the $40 million they were paid out this week?  Let’s see what the 20 largest noteholders come up with.  Here’s hoping they don’t negotiate a deal, you can bet it won’t be 22.5 cents in the dollar.  Our only chance of a decent deal now is if the noteholders put OCV into administration.


----------



## DoraNBoots (10 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> If all of the 50M was given as a special distribution it would equate to about 0.65 of a cent per unit (or $650 for every $100,000)
> 
> Boots




Correction, that should  be 6.5 cents per unit (or $6,500 for every $100,000) but my point is the same.

Boots


----------



## wally3218 (10 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

What happens after the fund is listed on the NSX for xxx amount.
If down the track it is put into recievership and liquidated with a orderly wind up.
Will the unit price be still a $1 or will it be the listed price that we get a percentage off.


----------



## great dame (11 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



wally3218 said:


> What happens after the fund is listed on the NSX for xxx amount.
> If down the track it is put into recievership and liquidated with a orderly wind up.
> Will the unit price be still a $1 or will it be the listed price that we get a percentage off.



            No to both your qustains    What the offer & bid on the exchange has got nothing to do what a unit is realy worth   Units are realy only worth what a buyer is willing to pay for them  In other words they could be valured at say  60 cents but if buyers are only willing to pay 40 cents say that is only what they are worth  //////////


----------



## seamisty (11 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

MFS chief settles Lift case for $13.8m:::::August 11, 2008 ::::THE former chief executive of troubled property and tourism group MFS, Michael King, has agreed he owes the creditors of the failed margin lender Lift Capital $13.8 million.

Lift's administrator, Tony McGrath, of McGrathNicol, sued to recover the money jointly from Mr King and his fellow founder of MFS, Philip Adams, in the NSW Supreme Court in June.

At a pre-trial directions hearing on Friday, Mr McGrath's solicitor, Philip Stern, handed up consent orders signed by Mr King.

Justice Patricia Bergin entered judgment against Mr King for $13.8 million, payable by January 1.

Mr Stern said he was still trying to serve court papers on Mr Adams, who lives in Dubai.

The case relates to a $25 million margin lending facility granted by Lift to a private company, Black Teak Pty Ltd, in July 2006.

The loan was guaranteed by Mr King and Mr Adams, who are the only directors of Black Teak.

Mr McGrath has dropped a third defendant from the case, Black Teak's company secretary, Lee-Anne Murray.

Black Teak owns a little less than 1 per cent of the shares in MFS, now called Octaviar.

The shares have not traded since January, when they were suspended following a 75 per cent plunge over two days.

Lift Capital's directors called in Mr McGrath as voluntary administrator in April.

Creditors will meet on September 15 to decide whether to wind up Lift or agree to a deed of company arrangement.


----------



## Duped (11 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> DoraNBoots only the SF component of any cash the PIF gets will be distributed and my understanding is that has to  by law as the SF was put in place to cover any short fall in distributions. So I am no expert but I would imagine that less than 1/4 of any money recieved would constitute the SF share. JH is not giving that to unit holders out of kindness, she is legally obliged to. Regards, Seamisty




Seamisty. Well spotted regarding the obligation.  I suspect you're correct.


----------



## Duped (11 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> If we as investors own the fund....then why can't we have access to ALL the paperwork? .......maybe then we could run it ourselves and save a fortune....is this possible?




My guess - because no one would borrow from PIF if the details would become publicly available. Would you borrow from a Bank if a prospective employer could Google your debt levels?


----------



## Duped (11 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Some folk are sure easley lead  and get sucked in  They are the ones that snake oil sales people love  Of cause your not on of them are you Javis ???????????????




I'm one of them.  I parked by savings in PIF didn't I.


----------



## Duped (11 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Bumblebee said:


> This is from the Gold Coast Bulletin Aug 9th. I have highlighted the relative PIF bit.
> 
> _Nick Nichols _
> _August 9th, 2008 _
> ...



_

FYI the OCV release to the ASX - page 2:
"The Responsible Entity has advised that the cash offer is likely to be accepted, subject to the acceptance by other creditors of offers put to them".

See http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20080808/pdf/31bm9chfc0fc3b.pdf

The reporter wasn't that far off the mark. Whether or not OCV's reporting of WC's position is accurate is another question._


----------



## Duped (11 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



CableGuy said:


> We’ve already seen the believers justify the octavia deal  saying it’s better than nothing.  Spare us any more of this nonsense.  JH and  SC  have had their game of tiggy and are sitting at the ends of the earth right now laughing at you people.  Do ya think NAB took 22.5 cents in the dollar for the $40 million they were paid out this week?  Let’s see what the 20 largest noteholders come up with.  Here’s hoping they don’t negotiate a deal, you can bet it won’t be 22.5 cents in the dollar.  Our only chance of a decent deal now is if the noteholders put OCV into administration.




Hmmmm.  My Warning-Danger gene is in overdrive today.  I see conspiracy everywhere.  

When's the deadline for PIF to accept the OOCV offer?  All the docs merely say a 'similar offer' has been put to PIF.  So, when's the deadline?  I ask because this morning I'm suspicious the whole WC thing is a decoy. (Maybe I inhaled too much of the sealant I was painting with on the weekend.)  Is it before our vote on 18 September?

If WC lose the vote, WC and JH walk away with their reputation in tact.  Of all people, corporate lawyers know how close they can sail to the wind with all that 'best interests of the unit holders', 'for the benefit of the unit holders' and 'based on information that was available' stuff; even if ASIC decides to have a sniff around. WC can then always dismiss accusations of foul play by simply saying that unit holders voted against WC. (Who's going to remember the details in 2 yrs time?)

OCV gave WC the $3m hence WC is not really out of pocket.  So all WC need to do now is accept the OCV offer and then lose the vote and OCV will have got out of $150M+ for a cost of $3M.

Hmmm - if WC accept the OCV offer to PIF the best thing to do then is vote yes for WC. So we can hold someone as accountable. Otherwise we'll be completely on our own and out of pocket. As Joachim Pheonix said in the flic Gladiator - all this scheming is making my head hurt.

On a lighter side - anyone also a fan of the Late Show in the 90's.  Remember Piffy and his bells?  PIF rang all the right bells, but was it the real thing?  Was it really quality?


----------



## Bumblebee (11 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped, I am so in there with you on your last post. Conspiracy theory and all.

It is so obvious when you stop for a moment and have a look at things from the other side. Thanks for that post.

Re you wondering on the deadline.... Gold Coast bulletin reports deadline for the major creditors extended by OCV to 4pm August 29 .


----------



## SPLITPIN (11 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Hmmmm.  My Warning-Danger gene is in overdrive today.  I see conspiracy everywhere.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## DoraNBoots (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> ...
> 
> When's the deadline for PIF to accept the OOCV offer?  All the docs merely say a 'similar offer' has been put to PIF.  So, when's the deadline?  I ask because this morning I'm suspicious the whole WC thing is a decoy. (Maybe I inhaled too much of the sealant I was painting with on the weekend.)  Is it before our vote on 18 September?
> ...





Timeline


WC’s original date for vote was August
PTQ went to court to wind up OCV July 24 and 25, but JH and CS stopped that.
OCV’s original deadline for Creditor offer Aug 11
Creditor offer deadline extended to Aug 29th  because most (big) creditors want more time to negotiate (but not JH!)
PTQ (or new trustee?) going to court to wind up OCV Sept 9 and 10
WC’s vote changed to Sept 18



I spoke with WC hotline yesterday and was told the NSX is the only exit option in the short term apart from the off market transfer option which is available right now if you can organise it.  When asked if redemptions can be started up again when the fund is stable and brining in money again the answer was that it won’t be that kind of fund – redemptions will be removed from the constitution all together in the Sept vote.

When asked why we won’t be given the option for a moratorium the answer (when you cut thought the spiel) is that WC aren’t interested in that option.   What happened to _give priority to the members’ interests_! And don’t tell me we aren’t interested – we've basically been told this is not an option and haven't been given any info on this to enable us to decide.


----------



## great dame (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Timeline
> 
> 
> WC’s original date for vote was August
> ...



      Thank Dora for all that  info  I got the same story when i spock to them too   Its Bloody awlful to say the least  Once WC gets the vote 75%  there is not much we can do  If you try to sell your units on the NSX  any time in the furture you will  get nothing for them   Believe me i know i buy & sell shares  Not on the NSX  but the ASX i would not touch the NSX with a 1000 FT poll    But dont take my word for it ask any  leading stockbrooker  or share trader what they think of the NSX   WC could loose the vote  for being so pig headed over this   GD ////////


----------



## great dame (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Must add to my above post   When talking to someone at WC the other day  about listing on the NSX instead of the ASX   I asked where do you shop Coles or Woolies  She repiied Coles   I said why not the Seven a Eleven   She replied Coles is bigger & much better   & so is the ASX   I rest my case  GD /////


----------



## CableGuy (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Voice 1: Hey Jem, thanks for taking that basket case off my hands.
Voice 2: Hmmmm you owe me one!  Funny how people think I’M going to pay YOU for this thing.
Voice 1: We had the option to pass it off to Brian the liquidator, but we sure as hell couldn’t show anyone else the books.  You remember Brian from my wedding?
Voice 2: Yeah of course - the best man,  I’ve got him lined up if things go our way in Sept….But you know things aren’t going to plan, they seem to LIKE me.
Voice 1: Put a couple of farts in your youtube presentations, that’ll take care of your PR problem.  But you know these people have short memory spans, you might need to move the vote back to Aug.
Voice 2: Nah, need to make sure you are out of the woods first.
Voice 1: So what’ll ya do if the vote doesn’t go your way?
Voice 2: Oh well I’ll be stuck with this thing won’t I…..The NTA will go back up and I’ll collect my 6 mill a year.  It’s not like the NTA means much once it’s listed.  I might just need to buy another answering machine.


_The events depicted in this story are fictitious. Any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental._


----------



## seamisty (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Never a dull moment in the OCV camp, the PTQ who wanted to resign now want to 'un-resign'!!!!ASX Announcement
Noteholder Trustee position
and
Noteholder Meeting 3 September 2008
11 August 2008
Noteholder Trustee position
On 25 July 2008 Octaviar limited (ASX code: OCV) announced that it was anticipated that Trust
Company Fiduciary Services Limited would become trustee of the listed notes issued by Octaviar
Investment Notes Limited (ASX code: OCVG) in place of the present trustee, the Public Trustee of
Queensland, within a few days of that announcement.
That announcement was made in the context of:
1. the Public Trustee of Queensland having resigned as trustee last year, but having continued to
act as trustee pending appointment of a replacement;
2. the Public Trustee of Queensland having made it clear that it did not wish to remain note trustee
during any workout proposal that might be put by Octaviar and accepted by the group’s
creditors;
3. Trust Company Fiduciary Services Limited having indicated a willingness to accept such an
appointment in place of the Public Trustee of Queensland; and
4. counsel for the Public Trustee of Queensland stating to the Supreme Court of Queensland that
the Public Trustee of Queensland was satisfied as to the propriety of the proposed replacement
trustee, Trust Company Fiduciary Services Limited, and as to the propriety of Octaviar
Investment Notes Limited’s reasons for wishing to make the appointment.
On 1 August 2008 solicitors for the Public Trustee of Queensland wrote to Octaviar Investment Notes
Limited stating that the Public Trustee of Queensland no longer intended to resign as trustee of the
listed notes, and withdrew its resignation notice of the year before.
Octaviar Investment Notes Limited does not accept that it is open to the Public Trustee of Queensland
to withdraw its resignation notice in that way.
As a result of the above, Octaviar Investment Notes limited has called a meeting for 3 September 2008
– as explained below.
Octaviar Limited
ABN 90 107 863 436
For further information please contact
Investor Relations:
E-mail: mail@octaviar.com.au
Website: www.octaviar.com.au
SHARE REGISTRY
Computershare Investor Services Pty Ltd
Level 3, 60 Carrington Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Telephone: 1300 787 650
Meeting called by Octaviar
Octaviar Investment Notes Limited, has called a meeting of Noteholders for 2pm Wednesday, 3
September 2008. The meeting will be held at the Queens Ballroom, Level 5, Hilton Hotel, 190
Elizabeth Street, Brisbane.
A copy of the Notice of Meeting and other material forwarded to Noteholders is attached to this
announcement. The resolutions to be considered at the meeting are summarised as follows:
1. That Noteholders agree to implement the proposal put to them in the Offer Booklet of 17
July 2008 thereby amending the terms of the notes.
2. That Noteholders direct the Trustee to further adjourn the application to wind up Octaviar
Limited and other group companies listed for hearing on 9 & 10 September 2008.
3. That the Public Trustee of Queensland be removed as trustee of the notes and that Trust
Company Fiduciary Services Limited be appointed in its place, together with consequential
changes to the trust deed
Extension of time for offer
The Company confirms that the closing deadline for the acceptance of voting forms in relation to the
offer of 17 July 2008 regarding the change in the terms of the notes has been amended and that at the
request of Noteholders the revised deadline is 4pm Friday 29 August, 2008.
Meeting called by the Trustee
The abovementioned meeting of 3 September 2008 called by Octaviar should not be confused with a
meeting of Noteholders called by the Trustee for 19 August 2008.
Enquires regarding the meeting called by the Trustee should be directed to the office of the Public
Trustee of Queensland.
David Anderson
Company Secretary


----------



## sugar3157 (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Timeline
> 
> 
> WC’s original date for vote was August
> ...




Hi all, what does this mean....if we are not going to get redemptions then how do we receive income?


----------



## sugar3157 (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Morning Seamisty... can you please explain what that means to the PIF fund?


----------



## seamisty (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Hi all, what does this mean....if we are not going to get redemptions then how do we receive income?



Hi Sugar, You will receive an annual 6cent per unit distribution until such times as the Fund has stabilised. The distribution amount will then be re-assessed. We will also receive any money that WC receive in relation the Support Facility as a one of payment.I would imagine the units would become more attractive to buyers on the NSX as the unit distribution  value increases, similar to a share that pays a dividend I guess. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## SPLITPIN (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



CableGuy said:


> Voice 1: Hey Jem, thanks for taking that basket case off my hands.
> Voice 2: Hmmmm you owe me one!  Funny how people think I’M going to pay YOU for this thing.
> Voice 1: We had the option to pass it off to Brian the liquidator, but we sure as hell couldn’t show anyone else the books.  You remember Brian from my wedding?
> Voice 2: Yeah of course - the best man,  I’ve got him lined up if things go our way in Sept….But you know things aren’t going to plan, they seem to LIKE me.
> ...




Cableguy

Do you have that feeling of having a tail bet playing "two up" with a red coated ringmaster with two headed pennies.

Splitpin


----------



## seamisty (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Morning Seamisty... can you please explain what that means to the PIF fund?



Hi Sugar, I have NO IDEA what the outcome of this will be!!!!! Maybe some of the conspiracy theorists out there can work this into something interesting or we will just have to wait until the media gets hold of it LOL!!! It's been a bit boring on here lately, maybe this will instigate some renewed interest on the thread. Seamisty:flush:


----------



## Duped (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Hi all, what does this mean....if we are not going to get redemptions then how do we receive income?




My guess: It will be left to WC to decide when and how much we get.  Much like a company decides when dividends get paid out and how much.  We'll find out for sure when we get our voting materials.


----------



## Duped (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hi Sugar, I have NO IDEA what the outcome of this will be!!!!! Maybe some of the conspiracy theorists out there can work this into something interesting or we will just have to wait until the media gets hold of it LOL!!! It's been a bit boring on here lately, maybe this will instigate some renewed interest on the thread. Seamisty:flush:





I'm with you Seamisty. I have no idea.

Can't work out PTQ's motives.  One thing that stands out in my memory is during the court action in July (24?) there was some argey bargey about PTQ's right to have a say about their successor. From memory: OCV pushed for a ruling that PTQ had no say. At the time I thought: What's the big deal, if PTQ want out, why do they care so much?  OK -  PTQ wouldn't want to damage their reputation by appearing to abandon the unit holders.  But dedicating court time to it?  Now they want to recind their resignation.

Do PTQ really want to stay in play or are they just making sure they'll look like they did everything they could for the OCVG unit holders.  Their ace is that they resigned before the OCV Ltd share price drubbing in Jan.

Hmmmm.


----------



## seamisty (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> I'm with you Seamisty. I have no idea.
> 
> Can't work out PTQ's motives.  One thing that stands out in my memory is during the court action in July (24?) there was some argey bargey about PTQ's right to have a say about their successor. From memory: OCV pushed for a ruling that PTQ had no say. At the time I thought: What's the big deal, if PTQ want out, why do they care so much?  OK -  PTQ wouldn't want to damage their reputation by appearing to abandon the unit holders.  But dedicating court time to it?  Now they want to recind their resignation.
> 
> ...



DUPED, OCV is calling a meeting of noteholders on the 3rd Sept, I think the gist of it is to pass a couple of resolutions to officially remove PTQ  and vote in the new Trustee. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## sugar3157 (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> DUPED, OCV is calling a meeting of noteholders on the 3rd Sept, I think the gist of it is to pass a couple of resolutions to officially remove PTQ  and vote in the new Trustee. Regards, Seamisty




can we stop them doing that?


----------



## seamisty (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> can we stop them doing that?



Only the noteholders can vote Sugar, Ocv need a 50% + vote to stop the company from going into immediate liquidation. I would think they will romp it in because  creditors will benefit more by the offer already put foward to them from OCV than from a firesale liquidation in my opinion.Don't forget that the PIF has only officially had $50mill legally aknowledged as OCV debt, the remaining $147mill has been recognised by OCV but not legally registered. If OCV is liquidated PIF will more than likely only receive 11.8cents in the dollar on the $50mill, that is why WC has been fighting so hard against liquidation of OCV. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## flatback (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> My guess: It will be left to WC to decide when and how much we get.  Much like a company decides when dividends get paid out and how much.  We'll find out for sure when we get our voting materials.



Well well well, we are all at it again,aren't we, the so called expert unit holders who know everything,they must be putting threads on this forum for their friends who are in trouble,(not themselves no,no,no)i thought that there were going to be changes to the constitution at this meeting that we had to agree to, i dont believe that this meeting will only be for the agreement for or against the proposal put forward by JH, REMEMBER THIS there only needs to be 100 members at this meeting to call an emergency general meeting immediately,and any proposal put forward that isnt agree'd to, can be either recinded or ammended by those present, if there is nothing in the proposals put forward by JH, whereby we the unit holders, dont have an exit ability beyond the NSX,where we are at the  whims of the market,maybe 20c maybe maybe maybe,we all came into this PIF because of the strength of the fund and security intimated(not so was it), now we are being asked to leave our money in something which has no guarantee's at all, i paid an honest dollar for every unit i purchased,and i expect somebody who thinks this fund is still able to be resurrected to be a good fund again, can expect us to lay down and be left to the whims of the market, my final word on the meeting can somebody try to organise a registrar of those going to this meeting before hand ,so that they are prepared to call a EGM.This is not a jib at you Duped just a continuation of the subject matter.
cheers Flatback  ( there must be a redemption facility down the track which gets close to $1 per unit) once the PIF shows some good strength.JH cannot just reject this out of hand.( there must be a redemption clause written into our constitution)


----------



## Mary Lynch (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

OR we will all go down the WC eh Flatback? Like Seamistry's emoticon!


----------



## sugar3157 (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all...I have just about had all of this....give me the the PIF fund and I will get it back up to our hard earned dollar per unit plus...what a lot of morons we have given the PIF to....you would think it was rocket science to run a profitable business...its not...just common sense...ok we have been robbed of a fortune...but we can rally with hard work...I am sure there are plenty of other self employed business owners here who can make up a board...like myself.....or we can just lay down and give up on our money.....IF you wanr rhe job done right ...do it yourself!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Burnt (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Greetings from the Gold Coast. Is everyone impressed by the way business is done here ? Doesn't matter whether you're in finance, property development or tourism, the same rules apply :-
*1. Main objective - stuff as much cash as possible into your own pockets.*
2. Have little or no regard for investors & have no sense of responsibility to them.
3. Have little or no regard for business ethics, corporate responsibility or corporate law for that matter.
4. Set up a complex web of $1 subsidiary companies to shift around the money so that it gets distributed to other complex company structures of which you have a vested interest in.
6. Make sure you get a couple of smarta..se coporate lawyers involved to ensure that you can't be held personally responsible for anything.
7. At the end of the day, brush the dirt off your expensive suit (or red leather jacket) and move onto the next project.

Make no mistake, in the business sense the Gold Coast is a small place. I can't help believing that this crew of people from MFS / Octaviar / Wellington are related - associated - doing deals. Who offered Wellington the RE job ? Who appointed the board from Wellington as the board of directors of Octaviar IM (previous RE). HMMMMMMM...............


----------



## sugar3157 (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Greetings from the Gold Coast. Is everyone impressed by the way business is done here ? Doesn't matter whether you're in finance, property development or tourism, the same rules apply :-
> *1. Main objective - stuff as much cash as possible into your own pockets.*
> 2. Have little or no regard for investors & have no sense of responsibility to them.
> 3. Have little or no regard for business ethics, corporate responsibility or corporate law for that matter.
> ...




Hi Burnt....OMG finally some one who knows what he is talking about YAY!!!! 
u the man!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Burnt (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Wellington Investor Update 9/5/08 :-
Price payable by Wellington for purchasing all the shares in Octaviar Investment Management (which holds 4 other funds beside PIF) is -
4 x actual profit of OIM for the 12 months following the acquisition PLUS the value of the net tangible assets of OIM at the end of the 12 months.
Profit will be ZERO (taking into account all the funds as well as brought forward losses).
Value of Net tangible assets....hhhmmmmm.....what assets will be left and who values them ?? Also, the bank loan (that JH told everyone during her roadshow would be repaid by August), balance remaining has been refinanced. That should nicely offset any tangible asset values.


----------



## sugar3157 (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Seamisty ...can you tell me what you think about Burnt's statements please...


----------



## Burnt (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Wellington Media Release 24/6/08 :-
Legal proceedings commenced by Wellington against Octaviar are not for *recovery* of the $147.5mil stolen from the PIF. The claim is for *compensation* for the unitholders, for the activities undertaken by the officers of Octaviar that contravened the contitution & compliance plan of the fund, in that their activities were not undertaken "in the best interest of the members of the PIF". (no criminal proceedings have been launched though!)
My understanding is that the RE can list the PIF on the NSX without unitholders voting for or against it, as long as they believe they are acting in the members' best interests. However, if unitholders vote for listing on NSX, then when it all turns to sh.t, Wellington cannot be held accountable for not acting in the best interests of the members.
Be warned, no matter how much thought, consideration, deliberation, analysis or assumption you give to what may or may not happen, these people have a plan in place, and they are 4-5 steps ahead.


----------



## Burnt (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It is also my understanding, based on the information supplied in the full colour, glossy propaganda sheets distributed by Wellington, that the management fee proposed by WC (subject to prior consent of unitholders !!), is *0.7% of the Funds under Management*. It is not performance based.
Granted, it is probably less than the fees charged by MFS/Octaviar, but let's face it, they just robbed and rorted the fund so why set that as benchmark.
God it's good to get all this off my chest !!
My opinions are based on all the information I have been able to gather and I would like to know if others see things as I do. I truely believe that these people who have had their fingers in the PIF pie will only leave crumbs at the end of the day if they are left to continue to have any sort of control - directly or indirectly. The PIF needs to be taken out of their hands and placed into the hands of either unitholders (wouldn't that be nice) or a totally independant administrator.
Let me put it this way - in a story :-
A guy I knew and thought I could trust, stole my wallet with $10,000 in it. I met his girlfriend, she seems "nice", has a good "reputation", and she told me that she was really smart and if I gave her $70 she would use all her skills to get all my money back. Hmmmm....what should I do ?
a) Give her the $70 and trust her to get all (or most) of my money back;
b) Go to the police and fill out a report and hope they do something;
c) Pay $100 to a private investigator who will track the guy down and find out how much money or other assets he's got so as to recover as much of my money as he can for me.
Which answer would logically give me the best outcome ???


----------



## Rance (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Let me put it this way - in a story:
> A guy I knew and thought I could trust, stole my wallet with $10,000 in it. I met his girlfriend, she seems "nice", has a good "reputation", and she told me that she was really smart and if I gave her $70 she would use all her skills to get all my money back. Hmmmm....what should I do ?
> a) Give her the $70 and trust her to get all (or most) of my money back;
> b) Go to the police and fill out a report and hope they do something;
> ...




Burnt...  you tell a good story... but in that story it's your wallet, your $10,000, your 'trusted' friend so the answer is up to you...  how could you trust me to give you an honest answer? You don't even know me..

By the way, in the story do you get the girl?  I like a happy ending.

Rance


----------



## R.H (Rick) Mason (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> ... - in a story :-
> A guy I knew and thought I could trust, stole my wallet with $10,000 in it. I met his girlfriend, she seems "nice", has a good "reputation", and she told me that she was really smart and if I gave her $70 she would use all her skills to get all my money back. Hmmmm....what should I do ?
> a) Give her the $70 and trust her to get all (or most) of my money back;
> b) Go to the police and fill out a report and hope they do something;
> ...




Well, if you're careless enough to leave your money lying around and silly (or desperate) enough to pay someone $70 to screw you, I guess you need a minder more than a PI ... 

Rick Mason


----------



## gazzan57 (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Burnt...I agree with everything you have said...I just want to know if you have money in PIF too?


----------



## gazzan57 (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Only the noteholders can vote Sugar, Ocv need a 50% + vote to stop the company from going into immediate liquidation. I would think they will romp it in because  creditors will benefit more by the offer already put foward to them from OCV than from a firesale liquidation in my opinion.Don't forget that the PIF has only officially had $50mill legally aknowledged as OCV debt, the remaining $147mill has been recognised by OCV but not legally registered. If OCV is liquidated PIF will more than likely only receive 11.8cents in the dollar on the $50mill, that is why WC has been fighting so hard against liquidation of OCV. Regards, Seamisty




Hi Seamisty...just wondering why the $147 m hasn't been legally registered?


----------



## Burnt (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



gazzan57 said:


> Hi Burnt...I agree with everything you have said...I just want to know if you have money in PIF too?




Hi Gazzan, I represent my father, who like many of the investors is quite elderly (& computer illiterate), which is why I am so angry about the way this fund has been managed & operated. Elderly people don't ask that many questions and are easily fobbed off and treated like idiots. They've had there savings stolen from them at a time in their lives when they need it most.

Sorry for those that didn't like my story, thought everyone could relate to the scenario. You know - misplaced faith & trust winning out against facts & logic.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This appeared in Sydney Morning Herald.
link: http://business.smh.com.au/business...rs-with-languishing-prices-20080812-3u81.html
----------------------------
Octaviar high jinks

The fun continues at Octaviar, the Queensland property disaster - sorry, developer - formerly known as MFS.

It seems that the Public Trustee of Queensland is fighting attempts to dislodge it as trustee for Octaviar's noteholders, and is going ahead with plans to have Octaviar wound up. This is not good for Octaviar's new managers, who have proposed a settlement with creditors - owed nearly $1 billion by the group - that would pay out 22.5c in the dollar for most creditors and up to 100 per cent of claims by small investors. According to Octaviar's chief executive, Chris Scott, creditors would receive 13.9c in the dollar if the company was put into liquidation. Octaviar is holding a vote to remove the trustee on September 3, just ahead of the trustee's plans to front the courts on September 9 to remove Octaviar's management and wind up the company.

----------------------------


----------



## Bumblebee (12 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



gazzan57 said:


> Hi Seamisty...just wondering why the $147 m hasn't been legally registered?




At the Brisbane Meeting JH stated that the registration was in process. I actualy thought this had happened by now.
Surely if this hasn't happened it is an absolute priority.

The next couple of weeks to August 29th is crucial for the PIF. The final outcome of negotiations by JH with OCV (if in fact any negotiations are taking place) will be a strong indicator as to the truthfulness of the PIF being managed faithfully in our (the investors) best interest.


----------



## Rance (13 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Sorry for those that didn't like my story, thought everyone could relate to the scenario. You know - misplaced faith & trust winning out against facts & logic.




Sorry Burnt (about your story) It's just that some of us are tired of the many "stories" told on this thread eg. guesses, "second guesses", suppositions, assumptions, opinions, etc etc not necessarily based on facts...  Still, having said that, I guess (yes, I'm "guessing" now) it's a way of letting off steam...

Rance


----------



## DoraNBoots (13 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Welcome Burnt,  keep posting!

The following was sent by email, all opinions welcome...

I and my wife are among the many unfortunates that have a large chunk of their lives evaporating in front of our eyes in the form of the Premium Income Fund investments. We attended the Sydney meeting, after which we felt somewhat more hopeful. However, since then we have heard nothing to reinforce that faint hope. The Q & A booklet sent to us from Wellington does nothing to lift our confidence. We distinctly remember an undertaking from Jenny Hutson that the listing of the Premium Income Fund on the NSX would not occour. It appears form this latest document that it is still very much on the agenda and reading between the lines, it is clear that Wellington is DETERMINED that this will go ahead. We find the booklet confusing as we don't really understand what the responsibilities are of the various parts of the Wellington group and how they relate to each other and the Premium Income Fund. I have a couple of specific questions that I would like answered, and if anyone can help I would be greatful.

1. If the PIF is listed on the stock exchange does that mean that we will never be able to redeem our investment from Wellington but instead only be able to sell them on the stock market. 
Wellinton repeats (in the booklet) ad nauseum that no one HAS to sell but they make no mention of whether or not our holdings will ever be redeemable from Wellington (in the event of the listing going ahead.)
If that is the case, then we would oppose any move to list and hope that others would also. 
2. Do I understand correctly from the booklet that, as things stand right now, there is still the possibility of Octaviar will place the PIF into receivership and Wellington cannot stop them.
We would like to get answers to these questions if possible, but, in any case would like to hear opinions and comments from others.


----------



## great dame (13 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Gee its wonderful to read the postings from BURNT    I just wish i could put words together as well as you Please keep them coming i realy injoy reading the truth  in what you say    Keep them coming  Great Dame //////


----------



## sugar3157 (13 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Gee its wonderful to read the postings from BURNT    I just wish i could put words together as well as you Please keep them coming i realy injoy reading the truth  in what you say    Keep them coming  Great Dame //////




yes I agree....but alas it doesn't get our money back....


----------



## seamisty (13 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



gazzan57 said:


> Hi Seamisty...just wondering why the $147 m hasn't been legally registered?



I will check with WC again Gazzan, I was given that info a couple of weeks ago. It was something to do with a time frame of when creditors had to have had lodged the claims.It seems that if in the event that OCV don't have the PTQ removed as trustee and put an end to the wind-up action, they will go into voluntary liquidation. This being the case, OCV will recognize the total amount of PIF debt.
 Seamisty:::::::::::Octaviar showdown after Trustee about-face::::::Nick Nichols 

August 13th, 2008 

OCTAVIAR is likely to go into voluntary liquidation rather than wait for a court order if creditors fail to accept a proposed cash settlement for its $1 billion debt.

Company director Chris Scott last night said Octaviar had two more chances over the next three weeks to convince noteholders that liquidation would give them less than the payout offer already on the table.

The news came as the Public Trustee of Queensland (PTQ) reversed its decision last year to quit as trustee, a move that has stunned directors of the embattled Gold Coast company formerly known as MFS.

After launching a bid to wind up Octaviar in June, the PTQ signalled it would be stepping aside from the role of acting on behalf of 560 Octaviar noteholders owed a total of $351 million.

The resignation notice was lodged late last year but the turmoil that engulfed MFS kept incoming trustee Trust Company of Australia on ice.

The reasons for PTQ's decision to stay on as trustee were not clear last night. A spokesman could not be contacted for comment.

The Trust Company of Australia also could not shed any light on the issue. A spokesman said the Trust Company could not comment because it was not trustee of the notes.

But Octaviar has come out with guns blazing, calling a meeting of noteholders on September 3 to have the PTQ removed as trustee and put an end to the wind-up action.

Mr Scott said he was at a loss to explain the PTQ decision to stay on as trustee but he said a failure to sway noteholders on September 3 would signal the end for Octaviar.

He said the board would seriously have to consider placing the company in voluntary liquidation rather than wait for a PTQ-petitioned court order to do so. Octaviar chief executive Craig Chapman agreed.

"(But) that's a decision the board has to make," he said. "I really don't know what (the PTQ) are trying to do or what they are trying to achieve.

"This has really gobsmacked us all."

Last month, Octaviar put forward a plan to pay out all of its unsecured creditors, some of them in full.

Holders of listed Octaviar notes were offered 100c in the dollar for the first $5000 they invested, and 22.5c in the dollar for anything above $5000.

Acceptance would see 200 of the 560 noteholders with small investments repaid in full.

The same offer has been extended to Challenger, owed $100 million, and the Jenny Hutson-controlled Premium Income Fund, owed $197.5 million.

The Supreme Court last month adjourned the PTQ's winding-up action until September 9, giving creditors time to consider the payout offer.

The offer has been extended to August 29, the first chance available for Octaviar to stay afloat.

But the meeting of noteholders on September 3 will be crunch time for the company.

Failure to reach an agreement with creditors would almost certainly lead to a winding up of Octaviar.


----------



## RickH (13 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Welcome Burnt,  keep posting!
> 
> The following was sent by email, all opinions welcome...
> 
> ...



Hi DoraNBoots,
I am surprised that you actually posted the above because in my opinion JH has always said that PIF would be listed on the NSX and JH regularly said that PIF would not be listed on the ASX due to costs. A simple hearing problem - NSX in stead of ASX. Wellington is only the RE and not the fund.
We should be all trying to inform and not to confuse - Unless that is what you are trying to do?
RickH:couch


----------



## DoraNBoots (13 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi DoraNBoots,
> I am surprised that you actually posted the above because in my opinion JH has always said that PIF would be listed on the NSX and JH regularly said that PIF would not be listed on the ASX due to costs. A simple hearing problem - NSX in stead of ASX. Wellington is only the RE and not the fund.
> We should be all trying to inform and not to confuse - Unless that is what you are trying to do?
> RickH:couch




What are you talking about RickH? I posted some comments and questions from someone who sent an email.  I think they have a right to ask these questions without being criticised.  They seem to be genuine questions and I have nothing to do with it except to post it on their behalf.


----------



## Rance (13 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> 1. If the PIF is listed on the stock exchange does that mean that we will never be able to redeem our investment from Wellington but instead only be able to sell them on the stock market.
> Wellinton repeats (in the booklet) ad nauseum that no one HAS to sell but they make no mention of whether or not our holdings will ever be redeemable from Wellington (in the event of the listing going ahead.)
> If that is the case, then we would oppose any move to list and hope that others would also.
> 2. Do I understand correctly from the booklet that, as things stand right now, there is still the possibility of Octaviar will place the PIF into receivership and Wellington cannot stop them.
> We would like to get answers to these questions if possible, but, in any case would like to hear opinions and comments from others.



DoraNBoots, suggest you or the husband and wife phone WC to get the answers direct from the horse's mouth not from we nincompoops who populate this thread. As i said in a previous posting, all we seem to do is go around in circles. 
Can't wait till Sept 18 meeting when the future direction of the PIF will be much clearer and for better or worse, depending on your preference, our lifes will move on....

Rance


----------



## DoraNBoots (13 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> DoraNBoots, suggest you or the husband and wife phone WC to get the answers direct from the horse's mouth not from we nincompoops who populate this thread. As i said in a previous posting, all we seem to do is go around in circles.
> ...




Yes,  I'm sure they will contact WC but their last sentence is asking for "opinions and comments from others".  I won't hold my breath.


----------



## RickH (13 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> What are you talking about RickH? I posted some comments and questions from someone who sent an email.  I think they have a right to ask these questions without being criticised.  They seem to be genuine questions and I have nothing to do with it except to post it on their behalf.



Hi DoraNBoots,
_I WAS surprised that you actually posted the above because in my opinion JH has always said that PIF would be listed on the NSX and JH regularly said that PIF would not be listed on the ASX due to costs. A simple hearing problem - NSX in stead of ASX. Wellington is only the RE and not the fund.
We should be all trying to inform and not to confuse - Unless that is what you are trying to do?_

I tried to answer their questions as requested:
1) NSX not ASX - hearing problem.
2) Wellington is the RE not the fund.
3) Octaviar cannot force the PIF to do anything. PIF does not owe them any money and they are not even a major PIF investor.
I do apologise because I mistakenly thought that you could have helped the emailer directly and answered these questions yourselves.
RickH:Couch


----------



## great dame (14 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Help me someone   If the market value of the pif is 45 cents  And we all know what market value is  Like if you write your car off in a smach you get paid out market value  which could be heaps below what it is selling for   So that brings me to this point  WC has told centrelink  the fund is worth 45cents market value And yet WC then says if we sell it it is only 14 cents   In other words they are telling centrelink the wrong figure   AS the red head said years ago Please Explane   AS poor dumb me dont get it  ////


----------



## DoraNBoots (14 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I've attached an article from yesterdays GC.  I think the last part of it (copied below) explains the rights issue we have been warned about,  is this right?  Can you tell me if the PIF is listed, would we have a say whether or not more capital could be raised in this way?

_"LLA's stapled securities fell 0.2c to 4.6c yesterday but were still well up on the 4c rights issue price which formed the central plank in the recapitalisation plan.  The issue, underwritten by Arctic, raised $100 million but it was largely shunned by LLA's existing security-holders.  Many of them would still be shell-shocked by the massive drop in value of their holdings since the demise of MFS, which saw their investment in LLA fall from above $1 last year to a low of 3.3c.  Original security-holders now own about 10 per cent of the group."_


----------



## great dame (14 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I've attached an article from yesterdays GC.  I think the last part of it (copied below) explains the rights issue we have been warned about,  is this right?  Can you tell me if the PIF is listed, would we have a say whether or not more capital could be raised in this way?
> 
> _"LLA's stapled securities fell 0.2c to 4.6c yesterday but were still well up on the 4c rights issue price which formed the central plank in the recapitalisation plan.  The issue, underwritten by Arctic, raised $100 million but it was largely shunned by LLA's existing security-holders.  Many of them would still be shell-shocked by the massive drop in value of their holdings since the demise of MFS, which saw their investment in LLA fall from above $1 last year to a low of 3.3c.  Original security-holders now own about 10 per cent of the group."_



      I hope i can answer your questain Dora  Once the PIF becomes listed it then becomes sort of a company   we are then share holders of that company  The board will have full control how it is run  share holders do not have a say on right issues etc etc  But are given first choice to buy extra shares if they which to 
 Yes i know just what your thinking  ////////////


----------



## Jadel (14 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I've attached an article from yesterdays GC.  I think the last part of it (copied below) explains the rights issue we have been warned about,  is this right?  Can you tell me if the PIF is listed, would we have a say whether or not more capital could be raised in this way?
> 
> _"LLA's stapled securities fell 0.2c to 4.6c yesterday but were still well up on the 4c rights issue price which formed the central plank in the recapitalisation plan.  The issue, underwritten by Arctic, raised $100 million but it was largely shunned by LLA's existing security-holders.  Many of them would still be shell-shocked by the massive drop in value of their holdings since the demise of MFS, which saw their investment in LLA fall from above $1 last year to a low of 3.3c.  Original security-holders now own about 10 per cent of the group."_




Dear Dora

A share placement is exactly that. It is the issue of new shares, usually below the current market price, either to all shareholders, sophisticated shareholders or selected institution/s. The issue dilutes existing shareholders equity  when a company issues shares to other than all shareholders, this is very unfair due to the dilution . In every case that I have personally been involved , the share pricehas fallen in line with the reduction in asset values

Se for example if we become listed and Wellington capital issues 100 million shares at one dollar and then we have a placement of 20 million shares at 80 cents that is what the market value will become for any potential buyer.

Not only that the ASX rules allow these placements and rights issues to be made in a very short space of time you may have only five days to lodge an application for shares (assuming you have any money left ) otherwise the remaining shares will be purchased by another party with its own agenda to gain control of the company at a bargain basement price.

 As in the example you have listed above where Arctic Capital (Packer) has gained contol of Living and Leisure for a pittance.

Now you know why i am terrified of listing it is a case of once bitten thrice shy.


Regards Chris


----------



## Duped (14 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Wellington Investor Update 9/5/08 :-
> Price payable by Wellington for purchasing all the shares in Octaviar Investment Management (which holds 4 other funds beside PIF) is -
> 4 x actual profit of OIM for the 12 months following the acquisition PLUS the value of the net tangible assets of OIM at the end of the 12 months.
> Profit will be ZERO (taking into account all the funds as well as brought forward losses).
> Value of Net tangible assets....hhhmmmmm.....what assets will be left and who values them ?? Also, the bank loan (that JH told everyone during her roadshow would be repaid by August), balance remaining has been refinanced. That should nicely offset any tangible asset values.




Burnt, was it net tangible assets of OIM? The way I understand it, NTA of OIM doesn't include any of PIF's assets.  It's the assets of the management company like furniture, photocopiers, software licences etc that they own.


----------



## Duped (14 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I will check with WC again Gazzan, I was given that info a couple of weeks ago. It was something to do with a time frame of when creditors had to have had lodged the claims.It seems that if in the event that OCV don't have the PTQ removed as trustee and put an end to the wind-up action, they will go into voluntary liquidation. This being the case, OCV will recognize the total amount of PIF debt.




Wow.  Thanks Seamisty.  That's a v v v important point.  

At the BNE forum JH said the $147.5M claims was ranked equal with OCVG, Challenger, OPI, NAB & ATO. (The $50M SF was ranked lower) I'd assumed that meant we'd get a 20% chunk of OCV on wind-up.  Seems this assumption might be wrong?

The 'compensation' claim is "on the basis that zero value was received".  Anyone know if this action is under a tort or legislation? Federal or State?  I might do a bit of legal research.


----------



## k.smith (14 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Has anyone heard anymore information about the PWC audit, are they still working on it? And what of the PTQ comeback.....any ideas ?


----------



## Rance (14 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> I hope i can answer your questain Dora  Once the PIF becomes listed it then becomes sort of a company   we are then share holders of that company  The board will have full control how it is run  share holders do not have a say on right issues etc etc  But are given first choice to buy extra shares if they which to
> Yes i know just what your thinking  ////////////




If we list on the ASX or NSX, we list as an income fund not as "a sort of company" and the sellers' parcels are shown as units (which they are!) and not shares. There are many, many IFs listed on the ASX (in a separate area to shares) and a few on the NSX. Holding a majority of units does not  mean you can take over the IF.

The opening unit price would be what the sellers are offering followed by hargy-bargy as to what the buyers are prepared to pay (just like shares). Simple dimple.  

Rance


----------



## great dame (14 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> If we list on the ASX or NSX, we list as an income fund not as "a sort of company" and the sellers' parcels are shown as units (which they are!) and not shares. There are many, many IFs listed on the ASX (in a separate area to shares) and a few on the NSX. Holding a majority of units does not  mean you can take over the IF.
> 
> The opening unit price would be what the sellers are offering followed by hargy-bargy as to what the buyers are prepared to pay (just like shares). Simple dimple.
> 
> Rance



     Ranch  I know that they are bought & sold just lilke  shares  You know a lot of folk still call shares units  too  They are not sold in parcels anymore  you can buy if you wish just one only unit or as many as you like now days  And sell the same way as long as there is a buyer & a seller  ////////////


----------



## seamisty (14 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> Has anyone heard anymore information about the PWC audit, are they still working on it? And what of the PTQ comeback.....any ideas ?



Yes k.smith, the PIF is being independently audited at the present time and a detailed report of the results will be presented hopefully before the end of Sept. I am not positive if it is PWC conducting the current audit. Seamisty


----------



## Duped (14 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> If we list on the ASX or NSX, we list as an income fund not as "a sort of company" and the sellers' parcels are shown as units (which they are!) and not shares. There are many, many IFs listed on the ASX (in a separate area to shares) and a few on the NSX. Holding a majority of units does not  mean you can take over the IF.
> 
> The opening unit price would be what the sellers are offering followed by hargy-bargy as to what the buyers are prepared to pay (just like shares). Simple dimple.
> 
> Rance




Thanks for that Rance.  That's an important distinction.

Page 27 of the PDS (dated 2 July 2007): the RE can issue different classes of units.  I'd like to see this scrapped. To make sure current unit holders distributions and rights can't be diluted. So that all unit holders get the same distributions and voting rights.


----------



## DoraNBoots (14 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> ...There are many, many IFs listed on the ASX (in a separate area to shares) and a few on the NSX. Holding a majority of units does not  mean you can take over the IF.
> ...




Thanks Great Dame and Jadel.  I think a rights issue is a concern.

In response to the above quote:
The corporations act says you only need a 50% vote to replace the RE so I'd say holding a majority of units would mean you can take over the fund.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (15 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> And what of the PTQ comeback.....any ideas ?




As someone has mentioned in another forum :

"...there must be more to this story (obviously) than what is released to the media. If I was having a guess, I would be betting on the fact that the PTQ doubt the bonefides of the incoming trustee".

Hmmm.


----------



## great dame (15 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Yes k.smith, the PIF is being independently audited at the present time and a detailed report of the results will be presented hopefully before the end of Sept. I am not positive if it is PWC conducting the current audit. Seamisty



    Thanks Seamisty  You say maybe get the report  at the end of Sept.  Bloody Hell thats after the big VOTE is taken   I can smell a rat  its not right  i want to know before the vote   The unit holders out there are all given a one sided  (WC side) in all this mail out  Hoping we will all swallow it all  Most probelly will sadly    Except the ones that think with there heads  CHEERS ///////


----------



## Javier (15 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It appears that there may be some good news concerning redemptions. There is another avenue apart from NSX that the WC board has come up which will be revealed to investors next week. It is not just trading between existing unit holders either, it is some other means.

A WC senior staff member today could not (was not allowed to) elaborate any further as the 80+ page PIF amendments document is currently at the printers. We don't have to wait long though, as it will be up on the newpif website Tuesday evening.

The WC board is still considering all offer scenariors from OCV regarding debt settlement which includes some cash now and a longer term settlement over 3 years mix. No deal has been officially struck or finalised as there is still time to the end of this month / early September.

PWC is (still!!) continuing the PIF audit, and although the audit team is no longer in the WC offices, it is completing the task elsewhere. 

Not long to go now and hopefully the direction of this fund will be a little clearer. The person I spoke to said that in the information coming to investors next week, they see some positive news for us, and believe it is a great step in going forward. Let's hope so!


----------



## selciper (15 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Javier -

Your #1692 is much appreciated. Am tired of the repetitive doom and gloom that seems to have dominated this thread lately.
And hopefully ASIC are busy using their magnifying glasses.


----------



## Mutchy (15 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Thanks Great Dame and Jadel.  I think a rights issue is a concern.
> 
> In response to the above quote:
> The corporations act says you only need a 50% vote to replace the RE so I'd say holding a majority of units would mean you can take over the fund.




Hello All,
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am trying to understand what has happened to LLA and relate that to what may happen to our units if listed on a stock exchange. I am thinking aloud here and maybe it won't make much sense. Let me know if it doesn't.
It seems to me that Packer/Arctic have, for a (substantial) investment of $100 Million achieved 49.3 percent holding of the stapled securities in LLA by issuing rights to shares in Arctic's proportion of LLA at 4 cents each when the value of the stapled security was 4.6 cents. So for 4 cents an investor received 4.6 cents worth per share and immediately made 15% capital gain. The existing security holders did not in the main participate because the poor so-and -sos had no money with which to buy shares and had seen their holding diminish in value even further as the new shares were issued. The value of each security is so low because the stock market considered that there was substantial risk that LLA could not repay previous financing loans from earnings and capital, these loans having been called upon for full payment upon default of due loan repayments. The threat of imminent liquidation prompted the management of LLA to seek refinancing of LLA whereupon Packer/Arctic stepped in with the rescue package buying 49.3 percent of the company. I suppose that the market valuation of the stapled securities did not represent anywhere near the net tangible assets per security and that the NTA per security was in excess of the stock market valuation otherwise Packer/Arctic would not have been interested.
Turning to the situation of the PIF:
Should the units in PIF be listed on a stock exchange (NSX or ASX) I envisage that they will also be stapled to listed shares as a legally allowable means of listing units which can not otherwise be directly listed. The value of these stapled securities will be set by by potential purchasers who will therefore set the value of the stapled securities at much less than the NTA per security (45 cents) and probably much much lower, maybe below 14.5 cents. The value will depend on what the puchaser is prepared to pay for taking the risk of future rewards. If one purchaser or a consortium of purchasers have enough money they can buy as many stapled securities as they can afford at the market value and perhaps buy a controlling interest in the fund but only if enough of us are desperate to sell. 
Now how much is a controlling interest and what control does it get them? PIF is not a listed company. It is an Investment Fund and does not itself have a board of directors but a Responsible Entity to manage the fund on behalf of the unit holders. The RE reports to a Trustee who holds the units on behalf of the investors. As we see in the case of Octavia the Trustee can, with good reason apply to the courts to wind up the fund and I suppose perform other duties of which I am unaware. Whilst the shares are listed the corresponding unit is held by the Trustee at arms length and are not directly controlled by the Responsible Entity. As I understand it, 75% of the vote is required to change the constitution or 50% to appoint a new Responsible Entity. Is it likely that one company or consortium is likely to hold enough of the equity in the PIF and hence be able to do what they want with the fund? No. And what changes can they make to a fund to substantially benefit themselves? If they do substantially benefit themselves they will also be substantially benefitting all unit holders because as I understand the PDS all units are equal in benefit. I therefore do not believe it is possible to change the value of some units in preference over other units. To raise finance can the Responsible Entity issue shares at any value? - at a discount to market price? I don't think it would be possible even if the one entity owned 75% or more of the securities. . To do so would require a change to the the Constitution and require unit holder support. Not in any unit holders self interest.
Another fund in which we have stapled securities listed on the ASX a few months before the credit crunch. The RE wanted to change the constitution to introduce a bonus scheme for RE management personnel by issuing securities to them for performance related achievement and as soon as the fund was listed sent out voting papers and argument as to why this bonus scheme should be implemented. Needing 75% of the vote they failed miserably because security holders saw the dilution effect this scheme would have had on the value of the units. If someone or some group has more than 75% holding in PIF they may be able to approve this sort of change but as it is diluting their unit value it would be against their best interests IMHO. 
It appears to me that their is no conclusion to be drawn from a rights issue made by LLA because of the different structure of the two entities.

Could I have some considered opinion on this topic please with reasoned logic backed by some understanding of corporate structure, not empty rhetoric by finger happy interjectors.
Mutchy


----------



## Javier (15 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

You are 100% correct Mutchy. The way this fund is structured and the vast spread of the 755m + units, it would not only be near impossible, the sheer nature of the fund assets would not attract the Packer type raiders of this world. So the conspiracy theorists out there would have to think of something else to speculate about, as this one is not plausible.


----------



## PIFholder (15 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Mutchy,

Thanks for your post. Here's my two cents worth. I hope it helps.

I don't think that the PIF units will have to be a stapled security, but rather can be listed as a unit trust alone. Mirvac PFA Diversified Trust (their code is PFD) is listed on the BSX and is a unit trust like PIF, but not a stapled security. 

I agree that it is likely not possible to change the value of some units in preference over other units. All unitholders have to be treated equally by the Fund in the Fund's dealings - this is something that JH was harping on at the Melbourne forum in relation to the hardship cases. My skant knowledge of the law is that you can't do something that creates a preference over some units to others, otherwise this becomes a fraud on the minority issue.

Hope this helps. Everyone company/fund is subject to takeover, even if they are not listed on a stock exchange. But to buy the units/shares to have an effective takeover, there needs to be willing sellers.

Cheers
PIFholder


----------



## simgrund (15 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

RE Sunday 17th Sydney AG meeting at Coogee Bowling Club

Could those planning to attend prepare and bring along some structural prosposals for concrete actions from which we could quickly select the most appropriate ones. 
I think we all agree this could assist Zixo and others in more practical use of the time available to us.

Regards to all


----------



## Jadel (15 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sorry Mutchy but this is just a trigger happy reply by somebody who has actively been involved with shares for the last twelve years  after a premature retirement.

I have  never owned a listed  company that did not initially lose value with a rights issue or Placement 

And in many instances  that dilution in value is permanent.

I got caught with a company called Sundowner twelve years ago that listed at a Dollar  and  was taken over .

The new owner  called a Rights Issue underwrote the issue himself with a deadline of five days and picked up most of the company for 20cents I don’t think its trading for much more today .

 There is another story when you trade on the stock market other than corporate structure and law . Its called sentiment , fear and greed

King & Co wanted to Raise  500million dollars when the Companys price was $4.00 with a Rights Issue and we all know the sequel to that story 

 Theoretically  the Corporate exploitation  and abuse that has  taken place  should never have occured

 It does not bother me one iota whether or not another company would wish to or can take over our Fund if we have a Rights issue or Placement it will dilute the value of the assets for existing investors.


----------



## DoraNBoots (15 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The DVD of the Melbourne forum is being sent to us at the moment.  I found the second half of the DVD which is question time very informative and have made an index for myself so I can easily find the info I want in the future.  I've attached in case others find it useful.  This is just my interpretation of the session and not a transcript.


----------



## flatback (15 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but has anybody taken the time to look at the (wellington pif site)click on Corporate governance then go to changes to constitution firstly 28th march,then to 2 june,these changes were put in place at the time to enable the name change of PIF firstly from MFS to OCT then from OCT to WC on  the 28th under operative provisions, there is a clause ,which reads                                             CONFIRMATION
2. The Trustee confirms that, save for the amendments made by this Deed Poll, the
provisions of the Constitution shall remain in full force and effect and that by such
amendments the Trustee is not resettling or redeclaring the Trust nor a ¡e such
amendments removing or changing the rights of Unit Holders to vote or receive distribution in respect of unit or option, it appears that the ammendments made on the 2 june do not include this clause , in my limited knowledge of these things it didn't ring true am i being paranoid??? 
cheers Flatback


----------



## k.smith (15 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but has anybody taken the time to look at the (wellington pif site)click on Corporate governance then go to changes to constitution firstly 28th march,then to 2 june,these changes were put in place at the time to enable the name change of PIF firstly from MFS to OCT then from OCT to WC on  the 28th under operative provisions, there is a clause ,which reads                                             CONFIRMATION
> 2. The Trustee confirms that, save for the amendments made by this Deed Poll, the
> provisions of the Constitution shall remain in full force and effect and that by such
> amendments the Trustee is not resettling or redeclaring the Trust nor a ¡e such
> ...



  Flatback, we are entitled to be as paranoid as we see fit...this is not a game, it is common sense to scrutinise everything from all angles....I hope we get some legal input about this one.


----------



## Mary Lynch (15 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just wondering if there is anyone out there who has $$$ with City Pacific.  There is an Aussie Forum site open for you guys too.  They have just suspended their distributions for 2 months....so the belt is REALLY tightening for some of us now.


----------



## Burnt (15 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all,
Hey Duped, answer to your post 1680, I've jumped the gun there. Your're right, obviously, the 4 x net profit & net tangible assets relates to the RE company. But still the net profit would be management fee (costs are reimbursed) less wages & directors fees, which I imagine would eat up just about all of the management fees - so bottom line close to zero. NTA pretty close to zero too !! what do you think.? 
I also think others are on the mark when they suggest that WC want to retain as much investor capital as possible in the fund for as long as they can - more fees.


----------



## Burnt (15 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

On another note, people have questioned the option of obtaining help from the governments proposed Financial Claims Scheme (FCS). Legislation to implement this scheme has not been passed as yet, but unfortunately it will not be of any help to us. Wayne Swan has a press release dated 2/6/08 outlining the scheme (www.treasurer.gov.au go to Wayne Swan go to Media Releases 2-6-08 No. 061). In the background information section it states :-
"Investment products such as managed funds will not be covered by the FCS because with many of these products there is an incentive for consumers to pursue higher returns through risk-taking. Protecting investors against loss while rewarding them for risk-taking could lead to large & adverse distortions in the market."
Fair enough, BUT in assessing any risk, shouldn't the investor be fully informed??


----------



## DoraNBoots (16 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Does anyone know about the Express Unit Holder class which is mentioned in the Constitution?  The only info I can find in the Constitution is attached and I can't see any mention of it in the PDS.  I am wondering if it's not in the PDS if it was possible for people to have this type of investment in the PIF?


----------



## Rance (16 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Does anyone know about the Express Unit Holder class which is mentioned in the Constitution?  The only info I can find in the Constitution is attached and I can't see any mention of it in the PDS.  I am wondering if it's not in the PDS if it was possible for people to have this type of investment in the PIF?




'Morning DoraNBoots,

I don't have a copy of the Constitution but in a PDS I have under the heading "Classes of Units", it mentions that different classes of units, with special rights or restrictions, can be issued to Wholesale Clients. An "Express Unit" would probably come under this category where Wholesale Clients can negotiate special rates and conditions for their investment.

Rance


----------



## BootsnAll (16 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> 'Morning DoraNBoots,
> 
> I don't have a copy of the Constitution but in a PDS I have under the heading "Classes of Units", it mentions that different classes of units, with special rights or restrictions, can be issued to Wholesale Clients. An "Express Unit" would probably come under this category where Wholesale Clients can negotiate special rates and conditions for their investment.
> 
> Rance




 Some time ago I spoke to John ? at Octaviar. He told me that to get large institutions (wholesale clients) to invest in PIF the institutions had to be able to withdraw their investment on 24 hr call otherwise they weren’t interested. This might answer your question.


----------



## Dexter (16 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

One wonders how much of the content posted on this forum is factual.  Jadel says I claimed to be a member of the Brisbane AG - not true - but I did attend the Brisbane Forum.

I am not pro NSX and have been working with WC to create an alternative solution.  

However, my offer of 30c/unit is genuine.

Those who fear the NSX, liquidation or simply need cash in hand can get out now.

PS. I am a member of the Gold Coast AG but reside south of the border (as opposed to Great Dame's boarder).


----------



## Jadel (16 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thought for Today: Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, (OCV) which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period.(PIF)

 Do not take the offer Great Doom i have got a feeling Dexter is well connected to somebody ?


----------



## great dame (16 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yes its me again Bit boring is an it   QUESTAIN somebody please answer it Was JH /WC involed with MFS listed company  as advisers when all that money was stolen out of PIF ???  Or maybe just after ????  Thank You   Dame //


----------



## DoraNBoots (16 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for the answers to my previous question!

Wondering if anyone can explain why some amendments and waivers to the NSX listing rules are necessary for the PIF to be listed on the NSX?  And why the PIF wouldn't be suitable for the ASX as mention on the DVD 1hr 34 mins:

_"At this point in time I don’t think it would be possible for us to list on the ASX.  We require some amendments and waivers to the listing rules both at the ASX and NSX to get listed and we explored in a preliminary sense what the ASX listing committees attitude would be to that and we did not get a favourable hearing where as we have received a favourable hearing from the NSX."_


----------



## SPLITPIN (16 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Query for all

In that Wellington Capital (formally known as Octaviar Investment Management Limited ACN 101 634 146 etc. etc.) is still the RE does that mean we should consider recovering any of our losses against the RE as per sections 601 of the Corporation Act.

The RE has not effectively changed from the MFS days and has not retired.

Therefore any previous bad management practices etc etc. are now the reponsibility of Wellington Capital. 

This an interesting senario if correct.

Does that mean WC is our RE at the same time we are considering to recover damages from WC.

In other words to recover the monies we seek from OCV ($120M+) WC has to sue WC.

Does this explain the carry on regarding the OCV and the major creditors etc.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## Rance (16 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Query for all
> 
> In that Wellington Capital (formally known as Octaviar Investment Management Limited ACN 101 634 146 etc. etc.) is still the RE does that mean we should consider recovering any of our losses against the RE as per sections 601 of the Corporation Act.
> 
> ...




Splitpin, Your interesting scenario is INCORRECT. WC was never known as Octaviar Investment Management Limited. WC exercised a call option on May 9 and purchased all the shares in Octaviar Investment Management Limited (the previous Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund).  It is NOT suing itself!  Perhaps you could use your writing talent on a movie script for a TV drama series.  You could confuse the audience for weeks.

Next question!

Rance


----------



## DoraNBoots (16 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I asked a WC employee before the July Forum if they, having taken on OCV IM (and renaming etc) are liable if OCV IM mismanaged the fund.  I thought that because the RE hadn’t actually changed they could be liable.  (I now think that even if the RE changes the new one still take on this liability)  The answer was JH is smart, a lawyer and I’m sure she’s got that covered.

I asked JH the same question at the July Forum.  I remember when I asked if suing the former RE meant suing yourself due to you taking on the existing RE  - this got a laugh but didn’t really get answered.  JH explained how the former directors only had $20mill as a group to go after. 

This question has also been raised on the forum in a number of different ways and I don’t think it’s been answered except maybe to say it’s not worth the time and effort to chase $20mill.  Oh and that perhaps PI only covers employees if they were not committing a crime.

Regarding PI, I was speaking to a broker last week and he was explaining that PI for an association covers all the management members.  Even if the management members are replaced the insurance company didn’t need to be notified.  I should have asked if this is the same for entities such as an RE.  Anyone know?  I think sect 601FS of the Corp Act is saying if the former directors of the current RE were negligent then the current directors are liable.  I even think it might be going as far to say if the RE changes completely that the new RE takes on these issues.  What do you think?

In response to splitpin I understood that JH is going after OCV Ltd and not OCV IM (or now known as WC IM).  It surprised me when I heard JH was going after the parent company and not the *responsible *entity, but your post could explain why.  I think JH has said she is going after the entity that has the money (OCV Ltd) rather than the RE.  I started to think that was good as OCV IM doesn't have any money but now that I think about it perhaps they (WC IM) do.


----------



## SPLITPIN (16 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> Splitpin, Your interesting scenario is INCORRECT. WC was never known as Octaviar Investment Management Limited. WC exercised a call option on May 9 and purchased all the shares in Octaviar Investment Management Limited (the previous Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund).  It is NOT suing itself!  Perhaps you could use your writing talent on a movie script for a TV drama series.  You could confuse the audience for weeks.
> 
> Next question!
> 
> Rance




Rance

I am not a lawyer, are you??

If you are not a lawyer, your comments must be only your views and may be incorrect.

If you are a lawyer it must be a legal opinion.

So cut out the personal stuff, stick to the RE querie please.

Regards

Splitpin


----------



## Jadel (16 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

You are absolutely correct Dora

   I have all ready contacted Maurice Blackburn & Cash and IMF and the case is being evaluated at this moment in time .

   Rance perhaps you would like to join in the action. ?


----------



## gazzan57 (16 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> You are absolutely correct Dora
> 
> I have all ready contacted Maurice Blackburn & Cash and IMF and the case is being evaluated at this moment in time .
> 
> Rance perhaps you would like to join in the action. ?




Hi Jadel ...do you mean you are suing them? and if so how much would it cost me to join you in doing this?...I need my money back and would sooo like to put these @#STAR$# in jail...
Regards Gazzan


----------



## harry7 (16 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Harry  7   what dose the 7 stand for  Your Age ?????     Or how far you can count too????????     HARRY i will say & contnue to say the TRUTH   I will put somr balance in the Forums    Nobody is twisting your arm to read my stuff   AS for my spelling i realy dont give a stuff  what you think   I only wish all the 10300 unit holders could read what i say    Maybe i could brain wash them hey  Harry ??????   Now Mr 2 post Harry lets see what  constructive  stuff you have to say   Cheers Great Dame




As Javier once said, predicable response yet again

For the record I am 58 and hope never to be as old, negative, bitter an twisted as you. 

As for the 3 posts believe that if you wish.

As for reading your posts I like others I know usually skip over them as we already know what you will have written "bloody useless NSX, trust me I know"

As for a constructive post - do your maths, vote for JH and listen to what people like Seamisty, Javier, rickH, rocky1 and co. are saying and the useful information they have listed (an no great dame you don't have to put me on the WC payroll).


----------



## Jadel (16 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Gazzan

    Contact me through the private facility provided on the Forum


----------



## like2ski (16 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



gazzan57 said:


> Hi Jadel ...do you mean you are suing them? and if so how much would it cost me to join you in doing this?...I need my money back and would sooo like to put these @#STAR$# in jail...
> Regards Gazzan




Hi Jadel,
I have not been following this site to date, have just discovered it, and would be very eager to join you in suing them, can you please give me some further details and perhaps we can talk privately. Is anyone else trying to take legal action?
Best Regards
like2ski


----------



## gazzan57 (16 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



like2ski said:


> Hi Jadel,
> I have not been following this site to date, have just discovered it, and would be very eager to join you in suing them, can you please give me some further details and perhaps we can talk privately. Is anyone else trying to take legal action?
> Best Regards
> like2ski




Hi like to ski...you are lucky you have missed most of the clap trap on here posted by some intelligently challenged people...but i must say there are some quite informed people also who make a lot of sense...so keep reading...and I too want to sue the thieves who stole our money...and have them jailed...
Regards Gazzan...


----------



## DoraNBoots (17 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I’ve been wondering how long an orderly work out of the PIF would take.  Based on JH’s comments on the DVD (2hr 45mins) I think that if any capital that comes back to the fund goes to assist existing assets to be finished then they could all be realised in about 12 to 18 months.  JH says it would be 6 to 12 months before they make any new investments so in an orderly work out you’d expect some capital back at this point instead of the RE finding new investments.  So I’m thinking an orderly work out would look like this:
•	Unit holders would continue to receive distributions from the income the assets generate.
•	Unit holders would expect to receive some actual capital back in about 6 to 12 months with all capital back in around 12 to 18 months.
So how much capital would we get back?  On the DVD (1hr 07mins) JH says that if the assets are sold at the right time they will sell for more than 45 cents.  

I must say the current unit valuations are confusing.  JH says “we have some good assets that if sold at the right time will sell for more than the 45 cent in the dollar that we say is the situation on an orderly work out”.  It sounds like JH is saying our units are valued at 45 cents in an orderly work out but more if the fund is a going concern?  This contradicts the explanation of unit values on the July handouts but also  I don’t see how the current realisable unit value if the fund is a going concern could be different from an orderly work out as both situations allow the assets to be sold\realised at the right time.

Are we any closer to seeing independant unit\asset valuations?


----------



## great dame (17 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I’ve been wondering how long an orderly work out of the PIF would take.  Based on JH’s comments on the DVD (2hr 45mins) I think that if any capital that comes back to the fund goes to assist existing assets to be finished then they could all be realised in about 12 to 18 months.  JH says it would be 6 to 12 months before they make any new investments so in an orderly work out you’d expect some capital back at this point instead of the RE finding new investments.  So I’m thinking an orderly work out would look like this:
> •	Unit holders would continue to receive distributions from the income the assets generate.
> •	Unit holders would expect to receive some actual capital back in about 6 to 12 months with all capital back in around 12 to 18 months.
> So how much capital would we get back?  On the DVD (1hr 07mins) JH says that if the assets are sold at the right time they will sell for more than 45 cents.
> ...



  Good on you Dora What i like about you your a real thinking person 
 I was in the office of a leading Brisbane Stockbroker about 4 weeks ago talking about all this mess  And his words were that 14 cents on Liquidation  sounds to me like a real scare tactic & the 31 mill to Liquidate sounds a bit inflated too Gee i wish we had the truth   Cheers  The Dame ///////


----------



## simgrund (17 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Greetings all,
Sincere thanks to Zixo for his organising effort of a Sydney AG start-up meeting today. 
Regards


----------



## SPLITPIN (17 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I asked JH the same question at the July Forum.  I remember when I asked if suing the former RE meant suing yourself due to you taking on the existing RE  - this got a laugh but didn’t really get answered.  JH explained how the former directors only had $20mill as a group to go after.
> 
> ................................
> 
> I started to think that was good as OCV IM doesn't have any money but now that I think about it perhaps they (WC IM) do.




DoraNBoots

If we have deducted correctly that there has been no change to the RE but the ultimate holding company of the RE has changed and is now Wellington Capital Limited, does that mean that current RE is still responsible for all the bad old days.

As is most likely, the current RE would obviously have adequate insurance and assets to cover such an eventuallity. Maybe the $120M +.

So maybe that is what Jadel is refering to.

Interesting.

Regards

Splitpin


----------



## breaker1 (17 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

G'days folks,

I just (Friday) received an email from a PIF AG member stating:

"I have just received in today's mail an Issuer Sponsored Holding Statement as at 11th august regarding the LISTING OF PIF  ON THE NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE as of 19th September 2008!!!  Can we sack Wellington?"

Has any other PIF investor received one of these letters?

It sounds like Jenny is more confident then ever as the 19th is only one day after the RE vote, the 18th Sep.


----------



## Jadel (17 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Breaker 

    Lets hope WC makes us a reasonable offer and we are not forced to go down that path .


----------



## Wolfgang (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> G'days folks,
> 
> I just (Friday) received an email from a PIF AG member stating:
> 
> ...




Hi Breaker

I have received this letter on friday !!!!!!!!

Wolfgang


----------



## sugar3157 (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Wolfgang said:


> Hi Breaker
> 
> I have received this letter on friday !!!!!!!!
> 
> Wolfgang




so does this mean JH had already made her mind up prior to August 11th 08?....mmmmm.....fishy!!!


----------



## Wolfgang (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Sugar
It looks like she made her mind up long long before August 11th 08

Wolfgang


----------



## seamisty (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> so does this mean JH had already made her mind up prior to August 11th 08?....mmmmm.....fishy!!!



Hi All, Whats fishy about foward planning? Makes good business sense to me to be prepared in advance for the NSX listing. WC has made it clear for quite some time that the units will be listed on the NSX if WC gets the 75% vote. The votes will all have been counted 48 hours prior to the Sept 18th meeting so there will be plenty of time to cancel pre-arrangements by the 19th. I am sure there is a time frame for listing so rather than wait until after the meeting and start from scratch WC is just being organised in my opinion. There have been many posting in regard to why hasn't JH done this, or JH should have done that with other issues regarding the PIF with out the vote, so what is the difference? I hope WC are as efficient in the rest of their dealings with the Fund. Seamisty


----------



## selciper (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Should we wait for the EGM results before responding to instructions in the JH letter? It seems premature to me. I guess WC would say that if want to get an October distribution we must do as they say!


----------



## sugar3157 (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Wolfgang said:


> Hi Breaker
> 
> I have received this letter on friday !!!!!!!!
> 
> Wolfgang






seamisty said:


> Hi All, Whats fishy about foward planning? Makes good business sense to me to be prepared in advance for the NSX listing. WC has made it clear for quite some time that the units will be listed on the NSX if WC gets the 75% vote. The votes will all have been counted 48 hours prior to the Sept 18th meeting so there will be plenty of time to cancel pre-arrangements by the 19th. I am sure there is a time frame for listing so rather than wait until after the meeting and start from scratch WC is just being organised in my opinion. There have been many posting in regard to why hasn't JH done this, or JH should have done that with other issues regarding the PIF with out the vote, so what is the difference? I hope WC are as efficient in the rest of their dealings with the Fund. Seamisty




Hi Seamisty...what price do you think our $1 unit will be worth on the NSX ?
Regards sugar...


----------



## Duped (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



BootsnAll said:


> Some time ago I spoke to John ? at Octaviar. He told me that to get large institutions (wholesale clients) to invest in PIF the institutions had to be able to withdraw their investment on 24 hr call otherwise they weren’t interested. This might answer your question.





I wonder if the 60M units held by MFS Management Ltd were express units. 

(I know I'm repeating myself but I'm sick of hearing a reason for the PIF's woes being the large number of withdrawals.  The fund dropped from 880M to the 755M after 30Jun07.  Nearly half of that was MFS Management whipping out their 60M.  I.e. 6.8% of the fund.)

BTW there currently ARE different classes of units.  Some paid 7.5%; others 9%.

Oh and Michael King was out playing polo again yesterday.


----------



## sugar3157 (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> I wonder if the 60M units held by MFS Management Ltd were express units.
> 
> (I know I'm repeating myself but I'm sick of hearing a reason for the PIF's woes being the large number of withdrawals.  The fund dropped from 880M to the 755M after 30Jun07.  Nearly half of that was MFS Management whipping out their 60M.  I.e. 6.8% of the fund.)
> 
> ...




Hi Duped....just wondering do you have a PI tailing Micheal King?.....
If you do...can you get him to get his pin number to his bank account....lol


----------



## seamisty (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Hi Seamisty...what price do you think our $1 unit will be worth on the NSX ?
> Regards sugar...



 Sugar, in all honesty I have not wasted any thought as to what the NSX price of the PIF units will be as I have no intention of selling mine!! So therefore I am more concerned with restoring unit value through good management and business skills which in turn will increase the current 6 cents per unit per year return. It is only when this is achieved that you will see the NSX price increase. Lets hope Javier is right and there will be an alternate exit strategy offered to those who do not wish to sell on the NSX, but in the short term no one could expect more than 45cents per unit until it is proved they are worth more IMO. That being the case, 6cents per year per unit return is not bad (as has been said before). I guess we will all know one way or the other soon anyway. Seamisty


----------



## Duped (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Hi Duped....just wondering do you have a PI tailing Micheal King?.....
> If you do...can you get him to get his pin number to his bank account....lol




Couldn't afford a PI.  Don't really need one anyway. Found out by chance. He's not really keeping a low profile is he.


----------



## Wolfgang (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All

This may be of interest to you


THE developer of the Mackay city high-rise Latitude, Barry Ison, is the last man standing after the project's builder went bankrupt and its financier was rescued on the verge of liquidation. Mr Ison said the only thing now delaying the 11-storey development was an ongoing court case with former Latitude financiers Premium Income Fund (PIF), an arm of struggling finance group Octaviar.

The rest of it from daily mercury.
http://www.dailymercury.com.au/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3781927

Wolfgang


----------



## sugar3157 (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Seamisty...are you or someone else going to give JH a call this morning to see what is happening with our fund....no info from the powers that be...is frustrating...regards sugar


----------



## seamisty (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Hi Seamisty...are you or someone else going to give JH a call this morning to see what is happening with our fund....no info from the powers that be...is frustrating...regards sugar



I am just a unit holder ame as you sugar, why don't you call them yourself? I e-mail any queries I have and they call me when the have time to answer. Every unit holder has the same right to do this, it is just that some of us take the time to relay the info to others. Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Page 52 of the PIF Annual Report 2007
> MFS Administration Pty Ltd held 60,000,000 units.  6.82% of the fund.
> 
> From what JH said it looks like MFS Admin got them out in time.  Where did the money come from and where did it go?  I'm guessing the 60M units were bought just to jack up the numbers. (Or perhaps to avoid a default!!!!) Look at the chart in the June investor update. (See  http://www.octaviar.com.au/managed-funds/investorupdates.html)  There's a nice fat little spike in $ (read units) in June 07 that cuts through the ugly flat line of the preceding 6 months.  Looks like a jump of $60M doesn't it.  Hmmmm.






Duped said:


> I wonder if the 60M units held by MFS Management Ltd were express units.
> 
> (I know I'm repeating myself but I'm sick of hearing a reason for the PIF's woes being the large number of withdrawals.  The fund dropped from 880M to the 755M after 30Jun07.  Nearly half of that was MFS Management whipping out their 60M.  I.e. 6.8% of the fund.)
> 
> BTW there currently ARE different classes of units.  Some paid 7.5%; others 9%.




Hi Duped,
The PDS and constitution would have allowed MFS to choose any distribution entitlement right (different target rate of return) and would have allowed them to get out of the fund with 24 hrs notice. They could also have had any of the fees waived.  I've no doubt they took full advantage of all these clauses.  wonder what rate of return they decided to give themselves!

Can you tell me if the documents you refer to in the first quote above are still online as I can't find them and would like to take a look.

Thanks!


----------



## keld (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Here's a question for the many investment and legal experts on this thread. Can anyone apply the expertise to this one? My PIF investment matured in Feb this year, after redemptions had been first frozen 180 days on 29 January. I had applied for full redemption on 19 December, but was notified that they couldn't repay ebcause of freeze. Where do I stand? Do I have any grounds for recovering funds as I had appleid before the freeze. I have emails from OCtaviar/MFS acknowledging my withdrawal request from Dec 07 and january 08.


----------



## Mary Lynch (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Keld, I asked one of the Wellington C.reps at the forum in Melbourne to get back to me on a similar issue .....but my redemption form had been in in early November and was due on 21st of January, BEFORE the freeze.  because the money never gets into your account until the 31st of the month....it missed out.

They tried to lure me into staying by offering me a bonus to stay on!

The rep said she would get back to me, but never did!


----------



## keld (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Mary. Sounds like you would have an even stronger claim than me. Did you get any legal advice on where you stand?


----------



## DoraNBoots (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Keld,

I’m certainly no expert but I think I can answer your question.  The PIFs constitution was changed in June 07 in a way that meant all redemptions were to be due on the last day of each month.  So if you entered the fund on January 3rd  2007 for a 12 month term your redemption date would have been January 31st 2008. Keld, I believe your redemption date would have been Feb 29 2008, did your paper work not reflect this?  As you know the fund was frozen at that point.  It makes no difference when your forms go in.  As mentioned previously if you were applying for an early redemption, I’m certain you would have been refused if you didn’t have a really really strong hardship case.

For details on this change to the constitution see http://www.newpif.com.au/constitution/c2_constitution.pdf

This to me means that the only investors that could have got out of the fund during the month of January 2008 would have been express unit holders.  I have asked WC to check if this was the case and they will get back to me in a few days.  I’ll keep you posted.


----------



## goldfinger38 (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*




breaker1 said:


> G'days folks,
> 
> I just (Friday) received an email from a PIF AG member stating:
> 
> ...




HI,

I got this letter today and rang PIF to confirm, this is simply a change of registry for our investment details from Perpetual to Computershare, so Perpetual no longer look after the investment records.

This would be in preparation of any potential listing be it on the NSX or the ASX. I didnt see any mention of a date for the 19th September 2008 on the letters though. So nothing is set in concrete yet as we are still to have our vote on September 18th.

They did mention the information memorandum is being sent out this week to all Unitholders with the voting paper so we should know the content by end of week hopefully.

I was told just to check the name . address and unitholding details on the issuer sponsored statement to ensure they were correct, otherwise no action required at this stage.


----------



## Rance (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Rance
> 
> I am not a lawyer, are you??
> 
> ...




Hi Splitpin

No, I'm not a lawyer and therefore my answer is a personal opinion....  but I still believe it is correct in relation to the queries raised in your posting. So we must agree to disagree on that one.

The personal stuff... well, let's laugh it off and leave it at that.

Cheers
Rance


----------



## Rance (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> You are absolutely correct Dora
> 
> I have all ready contacted Maurice Blackburn & Cash and IMF and the case is being evaluated at this moment in time .
> 
> Rance perhaps you would like to join in the action. ?




Love to join you Jadel, but short of funds at present...  no prizes for guessing why!

Rance


----------



## Rance (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Does anyone know whether the NSW Bookmakers Superannuation Fund withdrew their express units before the freeze?

I'd expect they would have had a large share of units in the fund. If they still have, their position in regard to WC/RE would be of interest.

Rance


----------



## Rance (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



goldfinger38 said:


> I didnt see any mention of a date for the 19th September 2008 on the letters though. So nothing is set in concrete yet as we are still to have our vote on September 18th.




In the fine print under 'Please Note' on the Holding Statement you will find the following:"*....The anticipated date for the trading of securities to commence on National Stock Exchange is 19 September 2008.*"

Difficult to criticize that for pre-planning!

Rance


----------



## Duped (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi Duped,
> The PDS and constitution would have allowed MFS to choose any distribution entitlement right (different target rate of return) and would have allowed them to get out of the fund with 24 hrs notice. They could also have had any of the fees waived.  I've no doubt they took full advantage of all these clauses.  wonder what rate of return they decided to give themselves!
> 
> Can you tell me if the documents you refer to in the first quote above are still online as I can't find them and would like to take a look.
> ...




Chart is on page 1 of the June 07 update at http://www.newpif.com.au/pifreports/pif_InvestorUpdate200706.pdf


Attached is page 52 of the PIF 2007 annual report.  Full doc is over the size limit.  I'll try compressing it.


----------



## BABIHUTAN (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



goldfinger38 said:


> HI,
> 
> I got this letter today and rang PIF to confirm, this is simply a change of registry for our investment details from Perpetual to Computershare, so Perpetual no longer look after the investment records.
> 
> ...




I am overseas and mail is held by Oz Post so I will not see any paperwork with which to vote cum Sept. Does anyone know if WC will hv equivalent info online for those in my situation?
Tks in advance Owen


----------



## goldfinger38 (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> In the fine print under 'Please Note' on the Holding Statement you will find the following:"*....The anticipated date for the trading of securities to commence on National Stock Exchange is 19 September 2008.*"
> 
> Difficult to criticize that for pre-planning!
> 
> Rance




Thanks for that, had to get the glasses out to read that one LOL   so yes anticipated date for NSX listing is the day after the general meeting, will be interesting to see the content of the information memorandum in next few days then.


----------



## seamisty (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



BABIHUTAN said:


> I am overseas and mail is held by Oz Post so I will not see any paperwork with which to vote cum Sept. Does anyone know if WC will hv equivalent info online for those in my situation?
> Tks in advance Owen



I'm pretty sure I was told that you can vote on line once the info is posted on newpif website. Seamisty


----------



## Duped (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi Duped,
> The PDS and constitution would have allowed MFS to choose any distribution entitlement right (different target rate of return) and would have allowed them to get out of the fund with 24 hrs notice. They could also have had any of the fees waived.  I've no doubt they took full advantage of all these clauses.  wonder what rate of return they decided to give themselves!
> 
> Can you tell me if the documents you refer to in the first quote above are still online as I can't find them and would like to take a look.
> ...




The Courier Mail article of 8 July reported "Wellington has found the units were redeemed on September 9 on proper terms".
http://www.newpif.com.au/articles/CM_8july2008.pdf


----------



## DoraNBoots (18 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for all those articles Duped.

So if my calulations are correct (and it's possible they are way off) I'm surprised to see no conspiray here.  It looks to me like the $60 mill went in on the 30th June 2007.  I am basing this on the fact they only got paid $17,753 in distributions that period.  This equates to 10.5% pa if it was only in for one day.  If the $60 mill had gone in say on the 29th June the rate of return would have been too low.  (Looks like the WPIF has an average of 10.5% as well)


----------



## Javier (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I could not attach the 80 page Explanatory Memo as the file is too big for this forum, it will be up on the newpif website soon I believe.


----------



## Javier (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It's now up on newpif website. Some of you will now go ballistic!!


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Here are my comments and questions on the Explanatory Memorandum found here:
http://newpif.com.au/EGM08/Explanatory Memorandum.pdf


Seems like the management fee of .7% won’t be used to cover Wellington's costs.  They estimate another .32% for expenses and another .2% for external managers etc.
They are proposing to buy back up to 37.73 mill units at .45 cents.  We still don’t know they are only worth .45 cents.
The only option we have of getting out of the fund completely (if you have more than 10,000 units) is via NSX!
Quorum.  They want to change the constitution to make it really hard for us to remove them.  Looks like currently you only need 2 investors to call a resolution to remove the RE but they want to change it so that you need at least 4 unit holders holding 51% of the units in the fund!!!  They also want to take a fee of 2% if they are removed by unit holders without their consent!!!  They will liquidate assets if necessary to take this fee.
How come there was $15 mill cash at bank on 31st May 08.  Didn't the RBOS require all cash?
333 Capital provided a value range for the funds assets, the directors then came up with the current valuations.  Can we find out the value range 333 capital provided?
The competition section is interesting.  I suppose this is normal to write that your competitors are more experienced etc?
Wellington IM want to retire and Wellington Capital want to be RE. Need to find out legal implications of this.  Will this mean we can’t go after the RE that was responsible when our money was allegedly mismanaged?
Looks like the RE can pay for any litigation expenses out of the fund.  Interesting!
Good to note the RE has PI and fraud insurance.
Even Perpetual can pay for it’s legal fees out of the fund – should the need arise.
Looks like WC are proposing to take $44.4 from OCV and forgive all!
The document says you can inspect the new constitution in their office.  Hopefully they will also put a copy up on their website or send copies if requested.
Can anyone explains the ‘Handling fees’ mentioned.
Good to see they are being a bit more straight forward regarding other options
“Unit holders have the right under the Constitution to call a general meeting and consider other alternatives.”  
(Interesting to note I was given completely different info from this a week ago from the hotline.  They said we will be voting to liquidate and will not have a chance to call a general meeting to propose other changes!!!  This is very annoying as some who may have wanted to prepare for this may not have due to this advise)


----------



## sugar3157 (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Can someone tell me is there any way we as the unit holders can take control of what is left and run it ourselves?


----------



## Duped (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Thanks for all those articles Duped.
> 
> So if my calulations are correct (and it's possible they are way off) I'm surprised to see no conspiray here.  It looks to me like the $60 mill went in on the 30th June 2007.  I am basing this on the fact they only got paid $17,753 in distributions that period.  This equates to 10.5% pa if it was only in for one day.  If the $60 mill had gone in say on the 29th June the rate of return would have been too low.  (Looks like the WPIF has an average of 10.5% as well)




Good point regarding the %.  I agree that the 60M units held by MFSM P/L probably didn't breech the PIF constitution/PDS.  But it certainly smells of financial engineering, window dressing the reports and probably did damage to the fund.

Following is not directed at U DoraNBoots

The chart shows PIF growth flatlining for the previous 6 months.  This looks very bad. Not good for confidence in the fund. (I recall that MFS cut the rate of commissions from PIF to financial planners around the start of that flat line period? Co-incidence?????)

Then hello, there's a spike of around 60M units and MFSIM puts the chart on page 1 of the Investor Update.  Looks great.  Then they bury the fact that MFS Management bought 60M units in page 52 of the Annual Report, issued nearly 3 months later. 

I hear you say: so what; it was for the good of the fund.  Well, I'm sure you won't find accord with those who subsequently  invested or re-invested based on this engineered info.

What did MFS IM do with the $60M cash injection into PIF?  It was only in there for, apparently, 10 weeks. Enough time for it to be invested? When the 60M left PIF it took with it 10.5% p/a and hence weakened the fund by another $1.18M.  And that was CASH!!!!

Did the $60M injection generate new business? Or was it just used to pay out the incoming growing pile of redemption requests that I believe MFSIM had been receiving since Feb 07 when it cut the rates of commissions to financial planners.  Wasn't that what the $50M support facility was for?  Of the estimated 125M redemptions between Jun07 and Jan08 how many of the 65M Non-MFSM P/L redemptions were lodged before Jun07?

Fund size reported in the Investor Updates:
Jun07 $880M
Jul07 $844M
Aug07 $808M
Sep07 $796M
Oct07 $787M
Nov07 $781M
Dec07 $770M
Jan08 $754M
Feb08 755M units ($890M-$184M debt=$706M)

I believe that if the 60M unit MFS M P/L scam wasn't played then PIF would have been frozen long before MFS Ltd had a chance to plunder the $147.5M.  If the scam was legal then it makes a mockery of the Australian financial reporting requirements. The Jun 07 investor update was deceptive.

Of course none of this is WC's fault and we'd only be hurting PIF by taking action against the current RE.  But if the scam was illegal and the individuals can't be pursued (and they can continue playing polo) then it makes a mockery of our corporate legal system as well.


----------



## PIFholder (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks DoraNBoots,

Still reading the document - it's big! At least there's the detail in this so that investors know what the assets are

A good thing for investors is that WC is setting up an Investor Advisory Committee - at least we will get representation in that regard. You get to nominate on the proxy.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The following appeared in today's AFR.


----------



## flatback (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

What have i been saying since i have been involved with this forum, have alook at all of my threads 1701,1649 etc,etc,etc, they all revolve around two issues CONSTITUTION, and NSX, dont you people understand?? the constitutional changes which were made, is the reason we are in this mess,up until reading the thread about the up comeing meeting and changes to the constitution which are being proposed by Jenny Hutson and her company,i fully supported her.
After reading what she now proposes, she can take her red shirt and shove it where it hurts, have any of you ever seen a more one sided proposal ???, there is definately an outward appearence being portrayed by this woman and her company that we are idiots, and we will be told what to do and how to do it.
My view for what its worth , we should reject her proposals as presented and come back with something that has something in it for us, THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG do not except this at face value. 
Most of my threads here, have been to try to maintain some positivity to the discussions in this forum, ive read some very funny and some times very silly threads on here, and to those of you who have contributed either way it was good to read at times, but the time to put this woman in her place ( remember she is only the RE she can be removed) this fund belongs to us the unit holders. I would have thought that it was unconstitutional in any form of business, that all members were not able to get their hands on a copy of the constitution to become conversant with its contents.
VERY ANGRY flatback


----------



## Javier (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Here are my comments and questions on the Explanatory Memorandum found here:
> http://newpif.com.au/EGM08/Explanatory Memorandum.pdf
> 
> 
> ...






WCL can only charge this 2%, if we do not vote yes to option 3, then the RE will continue to be WIML and not WCL. So don't vote yes to the third proposal, so that WCL does not get the required 50% of the vote to change the RE, in effect you get the same deal and it won't cost the fund 2% down the track if JH doesn't work out and there needs to be an RE change.


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



PIFholder said:


> Thanks DoraNBoots,
> 
> Still reading the document - it's big! At least there's the detail in this so that investors know what the assets are
> 
> A good thing for investors is that WC is setting up an Investor Advisory Committee - at least we will get representation in that regard. You get to nominate on the proxy.




Well I think our views were heard before this document was written but I don't see any evidence they were taken into consideration!  Not sure how effective an Investor Advisory Committee will be if the views are ignored.

Who's going to want to vote yes for Wellintong Capital to be RE if it means we've got to pay them up to $15 mill to get rid of them if we decide there is a better option.  Are they serious?

How can JH think the buy back scheme will influence us (see news article)when the average investor has $70,000 in this fund.  Who wants $60,000 on the NSX forever?

Can those that have said JH will provide other options or that they were working with WC on other options please explain!


----------



## Javier (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Of course it's one sided. That is because it is necessary to keep as much in the fund for as long as possible. What people don't seem to understand is that the fund they invested in is at the moment broken. It is ILLIQUID, it cannot pay you what you want and when you want it. It needs time to rebuild.

Just how busted up remains uncertain, and I believe we need further transparency of that, hopefully when PWC completes the audit. The NSX was always going to be the way out for people needing their money now at whatever price, that is really unfortunate and I hope they can get as close to the net asset backed price as possible.

If you have the luxury of time and can hang on for the better times 3-7 years, this fund will be listed on the ASX, it will be a hell of a lot heathier and will be...LIQUID again and pretty much by then trading at it's true net asset backing as well as provide investors with a better return. The market in general will by then be very much on the mend.

WC has to take this harsh regime now in order to do what it has embarked upon doing. NSX is a short term fix. Buy back is a short term fix. The long term viability is paramount, the rewards are a long way off. You can't please everyone, but hey, JH did not get this fund in a mess..so don't shoot the messenger!


----------



## Duped (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

RickH, as a financial planner you would be more familiar with PDSs and constitutions than us investors.  How does the New PIF compare to equivalent, competing funds.  I expect the clauses about PIF pays legal costs are fairly standard.  Can you confirm this? Or have I misunderstood the role of financial planners?


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Of course it's one sided. That is because it is necessary to keep as much in the fund for as long as possible.
> ...
> If you have the luxury of time and can hang on for the better times 3-7 years, this fund will be listed on the ASX, it will be a hell of a lot heathier and will be...LIQUID again and pretty much by then trading at it's true net asset backing as well as provide investors with a better return.
> ...




Where are you getting your info from Javier?  Now you tell us the “fund will be listed on the ASX”. ..“ then trading at it's true net asset backing” Wonder if it was the same person that helped you conclude that Great Dame was lying?(sorry GD I know you weren't)  None of what you have said is in the documentation so please clarify your statements.

I think it's only necessary for the PIF to keep our funds for as long as it takes for the current investments to be realised.  That sure isn't 7 years.  Anyone else want a moratorium\work out\orderly wind up?  I'm not saying it's possible I just want to know who would prefer this over the current offer.  Surely if most wanted it we could push for it.


----------



## great dame (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Of course it's one sided. That is because it is necessary to keep as much in the fund for as long as possible. What people don't seem to understand is that the fund they invested in is at the moment broken. It is ILLIQUID, it cannot pay you what you want and when you want it. It needs time to rebuild.
> 
> Just how busted up remains uncertain, and I believe we need further transparency of that, hopefully when PWC completes the audit. The NSX was always going to be the way out for people needing their money now at whatever price, that is really unfortunate and I hope they can get as close to the net asset backed price as possible.
> 
> ...



  Javis as a rough guess i would say Over 50& of unit holder  do not have thaat luxuary of time  ..The Dame


----------



## Javier (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Then if you don't..sell your units either now, or when you are comfortable with the NSX price. Like I said not all will be happy. Everyone has their own agenda based on time they can hang on for. If you are happy taking the 6c per unit and hang in there fine, which is what most people where doing anyway prior to this debacle.

I have a very good source that has stated to me that this fund will listed on the ASX as the way of exit as soon as the fund has a respectable NTA. What is the point of ASX now..we need stability now.
I don't wish to disclose who that person is, but trust me, it's not some clerk at Wellington. If all goes well expect PIF to be a listed fund. We need to vote FOR  option 1 in that proxy Amendment of the Constitution for the Fund. That is the start. Option 2 and 3 are up to you, but definitely put a cross in FOR in option1.


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Javis as a rough guess i would say Over 50& of unit holder  do not have thaat luxuary of time  ..The Dame




JH said in an article that over 95% of investors in the PIF are over 65.  (I’m not saying 65 is old! ) And then there are the people that needed to actually use the money to buy a house etc etc etc.  and then there are people like me who just want out of this thing in the shortest time possible (without fire sale etc) and I don't see the current plan giving me any reasonable out at all (even in 5 years!).

Javier:  Even if JH herself told you the fund will be listed on the ASX it don't mean it will happen or that we'll get close to the NTA back.


----------



## Javier (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I disagree with you Dora, I have thought that ASX down the track will be the only way out for a little while now. Various planners I have spoken with, who have clients' funds in PIF also agree with that. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I guess time will tell all, won't it?

The landscape has changed, rules are changing and we have to realise that the fund we initially invested in is being force to morph into a completely different animal. I can understand the frustration that people have, especially more senior people who hate change, but that is the reliality of our situation.


----------



## flatback (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Of course it's one sided. That is because it is necessary to keep as much in the fund for as long as possible. What people don't seem to understand is that the fund they invested in is at the moment broken. It is ILLIQUID, it cannot pay you what you want and when you want it. It needs time to rebuild.
> 
> Just how busted up remains uncertain, and I believe we need further transparency of that, hopefully when PWC completes the audit. The NSX was always going to be the way out for people needing their money now at whatever price, that is really unfortunate and I hope they can get as close to the net asset backed price as possible.
> 
> ...



Javier lets you and i get something straight here once and for all, there isn't  and never was a concrete cast in stone statement made by JH that we would have the ability to redeem our units via the ASX, now haveing said that, because you are so sure of this, why cant JH come out and say to us the unit holders, this is what i propose to do once we become liquid again,to put all of our minds at rest.(If she does this i will be the first to vote her way)
As for the audit which is still ongoing,  i will use a very simple analogy, if i was going to buy a car and i was not mechanicaly minded, i would have to rely upon someone to evaluate (AUDIT) the car for me, and i would have rocks in my head if i didn't. NOBODY from our group or for that matter anybody else,has been privy to the outcome of such audit, (i know its not finished) my point is in the analogy used. 
Still angry flatback


----------



## Javier (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Nothing at this point, apart from NSX is set in stone. Think about it..why should she tell us what her exact plans are. I am sure she will, but we haven't even voted for her yet. You have to be patient. Things sometimes turn ugly very quickly, but take a long time to restore to normality. One step at a time. We all want a quick fix and all the answers now. Hopefully we will see that restoration, but that is a while away.

She is not just going to take this on without a long term committed strategy to make this a mutually successful venture, to tear her reputation to shreds. Of course she believes she can turn it around, or else she would not bother. I guess in life we have to sometimes take a leap of faith, what do you have to lose at this point in time??


----------



## great dame (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

      Well Well Well Has not The Dame  ME being saying all the time   JH sure wants us all tired up tightly  And in the bag  the lot of us     Sure she says you can get out any time you want  Sell your stuff for next to nothing on the NSX   She sure knows how to cover her back      I just wonder how may good folk have now come round to the Dames way of thinking  now     We all should take notice of DoraN Boots posts  Now there is a person who knows what  He or She  is talking about    BYE  The Dame        PS  FOOT NOTE   Our units will be slaughtered  when they are listed on the NSX ////


----------



## sugar3157 (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Great Dame...so what do you suggest we do to get our money back?


----------



## great dame (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Nothing at this point, apart from NSX is set in stone. Think about it..why should she tell us what her exact plans are. I am sure she will, but we haven't even voted for her yet. You have to be patient. Things sometimes turn ugly very quickly, but take a long time to restore to normality. One step at a time. We all want a quick fix and all the answers now. Hopefully we will see that restoration, but that is a while away.
> 
> She is not just going to take this on without a long term committed strategy to make this a mutually successful venture, to tear her reputation to shreds. Of course she believes she can turn it around, or else she would not bother. I guess in life we have to sometimes take a leap of faith, what do you have to lose at this point in time??



      Hey i thought JH is a Lawyer  not some sort of investor Guru
   But i guess all you true believers  will stay the distance even if it takes 10 or 12 years  The Dame //


----------



## great dame (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Hi Great Dame...so what do you suggest we do to get our money back?



          You will get it back quicker  if you read DoreNboots posts  Dora puts words together better then me  The Dame //


----------



## seamisty (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> Javier lets you and i get something straight here once and for all, there isn't  and never was a concrete cast in stone statement made by JH that we would have the ability to redeem our units via the ASX, now haveing said that, because you are so sure of this, why cant JH come out and say to us the unit holders, this is what i propose to do once we become liquid again,to put all of our minds at rest.(If she does this i will be the first to vote her way)
> As for the audit which is still ongoing,  i will use a very simple analogy, if i was going to buy a car and i was not mechanicaly minded, i would have to rely upon someone to evaluate (AUDIT) the car for me, and i would have rocks in my head if i didn't. NOBODY from our group or for that matter anybody else,has been privy to the outcome of such audit, (i know its not finished) my point is in the analogy used.
> Still angry flatback



There must have been some reference made to a possible future listing on the ASX at the Melbourne Investor Forum, refer Rocky1 post 792 "ASX may become an alternative vehicle further down the track", and Splitpins' post 911, JH "indicated a vision of NSX then maybe ASX", so the JH has obviously mentioned a possible future ASX listing at 2 of the investor forums. Seamisty:run:


----------



## Rance (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> *Our units will be slaughtered when they are listed on the NSX* ////



*Great Doom
Please do not lead the charge to the slaughter! Don't be a lemming... Remember the Light Brigade at Balaclava... There were guns to the left of them, guns to the right of them... but valiantly the 600 rode on into the valley of ...... (my sensibility prevents me from uttering that grim word.)

Rance :headshake*


----------



## flatback (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Nothing at this point, apart from NSX is set in stone. Think about it..why should she tell us what her exact plans are. I am sure she will, but we haven't even voted for her yet. You have to be patient. Things sometimes turn ugly very quickly, but take a long time to restore to normality. One step at a time. We all want a quick fix and all the answers now. Hopefully we will see that restoration, but that is a while away.
> 
> She is not just going to take this on without a long term committed strategy to make this a mutually successful venture, to tear her reputation to shreds. Of course she believes she can turn it around, or else she would not bother. I guess in life we have to sometimes take a leap of faith, what do you have to lose at this point in time??



I agree with your statement that she has a long term strategy,i have written this in the past on this forum, but  what i cannot go along with, the RE believes that unit holders will not be effected by this change. most of the people who purchased units in this fund did so knowing that they always had a redemption clause in the constitution to enable them to exit the fund, in my view this certainly will have adverse effects on unit holders,i do not want to see this clause removed but ammended. 
The Constitution may be amended:
by the responsible entity, where the responsible entity reasonably believes that the rights of
Unitholders would not be adversely affected by the amendment; or
unless otherwise stated, by special resolution of Unitholders.
The responsible entity is proposing a resolution of Unitholders to amend the Constitution.
A summary of the proposed amendments to the Constitution is set out below.
Existing Constitution Proposed Constitution
Withdrawal
Unitholders are currently entitled to
withdraw from the Fund by lodging a
redemption request at the conclusion of their
investment term.
Unitholders will not be able to withdraw from the
Fund, other than by sale of their units or through a
limited buy-back arrangement when proposed by the
responsible entity. on top of that there are supposed to be three(3) resolutions to the constitution, but resolution one (1)clearly has eight (8) clauses built into it, which in my view should be presented as (8) seperate clauses, the others 2 an 3 are single resolutions and they speak for themselves Javier something doesn'tadd up here.Flatback


----------



## flatback (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> There must have been some reference made to a possible future listing on the ASX at the Melbourne Investor Forum, refer Rocky1 post 792 "ASX may become an alternative vehicle further down the track", and Splitpins' post 911, JH "indicated a vision of NSX then maybe ASX", so the JH has obviously mentioned a possible future ASX listing at 2 of the investor forums. Seamisty:run:



thank you Seamisty,i stand corrected, it may have been mentioned, but i have not seen her put such a proposal to us on paper and until it is, its all words. Flatback


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> There must have been some reference made to a possible future listing on the ASX at the Melbourne Investor Forum, refer Rocky1 post 792 "ASX may become an alternative vehicle further down the track", and Splitpins' post 911, JH "indicated a vision of NSX then maybe ASX", so the JH has obviously mentioned a possible future ASX listing at 2 of the investor forums. Seamisty:run:




JH mentions ASX on the DVD as follows:
1hr 34 mins: JH explains why the NSX and not the ASX
2hr 05mins: Unit holder asks how we might redeem our units in the future as he is not interested in the NSX.  JH indicates the ASX is an option


----------



## seamisty (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> JH mentions ASX on the DVD as follows:
> 1hr 34 mins: JH explains why the NSX and not the ASX
> 2hr 05mins: Unit holder asks how we might redeem our units in the future as he is not interested in the NSX.  JH indicates the ASX is an option




Thanks DoraNBoots. I still haven't had time to watch the DVD. Seamisty


----------



## flatback (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> JH mentions ASX on the DVD as follows:
> 1hr 34 mins: JH explains why the NSX and not the ASX
> 2hr 05mins: Unit holder asks how we might redeem our units in the future as he is not interested in the NSX.  JH indicates the ASX is an option



get real doranboots,please do not kiss up to each other agreeing for the sake of agreeing. i dont care if the inference was made (the intention was not)
this is still not an option unless this woman puts pen to paper, the pair of you can do all the research in the world ,re newspaper reports etc,etc,etc but until this RE and their leader actually writes her intentions into the constitution, or asks for our vote on that issue in the constitution, you are wasting your time, i will take a leaf out of magoo's book here and state that it will never happen, without the reference in the constitution upon which we shall vote.Flatback


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> get real doranboots,please do not kiss up to each other agreeing for the sake of agreeing. i dont care if the inference was made (the intention was not)
> this is still not an option unless this woman puts pen to paper, the pair of you can do all the research in the world ,re newspaper reports etc,etc,etc but until this RE and their leader actually writes her intentions into the constitution, or asks for our vote on that issue in the constitution, you are wasting your time, i will take a leaf out of magoo's book here and state that it will never happen, without the reference in the constitution upon which we shall vote.Flatback




Hi Flatback,

You have misunderstood my post.  All I am doing it telling people where they can find JH commenting on the ASX.  If people watch the DVD they will see JH is making no promises at all.  I am certainly not backing up Javier's comments!


----------



## Burnt (19 August 2008)

*Re Explanatory Memorandum !!!!!*

Hi all, Good on you Flatback and Dora, you are both right on the money.
Lots to say about this document !!!!!!! Conspiracy theories ?? Paranoia????
Good to see JH is sharing in the paranoia !!!(re changes to constituion on quorums and fees on being removed!!!!!). To go through the difficult process of removing WC as RE (as they propose), then obviously they are would be performing really badly, and then to demand a huge exit fee !!! *My god,who gets the sack for bad performance and then gets a bonus !!!!! what a joke.*
Also why change RE to Wellington Capital - no responsiblity there for past crimes !!!!!! They say to "simplify operating arrangements" what crap, its the same people doing the same jobs, why not do this in the first place if that was the case !! BEWARE !!! This has all been planned long ago.
I'm only a layman who works in the area of accounting - to see an entity present financial statements to the public THAT ARE UN-AUDITED and then prepare your own notes to those statements - what a joke !!! 333Capital used to determine the estimated realisable value of the funds assets - same company Octaviar paid $10-15mil (in a matter of weeks) to formulate their strategies - where's the independant valuations and estimates. What a load of crap.
Funniest part was the "Background Information" - hey no details on what happened between Sept.2004 and May 2008 hmmmmmmmmmm.
Also funny is the idea of "Investor Advisory Committee" ha ha ha ha - look how much interest they've paid to unitholders so far !!! Hey and what about the Complaints Dept. - another way of saying "the person in charge of the shredder". Have WC given enough proof yet of whose interests their working for !!!!!
This document and what their proposing only serves to protect WC's big fat bum !!!! How about the section "Historical arrangements with MFS" stating "investigations indicate the fund may not have the expected priorty on loans" and "further litigation would involve significant costs to the fund". In other words, the initial steps taken to lauch legal action for compensation was a really good show and we didn't really mean it.
I had the feeling JH was putting a gun to our heads in July, now I feel like that gun is right up my left nostril and WC's fingers on the trigger. Well F..... them !!!! Now is the time to fight back !!!
Hey you guys that are doing all the leg work and long hours on our behalf......thank you so much, if anyone deserves a bonus it's you guys......but could you please get some legal advice on this document. We need to hold a unitholders meeting before the EGM to make our own changes to the constitution. Amendment to include the buy back scheme proposed by WC to help those really in need, and perhaps amendment to extend the redemption freeze period sufficiently to allow an independant administrator to be appointed. I don't know but we've got to do something urgently before the voting is finalised.


----------



## Burnt (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just another thought (sorry I could go on all night - but I won't), under the proposed "buy back scheme", who is actually buying and subsequently owning the units bought back. Is it Wellington IM, to then be handed over to Wellington Capital, or are they to be bought back buy all unitholders ????
I distinctly recall JH mentioning in her roadshow that Wellington would not have any investment in the fund as that would be a conflict of interest !!!
Also, does anyone know who the shareholders of Wellington Capital are ??? I recall some mention somewhere of Chris Scott investing the intial capital to start the company hmmmmmmmm........Will there be more buy backs offered in the future ???????
Come on guys, we've all got to wake up and get moving. These guys are continuing to screw us and lets face it, it's really expensive sex (and not very satisfying!!!!!!!)


----------



## seamisty (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi Flatback,
> 
> You have misunderstood my post.  All I am doing it telling people where they can find JH commenting on the ASX.  If people watch the DVD they will see JH is making no promises at all.  I am certainly not backing up Javier's comments!



DoraNBoots, I personally was under no illusion you were backing up Javier, I just knew I had seen reference to the ASX listing previously on more than one occasion. As for the buyback scheme, I can only assume it is WC's way of making it easier for those that find it necessary to exit the fund a guaranteed way of maximising their return on their units without the hassle of listing on the NSX and taking a lesser NTA on the day. Also this way, the remaining unit holders have the opportunity of sharing in future upside in unit value by partaking in the increase of value once the unit no. is decreased. After reading the three voting options, I have also decided that it will not be to unit holder detriment to NOT vote for the 3rd option. At this point in time I personally will not vote for WCL for RE, that way the fund keeps going but it won't cost us 2% if JH doesn't work out and we need to change the RE. This is my  personal opinion only. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## gazzan57 (19 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Seamisty...do you agree with what Burnt has said? and if so what do you think we can do?.....I agree with every thing he has said...regards Gaz


----------



## great dame (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> You will get it back quicker  if you read DoreNboots posts  Dora puts words together better then me  The Dame //



 That 45 cents buy back up to 10000 units  now proves that 14 cents is wrong on liquidation  its 45 cents and WC must know that I feel its just one BIG scare tatic they are using on us poor soles  The Dame //


----------



## DoraNBoots (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> RickH, as a financial planner you would be more familiar with PDSs and constitutions than us investors.  How does the New PIF compare to equivalent, competing funds.  I expect the clauses about PIF pays legal costs are fairly standard.  Can you confirm this? Or have I misunderstood the role of financial planners?




Can any unsatisfied unit holders that have financial advisers please ask your financial advisers to explain the alternate options to you. Page 6 of the Memorandum states “_Unitholders have a right under the Constitution to call a general meeting and consider other alternatives.”_   Don’t let your financial adviser just tell you how to vote.  Ask them to explain the alternate option of a moratorium and how we could go about achieving it should this suit you better than the current proposal.



Burnt said:


> … under the proposed "buy back scheme", the is actually buying and subsequently owning the units bought back. Is it Wellington IM, to then be handed over to Wellington Capital, or are they to be bought back buy all unitholders ????
> I distinctly recall JH mentioning in her roadshow that Wellington would not have any investment in the fund as that would be a conflict of interest !!!
> …




Great info Burnt!  Thanks for your posts!

Good question regarding the buy back proposal.  This proposal is lacking in detail and I don’t see how we are expected to vote on something with such little detail.  The memorandum says _“the off market buy-back is to be funded through asset realisations.”_  Would there then be less units in the fund or if they remain who will own them?  If it’s funded by the fund (us) then it would have to be that there would be less units in the fund.  I find it bad form on WCs part to offer to pay us out 45 cents when we are yet to see independent audited unit\asset valuations.  Do they really expect us to vote with such little detail??


----------



## great dame (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Winging Dame here again    I am surprised none of you good people have not picked up on the proxy voting   they are to be returned to Wellington for counting   Now i really think that is wrong for them to do the counting  They will know what each unit holder name & what they are voting for  And if they don't like whats on the proxy vote  Well i will leave that up to you Remember staff want to keep there jobs  It should be counted by outsiders    The Dame //


----------



## seamisty (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> That 45 cents buy back up to 10000 units  now proves that 14 cents is wrong on liquidation  its 45 cents and WC must know that I feel its just one BIG scare tatic they are using on us poor soles  The Dame //



IF WC get the vote to continue as RE  it will not be buying back 5% of units valued at the estimated liquidation price of 14cents, it will be buying 5% of units that are part of a going concern with the current estimated value of 45cents. For all those poor SOULS that have been making predictions of 10-20cents per unit when listed on the NSX (and I have no doubt that initially that will probably be correct), 45cents is a fair offer for those who don't want to wait for future upside with a 6 cent annual distribution and don't want to list on the NSX. For the rest of PIF holders who do not want WC as RE, and think that there is a better alternative,get yourselves together, do something about it and stop whinging!!!!  I personally, as stated many times previously, am quite prepared to give WC the chance to demonstrate what they are capable of. If and when the time comes that WC prove totally useless,I am sure action will be taken to make other arrangements. Seamisty


----------



## Juan Mortyme (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This from today's Australian
---------------------------------

Mirage resort sale comes into focus

by Fiona Cameron | August 20, 2008

IT was too good to be true for 1980s entrepreneur Christopher Skase, and now the Mirage resort at Port Douglas is slipping from the grasp of another high-flying corporate cot case.

Octaviar has appointed agency Jones Lang LaSalle Hotels to find a buyer for the Mirage resort at Port Douglas and its adjoining development land, after sale attempts fell through earlier this year.

Asked if $60-$70 million was a likely sale price, as suggested by market sources, agent Wayne Bunz said the vendor would be "disappointed if that was all they got". "It would cost three times that to reproduce it," he said.

But the vendor was prepared to meet the market. Octaviar -- then known as MFS Ltd -- paid $72.5 million for the resort in May 2005.

Octaviar has been selling assets since it struck financial trouble in January and has since been besieged by claims from creditors seeking hundreds of millions of dollars.

Octaviar has sold a 65 per cent stake in its main asset, the Stella tourism conglomerate, and two satellite companies have separated themselves from the parent.

Mr Bunz said that although the Mirage was due for refurbishment, it still drew higher-than-average room rates -- $263 per night -- than its main competitor, the nearby Sea Temple resort.

The resort would be sold with a management agreement in place with Starwood Hotels and Resorts, which operates the hotel under the Sheraton brand.

The Mirage resort was one of two -- the other is at Southport on the Gold Coast -- developed in 1987 by entrepreneur Skase's now-defunct and discredited Qintex group.

Expressions of interest for the resort will close on September 25, although the agents say they are prepared to sell it earlier.

Of the 150 housing lots included in the offering, about half face onto Four Mile Beach.
------------------------------


----------



## Duped (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The buyback is limited to 5% of the units.  So WC is only risking $17M of the fund walking out the door if the buyback is fully subscribed.


----------



## seamisty (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> The buyback is limited to 5% of the units.  So WC is only risking $17M of the fund walking out the door if the buyback is fully subscribed.



 Duped, I wouldn't say that the $17mill of PIF's income used to buyback the 5% of shares will be walking out the door, in my opinion it will strengthen the value of the remaining units in the Fund. It will also give hardship cases access to some  money. Seamisty


----------



## great dame (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> IF WC get the vote to continue as RE  it will not be buying back 5% of units valued at the estimated liquidation price of cents, it will be buying 5% of units that are part of a going concern with the current estimated value of cents. For all those poor SOULS that have been making predictions of 10-cents per unit when listed on the NSX (and I have no doubt that initially that will probably be correct), cents is a fair offer for those who don't want to wait for future upside with a 6 cent annual distribution and don't want to list on the NSX. For the rest of PIF holders who do not want WC as RE, and think that there is a better alternative,get yourselves together, do something about it and stop whinging!!!!  I personally, as stated many times previously, am quite prepared to give WC the chance to demonstrate what they are capable of. If and when the time comes that WC prove totally useless,I am sure action will be taken to make other arrangements. Seamisty



 Seamisty can you say in all honstley that it is only worth omly 14 cents if iquidationed   well i dont agree with you JH is telling Centerlink it is worth 45 cents  on market value  And we all know just what market value is dont we  The Dame //


----------



## great dame (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Duped, I wouldn't say that the $17mill of PIF's income used to buyback the 5% of shares will be walking out the door, in my opinion it will strengthen the value of the remaining units in the Fund. It will also give hardship cases access to some  money. Seamisty



     O come off it  It must deplete the fund by 5% of asserts  The Dame //


----------



## seamisty (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Seamisty can you say in all honstley that it is only worth omly 14 cents if iquidationed   well i dont agree with you JH is telling Centerlink it is worth 45 cents  on market value  And we all know just what market value is dont we  The Dame //



Dame, I know you are extremely frustrated, we all are. To be perfectly honest, even if the liquidation price at firesale prices is 20-40cents per unit, I don't care as I am not prepared to accept that. The maximum value of PIF assets will not be realised in this economic climate. One thing I have learnt in the business world of making money, is don't panic in a downturn. Buy low and sell high, you as a share trader should know that only too well. I never, ever sell at a loss!!! If I can't afford to sit on an asset which has the possibility of going back in value at some stage, I don't buy it or invest in it. It works for me. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> O come off it  It must deplete the fund by 5% of asserts  The Dame //



Dame I am suprised you have any money at all!!! It is no different to a redemption except unit holders are only going to get 45cents as opposed to $1.00 for their unit.If the units are worth more than 45cents as many are of the opinion of, then that extra value stays in the PIF and is absorbed into the value of the remaining units. The smart people will be those that don't take up the offer! Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> ...One thing I have learnt in the business world of making money, is don't panic in a downturn. Buy low and sell high, you as a share trader should know that only too well. I never, ever sell at a loss!!! ...




I never sell shares in a down market either (unless the company is going down due to mismanagement).  I wait till the market turns to sell.  This is a different concept to winding the PIF up with an orderly windup.  JH herself has said the existing assets should be realised within 12 to 18 months.  So within 3 years I’m sure all the PIFs assets will be completely new investments.  Your theory of staying in the fund to allow the existing assets to gain value dose not make sense if the existing asset will be sold\finished within 12 to 18 months.  I know it’s hard to take a capital loss on paper but that would be the only difference between an orderly wind up and keeping the fund going.  In one case you will see the capital loss and have to show your accountant, in the other case you can pretend it hasn’t happened and wait 10 years for the units to be worth $1.1 on the NSX\ASX and sell for a ‘gain’. (which of course isn’t good if you put in one dollar 10 years ago and only come out with $1.1)  I think people who don’t like the idea of a listed fund or need to get out within the next 7 years should consider an orderly windup\moratorium.


----------



## seamisty (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I never sell shares in a down market either (unless the company is going down due to mismanagement).  I wait till the market turns to sell.  This is a different concept to winding the PIF up with an orderly windup.  JH herself has said the existing assets should be realised within 12 to 18 months.  So within 3 years I’m sure all the PIFs assets will be completely new investments.  Your theory of staying in the fund to allow the existing assets to gain value dose not make sense if the existing asset will be sold\finished within 12 to 18 months.  I know it’s hard to take a capital loss on paper but that would be the only difference between an orderly wind up and keeping the fund going.  In one case you will see the capital loss and have to show your accountant, in the other case you can pretend it hasn’t happened and wait 10 years for the units to be worth $1.1 on the NSX\ASX and sell for a ‘gain’. (which of course isn’t a good if you put in one dollar 10 years ago and only come out with $1.1)  I think people who don’t like the idea of a listed fund or need to get out within the next 7 years should consider an orderly windup\moratorium.



Dora I just don't see the sense in taking a loss  then re-investing the the much reduced capital at a similar rate of return it will be achieving if it remains in the PIF with the potential to increase in value.Circumstances may be different for some, but capital gains/losses have little impact on those that have invested through self managed super funds and draw their own allocated pensions.In a couple of years once the Fund has stabilised I would expect the unit price will be trading at similar values you would hope to achieve through an orderly wind up which may not suit  holders who wish to stay in the Fund. Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Dora I just don't see the sense in taking a loss  then re-investing the the much reduced capital at a similar rate of return it will be achieving if it remains in the PIF with the potential to increase in value.Circumstances may be different for some, but capital gains/losses have little impact on those that have invested through self managed super funds and draw their own allocated pensions.In a couple of years once the Fund has stabilised I would expect the unit price will be trading at similar values you would hope to achieve through an orderly wind up which may not suit  holders who wish to stay in the Fund. Seamisty





Seamisty..........  6 cents on 45 cents is 13.3% return  ........not too many places you can get that at the moment.......JH


----------



## Duped (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Duped, I wouldn't say that the $17mill of PIF's income used to buyback the 5% of shares will be walking out the door, in my opinion it will strengthen the value of the remaining units in the Fund. It will also give hardship cases access to some  money. Seamisty




I agree, it should strengthen the fund. (Provided of course the 45c valuation is not too high.)

Point I was trying to make was that on first impression the buyback appears generous but the 5% cap means the stayers and WC are only risking the fund dropping by a max $17M.  If the 5% cap provides enough relief for those that want out (the leavers) then the buyback offer seems like a bit of a win/win/win proposal for stayers/WC/leavers.

For unit holders on a marginal rate of 41.5% and paying non-deductable interest on e.g. a home mortgage attracting 9.5% interest.  That 45c is really worth an extra 7.3c per year (9.5/0.585*0.45) i.e. around 52.3c in the first year, 59.6c after 2 yrs,  67c after 3, etc . And that's ignoring the effect of compounding. Add to that the value of 41.5% of a 55c capital loss (i.e. 22.8c) that can be offset against future capital gains then the 45c payout could look more like 90c after 3yrs. (Of course there's also the lost income earning ability) Are my calcs about right? And if this strengthens the fund then I'm all for the buyback being fully subscribed. Who pays - the tax man pays.

Of course this might pitch unit holders against each other if the offer ends up being fully subscribed.  Those that want out for tax reasons against those that want out for more life critical reasons.

Does anyone know if capital losses can be indexed?  I.e. their value adjusted for inflation when they are offset against a cpaital gain years down the track.


----------



## PIFholder (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Winging Dame here again    I am surprised none of you good people have not picked up on the proxy voting   they are to be returned to Wellington for counting   Now i really think that is wrong for them to do the counting  They will know what each unit holder name & what they are voting for  And if they don't like whats on the proxy vote  Well i will leave that up to you Remember staff want to keep there jobs  It should be counted by outsiders    The Dame //




Great Dame,

I just spoke with WC who advised that Computershare are counting the votes, but that they are using the reply paid facilities of WC because it's less expensive and more efficient. 

Cheers 
PIFholder


----------



## great dame (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Dame, I know you are extremely frustrated, we all are. To be perfectly honest, even if the liquidation price at fire sale prices is 20-cents per unit, I don't care as I am not prepared to accept that. The maximum value of PIF assets will not be realized in this economic climate. One thing I have learnt in the business world of making money, is don't panic in a downturn. Buy low and sell high, you as a share trader should know that only too well. I never, ever sell at a loss!!! If I can't afford to sit on an asset which has the possibility of going back in value at some stage, I don't buy it or invest in it. It works for me. Seamisty



  O my god give me a bit on nounce  i am not that dumb   I know when to buy & sell   I am not talking about a fire sale only a fool would want that  Liquidation over a 2 to 3 years  is the way to go with payments a long the way  you then invest your payments  as you receive them  in growth investments you must win then in the end      If we go your way this could happen  Say you get the value of the units up to say 90 cents maybe in 6 years  so off you go to to stockbroker to try & sell them on the NSX   As a rough guess you may get at the most 60 cents  So much for your upside  HEY      O yes you going to  say I got 6%  A 6 cent div along the to 6 years   Gee Whiz big deal a whopping  6% I would be looking at no less then 8% plus growth   What your hoping is maybe it could happen   WC is not giving any for casts  EPS  Cant say i blame them for that   Because they don't have any   BY for now  The Dame //


----------



## great dame (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Dame I am suprised you have any money at all!!! It is no different to a redemption except unit holders are only going to get cents as opposed to $1.00 for their unit.If the units are worth more than cents as many are of the opinion of, then that extra value stays in the PIF and is absorbed into the value of the remaining units. The smart people will be those that don't take up the offer! Seamisty



            Seamisty when the fund is listed say it selling for 20 cents  Now that is what the fund is worth it dose not mater what the value of the fund is  ITS ONLY WORTH WHAT SOMEONE WILL PAY FOR IT  so we say 20 cents  Thats a mighty 80% loss  it would have to grow 500% to get to a Dollar  on the exchange   It has got as much chance as a snow ball surviving in hell in getting half way there   Seamisty just look back in history if you don't believe me  Cheers The Dame//////


----------



## seamisty (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Seamisty..........  6 cents on 45 cents is 13.3% return  ........not too many places you can get that at the moment.......JH



Thanks JohnH, I rest my case!!!


----------



## great dame (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Dora I just don't see the sense in taking a loss  then re-investing the the much reduced capital at a similar rate of return it will be achieving if it remains in the PIF with the potential to increase in value.Circumstances may be different for some, but capital gains/losses have little impact on those that have invested through self managed super funds and draw their own allocated pensions.In a couple of years once the Fund has stabilised I would expect the unit price will be trading at similar values you would hope to achieve through an orderly wind up which may not suit  holders who wish to stay in the Fund. Seamisty



    Seamisty as said i buy & sell shares for a living  I sell at a crtain price & i have a stop loss  on all my shares also  I have found when a share goes down below my stop loss it takes a hell of a time to recover  I can not see for the love of me the fund ever recovering to dollar  again  on the exchange    I know Property Trusts have dropped about 35%  But this is a  monster 80% drop   Some times its better to cut you losers  and move on /The Dame /


----------



## great dame (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



PIFholder said:


> Great Dame,
> 
> I just spoke with WC who advised that Computershare are counting the votes, but that they are using the reply paid facilities of WC because it's less expensive and more efficient.
> 
> ...



 Thanks PIFHolder tat was good of you   As the ADD says I FEEL BETTER NOW  The Dame /


----------



## JohnH (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yes...and for once I have to agree with "Doom" .. the shares are only worth what someone is prepared to pay.  But I thought we all went into PIF for Income not Growth, and although 6% on our original investment is not as good as 9%, any purchase on the NSX under  66 cents is going to show a better than 9% return.


----------



## great dame (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Seamisty..........  6 cents on 45 cents is 13.3% return  ........not too many places you can get that at the moment.......JH



               Its 6 cents on 20 cents is better still at 30% return    JohnH your getting 6% on your dollar invested that is only worth 20 cents next month   The  Dame //


----------



## Javier (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It's all well and good to say, a 3 year workout is better by the likes of Dora and co...HELLO it's not what we are voting for here. It's NOT an option. Unless you have an RE that is good to go now and will get 50% of unit holders vote AND has a better stategy than WC. Then you just keep repeating something that is not an option. No one else but WC is here, there will not be several parties to vote for..so what is the deal with the constant whining??

NSX now for those that want out..still a better price than liquidation. Stabilise the fund, get NTA up and then list on NSX, with at least one buyback (perhaps more down the track) and get close to $1 down the track 9yes many years) whilst 6c pa distribution along the way.

That is what we are voting for, that is the option at hand..not your own personal agenda.


----------



## Dexter (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If JH has as much faith in her ability to manage the fund as she says she does we should have expected something more than has been offerred.  For instance a capital repayment of 10% each year for the next 10 years + interest of course.  Is this too unreasonable to expect?


----------



## DoraNBoots (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I’m certain our units are worth more than 45 cents.   JH herself says “ we have some good assets that if sold at the right time will sell for more than the 45 cent in the dollar”.  This means we would get more than 45 cents in an orderly windup.  It also means the 6 cent return per unit is not 13%.   You can see from the loan book they are only bringing in 11% for the commercial loans.   Has anyone looked into how JH plans to restore the unit price back to $1?  JH proposed 55% of the fund will be assets with no capital growth (I.E 45% commercial loans and 10% cash).  This means the remaining 45% of the fund will need to generate 40% returns to achieve JHs goals.  What kind of risks will she be taking for those gains or perhaps the 45 cent valuation is way off. 

I know an orderly wind up is not currently an option but I think if investors wanted this option that JH would have to put our interests before hers and give us this option.  She said she doesn't want to do anything most of us don't want.  The Corp Act says the RE must _") act in the best interests of the members and, if there is a conflict between the members’ interests and its own interests, give priority to the members’ interests"_.  It's fine for the people that are happy to stay in for the long term (those that like to have 45% exposure to commercial loans) but WCs proposal provides no appropriate option for people who want or need to get out.

I have spoken to ASIC and if you consider WCs proposal to be putting their interest before ours then write a complaint using the online form and mark it urgent requiring attention before Sept 18.  I am doing this but urge others to as well if you are of the same opinion.

Don’t forget if WC doesn’t get the vote it will be up to us to figure out how to make sure the fund isn’t liquidated before March 31st 2009,  WC are providing no assistant with this at present which I find very ir*responsible*


----------



## great dame (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I’m certain our units are worth more than 45 cents.   JH herself says “ we have some good assets that if sold at the right time will sell for more than the 45 cent in the dollar”.  This means we would get more than 45 cents in an orderly windup.  It also means the 6 cent return per unit is not 13%.   You can see from the loan book they are only bringing in 11% for the commercial loans.   Has anyone looked into how JH plans to restore the unit price back to $1?  JH proposed 55% of the fund will be assets with no capital growth (I.E 45% commercial loans and 10% cash).  This means the remaining 45% of the fund will need to generate 40% returns to achieve JHs goals.  What kind of risks will she be taking for those gains or perhaps the 45 cent valuation is way off.
> 
> I know an orderly wind up is not currently an option but I think if investors wanted this option that JH would have to put our interests before hers and give us this option.  She said she doesn't want to do anything most of us don't want.  The Corp Act says the RE must _") act in the best interests of the members and, if there is a conflict between the members’ interests and its own interests, give priority to the members’ interests"_.  It's fine for the people that are happy to stay in for the long term (those that like to have 45% exposure to commercial loans) but WCs proposal provides no appropriate option for people who want or need to get out.
> 
> ...



        Dora can you give us the web address to get the above form  thanks  The Dame //


----------



## DoraNBoots (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Dora can you give us the web address to get the above form  thanks  The Dame //




Hi GD,
This page with give you the option to lodge a complaint online or download the form and post:
http://fido.asic.gov.au/fido/fido.nsf/byheadline/How+to+complain+to+ASIC?openDocument


----------



## great dame (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Yes...and for once I have to agree with "Doom" .. the shares are only worth what someone is prepared to pay.  But I thought we all went into PIF for Income not Growth, and although 6% on our original investment is not as good as 9%, any purchase on the NSX under  66 cents is going to show a better than 9% return.



      Sure it not bad for buyers buying at 20 cents or so But bloody awful for  sellers  who need to sell for some reason or other   And there is no other option but the NSX ///The Dame //////


----------



## PIFholder (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*




DoraNBoots said:


> I’m certain our units are worth more than 45 cents.   JH herself says “ we have some good assets that if sold at the right time will sell for more than the 45 cent in the dollar”.  This means we would get more than 45 cents in an orderly windup.  It also means the 6 cent return per unit is not 13%.   You can see from the loan book they are only bringing in 11% for the commercial loans.   Has anyone looked into how JH plans to restore the unit price back to $1?  JH proposed 55% of the fund will be assets with no capital growth (I.E 45% commercial loans and 10% cash).  This means the remaining 45% of the fund will need to generate 40% returns to achieve JHs goals.  What kind of risks will she be taking for those gains or perhaps the 45 cent valuation is way off.
> 
> I know an orderly wind up is not currently an option but I think if investors wanted this option that JH would have to put our interests before hers and give us this option.  She said she doesn't want to do anything most of us don't want.  The Corp Act says the RE must _") act in the best interests of the members and, if there is a conflict between the members’ interests and its own interests, give priority to the members’ interests"_.  It's fine for the people that are happy to stay in for the long term (those that like to have 45% exposure to commercial loans) but WCs proposal provides no appropriate option for people who want or need to get out.
> 
> ...



]

DoraNBoots

Thanks for your post. Isn't the problem with the 45 cent compared to the 13 cents that everything needs to be sold by the end of March? My understanding from the Melbourne forum and from watching JH in the dvd is that half of the investors, including me, lodged withdrawal forms when those b*ggers at MFS told us to lodge them earlier in the year. Doesn't that mean that WC has to honour them when the big freeze is over. I don't get how we can have an 'orderly realisation' if I'm right in my understanding. 

I'm not happy with the EM. I've lost money too and am too old to recoup it. But I'm not sure that I believe that JH is in this for herself. Surely she'd be eaten alive in the business world if she following in the footsteps of our esteemed former management team.

There have been other funds go into receivership lately. In the end, I'm just hoping that we don't join them - god know how long a windup would take to actually return money in our hands. I'm voting yes because I need the buyback and if I don't vote yes for number 1, then number 2 doesn't work. Pretty sure there are lots of investors like me who have little amounts and that's all we've got.


----------



## Jadel (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

lodged withdrawal forms when those b*ggers at MFS told us to lodge them earlier in the year. Doesn't that mean that WC has to honour them when the big freeze is over. I don't get how we can have an 'orderly realisation' if I'm right in my understanding

 PIF Holder do you believe everything that everybody tells you ???


----------



## Dexter (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It seems like we are all dumbfounded by yesterdays "good news" from WC.  How can we get excited about accepting 45c/$ in the buy back - and then only up to 10,000 units.  Not much help when you have hundreds of thousands of units.

How can we ever sell our units on the NSX for more than a few cents when there is no incentive to buyers.  There is no certainty regarding distibutions and 1.5c per quarter is not going to get any one knocking the door down.  Then what happens when they want out?  Back to the NSX - more fees etc.  My NSX registered broker is already advising clients against this investment.

I think our White Knight in the Santa Claus outfit has lost the plot!  We need another RE with a more realistic agenda - but how?

Following the Forums I felt reasonably comfortable with JH on our side, but now it seems to be all about WC - stuff the investors!


----------



## Burnt (20 August 2008)

*Re: Complaints to ASIC*

Good on you Dora,
We all need to follow your lead. I have submitted my complaint to ASIC outlining the fact that the proposals put forward by WIM, to be voted on by members, still do not contain any substantiated financial information or independant asset valuations, and that they totally disregard the many, many concerns, suggestions and requests submitted by members since the July meetings. 
     On top of that they are also proposing changes to make it difficult and financially undesirable to remove them as RE (detrimental to our rights). The fact that they want to appoint parent company Wellington Capital as a new RE will also effect members rights to legal action against RE for past breaches of constitution and corporate law.
    I also pointed out that they have not offered any alternative information in regards to other options like extending the period for redemptions to be frozen to allow for the fund to be stabilised and strengthened before redemptions could be reinstated - or for an orderly wind up.
   Based on the facts I put forward, I expressed my opinion that I have no confidence that WIM is acting in the best interest of members of the Fund as they are legally obliged to do, and *I requested that ASIC look at WIM's behaviour in its role as RE and determine whether they should be allowed to proceed with this vote.*
    PLEASE DO THE SAME IF YOU FEEL THE SAME LACK OF CONFIDENCE I DO !
It's easy and only takes a few minutes. If ASIC receives enough of the same complaint they might just get off their taxpayer funded chairs and have a close look for us. Here's hoping.


----------



## DoraNBoots (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi  PIFholder,

I agree the information from WC to date has given unitholders the impression it’s go with WC to the NSX or liquidate the fund at 14 cents.  One Brisbane unitholder asked JH why we can’t have an orderly wind up and the answer was the law doesn’t allow it.  You can also see this same answer in the Q&A document from WC.  I believe this is very misleading because the truth is an orderly windup is possible.  As you know WC are proposing a number of changes to the constitution which allow them to continue the fund past the March 31st deadline.  An orderly wind up option would also require changes to the constitution to ensure this deadline is removed.  If you get a copy of the proposed amended constitution you will see all redemption clauses are struck out, there is no reason this can’t be done (voted on) if the fund is to be wound up.   I think that if a large number of unitholders do not want to go with the NSX and would like to get their capital back within a 3 year timeframe then it is the responsibility of the RE to provide info on this option.  I also think if WC are telling us liquidation is a real option then they should give us info on ways to minimize the damage of this option (i.e. make it very clear that an orderly wind up is possible with changes to the constitution).  I also think distributions would continue in relation to any assets that are still in the fund.  Of course for the RE it means the funds under management are reducing and so are their management fees (if they are to base them on the NTA) and of course WC will no longer be able to boast over one billion dollars of funds under management.

As for the buy back proposal: As you know I suspect our units are actually worth more than 45 cents.  I therefore think we would get more back in an orderly wind up than with the buy back.  As for the timeframe of an orderly windup:  JH stated on the DVD current assets should be worked out within a 12 to 18 month time frame (windup complete) with new assets into the fund in a 6 to 12 month time frame (capital back at this point in a windup situation).  Others on the forum today have stated the buy back would only strengthen the value of unit holders.  The only way they could think this is if they agree our units are worth more than 45 cents.  It also has to be noted that the buy back proposal is very limited.  It’s only 5% of the fund so if everyone participates then the average investor (with 100,000 units) would only be able to cash in 5000 units giving them $2,250.  I don’t think this buy back resolution gives enough details as to how it would work.  How can it say each unitholder will be able to accept for the first 10,000 units held by them.  That would be way more than 5% of the fund.  I also think that if the fund can afford to cash out 5% of the fund it should go to hardship cases first and that whatever the NTA is at the time should be used.  If there are more than 5% of the fund in hardship cases then I think this would only strengthen the case that a windup needs to be given to us to vote on.  Just means the people that wanted to stay in the fund have to fund anther fund but surely this is better than locking in hardship cases or expecting them to get out on the NSX.

I obtained a copy of the proposed constitution today.  WC said they will make it available on their website but it's not there yet.  (I have a hard copy so can't send etc)  I haven’t had time to read it yet but have noted there are a lot of additions to the way General Meetings can be held.  One example is The chairman can refuse admission to any person in possession of a placard or banner.  Not sure why I find this funny.  But anyway I think it would be good if people get a copy of the amended document as there are a lot of changes not mentioned in the memorandum.  (I assume WC have only listed the changes they consider may have an adverse effect on unitholders).

I didn’t understand Quorum until today so thought others might like an explanation.   The Quorum is the number of unitholders that must attend (either in person or by proxy) a meeting for it to be a valid meeting\vote.  WC want to amend the constitution so that if we want to call a meeting to remove the RE there would have to be enough unitholders represented who hold at least 51% of the units in the fund.  So if we were to call an EGM to remove the RE and the number of unitholders that voted only held 45% of the units in the fund the meeting\vote would be invalid.  (Even if 100% of those that voted wanted them out).  (Quorum is different to the 5% or 100 unitholders required to call the meeting.)

On another topic, the current and proposed amended constitution allow the RE to hold units in the fund.  I also recall reading in the Corp Act that the RE can’t vote on matters such as removing them when the fund is listed. I assumed at the time (and don’t have time to go back now and check) that if the fund is listed they would then have the right to vote.

Sorry this is so long.  I’m having tomorrow off.  So happy posting!


----------



## Javier (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

All the quorum changes apply if WCL is voted as RE..simple just don't vote for WCL in option 3 and things stay the same.


----------



## Jadel (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Dexter said:


> It seems like we are all dumbfounded by yesterdays "good news" from WC.  How can we get excited about accepting 45c/$ in the buy back - and then only up to 10,000 units.  Not much help when you have hundreds of thousands of units.
> 
> How can we ever sell our units on the NSX for more than a few cents when there is no incentive to buyers.  There is no certainty regarding distibutions and 1.5c per quarter is not going to get any one knocking the door down.  Then what happens when they want out?  Back to the NSX - more fees etc.  My NSX registered broker is already advising clients against this investment.
> 
> ...




 Dexter 
         Can you contact me on the private facility in the Forum 

        Regards Chris


----------



## DoraNBoots (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> All the quorum changes apply if WCL is voted as RE..simple just don't vote for WCL in option 3 and things stay the same.




Javier: Can you please tell us each time you tell us some 'facts' your source of information.  Especially if you are going to tell us how to vote.  I have the proposed amended constitution here and it certainly doesn’t read like the Quorum section is dependant on Resolution 3 (change in RE).  The changes to the constitution are in Resolution 1 and independent of Resolution 3.

To All: I have just read the Fee upon removal of RE section and it contains more info than the memorandum.  This really needs someone with legal skills to go over it.  When you get a copy of the Constitution have a look at 23.4 and 23.4.1, it's too much to write just now but would like someone to explain it.  If the constition is not up on WCs website tomorrow I'll ask Boots to scan this section because I think it might be saying that if WC are not the RE that this 2% fee still applies.  One thing I'm sure it's saying is that if WC become RE they get the 2% if kicked out but the next RE doesn't.  These things make me laugh!


----------



## Javier (20 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am just reading the Explanatory Memorandum Dora! You should too.

In the Quorum section: "Two unit holders present constitute a Quorum except for a meeting....to remove *Wellington Capital Limited as Resposible Entity of the Fund*

Well option 3 is to vote for WCL as RE, if that doesn't get the 50% unit vote the RE will remain *Wellington Investment Management Limited* says so in 1.1

So my source as you keep wanting to know is black and white understanding of the English language as per the EM that everyone is privy to on the site. If you don't believe me, read it again and then contact WC to verify and correct me if I am wrong. Cheers!


----------



## breaker1 (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



PIFholder said:


> ]
> I'm voting yes because I need the buyback and if I don't vote yes for number 1, then number 2 doesn't work. Pretty sure there are lots of investors like me who have little amounts and that's all we've got.




Dear PIF Holder,

What do you expect back in the buyback if the demand is high, I would estimate only $2,250 to $4, 000  - not really much to look forward to PIF Holder after one and a half years of not seeing your money?

If JH gave us the buyback option because it was the only way she could have legally given another redemption exit vehicle besides the NSX, she should have then provided for stage 2 and stage 3 (or stage 4) buy back options, for example:

Stage 1] Buyback 5% @ 45c Sept 2009 (after 1 year)
Stage 2] Buyback 20% @ 65c Sept 2011 (after 3 years)
Stage 3] Buyback 30% @ 90c Sept 2013 (after 5 years)

JH should have given us something to look forward to. 

Further, if new investors, purchasing via the NSX could count on these buybacks, wouldn't that force the NSX units to gain real value and therefore hold up the NSX price more substantially and then give NSX exiters a better deal in-between buybacks?

Percentage units and cents in the dollar could vary depending on the health of the fund, but buyback offers should be made every one or two years! 

Perhaps I'm being too simplistic!


----------



## DoraNBoots (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> I am just reading the Explanatory Memorandum Dora! You should too.
> 
> In the Quorum section: "Two unit holders present constitute a Quorum except for a meeting....to remove *Wellington Capital Limited as Resposible Entity of the Fund*
> 
> ...




I can't break this addiction!

Thanks for quoting your source Javier.  The problem is you can't just rely on the Explanatory Memorandum.  I have read the proposed amended constitution and it is not the same as the memorandum!  The proposed amended constitution does not mention WC in the Quorum section it just says RE.  I would suggest everyone get a copy of the proposed amended constitution and read it as this is what we are voting on not the Explanatory Memorandum (ASIC complaint anyone?).


----------



## great dame (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Dexter said:


> It seems like we are all dumbfounded by yesterdays "good news" from WC.  How can we get excited about accepting 45c/$ in the buy back - and then only up to 10,000 units.  Not much help when you have hundreds of thousands of units.
> 
> How can we ever sell our units on the NSX for more than a few cents when there is no incentive to buyers.  There is no certainty regarding distibutions and 1.5c per quarter is not going to get any one knocking the door down.  Then what happens when they want out?  Back to the NSX - more fees etc.  My NSX registered broker is already advising clients against this investment.
> 
> ...



   Hello Dexter & welcome to my side   We all know who is the winner in all this mess & it not us investers  One giess & the name starts with W      The Dame ////


----------



## great dame (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Dexter said:


> It seems like we are all dumbfounded by yesterdays "good news" from WC.  How can we get excited about accepting 45c/$ in the buy back - and then only up to 10,000 units.  Not much help when you have hundreds of thousands of units.
> 
> How can we ever sell our units on the NSX for more than a few cents when there is no incentive to buyers.  There is no certainty regarding distibutions and 1.5c per quarter is not going to get any one knocking the door down.  Then what happens when they want out?  Back to the NSX - more fees etc.  My NSX registered broker is already advising clients against this investment.
> 
> ...



    Well there you go Stockbrokers are advising clients not to touch the fund     You know folks sometimes you have to be brave & pull the plug    I don't believe that cents rubbish its all scare tactic   When WC sayers the market value is 45 cents to center link  not going concern value    The Dame /////


----------



## Javier (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I can't break this addiction!
> 
> Thanks for quoting your source Javier.  The problem is you can't just rely on the Explanatory Memorandum.  I have read the proposed amended constitution and it is not the same as the memorandum!  The proposed amended constitution does not mention WC in the Quorum section it just says RE.  I would suggest everyone get a copy of the proposed amended constitution and read it as this is what we are voting on not the Explanatory Memorandum (ASIC complaint anyone?).




Jeeze that's alarming!! Can you send me the amended Constitution please?


----------



## DoraNBoots (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Jeeze that's alarming!! Can you send me the amended Constitution please?




I would if I had an electronic copy.  Boots went into WCs office yesterday to request a copy.  They said it wasn't ready, so he said he would wait.  He had to go back 2 hrs later and got a hard copy.  They said they would also send an electronic copy via email but it hasn't arrived yet.  I urge everyone to get on to WC and ask for a copy and let them know you need it today.  We don't have time for them to delay this most basic\important request.


----------



## great dame (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hear is something to think about  when IF our fund is listed perish the thought  And buyers only want to pay 20 cents a unit  The fund is only worth about 150 mill then regardless  of what the value of the fund is  worth SAD // The Dame ///


----------



## Javier (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dora, are you going to be contacting WC today to get them to explain the anomaly in the two documents. Surely this is serious enough to warrant a major announcement by WC to all investors to clarify which is correct. I will send an email to get a copy of the actual constitution.


----------



## DoraNBoots (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The Proposed Constitution is now available here:

http://www.newpif.com.au/corporategovernance.html

Boots


----------



## Wolfgang (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All

Is anybody going to be nominating for the Investor Advisory Committee. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Wolfgang


----------



## selciper (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Can only agree that the WC documentation is short on aspirations. A sheet of A4 with a clear mission statement and provisional targets would seem to be the least that WC could distribute. Brevity and transparency at the moment don't appear to be among their strengths. Are we being corralled?


----------



## Javier (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

In the new proposed constitution, there appears to be a whole new Section 10 added titles PROCEEDINGS OF MEETINGS, this wasn't in the current constitution.

If there are any lawyers out there (I know there is), can these amendments overule the sections of the Corp Act that govern the prescribed number of people and manner by which unit holders can call a meeting whether to possibly remove an existing RE? I am confused on this one.


----------



## charles36 (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

_Can anyone recall JH saying the fund will be paying 6 cents per unit, quarterly from January 09.  Nothing appears in recent documentation only that JH will pay 1.5 cents Oct and Dec. thereafter quarterly.  Does this mean6cents has gone.  Pleased to hear from anyone who can explain.  This fund seems to be getting worse by the day.  An orderly sell down by a competent  administrator over time looks better and better._


----------



## great dame (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> _Can anyone recall JH saying the fund will be paying 6 cents per unit, quarterly from January 09.  Nothing appears in recent documentation only that JH will pay 1.5 cents Oct and Dec. thereafter quarterly.  Does this mean6cents has gone.  Pleased to hear from anyone who can explain.  This fund seems to be getting worse by the day.  An orderly sell down by a competent  administrator over time looks better and better._



        Charles my friend  What JH says & whats on paper are to different things If JH ever gets out of the business she is in now she would make a fortune  as a used car salesperson //  The Dame ///


----------



## seamisty (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> _Can anyone recall JH saying the fund will be paying 6 cents per unit, quarterly from January 09.  Nothing appears in recent documentation only that JH will pay 1.5 cents Oct and Dec. thereafter quarterly.  Does this mean6cents has gone.  Pleased to hear from anyone who can explain.  This fund seems to be getting worse by the day.  An orderly sell down by a competent  administrator over time looks better and better._



Hi Charles, I asked this question and the answer I got from WC is that the proposed 6 cent annual distribution, made via 1.5cent quarterly payments will be manageable over two years as a first step until the Fund had stabilised. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## Javier (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> _Can anyone recall JH saying the fund will be paying 6 cents per unit, quarterly from January 09.  Nothing appears in recent documentation only that JH will pay 1.5 cents Oct and Dec. thereafter quarterly.  Does this mean6cents has gone.  Pleased to hear from anyone who can explain.  This fund seems to be getting worse by the day.  An orderly sell down by a competent  administrator over time looks better and better._




Page 3 of the EM : The 3 resolutions section

Point 4 ....and quaterly thereafter with the first payment to be made in Oct 2008.

I would take that to mean at least 1.5c per unit per quarter minimum.


----------



## seamisty (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> _Can anyone recall JH saying the fund will be paying 6 cents per unit, quarterly from January 09.  Nothing appears in recent documentation only that JH will pay 1.5 cents Oct and Dec. thereafter quarterly.  Does this mean6cents has gone.  Pleased to hear from anyone who can explain.  This fund seems to be getting worse by the day.  An orderly sell down by a competent  administrator over time looks better and better._



The responsible entity proposes three separate resolutions. Each resolution
is independent. If all three resolutions are approved:
The Fund will remain a going concern and Units in the Fund will be
able to be traded on the NSX;
Up to 37.75 million units in the Fund will be redeemed by the Fund
at 45 cents per unit by 18 September 2009;
Wellington Capital Limited will be the new responsible entity of the
Fund; and
Cash payments totalling 3 cents per Unit will be made to
Unitholders by 24 December 2008 and quarterly thereafter, with the
first payment to be made in October 2008.


----------



## Wolfgang (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi

I can not see 6 _cents per unit_ anywhere in the Explanatory Memorandum I can only see 3 _cents per unit_, is this 3 _cents per unit  0.75 cents quarterly._

This is copied from Explanatory Memorandum
Page 3
Cash payments totalling 3 cents per Unit will be made to
Unitholders by 24 December 2008 and quarterly thereafter, with the
first payment to be made in October 2008.

Page 4
cash payments totalling 3 cents per Unit will be made by 24 December 2008 with the first payment to be made
in October 2008, the second in December 2008 and quarterly thereafter;

Page 6
The responsible entity anticipates being in a position to pay 3 cents
per Unit to all Unitholders by 24 December 2008 with the first
payment being made in October 2008, the second in December
2008 and quarterly thereafter.

Page 38
*4.4 **No Cash Payments*
While in the past Unitholders in the Fund have invested on the basis that cash payments will be made
to Unitholders at various rates, in the current circumstances the responsible entity anticipates being
in a position to pay 3 cents per Unit by way of a cash payment by 24 December 2008.

Page 59
*6.4 **Cash payments*
The responsible entity intends to make cash payments to Unitholders totalling 3 cents per Unit with
the first payment to be made in October 2008, the second in December 2008 and thereafter quarterly.
Due to the significant impairment recognised at 31 May 2008 it is anticipated that the cash
distribution will be a capital repayment and tax deferred. See section 9 in relation to taxation issues.

Page 66
*Cash Payments *as determined by the directors of the responsible entity, paid by electronic
funds transfer into the nominated Australian bank, building society or credit union account.

*I am so confused*
*Wolfgang                  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			












*


----------



## DoraNBoots (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> In the new proposed constitution, there appears to be a whole new Section 10 added titles PROCEEDINGS OF MEETINGS, this wasn't in the current constitution.
> 
> If there are any lawyers out there (I know there is), can these amendments overule the sections of the Corp Act that govern the prescribed number of people and manner by which unit holders can call a meeting whether to possibly remove an existing RE? I am confused on this one.




I'm no lawyer so would like to hear one's take on this.  As far as I am aware parts of the Corp Act can be replaced, if you consent to something over and above the quidelines laid out in the Corp Act I would assume you would be bound by it.

IMO the majority of the changes are not to benefit unitholders and that's why we must (legally) be asked vote to approve them.  The simple removal of clause 4 (redemptions) will provide the time to allow an orderly wind up of the fund beyond March next year.  The rest of the changes seem to be added to allow the FUM to be 'trapped' until listed on an SX and to prevent the removal of the RE.

I feel that if we reject these changes the RE will be compelled to come back to the table with options 'more aligned' with the unitholders best interests.

From what I have read, once an administrator is appointed the RE powers are removed and the administrators job is to maximise returns when winding up the fund.  This should include the removal of the redemption clause (4) to allow asset sales beyond March next year. 

Raise your hand if you would like 65% of your capital returned within 18 months with income distributions along the way...

Boots


----------



## Javier (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I very much doubt it would be only 18 months. An administrator would need to employ a team to oversee the completion of these projects and then make sure they are sold at the right price to maximise value back to the fund. Also funds in other investment schemes need to improve to be sold, noone can say how long that will take given the poor current conditions..18 months seems VERY optimistic..but yes 3-5-7 is do-able and yes it would be a finite workout at least, rather than the Fund going on foreever in a day or until such time as Wellington wish to sell it off or whatever. It would be more controllable under our own destiny.

I do see your point though DnB. Page 19 point 1

"The Fund will (subject to a different resolution in relation to the Constitution being proposed and passed in general meeting) continue to be obliged to redeem units in the fund.

I read the statement in brackets as WC saying, well if we don't get 75% of the vote we may have to call a GM to resolved this, and I really think they would then change the Constitution to allow the mandatory redemption to be removed and try and work a more unit holder friendly strategy. Would they just walk away..I don't believe so as they would still be the RE and be allowed to charge fees, they are not going to cut their nose to spite their collective faces. There is still cash to be made.

Here's the thing though, do we want to bet on that?..'cos if we do, SOMEBODY better have a competent backup RE / administrator ready to take the reins of this fund if WC are only interested in doing it the Frank Sinatra way or the highway.

I believe they may have some doubts now if indeed they can get the 75% vote, and I read between the lines as they may re-negotiate, BUT hell who knows what 10300 odd people are going to do, everyone has a different agenda..very interesting times and an uneasy wait for us all.


----------



## great dame (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I'm no lawyer so would like to hear one's take on this.  As far as I am aware parts of the Corp Act can be replaced, if you consent to something over and above the quidelines laid out in the Corp Act I would assume you would be bound by it.
> 
> IMO the majority of the changes are not to benefit unitholders and that's why we must (legally) be asked vote to approve them.  The simple removal of clause 4 (redemptions) will provide the time to allow an orderly wind up of the fund beyond March next year.  The rest of the changes seem to be added to allow the FUM to be 'trapped' until listed on an SX and to prevent the removal of the RE.
> 
> ...



   I know a lot you good folk  probelly think i am a bit of a DH   But realy & trueley  Boots is right this is the best & only way to go // The Dame //


----------



## Duped (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

DoraNBoots.  I was responding to your question about clause 23.3 & 23.4 but the posting's gone now.  Did you delete it or was it taken down?  I'm just checking if you still want an answer.


----------



## DoraNBoots (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> DoraNBoots.  I was responding to your question about clause 23.3 & 23.4 but the posting's gone now.  Did you delete it or was it taken down?  I'm just checking if you still want an answer.




Thanks Duped.  I deleted it by mistake.  Would be great is you can answer.

Could someone please explain clause 23.4.1.  I'm wondering if it is saying that if 23.3 is not valid (i.e. WC Ltd is not RE) then the RE (any RE) will get the 2% mentioned in clause 23.3


----------



## DoraNBoots (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Page 19 point 1
> 
> "The Fund will (subject to a different resolution in relation to the Constitution being proposed and passed in general meeting) continue to be obliged to redeem units in the fund.
> 
> I read the statement in brackets as WC saying, well if we don't get 75% of the vote we may have to call a GM to resolved this, and I really think they would then change the Constitution to allow the mandatory redemption to be removed and try and work a more unit holder friendly strategy. Would they just walk away..I don't believe so as they would still be the RE and be allowed to charge fees, they are not going to cut their nose to spite their collective faces. There is still cash to be made.




I think page 6 'Alternatives to the proposed changes' gives the impression it will be up to unitholders to figure out the alternative but I think we should put it to WC to assist as that is the responsible thing to do.


----------



## Javier (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dora, would you be so stubborn as to just walk away if you didn't get it all you're own way, and make $0 after putting in all that effort? I would swallow my pride and come back to the table if it means making over $5m per year, besides she could ask for a hell of a lot more in the re-negotiations for a finite incentive workout.


----------



## waleroo (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Is it one vote per unit holder regardless of how many units you have .Also do your units remain the same $1 per unit if so the proposed 3cents a unit paid quarterly is more than MFS paid ? I am really confused wre is all the money coming from


----------



## seamisty (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



waleroo said:


> Is it one vote per unit holder regardless of how many units you have .Also do your units remain the same $1 per unit if so the proposed 3cents a unit paid quarterly is more than MFS paid ? I am really confused wre is all the money coming from



Waleroo it is my understanding that 1 vote per =1 unit, the more units you have, the stronger the vote. WC is hoping to rebuild the value of the unit from the current estimated 45cents per unit back to the original value of $1.00 per unit over a 3-5 year time frame.The distributions will come from a combination of income and capital until such times as the Fund is stabilised, the capital component is meant to be re paid to strengthen the unit value when existing projects are completed and sold.  Seamisty


----------



## Bumblebee (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have just now come off the phone to WC hotline and may be able to help with some of the queries coming through on posts.

Voting. Each *unit *has voting power. So if you hold 20,000 units you have twice the voteing power as a person with 10,000 units.

Dividends. A total of 3 cents will be paid per unit by Dec 2008. Probably 1.5 cents in Oct and 1.5 cents in December. The current offer on the table going forward is to pay 6 cents per annun in quarterly instalments for 2009 and each year thereafter.

This information is from the WC hotline thisafternoon. cheers


----------



## seamisty (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Bumblebee, I thought that was the case, that should clear up a few points for some. I would imagine the  hotline would be suffering a meltdown after today!!! Seamisty


----------



## flatback (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I'm no lawyer so would like to hear one's take on this.  As far as I am aware parts of the Corp Act can be replaced, if you consent to something over and above the quidelines laid out in the Corp Act I would assume you would be bound by it.
> 
> IMO the majority of the changes are not to benefit unitholders and that's why we must (legally) be asked vote to approve them.  The simple removal of clause 4 (redemptions) will provide the time to allow an orderly wind up of the fund beyond March next year.  The rest of the changes seem to be added to allow the FUM to be 'trapped' until listed on an SX and to prevent the removal of the RE.
> 
> ...



Dora n Boots have i not been saying that the Constitution is what we should have had for some time now, this woman has at her convenience finally released a document, that belongs to Octavier!, and she has changed some clauses to suit her position ( i dont know is this legal??), i will go back to what i said previously, on paper there are three changes which she has proposed, but in reality the first does in fact include 8 changes, why were they all bundled up into one???? i will tell you why, because if she did not the majority of those clauses would not get past the post , at this stage i believe the buy back is good for those that need it, as far as the change of RE is concerned she wont get my vote. Flatback


----------



## Rance (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*


waleroo said:



			Is it one vote per unit holder regardless of how many units you have .Also do your units remain the same $1 per unit if so the proposed 3cents a unit paid quarterly is more than MFS paid ? I am really confused wre is all the money coming from
		
Click to expand...


*
*Waleroo

1 unit = 1 vote

My understanding is that distributions will be 6 cents per unit per annum paid 1-1/2 cent per unit per quarter.

Rance*


----------



## Duped (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Thanks Duped.  I deleted it by mistake.  Would be great is you can answer.
> 
> Could someone please explain clause 23.4.1.  I'm wondering if it is saying that if 23.3 is not valid (i.e. WC Ltd is not RE) then the RE (any RE) will get the 2% mentioned in clause 23.3




It's common for contracts to have clauses that basically say: if any one clause is illegal/invalid/unenforcable then it doesn't mean the whole contract is dead.  

The way I read clause 23.4, WC is saying: if WCL can't get away with clause 23.3 (e.g. if it is unenforceable because it contravenes the Corp Act) then we want clause 23.4.  I.e. if we're not allowed to sell assets to get our 2% exit fee before our last day on the job then we want the RE that's replacing us to pay us the 2% within 60 days.  Grammer of 23.4 is a bit torturous but 'or otherwise at the discretion of Wellington Capital Limited' appears to be saying that WC can *choose *the latter of the two options.  The valuation methods in 23.3. and 23.4 are different so the latter option might end up being more profitable for a sacked WCL.

It's a guess but perhaps WC are concerned enough about the enforceability of clause 23.3 that they felt it best to have a back up clause.

Like with the $50M SF and Incentive based remuneration we voted yes for in 2006, who knows how these clauses really work in practice. Has a fund with an RE retrenchment clause like this ever sacked it's RE in Australia?  My guess is, probably not.

Think of it as retrenchment payout.  Is 2% that extreme? I don't know. Wasn't long ago that fund exit fees this high, paid by investors, were the norm wasn't it? 

Of greater concern to me is the quorum limitations.  The old provisions were generous to us unit holders but the new provisions may have swung too far the other way.  But would we really use these provisions.  Look at how generous the provisions are now and what we're going through - have any of us called a meeting?  No.  Just food for thought.

Can any of you finance people tell me if 'gross value' means assets minus debts?  Last thing I want to see is a clause that encourages an RE to load up the fund with debt to increase the 'gross value'.


----------



## newwwtrader (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi

I am not invested in PIF, but I do have some friends who are, therefore, I do keep a bit of an eye on what is happening in relation to this. And i do enjoy reading the internet stock forums (for entertainment and educational purposes) 

I truly do feel for all who have invested in this. In my opinion you are caught between a rock and a hard place with the decision that is being forced upon you.

I would just like to make the following comments in relation to the matter.

Wellington Capital has made the statement that the units are worth approx 45 cents. This is apparently, correct me if I am wrong, the NTA of the fund. In the documentation issued, they point out that, if and when they do commence trading on the NSX there maybe a downside. I am of the opinion that this downside for a period of time will be massive. I feel that if you compare the PIF to other listed entities it shows how much of a massive shortfall there could be. For example, Centro Properties, I believe they have a NTA of more than $1.20 (conservatively estimated), the shares in that company are currently trading at about 25 cents. 

Using this as a basis, how high would the NTA have to rise to for unitholders to be able to achieve the 45 cents, let alone the $1 initial investment.

My friends keep on about the buy back that has been proposed. On the surface this seems very attractive, but as has been pointed out here, how much is it really worth. Lets be honest, everyone is going to want a piece of that. So assuming that a large % adopt that, how many units will each person really be able to sell.

Another concern that I have in relation to the PIF is going forward, what is it going to do. Its total funds are when compared to their competitors very small. A fear that I have for the holders is that down the track there could be a capital raising required. If this happens, I would think that your interests could be diluted (if you dont contribute). I believe this happened with Living and Leisure. In the long term this could be good as it enables the fund to grow, but in the short term it would maybe be not so good.

The advice that I have given my friends is that it really depends on when they want to exit. I feel listing and liquidation would be the same result in terms of funds returned. The only difference is obviously you can access the money from the 19 Sept (if it lists then). But I feel it could fall below 10 c. Great investment if you can pick it up at that, but not so good if you invested at $1.

If they are prepared to hang in for the long term then maybe its not as bad. JH does have a good track record and could maybe grow it given time and funds.

The question I ask myself is why is JH doing this. The goodness of her heart? The 2% fee?

In the back of my mind I have a concern that the listing could be a way to recoup losses made by others as a result of the collapse of OCV. Afterall its not such a bad investment if they can pick up you interests for less than 10 cents when they may get a return of 6c pa. Because lets be honest a lot of the PIF investors need the money badly and will take whatever they can get.


----------



## Mary Lynch (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Can someone tell me.....is it possible for me to sell some of my units to a friend, and have their name put on them?

Also, why is it that the units will go for so little on the NSX. Surely the 6% (for a ?20c unit picking up interest as tho it is $1) that will be paid (tax free initially) will be an ENORMOUS carrot.  I know I would certainly be after them, if I had some spare cash.....and I will be telling everyone I know who is shifting their $$ around at the moment that they HAVE to be a good buy.. Surely that will push the price up. Who cares how slow it is on the NSX...if there's money to be made there will be plenty of takers.


----------



## newwwtrader (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Why I feel it will get hammered on the NSX is due to the huge number of possible sellers. I believe there are about 770 million units. I feel there is a significant amount of investors who just want out of this for various reasons. So there are a heap of sellers and relatively few purchasers, given the negative image of the PIF and the fact that it is the NSX and not the ASX.


----------



## seamisty (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> Can someone tell me.....is it possible for me to sell some of my units to a friend, and have their name put on them?
> 
> Also, why is it that the units will go for so little on the NSX. Surely the 6% (for a ?20c unit picking up interest as tho it is $1) that will be paid (tax free initially) will be an ENORMOUS carrot.  I know I would certainly be after them, if I had some spare cash.....and I will be telling everyone I know who is shifting their $$ around at the moment that they HAVE to be a good buy.. Surely that will push the price up. Who cares how slow it is on the NSX...if there's money to be made there will be plenty of takers.



Mary, I think it is called an off market trade. I bought my mums Westfarmer shares off her when she didn't want to take up the offer. She got the forms of her accountant but you can download them off the net. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> Can someone tell me.....is it possible for me to sell some of my units to a friend, and have their name put on them?
> 
> Also, why is it that the units will go for so little on the NSX. Surely the 6% (for a ?20c unit picking up interest as tho it is $1) that will be paid (tax free initially) will be an ENORMOUS carrot.  I know I would certainly be after them, if I had some spare cash.....and I will be telling everyone I know who is shifting their $$ around at the moment that they HAVE to be a good buy.. Surely that will push the price up. Who cares how slow it is on the NSX...if there's money to be made there will be plenty of takers.



http://www.sraa.com.au/forms/form23.pdf here is the website for the form TRANSFER FORM FOR NON-MARKET TRANSACTIONS. Seamisty


----------



## Dexter (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Mary,

Transfer forms are available free of charge from Perpetual.


----------



## Duped (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> Can someone tell me.....is it possible for me to sell some of my units to a friend, and have their name put on them?




I asked one of the Wc staff at the BNE forum and the answer was yes.

Following is not finncial advice:

Question is: what price do you want to or more importanly can you put on them.  Do you want to maximise your capital loss and hence maximise your friend's capital gain or minimise your friend's capital loss; or vice versa?  Next question: how much can you push the ATO.  It would be great to know.  Can you transfer ('sell') the units for $1 each or alternatively 1c?  I don't know.  What about 65c, 45c and 14c?  What about the NSX sell prices?

I searched the ATO website for 'MFS', 'Octaviar' and 'Premium Income Fund' and found nothing so there doesn't appear to be a 'fact sheet' for us, probably never will. 

There's stacks of info on http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/pathway.asp?pc=001/002/026&mfp=001/002&mnu=1051#001_002_026 but I haven't been able to find anything that says the sales price has to be a fair amount. Anyone know? I might give the ATO 1 3 number a call tomorrow.


----------



## Burnt (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There are a lot on unitholders who do not have access to the internet and cannot be involved in the discussions and information sharing that we are involved in. Time is critical. WE NEED TO GO TO THE PRESS. If each organised Action Group can hold a meeting in the very near future and agree on a statement to be issued to their local press so that as many unitholders as possible are informed of the issues raised on this forum before the voting deadline, it would be helpful to everyone.
It would be wonderful if we could publicly state our agreed upon opinions and let everyone know. Every unitholder needs to be informed (Wellington are not disclosing the full facts), even if it is only given as an opinion, it may be enough to make everyone think twice before voting.
In my personal opinion, we should encourage everyone to only vote for the buy back proposal at this stage. Surely we can organise this. Get in touch with your local AG group !!


----------



## DoraNBoots (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> Dora, are you going to be contacting WC today to get them to explain the anomaly in the two documents. Surely this is serious enough to warrant a major announcement by WC to all investors to clarify which is correct. I will send an email to get a copy of the actual constitution.




Hi Javier,
I will be talking to WC tomorrow and will ask about the difference between the two documents.  The EM says “This part of the Constitution will have a practical effect only if Resolution 1 and Resolution 3 are both passed.”  So perhaps the additions shown in the constitution will only occur if both resolutions are passed.  Will check tomorrow.

Thanks Duped for your info on the 2% RE removal fee.


----------



## Javier (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Dora, I actually sent an email today for someone there in particular to call me. They were either too busy or not there today. They're answering machine 'hotline' must be working overtime. Either way let's see who gets the info first as this ambiguity erks me.


----------



## breaker1 (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Regarding voting for "Resolution 3" "Appointment of Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity":

I received a call back from a WC staff member saying that she passed it by the WC legal team and she confirms that if we vote "No" against WCL as responsible entity we actually *will save *the 2% removal of RE fee.


----------



## Burnt (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Dora,
Just a note to add to Duped's answer to your queries re 23.3 and 23.4.1 & 23.4.2 in the proposed constitution amendements. The valuation "methods" are not different, it is the "timeing" of the valuations that is different.Under 23.3 it is the valuation (gross) as per the last audited accounts and under 23.4 it is the value (gross) as at the date of removal of the RE. This could be a big difference depending on when they are sacked !
Also, my understanding of "the gross value" is the stated value without deducting any liabilities.
If it is at WC's "discretion" as to whether or not to apply 23.3 or 23.4 then it gives them even more power to apply the best valuation to determine their termination fee !
WHO'S INTERESTS ARE THEY LOOKING AFTER ????
It basically means, "if we stuff you guys and you wake up to it, we're still laughing".


----------



## breaker1 (21 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

WC, The Action Group or any new RE, can't restore the actual capital stolen from the PIF by fiat, *so, looking on the bright side:* 

Item 1.3 of the Memorandum says: "A 3 cent cash payment will be made to Unitholders, with the first payment in October 2008, the second by 24 December 2008 and quarterly thereafter". By quarterly, they mean 1.5c / qtr. And that's $3,000 by December for  an investment of 100,000 units folks!

6c/unit, per year @ 45c in $ = approx 13% p.a. interest - don't want to spruik WC, but on what's left in the fund, 45% (over 3 years rebuild), that's not too bad. If you got 45% of your money back now, where could you get 13% on that same money? You know this works out about 2-3% less, than we were getting before on 100% of our investment @ 8-9%. Now, don't forget any special distributions if finances allow, that might actually bring it near % p.a. what it was before. You should deduct inflation, but inflation was always eating away at our lump sum. Seriously, if you had access to your money right now, would not most be looking for interest with it and still leaving it tied up in some institution?

The real losers, as I see it, are investors that want to access their capital [for home renovation, moving house, new car, medical expenses, nursing home, etc.] in a reasonable time frame [1-4 years]. After reading "newwwtraders" comments I have become even more confirmed that we will get less than half of NTA PIF value on the NSX and for capital access that is very disturbing. But if we can access other invested monies from our other investment institutions to cover capital requirements, then our over-all interest-distribution-income, will not have varied much to what you would have been getting prior to the PIF debacle. 
For example:
*Previously:* $100,000 invested in MFS PIF @ 8% pa = *$8,000 pa total*

*Now:* $45,000 [45%] invested in WC PIF @ 6c/unit x100,000 units = $6,000 pa + any special distributions as money becomes available, say 1.5c/unit ($1,500) = *$7,500 pa total*.  Then add to that any Centrelink savings you are making because you are now being deemed @ 45% of your former assets, not @ 100%, which to my calculations, based on the income test for a couple, gives you about another 1% [$1,000 pa] on your prior $100,000 investment (saved via C/L paying you more pension) = *$8,500 pa total.* The same income, if not a fraction more, than before! 

An optimistic view I know! 

Try this encouragement - an email from a PIF creditor I accidentally put in our AG under:

"Dear Breaker1,

I wish to inform you that I initially attended the action group meeting as a creditor, not as an investor to find out why we had not been paid for 3 months on Aston Hill project, and to what course of action to take.  From what I have gathered to-date is that Jenny Hutson seems sincere.  After listening to the situation, we were informed that we would be paid late July, early August once RBOS loan was repaid.  All subcontractors have been now paid, and works will recommence on these quality apartments.  Whether they realise their value in the current climate, it is not for me to say, however my understanding is that these assets are trying to be salvaged from being sold in a fire sale thereby realising a greater return for investors.

I certainly will be following this situation, as I most probably will become an investor once listed. In the interim, I wish each and every investor the absolute best and am saddened by some of the stories I have heard and hope you resolve this matter to your satisfaction. 

Thank You, "
This shows JH is definitely going about restoring reputation and some value to the Fund. Further, it evidences that the PIF is not broke and paying its bills [something MFSIM was NOT doing].

Hope I partly cheered some!


----------



## great dame (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Waleroo it is my understanding that 1 vote per =1 unit, the more units you have, the stronger the vote. WC is hoping to rebuild the value of the unit from the current estimated 45cents per unit back to the original value of $1.00 per unit over a 3-5 year time frame.The distributions will come from a combination of income and capital until such times as the Fund is stabilised, the capital component is meant to be re paid to strengthen the unit value when existing projects are completed and sold.  Seamisty



            Gee whiz Back to a $1 ?? on the exchange that will never happen  it would have to grow by 500%    in 5 years time  maybe in50 years time  JH is not giving ny forcasts  only hope  And thats not good enough  // The Dame ///


----------



## DoraNBoots (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Can we look at the numbers WC have said they will achieve over the next 3 to 5 years.  I’m going to pretend the valuations we have been provided reflect the state of the fund and would like to hear comments.

The PIF is worth 413,747 (page 22 EM) but I think there is still a $20mill bank loan so lets say 393,747 mill.  The portfolio currently consists of 66.71% commercial loans, 3.75% cash and 3.75% fixed interest securities. (pg 28)  We know over 70% of the fund  (comm Loans, cash) are not producing more than 11% return and produce no capital growth.  This leaves less than 30% of the fund to return over 16% and achieve a growth that allows the *entire *portfolio to double in size in 3 to 5 years.  I’ve said over 16% because you have to make up the shortfall in interest the cash and comm loans are not returning and also have to return at least 1.5% of the *entire *fund for expenses.

If anyone can explain how this is possible I would be grateful.  I think Duped has been wondering if the high returns MFS shareholders were getting were coming out of capital, perhaps WC have picked up the same strategy.  Another thing that bothers me is that if WC achieve their goal of restoring the unit value back to $1 at some point we have no guarantee that the 6 cents per unit will go up.  So at that point we might only be getting a 6% return on the NTA value, and who knows what the price on the NSX will be.

I think to get the stated returns you'll have to gear the fund but JH said debt would only be used for short term if necessary.  I do note though that pg33 says "the fund may have a gearing level of up to 20%":crap:

Another thing.  I don't like the idea of new investors buying in at 10 cents and getting paid distributions out of our capital while the fund is recovering. (Assuming Seamisty is correct)


----------



## great dame (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



newwwtrader said:


> Why I feel it will get hammered on the NSX is due to the huge number of possible sellers. I believe there are about 770 million units. I feel there is a significant amount of investors who just want out of this for various reasons. So there are a heap of sellers and relatively few purchasers, given the negative image of the PIF and the fact that it is the NSX and not the ASX.



          Well what do you know somebody is reading my thoughts   Thanks Newwwwtrader   For that      //The Dame //


----------



## DoraNBoots (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> ...
> Item 1.3 of the Memorandum says: "A 3 cent cash payment will be made to Unitholders, with the first payment in October 2008, the second by 24 December 2008 and quarterly thereafter". By quarterly, they mean 1.5c / qtr. And that's $3,000 by December for  an investment of 100,000 units folks!
> ...




I agree JH has 'said' she plans to give us 1.5 cents quarterly but this is NOT written in the EM.  
The EM says:
_"A 3 cent cash payment will be made to Unitholders, with the first payment in October 2008, the second by 24 December 2008 and quarterly thereafter". _
This says there will be quarterly payments of some kind but does not say how much will be paid.  
If you want to assume this is giving an amount for the next quarter it looks more like it would be 3 cents but we not that isn’t the case.

And don't forget the Risk section of the EM says this:
_4.4 No Cash Payments
"While in the past Unitholders in the Fund have invested on the basis that cash payments will be made to Uniholders at various rates, in the current circumstances the RE anticipates being in a posistion to pay 3 cents per Unit by way of cash payment by 24 Dec 2008."_
Again no mention of what we will be paid in the future.


----------



## great dame (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Can we look at the numbers WC have said they will achieve over the next 3 to 5 years.  I’m going to pretend the valuations we have been provided reflect the state of the fund and would like to hear comments.
> 
> The PIF is worth 413,747 (page 22 EM) but I think there is still a $20mill bank loan so lets say 393,747 mill.  The portfolio currently consists of 66.71% commercial loans, 3.75% cash and 3.75% fixed interest securities. (pg 28)  We know over 70% of the fund  (comm Loans, cash) are not producing more than 11% return and produce no capital growth.  This leaves less than 30% of the fund to return over 16% and achieve a growth that allows the *entire *portfolio to double in size in 3 to 5 years.  I’ve said over 16% because you have to make up the shortfall in interest the cash and comm loans are not returning and also have to return at least 1.5% of the *entire *fund for expenses.
> 
> ...



    Dora my friend your forgetting our great leader JH  is the Warren Buffert of Australia And all her loyal followers believe she can do the impossable       Whats that they say about being lead down the garden parth ???? The Dame ///


----------



## Wolfgang (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*


I still can not see wear it is written that we get 6c a unit pa. the way I read it Cash payments *TOTALLING* 3 cents per unit. 

_Cash payments totalling 3 cents per Unit will be made to Unitholders by 24 December 2008 and quarterly thereafter, with the first payment to be made in October 2008._

Breaker1 Thanks for the accidental email from a PIF creditor it is good news.

I will not be in Australia form the middle of September to the end of October I will try not to think about this mess and have a good time.

Wolfgang


----------



## Jadel (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

All Queensland AG members next meeting.

Saturday at 2 pm 30 August 2008.

Beenleigh RSL & Mt Warren Golf Course

13 Bardyn Halliday Dr, Mt Warren Park

Please note that you may be requested to provide your PIF current investor ID number.

 We will be discussing the proposals put forward by WC on the future of our Fund 

 Regards Chris


----------



## great dame (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



PIFholder said:


> Great Dame,
> 
> I just spoke with WC who advised that Computershare are counting the votes, but that they are using the reply paid facilities of WC because it's less expensive and more efficient.
> 
> ...



    They should be sent to Computshare not to Wellington  That is the correct way it should be done  And wellington would know that   .// The Dame ///


----------



## seamisty (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dora,I think the word 'manageable' was used regarding the 6cent distribution when I spoke with WC. By that I think it means that the initial 3 cent distribution would be made up of part capital and part income. This was for tax purposes and also once the bank loan had been repaid it would be paid from income. I would think the Fund would be close to having repaid the loan by now. On a different subject, I have spoken to a few other investors lately, some who made posts previously and others who aren't confident of their computer skills to post but use the forum as a source of information. Their concern was the noticable absence of some valued contributors who seem to have lost respect for the content/calibre of posts on the forum. Some also said that they no longer bother to even look at the forum as they find the negativity depressing.For those of you who are still  taking the time to share your information and resolve confusion, thank you. For those of you who no longer post, please reconsider, you are genuinely missed. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## selciper (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The fact that there still appears to be confusion about what the 6 cents distribution really means, demonstrates the inadequacies of WC's communications abilities. They can copy pages and pages of turgid legal language, but can't come to grips with the writing of crisp summaries in simple English. That's the reason that so many posts contain anxious messages trying to interpret important sentences in WC documentation. WC need urgent professional assistance in this area and issue an easy-to-read brochure. After all, PIF investors aren't sitting for Law School exams.


----------



## Mary Lynch (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

In JH's defence......in these volatile times it must be difficult to give "set in concrete" predictions of future distributions.  It's possible that she does not want to put in print anything on which she can't follow up. Thus she says 3% by Xmas (which she "promises".)..but cannot do more than "hope" for an "implied amount" of 1.5% quarterly thereafter....WHO KNOWS, it could be more than that (or less)!

Give her a break, for God's sake.  We are ALL greedy....thus she must look after the FUND first.....thus the collective "I" will benefit ultimately.  

Maybe we are all looking for lurks and perks whereby we can get out with "a leetle bit more" than our fellow investor.

Breaker, THANKS so much for your post from the creditor..It warms my heart in all the negativity.  

WE WILL ALL DO BETTER IN THE LONG RUN IF WE BRING POSITIVE ENERGY TO ALL THIS.  POSITIVE ENERGY PROMOTES POSITIVE ACTION AND RESULTS.


----------



## great dame (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> In JH's defence......in these volatile times it must be difficult to give "set in concrete" predictions of future distributions.  It's possible that she does not want to put in print anything on which she can't follow up. Thus she says 3% by Xmas (which she "promises".)..but cannot do more than "hope" for an "implied amount" of 1.5% quarterly thereafter....WHO KNOWS, it could be more than that (or less)!
> 
> Give her a break, for God's sake.  We are ALL greedy....thus she must look after the FUND first.....thus the collective "I" will benefit ultimately.
> 
> ...



     Thats all very well what your saying   Mary  But if you want attract investers  to buy our stock on the exchange  they will want tro see a forcast of a bit more then just HOPE   And remenberi it was wellington idear to list it on the NSX  Knowing we will get next to nothing when we try to sell & thats now and in the future also  I am not greedy do not want more then my fellow inverstors   You might be happy to wait 20 years plus to get your money back if you do it will only be worth half of what it is now    But lf i can get half back in 3 years  i will be happy  Gee i must be greedy hey  /The Dame //////


----------



## k.smith (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There is quite a lot of past JH history on their web site and also on the web, and she gives me a impression of someone who makes careful, strategic decisions, and following her career over the last 10 years, I believe she will do her best to build this fund up again. We would all like our monies to be safe, but the world financial markets are in bad shape and things dont look good. A lot of my neighbours are suffering financial losses in their various investments. I think if we hang on to our 45cents+ and have the possibility to add +/-6cents per unit in the short term, JH will do her stuff and build up the fund again, and we will do well again in a few years, I feel sure that she has a strategy behind acquiring our fund, lets face it, there are plenty of other investment opportunities out there at the moment that she could have gone for. As far as the 2% fee re; constitution is concerned, we were paying MFS that in management fees every year(and more!)...WC are charging us 0.7%. I think we either trust JH and vote FOR WC,  or believe that liquidation over the next few years will be a better option.


----------



## great dame (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Correction i said Mary to wait 20 years plus  Should read 30 years plus   Sorry about that   // The Dame ///


----------



## flatback (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> I very much doubt it would be only 18 months. An administrator would need to employ a team to oversee the completion of these projects and then make sure they are sold at the right price to maximise value back to the fund. Also funds in other investment schemes need to improve to be sold, noone can say how long that will take given the poor current conditions..18 months seems VERY optimistic..but yes 3-5-7 is do-able and yes it would be a finite workout at least, rather than the Fund going on foreever in a day or until such time as Wellington wish to sell it off or whatever. It would be more controllable under our own destiny.
> 
> I do see your point though DnB. Page 19 point 1
> 
> ...



I agree whole heartedly Javier, every thing in this world is negotiable, and i personally do not believe this woman is silly enough, to say ok dont vote my way see you later, she is too clever by half, those who are going to the meeting wont just be asked to vote as soon as she comes through the front door, there will be discussion and i imagine very vigorous discussion, a good business person always has a backup alternative proposal.
Cheers Flatback


----------



## great dame (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> I agree whole heartedly Javier, every thing in this world is negotiable, and i personally do not believe this woman is silly enough, to say ok dont vote my way see you later, she is too clever by half, those who are going to the meeting wont just be asked to vote as soon as she comes through the front door, there will be discussion and i imagine very vigorous discussion, a good business person always has a backup alternative proposal.
> Cheers Flatback



       Well thats new to  me Flatback  When i spoke to WC they told me there would be no discussion or comments from the floor  the lady said why bother coming it will be rather boring  The vote would have been decided before any of us walked into the room   she said it could be all over in 1 to 2 hours  / The Dame //


----------



## Rance (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> *I think it would be great if we all united behind her....in fact even sent her some roses on behalf of the AF....lol!*



*
Mary, the flowers are a great idea but don't be too harsh on Great Doom. I understand his angst and he certainly has a point about selling on the NSX for those who need their money now... I'm voting for JH and hope she can pull off some miracles for the sake of us all.

Rance *


----------



## Burnt (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

SHAME, SHAME, SHAME ! My definition of being POSITIVE is obvioulsy quite different to some others. I don't think it's being very positive at all to launch personal attacks against people who have a different opinion to yourself.
I think it is very positive to have the balls to express your own opinion in spite of what others might think.
I think it is very positive to be open to a wide range of opinions and information. I think it is very positive to allow everyone to express their beliefs, especially when based on sound logic.
It is also plainly evident to me that the Powers To Be (or hope to be) have been applying the old "Divide and Conquer" technique to the enemy, and more forcefully as time runs out. We might be divided but will they let us be conquered ???
My two cents worth is this - be very wary of everything you read and hear. Listen and read it all, but then apply your own intelligence and logic and come to your own conclusions. The only facts we have are that unitholders' money was stolen from them by a group of people that did not disclose true facts to investors and used the fund (ilegally) for their own interests and not for the interests of the investors. Protect yourself from this happening again by arming yourself with as much information as possible, don't just trust what anyone tells you.
And please will you "positive" people stop being to "negative" !!!


----------



## newwwtrader (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have a question for those more knowledgable than myself about this situation.

The current NTA is said to be about 45 cents. On  liquidation, it is said that the NTA would be 11cents (or thereabouts).

On my calculations of 770 million units, that equates to a difference of about $260 million.

How is this the case. Surely paying the debts and selling the assets would not amount to a loss of that amount.

Does this amount take into account the unfulfilled redemptions?


----------



## JohnH (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



newwwtrader said:


> I have a question for those more knowledgable than myself about this situation.
> 
> The current NTA is said to be about 45 cents. On  liquidation, it is said that the NTA would be 11cents (or thereabouts).
> 
> ...




If we are stupid enough to vote for liquidation then that has to be completed by March(?) next year.  Half constructed buildings would have to be sold at bargain rates - It would be a buyer"s market.  The 45 cents is based on collecting outstanding debts/or completing and selling developments at optimum time.


----------



## Duped (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



newwwtrader said:


> I have a question for those more knowledgable than myself about this situation.
> 
> The current NTA is said to be about 45 cents. On  liquidation, it is said that the NTA would be 11cents (or thereabouts).
> 
> ...




11c (or there abouts) is for liquidation completed by March 09.  I.e. forced sale.  If we have more time to sell, we'd get more.  If the projects are completed first, we'd get more. Just like selling a car or a house.

Thing is:
I've seen nothing that dictates that liquidation must be completed by March 09.
No one seems to know for sure how exactly we go about a more orderly windup.  (I.e. how do we appoint a liquidator, how do they get paid, how much time do we allocate to close each position, who chases and how hard do we chase borrowers in default etc etc - who knows what else we have to consider)

ASIC website has some info including an application form for commencing a wind-up. http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/ASIC.NSF/byHeadline/Managed investments schemes - closing

What happens?  Does WC file Form 5134 and just walk away? Do we have to remove WC first? Then file form 5134 ourselves.  How do we pick a liquidator? What terms does the liquidator work under?  Is there a peak association for liquidators we can ask?


----------



## newwwtrader (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Liquidation does not have to occur in March 2009. 

My understanding is that that would only occur IF things were left as they currently are and the current redemptions had to be paid.

Could there not be a constitutional change - whereby possible redemptions are frozen for lets say another 12 months?

This must be able to be done, as it is exactly what WC has proposed (there will be no more redemptions).

If this were to occur, forseeably the amounts available at liquidation would gradually increase.

WC has indicated that the fund may have the ability to commence paying distributions again this year. They also indicated that there would be capital available next year (the funds they are going to use for the buy back). These funds should be available regardless of whether or not the PIF is listed on the NSX.

Redemptions could be frozen for lets say 12 months, then each year you could say that people could withdraw a maximum of lets say 25%. This would give the fund the ability to carry on and complete what they are obligated and continue to run a "business".

I know this is only a sketchy idea, and one I'm sure would have been suggested previously, but I believe that many of the PIF investors would vote for such a constitutional change.

At this time there is only one offer on the table - what has been proposed by WC. The problem is the interests of WC and the PIF unitholders are to some extent poles apart.


----------



## JohnH (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> 11c (or there abouts) is for liquidation completed by March 09.  I.e. forced sale.  If we have more time to sell, we'd get more.  If the projects are completed first, we'd get more. Just like selling a car or a house.
> 
> Thing is:
> I've seen nothing that dictates that liquidation must be completed by March 09.
> ...




Duped, as I understand it (I'm sure more qualified people like Dora&Boots will correct me if I'm wrong) March is when the 366 day redemption freeze is up and the fund has then to start redemptions. There is not enough money in the fund to pay out a $ for a $ so the fund must then liquidate so that every unit holder gets there estimated 11or 12 cents a share equally.  

Wellington will make money out of this, but as I see it JH (pity I have the same initials) is staking her (quite formidable) reputation to try and put the Fund back on its feet. 

I have followed this thread since the first couple of days, and I have not seen anybody come up with a scheme which will satisfy everybody.  At least Wellington's proposals give something to everybody.  It will not please all, but I can't understand how the liquidation alternative would please anybody.


----------



## professor_frink (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*ATTENTION ALL *

The admin team here are becoming increasingly annoyed at how many people who seem to only be here to participate in this thread are breaking the rules of the forum by signing up multiple accounts. I made an announcement in one of the other threads about this recently - 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6397

but it has been ignored, so I thought I would make a post here so that there can be no confusion about where we stand on this issue.

*People caught using multiple accounts will be banned immediately*. 

*If we continue to get people signing up multiple accounts to post in this thread, then we will shut it down.*

Enjoy your evening.


----------



## sugar3157 (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



professor_frink said:


> *ATTENTION ALL *
> 
> The admin team here are becoming increasingly annoyed at how many people who seem to only be here to participate in this thread are breaking the rules of the forum by signing up multiple accounts. I made an announcement in one of the other threads about this recently -
> 
> ...




Who are you?


----------



## professor_frink (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Who are you?




well I would have thought that would have been fairly obvious after my post, but apparently not. I'm one of the moderators of the forum.

You can find the full list here - 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showgroups.php


----------



## breaker1 (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



professor_frink said:


> *ATTENTION ALL *
> 
> The admin team here are becoming increasingly annoyed at how many people who seem to only be here to participate in this thread are breaking the rules of the forum by signing up multiple accounts. I made an announcement in one of the other threads about this recently -
> 
> ...




Well professor, may I say how good it is to hear from a moderator!!!

I am the originator of this thread and one of the founders of the PIF Action Group. 

*If there is anyone who has multiple accounts on this thread, you have my blessing to throw them off and be banned immediately! Don't wait, please ban them NOW!*

We have many investor contributors and readers here who have had hundreds of thousands of dollars stolen or frozen by MFS/Octaviar Investment Management and are in dire straights. Investors really need to believe this thread is 100% genuine and in the best interests of those investors. 

We have now had over 100,000 hits on this thread and need to be seriously looked after by moderators. I feel in the last month there have been a minority who seem to babble on about nothing and appear to be here only to disrupt this threads integrity and effectiveness!

Multiple accounts are an abuse of this thread and the investors on here!!! Multiple accounts are only here to manipulate readers and more than likely intimidate genuine contributors into silence. 

*Once again, Dear Moderator, please immediately remove any multiple account abusers. *


----------



## Juan Mortyme (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



professor_frink said:


> *ATTENTION ALL *
> 
> The admin team here are becoming increasingly annoyed at how many people who seem to only be here to participate in this thread are breaking the rules of the forum by signing up multiple accounts.........
> *People caught using multiple accounts will be banned immediately*.........




Name and shame:shoot::shoot:


----------



## seamisty (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Well professor, may I say how good it is to hear from a moderator!!!
> 
> I am the originator of this thread and one of the founders of the PIF Action Group.
> 
> ...



Thanks breaker, I fully endorse your views!!! ( I  now have an imaginary IGNORE button which has been getting a severe work out lately!!!) I would just like to let those know that have expressed concerns about there not being anything in writing in regard to the anticipated 6cent annual distribution that I have e-mailed WC and received a phone call in relation to this. I have been assured that it has been fowarded to the person who deals with these matters and I will receive a return e-mail early next week. WC are more than happy for me to post the reply on the forum as they have had a lot of communication in regard to this.I read on a daily basis that many companies/funds are not giving a target rate of return re dividends or distributions for the next financial year as the market is so volitile it is hard to predict! Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> Name and shame:shoot::shoot:



I agree Juan Mortyme, please moderators expose those that have been multi-nicking, it just makes a mockery of those that have worked so hard and persevered  to provide a source of information and provide some support to investors in the PIF. Sometimes I read posts and think I don't need to deal with this BS, I am far too busy and then I receive a PM  or return post, saying thank you, I appreciate what you have shared etc., so like others on here, will continue to share info and ask assistance of those more qualified to advise. In a situation when there is so many people whose lives are affected by the same outcome, but with different agendas and circumstances, not everyone is going to be in agreeance with the end result. I can cope with that and hopefully remain objective. Lets all hope the end result benefits the majority. Regards, Seamisty:aus::


----------



## newwwtrader (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yeah name and shame them.

I cannot help but notice that this is the first time I have seen this message and it would seem that I am the newest of recent contributors here and I have only posted in this forum. However, I would just like to say that this is my only account on ASF.


----------



## newwwtrader (22 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Oooops, I was wrong. There is someone newer than me!


----------



## Joe Blow (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just so those posting to this thread are aware, these are the user names we have caught posting under more than one account:

Rocky1 and harry7
Javier and guesswho

At ASF we consider posting under more than one user name to be unethical and deceptive conduct and rest assured it will result in an *immediate and permanent ban*. For those thinking of registering more than one user name, we have very sophisticated methods for uncovering such activity so if you value your access to this website I would think *very* carefully before doing so.

One person, one voice. 

That's always been the policy here at ASF and always will be.


----------



## seamisty (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Octaviar directors face $80m class action for losses::::Nick Nichols 

August 23rd, 2008 

A CLASS action against former directors of embattled Gold Coast company Octaviar is seeking $80 million in damages, and counting.

Octaviar, formerly known as MFS, yesterday revealed it had received notification from Maurice Blackburn Lawyers of a possible action.

The legal firm is being backed by litigation funder IMF and has said it is acting on behalf of Octaviar shareholders.

The basis of the action is that shareholders should have been told the company needed about $500 million to continue as a going concern.

This was the sum sought from a capital-raising that was announced via a teleconference by former chief executive Michael King on January 18.

The announcement caused a 70 per cent drop in the company's shares the same day and the shares have been suspended ever since.

"The claims of their clients are said to total $80 million," said Octaviar in a statement to the stock exchange of the legal action.

"It is said that this amount could increase if more shareholders seek to participate in any claim."

Meanwhile, Octaviar said it had received more than 90 per cent acceptances from its listed noteholders for its payout offer, which would see all noteholders with $5000 or less invested paid out in full and the rest paid out at about 22.5c in the dollar.

It does not indicate how much of the total needed is represented by these acceptances.

Octaviar, which owes noteholders $351 million, needs the support of at least 75 per cent of noteholders by value to proceed with the payout offer. Larger noteholders have yet to respond.

It said discussions were in train with unsecured noteholders owed $100 million.

It also was set to meet officials from the Australian Taxation Office over a $53 million debt, it said.


----------



## zixo (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all,

I have read the wellington explanatory memorandom. IMO it's akin more to a ransom demand than any alternative proposals and can see they have given us very little option. Either we accept their proposal.... or liquidate strictly on their terms.  

The nsx that no-one wants has to be accepted otherwise THEIR long term goals will not be realised. 

the proposal raised more questions than answers. Wellingtons ability to resurrect our fund has no substance when all the "legal" stop checks with Octaviar we were meant to believe in, ended up being nothing more political garbage. Wellington have given us no assurances or guarantees.  

Perhaps someone here can shed some light on what happens if we accept Wellington capital as our RE. Will acceptance of that clause mean an automatic get out of jail card to allow octaviar off the hook for the 50  million support facility and the 147 million which were illegally siphoned off?

Cheers


----------



## akernst (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The moderator must now close this Forum as it has been compromised.

Can Breaker1, Please start a new Forum, aptly named to relfect the soon
new name of the Fund.

Maybe some legal action can be taken out against some of the scare mongers.
For example:-
Rocky1 and harry7
Javier and guesswho


----------



## prawn_86 (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



akernst said:


> The moderator must now close this Forum as it has been compromised.
> 
> Can Breaker1, Please start a new Forum, aptly named to relfect the soon
> new name of the Fund.
> ...




The moderators "must" not do anything. We will moderate as we see fit.

Be assured that this thread is now being closely monitored, and any new threads that are started will be merged with this one, be it under this name or a new one.


----------



## professor_frink (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



akernst said:


> The moderator must now close this Forum as it has been compromised.




No it hasn't akernst.

I've cleaned up some of the rubbish in this thread, so it's a little shorter now.

great dame check your PM box


----------



## great dame (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> If we are stupid enough to vote for liquidation then that has to be completed by March(?) next year.  Half constructed buildings would have to be sold at bargain rates - It would be a buyer"s market.  The 45 cents is based on collecting outstanding debts/or completing and selling developments at optimum time.



    JohnH the way to go would be do all this over say a 2 to 3 years    We could all get installments payments along the way  as well  /Dane //


----------



## Mary Lynch (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamistry,  What is the point in putting any pressure on WC to tell us how much we will be receiving in distributions? All you are asking her to do is answer an impossible question....and make a false promise.

NOBODY, even the best and most knowledgably informed, knows what the next few years hold economically for OZ. JH has communicated all the risks in the booklet, and they include all the many negative possiibities of the future. 

She is not GOD.


----------



## seamisty (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> Seamistry,  What is the point in putting any pressure on WC to tell us how much we will be receiving in distributions? All you are asking her to do is answer an impossible question....and make a false promise.
> 
> NOBODY, even the best and most knowledgably informed, knows what the next few years hold economically for OZ. JH has communicated all the risks in the booklet, and they include all the many negative possiibities of the future.
> 
> She is not GOD.



I agree with you Mary, It is more to see something set down in writing as an estimated target rate of distributions for those that are concerned that there was no reference made to the amount of proposed distribution for the forthcoming 12 months after Dec 08. It may just give a few some reassurance that there will be a distribution of some sort and there did seem to be some confusion as to a 3cent or 6cent amount. On a different matter, I was just reading through the PIF Annual Report for 2007 and see that the RE not only received 2.46% management fee for the year, but somewhere along the line us unitholders voted that the RE would also receive any surplus income the PIF made after expenses were paid. Can anyone confirm that this amount was an extra $464,630.00 (page51) or have I got this wrong? I was told yesterday  by WC that any surplus money generated outside of the management fee/expenses, and the intended 6cent per unit annual distribution in the future will be remain in the Fund to help go towards rebuilding/restoring unit value. Was also told that the 3 unit valuations of 65,45 & 14cents have been confirmed to be within 98% correct. The independant valuation is almost completed, so hopefully those figures will be released soon. I also received a personal apology by e-mail from the two multi-nicking culprits who wish to pass on their apologies, so lets all move on and restore this forum back to where breaker1 intended it to be, a usefull link for all PIF holders. Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## great dame (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> Seamistry,  What is the point in putting any pressure on WC to tell us how much we will be receiving in distributions? All you are asking her to do is answer an impossible question....and make a false promise.
> 
> NOBODY, even the best and most knowledgably informed, knows what the next few years hold economically for OZ. JH has communicated all the risks in the booklet, and they include all the many negative possiibities of the future.
> 
> She is not GOD.



       Sounds like we must have faith / hope / & keep our heads in the sand to me / Dane ///


----------



## Mary Lynch (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Seamistry.

Somewhere in all the paperwork that has been arriving lately, I read the comparative PDS where the original management was able to pocket anything left over after all monthly obligations had been paid......as averse to WC who will take .7%.  Wow!!! Being a bit savvy with the PDS is what I, for one, will be doing from now on.  Bloody open slather!! No wonder they all felt entitled to help themselves to the loot.


----------



## selciper (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yes! Let the house come back to order. I was on the verge of giving up on the thread as it was deteriorating fast. The Maurice Blackburn situation will be something to follow, but in the end it won't help PIF investors. It will be an interesting sideshow. By then, our fund should be on the road to repair.


----------



## flatback (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Well thats new to  me Flatback  When i spoke to WC they told me there would be no discussion or comments from the floor  the lady said why bother coming it will be rather boring  The vote would have been decided before any of us walked into the room   she said it could be all over in 1 to 2 hours  / The Dame //



Until this moment i have resisted responding to any of the crap that comes out of you mouth,other than the fact i have dubed you Magoo for obvious reasons,i have restrained myself pretty well i thought (HOW CAN IT TAKE 2 HOURS) to vote on three issues if WC wont let anybody talk, you idiot. I notice that the Moderators of the threads have called for you to answer your mail, i sincerely hope they remove you from this forum as you are obviously to old to comprehend the wishes of those who are useing it in a constructive manner with positive input,either remove yourself or i hope they do it for you. Flatback


----------



## Sean K (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> Until this moment i have resisted responding to any of the crap that comes out of you mouth,other than the fact i have dubed you Magoo for obvious reasons,i have restrained myself pretty well i thought (HOW CAN IT TAKE 2 HOURS) to vote on three issues if WC wont let anybody talk, you idiot. I notice that the Moderators of the threads have called for you to answer your mail, i sincerely hope they remove you from this forum as you are obviously to old to comprehend the wishes of those who are useing it in a constructive manner with positive input,either remove yourself or i hope they do it for you. Flatback



Sorry, 

Mods aren't fully over this thread, as we are all overseas in various timezones. Will be looking more closely.

In the mean time, let's be civil, and be working towards a nice happy ASF house!!



kennas


----------



## flatback (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



kennas said:


> Sorry,
> 
> Mods aren't fully over this thread, as we are all overseas in various timezones. Will be looking more closely.
> 
> ...



I am sorry Kennas but if you the moderaters, had done your jobs, and had somebody checking the threads that were being put on this forum, it wouldnt have degenerated to the standard it has, there are a lot of concerned unit holders out there, who have been trying to get some very important issues to their fellow members out there, but have this constant repetitive rubbish coming out of a few crazy people, it is not a good advertisement is it. yours Flatback


----------



## Sean K (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> I am sorry Kennas but if you the moderaters, had done your jobs, and had somebody checking the threads that were being put on this forum, it wouldnt have degenerated to the standard it has, there are a lot of concerned unit holders out there, who have been trying to get some very important issues to their fellow members out there, but have this constant repetitive rubbish coming out of a few crazy people, it is not a good advertisement is it. yours Flatback



Understand your feelings. 

I am in a hotel in Quito, Ecuador, and it's 2.30 am at the moment, and I wish I could do more. 

We really appreciate the self moderation here also. Thanks to those who provide a balance opinion, and argument and alert the Mods to defaulters.

Please bare with us. 

Cheers, 
kennas


----------



## reasonable (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Having skimmed the explanatory memorandum I am very annoyed that WC are going to pay financial adviser 0.25% commission for recommending/returning proxy votes if resolutions are passed.  Especially when there are precious little funds left!

My own feelings about the voting is that Wellington as RE is the best chance of getting some return in the future and we must trust them to do this.


----------



## 2CentsWorth (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good evening Seamisty,
first, thank you for your dilligence and clear interpretations of the many difficult statements that have asppeared, or been proffered on this site, during this hapless fight to resurrect our drowning PIF.

It was decided some time back by me, to GO with JH, I was just waiting for the EM to be released, so as to study the "Devil" in the detail.
For the most part, I can agree with the reasoning behind the Resolutions that WC require to be made, with one positive exception.

I can see no wisdom at all in voting YES to Res. 3, in fact it is totally beyond me as to why they even made it one.

If we vote YES to Res. 3, the new RE, (WCM) will be able to take 2% of our funds, if we decide to remove them against their will.
If we vote NO to Res. 3, the current RE, (WCIM) remains, and should we decide to remove them against their will, they can't take anything.

I simply fail to understand why we should put our collective heads in a totally unnecessary noose, without the slightest risk of any benefit, and very much, plenty to lose.

Perhaps this old head is failing to see something obvious, so I am asking you,
if you would care to forward any reasoning or opinion, that would lead me to think to the contrary, please do so.

Best wishes,
2CentsWorth.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



kennas said:


> Understand your feelings.
> 
> I am in a hotel in Quito, Ecuador, and it's 2.30 am at the moment, and I wish I could do more.
> *
> ...






A not unfamiliar feeling to many of us kennas. Perhaps a cocoa and a sleep and see how you feel (sic) when you awake.

gg


----------



## seamisty (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



2CentsWorth said:


> Good evening Seamisty,
> first, thank you for your dilligence and clear interpretations of the many difficult statements that have asppeared, or been proffered on this site, during this hapless fight to resurrect our drowning PIF.
> 
> It was decided some time back by me, to GO with JH, I was just waiting for the EM to be released, so as to study the "Devil" in the detail.
> ...



Nope 2 centsworth, I see no reason to vote for Res.3 either and can't see how it will be detrimental to our cause. I actually drew attention to this yesterday with WC and the reply was apparently it is a common clause that is usually included in most PDS'S and they were suprised it was not included in the previous PDS from OCV. As always, this is my own personal opinion, but will probablly not vote for it either!! Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## Burnt (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



2CentsWorth said:


> Good evening Seamisty,
> first, thank you for your dilligence and clear interpretations of the many difficult statements that have asppeared, or been proffered on this site, during this hapless fight to resurrect our drowning PIF.
> 
> It was decided some time back by me, to GO with JH, I was just waiting for the EM to be released, so as to study the "Devil" in the detail.
> ...




Even though your question was directed to Seamisty, I would like to offer an answer. MFS Investment Management Limited was the RE of the fund since Sept.2004 and was the RE when money was "stolen" from the fund & the fund placed into a situation where it was in breach of its bank loan as well as being put into a non-liquid state (undisclosed to members). In March 2008 the name was changed to Octaviar Investment Management LImited and in June 2008 the name was changed to Wellington Investment Management Limited (this is all documented in the glossy book). *There has been no change in the RE of the fund - it has simply undergone name changes. *Wellington bought all the shares in Octaviar Investment Mangement Limited and therefore took over the RE role and all the responsibilities that went along with it. At present, anyone who already has, or intends to take legal action for the breaches of constitutional responsiblity (and corporate law) committed by the RE in the past still has that right. If a new RE is appointed (Wellington Capital), those peoples' rights will be diminished if not extinguised. Voting for a new RE (Wellington Capital) only has a benefit to Wellington Capital - it is extremely detrimental to all unitholders !!!!! VOTE NO


----------



## Burnt (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sorry Seamisty, but how on earth can WC say that asking unitholders to vote for a change of RE "is a common clause usually contained in PDS's". By the way I wasn't aware that Octaviar actually issued a PDS ???? HHmmmmm.... Was this a real conversation you had ??HHmmmmmm...............
How ridiculous. Almost ridiculous as their reasons - "to simplify operating arrangements" - it is a company employing 30 people. The same people will be doing the same jobs regardless. Its a load of bull, just like the "Explanatory Memorandum" - it is a bogus document that does not disclose the full facts, just look at the amendements to the constitution actually drawn up. *It is misleading in the extreme and should not be relied upon.*


----------



## Burnt (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



reasonable said:


> Having skimmed the explanatory memorandum I am very annoyed that WC are going to pay financial adviser 0.25% commission for recommending/returning proxy votes if resolutions are passed.  Especially when there are precious little funds left!
> 
> My own feelings about the voting is that Wellington as RE is the best chance of getting some return in the future and we must trust them to do this.




Hi Reasonable, agree wholeheartedly with the commissions to financial advisors - sounds like kickbacks to me - totally inappropriate in a vote !!!
Totally disagree however with trusting Wellington. Note that the company retained to arrive at likely realisable asset values is the same company (333 Capital Pty Ltd) retained by MFS/Octaviar (and paid $millions by them in a matter of weeks prompting Perpetual & the Supreme Court to bring forward the case for winding them up). I'm sorry but that doesn't meet my definition of "independant". How could you possibly trust them.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Dora,I think the word 'manageable' was used regarding the 6cent distribution when I spoke with WC. By that I think it means that the initial 3 cent distribution would be made up of part capital and part income. This was for tax purposes and also once the bank loan had been repaid it would be paid from income. I would think the Fund would be close to having repaid the loan by now. On a different subject, I have spoken to a few other investors lately, some who made posts previously and others who aren't confident of their computer skills to post but use the forum as a source of information. Their concern was the noticable absence of some valued contributors who seem to have lost respect for the content/calibre of posts on the forum. Some also said that they no longer bother to even look at the forum as they find the negativity depressing.For those of you who are still  taking the time to share your information and resolve confusion, thank you. For those of you who no longer post, please reconsider, you are genuinely missed. Regards, Seamisty






selciper said:


> The fact that there still appears to be confusion about what the 6 cents distribution really means, demonstrates the inadequacies of WC's communications abilities. They can copy pages and pages of turgid legal language, but can't come to grips with the writing of crisp summaries in simple English. That's the reason that so many posts contain anxious messages trying to interpret important sentences in WC documentation. WC need urgent professional assistance in this area and issue an easy-to-read brochure. After all, PIF investors aren't sitting for Law School exams.






Mary Lynch said:


> In JH's defence......in these volatile times it must be difficult to give "set in concrete" predictions of future distributions.  It's possible that she does not want to put in print anything on which she can't follow up. Thus she says 3% by Xmas (which she "promises".)..but cannot do more than "hope" for an "implied amount" of 1.5% quarterly thereafter....WHO KNOWS, it could be more than that (or less)!
> 
> Give her a break, for God's sake.  We are ALL greedy....thus she must look after the FUND first.....thus the collective "I" will benefit ultimately.
> 
> ...






Burnt said:


> SHAME, SHAME, SHAME ! My definition of being POSITIVE is obvioulsy quite different to some others. I don't think it's being very positive at all to launch personal attacks against people who have a different opinion to yourself.
> I think it is very positive to have the balls to express your own opinion in spite of what others might think.
> I think it is very positive to be open to a wide range of opinions and information. I think it is very positive to allow everyone to express their beliefs, especially when based on sound logic.
> It is also plainly evident to me that the Powers To Be (or hope to be) have been applying the old "Divide and Conquer" technique to the enemy, and more forcefully as time runs out. We might be divided but will they let us be conquered ???
> ...






Burnt said:


> Sorry Seamisty, but how on earth can WC say that asking unitholders to vote for a change of RE "is a common clause usually contained in PDS's". By the way I wasn't aware that Octaviar actually issued a PDS ???? HHmmmmm.... Was this a real conversation you had ??HHmmmmmm...............
> How ridiculous. Almost ridiculous as their reasons - "to simplify operating arrangements" - it is a company employing 30 people. The same people will be doing the same jobs regardless. Its a load of bull, just like the "Explanatory Memorandum" - it is a bogus document that does not disclose the full facts, just look at the amendements to the constitution actually drawn up. *It is misleading in the extreme and should not be relied upon.*




May I ask how responsible you yourselves as investors feel for the dismal results that Octaviar MFS has delivered for you.

ASF is a forum for people to learn from their successes as well as their failures.

Is there anything that you hapless folk could have done to avoid this catastrophe.

Please illuminate us.

gg


----------



## Burnt (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

VOTE   -  1) NO   2) YES  3) NO
We as unitholders have the power, the ability and the right to hold our own meeting to vote on resolutions that will benefit us and noone else. E.G. a vote on an amendment to the constitution to extend the freeze on redemptions for a further 180 days to give us time to have *a completely independant administrator appointed to run the PIF*. An administrator will be able run the fund profitably while projects are completed and outstanding loans dealt with in the most favourable manner. A completely independant administrator will charge fees which will be comparable to what the RE is obtaining and we will be able to have complete trust in them acting in OUR BEST INTERESTS !!!! Unitholders will not recover 100%, but only an independant manager will get them back the best amount recoverable.
I know there are some wealthy unitholders out there who can afford to tie up their capital indefinately (and even write it off), who are placing trust in Wellington to deliver on the 6% returns (good luck - no committment by Wellington there) and who plan on recouping some of their capital loss by buying up units on the NSX at 10c to 20c hoping to get a 30% - 60% return (good luck). I don't know if any of you attended the meetings in July and saw the huge number of elderley investors at risk of losing everything - their entire life savings. The looks on their faces - scared, confused and hoping that JH will look after them ! If not, try and recall the last news story where an elderley person was bashed and robbed - remember that look on their face ? Remember it when you go to bed and try to sleep.
Come on guys, have a heart. Don't encourage unitholders to vote for something that is going to lock them in and give them back bugger all !!!! Have some humanity, this might be the chance (or another one) to do something worthwhile to help others less fortunate than you.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> VOTE   -  1) NO   2) YES  3) NO
> We as unitholders have the power, the ability and the right to hold our own meeting to vote on resolutions that will benefit us and noone else. E.G. a vote on an amendment to the constitution to extend the freeze on redemptions for a further 180 days to give us time to have *a completely independant administrator appointed to run the PIF*. An administrator will be able run the fund profitably while projects are completed and outstanding loans dealt with in the most favourable manner. A completely independant administrator will charge fees which will be comparable to what the RE is obtaining and we will be able to have complete trust in them acting in OUR BEST INTERESTS !!!! Unitholders will not recover 100%, but only an independant manager will get them back the best amount recoverable.
> I know there are some wealthy unitholders out there who can afford to tie up their capital indefinately (and even write it off), who are placing trust in Wellington to deliver on the 6% returns (good luck - no committment by Wellington there) and who plan on recouping some of their capital loss by buying up units on the NSX at 10c to 20c hoping to get a 30% - 60% return (good luck). I don't know if any of you attended the meetings in July and saw the huge number of elderley investors at risk of losing everything - their entire life savings. The looks on their faces - scared, confused and hoping that JH will look after them ! If not, try and recall the last news story where an elderley person was bashed and robbed - remember that look on their face ? Remember it when you go to bed and try to sleep.
> Come on guys, have a heart. Don't encourage unitholders to vote for something that is going to lock them in and give them back bugger all !!!! Have some humanity, this might be the chance (or another one) to do something worthwhile to help others less fortunate than you.




May I ask how responsible you yourselves as investors feel for the dismal results that Octaviar MFS has delivered for you.

ASF is a forum for people to learn from their successes as well as their failures.

Is there anything that you hapless folk could have done to avoid this catastrophe.

Please illuminate us.

gg


----------



## seamisty (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The whole time I have posted on this thread it  has been to pass on information and to support  other unitholders by sharing and passing on information I consider helpful to others. I have had an absolute gutfull of being accused of posting wrong information, being ridiculed and having to defend anything I post by a minority. No wonder others  made the choice to try and be annonomous. To those of you that have appreciated the time and effort  I have put in here, thankyou. To the rest of you, fight it out amongst yourselves. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Burnt (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi GG,
Thank you for your comments regarding learning from failures !!!! Also thanks for keeping an eye on things.
I'm no expert, but to answer your question regarding responsibility for what happened & what we could have done to avoid it - the people responsible for the fund made related party loans that investors were not made aware of, let alone approved. A large loan was taken out with Bank of Scotland and the loans given out resulted in a breach of a ratio covenant of the loan facility with the bank, making the loan & interest immediately payable on demand. This meant the fund was effectively unable to continue as a going concern.
None of this was disclosed to investors and in fact the people controlling the fund were still accepting investments without disclosing what was going on.
That is why it is so important that people are not mislead anymore - the people in charge of the fund now, still have ties with the past.
Unitholders need to protect themselves with accurate information.
I am a single mum trying to look after my 87 year old fathers life savings that he desperately needs for medical care. I'm not scared of being sued for stating facts as I come across them, got nothing to lose but debt ha !
I think I'm trying to contribute positively. Power to the people.
P.S. why do you guys all look like gangsters. lol


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> The whole time I have posted on this thread it  has been to pass on information and to support  other unitholders by sharing and passing on information I consider helpful to others. I have had an absolute gutfull of being accused of posting wrong information, being ridiculed and having to defend anything I post by a minority. No wonder others  made the choice to try and be annonomous. To those of you that have appreciated the time and effort  I have put in here, thankyou. To the rest of you, fight it out amongst yourselves. Regards, Seamisty




May I ask how responsible you yourselves as investors feel for the dismal results that Octaviar MFS has delivered for you.

It is possible that any of us could have found ourselves in the same situation.

ASF is a forum for people to learn from their failures as well as their successes .

Activism is to be encouraged and you are obviously in a dispute with your board and advisers.

Is there anything that you folk could have done to avoid this catastrophe. 

There should be an investment horizon beyond MSF, or if not,  is this something that needs to be discussed.

? All eggs in one basket.

Please illuminate us.

gg


----------



## Burnt (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> The whole time I have posted on this thread it  has been to pass on information and to support  other unitholders by sharing and passing on information I consider helpful to others. I have had an absolute gutfull of being accused of posting wrong information, being ridiculed and having to defend anything I post by a minority. No wonder others  made the choice to try and be annonomous. To those of you that have appreciated the time and effort  I have put in here, thankyou. To the rest of you, fight it out amongst yourselves. Regards, Seamisty



Hey Seamisty,
Chill mate, I apologise if you feel I've personally attacked you, that was not my intention. I was challenging WC's comments to you. I'm sorry but I just don't trust them. I and everyone else appreciates your information, opinions and efforts. We're all in this together whether we agree or disagree. All information is helpful ! Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree. Don't give up on people that might challenge or disagree with you - we are all equal in our rights and opinions.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hey Seamisty,
> Chill mate, I apologise if you feel I've personally attacked you, that was not my intention. I was challenging WC's comments to you. I'm sorry but I just don't trust them. I and everyone else appreciates your information, opinions and efforts. We're all in this together whether we agree or disagree. All information is helpful ! Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree. Don't give up on people that might challenge or disagree with you - we are all equal in our rights and opinions.




Hello Burnt, 

I'll repeat the questions I put above.

May I ask how responsible you yourselves as investors feel for the dismal results that Octaviar MFS has delivered for you.

It is possible that any of us could have found ourselves in the same situation.

ASF is a forum for people to learn from their failures as well as their successes .

Activism is to be encouraged and you are obviously in a dispute with your board and advisers.

Is there anything that you folk could have done to avoid this catastrophe.

There should be an investment horizon beyond MSF, or if not, is this something that needs to be discussed.

? All eggs in one basket.

Please illuminate us.


gg


----------



## Burnt (23 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Hello Burnt,
> 
> I'll repeat the questions I put above.
> 
> ...




Hi gg,
please read my post 1898. would appreciate your opinion. thanks


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi GG,
> Thank you for your comments regarding learning from failures !!!! Also thanks for keeping an eye on things.
> I'm no expert, but to answer your question regarding responsibility for what happened & what we could have done to avoid it - the people responsible for the fund made related party loans that investors were not made aware of, let alone approved. A large loan was taken out with Bank of Scotland and the loans given out resulted in a breach of a ratio covenant of the loan facility with the bank, making the loan & interest immediately payable on demand. This meant the fund was effectively unable to continue as a going concern.
> None of this was disclosed to investors and in fact the people controlling the fund were still accepting investments without disclosing what was going on.
> ...




Sorry didn't see your reply.

I got burnt by Estate Mortgage,in the 80's the people who perpetrated the scam are still living the high life, I am told.

Go for it and you have my moral support. 

I now do not read or listen to any fundamental advice, advisers etc ever since.

Put the bunsen on your local politicians, ASIC, ACCC . It seems you have a good case.

Apologies once again.

gg


----------



## breaker1 (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> May I ask how responsible you yourselves as investors feel for the dismal results that Octaviar MFS has delivered for you.
> 
> It is possible that any of us could have found ourselves in the same situation.
> 
> ...




Garpul Gumnut,

What we have learnt is NEVER invest in mutual or diversified funds like MFS/OCV/WC/ACR/Donovan Oats/Prudential/Provident/etc, again for just a lousy 1-2% extra interest. NO NEVER it's NOT worth the risk!! 

You see this previous MFS Premuim Income Fund was top rated by investment advice groups and promised Lloyds of London insurance, balanced budget, your money spread over multiple loans (projects), etc, etc. I only chose MFS after rejecting many other funds. So lesson learned is: no matter what the fund managers tell you, they can always change the constitution or find a good excuse to channel your good money after bad investments till it becomes worthless. All they need as an excuse is that their interests need protecting NOT yours. 

Put your money into rental business real estate, split rental homes, gold, silver, blocks of land, at-call safe bank interest, anything where *you've got control of your money* and you don't have to BEG abusing inter-connected all-in-the-family freemason fund managers for a look see at half your money sometime 7 years from now and only IF they want to be nice to you!! 

Another lesson I learnt was that I should have spoken to my PIF fund manager and said, "You know that safe you put my money in at the PIF, well, could you put that safe inside another safe!!!  Yeah! And only with me knowing the combination to both!" LOL


----------



## waleroo (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I do know why we cannot operate as follows

 9. When will I get my money back?
o The Fund is currently operating within a redemption deferral period of up to 360 days. This means
that you may have to wait for up to 360 days from the date you lodge your redemption request for
Premium Fund investors or from the maturity date of your investment for fixed term investors.
o If loan repayments are not collected as scheduled, the Fund will not be in a position to resume
redemptions within the 360 day period and it will have to commence operating as a non-liquid
fund.
10. How does a non-liquid fund operate?
o If the Fund operates as a non-liquid fund, there is no set timeframe for the payment of
redemptions.
o Redemptions will be offered when the Fund has the cash available to do so and will be paid out
on a pro-rata basis.
o If the Fund operates as a non-liquid fund it will be in a wind down mode and is likely to pay
reduced distributions.
o There are specific requirements in the Corporations Act which set out how a non-liquid fund must
operate.


----------



## sugar3157 (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Garpul Gumnut,
> 
> What we have learnt is NEVER invest in mutual or diversified funds like MFS/OCV/WC/ACR/Donovan Oats/Prudential/Provident/etc, again for just a lousy 1-2% extra interest. NO NEVER it's NOT worth the risk!!
> 
> ...




Good morning Breaker1....what do you mean...promised Lloyds of London insurance?


----------



## sugar3157 (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Morning All..can any one explain what ...Lloyds of London insurance...means please....


----------



## DoraNBoots (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All,

I asked WC on Friday if the scheme is liquid.  The answer was “Yes”.
I would like comment on this because I’ve been reading the Corporations Act and can’t see how the PIF is liquid.  The act says:

_Liquid  schemes 
             (4)  A registered scheme is  liquid  if  liquid  assets account for at least 80% of the value of scheme property. 
 Liquid  assets 
             (5)  The following are  liquid  assets unless it is proved that the responsible entity cannot reasonably expect to realize them within the period specified in the constitution for satisfying withdrawal requests while the scheme is  liquid : 
                     (a)  money in an account or on deposit with a bank; 
                     (b)  bank accepted bills; 
                     (c)  marketable securities (as defined in section 9); 
                     (d)  property of a prescribed kind. 
             (6)  Any other property is a  liquid  asset if the responsible entity reasonably expects that the property can be realized for its market value within the period specified in the constitution for satisfying withdrawal requests while the scheme is  liquid._

I was told by WC you can’t extend the redemption period longer than 360 days for a liquid fund.  I would like to know if others agree this fund is not liquid and also know what rules apply to extending the redemption period of a non-liquid fund.  (I realize there is also the option of removing the redemption clauses all together but that’s a different topic).


----------



## Mary Lynch (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamistry,  I don't know how I would have survived this debacle without finding the AF and people like you, Dora, Breaker, and many others on this thread.

You have been a tremendous asset, and my deep and heartfelt thanks go out to you....and I am sure I speak on behalf of many others reading your thoughtful and knowledgable, informed posts.


----------



## selciper (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

In my opinion to find ourselves in the hands of an administrator would be catastrophic. The world/Australian economy is heading for extreme turbulence. Just read the international/Australian financial press for confirmation. (Babcock and Brown's dramatic decline symbolises the shake-out). At least WC would be watching all these factors closely. An administrator would be interested only in getting on with the job of a wind-up at any price.

333Capital, in Guy Hutching's memorable words, were brought in originally to provide a report to "reassure" PIF investors. They evidently didn't share his overview and must have been very negative in their findings. I believe that the 14c, 45c and 65c are probably correct estimates. 

Remember, ASIC are sniffing around.

The letter sent to Breaker1 from a contractor was quite promising in its tone and observations.

WC really need to disassociate themselves completely from any OCV connections and get back any money owing to PIF. To break any OCV ties will invite a fresh era and much-needed confidence from PIF's concerned investors.

By the way, what happened to a Gold Coast court case listed for August 18?


----------



## Smokey68 (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My thoughts on this situation we are in.

The processing of a ballot where the ballot papers are returned to the beneficiary does not seem right.

The changing of the quorum requirements such that it will be very difficult to hold a meeting to change things in the future also seems rude.

When the fund is back up to $1 how do you get you money out of the fund at face value?

The 5% buy back, where is the money coming from and are the units being on sold or cancelled?

The mathematics of the distribution seem to be a bit doggy, 6 cents on a 45 cent investment equals a return of 13.33% then add 0.7% fee this would require an internal return of at least 14%.

The statement of the 360 day limit may be what the constitution specifies but this could be changed by the members.

LKM Capital has also run into a redemption problem and is in the hands of a Receiver Manager.
If you check their web site there are two documents setting out how the fund will be wound up and it will be over three years and no fire sales.

How I see it. WC has a business with our $300M + and is assured of an income of at least $2.1m a year.
Our money will be locked into WC for ever and a day because there will be no redemptions, they have created a business on the cheap.
If WC does get the fund back to $770M their fee will be around $5.4M and we still are not guaranteed of getting our money back.

For me my vote is NO, NO & NO


----------



## ian1328 (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Its getting close to crunch time and anyone who thinks liquidation is the answer must not be thinking wisely. Wellington have done nothing wrong and without them where would we be now? Of course they want to make money and we all will over time. Wellington are more open and not as greedy as MFS, although I don't agree with the RE vote on 2%. My vote is YES for 1 YES for 2 and NO for 3


----------



## 2CentsWorth (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty,
Thank you for your reply, I am buoyed by your concurrence.

Burnt,
Thank you for your offering, though I am across all the previous history,
it was just that my personal research turned up six offered qualifications, as to why Res. 3 should be passed, none of them true, legally or otherwise.

With the "WIRE" now plainly in sight, I reluctantly aquiess to; YES: YES: NO.

Cheers to all.


----------



## zixo (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Garpul Gumnut,
> 
> What we have learnt is NEVER invest in mutual or diversified funds like MFS/OCV/WC/ACR/Donovan Oats/Prudential/Provident/etc, again for just a lousy 1-2% extra interest. NO NEVER it's NOT worth the risk!!
> 
> ...





Very well said Breaker. 
 I think you spoke for many of us when you wrote those words.
Although, I largely blame myself for entrusting our money to a Queensland based investment company.  
I particularly feel for all those who took the "advice" of Financial advisors/planners - I think the MFS/Octaviar/wellington  lesson will not easily evaporate the memory of how easily financial leeches still exist at the expense of peoples misery.

the most amazing thing I've learnt is how overseeing Government regulatory bodies are nothing more than oxygen theives who sit in name only positions which have no power, show no merit, and never act until investors are driven into bankruptcy.


----------



## flatback (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> Very well said Breaker.
> I think you spoke for many of us when you wrote those words.
> Although, I largely blame myself for entrusting our money to a Queensland based investment company.
> I particularly feel for all those who took the "advice" of Financial advisors/planners - I think the MFS/Octaviar/wellington  lesson will not easily evaporate the memory of how easily financial leeches still exist at the expense of peoples misery.
> ...



Breaker1 certainly did,, and!Zico, i agree with your comments about regulatory bodies what a joke, cast your eyes back to the proposals put forward for the changes in the constitution, whereby JH has said removing the redemption clause will not adveresly effect unit holders, because this is written into the constitution she must word it this way, i am a lay person and i can see that this is not so. hidden in the lies and web of deceit that the corporate law hids behind, we really are put in a very bad situation here, bet your life there is an inbuilt out for the likes of JH, remember she is a corporate lawyer first and foremost. i am also of the opinion that somebody else proposed, that we extend the redemption period for a further whatever needed time to recover from this debacle, we must have a redemption clause in there somewhere. you know we keep hearing this vague inference that asic is looking at this problem, it seems to me it has a little of Alice in Wonderland truthfullness attached to it. Chin up Flatback


----------



## zixo (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

One thing I fail to understand is that Jenny Hudson and wellington capital kept on hammering home the fact that the Premium income fund is a fantastic fund. Inj the past it continued to win best managed fund by standard and poors and cannex.

If the fund is so good why is she going against everyones wishes and listing on the NSX. that alone is the reason why we invested in the fund in the first place. The first thing she aims to do is change the whole concept of the fund which forces us to redeem for her and her companies profit and its all on her conditions.

I havent seen her earn some credibility and respect... I expect results before she can continue sprouting on about her own past.

In my opinion she hasnt proven she can be trusted. Perhaps she is as bad as king, adams and peacock


----------



## newwwtrader (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Isnt it a bit "false" of WC to continue to mention this 65c NTA if they recover the 120+million from OCV.

It has been widely reported in the press that JH has indicated that she is willing to accept the $20 million (i think that was the amount). This from my understanding will be the end to that matter. No more court cases etc. So surely this greater amount should essentially be eliminated from all material.

Wouldnt it be more accurate to report figures like 10c, 45c and 47.5 (I think the $20 m works out to be worth about 2.5 c each unit)?.


----------



## Mary Lynch (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

She's getting $44.4m  (over the next 3 yrs)according to our booklet newwwwtrader.....and then we have NO more links with MFS.


----------



## Smokey68 (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am still interested on how the "pro WC" unit holders will get their money out of the fund at any time in the future.

My broker cannot see it happening through the NSX.
Brokerage 1.5% and possible state stamp duty.

This is Chapter 2 of a con job.


----------



## newwwtrader (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My appoligies for that. 

But still, I think it is wrong in a way for this greater amount to be trumpeted, when there is no way in hell that that amount is going to flow through to the PIF.

The fact is the PIF can accept this lesser amount or they can reject it and OCV will more than likely be liquidated.

With either scenario, that amount is not going to be returned.

It seems to me that WC like to dangle a carrot in front of people, but then if you look a bit deeper, you can see that what they say is not really how it is, or that there are catches to it.

This is one example I feel. There are others as well i.e. listing on the NSX will enable people to exit (WC say the units are worth 45c) but the facts are the facts, there is no chance that someone will realise that amount on the NSX. WC propose a guranteed buy back. On the surface that is great, but when you look at the maths, what is that really worth to each investor. Not very much when everyone would want to take it up.

WC say that if their proposal is not adopted liquidation is the only option. Under the current constitution that is correct, but if other amendments were made then there are other options.


----------



## breaker1 (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> Very well said Breaker.
> the most amazing thing I've learnt is how overseeing Government regulatory bodies are nothing more than oxygen theives who sit in name only positions which have no power, show no merit, and never act until investors are driven into bankruptcy.




Zixo mate,

I feel that ASIC is there simply to give the naive vulnerable investor a false sense of security that the financial system is somehow being closely watched and kept in check. Nothing could be further from the truth. "you will know them by their fruits" and the fruits are rotten.

Beware the financial system - it's run by the elite rich for the elite rich and they are never satisfied with what they have got. I believe the financial shake out that's going on is not an accident. Just think who the ones are who benefit from all this - the elite rich who come along and pick up bargains for cents in the $. Am I stretching it to say they may cause these shake-outs (credit squeezes) for this very reason. Remember that 1% control most of the entire wealth of this world. Could it just be that ASIC is controlled by these elite, just like many politicians are bought and paid for by the banks and corporations.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This OCV Creditor Update appeared on the ASX after COB on Friday.

Strange to see that CS & JH still seem to be closely linked and associated.  The following quote is from BionicBoy from the HotCopper forum :  "Chris Scott, Jenny Hutson, Craig Chapman and others have been doing their best to try get OCV relisted and trading again on the ASX...they really have done the hard yards with what seems looking back 8 months now like an impossible task."

It all seems a bit incestuous to me.


----------



## breaker1 (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Morning All..can any one explain what ...Lloyds of London insurance...means please....




G'day Sugar,

Originally when the MFS PDS was opened, I think Lloyds covered most failing loans to developers etc for around 60% of any loss to the PIF if any borrower defaulted on the PIF loan to them. This was very encouraging and a very good reason to invest in the PIF.

However, as time and updated PDS's came along, this Lloyds coverage became more and more diluted. To the best of my knowledge, the PIF is now only covered for commercial loans for this, which attributes for only 30-40% of the PIF loan register. 

Most of our losses are not covered by this insurance, particularly any junk loans the MFS PIF management made to it's other MFS failing arms like Living and Leisure, etc. I believe this Lloyds insurance only covered loans that were "first mortgage" and these abusive junk loans which MFS management perpetrated on us were basically NOT first mortgage.


----------



## zixo (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Is there any investor or AG member who has or hasnt had a response from a politician out there? 

I'd like to know if there is any politicians worth feeding and if any has bothered to actively involve themselves in bothering to respond.

If so can you please notify me on zixo7@hotmail.com.
I think its about time politicians start getting publicly named for their support or lack thereof with this orchestrated ripoff.


----------



## DoraNBoots (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

As mentioned early today I had a discussion with WC on Friday.  Here are some comments from the conversation:

WC are saying if everyone participates in the buy back that everyone will get their first 10,000 units bought back at 45 cents.  They say this is possible due to the fact that a lot of people don’t have 10,000 units.  So anyone with 10,000 units or less could have all their units bought at 45 cents if they choose.  WC said that 6,000 unit holders would be paid out in whole if they choose to participate in the buy back.  Meaning there are 6000 unitholders with less than 10,000 units in the PIF.  But this doesn’t work out because lets just assume there are 6000 unitholders with the minimum investment of 5,000 units that’s already a total of 30,000 units the buy back proposal would have to buy.  And there’s still another 4,000 unitholders with more than 10,000 units which adds another 40,000 units to be bought.  That’s a total of 70,000 units the buy back would have to cash in but the EM says only 37 mill units will be bought.  Even if everyone has two investments in the PIF this still wouldn’t work out.  If it’s true that every unit holder is to be able to cash in the first 10,000 units as I was told on Friday there must be some other condition which they are not mentioning.  Also we are being asked to agree to a buy back at 45 cents which might not occur for one year.  There’s no mention of adding to this value any money from the Octaviar claim and of course no independent audit of our units to say 45 cents is a fair offer now or in one year’s time.

I can see that paying out a large number of investors in whole would be advantageous to WC (the huge number of investors in this fund must be a headache).  But I’ve read the average investment is $70,000 so still leaves a lot of money on the NSX for the average investor.

The deadline for the audit is end of Sept but WC are hoping to finish before the vote.  I can’t see how it would be acceptable to expect us to vote before the audit is finished and I’m sure people are already voting.

My main reason for speaking with WC was to discuss the rush on redemptions in January that JH mentioned occurred on the DVD.  We can see on the balance sheet provided by WC that there was a net decline of $15 mill units in the month of January.  We know a lot of money was taken into the fund in the month of January so I was wondering how there could have been a decline in units in that month when the redemption date for term investments was the last day of January - after the freeze (i.e term investments should not have been paid for the month of January)  When I asked if all of the redemptions for the month of January were at call investments or express unit holders the answer was:  No some were term investments.  I know you raised the point about the Constitution saying all term investments were to be the last day of the month but MFS paid out before that date at their discretion.  (end of answer which isn’t an exact quote).  WC do not seem to find anything wrong with this but it seems to me unitholders were not treated equally.  The constitution says:
_“The end of an investment term for a unit holder is the last business day of the month following the anniversary of the month of their acquisition of units in the scheme in accordance with the rights and obligations of each class of unit holder. For example a 24 month unit holder may only have their units redeemed from the lat business day of the 24th full month anniversary of their first acquisition of units of this class.”_
It doesn’t mention units can be redeemed before the last day at the REs discretion and I can’t see how you could allow this for some and not others.

I requested some information from WC a while back so that I could see what went on in the month of January.  WC said they would send me the information and then backed down at the last minute giving me a reason which I know for a fact is incorrect.  So I’m left with taking their word for it that nothing dodgy went on.

I also raised the issue with what I think is a discrepancy between the EM and the proposed constitution in the quorum section and the answer was that WC will look into it.  We’ll need follow this up as I afraid I’m finding a lot of info coming out of this place to be misleading or down right wrong.

I would still like to hear comments from others regarding the rules for non liquid funds.  I’m certain the PIF is not liquid as even the EM states:
_“to provide liquidity to current Unitholders, given the recent freeze on redemptions and the current illiquidity of the fund”_

It boggles my mind how JH can look me in the eye and tell me the fund is liquid.  Does anyone else find this disturbing!!!  This after spending a considerable amount of time explaining that liquid funds cannot have their redemptions delayed for more than 360 days.  So I still want to know if this rule applies to non liquid funds (and if it even applies to liquid funds.)

I'm going to try and distance myself from all of this for a while as I find it brings me down.  If others can follow up the quorum issue that would be great.

Also I would like to thank Javier and Rocky1 for all their hard work and I don't agree with the overreaction some has expressed.

Dora.


----------



## Burnt (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Chin up Dora, you've done so well. 
Maybe it's time to stop trying to get honest answers from WC. Don't let their BS bring you down.......*we are not going to let them defeat us and steal anymore from us*...........we will get it together and act to protect ourselves from them. Power to the People !!!!! 
P.S. WC are not going to offer any information to what went on in January, because what went on was fraudulent. They held on to funds and kept accepting new funds without disclosing the auditors opinions that the fund was basically insolvent and unable to continue. They are open to litigation.
Cheer up,  we will get there one way or another.


----------



## Burnt (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> VOTE   -  1) NO   2) YES  3) NO
> We as unitholders have the power, the ability and the right to hold our own meeting to vote on resolutions that will benefit us and noone else. E.G. a vote on an amendment to the constitution to extend the freeze on redemptions for a further 180 days to give us time to have *a completely independant administrator appointed to run the PIF*. An administrator will be able run the fund profitably while projects are completed and outstanding loans dealt with in the most favourable manner. A completely independant administrator will charge fees which will be comparable to what the RE is obtaining and we will be able to have complete trust in them acting in OUR BEST INTERESTS !!!! Unitholders will not recover 100%, but only an independant manager will get them back the best amount recoverable.
> I know there are some wealthy unitholders out there who can afford to tie up their capital indefinately (and even write it off), who are placing trust in Wellington to deliver on the 6% returns (good luck - no committment by Wellington there) and who plan on recouping some of their capital loss by buying up units on the NSX at 10c to 20c hoping to get a 30% - 60% return (good luck). I don't know if any of you attended the meetings in July and saw the huge number of elderley investors at risk of losing everything - their entire life savings. The looks on their faces - scared, confused and hoping that JH will look after them ! If not, try and recall the last news story where an elderley person was bashed and robbed - remember that look on their face ? Remember it when you go to bed and try to sleep.
> Come on guys, have a heart. Don't encourage unitholders to vote for something that is going to lock them in and give them back bugger all !!!! Have some humanity, this might be the chance (or another one) to do something worthwhile to help others less fortunate than you.




Hey Smokey68, you're on the right track with your thoughts and opinions.
We have the right to look after this fund.........Power to the People !!!!


----------



## zixo (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

On reading doras post and from the feedback Ive gotten I believe JH and wellington Capital are not acting in the best interests of ALL investors with the proposals they want to steam roll through. No-one is really happy and the cracks are already appearing with WC -
Why should we accept something we dont like.
Its our Fund! Not wellingtons!... They have failed to be honest or give us the promised full disclosure. 

I have attached asics online complaint form for anyone interested.

https://www1.edge.asic.gov.au/cgi-b...nt/t=ad3ce3f8c2f7a7a4dafca6502745cbfbc42fe5fe


----------



## Burnt (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> In my opinion to find ourselves in the hands of an administrator would be catastrophic. The world/Australian economy is heading for extreme turbulence. Just read the international/Australian financial press for confirmation. (Babcock and Brown's dramatic decline symbolises the shake-out). At least WC would be watching all these factors closely. An administrator would be interested only in getting on with the job of a wind-up at any price.
> 
> 333Capital, in Guy Hutching's memorable words, were brought in originally to provide a report to "reassure" PIF investors. They evidently didn't share his overview and must have been very negative in their findings. I believe that the 14c, 45c and 65c are probably correct estimates.
> 
> ...




Hi Selciper,
sorry but I need to challenge your opinions (please don't take it personally).
An Administrators job is not to "wind up at any price". An Administrator's job is to continue as profitably as possible and to achieve the best outcome possible for investors. (just like you would expect an RE to do if you could trust them). Yes you are right, the world economy is in a certain amount of turmoil, but looks like interest rates are going to come down here in Aust., and anyway these same factors affect an Administrator the same as they would effect the RE - no difference. Only difference is the motive. 
Motive of an independant Administrator is the best possible outcome for investors - motive of Wellington Capital Hmmmmmm.........  Lock funds in....... Lock Wellington Capital in............................lots more could be said.
In regards to 333 Capital, the amount of money paid to them by Octaviar (Chris Scott) was so extreme that the Supreme Court found it appropriate to bring forward the wind up case against Octaviar (documented).
In regards to Wellington disassociating from Octaviar ..... might have more to say about that tomorrow.
Cheers.


----------



## Burnt (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> On reading doras post and from the feedback Ive gotten I believe JH and wellington Capital are not acting in the best interests of ALL investors with the proposals they want to steam roll through. No-one is really happy and the cracks are already appearing with WC -
> Why should we accept something we dont like.
> Its our Fund! Not wellingtons!... They have failed to be honest or give us the promised full disclosure.
> 
> ...




Hi Zixo, *Good on you !!!!!! Talk about positive action !!!!! *I know of at least 15 other unitholders apart from myself who have lodged complaints with ASIC regarding this vote. We have all asked ASIC to look into whether or not Wellington should be allowed to proceed with this vote considering that it is based on unsubstantiated and misleading information. Also that the constitutional changes seem to not be in the best interests of unitholders and that the proposed changes will diminish unitholders rights.
Please all unitholders - make the same complaint. Lets get these people to help us - after all they are employed by us as well !!!!!!


----------



## selciper (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Burnt -

I have no problem in accepting your comments. That's what this forum is all about. Don't think that I'm not critical of WC's tactics...it's
simply that I fear we might find ourselves in a worse position without them (WC) at the moment. Obviously, those who know better than myself about the workings of these funds are increasingly edgy about the PIF documentation. I share everyone's fury - my money was accepted by MFS in December and January. Thereafter I was lied to every time I called. We are all entitled to be suspicious after all this lost money and time.

Cheers


----------



## Mutchy (24 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> As mentioned early today I had a discussion with WC on Friday.  Here are some comments from the conversation:
> 
> WC are saying if everyone participates in the buy back that everyone will get their first 10,000 units bought back at 45 cents.  They say this is possible due to the fact that a lot of people don’t have 10,000 units.  So anyone with 10,000 units or less could have all their units bought at 45 cents if they choose.  WC said that 6,000 unit holders would be paid out in whole if they choose to participate in the buy back.  Meaning there are 6000 unitholders with less than 10,000 units in the PIF.  But this doesn’t work out because lets just assume there are 6000 unitholders with the minimum investment of 5,000 units that’s already a total of 30,000 units the buy back proposal would have to buy.  And there’s still another 4,000 unitholders with more than 10,000 units which adds another 40,000 units to be bought.  That’s a total of 70,000 units the buy back would have to cash in but the EM says only 37 mill units will be bought.  Even if everyone has two investments in the PIF this still wouldn’t work out.  If it’s true that every unit holder is to be able to cash in the first 10,000 units as I was told on Friday there must be some other condition which they are not mentioning.  Also we are being asked to agree to a buy back at 45 cents which might not occur for one year.  There’s no mention of adding to this value any money from the Octaviar claim and of course no independent audit of our units to say 45 cents is a fair offer now or in one year’s time.
> 
> ...




Hello All,
Thanks for your input Dora. 
Following are some mathematical musings based on your information:
There are 755,195,542 units issued to 10,387 unit holders according to WC in their last explanatory Memorandum.
_"WC are saying if everyone participates in the buy back that everyone will get their first 10,000 units bought back at 45 cents."_
So 10,387 unit holders offer all of their units or 10,000 maximum and these are redeemed by WC it will equal 37,750,000 units redeemed at $0.45 each which amounts to $16,987,500. Therefore the average number of units redeemed will be 37 750,000/10,387 = 3,634 units average redemption package. This is less than the minimum allowable investment of 5000 units. 
Now that looks like a very low figure to me and I would expect that WC are counting on most unit holders not participating and the average number of units offered for redemption would be closer to 10,000 by something like 3,775 unit holders.  
_"WC said that 6,000 unit holders would be paid out in whole if they choose to participate in the buy back"_ 
So if 6,000 unit holders are totally paid out that means that the average redemption is 37,750,000/6,000 = 6,292 units. Now this looks more reasonable. 
Also if 6,000 unit holders are paid out that leaves 4,387 left in the PIF. That means the average unit holding of those remaining is (755,195,542 - 37,750,000)/(10,387 - 6,000) = 163,539 units each.
As a rough check then, to assess the veracity of the assumptions behind these figures, the average unit holding of all investors would be 6,292 (for the ones paid out) plus 163,539 (for the remaining) divided by 2 = 84,915 units. 
The total units held by 10,387 investors is 755,195,542 which equals an average unit holding of 72,706 units each. IMHO that's close enough to verify the statements made by WC. 

It will cost PIF 37,750,000 x 0.45 = $16,987,500 maximum to redeem these units. If WC expect that this sum can be raised within a year out of fund earnings they will have to raise 18.5% return on Estimated Realisable Value i.e.:
((16,987,500/413,747,000)x100) = 4.1 percent of the Estimated Realisable Value at 31 May 2008. 
If remaining unit holders are paid 6 cents which represents (0.06/0.45)x100 = 13.3 percent 
If Wellington are paid .07% and their costs and consultants are .02% and .02% respectively,
then the sum is  4.1 + 13.3 + 0.7 +0.2+0.2 = 18.5%

I am skeptical that this sort of return can be realised under present economic conditions and that not all of WC promises can be met out of earnings.  
WC will have a tough task ahead of them.

Mutchy


----------



## breaker1 (25 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Mutchy,

I agree that it will put pressure on the fund. I bet that those who have not got access to other invested monies will be the first to take up the 45c buyback offer.

Another thought, it might put a special distribution on the backburner. Remember there was a real chance of that before the end of this financial year! Would like confirmation from WC if that is still a goer?


----------



## k.smith (25 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Mutchy....do all of these 6000 unit-holers necessarily own 10,000 units each, perhaps a lot of them might only have 5000 (wasn't that the minimum investment amount?)... that could change these figures somewhat.


----------



## great dame (25 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Smokey68 said:


> My thoughts on this situation we are in.
> 
> The processing of a ballot where the ballot papers are returned to the beneficiary does not seem right.
> 
> ...



  Smokey where have you   been  hiding all the time  in the past you put the words together much better then me  Thanks /The Dane ///


----------



## DoraNBoots (25 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> Mutchy....do all of these 6000 unit-holers necessarily own 10,000 units each, perhaps a lot of them might only have 5000 (wasn't that the minimum investment amount?)... that could change these figures somewhat.




Even if all the 6,000 unit holders that WC say can be paid in whole have only 5,000 units that's already 30 mill units, that only leaves 7 mill units for the 4,000 other unit holders that have more than 10,000 units.  I can't see how this would work.

BTW:  I am not saying there are 6,000 unit holders that can be paid in whole.  This info came from WC and I personally do not agree with this information based on the document I have acquired.  I don't want to go into detail as I'm not sure by law what I'm allowed to say.

Regarding funding the buyback, the EM said the “off market buy-back is to be funded through asset realisations”
Also I think the special distribution is coming from any money we get from Octaviar for the support facility.


----------



## RickH (25 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> This OCV Creditor Update appeared on the ASX after COB on Friday.
> 
> Strange to see that CS & JH still seem to be closely linked and associated.  The following quote is from BionicBoy from the HotCopper forum :  "Chris Scott, Jenny Hutson, Craig Chapman and others have been doing their best to try get OCV relisted and trading again on the ASX...they really have done the hard yards with what seems looking back 8 months now like an impossible task."
> 
> It all seems a bit incestuous to me.



Hi Juan Mortyme,
QUESTION:
What action should be taken?
I would have thought that from a PIF point of view it would not be beneficial for OCV to be liquidated but more beneficial to be listed and profitably operational.
JH must be involved or should she just let things happen without any involvement at all. Regards, RickH:couch


----------



## RickH (25 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Garpul Gumnut,
> 
> What we have learnt is NEVER invest in mutual or diversified funds like MFS/OCV/WC/ACR/Donovan Oats/Prudential/Provident/etc, again for just a lousy 1-2% extra interest. NO NEVER it's NOT worth the risk!!
> 
> ...




Hi breaker1,
*General Advice only:*
I would hope that we have learnt to not put all of our eggs into the one basket but that does not appear to be the case because now it appears that you want to put all of your money into the rental property market.
Please remember that the property market does not always return a profit.
Please remember that we have had a major share market correction.
Question: Do you think the Share market will recover? Is it a good time to sell? Is it a good time to buy?
Please note: Property markets have crashed after previous share market crashes within 12 to 36 months and have then taken years to recover.
Question: Is it a good time to sell? Is it a good time to buy?

*Create reasonable guidelines, Example:*
1) Do not invest more than 50% of your money into any one investment.
2) Do not invest more than 20% into the one managed fund.
3) Do not invest more than 10% into one Blue Chip company listed on ASX.
4) Do not invest more than 5% total into a high risk investments.
5) Calculate a risk strategy for every investment.
6) Always complete a budget and know what you need.
7) Find an adviser who will help you to achieve your goals and minise the risk to your desired lifestyle.
Regards, Rick:couch


----------



## selciper (25 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Munchy has crunched the numbers. Surely WC have done that too. Munchy's results as presented appear to be sound. What does JH have to say about them? Surely they've had their WC calculators busy as well. I can only hope that a smaller number of investors than envisaged take up the offer. There seems to be no end in sight to this mess.


----------



## Duped (25 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Duped, as I understand it (I'm sure more qualified people like Dora&Boots will correct me if I'm wrong) March is when the 366 day redemption freeze is up and the fund has then to start redemptions. There is not enough money in the fund to pay out a $ for a $ so the fund must then liquidate so that every unit holder gets there estimated 11or 12 cents a share equally. ...




JohnH.  I agree something will need to be done by Mar 09.  But this doesn't necessarily mean liquidation must be *completed  * by Mar 09.  
My understanding (I'm by no means a finance professional) is that something e.g. wind-up, must merely be *initiated *by Mar 09.  

What this means to the returns we'll get and how long it will take to get 'em? - I don't know. (Apparently the Ansett wind-up took many years) But I think it's a safe bet that it'll be more than 14c.  How much more than 14c? - I don't know.

The 14c and 65c numbers are probably technically correct.  But IMO -they are both spin.  The 65c number having lost credibility given WC, on our behalf, appears to have indicated it will accept  22c in the $. (Without an independent or audited valuation of Stella)  IMO - Throws doubt on the credibility of the 14c number - boy who cried wolf.

All: Think about this for the 45c valuation - if a residential project is completed while the residential unit market is still supressed, what then?  Is WC/Administrator going to support developers, or if PIF is mortgagee in possesion themselves, press ahead with selling or what - rent them out? I doubt it. They'll still be sold in a suppressed market. 

(A market that is being suppressed NOT be the media hyped so called 'Credit Squeeze'.  It is being supressed by the blunt crude instrument wielded by the RBA.  Never forget  that interest rate rises are DESIGNED to cause financial pain. Take money away from spenders and give it to the savers. Spenders who would have bought our residential units.  There is growth just about every where in the World.  There's even a housing shortage in AU right?  RBA is more likely to loosen the screws than tighten them right?)


----------



## RickH (25 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> JohnH.  I agree something will need to be done by Mar 09.  But this doesn't necessarily mean liquidation must be *completed  * by Mar 09.
> My understanding (I'm by no means a finance professional) is that something e.g. wind-up, must merely be *initiated *by Mar 09.
> 
> What this means to the returns we'll get and how long it will take to get 'em? - I don't know. (Apparently the Ansett wind-up took many years) But I think it's a safe bet that it'll be more than 14c.  How much more than 14c? - I don't know.
> ...




Hi Duped,
"A market that is being suppressed NOT be the media hyped so called 'Credit Squeeze'."
Are you trying to say that the Sub Prime problem in the USA is not creating a 'Credit Squeeze' throughout the world and in Australia???
Regards, RickH:couch


----------



## JohnH (25 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> JohnH.  I agree something will need to be done by Mar 09.  But this doesn't necessarily mean liquidation must be *completed  * by Mar 09.
> My understanding (I'm by no means a finance professional) is that something e.g. wind-up, must merely be *initiated *by Mar 09.
> 
> What this means to the returns we'll get and how long it will take to get 'em? - I don't know. (Apparently the Ansett wind-up took many years) But I think it's a safe bet that it'll be more than 14c.  How much more than 14c? - I don't know.
> ...




Hi Duped,  You are right of course, it could take 3 years or even more to wind.  -  three years with no pay outs, and then?   At least with WC one would have c. 18 cents (or more -but admitedly could equally be less) in those three years, and then what ever the units are worth.


----------



## DoraNBoots (25 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mutchy said:


> ...
> _"WC said that 6,000 unit holders would be paid out in whole if they choose to participate in the buy back"_
> So if 6,000 unit holders are totally paid out that means that the average redemption is 37,750,000/6,000 = 6,292 units. Now this looks more reasonable.
> ...
> Mutchy




Hi Mutchy,

WC are saying all 10,387 unit holders will be able to have their first 10,000 units bought back.  You can't divide 37 mill by 6,000 you have to divide it by 10,387.  The reference to the 6,000 is just saying that 6,000 of the 10,386 unit holders have less than 10,000 units (i.e. they can be paid out completely if they choose).


----------



## Mutchy (25 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Even if all the 6,000 unit holders that WC say can be paid in whole have only 5,000 units that's already 30 mill units, that only leaves 7 mill units for the 4,000 other unit holders that have more than 10,000 units.  I can't see how this would work.
> 
> BTW:  I am not saying there are 6,000 unit holders that can be paid in whole.  This info came from WC and I personally do not agree with this information based on the document I have acquired.  I don't want to go into detail as I'm not sure by law what I'm allowed to say.
> 
> ...




Hi Dora
You also said:

"WC are saying all 10,387 unit holders will be able to have their first 10,000 units bought back. You can't divide 37 mill by 6,000 you have to divide it by 10,387. The reference to the 6,000 is just saying that 6,000 of the 10,386 unit holders have less than 10,000 units (i.e. they can be paid out completely if they choose)."

Thanks for the clarification, Dora. I had not understood exactly what you had said. Sorry.
As you say, the 37.75 Million divided among all of us (10,387) gives an average unit holding less than the minimum unit holding of 5000 units. And as you said that is not a reasonable outcome if what WC has said is true. So I concur with your conclusion. 

If funding of the off market buy - back comes from asset realisations ie sale of assets this depletes the remaining unit holders asset base. The value of our units (45 cents) will not alter even if the whole 37,75 Million units are bought back. That leaves other payments and investments to be made from earnings. Looking better......

Mutchy


----------



## great dame (25 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Hi Duped,  You are right of course, it could take 3 years or even more to wind.  -  three years with no pay outs, and then?   At least with WC one would have c. 18 cents (or more -but admitedly could equally be less) in those three years, and then what ever the units are worth.



 Hi JohnH  If a wind out was to take place  The Am  would have payouts over that 2 to 3 year period   They don't store the money up & hand it out at the end all at once you get it in install ments  i believe  ///Dane


----------



## Duped (25 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Duped,
> "A market that is being suppressed NOT be the media hyped so called 'Credit Squeeze'."
> Are you trying to say that the Sub Prime problem in the USA is not creating a 'Credit Squeeze' throughout the world and in Australia???
> Regards, RickH:couch




No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that suppression of the AU property market is driven by the RBA and not the 'Credit Squeeze'. The higher the banks etc demand for credit, the less the RBA needs to increase cash interest rates.  The higher the price of oil etc, the less the RBA needs to put up cash rates.  But at the end of the day, the end cost of credit is managed by the RBA (to keep inflation in the target band or whatever the reasons).  The rates of e.g home mortgages etc are where they are because the RBA wants them that high, irrespective of whether the cash rate they set makes up 20% or 80% of that number. If AU gets to the point like happened in Japan where the central bank set the cash rate at next to zero, THEN we can say that the cost of credit in AU is determined by other forces, but we're a long way from that.  Am I wrong?

Anyway, the higher the cost of credit, the better it is for PIF right?  PIF is a lender. I'm just sick of hearing people blaming property fund's like PIF's woes on the surprise 'credit squeeze' when the real reason was the far more predictable.  The writing was on the wall and the RBA painted it in big red lettering to cool the economy.  There's growth everywhere. PIF is just unfortunately at the pointy end of the stick used to herd that growth.


----------



## Maverick2802 (25 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

What you so called "informed sophisticated" investors fail to realise is one very important basic ingredient in the JH / WC plan that will get her the vote. That most powerful ingredient is NECESSITY. You see it's all good for someone like great dame who trades mega shares per year and the like who want an orderly windup etc. You people have share portfolios and other means I am sure of deriving an income. That's great.

Most of the poor buggers in this fund have received nothing but a pittance from the govt, and that may have only been in the last month or two. These people need the cash, and now. They probably had most of their savings with MFS PIF, cruising along and now nothing. Along comes a company that sounds alright, puts on a nationwide roadshow and tells them they will get money twice this year, guaranteed before Xmas, no, ifs buts or  maybes. Just in time to buy themselves and children / grandkids a little something after a real BAD year. Then money paid quaterly, what do they care if that is capital or income, it's MONEY!

I know who I would have my money on getting the vote next month. I mean you have to convince a lot of these type of people to vote by 75% to number one change a constitution to allow you to go beyond having to liquidate the fund prior to the 365 day frozen redemption period. Then you have to get 50% of these people to vote for another RE, that someone has plucked from who knows where with problably NO experience in managing a fund in this type of mess competently.

Now please, get real, you are trying to scale Mt. Everest twice over. You have got buckleys! Accept the fate that WC will get a yes vote for options 1 & 2 and hopefully these poor folk are guided to vote NO for option 3. 

Give Hutson and co a go, she has got to be better than the last mob that ripped us blind. She will have that much scrutiny now, I doubt very much she will do anything untoward, plus the woman has a huge ego, why would she want to do anything but succeed to say "see I told ya so".


----------



## kanni (25 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Everyone has lost a portion of their wealth with this mongrel company, and whether its 5% or 100%, we are all hurting. Some of the posts I read intimate they have learned a great deal out of the collapse of MFS. But I don't think we're in a position to apply any of that learning. We are in a place with virtually no choice. My goal right now is to get as much of my money back as I can--who knows if I wouldn't be better off getting the .14c in $, cutting my losses then buying something else that will give me an income. Or maybe, JH & WC will multiply what little there is left.....not everyone in the finance industry is a bumhole. I guess my task will be to make the best of what the vote brings--and each person's ability to do this will depend on how many other resources they have working for them. Sept 18 can't come soon enough for me.


----------



## great dame (25 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all   just got off the phone from Wellington I asked again about the voting The lady informs me  they want all the votes posted in by the 16Th said  there will be no counting of votes handed in  at the meeting  She said it says all this on the voting papers   I though one could vote at the meeting ???? Dane ////


----------



## newwwtrader (25 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> What you so called "informed sophisticated" investors fail to realise is one very important basic ingredient in the JH / WC plan that will get her the vote. That most powerful ingredient is NECESSITY. You see it's all good for someone like great dame who trades mega shares per year and the like who want an orderly windup etc. You people have share portfolios and other means I am sure of deriving an income. That's great.
> 
> Most of the poor buggers in this fund have received nothing but a pittance from the govt, and that may have only been in the last month or two. These people need the cash, and now. They probably had most of their savings with MFS PIF, cruising along and now nothing. Along comes a company that sounds alright, puts on a nationwide roadshow and tells them they will get money twice this year, guaranteed before Xmas, no, ifs buts or  maybes. Just in time to buy themselves and children / grandkids a little something after a real BAD year. Then money paid quaterly, what do they care if that is capital or income, it's MONEY!
> 
> ...




I think there are two completely different things. WC being the RE is one thing, they more than likely will be better than the previous RE. If it was simply a matter of WC being the RE, I dont think there would be any debate.

The contentious aspect is the constitutional changes, which will change the nature of the PIF forever. It would go from a fund with redemptions. To something where you are at the mercy of the traders on the NSX. There is absolutely no certainty.

Even if the PIF is able to return value and increase the NTA, there is still no certainty when it comes time to exiting (selling on the NSX).


----------



## breaker1 (25 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi breaker1,
> *General Advice only:*
> I would hope that we have learnt to not put all of our eggs into the one basket but that does not appear to be the case because now it appears that you want to put all of your money into the rental property market.
> Please remember that the property market does not always return a profit.
> ...




1] Hello RichH,

I can see where your comin from and predictable. 

If investors took my humble advice to "Put your money into rental business real estate, split rental homes, gold, silver, blocks of land, at-call safe bank interest, *anything where you've got control of your money*..." investment advisers like yourself might be out of business. Heh! Heh!

I've got very good friend who's a real estate agent who assures me that I should have put my money in any number of real estate business rentals and got a decent income and had near full control of my investment. To bad I hadn't connected with him again till after the PIF debacle.

Your advice *not *to put all eggs in one basket is off course very wise.

2] Business article: "Maurice Blackburn has warned Octaviar that it faces a potential $A80 million class action from former and current Octaviar/MFS shareholders"


----------



## zixo (25 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all,

I'm collating a list of Politicians who any investor or Ag member may have written to and the kind of response they have received from them..if they have.

If you're interested in adding your federal members name, albeit good or bad, can you e-mail me at.
zixo7@hotmail.com

cheers


----------



## Juan Mortyme (25 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

How to get Politician's attention:
http://www.efa.org.au/Campaigns/lobby.html

List of Members by Electorate:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/mi-elctr.asp


----------



## DoraNBoots (25 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Hi all   just got off the phone from Wellington I asked again about the voting The lady informs me  they want all the votes posted in by the 16Th said  there will be no counting of votes handed in  at the meeting  She said it says all this on the voting papers   I though one could vote at the meeting ???? Dane ////





Hi GD,
Thanks for the info.  I didn't realise you couldn't vote at the meeting.  Page 7 of the EM says:
_Unitholders can vote by:
returning a proxy form; or
voting at the meeting._

It's so annoying talking to WC, you end up with more questions after the conversation than you had before.  Anyone know what's going on?


----------



## great dame (26 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi GD,
> Thanks for the info.  I didn't realise you couldn't vote at the meeting.  Page 7 of the EM says:
> _Unitholders can vote by:
> returning a proxy form; or
> ...



  I am only repeating what the lady told me Dora  on the phone  Sometimes i think WC staff dont know how to answer the questains we give them     The lady said WC want to know the outcome of the voting before the meeting starts  //Dane //


----------



## DoraNBoots (26 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I still don’t know how I will vote but if we get a good reason for a lot of us to vote No then we’ll need to make sure our votes don’t get ‘lost in the mail’ or arrive at say 10:01 on the 16th Sept.

When JH and CS proposed a GM to have CS appointed to the board of MFS they had two proxy forms.  One was pre-completed (saying Yes for CS to be director of company) and this form recommended people who used that form to send it to Wellington Capital instead of MFS.    Wellington then arranged for the proxy forms to be provided to MFS.  It required the forms be in to WC a day earlier but at least you know it would get there.  I’m pretty sure that due to the number of pre completed forms received by WC that the GM didn’t even go ahead and the proposed changes went ahead at the board’s approval. You can see all of this by viewing the OCV company announcements on the ASX web site http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/announcementSearch.do

Can anyone let us know if there is anything unusual in the text under “Step 1” on the yellow proxy form?  There is a lot of info there that is a little hard to read.  I think that if people don’t fill in their forms properly that the chairman who may have an interest in the vote will vote ‘for’ the resolutions.  We still need to know if you can turn up on the day with your yellow proxy form and vote that way.


----------



## sugar3157 (26 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I still don’t know how I will vote but if we get a good reason for a lot of us to vote No then we’ll need to make sure our votes don’t get ‘lost in the mail’ or arrive at say 10:01 on the 16th Sept.
> 
> When JH and CS proposed a GM to have CS appointed to the board of MFS they had two proxy forms.  One was pre-completed (saying Yes for CS to be director of company) and this form recommended people who used that form to send it to Wellington Capital instead of MFS.    Wellington then arranged for the proxy forms to be provided to MFS.  It required the forms be in to WC a day earlier but at least you know it would get there.  I’m pretty sure that due to the number of pre completed forms received by WC that the GM didn’t even go ahead and the proposed changes went ahead at the board’s approval. You can see all of this by viewing the OCV company announcements on the ASX web site http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/announcementSearch.do
> 
> Can anyone let us know if there is anything unusual in the text under “Step 1” on the yellow proxy form?  There is a lot of info there that is a little hard to read.  I think that if people don’t fill in their forms properly that the chairman who may have an interest in the vote will vote ‘for’ the resolutions.  We still need to know if you can turn up on the day with your yellow proxy form and vote that way.




Good morning all...the time is nearly here....finally...and soon we will all know how much money we have left from our initial investment of $1 per unit...
I have read many things over the last month or so on here...some good ...some bad...
This is the conclusion I have reached.....
My vote will be....1) yes 2) yes 3) no
I am not totally happy with JH and WC but of all the things I have read on here....NO ONE has proposed any substancial alternatives to JH and WC....
Cheers Sugar...


----------



## DoraNBoots (26 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

How about we push for a No vote for the buy back resolution and then put forward our own resolution where there is a buy back at whatever the NTA is at the time of the buy back.  Surely that is better than having to decide now that 45 cents is a fair price for our units at the time the buy back will take place.  I’m certain this is undervalued and for those who want to tell me that the value could drop below 45 cents then surely in that case you would also prefer the NTA were used in a buy back situation (unless you have less than 10,000 units).


----------



## Wolfgang (26 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Hi DoraNBoots*

*How long is it before Jenny Hutson replies to the emails, I have been waiting 5 days on a reply to sum questions I need before I put my vote in?*

*Wolfgang*


----------



## The Mint Man (26 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi people,
This popped up in the news section in comsec yesterday, however it is quite vague.... can anyone shead a bit more light on this one???



> * Octaviar feels the heat from lawyers *
> 
> Date: 25/8/2008
> Author: Ben Wilmot
> ...




who is leading the class action???

Cheers


----------



## DoraNBoots (26 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Wolfgang said:


> *Hi DoraNBoots*
> 
> *How long is it before Jenny Hutson replies to the emails, I have been waiting 5 days on a reply to sum questions I need before I put my vote in?*
> 
> *Wolfgang*




Hi Wolfgang,
I think you should try calling them.  You will most likely get a machine but leave a message and they should call you back the same day.  I have sent a few emails with questions to the general email address and have never had a reply.



The Mint Man said:


> Hi people,
> This popped up in the news section in comsec yesterday, however it is quite vague.... can anyone shead a bit more light on this one???
> 
> 
> ...




Hi Mint Man,
Most of us are not MFS shareholders just PIF unitholders, not sure if we'll be able to answer your question.


----------



## great dame (26 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> How about we push for a No vote for the buy back resolution and then put forward our own resolution where there is a buy back at whatever the NTA is at the time of the buy back.  Surely that is better than having to decide now that 45 cents is a fair price for our units at the time the buy back will take place.  I’m certain this is undervalued and for those who want to tell me that the value could drop below 45 cents then surely in that case you would also prefer the NTA were used in a buy back situation (unless you have less than 10,000 units).



      Dora my friend what ever we get will only be a short term gain   I feel that 6 cents is the carrot  which really cant be sustained  out of NTA of 45 cents  3.5 cents would be a closer number  The big thing that concerned me that there will never be a redemption to get our money back  in the future   .Its a short term gain for a long term loss  /Dane ///


----------



## great dame (26 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Wolfgang said:


> *Hi DoraNBoots*
> 
> *How long is it before Jenny Hutson replies to the emails, I have been waiting 5 days on a reply to sum questions I need before I put my vote in?*
> 
> *Wolfgang*



    I waited 2 weeks  /Dane //


----------



## Wolfgang (26 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Hi The Mint Man*

In another article I believe it sad that a bunch Octaviar/MFS shareholders got together to try to get the $80 mill

Wolfgang


----------



## great dame (26 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Wolfgang said:


> *Hi The Mint Man*
> 
> In another article I believe it sad that a bunch Octaviar/MFS shareholders got together to try to get the $80 mill
> 
> Wolfgang



    I am a share holder in that company  I wish some one would ask me to join the class action group /Dane //


----------



## Wolfgang (26 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Hi The Mint Man*

another articles
http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/Articles/Octaviar-faces-class-proceedings_0c0598d1.html
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24239602-664,00.html
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2008/08/23/15442_gold-coast-business.html

Wolfgang


----------



## Duped (26 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



The Mint Man said:


> Hi people,
> This popped up in the news section in comsec yesterday, however it is quite vague.... can anyone shead a bit more light on this one???
> 
> who is leading the class action???
> ...




I believe it is being funded by listed litigation funder IMF (Australia)

To join in you needed to have bought your shares after around Aug 07 or something like that.


----------



## great dame (26 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> I believe it is being funded by listed litigation funder IMF (Australia)
> 
> To join in you needed to have bought your shares after around Aug 07 or something like that.



   Thanks for that  Duped  Been in touch with IMF they are sending out some info for me /Dane ///


----------



## flatback (26 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi Wolfgang,
> I think you should try calling them.  You will most likely get a machine but leave a message and they should call you back the same day.  I have sent a few emails with questions to the general email address and have never had a reply.
> 
> 
> ...



Hi! Doranboots, the reason you wont get a reply via e/mail is because, then you have the answer in writting, which this woman will never do as it could come back and bite her on the%$# cheers Flatback


----------



## Jadel (26 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I believe you will find the class action is only in respect of OCV shareholders

 and not the PIF . That was the situation the last time i spoke with them


----------



## 2CentsWorth (26 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> I believe you will find the class action is only in respect of OCV shareholders
> 
> and not the PIF . That was the situation the last time i spoke with them




Yes Jadel that is correct.
I spoke at length with a Class-action lawyer at Maurice Blackburn yesterday, and as yet, they have received no instructions from IMF.
IMF are offering info-packs from there web site, one of which I have ordered, and so has Great Dame, as a method of collecting facts on how much interest from Shareholders will be generated, towards their funding an action. Due dilligence as to the probability of finding any money to sue for, is IMF's current task, and MB said unless this can be a simple suit, it just wont be worth the effort, as most of the money would go in various searches and expenses. For instance, it will take a crate of C4 to get Phil Adams out of his hidey-hole in Dubai, and the paper trail as to who actually owns the Brisbane Polo Empire used by Michael King, will no doubt be costly.
So, I guess we will just have to wait in hope,... but we're very used to just chewing our cud now.

One strange thing though, MB said that they have had far more enquiries from PIF unit holders, than MFS/OCV Shareholders.

Cheers to all.


----------



## Smokey68 (26 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A few thoughts.

PIF unit holders would be hard pressed taking legal action as we have not officially lost anything at this time.

I had a look at the action on the NSX today, there was very little. Some shares have not changed hands since Dec 2007 and a number of shares had a lot of sellers but no buyers at any price.

The proposed buy back should be prorata accross the lot. The proposed scheme disadvantages the holders of more than 10000 units.



For the WC believers what will you give me for 75000 PIF units?


----------



## sugar3157 (26 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Does any one know what WC paid Octaviar for the PIF ? I missed how WC actually got the fund....can some one tell me please?


----------



## simgrund (26 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Does any one know what WC paid Octaviar for the PIF ? I missed how WC actually got the fund....can some one tell me please?




Hello Sugar3157,
It was $20 mil option agreement with Octaviar for management rights to PIF. Exercised by WC on 9/6/08. 6 other entities were "considered"
See bottom half of page 3, July 08 Q & A booklet on information forums.
I think that may help.


----------



## great dame (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



2CentsWorth said:


> Yes Jadel that is correct.
> I spoke at length with a Class-action lawyer at Maurice Blackburn yesterday, and as yet, they have received no instructions from IMF.
> IMF are offering info-packs from there web site, one of which I have ordered, and so has Great Dame, as a method of collecting facts on how much interest from Shareholders will be generated, towards their funding an action. Due dilligence as to the probability of finding any money to sue for, is IMF's current task, and MB said unless this can be a simple suit, it just wont be worth the effort, as most of the money would go in various searches and expenses. For instance, it will take a crate of C4 to get Phil Adams out of his hidey-hole in Dubai, and the paper trail as to who actually owns the Brisbane Polo Empire used by Michael King, will no doubt be costly.
> So, I guess we will just have to wait in hope,... but we're very used to just chewing our cud now.
> ...



         Good morning 2 centsWorth I got my Info/Pack from IMF by E/Mail this morning  Bloody Hell i need to be a  bit of a lawerr to work it out might have to give IMF a ring to find how i get on the list   Cheers /Dane ///


----------



## great dame (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Smokey68 said:


> A few thoughts.
> 
> PIF unit holders would be hard pressed taking legal action as we have not officially lost anything at this time.
> 
> ...



  SMOKEY  To cheer me up some times i say i still have two legs Two arms  Can still see  & i am not in a wheel chair    This sometimes helps for about 5 Mt /Dane ///


----------



## great dame (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Should read 5 mts  above   Also i get a lot of help from Johnny too ///Dane


----------



## RickH (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> 1] Hello RichH,
> 
> I can see where your comin from and predictable.
> 
> ...




Hi Breaker1,
It is good to hear that you are getting advice from a "very good friend who's a real estate agent" who recommended real estate - "I can see where 'the real estate agent' coming from and predictable". 

"got control of your money" is when you invest into gold. Silver, etc.????
It does not matter where we invest our money others are really in control – Commodity prices, the economy, the government, the tax office, inflation, the tenant (from hell), company directors, fund managers, employees etc..

I know that I am predictable - in fact most people are and as we all know nothing is easy and we all make mistakes. We all need to consider a very wide variety of things when we are investing our hard earned money. Good advisers are predictable because we try to consider all options. 
ASSETS - Cash, fixed interest, real estate and shares also to consider Direct or Listed or even managed funds (listed or un-listed).
TAXATION (Personal, Joint, Company, Trust or Super) but the primary rule is to spread your risk, plan and budget.

Unfortunately, I believe that the only time we really have control of our money is when we are holding it in our hands and we are considering whether to buy something or not to buy something.
Regards, RickH:couch


----------



## great dame (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Breaker1,
> It is good to hear that you are getting advice from a "very good friend who's a real estate agent" who recommended real estate - "I can see where 'the real estate agent' coming from and predictable".
> 
> "got control of your money" is when you invest into gold. Silver, etc.????
> ...



               Your on the money there Rick what you say  i agree  Sad that i droped my guard  And DH me came & bought PIF  AS the saying goes There is no fool like an old fool   PS i am not realy that old either /Dane ///


----------



## Smokey68 (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dora,

I have sent you a Private Message.

Smokey68


----------



## great dame (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Mint Man  I have sent you a private message   /Dane ///


----------



## like2ski (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi to all,
My first post on this forum and catching up on events to date and have not read all the posts to date. 
I am a substantial unit holder in PIF. Just wondering if anyone has sought/suggested obtaining professional advice in relation to our treatment/voting of the three resolutions as we may compromise/worsen our position and outcomes. I am not familiar with anyone on here and there may be some professionals amongst us that are already looking at the matters in question thus no offense meant.
I would appreciate further details  
Thanks
like2ski


----------



## Burnt (27 August 2008)

*Re: PIF vote*

Hi all, very concerned at the confusion being generated by WC over voting procedures. Is this intentional or are they as stupid as they appear to be ???
Apart from the misleading, unsubstantiated, limited and threatening info supplied by them, the voting procedures and form supplied is very badly put together. It would seem that you have to appoint a proxy and you have to submit your vote via post or email. If you don't read and correctly interpret every word on the voting form, you could very easily invalidate your vote - how cunning - or are they really stupid. I've seen Scouts organise themselves better than this. How did these people come to control a multi million dollar investment fund ???????
Tip 1. If your unit holding is in the name of a company I suggest you download the ""Certificate of Appointment of Corporate Representative" form from Computershare. Go to www.computershare.com.au then log into Investor Centre. Then at the left of the screen under "Manage" click on downloadable forms. Go down to corporate forms and you will see it there. Had to phone Computershare to work it out (more on that phone call next). If you want to attend the meeting on Sept.18 you must have one of these forms filled out and I would also suggest attaching it to your voting form just to be sure that your vote is considered valid.
Tip 2. I called WC today to ask whether unit holders can place their vote at the meeting on Sept.18 (I actually said "Sept.11" how funny !!!). The girl said yes that unitholders are entitled to do this, however they need to register your attendance at the meeting and you register by ticking the voting form and sending it to them. I said "but I don't want to sent my form in, I WANT TO VOTE AT THE MEETING. "Oh" she said, "well um.........". I suggested that I tick the box on the form to say I will be attending the meeting, but leave my voting choices blank and fax it to them with my details. She said "yeah that's a good idea". These people are a constant source of amusement.
Tip 3. Each form is barcoded and identifiable. More on this next.
By the way, my suggestion is VOTE NO, NO, NO.


----------



## like2ski (27 August 2008)

*Re: PIF vote*



Burnt said:


> Hi all, very concerned at the confusion being generated by WC over voting procedures. Is this intentional or are they as stupid as they appear to be ???
> Apart from the misleading, unsubstantiated, limited and threatening info supplied by them, the voting procedures and form supplied is very badly put together. It would seem that you have to appoint a proxy and you have to submit your vote via post or email. If you don't read and correctly interpret every word on the voting form, you could very easily invalidate your vote - how cunning - or are they really stupid. I've seen Scouts organise themselves better than this. How did these people come to control a multi million dollar investment fund ???????
> Tip 1. If your unit holding is in the name of a company I suggest you download the ""Certificate of Appointment of Corporate Representative" form from Computershare. Go to www.computershare.com.au then log into Investor Centre. Then at the left of the screen under "Manage" click on downloadable forms. Go down to corporate forms and you will see it there. Had to phone Computershare to work it out (more on that phone call next). If you want to attend the meeting on Sept.18 you must have one of these forms filled out and I would also suggest attaching it to your voting form just to be sure that your vote is considered valid.
> Tip 2. I called WC today to ask whether unit holders can place their vote at the meeting on Sept.18 (I actually said "Sept.11" how funny !!!). The girl said yes that unitholders are entitled to do this, however they need to register your attendance at the meeting and you register by ticking the voting form and sending it to them. I said "but I don't want to sent my form in, I WANT TO VOTE AT THE MEETING. "Oh" she said, "well um.........". I suggested that I tick the box on the form to say I will be attending the meeting, but leave my voting choices blank and fax it to them with my details. She said "yeah that's a good idea". These people are a constant source of amusement.
> ...




Hi Burnt
I fully agree with your sentiments and voting suggestion i.e. NO, NO, NO. Have you sought professional advice, or are you aware of anyone else that has, on which way we should be vote and/or handle WC? As you stated we don't know what games they are playing and /or manipulating the whole scenario. I am concerned that we may jeopardize our position by possibly making the wrong moves. Moreover how can we ensure that the majority of members are well informed and submit valid/correct choices to avoid ending up with disastrous results aided and abetted by WC!!!
Your thoughts would be appreciated.
like2ski


----------



## Burnt (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi again,
I called Computershare to work out how to download the form I needed. I then asked the girl to verify that Computershare were actually counting the votes for the Wellington PIF. She went away then came back saying that yes, Computershare would be counting the votes. I then asked why then are unitholders being asked to send their votes to Wellingtons postal address. She said that was a bit odd, usually when they are used to count votes, votes are directly mailed to them. She went away again then came back saying that sometimes this does occur, that votes are not sent to them directly but forwarded to them by the company concerned. I said, so does this mean that the staff at Wellington open all the votes themselves and then post them onto you. Yes, she said. I said, HHHmmmmm........but my problem is that I don't trust Wellington especially when they have told people that the votes are being sent to them in replied paid envelopes to cut costs. Doesn't make sense. I then asked about the barcodes on the voting forms and she confirmed that each form is identifiable. So I said, can I call Computershare after the voting is counted and ask them to verify that my vote was actually counted. She said yes you should be able to get that information and it sounds like a good idea.
Perhaps everyone who is postal voting might like to do this, or even get on the phone now to Comptershare and query this voting procedure. Probably the same one they use in Zimbabwe.


----------



## simgrund (27 August 2008)

*Re: PIF vote*



Burnt said:


> Hi all, very concerned at the confusion being generated by WC over voting procedures. Is this intentional or are they as stupid as they appear to be ???
> Tip 1. If your unit holding is in the name of a company I suggest you download the ""Certificate of Appointment of Corporate Representative" form from Computershare. Go to www.computershare.com.au then log into Investor Centre. Then at the left of the screen under "Manage" click on downloadable forms. Go down to corporate forms and you will see it there. Had to phone Computershare to work it out (more on that phone call next). If you want to attend the meeting on Sept.18 you must have one of these forms filled out and I would also suggest attaching it to your voting form just to be sure that your vote is considered valid.
> By the way, my suggestion is VOTE NO, NO, NO.




URGENT    Hello Burnt,
Thanks for this, it may be affecting me. I am in Sydney not attending 
My holding is in Super Co; does this mean I must attach this form to YELLOW one which states my super co title and not private name. Some confusion, as you said this form is to be brought to the meeting if registering there. Is this correct?
Who would you suggest may act as another proxy "at arms length" from Chairperson? Can this info be posted???

Regards


----------



## Dexter (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My brother rang WC yesterday asking assistance with the voting form.  He was told to "just sign the bottom of the form and we will look after it for you".

Who is really counting the votes?


----------



## Maverick2802 (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Some simple mathematics why I feel WC will get an overwhelming yes vote.

The average investor has 70,000 units.  If they liquidate at $0.14 they get $9,800.

If they hold for 2009 they get $4,200 at around $0.06 per unit (taxfree) and any special distribution payment from the support facility.  They could also sell 10,000 units in the buyback and get $4,500.  Plus they still have 60,000 units to maybe pick up $3,600 a year and see what happens to capital in 3 to 5 years.

AND they will get $2100 before Christmas that will come in very handy to many after a lean year.


----------



## Burnt (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> VOTE   -  1) NO   2) YES  3) NO
> We as unitholders have the power, the ability and the right to hold our own meeting to vote on resolutions that will benefit us and noone else. E.G. a vote on an amendment to the constitution to extend the freeze on redemptions for a further 180 days to give us time to have *a completely independant administrator appointed to run the PIF*. An administrator will be able run the fund profitably while projects are completed and outstanding loans dealt with in the most favourable manner. A completely independant administrator will charge fees which will be comparable to what the RE is obtaining and we will be able to have complete trust in them acting in OUR BEST INTERESTS !!!! Unitholders will not recover 100%, but only an independant manager will get them back the best amount recoverable.
> I know there are some wealthy unitholders out there who can afford to tie up their capital indefinately (and even write it off), who are placing trust in Wellington to deliver on the 6% returns (good luck - no committment by Wellington there) and who plan on recouping some of their capital loss by buying up units on the NSX at 10c to 20c hoping to get a 30% - 60% return (good luck). I don't know if any of you attended the meetings in July and saw the huge number of elderley investors at risk of losing everything - their entire life savings. The looks on their faces - scared, confused and hoping that JH will look after them ! If not, try and recall the last news story where an elderley person was bashed and robbed - remember that look on their face ? Remember it when you go to bed and try to sleep.
> Come on guys, have a heart. Don't encourage unitholders to vote for something that is going to lock them in and give them back bugger all !!!! Have some humanity, this might be the chance (or another one) to do something worthwhile to help others less fortunate than you.




Hi Like2ski,
good to hear from you. The Qld PIF Action Group is holding a meeting this weekend. I think that some unitholders have sought professional advice and I am hoping that we will be able to utilise the media to enable all unitholders to be informed of their rights and to be made aware of misleading info given to them by WC. Everyone needs all information at hand in order to make a wise decision. Stay posted !!!!!


----------



## Burnt (27 August 2008)

*Re: PIF vote*



simgrund said:


> URGENT    Hello Burnt,
> Thanks for this, it may be affecting me. I am in Sydney not attending
> My holding is in Super Co; does this mean I must attach this form to YELLOW one which states my super co title and not private name. Some confusion, as you said this form is to be brought to the meeting if registering there. Is this correct?
> Who would you suggest may act as another proxy "at arms length" from Chairperson? Can this info be posted???
> ...




Hi Simgrund,
On the yellow form under the heading "Signing Instructions" you will find the info you need regarding who can sign the voting form on behalf of a company. WC states that if you are going to attend the meeting then you need to provide the "Certificate of Appointment of Corporate Representative" form to be admitted.
If voting by mail, the appropriate Directors and Secretary must sign the voting form. The Certificate of Appointment form does not need to be attached. I am just doing this because I intend to vote at the meeting.
If you do not want to vote by mail you can appoint anyone who is able to attend the meeting to be your proxy. In this case you will need to fill out the Proxy Form and the Certificate of Appointment form with their name on it. Both forms need to be signed according to the Signing Instructions. Fill out the Voting Form completely yourself.


----------



## Burnt (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Dexter said:


> My brother rang WC yesterday asking assistance with the voting form.  He was told to "just sign the bottom of the form and we will look after it for you".
> 
> Who is really counting the votes?




Hi Dexter,
Please tell your brother to seek assistance from someone else, if they cant help go to another person. Tell him not to trust WC to look after anything for him !!


----------



## Rance (27 August 2008)

*Re: PIF vote*



Burnt said:


> Hi Simgrund,
> On the yellow form under the heading "Signing Instructions" you will find the info you need regarding who can sign the voting form on behalf of a company. WC states that if you are going to attend the meeting then you need to provide the "Certificate of Appointment of Corporate Representative" form to be admitted.
> If voting by mail, the appropriate Directors and Secretary must sign the voting form. The Certificate of Appointment form does not need to be attached. I am just doing this because I intend to vote at the meeting.
> If you do not want to vote by mail you can appoint anyone who is able to attend the meeting to be your proxy. In this case you will need to fill out the Proxy Form and the Certificate of Appointment form with their name on it. Both forms need to be signed according to the Signing Instructions. Fill out the Voting Form completely yourself.



Thank you Burnt for explaining the voting procedure. A word about the bar code: 
As I see it, Compushare's counting of the postal votes will most likely be done by computer. The voting forms will go through a reading machine and the program will match the bar code with the appropriate registry computer record of unit holders. The program will then allocate the number of unit votes against the YES or NO or ABSTAIN selection for each of the three resolutions, eg:

XXXX Superannuation Fund holds 692,000 units and votes (1)YES (2)ABSTAIN (3) NO. The program will allocate 692,000 votes to each of the resolutions accordingly and the results will be processed quickly and accurately. Late votes and proxies received at the meeting will be added to the totals to produce the final results.

That's the way most voting of this type is processed these days. I doubt that people will be employed to look up registry records and process the count using hand calculators; we could be waiting for weeks for the results. That's probably why the postal votes are required by Sept 16. When processed, a reasonably accurate idea of the final vote should be known before the Sept 18 meeting starts, unless a gi-mountainous number of votes are received at the meeting.

I base this assumption on my work as a former IT professional when I developed similar systems to perform the function just described.  I may be wrong, in which case I stand corrected. Hope this posting has been helpful.

Rance


----------



## selciper (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If voting papers are opened on WC premises we must be certain that this occurs under the scrutiny of independent observers. Observers should be OKd by the AG.


----------



## Burnt (27 August 2008)

*ReIF Vote*

Hi Rance,
Thanks for your info regarding the vote counting process. I'm pretty sure Computershare will have "readers" at the meeting to count the votes submitted there to be added to the total vote count. I have total faith in their methods. My concern is with whether or not ALL VOTES will be passed onto them. Who determines which voting papers are invalid because they are not filled out correctly ?? Who monitors the mail coming into Wellington's office ???? Who counts the number of voting papers recieved by Wellington as compared to the number of voting papers received by Computershare ?????


----------



## Burnt (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

On a different subject, I have been doing some research to try to find out 
WHO OWNS WELLINGTON CAPITAL LIMITED ? I have found out the company has 5,000,000 fully paid $1 shares, but shareholder info was not available.
Does anyone know who the shareholders are ?
Can't help thinking CS is determined to recoup his losses from wherever or whoever.
By the way Like2ski, do you also like polo ??


----------



## DoraNBoots (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Dexter said:


> My brother rang WC yesterday asking assistance with the voting form.  He was told to "just sign the bottom of the form and we will look after it for you".
> 
> Who is really counting the votes?




OMG!! I can't believe it!  It's bad enough they are getting and opening the proxy forms but to tell people to leave them blank that's disgusting!

I was in the middle of an ASIC complaint when I read this post so have added this little gem to my complaint.

Thanks Burnt for all your info!  I'm back and all fired up again.  I sent a letter to JH this morning and CCed ASIC asking her to explain the information she gave me on Friday - most of which I consider to have been flawed.  She's out of the office till Monday so again I wait.

No No No


----------



## like2ski (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> On a different subject, I have been doing some research to try to find out
> WHO OWNS WELLINGTON CAPITAL LIMITED ? I have found out the company has 5,000,000 fully paid $1 shares, but shareholder info was not available.
> Does anyone know who the shareholders are ?
> Can't help thinking CS is determined to recoup his losses from wherever or whoever.
> By the way Like2ski, do you also like polo ??




Hi Burnt,
Again I entirely agree with your insightful thinking, it would certainly be interesting to ascertain who the shareholders are?? Shouldn't it be public knowledge and a legal requirement? perhaps we can clarify with ASIC.
No I am not into polo but what prompted the question? I fail to see any connection and by the way I like your nick as well we certainly did get burnt???
Regards
like2ski


----------



## Mutchy (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hello All.
Here are some answers to questions asked today of WC.

Q. What happens to units bought back? Are they available for purchase on NSX or cancelled? Clause 4.2 has been deleted from the constitution It dealt with cancellation of the units upon redemption. 
A.They will be Cancelled.

Q. Future buy - back schemes possible under revised constitution? Are future buy -back schemes envisaged? Need a vote by unit holders? What percentage?
A. No

Q.Will there be future fund raising? 
A. Yes probably.

Q. Will redemption be available greater than 10,000 units ie $4,500 for severe hardship? 
A. No

I think the Constitution has many errors, three contradictory clauses, and clauses in the supplementary deed poll which are clearly wrong. There are no clauses covering the role, responsibilities and reporting of the Investors Advisory Committee. The clauses concerning redemptions have been deleted yet it is intended to operate a buy back scheme without constitutional rules on redemption. 
I have sent my comments direct to WC as I think the Proposed Constitution is seriously flawed. I think it does not allow the operation of either the "buy back" redemption scheme or the Investor Advisor Committee.

I will post my comments on the proposed constitution on the Yahoo Group.

Mutchy


----------



## like2ski (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> OMG!! I can't believe it!  It's bad enough they are getting and opening the proxy forms but to tell people to leave them blank that's disgusting!
> 
> I was in the middle of an ASIC complaint when I read this post so have added this little gem to my complaint.
> 
> ...



Hi DoraNBoots,
With regards to your ASIC complaint. I was thinking of doing the same or are we duplicating, can we add more people to the same one (Class Complaint???)
Have they received many, do you know?? 
Thanks


----------



## like2ski (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mutchy said:


> Hello All.
> Here are some answers to questions asked today of WC.
> 
> Q. What happens to units bought back? Are they available for purchase on NSX or cancelled? Clause 4.2 has been deleted from the constitution It dealt with cancellation of the units upon redemption.
> ...




Hi Mutchy,
Good work !! I agree the constitution is seriously flawed and we need to voice our opinions strongly and in numbers.
Can you give me some details about the Yahoo Group? this is the first I heard of it.
Thank you
like2ski


----------



## Jadel (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mutchy said:


> Hello All.
> Here are some answers to questions asked today of WC.
> 
> Q. What happens to units bought back? Are they available for purchase on NSX or cancelled? Clause 4.2 has been deleted from the constitution It dealt with cancellation of the units upon redemption.
> ...




Thank you Mutchy

 The response to Q3 has just put shivers up my spine.


----------



## DoraNBoots (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mutchy said:


> ...
> Q. Future buy - back schemes possible under revised constitution? Are future buy -back schemes envisaged? Need a vote by unit holders? What percentage?
> A. No
> ...
> Mutchy




Thanks for all your work Mutchy!

Just thought I'd mention that JH said last Friday that she was hoping to have more buy backs each year.  I didn't bother posting this because if I can't verify something myself or if she won't write it on paper it don't mean anything.  Interesting to note tho that her staff say the opposite.



Like2ski said:


> ...
> Hi DoraNBoots,
> With regards to your ASIC complaint. I was thinking of doing the same or are we duplicating, can we add more people to the same one (Class Complaint???)
> Have they received many, do you know??
> Thanks




Hi Like2ski,
I really don't know what is best.  The complaints I previously wrote were put in by another unit holder.  Tonight I just put in another one via the web and marked it Urgent.  I think the more under different numbers the better so that ASIC start to realise there are a lot of concerned people as apposed to a few nutters 

The url for the Yahoo group is here:http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/PIFActionGroup  You'll even find a poll there regarding resolution 1.


----------



## gazzan57 (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



like2ski said:


> Hi Mutchy,
> Good work !! I agree the constitution is seriously flawed and we need to voice our opinions strongly and in numbers.
> Can you give me some details about the Yahoo Group? this is the first I heard of it.
> Thank you
> like2ski




Hi Mutchy ...where do we find your yahoo group please?


----------



## Burnt (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi Like2ski,
> I really don't know what is best.  The complaints I previously wrote were put in by another unit holder.  Tonight I just put in another one via the web and marked it Urgent.  I think the more under different numbers the better so that ASIC start to realise there are a lot of concerned people as apposed to a few nutters
> 
> The url for the Yahoo group is here:http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/PIFActionGroup  You'll even find a poll there regarding resolution 1.




Like2ski,
If you go to page 90 of this thread to Doras post no.1783 there is a link to the ecomplaint area of ASIC. I have sent several complaints online on behalf of myself and others, and we have all received a written reply of receiving the complaint and commitment from ASIC to act upon in it within two days in the mail. As Dora says the more complaints the better, lets annoy the hell out of ASIC to get them to act. I (and others) have also sent letters and emails to our local Federal MPs and to Senator Nick Sherry (in charge of ASIC) urging them to push forward ASIC's investigations and some sort of determination into the behaviour and past activities of the RE of the Fund, as well as an urgent determination as to whether Wellington should be allowed to proceed with this vote. By the way the RE has remained the same throughout, there have only been name changes. I.E. legal action can (& could already be) taken against the RE for beaches of the Funds constitution and corporate laws. That is why it is so important that unitholders are not pursuaded to vote to change the RE to Wellington Capital Limited.


----------



## Burnt (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Thanks for all your work Mutchy!
> 
> Just thought I'd mention that JH said last Friday that she was hoping to have more buy backs each year.  I didn't bother posting this because if I can't verify something myself or if she won't write it on paper it don't mean anything.  Interesting to note tho that her staff say the opposite.
> 
> ...




Hi Dora,
Had a quick look at Yahoo, sorry couldn't make head nor tails of it........guess I join the group of computer idiots............too hard. Love to know what the poll results are so far though ???


----------



## BABIHUTAN (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi to all PIF Unit holders,

Speaking for myself [and I suspect as is the case for the vast majority of Mum & Dad Investors] I frankly do not understand the implications of voting, how to vote, or not voting at all, nor do I understand what other actions are open to us. It seems strange tt postal voting forms are to be returned to an interested party in this fiasco. 
I think we all understand tt we are collectively in serious trouble and fm what I hv read are unlikely to see more than a pittance of our money back.
There is no doubt tt a lot of hard and constructive work has been put in on behalf of unitholders by some contributors, who are/were financial professionals but how to do we, as laypersons sort the Sheep fm the Goats? It is fairly obvious there are others tt maybe feeding misleading information, and I would hate tt our lack of understanding of the real issues might put us in a worse pickle than we already are. 
What is very clear to all of us tt we hv been had and this has seemly been achieved by dodgy and possibly criminal activities of fund managers. 
I hv not seen any reaction fm the powers tt be, our so called financial watchdogs, and what they are doing to sort our predicament.

Come on CANBERRA, we are not looking for handouts for errors of judgement - there are hwvr 10000 odd investors who dearly need some unbiased and professional advice & support to maximise recoveries - NOW b4 it all evaporates.


----------



## Burnt (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



BABIHUTAN said:


> Hi to all PIF Unit holders,
> 
> Speaking for myself [and I suspect as is the case for the vast majority of Mum & Dad Investors] I frankly do not understand the implications of voting, how to vote, or not voting at all, nor do I understand what other actions are open to us. It seems strange tt postal voting forms are to be returned to an interested party in this fiasco.
> I think we all understand tt we are collectively in serious trouble and fm what I hv read are unlikely to see more than a pittance of our money back.
> ...




Hi Babihutan,
Please read the comments posted earlier tonight regarding voting issues (if you don't submit a vote it means you are voting for WC) and also who to complain to. I agree, we need to get Government bodies to act for us. The more people that complain to ASIC, local federal members of parliament and Senator Nick Sherry (in charge of Financial Services) the better. Please feel free. Most of us cannot afford private litigation and so we need to get these tax paid representatives to do something. I will be back with contact info.


----------



## Burnt (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Bumblebee said:


> I have just now come off the phone to WC hotline and may be able to help with some of the queries coming through on posts.
> 
> Voting. Each *unit *has voting power. So if you hold 20,000 units you have twice the voteing power as a person with 10,000 units.
> 
> ...




There has been no guarantee from WC as to distributions past Dec.08. Nothing in writing has been offered as to future cash payments


----------



## Burnt (27 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Barbihutan,
If you go to page 90 of this thread post no.1783 Dora has provided a link to lodging a complaint online with ASIC. If you go to page 98 post no.1952 you will find links to contact details for Senator Nick Sherry as well as your local Federal MP. I am only a layperson too and this is what we can contribute. Please, Please write complaints and letters requesting help, in your own words, no matter how futile it may seem. The more complaints and letters the better. The more annoying we can be the more likely that they will act. It's up to us.
Cheers,  Power to the People.


----------



## flatback (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Like2ski,
> If you go to page 90 of this thread to Doras post no.1783 there is a link to the ecomplaint area of ASIC. I have sent several complaints online on behalf of myself and others, and we have all received a written reply of receiving the complaint and commitment from ASIC to act upon in it within two days in the mail. As Dora says the more complaints the better, lets annoy the hell out of ASIC to get them to act. I (and others) have also sent letters and emails to our local Federal MPs and to Senator Nick Sherry (in charge of ASIC) urging them to push forward ASIC's investigations and some sort of determination into the behaviour and past activities of the RE of the Fund, as well as an urgent determination as to whether Wellington should be allowed to proceed with this vote. By the way the RE has remained the same throughout, there have only been name changes. I.E. legal action can (& could already be) taken against the RE for beaches of the Funds constitution and corporate laws. That is why it is so important that unitholders are not pursuaded to vote to change the RE to Wellington Capital Limited.



I dont want to keep harping on this Burnt, but nobody would listen, the constitution is the guts of this whole problem i dont know how many times i have bought it up, and not once did anybody take it up, she cannot change the constitution if it obviously effects the members, and i strongly believe that she has broken the law here with the changes she has already made, we cant be led to believe that we have to vote on these issues when, the audit for gods sake, hasn't been carried out yet, without the audit tell me what are we voting for a bag of oranges or an old boot what??? flatback


----------



## great dame (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good morning all For my 2 bits worth  There is really know way of knowing if my vote ever reacher's Computer share  If Wellington opens   & see my vote & don't like what they see It could be sheeded    Guess i have been boring you folk for weeks now how i don't trust them   Once WC gets us all in the bag we are we are all  Finished   //Dane ///


----------



## great dame (28 August 2008)

*Re: PIF Vote*



Burnt said:


> Hi Rance,
> Thanks for your info regarding the vote counting process. I'm pretty sure Computershare will have "readers" at the meeting to count the votes submitted there to be added to the total vote count. I have total faith in their methods. My concern is with whether or not ALL VOTES will be passed onto them. Who determines which voting papers are invalid because they are not filled out correctly ?? Who monitors the mail coming into Wellington's office ???? Who counts the number of voting papers recieved by Wellington as compared to the number of voting papers received by Computershare ?????



     Burnt you strike me as a very smart person I admire you But even dumb me can answer that questain   WELLINGTON DOSE OF CAUSE  /Dane //


----------



## Duped (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



like2ski said:


> .... it would certainly be interesting to ascertain who the shareholders are?? Shouldn't it be public knowledge and a legal requirement? perhaps we can clarify with ASIC.
> ....




I don't think it is a requirement.  I remember the press going on about Tattersalls was (is?) famous for keeping the list of shareholders a well guarded secret.  It caused a stir when it was revealed by the press that Martin Bryant had been living off an inherited shareholding.


----------



## RickH (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi Babihutan,
> Please read the comments posted earlier tonight regarding voting issues (if you don't submit a vote it means you are voting for WC) and also who to complain to. I agree, we need to get Government bodies to act for us. The more people that complain to ASIC, local federal members of parliament and Senator Nick Sherry (in charge of Financial Services) the better. Please feel free. Most of us cannot afford private litigation and so we need to get these tax paid representatives to do something. I will be back with contact info.



Hi Burnt,
*"(if you don't submit a vote it means you are voting for WC)"*
I cannot understand how this helps an investor to make an informed decision.
1) If a person wants to vote for WC and does not vote - how does that help WC get 75% of the vote?
2) If a person has no idea and does not want to vote - how does that help WC get the 75% of the vote
3) The only time WC would benefit is when a person wanted to vote NO and did not vote.
Please explain your statement and logic on how your information is helpful.
Regards, RickH:couch


----------



## DoraNBoots (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Burnt,
> *"(if you don't submit a vote it means you are voting for WC)"*
> I cannot understand how this helps an investor to make an informed decision.
> 1) If a person wants to vote for WC and does not vote - how does that help WC get 75% of the vote?
> ...




Rick,

When have you ever provided useful information relevant to this thread?  Sure you continually give general financial advice but it’s not relevant to people who have their money stuck in a fund with no decent exist strategy.  So if you are telling us to diversify because we previously put all our eggs in one basket you know very well you are just rubbing our nose in it because we have no way of getting out of this fund to allow us to diversify.  I have found Burnts posts to be very informative as they are relevant to our current situation.  If WC are telling people to send  a blank form with just a signature to them (so they can take care of it)  it means it will be a Yes vote for all 3 resolutions.

So how are you advising your clients to vote?  Have you told them that liquidation at 14 cents is just a threat and is not required by law if it’s a no vote?

(Insert 'smilie' with a couch dropping on it's little yellow head.)


----------



## great dame (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good morning again   Just got off the phone from WC about complaining about our votes going to WC   Opening them up looking at them before pasting them on to Computer share   I told her there is no private with that i am jumping mad about about this and said i  might go to the media about all this  Talk back radio etc etc She said please don't do that  i will talk to my boss & get back to you   I suggest others do the same as me & ring WC & give them hard time too  /Dane //


----------



## DoraNBoots (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Good morning again   Just got off the phone from WC about complaining about our votes going to WC   Opening them up looking at them before pasting them on to Computer share   I told her there is no private with that i am jumping mad about about this and said i  might go to the media about all this  Talk back radio etc etc She said please don't do that  i will talk to my boss & get back to you   I suggest others do the same as me & ring WC & give them hard time too  /Dane //




Nice one GD!  I say go to the media and ASIC, it's too late for WC to be backtracking, people are already voting.


----------



## Duped (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



like2ski said:


> Just wondering if anyone has sought/suggested obtaining professional advice in relation to our treatment/voting of the three resolutions as we may compromise/worsen our position and outcomes....




The financial advisor who put me into PIF is recommending to vote yes.

As for the 0.25% Handling Fee (10.12 of the EM): thats $25 per 10,000 votes.  Hardly worth risking losing a client by giving dodgy advice is it? Surely financial planners aren't that desparate for income?  Or are they?

Can anyone confirm where the Handling Fee is being paid from: WCL/WIML's own pockets or WC's 0.7% or from the fund e.g. the 0.32% 'Other management costs', 'Abnormal Operating Expenses' ... ?  The EM says the RE can pay the 0.25% but doesn't make it definite it isn't financed by the fund.

RickH, at one point my AFSL advisor had put 100% of my assets in PIF. How do you explain that? 

BTW I'm not confident I completely understood a single paragraph of section 9 of the EM 'Taxation Analysis' pp 69-70.  Next time one of u finance people have a go at me for using jargon from my profession you're going to cop such a serve. I'm printing pp 69-70 and pinning them to my wall at work.

If a WC acceptance of the OCV offer to creditors is made subject to  resolution 1 succeeding then my vote is likely a yes.  If not, then I'm undecided.  The very worst scenario is for WC to accept the OCV offer on our behalf and then have the fund liquidated next year.


----------



## Mutchy (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



gazzan57 said:


> Hi Mutchy ...where do we find your yahoo group please?




Hello All.
The URL for the Yahoo group is in DoraNBoots post #2001 above.
You will have to join the group. Once you have joined go to the home page. On the top left corner is a menu under "Members Only". click on "Files". At the bottom of the list is my file called CommentsConstitution.doc. I have composed this file in the form of a suggestion as to how to improve the drafting of the Deed Poll and the Schedule of the Constitution because I promised one of the WC employees that I would suggest improvements. In other words " going forward for all the right reasons", it' s framed as a positive contribution rather than a criticism.

I do not know what are common conditions comprising a constitution of a fund such as ours but I am of the opinion that this document is flawed. I think it does not allow redemption of units in a buy back scheme because all the clauses relating to redemption have been deleted. I think it does not allow the RE to trade on the NSX because there is no allowance for the the RE to purchase units on the NSX: the RE can hold units but not trade. I am suspicious of the vast change to the clauses regarding the conduct of meetings. WC seem to be paranoid about what they see as adverse action to the extent that they ban placards from unit holders meetings! There is no provision for the establishment of the Investor Advisory Committee, nor its operation. The actions allowed under proposed constitution appears to me to fall far short of satisfactory when compared with the actions proposed by the Explanatory Memorandum

I am in favour of an orderly wind up of PIF because I expect that trading on the NSX will never be a satisfactory means of exiting the fund. I think I would rather get my investment returned in the next couple of years and then make something out of it rather than get a meagre return for a few years, get frustrated with the return and then try to sell on the NSX and then still get half of the value of my units.

Mutchy


----------



## great dame (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Rick,
> 
> When have you ever provided useful information relevant to this thread?  Sure you continually give general financial advice but it’s not relevant to people who have their money stuck in a fund with no decent exist strategy.  So if you are telling us to diversify because we previously put all our eggs in one basket you know very well you are just rubbing our nose in it because we have no way of getting out of this fund to allow us to diversify.  I have found Burnts posts to be very informative as they are relevant to our current situation.  If WC are telling people to send  a blank form with just a signature to them (so they can take care of it)  it means it will be a Yes vote for all 3 resolutions.
> 
> ...



   Yes And thats DITTO from  Dane too  ''''   Dory  sure got you on that one Rick /Dane //


----------



## Jadel (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Mutchy if far better qualified than myself and if he or she can smell a rat  their must be something seriously wrong with WC package .

Personally I have always thought that to threaten  unit holders with a liquidation at 14c cents was morally and ethically  indefensible

Changing the Constitution of our fund was  never mentioned as a viable option by WC

In fact they have stated that “ they are simply not interested in this option“ 

 If you would like to consider some serious initiatives on the future of our Fund PLEASE attend the QLD meeting on Saturday  . 

All Queensland AG members next meeting.

Saturday at 2 pm 30 August 2008.

Beenleigh RSL & Mt Warren Golf Course

13 Bardyn Halliday Dr, Mt Warren Park
Please note that you may be requested to provide your PIF current investor ID number


----------



## like2ski (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Nice one GD!  I say go to the media and ASIC, it's too late for WC to be backtracking, people are already voting.




Good morning DoraNBoots,
I fully agree that WE SHOULD GO TO THE MEDIA. I was discussing the matter with a representative of Maurice Blackman lawyers who are acting on behalf of some MFS shareholders and could not act on our behalf (PIF) as it would be a conflict of interest.
They understand our predicament and feel that at this stage it would be a good idea to go to the media, press,radio personalities and talk-back radio etc. 
We should prepare convincing arguments to expose MFS/Octaviar/Wellington for their scams and explain the plight of the unit holders particularly the needy, S.F.Retirees etc.
I understand that a lot of holders were reluctant to take that step however, at this stage and as things are evolving with WC we really have nothing to lose and it would put a lot of pressure on WC, the politicians (state & federal govts.) and ASIC to get off their backsides and take immediate action.
What is the feeling here, should we have a go and if so can we select  appropriate person/s to start the campaign ??
Your comments would be appreciated


----------



## selciper (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Shouldn't changes to clauses in any constitution be the subject of a separate vote? Otherwise the Australian Constitution would be changing every few months! I am becoming suspicious of WC's motives after having originally welcomed their intervention.


----------



## Burnt (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi RickH,
Sorry for not being clearer. In my view if you are confused or not sure which way to vote - VOTE NO. If WC lose the vote, there are options still available to unit holders to decide what is best for them. If WC win the vote, you will be locked in and you will have no further options for having a say on what you want. IF YOU ARE NOT 100% SURE THAT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED BY WC IS GOING TO BE IN YOUR BEST INTERESTS - THEN VOTE NO !!!

JH is confident of getting the 75% because she knows how easy it is to gain the trust of elderly people (this was obvious at the July meeting at GC - 90% present were elderly people & a lot of them came away saying things like "she seems nice, she'll look after our interests") so a lot of them will be voting for her. I think she is also banking on big investors being sucked in by her talk of "returns" and distribution of proceeds from legal proceedings (hah). That is why it is important to vote. 

By the way mate, look out for falling furniture (nice one Dora lol)


----------



## flatback (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Shouldn't changes to clauses in any constitution be the subject of a separate vote? Otherwise the Australian Constitution would be changing every few months! I am becoming suspicious of WC's motives after having originally welcomed their intervention.



This is what i said in one of my posts, have a look at corporate governance on the Wellington pif site and see what i mean, there are about eight different clauses within the very first ammendment to the constitution she wants to change, not good, each change should be treated upon its own merits .Flatback


----------



## BABIHUTAN (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi Barbihutan,
> If you go to page 90 of this thread post no.1783 Dora has provided a link to lodging a complaint online with ASIC. If you go to page 98 post no.1952 you will find links to contact details for Senator Nick Sherry as well as your local Federal MP. I am only a layperson too and this is what we can contribute. Please, Please write complaints and letters requesting help, in your own words, no matter how futile it may seem. The more complaints and letters the better. The more annoying we can be the more likely that they will act. It's up to us.
> Cheers,  Power to the People.




Tks Burnt for yr 2 replies to my posts - we R overseas 'til mid Sept. Went to ASIC site and tried lodge my bit online but for some reason link comes up with INVALID address. Not sure what tt is all abt but will try again later. Able download form but then need copy to a thumb drive and find somewhere to print off H/copy to mail. WAH!
Haven't been there yet - hope Senator/ LFMP links don't come up with similar rejections


----------



## DoraNBoots (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi again,
> ... I then asked the girl to verify that Computershare were actually counting the votes for the Wellington PIF. She went away then came back saying that yes, Computershare would be counting the votes. I then asked why then are unitholders being asked to send their votes to Wellingtons postal address. She said that was a bit odd, usually when they are used to count votes, votes are directly mailed to them. She went away again then came back saying that sometimes this does occur, that votes are not sent to them directly but forwarded to them by the company concerned. I said, so does this mean that the staff at Wellington open all the votes themselves and then post them onto you. Yes, she said. I said, HHHmmmmm........but my problem is that I don't trust Wellington especially when they have told people that the votes are being sent to them in replied paid envelopes to cut costs. Doesn't make sense. I then asked about the barcodes on the voting forms and she confirmed that each form is identifiable. So I said, can I call Computershare after the voting is counted and ask them to verify that my vote was actually counted. She said yes you should be able to get that information and it sounds like a good idea.
> Perhaps everyone who is postal voting might like to do this, or even get on the phone now to Comptershare and query this voting procedure. Probably the same one they use in Zimbabwe.





Hi All,

I have just spoken to ComputerShare two times because I got off the phone the first time and figured the guy must have made a mistake.  He told me they are not processing the proxy forms, he said the company is (i.e. Wellington IM).  After reading Burnts post I called again and said to a different person.  “Are you counting the votes for the meeting on the 18th Sept”  she said yes.  I said well I was just told you weren’t, so can I send my proxy form to you.  She said yes of course.  I then said but you realise the form says to send it to Wellington IM.  So she checks and says O I see yes, you have to send the form to them and they are processing them.  I asked her to double check the bit about processing and said how do you know and she just said by law they have to process them if they get them.(I don’t understand that really)

Anyway, looks like Wellington are receiving and counting the proxy forms!!  I’ve left a message for WC to call me so I can confirm this with them.


----------



## great dame (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I have just spoken to ComputerShare two times because I got off the phone the first time and figured the guy must have made a mistake.  He told me they are not processing the proxy forms, he said the company is (i.e. Wellington IM).  After reading Burnts post I called again and said to a different person.  “Are you counting the votes for the meeting on the 18th Sept”  she said yes.  I said well I was just told you weren’t, so can I send my proxy form to you.  She said yes of course.  I then said but you realise the form says to send it to Wellington IM.  So she checks and says O I see yes, you have to send the form to them and they are processing them.  I asked her to double check the bit about processing and said how do you know and she just said by law they have to process them if they get them.(I don’t understand that really)
> 
> Anyway, looks like Wellington are receiving and counting the proxy forms!!  I’ve left a message for WC to call me so I can confirm this with them.



   Dora they are just a mob of lies  Who cant be trusted   They are just as bad as the last mob Could be even worse   Burnt You could be right Sucking in the old dear ladyers on the GC  old saying never trust any one on stage  bearing gifts  And giving fault hope  Its all crap  Cheers /Dane //


----------



## Juan Mortyme (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Can't help thinking CS is determined to recoup his losses from wherever or whoever.




Yes, if I was a gambling man I'd put money on that theory.


----------



## newwwtrader (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am by no means a supporter of the proposal by WC. 

In fact my belief is that at least for resolution 1 the vote should be NO. I have said before that before the route of listing on the NSX should be undertaken, other options should be explored. It seems that WC has decided this is the course that should be taken, and that is what they are aiming for.

However, in saying this, I feel getting bogged down about sending forms to WC and all that is distracting to people. If you're not attending fill the form in and send it as directed. Or preferably appoint someone to vote on your behalf at the meeting.

I very much doubt WC would be willing to risk it all by throwing NO votes out.

If you want to get people on your side to vote NO stay on track. Come up with alternate proposals and stop the almost childlike whinging about WC.

I believe a well reasoned argurment, succintly put to fellow PIF unitholders can counter anything that it put forward by WC in relation the constitutional change. Because lets face it, it is far from perfect. And every other option has not been explored.


----------



## RickH (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi RickH,
> Sorry for not being clearer. In my view if you are confused or not sure which way to vote - VOTE NO. If WC lose the vote, there are options still available to unit holders to decide what is best for them. If WC win the vote, you will be locked in and you will have no further options for having a say on what you want. IF YOU ARE NOT 100% SURE THAT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED BY WC IS GOING TO BE IN YOUR BEST INTERESTS - THEN VOTE NO !!!
> 
> JH is confident of getting the 75% because she knows how easy it is to gain the trust of elderly people (this was obvious at the July meeting at GC - 90% present were elderly people & a lot of them came away saying things like "she seems nice, she'll look after our interests") so a lot of them will be voting for her. I think she is also banking on big investors being sucked in by her talk of "returns" and distribution of proceeds from legal proceedings (hah). That is why it is important to vote.
> ...



Hi Burnt,
You don't write as if the fire is actually out probably more like red hot coals.
I will continue to hide behind the couch and try to avoid the fire but I notice that we have been honest and stated what we do for a living and our association with investors.

Please note a solicitor jokingly presented the following existing laws at a recent educational session -
1) In the UK it is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament.
2) In Victoria it is illegal to wear slippers in public after sunset.

Our laws are not perfect and they will eventually control what happens -

Resolution 1
We do need to consider what the legal terms for the following:
Liquid Fund.
360 days.
Liquidation.

We do not want to create a problem because of a legal technicality and the fund is really liquidated.

Regards, RickH:couch


----------



## Duped (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Shouldn't changes to clauses in any constitution be the subject of a separate vote? Otherwise the Australian Constitution would be changing every few months! I am becoming suspicious of WC's motives after having originally welcomed their intervention.




Selciper, I believe that bundling proposed amendments into one vote is the rule rather than the exception.  MFSIM did it to us for the 2006 vote.  Parliament  did it to us with the 1999 referendum. Instead of just asking - do you want a republic, the referendum asked 3 questions: do you want a republic, do you want the president elected by parliament (as opposed to being directly elected, etc) and will you accept this preamble.  Worked didn't it: the rupublic issue has been shelved for a decade.  Had the first question got up then there would have been a hell of a lotta pressure on parliament to find a model for electing the president that was acceptable to us.

The following wikipedia entry about Referendums in Australia is interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Australia

"Firstly, Australians have traditionally been cautious about proposed constitutional change: only eight of 43 referendums since 1909 have been approved by a majority of voters in a majority of states (as they must to succeed). In Sir Robert Menzies' words, "to get an affirmative vote from the Australian people on a referendum proposal is one of the labours of Hercules.""

My financial advisor is advising that a NO vote for Resolution 1 is a YES vote for liqidation.


----------



## ian1328 (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I for one am not prepared to gamble.  NO one has any EVIDENCE that we will get more than the 14c outlined if the fund is liquidated, ONLY SPECULATION.  Maybe some of you people are risk takers, can afford the chance of LOSING big time and are going to vote no. We have all lost enough already, why not work with what we've got and go forward.  Remember WC is a Bank and even in Monopoly the bank is rich. VOTE YES to 1 & 2 and NO to 3.


----------



## DoraNBoots (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi Dora,
> Had a quick look at Yahoo, sorry couldn't make head nor tails of it........guess I join the group of computer idiots............too hard. Love to know what the poll results are so far though ???




Hi Burnt,

The Yahoo group currently has 31 members.  You are not alone when you say you had trouble.  I recommend you first create a yahoo email account and if you want to remain anonymous don’t use your real name for the email address.  Some things that you do within the group will show your yahoo email address.  Once you have created a yahoo email address (or account) you can go to this link http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/PIFActionGroup and click the “join this group!” button.  Follow the prompts and enter your yahoo email address and password when prompted.

Once you have joined you’ll be able to access all the files saved there to date and also vote in the polls.  BTW:  all members have permission to create polls themselves and upload files etc.

The group is not used much but I continue to upload files there so we have a central location for all our documents which can be easily found.

Only 10 votes so far but results are attached.


----------



## selciper (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

DUPED - Thanks. But I'm still uncomfortable with the WC style. They just don't seem open enough considering that they are dealing with ten thousand three hundred distressed people. ASIC should take an interest in the vote counting arrangements and the constitutional changes.


----------



## Maverick2802 (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It's a foregone conclusion. WC will get resolution 1 and 2 passed by the required % and daresay that even 3 will be passed. Place your bets ladies and gents. You can have as many polls as you wish, it's a done deal


----------



## Calliope (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It has been my experience that the glossier and more expensive information brochures that a company puts out the less likely they are to look after your money. However this mob has us over a barrel. They are dealing with some very disadvantaged people who are worried and scared.  It is a done deal. All three will be passed.


----------



## oldjap (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

NEGATIVE THOUGHTS BRING NEGATIVE RESULTS.

HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN HOW YOU FELT WHEN OCV COLLAPSED AND IT LOOKED LIKE THE PIF WOULD GO IN TO LIQUIDATION WITH VERY LITTLE LIKELY HOOD OF US RECOVERING EVEN A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF OUR FUNDS, IMAGINE IF THEY WERE STILL RUNNING THE SHOW.

WELLINTON ARE OFFERING US THE PROSPECT OF RECOVERING OUR FUNDS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME (3-5-7YRS)WHAT PROSPECT DO YOU THINK OCV WOULD BEING GIVING US EXCEPT MORE GRIEF????
WE KNOW WELLINGTON AS RE AS OF YET ARE AN UNKOWN QUANTITY BUT REALLY WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE???

MOST PEOPLE ON THIS THREAD LATELY DO A LOT OF CRITISIZING BUT OFFER NO SOLUTIONS, WHO CARES WHO COUNTS THE VOTES??? WHAT WE WANT IS THE FUND GIVEN THE CHANCE TO PERFORM.
REMEMBER THE FEES WE PAID OCV , WE PAID THEM TO STEAL OUR MONEY. AT LEAST WITH WELLINGTON TO INCREASE THEIR FEES IT WILL BE PERFORMANCE BASED.

HOW MANY PLAYERS ARE LEFT IN THE MORGAGE SECTOR?? LOOK AT ALLCO CITY PACIFIC ETC., WELLINGTON ARE WELL POSTIONED AND EXPERIENCED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS CURRENT CLIMATE DUE TO THE LACK OF FINANCIERS FOR DEVELOPMENT, THIS COUNTRY IS ONLY GOING TO GROW AND GROW.

IN MY OPINION WELLINGTON WILL GO FROM STREGTH TO STREGTH, BUT SAYING THAT I ALSO MUST SAY WHO CAN GIVE BLACK AND WHITE FORCASTS TO FUTURE PROFITS,BUT GOD KNOWS WELLINGTON  HAVE TO BE BETTER THAN WHAT HAS GONE DOWN BEFORE  WITH OCV.
WHERE ARE YOU GONG TO GO WITH A NO NO NO VOTE INTO LIQUIDATION??
(D.A.D.S) SHOW ME A COMPANY THAT HAS LIQUIDATED AND UNIT HOLDERS HAVE RECEIVED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF THEIR FUNDS BACK

NO GREAT DOOM I AM NOT ON WELLINGTON PAYROLL ,BUT IF THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL I SUPOSSE YOU WILL WANT TO BE??? 

MAYBE THE LADY IN THE RED SUIT IS SANTA CLAUSE

ON A FINAL NOTE FOR NOW LET ME SAY THIS. HOW LONG DO YOU THINK A.S.I.C WILL TAKE TO ACT??? THEY SHOULD BE LOOKING IN GREAT DEPTHS INTO OCV NOT WELLINGTON THEY HAVE NOT PISSED OFF WITH OUR MONEY

P.S. THANKS TO ALL THE POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THIS THREAD I KNOW YOU HAVE ALL PUT IN A LOT OF YOUR TIME AND EFFORT.

OPTOMIZIME WILL ALWAYS OUTWEIGH THE PESIMIST

CHEERS OLDJAP  (NOT THAT OLD THAT WE DONT WANT OUR 1/2 A MILL BACK)


----------



## Burnt (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Again, what is the definition of "positiveness"? To some people it means closing your eyes and ears and doing what you are told with a smile on your face and your heart full of hope. To others it means looking for the truth, uncovering hidden lies and exposing false statements.
The fact is Unitholders OWN the Fund. We have the right to hold our own meetings and vote on our own resolutions as to what happens with the Fund. Most of us oppose listing on the NSX - why should we be made to feel that we have to vote for it ?
Other alternatives have been put forward, some people are just to scared to acknowledge them, they feel safer doing what they're told.
If the RE can make the Fund perform as claimed, why do we need to list on the NSX. Why can't we make them report to us at regular intervals so that we can vote on the best action to take in regards to distributions and redemptions according to the Funds performance.

- We can vote to implement a buy back offer according to what audited accounts allow.
- We can vote to extend the freeze on redemptions for a further 180 days.
- We can vote to look at another buy back offer at the end of the current    redemption freeze.
- We can vote to look at another buy back offer at the end of the extended 180 day redemption freeze.
- We can vote that distributions be made whenever profits are realised.
- We can vote to have an independant administrator appointed if we feel that the RE is not living up to its promises.
We don't have to do as we are told, particularly if we feel that is not in our best interests, and I believe that most see listing on the NSX as not being in our best interests.


----------



## Maverick2802 (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Burnt, you are kidding! 
You don't like paying taxes, yet you pay them. And will do so till the day you die. Death and taxes, the only certainties in life.
You can't make what you want happen because it takes a lot of cash to even implement one or two of those options you mention in your above post, or else someone like you would have had a meeting to inform 10300 people by now of our 'alternatives'.
Fact: noone has and no chance of someone doing it in the next couple of weeks.
You don't have that kind of cash to control it, JH does, that's fact too, that's life.
It's a done deal, stop with the pie in the sky dreams, you have no chance. 
Just let it happen!!


----------



## Burnt (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi Burnt,
> 
> The Yahoo group currently has 31 members.  You are not alone when you say you had trouble.  I recommend you first create a yahoo email account and if you want to remain anonymous don’t use your real name for the email address.  Some things that you do within the group will show your yahoo email address.  Once you have created a yahoo email address (or account) you can go to this link http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/PIFActionGroup and click the “join this group!” button.  Follow the prompts and enter your yahoo email address and password when prompted.
> 
> ...




Thanks Dora, this was a great help, I've got it happening now !!


----------



## Burnt (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> Burnt, you are kidding!
> You don't like paying taxes, yet you pay them. And will do so till the day you die. Death and taxes, the only certainties in life.
> You can't make what you want happen because it takes a lot of cash to even implement one or two of those options you mention in your above post, or else someone like you would have had a meeting to inform 10300 people by now of our 'alternatives'.
> Fact: noone has and no chance of someone doing it in the next couple of weeks.
> ...




Geez mate, you're full of sunshine and happiness !!!!! Don't give up yet !!!!


----------



## Burnt (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Burnt,
> You don't write as if the fire is actually out probably more like red hot coals.
> I will continue to hide behind the couch and try to avoid the fire but I notice that we have been honest and stated what we do for a living and our association with investors.
> 
> ...




Hi RickH,
thanks for the reply. No fire's not out it will keep burning to the bitter end. Not sure what your profession & association with investors is. I am a company accountant and I am on here representing my father and backing up his views. He is 87 and has been a very sucessful businessman for many years and even though he is slowing down, he still has one of the sharpest brains around and is a fighter for justice.
You are right, laws are not perfect that is why they are open to interpretation.
My understanding of the term "Liquid Fund" is that if the Net Tangible Value of the Fund's Assets, less any Debt, is greater than the Total Value of Units held by Members, then the Fund is liquid. Obviously that is not the case here.
The 360 day freeze on redemptions was imposed in January 2008. I don't see why the freeze can't be extended if unitholders vote for it. Some sort of buy back could be arranged before the extension if the Fund is making profit on some assets or is at the stage of being able to realise a reasonable market value on some assets.
I don't think liquidation of the Fund is necessary. An orderly wind up would be much better.
PIF Action Group in Qld is holding a meeting this weekend. Should be interesting.


----------



## newwwtrader (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Again, what is the definition of "positiveness"? To some people it means closing your eyes and ears and doing what you are told with a smile on your face and your heart full of hope. To others it means looking for the truth, uncovering hidden lies and exposing false statements.
> The fact is Unitholders OWN the Fund. We have the right to hold our own meetings and vote on our own resolutions as to what happens with the Fund. Most of us oppose listing on the NSX - why should we be made to feel that we have to vote for it ?
> Other alternatives have been put forward, some people are just to scared to acknowledge them, they feel safer doing what they're told.
> If the RE can make the Fund perform as claimed, why do we need to list on the NSX. Why can't we make them report to us at regular intervals so that we can vote on the best action to take in regards to distributions and redemptions according to the Funds performance.
> ...




Agree with what you say about the options.

All you have to do now is communicate that to all the unitholders


----------



## Burnt (28 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



BABIHUTAN said:


> Tks Burnt for yr 2 replies to my posts - we R overseas 'til mid Sept. Went to ASIC site and tried lodge my bit online but for some reason link comes up with INVALID address. Not sure what tt is all abt but will try again later. Able download form but then need copy to a thumb drive and find somewhere to print off H/copy to mail. WAH!
> Haven't been there yet - hope Senator/ LFMP links don't come up with similar rejections




Good on you mate, keep trying, all effort is greatly appreciated.


----------



## DoraNBoots (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Looking foward to seeing everyone tomorrow....



Jadel said:


> ...
> If you would like to consider some serious initiatives on the future of our Fund PLEASE attend the QLD meeting on Saturday  .
> 
> All Queensland AG members next meeting.
> ...






Burnt said:


> ...The Qld PIF Action Group is holding a meeting this weekend. I think that some unitholders have sought professional advice and I am hoping that we will be able to utilise the media to enable all unitholders to be informed of their rights and to be made aware of misleading info given to them by WC. Everyone needs all information at hand in order to make a wise decision. Stay posted !!!!!


----------



## Mary Lynch (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A couple of quotes from an article by Marcus Padley in the Age this am.
In a bear market "Management stops telling the truth.  Management doesn't Know the truth."   And later in the same article "when it's a bear market everyone loses. The problem is not the research, the brokers, or the companies. It is the fact that we were in the equity market, and no one can be blamed for that. That's the game".

Whilst I appreciate enormously that some of you guys are doing a great job dotting i's and crossing t's (it would have been great if we'd all done it before, when we were happy with MFS management pocketing any profit, which we accepted in their PDS), where money is concerned people will avoid the truth, as long as their asses are turned to the ground. BUT it doesn't matter WHO we are dealing with....it is the very nature of money...it is power and greed based, and I am beginning to agree with my husband, who was taught that "too much money was vulgar".

God knows, I have learnt an HUGE amount with this whole experience,not the least of which is....how much I have that I don't need materialistically, and how many simple, free pleasures there are out there that I have never noticed before.

I think, before you vote no,no,no....it could be said about JH that it is "better the devil you know, than the devil you don't know".


----------



## Calliope (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Spot on Mary, it is all power and greed. Our financial system depends on two indispensable groups, those who are ripped off and those who rip them off. This time we are the former. There is nothing we can do but accept this and hope that next time we can be on the other side.


----------



## great dame (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



oldjap said:


> NEGATIVE THOUGHTS BRING NEGATIVE RESULTS.
> 
> HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN HOW YOU FELT WHEN OCV COLLAPSED AND IT LOOKED LIKE THE PIF WOULD GO IN TO LIQUIDATION WITH VERY LITTLE LIKELY HOOD OF US RECOVERING EVEN A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF OUR FUNDS, IMAGINE IF THEY WERE STILL RUNNING THE SHOW.
> 
> ...



    Old jap Sorry to say but you are misinformed  with your/5/years getting our funds back maybe 30 year plus would be closer  oven if WC gets the the value to $2 you have to get a buyer on the NSX to give you a dollar if your lucky for your unit  Every body are forgetting that  /Dane //


----------



## great dame (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

To DoraNboots  Dora have you heard back from WC about counting votes yet ???  /Dane //


----------



## Maverick2802 (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Where do you always get this 30 year bit from? 
There seems to be absolutely no foundation to your constant negative postings.
JH has taken this on with a lot more information than the likes of great dame and others here will ever have.
I have spoken to her personally and does not strike me as a con artist like some of you are painting her as. She also doesn't come through as someone who does not truly believe she cannot bring back the value to $1 by 7 years.
You will not get much value out of NSX, that is just for those that need cash now, no matter what. I don't think that will be many. Expect this fund to be listed on ASX within 18 months.
I believe in WC and I know the vast majority do also. You can have all the meetings you want, WC as this fund's RE is a done deal. You can take that to the bank!


----------



## Rance (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> To DoraNboots  Dora have you heard back from WC about counting votes yet ???  /Dane //



*DoraNBoots & Great Doom

In the words of the great John McEnroe "YOU CAN"T BE SERIOUS!" about JH/WC rigging the votes!!

cheers
Rance (McEnroe in action: !#%&?/)*


----------



## great dame (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> Where do you always get this 30 year bit from?
> There seems to be absolutely no foundation to your constant negative postings.
> JH has taken this on with a lot more information than the likes of great dame and others here will ever have.
> I have spoken to her personally and does not strike me as a con artist like some of you are painting her as. She also doesn't come through as someone who does not truly believe she cannot bring back the value to $1 by 7 years.
> ...



      OK i can answer your questains    But first just where are you getting your info from?? Saying the fund will be listed on the ASX thats news to me show me where WC have written this ????  You say WC will get the value to $1 in 7 years some say 5 years  That means the fund will have to grow by  125% to get back to a $1 right  Thats an average growth per a year of 17.85% right now that is just growth forgetting the 6 cents you may or may not get   OK  now the Australia share market has had an average growth rate over the last 50 years of 10% i am not countings the Divs payed  Just growth   Now you see just why it just cant be done  On growth  I shall continue  There is talk when the fund is listed  It could sell between 10 & 15 cents  a unit  But lets say it goes for 20 cents  So to get back to a $1 on the exchange  it has to grow by 500% Yes thats right 500%and over 30 years thats an average growth rate of over 16%   Remenber when it is listed you are at the mercy of he market not what the value of the fund is worth   I hope that has cleared it up for  /Dane //


----------



## great dame (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> *DoraNBoots & Great Doom
> 
> In the words of the great John McEnroe "YOU CAN"T BE SERIOUS!" about JH/WC rigging the votes!!
> 
> ...



   Gee Rance nice to hear from you  Your still kicking ???  JH/WC rigging the votes ??? O perish the thought  They would   never do that   WOULD THEY ?????????????


----------



## Maverick2802 (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Your figures just don't stack up. 
If the fund is worth $335m now and we get at least $45m from OCV = $380m at a min growth of 10% pa (and when all this turns around it will be more than that) you can add a min of $38m per year, and that's just a basic non compounding on the $380m base will then be $760m..there's your $1 NTA in just 10 years NOT 30!!! So I believe 7 is realistic and doable with very conservative growth and no other upside from OCV or further insurance /Lloyds paypouts which I am sure will come later.

Yes it will be on the ASX, it is not written anywhere..YET!


----------



## Sean K (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Next insult will result in the entire thread being shut down.


----------



## Maverick2802 (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



kennas said:


> Next insult will result in the entire thread being shut down.




Sorry, but where are the insults?


----------



## Mutchy (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hello All.
With respect to the RE nominating that the proxies be returned to WC's registered office and not Computershare's office. 

As I read it, Section 252Z(2) of the Corporations Act says that the nomination of a proxy must be returned to the RE's registered office or any other place nominated in the notice of meeting and the RE can specify where and by which means the nomination of a person as a proxy will be accepted. 
Also Section 252Z(4) says that sending the nomination to any other place and by any other way means that the nomination of proxy is "ineffective" (the Acts word)

It appears that we have no alternative but to send the nomination of proxy ie the whole voting form as directed in the notice of meeting.

The Corporations Act can be found here:
<http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/D67570263332A334CA257498001DB56C?OpenDocument>

Mutchy


----------



## Sean K (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> Sorry, but where are the insults?



They were deleted.

Play on.


----------



## DoraNBoots (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> To DoraNboots  Dora have you heard back from WC about counting votes yet ???  /Dane //




Hi GD,

No, I left another message today.  I think someone else should try and call them because I find they will often not return my calls.  (for example they know I have a lot of question with JH at the moment which won't be answered till after Monday as she is out of the office, so I think they will avoid me till then.)

If anyone is going to ask this question can you also ask how one can change their vote if they have already sent in their form.
Thanks!


----------



## great dame (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> Your figures just don't stack up.
> If the fund is worth $335m now and we get at least $45m from OCV = $380m at a min growth of 10% pa (and when all this turns around it will be more than that) you can add a min of $38m per year, and that's just a basic non compounding on the $380m base will then be $760m..there's your $1 NTA in just 10 years NOT 30!!! So I believe 7 is realistic and doable with very conservative growth and no other upside from OCV or further insurance /Lloyds paypouts which I am sure will come later.
> 
> Yes it will be on the ASX, it is not written anywhere..YET!



   My figures dont add up ??? Gee do i have to go over it again   OK The NTA is supposed to be 45 cents that a drop of 55% from a $1 For the NTA to get back to a $1 it needs to grow by 125%  divide 125 by 7 years and you get17,85% thats the average growth return per a year  now you know that will never happen   The rest i have explained about the growth on the exchange  /Dane //     You still have not told us where you get your info about the ASX ?????


----------



## great dame (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Maverrick  The 30 years is where it counts on the Stock Exchange  That is where the money is   Realy a company Or fund is only worth what it is selling for on the exchange  So lets say it is selling for on the exchange at 20 cents a unit that would make the fund worth about $152 mill  Remenber something is only worth what someone will pay for it  So realy just forget the NTA //Dane //


----------



## JohnH (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> My figures dont add up ??? Gee do i have to go over it again   OK The NTA is supposed to be 45 cents that a drop of 55% from a $1 For the NTA to get back to a $1 it needs to grow by 125%  divide 125 by 7 years and you get17,85% thats the average growth return per a year  now you know that will never happen   The rest i have explained about the growth on the exchange  /Dane //     You still have not told us where you get your info about the ASX ?????




Sorry GD your figures don't add up - I think you are forgetting that each year you are dealing with a higher figure.  Just 10% growth would reach $1 in just under 9 years, and 12% just over 7.  ....JH


----------



## Mutchy (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hello All,

I am not a lawyer and I have not read all the Act but it appears to me in Section 1322 of the Corporations Act that any error in the documentation sent to us as part of the Notice of Meeting is not cause in itself for the meeting to be delayed or prejudiced in any way unless it can be proven in court that a substantial injustice has been done to any member. 

Dora: please see your personal messages.

Mutchy


----------



## Maverick2802 (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

You can whine as much as you want.
People need income again.
It's called Premium Income Fund.
Payouts start October 31 with WC.
When do they start with your RE gd? Oh that's right you haven't come up with one.
My figures are very simple to comprehend. With a depressed market the NTA is 45c, that's fact as that is what CL has accepted. 
JH will get it back to $1 in 7 years, that is realistic.
You will then be able to get your cash (if you wish) via ASX, NSX is a very temporary solution based on the fact it was very easy to list quickly as opposed to the more rigid rules of ASX. We need this fund stabilised quickly.
Once credibility established it will be delisted from NSX and ASX trading will commence. 
You offer NO solutions, just negative trashing of someone who has not put you in this predicament.
WC will get the gig because they offer a solution and are willing to have a go.
No other company / individual has put their money where their mouth is.


----------



## great dame (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Sorry GD your figures don't add up - I think you are forgetting that each year you are dealing with a higher figure.  Just 10% growth would reach $1 in just under 9 years, and 12% just over 7.  ....JH



    Look let for get all about the NTA  Its what you can get for it on the Exchange  And thats what counts   PS still waiting for that ASX info /Dane //


----------



## great dame (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> You can whine as much as you want.
> People need income again.
> It's called Premium Income Fund.
> Payouts start October 31 with WC.
> ...



  In other words what your saying when the value of the fund gets to a$1  you are able to sell your units for a $1 on the exchange   Gee i would to believe that  But i am sorry it just wont happen /Dane //


----------



## newwwtrader (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> You can whine as much as you want.
> People need income again.
> It's called Premium Income Fund.
> Payouts start October 31 with WC.
> ...




This is where WC have in my opinion twisted the facts. If the Fund can afford to pay out in October (if they list on the NSX), then, why can't they pay out in October if people Vote No for Resolution 1.

If it can pay with a yes vote, it can pay with a no vote.

All that is required is a change in the constitution freezing total redemptions for lets say another 180 or 365 days. This would allow it to continue as a going concern, and do what it is designed to do - generate income.

As the NTA slowly rises, people could be allowed to redeem parts of their investment. At least with this method they will not be dictated to by the market forces on the NSX.


----------



## seamisty (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Octaviar Limited
ABN 90 107 863 436
For further information please contact
Investor Relations:
E-mail: mail@octaviar.com.au
Website: www.octaviar.com.au
Telephone: 1300 787 650
SHARE REGISTRY
Computershare Investor Services Pty Ltd
Level 3, 60 Carrington Street
Sydney NSW 2000
ASX Announcement
_______________________
Extension of Noteholder offer
28 August 2008
Listed Notes (ASX code: OCVG)
Representatives of Noteholders, who together hold more than 60% of the listed notes on issue, have
requested that the time period in which the proposal to Noteholders dated 17 July 2008 can be
accepted, be extended. These Noteholders have requested an extension so that their legal and
accounting advisors can complete their investigations and advice regarding that proposal and provide
such advice for their clients’ consideration.
As a consequence Octaviar Investment Notes Limited today announces that the deadline for acceptance
of the proposal to Noteholders will now be 4pm 30 September 2008. Noteholders are encouraged to
contact the investors’ information line on 1300 787 650 with any questions regarding the proposal.
Noteholders are reminded that those wishing to lodge a proxy for the meeting of Noteholders to be held
on Wednesday 3 September 2008 need to lodge their proxy with Computershare by 2pm Tuesday 2
September 2008. Any questions regarding this meeting should be directed to the investors’ information
line on 1300 787 650.
Given the above, the Company considers the appropriate and likely course is that at this meeting of
Wednesday 3 September 2008, Noteholders will resolve to direct the Trustee to seek an adjournment of
the winding up applications in respect of Octaviar Limited and others, presently scheduled for 9 and 10
September 2008, to a date after the revised deadline of 30 September 2008.


----------



## Rance (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Gee Rance nice to hear from you  Your still kicking ???  JH/WC rigging the votes ??? O perish the thought  They would   never do that   WOULD THEY ?????????????



Yes Doomy, i'm alive and well and absorbing all the advice, opinions and arguments being tossed around on this thread. And i'd like to thank everyone who have contributed; giving me a better appreciation of our situation...  Haven't voted yet ... Still absorbing...

Kind regards to all...
Rance


----------



## seamisty (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> God knows, I have learnt an HUGE amount with this whole experience,not the least of which is....how much I have that I don't need materialistically, and how many simple, free pleasures there are out there that I have never noticed before.
> 
> I think, before you vote no,no,no....it could be said about JH that it is "better the devil you know, than the devil you don't know".



Well said Mary, I won't need money soon!!! I have been swapping fish for everything!! (Even firewood & wine)Going to be some very dissapointed fish eaters around when my purse holds more than the 'buy one, get one free' meal vouchers at the local pub! Anybody out there want to swap me a pair of size 7 gumboots (without holes) for some snapper or shark LOL!!!! Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Iceman (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all 

Have been following thread for sometime but thought it is time I added so comments.

The only money that WC has put up so far is the money paid by OCV to it to run the fund which according to the OCV claim was funds stolen out of the fund anyway.

The claim to grow the fund back to $1.00 makes no sense at all if you take into account that they aim to have a 55% benchmark allocation in cash or commercial loans (no capital growth).

So 45% of PIF must drive the growth which makes required returns on these funds well over 20% per annum to get investment back to $1.00 in time JH promoted.

Either the growth will come out of existing assets values returning which we would get back out of an orderly wind up anyway or the money will be invested in high risk strategies. 

Lets hope the Qld meeting leads to an alternative for investors. Reading the information pack its clear that an orderly work out is allowed but sadly this is not in the best interests of the RE and therefore this choice is not given to us. 

The fund should be wound up in an orderly fashion (not liquidation) by an RE. For those true believers in WC they can take the 45 cents and invest with WC in a new fund if you think they are such a great fund manager.


----------



## Burnt (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Iceman said:


> Hi all
> 
> Have been following thread for sometime but thought it is time I added so comments.
> 
> ...




*[U]Well said,Iceman - good for you, some people just don't get this message. By the way WC has not paid anything for management rights to the fund. Their payment is not due till June 2009.[/U]*
GD - Good on you, you present basic logic.
Maverick2802 - who's whinging - only presenting facts here !! You believe that people in need will be able to cash out on NSX - how sad is this belief - and how generous of you !!!!! Gee 10 to 20c on the dollar.
The option for NSX listing will only benefit *WC and their associates *-*NOT THE OWNERS OF THE FUND !!!!!!!*
Newtrader - Well said re your post 2067. This is what people need to understand. We do not have to be subjected to the limited options WC put forward.

Iceman has again summarised the options open to us, as have been put forward previously. I'm so saddened by the number of people willing to roll over and give in !!!!! As I have stated before, I am representing my 87 year old father who served in WWII and spent quite some time in Jap POW camps. The soldiers who did not have the guts to stand up, and who rolled over and gave in DIED!!!! I will fight to the end with him against what he believes is injust. Those of you who are too scared.......I can only feel sorry for you, but spare us your critisism. Sorry but I take it very personally. If you want to believe that your gonna get 6% income each year and 10% + growth, good on you. Those of us that do not believe in this BS........we have as much right as you to express our opinions !!!!!!We will fight for our rights as owners of this fund to PROTECT OUR BEST INTERESTS !!!!!!


----------



## Burnt (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mutchy said:


> Hello All,
> 
> I am not a lawyer and I have not read all the Act but it appears to me in Section 1322 of the Corporations Act that any error in the documentation sent to us as part of the Notice of Meeting is not cause in itself for the meeting to be delayed or prejudiced in any way unless it can be proven in court that a substantial injustice has been done to any member.
> 
> ...




Hi Mutchy , I think the point of the posts regarding voting issues is to highlight that fact that once again WC has not been 100% truthful and straightforward in what they are saying.


----------



## cashstrapped (29 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am concerned about what's in the booklet - it's a hard sell and a lot of information is very obscure. There's also a lot of climb down from what was promised earlier, and  while there were meetings around the states to sell this idea, the one for voting is only in the Gold Coast.

These are my main concerns, apart from the overall dodgy look of it:

-It seems that, though the 45% was waved around, only a small fraction of units will be bought at this price - and even that may not happen. The divying up process is obscure - but the bit that is clearer, indicates that it is designed to  attract a lot of small investors to vote for it, but is unrelated to units.

-The carrot of 3%  in payouts is vaguely defined. Presumably that is 1.5 % in October (after the vote) and another 1.5% in December. Then .75% i.e. 3/4 of 1%, four times next year. Then what? 

- The major point is that the stock exchange option involves relinquishing all rights to redemption, in exchange for: shares that are not likely to be liquid, especially on this junior stock exchange; the possiblity of what is turning out to be only a very small buyout at 45% - and it may not happen; and for the 3% carrot, but this payout could go ahead anyway- there is no reason it is reliant on this vote.


Why is a freezing of redemptions not being offered, for a further period, with continued trading, preferably in non vested-interest hands, instead of the hurried liquidation fire sale, which - this company says - will raise just 14%.

And is ASIC to be let off this? 


This is just from my reading of the booklet and I am happy to be corrected if Ive got any of it wrong. However, this understanding of it, this hard sell, and this railroaded vote (who is counting?), with the stock listing booked for the next day, do not inspire confidence, for me.


----------



## Maverick2802 (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

No it's 3c per unit by 24 dec then a quarterly payment of a targeted rate of 1.5c per quarter and I have that in writing.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> .... then a quarterly payment of a targeted rate of 1.5c per quarter and I have that in writing.




Definition of "target" = a desired goal.  That's hardly binding even if it is in writing.


----------



## DoraNBoots (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



cashstrapped said:


> I am concerned about what's in the booklet - it's a hard sell and a lot of information is very obscure. There's also a lot of climb down from what was promised earlier, and  while there were meetings around the states to sell this idea, the one for voting is only in the Gold Coast.
> ....



Hi cashstrapped,
Welcome!  Most of us agree with everything you said.  A lot of us have raised complaints to ASIC which I encourage you to do as well.  Also make sure you let WC know you are not happy.  People are working on alternatives as we do not believe that we have to vote for WC's proposal and know that liquidation at 14 cents is just a threat by WC to enable them to put through whatever changes they like.  I get the impression you are not near the GC but if you are come alone to the QLD meeting today to find out more.




Jadel said:


> ...
> If you would like to consider some serious initiatives on the future of our Fund PLEASE attend the QLD meeting on Saturday  .
> 
> All Queensland AG members next meeting.
> ...


----------



## Sean K (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Please ladies and gents, no more personal attacks.

If I see even the slightest personal insult or taunt, accounts will be suspended.

Cheers,
kennas


----------



## Iceman (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All

Just following on from the projected returns I have tried to make an annual table below of projected position of the fund based on the WC bench mark allocations of our funds and numbers they have provided.

Year                             0     1       2      3     4      5     6      7

Opening                        .45  .41    .44    .47   .51   .55   .60   .67

Distribution                   -.06 -.06  -.06   -.06  -.06 -.06 - .06 -.06

Income (10% pa on 55%) .02    .02    .02   .03   .03   .03   .03   .04         
Growth (25% on 45%)      0      .05    .05   .05    .05   .05   .05   .06   

Closing                         .41    .42     .44   .45   .46    .48   .50   .53

My assumptions are that NTA is 45 cents
We get 6 cents a year paid out to us.
On 55% of our money we get no growth just 10% income
On 45% we get a annual return of 25% income and growth
Growth portion is calculated on closing previous year balance so it does compound.

So based on WC own numbers and benchmarks set out in information booklet and a very generous 25% growth factor on the money they want to invest in growth assets our NTA will remain by year seven 53 cents.

For an ASX listed fund with a clean history currently many are trading below NTA. 

Why for the next 7 years is this thing price going to rise above 45 cents through having as a listed fund. WC are not magicians and these are their own numbers although I dont even think they would say they could get 25% so the above numbers would get worse.

Where does the $1.00 come from ?

Their own document if you read it carefully says that an alternative moritorium and work out could be put to unit holders. It just remains very well hidden in how the phrase it.

This would get us 45 cents back in 3 years with some upside if existing asset values improved and OCV claim maximised.

This has to be in investors best interests but it is not in WC best interests as a permanent listed fund adds permanent income for them which adds to WC wealth by 10s of millions.

The only reason you would not vote no no no is if you believe WC that it is their proposal or liquidation which is simply not true.

In fact if you vote no yes no you would get the buy back which given there will be 3 cents available according to WC would allow us to get some money by christmas while either WC agreed or another RE was put in place to conduct orderly realisation and quarterly return of our money.

Its weird but no yes no option does not seem to be considered in WC booklet but I will look again. 

Anyway looking forward to comments from others on the above numbers.


----------



## Maverick2802 (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Iceman said:


> Hi All
> 
> Just following on from the projected returns I have tried to make an annual table below of projected position of the fund based on the WC bench mark allocations of our funds and numbers they have provided.
> 
> ...




Huh?????


----------



## seamisty (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Iceman, I think you will find a NO YES NO vote is a vote for liquidation!


----------



## seamisty (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Iceman, The following is taken from page 5 of the explanatory memorandum:::::If the resolution in relation to the proposed constitutional changes is not passed then the Constitution will remain
unchanged. Unless Unitholders in general meeting subsequently approve changes to the Constitution Unitholders will
be entitled to redeem their investment in the Fund at the end of the current 360 day redemption suspension period.
The redemption suspension expires in early 2009. It is the opinion of the current board that the net asset backing per
Unit and therefore the cash payable to Unitholders in those circumstances would be 14 cents per Unit (plus any amount
recovered from MFS). ::::::This refers to resolution 1. A No vote to this means the Fund will be liquidated immediately and proceeds will be distributed to unit holders at an estimated pittance of 14cents per unit!!!!


----------



## 2CentsWorth (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Iceman, The following is taken from page 5 of the explanatory memorandum:::::If the resolution in relation to the proposed constitutional changes is not passed then the Constitution will remain
> unchanged. Unless Unitholders in general meeting subsequently approve changes to the Constitution Unitholders will
> be entitled to redeem their investment in the Fund at the end of the current 360 day redemption suspension period.
> The redemption suspension expires in early 2009. It is the opinion of the current board that the net asset backing per
> ...




Good morning Seamisty,
the first half of this statement is quite clear. However, it is the second half
that leaves me wondering exactly what is implied: "*UNLESS UNITHOLDERS*
*IN GENERAL MEETING, SUBSEQUENTLY, APPROVE CHANGES TO THE CONSTITUTION, UNITHOLDERSWILL BE ENTITLED TO REEDEEM... ETC.*"

This appears to say that if we Vote "NO" to res.1 , a general meeting can be called, and a vote taken to *AGREE* to changing the constitution,  but not 
necessarily with all of the same eight clauses in the Res. offered by WC. 
If WC and the the alternative offerings from the general meeting, can strike a happy medium, then all can proceed as otherwise planned*.  *In other words,* a right to disagree, without annnihilation.*

What is your opinion of the meaning this wording. 
Cheers.


----------



## DoraNBoots (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> *DoraNBoots & Great Doom
> 
> In the words of the great John McEnroe "YOU CAN"T BE SERIOUS!" about JH/WC rigging the votes!!
> 
> ...




Hi Rance,
Lets pretend for a moment I don’t have trust issues with WC.  I still have concerns as to whether WC can  even count.  Here’s why:


JH sent me a letter asking me to deposit $14,000 into the WC bank account.  This is what they considered to be a reasonable amount for covering the costs of suppling me with a document.  You have an IT background so would know this is an outrageous amount to change (a valued unit holder whose interests you are there to look after) to generate and send a report.

WC are telling us they will buy back the first 10,000 units for every unit holder which will only total 5% of the fund.  This doesn’t add up unless there are conditions they are not telling us about.

WC told me there are 6,000 unit holders with 10,000 units or less.  Wrong, not even close!

I have an email telling me a report for 31st Dec 2007 is the same as a report as at 30th  June 2008.  Again wrong.

There’s also the flawed proposed constitution which shows a general lack of attention to detail.
Of course WC counting the votes is only a small concern of mine when I remember they are also looking after my money!


----------



## 2CentsWorth (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi DoraNBoots,

I well remember the debacle about aquiring a list of Unitholders.
Eventually, somebody stated that they had finally received a copy.

Am I to assume you have seen this list, and been able to count just how
many unitholders there are with holdings of 10K or less, or have you some
other information that led to discovering this. 

Little "inaccuracies" just seem to keep surfacing from WC lately, perhaps in themselves, Nothing to worry about, but, put them all together and the waving green flag appears to be turning a deeper shade of RED !! 

Cheers.


----------



## seamisty (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



2CentsWorth said:


> Good morning Seamisty,
> the first half of this statement is quite clear. However, it is the second half
> that leaves me wondering exactly what is implied: "*UNLESS UNITHOLDERS*
> *IN GENERAL MEETING, SUBSEQUENTLY, APPROVE CHANGES TO THE CONSTITUTION, UNITHOLDERSWILL BE ENTITLED TO REEDEEM... ETC.*"
> ...



Hi Dora, I've given up looking for hidden meanings and other interpretations because I've decided to give WC a go initially, without hinderance. When I did speak to someone at WC I was told that if JH did not get the for vote on No 1, the Fund would be liquidated. If some of you think you can do better, I don't have a problem with that. I am just not prepared to take the risk of liquidation in this economic climate and would like to see some money before the end of year AND retain my units in the Fund. I am sure there will be just as many who will not participate in the buyback as do if WC get the vote. On another point of interest, what is your view regarding the OCV settlement to noteholders/creditors now that the deadline has been extended to the 30th Sept? If WC don't get the yes vote by the 18th Sept, where does that leave the negotiations that JH has not finalised on behalf of PIF holders with her good friend CS? Regards, Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



2CentsWorth said:


> Hi DoraNBoots,
> 
> I well remember the debacle about aquiring a list of Unitholders.
> Eventually, somebody stated that they had finally received a copy.
> ...




I have compared what WC are saying against the members register and it's doesn't add up.


----------



## Rance (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi Rance,
> Lets pretend for a moment I don’t have trust issues with WC.  I still have concerns as to whether WC can  even count.  Here’s why:
> 
> 
> ...



DoraNBoots
I agree with you re asking for $14,000 to produce a list of unit holders!!!  It's just that i can't believe that JH would run the risk of rigging the vote.

#What happened to the list? Were you able to negotiate a fairer price, say in the hundreds?
#Would they allow you to examine a list in their office?
#Given privacy laws, etc, is it allowable for anyone (other than officers and employees of the RE) to view a detailed list of unit holders? Does anyone know the answers?

Rance


----------



## Maverick2802 (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This is what I am saying seamisty, there is NO alternative.
We can meet if a NO motion comes from the vote, then if there is no alternate plan by an RE that we all agree to go with, the fund will be wound up and assets liquidated.
But don't worry, the Queensland meeting will reveal the master plan that will see JH shaking in her boots, you'll see

Please Dora and others we are waiting for any news, we await THE ANSWER!!


----------



## Iceman (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty

There is no such thing as a vote for liquidatiion.

Call ASIC and ask them what is the process if these resolutions do not get up and you will find that WC does not even have the right to start a liquidation process.

Maverick in relation to the numbers you start each year with 45 cents, hand out 6 cents to investors, according to the benchmark allocations over half will be  in no capital growth style investments (cash and commercial loans) so I have assumed 10% return on this portion which is about 2 cents per annum.

So on 45% of the fund say 20 cents per unit it is claimed by WC that they can rebuild this to $1 over 7 years. You need more than 25% per annum compounded growth to even just mark time at 45 cents NTA. 

In the calculation I used a 25% compounding return on this component and got nowhere near a $1.00. Only 53 cents after 7 years NTA

It is simple maths and shows what an outrageous claim it is by WC unless the value is in the existing assets (45 cents is understated) in which case under an orderly windup we would get this back anyway.

If you can show how using the WC benchmark allocations and passing out 6 cents per annum to investors the fund can actually grow I will be interested to here what and how you believe this can be done.

Finally what is the issue about Qld meeting today. I understand they have taken legal advice on the proposed changes and implications to unit holders which I believe is the only time any investors have taken legal advice outside of what WC have told us.

Why are they been attacked. If they have a better strategy isnt it there right to consider this and put it to other investors.

WC claims that is their way or liquidation is misleading at best.  

A no no no vote is not a vote for liquidation and neither is a no yes no as there is no such thing as a vote for liquidation. 

It is saying to RE that


----------



## Maverick2802 (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well of course I would be thinking that value added to the fund would be in the form of appreciating existing assets in comparison to an extremely depressed current market, Iceman. That would be a given!


----------



## RickH (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Iceman,
Interesting statements.
Please consider the following:
The 45 cents appears to be based on a reasonable liquidation of assets.
There are probably no guarantees of what would be received if a fast liquidation of assets was completed.

What happens if there is a fast liquidation of assets? Value?????

Consider the option of voting YES, YES and NO.

Gives time to really understand what is going on if there is even a slight possibility that the fund would sell down its assets too quickly in the event of a NO, NO, NO vote.

I am not 100% sure but I believe that by voting YES, YES, NO this will give time to consider future action and stops the 2% fee from being paid to JH.

Regards, RickH:couch




Iceman said:


> Seamisty
> 
> There is no such thing as a vote for liquidatiion.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mary Lynch (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I hope that at the Brisbane meeting some of the AF guys have got together beforehand and agreed on the figures surrounding all this. Then they can get them all up on a board and explain their calculations clearly to everyone there. 

THEN at least 3 of them should take their figures to JH and ask her to explain her intentions around their calculations.

That will give her a chance to defend herself, and it may make things a whole lot clearer for us all.


----------



## Iceman (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi RickH

I dont see how voting no no no results in an accelerated asset sale. This would only occur if WC turned vindictive because they did not get what they wanted.

What ever uplift in value we received from existing assets would be achieved through an orderly workout of the existing assets under a moritorium and quarterly distribution.

Why cannot WC just put this up as an option and as cash emerges they can put together a new fund and true believers can roll over into that fund and they can list that fund.

For us non believers we can take our 45 cents plus over time and have a choice of fund manager who we wish to trust to re-invest.

A yes yes no vote installs the WC Ltd fee into the constitution and I would like to wager that if this vote gets through WC next step will be to go to ASIC and seek to replace the RE they bought with the parent with the reason that it is likely that it will face litagation from the OCV related matters as the buck ultimately stops with it. They will get the fee by default.

Also I would also like to place a bet with someone that if the changes get up within months WC will return to unitholders saying they need to raise more funds into the PIF. The reason is that 68% of the funds are in commercial loans, many of which require ongoing commitments to complete the underlying projects.

This raising will be at the current trading price and will increase WC fees but really decimate the long term chances of rebuilding of value. Look back at previous posts and WC have already indicated that it will probably raise money in the fund.

For these reasons I still believe a no no no vote is best and then a new meeting called quickly putting up changes required for orderly work out. If WC is not interested in this then so be it I am sure there are others who for this type of fee will take it on.    

This will still get us the same money by christmas and get us our 45 cents plus over the next few years which I cannot see happening for many years to come from the NSX. 

The reason for the NSX is simply the long term value it puts on WC balance sheet and is a clear conflict over what is best for the unitholders versus what is best for the manager. It has nothing to do with the redemptions as even the funds own constitution gives the manager power to extend the freezing period. Have a read of it carefully and it shows up more lies that WC have told about why they want to list the fund.


----------



## Maverick2802 (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Iceman said:


> For these reasons I still believe a no no no vote is best and then a new meeting called quickly putting up changes required for orderly work out. If WC is not interested in this then so be it I am sure there are others who for this type of fee will take it on.





Who are these elusive 'others'? Where are they? With only a couple of weeks till crunch time, they better surface soon!! Please tell us, don't just make these statements. Show me concrete proof that if we vote no no no there is another alternative. Another RE or administrator that will be there on deck, that is competent to take the fund on immidiately in case where WC should not get the vote. Till someone can give me the name of this company there is only WC.

Any raising of future capital I would say would have to be voted by investors I would think and may be in the form of a constitutional change for this type of fund. I doubt if we would vote for something that will dilute our unit value further.


----------



## ian1328 (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

No one has come and offered us a better deal than WC.  The only alternative I can see is a no vote which gives us 14c in the dollar. NO-one has offered anything else. An 'orderly wind-up ' will only richen the pockets of those administrators, like when your wife leaves and takes the cash.


----------



## breaker1 (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> Who are these elusive 'others'? Where are they? With only a couple of weeks till crunch time, they better surface soon!! Please tell us, don't just make these statements. Show me concrete proof that if we vote no no no there is another alternative. Another RE or administrator that will be there on deck, that is competent to take the fund on immidiately in case where WC should not get the vote. Till someone can give me the name of this company there is only WC.
> 
> Any raising of future capital I would say would have to be voted by investors I would think and may be in the form of a constitutional change for this type of fund. I doubt if we would vote for something that will dilute our unit value further.




Maverick,

I have to agree with you! At this late stage, before the resolution vote, we as investors can *not* vote no no no with only vague ideas and suggestions of the hope of some alternative and guesses at what will happen if WC does not get the 75%.

Any alternative proposals from now on have to be certain and SOLD EXTENSIVELY with the full detailed facts of that alternative, otherwise PIF investors will consider us somewhat wreckless.

There is too much at stake now for cowboy behaviour, no matter how well intentioned.


----------



## flatback (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



2CentsWorth said:


> Good morning Seamisty,
> the first half of this statement is quite clear. However, it is the second half
> that leaves me wondering exactly what is implied: "*UNLESS UNITHOLDERS*
> *IN GENERAL MEETING, SUBSEQUENTLY, APPROVE CHANGES TO THE CONSTITUTION, UNITHOLDERSWILL BE ENTITLED TO REEDEEM... ETC.*"
> ...



Hi 2 cents worth, seamisty i know the question was aimed at you, may i put my 2 cents worth in here also, i have always believed what you are suggesting 2cents worth , and that is, that this position was always negotiable, where as you say a (happy medium) can be struck between us the unit holders and JH with WC , sorry to but in ,Cheers Flatback


----------



## seamisty (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Maverick,
> 
> I have to agree with you! At this late stage, before the resolution vote, we as investors can *not* vote no no no with only vague ideas and suggestions of the hope of some alternative and guesses at what will happen if WC does not get the 75%.
> 
> ...



I agree Breaker1 and Ian1328, there are a lot of vunerable unitholders looking for direction. I had one today who was not going to vote for WC because they thought with the option  there to list on the NSX  the proposed distribution would cease!!Also if WC was removed as RE then the PIF could not be liquidated as the Fund would remain frozen. Either there are certain people deliberatly scaremongering or we have some very ill informed investors. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## newwwtrader (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



ian1328 said:


> No one has come and offered us a better deal than WC.  The only alternative I can see is a no vote which gives us 14c in the dollar. NO-one has offered anything else. An 'orderly wind-up ' will only richen the pockets of those administrators, like when your wife leaves and takes the cash.




I think it would be pretty childish of WC to simply walk away if they lose the battle to list on the NSX.

I think at the moment they are just playing hardball. Hoping the older unit holders will crumble and they can do what they like.

I believe if they do lose res #1. They wont take there ball and wonder off. They'll hang around. Because its not like they are being asked to manage the fund for free.


----------



## seamisty (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> Hi 2 cents worth, seamisty i know the question was aimed at you, may i put my 2 cents worth in here also, i have always believed what you are suggesting 2cents worth , and that is, that this position was always negotiable, where as you say a (happy medium) can be struck between us the unit holders and JH with WC , sorry to but in ,Cheers Flatback



 I am all for making everyone happy flatback,  I just want the maximum result for unitholders, an income stream and the chance of regaining their initial investment. Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



newwwtrader said:


> I think it would be pretty childish of WC to simply walk away if they lose the battle to list on the NSX.
> 
> I think at the moment they are just playing hardball. Hoping the older unit holders will crumble and they can do what they like.
> 
> I believe if they do lose res #1. They wont take there ball and wonder off. They'll hang around. Because its not like they are being asked to manage the fund for free.



Well Newtrader, I hope you are right, because I put that to WC and was told that they won't make any money until distributions resume and that will not happen until WC get full control of the Fund. Seamisty


----------



## breaker1 (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



kennas said:


> Please ladies and gents, no more personal attacks.
> 
> If I see even the slightest personal insult or taunt, accounts will be suspended.
> 
> ...




Dear Kennas,

First of all, let me thank the founders and administrators of ASF for making this great forum service available to investors such as ourselves. I find it a brilliant site.

I would ask all post contributors to this MFS/OCV/WC PIF thread to take care not to cross the line of reasonable relational behaviour. Remember this thread is supossed to be basically self regulated. Lets give ASF moderators the conviction that we are doing so.

However I would ask ASF moderators to appreciate the severe financial pressure some of we PIF investor contributors are under and that at present there are differing ideas of what will be best for maximising investor return from a terrible position of PIF management abuse leaving us with a prospect of anly getting 14c back in the dollar, some losing possibly millions. 

I would also like to point out that this thread is VERY popular, with now over 110,000 hits and over 2000 posts, surely this high contribution makes ASF admistrators well satisfied and see the prospect for your advertisers being even more pleased with the prospect of more customers. 

Accordingly, I would assume that no sudden suspensions will take place without a personal warning to any offending account.

I personally consider some of the posts, even though very strong in opinion, at times quite entertaining. We don't want to be regulated to the point of morbidity, so lets all get the balance right.


----------



## JohnH (30 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quote:
Originally Posted by kennas  
Please ladies and gents, no more personal attacks.

If I see even the slightest personal insult or taunt, accounts will be suspended.

Cheers,
kennas

If I can also add to Breaker1's wise statement -  The difference between abuse and banter is a very thin line - and this after all is Australia!


----------



## great dame (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Iceman said:


> Hi All
> 
> Just following on from the projected returns I have tried to make an annual table below of projected position of the fund based on the WC bench mark allocations of our funds and numbers they have provided.
> 
> ...



    Hello Iceman  Thanks for that wonderful info  I can see your a real thinking person  Everyhink your saying is on the money  Exceot the 25% growth is a long shot   But you are forgetting the one big Problem  and its the NTA our only way of getting to any money at all  So lets say the funds NTA ls 53 cents in 7 years  You would be kidding ourselfs if we think we will get that  closer to 25  cents   As i keeping saying its not what the fund is worth its whats you can get for it on the exchange  /Dane //


----------



## DoraNBoots (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Well Newtrader, I hope you are right, because I put that to WC and was told that they won't make any money until distributions resume and that will not happen until WC get full control of the Fund. Seamisty




Hi Seamisty,
Can you please explain "until WC get full control of the fund"?

They have full control of the fund, they are the RE.  What they don't have yet is a constitution which allows them to disregard our rights and give them unreasonable rights, but they sure are working hard to get us to sign off on that.

Can you explain why WC won't start distributions?  Distributions were stopped because the RBOS had a hold on the fund and didn't allow them.  Now you seem to be telling me distributions won't start until WC get their own way!  If the money is there and there are no creditor holds over our money, then how dare WC hold back OUR money!


----------



## DoraNBoots (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Dear Kennas,
> 
> First of all, let me thank the founders and administrators of ASF for making this great forum service available to investors such as ourselves. I find it a brilliant site.
> 
> ...




Breaker1,  Did you see what Maverick wrote?  I found it insulting and it wasn't even directed at me.  If someone is insulting on here then I have no problem notifying the moderators and letting them know.


----------



## DoraNBoots (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> DoraNBoots
> I agree with you re asking for $14,000 to produce a list of unit holders!!!
> 
> ...




Hi Rance,
Our right to inspect and obtain a copy of a register is covered in the Corporations Act section 173.  The Yahoo! group has details in the Legal folder.


----------



## Rance (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi Rance,
> Our right to inspect and obtain a copy of a register is covered in the Corporations Act section 173.  The Yahoo! group has details in the Legal folder.




Thank you Dora. Will look it up.

Rance


----------



## zixo (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all,

I'm still collating a list how many people have written to federal MPs or Senator Nick sherrys Office and if they have bothered to respond. 

I would also like to start compiling a list of how many complaints ASIC has had, since they seem to be so slow on coming up with any kind of statement. 

Email is zixo7@hotmail.com

Cheers


----------



## Mutchy (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi Mutchy , I think the point of the posts regarding voting issues is to highlight that fact that once again WC has not been 100% truthful and straightforward in what they are saying.




Hello Burnt,
My previous post covered voting issues. This post covered errors in the voting forms, the Explanatory Memorandum, and possibly errors in the proposed constitution. The nomination of a proxy and hence the voting which has to be declared for that person to exercise that vote, must be done by the means specified by the RE and the RE has no option under the Corporations Act other than to use their registered address for replies.

My previous post:
"As I read it, Section 252Z(2) of the Corporations Act says that the nomination of a proxy must be returned to the RE's registered office or any other place nominated in the notice of meeting and the RE can specify where and by which means the nomination of a person as a proxy will be accepted. 
Also Section 252Z(4) says that sending the nomination to any other place and by any other way means that the nomination of proxy is "ineffective" (the Acts word)

It appears that we have no alternative but to send the nomination of proxy ie the whole voting form as directed in the notice of meeting.

The Corporations Act can be found here:
<http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/D67570263332A334CA257498001DB56C?OpenDocument>"

Cheers
Mutchy


----------



## Maverick2802 (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tuart I have no issue.
I have an agenda as an investor in this fund.
Pretty easy to see by now what that agenda is.
I just ask one simple question that noone can answer.
What is the name of the competent RE (with experience in managing a fund)that is the alternate RE which is there in place to take on that role for WC should they not get the 75% vote?
I am not talking figures now, forget that for a moment.
Just give me something to give cred to all you recommending we do not vote for WC. That's all.

Now I have a question for you Tuart.
You say 'we'. Per your early posts you admit you are not an investor in this fund. You have NO money at stake.
So what is your agenda???


----------



## DoraNBoots (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> ...Show me concrete proof that if we vote no no no there is another alternative. Another RE or administrator ...






Maverick2802 said:


> ...
> What is the name of the competent RE (with experience in managing a fund)that is the alternate RE which is there in place to take on that role for WC should they not get the 75% vote?
> ...



It is not a vote for or against the RE.  The RE is JH and co and a No vote won't remove them as RE.  All the No vote (for resolution 1) will do is say we don't agree with the changes you are asking us to sign off on.


----------



## seamisty (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quote page 15 of the eplanatory memorandum::" In the event Unitholders do not vote in favour of the proposed changes to the Constitution (RES1), the
Fund’s Units will not be traded on NSX, and the changes which are proposed will not be made. The
current board is of the view that redemption requests would only be able to be met if the assets of the
Fund were sold. It is expected that this would be completed by early 2009 and Unitholders would
receive approximately 14 cents per Unit. This resolution must be passed as a special resolution of the Fund’s Unitholders i.e.
passed by at least 75% of the votes cast by Unitholders in the Fund who are
entitled to vote, in proxy or in person at the meeting.
Each of the directors of the current responsible entity have carefully considered all
of the current circumstances, and recommend that Unitholders vote in favour of
the resolution


----------



## Sean K (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This thread will be suspended if members can not argue the points objectively without resorting to personal attacks.

It's really not that hard.

Cheers,
kennas


----------



## DoraNBoots (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Quote page 15 of the eplanatory memorandum::" In the event Unitholders do not vote in favour of the proposed changes to the Constitution (RES1), the
> Fund’s Units will not be traded on NSX, and the changes which are proposed will not be made. The
> current board is of the view that redemption requests would only be able to be met if the assets of the
> Fund were sold. It is expected that this would be completed by early 2009 and Unitholders would
> ...




We would not be saying we don't want the constitution to be changed we would just be saying No to the changes WC have proposed.  

Page 6 of the EM:
"Unitholders have a right under the constitution to call a general meeting and consider other alternatives."


----------



## Mutchy (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Iceman said:


> Hi All
> 
> Just following on from the projected returns I have tried to make an annual table below of projected position of the fund based on the WC bench mark allocations of our funds and numbers they have provided.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2CentsWorth (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Flatback,
You are very welcome to join in or reply to any post i make, regardless to whom it may be initially addressed.

The way words can be couched in legal-speak has always been a bane to me. It is only by reading them over several times, and then dissecting the sentences into into the meanigful pieces, can one begin to see what is really meant. Even then, a Lawyer may still need to be consulted.

The phrasing in the EM of what would be the result if Res (1) is NOT passed, is a case in point. Much of the talk and most of the wrting concerning the issues dealing with this whole affair, have been put forward using legal-speak form. The correct meanings are there, but prima facie, they appear to be warnings of things that your mind has been cleverly led to, but actually, do not exist. 
A NO vote for Res (1) does not lead down the path of total destruction, It merely calls us all back to the table, to consider mutually agreeeable alternative ideas. 

I am currently considering changing my vote to:  (1)NO  (2)YES  (3)NO. 

However, Many members, including myself, are now very weary of all this, and we just need some money in our pockets for now, with a reasonable income flow for the future, and see what happens further down the road.

Best wishes to all.


----------



## Burnt (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I'm still collating a list how many people have written to federal MPs or Senator Nick sherrys Office and if they have bothered to respond.
> 
> ...




Hi Zixo,
Can I please openly ask what you intend doing with this information ?


----------



## RickH (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi DoraNBoots,
It is interesting to hear that you believe JH would stay as RE after losing the vote because the RE business will still make its 0.7% fee until the PIF is sold down over the next year as a simple liquidation service. That is not her business. What happens to her staff after the PIF is closed. Personally I would expect her to walk away as quickly as possible as I do not believe that simple liquidation is part of her business model.

It appears to me that her personal goals are to help the PIF investors recover their money and continue to receive distributions. But her business goal is probably to create a long term managed fund that would eventually list on the ASX.

I do not think that JH is really short of money.

How many other REs are interested in PIF. It is not an absolutely fabulous business opportunity. Unit holders are running everywhere and anywhere - Solicitors, ASIC, Courts, Politicians etc. - does not sound like a normal group of happy investors to me. 
Consider - Yes, Yes, No.
Regards, RickH:couch


DoraNBoots said:


> It is not a vote for or against the RE.  The RE is JH and co and a No vote won't remove them as RE.  All the No vote (for resolution 1) will do is say we don't agree with the changes you are asking us to sign off on.


----------



## zixo (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi Zixo,
> Can I please openly ask what you intend doing with this information ?




Hi Burnt,

Sure you can ask.
Am wondering with all the exchange of information thats being traded through this forum if anyone has actively been chasing the people in government  who can actually make changes to investments like this so a situation like ours will never happen again.

Perhaps we can eventually see someone locked in a cage for whats happened 

We've been diddled, robbed and held to ransom and after reading how the previous Government and asic handled westpoint its any wonder that not much political attention is being drawn to this and the same thing will keep on happening to more unsuspecting Investors

I think It's important this example is somewhere where we can actively make a difference Just wondering if you written to a politician or contacted Asic and how interested they have been?

Cheers

email me on zixo7@hotmail.com


----------



## JohnH (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Oh Dear!  Somebody at the end of this debacle is going to be able to say "I told you so."  -  For or aginst JH - who knows?  - But by then it will be too late!


----------



## newwwtrader (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi DoraNBoots,
> It is interesting to hear that you believe JH would stay as RE after losing the vote because the RE business will still make its 0.7% fee until the PIF is sold down over the next year as a simple liquidation service. That is not her business. What happens to her staff after the PIF is closed. Personally I would expect her to walk away as quickly as possible as I do not believe that simple liquidation is part of her business model.
> 
> It appears to me that her personal goals are to help the PIF investors recover their money and continue to receive distributions. But her business goal is probably to create a long term managed fund that would eventually list on the ASX.
> ...




I believe even with a loss to res #1 WC will still stay on.

In relation to her staff, offices etc when (taking the hypothetical here) the PIF is concluded - well I would believe that very few of the staff would be new recruits that were brought on specifically to deal with the PIF. They would be current WC staff being utilised in a variety of different roles.

Your statement that her personal goal is to help PIF investors recover their money. Well if this truly is the case, then even with a loss to res #1, you would assume that she would stay on as the RE. As she would be achieving her personal goal of helping out, whilst still retaining a "healthy" income herself by being the RE.


----------



## Burnt (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Iceman said:


> Hi RickH
> ........For these reasons I still believe a no no no vote is best and then a new meeting called quickly putting up changes required for orderly work out. If WC is not interested in this then so be it I am sure there are others who for this type of fee will take it on.
> 
> This will still get us the same money by christmas and get us our 45 cents plus over the next few years which I cannot see happening for many years to come from the NSX.
> ...






newwwtrader said:


> I think it would be pretty childish of WC to simply walk away if they lose the battle to list on the NSX.
> 
> I think at the moment they are just playing hardball. Hoping the older unit holders will crumble and they can do what they like.
> 
> I believe if they do lose res #1. They wont take there ball and wonder off. They'll hang around. Because its not like they are being asked to manage the fund for free.






DoraNBoots said:


> It is not a vote for or against the RE.  The RE is JH and co and a No vote won't remove them as RE.  All the No vote (for resolution 1) will do is say we don't agree with the changes you are asking us to sign off on.






DoraNBoots said:


> We would not be saying we don't want the constitution to be changed we would just be saying No to the changes WC have proposed.
> 
> Page 6 of the EM:
> "Unitholders have a right under the constitution to call a general meeting and consider other alternatives."






2CentsWorth said:


> Hi Flatback,
> .........A NO vote for Res (1) does not lead down the path of total destruction, It merely calls us all back to the table, to consider mutually agreeeable alternative ideas.
> 
> I am currently considering changing my vote to:  (1)NO  (2)YES  (3)NO.
> Best wishes to all.




Hi All,
Please everyone, look at the facts as pointed out above in summaries of previous posts. Look at what our rights are and the ability we have to exercise them.
A NO VOTE DOES NOT MEAN LIQUIDATION OF THE FUND.
A NO VOTE DOES NOT MEAN REMOVAL OFTHE RE.
A NO VOTE DOES NOT MEAN THE FUND WILL BE UNABLE TO PAY THE PROMISED DISTRIBUTIONS THIS YEAR.
A NO VOTE MEANS THAT WE DON'T ACCEPT THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE FUNDS CONSTITUTION I.E. NSX LISTING AND A DEPLETION OF OUR RIGHTS.
Please keep your minds open and do not give up and resign yourselves to something you are not completely happy with. Give the facts careful consideration.
Remember too, even if you have already voted - you have the right to change your vote !!!!
Cheers.


----------



## JohnH (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi All,
> Please everyone, look at the facts as pointed out above in summaries of previous posts. Look at what our rights are and the ability we have to exercise them.
> A NO VOTE DOES NOT MEAN LIQUIDATION OF THE FUND.
> A NO VOTE DOES NOT MEAN REMOVAL OFTHE RE.
> ...




Hi Burnt,

Could you also (and as succinctly) list the proposed recommended alternatives to the "No" vote?


----------



## RickH (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Newwwtrader,
Interesting statement. You think that JH will stay on if less than 75% is in favour of her doing what she believes is the best option.
Please consider:
If you expanded your service business and less than 75% of your new clients voted for your preferred strategy - Would you really want to be associated with such a client controlling business? - Problems everywhere.
Please remember that if JH lost the vote and then completed her duties as directed by the unit holders (JH would not be in control/personality problem?). It could be said that JH was only interested in the money and not trying to help unit holders. It sounds like too much trouble for no long term benefit. If I was JH I know what I would do.
Regards, RickH:couch


newwwtrader said:


> I believe even with a loss to res #1 WC will still stay on.
> 
> In relation to her staff, offices etc when (taking the hypothetical here) the PIF is concluded - well I would believe that very few of the staff would be new recruits that were brought on specifically to deal with the PIF. They would be current WC staff being utilised in a variety of different roles.
> 
> Your statement that her personal goal is to help PIF investors recover their money. Well if this truly is the case, then even with a loss to res #1, you would assume that she would stay on as the RE. As she would be achieving her personal goal of helping out, whilst still retaining a "healthy" income herself by being the RE.


----------



## newwwtrader (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Hi Burnt,
> 
> Could you also (and as succinctly) list the proposed recommended alternatives to the "No" vote?




I know this is not directed at myself, but, hey i'll throw my two cents in.

What I believe should happen is this.

  Vote No for res #1

  WC remain as the RE (provided they dont take there ball and go home)

  Run the fund as they proposed if listing on the exchange were to occur (paying distribution as proposed)

  Adopt new constitution - freezing redemptions for another 180 or 360 days (the length of time would depend on the position of the fund)

  Allow redemptions or partial redemptions at a later time.

I'm sure if WC can run the fund as well as they claim they will be able too and can achieve the targets that they believe they can achieve then there would be a lesser amount of people seeking to exit. Further it may encourage others to invest. However, that all depends on the performance of WC.


----------



## JohnH (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



newwwtrader said:


> I know this is not directed at myself, but, hey i'll throw my two cents in.
> 
> What I believe should happen is this.
> 
> ...



Thanks NewTrader.  That is constructive.........but see Rick's note re: Jenny remaining if a "No" vote.


----------



## zixo (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Its been interesting and entertaining reading the posts along the way in regards to the whole "how to vote" procedure.

Ive enjoyed reading the spirited posts by people who are either supportive of Wellington, or against Wellington. Its crucially important that we vote in a way we feel will best benefit the fund and Investors.
Although everyones contribution is important our personal opinion doesnt mean we're right, we're not mind readers and no-one really knows whats best. Least of all financial advisors.

ATM The one thing everyone has in common is apparent lack of trust wellington has in doing the right thing by us the investors.

Perhaps we should be contemplating that JH's Past should not be considered in deciding our vote. 
If we're wary at her association with Chris Scott and Octaviar in the past we must also forget the accolades she received as being the business woman of the year.

We should all Keep in Mind. Although this forum may have alot of attention - it discounts the people who are unaware of its ongoing conversations and are simply going to go along with the recommendations that were sent out in Wellingtons explanatory memorandum.

Dont be surprised that when the fnal count is in its going to be everything Wellington wanted..Thats when the real test will begin.

The chickens havent hatched yet but maybe we should start looking at where we go from there?

Cheers


----------



## ian1328 (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Why do some people not trust WC . Every big company writes complicated stuff which makes it hard to understand, its about litigation. The difference here is we have someone who was recently Qld business woman of the year with a string of credentials behind her. She jumped at the chance to take on PIF, no one else tendered. Admittedly, if she gets the yes vote her company will expand and she will make more money, but any RE is going to, and JH does seem to run on high octane fuel, so why not give her a go?


----------



## Juan Mortyme (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



ian1328 said:


> She [JH] jumped at the chance to take on PIF, no one else tendered.




No one else tendered???  One report in the media said that up to 25 other parties were interested -- see article below which appeared in the GC Bulletin on 13/6/08 p. 102
-----------------
* Some premium questions*
    by Nick Nichols business editor

DISGRUNTLED  investors in Octaviar's frozen Premium Income Fund are gathering numbers to force its new  manager to tell them how much money they have lost.

Melbourne investor Adam Thorn, who put $250,000 into PIF in 2006, said he was hopeful Gold Coast investors could join the battle to `get the numbers over the line'.

The action group needs to get about 100 unit-holders, or about 5 per cent of the debt owed by the fund, to be able to call a meeting.

An announcement was made this week by Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital, the fund's newly appointed responsible entity, that a meeting scheduled for the first week in July would stop the group from forming, said Mr Thorn.

The Premium Income Fund (PIF) has 770 million $1 units tied up for 360 days beyond their due maturity date.

It was the flagship investment vehicle for troubled Gold Coast financial services group Octaviar, formerly known as MFS, but the full extent of its finances has not been disclosed.

Wellington Capital assumed control of the fund after S8 founder Chris Scott completed a boardroom coup at Octaviar.

Mr Thorn said one of the issues the action group wants to confront was the immediate handover of control from Octaviar to Ms Hutson, who was the former chairperson of S8 - the tourism and travel group that is now part of Octaviar's Stella business.

*Mr Thorn said he there were up to 25 other contenders vying for control of the fund, although they `never got a foot in the door'.*

``That's something the action group would like the opportunity to explore and take offers and look at other responsible entities,'' he said.

``A lot of investors are concerned about the connection between Jenny Hutson and Chris Scott and the agenda of Chris Scott in getting Ms Hutson on board.''

Mr Thorn conceded Mr Scott could be acting in the best interests of investors by appointing Ms Hutson.

``But because we haven't had any transparency, it's very hard for a lot of investors, especially the elderly out there who now have to go back to work or refinance their homes.

``They just want answers. That's all they want.''

Mr Thorn said there were no detailed figures available on the fund's financial position.

``How much of the assets are invested in Octaviar or related entities?

``If Octaviar goes under, how much does the PIF stand to lose?''

Mr Thorn said although information was scant, he  remained hopeful.

``I don't believe we'll get our dollar per unit we originally paid, but I don't think it's going to be as bad as some of the recent collapses we've seen.

``I wouldn't even like to hazard to guess what the worst-case scenario would be.

``By what Wellington Capital have been saying, they seem to be proactive, but I guess investors want to see action more than words.

``What we're doing is not personal. It's not against Jenny Hutson, but it's our money we have invested and we want to be sure that they remain transparent  so we know the worst-case  scenario.''

In her latest email to unit-holders, Ms Hutson said she would be able to `clearly define' the future of the fund at the proposed July meeting.

``I take the responsibility of trying to achieve the best outcome seriously,'' she said.

Mr Thorn said it was likely the response had come following acrimonious chatter on the Aussie Stocks Forum.

-----end of article------


----------



## breaker1 (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

For *some* of those who are recommending the No for Res 1

It appears you *don't* want the constitution, but you *do* want Jenny to remain as RE. This tends to suggest that you don't have another RE to replace Jenny/WC. 

I don't know about you but JH does not strike me as a person who would stick around to be told what to do. 

If you *do* want JH to hang around and you have *not* got another RE that is you beaut!  I would not be calling her bluff as there is too much at stake now!


----------



## Burnt (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



newwwtrader said:


> I know this is not directed at myself, but, hey i'll throw my two cents in.
> 
> What I believe should happen is this.
> 
> ...




Thanks Newwwtrader,
One example of alternative resolutions to be voted on:-
-  RE to immediately facilitate a straightforward method for the transfer of units between existing unitholders and communicate this clearly to all members (with their fee not to exceed 1%) as is currently allowed for under the present constitution.
-  RE continue with it's plan in managing the funds assets.
-  RE pay distributions in October and December as proposed.
-  Amend constitution to extend the freeze on redemptions for a further 180 days.
-  3 months prior to the end of extended freeze, RE to report to members on the performance on the Fund, and determine whether partial redemptions (similar to proposed buy back or better) are possible at the end of the 180 days (same timeframe as proposed buy back). Also determine whether to extend the freeze for a further 180 days.   And so on.......

Another alternative would include the above but perhaps replace RE,,,,,,or appoint an administrator to perform an orderly wind up on the fund,,,,,,

By the way, I'm no legal expert at interpreting the Corporations Act, but I gather that the RE of a Fund remains the RE until ASIC is notified of another RE taking over. Pretty sure they can't just walk away !!!!!!Even if they don't like being told what to do.....it's their job, we employ them and pay them!
 If the RE wants to retire they must call a general meeting for members to choose another RE (they have to provide a choice!!!). If the members do not choose another RE, the current RE can apply to the court to have a temporary RE appointed.
The onus seems to be on the current RE to replace themselves.
Also, If the NO vote succeeds, I am fairly certain that no matter how full of confidence Wellington are, they would have to have an alternative course of action planned. It would be very unprofessional of them not to.
So Breaker1, I don't know who's calling who's bluff.......pretty sure it's Wellington.


----------



## selciper (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Breaker1 - Can only agree with your last post. A NO vote would be a gigantic leap into the dark. So many of the well-intentioned scenarios presented on this thread are based only on assumptions. This lock-out has gone on for far too long.


----------



## newwwtrader (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I do believe that WC would stay on if the vote was for no on #1. That is my opinion. 

Money talks and their is obviously money to be made from the management of the fund. So of course WC will stay on.

If not, I am sure others would step up to the plate to take on the role. There is no doubt that people would be prepared to do this. Do I personally know them - No. But lets not live in a bubble, they would be out there. Even the newspapers have reported that so it must be the truth lol.

By voting no, you are not questioning her ability to manage the fund.

A no vote is simply a vote against a listing in the NSX and the abolition of redemptions.

You may say that you are calling her bluff. That may be so. But isnt that exactly what she is doing to the investors. Unitholders have one key advantage in this though. WC/JH has her reputation at stake. Imagine how it would look in the media, we have this white knight who takes her ball and goes home because she loses the vote. If that were to happen she would be exposed for all to see as someone who was just coming in to take advantage of the innocent unitholders (this may not be the truth, but it is certainly a spin that could be put on it).

The fact is, I believe res 1, has no bearing at all in the day to day operation of the fund. All that it does is abolish redemption rights and expose your units to the market forces of the NSX (and you never know who may be laying in wait to pick up the pieces of those many who would sell out).





breaker1 said:


> For *some* of those who are recommending the No for Res 1
> 
> It appears you *don't* want the constitution, but you *do* want Jenny to remain as RE. This tends to suggest that you don't have another RE to replace Jenny/WC.
> 
> ...






I do


----------



## DoraNBoots (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> For *some* of those who are recommending the No for Res 1
> 
> It appears you *don't* want the constitution, but you *do* want Jenny to remain as RE. This tends to suggest that you don't have another RE to replace Jenny/WC.
> 
> ...




Breaker1, in your opinion, what part of resolution 1 benefits unitholders?

This is a negotiation.  It's a standard tactic to ask for more that you are willing to accept.  There is no need to fear what is merely an opening offer.

It is worth noting that WCIM is an employee of the PIF of which unitholders are the owners.  We direct the RE for OUR benefit.

Boots


----------



## Burnt (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

By the way, I'm no legal expert at interpreting the Corporations Act, but I gather that the RE of a Fund remains the RE until ASIC is notified of another RE taking over. Pretty sure they can't just walk away !!!!!!Even if they don't like being told what to do.....it's their job, we employ them and pay them!
 If the RE wants to retire they must call a general meeting for members to choose another RE (they have to provide a choice!!!). If the members do not choose another RE, the current RE can apply to the court to have a temporary RE appointed.
The onus seems to be on the current RE to replace themselves.
Also, If the NO vote succeeds, I am fairly certain that no matter how full of confidence Wellington are, they would have to have an alternative course of action planned. It would be very unprofessional of them not to.
So Breaker1, I don't know who's calling who's bluff.......pretty sure it's Wellington.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Juan Mortyme (31 August 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



ian1328 said:


> Why do some people not trust WC .




Maybe because of all the past connections between different people and companies which makes the average Joe suspect that this is a classic case of nepotism.   :shake:

In Breaker's 2nd post, the issue of "mate's rates" was brought up when PIF sold its share of Geo Property Group.

Here is the article as it appeared in the Melbourne Herald Sun on the 16/05/08, page 47.
--------------------
* No mates' rates, says fund buyer*
    by Ben Butler
A FUND formerly controlled by debt-laden financier MFS -- now known as Octaviar -- has sold its stake in an MFS offshoot for a bargain price.

Business associates of new Octaviar executive director Chris Scott feature on both sides of the deal.

The Premium Income Fund yesterday sold its 9.4 per cent of Geo Property Group, the former MFS Diversified, to listed investment company Trojan Equity for $10.22 million.

At 25.5 a share, this represents a significant discount to Geo's closing price yesterday of 39.

Octaviar sold management rights to the troubled fund to Wellington Capital, a company headed by Jenny Hutson, last month.

Buyer Trojan Capital is chaired by Andrew Kemp.

Both sat on the board of Chris Scott's S8 group before it was sold to MFS.

Trojan Equity managing director Troy Harry said the company had done ``a pretty good deal'' but denied getting mates' rates.

He said no-one knew how much Geo shares would fetch yesterday, after emerging from a two-month trading suspension.

Under the terms of the deal, the PIF receives 40 per cent of any profit Trojan makes by selling the Geo scrip.

``They (the PIF) have an urgent need for funds,'' Mr Harry said.

``They were able to meet their requirement for cash now and also provide some upside for their unit holders.''

He said Trojan only became aware the stake was for sale after the PIF board rejected other bids yesterday afternoon.

It is believed other bids valued the scrip at between 35 and 40.

Mr Harry said Brisbane was ``a small place''.
--------end or article----------


----------



## great dame (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Iceman said:


> Hi All
> 
> Just following on from the projected returns I have tried to make an annual table below of projected position of the fund based on the WC bench mark allocations of our funds and numbers they have provided.
> 
> ...



        Iceman Thank you agai /n for the above work you have done  But i cant see Wellington getting 25% growth  year in year out for 7 years   Also you may have forgot to allow for Wellingtons fees each year which would bring the numbers down a bit  further  Again thanks for your time / Dane //


----------



## cashstrapped (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Ask her?


----------



## DoraNBoots (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



cashstrapped said:


> Ask her?





JH’s campaign is based on threats and plays on the fear of the unitholders.  The resolutions she has proposed are not to our benefit but she is counting on us signing off on them by scaring us into believing we must pass these resolutions or the fund will be liquidated.  The only way to deal with this type of threat is to prove you have the numbers - 26% of the vote who know you are full of BS. 



Maverick2802 said:


> This is what I am saying seamisty, there is NO alternative.
> ...






JohnH said:


> Oh Dear!  Somebody at the end of this debacle is going to be able to say "I told you so."  -  For or aginst JH - who knows?  - But by then it will be too late!






breaker1 said:


> For *some* of those who are recommending the No for Res 1
> 
> It appears you *don't* want the constitution, but you *do* want Jenny to remain as RE. This tends to suggest that you don't have another RE to replace Jenny/WC.
> 
> ...




Those that sit on the sideline discouraging others who are trying to be proactive can't expect these others to show their cards.


----------



## RickH (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi DoraNBoots,
If you had 26% of your clients voting that you were "full of BS" would you stay to help or walk away and let the liquidators take control?
Regards, RickH:couch


DoraNBoots said:


> JH’s campaign is based on threats and plays on the fear of the unitholders.  The resolutions she has proposed are not to our benefit but she is counting on us signing off on them by scaring us into believing we must pass these resolutions or the fund will be liquidated.  The only way to deal with this type of threat is to prove you have the numbers - 26% of the vote who know you are full of BS.


----------



## seamisty (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi DoraNBoots,
> If you had 26% of your clients voting that you were "full of BS" would you stay to help or walk away and let the liquidators take control?
> Regards, RickH:couch



I was told by a  staff member who I spoke to previously at WC  that they were new to the company and their position was not guaranteed long term in the event the Fund did not remain a going concern. This person was not the only new employee, there are others in the same position. Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi DoraNBoots,
> If you had 26% of your clients voting that you were "full of BS" would you stay to help or walk away and let the liquidators take control?
> Regards, RickH:couch




Surely you’ve been in business long enough to know business is business and it’s not personal.  It’s called negotiation; it’s a normal part of business.  Anyway I was just explaining to Cashstrapped why I don’t think JH will compromise if she thinks she’s got her 75%.


----------



## DoraNBoots (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I was told by a  staff member who I spoke to previously at WC  that they were new to the company and their position was not guaranteed long term in the event the Fund did not remain a going concern. This person was not the only new employee, there are others in the same position. Seamisty



That has no impact on the way I will vote.  There are way too many people in real hardship in this fund for me to consider if a WC staff member needs to find another job.


----------



## seamisty (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> That has no impact on the way I will vote.  There are way too many people in real hardship in this fund for me to consider if a WC staff member needs to find another job.



I was merely indicating that JH has already let new staff members know their positions are only temporary for the time being, being a smart business woman, she is foward planning.  I was not suggesting people vote for Res 1 to expand the  term of employment for the extra staff. Seamisty


----------



## 2CentsWorth (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Jadel, good morning to you.

I am just wondering if anything new or illuminating came out of the Sunday meeting, or did you just have to come home and tear back the flaps on another carton ?

Best wishes, 
2CentsWorth.


----------



## JohnH (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> JH’s campaign is based on threats and plays on the fear of the unitholders.  The resolutions she has proposed are not to our benefit but she is counting on us signing off on them by scaring us into believing we must pass these resolutions or the fund will be liquidated.  The only way to deal with this type of threat is to prove you have the numbers - 26% of the vote who know you are full of BS.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





D&B - nobody has yet come up with a viable alternative to JH.  It is "hardly sitting on the sideline" when I have consistently stated that I believe she has presented a balanced package which protects us - and her.  I believe there is some mileage in voting 'No" for item 3, but I am not prepared to risk Wellington walking away.


----------



## Duped (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> On another point of interest, what is your view regarding the OCV settlement to noteholders/creditors now that the deadline has been extended to the 30th Sept? If WC don't get the yes vote by the 18th Sept, where does that leave the negotiations that JH has not finalised on behalf of PIF holders with her good friend CS? Regards, Seamisty




Good question.


----------



## Duped (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Iceman said:


> The reason for the NSX is simply the long term value it puts on WC balance sheet and is a clear conflict over what is best for the unitholders versus what is best for the manager. It has nothing to do with the redemptions as *even the funds own constitution gives the manager power to extend the freezing period*. Have a read of it carefully and it shows up more lies that WC have told about why they want to list the fund.




That's a very important point. Where is it in the constitution?  It might not be a valid clause though?


----------



## great dame (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> That has no impact on the way I will vote.  There are way too many people in real hardship in this fund for me to consider if a WC staff member needs to find another job.



        Dora your a bloody wizard knowing how to put words together  so well    And truefully too / Dane //


----------



## great dame (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> D&B - nobody has yet come up with a viable alternative to JH.  It is "hardly sitting on the sideline" when I have consistently stated that I believe she has presented a balanced package which protects us - and her.  I believe there is some mileage in voting 'No" for item 3, but I am not prepared to risk Wellington walking away.



     John Please go back & read Icemans Post  Again  //Dane //


----------



## JohnH (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> John Please go back & read Icemans Post  Again  //Dane //




Tak for sidste  -  I have reread, and Iceman still assumes Wellington wont walk away........... Read Rick's post again


----------



## great dame (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Tak for sidste  -  I have reread, and Iceman still assumes Wellington wont walk away........... Read Rick's post again



  I was realy talking  about all those income & growth figures he complyed   Rest asured Wellington will not walk away i would bet my house on it  / Dane //


----------



## flatback (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Actually Jadel, i like 2 cents worth would like to hear how the meeting went on the weekend also, if you dont want to disclose the results of same on this forum could you at least post a reply by mail to me and others who are interested.
There had been much talk about this meeting, to the extent, that i would have thought this forum would have been full of the results by now, many of us were unable to attend so please inform us of the results, im sure there must have been something discussed or was it a no show (which i hope in all honesty it wasnt) Waiting Flatback.


----------



## Burnt (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Thanks Newwwtrader,
> One example of alternative resolutions to be voted on:-
> -  *RE to immediately facilitate a straightforward method for the transfer of units between existing unitholders and communicate this clearly to all members (with their fee not to exceed 1%) as is currently allowed for under the present constitution.*
> -  RE continue with it's plan in managing the funds assets.
> ...



HHEEELLLLLOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
Again I'm no expert but I do stand by logic. Please open your eyes and minds.
I'm pretty flat out today, but if someone has some time, can you please call ASIC to confirm an RE's responsibilities if they wish to resign.
Thanks


----------



## Duped (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mutchy said:


> Hello Iceman.
> Thanks for your work on this matter. Your contribution is most valuable and I am somewhat surprised at the outcome.
> 
> I intend to do my own spreadsheet to investigate some different scenarios but before I do I need to clarify the iterative part of your calculation. Normally spreadsheets which evaluate yearly iterative functions move the year end result from one year to the start of the next year. I can not see where your calculation does that transposition. I can see year 0 result (.41) going to the start of year 1 but then the result of year 1  (.42) is not transposed to the start of year 2 but becomes .44 . Likewise there is a discontinuity for all the following years.
> ...




All.  I don't recall seeing anything where WC have claimed they can achieve $1 AND distributions.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  

July Investor Update that was handed out during the roadshow: WIML "is committed to the implementation of a value recovery strategy and restoring unit value".

$1 by Sept2011/Sept2013 is $1.11/$1.19 indexed (compounded - once per year) at 3.5% inflation.

Per annum the fund would need to achieve to make the target in 3/5yrs: 
35%/21% (45c valuation)
30%/19% (50c valuation) 
26%/17% (55c valuation)
23%/15% (60c valuation)
19%/13% (65c valuation)

Shall have a go at calcs including qly capital returns.

Without inflation the figures are 30%/17%; 26%/15%; 22%/13%; 19%/11% & 15%/9%

Another concern of mine is on p 64 of the EM: External Manager.  (love the word 'expected') Has anyone seen anything in the proposed constitution that limits the % of the fund that can be managed by External Managers.  If not then there's nothing explicit to stop the RE outsourcing the the entire management task to External Managers.  Cost to us would then be 0.7%+0.32%*+0.2%*. Man am I getting good at paranoia.


----------



## DoraNBoots (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> [/U][/B]HHEEELLLLLOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
> Again I'm no expert but I do stand by logic. Please open your eyes and minds.
> I'm pretty flat out today, but if someone has some time, can you please call ASIC to confirm an RE's responsibilities if they wish to resign.
> Thanks



Hi Burnt,

No expert here either but here's what the Corp Act and ASIC say:

_CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601FL 
*Retirement of responsible entity *
 (1)  If the responsible entity of a registered scheme wants to  retire , it must call a members' meeting to explain its reason for wanting to  retire  and to enable the members to vote on a resolution to choose a company to be the new responsible entity. The resolution must be an extraordinary resolution if the scheme is not listed. 

(2)  If the members choose a company to be the new responsible entity and that company has consented, in writing, to becoming the scheme's responsible entity: 

(a)  as soon as practicable and in any event within 2 business days after the resolution is passed, the current responsible entity must lodge a notice with ASIC asking it to alter the record of the scheme's registration to name the chosen company as the scheme's responsible entity; and 

(b)  if the current responsible entity does not lodge the notice required by paragraph (a), the company chosen by the members to be the new responsible entity may lodge that notice; and 

(c)  ASIC must comply with the notice when it is lodged. 

(3)  If the members do not choose a company to be the new responsible entity, or the company they choose does not consent to becoming the scheme's responsible entity, the current responsible entity may apply to the Court for appointment of a temporary responsible entity under section 601FP. 

(4)  A person must not lodge a notice under subsection (2) unless the consent referred to in that subsection has been given before the notice is lodged. 

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT  601FN  
*ASIC or scheme member may apply to Court for appointment of temporary responsible entity *
ASIC or a member of the registered scheme may apply to the Court for the appointment of a temporary responsible entity of the scheme under section 601FP if the scheme does not have a responsible entity that meets the requirements of section 601FA.

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601FP 
*Appointment of temporary responsible entity by Court *
(1)  On application under section 601FL or 601FN, the Court may, by order, appoint a company as the temporary responsible entity of a registered scheme if the Court is satisfied that the appointment is in the interest of the members. 

(2)  The Court may make any further orders that it considers necessary. 

(3)  If the application was made by the current responsible entity, it must, as soon as practicable after the Court's order appointing the temporary responsible entity, lodge a notice with ASIC informing ASIC of the appointment made by the Court. 

(4)  As soon as practicable after the appointment, ASIC must alter the record of the scheme's registration to name the appointed company as the scheme's temporary responsible entity. _

I also think this could be relevant if members don't change the constitution:

_CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601NC
*Winding up if scheme's purpose accomplished or cannot be accomplished *
(1)  If the responsible entity of a registered scheme considers that the purpose of the scheme: 

(a)  has been accomplished; or 
(b)  cannot be accomplished; 

it may, in accordance with this section, take steps to wind up the scheme. 

(2)  The responsible entity must give to the members of the scheme and to ASIC a notice in writing: 

(a)  explaining the proposal to wind up the scheme, including explaining how the scheme's purpose has been accomplished or why that purpose cannot be accomplished; and 

(b)  informing the members of their rights to take action under Division 1 of Part 2G.4 for the calling of a members' meeting to consider the proposed winding up of the scheme and to vote on any extraordinary resolution members propose about the winding up of the scheme; and 

(c)  informing the members that the responsible entity is permitted to wind up the scheme unless a meeting is called to consider the proposed winding up of the scheme within  28 days  of the responsible entity giving the notice to the members. 
(3)  If no meeting is called within that  28 days  to consider the proposed winding up, the responsible entity may wind up the scheme._


----------



## Burnt (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Dora, Thanks for that info.  (please read my post 2133)
I read through Sect.601FL regarding the retirement of Responsible Entity, but I feel *Sect.601FJ is the most relevent. It states :-*
_"Despite anything in this Division (of the Act), the company named in ASIC's record of registration as the responsible entity or temporary responsible entity of a registered scheme REMAINS THE SCHEMES RESPONSIBLE ENTITY UNTIL THE RECORD IS ALTERED TO NAME ANOTHER COMPANY AS THE SCHEMES RESPONSIBLE ENTITY or temporary responsible entity."_

To me this means that if an RE resigns or is removed or retires or disappears or blows up !!!!!!, they remain RE until another is appointed and registered with ASIC. 

*In other words the RE cannot just walk away or resign from their responsiblities until another RE is appointed.*
What do you think ??

One more thing, again I'm no legal expert, but I believe that Sect.601FJ is the one that holds the most weight over other sections covering the exit of an RE, because it is there to protect members of registered schemes from RE's being able to walk away. Appreciate your opinion.


----------



## flatback (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> All.  I don't recall seeing anything where WC have claimed they can achieve $1 AND distributions.  Correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> July Investor Update that was handed out during the roadshow: WIML "is committed to the implementation of a value recovery strategy and restoring unit value".
> 
> ...



Duped this is my concern also, because this primarily was the reason we are in this mess farming out funds to shonky managers of projects,i believe there has to be transparency in regard to these management rights, certainly a cap put on certain types of projects.keep up the good work Flatback


----------



## DoraNBoots (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi Dora, Thanks for that info.  (please read my post 2133)
> I read through Sect.601FL regarding the retirement of Responsible Entity, but I feel *Sect.601FJ is the most relevent. It states :-*
> _"Despite anything in this Division (of the Act), the company named in ASIC's record of registration as the responsible entity or temporary responsible entity of a registered scheme REMAINS THE SCHEMES RESPONSIBLE ENTITY UNTIL THE RECORD IS ALTERED TO NAME ANOTHER COMPANY AS THE SCHEMES RESPONSIBLE ENTITY or temporary responsible entity."_
> 
> ...




Hi Burnt,
Yes I agree with you about 601FJ.  It appears as though the RE will remain until a new one is found.  They'd probably apply to the court to appoint a temporary one if they are in a hurry to leave.


----------



## Mutchy (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Originally Posted by Iceman  
The reason for the NSX is simply the long term value it puts on WC balance sheet and is a clear conflict over what is best for the unitholders versus what is best for the manager. It has nothing to do with the redemptions as *even the funds own constitution gives the manager power to extend the freezing period.* Have a read of it carefully and it shows up more lies that WC have told about why they want to list the fund.


Duped said:


> That's a very important point. Where is it in the constitution?  It might not be a valid clause though?




Hello All.
The constitution in Clauses 4.8 and 4.9 does not give the RE power to extend the suspension period for the payment of redemptions beyond 360 days. The constitution in clause 4.9 uses the words "must redeem the units within 360 days".

There is no ability for the RE to indefinitely extend the period of suspension except in the case of an orderly wind up. The suspension period in that case may commence from the date the RE received the notice of a meeting for the consideration of the termination of the scheme.

The constitution is available on the www.newpif.com.au website. 

Please read the constitution before putting "pen to paper".

Mutchy


----------



## DoraNBoots (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mutchy said:


> ...
> Hello All.
> The constitution in Clauses 4.8 and 4.9 does not give the RE power to extend the suspension period for the payment of redemptions beyond 360 days. The constitution in clause 4.9 uses the words "must redeem the units within 360 days".
> 
> ...



Hi Mutchy,
I agree the constitution says there is a 360 day limit.  Is there any law which says the constitution can't be changed?
Also in the case of an orderly wind up isn’t the 360 day limit when the wind up would have to start as apposed to finish as WC seem to indicate.


----------



## Duped (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> ...
> $1 by Sept2011/Sept2013 is $1.11/$1.19 indexed (compounded - once per year) at 3.5% inflation.
> 
> Per annum the fund would need to achieve to make the target in 3/5yrs:
> ...




3c by Dec and then quarterly capital return (distribution) of 1.5c would return in 3/5yrs 20.5c/34.4c (indexed at 3.5%pa. Or 19.5c/31.5c without adding inflation)  Hence, WC would need to simultaneously grow the fund to 90.3c/84.4c (80.5c/68.5c without inflation) to achieve the Sept2011/Sept2013 values of $1.11/$1.19.

With these $ leaving PIF and assuming all 755M units staying in PIF and no new capital; the fund would need to generate the following average quarterly return on investments (AFTER subtracting running costs) (3yr / 5yr)

8.7% / 5.9% (45c valuation)
7.6% / 5.2% (50c valuation) 
6.6% / 4.5% (55c valuation)
5.7% / 4.0% (60c valuation)
4.9% / 3.4% (65c valuation)

i.e the equivalent of annual RoI of (e.g. 3.44%*3.44%*3.44%*3.44%=14.5%):
39% / 26% (45c valuation)
34% / 22% (50c valuation) 
29% / 19% (55c valuation)
25% / 17% (60c valuation)
21% / 15% (65c valuation)

Ignoring the erosion effect of inflation the quarterly returns would be:

7.8% / 5.1% (45c valuation)
6.7% / 4.3% (50c valuation) 
5.7% / 3.7% (55c valuation)
4.8% / 3.1% (60c valuation)
4.0% / 2.6% (65c valuation)

i.e the equivalent of annual returns of:
35% / 22% (45c valuation)
29% / 18% (50c valuation) 
25% / 16% (55c valuation)
21% / 13% (60c valuation)
17% / 11% (65c valuation)

Is this about right?

If so, then Michael King has done a lotta damage for WC to try and catchup.


----------



## cashstrapped (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just received from JH.

The 3% relies, according to this, on the outcome of the vote, though doesn't explain why, and says that is now only 'anticipates to pay'.

The email doesn't answer my questions, and the return email address, on the standardised email signature is misspelt.




'Thank you for your recent correspondence.
As you are no doubt aware, recent events faced by MFS Limited, which is currently suspended
from ASX, resulted in a significant increase in the number of unit holders in the Fund seeking to
redeem their funds.
While the current Constitution technically allows for redemptions, the responsible entity has
suspended payment on all and any valid withdrawal requests in regards to units in the Fund for a
360 day period, as permitted under the Constitution, and is seeking to amend the Constitution to
remove unit holders rights of redemptions as it will be listed on the NSX.
By now you should have received a voting pack, in preparation for the unit holders meeting, which is being
held on 18 September 2008.
Depending on the outcome of the vote, the responsible entity anticipates being in a position to pay 3 cents
per unit by way of a cash payment, by 24December 2008.
To ensure you have a say in the future of your investment in the Fund, it is important that each unit holder
votes, either by proxy or in person. We look forward to receiving your completed proxy form by 16
September 2008.
Ifyou have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact our investorrelations team on 1300 854 885
or email
Kind regards'


----------



## seamisty (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



cashstrapped said:


> Just received from JH.
> 
> The 3% relies, according to this, on the outcome of the vote, though doesn't explain why, and says that is now only 'anticipates to pay'.



 Page 38, Explanatory Memorandum:::
4.4 No Cash Payments
While in the past Unitholders in the Fund have invested on the basis that cash payments will be made
to Unitholders at various rates, in the current circumstances the responsible entity anticipates being
in a position to pay 3 cents per Unit by way of a cash payment by 24 December 2008.:::: I was told by WC that if the 75% vote for RES1 is not achieved, the Fund will be liquidated. Now unless anyone has concrete evidence to the contrary that the Fund will not be liquidated if the vote is not achieved, why would unitholders expect to receive a distribution if the assets are to be sold and proceeds used to make up the estimated 14cents per unit . Don't forget the Fund still has a outstanding bank debt of $20mill. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Page 6, Explanatory Memorandum::Cash Payments
Recommence
The responsible entity anticipates being in a position to pay 3 cents
per Unit to all Unitholders by 24 December 2008 with the first
payment being made in October 2008, the second in December
2008 and quarterly thereafter::: Once again, the word 'anticipates' is used. I guess this is similar to using words like 'Target rate of Return',  in the event the amount is not met. Seamisty


----------



## Burnt (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mutchy said:


> Hello All.
> The constitution in Clauses 4.8 and 4.9 does not give the RE power to extend the suspension period for the payment of redemptions beyond 360 days. The constitution in clause 4.9 uses the words "must redeem the units within 360 days".
> 
> There is no ability for the RE to indefinitely extend the period of suspension except in the case of an orderly wind up. The suspension period in that case may commence from the date the RE received the notice of a meeting for the consideration of the termination of the scheme.
> ...




Hi Mutchy, please also read clause 4.11 and 4.14 & 4.15. There seems to be plenty of opportunity for the RE to suspend redemptions for whatever period if they feel it is in the best interests of unitholders. Also as Dora says, the constitution can be amended to accommodate the best interests of unitholders.


----------



## Burnt (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



cashstrapped said:


> Just received from JH.
> 
> The 3% relies, according to this, on the outcome of the vote, though doesn't explain why, and says that is now only 'anticipates to pay'.
> 
> ...


----------



## Burnt (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Page 38, Explanatory Memorandum:::
> 4.4 No Cash Payments
> While in the past Unitholders in the Fund have invested on the basis that cash payments will be made
> to Unitholders at various rates, in the current circumstances the responsible entity anticipates being
> in a position to pay 3 cents per Unit by way of a cash payment by 24 December 2008.:::: I was told by WC that if the 75% vote for RES1 is not achieved, the Fund will be liquidated. Now unless anyone has concrete evidence to the contrary that the Fund will not be liquidated if the vote is not achieved, why would unitholders expect to receive a distribution if the assets are to be sold and proceeds used to make up the estimated 14cents per unit . Don't forget the Fund still has a outstanding bank debt of $20mill. Seamisty




Page 6, Explanatory Memorandum :: Alternatives to Proposed Changes
"*Unitholders have a right under the Constitution to call a general meeting and consider other alternatives*. If the resolution to change the constitution (as proposed) is not approved and no alternative option is subsequently presented to and approved by Unitholders, the board is of the view that the assets of the Fund will need to be liquidated to enable the net proceeds to be paid to Unitholders."
This means that if an alternative option is presented to and approved by Unitholders, an immediate liquidation would not be necessary.

Again, please consider :-
A NO VOTE DOES NOT MEAN LIQUIDATION OF THE FUND.
A NO VOTE DOES NOT MEAN THE RE CAN WALK OUT.
A NO VOTE DOES NOT MEAN NO DISTRIBUTIONS.
A NO VOTE DOES NOT MEAN MINIMUM RETURN OF CAPITAL.
A NO VOTE MEANS NO LISTING ON NSX AND PROTECTION OF UNITHOLDERS INTERESTS.


----------



## seamisty (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Iceman said:


> Hi all
> 
> 
> The fund should be wound up in an orderly fashion (not liquidation) by an RE. For those true believers in WC they can take the 45 cents and invest with WC in a new fund if you think they are such a great fund manager.



 With an estimated 13.5% annual return (on a 45cent NTA valuation)on the units in the existing Fund, why would anyone consider opting for another alternative at this point in time? That option will still be there at a later date if WC prove to be a not so great fund manager.Seamisty


----------



## Mutchy (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi Mutchy,
> I agree the constitution says there is a 360 day limit.  Is there any law which says the constitution can't be changed?
> Also in the case of an orderly wind up isn’t the 360 day limit when the wind up would have to start as apposed to finish as WC seem to indicate.




Hi Dora. 
You are correct that the constitution can be changed both under the existing and proposed constitutions and the Corporations Act
The proposed constitution upon which we are about to vote strikes out all the clauses to do with redemption including the 360 day clause. Ie vote "yes" for the new constitution and WC do not have to wind up the scheme in 5 months and pay the redemptions at whatever value they can get for the assets; estimated to be 14 cents in the dollar redemption. Under the proposed constitution if a notice of meeting to wind up the company is received the redemptions would already have been suspended.
Under the existing constitution and until the proposed constitution is adopted, Clause 14 covers the possibility of an orderly wind up and in particular Clause 14.16. The start of the suspension of redemptions is from the day the RE receives the notice from a group of members requesting distribution of a notice of general meeting with a resolution to wind up the scheme.
Mutchy


----------



## Jerry Maguire (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Again, please consider :-
> A NO VOTE DOES NOT MEAN LIQUIDATION OF THE FUND.
> A NO VOTE DOES NOT MEAN THE RE CAN WALK OUT.
> A NO VOTE DOES NOT MEAN NO DISTRIBUTIONS.
> ...




Major assumptions! If you are wrong what then? 

It seems to me the people that vote NO will be in the minority. From the various advisers that control a big portion of this fund, some instos, some large investors and from WC themselves that I have personally spoken to (not assumption), you will find that the minority of you NO voters will represent less than 10% of the vote.

The facts speak for themselves:

*People want income again.
*People want stability again and know what is going on
*There is no other alternative RE
*JH comes accross to the majority investor as an intelligent person who won business woman of the year 2007
*She shows integrity, noone else has come out and put their reputation on the line

I feel it would take 20 different REs to come forth to come out to please the minority here. Everyones ideas of the future of this fund differ according to your investing needs and expectations. There is only WC at this stage to look after 10500 investors and $755m when fully realised. They are over not knowing what will happen. Come the 18th of September, we will all know and start receiving money this year. The ONLY way that WILL happen will be with WC. That is an enormous relief to the majority.


----------



## seamisty (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Mutchy, I have a copy of the replacement constitution with the attatched amendments dated 2 June 2008  signed by Jenny Hutson and I can't find clause 14.16 What page are you looking on please. Seamisty


----------



## Burnt (1 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Page 6, Explanatory Memorandum :: Alternatives to Proposed Changes
> "*Unitholders have a right under the Constitution to call a general meeting and consider other alternatives*. If the resolution to change the constitution (as proposed) is not approved and no alternative option is subsequently presented to and approved by Unitholders, the board is of the view that the assets of the Fund will need to be liquidated to enable the net proceeds to be paid to Unitholders."
> This means that if an alternative option is presented to and approved by Unitholders, an immediate liquidation would not be necessary.
> 
> ...




Hi Jerry,
No assumptions here - just facts based on unitholders rights and RE's responsiblities as per constitution and corporate law. 
Love to know where you get your "facts" from regarding investors voting preferences. Have you taken your own poll, if so, how ? Assumptions or is there something you're not telling us ? Hmmm........

The fact is voting for the propositions put forward by WIM will result in unitholders funds being locked in and unitholders rights being diminished.

By the way, like your picture, reminds me of WC's attitude towards unitholders.


----------



## simgrund (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

DEXTER,

If you are still around, please contact me with your E-mail details on private box.
I tried to phone.
Thanks,
Simgrund


----------



## seamisty (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Mutchy, I have a copy of the replacement constitution with the attatched amendments dated 2 June 2008  signed by Jenny Hutson and I can't find clause 14.16 What page are you looking on please. Seamisty



Having just re read the constitution I presume you mean 4.16. That whole section is open for multiple interpretation IMO. I guess at the end of the day, the best lawyer wins. As a matter of interest, did anyone have an investment in the Fund that was not due to be redeemed prior to MAR 09? Seamisty


----------



## great dame (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jerry Maguire said:


> Major assumptions! If you are wrong what then?
> 
> It seems to me the people that vote NO will be in the minority. From the various advisers that control a big portion of this fund, some instos, some large investors and from WC themselves that I have personally spoken to (not assumption), you will find that the minority of you NO voters will represent less than 10% of the vote.
> 
> ...



   Good Morning Jerry & welcome to the Forum  I read all your inspireing words   But you forgot to tell us all how do we ever get our money back  & please dont say the NSX  Thats not the answer   I look forward to your reply  reguards  / Dane //


----------



## DoraNBoots (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mutchy said:


> ...
> Ie vote "yes" for the new constitution and WC do not have to wind up the scheme in 5 months and pay the redemptions at whatever value they can get for the assets; estimated to be 14 cents in the dollar redemption....




Thank you for your information Mutchy!
Could you please tell me what would happen in the case of a "No" vote and if no other resolutions are put forward by members to change the constitution.  WC seem to be saying the scheme would need to have completed liquidation by 31st March 2009.  Can you please tell me if this is a requirement in the current constitution?


----------



## seamisty (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Page 6, Explanatory Memorandum :: Alternatives to Proposed Changes
> "*Unitholders have a right under the Constitution to call a general meeting and consider other alternatives*. If the resolution to change the constitution (as proposed) is not approved and no alternative option is subsequently presented to and approved by Unitholders, the board is of the view that the assets of the Fund will need to be liquidated to enable the net proceeds to be paid to Unitholders."
> This means that if an alternative option is presented to and approved by Unitholders, an immediate liquidation would not be necessary.
> 
> ...



I have been in contact with several unit holders who have already submitted a YYN  vote in the absence of a better alternative having been tabled. Some may have been convinced to vote otherwise if there had been another option put foward earlier, but the indecision and confusion is overwhelming for most. As has been said before, the majority of unitholders are elderly and financially vunerable. They don't have the strength or will to get involved with more stress and long drawn out liquidations or orderly windups taking 3 years. They will go with the flow, (most will probably not even vote unless they want to participate in the buyback). You are only in all likelihood reaching 200-300 unitholders with this forum. I have waited in vain for other prospective suitors, riding white horses, (not polo ponies,)trampling over one another to come and slap their bundles of cash on the table in the rush to secure the rights to this Fund, with nothing but the unitholders best interest their major priority!!!! Get real, any other alternative at this stage will ultimately cost unitholders dearly. Would love to be proved wrong (just for once LOL!!!!!!)Seamisty


----------



## Wolfgang (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Question to Wellington Capital Limited
1:  Resolution 3 Appointment of Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity
If we vote NO to this will we still have to pay 2% to remove the responsible entity?

I received this  “we not have to pay 2% to remove the responsible entity”    
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





We will be voting YNN
Wolfgang


----------



## great dame (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I have been in contact with several unit holders who have already submitted a YYN  vote in the absence of a better alternative having been tabled. Some may have been convinced to vote otherwise if there had been another option put foward earlier, but the indecision and confusion is overwhelming for most. As has been said before, the majority of unitholders are elderly and financially vunerable. They don't have the strength or will to get involved with more stress and long drawn out liquidations or orderly windups taking 3 years. They will go with the flow, (most will probably not even vote unless they want to participate in the buyback). You are only in all likelihood reaching 200-300 unitholders with this forum. I have waited in vain for other prospective suitors, riding white horses, (not polo ponies,)trampling over one another to come and slap their bundles of cash on the table in the rush to secure the rights to this Fund, with nothing but the unitholders best interest their major priority!!!! Get real, any other alternative at this stage will ultimately cost unitholders dearly. Would love to be proved wrong (just for once LOL!!!!!!)Seamisty



  Hi All  just read above Post And boy do i feel rotten now after reading it  Looks like i can kiss  good by to 90% of my money now  IF that looks like the way the voteing is going   Cheers / Dane //


----------



## DoraNBoots (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Wolfgang said:


> Question to Wellington Capital Limited
> 1:  Resolution 3 Appointment of Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity
> If we vote NO to this will we still have to pay 2% to remove the responsible entity?
> 
> ...




Hi Wolfgang,
If you vote Yes to resolution 1 you had better be happy to pay WC the 2% removal fee in the case they become RE and then get removed.  Resolution 3 is only one way WC have of changing the RE.  I’m sure they have a backup plan.  Why else would they insist on updating the constitution with this clause even if Resolution 3 is rejected.  If WC apply to the court to change the RE and can show it is in the unit holders best interest (lets say it’s necessary for litigation purposes against OCV) then you won’t be able to complain the 2% is not in your best interest if you agree to it now.


----------



## JohnH (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi Wolfgang,
> If you vote Yes to resolution 1 you had better be happy to pay WC the 2% removal fee in the case they become RE and then get removed.  Resolution 3 is only one way WC have of changing the RE.  I’m sure they have a backup plan.  Why else would they insist on updating the constitution with this clause even if Resolution 3 is rejected.  If WC apply to the court to change the RE and can show it is in the unit holders best interest (lets say it’s necessary for litigation purposes against OCV) then you won’t be able to complain the 2% is not in your best interest if you agree to it now.




Dora ... according to the EM page 14 that is not correct.  It clearly states that "In the event that Wellington Capital Limited is appointed.................. etc etc."  If Wellington Capital is not appointed as RE where does it state that Wellington Investment Management would be entitled to the 2%???


----------



## Wolfgang (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi Wolfgang,
> If you vote Yes to resolution 1 you had better be happy to pay WC the 2% removal fee in the case they become RE and then get removed. Resolution 3 is only one way WC have of changing the RE. I’m sure they have a backup plan. Why else would they insist on updating the constitution with this clause even if Resolution 3 is rejected. If WC apply to the court to change the RE and can show it is in the unit holders best interest (lets say it’s necessary for litigation purposes against OCV) then you won’t be able to complain the 2% is not in your best interest if you agree to it now.





Hi DoraNBoots
After weighing up all the pros and cons reading all the posts this is it for us it may be wrong but the best of luck to all.

Wolfgang


----------



## seamisty (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Hi All  just read above Post And boy do i feel rotten now after reading it  Looks like i can kiss  good by to 90% of my money now  IF that looks like the way the voteing is going   Cheers / Dane //



I feel rotten too Dane after delving into the constitution, reading stuff like that in the event of liquidation of the Fund, after all associated and anticipated expenses have been covered and the net proceeds can be distributed in installments, the final payment must be made no later than prior to the 80th anniversary of the date of the constitution!!! Think I will stop reading it, too scary and confusing. Nothing short of a lawyer would be qualified to disect this document correctly in my opinion.


----------



## DoraNBoots (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Dora ... according to the EM page 14 that is not correct.  It clearly states that "In the event that Wellington Capital Limited is appointed.................. etc etc."  If Wellington Capital is not appointed as RE where does it state that Wellington Investment Management would be entitled to the 2%???



Hi John,
I'm not saying Wellington IM are entitled to the 2%, I'm saying if Res 1 is passed then the constitution will be updated to enable Wellington Capital to received this removal fee if they become RE.  My point was that not passing Res 3 doesn't guarantee WC will not become the RE at a later date.


----------



## JohnH (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi John,
> I'm not saying Wellington IM are entitled to the 2%, I'm saying if Res 1 is passed then the constitution will be updated to enable Wellington Capital to received this removal fee if they become RE.  My point was that not passing Res 3 doesn't guarantee WC will not become the RE at a later date.




OK but they still have to be elected as  RE.  Why would we then wish to fire them?  They would only be paid if there is no negligence or fraud.  I accept that "negligence" could or could not cover a multitude of sins, but they would have to fight like hell to prove they were not negligent.


----------



## BootsnAll (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have just spoken to ASIC. They are aware of & keeping tabs on PIF. WC is asking investors to approve changes to the constitution. As RE they are entitled to do so. Ultimately if you are not happy with the changes then vote NO NO NO


----------



## DoraNBoots (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



BootsnAll said:


> I have just spoken to ASIC. They are aware of & keeping tabs on PIF. WC is asking investors to approve changes to the constitution. As RE they are entitled to do so. Ultimately if you are not happy with the changes then vote NO NO NO




Yep,  just got the same response from ASIC!  It's a democratic process and just vote no if you don't like the changes.


----------



## newwwtrader (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The most unfortunate aspect of this whole debacle is who the unitholders are. They are those who can probably least afford to be without the income that the PIF was to afford them.

Due to this I feel that JH will ultimately be successful. And that does upset and anger me. JH/WC have painted a very very bleak picture of this whole thing. 

They have made it seem to these people there is no alternative. There are.

The only thing the other options are not in JH/WC best interests.

My predictions for the future about this will be. JH will win 2 out of three at least. The only uncertain one is the changing the RE title, but that is neither here or there in the grand scheme.

PIF will list on the NSX. Price will crash. My prediction is it will hover in the 8 - 15 cent range. Those who can afford will pick up many many many units and may be a way off offsetting previous losses (maybe in ocv).

After the dust has settled in a couple of months, I predict that there will be a further capital raising or something of that ilk. Those who can afford will once again top up there holdings (therefore not having their interest dilluted). Those who cannot afford will have their interest dilluted.

In a couple of years the price will rise. Those who were able to buy in will have benefited greatly (offsetting previous losses). Those who were there from the beginning maybe will be able to sell around the 45c mark.

That is my theory!!

Just hope that people see sense and my story unravells at the first hurdle and WC lose on Res #1. If they do WC will definetly come back with an alternative plan. 

Dont be fooled by the threats that they will walk. They want this bad.


----------



## seamisty (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Yep,  just got the same response from ASIC!  It's a democratic process and just vote no if you don't like the changes.



So unitholders, there you have it, you either go with RES1 and get your anticipated 3cent distribution by Xmas and a further anticipated 6cent annual  return for the next year paid quarterly, or you vote no and hope that all the insinuations and vague references alluding to something better comes to fruition without another long drawn out saga with an unknown alternative.I have spoken to some pensioners that will be happy with the 45cent buyback as they have been with the Fund for so long that they will not be losing anything by taking the $4,500 on the 10,000 units if they need a lump sum before Xmas as well as the distribution. At the end of the day, it is up to each individual to vote (those that haven't already) as to how they will achieve  the  greatest benefit and peace of mind relating to their own personal circumstances. Perhaps we can now put this issue to rest. Seamisty:run:


----------



## DoraNBoots (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I have spoken to some pensioners that will be happy with the 45cent buyback as they have been with the Fund for so long that they will not be losing anything by taking the $4,500 on the 10,000 units if they need a lump sum before Xmas as well as the distribution. Seamisty:run:




Who on earth would be happy accepting a return of 45c if they originally paid a dollar?

A buyback before Christmas? that's news to me!

Seamisty, what are you talking about??

Boots


----------



## seamisty (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Who on earth would be happy accepting a return of 45c if they originally paid a dollar?
> 
> A buyback before Christmas? that's news to me!
> 
> ...



Sorry Dora, my mistake ,the buyback if voted will take place within 12 months of listing on the NSX, so before next Xmas!! Glad you are on to it. Some of us made money on other mfs investments prior to investing in the PIF. At least Half of our money invested in Pif units was generated from other MFS schemes, so without even taking  the monthly distribution into account, which we did not re invest with MFS(we have averaged 9% for nearly 10 years) our units owe us less than 50cents. One other AG member told me he will lose nothing at 45cents per unit. There are a great number of investors that have been with MFS since inception. As JH has said, this was a great investment vehicle for a long time. Why do you think so many people invested in it and so many stayed and trusted the board? Because they had made so much money with them! Extremely sad for new investors who did not participate in the good times.Many of us are  willing to trust JH because we know the potential of these Funds under good management!!!


----------



## Mutchy (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi Mutchy, please also read clause 4.11 and 4.14 & 4.15. There seems to be plenty of opportunity for the RE to suspend redemptions for whatever period if they feel it is in the best interests of unitholders. Also as Dora says, the constitution can be amended to accommodate the best interests of unitholders.




Hi Burnt.
Yes there is plenty of opportunity for the RE to exercise judgement as to actions in the best interest of the unit holders. However as I read it the present constitution has a number of constraints, the overall constraint being clause 4.9. The following clause 4.10 refers to this time frame as being the maximum allowable suspension. The section from Clause 4.2 to 4.11 is headed "Liquid Scheme" and assumes the RE has cash reserves. Clause 4.9 deals with situations necessitating cessation of redemption payments where insufficient reserves are held - which is the case now - and includes any other event as well which is, as you say, a broard licence to act in any way the RE sees fit.
Clause 4.11 refers to the delay of payments to suit the incoming cash flow where the entitlement to redemption of units themselves has not been suspended. It refers to days and times of payments.
Clauses 4.14 and 4.15 appear under a heading of Suspension by RE. Clauses 4.14 as I read it refers to the suspension of redemption of units where it is impractical to calculate the redemption price. Clause 4.15 allows a maximum of 30  days suspension in this case unless the RE sees fit to extend the suspension. Another broard licence but caught by the maximum period specified in Clause 4.9 IMHO.
It would appear that this is also WC's interpretation. The operative word in Clause 4.9 is "must". In my experience of 22 years as a construction project manager this word has the greatest gravity in contractual terms and I expect that it also does here.

Quote:Having just re read the constitution I presume you mean 4.16. That whole section is open for multiple interpretation IMO. I guess at the end of the day, the best lawyer wins. As a matter of interest, did anyone have an investment in the Fund that was not due to be redeemed prior to MAR 09? Seamisty

Sorry Seamisty I did mean 4.16. 
Mutchy


----------



## DoraNBoots (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi,

As mentioned in a post a week ago.  I meet with JH and came out of the meeting with a lot of info which needed to be followed up.  I sent an email and received the reply as follows:

1.	You said that all unit holders would have their first 10,000 units bought back if they choose to participate in the proposed buy back.  Can you please let me know how this would be possible, because if all the 10,000 (plus) unitholders only had the minimum investment of 5,000 units that would exceed the 37 mill units you have allocated for the buy back.  (i.e 10,000 unit holders multiply by 5,000 units = 50 mill units needed for the buy back) 
_There was an answer which was pretty much a cut and paste from the EM which didn't explain how it would be possible to buy back a min of 10,000 units per investor.  I would therefore not assume you will be getting back $4,500 until this is clarified.  Can anyone tell me if the wording of this next sentence is a guarentee that a min of 10,000 will be bought?  "The proposal is to enable Unitholders to be able to accept for the first 10,000 units and then on a pro rata basis."_

2.	You also said that 6,000 unit holders would be able to be paid out in whole if they choose to fully participate in the buy back proposal.  ….  Can you please explain this discrepancy? 
_This was not answered at all._

3.	I raised what I consider to be a discrepancy between the Explanatory Memorandum and the proposed constitution for the proposed changes to the quorum section.  The EM states the quorum section will only be changed if both resolution 1 and resolution 3 are both passed but the constitution reads like the quorum section will be changed if only resolution 1 is passed (regardless of resolution 3).  Please confirm that this has been investigated by Wellington and let me know if either of these documents has been updated. 
_This was not answered at all.  The answer they provided relates to the RE removal fee rather than the quorum section._

4.	I asked you on Friday if the PIF is liquid.  You replied “yes”.  Can you please explain this as my understanding of the Corporations Act section 601KA would indicate that the PIF is currently not liquid. 
_The answer is that the board considers the PIF is liquid but is currently experiencing liquidity difficulties .  Interesting to note the EM says "and the current illiquidity of the fund"._

5.	You said that a liquid scheme cannot have it’s redemptions delayed longer that 360 days by law.  I asked if this is a law in the Corporations Act and you said “yes”.  Can you please send me the section of the Corp Act that covers this?  Please also let me know if this law still applies if a scheme is not liquid. 
_This was not answered._

6.	You said that there are xx odd hardship cases representing about x% of the PIF.  Can you please let me know if these numbers reflect the number of cases you are accepting as being hardship cases and if so how many other hardship requests (and what proportion of the fund)  you will be denying. 
_This was not answered, the reason being privacy of the unitholder._

7.	One of my fellow unitholders was told by the Wellington hotline that he cannot vote in person at the up and coming meeting dated 18th September 2008 but that he could only vote by sending in the proxy form by 16th September 2008.  Can you please clarify this as page 7 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that members can vote at the meeting. 
_The answer is that you can in fact vote at the meeting as mentioned on page 7 of the EM._

I have requested the questions which were not answer to be addressed and will keep you posted.


----------



## waleroo (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Please People what the hell how are we  supposed to vote when all you
 can do is
RAVE ABOUT  HOW WE HAVE BEEN SUCKED IN AND ROBBED AND HOW THEY DID IT AND HOW GOOD THEY ARE LIVING CUT THE **** AND DECIDE WHAT THE HELL WE SHOULD TO TRY TO SAVE SOMETHING FROM MESS PLEASE ADVISE ME AND ALL THE OTHER SUCKERS WHO READ THIS FORUM LOOKING FOR A LITTLE BIT OF HELP AND COMMON SENSE AND SANITY WHAT F??? DO WE DO 

Waleroo


----------



## Burnt (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



waleroo said:


> Please People what the hell how are we  supposed to vote when all you
> can do is
> RAVE ABOUT  HOW WE HAVE BEEN SUCKED IN AND ROBBED AND HOW THEY DID IT AND HOW GOOD THEY ARE LIVING CUT THE **** AND DECIDE WHAT THE HELL WE SHOULD TO TRY TO SAVE SOMETHING FROM MESS PLEASE ADVISE ME AND ALL THE OTHER SUCKERS WHO READ THIS FORUM LOOKING FOR A LITTLE BIT OF HELP AND COMMON SENSE AND SANITY WHAT F??? DO WE DO
> 
> Waleroo




Simple answer, VOTE NO, NO, NO. This way your money won't be locked away indefinately and your rights to change things will not be diminished. We will have another chance to vote on alternatives that will benefit US.
As I've said before, if you are not 100% sure that voting yes is going to be in your best interests - vote no.


----------



## seamisty (2 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Simple answer, VOTE NO, NO, NO. This way your money won't be locked away indefinately and your rights to change things will not be diminished. We will have another chance to vote on alternatives that will benefit US.
> As I've said before, if you are not 100% sure that voting yes is going to be in your best interests - vote no.



Burnt if you are prepared to recommend a confused investor to vote no, no, no, please also advise him of the alternatives that are presently available that will deliver a better outcome. If there was something better, I would be the first to promote it, so please enlighten me. I only want what is best for unit holders. Seamisty


----------



## Wolfgang (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I spoke to a Wellington Capital Limited yesterday and one question I asked was if Resolution 1 did not pass what will happen?. The answer “we will liquidation of the Fund, the fund will not go into an orderly wind up, and the constitution will not be looked at again”

Wolfgang


----------



## SPLITPIN (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

To all PIF Unit Holders (Members)

I have been requested to inform you that the QLD PIF Action Group is to be incorporated in QLD as an Association to be named PIF Initiative Incorporated – “PIFI”

PIFI is posting out to PIF members, documentation regarding the meeting of the Premium Income Fund on 18 September 2008.

Please note the only official contact email for PIFI is  PIFInitiative@gmail.com 

Regards

Splitpin


----------



## sugar3157 (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Burnt if you are prepared to recommend a confused investor to vote no, no, no, please also advise him of the alternatives that are presently available that will deliver a better outcome. If there was something better, I would be the first to promote it, so please enlighten me. I only want what is best for unit holders. Seamisty




Hi Seamisty...I am so confused..I was going to vote Y>Y>N....but now I have no idea what to vote....HELP please...Sugar


----------



## DoraNBoots (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Wolfgang said:


> I spoke to a Wellington Capital Limited yesterday and one question I asked was if Resolution 1 did not pass what will happen?. The answer “we will liquidation of the Fund, the fund will not go into an orderly wind up, and the constitution will not be looked at again”
> 
> Wolfgang




WC are playing hardball with their scare tactics.  If you accept Res 1 you will only give them more power to push us around in the future.  Unitholders will not permit a liquidation by WC.

People should start recording conversations with WC hotline staff to see if they are willing to BS for the record.  I think you may need let them know you are recording the conversation to begin with to make it binding.  Does anyone have the capability to do this?

Boots


----------



## seamisty (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Hi Seamisty...I am so confused..I was going to vote Y>Y>N....but now I have no idea what to vote....HELP please...Sugar



Sugar, please check your private message box. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Wolfgang (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> WC are playing hardball with their scare tactics. If you accept Res 1 you will only give them more power to push us around in the future. Unitholders will not permit a liquidation by WC.
> Boots




I also asked Wellington yesterday if they are using scare tactics. The answer “no we are not using scare tactics”

I also asked if they are going to go on investing in the future. The answer “Yes when the time is right, we want to make the fund a going concern again”


----------



## seamisty (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Hi Seamisty...I am so confused..I was going to vote Y>Y>N....but now I have no idea what to vote....HELP please...Sugar



I will be sending my vote this week sugar and I will voting Y Y N. I have been told  by others who have Fund Managers and Financial Advisors that this is also the way they have been recommended to vote as there has been no better alternative put foward. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I will be sending my vote this week sugar and I will voting Y Y N. I have been told  by others who have Fund Managers and Financial Advisors that this is also the way they have been recommended to vote as there has been no better alternative put foward. Regards, Seamisty




Hi Seamisty (and other interested parties) - as you have probably calculated, I will also be voting Y-Y-N


----------



## 2CentsWorth (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I will be sending my vote this week sugar and I will voting Y Y N. I have been told  by others who have Fund Managers and Financial Advisors that this is also the way they have been recommended to vote as there has been no better alternative put foward. Regards, Seamisty





Good morning Seamisty, hope the fish are biting.

I too, after further consideration brought on by current postings, have decided not to change from from my original vote of Y>Y>N.
Wolfgang has eclipsed me by one day, in directly asking WC those very same questions.... Well done Wolfy ! and all the best.

John.


----------



## marcom (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I will be sending my vote this week sugar and I will voting Y Y N. I have been told  by others who have Fund Managers and Financial Advisors that this is also the way they have been recommended to vote as there has been no better alternative put foward. Regards, Seamisty




We have already voted Y-Y-N

Regards
MARCOM


----------



## seamisty (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good morning johnH and 2CentsWorth. Seems to have settled down on the forum a bit, hopefully everyone has gathered enough information to vote accordingly as to how they see fit. The boat is awaiting parts which did not arrive on this mornings plane so we have a crew with long faces doing maintenance jobs instead. I did however have a kind offer of a pair of size 9 gumboots with two holes in the right toe off another AG member in exchange for several hours of very constructive advice in regard to the PIF and  it appears I was the only fish biting LOL!!! Regards, Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I will be sending my vote this week sugar and I will voting Y Y N. I have been told  by others who have Fund Managers and Financial Advisors that this is also the way they have been recommended to vote as there has been no better alternative put foward. Regards, Seamisty




Seamisty, the other alternative that you cannot see is right under your nose.  Maintain our current rights rather than give them away to WC!  

That is our choice right now.  There is plenty of time.  If you reject WC's proposal other opportunities will present themselves.  If you accept, you are selling us all short.

Boots


----------



## great dame (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

HI ALL   Its going to take a lot will power not  to tell all you good folk out there who voted  Y Y N in maybe a years time  WELL I TOLD YOU SO    injoy your day  Cheers / Dane //


----------



## seamisty (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Seamisty, the other alternative that you cannot see is right under your nose.  Maintain our current rights rather than give them away to WC!
> 
> That is our choice right now.  There is plenty of time.  If you reject WC's proposal other opportunities will present themselves.  If you accept, you are selling us all short.
> 
> Boots



All I am giving WC at present is the Ok to demostrate her abilities, unhindered, that have already been recognised by being awarded Queensland Business Woman of the year 2007. I trawled the net for days looking for any information that would deter me from going with WC and found nothing but praise for the woman!!! If there was one skerrick of scandal or wrong doing it would have been plastered all over this thread by all and sundry. The other opportunities waiting to present themselves are heavily disguised and too slow off the mark. It's too late, the majority off investors have made their decision, many from as far back as the forums where they were satisfied with what they saw and were prepared to accept whatever was put to them from WC. At least I can recognize a dead horse when I see one. Seamisty:horse:


----------



## Burnt (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> To all PIF Unit Holders (Members)
> 
> I have been requested to inform you that the QLD PIF Action Group is to be incorporated in QLD as an Association to be named PIF Initiative Incorporated – “PIFI”
> 
> ...




Please contact PIF Initiative at above email address. There are alternatives to being locked into plans that benefit others and not yourself. Excercise the rights you currently have before they are taken away from you.
Don't go along with opinions and advice that are being paid for and don't be fooled by threats and scare tactics.


----------



## selciper (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I've read all the recent posts. My thanks to those who have done so much research in their own valuable time and shared it with us. I'm voting YYN - with misgivings. WC don't quite measure up, especially as they do dodge questions, but nobody has been able to produce another company or bank who want PIF. Had that been the case, we would have had a real choice. At present we now need some kind of shelter. We won't be lonely individuals again, thanks to the AG which will be quick to act if things don't look right. After this protracted process, WC have put their future reputation on the line and they've a big job to do if they want to gain anything resembling total PIF investor confidence. Fingers crossed. 

And I do think that the AG should raise $10000 for any urgent matters that may arise, such as necessary legal consultations.


----------



## Rance (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> *Don't go along with opinions and advice that are being paid for *and don't be fooled by threats and scare tactics.




I've voted Y/Y/Y, so I guess my pay cheque is in the mail... You little beaudy!!  Hopefully the first of many from Jenny, Robert and Mary-Anne....

Rance :chimney:jump:


----------



## ozzy (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

What happens if the proxy form (vote) is not sent at all? What does option 1,2 and 3 default to?


----------



## 2CentsWorth (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



ozzy said:


> What happens if the proxy form (vote) is not sent at all? What does option 1,2 and 3 default to?




Ozzy,
your votes unfortunately will not be counted. WC only requires 75% of votes that are returned, or give in at the meeting on the 18th.
Cheers.


----------



## Rance (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



ozzy said:


> What happens if the proxy form (vote) is not sent at all? What does option 1,2 and 3 default to?



Nothing; if you don't vote, you don't vote...

Rance


----------



## seamisty (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



ozzy said:


> What happens if the proxy form (vote) is not sent at all? What does option 1,2 and 3 default to?



The outcome will be determined by  those who choose to vote. Those who don't vote will ultimately have to take the path of whatever the majority vote for who do vote.WC will need to get a 75% for vote  on Res1(of those who do vote) for the Fund to remain a going concern as per proposed changes.Seamisty


----------



## Rance (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



2CentsWorth said:


> Ozzy,
> your votes unfortunately will not be counted. WC only requires 75% of votes that are returned, or give in at the meeting on the 18th.
> Cheers.



Pedantic correction, 2Cents Worth...  "WC only requires 75% of the votes that are returned *AND* given in at the meeting..."
Now I'm being legalistic...Bah!
I think I've been reading this thread too long.

Rance


----------



## Mutchy (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hello All,
I see a lot of unit holders have voted already. The following is my opinion only. I am not advising anyone as to how to vote.
WCIM is Wellington Capital Investment Management, the present Responsible Entity, previously known by other names including MFS Investment Management. WC is Wellington Capital of which WCIM is a subsidiary company. WC is named as the new R E in Item 3 of the proxy voting form commonly referred to as Resolution 3.

There are valid arguments for and against the proposals from WCIM. JH has a good reputation sullied somewhat by a perceived close association with some previous MFS board members.  I think her intentions are well placed and the goals of WCIM are admirable. Of course the goals we are aware of will be only those that she thinks we need to know of. Others may be deduced from the evidence in the changes to the constitution and statements in the explanatory memorandum. I am alarmed that there are no provisions in the proposed constitution to allow the operation of the 10,000 unit redemption scheme nor the Investor Advisory Committee. Hence I am suspicious that WC may not really intend to honour these promises. There is further disparity between the Deed Poll cited in the proposed constitution and reality and the explanatory memorandum. I am deeply suspicious that WC has an agenda far different from ours.

The mathematics of the WCIM touted recovery reveal that the recovery in the WCIM anticipated timeframe, nominally six or seven years,is very difficult to achieve and by no means certain even if we were to immediately enter economic conditions the same as the last seven or so years prior to last October. Earnings in excess of 25% on the proportion of our portfolio which is capable of doing so are required. A lot of outstanding debt has to be recovered from building construction loans, at least 20 going back to November 2005. 

There is another option which WCIM has not discussed in the explanatory memorandum nor given us the opportunity to vote upon and that is of an orderly wind up. This would not be to WCIM's benefit as the income to be made from this option as far as I can make out is costs and expenses only. Remember that at present WCIM have not made any income from PIF and have been managing the scheme from 3 million paid to WC by MFS(Octavia). WCIM make no fees until the first dividend is paid. This is proposed to be in October with a further amount to give return of 6% by the end of the financial year. We cannot count on the exact yields because WCIM have the power to determine the exact sums depending on circumstances at the time of payment. We could get anything but so that WCIM can begin to be paid from the PIF scheme they will make a dividend payment as soon as possible.

An orderly wind up which involves selling the assets at going market value without undue haste could take three years or more depending on the commercial property market and the stock market. Unit holders are entitled as I see it to returns during this period at the discretion of the RE. At present the PWC assessed value is 65 cents per unit. If unit holders could vote and pass a resolution to mandate this course with or without having voted in favour of the present voting options we would receive according to the mathematical model evolved by Iceman and verified by others, 65 or so cents per unit in 7 years but with a return of 6% in the meantime. If the resolutions we have before us are approved YYY then after seven years we can sell our units on the NSX and get 65 cents per unit. WCIM will have surrendered the RE job to WC and they may have decided that they no longer want to be RE and then jump ship earning 2% of our money for doing so. They could even do this almost immediately the ink is dry on the paperwork giving WC the RE's job in a few weeks time.

If the resolutions are not approved ie voted NNN I believe that WCIM will have to propose another option to pay some dividend to us in order to commence an income stream for themselves, and a different proposal will be needed from them for management of the scheme.

So there is the situation as I see it. I would like to have an orderly wind up because I want my money returned so that I can do something with it. Otherwise I fear it will earn a relatively poor return and then I will get the same value by sale on the NSX in seven years as I can in three or maybe four years by orderly wind up . I also see that WC intend to open the scheme to more investors so diluting the value of our holdings further. I am very skeptical that we will ever see units valued at 1$ again. 

A strategy for achieving a vote by all members for an orderly wind up of the scheme follows.
Because a motion for adjournment of a general meeting must be heard first at the meeting (assuming the chair has been appointed) then I propose:
1) that the RE be requested to notify all members that a special resolution is to be put at the meeting. This request has to be made by at least 100 members in writing or members holding at least 5% of the units. Because this notice is after the notice of meeting that you already have and the forms cannot be sent simultaneously, the cost of doing so could possibly be at the requesting members' expense.
2) that the resolution request:
a)the adjournment of the meeting until the RE has explained the benefits and risks of an orderly wind up of the scheme as an option and has included these details in an explanatory memorandum.
b)the inclusion of the option of an orderly wind up of the scheme in a proxy voting form
c)the reimbursement by the RE to the requesting members of costs, if any, of the distribution of the notice of special resolution
d)the meeting be reconvened at the earliest opportunity after unit holders have received proxy voting forms and the associated explanatory memorandum.

The meeting can then be held with the orderly wind up option on the table.

Of course members can ask for a meeting to approve an orderly windup at any time including after the present vote has been taken and the resolutions dealt with whatever happens.  If we want to act now then a motion for adjournment is the only option I can see which will postpone the taking of the present vote.  This would postpone, under a successful YYY vote, the replacement of WCIM by WC as the RE and the adoption of a constitution which penalises our fund if the RE is replaced, removes our rights to redemptions and lists our units on the NSX.

I suggest that members of the Action Group or PFIF who wish to support an adjournment motion as outlined above could indicate their support to Breaker1.  Should we have sufficient numbers we could then proceed with the precise wording of the request generally as outlined above, circulate it to all supporters for signature (Corp Act allows many signed copies, each copy has to be identical)  and put it to WCIM for action.

I hope this assessment is helpful. I would like to see considered comment not facile interjections. 
Mutchy


----------



## breaker1 (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I admire what the "No" voters are trying to do - but talk about brinkmanship! The last guy I saw playing this game was Saddam Hussein and you know what happened to him.

JH has made it very clear and put it in writing, she can handle a No vote on Resolutions 2 & 3, but not on Res 1, that's where JH is clearly drawing the line. A No vote on Res 1 and she takes her bat and WC and goes home. 

I am NOT happy with WC changing the constitution in Res 1, Jenny Hutson did not need to go out of her way to unnecessarily bend our noses out of joint, it is an indication JH is not 100% for PIF investors and wants to overly protect herself.

Nevertheless, if you want JH and not the constitution changes, I think you are asking to have your cake and eat it and that's not being real at this late stage. If you think you can have both  WC & vote No! on Res 1 and are certain of it, good luck to you, I hope you have a breakthrough! If your not certain of it, common sense should prevail. 

I'm sorry, but there are too many investors who don't want to gamble their investment on a Res.1 no vote, with it's inherent unknown and unsold quantities. JH is offering 13% interest (6c pa  in writing) + a possible special distribution interest on our investment and those on a pension are only being deemed @ 45% of former investment, making a substantial saving there. Also a + 45c X10,000 for the cash strapped, then those same cash strapped can look forward to regular distributions to keep them going. 

When we first started this thread in mid May, going by press reports, we investors were envisaging 5-15c in the $ at best, with the continual threat of liquidation and a blackout of information. I thought that if we could get 40-50cents in the dollar I would be thankful. I did not think that I may still get around half my investment back more or less (albeit years down the track) and a 6c pa distribution. For what its worth that is a genuine improvement from a seriously battered and much abused fund.

At this late stage, the PIF AG can't drag this debate out any longer without giving solid guidance to AG members and ASF readers:

In the absence of an alternative excellent RE, with concrete proposals superior to WC, current feeling amongst the majority of PIF AG organisers is to vote as follows:

Resolutions
Item 1 - vote For  (as this will retain WC as RE at a critical time and guarantee avoiding any possibility of a 14c in $ liquidation or any liquidation at risk of very low return)

Item 2 - vote For  (as this will allow access to the 45c in $ for those who need a small injection of cash urgently)

Item 3 - vote Against  (as this will allow PIF investors to try and remove WC as RE if it is not performing, without the 2% penalty)


 :xmaswave


----------



## seamisty (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The PWC assesed value of 65cents per unit is only if the full amount of $147.5 million was recovered from OCV. WC has not completed the negotiations (to my knowledge) and has indicated that Quote page 60 of the Explanatory Memorandum:::If the cash offer were accepted as proposed, the Fund would receive $44.4 million and all legal
action against MFS in relation to the Support Facility ($50 million) and the claim commenced on 24
June 2008 ($147.5 million) would be at an end.MFS’ offer to the Premium Income Fund is also dependent upon all other creditors of MFS agreeing
to compromise what is currently due to them. If for example, only 4 of the 5 creditors owed money
by MFS reached agreement the offer to the Premium Income Fund could not proceed.
MFS has clearly indicated that if agreement is not reached, MFS will be wound up. This alternative
is not economically desirable from the Premium Income Fund’s perspective as on a winding up it is
estimated by MFS that the return to the Premium Income Fund would be 11.8 cents per $1.00
outstanding. The timing of the payments would also be very uncertain::::: Therefore in my opinion until such times as this is finalised, 65cents valuation is highly unlikely and the figure you should be using as a base is 45cents per unit. The anticipated distribution is 6cents per unit which I think on a 45cent valuation is an annual return of 13.5%. Who do you propose will conduct this orderly windup and at what cost? WC has told me they are not in the business of Fund Liquidation or Orderly windups. I am opposed to a wind up of any description until such times as the Fund and the economy has stabilised and only then if the current RE proves to be inept or negligent. I have voted Y Y N and will post my form tomorrow. Thankyou for all the effort you have taken for those that want an orderly liquidation of the Fund ,but I think I can do much better by sticking with JH long term. By the way, where is Iceman, 4 powerballs between 29th and 30th Aug and he was out of here!!!!!Seamisty


----------



## Burnt (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I'm sorry Breaker1 but some of your beliefs are quite unfounded. It is a shame that you and others are basing your beliefs on things that are just not true.
E.G. the 6c p.a. return has not been guaranteed by WCIM. In fact, in the memorandum on pages 6 & 38 it is clearly written that even the 3c distribution by 24 Dec. is only "anticipated". Quarterly distributions after this are also only "anticipated" and no amount is stated. A distribution will be paid in October I am sure, because as Mutchy has stated, this is when WCIM's income commences.
E.G. the buy back scheme proposed does not mean that unitholders will receive $4,500. They state on page 15 that 37.75 mil units max. will be bought back. There are 10,387 unitholders (p.11). 37,750,000 / 10,387 = 3634 units @ 45c = $1635.10 sometime within the next 12 months (wooppee).
E.G. The RE cannot walk away from the Fund. Sect.601FL of the Corporations Act protects us from this. It states that the RE of a registered scheme must remain the RE until another appointed RE is registered with ASIC.
Also, the 14c 5 month liquidation is a threat to scare people into voting yes.

Mutchy's proposition is the way to go. Those that want a long term investment can take their money as they receive it during a wind up and invest it elsewhere.


----------



## Burnt (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

THANK YOU MUTCHY FOR YOUR WELL WRITTEN POST 2222. What you have put forward and proposed is well thought out and researched and is supported by fact and logic and law. This is the best and fairest way to go for all unitholders. 
Could I suggest though that you and other like minded unitholders contact the PIF Initiative Incorporated at PIFInitiative@gmail.com
Cheers and thank you for making this so clear to everyone.


----------



## DoraNBoots (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks so much for your post Mutchy!  I will put my name to such action.
Please feel free to use the Brisbane AG email address if one is needed.


----------



## sugar3157 (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Seamisty... check your private messages please...thanks Sugar...


----------



## Burnt (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> The PWC assesed value of 65cents per unit is only if the full amount of $147.5 million was recovered from OCV. WC has not completed the negotiations (to my knowledge) and has indicated that Quote page 60 of the Explanatory Memorandum:::If the cash offer were accepted as proposed, the Fund would receive $44.4 million and all legal
> action against MFS in relation to the Support Facility ($50 million) and the claim commenced on 24
> June 2008 ($147.5 million) would be at an end.MFS’ offer to the Premium Income Fund is also dependent upon all other creditors of MFS agreeing
> to compromise what is currently due to them. If for example, only 4 of the 5 creditors owed money
> ...




Thank you Seamisty for your posts. Glad to hear that you have made enough money on past investments with MFS to be able to afford to take a loss here (as per previous posts) and that you can afford to wait an indefinate period of time to recoup a percentage your funds. Lucky you. Unfortunately for many, many unitholders they cannot afford either of these options. They can't afford to wait around, they can't afford to hope that "anticipated" distributions may happen, they can't afford to have their money locked away indefinately. Most of us do not want to give up our current rights, and to be at the mercy of the NSX market if we become really desperate. We believe an orderly wind up, carried out with the ultimate objective to return the most amount of capital to investors as it is realised, in a manner that is conducted purely with the best interests of unitholders (and no one else) in mind, is the best option. Those that want to invest long term can take their money as it comes in and invest it elsewhere.
Thanks and happy sailing.


----------



## seamisty (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Thank you Seamisty for your posts. Glad to hear that you have made enough money on past investments with MFS to be able to afford to take a loss here (as per previous posts) and that you can afford to wait an indefinate period of time to recoup a percentage your funds. Lucky you. Unfortunately for many, many unitholders they cannot afford either of these options. They can't afford to wait around, they can't afford to hope that "anticipated" distributions may happen, they can't afford to have their money locked away indefinately. Most of us do not want to give up our current rights, and to be at the mercy of the NSX market if we become really desperate. We believe an orderly wind up, carried out with the ultimate objective to return the most amount of capital to investors as it is realised, in a manner that is conducted purely with the best interests of unitholders (and no one else) in mind, is the best option. Those that want to invest long term can take their money as it comes in and invest it elsewhere.
> Thanks and happy sailing.



Your welcome burnt, with so many like minded investors out there as yourself, you should romp in the vote for an orderly, costly liquidation with nothing in writing of the anticipated unit value at the end, carried out by an unidentified source. Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> HI ALL   Its going to take a lot will power not  to tell all you good folk out there who voted  Y Y N in maybe a years time  WELL I TOLD YOU SO    injoy your day  Cheers / Dane //




GD, Boots , Burnt and all others voting for a "no" to number 1.  I have been at the wrong end of 3 liquidations over the last 30 years, and surprise, surprise, the only people who made anything out of it were the IR in two cases ( UK equivalent of ATO) and the appointed receivers - all three.  I can well understand that you want to get what money you can out of this debacle.  Many similar funds (look at Challenger, AMP. Colonial,  or APN Property) are all showing losses of up to 43% in value over two years, even more over one.  So at 45 cents PIF is not that worse off.   With good management (which I believe Wellington can give) there is a good chance that we can maintain not an exceptional (which has been had in the past) but an acceptable interim return for our investments.  
There are plenty of other opportunities out there for someone of Jenny’s calibre, and I believe it would be foolish to encourage her to walk away by showing a lack of confidence in her ability.

If we make it too hard for her, she will put it into the too hard basket, and concentrate her efforts on something that  is easier and more appreciative of her talents.


----------



## Burnt (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hey Seamisty, thank you very much for your vote of confidence. Warms my heart. By the way, we're not in favour of a quick "liquidation", just an orderly wind up over time. Also, the term "costly" needs to be clarified. Administrators normally charge a set fee, not a % of funds or a % of assets or the net fund profits (which is what the fund was subjected to in the past). Under Wellington's control, over a 5 year period, the fund will end up paying them between $10 - $12 mil. + costs + fees paid to external managers. That sounds pretty costly to me.
And hey, we already have it in writing that the value of units is between 45c & 65c.
Also, had anyone out there heard of Wellington Capital before this all came about ?


----------



## breaker1 (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> I'm sorry Breaker1 but some of your beliefs are quite unfounded. It is a shame that you and others are basing your beliefs on things that are just not true.
> E.G. the 6c p.a. return has not been guaranteed by WCIM. In fact, in the memorandum on pages 6 & 38 it is clearly written that even the 3c distribution by 24 Dec. is only "anticipated". Quarterly distributions after this are also only "anticipated" and no amount is stated. A distribution will be paid in October I am sure, because as Mutchy has stated, this is when WCIM's income commences.
> E.G. the buy back scheme proposed does not mean that unitholders will receive $4,500. They state on page 15 that 37.75 mil units max. will be bought back. There are 10,387 unitholders (p.11). 37,750,000 / 10,387 = 3634 units @ 45c = $1635.10 sometime within the next 12 months (wooppee).
> E.G. The RE cannot walk away from the Fund. Sect.601FL of the Corporations Act protects us from this. It states that the RE of a registered scheme must remain the RE until another appointed RE is registered with ASIC.
> ...





No return can be guaranteed from funds such as this, most PDS's make legal mention of this in clauses to cover themselves and you should know that.   So why are you making comments guaranteed to mislead readers into thinking their must be something seriously wrong if an interest rate target is not guaranteed?

As to the 45c X 10,000 unit buyback offer, I have made it quiet clear in a previous post that if the demand is high that the units on offer are pro rata and most readers are aware of that, I don't want to write a war and peace novel here.

What you seem to be missing is not *when *Jenny will eventually walk, but that *we **could end up with a last minute, dredged up, RE much worse than her*! You know you can't guarantee that distinct possibility and we investors would be extremely foolish to gamble on such unknowns.


----------



## seamisty (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hey Seamisty, thank you very much for your vote of confidence. Warms my heart. By the way, we're not in favour of a quick "liquidation", just an orderly wind up over time. Also, the term "costly" is needs to be clarified. Administrators normally charge a set fee, not a % of funds or a % of assets or a % of fund profits (which is what the fund was subjected to in the past). Under Wellington's control, over a 5 year period, the fund will end up paying them between $10 - $12 mil. + costs + fees paid to external managers. That sounds pretty costly to me.
> And hey, we already have it in writing that the value of units is between 45c & 65c.
> Also, had anyone out there heard of Wellington Capital before this all came about ?



I have never mentioned the word 'QUICK' burnt, it was 'ORDERLY' liquidation.The  65cent valuation was only in the event of the Fund remaining a going concern and if the full $147.5 million was recovered from OCV. Neither of these have happened to date, and the going concern certainly won't when the orderly liquidation commences. I doubt very much if the 147.5million will ever be recovered in full, quote page 60, explanatory memorandum:::If the cash offer were accepted as proposed, the Fund would receive $44.4 million and all legal
action against MFS in relation to the Support Facility ($50 million) and the claim commenced on 24
June 2008 ($147.5 million) would be at an end. :::: The proposed management fee by WC of .7% is a long way short of the 2.47% we agreed to pay MFS/OCV to rip us off. Also, if you are so concerned as to the discl sed manangement fee  to operate the Fund, I would have thought it more important to get an 'anticipated' orderly liquidation fee in writing before agreeing to it. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## Burnt (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> No return can be guaranteed from funds such as this, most PDS's make legal mention of this in clauses to cover themselves and you should know that.   So why are you making comments guaranteed to mislead readers into thinking their must be something seriously wrong if an interest rate target is not guaranteed?
> 
> As to the 45c X 10,000 unit buyback offer, I have made it quiet clear in a previous post that if the demand is high that the units on offer are pro rata and most readers are aware of that, I don't want to write a war and peace novel here.
> 
> What you seem to be missing is not *when *Jenny will eventually walk, but that *we **could end up with a last minute, dredged up, RE much worse than her*! You know you can't guarantee that distinct possibility and we investors would be extremely foolish to gamble on such unknowns.




Hi Breaker1.
You are incorrect - I have not insinuated that something is seriously wrong because the interest rate target is not guaranteed. What I am saying is I think you might be the one misleading readers by not qualifying YOUR STATEMENT that JH is offering 13.5% (6c pa in writing). Remember, nothing is guaranteed - I'm aware of this, you're aware of it, Wellington is aware of it because they use the word "anticipate" - why not state this in the statements you are making.
And I don't think readers should be mislead that the buy back is doing them any favours.
ALSO, I can guarantee that if JH decides that Wellington wants to resign from RE position (will not look good), WE GET TO CHOOSE the replacement RE. They don't. If Wellington does not have an alternative plan to offer should they loose, then in my opinion, they are very unprofessional. At the moment we have rights to determine what happens with OUR FUND - WE OWN IT !!! Don't encourage people to give up those rights.


----------



## seamisty (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi Breaker1.
> You are incorrect - I have not insinuated that something is seriously wrong because the interest rate target is not guaranteed. What I am saying is I think you might be the one misleading readers by not qualifying YOUR STATEMENT that JH is offering 13.5% (6c pa in writing). Remember, nothing is guaranteed - I'm aware of this, you're aware of it, Wellington is aware of it because they use the word "anticipate" - why not state this in the statements you are making.
> And I don't think readers should be mislead that the buy back is doing them any favours.
> ALSO, I can guarantee that if JH decides that Wellington wants to resign from RE position (will not look good), WE GET TO CHOOSE the replacement RE. They don't. If Wellington does not have an alternative plan to offer should they loose, then in my opinion, they are very unprofessional. At the moment we have rights to determine what happens with OUR FUND - WE OWN IT !!! Don't encourage people to give up those rights.



Unit holders currently own the units, the RE currently own the right to manage those units.


----------



## Burnt (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I have never mentioned the word 'QUICK' burnt, it was 'ORDERLY' liquidation.The  65cent valuation was only in the event of the Fund remaining a going concern and if the full $147.5 million was recovered from OCV. Neither of these have happened to date, and the going concern certainly won't when the orderly liquidation commences. I doubt very much if the 147.5million will ever be recovered in full, quote page 60, explanatory memorandum:::If the cash offer were accepted as proposed, the Fund would receive $44.4 million and all legal
> action against MFS in relation to the Support Facility ($50 million) and the claim commenced on 24
> June 2008 ($147.5 million) would be at an end. :::: The proposed management fee by WC of .7% is a long way short of the 2.47% we agreed to pay MFS/OCV to rip us off. Also, if you are so concerned as to the discl sed manangement fee  to operate the Fund, I would have thought it more important to get an 'anticipated' orderly liquidation fee in writing before agreeing to it. Cheers, Seamisty




Hi Seamisty, sorry for the "quick" comment but I see that as being the difference between "liquidation" and "administration". An administrator's role is to manage the fund as any other manager would, to achieve income where possible and to realise assets when an optimum price is achievable. They act in the best interest of unitholders. They pursue all debts owed to the fund in the same manner you would expect any other manager too if they are acting in unitholders' best intersts.
As far as valuations are concerned, who really knows. We have not been provided with audited financial information nor "independent" valuations.
As far as management fees are concerned, I totally agree with you that MFS ripped the fund off blind. Why set this as a benchmark. And of course, an administrator's fees would have to be submitted in writing and would possibly be open to negotiation. Nothing seems to be negotiable with Wellington.
Cheers.


----------



## Burnt (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Unit holders currently own the units, the RE currently own the right to manage those units.




Yes, you are right. Unitholders own the units, i.e. all the money in the fund. RE owns the right to manage that money, but their duty under the law is to act in OUR BEST INTERESTS, and we have the right to have a say in what our best interests are. Also note that the RE has the right to change the constitution at any time without a vote by unitholders if they feel that it is in the unitholders BEST INTERESTS. If they feel that doing what they propose is genuinely in the best interests of unitholders, why are they asking us to vote on it.


----------



## seamisty (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Yes, you are right. Unitholders own the units, i.e. all the money in the fund. RE owns the right to manage that money, but their duty under the law is to act in OUR BEST INTERESTS, and we have the right to have a say in what our best interests are. Also note that the RE has the right to change the constitution at any time without a vote by unitholders if they feel that it is in the unitholders BEST INTERESTS. If they feel that doing what they propose is genuinely in the best interests of unitholders, why are they asking us to vote on it.



Well we have all been insisting on transparency and openness, so hey, they give us that and you are suspicious and looking for hidden agendas. HELLO, for a minority, it will not matter what WC do, it will be WRONG!!!! GET OVER IT!!!


----------



## breaker1 (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi Breaker1.
> You are incorrect - I have not insinuated that something is seriously wrong because the interest rate target is not guaranteed. What I am saying is I think you might be the one misleading readers by not qualifying YOUR STATEMENT that JH is offering 13.5% (6c pa in writing). Remember, nothing is guaranteed - I'm aware of this, you're aware of it, Wellington is aware of it because they use the word "anticipate" - why not state this in the statements you are making.
> And I don't think readers should be mislead that the buy back is doing them any favours.
> ALSO, I can guarantee that if JH decides that Wellington wants to resign from RE position (will not look good), WE GET TO CHOOSE the replacement RE. They don't. If Wellington does not have an alternative plan to offer should they loose, then in my opinion, they are very unprofessional. At the moment we have rights to determine what happens with OUR FUND - WE OWN IT !!! Don't encourage people to give up those rights.




Now your getting pedantic!

I hope you get there successfully and if you do, kudos (acclaim) to you mate!


----------



## Burnt (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Now your getting pedantic!
> 
> I hope you get there successfully and if you do, kudos (acclaim) to you mate!




Hey bud, not getting pedantic, just stating facts. Sorry that you can't see that, but I hope that others can see the facts and logic.

Good luck to you too mate.


----------



## breaker1 (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

:horse:

picture paints a thousand words! Nuff said!


----------



## Burnt (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Well we have all been insisting on transparency and openness, so hey, they give us that and you are suspicious and looking for hidden agendas. HELLO, for a minority, it will not matter what WC do, it will be WRONG!!!! GET OVER IT!!!




Hi Seamisty,  I have to ask.......where have Wellington given anyone "transparency and openness" ?? Please give me an example. I could give you lots of examples where they haven't.
My purpose is not to dish Wellington, only to oppose the specific resolutions they have put forward for voting on. I am here to fight for unitholders rights and their best interests. The best interests of a lot of unitholders may not be the same as yours. You obviously are astute and well off - others are not.
Thought you might have a response to my *post 2237* regarding the truth about how *an administrator would look after unitholders interests.* Funny, when facts and logic are presented, the Yes voters don't have much to say.
Good luck to you too............you probably don't need it as much as others do though. 
Power to the people who need it most !!!!!!!!!


----------



## Burnt (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> :horse:
> 
> picture paints a thousand words! Nuff said!




Hey that's a bit vicious !!! Don't do that to JH (lol)


----------



## breaker1 (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hey that's a bit vicious !!! Don't do that to JH (lol)




:horse:

COLD! Not JH, work it out, I'll let you know when you're gettin warm!


----------



## Burnt (3 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> :horse:
> 
> COLD! Not JH, work it out, I'll let you know when you're gettin warm!




Hey isn't that horse's name "breaker". Sorry mate, but it really is a shame to see you give up the way you have. Wish you could keep the faith that you initially put in people. It's still there.........don't give up. There's more of us now and WE WILL KEEP FIGHTING.


----------



## breaker1 (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hey isn't that horse's name "breaker". Sorry mate, but it really is a shame to see you give up the way you have. Wish you could keep the faith that you initially put in people. It's still there.........don't give up. There's more of us now and WE WILL KEEP FIGHTING.




Gettin personal now Burnt! LOL

No! The answer is your agenda package and its horrible timing!

Nobody said anything about giving up!

You appear to have given little thought about the investors your dealing with, their *current* opinions and mindset on voting for WC, that is your error. You talk about people power, but your not even listening to those very people. It might pay to get your eye off your minority agenda for the moment and start getting surveys as to what the PIF people you need to support you are really thinking in regards to WC and the resolution vote. I counsel you to do that, I have and that is why I can't support your shakey breakaway faction package  at this critical time, no matter how idealistic and well intentioned.

Investors want to give Jenny a go!!! Do I have to put a swear word before go? It is not going against the grain for you to do what you are doing at this very time - it is more like walking in front of a moving bus - put yer glasses on!! OOPs! Too late!

Time will tell Burnt!


----------



## great dame (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

TIME WILL TELL  And i am afraid to say it sure will  The one big thing you are all forgetting  is when  it comes time to sell your units  you have only one choice & that is the NSX exchange   Weather it next year or 7 years time No mater what your units are worth don't expect much on the NSX  on top of that a big cost in selling     You may think in years to come that winging Dane  was right   Enjoy your day /Dane //


----------



## PIFholder (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> People should start recording conversations with WC hotline staff to see if they are willing to BS for the record.  I think you may need let them know you are recording the conversation to begin with to make it binding.  Does anyone have the capability to do this?
> 
> Boots




Dear Boots and other PIF unitholders,

There was an article in the newspaper on the weekend that said it was illegal to tape telephone calls. Even the police aren't allowed to do it without a court order.
We've all lost money, but what we don't need to risk is going to jail as well. 
I've spoken to ASIC and they've said to vote no if I don't like the process - I'd much rather vote no and take my chances if that I what I indeed decide to do, but risking jail time over a lost investment is something that seems pretty extreme.

Just a voice of reason ....

SPLITPIN - when we unitholders expect to receive their material from the PIF Initiative Incorporated?

Cheers
PIFHolder


----------



## Jadel (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

LET’S MAKE THIS AS PLAIN AS DAY

THERE NEVER HAS BEEN A STRUCTURED ORGANIZED GROUP OF INVESTORS WITH ANY LEGAL AUTHORTITY OR   INDEMNITY FOR MEMBERS UNTIL THE PIFI WAS CREATED.

Personally I can’t think of many things lower (maybe murder or rape comes to mind) than intimidating investors 95% who are over the age of 65 with liquidating their assets arbitrarily and senselessly) to make a dollar. 

We consider that this is morally ethically indefensible .and that other alternatives should have been made available for investors to consider.

We can now inform everybody on this site that we have an eight page legal document from Hicksons lawyers that supports that opinion and indicates breaches of the Corporations Act

This document will be made available to all who would like to join the PIFI

I do not intend to engage in any personal arguments and hold no animosity to those who have different opinions (in fact I have a friend on this site who I hold in high regard that supports JH.)


Every investor’s circumstance are unique and ultimately people will vote for what is in their best interests.


----------



## DoraNBoots (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Gettin personal now Burnt! LOL
> 
> No! The answer is your agenda package and its horrible timing!
> 
> ...




This is the appropriate time to act.  

We too were hoping WC was going to come up trumps by providing all the options available to  unitholders.  Instead WC have now demonstrated that they are only interested in providing the options that they are interested in, and presenting those in a deceptive manner. That is not putting US first or acting in OUR best interests.

It has now become apparent that some on this thread were prepared to accept whatever WC shovelled out.

If the constitutional changes go in it is going to be very difficult for investors to affect any change in the future.  Besides that, the constitution is riddled with errors!


----------



## DoraNBoots (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



PIFholder said:


> Dear Boots and other PIF unitholders,
> 
> There was an article in the newspaper on the weekend that said it was illegal to tape telephone calls. Even the police aren't allowed to do it without a court order.
> We've all lost money, but what we don't need to risk is going to jail as well.
> ...




It is not illegal to tape telephone conversations.  Ever heard "this call is being recorded for training purposes"?


----------



## great dame (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



PIFholder said:


> Dear Boots and other PIF unitholders,
> 
> There was an article in the newspaper on the weekend that said it was illegal to tape telephone calls. Even the police aren't allowed to do it without a court order.
> We've all lost money, but what we don't need to risk is going to jail as well.
> ...



      You are allowered to record phone calls  But must let the person know  It is done all the time that way  / Dane //


----------



## Juan Mortyme (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



PIFholder said:


> Dear Boots and other PIF unitholders,
> 
> There was an article in the newspaper on the weekend that said it was illegal to tape telephone calls. Even the police aren't allowed to do it without a court order.
> We've all lost money, but what we don't need to risk is going to jail as well.
> ...




What DnB said was "I think you may need to let them know you are recording the conversation to begin with.."
I don't think you'll go to jail if you say that.  Otherwise every business with a call centre would be going to jail.

edit:  GD and DnB beat me to it.


----------



## Wolfgang (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> It is not illegal to tape telephone conversations. Ever heard "this call is being recorded for training purposes"?




Hi
Is it illegal to use Voice Mail?

I did not let them know but it is Voice Mail thay must be Aware that it is going to be recorded.
Wolfgang

Am I going to jail


----------



## Duped (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> TIME WILL TELL  And i am afraid to say it sure will  The one big thing you are all forgetting  is when  it comes time to sell your units  you have only one choice & that is the NSX exchange   Weather it next year or 7 years time No mater what your units are worth don't expect much on the NSX  on top of that a big cost in selling     You may think in years to come that winging Dane  was right   Enjoy your day /Dane //




GD.  I see NSX as merely ticking a box. A bare minimum to pass some basic legal criteria.  WC would want as much funds locked in as possible.  Fair enough IMO.  Business is business. WC would want all of the control over when and how much is paid out in 'distributions'.  Much like ASX companies control dividends. (Of course, we don't have anywhere near the liquidity.  Shareholders have only one power, their feet, to sell out; and the more that sell the lower the price goes - putting pressure on management.)

I'm asking myself, where will the pressure on WC to perform come from.  

If the NSX remains the only exit, the price languishes and WC don't  pay out distributions then NewPIF would get rated as being one of the worst funds in Aust.  Which is not good for the WC brand and something they'll want to avoid.  Or am I dreaming?  It's now in print that WC have valued the units at 45c.  WC would look pretty bad if they can't return that in 3/5 years.  Or am I wrong? (After all the economy IS growing at 3% pa.)

My biggest concern about the NSX is the effect it will have on capital raising. Diluting our holdings. Poor liquidity and a low listed price 'aint exactly going to put us existing investors in the driver's seat when it comes to negotiating terms with new capital.  

I fear threats like over at LLA where investors who didn't participate in the capital raise lost value. That's akin to standover behaviour by management - give me more money or I'll hurt you financially.

I'm still deciding.


----------



## JohnH (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Wolfgang said:


> Hi
> Is it illegal to use Voice Mail?
> 
> I did not let them know but it is Voice Mail thay must be Aware that it is going to be recorded.
> ...




No Wolfgang, You will not "Go directly to Jail" But if it is a no vote, we will not pass go and will not receive a 6 cent return on what is now worth 45 cents!


----------



## Wolfgang (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> No Wolfgang, You will not "Go directly to Jail" But if it is a no vote, we will not pass go and will not receive a 6 cent return on what is now worth 45 cents!




Thanks for that JohnH it’s the best news I have had all day

Wolfgang
:alcohol:


----------



## like2ski (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Jadel,
Very well said!!!
We finally have a legal opinion which confirms OUR SUSPICIONS about the whole MESS ans related breaches of the Corporations Act...
I now SINCERELY urge all unit holders to join the PIFI, obtain a copy of the document and approach the matter in an orderly, structured & LEGAL manner as a total UNIT rather than individually ( united we stand.....etc. etc.)




Jadel said:


> LET’S MAKE THIS AS PLAIN AS DAY
> 
> THERE NEVER HAS BEEN A STRUCTURED ORGANIZED GROUP OF INVESTORS WITH ANY LEGAL AUTHORTITY OR   INDEMNITY FOR MEMBERS UNTIL THE PIFI WAS CREATED.
> 
> ...


----------



## JohnH (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Wolfgang said:


> Thanks for that JohnH it’s the best news I have had all day
> 
> Wolfgang
> :alcohol:




Prost


----------



## Duped (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> ....Personally I can’t think of many things lower (maybe murder or rape comes to mind) than intimidating investors 95% who are over the age of 65 with liquidating their assets arbitrarily and senselessly) to make a dollar. ....





I agree Jadel.  It is morally reprehensible when you put it like that.  Or at best, heavy handed business practice.

If WC gets over the line we'll have to hope WC will also apply their tough business accumen FOR (the benefit of) PIF when they negotiate terms with borrowers.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Wolfgang said:


> Am I going to jail




We promise we won't tell anyone


----------



## Jadel (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

LOL Duped

  You would be able to make a good argument for joining the Mafiosi loan sharking gang  .Perhaps JH could employ Mick Gatto of Underbelly fame to get our money back 

   I


----------



## newwwtrader (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Have those that propose a NO vote contacted the media. I assume you have but it doesnt seem to have been picked up. Maybe you should try again.

I think that would be the best course of action. At least it would get your view widely known. After all you need 25% to be successful.

I know ACA and TT suck and are not everyones cup of tea but they are watched and you may just get the exposure to air your grievances that people will hear you.

Also the other day in the Age (by M West I think) there was an article about the City Pacific Fund, which appeared highly critical of the proposal to issue preference shares in City Pacific shares in return for giving up your right to redeem. 

That proposal seems a little better than the one proposed by WC. At least that proposal was optional.

Now that you have a legal opinion and a "united" position going forward it is worth trying again with the media.

Here is the link to the article that I referred to

http://business.theage.com.au/busin...20080902-47e0.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

It has the journalists contact details at the bottom,


----------



## great dame (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> No Wolfgang, You will not "Go directly to Jail" But if it is a no vote, we will not pass go and will not receive a 6 cent return on what is now worth 45 cents!



       What dose i mater If we dont get the 3 cents or 6 cents  Its only taking value out of the fund which it realy cant afford to do  You will get it  in the end with a controlled wind down anyway   Realy & truley  Funds should never pay out income when they have lost 55% of there value  / Dane //


----------



## JohnH (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> What dose i mater If we dont get the 3 cents or 6 cents  Its only taking value out of the fund which it realy cant afford to do  You will get it  in the end with a controlled wind down anyway   Realy & truley  Funds should never pay out income when they have lost 55% of there value  / Dane //




But I'd sooner take that chance than risk getting just 14 cents full stop!


----------



## great dame (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> But I'd sooner take that chance than risk getting just 14 cents full stop!



                       John that would never happen   You would have a better chance of being eaten by a  crocodile  Then that happering    I just sent my voteing papers in i am not telling you what i voted for  i will keep you all guessing  / Dane //


----------



## JohnH (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> John that would never happen   You would have a better chance of being eaten by a  crocodile  Then that happering    I just sent my voteing papers in i am not telling you what i voted for  i will keep you all guessing  / Dane //




No, no, no, please don't tell us


----------



## 2CentsWorth (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> John that would never happen   You would have a better chance of being eaten by a  crocodile  Then that happering    I just sent my voteing papers in i am not telling you what i voted for  i will keep you all guessing  / Dane //




Dane,

Why bother wasting money on a stamp, why didn't you just shred it at home ?


----------



## great dame (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



2CentsWorth said:


> Dane,
> 
> Why bother wasting money on a stamp, why didn't you just shred it at home ?



   YOu know if things don't go my way at the coming meeting I will through one big mighty tantrum  & the heaves will have to frog march me screaming out of the room  / Dane //


----------



## great dame (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



2CentsWorth said:


> Dane,
> 
> Why bother wasting money on a stamp, why didn't you just shred it at home ?



         What & do someone at WC out of a job    / Dane //


----------



## flatback (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



newwwtrader said:


> Have those that propose a NO vote contacted the media. I assume you have but it doesnt seem to have been picked up. Maybe you should try again.
> 
> I think that would be the best course of action. At least it would get your view widely known. After all you need 25% to be successful.
> 
> ...



Having just read the article, how can this be , as i can recall that the same company that this referes to, was aproached by our polo riding crook then MFS boss.
He called a meeting with board members , and tried to raise $500 million with City Pacific, the false lie that this would pull MFS (PIF) out of the poo. this was the time the **** fell out of fund and every thing connected to MFS,surely King must have known that the company they were trying to raise money from, was in as much trouble as his was.
can you imagine where we would be today if that transaction had gone ahead ,we wouldnt be talking about 14 cents, actually i dont think we would be talking at all. what a crook he must have known.cheers Flatback


----------



## selciper (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If a prominent Brisbane law firm indicates that there are breaches of the Corporations Act. then where in heaven's
name is ASIC?


----------



## Duped (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> LOL Duped
> 
> You would be able to make a good argument for joining the Mafiosi loan sharking gang  .Perhaps JH could employ Mick Gatto of Underbelly fame to get our money back
> 
> I




I assume you're referring to the articles all over the press on 8 April of him flying to Singapore to recover the Opes Prime millions. (E.g. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23504741-661,00.html)

Sad thing is, the info and options vacuum created by the regulatory hole in the safety net we seem to be hanging over makes opportunities for entities such as his 'Arbitrations and Mediations' business thrive.  I certainly don't suppport it.  

Now that you mention sharks, the funds market seems to be full of em including MFS and City Pacific.  It's the dry land of big banks all the way for me now.  After the ATO takes it's cut, the risk is just not worth it.  And if the Fed or States don't like the consolidation, tough.  They've got their chance to do something about it right now and they've done nothing.


----------



## Duped (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> What & do someone at WC out of a job    / Dane //




LOL!!!  For someone who doesn'tspell, you're very witty.


----------



## Duped (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> If a prominent Brisbane law firm indicates that there are breaches of the Corporations Act. then where in heaven's
> name is ASIC?




Morning tea?  Or perhaps they're busy with City Pacific, Allco, Centro, Opes Prime, One Tel, Ansett, Bond, Quintex, Pyramid etc.


----------



## great dame (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Morning tea?  Or perhaps they're busy with City Pacific, Allco, Centro, Opes Prime, One Tel, Ansett, Bond, Quintex, Pyramid etc.



        HOLIDAYS ????????????


----------



## mairmy (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all

Has anybody received their Tax Statement yet?   I'm still waiting for mine.
I understood we were to get them by end of August.  This has come and gone!!!!!!




Mairmy


----------



## Mary Lynch (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Message to Newwwtrader.  The preference shares are totally different and also wouldn't work for WC.  City Pac units are deemed to be worth $1 per unit...it is simply a way of redeeming sooner than the 360 days. (which has 180 ish to go)...or staying for the long haul of 10 years with 3% above Reserve Bank interest rate. CP unit holders will be able to redeem after 360 days, at this  point in time...but risk their interest being suspended or lessened in the meantime...where as if they take CPS.s the interest is cumulative.   Totally unsutable for us.


----------



## ian1328 (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

What I don't understand is why a few, and I think it is only a few, people are so against WC. Its not as if you people have a suitable alternative other than to speculate and call JH's bluff. We're not at a casino here and the odds are stacked up high against us if we don't go forward with WC. If there is an alternative then someone needs to surface soon and with real action or maybe go and have a cup of tea.


----------



## breaker1 (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



ian1328 said:


> What I don't understand is why a few, and I think it is only a few, people are so against WC. Its not as if you people have a suitable alternative other than to speculate and call JH's bluff. We're not at a casino here and the odds are stacked up high against us if we don't go forward with WC. If there is an alternative then someone needs to surface soon and with real action or maybe go and have a cup of tea.




Even if they had an alternative they could not sell it to the 10,000 in the short space of time between now and the vote count.


----------



## ian1328 (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I can only speak for myself but I have found this forum very good and I would like to thank Breaker I for starting it. Without it there would have been far less knowledge, the number of views on this are huge and speak for themselves. Assuming WC get the 75% vote, which is on the cards, I hope that this thread keeps going as we investors still have a lot to recover and will be no watching and waiting for JH to live up to her word.


----------



## like2ski (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> If a prominent Brisbane law firm indicates that there are breaches of the Corporations Act. then where in heaven's
> name is ASIC?




Hi selciper and Other Unit Holders,
I am haven't checked if anyone else has mentioned this earlier however, I have just received a reply to my complaint from ASIC, I assume that mine was similar to the others. All double speak aside,they are basically saying that they do not propose to take any further action in relation to the matters raised (as far as I am aware they haven't taken any action anyway!!). However they will continue to monitor the position of the PIF and W.I.M Limited?????
Furthermore, they suggest to consider contacting a financial counselling service if we are experiencing financial difficulties?????????? 
About as useless as t.ts on a bull !!! what a joke.......
I intend to ask further questions but don't hold out much hope !!!!

I honestly feel that if we are going to get anywhere, we need to do it ourselves as a group.


----------



## newwwtrader (4 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> Message to Newwwtrader.  The preference shares are totally different and also wouldn't work for WC.  City Pac units are deemed to be worth $1 per unit...it is simply a way of redeeming sooner than the 360 days. (which has 180 ish to go)...or staying for the long haul of 10 years with 3% above Reserve Bank interest rate. CP unit holders will be able to redeem after 360 days, at this  point in time...but risk their interest being suspended or lessened in the meantime...where as if they take CPS.s the interest is cumulative.   Totally unsutable for us.




I understand that the preference share issue is totally different to what has been proposed for PIF holders. 

I merely mentioned it, as first it is a similar fund. The other (and main reason) is because it just shows that certain journalists and media outlets are in fact interested in these types of stories.

So if there is now a united group, maybe they could approach such an outlet, with the possibility of there opinions being spread to a greater audience than exist in this forum or in the various actions groups around Australia.

Many, many, many investors in this, are not members of such groups, and the media, would be the best way to approach them.

And you never know, if the action groups approach a journalist, air the grievances, the journalist may just wish to take up the story.

Its gotta be worth the effort.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This in today's Australian:

-------------
*Wellington accused of restrictions on Octaviar*

by Anthony Klan | September 05, 2008

THE Brisbane finance company that snared control of the failed $750 million Octaviar Premium Income Fund is attempting to alter the fund's constitution in a move that would hand it millions of dollars, if it was removed as manager.

An independent report by Hicksons Lawyers partner Kalinda Cobby has warned that Wellington Investment Management was attempting to impose "onerous" restrictions on the PIF that "fetter" the ability of investors to remove Wellington as manager.

In an offer to investors allegedly riddled with errors, Wellington -- controlled by former Gold Coast financier Jenny Hutson -- was also attempting to alter the voting procedure required to remove Wellington as manager.

Ms Hutson told The Australian that proposed changes would make it more difficult for PIF's 10,000-plus investors to remove Wellington, but claimed it was a move to help investors who "wanted to ensure we were there for the long-run".

Under the proposed severance fee -- of 2 per cent of "gross assets" -- Wellington would receive a fee of more than $8 million if PIF investors voted to replace it as manager.

Ms Cobby, who is also the vice-president of the Commercial Law Association of Australia, was employed to undertake the review of Wellington's offer by a group of angered PIF investors.

Those investors, who have formed a body named the PIF Initiative, were angered by claims from Wellington that they would recover only 14c in the dollar unless investors approved the proposed changes to PIF's constitution.

"Claims from (Ms Hutson) that if we don't agree to the proposal there will be a fire sale of assets and we'll only get back 14c in the dollar are just not correct," said PIF Initiative spokesman Dennis Chapman.

"This has been confirmed by the solicitor's letter."

Retiree Mr Chapman, 61, suffering from emphysema, said he had about $1.25 million invested in the failed Octaviar group, with about $200,000 of that in the Octaviar PIF.

Octaviar was known as MFS until the empire -- which held about $5.4 billion of investors' funds -- suffered a meltdown in January and later changed its name to Octaviar. Ms Hutson created waves in May when Octaviar announced it had sold PIF to Wellington because Ms Hutson is a close business associate of Octaviar's executive director Chris Scott.

The pair built up a Gold Coast company known as S8, which bought the letting rights to predominantly Gold Coast apartments -- and Mr Scott had owned part of Wellington.

Ms Hudson and Wellington contracted to buy PIF in May, but it is not required to make any payment for the company until the middle of next year.

Ms Hutson said Octaviar had given Wellington $750,000 to manage PIF, but that Wellington was expected to pay Octaviar a fee -- based on performance of the fund -- of "between $15 million and $20 million".

She defended Wellington's push to implement a severance fee into PIF's constitution.

"We've done the hard yards (and) if we're to be removed that would be some compensation for the work we have done," Ms Hutson said.

Wellington is proposing to float PIF on minor trading platform the National Stock Exchange to provide "liquidity" for investors.

Ms Hutson said that under corporations law PIF would face liquidation by January, because by that time its redemption facility would have been frozen for 12 months.

However, PIF's members have argued that investors have not been properly informed of all the options open to them -- such as appointing a new manager -- and that claims of a fire sale are unrealistic.

PIF members claim the fund could face an "orderly wind-up" -- similar to those undertaken by the failed Fincorp and Westpoint property empires -- if receivers were appointed.

Ms Hutson said the vast majority of investors that Wellington had been in contact with supported its proposal.

Ms Cobby's report said Wellington's 80-page "explanatory memorandum" was "complex" and contained more than a dozen errors.

Investors will vote on Wellington's proposal on September 18. 

------------end of article-------------
direct link: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24295338-643,00.html


----------



## seamisty (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

PIF investors back restructure plans:::::Nick Nichols 

September 5th, 2008 

THE tide appears to be running against an angry band of Premium Income Fund investors after it was revealed yesterday that about 3000 unit-holders have backed Wellington Capital's restructure plans.

Wellington's executive director Jenny Hutson said more than 97 per cent of proxies received from investors have approved the investment bank's plan to consolidate control of the fund and list its units on the National Stock Exchange (NSX).

This comes despite rumblings from the PIF Initiative, an action group headed by Dennis Chapman, that investors are being 'bullied' into backing the proposals.

A meeting to be held at Broadbeach on September 18 will decide whether to wind up the Premium Income Fund (PIF) or back Wellington's proposals -- which are aimed at restoring full value to investors over the next three to five years.

Ms Hutson has said a wind-up would deliver only 14c in the dollar for investors who poured $770 million into the fund.

She said Korda Mentha had estimated it would be worth 45c in the dollar as a going concern.

The PIF Initiative has questioned the validity of those figures and said an 'orderly realisation' of assets would deliver the best immediate outcome for investors, many of whom are elderly and would be chained to the fund unnecessarily for years.

The NSX listing has been criticised by one investor, who declined to be named.

"All it does is lock everyone's money in so that those that are desperately in need of even a partial redemption of funds are at the mercy of the market," she said.

Estimates are that units will be priced between 10c and 20c when they list, sparking claims that Ms Hutson or her associates could scoop up units at a fraction of their real value.

But Ms Hutson yesterday denied this.

"We will not be purchaser of units," she said. "We would have to declare that if we were."

Wellington Capital also was criticised over a 0.25 per cent 'incentive' fee being paid to financial advisers to promote the 'yes' vote for Wellington.

Mr Hutson said the fee was 'conventional' and 'modest' and designed to cover expenses for investment advisers.

She also defended the transparency of the votes which are being forwarded to Wellington's Brisbane office before being passed on to share registry group Computershare.

Ms Hutson said the vote was being conducted in an 'auditable' fashion.

Among the proposals is a 45c buyback for 5 per cent of the fund, a move criticised by PIF Initiative's Mr Chapman. 

He said it was designed to 'remove a considerable number of investors with small investments', with each unit-holder entitled to be paid about $1600.

Ms Hutson said it was not a 'perfect situation'.

"We've got people for whom a couple of thousand dollars will change their lives right now."

She said despite the overwhelming vote backing her proposals so far, it was 'too early to call'.

Ms Hutson said PIF's debt stood at $9.4 million, down from $100 million earlier this year.

PIF, the former flagship fund of Octaviar (formerly MFS), is planning to resume distributions to investors next month and hopes to pay a total of 3c per unit before Christmas.

Ms Hutson also has defended the timing of this month's meeting before a payout deal by Octaviar which is offering about $44 million for the $197.5 million it owes the fund.

"What we're trying to do is drive and keep alive a Gold Coast institution and if we wait we run the risk of missing opportunities."

Ms Hutson said she was negotiating on one of PIF's largest exposures, although she declined to name it.

"We can take a six-month or a three-year horizon (with this project). But we can achieve an outcome that is twice as good if we can take a three-year view."


----------



## great dame (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good morning folks  Please read the BIG story in the AFR  today   Good reading   Cheers / Dane //


----------



## akernst (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I still think there is some connection with the PIF and Dubai.

I hope it is not a case of big money going out of the PIF to Adams in Dubai,
who I think is still there.

Please, JH can you inform us if this is true.

Or can anybody enlighten us?

And of course if JH cannot recover the PIF in this booming economy, than she
should resign. A 2 year old could make money from money these days.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Good morning folks  Please read the BIG story in the AFR  today   Good reading   Cheers / Dane //




Look forward to reading it.  Can only read the intro online which says : 
*Unit holders told to pull plug on PIF*

Friday, 05 September 2008 | The Australian Financial Review | Lisa Allen

Thousands of unit holders in the stricken Premium Income Fund have been advised to reject a proposal to allow the $413 million fund to continue operating. PIF's managers, Wellington Capital, will meet with fund investors on September 18 to ask them to consider the proposals.

(The full afr.com article is available to subscribers only.)


----------



## great dame (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> Look forward to reading it.  Can only read the intro online which says :
> *Unit holders told to pull plug on PIF*
> 
> Friday, 05 September 2008 | The Australian Financial Review | Lisa Allen
> ...



                Race out & buy your self a hard  copy from the Newsagent   Money well spent  / Dane //


----------



## BABIHUTAN (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Being abroad, we have no hard copy of the Proxy form sent to investors but hv downloaded same fm web.
Amongst other things, to make it valid an SRN is required which of course does not appear on the download.
I made contact with WC and was advised to send form in anyway and they would intercept our proxy and insert SRN. {I had originally asked for the number by email but tt was declined for 'security' reasons}.
I am sceptical tt in the 'rush' to get votes in and processed by the deadline this will happen and it will merely end up in the spoilt vote pile.
Would someone out there, perhaps SEAMISTY reading this, please advise if the SRN is one and the same number as MFS' investor ID number tt appeared in the past on bumph MFS/Perpetual nominees sent out fm time to time. 
Tks


----------



## RickH (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



akernst said:


> I still think there is some connection with the PIF and Dubai.
> 
> I hope it is not a case of big money going out of the PIF to Adams in Dubai,
> who I think is still there.
> ...




Hi akernest,
*GENERAL OBSERVATION ONLY:*
The US appears to be in trouble. Their bank share prices are falling. The Dow Jones fell 3% yesterday. England and the rest of Europe appear to be in decline. China, India, Brazil?
The Australian share market could be in free fall if it breaks the recently formed support levels. If you are short you are making money but if you are long you are probably losing money, unless you are regularly selling/trading. The property market especially the residential property in Melbourne appears to be over priced. The Reserve Bank has finally started to decrease interest rates because they are concerned. Australia could easily go either way. This is not the time to be aggressive or make a statement - "booming economy".
Regards, RickH:couch


----------



## PIFholder (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



BABIHUTAN said:


> Would someone out there, perhaps SEAMISTY reading this, please advise if the SRN is one and the same number as MFS' investor ID number tt appeared in the past on bumph MFS/Perpetual nominees sent out fm time to time.
> Tks



BABIHUTAN - your SRN is different to your MFS number. I'd ring computershare. Their website is www.computershare.com.au
Cheers PIFHolder


----------



## RickH (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Race out & buy your self a hard  copy from the Newsagent   Money well spent  / Dane //



Hi Great Dame,
Interesting article where one solicitor says on thing and a different solicitor says another. That happens all the time. Ever tried to create a pre nuptial agreement or a Will to protect your assets from unwelcomed claims.
Ask a solicitor to guarantee what they are saying. There answer will be no because it is only their opinion - there are never any guarantees.
Regards, RickH:couch


----------



## seamisty (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



PIFholder said:


> BABIHUTAN - your SRN is different to your MFS number. I'd ring computershare. Their website is www.computershare.com.au
> Cheers PIFHolder



Thanks PIFholder. Unitholders Securityholder Reference Number (SRN) can be found on the upper right hand side of the Issuer Sponsered Holding Statement sent by Wellington. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Rick

     In any event regardless of your personal opinion and advice i hope you realise that  as a Financial Advisor you are legally obliged to show that opinion to your clients ?


----------



## PIFholder (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Rick
> 
> In any event regardless of your personal opinion and advice i hope you realise that  as a Financial Advisor you are legally obliged to show that opinion to your clients ?





Rick - I agree. Pay any lawyer money and they'll find errors.

Jadel - clients should be shown an opinion. Aren't all uintholders clients. How does a unitholder know that the PIF initiative is actually for all unitholders and isn't just driving another agenda? Why weren't all unitholders written to? Why do I need to read about it in the press just because I'm not in the top 3000. Does that make me less important because I didn't have enough money to invest to get into it?

Sorry for the vent - a group splintering off and getting legal advice that they aren't sharing with all unitholders is just as bad as misinformation IMO. I thought we were all in this togehter?

PIFHolder


----------



## breaker1 (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Will any of the PIF Initiative confirm that you solicited the article under and if any of your mob did, by whose authority did you do it on behalf of the PIF Action Group???*
Abstracted from The Australian Financial Review

"*The Premium Income Fund action group *urged the fund's top 3,000 investors to reject a rescue plan on 4 September 2008. The action group said investors would benefit from the sale of the fund's assets more than a listing on the National Stock Exchange"


Distributed by News Bites. Copyright 2008 LexisNexis Australia. All Rights Reserved


----------



## Jadel (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I will state categorically in all correspondence i have had with the media 

 that i refered to our group as the PIFI .

 Now i will repeat this post as many times as you refer to this issue 

LET’S MAKE THIS AS PLAIN AS DAY

THERE NEVER HAS BEEN A STRUCTURED ORGANIZED GROUP OF INVESTORS WITH ANY LEGAL AUTHORTITY OR INDEMNITY FOR MEMBERS UNTIL THE PIFI WAS CREATED.

Personally I can’t think of many things lower (maybe murder or rape comes to mind) than intimidating investors 95% who are over the age of 65 with liquidating their assets arbitrarily and senselessly) to make a dollar. 

We consider that this is morally ethically indefensible .and that other alternatives should have been made available for investors to consider.

We can now inform everybody on this site that we have an eight page legal document from Hicksons lawyers that supports that opinion and indicates breaches of the Corporations Act

This document will be made available to all who would like to join the PIFI

I do not intend to engage in any personal arguments and hold no animosity to those who have different opinions (in fact I have a friend on this site who I hold in high regard that supports JH.)


Every investor’s circumstance are unique and ultimately people will vote for what is in their best interests.


----------



## breaker1 (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> I will state categorically in all correspondence i have had with the media
> 
> that i refered to our group as the PIFI .
> 
> ...




*Is your PIFI group responsible for atributing the AFR article recommending PIF investors:

"reject the plan (from WC)..." 

and "The Action Group is instead pushing for the fund...to conduct an orderly sale of assets.." 

and "that all 3000 investors contacted by the PIF Action Group reject Ms Hutsons proposals, it could be enough to liquidate the fund..."  

to the PIF Action Group - Yes! OR NO! ???*


----------



## PIFholder (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> This document will be made available to all who would like to join the PIFI




Jadel,

The group is certainly organised - I'm not questioning that. 
But I've heard that it costs money to join? Isn't that isolating the little people who can barely afford to buy their groceries, let alone pay out more money? Does PIFI just represent the top 3000 unitholders?
What I want to know is if I follow the Initiative's instructions and vote no - what is the alternative? Will I get a distribution before Christmas? 

I just need to understand -
If I vote yes - I get Wellington, with all of its bumps and lumps
If I vote no - PIFI says PIF won't lqiuidate. If PIFI is right, then what do I get as the PIFI atlernative, and what if PIFI legal advise is wrong?

PIFHolder


----------



## BABIHUTAN (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Thanks PIFholder. Unitholders Securityholder Reference Number (SRN) can be found on the upper right hand side of the Issuer Sponsered Holding Statement sent by Wellington. Regards, Seamisty




Quote:
Originally Posted by PIFholder  
BABIHUTAN - your SRN is different to your MFS number. I'd ring computershare. Their website is www.computershare.com.au
Cheers PIFHolder 

Tks to you both - seems getting nowhere as tt SRN is just tt n cannot be transmitted by phone/ email. Placing the form on the web wud appear to hv been an exercise in futility - w/out an SRN the proxy is invalid, simple as tt!!
 We will nevertheless give it a go, mailing an invalid proxy to WC and hope as offered in an email tt the staff member concerned intercepts our form & inserts the correct SRN b4 passing on to Computershare.


----------



## breaker1 (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

JADEL representative of the PIF Initiative:

Is Dennis Chapman the President of or hold any position in your PIFI group ?

If So, by whose authority in the PIF Action Group did he make these announcements on behalf of the entire membership of the PIF Action Group?


----------



## Rance (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

To All

Just a general note on law. Acts of Australian Parliaments are only law until some body successfully challenges them in the High Court of Australia where they can be overturned because of errors or incorrect opinions/assumptions made by Govt Solicitors in framing the Bill. Solicitors only have opinions. Nobody is perfect. Even the High Court judges can err! You can appeal against their verdict!  As the saying goes: "the law is an ass". It's all about what you can get away with.

(for the pedantic, that last sentence should read:
It's all about with what you can get away.)

Rance 

Rance


----------



## Jadel (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

PIF Holder

 Of course you are not less important than other investors mate

 Believe me if we could have written to all 10300  unit holders we would have done so

 We are certainly more than prepared to email you our voting forms to your good self  or anybody else on this Forum that requests one

I will not go into the full story with you here but am prepared to do so privately  with you  

Certain people reliably informed us that Jenny Hutson was prepared to offer us a fair  and eqitable Redemption plan  after the fund had stabilised over a three to five year period ,thinking and that  JH would surely listen to what was a very reasonable plan to at least give older investors some of their money back at Net Tangible Asset value  we  pulled out of a crucial meeting with our Solicitor  at the last minute  several weeks prior to this date 

 What we got was an insult to the intelligence 5% or the first 10000 units 
 that is miniscule JH does not intend to make any compromises to anybody

 Had that meeting taken place we would not be in a last ditch effort to inform investors of their democratic rights and the one sided  plan that will  almost certainly give JH control of the fund in perpetuity regardless of wether or not you vote no for option 3

Please understand that hidden in the Constitution is an amendment that  is cunningly contrived to make it almost imposible to remove WC if you vote for option 1


----------



## breaker1 (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> PIF Holder
> 
> Of course you are not less important than other investors mate
> 
> ...




*I am not interested in the above clap-trap. 

Did your PIFI group misrepresent the entire PIF AG membership in saying they were behind your press release to the AFR YES OR NO ???*

*If so are you going to make a retraction and make an apology?

Further, Is Dennis Chapman the president of the PIFI or does he hold any responsible position in that PIFI ??*


----------



## Jadel (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Breaker 

    Dennis Jackson is our media spokesman and on the PIFI committee 

    he is terminally ill with Emphysemia and short of breath 

    If he stated PIFI over the telephone with some journalist who has a      deadline to write a story it may have been hard to hear

    Please give it away mate and let everybody decide on the issues.


----------



## seamisty (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> *Is your PIFI group responsible for atributing the AFR article recommending PIF investors:
> 
> "reject the plan (from WC)..."
> 
> ...



I am of the understanding that The Original PIF AG had no knowledge what so ever of this article and its contents which appears to have been submitted by the break away group QLD PIFI. The article in todays AFR ( the post with the attatched article  seems to have vanished )appears to have been submitted with the deliberate intention of misleading Action Group members and the Public that it was sanctioned by the AG and NOT the  QLD PIFI !!! They must be extremely insecure and lacking in numbers to try and recruit votes and create more confusion to the mostly elderly investors in the PIF by taking this underhand  action. I am extremely dissapointed with whoever was resposible (or irresposible) I believe the original Action Groups intention was to form a united support facility  committed to helping unit holders. If some of these members feel they would prefer to take a different path, or have another agenda, that is fine, they have that right, but not under the guise of the AG banner. Very sneaky and underhand in my opinion. Seamisty


----------



## breaker1 (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Breaker
> 
> Dennis Jackson is our media spokesman and on the PIFI committee
> 
> ...




*Gold Coast.com.au release says: " This comes despite rumblings from the PIF Initiative, an action group headed by Dennis Chapman, that investors are being 'bullied' into backing the proposals."

Is Dennis Chapman the "head" of the PIFI or not? If not, does he hold any position in the PIFI or not. If not is he a member of the PIFI?


Please confirm if Dennis Jackson is the one responsible for the article in the AFR or Dennis Chapman ? *


----------



## seamisty (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



PIFholder said:


> Jadel,
> 
> The group is certainly organised - I'm not questioning that.
> But I've heard that it costs money to join? Isn't that isolating the little people who can barely afford to buy their groceries, let alone pay out more money? Does PIFI just represent the top 3000 unitholders?
> ...



PIFholder, I can assure that the QLD PIFI do not have the support or represent anything like 3000 unitholders, top or bottom of the list!!!!! They are in desperate need to swell their numbers to pay for any future legal representation and give them the numbers needed to force the Fund into liquidation. That is  the ultimate aim of  the QLD PIFI, to WIND UP THE  PIF. I guess now it will be left up to a few AG members to bring out the bucket and mop and clean up this mess, or I could be entirely wrong and if the use of the  AG banner was unintentional, then the QLD PIFI can get a retraction published. Either way, the media will have to be contacted to be made aware of this complete  mis -representation of the AG. Seamisty


----------



## great dame (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> *Is your PIFI group responsible for atributing the AFR article recommending PIF investors:
> 
> "reject the plan (from WC)..."
> 
> ...



        Breaker  i am speaking for my self not the PIFI Group  realy i dont know what all the fuss is about   What your saying its ok for WC to to write to the top investers but not OK for the PIFI  that sounds a bit unfair to me     You say it could Liquidate the fund  I rather call it a controlled wind down over 2 to 3 years  And yes you will still get your 3 cents B4  Xmas    Relax its no big deal  / Dane //


----------



## seamisty (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Breaker  i am speaking for my self not the PIFI Group  realy i dont know what all the fuss is about   What your saying its ok for WC to to write to the top investers but not OK for the PIFI  that sounds a bit unfair to me     You say it could Liquidate the fund  I rather call it a controlled wind down over 2 to 3 years  And yes you will still get your 3 cents B4  Xmas    Relax its no big deal  / Dane //



Who said WC contacted the top investors Dame.Where did you get your information? I was never contacted. Seamisty


----------



## selciper (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

PIFI 3000 members? Any contributor to this forum knows that this a ridiculously high figure! As a regular reader here, I knew very little about PIFI until yesterday. Pity about the legal document - it might have been useful to share it openly and to have commissioned it (earlier) in May.
In any case, PIFI had better get the AFR to fix the mentioned error immediately.


----------



## breaker1 (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Breaker  i am speaking for my self not the PIFI Group  realy i dont know what all the fuss is about   What your saying its ok for WC to to write to the top investers but not OK for the PIFI  that sounds a bit unfair to me     You say it could Liquidate the fund  I rather call it a controlled wind down over 2 to 3 years  And yes you will still get your 3 cents B4  Xmas    Relax its no big deal  / Dane //




??????

I have said nothing about the PIFI's right to contact anyone - I have said, they have NOT got the right as the PIFI to approach the MEDIA and represent themselves as the PIF Action Group without the consensus of the Action Group organisers or its' members.

I now seriously question your comprehensive ability of straight-forward posts on this site.


----------



## DoraNBoots (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> PIFI 3000 members? Any contributor to this forum knows that this a ridiculously high figure!
> ....



The article doesn't say PIFI has 3000 members.


----------



## sugar3157 (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Breaker  i am speaking for my self not the PIFI Group  realy i dont know what all the fuss is about   What your saying its ok for WC to to write to the top investers but not OK for the PIFI  that sounds a bit unfair to me     You say it could Liquidate the fund  I rather call it a controlled wind down over 2 to 3 years  And yes you will still get your 3 cents B4  Xmas    Relax its no big deal  / Dane //




How much money did you have to invest to be a (top investor)?...WC didn't contact me...!!!


----------



## breaker1 (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> *Gold Coast.com.au release says: " This comes despite rumblings from the PIF Initiative, an action group headed by Dennis Chapman, that investors are being 'bullied' into backing the proposals."
> 
> Is Dennis Chapman the "head" of the PIFI or not? If not, does he hold any position in the PIFI or not. If not is he a member of the PIFI?
> 
> ...




JADEL 

You haven't answered my questions above yet?

Further, is your PIFI group going to make a retraction with a profuse apology in the AFR and also on this ASF thread ???


----------



## JohnH (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*This is directed to the PIFI*

Let me make sure that I have got this right!

The PIFI want unit holder to vote No- No –No on the 18th for the following reasons:
*Item 1 “to amend the constitution.”* Vote “No” as there is a *chance* that the PIF will not have to be liquidated in a fire sale.  
*Question 1*.  On what do you base this “chance”?  
*Question 2.* Ms. Hudson has a proven track record and a personal affinity with the PIF.  Who do you have ready to step in, prepare a new constitution and call a meeting before the March deadline?  
*Question 3.*  I would like elaboration on the statement “Please understand that hidden in the Constitution is an amendment that is cunningly contrived to make it almost imposible(_sic_)  to remove WC if you vote for option 1”
*Item 2 “effect a buy-back of units”. *Vote “No” because the buy-back proposal does not (a.) operate equally with regard to unit holders investment ratios, and (b.) appears designed to remove a considerable number of unit holders with small investments. 
*Question.*  Is this such a bad idea?  The smaller investors are probably the ones who need their cash most urgently.  If the buyback does result in a significantly less number of unit holders, there are then economies of scale from Wellington’s point of view, and fewer members to lobby from any Action Groups perspective.
*Item 3 “replace the current responsible entity with Wellington Capital Limited.” * I agree with a “no” vote.  I can understand that Wellington would like to see some guarantee that their efforts are protected, but in effect this is similar to giving them 3 years redundancy pay.  
I also note from my invitation to join the PIFI that I would have to agree that I would “comply fully with the requirements of the Association’s Rules”.  However there is no mention of what those rules are!   
Finally I would re-iterate, If it is a “No” vote, and the fund is liquidated, what do you intend to do with any dividends received?  Spend it? Invest it at what?  - 6 cents on 45 cents! Better that!!!!!
John H.


----------



## k.smith (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> May I ask how responsible you yourselves as investors feel for the dismal results that Octaviar MFS has delivered for you.
> 
> ASF is a forum for people to learn from their successes as well as their failures.
> 
> ...




 look at where we have got to! Hapless folk indeed!                                    1. Our investments in this fund were based on a PDS, MFS newletters and our naive trust in corporation laws....NEVER AGAIN!  Until companies like MFS, City Pacific, Fincorp.....etc  categorically promote first mortgages, stable LVRs, crystal clear related party transactions, with NO IFs, BUTs ( or a thousand overriding clauses in the back pages of the PDS )and comprehensive director profiles,we  can NEVER invest in them again, we have LEARNT that companies can dissipate our investments (the honeypot) into their own agenda.                                                                                               2.Jadel has got a real point....there are a lot of people in this fund who need liquidity, and the scenario for them is CRUEL, and it is IMMORAL that we, the victims of this disaster,now have to make what I am LEARNING is a very difficult choice!                                                                                   3.There are so many facts that we do not know...e.g..what % really do need to get their $ out in a hurry? Why, all these months later, are we still divided about the value of the assets, and where should we look for the answers ?    4.We have LEARNT that ASICs role in these affairs is limited. We have still to LEARN when ASIC moves on these dilemmas.


----------



## seamisty (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have heard there are many investors extremely upset with whoever released their personal details from the PIFI group. I know that it is a democratic right as an investor to request a copy of the unitholder register, but the PIFI has lost a lot of credibility by releasing those details without consent. I think this whole exercise is going to backfire on the QLD PIFI, some substantial holders have offered support to WC in the event of future media releases. Nothing short of a media retraction from the QLD PIFI  is going to restore any kind of trust or credibility to their group. I also think they owe the unitholders an apology in regard to using their personal details from the register.Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There is no benefit for PIFI to be incorrectly reported as an 'action group' as it makes the PIFI more difficult for like minded investors to locate and register with.  It appears to be a reporting issue.  As you will note 'action group' is in lower case which means it is not being quoted as the name of anything.  Besides, 'PIF AG' is not owned or registered by anyone.  If you have an issue with their reporting you should contact AFR in person.


----------



## breaker1 (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> There is no benefit for PIFI to be incorrectly reported as an 'action group' as it makes the PIFI more difficult for like minded investors to locate and register with.  It appears to be a reporting issue.  As you will note 'action group' is in lower case which means it is not being quoted as the name of anything.  Besides, 'PIF AG' is not owned or registered by anyone.  If you have an issue with their reporting you should contact AFR in person.




*You have to assume responsibility for YOUR media releases! *

*What kind of buck passing spineless group are the PIFI?*

*A retraction with a profuse apology in AFR and on here!*


----------



## Duped (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quoting the AFR article quoting JH: "more than 3500 ... unit holders had already returned their proxies and more than 97% were in favour of the resolutions."

If the average investment of those 3500 is 167K units then according to JH, WC are already over the line.  (I'm assuming 97% voted yes to resolution 1) Note that the average investment is around $70K.

The number drops if less than 100% of unit holders vote
95% returns - 158K units
90% returns - 143K units
85% returns - 121K units
80% returns - 97K units
75% returns - 73K units
70% returns - 51K units

Conclusion: my calcs don't tell us much   Where's Antony Green when you need him.


----------



## RickH (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> LET’S MAKE THIS AS PLAIN AS DAY
> 
> THERE NEVER HAS BEEN A STRUCTURED ORGANIZED GROUP OF INVESTORS WITH ANY LEGAL AUTHORTITY OR   INDEMNITY FOR MEMBERS UNTIL THE PIFI WAS CREATED.
> 
> ...




Hi Jadel,
I am confused.
Just a few questions by what you have said "Personally I can’t think of many things lower (maybe murder or rape comes to mind) than intimidating investors 95% who are over the age of 65 with liquidating their assets arbitrarily and senselessly) to make a dollar. 
Where do you place the MFS/Octaviar people who were involved in the Nov/Dec "Gifts"?
From your point of view Is the new PIFI group doing something similar to JH?

*Will you and the new group PIFI personally guarantee that the fund will not be liquidated?*
Regards, RickH:couch


----------



## seamisty (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Jadel,
> I am confused.
> Just a small question by what you have said "Personally I can’t think of many things lower (maybe murder or rape comes to mind) than intimidating investors 95% who are over the age of 65 with liquidating their assets arbitrarily and senselessly) to make a dollar.
> Where do you place the MFS/Octaviar people who were involved in the Nov/Dec "Gifts"?
> ...



I just had a ph. call from WC and there is no alternative to liquidation if they do not get the 75%, so it would be really good if the QLD PIFI would stop misleading the poor elderly investors into thinking there is a better alternative as a means to an end for them to acheive their ultimate aim of LIQUDATING THE FUND!!!!(orderly or otherwise)They will be like the lawyers RickH, and not personally guarantee anything. Their credibility is already out theutthedoor:Seamisty


----------



## Duped (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I just had a ph. call from WC and there is no alternative to liquidation if they do not get the 75%, so it would be really good if the QLD PIFI would stop misleading the poor elderly investors into thinking there is a better alternative as a means to an end for them to acheive their ultimate aim of LIQUDATING THE FUND!!!!(orderly or otherwise)They will be like the lawyers RickH, and not personally guarantee anything. Their credibility is already out theutthedoor:Seamisty




FAYI: Anyone can submit a letter to AFR to correct the Author's article. www.afr.com/home/letter.aspx

Do it right away and it will make tomorrow's edition; should the editor accept the letter.


----------



## JohnH (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Will you and the new group PIFI personally guarantee that the fund will not be liquidated?*
Regards, RickH:couch[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately Rick, they can't so they won't .......... and that's the really scary thing about their actions.


----------



## newwwtrader (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

After not having been on here for 18 hours and logging back on this afternoon and reading the posts, all I have to say is, is it any wonder that WC has been able to take advantage of this matter.

Like, who really cares if it was the PIFI or the PIF Action Group. That is merely one line in the article. Anyone who would have taken the time to read a bit more would have realised what group it was. The articles in the Australian and the GC Bulletin left no doubt as to who it was. So I think it is fair to say that possibly in reporting the article the AFR may have made a small error, as I would assume the same media release would have been sent to all.




But anyway, none of that really matters. The main points that I gained from the various articles were these:

It seems common ground that when the shares commence trading it will be in the 10 - 20 c range

JH has said the PIF "faces" liquidation in January. "Facing" something is entirely different to being placed in liquidation. IF, the no vote is successful, liquidation can be avoided by other measures!!!

The main thing that I got out of it was this little pearler "Estimates are that units will be priced between 10c and 20c when they list, sparking claims that Ms Hutson or her associates could scoop up units at a fraction of their real value.

      But Ms Hutson yesterday denied this.

The question I have for JH is, if Chris Scott purchased units, would WC have to disclose that. The reason for asking this is that when WC took control it was said that CS had no relationship at all with WC. So this got me thinking maybe the web is a little more complicated than what was originally let on.


----------



## seamisty (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> FAYI: Anyone can submit a letter to AFR to correct the Author's article. www.afr.com/home/letter.aspx
> 
> Do it right away and it will make tomorrow's edition; should the editor accept the letter.



Breaker1 is going to try sort it out tomorrow or Monday as he has other committments today.Perhaps the QLD PIFI who have been so pedantic dotting i's and crossing t's have already sorted this gross misunderstanding out and notified the AFR of their inadequate reporting so they can maybe regain some credibility before other media outlets make a circus out of it. I believe others have been made aware of the discrepancy. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quote Newwtrader::It seems common ground that when the shares commence trading it will be in the 10 - 20 c range::The question I have for JH is, if Chris Scott purchased units, would WC have to disclose that. The reason for asking this is that when WC took control it was said that CS had no relationship at all with WC. So this got me thinking maybe the web is a little more complicated than what was originally let on::::: At 10-20 cents they will be a bargain and it won't be just CS buying!!:grinsking


----------



## Duped (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Newwwtrader, I'd like to also know if CS already has units in PIF.  Page 52 of the 2007 annual report states Michael King's super fund has 42,443 units.  Who else? MFS Management P/L got their 60M units out but what about other MFS entities?

All:
Two parts of the constitution leave me VERY exposed. Scare the h out of me. The right for WC to raise more capital and the right for WC to create different classes of units.  What's stopping WC creating a special class of units to my detriment? All the risk is on ME, the 3 resolutions cover WC's risk exposure completely. What about investors like me?  Where's the equity in this business relationship?  And JH is saying that's the best offer.  That's hard faced business I suppose.

Someone once told me that if both parties come away from a deal feeling ripped off then it's probably of fair deal.  I can't seen WC complaining.  Or are they?

I can't believe my advisor once had put 100% of my savings in this cr@p a few years back.


----------



## Burnt (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sorry, I don't understand the fuss about the "action group". I have read the articles in the GCBully and the Aust. and both clearly state that comments were made by members of the PIFI Initiative, "an action group". So what if PIFI is described as an action group. Get over it.

By the way, what is the objective of the PIF Action Group ? If Seamisty and Breaker1 are representatives of the group, then quite obviously the groups objective is to promote Wellingtons propositions. So why "action group"? -
is your "action" to discredit and demean anyone opposing Wellingtons propostitions ? If so, are you guys also entitled to the .25% commission being paid under Wellington's "buy votes" scheme ?


----------



## like2ski (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I just had a ph. call from WC and there is no alternative to liquidation if they do not get the 75%, so it would be really good if the QLD PIFI would stop misleading the poor elderly investors into thinking there is a better alternative as a means to an end for them to acheive their ultimate aim of LIQUDATING THE FUND!!!!(orderly or otherwise)They will be like the lawyers RickH, and not personally guarantee anything. Their credibility is already out theutthedoor:Seamisty




Hi seamisty,
If you believe WC I will sell you some shares of the Harbor Bridge and the opera house as well !!!!


----------



## RickH (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Newwwtrader, I'd like to also know if CS already has units in PIF.  Page 52 of the 2007 annual report states Michael King's super fund has 42,443 units.  Who else? MFS Management P/L got their 60M units out but what about other MFS entities?
> 
> All:
> Two parts of the constitution leave me VERY exposed. Scare the h out of me. The right for WC to raise more capital and the right for WC to create different classes of units.  What's stopping WC creating a special class of units to my detriment? All the risk is on ME, the 3 resolutions cover WC's risk exposure completely. What about investors like me?  Where's the equity in this business relationship?  And JH is saying that's the best offer.  That's hard faced business I suppose.
> ...



Hi Duped,
Neither can I believe that an adviser would recommend 100% into anything.
Regards, Rick:couch


----------



## Jadel (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Newwwtrader, I'd like to also know if CS already has units in PIF.  Page 52 of the 2007 annual report states Michael King's super fund has 42,443 units.  Who else? MFS Management P/L got their 60M units out but what about other MFS entities?
> 
> All:
> Two parts of the constitution leave me VERY exposed. Scare the h out of me. The right for WC to raise more capital and the right for WC to create different classes of units.  What's stopping WC creating a special class of units to my detriment? All the risk is on ME, the 3 resolutions cover WC's risk exposure completely. What about investors like me?  Where's the equity in this business relationship?  And JH is saying that's the best offer.  That's hard faced business I suppose.
> ...




 Duped 
          WC has all but confirmed their will be a Capital Raising so i can assure you that your fears are well founded


----------



## BootsnAll (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Breaker1, you deserve the credit for initiating this forum*. *However, I cannot understand your fixation about* PIF ACTION GROUP. *The whole thing commenced quite a while back and then NOTHING happened. There was no national committee, no treasurer, no secretary, NOTHING! Action Group, what action????? In legal sense PIF ACTION GROUP doesn't even exist. 

Thank God some of the Queenslandpeople got off their butt and using THEIR INITIATIVE & their own money (some had very little left) did something concrete, like incorporating PIFI, getting independent legal advice etc. 
JH did a great job at the forums, two of which I attended. Most people walked away feeling warm and fuzzy, because 'Momma was going to fix it'. I don't know how many investors took the trouble to read the fine print of the amended constitution. THERE IS NOTHING IN IT FOR THE INVESTORS, except of a small payout this year which really is only a small return of capital.

As for Jenny's promises, the purchase of the Harbour Bridge seems more attractive.


----------



## like2ski (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



newwwtrader said:


> After not having been on here for 18 hours and logging back on this afternoon and reading the posts, all I have to say is, is it any wonder that WC has been able to take advantage of this matter.
> 
> Like, who really cares if it was the PIFI or the PIF Action Group. That is merely one line in the article. Anyone who would have taken the time to read a bit more would have realised what group it was. The articles in the Australian and the GC Bulletin left no doubt as to who it was. So I think it is fair to say that possibly in reporting the article the AFR may have made a small error, as I would assume the same media release would have been sent to all.
> 
> ...




Hi newwwtrader,
I fully agree with your sentiments regarding some of the pedantic posters on here. They are worrying about minor details and not giving due consideration to the MAIN ISSUES?? (they can't see the wood for the trees LOL...)
OTHERS.
As for the childish attacks on the PIFI, people should take a cold shower and think rationally before opening their mouths, or type on their keyboards!!
At least the PIF has taken the initiative, obtained legal/professional advice in a sensible structured way, to try and help ALL UNIT HOLDERS which is more than can be said about some of the ranters and ravers on here. We should all unite for our common benefit rather than taking cheap shots at each other??  
You are all welcome to join and participate in the PIFI actions, and there is NOTHING SINISTER about their motives. PLEASE WAKE UP and get a LIFE!!!!
It would be advisable for all to get a copy of the "legal opinion", study it carefully,arrive at your own conclusions rather than shooting off and make unsubstantiated accusations.


----------



## JohnH (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



like2ski said:


> Hi newwwtrader,
> I fully agree with your sentiments regarding some of the pedantic posters on here. They are worrying about minor details and not giving due consideration to the MAIN ISSUES?? (they can't see the wood for the trees LOL...)
> OTHERS.
> As for the childish attacks on the PIFI, people should take a cold shower and think rationally before opening their mouths, or type on their keyboards!!
> ...




I would *consider* joining if someone can answer my concerns in post #2318


----------



## like2ski (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> I would *consider* joining if someone can answer my concerns in post #2318




Hi JohnH,
As far as I am aware no one here is qualified to answer those questions. You would need to join, read the legal opinion and/or talk to the Legal/Commercial experts.
Generally and logically however, who would you place your trust in, WC or an independent adviser who has nothing to gain (no personal interest in the fund) and is assisting for a fee only.
As reported in the press today the lawyers have stated that there are numerous errors and breaches of corporate law in the WC documentation!!
Can we trust them?????


----------



## seamisty (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have had my say and was going to let this rest but I just received a phone call from a Sydney Action Group member who was quite concerned that  certain posters were indicating the lack of initiative being taken by the AG founded by Breaker1. This unit holder informed me he contacted the very same solicitor, Kalinda Cobby, now representing the Qld PIFI, many months before the QLD PIFI was even formed!! MS Cobby even attended the Sydney WC investor forum with the Sydney AG member and stayed to the end of the meeting. After the forum,  Sydney PIF AG was advised that "we could do a lot worse than having Jenny Hutson and WC handling this fund". She said "Jenny Hutson sounded quite capable and apart from a few minor things not being quite legally correct, her intentions seemed honourable".She then advised that all she would do would be to form an incorporated body to have some sort of structure ONCE JH gets the vote to monitor her performance and ensure the best possible outcome for investors in the coming years. Kalinda Cobby has not come out and said anything untoward regarding WC, she only mentions a few mistakes in the EM under her interpretaion of Corporate Law..no mention of her plan being flawed! So this advice was taken on board, and in the absence of a better alternative without risking the liquidation of the Fund, the majority had decided to let WC demonstrate her ability or lack of, knowing they had the option to take action at a later date if it was needed, as per advice from Kalinda Cobby, who put in a lot of time for the AG in its inception. She was not paid for her advice and her professional opinion was highly respected and appreciated at that time. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



like2ski said:


> Hi JohnH,
> As far as I am aware no one here is qualified to answer those questions. You would need to join, read the legal opinion and/or talk to the Legal/Commercial experts.
> Generally and logically however, who would you place your trust in, WC or an independent adviser who has nothing to gain (no personal interest in the fund) and is assisting for a fee only.
> As reported in the press today the lawyers have stated that there are numerous errors and breaches of corporate law in the WC documentation!!
> Can we trust them?????



Like2ski, I have been so busy today I must have missed the reference to breaches of corporate law, I can only find:::In an offer to investors allegedly riddled with errors;;;and;;;"explanatory memorandum" was "complex" and contained more than a dozen errors. When I spoke with WC today, I asked about this and was assured they are administrative errors, nothing more sinister. Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Like2ski, I have been so busy today I must have missed the reference to breaches of corporate law, I can only find:::In an offer to investors allegedly riddled with errors;;;and;;;"explanatory memorandum" was "complex" and contained more than a dozen errors. When I spoke with WC today, I asked about this and was assured they are administrative errors, nothing more sinister. Seamisty




Hi Seamisty.  If I sign the PIF Initiative application form to get the answers to my questions, I have to pay 100 bucks, agree to “comply fully with the requirements of the Association’s Rules” - wonder what they are!!!


----------



## waleroo (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Wake up May be we should be looking at what PIFI are saying


----------



## like2ski (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Like2ski, I have been so busy today I must have missed the reference to breaches of corporate law, I can only find:::In an offer to investors allegedly riddled with errors;;;and;;;"explanatory memorandum" was "complex" and contained more than a dozen errors. When I spoke with WC today, I asked about this and was assured they are administrative errors, nothing more sinister. Seamisty




Hi seamisty,
Apologies, you are right about the reference in press releases. 
I meant to refer to the alleged breaches leading up to the present situation.


----------



## like2ski (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Hi Seamisty.  If I sign the PIF Initiative application form to get the answers to my questions, I have to pay 100 bucks, agree to “comply fully with the requirements of the Association’s Rules” - wonder what they are!!!




Why don,t you ask them ?????


----------



## Juan Mortyme (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> JADEL representative of the PIF Initiative:
> 
> Is Dennis Chapman the President of or hold any position in your PIFI group ?
> 
> If So, by whose authority in the PIF Action Group did he make these announcements on behalf of the entire membership of the PIF Action Group?






breaker1 said:


> ??????
> 
> I have said nothing about the PIFI's right to contact anyone - I have said, they have NOT got the right as the PIFI to approach the MEDIA and represent themselves as the PIF Action Group without the consensus of the Action Group organisers or its' members.
> 
> I now seriously question your comprehensive ability of straight-forward posts on this site.






breaker1 said:


> JADEL
> 
> You haven't answered my questions above yet?
> 
> Further, is your PIFI group going to make a retraction with a profuse apology in the AFR and also on this ASF thread ???




I've finally seen the article in today's AFR.  What's all the fuss about?  It says "PIF action group" and not "PIF Action Group".  Yes it's an action group which is represented by PIF investors.  
Let's all get serious without turning this into an Abbott and Costello routine.


----------



## seamisty (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Hi Seamisty.  If I sign the PIF Initiative application form to get the answers to my questions, I have to pay 100 bucks, agree to “comply fully with the requirements of the Association’s Rules” - wonder what they are!!!



Do you have to pay $100 bucks up front before you get to see the rules? What if you don't like them?Seamisty:22_yikes:


----------



## Dexter (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Those of you who are familiar with the current PDS will know that if the current RE changes (to Wellington Capital Ltd, Resolution 3) you can kiss goodbye to anything we might have got from the $50m support facility!


----------



## JohnH (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> I've finally seen the article in today's AFR.  What's all the fuss about?  It says "PIF action group" and not "PIF Action Group".  *Yes it's an action group which is represented by PIF investors.  *Let's all get serious without turning this into an Abbott and Costello routine.



Yes Juan, it is an action group represented by PIF investors, but Breaker's point is that it is not representative of PIF investors!  -  There is a huge difference.


----------



## JohnH (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Do you have to pay $100 bucks up front before you get to see the rules? What if you don't like them?Seamisty:22_yikes:




Membership is $100. I presume they would let me see them before I signed (if I asked), but I am more interested in the answers to my questions.


----------



## Dexter (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

You will love the rules!


----------



## Juan Mortyme (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Will the following also have an impact on monies that PIF hopes to recoup from Octaviar?  Does anyone know what OCV's exposure is if this project is shelved?

----------article----------

*Peter Garrett suspends approval for Barrier Reef resort*
Article from: The Courier-Mail

    By Peter Michael

September 05, 2008 12:00am

DEVELOPERS are bracing for a backlash after Environment Minister Peter Garrett suspended a multimillion-dollar development on the Great Barrier Reef.

Mr Garrett yesterday shut down approval for Reef Cove Resort at False Cape, near Cairns, and ordered an environmental audit.

It is the first time a federal environment minister has exercised his powers to suspend a project's approval.

The ruling sent shockwaves through the developer market, with the Janet Holmes a Court-backed Ella Bay project, near Innisfail, also before the minister.

"I've decided to suspend approval of the False Cape project for a 12-month period because I am concerned about the threat of sediment run-off into the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area," Mr Garrett said yesterday.

"This suspension means there can be no construction at the site until I'm satisfied that the developer has completed the appropriate remediation work and can complete construction in a responsible manner."

The stalled $160 million project involved building a five-star resort with townhouses and 100 house blocks backing on to a steeply-sloped, heavily forested site overlooking Cairns and north to Cape Tribulation.

Reef Cove Resort spokeswoman Vicki Knight yesterday said they had spent millions on the development over the past five years and they were not about to walk away.

"We're extremely surprised and disappointed at Garrett's decision," she said. "We have referred the matter to our solicitors.

As far as we are concerned we have jumped through every hoop they asked us to."

The project has endured its fair share of controversy with a helicopter carrying four environmentalists crashing on the site in June, while a CEC excavator operator was crushed and killed there by a rolling boulder late last year.

In January, the project ground to a halt after financial backer MFS, now called Octaviar, ran into financial strife.

The mayor of the nearby Yarrabah Aboriginal community condemned the growing chorus of protesters, saying the resort was his community's best chance at ongoing employment.

Save False Cape spokesman Mark Buttrose, a local architect and one of four protesters who walked away unharmed from the chopper crash, commended Mr Garrett for his decision.

---------end of article-------------

direct link: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24295416-3102,00.html


----------



## seamisty (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> I've finally seen the article in today's AFR.  What's all the fuss about?  It says "PIF action group" and not "PIF Action Group".  Yes it's an action group which is represented by PIF investors.
> Let's all get serious without turning this into an Abbott and Costello routine.



The fuss is about the article has no connection  to do with the PIF Action Group or the PIF action group, and if it is no big deal, then the QLD PIFI  will not have a problem with contacting the editor and requesting a retraction which has caused confusion and angst to a large number of elderly, vunerable Action Group members who have contacted AG reps today quite distressed thinking they are supporting the 'orderly windup' of the PIF, when they in fact, want to receive their anticipated distribution and the possibility of stronger unit value in 3-5 years. No big deal if you don't care how many seniors have been affected, no fuss at all if you are not responsible for mopping up the repercusions. I am really upset at the lack of compassion shown by a small group of holders who are prepared to use whatever means available to further their own agendas at the expense of others. Seamisty


----------



## waleroo (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

May be we should all get serious and take a hard look at what JH is offering I am sorry to say it is nothing May be a vote No No No vote is our only option and see what happens I do not see any money from JH guarantee to arrive unless you do what I say and pass go or you lose all How can they decide to shut down the PIF they only just got it I think a NO NO NO is our only option this your money or was until JH decided it was hers


----------



## Burnt (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> At 10-20 cents they will be a bargain and it won't be just CS buying!!:grinsking



Hi Seamisty,
Very true, elderly investors need income, maybe they'll get it with WC, who knows. But a great many of them just need and want as much of their money back as soon as possible so that they can SECURE AN INCOME. With WC their money will be locked in indefinately while VULTURES buy into the scheme on the NSX getting a bargain for themselves while diluting the value of units held by these elderly people. Note your own comment above.

Oh yes, that's right you're very concerned for these confused elderly investors. And you're right, no one likes people "that use whatever means available to further their own agendas at the expense of others".


----------



## seamisty (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



waleroo said:


> May be we should all get serious and take a hard look at what JC is offering I am sorry to say it is nothing May be a vote No No No vote is our only option and see what happens I do not see any money from JC guarantee to arrive unless you do what I say and pass go or you lose all How can they decide to shut down the PIF they only just got it I think a NO NO NO is our only opition



Waleroo if you want to take a gamble, go for it. I received 2 ph calls from WC today, once again reiterating that if they do not get the 75% vote, thats it, its all over. If you believe they are lying, that is your choice. I am simply not prepared to take that chance!!! No way am I going to risk a potential unit value restoration and a annual distribution even if I have to wait 3-5years, for a miserly estimated 14cent per unit liquidation price gross!! You are in dreamsland if you think WC will not walk away. I actually give them credit for perserverance to date. I just hope the people who are prepared to support WC are rewarded for their faith and patience, because so help me if it was me in control, I would only be looking out for those that demonstrated some semblance of committment. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi Seamisty,
> Very true, elderly investors need income, maybe they'll get it with WC, who knows. But a great many of them just need and want as much of their money back as soon as possible so that they can SECURE AN INCOME. With WC their money will be locked in indefinately while VULTURES buy into the scheme on the NSX getting a bargain for themselves while diluting the value of units held by these elderly people. Note your own comment above.
> 
> Oh yes, that's right you're very concerned for these confused elderly investors. And you're right, no one likes people "that use whatever means available to further their own agendas at the expense of others".



So I haven't seen any quarantees of unit price  our elderly investors will receive on liquidation of the fund if they vote N N N ( and yes I don't want estimates or target rates of return, I want written guarantees please)and yes I would certainly be tempted to pay 10-20cents for units with a NTAof 45cents with an estimated return of 13.5%%. Who wouldn't?? If you think investors are silly enough to take the risk of receiving 14cents per unit if WC walk away, then I am silly enough to think I will pick up units at 10-20cents. Seamisty


----------



## breaker1 (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Sorry, I don't understand the fuss about the "action group". I have read the articles in the GCBully and the Aust. and both clearly state that comments were made by members of the PIFI Initiative, "an action group". So what if PIFI is described as an action group. Get over it.
> 
> By the way, what is the objective of the PIFI Action Group ? If Seamisty and Breaker1 are representatives of the group, then quite obviously the groups objective is to promote Wellingtons propositions. So why "action group"? -
> is your "action" to discredit and demean anyone opposing Wellingtons propostitions ? If so, are you guys also entitled to the .25% commission being paid under Wellington's "buy votes" scheme ?




With your logic, I can now go to any media outlet, tell them I represent the PIFI, ask  them to relay to an Australia wide audience that the PIFI supports Jenny Hutson and Wellington Capital and strongly urge all PIF unitholders to vote YES YES YES on all resolutions, mention PIFI about 3 or 4 times and just add how the PIFI membership are really looking forward to the 3c distribution before Christmas and just throw in that we absolutely positively DO NOT want to go into any possibility of any wind up of the fund run by a pack of raw, ill prepared, cowboys, without even the slightest hint of what our returns could be and not even a any chance of a backup RE manager ready to go if the current RE takes her bat and WC and goes home. An then of course I should think nothing of it when you complain to me that your PIFI members from all over Australia ring you in horror asking you to explain what on earth is going on.

I'm sure you'd get over that Burnt, wouldn't you now?

At least in the AG we have never asked anyone for $100 upfront for a scratchies chance at only the possibility of something.

We as the AG have done whatever we could to extract as much for the PIF investor out of WC without the fund falling into a heap because of excessive investor demand from a severely abused and battered fund before it can get back on its feet

The objective of the PIF AG has always been to be attentive to the desires of the main body of the members of the AG and what *they *want. That we have done and their main desire has been to give WC and Jenny Huston a fair go. 

That is something you PIFI guys I perceive are loathe to do, you have an agenda and stuff what the majority think and if the lot of us are dragged down the poop hole with you if it collapses in a heap, you can say, Oh well, we had a lawyer and lots of objectives didn't we. To bad we kept everything secret till the last minute with you PIF investors, we thought we'd just drop it on you right in the middle of the half finished investor vote for WC.

*Retraction and apology in the AFR and an apology on this ASF site please!*
BTW I have given up nearly 4 months of my life at great cost to me in this venture and never received a cent and if anyone offered me money to sway what I thought was in the best interests of the PIF AG members I'd tell them where to go.


----------



## newwwtrader (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> *This is directed to the PIFI*
> 
> Let me make sure that I have got this right!
> 
> ...




I will attempt to answer these, although I must say that I am not a member of the PIFI. However, I base my reasons on logic, so they may very well be the same as the PIFI.

Question 1
At the present time, I believe if nothing else were to happen, then the PIF could face liquidation. This would only happen if people who sought to redeem there money earlier this year were in fact able to proceed with that redemption.

I believe that liquidation can be avoided by a simple alteration to the current constitution. This could be to freeze the redemptions for a further period of time.

A further freezing would have the effect of the status quo remaining. The fund can continue to operate as it is today, however, it would allow for the probable turn around in the economy which is bound to occur in the future. It would also allow for a realisation of assets in a non firesale manner.

Question 2
WC is the RE. The vote (as I understand it, has no bearing on that). The vote is one for changes in the constitution - not a vote in favour or against WC. Therefore for at least the short term WC will remain and manage.

As I have said before, I do not believe that WC would allow this opportunity to manage the fund to slip between their hands.

In relation to changing the constitution, I believe WC would come back to the table with alternatives. If they did not, I would think that members could themselves seek to change it. Surely this could easily be done before January. Afterall WC was able to bring these changes to a vote in about two months of the roadshow.

As I have also said before, I believe that if WC did want to walk away as the RE, then another party would step forward. There would be people interested, dont be fooled by those who say the opposite. One only has to look at the media rports at the time, which said something along the lines of there were rumours of 20+ other parties. 

Question 3
The constitution is being changed to make it harder to get rid of WC. This s done by firstly increasing the costs. I believe it is to 2% of assets. So it would become almost financially prohibitive to do.

I believe from memory there is also changes (increases) in the persons required to call meetings.

Question 4
I believe the buy back proposal is a sham. Offering 45c is all well and good. However it is no good offering someone a high amount when, the amount that that person will be able to sell is miniscule in the grand scheme of things. 

Just a note in relation to the "dividend" - I believe this could be paid regardless of whether there is a yes or no vote. Provided there is a goal to avoid liquidation by altering the constitution in the near future.


----------



## Dexter (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If ASIC were doing their job PIFI would not be necessary.  We need to take a lead in the recovery of our "hard-earned".

A steady flow of distributions would be acceptable, if  they were offered, providing there was some sort of redemption program other that the NSX.  

JH is adamant that NO cash will leave the Fund.  You are on your own - sell your units to some one else!

Without a reliable income and a sure means of redemption who would want them?

There is a better alternative and I don't mean liquidation.

The PIFI are a small group of investors who have spent a lot of time and money including excellent legal advice to better the outcome for all of us - big and small.

It is not too late!


----------



## seamisty (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Dexter said:


> If ASIC were doing their job PIFI would not be necessary.  We need to take a lead in the recovery of our "hard-earned".
> 
> A steady flow of distributions would be acceptable, if  they were offered, providing there was some sort of redemption program other that the NSX.
> 
> ...



:horse::horse::horse:


----------



## Dexter (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Incidently - JH or WC as RE cannot put the Fund into liquidation.  It is a Unit Holder decision.


----------



## seamisty (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Dexter said:


> Incidently - JH or WC as RE cannot put the Fund into liquidation.  It is a Unit Holder decision.[/QUOte, Thats correct. They will have to resume redemptions and as the fund cannot do that, it will be forced to sell the assets to pay the redemptions due by Mar 2009 with an estimated unit value of 14 cents.


----------



## Burnt (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



waleroo said:


> May be we should all get serious and take a hard look at what JH is offering I am sorry to say it is nothing May be a vote No No No vote is our only option and see what happens I do not see any money from JH guarantee to arrive unless you do what I say and pass go or you lose all How can they decide to shut down the PIF they only just got it I think a NO NO NO is our only option this your money or was until JH decided it was hers




Hi Waleroo, you are absolutely correct ! (and well stated Newwtrader and Dexter). 
Don't anyone be fooled by the scare tactics and threats issued by WC and reinforced by scaremongers here about "WC walking away" or "14c recovery on liquidation".

We as unit holders have rights and protections under the Corporations Act.
Sect.601FJ prevents an RE from just walking away from a fund. It is not possible.
Sect.601NC states that if the RE moves to liquidate the fund, members have the right to call a members meeting and vote on any extraordinary resolutions members propose about the winding up of the scheme.

Look at the facts.


----------



## Burnt (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Under the Funds Constitution, unit holders have the ability to trade units between themselves. Quite a few unit holders indicated at the July forums (and on this thread) that they would be interested in purchasing other unit holders units and many others (who are desperate for their money back) indicated that they wanted to sell.

If JH was genuinely concerned about the plight of unit holders in desperate financial circumstances, and was genuinely committed to acting in their best interests, why have WC not provided unit holders with information to facilitate the process of transferring units between members.

She talks to the press about how the buy back scheme she proposes will give these desperate people 'a couple of grand' that they could really use. She didn't mention though that it would be paid sometime in the next 12 months.
If she did something about helping members transfer units between themselves, these people would have that couple of grand (and more) in their pockets NOW !!!!!


----------



## seamisty (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi Waleroo, you are absolutely correct ! (and well stated Newwtrader and Dexter).
> Don't anyone be fooled by the scare tactics and threats issued by WC and reinforced by scaremongers here about "WC walking away" or "14c recovery on liquidation".
> 
> We as unit holders have rights and protections under the Corporations Act.
> ...



WC will not be liquidating the fund, as such, they will be forced to sell existing assets to pay all redemptions by Mar2009 which is what will be forced on them by way of a n n n vote.They are not making any threats, simply complying by the rules if investors choose to take their estimated 14 cents per unit as opposed to the continuation of the PIF. Please state the alternative outcomes if there is in fact any.Undisclosed plans and opinions just won't convince me I am afraid. Surely with so much support out there from those willing to take unsubstanciated promises someone, anyone, must have something more than we can call a egm(at our own expense)to make some resolutions? Or maybe not.seamisty


----------



## seamisty (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Under the Funds Constitution, unit holders have the ability to trade units between themselves. Quite a few unit holders indicated at the July forums (and on this thread) that they would be interested in purchasing other unit holders units and many others (who are desperate for their money back) indicated that they wanted to sell.
> 
> If JH was genuinely concerned about the plight of unit holders in desperate financial circumstances, and was genuinely committed to acting in their best interests, why have WC not provided unit holders with information to facilitate the process of transferring units between members.
> 
> ...



 Hmnnn, has the PIFI got a scheme organised to generate some up front cash to the unit holders in desperate financial circumstances. Or will they just have to wait 12 months or more to receive their estimated 14cents per unit full stop. They must have something up their sleeve to convince unit holders to forego the estimated distribution prior to xmas from WC. Perhaps their legal beagles have negotiated a really good deal with OCV which will deliver our long awaited support facility?Or not.Come on guys, anything, convince me, put up or shut up.Seamisty


----------



## breaker1 (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> With your logic, Burnt, I can now go to any media outlet, tell them I represent the PIFI, ask  them to relay to an Australia wide audience that the PIFI supports Jenny Hutson and Wellington Capital and strongly urge all PIF unitholders to vote YES YES YES on all resolutions, mention PIFI about 3 or 4 times and just add how the PIFI membership are really looking forward to the 3c distribution before Christmas and just throw in that we absolutely positively DO NOT want to go into any possibility of any wind up of the fund run by a pack of raw, ill prepared, cowboys, without even the slightest hint of what our returns could be and not even a any chance of a backup RE manager ready to go if the current RE takes her bat and WC and goes home. An then of course I should think nothing of it when you complain to me that your PIFI members from all over Australia ring you in horror asking you to explain what on earth is going on.
> 
> I'm sure you'd get over that Burnt, wouldn't you now?
> 
> ...




Seamisty
I recon what they need is about 5,400 legal beagles who can vote for the current PIF resolutions, now that would the worth the $100.


----------



## Burnt (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> WC will not be liquidating the fund, as such, they will be forced to sell existing assets to pay all redemptions by Mar2009 which is what will be forced on them by way of a n n n vote.They are not making any threats, simply complying by the rules if investors choose to take their estimated 14 cents per unit as opposed to the continuation of the PIF. Please state the alternative outcomes if there is in fact any.Undisclosed plans and opinions just won't convince me I am afraid. Surely with so much support out there from those willing to take unsubstanciated promises someone, anyone, must have something more than we can call a egm(at our own expense)to make some resolutions? Or maybe not.seamisty




Having the right to call an egm is a very important point, a point that a lot of people seem to be unaware of. This is the problem, people are believing you when you reinforce WC's position that our only choices are go with WC's NSX listing & other proposals, or take your 14c and that's it! 

If the No vote succeeds, the only thing that WC will be "forced" to do is act upon the wishes of the unit holders, whether that be to change the constitution to extend the freeze on redemptions and keep the fund going; or whether it be to appoint an administrator to manage the fund; or whether it be to manage an orderly wind up of the fund. All these options (and more) are open to us. We are not restricted to WC's limited options.

It is not up to me or any other individual to decide what alternative option unit holders should support. It is up to ALL OF US to decide between ouselves what is best for all of us. The forums in July were suppose to give us the opportunity to express what we wanted, unfortunately WC ignored all concerns, suggestions and opposition to NSX listing expressed by unitholders.

There are some of us that will continue to fight to exercise our rights to explore, determine and enforce our alternative solutions for the fund.

In a famous quote my father & other elderly investors will relate to - "*Now is not the End. It is not even the beginning of the end, but it is, perhaps, the end of the Beginning* - Winston Churchill.


----------



## Burnt (5 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hmnnn, has the PIFI got a scheme organised to generate some up front cash to the unit holders in desperate financial circumstances. Or will they just have to wait 12 months or more to receive their estimated 14cents per unit full stop. They must have something up their sleeve to convince unit holders to forego the estimated distribution prior to xmas from WC. Perhaps their legal beagles have negotiated a really good deal with OCV which will deliver our long awaited support facility?Or not.Come on guys, anything, convince me, put up or shut up.Seamisty




Wish I could count the number of times you've quoted the famous "14c per unit" phrase. This is the one that _really scares _people isn't it.
Nothing has been said about foregoing distributions (another scare tactic).
PIFI wouldn't need a scheme to generate cash up front. As long as we keep our present constitution, unit holders are entitled to buy & sell units between themselvs. 

Anyone wishing to either purchase or sell, I suggest they contact Perpetual Nominees on 1300 721 051, they should be able to help you with this. Obviously Wellington hasn't offered any help in this regard.


----------



## great dame (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If he no vote gets up I will through a big party & you are all invited to come & that included you to Seamistey  Cheers  / Dane //


----------



## great dame (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If the Yes vote gets up WC can through the party   But don't expert me there   / Dane //


----------



## great dame (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All  There is a good read in the Gold Coast Bulletin today   You can read it all on the web   Enjoy your read  Cheers  / Dane //


----------



## Jadel (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

lll


----------



## sugar3157 (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Hi All  There is a good read in the Gold Coast Bulletin today   You can read it all on the web   Enjoy your read  Cheers  / Dane //




Hi Seamisty,,, what impact do you think the GCB is going to make on the vote now?.....I did have a bit of hope of seeing some of my money back before this last weeks trouble.....@#$%!


----------



## seamisty (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Hi Seamisty,,, what impact do you think the GCB is going to make on the vote now?.....I did have a bit of hope of seeing some of my money back before this last weeks trouble.....@#$%!



Good morning sugar3157, Well I think todays article just confirms what I have been saying, the PIFI are only concerned with winding up the Fund in the hope of possibly achieving a maximum return of 45 cents per unit!!!!Quote from the article:The fund is said to be valued at 45c a unit as a going concern.

Mr Chapman said he believed 45c a unit could be achieved through an orderly sell-off of assets, giving investors the chance to retrieve more of their funds over a quicker timeframe, and he would like to see an independent responsible entity take over the task of doing so.:::: Unbelievable!!! Well I hardly think there is going to be a rush of unitholders willing to vote for LESS THAN HALF of their original investment do you? And the 45cent valuation was as a going concern. I would be wanting a refund on my $100 joining fee if thats the strategic plan. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Hi Seamisty,,, what impact do you think the GCB is going to make on the vote now?.....I did have a bit of hope of seeing some of my money back before this last weeks trouble.....@#$%!



The aritcle appears to have done a vanishing act! I will re post it:::::Wellington faces its WaterlooNick Nichols 

September 6th, 2008 

ANGRY Premium Income Fund investors are confident they have the numbers to roll Wellington Capital's 'rescue' proposal which goes to a vote in less than two weeks.

Despite Wellington's founder Jenny Hutson revealing this week she had received 97 per cent support from more than 3000 votes counted, PIF Init-iative spokesman Dennis Chapman said large investors still had the numbers to crush the proposal.

The PIF Initiative, a group of investors lobbying against Wellington's plans through an internet campaign, is angry at Wellington's bid to abolish the original responsible entity of the fund -- set up by the defunct MFS (now Octaviar) -- and secure a hefty exit fee in the process.

It also opposes plans to list the fund on the National Stock Exchange.

Mr Chapman said Wellington does not appear to be acting in the best interests of the Premium Income Fund's (PIF) 10,300 investors, many of whom are elderly and have kissed goodbye to the $770 million they invested.

PIF Initiative has approached corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, to investigate, although the nature of the investigation has not been disclosed.

ASIC yesterday declined to comment on specific cases.

PIF Initiative also has sought legal opinion as to whether Wellington Capital is acting in the best interests of investors.

Wellington Capital has called a meeting on the Gold Coast for September 18 to vote on three resolutions that are designed to keep the fund a going concern. 

"A lot of people don't really understand the full ramifications of what (Ms Hutson) is trying to push through," said Mr Chapman.

"All we're after is a fair go."

Although 3000 votes have already been lodged, Mr Chapman yesterday described PIF Initiative's chances of getting remaining investors vote down the proposals as 'pretty good'.

"The top 3000 people will more than cover it," he said.

Wellington needs the backing of 75 per cent of units by value to proceed.

PIF Initiative is concerned on a number of fronts, including the 14c per unit valuation put forward by Wellington for a liquidation of the fund.

The fund is said to be valued at 45c a unit as a going concern.

Mr Chapman said he believed 45c a unit could be achieved through an orderly sell-off of assets, giving investors the chance to retrieve more of their funds over a quicker timeframe, and he would like to see an independent responsible entity take over the task of doing so.

Wellington Capital has estimated it will take three to five years to restore full value to investors.

"But a lot of these (investors) are elderly people," said Mr Chapman.

"Half of them won't be around in five years. That's the sad part."

Mr Chapman said a promised 3c distribution to investors by December was a major incentive being used by Wellington Capital.

But he said this would be a repayment of capital, rather than payment from profits.

It also would be a trigger for Wellington Capital to be paid ongoing management fees for the fund.

PIF Initiative is opposed to an NSX listing for the fund.

A rush of sellers is expected to push the price of units down to about 10c each, it said.

Mr Chapman said this would be the worst outcome for elderly investors who needed to sell immediately.

Mr Chapman, once a comfortable self-funded retiree, invested about $1.25 million in the failed MFS empire, with about $200,000 in PIF.

"I'm doing it tough like you wouldn't believe, but there are lot more people who are far worse off than me," he said.


----------



## Rance (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Hi All  There is a good read in the Gold Coast Bulletin today   You can read it all on the web   Enjoy your read  Cheers  / Dane //



G'day Great Doom!

We live in interesting times!

Rance


----------



## Smokey68 (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

According to the Constitution,

All loan establishment fees go to WC
All loan rollover fees go to WC
All penalty interest go to WC

All losses go to the PIF.

This is as ugly as a hat full of arseholes.


----------



## sugar3157 (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Smokey68 said:


> According to the Constitution,
> 
> All loan establishment fees go to WC
> All loan rollover fees go to WC
> ...




Listen all...she is in this to MAKE MONEY...of course...
what you all have to realise is...IF SHE MAKES MONEY...SO DO WE !!!!
I hope she makes a bundle...then so do WE...!!!
Wake up all you people and smell the roses...
Stuff reading all the small print...it just gives you a headache...
Talk about... the small poppy syndrome...ughhh


----------



## Smokey68 (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sugar3157

How will you get all this money out of the PIF to spend?


----------



## Jadel (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

As has already been posted by Burned in great detail a range of options is available to investors by democratic choice once we have the right to determine our own future. 

Continue the fund with another RE wind up the fund over a three or five year period or indeed any other sensible alternative that would benefit investors 

A quick wind up over 6months would indeed   probably achieve 45cents in comparison to what JH has been telling us the assets are worth 14 cents. 

In any event the price range on the NSX that will almost certainly be in a range in my estimation of between 15 and 25 cents as long as we are forced to remain on that index

Then as has already been confirmed by Wellington Capital their will probably be a Capital raising and it will not make the slightest difference whether or not investors have the funds to participate.

The money will come from so called Sophisticated Investors or Institutions at a bargain basement price to what the assets are   currently TRADING AT not the Net Tangible Asset value.This will further dilute the value of the Fund for existing shareholders.


 I can assure investors  that I personally am  absolutely opposed to the  sale of our  assets at anything  under fair value  under any  circumstances

Everybody with any common sense knows that good assets are like wine as they age and mature they gain value GPM, living and leisure and other assets in the PIF are trading at huge discounts to their NTA because of the Sub prime disaster in my opinion it would be foolhardy to even think of selling these assets until the property sector recovers.

Therefore I favor an orderly wind up this would be undertaken with another RE or manager  over a flexible  period  with an advisory committee comprised of investors in the fund  who have the most to lose  and would intimately involved in any decision to sell 

However as previously stated any decisions will be made transparently and openly by democratic choice 

Not the misleading, deceptive and heavy handed tactics of fear and intimidation and that Jenny Hutson has employed to gain control of our Fund


----------



## great dame (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> The article appears to have done a vanishing act! I will re post it:::::Wellington faces its WaterlooNick Nichols
> 
> September 6th, 2008
> 
> ...



   Seamisty You must agree what the above artical says  Except for one thing  WC say it can return  true value in 3 to 5 years  ???  Well thats a real long shot  saying it could go from 10 cents to a Dollar in 3 to 5 years    Remenber the real value of a company or Fund is only worth what it worth on the exchange    Maybe in 20 or 30 years time yu may get your dollar back  but with inflation over that time your dollar wont be worth much   / Dane //


----------



## JohnH (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Listen all...she is in this to MAKE MONEY...of course...
> what you all have to realise is...IF SHE MAKES MONEY...SO DO WE !!!!
> I hope she makes a bundle...then so do WE...!!!
> Wake up all you people and smell the roses...
> ...




Well said!


----------



## great dame (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Listen all...she is in this to MAKE MONEY...of course...
> what you all have to realise is...IF SHE MAKES MONEY...SO DO WE !!!!
> I hope she makes a bundle...then so do WE...!!!
> Wake up all you people and smell the roses...
> ...



   Suger my friend  your forgetting WC are in a win win  cant loose  if the fund  wasto head south  WC would still head North  they cant loose   I am glad you used the word  if  in saying if she makes money  JH is not an invester she is a Lawyer  remenber   Tell me Suger just what is her record in  making bundles as you call them  ???   People who put there heads in the sand usually die of suffocation   Enjoy your day  / Dane //


----------



## Juan Mortyme (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Seamisty You must agree what the above artical says  Except for one thing  WC say it can return  true value in 3 to 5 years  ???  Well thats a real long shot  saying it could go from 10 cents to a Dollar in 3 to 5 years    Remenber the real value of a company or Fund is only worth what it worth on the exchange    Maybe in 20 or 30 years time yu may get your dollar back  but with inflation over that time your dollar wont be worth much   / Dane //




Well said!!


----------



## Rance (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Not the misleading, deceptive and heavy handed tactics of fear and intimidation and that Jenny Hutson has employed to gain control of our Fund




Yes, yes Jadel, a White Knight in Shining Armour will appear at the last moment, out of the mist to save us all from the horrible fate that awaits us from the hands of the Red Devil (JH).

Anyone with common sense knows that common sense ain't so common. The musings on this thread are proof of that.

Rance


----------



## sugar3157 (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Suger my friend  your forgetting WC are in a win win  cant loose  if the fund  wasto head south  WC would still head North  they cant loose   I am glad you used the word  if  in saying if she makes money  JH is not an invester she is a Lawyer  remenber   Tell me Suger just what is her record in  making bundles as you call them  ???   People who put there heads in the sand usually die of suffocation   Enjoy your day  / Dane //




Wow GD I wish I had your crystal ball to see into the future..( maybe not it must have been on the blink when you bought into the PIF)...although all you see and state here is gloom and doom...I don't know what is going to happen in the future...neither do you...so stop telling all on here your unqualified opinion...PLEASE....


----------



## great dame (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> G'day Great Doom!
> 
> We live in interesting times!
> 
> Rance [/QUOTEt   Hello Rance  i realy should not talk to you after you cancelled out my vote   I like to call it interesting  only when i am makeing money   Cheers  / Dane //


----------



## great dame (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Wow GD I wish I had your crystal ball to see into the future..( maybe not it must have been on the blink when you bought into the PIF)...although all you see and state here is gloom and doom...I don't know what is going to happen in the future...neither do you...so stop telling all on here your unqualified opinion...PLEASE....



     Suger i know more about the markets then most  i make a living buying & selling  shares   Sure i loose some  you cant win all the time but i am uesley in front at the end of the year   Yes i droped my guard when i invested in PIF for 9 months  i did resurch seemed to be good  Reserch did not tell me there were robbers in the fund though   As for my unqualified  opinions   as you say  your wrong   I have history on my side   JH can not beat the markets  with only 45% in growth investemts balance in income investemts   Still waiting for you to tell us JH track record on investing   I wont hold my breath   / Dane //


----------



## RickH (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> As has already been posted by Burned in great detail a range of options is available to investors by democratic choice once we have the right to determine our own future.
> ............................
> Not the misleading, deceptive and heavy handed tactics of fear and intimidation and that Jenny Hutson has employed to gain control of our Fund




Mr Chapman of PIFI has been quoted as saying the following –

"All we're after is a fair go."

“Although 3000 votes have already been lodged, Mr. Chapman yesterday described PIF Initiative's chances of getting remaining investors vote down the proposals as 'pretty good'.”

“The top 3000 people will more than cover it,"

“Wellington needs the backing of 75 per cent of units by value to proceed.”

Jadel said #2382

“As has already been posted by Burned in great detail a range of options is available to investors by democratic choice once we have the right to determine our own future.”

 And then later 
“However as previously stated any decisions will be made transparently and openly by democratic choice”


I realise that I have taken these shorter statements from longer statements but I always thought that democratic choice was one person one vote – But the above seems to prefer the people with the most money will always win. If they do win due to their greater invested dollars will they change the voting to one investor – one vote or will they keep the same bias towards the larger investors?

Regards, Rick:couch


----------



## Rance (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Hello Rance  i realy should not talk to you after you cancelled out my vote   I like to call it interesting  only when i am makeing money   Cheers  / Dane //




Damm...  we cancelled out each other's vote!  We are quits then...  What fate awaits us now!  Time will tell...

Cheers mate
Rance


----------



## selciper (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From the Australian: Ms Hutson told The Australian that proposed changes would make it more difficult for PIF's 10,000-plus investors to remove Wellington, but claimed it was a move to help investors who "wanted to ensure we were there for the long-run". - 05/08

The above reported statement is unconvincing to the extreme. That we should have to pay a 2% penalty if a manager does badly for us is Alice in Wonderland or Monty Python material. It exemplifies why many investors have misgivings about WC's sincerity.
Still, I'll vote YYN and keep ASIC's phone number on my cork board. The AG had better remain very active if WC get the vote.


----------



## like2ski (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> From the Australian: Ms Hutson told The Australian that proposed changes would make it more difficult for PIF's 10,000-plus investors to remove Wellington, but claimed it was a move to help investors who "wanted to ensure we were there for the long-run". - 05/08
> 
> The above reported statement is unconvincing to the extreme. That we should have to pay a 2% penalty if a manager does badly for us is Alice in Wonderland or Monty Python material. It exemplifies why many investors have misgivings about WC's sincerity.
> Still, I'll vote YYN and keep ASIC's phone number on my cork board. The AG had better remain very active if WC get the vote.




Hi selciper,
Your logic is hard to follow, why vote YYN if you feel that way? moreover, as far as ASIC's assistance is concerned I wouldn't count on it!!!!


----------



## Rance (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> Damm...  we cancelled out each other's vote!  We are quits then...  What fate awaits us now!  Time will tell...
> 
> Cheers mate
> Rance




Well, maybe we haven't cancelled each other's vote... a little history... I joined the fund at it's birth; enjoyed the fruits of its halcyon days; enjoyed the golf and being wined and dined by MFS; as a Platinum Member enjoyed bonus interest rates; and still have a swag of units in the PIF even though I redeemed a significant number in November 07.  So maybe my vote still outweighs yours...  I was about to say: "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" but, but, but... maybe best not. 

Rance


----------



## DoraNBoots (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Octaviar's manager wants more control

A finance company that took control of the collapsed Octaviar Premium Income fund is trying to change the funds constitution so that it would gain million of dollars if it was removed as manager, reported The Australian newspaper. 

Controlled by Jenny Hutson, Brisbane company Wellington Investment Management is trying to place restrictions on the Fund that would make it difficult for investors to remove it as manager, according to a report by Hicksons Lawyers partner Kalinda Cobby. 

Mr Hutson told the paper that while the changed would make it more difficult for Wellington to be removed, they would help the investors that wanted to keep the manager in place long-term. 

Investors of the Fund, who have formed a body called the PIF Initiative, are upset about Wellington's claims that if they did not approve the changes to the Fund's constitution, they would only receive 14 cents in the dollar. 

Wellington is trying to implement a severance fee into the Fund's constitution, the paper reported. 

Mr Hutson told the paper Octaviar had paid Wellington $750,000 to manage the Fund, but Wellington was also expected to pay Octaviar a fee between $15 million and $20 million depending on how the Fund performed.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...wants-more-control-J6LVD?opendocument&src=rss


----------



## DoraNBoots (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The only change to the constitution that appears to be in our favour over the REs is the change in the management fee from “all surpluses generated by the scheme” and only after all expenses were paid.  This is being changed to a fee of .7% of funds under management whether the fund can afford to pay it or not.  If you consider the funds current circumstances even this change is to the benefit of the RE and to our detriment.   I see every other change that is being proposed as taking away unit holder rights and giving excessive rights to the RE.

I am confident as a group of investors we can get together with legal representation and the RE and come up with proposals that are to our benefit (including the benefit of the RE).  I don’t care who the RE is as long as we get the constitution right and they have a proven track record managing the type of assets in our fund.  The kind of proposals I would like to see given to investors to vote on are:


remove redemption clauses and replace with NSX.  Very similar to the current proposal but would not include extra rights for the RE such as 2% removal fee or a change to the quorum section.  And the constitution would not be flawed.  (perhaps more than 2 hrs should be spent on this) OR
an orderly wind down over what ever timeframe the manager of the fund deems necessary up to 5 years. OR
extend the redemption period past 360 days to allow more time for other proposals to be considered.

Here are the issues I have with resolution 1:

*Constitution issues:*
There are many issues with the constitution.  Once notice of a members meeting has been given the constitution must exists and remain unaltered, so it’s either accept this flawed constitution or reject it altogether.  Below are many things that need to be fixed in the constitution as it is currently difficult if not impossible to interpret some sections. 

The constitution states that it will replace old versions of the constitution but refers back to old copies which is not possible if it is to replace them.

There are over a dozen drafting errors.

The EM states that an Advisory Committee will be set up if all 3 res are passed but the constitution doesn’t mention this or the committees’ rights.

The EM refers to changing the calculation of the unit entitlement and removing the definition of unit days.  Neither change has been made in the proposed constitution.

The EM and constitution are inconsistent for the Quorum section.  If the quorum section is to only take effect if both res 1 and res 3 are passed then the proposed constitution needs to be updated.


*Comments on Fees*
Just about all expenses WC encounter will be paid for by us (the fund), we will even pay their taxes for them, so the .7% is tax free!

The .7% management fee is of funds under management and does not limit the funds under management to just the PIF.  Also the fee is payable in advance for each month and can be determined on the last audit which could be more than 12 months old.   Even if the fund is being wound down the fee could continued to be taken even if the FUM is close to $0.  This is inconsistent with the EM which states the fee will be calculated with reference to the FUM at the end of the previous month.  I think the EM is very misleading to say the fee will be calculated according to the previous month if the RE is able to use the last audit to calculate their fee.  Some pressure on the RE to perform is removed as they no longer have to maintain our units at $1 or give us any distributions for them to collect their management fee.

2%  RE removal fee.  The EM states the RE would receive 2% of funds under management if WC are removed, but the constitution states 2% of the gross value of the scheme as determined in the most recent audited accounts.  This audit could be over 12 months old!  It goes on to say it’s at the REs discretion if the last audit is used or they can order the new RE to do an audit at our expense (if they think the current audit would be more than the most recent audit).  I.E. if WC are removed before the current audit is completed they would get $15 mill dollars as the last audit says the fund is worth $750 mill!  Anyone know if the audit will be finished this year?

*Removing unit holder rights*
There are a lot of changes to the constitution which are not mentioned in the EM with regards to holding a members meeting.  Previously the constitution just stated that  meetings are to be held in accordance with the Corp Act now there are a lot of changes which diminish unit holders rights at a meeting.  I.E. The chairman has the power to demand cessation of debate and adjourn the meeting without taking a vote on the issue. And that the election of a chairman cannot be voted on by members.

If a future resolution is put forward to replace the constitution the vote would need to meet the new quorum specifications which could make it hard to replace the constitution in the future. (i.e. 51% of the units would need to be represented in a meeting either in person or by proxy.  This compared to the current quorum which just requires two people to attend the meeting)

It will be a lot harder to remove the RE in the future due to the changes to the quorum section from requiring just two people to attend a meeting (in person or by proxy) to at least 4 people who hold at least 51% of the units.

There will be no redemptions the only way to get back capital it via the NSX and a very limited buy back which would only give investors around $1,500 guaranteed.  The buy back is at 45 cents rather than the NTA.


----------



## mgr2118 (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Notwithstanding anything else offered or stated when we all first joined the MFS PIF, we all had a clear understanding that:-

1.	we would earn regular income (at a defined rate) on money that we put into the MFS PIF, 

AND

2.	we had the option to redeem our money, or re-invest our money, after a defined period.

The responsibility for these liquidity events was with MFS PIF (as the RE).

Although words may have been said during the July forum meetings, I have looked and looked and can find no clear and precise statements in any formal documentation from WC that we will receive any REGULAR income.

I also find it unacceptable that WC has absolved itself totally of any responsibility to return outstanding value of OUR funds – whether in 3 months, 3 years or even 30 years!!

Having attended a forum meeting, and after reviewing the WC Melbourne Forum DVD a number of times, it appears, certainly to me, that JH has not really listened to us, the unit holders, about these key issues.

On this basis, I have to concur with the actions of the PIFI. 

Regardless of the many comments and concerns expressed on this forum over many months (which would have also been monitored by WC staff), I certainly have seen nothing really improve (for unit holders). 

As a legally incorporated association, PIFI has the ability to respond to the very legalistic JH in words that she can understand.


----------



## like2ski (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mgr2118 said:


> Notwithstanding anything else offered or stated when we all first joined the MFS PIF, we all had a clear understanding that:-
> 
> 1.	we would earn regular income (at a defined rate) on money that we put into the MFS PIF,
> 
> ...




Hi mgr,
Could not agree with you more!!!
I hope that COMMON SENSE will prevail amongst unit holders or we will be on "a hiding to nothing" unless we can negotiate/obtain a better deal out of WC.


----------



## seamisty (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Here you are MGR2118, Page 59, Explanatory Memorandum::::6.4 Cash payments
The responsible entity intends to make cash payments to Unitholders totalling 3 cents per Unit with
the first payment to be made in October 2008, the second in December 2008 and thereafter quarterly.


----------



## Smokey68 (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

And what are the payments for 2009?


----------



## seamisty (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Smokey68 said:


> And what are the payments for 2009?




The answer I received when I spoke to WC was an anticipated annual 6cent per unit paid quarterly in 1.5cent distributions plus a one of payment when and if the Support Facility is received. This may be increased when the Fund is stabilised. I have also spoken to a Fund manager and a Fanancial advisor who have the same information. Seamisty


----------



## Burnt (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Here you are MGR2118, Page 59, Explanatory Memorandum::::6.4 Cash payments
> The responsible entity intends to make cash payments to Unitholders totalling 3 cents per Unit with
> the first payment to be made in October 2008, the second in December 2008 and thereafter quarterly.




Also note - the rest of the quote should read "it is anticipated that the cash distribution will be a capital repayment". Therefore, it is not income.

Also note - EM page 38 under the heading No Cash Payments, "the responsible entity *anticipates* being in a position to pay 3 cents per unit by way of cash payment by 24 December 2008". That's it.

By the way, if you could bet on the chances of receiving the $50mil SF from Octaviar, I know which way I'd be betting (sfa).

Good on you MGR2118, well said.


----------



## like2ski (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Here you are MGR2118, Page 59, Explanatory Memorandum::::6.4 Cash payments
> The responsible entity intends to make cash payments to Unitholders totalling 3 cents per Unit with
> the first payment to be made in October 2008, the second in December 2008 and thereafter quarterly.




Hi seamisty,
You have omitted to complete the quotes related to payments in the Explanatory Memorandum where it also states that "the responsible entity ANTICIPATES BEING IN A POSITION to make the payments" 
Is this not contradictory? where is the guarantee and can you be sure that it will be implemented? Moreover I think that someone else has already stated that, if WC were genuine in their desire to make cash payments to unit holders, these could be made under the current set up as well,we don't need to change anything i.e. voting N.N.N.


----------



## mgr2118 (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Seamisty,

You have just demonstrated what I have been saying - there are a lot of words, but to the legalistic JH, there is nothing in writing, so she cannot be held accountable (which should be the case as we are paying WC to be accountable) if the payments are not made, for whatever reason.

Surely, WC should be clarifying this issue, rather than leave it to individual telephone calls, or posts to this forum that hold no substance in law.


----------



## Burnt (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

By the way mgr2118 - and anyone else - the PIFI email address is
PIFInitiative@gmail.com
I know they are flat out, but all support is welcome.
Cheers.


----------



## Burnt (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Smokey68 said:


> According to the Constitution,
> 
> All loan establishment fees go to WC
> All loan rollover fees go to WC
> ...




Hi Smokey68, you cracked me up with this one - lol lol lol lol


----------



## Jadel (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Originally Posted by Smokey68  
According to the Constitution,

All loan establishment fees go to WC
All loan rollover fees go to WC
All penalty interest go to WC

All losses go to the PIF.

This is as ugly as a hat full of arseholes.


 Smokey have you got any more of these in your Repertoire mate lol lol


----------



## like2ski (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Octaviar's manager wants more control
> 
> A finance company that took control of the collapsed Octaviar Premium Income fund is trying to change the funds constitution so that it would gain million of dollars if it was removed as manager, reported The Australian newspaper.
> 
> ...




Hi DoraNBoots,
Do you know what the proposed payment to Octaviar by WC is all about??
I've recently become involved in the whole saga and had not heard about this one???


----------



## Jadel (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mgr2118 said:


> Notwithstanding anything else offered or stated when we all first joined the MFS PIF, we all had a clear understanding that:-
> 
> 1.	we would earn regular income (at a defined rate) on money that we put into the MFS PIF,
> 
> ...




MGR 

 You hit the nail on the head mate.

 It takes a thief to catch a thief and it takes a damn good lawyer to stop another one in their tracks and we have one in Kalinda Cobbey


----------



## breaker1 (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

One of the most important parts of that structure that had to be in place was an alternative Responsible Entity. This the NO voter party have NOT done. Its like a cowboy walking up the main street of town for a draw without his gun and then bragging "after the gun fight, I'm gonna shout ya all a drink folks".

Not only have the NO voter party NOT prepared an RE for you, but that non existent RE has NOT SOLD their package to ALL PIF investors.

They have NOT given ALL PIF investors any PDS / memorandum or anything similar to digest, but only if you do want their Secret Squirrel idea's, you'll have to pay them $100 for the privilege. 

Yet, without anything substantial in place for all of us, they are quiet prepared to only get at least 26% of the vote against WC, to shut Jenny down and bugger the consequences for the rest of us. That's reckless!

They don't seem to understand that whatever their shaky agenda is, if successful, ALL PIF investors are going to be dragged into it whether they like it or not, whether we understand their plans or not - and as far as I am concerned THAT'S NOT ON ! 

The NO vote minority party had to have had their package well and truly in place at least 1 month ago FULLY COMPLETED - NOT HALF BAKED - AND FULLY SOLD TO ALL. This they have NOT done. 

NO DEAL TO THE NO PARTY!


----------



## selciper (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Like2Ski -

You thought that my logic was awry when I found fault in a JS statement given to the Australian and that I will nevertheless vote YES YES NO after such an observation. My logic is this: I don't want to walk the plank blindfolded. If there were a potential alternative RE named in this forum, then I would immediately weigh up the choice.


----------



## selciper (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sorry typo in my last post. JS should read JH.


----------



## DoraNBoots (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Voting NO simply means that you do not accept the options presented.  

Those who are talking of replacing the RE at this stage are getting ahead of themselves.  

Has anyone to date put forward a logical, compelling argument for the YES vote based on facts rather than ignorance or fear?


----------



## Burnt (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



like2ski said:


> Hi DoraNBoots,
> Do you know what the proposed payment to Octaviar by WC is all about??
> I've recently become involved in the whole saga and had not heard about this one???




Even though this question was directed to someone else, I'd like to offer an answer.

Wellington bought up all the shares in Octaviar Investment Management Limited (PIF RE) from a wholly owned Octaviar subsidiary and they are due to pay that subsidiary company the purchase price in June 2009. This price is 4 x the net profit of WIM (WIM took on four other funds when purchasing OIM) for the 12 months following the acquisition, + Net Tangible Asset Value of WIM at the end of that 12 mths.

In other words, Wellington will be handing back 4 years worth of management fees to Octaviar. This is why they want to lock themselves in for an indefinite period and be paid a huge exit fee if removed. Considering that all costs are reimbursed to them (even taxes), WIM's net profit would have to equal their management fee.


----------



## Burnt (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Voting NO simply means that you do not accept the options presented.
> 
> Those who are talking of replacing the RE at this stage are getting ahead of themselves.
> 
> Has anyone to date put forward a logical, compelling argument for the YES vote based on facts rather than ignorance or fear?




Exactly DoraNBoots,
People are getting ahead of themselves if they think voting NO means RE has to be replaced.
Voting No means that we can move forward and vote on other options than the restrictive ones WC has put forward.
Again I will state that it is just not possible under the law for the current RE to just walk away. Unitholders get to vote on a replacement RE, and until a new RE is registered with ASIC, the current RE REMAINS THE RE.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Article in The Daily Telegraph today.

-----------------------
*Rebels oppose changes*

Edition: 1 - State
Section: Finance, pg. 105

REBEL investors in the hobbled $750 million Premium Income Fund once controlled by stricken financier MFS have raised objections to planned changes promoted by the current fund operator.

The investors are vehemently opposed to three proposed constitution changes sought by Wellington Investment Management, which is operated by merchant banker Jenny Hutson and took control of the fund in May.

Investor Rachel Carr said yesterday she was one of more than 30 fund clients who have complained the mendments would diminish their rights if approved at a meeting on September 18.

Based on legal advice, these clients dispute the idea that the fund must be liquidated by March 31 with only a 14c on the dollar return unless the amendments are approved by the fund's 10,300 investors.

-------end of article--------


----------



## JohnH (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> Article in The Daily Telegraph today.
> 
> -----------------------
> *Rebels oppose changes*
> ...




u hum!!! :batman:             but we must not be complacent


----------



## seamisty (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sorry you guys,I have been out and as I have so many on ignore on this thread I only have 2 posts to read.I will re-post the article in todays Gold Coast Bulletin as I think it solves the PIF actions group and WC's problem of refuting or resorting to damage control via the media, save us all a lot of time and effort::Wellington faces its Waterloo Nick Nichols 

September 6th, 2008 

ANGRY Premium Income Fund investors are confident they have the numbers to roll Wellington Capital's 'rescue' proposal which goes to a vote in less than two weeks.

Despite Wellington's founder Jenny Hutson revealing this week she had received 97 per cent support from more than 3000 votes counted, PIF Init-iative spokesman Dennis Chapman said large investors still had the numbers to crush the proposal.

The PIF Initiative, a group of investors lobbying against Wellington's plans through an internet campaign, is angry at Wellington's bid to abolish the original responsible entity of the fund -- set up by the defunct MFS (now Octaviar) -- and secure a hefty exit fee in the process.

It also opposes plans to list the fund on the National Stock Exchange.

Mr Chapman said Wellington does not appear to be acting in the best interests of the Premium Income Fund's (PIF) 10,300 investors, many of whom are elderly and have kissed goodbye to the $770 million they invested.

PIF Initiative has approached corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, to investigate, although the nature of the investigation has not been disclosed.

ASIC yesterday declined to comment on specific cases.

PIF Initiative also has sought legal opinion as to whether Wellington Capital is acting in the best interests of investors.

Wellington Capital has called a meeting on the Gold Coast for September 18 to vote on three resolutions that are designed to keep the fund a going concern. 

"A lot of people don't really understand the full ramifications of what (Ms Hutson) is trying to push through," said Mr Chapman.

"All we're after is a fair go."

Although 3000 votes have already been lodged, Mr Chapman yesterday described PIF Initiative's chances of getting remaining investors vote down the proposals as 'pretty good'.

"The top 3000 people will more than cover it," he said.

Wellington needs the backing of 75 per cent of units by value to proceed.

PIF Initiative is concerned on a number of fronts, including the 14c per unit valuation put forward by Wellington for a liquidation of the fund.

The fund is said to be valued at 45c a unit as a going concern.

Mr Chapman said he believed 45c a unit could be achieved through an orderly sell-off of assets, giving investors the chance to retrieve more of their funds over a quicker timeframe, and he would like to see an independent responsible entity take over the task of doing so.

Wellington Capital has estimated it will take three to five years to restore full value to investors.

"But a lot of these (investors) are elderly people," said Mr Chapman.

"Half of them won't be around in five years. That's the sad part."

Mr Chapman said a promised 3c distribution to investors by December was a major incentive being used by Wellington Capital.

But he said this would be a repayment of capital, rather than payment from profits.

It also would be a trigger for Wellington Capital to be paid ongoing management fees for the fund.

PIF Initiative is opposed to an NSX listing for the fund.

A rush of sellers is expected to push the price of units down to about 10c each, it said.

Mr Chapman said this would be the worst outcome for elderly investors who needed to sell immediately.

Mr Chapman, once a comfortable self-funded retiree, invested about $1.25 million in the failed MFS empire, with about $200,000 in PIF.

"I'm doing it tough like you wouldn't believe, but there are lot more people who are far worse off than me," he said.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> All I am giving WC at present is the Ok to demostrate her abilities, unhindered, that have already been recognised by being awarded Queensland Business Woman of the year 2007. I trawled the net for days looking for any information that would deter me from going with WC and found nothing but praise for the woman!!! If there was one skerrick of scandal or wrong doing it would have been plastered all over this thread by all and sundry. The other opportunities waiting to present themselves are heavily disguised and too slow off the mark. It's too late, the majority off investors have made their decision, many from as far back as the forums where they were satisfied with what they saw and were prepared to accept whatever was put to them from WC. At least I can recognize a dead horse when I see one. Seamisty:horse:






Seamisty, this is what the Courier Mail reported on the 21/10/06 after the announcement of the MFS and S8 merger.

------excerpt of article by Melissa Maugeri (p. 78 Courier Mail, 21/10/06)-------

Ms Hutson said a successful completion of the MFS deal would see investors who have put in $1 get a return of more than $10 in five years.

``If shareholders want to stay for the ride they can, and if they want to cash in their chips they've been on an  extraordinary adventure,'' she said.

-------------end of excerpt-------------

 A case of deja vu perhaps??


----------



## newwwtrader (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Voting NO simply means that you do not accept the options presented.
> 
> Those who are talking of replacing the RE at this stage are getting ahead of themselves.
> 
> Has anyone to date put forward a logical, compelling argument for the YES vote based on facts rather than ignorance or fear?






THIS IS EXACTLY RIGHT!!!!!!

A no vote does not rid the PIF of WC. Anyone who says that in order to vote no, you essentially need to have a new RE waiting in the wings is, in my opinion just spreading false and baseless information. All it is doing is trying to scare those who are teetering towards the yes vote.

WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS WRONG.

The only thing worse than what WC is doing to investors in the PIF, is those that allow WC to do it.

I dont know whether to feel sad or angry to those that wish to vote yes. Im sad, that many feel that this is you're only option. Im sad that you have been so easily misled. But Im also angry for the same reasons. Weird isnt it!!


----------



## seamisty (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have heard that there is approx 30 paid up subscribers to the QLD PIFI and they are  encouraging some  to post anti WC on this thread. I would hope this is not the case  as it means some  are not taking them seriously and using them to further their agenda  to promote  the liquidation of the PIF. I have also heard some are looking to recoup their expenses for stamps and other costs involved in promoting the wind up of the fund. My information is only received from confused elderly investors looking for direction from some one they trust who has never done anything more than give an unbiased opinion as to which way they should vote. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> Seamisty, this is what the Courier Mail reported on the 21/10/06 after the announcement of the MFS and S8 merger.
> 
> ------excerpt of article by Melissa Maugeri (p. 78 Courier Mail, 21/10/06)-------
> 
> ...



Well I can tell u I was part of that extraordinary adventure and took advantage of the ride!!!! I made $600,000 after I cashed in my chips!!! Maybe some of us are smarter than others and can recognise a winner when we see one. But don't listen to a winner, go with the losers and wear the consequenses. Seamisty


----------



## Juan Mortyme (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Well I can tell u I was part of that extraordinary adventure and took advantage of the ride!!!! I made $600,000 after I cashed in my chips!!! Maybe some of us are smarter than others and can recognise a winner when we see one. But don't listen to a winner, go with the losers and wear the consequenses. Seamisty




But you are one of the unfortunate investors in OCV shares, no?


----------



## seamisty (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



newwwtrader said:


> THIS IS EXACTLY RIGHT!!!!!!
> 
> A no vote does not rid the PIF of WC. Anyone who says that in order to vote no, you essentially need to have a new RE waiting in the wings is, in my opinion just spreading false and baseless information. All it is doing is trying to scare those who are teetering towards the yes vote.
> 
> ...



You will feel both, sad and angry when you realise you could have done much better than the possible maximum 45cent gross before all expenses have been deducted to wind up the fund and you receive the pittance left over 4 or 5 years down the track. Fortunately for you this won't happen because there is a lot more smarter unit holders in this fund  than a minority group of people who are willing to coerce a few vulnerable investors to prop up their ultimate aim of liquidating the fund. Seamisty


----------



## Juan Mortyme (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> Seamisty, this is what the Courier Mail reported on the 21/10/06 after the announcement of the MFS and S8 merger.
> 
> ------excerpt of article by Melissa Maugeri (p. 78 Courier Mail, 21/10/06)-------
> 
> ...






seamisty said:


> Well I can tell u I was part of that extraordinary adventure and took advantage of the ride!!!! I made $600,000 after I cashed in my chips!!! Maybe some of us are smarter than others and can recognise a winner when we see one. But don't listen to a winner, go with the losers and wear the consequenses. Seamisty




Seamisty,  you sure JH wasn't implying that the $1 would turn to $10 after 5 years of the MFS deal (i.e.2011) ?
I'm sure her friend CS probably thought so because he didn't cash in his chips!!


----------



## seamisty (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> But you are one of the unfortunate investors in OCV shares, no?



No way !!!I sold out at the peak and  do not hold any OCV shares but have genuine sympathy with those who got caught holding and who are unit holders. That is why I can not believe a few are prepared to take another huge loss when there is a potential to do bettter by staying long term with the PIF fund . Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> Seamisty,  you sure JH wasn't implying that the $1 would turn to $10 after 5 years of the MFS deal (i.e.2011) ?
> I'm sure her friend CS probably thought so because he didn't cash in his chips!!



Well I rest my case, I was a tad smarter than others!!!


----------



## Burnt (6 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Well I can tell u I was part of that extraordinary adventure and took advantage of the ride!!!! I made $600,000 after I cashed in my chips!!! Maybe some of us are smarter than others and can recognise a winner when we see one. But don't listen to a winner, go with the losers and wear the consequenses. Seamisty




Hi Seamisty,
In regards to your post 2422, some might regard these statements as "hearsay". The only agenda I can see put forward by NO voters, is to promote the existing rights of unit holders and to encourage them to exercise these rights to have better options open to them. Also, in response to your comments :-
Anti WC postings - no,  anti WC proposals,
Agenda - hmmmmm...the way I see it, voting yes to WC's proposals gives wealthy investors the opportunity to make a profit by buying up cheap units on the NSX at the expense of existing unit holders (including desperate, confused elderly investors).
Unbiased Opinion - hhmmmm....refer above comment and above quote from you.


----------



## seamisty (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Anyway, it is quite obvious some have decided they are prepared to quit the PIF fund and be total losers, ok , thats your choice, I have wasted far too much time debating  this with you. I have also had the opportunity to debate with some really sensible, patient investors and I am sure they wll be rewarded long term for demonsrating  common sense and taking the only sensible option provided. It doesn't seem to matter that they are elderly, they still have their wits about them and are simply not prepared to wipe out more than half their original investment. by voting for any form of wind up. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If some posters do not get a response, my time is limited and please just accept you are on ignore.Seamisty:horse:


----------



## Juan Mortyme (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> All I am giving WC at present is the Ok to demostrate her abilities, unhindered, that have already been recognised by being awarded Queensland Business Woman of the year 2007. I trawled the net for days looking for any information that would deter me from going with WC and found nothing but praise for the woman!!! If there was one skerrick of scandal or wrong doing it would have been plastered all over this thread by all and sundry. The other opportunities waiting to present themselves are heavily disguised and too slow off the mark. It's too late, the majority off investors have made their decision, many from as far back as the forums where they were satisfied with what they saw and were prepared to accept whatever was put to them from WC. At least I can recognize a dead horse when I see one. Seamisty:horse:




Seamisty,

It looks like JH didn't spot the dead horse on time.

Here's an excerpt of what was written in the Courier Mail by Anthony Marx on 5/9/06.  (note the quote by your goddess JH)

----start of excerpt------------------
ACQUISITIVE Gold Coast funds management group MFS has launched its most audacious takeover bid to date in a $700 million scheme to absorb fast-growing travel and accommodation group S8.

The friendly merger announced yesterday would create Queensland's seventh largest company, valued at more than $1.7 billion and placing it among the country's top 150 firms.

``This is a coming of age for MFS. We're excited by that. It's enormous for Queensland. I think it's huge,'' S8 chairwoman Jenny Hutson said.

MFS managing director Phil Adams described the deal as ``a win-win situation for both businesses''.

-------end of excerpt---------

Not very insightful from her wouldn't you say?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't JH also serving as deputy chair of the MFS board after the MFS/S8 merger?


----------



## Burnt (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

To Juan Mortyme (like the name),

Your research skills are great. Good Stuff !!!! Guess I'm on the "ignore" list. lol


----------



## Rance (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> To Juan Mortyme (like the name)




Yeah, a great name Juan. Wish i'd thought of it...  then i wouldn't be so Rancid!

Rance


----------



## Juan Mortyme (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> All I am giving WC at present is the Ok to demostrate her abilities, unhindered, that have already been recognised by being awarded Queensland Business Woman of the year 2007. I trawled the net for days looking for any information that would deter me from going with WC and found nothing but praise for the woman!!! If there was one skerrick of scandal or wrong doing it would have been plastered all over this thread by all and sundry. The other opportunities waiting to present themselves are heavily disguised and too slow off the mark. It's too late, the majority off investors have made their decision, many from as far back as the forums where they were satisfied with what they saw and were prepared to accept whatever was put to them from WC. At least I can recognize a dead horse when I see one. Seamisty:horse:




Seamisty,
I guess it's nothing but praise that you've found on the web because you've probably just been reading what's posted on their website (I don't think I've seen a website where their founder or CEO is so conceited of themselves).

After the MFS debacle, I don't think they'll bother posting the following from the Courier Mail by Anthony Marx (9/9/06, p. 80)

------excerpt of article-------

*``Combining the MFS and S8 businesses will allow an acceleration of the growth of both companies,'' S8 chairwoman Jenny Hutson says.*  The deal takes MFS a long way towards its goal of having about $5 billion in assets by the middle of next year. And like a hungry shark on the prowl, the company is widely tipped to push on with its buying spree.

``We expect MFS to continue targeting niche, scaleable acquisitions in the sub-$200 million range for its various vehicles and trusts, which (are) supported by its extensive retail network of around 42,000 investors,'' say ABN Amro Morgans analysts Fiona Buchanan and Belinda Moore.

While it's not clear what companies may be in MFS's sights, the company is likely to continue devouring assets for its three main divisions of funds management, tourism and structured finance.

MFS has already signalled the S8 deal dovetails nicely with plans to establish a new managed vehicle for its Stella Resorts Group, which includes the high-profile BreakFree, Peppers and Bale brands.

The combined group will have more than a dozen tourism brands, including Harvey World Travel, Sheraton Mirage and Outrigger resorts.

Most analysts concluded this week that there are strategic benefits for MFS by dramatically expanding its stock of holiday accommodation and gaining access to S8's distribution network, the most notable of which is travel agency chain Harvey World Travel.

But many stressed that MFS was taking a significant gamble that S8 had adequately integrated and consolidated the four travel companies it has gobbled up in less than a year. A Macquarie Bank client note described it as ``a big bet''.

-------end of excerpt------

I guess you have 600,000 reasons for feeling great for spotting the dead horse on time and that you didn't listen to JH.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

For those with short memories.

-------------------start of article-------------------------
*MFS clinches S8 deal*
   by Nick Nichols business editor
    Gold Coast Bulletin, The; 12/12/2006

Section: Business, pg. 027

IT was a cliffhanger to the end, but MFS last night secured the last few shares it needed to push its $700 million takeover of fellow Gold Coaster S8 over the line.

The financial services group has all but completed its acquisition of the apartment management company after receiving acceptances for more than 95 per cent of S8's shares.

By noon yesterday, acceptances were just shy of the mark, with MFS controlling just 85.5 per cent of stock.

A last-minute plea by S8 urging shareholders to accept the offer helped seal the takeover.

``Shareholders, optionholders and noteholders have voted with their feet,'' said S8 chairperson Jenny Hutson yesterday.

``There has been overwhelming support for the offer.''

The deal was thrown into disarray last month when the James Packer-backed Challenger Financial Services Group rejected the MFS offer for its S8 convertible notes as inadequate.

Challenger controlled the lion's share of notes, at 50.1 per cent, and about 7.5 per cent of the shares in S8.

The takeover was conditional on acceptance of 90 per cent of both the convertible notes and shares.

The deal received a last-minute reprieve last week when S8 founder Chris Scott decided `for the greater good' to forgo some of his entitlements to the deal, effectively sacrificing a whopping $20 million in the process.

Challenger has since accepted, but stragglers yesterday made for some anxious moments for the principle players in the deal.

MFS had originally offered 1.15 of its shares for each S8 share, or alternatively, one MFS share plus 70c cash for each S8 share.

It was offering one MFS note, 14 warrants and a cash payment equal to the amount of any accrued interest on the S8 note up to the issue date of the MFS scrip.

The revised offer, which helped get the deal over the line, was for one MFS note, 14 warrants, 0.94 MFS shares, $12 cash and a further cash payment equal to the unpaid interest for each note. S8 managing director Chris Scott was a relieved man yesterday.

He paid tribute to the company's chairperson for her 11th-hour push to secure the numbers.

``Jenny Hutson did a magnificent job,'' he said.

``She rounded up the troops.''

MFS began the day with acceptances for 85 per cent of S8 shares, 71 per cent of the company's options and 74 per cent of convertible notes.

By late afternoon, it had 95.2 per cent of the shares and 92 per cent of the convertible notes.

The company can now move to compulsorily acquire the remaining shares in S8.

-------------------end of article-------------------

Well that's what happened just over a year and a half ago. Shareholders were told to accept.  They did and what happened to the shares some 13 months later?  
Deja vu ?


----------



## like2ski (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I have heard that there is approx 30 paid up subscribers to the QLD PIFI and they are  encouraging some  to post anti WC on this thread. I would hope this is not the case  as it means some  are not taking them seriously and using them to further their agenda  to promote  the liquidation of the PIF. I have also heard some are looking to recoup their expenses for stamps and other costs involved in promoting the wind up of the fund. My information is only received from confused elderly investors looking for direction from some one they trust who has never done anything more than give an unbiased opinion as to which way they should vote. Seamisty




Hi seamisty,
Well done.. give yourself a pat on the back for giving your unbiased opinion LOL??? 
I have spoken to PIFI (by the way its not the Qld. PIFI, all members throughout Australia are welcome to join so it could be called Aus.PIFI)
and can assure you that no one encouraged me to post in any particular way nor did they promote the liquidation of the PIF. That is only one option as has been repeatedly stated on here. You just had to throw that  in didn't you!!!! There are o
Moreover,the PIFI members have been spending their own money to fund the only constructive initiative (putting their money where their mouths are) which is more that can be said about some other members on here) and are simply covering the LEGAL and other expenses incurred which is only fair.
Should protracted legal action be undertaken to maximise returns for unit holders, who is supposed to cover the costs??? they can't take moneys from the PIF like WC can. Do you expect the few to pay for, and carry the rest of us?.
Furthermore,I am skeptical that the alledged comments are coming from  confused elderly investors. Could they be from some mischievous individual/s ????
In fact, if they are coming from elderly investors, it would only be ethical for you and others to provide really unbiased opinions/options to achieve the best outcomes.


----------



## Sean K (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I have heard that there is approx 30 paid up subscribers to the QLD PIFI and they are  encouraging some  to post anti WC on this thread. Seamisty



Who are these people? If this is a 'rumour', please refrain from posting such. If it has any foundation, please provide evidence. Talk such as this is not helpful to your position. kennas


----------



## seamisty (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



kennas said:


> Who are these people? If this is a 'rumour', please refrain from posting such. If it has any foundation, please provide evidence. Talk such as this is not helpful to your position. kennas



I am sorry kennas I can not provide any evidence without breaching confidentiality, so I will be more carefull of what I post in the future. Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Originally Posted by seamisty  
I have heard that there is approx 30 paid up subscribers to the QLD PIFI and they are encouraging some to post anti WC on this thread. Seamisty




kennas said:


> Who are these people? If this is a 'rumour', please refrain from posting such. If it has any foundation, please provide evidence. Talk such as this is not helpful to your position. kennas




  Seamisty 

    Please tell me who these people are ???

   I can state to you categorically that in fact the opposite is the case we have been advised not to even post on this site , because in the larger scheme of things whatever is posted here is not going to make the slightest difference.


----------



## JohnH (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



kennas said:


> Who are these people? If this is a 'rumour', please refrain from posting such. If it has any foundation, please provide evidence. Talk such as this is not helpful to your position. kennas





Kennas, please see post 2417 - It was evidently quoted in the Telegraph


----------



## Sean K (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Kennas, please see post 2417 - It was evidently quoted in the Telegraph



Thanks for that. Apologies for insinuation, just quite wary of 'rumors'....Carry on...


----------



## DoraNBoots (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



kennas said:


> Thanks for that. Apologies for insinuation, just quite wary of 'rumors'....Carry on...




Hi Kennas, 
Thanks for looking at this.  The post JohnH referred to does not support Seamisty's statements.  Can you please clean up these posts as they can not be supported by fact.

The article just says there are 30 unit holders who are taking action against WC not that they've been told to get on this forum and post rubbish as Seamisty is claiming.


----------



## Mary Lynch (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A couple of questions...If we are getting distributions out of our capital, as of course we will have to be...and JH says we won't get taxed on it....if we are not paying tax, surely we should have our units reduced in leiu of the distribution....how can we have our cake and eat it too?

Also, is it possible that the Christmas dist. will be an up front payment, and then the following payment...in arrears ...not to come for 6 months?

People continue to talk about the support facility; I thought that all business with LLA was finished with the $44M being paid over the next 3 years, is it not?  Therefore there will be no special distribution.

Dora...you talk of ignorance and fear being our basis for voting yes....well even with having read every post on this thread, and getting my hands on everything I can to become less "ignorant", I am still in the dark as to what the years ahead hold economically, and fearful of letting the "bird in the hand go"...especially as as I said before "better the devil you know, than the devil you don't know".


----------



## great dame (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> A couple of questions...If we are getting distributions out of our capital, as of course we will have to be...and JH says we won't get taxed on it....if we are not paying tax, surely we should have our units reduced in leiu of the distribution....how can we have our cake and eat it too?
> 
> Also, is it possible that the Christmas dist. will be an up front payment, and then the following payment...in arrears ...not to come for 6 months?
> 
> ...



     Mary i realy would say a yes vote would be a vote for the devil that you dont know  / Dane //


----------



## seamisty (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> A couple of questions...If we are getting distributions out of our capital, as of course we will have to be...and JH says we won't get taxed on it....if we are not paying tax, surely we should have our units reduced in leiu of the distribution....how can we have our cake and eat it too?
> 
> Also, is it possible that the Christmas dist. will be an up front payment, and then the following payment...in arrears ...not to come for 6 months?
> 
> ...



Mary It is my understanding the support facility is  part of the $44 million so approx 1/4 of that when it is received if that is what has been negotiated will be distributed to unit holders.The quarterly payments will commence in Mar 2009 I believe.Seamisty


----------



## great dame (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty  I would like you to answer this question for us all as you seen to be a fan of JH  Just what is JH investing performance over say the last three / five / 10 years  the average annual total returns  etc    In other words her track record on investing for clients   I asked this question yesterday on the forum  still waiting for an answer   / Dane //


----------



## JohnH (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Seamisty  I would like you to answer this question for us all as you seen to be a fan of JH  Just what is JH investing performance over say the last three / five / 10 years  the average annual total returns  etc    In other words her track record on investing for clients   I asked this question yesterday on the forum  still waiting for an answer   / Dane //




Dane, Increasing the Market Capitalisation of S8 from $25M to $700M in 6 years was no mean achievement!


----------



## Smokey68 (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

What is the value of S8 now or the value of the company that took over S8?


----------



## great dame (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Dane, Increasing the Market Capitalisation of S8 from $25M to $700M in 6 years was no mean achievement!



         The questain i asked is still unanswered       Seamisty i cant hold my breath for ever  Please read post 2447     / Dane //


----------



## great dame (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty  could you tell us all the names of Stockbrokers that are giving for casts  for the fund if it becomes listed  I as a market investor would love to know who they are & what they are for casting   & don't say ring WC  i tried them  had no luck there   I hope i am not kicking a dead horse asking questions like this  / Dane //


----------



## great dame (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Something to think about.   For those folk who wish to leave the fund . If the yes vote gets up  they may get between 10 & 15 cents on the exchange . If the no vote gets up they could  probably  get 50 cents  plus payed over 2 years  in  installments.  As i said something to think about  / Dane //


----------



## Sean K (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi Kennas,
> Thanks for looking at this.  The post JohnH referred to does not support Seamisty's statements.  Can you please clean up these posts as they can not be supported by fact.
> 
> The article just says there are 30 unit holders who are taking action against WC not that they've been told to get on this forum and post rubbish as Seamisty is claiming.



Thanks Dora,

JohnH and Seamisty, please come clean, or some cred will be lost.

There seems to be a lot of back door motivation permeating throughout this thread.

Already, 3 people have been banned for operating multiple accounts. 

Let's not have to suspend anyone else for false accusations, or intentionally misrepresenting the facts.

Cheers,
Kennas


----------



## JohnH (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



kennas said:


> Who are these people? If this is a 'rumour', please refrain from posting such. If it has any foundation, please provide evidence. Talk such as this is not helpful to your position. kennas






kennas said:


> Thanks Dora,
> 
> JohnH and Seamisty, please come clean, or some cred will be lost.
> 
> ...




Sorry Kennas (and other readers)

I was merely quoting the source of "30 people".  With regards to the reporting of their "actions" I think Seamisty has apologised and explained in post #2439


----------



## seamisty (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



kennas said:


> Thanks Dora,
> 
> JohnH and Seamisty, please come clean, or some cred will be lost.
> 
> ...



Kennas I have already stated the source for the information was confidential, the content was not, and I apologised. I respect peoples confidentiality when asked for, I have dozens of confidential e-mails regarding the issues debated on this thread, some from those requesting me to break the confidence of another. Rather than cause serious disruptions to the thread and cause possible embarassment to several and risk losing my source I will not breach any confidences. Perhaps there are some who are deliberately stirring, I don't know.  The name of the contact could even be false, I don't know.It is quite obvious there are some taking extreme measures to keep their identity hidden.  There are two complete separate agendas here and it has already been demonstrated how much confusion was  created when the media article in the AFR reportedly got the name of  the group they were representing wrong. Credibility has already been lost. You must admit though, this would be amongst the more lively and interesting threads, never a dull day!  Seamisty


----------



## Sean K (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> You must admit though, this would be amongst the more lively and interesting threads, never a dull day!  Seamisty



Yes, but there's some serious issues at stake. 

Personally, I don't care if it's interesting. ASF prides itself on facts, figures, justification, analysis, and credibility. Any misleading information, or rumours without reference, or some sort of justification to back them up, usually gets deleted. 

If you can not provide a reference, or facts to back up a claim, your information can not be taken credibly.


----------



## ian1328 (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

When I spoke to WC last week I asked them of their current performance and was told that their existing customers receive 8.5% interest. Sounds good to me and worth a YYN vote. Is it possible that some people on this forum are jealous of JH's success? I wonder.


----------



## judym (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I attended the investor forum in Sydney and carefully read all the documentation regarding PIF. I have 20 years experience trading in shares. I have not read and am not interested in the newspaper articles.
My understanding is that Wellington is offering unit holders a new management, a venue to withdraw from the fund (via part buyback and then units sale), some income and a possibility of a pick up in value when market conditions improve.

The only other option available is to allow a liquidation which to me means money in the pockets of more lawyers and zilch for me, the unit holder. We also know that this is the worst time to offload realestate.
Just to clarify a few points raised on this thread:
the support facility was with MFiaSco, now Octaviar, not with LLA.
The proposed constitution requires 4 persons and 51% units on issue to remove wellington. I can't see any problem with this. The chair is a person and unit holders can give him/her their proxies. If at all this is too easy, most funds require 75% votes to remove a manager.


----------



## DoraNBoots (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



judym said:


> ...
> The proposed constitution requires 4 persons and 51% units on issue to remove wellington. I can't see any problem with this. The chair is a person and unit holders can give him/her their proxies. If at all this is too easy, most funds require 75% votes to remove a manager.



You seemed to be confused about the meaning of the word quorum.  The quorum is the number of units which need to be represented for a meeting\vote to be valid.  It's not the percentage needed to win the vote.

The current constitution and the standard rule in the Corporations Act is for the quorum to be only 2 people.  It's a huge change to modify this to at least 4 people who represent 51% of units.  BTW In the Corp Act the quorum must be present within 30 minutes of the meeting starting, but again WC want to change this to 15 mins.  I have not come across any change which doesn’t restrict unit holder’s rights.


----------



## Maverick2802 (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We have so many rights as investors under the current MFS constitution. Yet what have they given us? What as investors have we done with those rights? We have not even been able to organise a united front by means of a nationwide association. 

Please don't tell me PIFI is one. A group that comprises of 30 Queensland investors (per the Telegraph) that has received a bit of legal advice from a solicitor that has admitted to investors (one of them being another Sydney solicitor and member of the Sydney AG) at the WC Sydney forum that Jenny Hutson is a good RE and that we could do far worse.

With all the rights we have under the current RE we have been robbed by MFS, we have not received any income for nearly a year and nothing from the support facility that was there in black and white in the constitution to protect our rights. Lucky we have all these rights in the constitution that if tampered with ASIC would come down hard on MFS..helped me sleep well at night, till of course it was time to see how much real protection was really there. Well we all know the answer to that!

I want income again, forget so much protection. Money pays the bills, not words in a constitution. Action means more than any words on a piece of paper written up by lawyers and then not honoured when push came to shove. WC has at least 2 funds operating and in the Sydney forums she mention when asked one was paying 8.5% and another close or over 10% for memory. JH has her own money invested in both, and doing quite nicely for her investors. That would do me too as far as action goes from the 2007 QLD business woman of the year.


----------



## Burnt (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> Dora...you talk of ignorance and fear being our basis for voting yes....well even with having read every post on this thread, and getting my hands on everything I can to become less "ignorant", I am still in the dark as to what the years ahead hold economically, and fearful of letting the "bird in the hand go"...especially as as I said before "better the devil you know, than the devil you don't know".




Hi Mary Lynch,

The questions you posed were very valid ones and good on you for doing the research you have done.

Unfortunately, some people have so far only had access to the misleading documents sent out by Wellington, which has lead them to be fearful of opposing her propositions, even though these propositions are a long way off from what they want. 

I think everyone would have to say they are "in the dark" as to what the years ahead hold economically, we can each only make our own assumptions.
However, I think you are quite right in being "fearful of letting the bird in the hand go". In my opinion the "bird in the hand" that we currently hold is a (plundered) managed investment fund (not a listed fund) that has a constitution which affords us investors with rights and abilities. I too am very fearful of letting this bird go.
Cheers


----------



## Jadel (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

.Judym  for a person with twenty years trading in the markets  you are remarkably naive .

 Would you please inform investors how you trade The NSX with an average of 3.5 trades a day and a buy sell brokers commission of 5%

 That is not a trading platform mate it is just a place where vultures perch to feed of the desperate and sick 

 Also Consider this the  Amendment in the Constitution  states you require a Quarom with 51%of the TOTAL AVAILABLE unit holders to change the RE

 Not 51% of the investors that vote (,normally the people that do not vote are not taken into consideration )

Now their is always that apathetic minority probably in the range of 20% to 30% who will not bother to lift a finger to vote for anything in this life

Under these rules it will be just about impossible to remove WC 

 A fact that Jenny Huson is all to aware of that is why she hid this amendment in the Constitution . 

 I do not think i am revealing any secrets when our solicitot Kalinda Cobby described these changes as onerous and i suggest that investors read our legal opinion mailtoIFInitiative@gmail.com

 And Maverick  mate i am pleased to inform you are numbers are growing stronger every day.


----------



## Burnt (7 September 2008)

*Re: PIFI*

As far as I am aware, PIFI is not a group restricted to Qld. They don't call themselves PIFI Qld !!! I am also of the understanding that they have invited ALL Unit holders throughout Aust. to participate in the group. Also, they don't appear to be critising JH personally.

PIFInitiative@gmail.com

As far as the past actions of MFS go, if investors had of been made aware of what was going on with the Fund, i.e. full disclosure at the time it was happening, perhaps investors would have had the chance to exercise their rights under the constitution. If you are not given all the facts at the appropriate time, it is hard to act effectively to protect your interests, e.g. what is happening right now.

It is good to hear that the funds WC are currently operating are performing well. Have the assets of these funds been plundered ? Are these funds listed on the NSX ? I'm sure that JH has full access to her money when she wants to redeem it. Why shouldn't we have this too ?


----------



## Maverick2802 (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I can't wait to get my PIFI information that was sent to the supposed top 2700 investors last Friday.

If it gives me the name of a suitable RE that has done due diligence of our fund and will give us a 3c payment before Christmas and then payment every quarter after that while still maintaining rights as per the MFS constitution my fear that WC has instilled in me may dissipate.

I am sure this newly created association of 30 will do enough to sway the minds for the remaining top 2700 investors with 7 figure dollar values at stake to go with a no vote within a week. 

I have just watched the "300" DVD and I am psyched. It's not a matter of the quantity of troops. It's all about your strategy to combat an army with extraordinarily larger numbers than your own. So I am sure the PIFI stategy will be nothing short of brilliant. Just say no, we will work the rest out later!


----------



## Jadel (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Maverick 

 I did not watch the DVD but i bet JH did not put in the bit where the majority of investors pleaded with her not to be listed on the NSX

  But keep trying mate you would make a good advertising executive


----------



## Maverick2802 (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If the anti-NSX stance is the strategy PIFI will be pushing the top 2700 investors, I feel you will be in a bit of a dilemma.

The NSX is the least of the problems for the top tier investors, they have the most cash. They will have the highest levels of financial resilience. They would probably welcome the NSX in the hope that your gloomy 10-20c trading prediction, to buy up and make up possible loses. Not that I feel there will be many selling at these levels, that is just scare mongering or wishful thinking depending on what side of the fence you are at.

Oh dear, I think you have sent 2700 letters to the wrong end of town. Get that printer out and start lickin' them stamps. If you start now and work through the night it may just reach the right people that you should be targetting by vote day. Though I fear it may a tad late..maybe just crack a new case of the red stuff and enjoy father's day. Happy father's day!!!


----------



## Burnt (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

TO THE MODERATORS,

It's a shame that some people have to resort to childish critisisms and meaningless dribble to try to discourage well meaning and hard working people who are doing their best to achieve the fairest and most beneficial outcome for everyone.

I would hope that the moderators of this thread would put a stop to people whose only posts on this thread are vicious and childish attacks. They offer no facts or substantiated information - only verbal abuse.

I have been subjected to very personal critisism in the past and would like to see it stopped before they stoop to this level again.
Please ban them from submitting such uninformative and abusive rubbish.

Thank you


----------



## like2ski (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> TO THE MODERATORS,
> 
> It's a shame that some people have to resort to childish critisisms and meaningless dribble to try to discourage well meaning and hard working people who are doing their best to achieve the fairest and most beneficial outcome for everyone.
> 
> ...




TO THE MODERATORS
I entirely agree with Burnt and urge you to ban the uninformative, abusive rubbish & dribble


----------



## Maverick2802 (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If you delete all the uninformative posts based on only speculation, theory, dislike of WC, opinion, scaremongering and dribble. There would be very few posts left indeed.

We are all investors that have been caught up in this mess created by others who we trusted with our hard earned money.

It now comes down to those that wish to move forward with an RE that has an existing business dealing with funds under management or to liquidate the fund.

How many people here have been involved in a liquidation of a company where the investors or creditors walk away with happy memories? That is a fact. The losses are heart wrenchingly real, I have seen a few in my time, and they devastate the lives of many for the rest of their lives.

I would hate for this to happen to PIF investors, especially since the majority are elderly and will not have a chance to make it back via hard work. 

Just because I and many others come on a public forum and state we will vote yes to WC, doesn't mean we have anything against the no voters, we just don't agree with you and feel just as passionate for our cause and our money as you do.

I apologise to those who I might have offended in past posts, let's be adults and move on. Just know that not all posts can be fact as all the facts that at least we know have come out. This is a place of discussion of what may happen given certain circumstances..that's what internet forums are all about and what has made this thread so colorful.


----------



## like2ski (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> If the anti-NSX stance is the strategy PIFI will be pushing the top 2700 investors, I feel you will be in a bit of a dilemma.
> 
> The NSX is the least of the problems for the top tier investors, they have the most cash. They will have the highest levels of financial resilience. They would probably welcome the NSX in the hope that your gloomy 10-20c trading prediction, to buy up and make up possible loses. Not that I feel there will be many selling at these levels, that is just scare mongering or wishful thinking depending on what side of the fence you are at.
> 
> Oh dear, I think you have sent 2700 letters to the wrong end of town. Get that printer out and start lickin' them stamps. If you start now and work through the night it may just reach the right people that you should be targetting by vote day. Though I fear it may a tad late..maybe just crack a new case of the red stuff and enjoy father's day. Happy father's day!!!




Maverick2802,
I have recently joined this forum and note with interest your endless bagging of the recently formed PIFI. 
Can you please, at least, explain your reasons for such behavior? is there some history/background between you and these people? are you behaving like a sore looser? are you just a spoiler?
In the absence of a better alternative on offer can you please enlighten us mere investors as to your far superior and more effective solution to resolve the problems?? In some of your posts you have been boringly repeating that the PIFI should propose the name of an alternative RE. 
For all I know they may not wish to change the RE or may already have one!!, but in any case as they have recently formed and would have a lot on their plate right now. If you are available why don't you offer to help instead of bagging them with your meaningless dribble.
You and other holders had plenty of time and opportunity to create/organize/structure something far better for all investors Australia wide by getting off your backsides months earlier. YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE IT!!!


----------



## Burnt (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Posters on this forum who are supportive of a NNN vote have mostly backed up their view with facts - facts that exist within the Funds own Constitution as well as the Corporations Act. If the NNN vote succeeds, it does not mean that the Fund will be forced into liquidation - this is a fact. Unit holders will be entitled to hold a meeting to vote on other proposed resolutions, one of which could be liquidation, which I'm sure would get an overwhelming NO vote.

It is also a fact (under Corporations Act) that the RE cannot walk away from the Fund if they don't get the outcome that suits them. It is a fact - no one at this stage has to have another RE waiting in the wings before we act to obtain other alternatives.

No one is for liquidation. We have just stated the facts that Wellington has only provided very limited options, neither of which is acceptable to a lot of unit holders. This is a fact. We want other options and are willing to fight for them.

Of course we all have our own opinions and views, and discussion and debate based on fact is the purpose of this thread. I have not yet seen one example of No supporters personally attacking or abusing anyone with opposing views. There is no need to resort to this when you have facts, logic and a sense of fairness on your side.


----------



## Maverick2802 (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



like2ski said:


> Maverick2802,
> I have recently joined this forum and note with interest your endless bagging of the recently formed PIFI.
> Can you please, at least, explain your reasons for such behavior? is there some history/background between you and these people? are you behaving like a sore looser? are you just a spoiler?
> In the absence of a better alternative on offer can you please enlighten us mere investors as to your far superior and more effective solution to resolve the problems?? In some of your posts you have been boringly repeating that the PIFI should propose the name of an alternative RE.
> ...




Sorry, I and many other investors on this forum don't believe that the liquidation of this fund is the way to go. If my posts are boring because I believe that PIFI is a wreckless minority organisation and wish to protect my hard earned unit holding from people who wish to liquidate, then don't read them.

I take offence to you calling my opinion as dribble because it does not match your own opinion. The fact is that JH has categorically stated she is not interested in liquidating this fund according to PIFI requests. Where does that leave us with NO RE to manage it. So I, and many others feel that no RE is of paramount importance. That is why I am highly critical of the PIFI agenda, how can you call it 'structured' if they want to put $755m of potential unit funds in the hands of an unnamed RE that has done NO diligence and has NO idea of the understanding and health of this fund.

I want my rights protected, but more importantly in the short term I do not want liquidation and not one of you can guarantee that the no vote will not bring liquidation of our money and that scares me more than NSX and a change in constitution that at this point has proved absolutely fruitless.


----------



## Burnt (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Posters on this forum who are supportive of a NNN vote have mostly backed up their view with facts - facts that exist within the Funds own Constitution as well as the Corporations Act. If the NNN vote succeeds, it does not mean that the Fund will be forced into liquidation - this is a fact. Unit holders will be entitled to hold a meeting to vote on other proposed resolutions, one of which could be liquidation, which I'm sure would get an overwhelming NO vote.
> 
> It is also a fact (under Corporations Act) that the RE cannot walk away from the Fund if they don't get the outcome that suits them. It is a fact - no one at this stage has to have another RE waiting in the wings before we act to obtain other alternatives.
> 
> ...




Post Again


----------



## Maverick2802 (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Fact: Jenny Hutson does not want an orderly wind up.

Fact: There is no RE in place if WC resigns, I don't want this whole process to start again with an ASIC (gulp) appointed RE who will cost us a hell of a lot more that 0.7%

Fact: PIFI appointed lawyer Kalinda Cobby stated to people in Sydney that we could do "a lot worse than Jenny Hutson, we should go with her and then monitor her performance".

Fact: the existing constitution with all it's investor friendly rights has not helped us in the slightest as ASIC has done nothing, and will do nothing to help us, and that is what the no voters are all up in arms about. I have copies of letters from finance minister who has stated that and will gladly send to you if you wish via email.

Fact: WC has counted 3000 votes and 97% have voted for yes to at least option one, these people must have the same concerns as myself.

Fact: we have not received 1 cent in distributions since the first January payment and we will receive 3 cents per unit by Christmas this year and then quaterly thereafter.

How many more facts do you want.

I am voting YYN tomorrow and I urge those that have not voted for at least Y in option 1 to consider the prospect of uncertainty that WC walking away will bring to your lives. Enough is enough, people just want to get on with their lives and know an income will be forthcoming and leaving the running of this one great fund to a competent manager in WC. I don't want to go through the stress of this year for next year and beyond.


----------



## breaker1 (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Post Again




Burnt if you continue to bump your posts over and over, we could all do the same, so kindly keep it in check or you'll wreck this forum for all of us.


----------



## breaker1 (7 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



like2ski said:


> Maverick2802,
> I have recently joined this forum and note with interest your endless bagging of the recently formed PIFI.
> Can you please, at least, explain your reasons for such behavior? is there some history/background between you and these people? are you behaving like a sore looser? are you just a spoiler?
> In the absence of a better alternative on offer can you please enlighten us mere investors as to your far superior and more effective solution to resolve the problems?? In some of your posts you have been boringly repeating that the PIFI should propose the name of an alternative RE.
> ...




Like2ski,

We have every right as investors on this forum to counter the NONONO renegade party agenda. Why? Because if that party is successful, the rest of us, *the majority*, get dragged into your dangerous risky game with you whether we like it or not.

Your group is not even looking for 51%, you're clearly happy with only 26%, enough to shut WC down. In other words, if 74% of the rest of PIF investors are outraged by this selfish tactic, you couldn't care less. Thats what your minority agenda boils down to and thats NOT ON!

Talk about boring repeating, check out Burnts bump. Edit:Er! That doesn't sound so good, does it?


----------



## sugar3157 (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all..I feel sorry for everyone and myself who have their hard earned money in PIF...I have read all the posts on here and admire each of you for your individual beliefs...at the end of the day it doesn't really matter, the majority of votes could go either way...I know how hard it is without the income from my investment...the majority of investors I think are in the same boat as me...
My faith in paperwork, constitutions etc is non existant any more...it all means as much to me as our great government protector ASIC...NONE...
I want my money back as you all do too...
what we have to think about is the PIF has got some chance of recovering over time...with good management...JH has got the experience to do this...she does have a excellent track record...I too don't agree with all she has proposed to do...but at this late stage I think she is our only hope...definately not liquidation....so please remember we are all on the same side...but just differ in our way to go....
and thank god we don't live in a third world country....
Go the little aussie battlers!!!!!


----------



## like2ski (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Like2ski,
> 
> We have every right as investors on this forum to counter the NONONO renegade party agenda. Why? Because if that party is successful, the rest of us, *the majority*, get dragged into your dangerous risky game with you whether we like it or not.
> 
> ...



Breaker1,
No one is saying that you don't have the right  to counter the NO NO NO vote
As far as I understand the PIFI is not a renegade agenda and you are all welcome to join and take part in the decision making.
JH is using corporate negotiation tactics (Bullying) us to have her way and many of you are falling for it. JH is not silly and has too much at stake to do that.
The reference to boring/repeating was made in relation to the appointment of the new RE ???


----------



## breaker1 (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



judym said:


> I attended the investor forum in Sydney and carefully read all the documentation regarding PIF. I have 20 years experience trading in shares. I have not read and am not interested in the newspaper articles.
> My understanding is that Wellington is offering unit holders a new management, a venue to withdraw from the fund (via part buyback and then units sale), some income and a possibility of a pick up in value when market conditions improve.
> 
> The only other option available is to allow a liquidation which to me means money in the pockets of more lawyers and zilch for me, the unit holder. We also know that this is the worst time to offload realestate.
> ...




Judym,

G'day and welcome on your first post!

Both burning the midnight oil. I've got to take my wife to the bus depo for another trip she's doing which leaves very early,

It's great to see another perspective. 

Might be best to get the 51% sooner (before an EGM) rather than later (at an EGM) - either way you have to get 51% !

This would save an awful lot of trouble, JH would say, Hey! you've already got the numbers, here's the keys to the PIF, I'm gone. This would save huge amounts of time wasted on unseccessful, minority group, unecessary, EGM's. 

51% up front, hmmm! not that bad - there is a good side to it!


----------



## like2ski (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> Sorry, I and many other investors on this forum don't believe that the liquidation of this fund is the way to go. If my posts are boring because I believe that PIFI is a wreckless minority organisation and wish to protect my hard earned unit holding from people who wish to liquidate, then don't read them.
> 
> I take offence to you calling my opinion as dribble because it does not match your own opinion. The fact is that JH has categorically stated she is not interested in liquidating this fund according to PIFI requests. Where does that leave us with NO RE to manage it. So I, and many others feel that no RE is of paramount importance. That is why I am highly critical of the PIFI agenda, how can you call it 'structured' if they want to put $755m of potential unit funds in the hands of an unnamed RE that has done NO diligence and has NO idea of the understanding and health of this fund.
> 
> I want my rights protected, but more importantly in the short term I do not want liquidation and not one of you can guarantee that the no vote will not bring liquidation of our money and that scares me more than NSX and a change in constitution that at this point has proved absolutely fruitless.




Maverick2802,
I did not say that liquidation is the way to go and, as you don't believe that it is, why don't you and others join the PIFI, have your say & make a difference.
JH has said that she is not interested in liquidating the fund but she has also said that, if she doesn't get her way she will and it will be a fire sale not an orderly one ??? JH is using her negotiation skills and bludgeoning us unit holders into submission.Obviously most unit holders are not familiar with these tactics and are afraid. 
As many have said on here, there are many other options available to us.
IH is not offering any guarantees apart from a lot of SPIN, which we are getting plenty of from our politicians,!! What happens if it does not materialise? how will you and others feel then???
As far as I am aware no one is proposing to place the fund in the hands of an unnamed RE. The RE would not change unless we want it to under the current constitution. In any case all these matters have been covered extensively on here and you and others keep harping on them.
Incidentally you have not answered any of my questions!!


----------



## breaker1 (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



like2ski said:


> Breaker1,
> No one is saying that you don't have the right  to counter the NO NO NO vote
> As far as I understand the PIFI is not a renegade agenda and you are all welcome to join and take part in the decision making.
> JH is using corporate negotiation tactics (Bullying) us to have her way and many of you are falling for it. JH is not silly and has too much at stake to do that.
> The reference to boring/repeating was made in relation to the appointment of the new RE ???




JH needs 75% of the entire vote to get in as RE, your group only needs 26% to shut her down - thats NOT bludgeoning or bullying. 

If your agenda is that good, what are you worried about?

Compared to WC's task, you've got the upper hand by far, those sorts of odds would be unfair in any game.

Anyway, soon this ASF banter will be of little consequence, as the votes are rolling in fast.

Hope it works out best for the majority, if not all!


----------



## breaker1 (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> I believe that PIFI is a wreckless minority organisation and wish to protect my hard earned unit holding.
> 
> I take offence to you calling my opinion as dribble because it does not match your own opinion. The fact is that JH has categorically stated she is not interested in liquidating this fund according to PIFI requests. Where does that leave us with NO RE to manage it. So I, and many others feel that no RE is of paramount importance. That is why I am highly critical of the PIFI agenda, how can you call it 'structured' if they want to put $755m of potential unit funds in the hands of an unnamed RE that has done NO diligence and has NO idea of the understanding and health of this fund.
> 
> I want my rights protected, but more importantly in the short term I do not want liquidation and not one of you can guarantee that the no vote will not bring liquidation of our money.




Anyone who likes Maverick click on this and turn up your speakers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYrsDT02OcE

Maverick you're a legend mate!


----------



## DoraNBoots (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> JH needs 75% of the entire vote to get in as RE, your group only needs 26% to shut her down - thats NOT bludgeoning or bullying.
> ….



The 75% is to change the constitution not to appoint an RE.  The PIF has an RE and that will not change at this meeting.  The fact that 75% of members need to agree on constitution changes is there to protect members you can not blame the 26% of bullying they did not make up this rule.



breaker1 said:


> Judym,
> …
> It's great to see another perspective.
> 
> ...



Please look up the meaning of quorum you clearly misunderstand from the above information provided.  51% of units have to be represented at the meeting\vote these could be for OR against the resolution.



Maverick2802 said:


> Fact: Jenny Hutson does not want an orderly wind up.
> 
> Fact: There is no RE in place if WC resigns, I don't want this whole process to start again with an ASIC (gulp) appointed RE who will cost us a hell of a lot more that 0.7%
> 
> ...



Fact: Another RE is not needed.
Fact: Any fee for an RE including this one will require 75% of unit holders to agree on so unless unit holders are a push over you won’t be dictated to with an outrageous RE fee
Fact: Kalinda Cobby made those statements in July well before WCs proposal was released.  She has reviewed the current proposal and given her opinion to PIFI.  Those interested in this opinion can email PIFinitiative@gmail.com.  As Seamisty and Maverick have both pointed out she is neutral\unbiased and has nothing against WC has a company, that's not to say she doesn’t see issues with the proposal.
Fact:  ASIC is still investigating.


----------



## great dame (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty  I cant hold my breath any longer waiting for your answers to come from my post 2447   Guess i was flogging a dead horse trying to get answers that pro belly don't exist    . Well on another mater I spoke to WC last week  about this 6 cents we are getting next year  which works out at about 13,5% yield  0n the 45 cents value of the fund    .I said the fund would have to generation about 17% income to give us that . And thats forgetting about growth  .So i then said  for us to receive a yeild of 13.5%  WC would have to do either two things  Sell some of the funds asserts or go into dealt  simple as that    I then went on to say what is happening in 2010 regarding income for us   She could not answer any of my questions  said would get back to me i am still waiting  Gee they must hate me when i ring them with questions  like that / Dane //


----------



## great dame (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



judym said:


> I attended the investor forum in Sydney and carefully read all the documentation regarding PIF. I have 20 years experience trading in shares. I have not read and am not interested in the newspaper articles.
> My understanding is that Wellington is offering unit holders a new management, a venue to withdraw from the fund (via part buyback and then units sale), some income and a possibility of a pick up in value when market conditions improve.
> 
> The only other option available is to allow a liquidation which to me means money in the pockets of more lawyers and zilch for me, the unit holder. We also know that this is the worst time to offload realestate.
> ...



     Well Well Well  A new menber on the forum   Well i guess i better say welcome  Judym with 20 years of stock trading  who is all for the fund to be listed on the NSX  /Thats amazing coming from someone who should know something about shares    Judym please tell us how many shares are traded on the NSX a day  ??? Do you trade on the NSX  ??? or the ASX ??? What trpe of broker do you use ???
 I realy cant understand  a person with your trading knolage is all for the NSX  Please tell us all why it is such a good exchange   / Dane ///


----------



## Maverick2802 (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> A Fact: Another RE is not needed.
> B Fact: Any fee for an RE including this one will require 75% of unit holders to agree on so unless unit holders are a push over you won’t be dictated to with an outrageous RE fee
> C Fact: Kalinda Cobby made those statements in July well before WCs proposal was released.  She has reviewed the current proposal and given her opinion to PIFI.  Those interested in this opinion can email PIFinitiative@gmail.com.  As Seamisty and Maverick have both pointed out she is neutral\unbiased and has nothing against WC has a company, that's not to say she doesn’t see issues with the proposal.
> D Fact:  ASIC is still investigating.




A Eventually there must be one. The current one does not want to do it your way. So what happens then. Where will you get 10500 investors that are all over Australia to meet? How will we then come to agreement? Where will this new RE come from? If we cannot come to an agreement, either ASIC will nominate an administrator more than likely to liquidate or WC as current RE will bring in 333 Capital, as she has stated she would do. This is an offshoot of KordaMentha who charge like wounded bulls and have dragged the liquidation of Ansett for years and years, still charging, of course.

B I cannot see KordaMentha charging 0.7%, if it is a court / ASIC appointed manager we will not have a choice. Check this out: http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business...cut-to-its-fees/2004/12/22/1103391838347.html

C You will find that a good solicitor as Kalinda is, will find flaws in any legal document. This is a normal course which is regularly evident in Govt Parliamentary Bills and Gazettes etc. As I have said, that is just the constitution you are so in arms about, but the current constitution has done bugger all to protect us anyway. So what is the HUGE deal?? As you state, this is just Kalinda's 'opinion', you can then get another lawyer that will give you a totally different 'opinion' depending on what point of view the person who is paying the lawyer wants to adopt.

D Yes they are still investigating as they have to justify their existence BUT Nick Sherry has written to PIF AG members "it is most unlikely that ASIC will take further action" in regard to this fund. Much like the DPP investigating a major theft, but never arresting anyone for the crime!!!!

Fact: I am sick to death of this year, dragging on with this very stressful experience. PIFI want to keep dragging this on for years to come. If you are reading this and feel sick in your stomach about this and just want to get your life back to where it was and receive an income vote YES for Resolution 1 and let the constitution be amended, that means bugger all at the end of the day and let WC take care of business to restore dollar value in our fund.


----------



## DoraNBoots (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> Sorry, I and many other investors on this forum don't believe that the liquidation of this fund is the way to go. ....



One of the major reasons PIFI has been formed is to ensure WC do not liquidate the PIF. WC has the right to propose the PIF be liquidated and if members do not then take a stand against this it can happen.  PIFI is taking this stand.  They are coming up with strategies which can be put in place to ensure WC do not liquidate the fund.  The law is on the unit holders side, WC cannot without our consent and without giving us a chance to propose an alternate viable strategy liquidate the fund.  Anyone wanting to ensure WC do not liquidate the fund should get behind PIFI.


----------



## DoraNBoots (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> A Eventually there must be one. The current one does not want to do it your way. So what happens then. Where will you get 10500 investors that are all over Australia to meet? How will we then come to agreement? Where will this new RE come from? If we cannot come to an agreement, either ASIC will nominate an administrator more than likely to liquidate or WC as current RE will bring in 333 Capital, as she has stated she would do. This is an offshoot of KordaMentha who charge like wounded bulls and have dragged the liquidation of Ansett for years amd years, still charging of course.
> 
> B I cannot see KordaMentha charging 0.7%, if it is a court / ASIC appointed manager we will not have a choice. Check this out: http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business...cut-to-its-fees/2004/12/22/1103391838347.html
> 
> ...



The person who hired Kalinda Cobby did not ask for her to support their personal views they asked for her professional opinion on the proposals.  If you read the opinion you will see they are not petty issues.
Everyone that put in a complaint with ASIC got a letter stating they will take no action.  Some people accept that and give up, others push harder and yes ASIC are still investigating.
_Where will you get 10500 investors that are all over Australia to meet?  How will we then come to agreement?_  It's called putting forward a resolution and calling a members meeting.  
You have no credibility if you are telling people you are prepared to allow any changes to the constitution due to the current state of the PIF.


----------



## Maverick2802 (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

You cannot push forward a resolution to investors if there is no RE. End of story! This denial of the importance of that shows you have very questionable credibility.

The person that is paying Kalinda is staunchly against WC, I know that for a fact as members of the PIF AG have spoken to him and has admitted that. PIFI is a renegade minority group in QLD to that of PIF AG who did not agree with this persons' hard handed tactics, so this person went out on his own and took a few with him. There are still more people in the QLD AG that support WC. That is fact too.

As breaker says, the no vote just needs to get 26% of vote. Out of 3000 so far 97% have voted in favour of the WC amendments. I believe that this is because voters have no other RE to vote for. What does that say about credibility?


----------



## DoraNBoots (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> You cannot push forward a resolution to investors if there is no RE. End of story! This denial of the importance of that shows you have very questionable credibility.
> ...



Members can put forward a resolution to change the constitution - this has nothing to do with changing the RE.   If WC are as unprofessional as you say and will not accept a change that 75% of unit holders accept than they cannot just walk away as some have stated.  The PIF will not be left without an RE.


----------



## RickH (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> The person who hired Kalinda Cobby did not ask for her to support their personal views they asked for her professional opinion on the proposals.  If you read the opinion you will see they are not petty issues.
> Everyone that put in a complaint with ASIC got a letter stating they will take no action.  Some people accept that and give up, others push harder and yes ASIC are still investigating.
> _Where will you get 10500 investors that are all over Australia to meet?  How will we then come to agreement?_  It's called putting forward a resolution and calling a members meeting.
> You have no credibility if you are telling people you are prepared to allow any changes to the constitution due to the current state of the PIF.






Maverick2802 said:


> You cannot push forward a resolution to investors if there is no RE. End of story! This denial of the importance of that shows you have very questionable credibility.
> 
> The person that is paying Kalinda is staunchly against WC, I know that for a fact as members of the PIF AG have spoken to him and has admitted that. PIFI is a renegade minority group in QLD to that of PIF AG who did not agree with this persons' hard handed tactics, so this person went out on his own and took a few with him. There are still more people in the QLD AG that support WC. That is fact too.
> 
> As breaker says, the no vote just needs to get 26% of vote. Out of 3000 so far 97% have voted in favour of the WC amndments. I believe that this is because voters have no other RE to vote for. What does that say about credibility?



Hi PIFI Group,
Just a thought.
Is there a chance that there is a hidden agenda by a member of the PIFI group to create a new RE for an associated group or persons or business?
We all know that whoever is the RE they will make a lot of money.
It appears to me that the majority of the unit holders want JH as RE and I keep thinking that there may be a hidden agenda and the goal is actually to take over as RE for no cost.
Please consider before you answer.
Regards, RickH:couch


----------



## seamisty (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If WC cannot walk away and are forced to stay under attempted  enforced hostile circumstances, contrary to their proposed strategy to do what they consider best for unit holders and themselves (lets not forget they are running a business here, they are not a benevolent society) what would you do? Get out as quick as was legally possible and look for a less stressfull uncomplicated business opportunity. Or stay and be dictated to as to how to run their business? Seamisty


----------



## Maverick2802 (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Members can put forward a resolution to change the constitution - this has nothing to do with changing the RE.   If WC are as unprofessional as you say and will not accept a change that 75% of unit holders accept than they cannot just walk away as some have stated.  The PIF will not be left without an RE.




Members=10500 investors with totally differering agendas just judging from this little ASF thread as an insight, that will be sooooo smooth and easy. 

The PIF will be left without an RE and a liquidator will be brought in because it will be impossible to get 10500 people to agree, the court will make that decision for us. The liquidation will drag on and on while lawyers and liquidators will sponge our funds and we will be left with very little indeed.

I have not stated WC are unprofessional thank you very much!!! In fact I believe, despite if you don't agree on her proposed changes, she has demonstrated she is MOST professional. Kalinda Cobby was also VERY impressed with her professionalism from all reports. She is a brilliant business person that is respected in the QLD community and I am sure the end vote will reflect that as it already has in the initial 3000 and beyond.


----------



## DoraNBoots (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi PIFI Group,
> Just a thought.
> Is there a chance that there is a hidden agenda by a member of the PIFI group to create a new RE for an associated group or persons or business?
> We all know that whoever is the RE they will make a lot of money.
> ...



A new RE is not needed.  All that the PIF needs is a change to the constitution to enable it to continue as a going concern or be wound down over a suitable time frame.  Both of these are possible and can be put to the unitholders to see which they prefer.


----------



## seamisty (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi PIFI Group,
> Just a thought.
> Is there a chance that there is a hidden agenda by a member of the PIFI group to create a new RE for an associated group or persons or business?
> We all know that whoever is the RE they will make a lot of money.
> ...



Good point RickH, Perhaps this is one of the strategies PIFI is working on. Seamisty


----------



## breaker1 (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> You cannot push forward a resolution to investors if there is no RE. End of story! This denial of the importance of that shows you have very questionable credibility.
> 
> The person that is paying Kalinda is staunchly against WC, I know that for a fact as members of the PIF AG have spoken to him and has admitted that. PIFI is a renegade minority group in QLD to that of PIF AG who did not agree with this persons' hard handed tactics, so this person went out on his own and took a few with him. There are still more people in the QLD AG that support WC. That is fact too.
> 
> As breaker says, the no vote just needs to get 26% of vote. Out of 3000 so far 97% have voted in favour of the WC amendments. I believe that this is because voters have no other RE to vote for. What does that say about credibility?




Latest count updated today > 3605 have voted 97% in favour of Wellington Capital. 

If you take that as a survey for the remainder yet to vote, that is NOT looking good for the NO voters! - and that's quite a survey!


----------



## breaker1 (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Good point RickH, Perhaps this is one of the strategies PIFI is working on. Seamisty




Yeah! I get that funny feeling the PIFI think they might be able to run the fund themselves. Gulp!


----------



## Maverick2802 (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi PIFI Group,
> Just a thought.
> Is there a chance that there is a hidden agenda by a member of the PIFI group to create a new RE for an associated group or persons or business?
> We all know that whoever is the RE they will make a lot of money.
> ...




Gee RickH, that never crossed my mind. That is a hell of an observation.

Look I cannot say one way or another. What I will say is that the head person leading the PIFI charge and paying Kalinda out of his own pocket does not have a very high regard of WC or MFS and is a very angry person. I know this for a fact as I have emails that were communicated by him at the stage before PIFI was formed and he was a member of the QLD AG. He openly states that disdain.

Sometimes very angry people can take action that may not necessarily be to the benefit of the majority of the group that they are trying to help.


----------



## Maverick2802 (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Yeah! I get that funny feeling the PIFI think they might be able to run the fund themselves. Gulp!




Gulp! Gulp!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


----------



## Duped (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



judym said:


> ... *MFiaSco*, now Octaviar, ...




That's hilarious.  Nice work.


----------



## breaker1 (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> Gulp! Gulp!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO




It can't be true?


----------



## DoraNBoots (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Latest count updated today > 3605 have voted 97% in favour of Wellington Capital.
> 
> If you take that as a survey for the remainder yet to vote, that is NOT looking good for the NO voters! - and that's quite a survey!




To get the complete picture we would need to know what unit holding the YES and NO votes represent.  This is just another example of partial information being provided which is biased towards the RE.

As the RE is only providing half the picture, we could assume that the 3% of NO votes represent a greater proportion than 3% of the unit holding.

Perhaps the next person requesting this info from the RE could also get the unit holding that the YES and NO votes represent.


----------



## JohnH (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Latest count updated today > 3605 have voted 97% in favour of Wellington Capital.
> 
> If you take that as a survey for the remainder yet to vote, that is NOT looking good for the NO voters! - and that's quite a survey!




........ Any idea what that 3605 represents in unit holdings?


----------



## JohnH (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> To get the complete picture we would need to know what unit holding the YES and NO votes represent.  This is just another example of partial information being provided which is biased towards the RE.
> 
> As the RE is only providing half the picture, we could assume that the 3% of NO votes represent a greater proportion than 3% of the unit holding.
> 
> Perhaps the next person requesting this info from the RE could also get the unit holding that the YES and NO votes represent.




"Snap" - but I suspect for different reasons!


----------



## breaker1 (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> ........ Any idea what that 3605 represents in unit holdings?




Sorry wasn't told, but I will get an update in two days and will ask then!


----------



## seamisty (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> ........ Any idea what that 3605 represents in unit holdings?



Hi JohnH,WC just told me they would contact Computershare and if they can get the information would get back to me. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## Maverick2802 (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> ........ Any idea what that 3605 represents in unit holdings?




They probably wouldn't tell us I am thinking.

It really does indicate the trend though doesn't it. If anything those with holdings in the 7 figure range will vote for WC for the income and stability factor alone, and of course they have the most to lose under liquidation.

I wonder what the unit holding total is of the PIFI investors. On a very educated estimate I bet not one has a 7 figure unit holding. So why are they so adamant about destabilising the current RE? Hey RickH you may be onto something after all mate!!!


----------



## Duped (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> If the anti-NSX stance is the strategy PIFI will be pushing the top 2700 investors, I feel you will be in a bit of a dilemma.
> 
> The NSX is the least of the problems for the top tier investors, they have the most cash. They will have the highest levels of financial resilience. They would probably welcome the NSX in the hope that your gloomy 10-20c trading prediction, to buy up and make up possible loses. Not that I feel there will be many selling at these levels, that is just scare mongering or wishful thinking depending on what side of the fence you are at. ....




Maybe some of the other 2700 but not me.  Any extra units I could afford would not make any major play.


----------



## seamisty (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> They probably wouldn't tell us I am thinking:::Hi Maverick2802, I beleive that WC will be receiving 3 proxies this week,all in the 7 figure unit holding that will be a Y Y N vote. These votes could even push the WC for vote to 98%. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> To get the complete picture we would need to know what unit holding the YES and NO votes represent.  This is just another example of partial information being provided which is biased towards the RE.
> 
> As the RE is only providing half the picture, we could assume that the 3% of NO votes represent a greater proportion than 3% of the unit holding.
> 
> Perhaps the next person requesting this info from the RE could also get the unit holding that the YES and NO votes represent.




Dora, it would also be good for us all to know the Unit value of the committed PIFI members (but I don't think we have a snowballs chance in hell of getting that info!>):


----------



## Duped (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Seamisty  could you tell us all the names of Stockbrokers that are giving for casts  for the fund if it becomes listed  I as a market investor would love to know who they are & what they are for casting   & don't say ring WC  i tried them  had no luck there   I hope i am not kicking a dead horse asking questions like this  / Dane //




Good question.  With a potential listing just 10 days away.  They must have formed some view by now.


----------



## Burnt (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It still seems to be happening. Lots more posts full of rubbishing comments and no constructive information. Again ! more unsubstantiated rumours and hearsay !!!

Let me respond again to those that persist in stating false information regarding RE walking away and the fund being placed into forced liquidation.

THE RE MUST REMAIN THE RE UNTIL ANOTHER RE IS REGISTERED WITH ASIC. BEFORE A NEW RE CAN BE REGISTERED WITH ASIC, THE UNIT HOLDERS HAVE TO VOTE TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT. Secondly, WC cannot afford to walk away. They are due to pay Octaviar in June 2009 the purchase price for taking over the RE company. This payment basically equals 4 years worth of management fees.

NO ONE IS PROMOTING LIQUIDATION AND LIQUIDATION CANNOT BE FORCED UPON THE FUND. UNIT HOLDERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS.


----------



## Maverick2802 (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> It still seems to be happening. Lots more posts full of rubbishing comments and no constructive information. Again ! more unsubstantiated rumours and hearsay !!!
> 
> Let me respond again to those that persist in stating false information regarding RE walking away and the fund being placed into forced liquidation.
> 
> ...




There is no rumour, it is substantiated in black and white in the WC literature that the current RE is not interested in anything but the fund being managed as a going concern.

JH walks away once her legal obligation is fulfilled. No RE in place, ASIC places a liquidator to fulfil the current constitution regarding redemptions if the current constitution cannot be amended in time. Mate you're not the only one with the understanding of what the legalities here you know.

She pays nothing to OCV, she has made no profit so 4 x $0 = $0, that's the agreement mate! So yes she can easily walk away with no huge loss to her financially. She has spent a lot of her time though, I grant you that.

By adopting a wreckless approach by a minority group with no RE in place it really does equate to a promotion of liquidation. What REAL alteranative options???


----------



## seamisty (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hi JohnH,WC just told me they would contact Computershare and if they can get the information would get back to me. Cheers, Seamisty



Just had a return call from WC and was told as all the votes are immediately passed on to Computershare, they only know the number of proxies recieved, not the number of units represented and Computershare is not divulging that information. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## RickH (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> It still seems to be happening. Lots more posts full of rubbishing comments and no constructive information. Again ! more unsubstantiated rumours and hearsay !!!
> 
> Let me respond again to those that persist in stating false information regarding RE walking away and the fund being placed into forced liquidation.
> 
> ...



Hi Burnt,
I believe that it has already been stated on this Forum that the figure to be paid for the RE business is based on actual profits earned. If they do not make profits they will not pay. From a financial point of view they may not be locked in and can walk. Then a currently unknown RE will take their place.
Regards, RickH:couch


----------



## Wolfgang (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> It still seems to be happening. Lots more posts full of rubbishing comments and no constructive information. Again ! more unsubstantiated rumours and hearsay !!!
> 
> Let me respond again to those that persist in stating false information regarding RE walking away and the fund being placed into forced liquidation.
> 
> ...




Hi Burnt
This is not a rubbishing comment or more unsubstantiated rumours and hearsay.

I spoke to a Wellington Capital Limited last week and one question I asked was if Resolution 1 did not pass what will happen. The answer *“we will liquidation of the Fund, the fund will not go into an orderly wind up, and the **constitution will not be looked at again”*

You are entitled to your opinions and I am passing on the information I got.

Wolfgang


----------



## Duped (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Even though this question was directed to someone else, I'd like to offer an answer.
> 
> Wellington bought up all the shares in Octaviar Investment Management Limited (PIF RE) from a wholly owned Octaviar subsidiary and they are due to pay that subsidiary company the purchase price in June 2009. This price is 4 x the net profit of WIM (WIM took on four other funds when purchasing OIM) for the 12 months following the acquisition, + Net Tangible Asset Value of WIM at the end of that 12 mths.
> 
> In other words, Wellington will be handing back 4 years worth of management fees to Octaviar. This is why they want to lock themselves in for an indefinite period and be paid a huge exit fee if removed. Considering that all costs are reimbursed to them (even taxes), WIM's net profit would have to equal their management fee.




Excellent post Burnt. Goes somewhat towards possibly explaining why WC is risking losing PIF entirely (i.e. appearing to be cutting off its nose to spite its face) in proposing the changes to quorum clauses and the addition of the 2% termination fee.  It suggests WC is not making the decision to include those changes flippantly. Fair enough but WC could have put a time limit on the 2% clause - although that would have further complicated the constitution.

All.  I recall a decade or 2 ago that it was quite common for funds to apply exit fees in the order of 2% to investor withdrawals. And recall that ASX broker fees were up around the 1.5% too. Long before the $30 trade. I remember the $30 trade matching by Commsec ruffled a lot of feathers, namely flightless incumbents that had grown large on the easy pickings. Does my memory fail me?  Can anyone confirm to the contrary? If not then the 1.5% NSX commission and the 2% WCL termination fee don't seem so extreme and outrageous but just - unattractive when compared to competitors current products.

Still confused.


----------



## breaker1 (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Wolfgang said:


> Hi Burnt
> This is not a rubbishing comment or more unsubstantiated rumours and hearsay.
> 
> I spoke to a Wellington Capital Limited last week and one question I asked was if Resolution 1 did not pass what will happen. The answer *“we will liquidation of the Fund, the fund will not go into an orderly wind up, and the **constitution will not be looked at again”*
> ...




Very firm!

And 4 X nil = nil  > then outta there!


----------



## selciper (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I've read the PIFI material posted to me. It would be terrific to have a real choice in this matter. but the PIFI documentation doesn't convince me to lend the group my support. Nor am I totally satisfied with WC's set-up, but it's the safer way to go.


----------



## Maverick2802 (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> I've read the PIFI material posted to me. It would be terrific to have a real choice in this matter. but the PIFI documentation doesn't convince me to lend the group my support. Nor am I totally satisfied with WC's set-up, but it's the safer way to go.




I have heard that same commentary from 2 other people today that have received their PIFI info pack and have emailed me. Where is that mailman, can't wait for mine to come!!

No doubt we will be hearing plenty of identical comments like this from selciper me thinks.


----------



## RickH (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Excellent post Burnt. Goes somewhat towards possibly explaining why WC is risking losing PIF entirely (i.e. appearing to be cutting off its nose to spite its face) in proposing the changes to quorum clauses and the addition of the 2% termination fee.  It suggests WC is not making the decision to include those changes flippantly. Fair enough but WC could have put a time limit on the 2% clause - although that would have further complicated the constitution.
> 
> All.  I recall a decade or 2 ago that it was quite common for funds to apply exit fees in the order of 2% to investor withdrawals. And recall that ASX broker fees were up around the 1.5% too. Long before the $30 trade. I remember the $30 trade matching by Commsec ruffled a lot of feathers, namely flightless incumbents that had grown large on the easy pickings. Does my memory fail me?  Can anyone confirm to the contrary? If not then the 1.5% NSX commission and the 2% WCL termination fee don't seem so extreme and outrageous but just - unattractive when compared to competitors current products.
> 
> Still confused.




Hi Burnt,
I am confused also. You are changing your statements to the benefit of your point of view as follows:
_Originally Posted by Burnt  
Even though this question was directed to someone else, I'd like to offer an answer.

Wellington bought up all the shares in Octaviar Investment Management Limited (PIF RE) from a wholly owned Octaviar subsidiary and they are due to pay that subsidiary company the purchase price in June 2009. This price is 4 x the net profit of WIM (WIM took on four other funds when purchasing OIM) for the 12 months following the acquisition, + Net Tangible Asset Value of WIM at the end of that 12 mths.

In other words, Wellington will be handing back 4 years worth of management fees to Octaviar. This is why they want to lock themselves in for an indefinite period and be paid a huge exit fee if removed. Considering that all costs are reimbursed to them (even taxes), WIM's net profit would have to equal their management fee.

Originally Posted by Burnt  
THE RE MUST REMAIN THE RE UNTIL ANOTHER RE IS REGISTERED WITH ASIC. BEFORE A NEW RE CAN BE REGISTERED WITH ASIC, THE UNIT HOLDERS HAVE TO VOTE TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT. Secondly, WC cannot afford to walk away. They are due to pay Octaviar in June 2009 the purchase price for taking over the RE company. This payment basically equals 4 years worth of management fees._
Hi Burnt,
You are a professional accountant and you are trying to take the high ground and yet you are changing the meaning of your statements as you proceed.
Your previous post “This price is 4 x the net profit of WIM” THEN you said “WC cannot afford to walk away”.
You changed the statement completely to your benefit. JH can financially walk away.
Regards, RickH:couch


----------



## Jadel (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Wolfgang

   You are absolutely correct 

   Jenny Hutson has claimed repeatedly and unequivocally that she is prepared

   to liquidate the Fund at an estimated value of 14cents by March 2009

   That means  she is prepared to destoy the lives of pensioners ,widows and people who have life threatening illness  and desperately need income to gain control of the fund and make a lousy dollar.

   Good luck to those who vote for her because you will need it down the years to come.


----------



## breaker1 (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Wolfgang
> 
> You are absolutely correct
> 
> ...




The problem is, we'd need more than luck if we voted NO! - without a better structure in place, we'd need our heads read!


----------



## Maverick2802 (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Wolfgang
> 
> You are absolutely correct
> 
> ...




She will only force a liquidation if the investors don't wish to allow her to manage it as a going concern. So don't twist the words around.

Sounds like you have already resigned to the fact that PIFI will have no chance in making the inroads you hoped it would ay Jadel?

With hard work from a very capable RE, making the right investment decisions and some investor input I think it will be a case of good management rather than luck that will see this fund prosper in future. I hope you will stay for the ride and share that prosperity with all of us and I thank you for your good wishes.


----------



## prawn_86 (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Attention All*

This thread has now been locked, meaning no further posts can be made, pending a review by the forum owner and administrator.

ASF has accomodated this thread relatively happily until recently. We moderators are now receiving 3 or 4 complaints about this thread per day, which is more than we receice in an average week across the ENTIRE other sections of the forum. Any new thread on this topic will be removed.

We understand that people are annoyed at having lost their money, however it seems that this thread is consuming a lot of time and effort, and very few members contribute to this site outside of this thread.

If there are any questions please contact us via PM.

Thankyou for your understanding and hopefully it can be unlocked soon.


----------



## prawn_86 (8 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Further to PMs that have been received:

There was no reason for closing this thread, beyond the fact that it is consuming a huge amount of moderators time, due to the number of complaints we were receieving about it.

We are still in discussions and reviewing the thread and a decison will be made in due course.

Regards

Prawn


----------



## prawn_86 (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This thread has now been re-opened on the basis of the following conditions:

*1. Do not attack other posters in the thread. Any post with an attack made on another participant will result in the post being removed and the offender being permanently suspended.

2. Do not reveal or refer to personal information about another thread participant. Stick to discussing issues regarding the topic at hand.*

If this thread becomes too problematic again it will be closed permanently.

Thankyou for your patience, and please understand that ASF has no obligation to host this thread.


----------



## JohnH (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Ray


----------



## Maverick2802 (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good morning all.

I hope you have all been well. 

Thank you very much Ray!

Has anyone been in contact with WC to see how the vote is going or any new news?

I received my eagerly anticipated PIFI corro, more on that later.


----------



## seamisty (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Octaviar Debtors Opt for Administration, Financial Review Says 

By Gemma Daley

Sept. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Creditors of Octaviar Ltd., owed A$1 billion ($802 million), agreed last night to appoint a voluntary administrator for the financial services company, the Australian Financial Review reported. 

Creditors, including the Premium Income Fund, OPI Pacific Finance and Challenger Financial Services Group Ltd., had little choice given a group of noteholders owed A$348 million by 2011 argued in Queensland Supreme Court that the company needed to be wound up, the newspaper reported. 

Under a winding-up, Octaviar's assets would be sold off piecemeal, the newspaper said. Under voluntary administration, directors can remain in their jobs and assets can be sold off more gradually, the Review said. 

The court put in place a restraining order at the request of the Public Trustee of Queensland, acting on behalf of noteholders, barring the Octaviar directors from appointing an administrator until 5 p.m. today, the newspaper said. Octaviar was formerly called MFS Ltd


----------



## Juan Mortyme (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Octaviar Debtors Opt for Administration, Financial Review Says

By Gemma Daley

Sept. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Creditors of Octaviar Ltd., owed A$1 billion ($802 million), agreed last night to appoint a voluntary administrator for the financial services company, the Australian Financial Review reported.

Creditors, including the Premium Income Fund, OPI Pacific Finance and Challenger Financial Services Group Ltd., had little choice given a group of noteholders owed A$348 million by 2011 argued in Queensland Supreme Court that the company needed to be wound up, the newspaper reported.

Under a winding-up, Octaviar's assets would be sold off piecemeal, the newspaper said. Under voluntary administration, directors can remain in their jobs and assets can be sold off more gradually, the Review said.

The court put in place a restraining order at the request of the Public Trustee of Queensland, acting on behalf of noteholders, barring the Octaviar directors from appointing an administrator until 5 p.m. today, the newspaper said. Octaviar was formerly called MFS Ltd.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This in yesterday's Australian

----------------------

*When fund managers turn predators*



SHAREHOLDER: Stuart Wilson | September 09, 2008

HAPLESS investors in the Octaviar Premium Income Fund have a gun pointed squarely at their heads by the funds manager, Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital.

This sick property fund is a remnant of the MFS implosion earlier this year, and has more than 10,000 small, income-seeking investors. It is circling the drain, with investors locked in limbo and distributions no longer flowing. Yet Wellington is using every tricky tactic in the book to wring out its fees.

Investors have few options. The proposal put forward by Wellington is to list the fund on the National Stock Exchange. This means that instead of redeeming their units for cash, investors will have to sell them on-market.

But as the number of sellers will likely heavily outweigh buyers, and with unitholders' dwindling trust in Wellington, the price at which PIF units trade is virtually guaranteed to be below the $0.45 value quoted in the documentation sent to investors.

If buyers have been scared off after experiencing Wellington's bullying tactics designed to lock itself in as manager, the market price could easily wallow under the somewhat rubbery $0.14 per unit investors are told they could receive on liquidation.

Wellington has some legitimate reasons for seeking changes to the funds constitution to effect the fund's listing on the NSX. To emerge as a listed vehicle, the whole structure of the fund would need to be overhauled to work properly.

In particular, the fund would need to become close ended, which means units would no longer be issued or redeemed. Rather, units would be purchased or sold on-market, and the price struck would be based on supply and demand rather the net asset value of the unit.

Unfortunately for the proposed new model, demand seems to be in short supply.

In addition, the existing constitution proclaims that the manager is entitled to any surplus income after unitholders have been paid. This clearly does not sit well with Wellington Capital, which has proposed a more traditional asset-based fee. The fee is steep and would provide greater certainty for Wellington. The benefit of this proposed change to investors is not entirely clear.

The most abominable, oppressive element of the Wellington proposal is that in addition to proposing changes necessary to ensure the NSX listing works, they have attempted to slip in a few clauses for their own benefit. In particular, in the event that Wellington was removed as manager -- even for poor performance -- it would be entitled to a massive termination payment, currently about $8 million.

It would be difficult to turf out Wellington anyway, as a separate proposed change to the way the fund's meetings are structured will effectively entrench Wellington as manager until there is nothing left to gouge.

One hopes that investors finally declare they will not be treated as fee-generating fodder any more. Although an orderly sell-off of assets and winding up of the fund is the simplest and most certain of available options, some investors may wish to take the risk of monetising additional value through an NSX listing.

If that is the case, they should propose alternative changes to the constitution (without the clauses that only benefit the Wellington mob), either before or after voting down the current scheme.

Stuart Wilson is CEO of the Australian Shareholders Association

-----------end of article-------------

direct link: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24314985-30538,00.html


----------



## erniel (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It has all become rather confusing for me ,what with the new PIF Inc. and wellington capital.
I invested my money in the original PIF to earn a monthly income and have capital preservation.
Some are now talking about an orderly wind up of the fund and the figure we should recieve is in the region 45 cents per unit.
W C are saying that given time ( +_ 5 years) they should be able to restore the units back to a dollar with a distribution of 6 cents next year and 3 cents this year.
 It would appear to me that WC are closer to what my original objectives were of investing in the fund.
I therefore will be voting for WC to become the new RE for the PIF.


----------



## Maverick2802 (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

10 September 2008
Headline: Octaviar creditors opt for administration
Australian Financial Review, pg 13. Alexander Symonds. 10 September 2008.

Major creditors for Gold Coast financial services company Octaviar, formerly MFS, argued in the Supreme Court of Queensland, represented by the Public Trustee of Queensland, that the company be wound up. The creditors, believed to be Challenger, the Premium Income Fund and OPI Pacific Finance, were left with little choice but to agree to a wind up of the company as a group of noteholders owed $348 million by 2011. The decision left Octaviar on the brink of collapse last night. 

The Court heard that over 68 percent of the creditors wish to see the company wound up, leaving the remaining four creditors with little option other than to bring in voluntary administrators. Wellington Investment Management founder Jenny Hutson, is opposed to a winding up and said she will proceed with her $147.5 million legal claim if Octaviar is wound up.


Geeze that puts a spanner in the works!


----------



## JohnH (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



erniel said:


> It has all become rather confusing for me ,what with the new PIF Inc. and wellington capital.
> I invested my money in the original PIF to earn a monthly income and have capital preservation.
> Some are now talking about an orderly wind up of the fund and the figure we should recieve is in the region 45 cents per unit.
> W C are saying that given time ( +_ 5 years) they should be able to restore the units back to a dollar with a distribution of 6 cents next year and 3 cents this year.
> ...




Fortunately I think most people agree with your common sense Ernie


----------



## seamisty (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> Good morning all.
> 
> I hope you have all been well.
> 
> ...



I just spoke with WC, no exact figures, but feedback is still looking very much in favour for JH at this point in time. Perhaps also is now the time to realise we still have a long road ahead with the PIF regardless of the outcome and it would be to all unitholders advantage to consolidate and work as a united body rather than lose credibility by becoming fragmented. Seamisty


----------



## breaker1 (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I just spoke with WC, no exact figures, but feedback is still looking very much in favour for JH at this point in time. Perhaps also is now the time to realise we still have a long road ahead with the PIF regardless of the outcome and it would be to all unitholders advantage to consolidate and work as a united body rather than lose credibility by becoming fragmented. Seamisty




I agree Seamisty, in countering one another we absorb energy & talents that would be better used to serve ASF readers and PIF investors as a whole.


----------



## great dame (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> This in yesterday's Australian
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> ...



     I wont all you good folk out there to read the above by Stuart Wilson in the Australia  again & again  He is right on the money what he says  / Dane //


----------



## Maverick2802 (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Stuart Wilson is CEO of the Australian Shareholders Association

This is the second scathing article by this one eyed reporter.

His 'writing' style is nothing short of sensationalist propaganda towards shareholders. Sounds like either himself or someone very close to him has lost a PACKET on OCV and is causing his writing to be obsecenely clouded.

The fact he is suggesting this fund with retirees and mum & dad investors be liquidated is nothing short of irresponsible and a misappropriation of journalistic power.

People should really just dismiss reports by this fellow and move on to the cartoon section which has more credibility.


----------



## Sean K (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> Stuart Wilson is CEO of the Australian Shareholders Association
> 
> 
> People should really just dismiss reports by this fellow and move on to the cartoon section which has more credibility.




What's his agenda?

To look after shareholders?


----------



## BABIHUTAN (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> This in yesterday's Australian
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> ...




{Google Alerts picked up the above 'Austalian' article and fwdd in an email}

B/.   *Breaker1's Email messages [2] to Investors on his list*

{I have not yet mastered how to extract & quote bits of multiple posts into a reply so have resorted to CTRL+C & CTRL+V} 

C/.   *Erniel's bit* "QTE"
It has all become rather confusing for me ,what with the new PIF Inc. and wellington capital.
I invested my money in the original PIF to earn a monthly income and have capital preservation........................................................

*ME TOO tho' in my case I rolled over for years - a case where the power of compounding certainly has not worked!!*

D/.   *Seamisty's bit * "QTE"
I just spoke with WC, no exact figures, but feedback is still looking very much in favour for JH at this point in time. Perhaps also is now the time to realise we still have a long road ahead with the PIF regardless of the outcome and it would be to all unitholders advantage to consolidate and work as a united body rather than lose credibility by becoming fragmented. Seamisty

E/.   *My bit*
Little wonder many of us are confused with two diametrically opposed views { A & B } at a time when the Forum was suspended and the voting deadline is imminent. 
Going back there have been posts that essentially said we are all in this together and should stick together to achieve the best outcome for the  - majority - Hopefully the results of the vote will ensure this happens but unfortunately there will be some losers.

I share the sentiments of the last three contibuters - B,C,& D and look forward to moving forward progressively after the voting dust has settled. Babihutan.


----------



## Duped (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> Stuart Wilson is CEO of the Australian Shareholders Association
> 
> This is the second scathing article by this one eyed reporter.
> 
> ...




Intriguing isn't it.  Love to see a counter from WC.

Maybe it's a call for us to contact them because they have a solution?

Question to ponder: is ASA's interests opposed to the interests of unlisted private equity like PIF.


----------



## Maverick2802 (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



kennas said:


> What's his agenda?
> 
> To look after shareholders?




Correct! If PIF unit holders go away and don't claim the $50m facility which is rightfully ours and due and payable now by OCV, and WC don't claim the $147.5m that was stolen from us by the former directors of MFS, then there is more left for OCV share holders if they hold the slightest of hope of the company being salvageable.

His loyalty is to OCV shareholders not PIF unit holders.


----------



## Maverick2802 (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Intriguing isn't it.  Love to see a counter from WC.
> 
> Maybe it's a call for us to contact them because they have a solution?
> 
> Question to ponder: is ASA's interests opposed to the interests of unlisted private equity like PIF.




I have thought about why WC has not come back with a counter in the media.

I believe it is because the vote is so heavily in her favour that she will let the numbers do the talking when the vote is finalised this coming week.

She is problably flat out in court too to try and prevent OCV from being liquidated by the PTQ and protecting our interests.

Love or hate her, you have to admire the woman's ability to just accept criticism and just roll with the punches. Must be an easier way to make a buck.


----------



## seamisty (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> Correct! If PIF unit holders go away and don't claim the $50m facility which is rightfully ours and due and payable now by OCV, and WC don't claim the $147.5m that was stolen from us by the former directors of MFS, then there is more left for OCV share holders if they hold the slightest of hope of the company being salvageable.
> 
> His loyalty is to OCV shareholders not PIF unit holders.



I am still at a loss as to why some PIF holders think this is a good article? The Shareholders Association's role is to look after OCV shareholders I thought. I would have thought representing some unitholders would be a conflict of interests but I might just not be comprehending the article correctly. I am totally confused!!!:screwy: Seamisty


----------



## BootsnAll (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Folks, 
It doesn't matter if you are shareholders or unit holders, Australian Shareholders Association is composed of investors like you & I to give us a voice in this jungle. Their aim is to protect the interest of investors, pure & simple. 
So please keep an open mind.


----------



## Maverick2802 (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



BootsnAll said:


> Folks,
> It doesn't matter if you are shareholders or unit holders, Australian Shareholders Association is composed of investors like you & I to give us a voice in this jungle. Their aim is to protect the interest of investors, pure & simple.
> So please keep an open mind.




I fail to see how they are protecting our 'interests' when the CEO comes out in a major national newspaper recommending the fund be liquidated in the current global economic turmoil where we may end up getting a net of 10 cents. I certainly don't want that mob 'protecting' me. No thank you


----------



## seamisty (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> I fail to see how they are protecting our 'interests' when the CEO comes out in a major national newspaper recommending the fund be liquidated in the current global economic turmoil where we may end up getting a net of 10 cents. I certainly don't want that mob 'protecting' me. No thank you



Well I would be feeling a tad foolish if I was the COE of the ASA if JH ends up with an overwhelming FOR vote by the very same unitholders or maybe it was the gun pointing squarely at investors heads that influenced the end result. Seamisty


----------



## 2CentsWorth (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I am still at a loss as to why some PIF holders think this is a good article? The Shareholders Association's role is to look after OCV shareholders I thought. I would have thought representing some unitholders would be a conflict of interests but I might just not be comprehending the article correctly. I am totally confused!!!:screwy: Seamisty




Hi all,
I guess it's all very much academic now, Octaviar will be put into voluntary administration after 5PM today. Noteholders voted to wind up the fund yesterday.  Jenny Hutson is still vigorously pursuing our $147 million with hope for as good an outcome as is now possible.

Cheers.


----------



## Duped (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This may be a dumb question: How much double/triple/etc counting is in the indices?  If listed company A owns X shares in listed company B then isn't the value of the X shares of company B counted twice in any index that both A&B are on.  This will have an amplifying effect on the rises and falls of the indices.


----------



## great dame (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just a gentle reminder  for all you folk out there to reread  that article by the ASA which was in the Australia  B4 you go to bed tonight   Have a good night / Dane //


----------



## JohnH (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Just a gentle reminder  for all you folk out there to reread  that article by the ASA which was in the Australia  B4 you go to bed tonight   Have a good night / Dane //




I suppose it might be more effective than counting sheep!:sheep:


----------



## Buffy99 (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Please all note that Lonsec has yesterday released a Research Report that recommends that Unit Holders vote in favour of the 3 resolutions.


This is from an independant research house.


Regards,

Buffy99


----------



## marcom (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hello All

Now that things have finally settled down on the forum we need to consider what the future holds.

The outcome of the Octaviar administration saga will be the most significant event for PIF unitholders - simply because it will represent the largest single immediate increase in our unit value - depending on what we get back.

From the sketchy reports in the financial media it seems that Octaviar has in the face of pressure from PTQ advised the Court that it will invoke voluntary administration. It also seems that the PTQ secured a restraining order against Octaviar doing so before 5PM today. Not having the benefit of knowing the legal argument behind this I can only presume that the PTQ will seek to appoint its own Receiver ahead of Octaviar's voluntary administrator.

The heirachy of wind-up is quite complex and can involve administrators, managers, receivers and finally liquidators. It is well worth going to http://www.delisted.com.au and reading the powers and duties of each.

But back today's events - By voluntarily going into administration Octaviar could hope the Administrator (after an initial assessment and with the agreement of creditors) may opt for a Deed of Arrangement whereby Octaviar could over a specified period try to trade out of the situation and/or get creditors to agree to accept a certain level of return to conclude the debt.

This seems to be the substance of what Octaviar has been proposing to creditors all along. However the PTQ as it has already demonstrated it will not sanction any such arrangement by continued court action, and possibly the restraining order which would allow sufficient time for the PTQ as a major creditor to have it's own receiver appointed.

What happens next? It is possible to have a company in administration and at the same time have a receiver/liquidator appointed to act in the interests of a creditor or creditors.

This has happened in the case of the Donnovan Oats Hanaford Mortgage Corporation in Port Macquarie, where Price Waterhouse Coopers is the Receiver Manager voluntarily appointed by DOHMC, and a fund creditor has had the Supreme Court appoint a separate Liquidator.

In the case of Octaviar we will not know for a while if the PTQ will still get the upper hand, or how our RE will manage this situation on our behalf. If Octaviar and the other creditors are willing to accept PIF's claim on the $147.5 M we have a good chance to strike a deal. However, if say the PTQ or other creditors decide to reject or legal claim for the $147.5M ( I can not see how they could reject the $50M SF claim) this will mean WC will have to complete the Supreme Court action (obviously at cost to PIF) so as to have a court decision to back the $147.5M claim. This may take time.

I'm not sure what PIF unit holders can do about this but pray we get a good deal. And also remember the OCV shareholders who may see very little in the final wash up as creditors rank above shareholders.

Marcom


----------



## newwwtrader (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> I fail to see how they are protecting our 'interests' when the CEO comes out in a major national newspaper recommending the fund be liquidated in the current global economic turmoil where we may end up getting a net of 10 cents. I certainly don't want that mob 'protecting' me. No thank you




I think the article was spot on. It dealt with all the issues that accompany the yes vote and how the investors lose out as a result of those changes.

The biggest problem that the NO side has in this situation, is the wording that they use. The word LIQUIDATION should be avoided at all costs. There is so much fear and innuendo that comes from the word. 

I dont believe the PIF, in this matter has to be liquidated according to the normal course of a liquidation. Normally liquidation is basically selling off everything as fast as possible and paying out what is left.

If you put the redemptions that have been delayed to one side. The fund should be able to continue to trade with no problems. So therefore it does not have to be a liquidation in the ordinary sense. As projects are completed, assets are disposed of etc funds can be returned to investors. This could even happen immediately.


I believe the reason the yes vote will get up is because of marketing (Crap idea but a few enticing bells and whistles (buy back - although rather useless when look at facts, distribution coming up - should be able to be done regardless etc.)

As opposed to the no vote which is the better alternative for many reasons. But they have allowed it to be labelled as a vote for liquidation. And have allowed WC/yes sayers to go about saying that you need another re ready to step into their shoes straight away. Also they have not come up with another possible constitutional change (it would have been very easy to formulate a plan and distribute it). And the NO vote has waited for the last week to get the media on board (after many have voted).


----------



## Burnt (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



newwwtrader said:


> I think the article was spot on. It dealt with all the issues that accompany the yes vote and how the investors lose out as a result of those changes.
> 
> The biggest problem that the NO side has in this situation, is the wording that they use. The word LIQUIDATION should be avoided at all costs. There is so much fear and innuendo that comes from the word.
> 
> ...




Hi Newwwtrader,
I completely agree with your opinion that the No vote is the better alternative.
GO THE NO !!!!


----------



## Juan Mortyme (10 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Just a gentle reminder  for all you folk out there to reread  that article by the ASA which was in the Australia  B4 you go to bed tonight   Have a good night / Dane //




Off to bed now.
Will be reading http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24314985-30538,00.html

Hope I don't have nightmares.


----------



## BABIHUTAN (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Buffy99 said:


> Please all note that Lonsec has yesterday released a Research Report that recommends that Unit Holders vote in favour of the 3 resolutions.
> 
> This is from an independant research house.
> Regards,
> Buffy99




The following {quoted in Part} appeared in an article on the Crikey website.
http://www.crikey.com.au/Business/20080401-Avenues-connection-to-troubled-MFS-.html 13/07/2008

QTE - Further, a report prepared by investment firm Lonsec noted that investors should expect to recover 95 cents in the dollar. However, that's assuming MFS stands by a $50 million support facility. Given MFS’s current situation, PIF unitholders won’t be holding their collective breath.
Auditor PwC was even less optimistic about PIF’s prospects, noting that there was uncertainty as to whether PIF will be able to continue operating as a going concern.
As with everything MFS, there seem to be double doses of clumsiness and conflict permeating the MFS Premium Income
debacle.UNQTE
Presumably Lonsec based report on MFS-PIF trading their way out of trouble. I wonder what Lonsec's recovery expectations now are, given recent and not so recent developments in the PIF scene. Babihutan


----------



## great dame (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi Newwwtrader,
> I completely agree with your opinion that the No vote is the better alternative.
> GO THE NO !!!!



    That goes DITTO from me to    GO THE NO ///


----------



## Juan Mortyme (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

In the article on Raptis in today's AFR it says the following:

"It is understood the Premium Income Fund has a $50 million-plus exposure to Raptis but its manager, Jenny Hutson, declined to comment."

Seems to just get worse and worse.

link: http://www.afr.com/home/viewer.aspx...&title=Raptis+creditor+calls+in+the+receivers


----------



## DoraNBoots (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The information in this post refers to Resolution 3 only.
The explanatory memorandum says page 16 that resolution 3 will be an ordinary resolution (50% of those that vote) but the Corporations Act requires a change of RE to be an extraordinary resolution (50% of all unit holders).
Will be interesting to see the actual votes received for this resolution and even more interesting if the ‘For’ votes meet the requirements of an ordinary resolution but not an extraordinary resolution.


----------



## kogo (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all. I started looking at this thread quite sometime ago and quit responding and looking after 2 days due to the content. Bit of a pity it didn't get closed down then to sort things out rather than a week or so before the vote. I also e-mailed my name/address to the AG and got no response. 

I sent my vote in the other day however I'm regretting one thing now. I'm all for WC to try and resurrect this fund and start paying some sort of a return with the hope that in 3-5 years they can restore a unit value to a dollar. It's my feeling that going down the long term road is better than a wind up that will get eaten away in fees and time etc. 

My regret though is the NSX thing. I see the point of providing a marketplace for short term invsetors to get out if they want, but it should be exactly that - a short term period or an added option. If the value of the fund increases as per WC plans than the fund should be able to redempt once it's liquid. This should/could be reviewed based on finacial statements etc every 6 months or so. 

Can anyone add more insight to this. Is there a way to make sure that the NSX is not the only way to redempt?? Especially for long term investors. 

If you respond please do so only on what I've asked as I've already read the negative/positive stuff.

regards


----------



## marcom (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From a quick read of the press on the PTQ/Octaviar court action, it looks like the PTQ is asserting that MFS/Octaviar was insolvent when it sold 65% in Stella, although Octaviar has supplied the court with "factual information" that this was not the case.

If the PTQ's argument succeeds they are asking the Court to undo the deal.

Also this argument could in theory be applied to MFS's sale of $147.5m dud loans into PIF?

All will be revealed when the judgement is delivered 4PM tomorrow.


----------



## great dame (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



kogo said:


> Hi all. I started looking at this thread quite sometime ago and quit responding and looking after 2 days due to the content. Bit of a pity it didn't get closed down then to sort things out rather than a week or so before the vote. I also e-mailed my name/address to the AG and got no response.
> 
> I sent my vote in the other day however I'm regretting one thing now. I'm all for WC to try and resurrect this fund and start paying some sort of a return with the hope that in 3-5 years they can restore a unit value to a dollar. It's my feeling that going down the long term road is better than a wind up that will get eaten away in fees and time etc.
> 
> ...



      Kogo I am against listing on the NSX  i spook to WC about this  Was told it will remain an exit for investors now & in the future  / Dane //


----------



## seamisty (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



kogo said:


> Hi all. I started looking at this thread quite sometime ago and quit responding and looking after 2 days due to the content. Bit of a pity it didn't get closed down then to sort things out rather than a week or so before the vote. I also e-mailed my name/address to the AG and got no response.
> 
> I sent my vote in the other day however I'm regretting one thing now. I'm all for WC to try and resurrect this fund and start paying some sort of a return with the hope that in 3-5 years they can restore a unit value to a dollar. It's my feeling that going down the long term road is better than a wind up that will get eaten away in fees and time etc.
> 
> ...



Hi Kogo, No one is entirely happy with all of WC proposals but most are of the same opinion as you. I am hoping that in 3-5years when the Fund has stabilised that  WC will reassess the fuutre direction in regards to redemptions. To grow the PIF and take it foward at a later date, there will have to be other options to exit or the Fund will not be attractive to future investors. I am hoping to discuss this issue with JH next month and know of others who fully intend to do the same in person. No one will be able to predict the state of the economy in 3-5 years and this will be the largest factor and have the most impact on the performance on the Fund. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Rance (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> In the article on Raptis in today's AFR it says the following:
> 
> "It is understood the Premium Income Fund has a $50 million-plus exposure to Raptis but its manager, Jenny Hutson, declined to comment."
> 
> ...



Yes, that's bad for both the YES and NO sides of the debate!

Rance


----------



## seamisty (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Octaviar court decision drags on::Shannon Willoughby 

September 11th, 2008 

ADMINISTRATORS or liquidators will be appointed to Octaviar by tomorrow, ending a lengthy court battle between the Public Trustee of Queensland and company directors.

Yesterday, the Queensland Supreme Court reserved its decision on the fate of the debt-laden company, formerly known as MFS.

It is understood the court has until tomorrow when the injunction on the company's right to appoint administrators expires.

Directors of the company, which owes creditors $900 million, want to move into voluntary administration.

However, the public trustee, acting on behalf of Octaviar noteholders owed $347 million, is pushing ahead for a liquidation, ignoring a payout offer that expires on September 30.

The public trustee launched a bid to wind up Octaviar in June.

Under a winding-up, Octaviar's assets would be sold off immediately.

Under voluntary administration, directors can remain in their jobs and assets can be sold off more gradually.

Creditors include the Premium Income Fund, OPI Pacific Finance and Challenger Financial Services Group.

In July, Octaviar put forward a plan to pay out all of its unsecured creditors, some of them in full.

Holders of listed Octaviar notes were offered 100c in the dollar for the first $5000 they invested, and 22.5c in the dollar for anything above $5000.

The offer needs the support of at least 75 per cent of noteholders to proceed.

The same offer was extended to Challenger, owed $100 million, and the Jenny Hutson-controlled Premium Income Fund ($197.5 million).

Octaviar also owes OPI Pacific Finance $246 million, the National Australia Bank $40 million and the Australian Taxation Office $53 million.

Company director Chris Scott last night said administration was the better outcome for creditors.

He said winding-up Octaviar, which has cash in the bank of $150 million, was not a viable option.

"They have extended the injunction until Friday and until the judge makes his decision we won't know anything," he said.

"Liquidation is the worst option. We owe $900 million and the noteholders are owed $340 million of that, which is around 35 per cent.

"At the end of the day we've got to do what's best for all the creditors."

Insolvency specialist KordaMentha, after a review of Octaviar's operations earlier this year, forecast a January liquidation of the then-MFS would have delivered creditors just 5c in the dollar.

Mr Scott said if the company went into liquidation in the current market, creditors would receive, at best, 13.9c in the dollar.

Octaviar chief executive Craig Chapman last night declined to comment on the case until a decision was handed down


----------



## selciper (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sydney Morning Herald - today, very recent:

http://news.google.com.au/news/url?...&cid=0&usg=AFQjCNGHSoayR69JVR0vCLbXq7TRl7i5BA


----------



## mgr2118 (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Article from todays SMH

ASIC must step in
•	Michael West 
•	September 12, 2008 - 9:25AM
Unless the Australian Securities & Investments Commission takes a stand on behalf of the beleaguered 10,000 unitholders in the old MFS Premium Income Fund (PIF), these investors will lose the bulk of their savings.
Many PIF investors believe the only options available to them are to either accept the offer by Wellington Capital to run their fund, or watch it liquidated at 14c a unit.
They have been led to believe a "no" vote means liquidation and therefore losses. This is wrong. ASIC needs to step in. Now that PIF's parent Octaviar (the old MFS) is bound for administration and PIF has $200 million in claims to pursue, the imperative for clear and independent instructions is even greater.
The best outcome for PIF would be the orderly work-out out of the fund's external investments and loan book and a return of capital to investors.
The best way for PIF investors to achieve this would be to vote "no" to the Wellington proposal and appoint their own manager to wind-up the fund and pursue any legal claims.
Wellington chief Jenny Hutson has been on a roadshow pitching for the vote from PIF unitholders to restructure and list their fund on the NSX (National Stock Exchange - formerly Newcastle).
Investors should ask themselves if they really want to be locked into a fund listed on an illiquid market paying large fees to a manager who is yet to make enough relevant disclosures.
Wellington had secured the management rights under questionable circumstances from Octaviar in the first place. Octaviar is now run by her former associate and client Chris Scott. For his part, Scott wants to get some money out of Octaviar since he vended his businesses S8 into the old MFS for scrip. That scrip now looks worthless.
For its part, Wellington wants to permanently capture PIF by making it a listed fund. This would appear to be the best outcome for Wellington - who captures millions in fees - but is it best for PIF?
PIF unitholders have a choice, says Hutson. They can vote "yes" to approve Wellington as manager and take stock worth 45c a unit listed on the NSX. She estimates the asset backing at 45c but given the state of the listed property market PIF would trade at a large discount to 45c - especially as Wellington would likely put the hand out for more capital at some stage.
Under the Wellington proposal there is a raft of fees, both cheeky and onerous. There is even a severance fee of 2% of gross assets so PIF
would have to pay $8 million to Jenny just to see her off.
Wellington to gee up a 75% "yes" vote to get control. PIF investors need to know they have other choices. In fact they can dump Wellington altogether and appoint their own RE (Responsible Entity). The RE ought to be simply a manager the 10,000-odd unitholders in PIF can trust and who can preside over an orderly sale of their assets.
As PIF is not the only train wreck unfolding on the Gold Coast - there is City Pacific and others - the sooner they unwind the fund the better prices they will get for their assets.
mwest@fairfax.com.au


----------



## Maverick2802 (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Wellington to gee up a 75% "yes" vote to get control. PIF investors need to know they have other choices. In fact they can dump Wellington altogether and appoint their own RE (Responsible Entity). The RE ought to be simply a manager the 10,000-odd unitholders in PIF can trust and who can preside over an orderly sale of their assets.

All well and fine. Very simple. Well where is that RE? Who will it be? Geeze, they love making these statements from behind their cushy desk, but like the PIFI motivated group inspiring the same articles to be written, offer NO certainty. People want certainty, they NEED certainty.

Obviously by the way the vote seems to be going they feel WC can offer that and have less faith in what ASIC would bring to the table.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This is what was written by Adam Schwab in Crikey on the 3rd July 2008 

--------------------------

*Now, or later, or never.* The Financial Review reported today that "managers of the $755 million [Ovtaviar] Premium Income Fund will urge unit holders not to place the stricken entity into liquidation." Instead, PIF boss, Jenny Hutson (who is a close associate of Octaviar chief, Chris Scott), has begged unit-holders to give PIF management another five years. Hutson stated that if court action against Octaviar (which was the former responsible entity of PIF) was successful, and the fund recovered the $147.5 million claimed, the value of units in PIF would top "65 cents in the dollar". However, Hutson noted that "my vision over three to five years is to work with the investors to get them a full return of capital. So for every $1 invested, they will get at least $1 back."

Of course, waiting five years isn’t ideal for investors who are familiar with the cornerstone concept of "opportunity cost". If unit-holders have the choice between 65 cents now (assuming the Octaviar claim is successful) and a possible $1.00 in five years, it would be difficult to opt for the $1.00. A mythical 65 cents invested now in a term deposit paying a mere 7% would be worth 91 cents after five years. And one would suspect investors would opt for a near guaranteed 91 cents rather than leaving the far riskier option of having their money tied up in PIF for another five years. Hutson will be hoping unit-holders don’t agree -- presumably management fees wouldn’t be particularity lucrative after the Fund is liquidated. -- Adam Schwab 
--------------------------
direct link: http://www.crikey.com.au/Business/20080703-Briefly-Business-Octaviar-Just-.html


----------



## Maverick2802 (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> This is what was written by Adam Schwab in Crikey on the 3rd July 2008
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> ...




Hell yeah we would all take 65c now, but that is not what we would get if it was liquidated now would we!!! Even if the NO vote got up, it would still take 3-5 years of an admin workout to get 45c with the possibility of no income in the process.


----------



## sugar3157 (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> This is what was written by Adam Schwab in Crikey on the 3rd July 2008
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> ...




Hi Seamisty all, what do you think of this article...
I would rather have my 65c now...
How can we get 65c now?


----------



## seamisty (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> This is what was written by Adam Schwab in Crikey on the 3rd July 2008
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> ...



That aricle was incorrect when it was written over 3 months ago to the effect that unitholders were never going to receive 65 cents immediately with or without the whole amount being recovered from OCV. The 65cents quoted was only as  an ONGOING CONCERN . I don't see the point in re posting an old incorrect media article, what are you hoping to achieve? Seamisty


----------



## Juan Mortyme (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> That aricle was incorrect when it was written over 3 months ago to the effect that unitholders were never going to receive 65 cents immediately with or without the whole amount being recovered from OCV. The 65cents quoted was only as  an ONGOING CONCERN . I don't see the point in re posting an old incorrect media article, what are you hoping to achieve? Seamisty




So maybe you now have to wait 3 to 5 years to reach the 65 cent mark?


----------



## selciper (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Michael West's SMH article is weeks too late. For months many of us have called for ASIC to check things out.(Is he subtly suggesting that the vote be called off?) The depressing read in some ways can help us - it means increased scrutiny of WC's  strategies. Can't see that it will change voting patterns at this late stage, but JH is now well and truly in the critics' spotlight. She may even have put her brand name on the line. This will certainly motivate WC to deliver on their promises. Hardly a good day for WC public relations!


----------



## seamisty (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> So maybe you now have to wait 3 to 5 years to reach the 65 cent mark?



You were always going to have to wait for at least 3 years, with the full recovery of $147million from OCV and a lot of hard work and good business decisions from a whole team of professional, dedicated managers!!!! That is why for the life of me I can't see why a few investors think they could possibly recover 45cents short term by winding up the Fund without taking the cost of a team of expensive professionals to do the administrating into consideration. Talk about tunnel vision!! Seamisty


----------



## Maverick2802 (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Michael West's SMH article is weeks too late. For months many of us have called for ASIC to check things out.(Is he subtly suggesting that the vote be called off?) The depressing read in some ways can help us - it means increased scrutiny of WC's  strategies. Can't see that it will change voting patterns at this late stage, but JH is now well and truly in the critics' spotlight. She may even have put her brand name on the line. This will certainly motivate WC to deliver on their promises. Hardly a good day for WC public relations!




That's exactly the way I see it selciper. She will be under that much scrutiny from all parties, including ASIC and the media. It will really define what she is made of. It's funny how noone mentions the fact that she is willing to allow a 3 person investor committee. Now she didn't have to bring this in, yet there has been no media commentary on this.

Anyone here nominating. I think it should represent a good mix. ie I would vote for seamisty (good businness knowledge and a successful investor and great in people communiaction) in the for camp, dora in the against camp (is situated geographically close and is very thorough and patient in detail and suggests a good understanding of legal ramifications and financial documents) and in the insto side RickH, he has a vast understanding of funds management and would have lots of contacts to perhaps help claw back value plus many investors to bring pressure in numbers if we should require that.

Your thoughts??


----------



## seamisty (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Michael West's SMH article is weeks too late. For months many of us have called for ASIC to check things out.(Is he subtly suggesting that the vote be called off?) The depressing read in some ways can help us - it means increased scrutiny of WC's  strategies. Can't see that it will change voting patterns at this late stage, but JH is now well and truly in the critics' spotlight. She may even have put her brand name on the line. This will certainly motivate WC to deliver on their promises. Hardly a good day for WC public relations!



I have been told by WC that they are under constant scrutiny from ASIC. The whole explanatory memorandum had to be approved by ASIC before it was released. Perhaps Michael West should have asked for a comment from ASIC and the majority of investors in the PIF who have chosen to support WC before offering unprofessional financial advise which could result in a far worse financial outcome for unitholders. A very poorly researched article with dodgey  content in my opinion. Seamisty


----------



## great dame (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

So all you yes voters are saying that all the Media have got it wrong ??? Remember those writers have got to be careful what they write    Really sad it has come so late  But you never know the NOES may come charging through yet  need only 25% plus ONE  / Dane //


----------



## Maverick2802 (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Wouldn't be the first time the media has got it frightfully wrong and it certainly won't be the last.

Newspapers are owned by billionaires who use media outlets as a means to voice their own agendas to manipulate markets and political outcomes to suit their own money making schemes. They are very rarely held accountable.

An alarmist headline will always attract more readers than a warm and fuzzy one. It's ALL about sales and circulation!


----------



## great dame (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> Wouldn't be the first time the media has got it frightfully wrong and it certainly won't be the last.
> 
> Newspapers are owned by billionaires who use media outlets as a means to voice their own agendas to manipulate markets and political outcomes to suit their own money making schemes. They are very rarely held accountable.
> 
> An alarmist headline will always attract more readers than a warm and fuzzy one. It's ALL about sales and circulation!



  There is only aout 200 plus menbers on the forum  the 10.000 others out there are not reading your posts or mine    And the way i see it It is split 50/50 on the forum  for the yes & no vote  / Dane //


----------



## Maverick2802 (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have the confidence in the intelligence of the investors to realise that these types of articles are just propaganda to sell print. They will and have been making the sensible decision by the droves. Even the majority of people on this forum see the sensibilities of a FOR WC vote.


----------



## great dame (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> I have the confidence in the intelligence of the investors to realise that these types of articles are just propaganda to sell print. They will and have been making the sensible decision by the droves. Even the majority of people on this forum see the sensibilities of a FOR WC vote.



     And then again it could be just enough to get the NO vote over the line  Need only 25% plus ONE   remenber  / Dane //


----------



## seamisty (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> I have the confidence in the intelligence of the investors to realise that these types of articles are just propaganda to sell print. They will and have been making the sensible decision by the droves. Even the majority of people on this forum see the sensibilities of a FOR WC vote.



Maverick I asked WC why they didn't correct some of the misleading media information that has been reported recently and was told early indications were so overwhelmingly in favour of the FOR vote that JH thought her time would be more counter productive pursuing other issues which would result in a better outcome for PIF unit holders. Seamisty


----------



## Maverick2802 (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Maverick I asked WC why they didn't correct some of the misleading media information that has been reported recently and was told early indications were so overwhelmingly in favour of the FOR vote that JH thought her time would be more counter productive pursuing other issues which would result in a better outcome for PIF unit holders. Seamisty




Hey Seamisty,

Just got off the phone with WC and they confirm that the overwhelming percentage of the votes that have been processed are for the FOR vote. The trend is so much so that it would be very surprising for an AGAINST vote. A lot of people are ringing up complaining about how they received correspondence from another individual, how they could have their address, they were unappreciative of the contact and were totally against the views expressed. Apparently they have received a high number of calls protesting the PIFI letter. Looks like apart from a bit of media exposure, it has really backfired for their cause, judging by the investors of this fund, oh well you live and learn I guess, would have cost a packet ($$$) too!!

They have not seen much of Jenny this week with the court action and they were in limbo awaiting tomorrow's decision and how JH will be in there protecting us as OCV creditors.

I also asked about Raptis, and the buiding that has come up with problems and a liquidator has been appointed has nothing directly to do with us. We (PIF) have NO direct exposure to that particular development. Just another example of inaccurate reporting by the media.


----------



## seamisty (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> Hey Seamisty,
> 
> Just got off the phone with WC and they confirm that the overwhelming percentage of the votes that have been processed are for the FOR vote. The trend is so much so that it would be very surprising for an AGAINST vote. A lot of people are ringing up complaining about how they received correspondence from another individual, how they could have their address, they were unappreciative of the contact and were totally against the views expressed. Apparently they have received a high number of calls protesting the PIFI letter. Looks like apart from a bit of media exposure, it has really backfired for their cause, judging by the investors of this fund, oh well you live and learn I guess, would have cost a packet ($$$) too!!
> 
> ...



That would explain why when I tried to research the Raptis link, the only connection I could find was with MFS Diversified Group. Seamisty


----------



## like2ski (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> Hey Seamisty,
> 
> Just got off the phone with WC and they confirm that the overwhelming percentage of the votes that have been processed are for the FOR vote. The trend is so much so that it would be very surprising for an AGAINST vote. A lot of people are ringing up complaining about how they received correspondence from another individual, how they could have their address, they were unappreciative of the contact and were totally against the views expressed. Apparently they have received a high number of calls protesting the PIFI letter. Looks like apart from a bit of media exposure, it has really backfired for their cause, judging by the investors of this fund, oh well you live and learn I guess, would have cost a packet ($$$) too!!
> 
> ...




Hey Seamisty,
I don't want to start the whole argument again, as many have recently stated on here, we should be uniting to achieve the best possible outcome for us all. However one could not take what WC says too seriously as they have every reason to push the JC agenda.


----------



## seamisty (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



like2ski said:


> Hey Seamisty,
> I don't want to start the whole argument again, as many have recently stated on here, we should be uniting to achieve the best possible outcome for us all. However one could not take what WC says too seriously as they have every reason to push the JC agenda.



LOL!!! I know I have supported JH like2ski, but not even I would put her on that big a pedestal. I don't think I have ever confused JH with JesusChrist!!!!! Seamisty


----------



## like2ski (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> LOL!!! I know I have supported JH like2ski, but not even I would put her on that big a pedestal. I don't think I have ever confused JH with JesusChrist!!!!! Seamisty




Ooops, I was referring to JH... LOL...LOL...


----------



## seamisty (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



like2ski said:


> Ooops, I was referring to JH... LOL...LOL...



Well the forum could do with some light humour. No definately can't envisage JC in that red jacket!!!!Seamisty


----------



## breaker1 (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

As of today:

39% of the vote has been counted and 97% have voted YES for resolution 1


----------



## newwwtrader (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> Wouldn't be the first time the media has got it frightfully wrong and it certainly won't be the last.
> 
> Newspapers are owned by billionaires who use media outlets as a means to voice their own agendas to manipulate markets and political outcomes to suit their own money making schemes. They are very rarely held accountable.
> 
> An alarmist headline will always attract more readers than a warm and fuzzy one. It's ALL about sales and circulation!




PLLLEEEEEEAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

Thats right, anyone whose view does not match the WC side of the argument must be wrong. They must have an agenda etc.

Could it not be that the writer was giving an impartial opinion of the situation. Factually the article was correct. At least there is the occassional truthful article written to counter the propoganda being pushed by WC and their cronies.


----------



## Duped (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Interesting blog: http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/bottomline/2008/09/10/justice-must-be-done-get-on-with-it/

Similar observation as in an early Crikey article i.e. bad debts were passed around like a game of pass the bomb. 

Maybe the way to stir ASIC up a bit is to paint the financial architects as heroes.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (11 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

"Should ASIC step in? What should Premium Income Fund investors do?"  Post your comments to the Michael West article here:
http://blogs.theage.com.au/business/archives/2008/09/all_points_west_2.html


----------



## RickH (12 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I have been told by WC that they are under constant scrutiny from ASIC. The whole explanatory memorandum had to be approved by ASIC before it was released. Perhaps Michael West should have asked for a comment from ASIC and the majority of investors in the PIF who have chosen to support WC before offering unprofessional financial advise which could result in a far worse financial outcome for unitholders. A very poorly researched article with dodgey  content in my opinion. Seamisty



Hi seamisty,
MW may have provided a guarantee that PIF will not be liquidated and a new RE may also be guaranteed to help wind up PIF in an orderly fashion. I do not think that Iwould like him to be on my payroll.
Regards, RickH:couch


----------



## Duped (12 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Looks like a question about what's ASIC doing about PIF was raised in the Senate.

See 'Question on Notice 13' at bottom of http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/corporations_ctte/asic/asic_june_08/e02.htm

Although if a week is a long time in politics then PIF is long forgotten.


----------



## seamisty (12 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Looks like a question about what's ASIC doing about PIF was raised in the Senate.
> 
> See 'Question on Notice 13' at bottom of http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/corporations_ctte/asic/asic_june_08/e02.htm
> 
> Although if a week is a long time in politics then PIF is long forgotten.



From the Senate Notes::::::Question on Notice 13
Premium Income Fund (Mr Robert, additional question on notice)
The Premium Income Fund (nee MFS Premium Income Fund) has accused MFS/Octaviar of plundering the PIF of at least 

$147.5m. There are also a range of other claims against MFS/Octaviar. What is ASIC doing to address this situation and assist PIF investors considering that some commentators are claiming that these actions may be a breach of the Corporations Act, of the Product Disclosure Statement, the PIF Constitution and the compliance plan?

Furthermore will ASIC be launching an investigation into the operation of MFS/Octaviar and particularly the PIF?

Response: 
ASIC has been actively monitoring and making enquiries of MFS/Octaviar and the MFS/Octaviar Group since January 2008.  

On 13 June 2008, the responsible entity of PIF (now known as Wellington Investment Management Limited (WIM)) became a wholly owned subsidiary of Wellington Capital Limited. Notwithstanding this change in ownership, ASIC has also continued to actively monitor events concerning WIM and PIF.

ASIC has concentrated its enquiries to date on monitoring the solvency of MFS/Octaviar and the liquidity of PIF to ensure that, to the extent possible, the interests of investors are protected. ASIC has also made enquiries concerning the continuous disclosure obligations contained in ASX Listing Rule 3.1 and section 674 of the Corporations Act and has emphasised the need for timely and appropriate disclosures to the market and investors in its dealings with MFS/Octaviar and WIM.  

ASIC’s enquiries also extend to considering the claim by WIM against Octaviar Limited and an Octaviar subsidiary for $147.5 million regarding investments made by PIF, which Octaviar Limited made a market announcement about on 24 June 2008.


----------



## Duped (12 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Classic Sir Humphrey Appleby response. Lots and lots and lots of words but no outcomes for us.

ASIC, ATO & Centrelink must have a lot of faith in JH because it's not just the 10K investors that are financially exposed.  It's their partners and families as well. Not only will more of us investors and partners now lean on their safety net but there'll be lots more 'supporting a dependent' tax claims.  Hopefully this mess will hit the Fed hard where it hurts them most.  We might get some action then.


----------



## seamisty (12 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Octaviar ruling delayed until Monday17:41 AEST Fri Sep 12 2008ago[x]
A Brisbane judge has adjourned a decision until Monday morning on whether embattled fund manager Octaviar Ltd should be put in the hands of court-appointed liquidators or administrators chosen by the company.

Queensland Supreme Court judge Philip McMurdo was due to decide either to start liquidation proceedings or to allow the company to appoint its own administrators for a period, with the process to be reviewed by the court later this year.

The Public Trustee of Queensland (PTQ) is seeking a ruling from the Supreme Court to appoint a liquidator to wind up the company that owes about $351 million to more than 500 noteholders the PTQ is representing.

But the Gold Coast financial and tourism group, formerly known as MFS, is seeking to appoint its own administrator to work through its debts.

Justice McMurdo on Friday afternoon adjourned the matter until 9.30am (AEST) on Monday


----------



## Juan Mortyme (13 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Is the toothless tiger finally growing teeth?

--------------------

*Watchdog vs Wellington Investment Management
*

by Anthony Klan | September 13, 2008

THE corporate watchdog has launched legal action in a bid to prevent a meeting of investors in the failed $750 million Octaviar Premium Income Fund scheduled to be held next week.

The Australian Securities and Investment Commission has applied to the Queensland Supreme Court to delay the meeting after Wellington Investment Management -- which is attempting to entrench itself as manager of the fund -- refused to delay the meeting.

"ASIC has taken this step after failing to obtain Wellington Investment's agreement to adjourn the meeting," the regulator said. "ASIC considers that unit holders require additional information in order to make informed decisions at the proposed meeting."

As reported by The Australian earlier this month, Wellington -- headed by Brisbane businesswoman Jenny Hutson -- is attempting to alter the fund's constitution in a move that would hand it millions of dollars, if it was removed as manager.

An independent report by Hicksons Lawyers partner Kalinda Cobby has warned that Wellington Investment Management was attempting to impose "onerous" restrictions on the PIF that "fetter" the ability of investors to remove Wellington as manager.

Those changes to PIF's constitution are due to be voted on at Wednesday's unitholders meeting. Ms Hutson was unavailable for comment last night.

She has previously told The Australian those proposed changes would make it more difficult for PIF's 10,000-plus investors to remove Wellington as manager, but claimed it was a move to help investors who "wanted to ensure we were there for the long-run".

Octaviar was formerly known as MFS Limited.

-------------------------

direct link: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24337397-643,00.html


----------



## Quincy (13 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

ASIC Notice see HERE


*AD08-09 Premium income fund*

_Friday 12 September 2008_


ASIC commenced proceedings yesterday in the Supreme Court of Queensland seeking to delay a meeting of unit holders in the old MFS Premium Income Fund (PIF).

ASIC is seeking an order restraining Wellington Investment Management Limited (WIM) as the Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund from proceeding with a meeting of unit holders scheduled for 18 September 2008. 

ASIC has taken this step after failing to obtain WIM’s agreement to adjourn meeting.

ASIC considers that unit holders require additional information in order to make informed decisions at the proposed meeting. 

The proceedings will be heard on Wednesday 17 September 2008.


----------



## sugar3157 (13 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



ACR Noteholder said:


> ASIC Notice see HERE
> 
> 
> *AD08-09 Premium income fund*
> ...




Why has ASIC done this?
What do you think this will achieve?
Will JH walk away now?
Why doesn't ASIC make OCV give PIF the $147ml back?....that would help us all much more at this late stage...


----------



## PIFholder (13 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Why has ASIC done this?
> What do you think this will achieve?
> Will JH walk away now?
> Why doesn't ASIC make OCV give PIF the $147ml back?....that would help us all much more at this late stage...




I agree Sugar.
Why aren't the headlines ASIC has commenced proceedings against Octaviar? I'd much rather get the $147 million + support $50m back. If ASIC gets an adjournment who pays for the meeting costs - pretty sure you can't get your money back on a meeting that is 24 hours away?  Pretty sure that ASIC isn't going to fund a new meeting, so it will end up being fund money - i.e. our money that is spent.
Do we get a payment in October if this meeting adjourns? or does this just drag on until no one can take it any more - no cash payments, no exit mechanisms .... .


----------



## Maverick2802 (13 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Looks like Kalinda Cobby has got friends in high places in ASIC. Wish she would get them to help in paying us the $197.5m that is owed and stolen from us rather than being a hinderance.

I hope that the judge hearing this on the 17th will dismiss this as nothing more than a feeble attempt by a minority group of investors peddling their own little agenda.

ASIC considers that unit holders require additional information in order to make informed decisions. Who is going to inform us of this information? PIFI, Kalinda, ASIC who?

Have we not been informed enough? Has WC not fielded thousands of calls by unit holders in this campaign? Do those unit holders that have voted for all the 3 resolutions to be passed not posses the sufficient intelligence necessary to absorb and process that information and vote accordingly?

This is a democratic vote, why should 5% of investors overule the wishes of 95% of the unit holders that have voted.  Let this process continue and let the majority decide. By the 17th the exact numbers will be presented to the court, I think that will clearly demonstrate that it is not close and unit holders are indeed informed.

I hate what PIFI is doing, they are selfish and only care about themselves and stuff what the majority of us want. Hopefully they will be put in their place very soon, they really are alienating themselves and making the majority very mad.


----------



## Rance (13 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



ACR Noteholder said:


> ASIC Notice see HERE
> 
> 
> *AD08-09 Premium income fund*
> ...




*AMAZING!  Now I'm convinced the people at ASIC are dumb!  What a WOFTAM (Waste of Effing Time and Money)!

What additional info is required "to make informed decisions"?  It's all there in black and white. Maybe there are some unit holders who can't read......

Rance*


----------



## Rance (13 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> *Maybe there are some unit holders who can't read......  *




*....or comprehend!!

Rance *


----------



## Maverick2802 (13 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> *....or comprehend!!
> 
> Rance *




...or just wreckless and wish to further destabilise the lives of unitholders by their destructive actions!  We should sue PIFI for any costs brought to the fund by the adjournment of this meeting, if it turns out that way!! I hope you are all soooooo proud of what you are doing, this will divide majority investors and PIFI forever!!!!!!.


----------



## selciper (13 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Certainly not good news, but not all that surprising. On my #2576 11 Sep. I said, "Michael West's SMH article is weeks too late. For months many of us have called for ASIC to check things out. (Is he subtly suggesting that the vote be called off?) etc".

It would seem that Question 3 may be the one troubling ASIC. It's quite likely that PIF investors unfamiliar with this thread might just say Yes to that question without understanding the ramifications. Why ASIC have left their run so late is anybody's guess. WC, with all their legal resources, might have headed off the present Question 3 problem by having being more explicit. We just seem to be shoved back to square one every time there's a chink of light. The media reports of the 17 Sep. proceedings will make for interesting reading. We'll learn what ASIC are really on about. Again, a potential blow to WC public relations.


----------



## marcom (13 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Maveric 2802 said "This is a democratic vote, why should 5% of investors overule the wishes of 95% of the unit holders that have voted".

The fact is PIFI's 30 members represent 0.003% of unitholders.

This sort of thing is why the previous Government was going to amend the 100 shareholder rule to call a meeting in the Corporations Act - but the election intervened.

Yes, this potentially could lead to a delay of the meeting and potentially a delay in us receiving any "capital" distribution, and cost the fund more. If this happens PIFI might well be exposed to legal action for breach of Privacy laws in relation to their mail out and even litigation with regard to additional costs to the fund. All because of one reason - they are an Incorporated body. And I bet they do not have any insurance and therefore each member is PERSONALLY LIABLE.

This is exactly why the PIF Action Group did not incorporate.

As far as ASIC is concerned, we are all a little guilty because of all the complaints and letters to politicians we sent has put enormous political pressure on ASIC to be seen to be doing something - and their typical response is to weigh in on the least important issue!

Really, ASIC has been handed details of the $147.5 dud loans transaction (its's the basis of the Supreme Court action involving breaches of the Corporations Act, PIF Constitution and Compliance Committee and WC is reqiured by the Act to advise ASIC) and they do NOTHING!

Next time someone spruikes about the effectiveness of corporate regulation in Australia try not to laugh.


----------



## Maverick2802 (13 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Why has ASIC done this?
> What do you think this will achieve?
> Will JH walk away now?
> Why doesn't ASIC make OCV give PIF the $147ml back?....that would help us all much more at this late stage...




She will not walk away, in fact I think this will make her even more determined so that this PIFI never messes with our fund again:nono:


----------



## seamisty (13 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi GD,
> This page with give you the option to lodge a complaint online or download the form and post:
> http://fido.asic.gov.au/fido/fido.nsf/byheadline/How+to+complain+to+ASIC?openDocument



Hi all, I have been contacted by a large number of unitholders today, ALL of the same angry opinion. What right does ASIC have to represent an extremely small group of selfish investors who have instigated this action to  the detriment of at least 95% of unitholders who fully understand the conditions to which they have voted overwhelmingly in favour For!!! For months hundreds(if not more) of us have been trying to get some help from ASIC and now we are getting some last minute meddling intervention (unasked and unwanted by the majority)with the potential risk of destabilising the Fund and disrupting the intended October distribution. Well we all know those responsible and I urge you all to contact ASIC on the above website or call their info hotline on 1300 300 630 and voice your concerns in regards to this matter. I would not like to be in any of the PIFI groups 'boots' right now, they have demonstrated a total lack of regard for anyone but themselves. Seamisty:angry:


----------



## great dame (13 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hi all, I have been contacted by a large number of unitholders today, ALL of the same angry opinion. What right does ASIC have to represent an extremely small group of selfish investors who have instigated this action to  the detriment of at least 95% of unitholders who fully understand the conditions to which they have voted overwhelmingly in favour For!!! For months hundreds(if not more) of us have been trying to get some help from ASIC and now we are getting some last minute meddling intervention (unasked and unwanted by the majority)with the potential risk of destabilising the Fund and disrupting the intended October distribution. Well we all know those responsible and I urge you all to contact ASIC on the above website or call their info hotline on 1300 300 630 and voice your concerns in regards to this matter. I would not like to be in any of the PIFI groups 'boots' right now, they have demonstrated a total lack of regard for anyone but themselves. Seamisty:angry:



      WELL SAID ????


----------



## JohnH (13 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> WELL SAID ????




Do we hear you correctly GD???


----------



## mgr2118 (13 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Following is extract from todays' Courier Mail relating to the embattled RAPTIS GROUP.


"Meanwhile, high-profile Gold Coast finance and tourism group Octaviar, formerly known as MFS, on Monday faces losing an eight-month battle to stay afloat when administrators are expected to be appointed. It owes creditors more than $1 billion. 

Administrators could be appointed as early as today. 

The Public Trustee of Queensland has sought Brisbane Supreme Court orders since early June for the appointment of a liquidator to Octaviar over $351 million owed to 560 listed note holders. 

A majority of big creditors, including Challenger Management Investments, OPI Pacific Finance and Wellington Capital, would instead welcome the appointment of administrators because they believed it would provide a better return and more orderly sale of assets. "


My question is why is WC advocating the appointment of an administrator to "provide a better return and more orderly sale of assets" when it relates to Chris Scott and his fortunes (within Octaviar), but it is inferred (in no uncertain terms) that WC would liquidate (irrespective of the results for the PIF unitholders).

As an observer of all the plots and stories that seem to be circulating at this time, I find this opposite tact both confusing, and somewhat disturbing.

Maybe someone on the forum may be able clear this up?


----------



## newwwtrader (13 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hi all, I have been contacted by a large number of unitholders today, ALL of the same angry opinion. What right does ASIC have to represent an extremely small group of selfish investors who have instigated this action to  the detriment of at least 95% of unitholders who fully understand the conditions to which they have voted overwhelmingly in favour For!!! For months hundreds(if not more) of us have been trying to get some help from ASIC and now we are getting some last minute meddling intervention (unasked and unwanted by the majority)with the potential risk of destabilising the Fund and disrupting the intended October distribution. Well we all know those responsible and I urge you all to contact ASIC on the above website or call their info hotline on 1300 300 630 and voice your concerns in regards to this matter. I would not like to be in any of the PIFI groups 'boots' right now, they have demonstrated a total lack of regard for anyone but themselves. Seamisty:angry:





I agree ASIC should have done something earlier. But they didnt. You dont like that they didnt act, but now that they are, you dont like that either.

It would simply seem that you are not happy that they are doing something because it does not correspond with what you think is right.

The fact that this may have been instigated by the minority (that we do not know) should not matter. Presumably they are just seeking to make sure that everyone makes an informed decision.

I think most would agree that the information forwarded by WC was not as clear as it could be. This is obvious by the posts here. If ASIC can do something that clears any ambiguity up that must be a good thing.

Also you say that it is unasked by the majority. Well couldnt it just be the culmination of all the complaints and requests for help? Also how would anyone really know what the majority want? Im sure people who voted yes would have called asic in the past.

Also in relation to people acting in their own interests - do you expect them to act in other peoples interests? Of course not. Each person should vote to what they think is best. I someone thinks something is wrong, they have as much right as any other person to do any act to achieve the outcome that they feel is the best. This applies to both sides in this case.

Someone who wants a no vote should do all they can to achieve that result, likewise a yes vote.


----------



## Maverick2802 (13 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

ASIC acts in matters that don't really concern them, yet is nowhere to be seen with the the big issues that are a lot harder than simply to adjourn a valid unit holder's meeting. WTF????

Besides what is their problem here, I don't understand??? This is a democratic vote that the FOR resolution has to achieve a constitutional requirement of a 75% majority. I mean where is the 'grey' area if WC gets that 75% and then some? AARGHHHHH


----------



## seamisty (13 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



newwwtrader said:


> I agree ASIC should have done something earlier. But they didnt. You dont like that they didnt act, but now that they are, you dont like that either.
> 
> It would simply seem that you are not happy that they are doing something because it does not correspond with what you think is right.
> 
> ...



Too right I do not like the fact that ASIC has not acted in the ten months since our distributions ceased, and I certainly do not like the fact that now that distributions are about to recommence, they suddenly appear in time to possibly undo months of hard work and organising and jeopardise unitholders long awaited for October payments! Coincidence that the article is quoting bits from the recent media articles instigated by the PIFI and also from a Sept 6th article Quote:::IF Initiative has approached corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, to investigate, although the nature of the investigation has not been disclosed.:::::::One would assume next weeks intervention is a direct result from this or can the 95% of unitholders in favour of WC look forward to more hindering/delaying tactics by others trying to achieve outcomes they think in our best interests? Seamisty


----------



## zixo (13 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If theres one thing I've learnt in this whole deceptive debacle. It is that I will never invest money with anyone again regardless of how assuring or bulletproof the PDS is.

I'll give that advice to everyone free.
If people stupidly think that asic will represent the small investors. They are dead wrong
In my dealings with ASIC I've learnt they are are total waste of time and space. ASIC are not regulators or watchdogs but only tend to assume the role of undertaker once the companies have gone sour after continual incessant pleading from Investors. They have the power of transparancy and disclosure for investigation and in living history have not once used them.

Octaviar are the criminals and the management past and present continue to walk free

when it comes to ASIC Its a story of  too little too late. Oxygen Theives.


----------



## PIFholder (13 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mgr2118 said:


> My question is why is WC advocating the appointment of an administrator to "provide a better return and more orderly sale of assets" when it relates to Chris Scott and his fortunes (within Octaviar), but it is inferred (in no uncertain terms) that WC would liquidate (irrespective of the results for the PIF unitholders).
> 
> As an observer of all the plots and stories that seem to be circulating at this time, I find this opposite tact both confusing, and somewhat disturbing.
> 
> Maybe someone on the forum may be able clear this up?




My understanding of this from reading the creditor document on the website was that:

liquidation/liquidation of Octaviar meant 11 cents (their calculation) in the dollar and WC would have to prove the $147.5m claim in the courts 
not winding up/continuing Octaviar meant that the creditors could try to come to some arrangement which I think was 22.5 cents or a long term position with Octaviar and that that agreement included the $147.5 claim without having to go to court as well as the $50m support facility.

So not winding up Octaviar meant more money for PIF I think - happy to be corrected. Apparently Challenger was opposing the winding up too - they've got $90m in claims too.

Liquidation or administration of Octaviar makes Chris Scott's shares (and all the other shareholders too) look pretty grim and I know that there are a lot of PIF people who have OCV shares too. Pretty sure that you can't relist on the ASX if in admin/liq which means that money will be flushed away:bonk:. Guess we'll know on Monday what happens in court


----------



## newwwtrader (13 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Too right I do not like the fact that ASIC has not acted in the ten months since our distributions ceased, and I certainly do not like the fact that now that distributions are about to recommence, they suddenly appear in time to possibly undo months of hard work and organising and jeopardise unitholders long awaited for October payments! Coincidence that the article is quoting bits from the recent media articles instigated by the PIFI and also from a Sept 6th article Quote:::IF Initiative has approached corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, to investigate, although the nature of the investigation has not been disclosed.:::::::One would assume next weeks intervention is a direct result from this or can the 95% of unitholders in favour of WC look forward to more hindering/delaying tactics by others trying to achieve outcomes they think in our best interests? Seamisty




I take it from this comment and others that in a way many are/were expecting ASIC to ride on in a shiny horse and miraculously make your money reappear. Or failing that at least do something to get back the money from the loan things (around $140+ million).

My answer to people who hope to see that happen is quite simply "you're dreaming". Its not going to happen. Octaviar is broke. There is no money. That money is gone. 

One can only assume that the issues are in relation to the vote. To say that they are seeking to undo months of hardwork is a little incorrect. More like a month. It has only been a little over a month since the Explanatory Memorandum was issued. 

If they have a problem with certain things in that, you cannot say they have been tardy in acting upon that. It was not like they could have acted on issues which did not exist prior to the release of the document. Further, the various newspaper articles today suggest that there has been discussions between ASIC and WC and they were unable to come to an agreement.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (13 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Re:  ASIC  ---- 







newwwtrader said:


> One can only assume that the issues are in relation to the vote. To say that they are seeking to undo months of hardwork is a little incorrect. More like a month. It has only been a little over a month since the Explanatory Memorandum was issued.
> 
> If they have a problem with certain things in that, you cannot say they have been tardy in acting upon that. It was not like they could have acted on issues which did not exist prior to the release of the document. Further, the various newspaper articles today suggest that there has been discussions between ASIC and WC and they were unable to come to an agreement.






seamisty said:


> I have been told by WC that they are under constant scrutiny from ASIC. The whole explanatory memorandum had to be approved by ASIC before it was released. Perhaps Michael West should have asked for a comment from ASIC and the majority of investors in the PIF who have chosen to support WC before offering unprofessional financial advise which could result in a far worse financial outcome for unitholders. A very poorly researched article with dodgey  content in my opinion. Seamisty




Seamisty, did WC tell you exactly what ASIC were scrutinizing?  You say that the "whole explanatory memorandum had to be approved by ASIC before it was released".  Did WC tell you whether it was approved?  :headshake   Judging from ASIC's request from the intervention of the Qld Supreme Court, I assume not.


----------



## great dame (14 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Do we hear you correctly GD???




As I once said people only believe in WHAT they want to believe in   Weather its true or not  /////////


----------



## seamisty (14 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> Re:  ASIC  ----
> 
> 
> 
> Seamisty, did WC tell you exactly what ASIC were scrutinizing?  You say that the "whole explanatory memorandum had to be approved by ASIC before it was released".  Did WC tell you whether it was approved?  :headshake   Judging from ASIC's request from the intervention of the Qld Supreme Court, I assume not.



I was told ASIC had to approve the explanatory memorandum before it could be signed off as the structure of the Fund had changed. I wrote this down at the time, that is why I am astonished to hear they are intervening now.In another conversation I had with WC I have written down 'ASIC is watching very closely and in constant contact with WC' .Will Wednesdays shenanigans just be a token time wasting effort so the media can report how ASIC has intervened on behalf of the 10,600 desperate investors just in time to make matters worse? Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (14 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Daryl Passmore

September 14, 2008 12:00am

FALLEN corporate chief Michael King is riding high as thousands of his backers wait to find out how much they have lost of their investments.

The co-founder of MFS, renamed Octaviar, is taking part in the prestigious Mercedes-Benz polo tournament near Beaudesert today.
But while the 43-year-old yesterday enjoyed the sport of the mega-rich – where games are divided into chukkas and spectators eat cucumber sandwiches – thousands of people who poured money into his Gold Coast-based financial services firm are nervously awaiting the result of a court case to decide its future.
Many could get less than 20 ¢ back for every dollar they invested in MFS/Octaviar if the company, which once had more than $1 billion, in assets is liquidated.
Queensland Supreme Court judge Philip McMurdo will tomorrow rule on whether to place Octaviar in liquidation or allow the company to appoint its own administrators.
The Public Trustee of Queensland is seeking an immediate winding up of the firm which owes about $350 million to more than 500 noteholders it is representing.
But Justice McMurdo indicated in court on Friday that he was leaning towards Octaviar's administration proposal, which would offer creditors the choice of an immediate cash payout or wait for an anticipated higher payment after the sale of assets.
Other creditors include the Premium Income Fund, previously run by Octaviar and now being managed by Brisbane-based Wellington Investment Management.
Fund head Jenny Hutson said its value had fallen from $755 million to $413 million "plus whatever we can recover from Octaviar".
Premium Income Fund has 10,387 members who invested an average of $72,000. Ms Hutson said they were mostly smaller "mum and dad" investors.
"It's touched thousands of ordinary people," she said.
"The effect has been huge. I've been reduced to tears more often by the plight of these people than over anything in my life before.
"Many of them were much older people and it was their retirement fund. These are good people who have lived good lives.
"I've been dealing with the greatest amount of human despair – people who wonder why they should stay on the planet."
Withdrawals from the Premium Income Fund were frozen in January when trading in MFS shares was suspended.
Ms Hutson launched legal action against Octaviar in the Queensland Supreme Court in June, claiming that $147.5 million from the fund was moved into the parent company as loans without the knowledge of unit-holders.
But corporate watchdog the Australian Securities and Investments Commission last week applied to the Supreme Court to try to stop a meeting of fund members this week at which Ms Hutson will seek a change to its constitution.
Meanwhile, a class action by other Octaviar shareholders is being planned by the Maurice Blackburn legal firm.
Lawyer Ben Slade said the amount involved was $80 million and would increase as more people joined the claim. He would not reveal how many shareholders were involved so far.
"Some of the stories are heart-wrenching," he said.
He had spoken to one couple aged in their 70s who had lost a total of $380,000 through failed investments with Octaviar, Allco and Babcock & Brown Power.
The action would claim "material information" was withheld from shareholders.
The company's value plunged 70 per cent the day Mr King announced the firm needed to raise an additional $500 million to keep going in January.
He and co-founder Phil Adams built fortunes of over $370 million each before the collapse.
Mr King is living on his 283ha polo estate, Elysian Fields in the Gold Coast hinterland. It is expected to sell for up to $30 million.


----------



## sugar3157 (14 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Seamisty All...
built fortunes of over $370 ml each....?
What ASIC should be doing is making them give all that money back to us!!!!!
Why can't ASIC do that ?
and throw them in JAIL!!!!
I feel so sick and frustrated...


----------



## seamisty (14 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Hi Seamisty All...
> built fortunes of over $370 ml each....?
> What ASIC should be doing is making them give all that money back to us!!!!!
> Why can't ASIC do that ?
> ...



What can I say sugar, I guess they consider themselves more out of harms way conducting a costly, fruitless exercise like the one they have planned for next week. Makes a mockery out of all our earlier complaints in this regard , but its encouraging to see that they are in fact, still operational, albeit useless. Don't forget folks, they are  only conducting this exercise on behalf of a few, let them know how unhappy we are with next weeks fiasco!!! Call 1300 300 630  :cowboy:Seamisty


----------



## selciper (14 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Marcom's observation that the PIFI recent unsolicited mail-out may have breached privacy laws is worth noting.


----------



## great dame (14 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> What can I say sugar, I guess they consider themselves more out of harms way conducting a costly, fruitless exercise like the one they have planned for next week. Makes a mockery out of all our earlier complaints in this regard , but its encouraging to see that they are in fact, still operational, albeit useless. Don't forget folks, they are  only conducting this exercise on behalf of a few, let them know how unhappy we are with next weeks fiasco!!! Call 1300 300 630  :cowboy:Seamisty



           As Dawn Lake used to say / YOU TELLEM LOVE //


----------



## 2CentsWorth (14 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> As Dawn Lake used to say / YOU TELLEM LOVE //




Good morning all,

I may well need a "PIE-CHIATRIST" myself GD, after all this lot is finally settled...if ever... a pox on ASIC !!

Cheers


----------



## like2ski (14 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> If theres one thing I've learnt in this whole deceptive debacle. It is that I will never invest money with anyone again regardless of how assuring or bulletproof the PDS is.
> 
> I'll give that advice to everyone free.
> If people stupidly think that asic will represent the small investors. They are dead wrong
> ...




Hi Zixo,
I fully agree with your sentiments and we all have been badly burnt and badly served by our laws or lack of them!! I would add that based on many other experiences as well as MFS/Octaviar/WC we all need to lobby authorities to ensure that "A SYSTEM" is put in place to safeguard investors, who place their trust and hard earned cash in these so called "reputable funds", from these criminals as you aptly call them!!! 
It is high time for authorities to act and put an end to these scams.


----------



## Joy (14 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi I am new to the forum. What does everyone think about the resolutions we have been told to vote on this week? I am at a loss as to how this mess occurred, I understand it was originally from the then Directors of MFS borrowing more than they were legally permitted to.  I am also at a loss to understand why these Directors have not been held accountable. Why haven't the assets of the Directors been sold or siezed. Did any of us give permission for the Directors of MFS to resign and the fund to be taken over by Octaviar and now Wellington? As Wellington purchased the fund, including all liabilities,(which was stated by Ms Hutson at the Newcastle Forum) I would imagine all liabilities would include redemptions at 100%! If not, why not!! In relation to being listed on NXS, I attended the Newcastle forum and it was very clear that the majority did not want the fund listed and yet it has been organised by Wellington and is ready to trade once the resolution is passed! This does not make sense to me.


----------



## Calliope (14 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> If theres one thing I've learnt in this whole deceptive debacle. It is that I will never invest money with anyone again regardless of how assuring or bulletproof the PDS is..




You know zixo I said the same thing years ago after I was badly bitten by the Estate Mortgage debacle. I guess we never learn.


----------



## BootsnAll (14 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Joy said:


> Hi I am new to the forum. What does everyone think about the resolutions we have been told to vote on this week? I am at a loss as to how this mess occurred, I understand it was originally from the then Directors of MFS borrowing more than they were legally permitted to.  I am also at a loss to understand why these Directors have not been held accountable. Why haven't the assets of the Directors been sold or siezed. Did any of us give permission for the Directors of MFS to resign and the fund to be taken over by Octaviar and now Wellington? As Wellington purchased the fund, including all liabilities,(which was stated by Ms Hutson at the Newcastle Forum) I would imagine all liabilities would include redemptions at 100%! If not, why not!! In relation to being listed on NXS, I attended the Newcastle forum and it was very clear that the majority did not want the fund listed and yet it has been organised by Wellington and is ready to trade once the resolution is passed! This does not make sense to me.





Welcome to the asylum Joy.:bonk:

The best way to acquaint yourself with the whole sorry saga is to pour yourself a glass of wine, sit down at your computer, start about half way in the forum & do some serious reading.

Of the recent posts I recommend 2502,2512,2532,2555,2567,2569,2601,2602.
Also anything from DoranBoots (no relation to me). That lady has a brain, has done a lot of research & makes very good comments, unlike a lot of drivel that has been written, particularly in the past few days.

And may the force be with you - BootsNAll


----------



## sugar3157 (14 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Joy said:


> Hi I am new to the forum. What does everyone think about the resolutions we have been told to vote on this week? I am at a loss as to how this mess occurred, I understand it was originally from the then Directors of MFS borrowing more than they were legally permitted to.  I am also at a loss to understand why these Directors have not been held accountable. Why haven't the assets of the Directors been sold or siezed. Did any of us give permission for the Directors of MFS to resign and the fund to be taken over by Octaviar and now Wellington? As Wellington purchased the fund, including all liabilities,(which was stated by Ms Hutson at the Newcastle Forum) I would imagine all liabilities would include redemptions at 100%! If not, why not!! In relation to being listed on NXS, I attended the Newcastle forum and it was very clear that the majority did not want the fund listed and yet it has been organised by Wellington and is ready to trade once the resolution is passed! This does not make sense to me.




Hi Joy and welcome,
I too asked the same questions and have never been given a clear intelligent answer....
I do not understand why these people have not been made accountable....
or made give our money back AND thrown in jail!!!
from now on under my bed is where I will keep my money...lol
cheers Sugar


----------



## JohnH (14 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



BootsnAll said:


> Welcome to the asylum Joy.:bonk:
> 
> The best way to acquaint yourself with the whole sorry saga is to pour yourself a glass of wine, sit down at your computer, start about half way in the forum & do some serious reading.
> 
> ...




Hi Joy,

If you just read the posts listed, you will get a very one sided view that does not represent the vast majority of unit holders.   

Please also read the positives for giving Wellington a chance, and then make your own decision.


----------



## seamisty (14 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Joy said:


> Hi I am new to the forum. What does everyone think about the resolutions we have been told to vote on this week? I am at a loss as to how this mess occurred, I understand it was originally from the then Directors of MFS borrowing more than they were legally permitted to.  I am also at a loss to understand why these Directors have not been held accountable. Why haven't the assets of the Directors been sold or siezed. Did any of us give permission for the Directors of MFS to resign and the fund to be taken over by Octaviar and now Wellington? As Wellington purchased the fund, including all liabilities,(which was stated by Ms Hutson at the Newcastle Forum) I would imagine all liabilities would include redemptions at 100%! If not, why not!! In relation to being listed on NXS, I attended the Newcastle forum and it was very clear that the majority did not want the fund listed and yet it has been organised by Wellington and is ready to trade once the resolution is passed! This does not make sense to me.



Welcome to the forum Joy. The reason WC cannot resume paying redemptions is that the PIF is only currently valued at approx $412million as a going concern as opposed to the original $770million. There are many unfinished projects within the Fund and if these remain incompleted and WC is forced to sell the assets held by the PIF to resume distributions the estimated unit value is 14cents per unit, not your original $1.00 per unit. Seamisty


----------



## Smokey68 (14 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From the previous post:

If the fund is worth $412m and 770m units then each unit is worth $0.535.

Gets better everyday.


----------



## seamisty (14 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Smokey68 said:


> From the previous post:
> 
> If the fund is worth $412m and 770m units then each unit is worth $0.535.
> 
> Gets better everyday.



That figure was at the 31st May and does not deduct any of the outstanding bank debt. I do not have more recent figures. Seamisty


----------



## sugar3157 (14 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Seamisty, according to your earlier post this morning...JH said in her interview yesterday the PIF fund is worth $413m....that was from yesterday...so to me thats what it is worth...or is she telling fibs?


----------



## sugar3157 (14 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Daryl Passmore
> 
> September 14, 2008 12:00am
> 
> ...




Seamisty this post?


----------



## seamisty (14 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Hi Seamisty, according to your earlier post this morning...JH said in her interview yesterday the PIF fund is worth $413m....that was from yesterday...so to me thats what it is worth...or is she telling fibs?



Ok sugar, I couldn't remember where I saw that figure, so looked in the Explanatory Memorandum and it is the same but just as at May31. I hope that is correct and she is not telling fibs! It is less to have to rebuild!!!Seamisty


----------



## Juan Mortyme (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Octaviar battles for ASX survival
*

by Scott Rochfort
 September 15, 2008

THE management of Octaviar has expressed hope the distressed Gold Coast property and tourism group can be resurrected and even one day resume trading on the stock exchange, after putting the company into voluntary administration over the weekend.

Eight months since the group was suspended from trading on the ASX, Octaviar on Saturday appointed Deloitte partners John Grieg and Nicholas Harwood as voluntary administrators.

The move came after the Queensland Supreme Court rejected an application by the Public Trustee of Queensland (PTQ) for the company, formerly known as MFS, to be immediately put into liquidation.

In a statement issued on Saturday, Octaviar said: "The directors, management and staff of the Octaviar group look forward to working with the voluntary administrators to achieve an accommodation with all creditors to produce a better outcome for stakeholders than liquidation."

Chief executive Craig Chapman said it was his hope the administrators could draft a deed of arrangement with Octaviar's creditors that would allow the group to "pop out the other side and trade again".

"Ultimately, that's what we want to do," he said.

The company's offer to pay out noteholders 22.5 ¢ in the dollar has already been accepted by two of its four key creditors, the New Zealand OPI Pacific Finance and the former MFS Premium Income Fund.

The PTQ represents noteholders who hold $349 million in convertible notes that were originally due to expire in 2011.

Both the PTQ and Challenger, which holds another $100 million in notes, have contended the notes went into default when Octaviar sold its 65% stake in the tourism group Stella to the private equity group CVC Asia Pacific for $406 million earlier this year.

Investors in the convertible notes are due to meet on September 30 to consider Octaviar's offer.

http://www.pt.qld.gov.au

-------end of article----------

direct link: http://business.theage.com.au/business/octaviar-battles-for-asx-survival-20080914-4g9q.html

I note that PIF have accepted 22.5c in the $ from OCV.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

... and this in the Courier Mail

------------------

*Michael King's Octaviar goes into administration*

by James McCullough

September 15, 2008 12:00am

AS MFS founder Michael King was enjoying a day playing polo, his corporate brainchild, now known as Octaviar, was finally being put out of its misery.

Just hours earlier Deloitte was appointed voluntary administrator to Octaviar, which has creditors' claims in excess of $1 billion.

The administration is a further blow for the Gold Coast property sector, which has been hammered by a string of failures including the receivership of the Raptis Group and ongoing concerns about highly leveraged groups such as City Pacific.

King was oblivious to the news, competing in the annual Mercedes-Benz polo tournament at Neill Ford's expensive Beaudesert property.

Deloitte corporate reorganisation partners, John Greig and Nicholas Harwood, were on Saturday appointed voluntary administrators of Octaviar Ltd, Octaviar Financial Services Limited, Octaviar Investment Notes Limited and Octaviar Investment Bonds Limited.

The appointment was made by the directors, following hearings brought by the Public Trustee of Queensland before Justice Philip McMurdo in the Supreme Court of Queensland to wind up the companies on Friday.

Mr Greig said yesterday that the aim of the voluntary administrators was to maximise the chances of Octaviar continuing and ultimately providing a better return for all creditors compared to that which may result from an immediate wind up. A further hearing in the Supreme Court of Queensland today is expected to confirm the date of the next hearing to decide the future of the group of Octaviar companies.

At this stage the date is slated for 24 October.

"We understand creditors' claims are likely to be in excess of $1 billion," Mr Greig said.

He said the larger claims were about 550 noteholders, OPI Investments, Premium Income Fund, Bond holders and the Australian Taxation Office.

"Over 90 per cent of the notes are held by institutional investors and we also understand there may be significant contingent claims from various sources," Mr Greig said.

Mr Greig said that, after conducting an investigation in to the affairs of Octaviar, the administrators will report to creditors as to whether it is in their interests for the group to enter into a Deed of Company Arrangement to restructure its business, or if the companies should be wound up.

The investigation and report are expected to take several months.

----------end of article------------
direct link: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24344120-3122,00.html


----------



## goldfinger38 (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Marcom's observation that the PIFI recent unsolicited mail-out may have breached privacy laws is worth noting.




Sorry but if you refer to this article below about the infamous David Tweed it was all above board.

*Who can access your member register?: *unsolicited offers to shareholders 

Companies are sensitive to requests for access to their list of shareholders.

Under section 173 of the Corporations Act 2001, companies are required to provide a copy of their register of members within seven days to a person requesting access to the register and paying the required fee.

What prevents persons obtaining a copy of the shareholder register and writing direct to shareholders to buy their shares in situations where the takeover rules do not apply ?

Corporations Act Part 7.9 Division 5A was introduced in 2003 to deal with unsolicited off-market offers, short of a takeover offer (section 1019D). 

In summary, a person who makes an unsolicited offer to buy shares off market for a certain price must provide:

* a written statement setting out the market value of those shares on the day the offer is made; and
* a minimum of one month in which to accept the offer. (Section 1019I)

Although it is not illegal to make an unsolicited offer to buy someone’s shares, it is against the law to mislead or deceive retail shareholders into accepting an offer. 


Division 5A was introduced to regulate the activities of share traders such as David Tweed and his associated companies including Direct Share Purchasing Corporation and National Exchange Pty Ltd. Tweed typically offers to buy shares from small shareholders at an underprice or by annual instalments over periods of up to 15 years.

National Exchange was the subject of the first litigation in relation to Division 5A (see ASIC v National Exchange Pty Ltd  in which the Full Federal Court refused to overturn the original decision that the offer was not misleading or deceptive, or unconscionable.)

ASIC has intervened or issued warnings in respect of Tweed's advances in respect of Clime Capital, OneSteel, Aevum and ColesMyer.

In November 2006 ASIC permanently banned David Tweed from providing financial services. 

Mr Tweed was banned after ASIC found that he had failed to comply with a financial services law and believes he will not comply with a financial services law in future. The breach of financial services laws over a period of time, which led to the banning order against Mr Tweed, related to the way in which Mr Tweed and National Exchange made a number of unsolicited offers to purchase shares in OneSteel and Aevum.

However the banning of Mr Tweed from the financial services industry will not prohibit him from making unsolicited offers to investors. Making an unsolicited offer to purchase shares on one’s own behalf does not require an AFS licence.


----------



## Mary Lynch (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

So with Octaviar being under admin. what's the story about the support facility?  Do we still end up with $44.4M, with a quarter of that coming to us in a special distribution?


----------



## Maverick2802 (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Goldfinger,
Might have been above board but clearly not welcomed and considering the ASIC intervention / hinderance NOT appreciated!


----------



## marcom (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

goldfinger 38

You had better read the practice note again - the context is unsolicited off-market offers, short of a takeover offer (section 1019D).

Better get your solicitor to check whether soliciting a vote in favour of a certain outcome at an extraordinary meeting is also covered. Also note that the general ambit of the Trade Practices Act provisions governing misleading and deceptive conduct may have a bearing, just as the practice note highlights in relation to unsolicited offers.

Hope that this helps. _ I am not providing legal advice just making an observation._


----------



## seamisty (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> So with Octaviar being under admin. what's the story about the support facility?  Do we still end up with $44.4M, with a quarter of that coming to us in a special distribution?



Hopefully this will be the case Mary. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I heard that there is a group who will be congregating on 307 Queen Street at 12.30pm to show their solidarity and support for WC in regards to the PIF today. Can anyone confirm this please? Seamisty


----------



## sugar3157 (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Ok sugar, I couldn't remember where I saw that figure, so looked in the Explanatory Memorandum and it is the same but just as at May31. I hope that is correct and she is not telling fibs! It is less to have to rebuild!!!Seamisty




Good morning Seamisty All,
I would still like to know for sure whether the PIF is worth $413m as of today, as JH quoted to a reporter last week...
What do you think Seamisty?
Is there a way to find out?


----------



## seamisty (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Good morning Seamisty All,
> I would still like to know for sure whether the PIF is worth $413m as of today, as JH quoted to a reporter last week...
> What do you think Seamisty?
> Is there a way to find out?



Sugar the only way to find out for sure would be to call WC and ask and hope there is someone there qualified to answer. Lately whenever I call all the hierachy is off fighting it out in courts of law on behalf of the PIF. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I heard that there is a group who will be congregating on 307 Queen Street at 12.30pm to show their solidarity and support for WC in regards to the PIF today. Can anyone confirm this please? Seamisty



This has just been confirmed by phone, there will definitely be a group of PIF supporters meeting in Brisbane today to demonstrate at the heart of the financial quarter of their absolute outrage at ASIC and also to demonstate  faith and encouragement for Jenny Hutson and Wellington Capital. They would appreciate all the support they can from others in Brisbane. Seamisty


----------



## PIFholder (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> This has just been confirmed by phone, there will definitely be a group of PIF supporters meeting in Brisbane today to demonstrate at the heart of the financial quarter of their absolute outrage at ASIC and also to demonstate  faith and encouragement for Jenny Hutson and Wellington Capital. They would appreciate all the support they can from others in Brisbane. Seamisty





WC has confirmed that they have had an approach for a supporters group to meet at 12.30 today at 307 Queen Street.


----------



## Maverick2802 (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good luck to the supporters today. Fight the good fight!! 

If I lived in Brisbane I would be be with you too :iagree:


----------



## 2CentsWorth (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> Good luck to the supporters today. Fight the good fight!!
> 
> If I lived in Brisbane I would be be with you too :iagree:





*"WHO IS THE TALL DARK STRANGER THERE..."*  I'm 100% with you Boy!

Good Luck to All those good people who could make it.

CHEERS.        :sword::sword:


----------



## DoraNBoots (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Article in The Age yesterday...

*Tiny exchanges have a quiet day or two*
http://www.theage.com.au/news/busin...uiet-day-or-two/2005/09/13/1126377313349.html


----------



## demodocus (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This is my first post to this thread after some months of observation.

I had a substantial "investment" in what is the PIF that is now valued (by Wellington) at +/-40% of my investment value. However, the immediate value is 14% which is the value at which I hold the "investment" on my books. I feel that this "Jenny struggles to get value reduced to $0.43 for pensioners" is a load of codswallop. If "Jenny" had any feeling for pensioners then the value would have been pushed at $0.14. An analogy is the valuation of shares. When I bought ANZ last year the "value" was what I could get by selling them on ASX that day, say $30.00, but the value today is what I can sell them for today, say $16.00, and not some Dreamworld Wellington price of $0.43 for the PIF in 5 years time. The true value, today, of the PIF units is $0.14 (or whatever is immediately realisable) NOT the price in 5 years time. If I applied Wellington's logic to ANZ shares then I'd be valuing them at $40.

I see no sense in handing Hutson the keys to $413m. without ever being able to withdraw my funds other than by going through some Mickey Mouse stock exchange in return for $0.06 a unit p.a. plus a possible capital repayment whenever Wellington feels like it. Perhaps I'm wrong but Hutson, her husband, and Chris Scott et al are too closely entwined to be trusted with my money. The NSX has the potential to hand "whoever" control of $400 m. for 20% of that figure.

I would like to see the PIF put into administration to be managed by someone like PriceWaterhouseCoopers with a view to orderly closure of the fund by, say, June 30 2013. This won't be appealing to the "Lady In Red" but it's the only way I'd be happy with.

If Wellington does retain control of the PIF then I recommend you buy a large economy sized jar of KY Jelly 'cause you're gonna get screwed and you'll need something to ease the pain.


----------



## BootsnAll (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



demodocus said:


> This is my first post to this thread after some months of observation.
> 
> I had a substantial "investment" in what is the PIF that is now valued (by Wellington) at +/-40% of my investment value. However, the immediate value is 14% which is the value at which I hold the "investment" on my books. I feel that this "Jenny struggles to get value reduced to $0.43 for pensioners" is a load of codswallop. If "Jenny" had any feeling for pensioners then the value would have been pushed at $0.14. An analogy is the valuation of shares. When I bought ANZ last year the "value" was what I could get by selling them on ASX that day, say $30.00, but the value today is what I can sell them for today, say $16.00, and not some Dreamworld Wellington price of $0.43 for the PIF in 5 years time. The true value, today, of the PIF units is $0.14 (or whatever is immediately realisable) NOT the price in 5 years time. If I applied Wellington's logic to ANZ shares then I'd be valuing them at $40.
> 
> ...




:remybussi Bravo!!!!


----------



## Maverick2802 (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yes bravo demodocus, bravo chap!

I am glad you hung out so long before your posting to this thread.

The thing is that is we all want to get all that and more, trouble is noone has stepped up to deliver it.

Much like going to a vegetarian restaurant and ordering a nice fat juicy Kobe steak, just ain't gonna happen.

WC ain't that kinda restaurant for now either. Limited menu due to other greedy thieves raiding the fridge too many times, you dig?


----------



## great dame (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> Yes bravo demodocus, bravo chap!
> 
> I am glad you hung out so long before your posting to this thread.
> 
> ...



    I was just wonderng what some body has paid  to rent a crowd   Hmmmmmmm     Cheers //////////


----------



## breaker1 (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



demodocus said:


> This is my first post to this thread after some months of observation.
> 
> I had a substantial "investment" in what is the PIF that is now valued (by Wellington) at +/-40% of my investment value. However, the immediate value is 14% which is the value at which I hold the "investment" on my books. I feel that this "Jenny struggles to get value reduced to $0.43 for pensioners" is a load of codswallop. If "Jenny" had any feeling for pensioners then the value would have been pushed at $0.14. An analogy is the valuation of shares. When I bought ANZ last year the "value" was what I could get by selling them on ASX that day, say $30.00, but the value today is what I can sell them for today, say $16.00, and not some Dreamworld Wellington price of $0.43 for the PIF in 5 years time. The true value, today, of the PIF units is $0.14 (or whatever is immediately realisable) NOT the price in 5 years time. If I applied Wellington's logic to ANZ shares then I'd be valuing them at $40.
> 
> ...




Welcome Demo,

If JH could get a valuation of 14c and thus reduce pensioners deeming/assets tests by 86% and not the current 55% (45c) and still pull off the 6c per annum distribution payments, then all PIF pensioners would be laughing. Pensioners would be getting more interest distribution than they got before, *if* you add the extra amount Centrelink pay them on that 14c assesment.

We *were *looking forward to 3c (6.5% of 45c in $) before Christmas, but with the ASIC action at the Supreme Court Of Queensland, the proceedings being heard on Wednesday 17 September 2008, we could have the vote drag out till next year, together with any payments being stalled till next year, not to mention the PIF losing the WC team, if they get sufficiently peeved off. I believe JH is made of better stuff than this though.

I am not sure whether ASIC is taking on matters with Item 1 or Item 2 or both, but there is a good chance it's not going to be resolved on Wednesday. 

I am amazed that ASIC does *nothing substantial *with MFS/OCV or former PIF managers, who's abusing actions stand out like a sore thumb, but on the instigation of what appears a small group of investors, it starts jumping flaming hoops in record speed??? At the same time PIF investors don't want to be overly harsh on ASIC, because we still need them now and in the future. 

The PIF - a thorn in our sides folks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh4qJqGBvV0&feature=related


----------



## like2ski (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> I was just wonderng what some body has paid  to rent a crowd   Hmmmmmmm     Cheers //////////




Well said great dame LOL... LOL....


----------



## Jadel (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Like2ski 
 Where did you get pseudonymn from ?

  Could you contact me on the private users forum


----------



## demodocus (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



like2ski said:


> Well said great dame LOL... LOL....




This is why I didn't contribute before and won't contribute again. Folks from the shallow end of the gene pool making comments that contribute absolutely nothing to the debate do nothing for me.

I don't happen to agree with breaker1 but I won't be posting offensive, mis-spelled messages about him/her. As I said, I won't be posting again. 

My attitude is simple. Get an administrator that can be trusted and dissolve the PIF over 5 years.


----------



## marcom (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

goldfinger 38 et al regarding the PIFI LETTER which I have just received today.

In addition to possible breaches of Privacy legislation I decided to refresh my knowledge of various sections of the Corporations Act namely S177 so I pulled up the section on the screen and guess what happened - the phone rang and it was an efficient ASIC Officer returning my call to complain about their action in relation to the WC meeting. He explained that ASIC are not seeking to delay the meeting they simply believe that unitholders should have more information on which to base their decision. Fair enough.

I then told him I had just today received the PIFI letter - he seemed to know all about it. So while we were on the phone I thought I might get his view of how a party could get hold of my address and then send unsolicited information urging me to vote in a particular way at the EG meeting. I even said to him that by a strange quirk of fate I had S177 of the Corporations Act on the screen and that it looked like a person or persons may have contravened that provision. Naturally he could not give an opinion or disclose what ASIC might do about it - for confidentiality reasons. Again fair enough.

I suggested that perhaps the right way would have been for PIFI to have handled the matter was within the framework of the Act to get 100 unit holders to petition the RE to include material that they thought would be useful for unit holders to make their decision.

So this is what S177 says:

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 177
Use of information on registers

             (1)  A person must not:

              (a)  use information about a person obtained from a register kept under this Chapter to contact or send material to the person; or

              (b)  disclose information of that kind knowing that the information is likely to be used to contact or send material to the person.

Note:          An example of using information to send material to a person is putting a person's name and address on a mailing list for advertising material. 

And further into S177:

(2)  A person who contravenes subsection (1) is liable to compensate anyone else who suffers loss or damage because of the contravention.

(3)  A person who makes a profit from a contravention of subsection (1) owes a debt to the company or the scheme. The amount of the debt is the amount of the profit.

(4)  If a person owes a debt under subsection (3) to the scheme:

     (a)  the debt may be recovered by the responsible entity as a debt due to it; and

      (b)  any amount paid or recovered in respect of the debt forms part of the scheme property.

Well there you go PIFI guys and girls, and pay particular attention to S177(2)

Kind regards


----------



## seamisty (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> goldfinger 38 et al regarding the PIFI LETTER which I have just received today.
> 
> In addition to possible breaches of Privacy legislation I decided to refresh my knowledge of various sections of the Corporations Act namely S177 so I pulled up the section on the screen and guess what happened - the phone rang and it was an efficient ASIC Officer returning my call to complain about their action in relation to the WC meeting. He explained that ASIC are not seeking to delay the meeting they simply believe that unitholders should have more information on which to base their decision. Fair enough.
> 
> ...



Perhaps 'the rent a crowd' was in fact the PIFI in disguise, haviing seen the error of their ways, trying to make amends for the potential backlash from their actions. But no, it wasn't, just some very concerned PIF holders trying to undo some damage. I'm afraid even with my warped sense of humour, I find nothing funny about this situation.:nono:Seamisty


----------



## BootsnAll (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



demodocus said:


> This is why I didn't contribute before and won't contribute again. Folks from the shallow end of the gene pool making comments that contribute absolutely nothing to the debate do nothing for me.
> 
> I don't happen to agree with breaker1 but I won't be posting offensive, mis-spelled messages about him/her. As I said, I won't be posting again.
> 
> My attitude is simple. Get an administrator that can be trusted and dissolve the PIF over 5 years.





Please Demodocus, don't give up the ship! 

Your presence is needed to raise the intellectual level of this forum.

BootsNAll


----------



## Duped (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



demodocus said:


> My attitude is simple. Get an administrator that can be trusted and dissolve the PIF over 5 years.




And that's what the PIFI letter, which I also received, was saying.  But the next question is - who?  I asked my Financial Advisor but got nothing in the way of an authoritive answer.  We've asked financial advisors on this forum - no authoritive answer.

The law is never easy to comprehend.  Let me give you an example:

Marcom - you left out 177 (1A).

"          (1A)  Subsection (1) *does not apply if *the use or disclosure of the information is:

                     (a)  relevant to the holding of the interests recorded in the register or the exercise of the rights attaching to them; or

                     (b)  approved by the company or scheme."

So what do we do? Take off through the long grass and risking stepping on a snake and not reaching our destination?  Who do we trust to be our guide?


----------



## Jadel (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped 

    You are the best damn Fence Sitter i have ever had the pleasure to be in contact with on this Forum


----------



## selciper (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Marcom - Well, if ASIC "don't want to delay the meeting," what are they actually doing? ASIC must surely have been monitoring all the WC material being sent out well in advance at draft stage. Seems pretty strange to me. Any further delays on distributions will cause increased hardship for many. 

ASIC resources at present should be used to ferret out anything untoward that may have taken place prior to the MFS collapse. Perhaps they are sleuthing and don't want to let on yet (classic police tactic). Also, we don't know what explosive files, if any,  the OCV Administrator may discover in the months to come. All your other info was very interesting.


----------



## seamisty (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



BootsnAll said:


> Please Demodocus, don't give up the ship!
> 
> Your presence is needed to raise the intellectual level of this forum.
> 
> BootsNAll



 Explain that to us poor dummies who in all likelihood are going to be severely financially penalised by the actions from a  few of these self professed beings of superior intelligence who have seen fit to jeopordise unitholders October  distribution and further dilute the unit value by creating additional expenses to the operating of the PIF :::::Ms Hutson said it would cost
more than $100,000 to adjourn the meeting  with some investors travelling
from Tokyo and Auckland as
well as from every Australian city ::: Perhaps she can just foward the bill to the intellectually supreme elite committee. All beings of superior intelligence, please raise your right hand and be sworn in and keep your cheque books handy thanks. Seamisty


----------



## marcom (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> And that's what the PIFI letter, which I also received, was saying.  But the next question is - who?  I asked my Financial Advisor but got nothing in the way of an authoritive answer.  We've asked financial advisors on this forum - no authoritive answer.
> 
> The law is never easy to comprehend.  Let me give you an example:
> 
> ...




S177(1A) does not apply as the information was distributed illegally - this is not a case of using the information from the register: 

- for any proper purpose relevant to the holding of a unit interest or the rights attached thereto as there is a formal procedure in the Act and PIFI failed to follow it. 

- and certainly the use was not approved by the company of scheme.

Just look at the practice notation in that section of the Act:

" An example of using information to send material to a person is putting a person's name and address on a mailing list for advertising material".

And frankly PIFI have gone a lot further than just placing my name on a mailing list and that's a breach!


----------



## Duped (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Duped
> 
> You are the best damn Fence Sitter i have ever had the pleasure to be in contact with on this Forum




Yep.  I'm here on business.

And this little wheel is going to squeak, squeak, squeak all the way to a government backed rescue.


----------



## seamisty (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Yep.  I'm here on business.
> 
> And this little wheel is going to squeak, squeak, squeak all the way to a government backed rescue.



Maybe get a  can of oil and some spare tyres duped, could be a long winding road.:luigi:


----------



## marcom (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Marcom - Well, if ASIC "don't want to delay the meeting," what are they actually doing? ASIC must surely have been monitoring all the WC material being sent out well in advance at draft stage. Seems pretty strange to me. Any further delays on distributions will cause increased hardship for many.
> 
> ASIC resources at present should be used to ferret out anything untoward that may have taken place prior to the MFS collapse. Perhaps they are sleuthing and don't want to let on yet (classic police tactic). Also, we don't know what explosive files, if any,  the OCV Administrator may discover in the months to come. All your other info was very interesting.




Believe me I stressed strongly to the ASIC Officer that further delays on distributions will place me and many other unit holders in dire circumstances. I used my own case as an example - we have had to rent out of our home and move in with my wife's parents so that we can afford to pay off $1000 a month to the ATO for a CGT liability on the sale of a property the proceeds of which were deposited with MFS and now lost. We just can not afford to hold on for any great length of time.


----------



## seamisty (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Believe me I stressed strongly to the ASIC Officer that further delays on distributions will place me and many other unit holders in dire circumstances. I used my own case as an example - we have had to rent out of our home and move in with my wife's parents so that we can afford to pay off $1000 a month to the ATO for a CGT liability on the sale of a property the proceeds of which were deposited with MFS and now lost. We just can not afford to hold on for any great length of time.



I also rang them today Marcom on behalf of myself and others who would rather ASIC not disrupt the Thurs WC meeting and they kindly lodged my complaint on the ph. ASIC had 7 days  to review all the available material prior to it being due to be finalised.JH was consulted on several issues which she adjusted. Seamisty


----------



## Duped (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> S177(1A) does not apply as the information was distributed illegally - this is not a case of using the information from the register:
> 
> - for any proper purpose relevant to the holding of a unit interest or the rights attached thereto as there is a formal procedure in the Act and PIFI failed to follow it.
> 
> ...




My point exactly.  You and I have reached different conclusions on a single clause of a single Act.  Tricky isn't it.

I don't regard the material sent to me, in its entirety, as advertising material.  To me, the signatory's opinion was relevant to my holding of interests in the register.  So to me, his use of my name and address and unit holding to send the material to me falls under S177(1A)(a).  That's just my lay man's interpretation. Maybe we should get a formal legal opinion. Shall we go halves? But let's get a quote 1st - one of my investments has gone belly up so I'm a bit skint.

No wonder lawyers can afford to fill the ivory towers in the CBDs.

I'm sorry to hear about your circumstances. Similar to mine.  I got lucky and didn't lose the lot.  My only hardship is I have to extend my mortgage for new hearing aids and i don't like debt.


----------



## breaker1 (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The following is an email sent me by an AG member who was today speaking with ASIC:

"He assured me that their primary concern is that voters fully understand what they are voting for,as having been voted in, WC will be there for a long time (his words) and that they believe that some of WC's wording is not that easy to understand. He said that unless "a ten-year old" is able to understand the wording, then it is not satisfactory from ASIC's point of view, and needs to be amended.

He stated that it is not ASIC's intention to postpone the meeting unnecessarily, and that he hoped that the court would give JH the opportunity to clarify the passages in question at the actual meeting, which seemed a little strange to me, as everyone will have voted by then.

He seemed a highly intelligent person, with a very good knowledge of Octaviar/PIF/Wellington matters.  He obviously took my email seriously, but declined to comment directly on the issues I raised, and would not discuss the specific wording that was causing concern, saying that all would be revealed on Wednesday.

He also said that Wellington had been given the opportunity to amend their wording, but had refused to do so, hence ASIC's action.

When I mentioned the extreme hardship that would likely befall certain investors if Wellington were not able to proceed, he re-stated that ASIC understood that, and that it was not their intention to halt Wellington, just to get the wording changed."


I always said we could not do this unless we shared the load. Great work!


----------



## Maverick2802 (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> The following is an email sent me by an AG member who was today speaking with ASIC:
> 
> "He assured me that their primary concern is that voters fully understand what they are voting for,as having been voted in, WC will be there for a long time (his words) and that they believe that some of WC's wording is not that easy to understand. He said that unless "a ten-year old" is able to understand the wording, then it is not satisfactory from ASIC's point of view, and needs to be amended.
> 
> ...




So does that mean that ASIC will let the meeting go ahead, but they just want JH to clarify something that will be revealed Wednesday?

Well that's a bloody relief. But those ASIC people are truly retarded, they are puting the fear of God into some poor folk who are absolutely sweating on money to cover some really tight situations after not receiving a cent since January.

What's the point in making something easy to understand in a PDS etc., when if the company dishonours the commitment, ASIC will do jack about it??


----------



## sugar3157 (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



demodocus said:


> This is why I didn't contribute before and won't contribute again. Folks from the shallow end of the gene pool making comments that contribute absolutely nothing to the debate do nothing for me.
> 
> I don't happen to agree with breaker1 but I won't be posting offensive, mis-spelled messages about him/her. As I said, I won't be posting again.
> 
> My attitude is simple. Get an administrator that can be trusted and dissolve the PIF over 5 years.




Hi Demodocus...what a shame you will not be posting again...
whether we agree or not, you made me laugh with the ky jelly...
how good it was to actually laugh for a change...
Cheers Sugar


----------



## CableGuy (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

QUT picket line outside the WC office today.  WC provided complimentary bottled water to the chanting students.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

CableGuy wrote:  "QUT picket line outside the WC office today. WC provided complimentary bottled water to the chanting students."


Students.  Off course.  Who else would you use for a rent-a-crowd ?


----------



## seamisty (15 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



CableGuy said:


> QUT picket line outside the WC office today.  WC provided complimentary bottled water to the chanting students.



Well my complaint to ASIC today seems rather tame in comparison!!!


----------



## Juan Mortyme (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Receivers as well as VA.

-------article start---------
*Octaviar creditor sends in receiver*

    by Colin Kruger
    September 16, 2008

THE vultures are swooping on the Gold Coast property developer Octaviar, with the appointment of receivers yesterday by one of its major creditors, Fortress Credit Corp.

Octaviar still owes Fortress about $60 million, which is secured against the assets of the main company in the group.

PBB's Stephen Parbery said he and Tony Sims were appointed to protect Fortress's interests in Octaviar - previously known as MFS - following the appointment of voluntary administrators by Octaviar's board over the weekend.

The board was attempting to keep alive the prospect of a deal with creditors via a deed of company arrangement so as to avoid collapse.

Mr Parbery indicated the appointment of PPB did not necessarily signal Octaviar's demise.

"We are not working at odds with the administrators, we are working with them," he said.

Octaviar's main asset is a 35 per cent stake in the tourism group Stella. It also operates the observatory deck on the Gold Coast's tallest building, Q1, and owns the Queensland child-care group Sunkids and a shopping centre on the Gold Coast.

Octaviar's offer to pay noteholders 22.5c in the dollar has already been accepted by two of its four main creditors, New Zealand OPI Pacific Finance and the former MFS Premium Income Fund (PIF).

The Public Trustee of Queensland, which attempted to have Octaviar wound up last week, represents noteholders with $349 million in convertible notes that were originally due to expire in 2011. Investors in the convertible notes are due to meet on September 30 to consider Octaviar's offer.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has begun legal action to delay a meeting of unit holders in the old MFS Premium Income Fund that is scheduled for Thursday. The meeting is to call for a vote of unit holders that could cement Wellington Investments' managerial control of the fund.

ASIC said "unit holders require additional information in order to make informed decisions".

The regulator's view echoes that of a unit holder group, the PIF Initiative, which is recommending investors reject the proposed changes and seek alternatives.

The Hicksons partner Kalinda Cobby, who is representing the group, expressed concern that the PIF noteholders were being railroaded into accepting proposals with implications that are not fully understood.

--------end---------

direct link: http://business.smh.com.au/business/octaviar-creditor-sends-in-receiver-20080915-4h1r.html


----------



## Juan Mortyme (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This is funny.

----------------

*R.I.P Octaviar (OCV) not trading*

    by Tim Boreham | September 15, 2008

IT is with profound sorrow that Criterion records the passing of Octaviar (nee MFS) over the weekend.

On behalf of the family of grieving creditors, the insolvency team at Deloitte announced it had pulled the plug.

Technically, the patient is in voluntary administration (not liquidation) and therefore still on life support. The company still hopes to work with the administrators to “achieve an accommodation with all creditors to produce a better outcome for stakeholders than liquidation”.

But with liabilities of $1 billion, the group has as much signs of life as a cadaver-storage unit at the morgue.

Octaviar will be remembered for many being many things, other than as one of the first true victims of the invidious credit-crunch disease.

Associates of Octaviar will prefer to remember this once sprightly beast's relentless expansion into areas of commercial endeavour - including property, ski fields, travel agents and funds management - and as a generous facilitator of youthful indulgence as provider of “schoolies”' accommodation.

While once readily indulged by investors, Octaviar will also be remembered as a complex individual, given its spread of activities and labyrinthine funding arrangements.

As a Gold Coast based entity, Octaviar was routinely maligned as a member of the “white-shoe brigade”', an unfair slight indeed as even the most fashion-challenged Queensland moguls would not be seen dead in such loafers these days (crocodile skins are still de rigeur).

And Octaviar was never accused of bribing elected officials, or bulldozing mangrove swamps.

Your columnist recalls admitting to a broker that he didn't really understand the company and suspected that no one else did, either. “Don't you worry about that, they know what they're doing,” he replied, a response which does justice to that great white-shoe patron, Sir Joh.

However, Octaviar did display the occasional dark side, none so much as the company it kept with fellow delinquent and joint venture partner Babcock & Brown.

Mourners will prefer to remember the old Octaviar, not the comatose entity that last traded at 99 cents on January 22 (aptly, Black Thursday).

Even then, most brokers retained a buy on the stock and Criterion was convinced enough about the value of its 35 per cent stake in the Stella travel business to ascribe a speculative buy.

Funeral arrangements have been deferred pending a full post-mortem on the remaining assets. A name won't be enough to facilitate a Lazarus-like recovery.

Stella, which is up for sale, remains a valuable asset - no one's quite sure how much - but it won't be enough to placate all the black-suited creditors - notably 550 noteholders and the taxman - lined up for the viewing.

No flowers by request - but a fat cheque or two would come in handy.

borehamt AT theaustralian.com.au

The Australian accepts no responsibility for stock recommendations. The author does not hold an interest in any of the stocks mentioned. Readers should contact a licensed financial adviser.

------------------


----------



## Juan Mortyme (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

----------------
Clinging to hope

by Ben Butler
September 16, 2008 12:00am

INVESTORS in the $750 million Premium Income Fund must wait until at least tomorrow to learn the fate of their holdings.
Premium Income Fund was formerly controlled by failed investment company Octaviar.
Uncertainty over the fate of the fund comes as vulture fund Fortress swooped on Octaviar, the former MFS.
Fortress has appointed receivers Stephen Parbery and Anthony Sims of PPB to safeguard a $60 million exposure to Octaviar, which went into administration on Saturday.
Wellington Investment Management, which bought the fund at a knock-down price in May, has vowed to fight an Australian Securities and Investments Commission move to stop it changing the fund's constitution at a meeting of unitholders scheduled for Thursday.
Last Thursday, ASIC asked the Supreme Court in Queensland for an injunction stopping the meeting because of concerns over disclosure.
An ASIC spokeswoman declined to comment on the PIF.
Wellington's proposal for a new constitution has come under fire from investors because it imposes an onerous fee of more than $8 million if the company is sacked as fund manager.
It is believed ASIC's concerns are limited to disclosure and the watchdog does not want to take a position on whether or not the new constitution is fair to investors.
If Wellington's push for a new constitution failed, the PIF might face wind-up, where its assets would be sold and returned to unitholders.
Wellington chief executive Jenny Hutson is a long-time associate of Octaviar boss Chris Scott, having served on the board of Mr Scott's tourism company S8.
Octaviar, then known as MFS, bought S8 for $700 million in 2006.
Mr Scott was formerly a shareholder in Wellington.
Ms Hutson said Wellington stood by the "clear concise and detailed information" it had provided to unitholders and would fight the "extraordinary" court case.
"I think it's ill-founded. They've listened to the voice of a very small number of investors.
"It has come at a very late stage."
She said more than 57 per cent of unitholders had already voted, and an overwhelming majority favoured Wellington's new constition.
Octaviar had been on the brink of collapse since January.
It was suspended from the stock exchange after its stock price plunged when then-chief executive Michael King launched a $550 million share issue.
Administrators John Grieg and and Nicholas Harwood estimate it owes creditors about $1 billion.
------------


----------



## seamisty (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

ASIC's actions upset investors:::::Nick Nichols 

September 16th, 2008 

A SPLIT in the ranks of Premium Income Fund investors spilled on to the streets of Brisbane yesterday.
About a dozen protesters stationed outside Wellington Capital's Queens Street office were howling down plans by the corporate watchdog to pull the pin on a planned meeting on the Gold Coast this Thursday to vote on the fund's survival.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has responded to concerns by some investors that Wellington Capital, headed by Jenny Hutson, was not acting in the best interests of unit-holders, many of them elderly, who poured $770 million into the fund when it was under the control of MFS.
However, yesterday, other investors  said to be the majority   were angry that ASIC was meddling with the rescue plan proposed by Wellington, accusing the watchdog of failing to act on behalf of investors when it was under the control of MFS.
Placards waved by protesters yesterday denounced PIF's former management team, which included MFS founders Michael King.
It was unclear how many of yesterday's protesters were PIF investors, but spokesman Philip Higson said many of his friends were investors and he was willing to support them, calling for this Thursday's meeting to proceed as planned.
``If they go down, there's going to be a lot of mum and dads go down,'' he said.
Yesterday's protest was directly opposed to the views of a splinter group of investors, known as the PIF Initiative, who want Wellington Capital removed as responsible entity for the fund and plans to list on the National Stock Exchange abandoned.
Wellington has proposed a listing to allow cash-strapped investors to sell their units in an open market, but PIF Initiative has argued the price would be at a sharp discount to the fund's value.
Ms Hutson, Wellington's executive director, has said the fund, which has a $55 million exposure to the Raptis Group, was valued  at 45c in the dollar as a going concern.
Liquidation would only deliver unit-holders 14c in the dollar, she said.
This Thursday's meeting, which will draw investors from as far as Japan, has been called to vote on whether the fund should continue as a going concern and whether Wellington Capital can proceed with its plan to recover all investor funds over the next three to five years.
``What's disappointing from our perspective is that ASIC has left this really late,'' said Ms Hutson.
She said Wellington had provided ASIC with all materials requested at the end of a series of investor forums in July and it had been `well considered' by investors since then.
``Here we are at the end of the 28 days with ASIC coming out of nowhere and challenging it,'' she said.
ASIC last week lodged a Supreme Court action, to be heard tomorrow, restraining Wellington from calling the meeting.
``The only people that are going to be hurt by this are the invest-ors themselves,'' said Ms Hutson.
She said Wellington was outlaying $120,000 to hold the meeting, which could potentially draw  thousands of investors to the Gold Coast Convention Centre.
Ms Hutson said Wellington's planned resumption of distributions to investors, who have been told they will receive a total of 3c a unit by Christmas, was also in jeopardy following ASIC's actions.
ASIC yesterday declined to comment on the matter.
One Sydney investor, who would only identify himself as Javier, yesterday slammed ASIC's actions and backed Wellington's plans for the fund.
``ASIC has intervened to the detriment of investors,'' he said.
Javier said investors have `had enough'.
``They just want stability in their life.''
The 43-year-old businessman who said he was invested `substantially' in the fund, said ASIC would better serve investors by investigating the activities of the previous management of the fund


----------



## great dame (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Perhaps 'the rent a crowd' was in fact the PIFI in disguise, haviing seen the error of their ways, trying to make amends for the potential backlash from their actions. But no, it wasn't, just some very concerned PIF holders trying to undo some damage. I'm afraid even with my warped sense of humour, I find nothing funny about this   Thealosituation.:nono:Seamisty



   Those people there were not PIF Unit Holders  Any one with half a brain could see that if they were there  But nice try who ever wanted it  but it has backfired  badley ///


----------



## mornaw (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Students of economics would find this action a fascinating case study on their own doorstep.  Don't knock what you don't know.  Congratulations to anybody showing a bit of spirit in pessimistic times.


----------



## goldfinger38 (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> goldfinger 38 et al regarding the PIFI LETTER which I have just received today.
> 
> In addition to possible breaches of Privacy legislation I decided to refresh my knowledge of various sections of the Corporations Act namely S177 so I pulled up the section on the screen and guess what happened - the phone rang and it was an efficient ASIC Officer returning my call to complain about their action in relation to the WC meeting. He explained that ASIC are not seeking to delay the meeting they simply believe that unitholders should have more information on which to base their decision. Fair enough.
> 
> ...


----------



## goldfinger38 (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



demodocus said:


> This is my first post to this thread after some months of observation.
> 
> I had a substantial "investment" in what is the PIF that is now valued (by Wellington) at +/-40% of my investment value. However, the immediate value is 14% which is the value at which I hold the "investment" on my books. I feel that this "Jenny struggles to get value reduced to $0.43 for pensioners" is a load of codswallop. If "Jenny" had any feeling for pensioners then the value would have been pushed at $0.14. An analogy is the valuation of shares. When I bought ANZ last year the "value" was what I could get by selling them on ASX that day, say $30.00, but the value today is what I can sell them for today, say $16.00, and not some Dreamworld Wellington price of $0.43 for the PIF in 5 years time. The true value, today, of the PIF units is $0.14 (or whatever is immediately realisable) NOT the price in 5 years time. If I applied Wellington's logic to ANZ shares then I'd be valuing them at $40.
> 
> ...




Sorry, but just a point of clarification to this post, Jenny Hutson is Single and does not have a husband, this was brought to my attention when I spoke to her last week to clarifiy some questions and I raise the comments about the closeness of her husband to certain events.


----------



## goldfinger38 (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> ASIC's actions upset investors:::::Nick Nichols
> 
> September 16th, 2008
> 
> ...




I am sure that someone said earlier the PIF DONT have any direct exposure to the RAPTIS group and that is wasd the Diversified Fund which had the exposure, can someone please reclarify that point, just goes to show you they still cannot get their facts right.


----------



## CableGuy (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> "What's disappointing from our perspective is that ASIC has left this really late,'' said Ms Hutson.
> She said Wellington had provided ASIC with all materials requested at the end of a series of investor forums in July and it had been `well considered' by investors since then.




If ASIC have valid concerns then it doesn't matter when they are raised.  Investors didn't recieve anything to consider until the EM was released just over 3 weeks ago so complaints to ASIC weren't going to occur until after this point.



seamisty said:


> Ms Hutson said Wellington's planned resumption of distributions to investors, who have been told they will receive a total of 3c a unit by Christmas, was also in jeopardy following ASIC's actions.




Distributions can still be made under the current constitution so the only people putting the 3c distribution 'in jeopardy' is WC themselves.  Accept my terms or I will withhold your money!



seamisty said:


> One Sydney investor, who would only identify himself as Javier, yesterday slammed ASIC's actions and backed Wellington's plans for the fund.
> "ASIC has intervened to the detriment of investors,'' he said.
> Javier said investors have `had enough'.




Based on the previous observation, I wonder why this 'maverick' thinks that ASIC's action is to the detriment of investors?


----------



## CableGuy (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Buffy99 said:


> Please all note that Lonsec has yesterday released a Research Report that recommends that Unit Holders vote in favour of the 3 resolutions.
> This is from an independant research house.
> Regards,
> 
> Buffy99




What Buffy99 failed to metion:

•	Lonsec say Wellington does not have the qualitative strengths of experienced personnel or tested processes.  

•	Given the limited liquidity of the NSX lonsec recognise that a yes vote may not be appropriate for those needing immediate access to cash.

•	Few of WC staff have funds management experience being mostly from legal backgrounds.  

•	WC have the power to extend the 360 day redemption period but are determined not to exercise it’s power to enable an orderly sell down rather than a liquidation.  Lonsec ‘s view is that an orderly selldown over a 12 – 18 month period could yield more than the directors estimate of 14 cents and provide some certainty to unitholders in terms of return of capital.

•	The 2% RE removal fee is at the upper end of acceptable levels as it equates to the equivalent of 3 years of management fees while one year is considered more normal.

•	Had lonsec reviewed WC’s capability under more normal circumstances it is unlikely they would assess well.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> I also asked about Raptis, and the buiding that has come up with problems and a liquidator has been appointed has nothing directly to do with us. We (PIF) have NO direct exposure to that particular development. Just another example of inaccurate reporting by the media.






seamisty said:


> That would explain why when I tried to research the Raptis link, the only connection I could find was with MFS Diversified Group. Seamisty






goldfinger38 said:


> I am sure that someone said earlier the PIF DONT have any direct exposure to the RAPTIS group and that is wasd the Diversified Fund which had the exposure, can someone please reclarify that point, just goes to show you they still cannot get their facts right.





And Seamisty quoting Nick Nichols from today's GC Bulletin:


seamisty said:


> ASIC's actions upset investors:::::Nick Nichols
> 
> September 16th, 2008
> 
> ...





Seamisty and Maverick.  Care to explain?
Has JH been fibbing?


----------



## Maverick2802 (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We've got 3 loans as exposure of $55m. 2 are 1st mortgages with a 66.66% LVR on each the 3rd loan was described in the alternative sector in a hotel..this is the one I am concerned about, apparently it is well secured with fixtures etc. BUT we have heard all this before I guess.

Yes we have got exposure to Raptis (but Raptis is a huge company with many groups), due to privacy loans I could not get specifics, but from what I can gather it is not in the project that has gone to administration as follows:

Raptis Group Ltd on September 12 appointed a receiver to four controlled entities of the group associated with the Southport Central development.

The group is negotiating with potential funding partners for a cash injection, while joint venture funding partners are also being sought for Hilton Surfers Paradise Hotel and Residences development project. The Sheraton Mirage Hotel is on the market, the Iluka development site is for sale or joint venture, other smaller holdings of residual development assets are subject to sale negotiations. The board expects it will take two to four weeks to resolve and document these negotiations.


----------



## CableGuy (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The information I think WC should provided to investors is:

1)       unfunded development contributions 

2)       financial comparison of an orderly work out by an RE over time versus listed option.

In relation to unfunded development contributions WC must state to investors how they will meet these shortfalls if they exist. This can be done through an overdraft or is done through a capital raising which if it happens in the next 6 months the very people a listing was supposed to be protecting will be decimated by the vultures who can take up the new units at the low price. Investors discounted assets will be diluted away.

-----
"Don't dig to deep or you might get burnt by the molten lava!" - CableGuy


----------



## seamisty (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> And Seamisty quoting Nick Nichols from today's GC Bulletin:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I said when I tried to research the loan the only connection I could find was with MFS diversified. Can't you read? Obviously the PIF does have a large exposure to the Raptis Group. Perhaps some of the posters on here with superior intellect should have been able to pick this up earlier. I have absolutely no doubt that it would have been plastered on here by now if it was common knowledge. I am sure there will be a few more disasters like this unfold which are going to need serious legal attention in the recovery of some loans. Obviously that need and the expertise has already been recognised in the LOnsec report. Seamisty


----------



## Maverick2802 (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



CableGuy said:


> Based on the previous observation, I wonder why this 'maverick' thinks that ASIC's action is to the detriment of investors?




Well I have been privy to see emails from investors that are in real dire straits suffering from terminal cancer that NEED this 3c distribution, they are actually sweating on the first 1.5c next month to buy expensive medication and treatment just to make their life tolarable. 

You may have the luxury of taking as much time as it takes to seek 'alternatives' that don't exist, but to the many long suffering people, they don't. So yes ASIC by this action is of HUGE detriment my friend!!


----------



## Rance (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Questions*

1) When Denis Campbell sent his recent letter to PIF unit holders, was it to all unit holders or just to those who had substantially holdings?

2) If the latter, would this be in breech of privacy laws ie. did the list of unit holders he obtained also contain information other than the unit holders' addresses, eg. number of units held?

Please, would some legal eagle be able to explain any legal implications?  Just wondering....

Rance


----------



## CableGuy (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> Well I have been privy to see emails from investors that are in real dire straits suffering from terminal cancer that NEED this 3c distribution, they are actually sweating on the first 1.5c next month to buy expensive medication and treatment just to make their life tolarable.
> 
> You may have the luxury of taking as much time as it takes to seek 'alternatives' that don't exist, but to the many long suffering people, they don't. So yes ASIC by this action is of HUGE detriment my friend!!




Mate, as I already stated, there is no reason why WC cannot make the 3c worth of distributions on time irrespective of the outcomes over the next couple of days under the existing constitution.

Are WC proposing to prolong the suffering of those poor investors if things don't go their way in the courts?  If so, that is one of the lowest acts imaginable!


----------



## Juan Mortyme (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I said when I tried to research the loan the only connection I could find was with MFS diversified. Can't you read? Obviously the PIF does have a large exposure to the Raptis Group.




Keep your cool mate.  This is bordering on becoming a personal attack.  You seemed to agree with the post by Maverick where he was told that there was "NO direct exposure".
I just asked for an explanation/clarification as did Goldfinger's post #2693.

It seems some people love criticizing the media but they don't bother to check their own facts.  I'm sure the media has greater exposure for incorrect reporting than some poster on a forum.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just wondering:

If Fortress are bringing in the receivers for the $20mill they're owed by OCV, why doesn't JH do the same for the amounts that PIF are owed?


----------



## marcom (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> *Questions*
> 
> 1) When Denis Campbell sent his recent letter to PIF unit holders, was it to all unit holders or just to those who had substantially holdings?
> 
> ...




Rance please see my posts 2610 2648 2666 2673


----------



## Rance (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Rance please see my posts 2610 2648 2666 2673




Thanks Marcom. I reread your posts with increased interest. 

So let's have a straw poll. Who on this forum hasn't received Dennis Chapman's letter of 30 August 2008? (Sorry Dennis, I didn't write your name correctly in my last post.)

Rance


----------



## Jadel (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Rance Please read this post it was written several weeks ago 

    TPIF Holder

Of course you are not less important than other investors mate

Believe me if we could have written to all 10300 unit holders we would have done so

We are certainly more than prepared to email you our voting forms to your good self or anybody else on this Forum that requests one

I will not go into the full story with you here but am prepared to do so privately with you 

Certain people reliably informed us that Jenny Hutson was prepared to offer us a fair and eqitable Redemption plan after the fund had stabilised over a three to five year period ,thinking and that JH would surely listen to what was a very reasonable plan to at least give older investors some of their money back at Net Tangible Asset value we pulled out of a crucial meeting with our Solicitor at the last minute several weeks prior to this date 

What we got was an insult to the intelligence 5% or the first 10000 units 
that is miniscule JH does not intend to make any compromises to anybody

Had that meeting taken place we would not be in a last ditch effort to inform investors of their democratic rights and the one sided plan that will almost certainly give JH control of the fund in perpetuity regardless of wether or not you vote no for option 3

Please understand that hidden in the Constitution is an amendment that is cunningly contrived to make it almost imposible to remove WC if you vote for option 1


----------



## marcom (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> Thanks Marcom. I reread your posts with increased interest.
> 
> So let's have a straw poll. Who on this forum hasn't received Dennis Chapman's letter of 30 August 2008? (Sorry Dennis, I didn't write your name correctly in my last post.)
> 
> Rance




I an glad that Jadel has reposted his post 2305 of 5 September as it contains a very important statement:

"Believe me if we could have written to all 10300 unit holders we would have done so".

Then when you combine this with media statements by PIFI:

Abstracted from The Australian Financial Review

"The Premium Income Fund action group urged the fund's top 3,000 investors to reject a rescue plan on 4 September 2008. The action group said investors would benefit from the sale of the fund's assets more than a listing on the National Stock Exchange"

You can see that Dennis Chapman and others have been able to single out the top 3000 PIF investors from the register provided to someone. These people obviously know how much we each have invested in the fund and I am not one bit happy about that from a PRIVACY point of view. How would you like others knowing your bank account details and balance!

Who has made this blunder WC or Perpetual?

Who has this copy of the register and what other illegal uses will this information be used for?


----------



## CableGuy (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

People this isn’t rocket science.  The only part open for interpretation is section 177 (1a).  So talk to ASIC or Jenny or get a lawyer and stop speculating.

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 173 
Right to get copies 
(3)  *The* company or *scheme must give a person a copy of the register* (or a part of the register) within 7 days if the person: 
(a)  asks for the copy; and 
(b)  pays any fee (up to the prescribed amount) required by the company or scheme. 

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 169 
Register of members 
General requirements 
(1)  The register of members must contain the following information about each member: 
(a)  *the member's name and address*; 
(b)  the date on which the entry of the member's name in the register is made. 

Registered schemes 
(6A)  The  register  of a registered scheme must also show: 
(a)  the date on which every issue of interests takes place; and 
(b)  the number of interests in each issue; and 
(c)  *the interests held by each member*; and 
(d)  the class of interests; and 
(e)  the amount paid, or agreed to be considered as paid, on the interests. 

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 177 
Use of information on registers 
(1)  A person must not: 
(a)  use information about a person obtained from a register kept under this Chapter to  contact or send material to the person; or 
(b)  disclose information of that kind knowing that the information is likely to be used  to contact or send material to the person. 
Note:          An example of using information to send material to a person is putting a person's name and address on a mailing list for advertising material. 

(1A)  Subsection (1) *does not apply if* the use or disclosure of the information is: 
(a)  *relevant to the holding of the interests recorded in the register or the exercise of the rights attaching to them; or* 
(b)  approved by the company or scheme.

We know a legal opinion was given so I’m sure things were checked out by a lawyer and if perhaps you can get them on a technicality I’m sure it’d be money well spent chasing a fellow investor who is doing it tough and probably tougher than you as it seems this guy isn’t into JH’s plan of returning value over a 10 year time frame.  I’d say if you haven’t yet launched legal action against the people you say have stolen your money then you should stop pretending to take legal action against a guy that sent you a letter about your investment.

-----
"I forgive you. I only hope my neurologist will feel the same." - The CableGuy


----------



## great dame (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Article in The Age yesterday...
> 
> *Tiny exchanges have a quiet day or two*
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/busin...uiet-day-or-two/2005/09/13/1126377313349.html



   Now folks i hope you all read  about the NSX that Dora posted  And just what has GD been saying since joining the Forum   Well i warned you all  /  Dane //


----------



## seamisty (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Hi Seamisty, according to your earlier post this morning...JH said in her interview yesterday the PIF fund is worth $413m....that was from yesterday...so to me thats what it is worth...or is she telling fibs?



Hi Sugar, Caroline from WC just rang me in regard to your enquiry which I fowarded on your behalf. The Total assets of the PIF are valued at $413.747million, less liabilities, the Nett assets are valued at $341.174 milion =45cents per unit. Hope this helps and JH is not too busy entertaining ASIC so she can get on and reduce the liabilities. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thank you Cable Guy for spelling out the facts so clearly to Marcom 



Marcom

You would make a good fencer mate you really would  in fact I think you should take up the sport

I can see you are desperately searching for an opening to deliver the final lunge

Let me tell you a little bed time  story 

Many years ago I invested a significant amount of money  in a  non listed Property Trust called Landmark  at an opening price of $1 .00

 Then as know the trust was financially ruined by embezzlement and fraud 

 Guess who took over that fund none other than you guessed it KING and Adams at MFS

 They then proceeded gut and devalue the assets of the Fund  further until they  were worth only 30% of their original value and list on  the Stock Exchange again at $1.00 (Story beginning to sound familiar )

That stock is now called GPM and after 7 years it is   worth about 20 cents  

 (So I other words the original investment is now worth about one fifth of 30 cents =6  cents )


  To cut a long story short in righteous indignation I requested the registration list of investors  determined to sue everybody  I could lay my hands on .

 Now I sill have that investors list somewhere I accidently came across it a few weeks ago , guess what  on that list is the value of each persons holding

 It is standard practice to print that information  mate  when lists like this are given out .

Of course I was never ever able to sue king and Adams then as now they were just to slippery

In regard to your circumstances I  feel sorry for you mate i really do , 


if it is any consolation  I  and my wife borrowed a second mortgage against my house to invest in PIF to help with my daughters education .Both she and we are now doing things the hard way 

 Good Luck


----------



## selciper (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This wretched period since January has confirmed that jumping to conclusions can be a useless act when it comes to PIF's future. There's never a shortage of twists and turns in this saga. I hope that the hearing on Wednesday leads to a favourable outcome for us investors. And I hope that those who say that distributions can recommence whatever the decision are correct. Our remaining money has been locked away idle for far too long, so the two parties had better employ the art of compromise and serve the interests of the unit holders who want common sense and justice to prevail. Is that asking too much?


----------



## CableGuy (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hi Sugar, Caroline from WC just rang me in regard to your enquiry which I fowarded on your behalf. The Total assets of the PIF are valued at $413.747million, less liabilities, the Nett assets are valued at $341.174 milion =45cents per unit. Hope this helps and JH is not too busy entertaining ASIC so she can get on and reduce the liabilities. Regards, Seamisty




The figures Seamisty has provided are 3.5 months old.  These figures can be found in the July forum handout and are dated the 31st May 2008. At that time the bank loan was $70M.  The bank debt was supposed to have been cleared by the end of last month (August).  WC should be providing everyone with up to date figures.  Keep in mind that figures provided to date are unaudited!

-----
"Free cable is the ultimate aphrodisiac."


----------



## seamisty (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



CableGuy said:


> The figures Seamisty has provided are 3.5 months old.  These figures can be found in the July forum handout and are dated the 31st May 2008. At that time the bank loan was $70M.  The bank debt was supposed to have been cleared by the end of last month (August) freeing the fund to recommence distributions.  WC should be providing everyone with up to date figures.
> 
> -----
> "Free cable is the ultimate aphrodisiac."



Well I suggest Cableguy, if you are not happy with those figures, you call them, tell them you are not happy and you want the latest fully audited figures, including the latest liabilities, all of which need to be signed off on. Then you might like to post the information on here. Or might you find posting something helpful for a change to much of a chore? Seamisty


----------



## Juan Mortyme (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Complete Supreme Court Ruling found here:


----------



## Juan Mortyme (16 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From the 2007 MFS Annual Report, I note that in the list of substantial shareholders (p. 94), Michael King and Phil Adams held over 60million shares between them with the bulk via 4 companies, 2 of which are :
Black Teak Pty Ltd
Moonlight Australia Pty Ltd.

By looking at the list of cases appearing before the Queensland Supreme Court tomorrow (17th Sept 2008) [ http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/practice/lawlist/Brisbane.htm ], what a shock to see that Black Teak and Moonlight are scheduled to face Justice Philip McMurdo in cases versus BT Securities Limited and to be followed shortly after by Wellington Investment Management Limited.

Should be an exciting day in Court 5, Level 1 of the Supreme Court tomorrow.
Wonder if the paths of MK and JH will cross?


----------



## sugar3157 (17 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> From the 2007 MFS Annual Report, I note that in the list of substantial shareholders (p. 94), Michael King and Phil Adams held over 60million shares between them with the bulk via 4 companies, 2 of which are :
> Black Teak Pty Ltd
> Moonlight Australia Pty Ltd.
> 
> ...




what does this mean?


----------



## sugar3157 (17 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

after reading the logs on the forum tonight...I am at a loss as to understand how these people (KING etc) can keep ripping people off time and time again...
where is our justice system?
In my day I was taught ...
If Peter robbed Paul...Peter had to give Paul his money back...
and then Peter went to JAIL!!!
why is this not happening now?


----------



## Juan Mortyme (17 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> what does this mean?




Not sure.  

About 3 months ago there was a case of the administrator for Lift Capital trying to get money from King and Adams (Black Teak) -- about $13 million.  Had something to do with margin lending.
Not sure if this is for something similar, but it's odd that Black Teak has to appear at the Supreme Court on the same day that Wellington is scheduled to appear.

Maybe the QUT "rent-a-crowd" students can go there?  LOL

Maybe ASIC can round them all up?  LOL.  On no - I'm probably out of line.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (17 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Place your bets.

--------------------------------------------------

*Administrator says Octavair mays still be saved*
Article from: The Courier-Mail

by Anthony Marx

September 17, 2008 12:00am

THERE is a chance Octaviar may be revived and trade again, an administrator of the failed finance and tourism group said yesterday.

Deloitte corporate reorganisation partner John Greig said creditors owed more than $1 billion would ultimately have to decide the fate of the Gold Coast company previously known as MFS.

"I think it can be saved but the real answer to that is that the company is in the hands of its creditors. They're the ones who will determine the future of the company," Mr Greig said.

"What I do is express an opinion in a report to say what I think might be in the best interests of creditors. Ultimately it's up to them."

Mr Greig said it was too early to know how much creditors might be able to salvage from the company, which collapsed at the weekend after an eight-month battle to survive.

But he said a stillborn Octaviar offer of 22.5c on the dollar made in July might form the basis of a deed of company arrangement to allow a restructuring of the business.

Mr Greig would not comment on Octaviar's warning earlier this year that liquidation would deliver just 13.9c on the dollar, or on what options he would be recommending.

Creditors will hold their first meeting at 10:30am next Wednesday at the Deloitte offices in central Brisbane.

The Octaviar administration may be complicated by legal action from creditor Challenger Managed Investments, which had this week's planned hearing into $140 million owing in bonds and notes pushed back to December in the NSW Supreme Court.

------------END-------------


----------



## Duped (17 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> after reading the logs on the forum tonight...I am at a loss as to understand how these people (KING etc) can keep ripping people off time and time again...
> where is our justice system?
> In my day I was taught ...
> If Peter robbed Paul...Peter had to give Paul his money back...
> ...




On 20-01 last night we were reminded of Alan Bond.  Lost $1.8B of his investors $.  Paying back 1c in the $.  Now he's back on the BRW rich list at about $270m.

King was just the next iteration of this ever evolving species.  Financial Advisor's were just not competent to identify the house or cards - so King flourished.


----------



## Mary Lynch (17 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

These "men" are the arseholes of the earth. The main feature is that they have NO CONSCIENCE....are just pathologicl cheats and liars with no ability to think further than their own selfish person. They are to be pitied, and really should be left behind bars to contemplate the errors of their ways.

However, Jadel, How could you invest with them not once (and lose your $$ to these thieves) but TWICE...even with the benefit of hindsight!!!???


----------



## Duped (17 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> Complete Supreme Court Ruling found here:




Excellent.  Thanks JM.

The bulk of the text of the decision is about what date to apply to the wind up/voluntary administration. This is important because it would determine which transactions can be voided.  A wind-up order - effective date of 4 June.  Voluntary Administration - effective date 14? September.(see para [30])

Para [12] - ATO support PTQ's move to wind-up OCV rather than for VA.

Para [26] - The reason PTQ is asking for a wind-up: the proposal to us creditors "at least so far as noteholders are concerned, was *flawed for legal reasons* because a majority, even a 75 per cent majority, could not alter the terms upon which the notes were held, so that the *proposal was always bound to fail*. It is unnecessary to determine that question but if the Public Trustee’s point is correct, it is unfortunate that it was not revealed before this week."

IMO - OCV Ltd has dug itself a huge hole since Jan 08.  Selling Stella, selling MFSIM, flawed proposal. Had OCV simply subordinating itself to its creditors in Jan 08 it would have had a much better chance of surviving but like a leopard that can't change its spots it continued to play tough business man.  Arrogance seems to have killed OCV Ltd.  What is it with people like this who can't see when the gig is up?

[44] [45] & [59] PIF $50M Support Mechanism was demanded on 26 Feb 08. The agreement behind the SM was dated 23 Jun 2006.  PTQ argued that this transaction could be voided (hence reducing PIF's claims and standing as a creditor)  Thanks heaps PTQ, for the salt on our wounds.  Oh and you too ATO. Fortunate for us McMurdo found "But at least at present, that is no indication of insolvency in 2006 and the Public Trustee’s suggestion involves mere speculation.".


----------



## Rance (17 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



CableGuy said:


> People this isn’t rocket science.  The only part open for interpretation is section 177 (1a).  So talk to ASIC or Jenny or get a lawyer and stop speculating.
> 
> We know a legal opinion was given so I’m sure things were checked out by a lawyer and if perhaps you can get them on a technicality.....




Thank you Cableguy for bringing me up to speed on this. I did seek advice after receiving your post and was advised that:

(a) a case could be run against PIFI, grounded on the fact that information was used to identify and contact certain types of unit holders to the exclusion of others; and or 

(b) a bigger case could be run against the legislation itself seeking to amend it to make it illegal to supply information considered to be private and in contravention of privacy laws.

As you say, the matter is open to interpretation; subjective in fact and you'll find lawyers who (for an appropriate fee) could argue either way. 

By the way, wasn't it DoraNBoots who was quoted a fee of $40,000 by WC to obtain a copy of the PIF register?

Rance


----------



## Duped (17 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

"Small window for Octaviar as administrators arrive

Nick Nichols

September 15th, 2008

_A SENSE of relief has descended on the Octaviar board after it was finally allowed to call in the corporate doctors at the weekend.

The administrators, appointed on Saturday afternoon, will sweep into Octaviar's Southport office this morning to take charge of the company's affairs.

The embattled entity, formerly known as MFS, is now expected to be given six weeks to reach a new deal with creditors owed $1 billion, as a winding-up hearing scheduled for the Queensland Supreme Court this morning is likely to be adjourned until October 24.

The Octaviar board appointed John Grieg and Nicholas Harwood, of Deloitte, as voluntary administrators on Saturday afternoon, shortly after a phone call from Justice Philip McMurdo at midday.

Justice McMurdo informed Octaviar he had lifted an injunction that had previously hamstrung the company, preventing it from appointing administrators.

"It's a bit of a relief," said chief executive Craig Chapman.* "At least we've got to first base."*

The Public Trustee of Queensland, acting on behalf of 560 noteholders who are owed $351 million, last Wednesday sought a winding up of Octaviar.

The move had baffled Octaviar directors after a meeting of noteholders two days earlier agreed to hold off on any action until September 30, allowing the noteholders time to consider an existing payout offer that would have given them an average of 22.5c in the dollar.

This compares with 13.9c in the dollar the company said would be left through a liquidation.

Many creditors, including Octaviar's former flagship investment vehicle, the Premium Income Fund, had warmed to the idea of the swift payout option already proposed by Octaviar.

The deal would have given smaller noteholders, with up to $5000 invested, all of their money back.

Now, the administrators will go back to the drawing board and offer up a deed of company arrangement that will need to satisfy just 51 per cent of creditors by value and number.

*"You'd never think the day appointing a voluntary administrator is good but, under the circumstances and the journey we've had so far, it is a much better outcome than liquidation," said Mr Chapman. "It's basically a six-week window (of opportunity).*

"I'll be working with the administrators to put everything together to present to the creditors."

Octaviar director and major shareholder Chris Scott, who led a boardroom coup of Octaviar in April that resulted in his and Mr Chapman's appointment to the board, is in Singapore and is expected to return to the Gold Coast to assist in that process.

The directors have been attempting to keep Octaviar afloat long enough for its key assets to appreciate in value and give the company a new lease of life.

Octaviar owns 35 per cent of the Stella group, a tourism and travel business made up mostly of Mr Scott's former listed company S8, and Tony Smith's former float BreakFree.

Stella, which cost the then MFS more than $2 billion to accumulate, was majority sold to private equity group CVC Asia Pacific in February for about $1.3 billion -- a price Mr Scott, at the time, described as 'outrageous'.

*But the sale delivered a much-needed cash boost for the company,* which still retains about $150 million in the bank. The liquidation action by the Public Trustee of Queensland is said to have drained about $5 million of those reserves._"

Are these Directors/Exec's so delusional that they think we swallow the same crock that they seem to believe?

Ummm - DUH - OCV Ltd board could have gone for VA a year ago or at any point since then and in doing so preserving a hell of a lot of value for both creditors AND shareholders.  Right?  But NO - like pokie junkies they opted to inject more cash that they can't afford into the slot, i.e. another capital raise of this time $550M, hoping that this was the one that was going to pay out. 

They just don't get it. The days of easy cash and minimal dislosure are OVER.  How many more times does PTQ have to slap you in the face for you to wake up and change your MO?


----------



## flatback (17 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> "Small window for Octaviar as administrators arrive
> 
> Nick Nichols
> 
> ...



Duped if you believe the statement that you just made is true( the days of easy cash and minimal disclosure are over ) i tell you what, i have three geese in my yard that lay, gold silver and diamond eggs, which one do you want to buy. as long as there are corporate lawyers,( who will bend every law to suite their own whims) and an asic body that doesnt have the kahoonas to use the power that has been bestowed on them , and there are a group of people (us ) who believe that there are gov agencys to look after us, and unfortunately the white shoe brigade that runs the financial world on the gold coast is allowed to operate as they do ,IT WILL HAPPEN UNTIL I SUCK IN MY LAST BREATH, i liken this form of investment to investing my money into the poker machines,you may say, well you were caught too you know ,and you are right, but because of my age and my health i can guarantee, it will not be physicaly possible for me to ever get caught again, and unfortunately its my wife and her well being that concerns me more than anything.
i have put many threads on this forum trying to instill some sense and order to the retoric that has materialised but to no avail, constantly we hear from the same people cutting and pasteing exerps from papers etc etc, WHY when everything is out of our control. i wont say have a good day , have a bad day like i have to suffer.


----------



## JohnH (17 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

So has anybody heard whether the meeting is on or off tomorrow?


----------



## seamisty (17 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> So has anybody heard whether the meeting is on or off tomorrow?



They are still in court, there is meant to be a statement posted on the PIF website as soon as is possible. It is my understanding there will still be a meeting tomorrow, no one is sure as to in what capacity at this stage. Seamisty


----------



## newwwtrader (17 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> Thank you Cableguy for bringing me up to speed on this. I did seek advice after receiving your post and was advised that:
> 
> (a) a case could be run against PIFI, grounded on the fact that information was used to identify and contact certain types of unit holders to the exclusion of others; and or
> 
> ...





If that was the advice you were given......id go and get another opinion

And secondly.......why would you even waste your time about such a meaningless issue? There is nothing to be gained from it!! Surely energies are best directed to more meaningful tasks


----------



## Duped (17 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yep.  I did get duped - by my financial advisor who in turn was duped by ratings agencies who were duped by MFS. Hence the handle I gave myself - to remind me.

I was trying to be as brief as possible.  What I meant was 'days of large amounts of super easy cash with no questions asked are over for this cycle'.  I have no doubt it'll happen again.  (I recall hearing a story about a stack of dutch investors being done over by a tulip shceme in the 18th century.)


----------



## seamisty (17 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



newwwtrader said:


> If that was the advice you were given......id go and get another opinion
> 
> And secondly.......why would you even waste your time about such a meaningless issue? There is nothing to be gained from it!! Surely energies are best directed to more meaningful tasks



Like counting the cost of todays episode!!!! Seamisty


----------



## flatback (17 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Yep.  I did get duped - by my financial advisor who in turn was duped by ratings agencies who were duped by MFS. Hence the handle I gave myself - to remind me.
> 
> I was trying to be as brief as possible.  What I meant was 'days of large amounts of super easy cash with no questions asked are over for this cycle'.  I have no doubt it'll happen again.  (I recall hearing a story about a stack of dutch investors being done over by a tulip shceme in the 18th century.)



Sorry duped its just that you were the first cab of the rank( i wouldnt buy any of my geese either) its all so very frustrating, i let my heart bleed to WC about my personal problems and got $2000 for $4444 worth of units i apologise again to you , its not your fault, and to you, do have a nice day. Flatback


----------



## Rance (17 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



newwwtrader said:


> If that was the advice you were given......id go and get another opinion
> 
> And secondly.......why would you even waste your time about such a meaningless issue? There is nothing to be gained from it!! Surely energies are best directed to more meaningful tasks



Thanks Newwwtrader.

The legal opinion was (fortunately for me) given freely.
I value my privacy and believe info about the number of shares or units I hold in any organisation should not be divulged willy-nilly without my consent. I'm surprised it can happen in this context and demonstrates that in some areas of law, privacy considerations have not been acknowledged. In my mid-seventies, I have other priorities to pursue and will leave it to younger citizens, especially lawyers, who might like to take up this "meaningless issue".  I'm speaking here of broader community concerns not the minor PIF skirmish we are involved in. I'll refer the subject to Civil Liberties Australia.

Rance


----------



## JohnH (17 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just published:
Premium Income Fund – Supreme Court Proceedings
Wellington Investment Management Limited has appeared in the Supreme Court of Queensland today in relation to an application bought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission seeking orders restraining Wellington Investment Management as the responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund from proceeding with the resolutions scheduled to be considered at 10.00 am tomorrow 18 September 2008.
Justice McMurdo dismissed all of the concerns raised by ASIC except one.
Clarification about the proposed cash payments to unitholders will be sent to all unitholders, confirming that cash payments totalling 3 cents per unit will be made by Christmas. The clarification notice will also advise unitholders that no decision has been made by Wellington Investment Management Limited about the quantum of any payments to unitholders after that time.
Unitholders will be advised that quarterly payments are proposed, however unitholders must consider the resolutions the subject of the 18 August 2008 notice with the clear understanding that any payment beyond December 2008 will depend entirely on the financial circumstances of the Premium Income Fund at that time.
Chairperson, Jenny Hutson said “I am disappointed that this has been the outcome. Unitholders in this fund have had a very difficult 7 months. Our efforts in ensuring unitholders have been well informed have been very significant. When I stepped into this role on 2 May 2008 it was with one purpose only, that purpose being to achieve the best possible outcome for Premium Income Fund unitholders - all 10,387 of them.”
She said “It remains my mission to look after the people who invested in this fund in good faith. I will remain determined in that regard. I will be asking unitholders tomorrow to adjourn the scheduled meeting so that clarifying information can be sent before a decision on the resolutions is finally made.”


----------



## CableGuy (17 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Like counting the cost of todays episode!!!! Seamisty



ASIC's action has nothing to do with the letter that was sent to investors.


----------



## CableGuy (17 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

ASIC’s case was in relation to whether the information contained within the EM would give the average unitholder the correct understanding of WCIM’s intentions for the fund along with WCIMs ability to meet those commitments.

The judge dismissed the second part of ASIC’s case as this was a last minute addition which WCIM could not reasonably address in the time permitted before tomorrow’s meeting.

ASIC said that distributions, buyback and investor committee were permissive rather than enforced which means that WCIM are not legally required to honour these as they do not appear in the proposed constitution.

There was a lot of discussion over what “and quarterly thereafter” meant.  The judge agreed that the EM could be interpreted by the average unit holder to expect a 3 cent per unit distribution quarterly.  When asked, WCIM said they are planning on giving a 1.5 cent per unit distribution quarterly however when questioned more deeply admitted that no actual amount was legally guaranteed.  The judge asked whether it could be a 0.1 of a cent per unit per quarter.  WCIM said “yes but it wouldn’t be”.  This is an important point for investors who are planning on relying on income beyond Christmas.

The judge noted that the 2% severance fee (resolution 1) isn’t in the unit holder’s best interest however it is recommended by WCIM directors.

All parties agreed that resolution 3 should be an extraordinary resolution rather than an ordinary resolution and that it was incorrect.  Interestingly the lawyers in the room couldn’t confirm what the correct requirement for and extraordinary resolution was and someone said 75% which everyone seemed happy with however, an extraordinary resolution requires 50% of all units to pass (ordinary is 50% of those that vote).

The calculation for the .7% management fee is currently based on funds under management of $691M carrying value!  This equates to $4.837M per annum.

A transcript of the case will be available to purchase whole or in part from the State Reporting Bureau in around 28 days
http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/2056.htm

Now for the moment you’ve all been waiting for, the verdict…

The judge ruled against all 3 resolutions and that the affirmative vote has been unintentionally mislead by WCIM.  The average unit holder may have voted expecting a 3 cent per unit quarerly distribution.  It would not be apparent to the average unit holder that the 2% removal fee was a part of resolution 1.  The meeting tomorrow cannot be to decide the vote.

-----
"This concludes our broadcast day. Click."


----------



## CableGuy (17 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Just published:
> Premium Income Fund – Supreme Court Proceedings
> Wellington Investment Management Limited has appeared in the Supreme Court of Queensland today in relation to an application bought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission seeking orders restraining Wellington Investment Management as the responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund from proceeding with the resolutions scheduled to be considered at 10.00 am tomorrow 18 September 2008....blah blah blah



Note that the above is WC's media realease http://www.newpif.com.au

Comare this release to what was actually said, see post #2737

-----
"Hard to believe they got the floors cleaned in here after what happened..."


----------



## newwwtrader (17 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> Thanks Newwwtrader.
> 
> The legal opinion was (fortunately for me) given freely.
> I value my privacy and believe info about the number of shares or units I hold in any organisation should not be divulged willy-nilly without my consent. I'm surprised it can happen in this context and demonstrates that in some areas of law, privacy considerations have not been acknowledged. In my mid-seventies, I have other priorities to pursue and will leave it to younger citizens, especially lawyers, who might like to take up this "meaningless issue".  I'm speaking here of broader community concerns not the minor PIF skirmish we are involved in. I'll refer the subject to Civil Liberties Australia.
> ...




That statement about not wanting your information disclosed is quite hypocritical. Considering that most people here believe (quite rightly) that ASIC and any other interested body should be chasing the money trail of King and Co. 

Now in order for them to do that they are going to have to go and look at organisation records etc. And guess what, in doing so other peoples details are going to be devulged (how many shares thye owe etc).

And here is another little gem, when the fund does get listed on the NSX one could assume that your details will be all the more available.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Court ruling forces Octaviar meeting to be adjourned*
Article from: The Courier-Mail

by Anthony Marx

September 17, 2008 12:00am

A MEETING expected to draw up to 1000 investors at the Gold Coast Convention Centre will have to be adjourned this morning.
 This comes after a Brisbane court late yesterday ruled that information sent to them was misleading and deceptive.

The decision is a costly blow for Wellington Investment Management, which was seeking approval of three resolutions to help restructure the embattled $413 million Premium Income Fund once operate by failed financier Octaviar (formerly MFS).

Supreme Court Justice Philip McMurdo sided with arguments by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission that unitholders could be confused about proposed quarterly cash payments in the new year following a promised 3c payment by late December.

"It is likely that many unitholders would be affected in their consideration of the resolutions," Justice McMurdo said.

Wellington chair Jenny Hutson said she hoped to re-schedule another meeting within a month and would send out new proxy forms after consulting with ASIC. "I'm disappointed for the unitholders," she said.

Ms Hutson said her firm had been engaged in extensive talks with ASIC since August about the proposed changes to the fund constitution and the corporate regulator had never previously raised concerns about lack of clarity in quarterly payments. ASIC had even approved the 80-page explanatory memorandum sent to investors, she said.

Wellington had proposed giving unitholders a 1.5c payment in October and another 1.5c payment in December and "quarterly thereafter" - wording that Justice McMurdo ruled could be interpreted to mean 1.5c or 3c per quarter.

Ms Hutson said no figure was promised because market conditions are so uncertain and she warned that the October payment may now be endangered because of the delay in holding the meeting. The fund's planned listing on the National Stock Exchange tomorrow will also have to be deferred.

Ms Hutson estimated that Wellington would have to bear another $120,000 in costs because of the delay and that yesterday's court tab would reach $50,000. Investors travelling to the Gold Coast will also be out of pocket and severely inconvenienced.

ASIC counsel Jean Dalton argued that Wellington provided investors with error-ridden documents and had failed to make clear its fee structure, including a potential $8 million windfall if removed as the fund's responsible entity.

The fund was originally worth $755 million but has declined sharply in value because of nearly $200 million owing from MFS and the falling value of assets.

---------END------------


----------



## Rance (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



newwwtrader said:


> That statement about not wanting your information disclosed is quite hypocritical. Considering that most people here believe (quite rightly) that ASIC and any other interested body should be chasing the money trail of King and Co.
> 
> Now in order for them to do that they are going to have to go and look at organisation records etc. And guess what, in doing so other peoples details are going to be devulged (how many shares thye owe etc).
> 
> And here is another little gem, when the fund does get listed on the NSX one could assume that your details will be all the more available.




Your latest post is very interesting. Of course, ASIC and other investigative bodies are entitled (by law) to look at whatever company records they need to, to track down the money-go-round of King & Co. But I can't see why they would be interested in individual PIF unit holders such as you and me? (I don't hold Octavian shares.)

When listed on any exchange, why would individual details be available to every Tom, Dick and Harriette? When buying or selling shares, I've never in 50 years known the details of the person or company at the other end of the deal. 

I'm saying that registers made available to the *general public* should not (as they do now) contain info regarding the number of units held by each individual on the register unless an individual allows that. 

It's not rocket science! It's a simple one character position on a computer record indicating "yes" or "no".  You've probably indicated such on many other forms you've filled in recent years, particularly on the internet.

I find your comments rather strange. In the words of another (in)famous Queenslander: PLEASE EXPLAIN.

And why are you wasting time on this matter when you could be using it on more productive matters concerning our PIF?  

Rance


----------



## Juan Mortyme (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Just published:
> Premium Income Fund – Supreme Court Proceedings
> Wellington Investment Management Limited has appeared in the Supreme Court of Queensland today in relation to an application bought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission seeking orders restraining Wellington Investment Management as the responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund from proceeding with the resolutions scheduled to be considered at 10.00 am tomorrow 18 September 2008.
> *Justice McMurdo dismissed all of the concerns raised by ASIC except one.*
> ...






CableGuy said:


> ASIC’s case was in relation to whether the information contained within the EM would give the average unitholder the correct understanding of WCIM’s intentions for the fund along with WCIMs ability to meet those commitments.
> 
> The judge dismissed the second part of ASIC’s case as this was a last minute addition which WCIM could not reasonably address in the time permitted before tomorrow’s meeting.
> 
> ...






CableGuy said:


> Note that the above is WC's media realease http://www.newpif.com.au
> 
> Compare this release to what was actually said, see post #2737




Geez, by reading the announcement on WC website, initially I thought it was favourable to WC & JH.
eg.: "Justice McMurdo dismissed all of the concerns raised by ASIC except one." 
Only when you start reading JH quote "I am disappointed that this has been the outcome...." does the reader realise what has actually happened.

I guess trying to add a positive spin to something negative is an art.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> No it's 3c per unit by 24 dec then a quarterly payment of a *targeted* rate of 1.5c per quarter and I have that in writing.






Juan Mortyme said:


> Definition of "target" = a desired goal.  That's hardly binding even if it is in writing.




"There was a lot of discussion over what “and quarterly thereafter” meant. The judge agreed that the EM could be interpreted by the average unit holder to expect a 3 cent per unit distribution quarterly.  When asked, WCIM said they are planning on giving a 1.5 cent per unit distribution quarterly however when questioned more deeply admitted that no actual amount was legally guaranteed."

It seems that the judge wasn't fooled.


----------



## seamisty (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> "There was a lot of discussion over what “and quarterly thereafter” meant. The judge agreed that the EM could be interpreted by the average unit holder to expect a 3 cent per unit distribution quarterly.  When asked, WCIM said they are planning on giving a 1.5 cent per unit distribution quarterly however when questioned more deeply admitted that no actual amount was legally guaranteed."
> 
> It seems that the judge wasn't fooled.



Perhaps WC should have used the wording 'Target Rate of Return' as per  the MFS RATE SHEET dated 7 January 2008 (Target rates of return are target rates only and are subject to change from time to time. MFSIM does not guarantee any particular rate of return) Back to the drawing board. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Supreme Court jeopardises Wellington's PIF rescue:::::Nick Nichols 

September 18th, 2008 

THE corporate watchdog yesterday effectively put the brakes on Wellington Capital's way forward for embattled Premium Income Fund investors, jeopardising a planned payment of distributions next month.

The Queensland Supreme Court has slapped an injunction on Wellington from putting three resolutions to a vote by investors at the Gold Coast Convention Centre this morning.

But the planned meeting would proceed, said Wellington founder Jenny Hutson last night after emerging from a prolonged court hearing in Brisbane.

The injunction comes despite the court rejecting all grounds on which the Australian Securities and Investments Commission had based its challenge.

Instead, the court had one concern over the material put to investors by Wellington.

It found there could be confusion around a proposed payment of 3c per unit to unit-holders by Christmas.

The payment, proposed by Wellington, would consist of an unspecified October payment, the first distribution for unit-holders since January, and a further payment in December.

The judge found that investors could be expected to believe they would be receiving 3c per quarter once Wellington Investment Management was appointed as responsible entity.

He has ordered that Wellington clarify this issue before allowing the vote to proceed. Ms Hutson last night said she was 'disappointed' by the ruling.

Unit-holders will be asked this morning to adjourn the vote for up to 28 days during which Wellington will issue supplementary information on the payout to investors.

"We were on the cusp of a way forward, and now it's going to be deferred," said Ms Hutson.

"To have it derailed, even if only for a month, is disappointing."

Ms Hutson also said the delay would put at risk Wellington's planned distribution next month.

"We've done the work, and we've put the fund in a good position. We have worked day and night for the benefit of 10,387 others and I think a very small group has run a campaign that has had an outcome which is disappointing."

Ms Hutson was referring to a group of investors known as the PIF Initiative which has been agitating against Wellington taking over the fund and calling for an independent assessment of its assets.

The PIF Initiative, however, this week rejected claims that it had approached ASIC to investigate.

Ms Hutson said she would remain at this morning's meeting to answer all questions from investors regarding yesterday's court action.


----------



## Rance (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Jenny

After the WOFTAM of yesterday, don't spit the dummy! If you're reading this and need any assistance in preparing your new "Explanatory Memorandum for Dummies" contact me off line. I'm happy to assist. The trick to writing material for dummies, is to remember you are writing for the lowest common denominator, ie. people with low IQ scores. There is nothing wrong with having a low IQ. We can't all be Einsteins. Use the KISS principle: Keep It Simple for Stupids. Have yesterday's Judge read your finished product before publishing. If he understands it, the material will have passed the "dummy" test.

Rance


----------



## seamisty (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Now I know I do not belong to the minority group of super intellectual beings with the enhanced brain capacity that post on here, but seriously, was anyone expecting an anticipated 12cents per unit annual distribution? Not even the confused elderly investors would have possibly expected a substantially greater return from a Fund which assets were worth less than half the amount from when it was a going concern. Seamisty


----------



## selciper (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Wasn't there discussion and confusion on this very forum about what the actual rate of distributions was to be - 1.5c or 3c? WC should have picked up the concerns - and I bet there were plenty of questions on the topic via the WC hotline. (I recall asking about it myself.) Yes, why they didn't state "the target rate of distributions will be etc..." is a mystery. Certainly it's an expensive error and means even more delay and misery for cash-starved investors. And why did ASIC leave it to such an incredibly late stage to intervene? Both sides come out of this shambles looking less than shiny.


----------



## simgrund (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



POST 2737  CableGuy said:


> ASIC’s case was in relation to whether the information contained within the EM would give the average unitholder the correct understanding of WCIM’s intentions for the fund along with WCIMs ability to meet those commitments.................................
> 
> The calculation for the .7% management fee is currently based on funds under management of $691M carrying value!  This equates to $4.837M per annum.
> 
> ...




LETS NIP IT IN THE BUD.
THE 0.7 COMMISSION BASED ON $691 MIL, YET OUR NTA OF $0.45 IS BASED ON $431 MIL CLAIMED TO BE CURRENT FUND ASSETS. 
ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS DISCREPANCE???


----------



## Rance (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I just received this quote off line and thought I'd share it with you all:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, but I'm not sure about the former."

-- Albert Einstein

Rance


----------



## Mary Lynch (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Jenny has done NOTHING to deserve this mistrust. That woman has been doing it hard for us, right from the word "go".

ASIC passed the 80 page booklet???!!!...then why aren't they being charged for the meeting and court costs?

What I am finding hard to believe now,is the amount of good money going after bad.  It seems as though there is an intention WITHIN THE PIF UNITHOLDERS to make sure that we are destroyed.   

Could it be that some of the people who KNOW that they will have to sell up on the NSX are plotting to make sure that we all go with them....receiving peanuts for our units?  Can't think of any other reason why people constantly want to jeopardise and sabotage the forward movement of our fund!

Could it be the need for SENSATIONALISM?

Now that I have a broken leg and can't work; have a monster of a mortgage (as we had just signed a contract on an  house when all hell broke loose) and $500.000 (due 2 days after freeze) suddenly wasn't there to pay for the house...having done with mortgages 20 years ago, this was a ghastly burden after working all our lives to get here.  

Also have a frozen $500,000 with City Pacific....no interest, of late there either.....and because they have $$$ with CP $200,000 of our dough with Wright,Patton  & Shakespeare is frozen too.

I don't have ANY cash to my name now, except the interest that I may or may not get...from one month to the next.....AND  selfish idiots are constantly sabotaging me getting it.

I truely can't believe this is happening!!!!!  STOP IT!! WHOEVER YOU ARE!!! and let the people who know what they are doing GET ON WITH THEIR JOB of getting our money back.


----------



## marcom (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



CableGuy said:


> ASIC's action has nothing to do with the letter that was sent to investors.





The ASIC case officer I spoke to recently was certainly aware of the PIFI letter - see my post 2666.


----------



## Rance (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> LETS NIP IT IN THE BUD.
> THE 0.7 COMMISSION BASED ON $691 MIL, YET OUR NTA OF $0.45 IS BASED ON $431 MIL CLAIMED TO BE CURRENT FUND ASSETS.
> ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS DISCREPANCE???




"Carrying value" is the book value of your assets; "realisable value" is the amount you will actually receive when you sell them, which can be higher or (in our case at the moment) lower than their "carrying value". Fees for managing assets are always based on the book or "carrying value". Our book would probably include loans we have made and an expectation of their repayment plus interest.

Our PIF's CA and RA are based on valuations taken at the time WC took over, ie. 31 May 08. Obviously, we would need to revalue these to take account of depreciation, interest, rates and taxes, and other costs etc associated with owning land and buildings, repaying loans from banks etc, etc. Quite a complicated exercise. I'd leave it to the accountants and auditors! Why didn't I choose those professions 55 years ago??? 

Rance


----------



## Rance (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> The ASIC case officer I spoke to recently was certainly aware of the PIFI letter - see my post 2666.



Indeed!  And included in the PIFI's objectives is this little gem:
Quote: advocating members' positions with the responsible entity, the media, government organisations (such as ASIC); Unquote.

Rance


----------



## seamisty (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> Indeed!  And included in the PIFI's objectives is this little gem:
> Quote: advocating members' positions with the responsible entity, the media, government organisations (such as ASIC); Unquote.
> 
> Rance



Speaking of PIFI, they seem conspicuous by their absence today. I guess they are all at the WC meeting. I hope they are all wearing large, clearly  identifiable PIFI name tags so other unitholders may see who is responsible for this and be able to thank them all in person.(alternatively, they will be easily identified from the distinct shape of their heads,somewhat distorted in shape as a result of having to house a larger than normal size brain, notably associated with beings of super intelligence) Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

OK all, Maverick2802 kindly  just rang me from the WC investor meeting to update everyone with what has happened so far. He said investors have nothing to worry about!!! Great news everyone.In a room of approx 700+ people a show of hands was called for in relation to the adjournment of the WC proposals we have all just voted on. SIX people voted in favour to adjourn the meeting!!!!! Everyone was overwhelmingly in favour of JH to take control and move ahead. Why am I not suprised? Investors will have the opportunity to re vote if they are not happy with the outcome from todays meeting after being provided with additional information regarding the proposed on going quarterly distribution, otherwise your previuos  proxy will stand and you do not have to do anything. The results for the resolutions were 1. 95% For 2. 92% For and 3. 80%+For(to be confirmed)Maverick then spoke directly with JH and her solicitor, and they said providing everything goes ahead as planned, the proposed OCT 1.5cent distribution WILL GO AHEAD.(I guess that means no more unexpected intervention) Maverick said JH was very committed to the PIF and had  massive support from those in attendance. I have to run, I have colour on my mums hair and if I stuff that up the forum will be minus a poster!!! Thanks Maverick2802 for keeping us updated) Seamisty


----------



## Rance (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I have to run, I have colour on my mums hair and if I stuff that up the forum will be minus a poster!!! Thanks Maverick2802 for keeping us updated) Seamisty




And a big thank you to you, SeaMisty and Maverick2802 for bringing us up-to-date on today's meeting. I'll now concentrate on my business matters for the rest of the day.

Rance


----------



## ian1328 (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Nice to have some good news. Lets go forward now and not sideways.


----------



## selciper (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for relaying the news, Seamisty. What with Wall St etc I'll be more relaxed when I draw some money from the ATM this afternoon.


----------



## JohnH (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Speaking of PIFI, they seem conspicuous by their absence today. I guess they are all at the WC meeting. -  all 6 of them
> Just  got back from the meeting, and I see that Seamisty via Maverick have reported already.
> 
> It was quite emotional after the vote, with JH making a tearful commitment to unit holders, and many of her staff as well as the audience in tears.
> ...


----------



## breaker1 (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> OK all, Maverick2802 kindly  just rang me from the WC investor meeting to update everyone with what has happened so far. He said investors have nothing to worry about!!! Great news everyone.In a room of approx 700+ people a show of hands was called for in relation to the adjournment of the WC proposals we have all just voted on. SIX people voted in favour to adjourn the meeting!!!!! Everyone was overwhelmingly in favour of JH to take control and move ahead. Why am I not suprised? Investors will have the opportunity to re vote if they are not happy with the outcome from todays meeting after being provided with additional information regarding the proposed on going quarterly distribution, otherwise your previuos  proxy will stand and you do not have to do anything. The results for the resolutions were 1. 95% For 2. 92% For and 3. 80%+For(to be confirmed)Maverick then spoke directly with JH and her solicitor, and they said providing everything goes ahead as planned, the proposed OCT 1.5cent distribution WILL GO AHEAD.(I guess that means no more unexpected intervention) Maverick said JH was very committed to the PIF and had  massive support from those in attendance. I have to run, I have colour on my mums hair and if I stuff that up the forum will be minus a poster!!! Thanks Maverick2802 for keeping us updated) Seamisty




Thanks Seamisty and Maverick for your hard work and commitment - its a major sacrifice of your  precious time. 

I am sure all are looking forward to a payment in October of 1.5c / unit. Great news!


----------



## marcom (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thank you very much seamisty and maverick - you are legends!!!!! Thanks also for the tireless work in researching the many questions thrown at you and for fielding the brickbats from the dark side.

THE FORCE IS WITH YOU.


----------



## JohnH (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> OK all, Maverick2802 kindly  just rang me from the WC investor meeting to update everyone with what has happened so far. He said investors have nothing to worry about!!! Great news everyone.In a room of approx 700+ people a show of hands was called for in relation to the adjournment of the WC proposals we have all just voted on. *SIX people voted in favour to adjourn the meeting!!!!! *Everyone was overwhelmingly in favour of JH to take control and move ahead. Why am I not suprised? Investors will have the opportunity to re vote if they are not happy with the outcome from todays meeting after being provided with additional information regarding the proposed on going quarterly distribution, otherwise your previuos  proxy will stand and you do not have to do anything. The results for the resolutions were 1. 95% For 2. 92% For and 3. 80%+For(to be confirmed)Maverick then spoke directly with JH and her solicitor, and they said providing everything goes ahead as planned, the proposed OCT 1.5cent distribution WILL GO AHEAD.(I guess that means no more unexpected intervention) Maverick said JH was very committed to the PIF and had  massive support from those in attendance. I have to run, I have colour on my mums hair and if I stuff that up the forum will be minus a poster!!! Thanks Maverick2802 for keeping us updated) Seamisty




Hi Seamisty and everybody,

Just re-read the above and thought I should put the record straight.  The proposal by Jenny was to *adjourn the meeting* until October the 15th to enable Wellington to comply with the ASIC requirements.   The voting was 700 + for,  and 6 (I only counted 5) against.


----------



## seamisty (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Hi Seamisty and everybody,
> 
> Just re-read the above and thought I should put the record straight.  The proposal by Jenny was to *adjourn the meeting* until October the 15th to enable Wellington to comply with the ASIC requirements.   The voting was 700 + for,  and 6 (I only counted 5) against.



Thanks JohnH, thats what I meant LOL!!! Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Thanks JohnH, thats what I meant LOL!!! Seamisty




No guesses what colour mum's/daughter's hair ended up --- lol


----------



## Mary Lynch (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Three cheers for all you guys and girls who have done so much; You have  tirelessly answeried queries for so long now....especially  you Seamistry.

Thank you ALL so much.

Now lets get on with it.....BIG sigh!!


----------



## sugar3157 (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Thanks JohnH, thats what I meant LOL!!! Seamisty




thanks Seamisty...4 all u r hard work....
and what is mums hair colour now?
cheers sugar...


----------



## seamisty (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> Three cheers for all you guys and girls who have done so much; You have  tirelessly answeried queries for so long now....especially  you Seamistry.
> 
> Thank you ALL so much.
> 
> Now lets get on with it.....BIG sigh!!



Yes,Thanks Mary, I am sure most of us feel the same, JH and staff included. JohnH and Maverick sound quite happy with the results from today. Be interesting to see what comes out in the media. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> thanks Seamisty...4 all u r hard work....
> and what is mums hair colour now?
> cheers sugar...



 Lol Sugar, it's so good to see  concern for the colour of my mums hair!!!! I relayed that post to her and she cracked up!!!At the risk of getting off topic on the thread, she told me she dyed it herself once when we were all small and she had no money(which was most of the time) and it turned out like the lady on the redhead matchbox and my dad walked on the other side of the street when we went to town until it grew out!! Mums hair colour now, an acceptable shade of light brown as opposed to grey. Regards, Seamisty:fish:


----------



## Maverick2802 (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

WOW! Just got back from the GC meeting (I flew from Sydney).

All I can say is PIFI is DEAD & BURIED!!!!

JH revealed that (for memory) 7000+ people voted by proxy, can't remember the exact units that represented but it was way way high. Even Jenny said that she was involved in the past with many previous company votes and she had never seen anything quite like the number of respondents by %.

Out of the votes FOR res 1 95% res2 92% res3 84% HUGE numbers. A very resounding YES to WC that want the future of this fund to be managed by Jenny.

When she asked for a show of hands. Dennis Chapman (the guy that sent that PIFI letter to us) plus a young couple with 2 kiddies that were standing next to him plus maybe 2 or so others didn't want the meeting adjourned and the existing resolutions. LOL @ PIFI and those that was JH out. You tried to destabilise us and you FAILED miserably!!!!!!!!

This means that once the clarification paperwork for the qtrly dists is sent to us (just a formality per the judgement), if you are happy with your vote, NO need send a new proxy as your original vote will still be valid. 

A great result today. I and the majority of people in that room felt we would be well served by Jenny Hutson. There was even a lady there that was being interviewed by the CM that travelled all the way from Tokyo Japan just to be there for the meeting and was flying back out tonight. Check out the story tomorrow, she posed for a photo with JH for the paper.

Oh and BTW the gentleman that was handing out those flyers at the end of the meeting is a JH / PIF supporter group NOT PIFI. He's a good gut that was behind the rally ouside the WC offices this week I think, so not a PIFI troublemaker at all.


----------



## simgrund (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> "Carrying value" is the book value of your assets; "realisable value" is the amount you will actually receive when you sell them, which can be higher or (in our case at the moment) lower than their "carrying value". Fees for managing assets are always based on the book or "carrying value". Our book would probably include loans we have made and an expectation of their repayment plus interest.
> 
> Our PIF's CA and RA are based on valuations taken at the time WC took over, ie. 31 May 08. Obviously, we would need to revalue these to take account of depreciation, interest, rates and taxes, and other costs etc associated with owning land and buildings, repaying loans from banks etc, etc. Quite a complicated exercise. I'd leave it to the accountants and auditors! Why didn't I choose those professions 55 years ago???
> 
> Rance




Thank you Rance; 
seems less unjust when explained this way. 
Perhaps hard logic would still go with RA valuation for final fees and good luck to Manager if they happen to be higher than CA. That's when ALL would be winning. Then again, I too did not go into those professions.
With Best Wishes


----------



## sundale (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF/Seamisty*

Hi Seamisty

I appreciate the work you have done in keeping us informed and up to date with this situation.  It is not easy dealing with some people and as they say, we cannot please all of the people all of the time!  Fortunately the majority rules.

If the opportunity should arise I would propose that you would be 
the Investor Representative on the Advisory Committee.  (Of course, not to say that you would want to be!)

As for the PIFI - they may or may not be aware (or for that matter care)  of the anxiety they caused by jeapordising the proposed distribution.  For me it is the difference of being able to purchase life saving cancer drugs or not. I anxiously await any payment so that I can obtain these drugs.

Others I am sure had reasons as important to them to have  income from this fund.

With the financial world crashing around us we are perhaps more fortunate than some.  

As someone said before,  Jenny Hutson is not the tooth fairy, let's hope that she does well and in turn so should the investors in the PIF



regards

Sundale


----------



## Maverick2802 (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If there are no more ASIC / PIFI interuptions to the wishes of the majority of unit holders of this fund and the resolutions go ahead as they would have done today at the adjourned meeting on the 15th October, the first of the 1.5c payments WILL still happen 31 October, and I know a lot of people are sweating on it.

The 1.5c per quarter is the targetted rate for 2009. This may not be published in the soon to be received extra material.


----------



## erniel (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I would also like to add , another event that took place at todays meeting with J H.
There was considerable debate on the fees WC will be  charging the PIF as well as the 2% exit fee (roughly $8 million)
Jenny categorically stated that should WC be found to be incompetent in managing the fund , and were removed for that reason , she would not charge the fund the 2% exit fee.
This in my opinion confirms her commitment to the fund and her integrity.

 I would also like to add my appreciation to all of you who have worked so hard at keeping us informed.

I do not know what I would of done without this support network.
Breaker1, a big thanks to you for initiating this forum.


----------



## pjay (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Many thanks breaker1,seamisty,maverack and others who kept us so fully infomed through this difficult period and also those that were not so helpfull but added fuel for debate to make us come to the right decision. I just hope someone will be brought to justice for this debacle best of luck to all, pjay


----------



## JohnH (18 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



erniel said:


> I would also like to add , another event that took place at todays meeting with J H.
> There was considerable debate on the fees WC will be  charging the PIF as well as the 2% exit fee (roughly $8 million)
> Jenny categorically stated that should WC be found to be incompetent in managing the fund , and were removed for that reason , she would not charge the fund the 2% exit fee.
> This in my opinion confirms her commitment to the fund and her integrity.
> ...





Here Here!!!


----------



## RickH (19 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> WOW! Just got back from the GC meeting (I flew from Sydney).
> 
> All I can say is PIFI is DEAD & BURIED!!!!??????????
> 
> ...




Hi,
I have to admit to being conservative and regularly negative but it does appear to be a very good vote at this point in time. But there up to 3,000 non votes and I would just like to say it may be only three quarter time with a great lead and suggest that anyone who has not voted should forward their vote just in case.

The only reason I suggested voting YYN was because no-one should be paid if they are dismissed for being incompetent.

erniel #2774/139 - At the Adjourned meeting “There was considerable debate on the fees WC will be charging the PIF as well as the 2% exit fee (roughly $8 million). Jenny categorically stated that should WC be found to be incompetent in managing the fund, and were removed for that reason, she would not charge the fund the 2% exit fee.”

Personally I believe that if/when JH achieves her goals for the funds return to $1.00 value and achieves her targeted 6 cents p.a. distribution she probably deserves a bonus. The pressure now and going forward will be intense.

Regards, RickH:couch


----------



## seamisty (19 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tears amid fund rescue bid:::Nick Nichols 

September 19th, 2008 

THE emotion of four months at the helm of the embattled Premium Income Fund breached the normally composed exterior of Jenny Hutson on the Gold Coast yesterday.

While the outcome was the best she could have expected -- a postponement of the vote on three key resolutions until October 15 -- Ms Hutson fought back the tears as she detailed the road ahead for the fund's 10,300 investors.

"I've put my heart and soul into (this) over the past 139 days," she told the meeting of about 400 at the Gold Coast Convention and Exhibition Centre.

"It's about winning," she said, her voice quivering with emotion after investors clearly backed her vision. "I am not going to leave this battlefield until I am victorious."

It was the rhetoric an overwhelming majority of investors wanted to hear.

The Premium Income Fund, formerly operated by fallen corporate star MFS, has $755 million of their funds locked up until at least the beginning of next year.

At the latest count, those funds were worth just $340 million.



Since taking over the fund from Octaviar (formerly MFS) on May 2, Ms Hutson's Wellington Investment Management has slashed bank debt from $100 million to $9.5 million. "We are proud of what we have achieved," said Ms Hutson.

She has promised investors they will receive a 3c per unit capital payout by December 24, with part of that to be paid next month.

Yesterday's meeting was called to vote on three resolutions, including approval for a listing of the fund on the National Stock Exchange to allow cash-strapped investors an option to cash in their units.

But the Australian Securities and Investments Commission on Wednesday ruled the resolutions could not be put to a vote at the meeting. 

It has sought clarification from Wellington on the proposed payout, saying that some investors could be confused into thinking they could expect continued quarterly distributions of 3c a unit.

Wellington has 28 days to clarify this point before investors gather again in October.

Yesterday began auspiciously for Ms Hutson despite tight security as about 400 filed into the auditorium. Investors applauded her as she took to the podium.

As questions were called, one woman described Ms Hutson as 'like a breath of fresh air'.

Another investor voiced his anger at MFS founders Michael King and Phil Adams, describing them as 'two average solicitors' who amassed an incredible fortune on the savings of small investors.

He described the MFS debacle as the equivalent of Mr King and Mr Adams 'building a plane and then crashing it'.

Ms Hutson yesterday said the Premium Income Fund was not looking at legal proceedings beyond the initial action to recover funds owed to the fund by Octaviar, but she said it was understood ASIC had been investigating some aspects of the MFS collapse since January.

While it was 'not the right time' for such action by the fund, Ms Hutson did lay open the possibility of legal proceedings against individual parties.

On the question of the fees to be charged by Wellington for operating the fund, one investor was clear.

"We don't personally give a stuff how much you make, as long as we get our money back," he said.

Wellington will not be paid until investors receive their initial 3c payout and Ms Hutson has vowed she will return full value to unit-holders over the next three to five years.

After the meeting, one woman said she would like to see Ms Hutson take the reins of City Pacific's First Mortgage Fund and the funds operated by another troubled Gold Coast company, Asset Loans.

She said she and her husband had diversified their nest-egg into 10 funds, with six of them now in financial strife.


----------



## seamisty (19 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Octaviar investors back Wellington:::Anthony Klan | September 19, 2008 
BRISBANE finance company Wellington Investment Management will push ahead with plans to entrench itself as manager of the failed $750 million Octaviar Premium Income Fund after investors yesterday supported the move.

Wellington founder Jenny Hutson said 500 Octaviar PIF investors, who attended a unitholders' meeting at the Gold Coast yesterday, expressed "huge support" for her company to remain as manager of the group. 

"The mood of the meeting was upbeat and (investors) are pleased we have stepped in. They recognise the fund would have gone into receivership if we hadn't stepped in in May," Ms Hutson said. 

Corporate regulator the Australian Securities and Investments Commission on Tuesday went to the Queensland Supreme Court in a bid to restrain that meeting, claiming Wellington had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. 

That move by ASIC followed an independent report by Hicksons Lawyers partner Kalinda Cobby which claimed Wellington was attempting to impose onerous restrictions on PIF that "fetter" the ability of investors to remove the financier as manager. 

Those restrictions include an attempt by Wellington to alter PIF's constitution so that Wellington would be paid up to $8 million by unitholders if it was removed as manager. 

Queensland Supreme Court judge Philip McMurdo dismissed all concerns raised by ASIC, except for one concern relating to the time line of distributions to be made to investors. 

Justice McMurdo allowed yesterday's meeting to proceed but ruled investors were not allowed to vote on the proposed resolutions at the meeting. 

Ms Hutson said PIF investors instead met to vote on whether another meeting should be rescheduled. 

She said of the 500 investors present 497 voted in favour of adjourning the meeting, which she said would be held on October 15.


----------



## seamisty (19 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Article from todays Gold Coast Bulletin::::Jenny's Confident Money will be repaid:::::The Raptis Group may owe the PIF $55 million, but Jenny Hutson is comfortable she will see that money repaid. The Fund has mortages over three Raptis assets, including the Sheraton Mirage and the Holiday Inn, with the Sheraton Mirage held through a second mortgage. " I think we're well secured and I think Jim (Raptis) is a great man," said MS Hutson at yesterdays PIF meeting at Broadbeach. "I am a huge Raptis supporter." "We're going to work with Jim on the three projects we are financing."


----------



## coppo (19 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all,
long time reader, but I dont comment as trying to keep up with this down here in Tassie is hard enough. Some wonderful work by some on this forum. I spoke to WC this morning. They are very happy with yesterdays outcome. I asked about tax statements. They will be sent out next week.
Things are looking positive. Onward and upward


----------



## CableGuy (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

View attachment 24164


-----
"Wake up lil snoozy! Smell the smelling salts!"


----------



## Maverick2802 (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The whole room puts their hand up to support JH.

Three people put their hand up not to support JH.

Cable Guy is one of those three people.

You don't have the support, accept it and move on.

As Seamisty would say :horse:


----------



## seamisty (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> The whole room puts their hand up to support JH.
> 
> Three people put their hand up not to support JH.
> 
> ...



Just because it's been quiet on here for a couple of days doesn't mean we need people like you coming back in  stirring up negative sentiment for something to do Stableguy. I suggest you take your dead horse and :horseIFF OFF!!!Seamisty


----------



## Duped (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> The whole room puts their hand up to support JH.
> 
> Three people put their hand up not to support JH.
> 
> ...




You're very confident Mav.  Will you buy my units at 65c each?  Any of them?

The offer is open to everyone.


----------



## Maverick2802 (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> You're very confident Mav.  Will you buy my units at 65c each?  Any of them?
> 
> The offer is open to everyone.




I have way too many units in this fund, so thanks for the offer, but am trying to diversify into other investment opportunities that exist at the moment. Besides due to no fault of JH, your units are not worth 65c at the moment, so NOONE will buy them for that amount, so your offer to everyone at the moment is a tad ambitious.

Hold on to them, they will be worth $1 in 3-5years


----------



## Duped (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

But what about all that upside, all that goodwill?  Gotta be worth something?  Not even 5c?

OK then - 60c.

With 5c goodwill all our RE has to do is get the value to 55c by the end of next year and you're ahead. Plus you will have received all those distibutions in the meantime.

As a bonus I'll stop posting on ASF.

No takers?  Hmmm


----------



## marcom (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

After costing our fund some $200,000 they have the hide to come back with this PIFfle!

The way to deal with these cowboys is to put them on your IGNORE LIST - simply click on the posters name, choose "view public profile", then click on the left of the blue band "add XXX to your ignored list". Then they simply disappear!

And don't bother replying to this post as it will not reach me. BYE


----------



## Maverick2802 (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> But what about all that upside, all that goodwill?  Gotta be worth something?  Not even 5c?
> 
> OK then - 60c.
> 
> ...




No no, please keep posting. One day I will work out exactly which side of the fence you actually sit. Keep giving us the clues man.


----------



## Duped (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> After costing our fund some $200,000 they have the hide to come back with this PIFfle!
> 
> The way to deal with these cowboys is to put them on your IGNORE LIST - simply click on the posters name, choose "view public profile", then click on the left of the blue band "add XXX to your ignored list". Then they simply disappear!
> 
> And don't bother replying to this post as it will not reach me. BYE




What makes you think I had anything to do with the ASIC action? 

I'm here on business.  I'll be on the side of the fence where I get the most money back. And if that changes, I'll change.  It's up to others to decide if they give me a clear message up front and stick to it. But it's their choice. Why are you here?

Making people disappear.  Where have I heard of that before.  

What sort of a forum is this?


----------



## great dame (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> I have way too many units in this fund, so thanks for the offer, but am trying to diversify into other investment opportunities that exist at the moment. Besides due to no fault of JH, your units are not worth 65c at the moment, so NOONE will buy them for that amount, so your offer to everyone at the moment is a tad ambitious.
> 
> Hold on to them, they will be worth $1 in 3-5years



    Is that a dollars worth on the NSX ??? because thats the only way you can sell them ////   WE  all await your answer ///


----------



## Maverick2802 (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Is that a dollars worth on the NSX ??? because thats the only way you can sell them ////   WE  all await your answer ///




Right on cue, I was waiting for that. If you were at the meeting last Thursday you would have heard it straight from the chairman's mouth that NSX was only the first step to addressing liquidity in this fund. 

As time passed and goals were reached there will be other opportunities and avenues to address the liquidity issue. I would say that the next step will be ASX.

If you go to page 46 of the new constitution on the newpif website:
"SX" means Australian Stock Exchange Limited or NSX Limited or any other public securities exchange established or based in Australia or any other jurisdiction.

So there is already provision there allowing that possibilty to go ahead when the fund is positioned to go to the next step of liquidity and then more as they present themselves. 

So for the million and one time, NSX is only for the desperate unit holders that need liquidity at the first step, if that is not you, then let it go. Don't worry about it. It does not concern you OK.


----------



## great dame (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> Right on cue, I was waiting for that. If you were at the meeting last Thursday you would have heard it straight from the chairman's mouth that NSX was only the first step to addressing liquidity in this fund.
> 
> As time passed and goals were reached there will be other opportunities and avenues to address the liquidity issue. I would say that the next step will be ASX.
> 
> ...



    Your words are the units will be worth a $1 in 3 to 5 years time  Please tell us poor simple folk just how we will get this DOLLAR in our hand in 3 to 5 years time    ARe you saying we can sell them for a BUCK  on the ASX then  ????????


----------



## Maverick2802 (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Who knows. I am not a fortune teller. Might even be worth more for all we know. I don't know, you don't know. No guarantees in this world. All I know is that our units would be worth jack if JH did not step in and prevent those other mongrels liquidating it.

I and the majority here say give Jenny a go. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. You should do the same as the majority really has spoken and you are just :horse:


----------



## newwwtrader (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I personally don't agree that if the vote goes as it seems to be going that it is the right way. But notwithstanding that, if that is what happens that is what happens.

I do think there was one positive from the vote being delayed. It will give more certainty to unitholders about distributions. Flowing from this I feel that this will to a degree create a more certain floor as to what the price may fall to when it is listed.

The question that I have is will it list before or after the distribution date. If it is before I think the price will hold up for a period of time and then like any other stock after it goes ex divi it will crash.

But if they pay before it lists then I think it could be open season. People will have gotten some return and may just want out.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.


----------



## communique (22 September 2008)

*Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Just because it's been quiet on here for a couple of days doesn't mean we need people like you coming back in  stirring up negative sentiment for something to do Stableguy. I suggest you take your dead horse and :horseIFF OFF!!!Seamisty




Excuse me for interrupting the playground for just a moment. Seamisty, seeing you are the dictator of what people can and cannot say on this thread
I hope you don't mind if I make a comment.

I was at the meeting on Thursday.
I have not voted yet preferring to wait for the update.
I am not a member of PIFI.
I understand ASIC took Wellington to court not PIFI.
I appreciate comments from people like Cableguy who have bothered to do some in-depth research and who look past the rhetoric and spin.
At the meeting I saw a lot of desperate people who want something they have been deprived of for sometime - money.  They see Jenny holding the purse strings and because they are told she can return their money over time, they will back her to the hilt, because they don't see an alternative.

When I read the childish nasty comments that I am reading of late I start to wonder whether I would agree with anything these contributors would say or do.


----------



## seamisty (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

You can interrupt the playground whenever you like Communique. I spoke with ASIC and I spoke with one of the people who contacted ASIC on behalf of the PIFI. Their intervention was a direct result from PIFI related actions. Unit holders relate that directly to added unwarranted expenses that ultimately will have some impact on the PIF so when some of us see the remnants of PIFI still agitating, we are inclined to get extremely angry and feel like we have to put the BOOTS in. You have no idea how much anguish and stress those actions caused! You obviously did not receive the amount of phone calls and e-mails I personally I had to deal with or you would realise the extent of ill feeling towards a few individuals that exists. I don't recall you posting in regard to some of the anti Wellington childish nasty posts and no one is asking you to agree with anyone.Regards, Seamisty (the dictator)


----------



## communique (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Unit holders relate that directly to added unwarranted expenses  You have no idea how much anguish and stress those actions caused! You obviously did not receive the amount of phone calls and e-mails I personally I had to deal with or you would realise the extent of ill feeling towards a few individuals that exists.




I obviously don't know the full story:

1. Please outline in detail the costs your refer to and where did you get this information from?
2. Were you in an official capacity to be receiving phone calls and emails from PIF unitholders?

Thank you for returning to a civil respectful tone in your post.


----------



## seamisty (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am the WA/SA Action Group Representative Communique. I am also in constant contact with WC and some Gold Coast unitholders and not to mention other AG reps. I try and make it my business to stay as informed as possible. I have also had contact from others who attended the original PIFI meeting, as well as some Fund managers and Financial advisors with links to the Fund. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## zixo (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Does anyone have any definate dates on when the tax statements will be issued by wellington.
Last time I made a direct call to their customer automated answering machines I got return message which said we'd get our statements in a couple of weeks.... That was 5 weeks ago. 

without me calling their machines again Has anyone heard anything new from wellington.......... is it that perpetual are still being relaxed in their attitude in doing their ever well paid job for the PIF.


----------



## Maverick2802 (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> no one is asking you to agree with anyone.Regards, Seamisty (the dictator)




LOL LOL Seamisty says "hands off keyboard"

Talk about the NSX....no no no Great Dame, I did not say "Seamisty says".

LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!


----------



## communique (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It is easy for someone not to see the wood for the trees, particularly when they are desperate.


----------



## Maverick2802 (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> Does anyone have any definate dates on when the tax statements will be issued by wellington.
> Last time I made a direct call to their customer automated answering machines I got return message which said we'd get our statements in a couple of weeks.... That was 5 weeks ago.
> 
> without me calling their machines again Has anyone heard anything new from wellington.......... is it that perpetual are still being relaxed in their attitude in doing their ever well paid job for the PIF.




At the meeting JH said they would be going out some time this week.


----------



## seamisty (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



communique said:


> It is easy for someone not to see the wood for the trees, particularly when they are desperate.



I am fortunately far from desperate Communique, and I can assure you I am supporting WC because I personally believe that the best outcome for the Fund (therefore myself) is as a going concern under a committed team of professionals. Nothing to do with desperation, wood or trees with my decision, and I know of others in the same position as me who are of the same view. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## communique (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I am fortunately far from desperate Communique, and I can assure you I am supporting WC because I personally believe that the best outcome for the Fund (therefore myself) is as a going concern under a committed team of professionals. Nothing to do with desperation, wood or trees with my decision, and I know of others in the same position as me who are of the same view. Regards, Seamisty




You obviously did a lot of research Seamisty and I didn't realise your Action Group was incorporated  - sorry! Forgive me for not digging back through the posts but I would appreciate some advice.  To help me make my decision would you just confirm when you weighed up the alternatives to WC which I guess was winding up the scheme independently from WC did you come up with an figure of what the return would be.  This would be helpful to compare with over a period of time with WC and her team of professionals at the helm.  
Thanks in advance.


----------



## seamisty (22 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



communique said:


> You obviously did a lot of research Seamisty and I didn't realise your Action Group was incorporated  - sorry! Forgive me for not digging back through the posts but I would appreciate some advice.  To help me make my decision would you just confirm when you weighed up the alternatives to WC which I guess was winding up the scheme independently from WC did you come up with an figure of what the return would be.  This would be helpful to compare with over a period of time with WC and her team of professionals at the helm.
> Thanks in advance.



I am pretty sure the AG is not in corporated Communique, it is an option still open to it, if and when it becomes neccessary (please confirm this Breaker1). I left the number crunching up to someone more qualified than me and the return of the anticipated annual return of 6 cent per unit on 45cents was 13 1/2% I think. JH personally told someone I spoke to who also was at the meeting last week that the 6 cents 'was doable' without any unexpected or unforeseen hurdles. The fact of the matter was that no one could guarantee a unit price if the Fund was wound up, orderly or otherwise.Nothing is guaranteed here, I just know that now is not the time to be selling property of any description, unfinished or otherwise. WC also has the job of renegotiating a deal on behalf of the PIF with OCV now that it is in voluntary liquidation. I have had legal advice regarding the PIF and meet with a AMP Financial Planner every six weeks, the uncertainty out there is nothing short of scary!! No one is prepared to commit to anything, that is why I have a high regard for WC. They are prepared to put their name on the line here when no one else gave the Fund a second look (if not a first). This is only my opinion, but I think it is an honest one with what information is available.Please do not be influenced by it, do your own research the same as me. (I am not a dictator) Seamisty


----------



## CableGuy (23 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> You can interrupt the playground whenever you like Communique. I spoke with ASIC and I spoke with one of the people who contacted ASIC on behalf of the PIFI. Their intervention was a direct result from PIFI related actions. Unit holders relate that directly to added unwarranted expenses that ultimately will have some impact on the PIF so when some of us see the remnants of PIFI still agitating, we are inclined to get extremely angry and feel like we have to put the BOOTS in. You have no idea how much anguish and stress those actions caused! You obviously did not receive the amount of phone calls and e-mails I personally I had to deal with or you would realise the extent of ill feeling towards a few individuals that exists. I don't recall you posting in regard to some of the anti Wellington childish nasty posts and no one is asking you to agree with anyone.Regards, Seamisty (the dictator)




ASIC would not have told Seamisty that PIFI made a complaint as that type of information is confidential.  ASIC aren’t even allowed to comment on the case at the moment, so unless you were at the hearing or get the transcript you won’t know what happened.  You could take WC's word for it however, it’s their conduct that is in question.

If a member of PIFI made a complaint that does not mean that PIFI made a complaint.   The unit holders making complaints are not responsible for the deceptive or misleading information.  WC is responsible and they were given the opportunity to correct this without going to court however, they decided to challenge ASIC and they LOST.  If you want to blame someone for all your personal phone calls look to WC.  It is worth noting that ASIC did not seek court costs from WC (to which they were entitled) as this would not have been in the unit holder's best interests.  WC on the other hand will be passing costs onto the fund as a result of their own misconduct.

The point of an AG is to keep the RE in check.  What’s the point of asking an AG member for information if they are just going to spout off what they have been told by WC without checking the facts first.  If anyone has an issue with the content of post #2782 please let us all know what it is.  Who does not see the value of clarifying misleading information?

Discrediting the RE is not in anyone's best interest however, if by bringing the facts to light they are discredited then so be it.  It is more important to ensure unit holders are fully informed rather than protect the RE.

-----
"Hey I'm on a pay phone, so if you're there pick up, pick up, pick up, pick up, pick up, pick up, pick up, pick up, well OK, call me back."


----------



## great dame (23 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> Who knows. I am not a fortune teller. Might even be worth more for all we know. I don't know, you don't know. No guarantees in this world. All I know is that our units would be worth jack if JH did not step in and prevent those other mongrels liquidating it.
> 
> I and the majority here say give Jenny a go. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. You should do the same as the majority really has spoken and you are just :horse:



 I repeat your words  HOLD ON TO YOUR UNITS THEY WILL BE WORTH  $1 IN 3 to 4 YEARS   Realy & truely now we both know that cant happen  For a start the fund is being depleted by 6 cents a year handing out that income  I am game to say  the fund will be worth the same as what it is right now  in 3 to 5 years selling on the exchange for about 20 cents   You cant get a big 6 cents income & expect to get growth  also  it dont work that way sorry ////


----------



## communique (23 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



CableGuy said:


> ASIC would not have told Seamisty that PIFI made a complaint as that type of information is confidential.  ASIC aren’t even allowed to comment on the case at the moment, so unless you were at the hearing or get the transcript you won’t know what happened.  You could take WC's word for it however, it’s their conduct that is in question.
> 
> If a member of PIFI made a complaint that does not mean that PIFI made a complaint.   The unit holders making complaints are not responsible for the deceptive or misleading information.  WC is responsible and they were given the opportunity to correct this without going to court however, they decided to challenge ASIC and they LOST.  If you want to blame someone for all your personal phone calls look to WC.  It is worth noting that ASIC did not seek court costs from WC (to which they were entitled) as this would not have been in the unit holder's best interests.  WC on the other hand will be passing costs onto the fund as a result of their own misconduct.
> 
> ...




Cableguy, no problem from me in relation to your comments.  I appreciate your clarification, in depth analysis, research and input.  I just would like to know factually what the alternative is.


----------



## Duped (23 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> I repeat your words  HOLD ON TO YOUR UNITS THEY WILL BE WORTH  $1 IN 3 to 4 YEARS   Realy & truely now we both know that cant happen  For a start the fund is being depleted by 6 cents a year handing out that income  I am game to say  the fund will be worth the same as what it is right now  in 3 to 5 years selling on the exchange for about 20 cents   You cant get a big 6 cents income & expect to get growth  also  it dont work that way sorry ////




See my posts on 1st September #2157 (page 108) and #2164 (page 109)

Post #2164 is about the annual % returns WC would need to achieve to return 1$ to us after 3/5 years as a COMBINATION of 6c a year and an exit value. 

My calcs could be wrong so don't sue me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Maverick2802 (23 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

:horse:







CableGuy said:


> ASIC would not have told Seamisty that PIFI made a complaint as that type of information is confidential.  ASIC aren’t even allowed to comment on the case at the moment, so unless you were at the hearing or get the transcript you won’t know what happened.  You could take WC's word for it however, it’s their conduct that is in question.
> 
> If a member of PIFI made a complaint that does not mean that PIFI made a complaint.   The unit holders making complaints are not responsible for the deceptive or misleading information.  WC is responsible and they were given the opportunity to correct this without going to court however, they decided to challenge ASIC and they LOST.  If you want to blame someone for all your personal phone calls look to WC.  It is worth noting that ASIC did not seek court costs from WC (to which they were entitled) as this would not have been in the unit holder's best interests.  WC on the other hand will be passing costs onto the fund as a result of their own misconduct.
> 
> ...




Sorry Cable Guy, but you are wrong on several counts:

WC did challenge ASIC, and on the matters that they were defending ie. EM, they did NOT lose as JH clearly explained to YOU at the meeting, as YOU did not stay till the end of the hearing as YOU admitted.

The judge in fact dismissed all ASIC claims that the material put to unit holders was deceptive or misleading, so why do YOU keep saying that here and at the meeting. It baffles me of your continued stubborness!!

The ONLY thing the judge stipulated was clarification of the quaterly distributions. How has the RE been discredited? You are misleading the people of this forum by your inaccurate 'facts'. That was not the actual judgement, though I feel it is the judgement that YOU and the other PIFI member(s) that accompanied you in the QSC were praying for. Basically the 3 of you that put your hands up against supporting WC.

Did you think that the 3 of you would take control of our fund LOL!!

You are really are whipped!! :whip


----------



## communique (23 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> :horse:
> 
> Sorry Cable Guy, but you are wrong on several counts:
> 
> ...




Thank you Maverick, you must have been at the court.  Please tell the forum exactly what the judge said, not what Jenny said.


----------



## Maverick2802 (23 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



communique said:


> Thank you Maverick, you must have been at the court.  Please tell the forum exactly what the judge said, not what Jenny said.




If the court had discredited JH then we would be having to do a complete new vote on resolutions, but we are NOT. So what Jenny says IS true. Move on.


----------



## communique (23 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> If the court had discredited JH then we would be having to do a complete new vote on resolutions, but we are NOT. So what Jenny says IS true. Move on.




My question was were you at the court and did you hear the judge? I for one will be reading the transcript before making my decision "to move on".


----------



## great dame (23 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> See my posts on 1st September #2157 (page 108) and #2164 (page 109)
> 
> Post #2164 is about the annual % returns WC would need to achieve to return 1$ to us after 3/5 years as a COMBINATION of 6c a year and an exit value.
> 
> My calcs could be wrong so don't sue me if I'm wrong.



    You wont be sued  Duped because your DEAD RIGHT  what you say   
Bloody shame others cant understand  /////////////


----------



## Duped (23 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> You wont be sued  Duped because your DEAD RIGHT  what you say
> Bloody shame others cant understand  /////////////




Unfortunately, when's being dead right ever been protection? Might is right.


----------



## CableGuy (23 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> Sorry Cable Guy _<snip>_




-----
"I forgive you. I only hope my neurologist will feel the same."



Maverick2802 said:


> The judge in fact dismissed all ASIC claims that the material put to unit holders was deceptive or misleading _<snip>_




Here is a report from someone who was at the hearing all the way til the end (from p137 post #2740).

*Court ruling forces Octaviar meeting to be adjourned*
Article from: The Courier-Mail

by Anthony Marx

September 17, 2008 12:00am

A MEETING expected to draw up to 1000 investors at the Gold Coast Convention Centre will have to be adjourned this morning.
This comes after a Brisbane court late yesterday *ruled that information sent to them was misleading and deceptive*.

The decision is a costly blow for Wellington Investment Management, which was seeking approval of three resolutions to help restructure the embattled $413 million Premium Income Fund once operate by failed financier Octaviar (formerly MFS).

Supreme Court Justice Philip McMurdo sided with arguments by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission that unitholders could be confused about proposed quarterly cash payments in the new year following a promised 3c payment by late December.

"It is likely that many unitholders would be affected in their consideration of the resolutions," Justice McMurdo said.

Wellington chair Jenny Hutson said she hoped to re-schedule another meeting within a month and would send out new proxy forms after consulting with ASIC. "I'm disappointed for the unitholders," she said.

Ms Hutson said her firm had been engaged in extensive talks with ASIC since August about the proposed changes to the fund constitution and the corporate regulator had never previously raised concerns about lack of clarity in quarterly payments. ASIC had even approved the 80-page explanatory memorandum sent to investors, she said.

Wellington had proposed giving unitholders a 1.5c payment in October and another 1.5c payment in December and "quarterly thereafter" - wording that Justice McMurdo ruled could be interpreted to mean 1.5c or 3c per quarter.

Ms Hutson said no figure was promised because market conditions are so uncertain and she warned that the October payment may now be endangered because of the delay in holding the meeting. The fund's planned listing on the National Stock Exchange tomorrow will also have to be deferred.

Ms Hutson estimated that Wellington would have to bear another $120,000 in costs because of the delay and that yesterday's court tab would reach $50,000. Investors travelling to the Gold Coast will also be out of pocket and severely inconvenienced.

ASIC counsel Jean Dalton argued that Wellington provided investors with error-ridden documents and had failed to make clear its fee structure, including a potential $8 million windfall if removed as the fund's responsible entity.

The fund was originally worth $755 million but has declined sharply in value because of nearly $200 million owing from MFS and the falling value of assets.

----
"Hey I never made a slam dunk before. Thanks for the boost."


----------



## Duped (23 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

$170,000 is 0.0225c per unit.
I.e. $2.25 per 10,000 units


----------



## breaker1 (23 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Here’s why Washington’s $1 trillion bailout is little more than a band-aid on a massive wound ... 

Why more than 1,000 banks are still in danger of collapsing no matter what Washington does ... 

Why scores of household-name companies are still at risk for huge stock losses or even bankruptcy ... 

How badly this will affect Australia I do not know, but it took about 4-6 months for the sub prime problem to reach us in the credit squeeze that brought down MFS/City Pacific/Donovan Oats Hannoford

Breaker

*

Dear BREAKER, 

It was a surreal moment: Senator Christopher Dodd told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chief Bernanke had just informed Congressional leaders “We’re literally days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system.”

Things got even scarier when he told CNN, “There was dead silence in the room for five to 10 seconds. The oxygen went out of the room.”

No wonder Congress is falling all over itself to pass the $700-billion bailout bill to buy toxic mortgages!

Combined with the $25 billion spent to bail out Bear Sterns, $100 billion each for Fannie and Freddie and $85 billion for AIG, Washington has now pledged more than $1 TRILLION to fight this crisis so far ”” and still, it’s only the beginning:

Yesterday, Paulson announced he’s adding another $50 billion to ensure the money market funds ...


He’s also expanding the bail-out to include car loans, credit card debt and more ...


And Democrats in Congress are clamoring for hundreds of billions more for a second economic stimulus package, for a bailout of homeowners at risk for losing their homes and more! 
And still ”” even if Congress gives Paulson everything he asks for and more ”” there’s still one, glaring, “inconvenient truth” nobody’s talking about ... 

None of these unprecedented actions 
are enough to end this massive debt crisis!

1. They do little to guarantee that more financial institutions won’t fail: Sure ”” Washington is going to buy toxic loans from the institutions that invested in them. But don’t think for a moment banks and other companies are going to get top dollar for the poison in their portfolios.

Although the details of the bailout are still sketchy, it’s clear that Washington will pay a deeply discounted price for that bad paper. That means the financial institutions that own those lousy investments are still going to take huge losses. 

And in many cases, those losses are likely to be large enough to push many of these teetering firms over the brink.

Our forecast: Despite this massive, historic, unprecedented bailout, you will still continue to see a chain reaction of bank failures and corporate bankruptcies.

2. They do little to slow the explosion in mortgage defaults that caused this mess in the first place: With the economy slowing, unemployment surging, home values still plunging and monthly payments on six million adjustable rate mortgages set to rise, the tidal wave of mortgage delinquencies and defaults we’ve seen so far is almost certain to grow larger, not smaller. 

As Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, told FOX News Sunday, “If you don't solve the mortgage crisis, you're not going to solve the financial crisis.”

3. They do nothing to address the $180-trillion derivatives time bomb at U.S. commercial banks: Thirty years of deregulation have allowed a parallel financial system to arise in America in which more than $180 trillion dollars in derivatives are held and traded by U.S. banks with scant government supervision or accounting. 

The truth is, no one has any idea of the magnitude of the deleveraging ahead or the size of the debts that will ultimately have to be written down!

4. They do virtually nothing to cause lenders to end the credit drought that’s spreading the contagion to other sectors: To survive, banks are desperately raising credit requirements ... slashing lines of credit for corporations and spending limits on credit cards ... turning down all but the most highly qualified borrowers.

And that’s what’s causing so much pain at companies making products that consumers buy on credit: Autos, home improvement products, electronics and other high-end merchandise.

BOTTOM LINE: As massive as it is, the Paulson-Bernanke plan can’t even begin to resolve this crisis. In fact ...

This $1 trillion bailout virtually guarantees 
this crisis will spin wildly out of control!

Look: Until last week, the White House projected that the 2009 federal deficit would be $482 billion. Now, just with the bailouts announced and proposes so far, Congress is tacking on 1 trillion to that number, or even more.

That means plunging prices for Treasury notes and bonds plus soaring interest rates. And that, in turn, means rapidly rising payments on ARMs ”” a coup de grÃ¢ce for millions of homeowners who are barely clinging to their homes as it is.

It also means the recession will be deeper and longer than it otherwise might have been. And it means scores of U.S. companies that manufacture and sell products requiring consumer credit will be hit even harder. 

Sincerely,

Martin D. Weiss, Ph.D.


----------



## Maverick2802 (23 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The only information that was deceptive and misleading was concerning the quaterly distributions. This is now being cleared up by WC. End of story!!


----------



## like2ski (23 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> The only information that was deceptive and misleading was concerning the quaterly distributions. This is now being cleared up by WC. End of story!!




Maverick,
How could you possibly make and believe such a statement!!! not unlike a one eyed supporter of a football team which can do no wrong and blames the opposition for everything under the sun LOL!!!! 
I refer you to CableGuy's post no. 2782, and others along the same lines,where he capably and objectively outlines the statements from WC on one column and the Reality on the other e.g Why did JH decline to put in writing her comment that the 2% fee will not be charged due to poor performance? If she was genuine and above board why wouldn't she agree to put it in writing? Would you not consider this to be deceptive or misleading ????
JH stated that the 2% removal fee is REASONABLE whilst Lonsec advises that a reasonable fee should be approx. 0.7% JH wants 3 times as much!!!!!!!
Are you and other like minded supporters prepared to pay such exorbitant fee ??? 
Further to the above , how can you honestly say "the only information that was deceptive or misleading was concerning the quarterly distributions" 
Is that not sufficient/bad enough for you? you seem to be dismissing it as a triviality !!!
Are the above matters not sufficient for you, and other like minded supporters, to place even some doubts on JH's intentions/ integrity ???
As the the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it !! not to mention "flogging a dead horse" as has been depicted on here a number of times


----------



## Maverick2802 (24 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



like2ski said:


> Maverick,
> How could you possibly make and believe such a statement!!! not unlike a one eyed supporter of a football team which can do no wrong and blames the opposition for everything under the sun LOL!!!!
> I refer you to CableGuy's post no. 2782, and others along the same lines,where he capably and objectively outlines the statements from WC on one column and the Reality on the other e.g Why did JH decline to put in writing her comment that the 2% fee will not be charged due to poor performance? If she was genuine and above board why wouldn't she agree to put it in writing? Would you not consider this to be deceptive or misleading ????
> JH stated that the 2% removal fee is REASONABLE whilst Lonsec advises that a reasonable fee should be approx. 0.7% JH wants 3 times as much!!!!!!!
> ...




You were paying MFS 2.35% every year PLUS any overs in the fund. Not just if they proved incompetent. You paid this every year, so 0.7% is CHEAP, with hopefully a lot of work to make the fund healthy. You have misread the Lonsec report, read it again. They say the % are within a reasonable range.

At the meeting JH stated that the 2% fee was imposed for corporate raiders down the track. She obviously feels that the fund will be very successful in years to come and if some other company wants to come along and take it over, they will have to pay the person who worked so hard to get it there. 

So the answer to you is NO I don't have doubts over her intentions OR her intergrity and that is the way I voted, you will obviously vote differently, good luck to you as I feel more people are prepared to give JH a go than not.


----------



## JohnH (24 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



like2ski said:


> Maverick,
> How could you possibly make and believe such a statement!!! not unlike a one eyed supporter of a football team which can do no wrong and blames the opposition for everything under the sun LOL!!!! I refer you to CableGuy's post no. 2782, and others along the same lines,where he capably and objectively outlines the statements from WC on one column and the Reality on the other e.g Why did JH decline to put in writing her comment that the 2% fee will not be charged due to poor performance? If she was genuine and above board why wouldn't she agree to put it in writing? Would you not consider this to be deceptive or misleading ????
> JH stated that the 2% removal fee is REASONABLE whilst Lonsec advises that a reasonable fee should be approx. 0.7% JH wants 3 times as much!!!!!!!
> Are you and other like minded supporters prepared to pay such exorbitant fee ???
> ...




Or like a regiment of 700 marching with three believing:jump: they are the only ones in step!!!


----------



## Duped (24 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> You were paying MFS 2.35% every year PLUS any overs in the fund. Not just if they proved incompetent. You paid this every year, so 0.7% is CHEAP, with hopefully a lot of work to make the fund healthy. You have misread the Lonsec report, read it again. They say the % are within a reasonable range. ...




Actually, MFSIM's fee was around that figure too, for many years.  From memory it was 0.7%.  Then the unit holders voted yes to MFSIM's proposal to remove the 0.7% flat fee and install a 'performance only' fee + the Support Mechanism.

The current fee structure had only been in place for about (from memory) 18 months before the big freeze.

Little did we know that MFS would artificially jack up the 'performance' by buying massive numbers of units, i.e. 60M units (approx 8% of the fund based on 60M/755M) the day before the end of the 06/07 financial year. Or at least it looks like that in the Annual report.


----------



## seamisty (24 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Actually, MFSIM's fee was around that figure too, for many years.  From memory it was 0.7%.  Then the unit holders voted yes to MFSIM's proposal to remove the 0.7% flat fee and install a 'performance only' fee + the Support Mechanism.
> 
> The current fee structure had only been in place for about (from memory) 18 months before the big freeze.
> 
> Little did we know that MFS would artificially jack up the 'performance' by buying massive numbers of units, i.e. 60M units the day before the end of the 06/07 financial year. Or at least it looks like that in the Annual report.



MFSIM probably borrowed money from the PIF to buy them as well, Duped.Under the new renumeration structure, they were also entitled to receive surplus funds from the trust. I have been told WC will not be doing this. Seamisty


----------



## Duped (24 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> MFSIM probably borrowed money from the PIF to buy them as well, Duped.Under the new renumeration structure, they were also entitled to receive surplus funds from the trust. I have been told WC will not be doing this. Seamisty




You're absolutely correct Seamisty.  My post wasn't clear.  The 'performance' Management Fee was the surplus income generated by the fund at the end of every month after the distributions, withdrawals and expenses were "satisfied". Whatever this really meant, the end result is MFSIM got a bucket load more.

My point still stands though.  If anyone thinks 0.7% is cheap then so was MFSIM in the earlier days. 0.7% seems good to me but I'm no 'Financial Advisor' with their presumably extensive level of knowledge of these things.


----------



## JohnH (24 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> You're absolutely correct Seamisty.  My post wasn't clear.  The 'performance' Management Fee was the surplus income generated by the fund at the end of every month after the distributions, withdrawals and expenses were "satisfied". Whatever this really meant, the end result is MFSIM got a bucket load more.
> 
> My point still stands though.  If anyone thinks 0.7% is cheap then so was MFSIM in the earlier days. 0.7% seems good to me but I'm no 'Financial Advisor' with their presumably extensive level of knowledge of these things.[/QUOTE]
> 
> Hopefully it will prove to be inexpensive rather than "cheap"!


----------



## Duped (24 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Hopefully it will prove to be inexpensive rather than "cheap"!




 Too true.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (24 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Slightly off topic but related nonetheless, City Pacific has announced the proposal for their First Mortgage Fund to list on the ASX.


----------



## seamisty (24 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> Slightly off topic but related nonetheless, City Pacific has announced the proposal for their First Mortgage Fund to list on the ASX.



City Pacific wanted to pay $5mill for our PIF with further instalments depending on the performance of the PIF loan portfolio back in February, but the $5mill was to be paid in CIY shares which were valued at approx $3.20 then and are now worth 16cents. Wonder what our PIF would be worth now if CIY had of got its hands on it. Seamisty


----------



## Maverick2802 (24 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> City Pacific wanted to pay $5mill for our PIF with further instalments depending on the performance of the PIF loan portfolio back in February, but the $5mill was to be paid in CIY shares which were valued at approx $3.20 then and are now worth 16cents. Wonder what our PIF would be worth now if CIY had of got its hands on it. Seamisty




I shudder to think. I remember reading the interest of CIY at the time and my stomach turned and I prayed that they would not take over PIF.

Hey Y, do you think this is why Kalinda Cobby said we could do a lot worse than having our fund in the hands of Jenny Hutson after the first Sydney investor forum?


----------



## Duped (24 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> City Pacific wanted to pay $5mill for our PIF with further instalments depending on the performance of the PIF loan portfolio back in February, but the $5mill was to be paid in CIY shares which were valued at approx $3.20 then and are now worth 16cents. Wonder what our PIF would be worth now if CIY had of got its hands on it. Seamisty




$5M for the RE or the fund itself?


----------



## seamisty (24 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> $5M for the RE or the fund itself?



It is my understanding it was for the Fund. Plus further payments based on performance, still trying to find the articleSeamisty


----------



## seamisty (24 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Found the article, written by Michael West so can't vouch for the  content::::27th Feb
Just a few weeks ago, property developer City Pacific was mooting a $1.3 billion takeover of MFS - naturally this was $1.3 billion worth of share certificates rather than cash.

But this week, it declined to put a cash instalment of $5 million on the table to buy the MFS Premium Income Fund (PIF).

City Pacific is a high-risk proposition and needs to either do a deal or raise some money urgently.

BusinessDay understands that City's offer for PIF was shunned by MFS and its advisors from insolvency firm Korda Mentha.

Ironically, with MFS anticipating the private equity mob CVC to stump up $409 million for its 65 per cent stake in leisure group, Stella, MFS has access to more cash than City Pacific.

With the $1.3 billion scrip proposal dead, City chairman Phil Sullivan had gone back to MFS with an indicative offer for PIF in the order of $60 million. The idea was City would pay $5 million or so upfront then further instalments depending on the performance of the PIF loan portfolio.

PIF had raised $770 million when it floated and lent the funds to property developers.

Redemptions to the fund are frozen while MFS works through its solvency nightmare but PIF loans tipped in $16 million last year and there is some $3 million cash left in the tin.

City had its eye not only on the PIF assets but also on the fund's 11,000 investors which could have delivered Sullivan and Co. a new distribution platform to raise some more money.

After the usual argy-bargy in an exclusive negotiation period, MFS is understood to have told its suitor it might deal on the original offer of $5 million or so upfront for a staggered total of $60 million.

City, however, resiled from its original pitch and, instead, offered to pay MFS in City Pacific shares. MFS however deemed the approach not good enough for PIF even though MFS and PIF are suspended and desperate to sell assets to get their its own obligations down.

It's not a good look for City which recently revealed it had deconsolidated two mortgage funds from its accounts. City has more than $1 billion in retail investors funds which it on-lends to property developers, including itself.

There is cash in the funds but the parent, City Pacific, is down to $2.7 million cash as at December. Although it declared a net profit of $27.5 million for the December half, it was $20 million cash-flow negative on operations and showed $102.5 million in debts due this year in its balance sheet statement under current liabilities.

In the notes to the accounts, City revealed it had deconsolidated two mortgage funds, the City Pacific First Mortgage Fund and the City Pacific Income Fund which meant the parent would ``no longer provide the funds with financial support in the event of a loss so as to maintain unitholder distribution rates''.

Things are not pretty.


----------



## seamisty (24 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Maverick2802 said:


> I shudder to think. I remember reading the interest of CIY at the time and my stomach turned and I prayed that they would not take over PIF.
> 
> Hey Y, do you think this is why Kalinda Cobby said we could do a lot worse than having our fund in the hands of Jenny Hutson after the first Sydney investor forum?



I wonder if she was suprised someone wanted to even take it on board in its damaged state!!!!


----------



## Duped (24 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

What's this mean for PIF?  PTQ attacked our creditor claim for the $50M Support  Mechanism in court.  Has PIF been out maneuvered?  If so then I wonder if we can retrieve the $5M or so extra MFSIM got in fees in exchange for the Mechanism. I doubt it. Wow, what a great fund PIF has been. Now I can begin to understand what it's like to be in an abusive relationship.  We've been 'owned'.

"Insolvency riddle at Octaviar
Article from:  
Ben Butler
September 17, 2008 12:00am
THE administrator of finance flop Octaviar is to investigate claims that the company was insolvent two years ago and whether he can claw back payments made during that time.
John Greig, of Deloitte, told BusinessDaily it was too early to tell whether he would ask creditors owed about $1 billion to liquidate the company or approve a deal handing control back to directors of the failed Gold Coast company. 
The directors called in Mr Greig on Saturday, and on Monday New York-based vulture fund Fortress followed by appointing receivers to safeguard a $60 million loan. 
Mr Greig said he had not been in recent contact with executive director Chris Scott, who seized control of the company in a May boardroom coup. 
"Physically I've got no idea where he is," Mr Greig said. 
Mr Scott is believed to be in Singapore. 
Mr Greig said that "given the nature and complexity" of Octaviar, he would ask the court for at least 60 additional days to investigate its failure before reporting to creditors. 
*He said he would investigate whether any payments made could be clawed back because they were preferential. 
Under the Corporations Act, payments are preferential if they are made while the company is insolvent and result in the creditor collecting more than they would if the company was wound up.
"What we're looking to do is identify what are potential preference recoveries, how much they are, to which parties and I suppose the complexities and likelihood of being able to make those recoveries," Mr Greig said.* 
Mr Greig has indirect control of Octaviar's $157 million in cash, which is held by a company in the group but not under administration. 
He said it was also too early to tell how much the company's assets might be worth. 
"There are all sorts of assets and we need to understand what they are and what they're valued at," he said. 
He said he expected directors to propose a deed of company arrangement broadly similar to Octaviar's previous proposals to creditors. 
"Needless to say they (directors) are looking at revising that and working on it at the moment." 
A first meeting of creditors is set for next Wednesday."


----------



## seamisty (24 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped this is from the court transcript in relation to the Support facility. I think the PTQ were just trying to reduce the claim made by WC on behalf of the PIF so there would be more left in the kitty come divvy up time time. I think they were unsuccesful unless my interpretation is incorrect. Seamisty:::::::::[44] The first matter concerns the so called Support Mechanism which was a transaction
entered into between PIF and Octaviar Limited on 23 June 2006. Octaviar earned
fees from PIF and by this agreement Octaviar agreed in certain circumstances to
provide financial support to the fund by payments to its responsible entity. On
26 February 2008, Wellington, as the responsible entity, called upon Octaviar to pay
$50 million pursuant to this instrument. Octaviar has not paid, but accepts that
$50 million is payable. The Public Trustee argues that there is the potential for this
transaction of June 2006 to be avoided pursuant to s 588FE(3). It is also suggested
that the demand of 26 February 2008 would be an act done for the purpose of giving
effect to the transaction and otherwise within the definition of “insolvent
transaction” in s 588FC, with the potential for the operation of a six month
relation-back period under s 588FE(2). So only if the relation-back day becomes
4 June 2008, would the June 2006 transaction be within the two year period under
s 588FE(3), and the demand of 26 February 2008 be within the six month period in
s 588FE(2).
[45] It appears that when this submission was made it was the first that those on the
respondents’ side had heard of a suggestion that this might be a voidable
transaction. But more generally, they say it is the first that they have heard of the
suggestion that Octaviar Limited may have been insolvent as early as June 2006.
For the Support Mechanism to be avoided, it would have to be shown that the
company was insolvent at the time it entered into the agreement or became
insolvent as a result of it. It was suggested that there was some indication of
insolvency from the fact that later in 2006 and in early 2007, the Group borrowed
heavily such as by issuing these Notes. But at least at present, that is no indication
of insolvency in 2006 and the Public Trustee’s suggestion involves mere
speculation. Ultimately the submission for the Trustee went no higher than that a
liquidator would be interested to enquire about the solvency of Octaviar in
mid-2006, and that something might emerge. As to the call made in February 2008,
it is difficult to see that it could constitute an uncommercial transaction, but if so it
is comfortably within a two year period on any alternative.::::


----------



## Duped (24 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty, I understand that much.  See my post #2724; page 137.  (Viewed from our perspective the decision looks like an invitation for PTQ to have a go: "But *at least at present*, that is no indication of insolvency in 2006 and the Public Trustee’s suggestion involves mere speculation. Ultimately the submission for the Trustee went no higher than that a
liquidator would be interested to enquire about the solvency of Octaviar in
mid-2006, and that *something might emerge*. As to the call made in February 2008, it is difficult to see that it could constitute an uncommercial transaction, but if so it is *comfortably *within a two year period on any alternative.")

But as you know the part of the offer to creditors that relates to PIF covers more than $147.5M + $50M.  From recollection there's about another $35M.

What about all these, and other transactions?  And does it effect PIF's $147.5M claim - in any way?

The creditor meeting at Deloittes was supposed to be at 10.30 this morning so there might be an announcement soon.


----------



## seamisty (24 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Seamisty, I understand that much.  See my post #2724; page 137.  (Viewed from our perspective the decision looks like an invitation for PTQ to have a go: "But *at least at present*, that is no indication of insolvency in 2006 and the Public Trustee’s suggestion involves mere speculation. Ultimately the submission for the Trustee went no higher than that a
> liquidator would be interested to enquire about the solvency of Octaviar in
> mid-2006, and that *something might emerge*. As to the call made in February 2008, it is difficult to see that it could constitute an uncommercial transaction, but if so it is *comfortably *within a two year period on any alternative.")
> 
> ...



Well lets hope that JH can negotiate a better deal for the PIF than the proposed $44mill  previous cash offer. Shame she can't say "We'll settle for the 35% of stella in exchange for the PIF debt", since the figure bandied around the value of that was around $215mill. Before anyone jumps on my case, there is no harm in wishfull thinking, JH being such good friends with CS and all.:dance:Seamisty


----------



## sugar3157 (25 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Seamisty all, does anyone know whether MFS/ Octaviar was insolvent prior to Nov 2007?


----------



## seamisty (25 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Hi Seamisty all, does anyone know whether MFS/ Octaviar was insolvent prior to Nov 2007?



I don't know who makes that ruling Sugar, I would have thought if there was actual evidence it would have been trotted out by now.Justice McMurdo made the decision in the Supreme Court of Brisbane for OCV not to go into liquidation.  It would sure open a can of worms though, since OCV shares were  still trading on the ASX until 22 JAN this year. Who is responsible ASX, ASIC? One would think all the companies, banks, institutions etc who loaned OCV millions during this period of time would have done due dilligence. Seamisty


----------



## erniel (25 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Further to the enquiry of what Octavier owe the PIF ,I refer to a post approx 2 months ago and attach.



erniel said:


> Hi All,
> As per the financials of the MFS PIF fund dated the 31 December 2007,
> below are investments with related parties of the MFS PIF.
> The independence of the auditors was not compromised.
> ...


----------



## seamisty (25 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



erniel said:


> Further to the enquiry of what Octavier owe the PIF ,I refer to a post approx 2 months ago and attach.



The amount of $147.5 million being pursued by WC on behalf of the PIF  is compensation in relation to those loans. Perhaps there is some value (your guess is as good as mine) in one or more of those outstanding loans that may be recoverable at a later date and that is why the above sum was agreed on.That amount was the total that could be seen as 'illegally withdrawn' from the PIF and I understand OCV recognised that amount as debt which had to be lodged by a certain date to be included in the list of creditors. I don't think the PIF can legally pursue more than that amount apart from the $50million support Facility. I could be wrong. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (25 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> Does anyone have any definate dates on when the tax statements will be issued by wellington.
> Last time I made a direct call to their customer automated answering machines I got return message which said we'd get our statements in a couple of weeks.... That was 5 weeks ago.
> 
> without me calling their machines again Has anyone heard anything new from wellington.......... is it that perpetual are still being relaxed in their attitude in doing their ever well paid job for the PIF.



Hi Zixo, I just spoke with WC, the tax statements will be sent out with the new proxy form which will include more information regarding proposed future distributions. Unitholders should receive these next week, as opposed to two separate  mailouts. We do not have to do anything in regard to the proxy if you do not wish to change your previous vote. The updated PWC audit figures will be available after the end of Sept. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Duped (26 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

"Sharks" eh! This type of reporting about those misled by OCV/MFS is beginning to really annoy me.

I recall reading that Maurice Blackburn representing both Shareholders and PIF unit holders would be a conflict of interest. IMO, if Maurice Blackburn are attempting to take the moral highground then they've backed the wrong horse. If the 'flagship fund' was only paying about $6M a year, where did all the rest of the multi $B value in MFS come from. Likely that many shareholders were wilfully led. Then there's the facts that shareholders have greater liquidity (they can sell their shares at anytime on the ASX) AND they had the protection of the high reporting standards required by the ASX listing.  

In comparison, IMO, we were more vulnerable to MFS's misconduct?  Especially when put there by our financial advisers who were paid to act in our best interests. MB may have backed the swifter horse and taken the shorter path and hence IMO will not reach the higher of the moral highground.


_"*Sharks circle Octaviar*
Over 300 clients in class action

By Kate Kachor
Fri 26 Sep 2008
Octaviar Limited will be confronted by more than 300 clients, as a class action mounts against the property group. More than 300 clients of Octaviar Limited (formerly MFS Limited) will mount a class action case against the embattled property group, to recover lost money.

The clients, said to be a combination of institutions and individuals, are seeking losses estimated at $80 million.

"It looks like it [Octaviar] is not an ongoing viable entity, in which case the rights of our clients are clearly affected," Maurice Blackburn class actions and major projects principal Ben Slade said.

"Whether there is any source of funds for them, to be properly compensated for the wrong that was done to them, we for the moment do not know.

"It might be that they need to line up with creditors in the final liquidation of the entity or entities... but essentially it is Octaviar Limited that we are looking at.

"We are doing it [the class action] through litigation firm IMF. *One thing we are not doing is [representing] the poor investors in MFS Premium Income Fund." Slade said.*

Commenting on a possible outcome for his clients, Slade said he was not overly confident.

"There is going to be a payout of some sort, but whether that will be a satisfactory resolution or not remains to be seen."

Administrators were appointed to Octaviar on September 15.

Octaviar changed its name from MFS in March this year. "_


----------



## waleroo (26 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Re Tax statements 
I hope the distributions are as forth  coming as the tax statements we might receive them next xmas 2009 
WC are not on the ball and appear to have lost the plot WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE


----------



## Duped (27 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I rang them earlier today (Friday).  Answer was they're with the mail house, due for despatch Monday/Tuesday.


----------



## zixo (27 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Seamisty, 
Rang Wellington and talked to the customer service machine and left a message again. No response.
Am going to Ring again on Monday and again talk to the machine until I'm given a date.
A 7- 8 week wait is a far cry from the 2 weeks when I originally asked the question. 
I just dont like hearing the tired old line that the letters in the mail.
If Wellington have trouble issuing simple tax statements how effective are they going to be delivering on other things.


----------



## zixo (30 September 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

latest news on the tax statements from wellington is that wellington have no idea when the statements will be issued , apparently computershare and all others who have to submit information have been a little tardy in collating all the information to supply to Investors.

I've been advised to get an extension from the tax office


----------



## dantra (2 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

has anyone heard any more on tax statements?? we received ours from perpetual, but nothing yet from wellington/octaviar/MFS. time is running out and a small tax return would come in handy right now.


----------



## Dexter (2 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

When the long awaited Xmas bonus is spent and gone what is there to look forward to?

There is no certainty regarding any futher distributions and WC is not committed to pay anything.

The only certainty is that the monthly fees and expenses will be deducted from our Fund in advance.

Many of our legal rights as Unit Holders will have been voted away.

The recent court case involving ASIC was not a victory for us, only a victory for WC.

The majority voted to end redemptions in favour of selling their units on the NSX.

Who is going to buy them?

ONE GUESS!

Someone who can accumulate a mass of units for a few cents each and through revaluations say, manipulate their price upward, probably gaining a controlling interest in the meantime.  

From my grave I might hear someone saying "I told you they would be worth $1.00 one day".

Maybe PIFI are on the right track.  After all what is the point of an action group that takes no action?

At least they have excellent legal advice which advised against voting for the proposed changes.

As this year rolls into next year and we can't see away out of this mess we might be thankful for a group who are organised to make the necessary changes in favour of all unit holders.


----------



## Maverick2802 (2 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Wow Dexter, have you always been this optimistic throughout your life?

Not everybody is out to rip people off like MFS directors did to us and the shareholders.

Maybe WC will deliver what they promise, gee imagine that!


----------



## JohnH (3 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Dexter said:


> When the long awaited Xmas bonus is spent and gone what is there to look forward to?
> 
> There is no certainty regarding any futher distributions and WC is not committed to pay anything.
> 
> ...




Dexter, be real - would you trust anybody prepared to give a rock hard promise in the current financial chaos???


----------



## akernst (3 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It seems our Funds are still frozen.

WC should have been paying monthly distributions already.

As far as the economy is concerned, we are the only country in the whole world, to have a surplus, and a big one at that. We are still riding on an enormous resources boom with China and India, so how come after over 8 months the managers of our PIF, could not start paying monthly distrbutions.

There is no excuse at all, as because as you know, money makes money, especially now with the US bankrupt. You buy in gloom and sell in boom. And we are in the midst of both worlds.


----------



## dantra (3 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

so much for the tax statements coming with the proxy vote forms. i got my proxy vote forms today, but no sign of the tax statements. this is ridiculous!!
come on wellington, actions speak louder than words!


----------



## selciper (3 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The tax information delay is becoming intolerable. Are our old friends at Perpetual trying to hurry things up?


----------



## pjay (3 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

sent email to wellington tuesday re tax statements got phone call back to-day said same as 3 weeks ago ' in the mail room' hope they get more efficiant when/if they get control of our fund


----------



## waleroo (3 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I do not know how you people think (some of you don't if you did you would have had a hard look at what WC is doing ) NOTHING with the tax statements or anything else you all now have the opportunity to change your vote and  get rid of this outfit before you have nothing left .Any thing would have to better than a answering machine that does what is supposed to do answer the phones and #### all else The PIF should have made some income since WC took it over what about a update on the over all value when are they going to stop the ****  and give us a up to date assessment as to what is happening this is OUR FUND    What are you going to do RE VOTE and show them (WC) you have nothing now and if they are  running the PIF  nothing in the future PLEASE WAKE UP AND THINK and do something about it let your pencil do the talking and set WC walking


----------



## Maverick2802 (3 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I'll give you an update Wallyroo, she took over the fund and we owed $180m to RBOS, as at the 18th of last month we owe $9.5m to another re-financed institution. What else do you want to know?


----------



## marcom (4 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I see that the PIFI drones on Dennis' payroll are back just when the voting papers are arriving - no coincidence here - peddling the same tired old line in favour of an "orderly" wind up.

Wake up! The US and European banking system is in meltdown - US and other governments bailing out banks by buying impaired loan books full of properties with doubtful values, which will soon end up on the market. Fabulous time to look for an orderly wind up!!!

Our fund should be debt free by this month - in a credit squeeze financial climate our fund will have money to invest at a substantial profit - over time the values of properties held will rise again to restore lost value - AND will start to receive distributions soon!

I'll repeat  my ealier advice:

"After costing our fund some $200,000 they have the hide to come back with this PIFfle!

The way to deal with these cowboys is to put them on your IGNORE LIST - simply click on the posters name, choose "view public profile", then click on the left of the blue band "add XXX to your ignored list". Then they simply disappear!

And don't bother replying to this post as it will not reach me". BYE


----------



## simgrund (4 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Waleroo; re your post 2858
I and most PIFers will agree with 2 phrases from your post: OUR FUND and PLEASE WAKE UP & THINK.
Some of us are in such excruciatingly dire financial woes, that the forthcoming October distribution is looked upon as a saviour to take us through till next distributions in December and 2009.
Please understand, any factor introduced from within PIF ranks that would jeopardise this  rescue for many, could potentially be life threatening what with immediate needs for medicine, medical services and even down to basic food needs. 
Please consider these impacts; with my personal appeal to your humanity side where I suspect real reasoning still resides.
Should other unforseen factors intervene, that would be bad luck.
But to have this proposed rescue sabotaged from own comrades in sorrow would be especially painful to us.
I have written to Jenny Hutson to put an update on WC site of her verbal commitment of 18/09/08 reported in these posts regarding 2% fee for 
RE removal.
I may not get a personal reply. However I am confident, the message she gave will mature in years to come. So an "out" is still available to us down the track.
Let us mature alongside today's realities. 
With good wishes,


----------



## breaker1 (5 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

How many have read this report?

Courtesy of two PIF AG members:


Wellington PIF
Annual Report
Premium Income Fund
ARSN 090 687 577
30 June 2008

Click on:


----------



## breaker1 (5 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A lot of write offs:

1.  Asset Write Offs-
     Financial Instrument Investments in Octaviar related entities             $ 87,548,000
     Asset backed Investments in Octaviar related entities                        148,882,000
                                                                                                         236,430,000  
     Financial Instrument Investments in other entities                               22,811,000
     Asset backed Investments in other entities                                        22,090,000
                                                                                                       $281,331,000

    Mortgage Loan Write Offs                                                               $ 85,698,000

    Loss on Realisation of Financial Instruments                                   $ 56,196,000

   TOTAL WRITE OFFS (Octaviar = 64.4%)  $367,029,000
   REALISED LOSSES on sale of Assets    $  56,196,000

2.  Balance of RBOS Loan of $9.4 mil. has been refinanced with a non-bank institution at an interest rate of 20%.
     Maturity date of loan is 30th Nov.2008.


----------



## akernst (6 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This is the bottom of the Auditor's Report that finished last week.
Please WC tell us this incorrect!


Material Uncertainy - Going Concern and carrying value of assets

Without qualification to the above conclusion, we draw attention to note 2(b) in the
financial report which indicates that, there is material uncertainty as to the recoverability
of the assets recorded in the financial report. These uncertainties are further explained
in notes 9, 11 and 12. These conditions along with other matters as set forth in note 2(b) indicate
there is significant uncertainty whether the Fund will continue as a going concern and whether
it will realise its assets and extinguish its liabilities in teh normal course of business and at the
amounts stated in the financial report.


----------



## Maverick2802 (6 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

However, after taking into account all available information, the directors have concluded that there are
reasonable grounds to believe the Fund will be able to pay its debts as and when they become due and
payable and continue in operation without any intention, or necessity, to liquidate or otherwise wind up its
operations. As such, the basis of preparation of the financial report on an on going basis is appropriate.

These people always use phrases to cover their ar*es, there is a "degree of uncertainty" in anything in life!!!


----------



## erniel (7 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*




breaker1 said:


> How many have read this report?
> 
> Courtesy of two PIF AG members:
> 
> ...




A question that begs an answer ,is why have WC re not posted this report on the PIF website. It would appear that there may be some with holding of , or trying to conceal information that may influence the vote.
A pity as I was starting to throw my weight behind them , believing Ms Hudson was being totally transparent. However there now appears to be some doubts as to their integrity. ( perhaps the tears shed by Hudson at the last meeting were crocodile tears)
This should be raised at the meeting to be held on the 15th with Ms Hudson.


----------



## JohnH (7 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



erniel said:


> A question that begs an answer ,is why have WC re not posted this report on the PIF website. It would appear that there may be some with holding of , or trying to conceal information that may influence the vote.
> A pity as I was starting to throw my weight behind them , believing Ms Hudson was being totally transparent. However there now appears to be some doubts as to their integrity. ( perhaps the tears shed by Hudson at the last meeting were crocodile tears)
> This should be raised at the meeting to be held on the 15th with Ms Hudson.




Maybe it's in the mail to us Ernie.  If it's not, then it should definately be raised at the meeting.  I would have thought it an advantage rather than a disadvantage for Wellington to have this published.  

In the current financial chaos, Wellington seem to have performed reasonably well!

...................JH


----------



## Duped (7 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



akernst said:


> This is the bottom of the Auditor's Report that finished last week.
> Please WC tell us this incorrect!




From my reading, the AR concurs with what WC had already forewarned us about. No significant new reasons to panic.  But I'm not a finance person.

I don't like the look of Note 2(h) on page 14. "The fund has decided not to early adopt AASB 8."  Do any of you finance people have a feel for what this means for PIF?  Should we expect another smashing of asset 'values' when PIF does move to AASB 8?

$12.65M was wasted in servicing debt. That's 1.66c per unit. Ouch.  Oh and PIF's paying 20% on the $9.4M we still owe.  Those Gold Coast cowboys really flogged us.

I can't see Michael King's Super fund in Related party unitholdings on page 24. I suppose we won't ever see how many units are held by OCV related entities now that WC own the shares in the RE.


----------



## selciper (7 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped - I agree with you. Wellington's use of the internet is very patchy. Their PIF web site doesn't often dispense information when you want it (eg: tax info schedule). At one stage, they said that only about 1000 PIF investors had access to the web. Really? The web can no longer be regarded as being an oddity. It is a recognised means of early 21st century communication. Hope that those who attend the meeting keep asking important questions.


----------



## CableGuy (7 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



erniel said:


> A question that begs an answer ,is why have WC re not posted this report on the PIF website. It would appear that there may be some with holding of , or trying to conceal information that may influence the vote.
> A pity as I was starting to throw my weight behind them , believing Ms Hudson was being totally transparent. However there now appears to be some doubts as to their integrity. ( perhaps the tears shed by Hudson at the last meeting were crocodile tears)
> This should be raised at the meeting to be held on the 15th with Ms Hudson.



It’s obvious WC are concealing information by the fact the majority of unit holders only received the corrective information today leaving only 3 postal days before the proxy forms are due.  Overseas unit holders and others will not get this information before the vote is due.

No redemptions, no target rate of return, no enforced buyback, diminshed unit holder rights, guaranteed RE fees paid in advance before expenses and distributions, 2% severance fee, no tax statements, answering machine coldline between 9:30 - 16:00, a novice fund manager, misleading documentation...

From the fund's constitution
"19.7 An amount referred to in clause 19.6 which is incurred or payable as a direct result of neglect, fraud or breach of this constitution on the part of the Responsible entity, shall not be paid out of the Scheme.”

-----
"I can be your best friend or your worst enemy. You seem to prefer the latter."


----------



## akernst (8 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This is the bottom of the Auditor's Report that finished last week.
Please WC tell us this is incorrect! Please give us evidence that the Fund
is a going concern.

Material Uncertainy - Going Concern and carrying value of assets

Without qualification to the above conclusion, we draw attention to note 2(b) in the
financial report which indicates that, there is material uncertainty as to the recoverability
of the assets recorded in the financial report. These uncertainties are further explained
in notes 9, 11 and 12. These conditions along with other matters as set forth in note 2(b) indicate
there is significant uncertainty whether the Fund will continue as a going concern and whether
it will realise its assets and extinguish its liabilities in the normal course of business and at the
amounts stated in the financial report.


----------



## JohnH (8 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



akernst said:


> This is the bottom of the Auditor's Report that finished last week.
> Please WC tell us this is incorrect! Please give us evidence that the Fund
> is a going concern.
> 
> Andree,   Please see Maverick's entry above (2865).  In these difficult financial times it would be unwise for anybody to give guarantees.


----------



## Maverick2802 (8 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Why would JH put in $15-$20m of her own money to purchase the fund management rights, to then not be a going concern and lose it? Does JH seem like an idiot to you?

Cable Guy is still trying to flog the PIFI dead horse, that must by now be maggott infested. Matey, do you not get that even if the stupid PIFI / ASIC  imposed 'clarification' letter was not received by anyone it would not make a lick of difference to the vote. Please tell me that you get that?? :horse:


----------



## great dame (8 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Cable Guy  is not flogging the PIFI  /He is telling the truth thats all .Something we are not getting from WC  /Anybody with with half a brain can see that ///////////


----------



## CableGuy (8 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Judgment

The judge and ASIC seem to be under the impression that Wellington are providing an orderly realisation of assets over a period of 3 to 5 years which will return 45 cents to unit holders.  There was no mention during the 5 hour proceeding of Wellington returning $1 in 5 years!  And interesting to note an orderly realisation of assets is over 3 to 5 years is assumed to be occurring despite Wellington stating to numerous unit holders the law does not permit this option and it’s not something they are interested in.

Page 3
“In broad terms what is proposed by this meeting is that the constitution of the fund would be changed in several respects with the objective of the fund continuing to trade as a going concern for a period in the vicinity of three to five years.  The purpose of that is to return to unit holders far more than they would be likely to receive on effectively a winding up of the fund by the redemption of units in march next year.  In broad terms the comparison is between an estimated 14 cents per unit in the event of a redemption in March of next year and about 45 cents in the event that the fund continues to trade, is able to conduct an orderly realisation of assets and otherwise is able to conduct it’s affairs over the next three to five years.”

Page 13
“I have had regard also to the financial material within this explanatory memorandum and to what is said about the likely proceeds from the orderly realisation of assets over a period of three to five years, …”

Page 17
“Of course that is not the only thing which is proposed and there are other financial considerations involved in a choice between effectively terminating the fund early next year and allowing it to trade on for three to five years….”

It looks like ASIC decided to abandon the issue of resolution 3 being an ordinary resolution instead of an extraordinary resolution.  I find this disappointing as it should have been easy to prove an extraordinary resolution was appropriate for our fund due to it not being listed and I think it's also important as it's likely resolution 3 will meet the requirements of an ordinary but not an extraordinary resolution.  Meaning we will have to pay the 2% RE fee if WC are removed.

Page 16
“The notice here refers to that an ordinary resolution.  Originally complaint was made in that respect that that point was abandoned by ASIC.”

The judge agrees that unit holders will not have entitlement to receive any cash payments, the buy back or the advisory committee.  

Page 7 “These are things WC are saying they will do but they are not legal obliged to do .  In my view unit holders should not understand the material to represent that the passing of the resolutions would have the result of giving a legal entitlement to those interim payments, a buy-back of unit or the establishment of the investor advisory commit.”

Looks like the judge will hold WC to their statement of not taking the management fee before unit holders receive a 3 cent per unit distribution as the new constitution allows management fees regardless is the fund can afford to pay them (unlike the existing constitution). i.e. before expenses and distributions.

Page 8
The material, and particular the chairperson’s letter, represents that this management fee would not be paid to the entity until after “the 3 per cent cash payment has been made to unit holders”.  That is a reference to payments totalling 3 cents per unit to be made by 24 December 2008.  However, if the constitution is amended as proposed, there would be no limitation by the constitution which postponed the entity’s entitlement to the management fee paid monthly until after payment of that 3 cents per unit.  Recognising this, the respondent offers an undertaking, the effect of which is that it would not claim the management fee until after those cash payments totally 3 cents per unit were paid, as is proposed, by 24 December next.”

Judge agrees the quarterly thereafter statement is misleading.

Page 12
“Ultimately, as I read this material as a whole, the various references to the quarterly payments could be reasonably understood by unit holders as references to quarterly payments in each quarter of 3 cents per unit.” 

Page 13\14
“…(this) does not appear to have emerged until this morning when further affidavits came from the respondent’s side.  In particular, it was only within an affidavit sworn today that the relevant resolutions of the board of the respondent were disclosed.  

The result of the conclusion I have reached as to what might be reasonably understood about the size of these quarterly payments is that what is said about them is, in my view, misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive.”

If you have not yet realised from the audit or the figures\spreadsheets your fellow unit holders have generated that WCs statements of 1.5 cents per quarter and returning $1 in 3 to 5 years is not going to happen perhaps the above judgment will open your eyes.  All spreadsheets and figures that have been produced to date have shown even the buy back will cripple the fund.

No redmeptions, no return of capital, no distrubtions.  How about saying No to the resolutions and putting forward a decent resolution.

-----
"Wake up lil snoozy! Smell the smelling salts!"


----------



## JohnH (8 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



CableGuy said:


> Judgment
> 
> The judge and ASIC seem to be under the impression that Wellington are providing an orderly realisation of assets ............. etc etc.
> If you have not yet realised from the audit or the figures\spreadsheets your fellow unit holders have generated that WCs statements of 1.5 cents per quarter and returning $1 in 3 to 5 years is not going to happen perhaps the above judgment will open your eyes.  All spreadsheets and figures that have been produced to date have shown even the buy back will cripple the fund.
> ...




........More destructive criticism!!!

Oh for Goodness sake, stop repeating what sane thinking people already know and have accepted.

You have yet to come up with any positive suggestion other than to liquidate and realise 14 cents a share!


----------



## CableGuy (8 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> ........More destructive criticism!!!
> 
> Oh for Goodness sake, stop repeating what sane thinking people already know and have accepted.
> 
> You have yet to come up with any positive suggestion other than to liquidate and realise 14 cents a share!




The ‘positive suggestion’ which has been mentioned many times on this forum is what the judge and ASIC are under the impression is actually happening with the fund – an orderly realisation of assets over 3 to 5  years.  The return of capital, not the locking away of our money on the NSX.

----
"You were never there for me were you mother? You expected Mike and Carol Brady to raise me! I'm the bastard son of Claire Huxtable! I am a Lost Cunningham! I learned the facts of life from watching The Facts of Life! Oh God!"


----------



## Burnt (8 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all,
Been away for a while but now I'm back. Been catching up - lots of reading. Gee, Wellington was dragged into Supreme Court and LOST. Then I see in the press JH has tried to blame a group of investors opposed to them for it all. They were taken to court over their own mistakes. Hope their not going to make the Fund pay for the costs of their mistakes !!!! I received their additional information today, doesn't really say much. Same old spin.

Read through the Annual Report -disasterous. Why aren't they going after Octaviar for the full amount that had to be written off - $236.4mil ???
Obvious that no distributions are going to be paid in 2009. Also looks like the buy-back is unlikely to happen also. There's not going to be any profits next year either after Wellington takes their cut.

Also read through the Supreme Court Judgement - judge confirms my views - Wellington has no legal obligation to pay distributions or go ahead with the buy back. Promotional hoo haa. Why does he think that Wellington is proposing an orderly wind down over 3-5 years. Wellington has stated to investors that that is definately not their intention at all. If this was given as an option I know I'd be voting for it !!!!

By the way, why aren't distributions being paid now ??? No reason why they can't be. Why is this payment being witheld from us ????

Cable Guy your posts nail it on the head. Why is it that the truth when presented in facts and evidence is so hard for some people to deal with ??

Maverick - who are you ??? What's with the "us" and "we" - are you representing some kind of group ?

Everyone should analyse the facts presented in the Annual Report. What a majority of unit holders believe is going to happen is just impossible.


----------



## great dame (9 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sell your units on the NSX ??? Your forgetting you need a buyer to sell them  And there will be no buyers what so ever    Did some one once said  YOU CAN FOOL SOME OF THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME  ALL THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME  BUT NOT ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME   one WOULD HAVE TO REALLY BE A FOOL TO THINK YOU WILL EVER GET YOUR MONEY BACK IN THE FUTURE    we are heading for the biggest property slump in 78 years  interest raters will be down to 2% in 2010    Its all over so just kiss all your money good by   And just let WC enjoy our fees //


----------



## great dame (9 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi all,
> Been away for a while but now I'm back. Been catching up - lots of reading. Gee, Wellington was dragged into Supreme Court and LOST. Then I see in the press JH has tried to blame a group of investors opposed to them for it all. They were taken to court over their own mistakes. Hope their not going to make the Fund pay for the costs of their mistakes !!!! I received their additional information today, doesn't really say much. Same old spin.
> 
> Read through the Annual Report -disasterous. Why aren't they going after Octaviar for the full amount that had to be written off - $236.4mil ???
> ...



 BURNT it is called the miss informed  True believers group ???//


----------



## great dame (9 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi all,
> Been away for a while but now I'm back. Been catching up - lots of reading. Gee, Wellington was dragged into Supreme Court and LOST. Then I see in the press JH has tried to blame a group of investors opposed to them for it all. They were taken to court over their own mistakes. Hope their not going to make the Fund pay for the costs of their mistakes !!!! I received their additional information today, doesn't really say much. Same old spin.
> 
> Read through the Annual Report -disasterous. Why aren't they going after Octaviar for the full amount that had to be written off - $236.4mil ???
> ...



 Burnt i think you could it the miss informed informed true believerd group ???


----------



## DoraNBoots (9 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Moderator,

Thanks for removing the post by Maverick2802 and to whoever reported it.

Can you please advise if the account for Maverick2802 has been suspended as per the quote below.  This person has had numerous inappropriate posts removed from this thread and maybe others will start posting on this thread again if they know they won’t be personally attached.

Regards,
Dora.




kennas said:


> Please ladies and gents, no more personal attacks.
> 
> If I see even the slightest personal insult or taunt, accounts will be suspended.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sean K (9 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Dear Moderator,
> 
> Thanks for removing the post by Maverick2802 and to whoever reported it.
> 
> ...



Yes, he has been suspended.


----------



## JohnH (9 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Maybe it's in the mail to us Ernie.  If it's not, then it should definately be raised at the meeting.  I would have thought it an advantage rather than a disadvantage for Wellington to have this published.
> 
> In the current financial chaos, Wellington seem to have performed reasonably well!
> 
> ...................JH




Ernie - Just received my hard copy in this morning's post.

JH


----------



## CableGuy (9 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tsk tsk.  Farewell Javier/Guesswho/Maverick.  Hopefully when you reincarnate on this thread you will have learnt something from your previous mistakes :ald:

-----
"Hard to believe they got the floors cleaned in here after what happened..."


----------



## selciper (9 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There's info about the tax statements on the WC PIF website.


----------



## JohnH (9 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



CableGuy said:


> Tsk tsk.  Farewell Javier/Guesswho/Maverick.  Hopefully when you reincarnate on this thread you will have learnt something from your previous mistakes :ald:
> 
> -----
> "Hard to believe they got the floors cleaned in here after what happened..."




Gloat if you will Justin but there are still quite a few of us left who agree with his sentiment if not his wording.


----------



## Duped (9 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Selcipher.  We can download the statements online.  Easy.

Now I have to pay tax on $ I'm never going to see.  What a crok of $*&#. Maybe Uncle Kev can use the money for a committee to investigate why so many citizens at times feel OWNED enough to feel like topping themselves   Or perhaps even pay some lawyers to go after the perpetrators.  

I doubt it, more likely he'll allocate it to ASIC to fund the action against WC and pay some more ATO lawyers to chase the $60M from OCV.  Leaving less for PIF.  

How the f did the ATO let OCV/MFS keep trading (plundering PIF and selling Stella) with such a debt to them?


----------



## Jadel (9 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

John H 

 I am not going to place a report to the Moderator but everybody on this Forum has the basic right to privacy .

  You have just abused that Right .


----------



## Sean K (9 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Let's stay on topic now please. 

Due to the personal attacks, there was talk of this thread been closed recently, and no one wants that. 

You have plenty to discuss on a very important issue. Lets keep it all reasonable and not personal. 

Thanks.


----------



## Jadel (9 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped 

 Could you please visit the private message Forum

  Am just about to write you something it will take about five minutes.


----------



## JohnH (9 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> John H
> 
> I am not going to place a report to the Moderator but everybody on this Forum has the basic right to privacy .
> 
> You have just abused that Right .




Point taken, and apologies given.


----------



## great dame (9 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have just wrote down in my diary to put a post on the forum in about 2 to 3 years time   When all you yes voters realize just what a terrible misstate you made  & i can write   WELL I BLOODY WELL TOLD YOU ALL SO    i am looking forward to it  it could cheer me up (maybe) ///////


----------



## BABIHUTAN (9 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Thanks Selcipher.  We can download the statements online.  Easy.
> *Now I have to pay tax on $ I'm never going to see.*
> 
> Me too, and the tax tt has been paid in former years on income rolled over - so much for the power of compounding!!
> ...


----------



## Duped (9 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



BABIHUTAN said:


> Grateful if either of you wud point me [and perhaps others] in the right direction. I hv been to Wellington's website but cannot find a lead to PIF tax info. Tks Owen




Link to instructions is http://www.newpif.com.au/publications/Tax Statements.pdf


----------



## BABIHUTAN (9 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Link to instructions is http://www.newpif.com.au/publications/Tax Statements.pdf




Many tks, finally got there and noted info is in mail - I've heard tt b4 but nay bother, logged into Computershare, & downloaded req'd info. Now can get busy with E-tax


----------



## Jadel (10 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Holy Dooly

   Dow down 678 points .

   What person in there right mind would list anything at the moment.

  If Jenny Hutson and WC is really thinking in the best interst of investors they should postpone listing our assets on the NSX during this crisis .

  We are in the grip of a worldwide panic and flight to cash.


----------



## great dame (10 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Holy Dooly
> 
> Dow down 678 points .
> 
> ...



   JH & WC dont care a stuff about that  they are home & hosed once they get the yes vote  I can hear them laughing now all the way to tte bank  Gee i wish i had shares in WC ///


----------



## CableGuy (10 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Holy Dooly
> 
> Dow down 678 points .
> 
> ...




If this wasn't so serious it would be laughable, see attachment.

If WC doesn’t list the PIF JH's case study on 'listing managed investment schemes' will be a little brief.  If it does list, there'll be a whole month worth of data to report on.  JH will be able to boast how much units are trading for on the NSX based on an underlying NTA value of 45 cents.  I'd pay $550 just to see that!

-----
"You better buckle up. I've had a lot to drink, just kidding. That's my humor!"


----------



## selciper (10 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If I were able to attend next week's PIF meeting, I certainly would be asking whether this is the moment (if ever) to be listing. We are witnessing a financial storm of huge proportions, so WC must put investors' interests as first priority. If a delay to list is to our advantage,
then so be it.

It's also interesting to be reading how authorities all around the world  are after the scalps of financial managers responsible for this astonishing market collapse. It's reported that financial engineers, especially, can expect relentless investigation - including an examination of their assets.


----------



## Duped (10 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I'd rather JH used her time getting a better rate for our outstanding $9.4M debt.  Ignoring any compounding/principle reduction, that 20% is costing us $157K a month. Do we know who the creditor is?

Seems to me that if this NSX conference attracts buyers to the NSX than good for us.  Ut if it attracts more listings to compete for the investor dollar, then that's bad for us.


----------



## DoraNBoots (10 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> If I were able to attend next week's PIF meeting, I certainly would be asking whether this is the moment (if ever) to be listing.We are witnessing a financial storm of huge proportions, so WC must put investors' interests as first priority. If a delay to list is to our advantage,
> then so be it ..




Why wait for the members meeting to express your concern about the NSX.  The decision to list or not to list has been given to us to vote on. Don’t vote Yes to list and then hope to be able to convince the RE not to do it.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (10 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This in HeraldSun.com.au today.

*Octaviar in liquidation hearings*



October 10, 2008 03:03pm

THE directors of beleaguered fund manager Octaviar may be preparing a proposal to trade the company out of its massive debts, a Brisbane court has heard.

The Queensland Supreme Court today delayed a hearing into whether the company should be put into liquidation, to allow the administrators more time to investigate the company's finances.

It will now be heard on December 18, though the administrators will need to hold a meeting of creditors beforehand.

The lawyer representing the Public Trustee, Dominic O'Sullivan, expressed concern the delay could cost creditors money.

Mr O'Sullivan said the company had spent more than $10 million on administration costs since mid-June, a month after the Public Trustee launched proceedings to have the company wound up.

The court heard there was evidence Octaviar's directors were preparing a proposal to take to creditors that the company be allowed to trade its way out of insolvency.

However, Mr O'Sullivan said the Public Trustee would oppose the move.

"The Public Trustee is still very firmly of the view that the best course for creditors is to wind this company up," he said.

--------end of article-------------


----------



## Juan Mortyme (10 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Octaviar Administration Circular to Employees 
by Deloitte
View attachment 24689


----------



## Juan Mortyme (10 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Octaviar Administration Circular to Creditors
by Deloitte can be downloaded here:
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/article/0,1002,cid%3D227487,00.html


----------



## Burnt (10 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> I'd rather JH used her time getting a better rate for our outstanding $9.4M debt.  Ignoring any compounding/principle reduction, that 20% is costing us $157K a month. Do we know who the creditor is?
> 
> Seems to me that if this NSX conference attracts buyers to the NSX than good for us.  Ut if it attracts more listings to compete for the investor dollar, then that's bad for us.




The NSX conference appears to be a promotional event for NSX to encourage companies to use it to raise capital.
NSX listing is the worst possible option for PIF right now. Who's going to want to buy into it ?? People are never going to see their money again.


----------



## Burnt (10 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> Octaviar Administration Circular to Creditors
> by Deloitte can be downloaded here:
> http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/article/0,1002,cid%3D227487,00.html




Wonder if JH has found the time to lodge a formal claim ?? If so, I wonder how much ??? The full amount written off our asset values ???


----------



## asianmgt (11 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Search for information from the angle that the ASX and the ASIC have established "provident funds" established to compensate shareholders because those agencies have failed to perform their duty sufficiently to protect investors from misleading information made by Directors.


----------



## sugar3157 (12 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



asianmgt said:


> Search for information from the angle that the ASX and the ASIC have established "provident funds" established to compensate shareholders because those agencies have failed to perform their duty sufficiently to protect investors from misleading information made by Directors.




what does that mean...and how does one do it?


----------



## DoraNBoots (13 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Suspended redemptions - the full list*
October 2, 2008 
http://www.maynereport.com/articles/2008/08/28-0958-6879.html


----------



## erniel (13 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

How much more do we as PIF investors have to endure.
In the GC Bulletin today pictures of michael king at the Elysian polo fields in Cunungra with oysters and champagne.

Forgive the irony, polo is a game for kings (m king) while we the serfs have had our pension money highjacked.
How is all this polo and frivolity being funded?????????

Is it not time now to have either asic or the pif start legal proceedings against king and his fellow directors of mfs to try and recover the missing funds from them personally?


----------



## selciper (13 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Erniel - ASIC, in the matter of PIF, have shown themselves to be a disappointing authority. I almost get the feeling that all of us who telephoned them were hearing no more than crocodile tears on the other end.

If they believe that there was nothing wrong with the MFS PIF's operations, surely we are entitled to know the reasons for such a conclusion. The AG shouldn't give up on them!


----------



## Duped (13 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Right on Erniel. And our federal institutions are trumpeting how they're working on restoring the total loss of confidence by investors.  It seems the ten thousand investors in PIF aren't worth the bother for direct support.


----------



## DoraNBoots (14 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*ASIC pursues KPMG over Westpoint role*
13-October-08 by Rebecca Lawson
http://www.wabusinessnews.com.au/en-story/1/67278/ASIC-pursues-KPMG-over-Westpoint-role


----------



## selciper (14 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From today's Australian. Let's not give up hope. Perhaps one day...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24492618-643,00.html


----------



## forest.group (14 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

How much control does Wellington Capital have over the sale of the assets
of MFS, as I had in place the purchase of one of the properties, for a sum over
2 million, ready to settle in four weeks, WC wanted finance approvals, and as I was a week late in providing this, they refused to sell the property to us, and will not speak to us, our funds manager spoke to WC as they had the 2 million siting in an account, and as of last Thursday say no they are selling to someone else. Without even an explanation. This 'sucks'.

Margot Locke


----------



## JohnH (14 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



forest.group said:


> How much control does Wellington Capital have over the sale of the assets
> of MFS, as I had in place the purchase of one of the properties, for a sum over
> 2 million, ready to settle in four weeks, WC wanted finance approvals, and as I was a week late in providing this, they refused to sell the property to us, and will not speak to us, our funds manager spoke to WC as they had the 2 million siting in an account, and as of last Thursday say no they are selling to someone else. Without even an explanation. This 'sucks'.
> 
> Margot Locke




Wellington is RE for the PIF fund.  They have no control over the sale of the assets of MFS.

It would appear that as you were late in providing finance approvals they acted in unit holder's best interest and accepted a higher or more reliable offer.


----------



## DoraNBoots (14 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It’s good to see what ASIC are doing with regard to Westpoint.  The link below says Westpoint collapsed in Jan 2006 and that since Nov 2007 AISC has commenced 16 civil actions seeking to recover funds for investors.
ASIC have setup the following link to communicate with Westpoint investors http://www.asic.gov.au/wstpoint/wstpoint.nsf.
Action is being taken against directors, auditors, financial planners, and promoters.


----------



## Duped (14 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There was an article in AFR last week about claims against OCV Ltd increasing to $1.3B.  Anyone got a copy?


----------



## selciper (14 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From Business Spectator:

10 Oct,
Octaviar's administrator, Deloitte, has announced that the company's debt level has increased to more than $A1.3 billion. Deloitte partner, John Greig, said he plans to apply to the Supreme Court of Queensland for an extension to the convening period because of the group's complexity

Distributed by News Bites. Copyright 2008 LexisNexis Australia. All Rights Reserved


----------



## sak (15 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

City Pacific has cited global market volatility as the reason for its decision to postpone the float of its First Mortgage Fund.
Hopefully WC have the good sense to do the same.


----------



## Jadel (15 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sak

      That is the only logical and sensible option in these conditions

      Their  are very few buyers on the NSX in good times let alone a world 

     recession of the magnitude that is predicted over the next few years


----------



## Juan Mortyme (15 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sak said:


> City Pacific has cited global market volatility as the reason for its decision to postpone the float of its First Mortgage Fund.
> Hopefully WC have the good sense to do the same.




Here's the email that City Pacific sent to its First Mortgage Fund holders on Monday.

--------------------------------------
Subject: Important Notice Regarding Distributions
From: enquiries@citypac.com.au
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:07:47

Dear Sir,

Important Notice Regarding Distributions
City Pacific First Mortgage Fund (Fund)
I write to you in a time when our global markets face unprecedented volatility and each day brings a new development in this global credit and liquidity crisis (Global Financial Crisis). This weekend the world leaders met in Washington to co-ordinate a global campaign to end the escalating crisis.

The Global Financial Crisis has had a significant impact on the Australian property and financial markets and this has proven to be a very challenging year for our Fund. Preserving the value of our Fund's assets is paramount to ensure that the property values can be realized when the market stabilizes and this remains our primary objective for the ultimate benefit of our unitholders.

On 24 September 2008 I wrote to notify you of our revised strategy to give liquidity to those unitholders who have expressed an urgent need to access their funds and of our expectation to recommence the payment of distributions.
The proposal to list the Fund on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) is considered to be the most effective strategy to provide those unitholders with a liquidity solution in the timeliest manner. However, since that date there have been significant developments in the world markets which continue to have devastating effects on the stability of the entire global financial system.

On Friday 10 October 2008 the ASX suffered its second worst trading day in history, with investors losing $106 billion in value as the Australian share market fell by 8.2%. As a result of these catastrophic market conditions, the Directors, along with our advisors, have this weekend reconsidered the listing of the Fund on the ASX and concluded that there is too much volatility and uncertainty in the world markets to proceed with the proposal at this time.

The Directors consider that listing the Fund in the current economic environment is unlikely to achieve the liquidity objective for those unitholders seeking to exit the Fund. As evidenced on Friday there is extreme uncertainty in the global share markets and the underlying value of assets is no longer reflected in the trading prices of listed securities. The Directors do not want to seek a listing of the Fund at a time when the global share markets continue to be extremely volatile, accordingly the proposal to list the Fund has been postponed.

With regard to the payment of distributions, the repayment to the Fund of a number of loans has been delayed following the impact of the Global Financial Crisis. The settlement of these transactions (due on 30 September 2008) would have provided sufficient funds for the reduction of the Fund's finance facility, the payment of existing progress draws to borrowers and the payment of the September distributions. As a result of these continued delays we have been negotiating with the Fund's financier to secure an extension to the Fund's finance facility.

Renegotiation of the Fund's Finance Facility
Since March 2008 we have taken decisive action to progressively reduce the Fund's finance facility to $121.5 million. Although the facility has been reduced the Fund has been unable to meet scheduled repayment dates due to delays in the loan repayments to the Fund by borrowers.

The facility is due for repayment on 31 October 2008 however due to the delays in borrowers' repayments to the Fund, we are negotiating a further extension on terms which are acceptable to the financier.

We will continue to work with the financier to ensure that we protect the value of the Fund for the benefit of all stakeholders during this period of unprecedented market turmoil.

Non-payment of distributions

The Fund continues to meet the payment of progress draws to borrowers in order that they may complete their respective projects. This will allow for the settlement of pre-sales which in turn will enable the borrowers to repay their loans and allow the Fund to reduce its finance facility. It is therefore with deep regret that I notify you that the Fund will not be in a position to pay distributions for the months of September and October as all available funds are required to be applied to the reduction of the Fund's finance facility, the payment of progress draws to borrowers and to meet the operating costs of the Fund.

Moving forward the payment of distributions will be dependent upon the level and timing of loan repayments by borrowers to the Fund, taking into account the requirements of the stakeholders.

Status of the Fund's loan portfolio

There is clear evidence that lending by Australian banks continues to tighten and companies are finding it increasingly difficult to fund new investments and refinance their existing debt commitments. The effects of this Global Financial Crisis have and continue to impact the Australian property market and as a result we have seen a significant decrease in the volume of property sales in the last 6 months.

Our Fund has not been immune to the effects of the Global Financial Crisis and I take this opportunity to provide you with a snapshot of the Fund's loan repayment cash flow during 2008. The graph and table below illustrate the impact that the liquidity crisis has had on the Fund's borrowers being:

an inability to refinance their loans with banks due to insufficient funding being available in the financial markets; and

an inability to repay their loans as and when they are due as a result of the significant slowdown in property sales.

I would like to highlight that the inability of the Fund's borrowers to repay or refinance their loans is not a reflection on the quality of the borrowers' projects, or inaction by borrowers or City Pacific, but rather the result of the adverse market conditions that currently exist as explained above. The quality of the Fund's assets is further evidenced by the Fund maintaining an unaudited net tangible asset position of $0.97 (after impairment) as at 30 September 2008.

In order to further demonstrate the impact of the current market conditions on the Fund's borrowers I would like to highlight the following example for your consideration:

The Fund currently has a loan to an experienced developer completing a residential highrise building located in South East Queensland. The building comprises luxury apartments with uninterrupted ocean views and is due for completion in November 2008. The developer has 75% pre-sales which were achieved prior to April 2008. In the last 6 months the sales centre has maintained an active marketing campaign but has not been able to sell any of the remaining apartments.

I give this example to illustrate that even a premium quality building in a prime location, which achieved significant pre-sales is now not attracting buyers.
With consideration to the market conditions we continue to actively manage the Fund's loan portfolio and take whatever action is appropriate on a case by case basis to protect our unitholders' investments.

Non-liquid Managed Investment Scheme (non-liquid fund)

Due to the increase in the delays of repayments by borrowers to the Fund, and our expectation that this trend will continue as a result of the current market conditions, it is unlikely that the Fund will be in a position to commence the payment of redemptions on 26 February 2009. This factor has caused the Board, in conjunction with its advisors, to consider that the Fund has become non-liquid and will therefore now operate as a non-liquid fund.

The Fund will continue to repay its finance facility and meet funding obligations to existing borrowers to ensure that projects are completed to allow for the loans to be repaid.

As a non-liquid fund all existing redemption requests will be extinguished and the redemption process will operate in accordance with the Corporations Act as follows:

the Fund will make periodic redemption offers to all unitholders at times when there are sufficient funds available to do so. The Board will determine the amount that constitutes 'sufficient funds' for a redemption offer to be made. The Board does not expect to make redemption offers where less than 10% of total unitholders funds are available for redemption;

redemption offers will be made in writing to all unitholders and will specify the amount of funds available for that redemption offer. Unitholders wishing to redeem will be required to respond to the redemption offer stating the amount they wish to redeem (redemption request);

in the event there is an oversubscription to the redemption offer (i.e. the amount of the redemption requests exceeds the amount of the redemption offer), the redemptions will be paid on a pro-rata basis to all unitholders who have submitted a redemption request.

The Board has resolved that whilst the Fund remains a non-liquid fund it is inappropriate to pay a different distribution rate to each class of units on issue. Historically the differential distribution rate was a reflection of the term a unitholder chose to invest in the Fund, the longer the term of investment the higher the distribution rate (when compared with other distribution rates paid by the Fund).


-------------continued-------------------


----------



## Juan Mortyme (15 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

....continued from FMF email extract above.  (too many characters - wouldn't fit on the one post)

-------------continued---------------
Whilst the Fund remains a non-liquid fund any distributions paid by the Fund will be paid equally between each class of unitholders.

The basis for this decision is to treat all unitholders equally such that all unitholders will be entitled to redemptions and distributions equally.

Given the continuing impact of the Global Financial Crisis on the Australian property market the timing of redemption offers will be dependent upon available funds derived from the realisation of the loan portfolio. Our priorities remain to:

preserve the value of our Fund's assets to ensure that the property values can be realised when the market stabilises; and

recommence the payment of distributions, for the ultimate benefit of our unitholders.

Listing of the Fund

The decision by the Board in March 2008 to defer redemptions was made to protect the underlying assets of the Fund. At the time the decision was made it was our intention to resume redemptions within the permitted deferral period. In order to resume the payment of redemptions the Fund was reliant on the receipt of forecast loan repayments however many of those repayments have not occurred due to the reasons I have outlined above.

We are aware that there are a number of unitholders who have expressed a need to urgently access their funds, which currently the Fund is unable to provide. In light of the pressure on the Fund created by this demand and the current condition of the property market we have investigated strategies that will provide those unitholders with liquidity whilst allowing the Fund to continue operating to ensure the protection of the assets for those unitholders not seeking to exit the Fund.
We still consider listing the Fund on the ASX to be the most effective strategy to achieve the above objectives, however the Directors consider that there is too much volatility and uncertainty in the world markets to proceed with the proposal at this time.

Unitholder seminars to continue

The Directors believe that it is imperative for City Pacific to address unitholders regarding the information contained in this letter and allow you to pose any questions you may have.

A schedule of the seminars being held in October and November around Australia is attached and I would like to recommend that you attend one of these seminars if you are able. In order to minimise costs we are holding these seminars in locations where there is the largest concentration of unitholders, accordingly I would like to apologise in advance to those members who are not able to attend due to the location of the seminars.
On behalf of our Board and staff I would like to take this opportunity to reassure you that your interests are our priority and our focus remains to preserve the quality and value of the assets of our Fund.

City Pacific First Mortgage Fund Investor Seminar Details

CITY PACIFIC LIMITED

Phil Sullivan
Managing Director & CEO

--------------end--------------


----------



## DoraNBoots (15 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for posting the City Pacific email.  It’s a nice change to read a letter from a fund manager that isn’t threatening to fire sale assets due to not being able to meet redemptions.


----------



## cityphone (15 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

As far as I could understand as an onlooker, All 3 resolutions were passed at the EGM today held at the Gold Coast.
Funds can be traded on NSX tomorrow. All o/s debts owed BY the fund should be paid within a month and Wellington are said to be pushing hard to get back as much money as possible that is owed to the fund. Jenny is "optimistic" about the future so we will all either join her for the ride or try to sell on NSX or request part of the .45 cents buy back next year (if you are lucky to get in the allocated 3% of funds available)
Jenny is dedicated to build the fund up.


----------



## DoraNBoots (15 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



newwwtrader said:


> ...
> And here is another little gem, when the fund does get listed on the NSX one could assume that your details will be all the more available.






Rance said:


> ...
> When listed on any exchange, why would individual details be available to every Tom, Dick and Harriette?
> ...
> 
> ...



The joys of being listed...
Top 20 Shareholders:
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021720769.PDF

Lots of other info here including results.  Looks like 51.2% of all available units voted FOR resolution 3.
http://www.nsxa.com.au/announcements_list.asp?nsxcode=PIN


----------



## Jadel (15 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I wonder where Mr Rance is hiding now perhaps he should try to sue JH for breach of privacy laws LOL


----------



## Rance (15 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> I wonder where Mr Rance is hiding now perhaps he should try to sue JH for breach of privacy laws LOL



Good evening all! Yes I'm back and rearing to go!

1) I had a discussion with an officer of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner some weeks ago. The Office is not in favour of the present situation whereby shareholder lists are available with information about number of units held, and my complaint about this situation is just one of many received by the OPC. It is a lawful anomaly which the OPC would like to see changed.

2) I was also told that an American company is currently holding discussions with the ASX, brokers, etc regarding a share trading system where the identities of the parties involved in a trade and the number of shares held by them remain anonymous. Has anyone heard of this?   

Meanwhile, onwards we go...  I don't have Foxtel so I'll listen to the Socceroos on ABC 702 radio.

Cheers to all.

Rance :chimney


----------



## Burnt (15 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Lots of other info here including results.  Looks like 51.2% of all available units voted FOR resolution 3.
http://www.nsxa.com.au/announcements_list.asp?nsxcode=PIN[/QUOTE Dora]

What about all the unit holders who didn't receive new voting forms until a day or two before votes had to be lodged ?? Did they get counted ??? Have all unit holders been treated fairly and equally ??
Do the vote counts quoted (in this pre-written speech) include votes submitted at the meeting ??
Can we demand a re-count on Res.3 ??!!!!


----------



## great dame (16 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have decided to transfer all my units over to my son  / When i told him what i am doing  he replied   Thanks Dad But thanks for nothing  He may get something if he livers for another 30 or 40 years //////////


----------



## DoraNBoots (16 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Lots of other info here including results.  Looks like 51.2% of all available units voted FOR resolution 3.
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/announcements_list.asp?nsxcode=PIN[/QUOTE Dora]
> 
> What about all the unit holders who didn't receive new voting forms until a day or two before votes had to be lodged ?? Did they get counted ??? Have all unit holders been treated fairly and equally ??
> ...




I agree with you that not everyone would have received the corrective info.  It seems even without the votes cast on the day that res 3 would have passed anyway.  I was particularly interested to see if it passed based on an extraordinary resolution which it did (51% of all available units not just of those that voted).  BTW:  I didn't count the votes classified as 'open'  are these the proxy forms that were sent in signed but blank for each res? (i.e. does Open = FOR?)


----------



## mfsperth (16 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

See the results of the extraordinary general meeting of the Wellington PIF yesterday at:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24502478-25658,00.html


----------



## Juan Mortyme (16 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

4 bidders are ready to swoop.
one for 45c (2,000 units), two for 15c, and 1 more for 5c (100,000 units).

See attached.


----------



## Jadel (16 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yes  i think all investors should read this 

 If this has been correctly quoted she is stating we may get 45cents back in 
 out of our total investment in  3 to 5 years after inflation

 This is going to be worse than the chinese torture "death by a thousand cuts "

 Also their were six other Re who expressed an interst in taking over our Fund

  Of course JH and Chris Scott  made damn sure  we never got a chance to see any alternative  offers

 I would hate to have millions tied up in this like some i know

 Wonder what the offers are on the NSX today  i am not even game to look

Ms Hutson said Wellington had been up against six other firms in seeking to manage PIF and its appointment was "a commercial transaction done on arm's-length terms". 

She said Wellington envisaged restoring 45c in the dollar to unitholders in three to five years. 

Under a liquidation scenario, unitholders would have received 14c, she said.


----------



## like2ski (16 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> 4 bidders are ready to swoop.
> one for 45c (2,000 units), two for 15c, and 1 more for 5c (100,000 units).
> 
> See attached.



Hi Juan,
I suppose you were being sarcastic in your comment however, as is often the case in share trading the 2000@ 45c could be a dummy bid whilst the others at 15 & 5 cents are a worry ????


----------



## like2ski (16 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Yes  i think all investors should read this
> 
> If this has been correctly quoted she is stating we may get 45cents back in
> out of our total investment in  3 to 5 years after inflation
> ...




Hi Jadel,

Let's not beat around the bush, JH should show us details of how the 14c
figure was arrived at??? this appears to be SPIN as we are getting from our poli's???
The matter of having been up against six other firms has been mentioned by JH on several occasions without any proof/back up evidence!! just more spin???? arm's length my foot!!, a very convenient in house arrangement for all concerned....!!!
Well the proof of the pudding.... etc


----------



## selciper (16 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

5 cents! 5 cents! Was this price expected on the first day or is it as terrible as I think it is? Will these 5 cent buyers be getting the 3 cent distributions before Christmas like us? Dumb question probably, but I'd like to know. Hopefully the answer will be "no."


----------



## like2ski (16 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> 5 cents! 5 cents! Was this price expected on the first day or is it as terrible as I think it is? Will these 5 cent buyers be getting the 3 cent distributions before Christmas like us? Dumb question probably, but I'd like to know. Hopefully the answer will be "no."




Hi selciper,
Unfortunately it is as terrible as you think?? it could not be anything else considering the new rules of the PIF and no other way to get out!! as some people on here tried to warn in the past (refer to previous posts, I won't go over the details again??) but were shouted down by others!!!!!
I am unsure about the 3 cents distribution but assume the buyers own the units and will be entitled to it?? Can anyone else clarify ???


----------



## DoraNBoots (16 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> ...Will these 5 cent buyers be getting the 3 cent distributions before Christmas like us? Dumb question probably, but I'd like to know. Hopefully the answer will be "no."






like2ski said:


> ...
> I am unsure about the 3 cents distribution but assume the buyers own the units and will be entitled to it?? Can anyone else clarify ???




The answer is yes, assuming someone is willing to sell at this price.  It doesn't matter what price a unit is purchased for - WC anticipate giving everyone 3 cents per unit before Christmas.


----------



## Rance (16 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



like2ski said:


> Hi selciper,
> Unfortunately it is as terrible as you think?? it could not be anything else considering the new rules of the PIF and no other way to get out!! as some people on here tried to warn in the past (refer to previous posts, I won't go over the details again??) but were shouted down by others!!!!!
> I am unsure about the 3 cents distribution but assume the buyers own the units and will be entitled to it?? Can anyone else clarify ???




Yes, if the transaction is sealed, signed and completed before the due distribution date, of course the buyer will receive the distribution. It's no different to buying/selling shares. But tell me, who is going to sell at 5 cents per unit?

Rance


----------



## newwwtrader (16 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well Im a little surprised by the lack of action on the NSX. 

From the discussions on here and the media, people wanted the NSX so as to be able to realise their investment. Yet there have been no trades. Even with someone offering 45c.

In light of that, the only thing that I can think of is that it is just so difficult to actually trade on there. The amount of brokers is limited. 

That can be the only reason. How many have said in the past that they would be very willing to accept 45c. Admittedly it is only for 2000 shares. But still I thought someone would take it up.

And to those that were concerned about your information being known before.....welcome to the world of being publicly listed 

BTW.....does anyone know the date for being a holder in order to receive the 3c distribution? At 5c with a 3c distribution......it does seem like a bargain


----------



## ian1328 (16 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The lack of sellers on the nsx today shows a confidence in the lady in red. 
People are waiting to see if she is as good as her word and those non believers may have to eat their words.


----------



## Burnt (16 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



like2ski said:


> Hi Jadel,
> 
> Let's not beat around the bush, JH should show us details of how the 14c
> figure was arrived at??? this appears to be SPIN as we are getting from our poli's???
> ...




More importantly, if the 14c/unit valuation is a realistic value of the assets if they were to be sold in the market in the short term, shouldn't the auditors have made sure this was the asset value used in the balance sheet as at 30/6/08 ? Have they been negligent ? This is the asset value upon which Wellingtons fee should be calculated isn't it ??

Personally, I liked the old Constitution where management fees were the remainder of net profit after all expenses are paid, all requested redemptions are paid and all distributions are paid. As it stands now, if the Fund cannot generate enough profit to cover all expenses & pay the 3c distribution, after taking into account the losses that will have been incurred in selling off our assets to pay back the bank debt (in other words no profits), Wellington will be selling off our assets to pay themselves their fee - which will be based on over-valued assets.

Hope all the true believers will be happy with that.


----------



## Duped (16 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It's called the 'ex-dividend date' isn't it?  For shares, that is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_dividend


----------



## Burnt (16 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



ian1328 said:


> The lack of sellers on the nsx today shows a confidence in the lady in red.
> People are waiting to see if she is as good as her word and those non believers may have to eat their words.




Hang on, I thought the whole point of listing the Fund was as an exit for the many people in desperate circumstances who need to access their money immediately to get by. They can't wait 5 years or more. What are they suppose to do now ? Accept 5c in the dollar and be grateful ? Hope all those that take advantage of these desperate people enjoy their profits !!


----------



## ian1328 (16 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hang on, I thought the whole point of listing the Fund was as an exit for the many people in desperate circumstances who need to access their money immediately to get by. They can't wait 5 years or more. What are they suppose to do now ? Accept 5c in the dollar and be grateful ? Hope all those that take advantage of these desperate people enjoy their profits !!
Today 08:15 PM

No one has accepted the ludicrous bids on the nsx today which can only be GOOD. There are sharks out there who want their cake with cream on. Let them wait and pay a fair price. Who in a sane mind would sell now at 5c when a distribution  of 3c is imminent. A porcupine perhaps.


----------



## Burnt (16 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quite right Ian, no one is going to sell before they get the promised 3c distribution, who knows when & if more distributions will be paid.

How long do you think desperate people will need to wait though, before this "fair price" is going to be offered ??


----------



## Jadel (16 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Ian

 Jenny Hutson has stated  repeatedly that  NSX listing was to provide liquidity
which is absolute rubbish

 The whole point of the NSX listing is a vehicle for a capital raising down the track 

Their is obviously no liquidity on this Index and  their never will be at anything resembling a fair price   Most people do know even know this index exists 

You had better get used to that fact mate

 Investors may not be selling  now but give it time and i a damn well certain you will see the price at 15cents or lower by those poor desperate souls who are ill or sick and forced to sell at any price


----------



## ian1328 (16 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The reason people joined PIF was to have regular income. Whether one has investments in houses, shares or other means we all need regular income. MFS used to provide this and if Wellington do so from now on then nothing has changed. Unless of course you want to sell, but who wants to sell their house or shares in this environment, admittedly some extreme circumstances change our perspective, yet it appears those  people in this fund are not here. Our distributions are coming back, now lets watch and see what happens over the next 6-12months for an indication of the future, after all we've waited 9 months and got nothing and have survived so lets see what the lady in red can deliver.


----------



## great dame (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Quite right Ian, no one is going to sell before they get the promised 3c distribution, who knows when & if more distributions will be paid.
> 
> How long do you think desperate people will need to wait though, before this "fair price" is going to be offered ??



    That 5 cent bid should drop to 2 cents on x div day     Its all over folks there is only one winner & we all know who that is  Cant say i did not warn you all ////////


----------



## great dame (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



ian1328 said:


> The reason people joined PIF was to have regular income. Whether one has investments in houses, shares or other means we all need regular income. MFS used to provide this and if Wellington do so from now on then nothing has changed. Unless of course you want to sell, but who wants to sell their house or shares in this environment, admittedly some extreme circumstances change our perspective, yet it appears those  people in this fund are not here. Our distributions are coming back, now lets watch and see what happens over the next 6-12months for an indication of the future, after all we've waited 9 months and got nothing and have survived so lets see what the lady in red can deliver.



        Thats a good point so what are we all whinging about  At 3 cents a year Div we will all have our buck back in 33 years  Be only worth about 10 cents then after inflation  I am going to bed wake me up in 33 years time please /


----------



## DoraNBoots (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Ian
> Jenny Hutson has stated  repeatedly that  NSX listing was to provide liquidity
> which is absolute rubbish
> The whole point of the NSX listing is a vehicle for a capital raising down the track
> ...



I’ve posted before that the WC board considered the fund to be liquid but having liquidity problems. I think without the listing the fund would have to be classed as non-liquid which isn’t in the best interest of the RE.  However, I think the best interest of unit holders would have been not to list and to class the fund as non-liquid like the City Pacific RE decided to do.  This still allows distributions (if possible) and enables the RE to also return capital to all unit holders equally when available.  I also read that the City Pacific RE will not take fees while distributions are not possible.  Seems 75% of unit holders have dug a nice hole for us.

Does anyone else find JH’s statement to the GCBulletin arrogant… 


> But Ms Hutson said the fund was responding to a changing landscape.
> "*The redemption model in my opinion is better suited to the past* and there's a great many funds that have to confront that reality and we're the first of those funds to move through the change phase.
> "I think this is a blueprint that others will follow."



And here’s what JH says about the NSX in today’s article.


> "(The NSX listing) is not the panacea and obviously it's an extraordinary market," she said.


----------



## Rance (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The last bid for PIN on the NXS is 45 cents, so why are some of us raving on about 5 cents (the first opening bid)?

Secondly, where are the sellers? I thought there were many (before the listing) who would have been interested in selling at 45 cents.

Thirdly, where are the other offers? I thought there would be a lot of people prepared to sell. So why haven't some listed at the price they are seeking, eg. 45 cents, 50 cents, and upwards etc? What's happened to these folk? If you really want to sell, tell us your price! Come on Great Doom. Lead the charge!

Rance


----------



## JohnH (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I’ve posted before that the WC board considered the fund to be liquid but having liquidity problems. I think without the listing the fund would have to be classed as non-liquid which isn’t in the best interest of the RE.  However, I think the best interest of unit holders would have been not to list and to class the fund as non-liquid like the City Pacific RE decided to do.  This still allows distributions (if possible) and enables the RE to also return capital to all unit holders equally when available.  I also read that the City Pacific RE will not take fees while distributions are not possible.  _Seems 75% of unit holders have dug a nice hole for us._
> Does anyone else find JH’s statement to the GCBulletin arrogant…
> 
> And here’s what JH says about the NSX in today’s article.




Dora, let's just get the *facts* straight! just 5.6% voted against Item 1 with .4% abstentions.  7% and .58% for item 2, and 11.8% (me included) and .25% for item 3.

The open votes were to be used at the Chairperson's discretion, and JH had made it very clear which way she would go.


----------



## DoraNBoots (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> The last bid for PIN on the NXS is 45 cents, so why are some of us raving on about 5 cents (the first opening bid)?
> Secondly, where are the sellers? I thought there were many (before the listing) who would have been interested in selling at 45 cents.
> Thirdly, where are the other offers? I thought there would be a lot of people prepared to sell. So why haven't some listed at the price they are seeking, eg. 45 cents, 50 cents, and upwards etc? What's happened to these folk? If you really want to sell, tell us your price! Come on Great Doom. Lead the charge!
> Rance



I wouldn’t expect to see any bids of 45 cents for over 2000 units.  I’m sure it’s a dummy bidder as already mentioned and bidders like this would be hoping to buy in before the 3 cents per unit return and then will be hoping the buy back goes ahead at 45 cents.  So nothing for them to loose if the buy back goes ahead, but 3 cents to gain.  I don’t think it’s surprising that no one sold on day 1 of trading, it’s not like any of the 10,300 unit holders would have ever traded on the NSX before.  Give them time.



JohnH said:


> Dora, let's just get the *facts* straight! just 5.6% voted against Item 1 with .4% abstentions.  7% and .58% for item 2, and 11.8% (me included) and .25% for item 3.
> 
> ...



That's right John it was more than 75% of unit holders that I have to thank for listing the fund.  I think you missed the point.


----------



## great dame (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> The last bid for PIN on the NXS is 45 cents, so why are some of us raving on about 5 cents (the first opening bid)?
> 
> Secondly, where are the sellers? I thought there were many (before the listing) who would have been interested in selling at 45 cents.
> 
> ...



              Mr RANCH i would say 95% of PIF unit holders would not have a clue about share trading  & probelley never owned a share in there life   AS for that 45 cents on the NSX we both know who the bidder is   Only wants to buy 2000 units its going to cost about $70 in fees to sell or buy them  also //////


----------



## Duped (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dora - I agree there's something odd about the 45c bid.  Smells like propaganda to me.  I'll bet that the 45c valuation will be reported in the press if it goes through. That fact that it's only a $900 sale will be conveniently omitted.

All
As for selling, give us time.  It's not like we can use our Comsec accounts. We have to shop around for a broker and then open an account. Welcome back to the 90s.

I searched the Macquarie website using their search tool for 'NSX' and 'National Stock Exchange' - zip.


----------



## selciper (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

On the Wellington PIF website, under "latest news" the item "15 October 2008 - Chairperson's address to general meeting" does not open on my system when I click on the link. Anyone else have the problem?


----------



## JohnH (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

That's right John it was more than 75% of unit holders that I have to thank for listing the fund.  I think you missed the point.[/QUOTE]

No Dora, I think you have missed the point.  94% voted for the resolution.

............ and I really don't see what all the fuss is about with the NSX - if you don't like the price, then don't sell.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This from today's GC Bulletin:

*Bargain-buy snub from PIF*

by Nick Nichols and Shannon Willougbhy

October 17th, 2008

PREMIUM Income Fund investors have snubbed the first day's trading of their units on the secondary share market, the National Stock Exchange.

And they had good reason for doing so.

It was possibly the worst day for a debut on any market, after the main board suffered a 6 per cent drubbing as the ASX 200 dived 286 points to 4013.

But the bidders seeking a piece of the Premium Income Fund (PIF) were clearly vultures hoping to find a distressed elderly seller.

The first sizeable bid for the $1 face-value units in the former MFS-operated fund came in at just 15c, realising the worst nightmare for investors.

But one bidder had sought to buy at 'fair value', seeking 2000 units at 45c each for a total outlay of just $900.

Wellington Capital, which has cemented control of the fund after this week gaining overwhelming unit-holder approval on three resolutions, has previously said the fund was worth just 45c a unit as an ongoing concern, and just 14c if it were to be liquidated.

It appears most bidders on the NSX have taken a raider's stance, looking for a seller among unit-holders who have not seen a cent of return from the fund all year.

Two bidders yesterday were willing to pay 15c a unit for a combined 110,000 units, while one opportunist offered 5c each for 100,000 units.

But PIF investors weren't interested. Not a single offer to sell was made on the first day's trading with existing unit-holders hanging on to receive their promised distribution of 3c a unit before Christmas.

Wellington Capital boss Jenny Hutson has pledged that over the next three to five years she would return full value to unit-holders, who poured a combined $750 million into the fund.

As most investors are elderly, many see five years as a long-term timetable, but they are hopeful Wellington can resume a regular quarterly distribution next year.

One PIF investor, who declined to be named, said she was not surprised at the first day's trading.

"Unfortunately everyone's locked in there.

"There's just no way of getting your money out now."

Wellington Capital is proposing a limited unit buyback pitched at 45c a unit for just 5 per cent of the fund.

As a result, investors are unlikely to move any sooner on exiting their holding.

"I would imagine only people who are in extreme financial hardship and are extremely desperate (would sell)," said the investor.

She said PIF investors might jump at a 60c offer.

"But that's not going to happen."

Ms Hutson yesterday reiterated there was a 'better value outcome for investors over three to five years', the timeframe she has set to restore full value for investors.

"(The NSX listing) is not the panacea and obviously it's an extraordinary market," she said.

Meanwhile, PIF investors are still hoping for a full investigation of the fund's activities while it was under the control of MFS, now known as Octaviar.

In July, shortly after assuming control of PIF, Wellington Capital questioned the propriety of $147.5 million in loans made from the fund to MFS at the end of last year.

PIF is seeking a total of $197.5 million from Octaviar, which is in the hands of receivers.

Wellington Capital, along with other Octaviar creditors, is negotiating with the receivers to deliver a deed of company arrangement which could see about $44 million returned to the fund.

----------end----------


----------



## great dame (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> That's right John it was more than 75% of unit holders that I have to thank for listing the fund.  I think you missed the point.




No Dora, I think you have missed the point.  94% voted for the resolution.

............ and I really don't see what all the fuss is about with the NSX - if you don't like the price, then don't sell.[/QUOTE]   If you dont like the price then dont sell  That quote is ok for the ones with plenty  money  But it bloody sad for all the others who are in need of money ///


----------



## ian1328 (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> On the Wellington PIF website, under "latest news" the item "15 October 2008 - Chairperson's address to general meeting" does not open on my system when I click on the link. Anyone else have the problem?




I had the same problem yesterday and still do today


----------



## Burnt (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> That's right John it was more than 75% of unit holders that I have to thank for listing the fund.  I think you missed the point.




No Dora, I think you have missed the point.  94% voted for the resolution.

............ and I really don't see what all the fuss is about with the NSX - if you don't like the price, then don't sell.[/QUOTE]



No John, you really have missed the point. *Of the total units in the Fund 55.83% of them were used to vote in favour of Resolution 1*.   15% of them were held by investors that had such little understanding of the resolution that they left it up to Wellington to vote for them - a very sad (probably intentional) result of the misleading & confusing information supplied by Wellington.

And sorry John, but listing on the NSX was JH's way to provide an exit for the desperate unit holders needing their money (or whatever they could retrieve). *This is the way she promoted it !!!! *She stated all along that she was doing it for the benefit of these unit holders. Aren't they lucky.


----------



## Burnt (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



ian1328 said:


> I had the same problem yesterday and still do today




This takes ages to download because attached to the one page blah, blah, blah from JH is the full Explanatory Memorandum. It's basically not worth the wait.


----------



## DoraNBoots (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> No Dora, I think you have missed the point.  94% voted for the resolution.
> ….



John, the only argument you put forward to support your views seem to be that you are in the majority when it comes to resolution 1.  So did you vote Yes for resolution 3 along with the other 88% of the fund?



JohnH said:


> …
> ............ and I really don't see what all the fuss is about with the NSX - if you don't like the price, then don't sell.




So what’s your advise to people who need to sell?


----------



## JohnH (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> John, the only argument you put forward to support your views seem to be that you are in the majority when it comes to resolution 1.  So did you vote Yes for resolution 3 along with the other 88% of the fund?
> 
> *No Dora I voted "No" for resolution 3.*
> 
> ...




I accept that there are some people who sadly "parked" their money in PIF for the short term, and I feel for them.  Most invested for income, and that is why I like most voted "Yes" for resolution one to avoid a liquidation which would have take many years and at best ended up with 14 cents a unit.

I also voted "Yes" to resolution 2 as it seems an opportunity for people who need to, to at least get some money back in the short term.  I will not be taking up the offer.


----------



## SPLITPIN (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> I accept that there are some people who sadly "parked" their money in PIF for the short term, and I feel for them.  Most invested for income, and that is why I like most voted "Yes" for resolution one to avoid a liquidation which would have take many years and at best ended up with 14 cents a unit.
> 
> .




John

Some facts from the Premium Income Fund Overview available on WC web site.

12 Month Term - 8,686 investments

9 Month Term - 1,510 investments

6 Month Term - 1,113 investments

At call 3 investments

24 Month Term - 3,124 investments

Who parked their money in the PIF for the long haul.

Please explain.

Regards

Splitpin


----------



## JohnH (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> John
> 
> Some facts from the Premium Income Fund Overview available on WC web site.
> 
> ...




Thanks Splitpin,

I wrongly assumed that there would be far more on call. 

Most then invested for income.  

The 3 cents by Christmas will be the equivalent of 4+ months income at the old return.  What will be produced next year, for the PIF *and every other income fund out there!* is in the "in the lap of the Gods".   With no other concrete proposal, I, like 95% of unit holders, feel that Wellington offers the best chance currently available.

Cheers,

John H


----------



## Burnt (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Thanks Splitpin,
> 
> I wrongly assumed that there would be far more on call.
> 
> ...




Actually John,
It was 55.83% of total units in the Fund that lodged a definate Yes vote.


----------



## Jadel (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

John 


   Are you aware that 95% of investors are over the age of 65 ,how many of these people do you think will need money over the next few years 

 The great majority of these people invested in yearly accounts only ,because they fully expected they would have need of the capital in their senior years for some sort of emergency 

 Jenny Hutson has only now told investors the truth  

 What she has stated  clearly is that you may get somebody to  pay  45 cents back in  3 to 5 years not the total amount that you originally invested

 And it is just as likely that you may not

 Surely you can see what happens when you are listed on an a trading market 

 Yes their are buyers but only at bargain basement prices and it is going to stay that way for years to come 

 That is the way stock markets work 

 If  it makes you feel better and you want to go on living in a fantasy world  mate good luck


----------



## JohnH (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Actually John,
> It was 55.83% of total units in the Fund that lodged a definate Yes vote.




Yes, but if you take into account the proxy votes given to JW and (quite reasonably) apportion non voters in the same way, you come out with 94% for the motion.  Only 5.6% voted against, and .4% abstained.


----------



## SPLITPIN (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Thanks Splitpin,
> 
> I wrongly assumed that there would be far more on call.
> 
> ...




John

Please stick to the query. 

Nobody invested in PIF for the long haul.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## JohnH (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> John
> 
> 
> Are you aware that 95% of investors are over the age of 65 ,how many of these people do you think will need money over the next few years
> ...




Jadel,  

I am also well past 65 years,  and certainly not in a fantasy world.  I have also been on the wrong end of liquidations  twice in the past.

If we are being pedantic, Jenny also said that she hoped to see the *full $1.00 value back in 3 - 5 years*, not 45 cents.  You tell me how under your plan people who need the money in the short term could access it?

Cheers,

John H


----------



## JohnH (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> John
> 
> *Please stick to the query. *
> 
> ...




I thought I had answered your query!!!!

I was certainly in for the long haul, initially 2 years, and would have rolled over if it had not gone belly up.  If you go back over this forum, you will see many who have been involved since the funds conception.


----------



## SPLITPIN (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> I accept that there are some people who sadly "parked" their money in PIF for the short term, and I feel for them.  .




John

We will try again.

As it is now say about 9 months since freezing redemptions, how many people (some ??) parked their money in the PIF for the short term.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## Jadel (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well John i sincerly  hope you are in good health and will never need money urgenly if you are ill 

 Just recently i seem to be suffering from every ailment under the sun 

  Now if you would like to know what PIFI plans are for the future  i suggest you join as a member.

 Unlike others we keep our members fully updated .

  Any cases of hardship will be taken into account .


----------



## JohnH (17 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Well John i sincerly  hope you are in good health and will never need money urgenly if you are ill
> 
> Just recently i seem to be suffering from every ailment under the sun
> 
> ...




Jadel,

I was at the first meeting of the Queensland PIF group, unable (yes, for health reasons) to attend the second and third meeting, and resigned when I received the voting letter and saw the path you as a group were taking.

John H


----------



## DoraNBoots (18 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> ... that is why I like most voted "Yes" for resolution one to avoid a liquidation which would have take many years and at best ended up with 14 cents a unit.
> ...



John, Are you able to explain why the RE of the PIF told unit holders that liquidation by March 31 2009 was the only alternative?  What about these options which clearly would return more to unit holders than a liquidation over a few months:


Section 4.11 of the constitution allowed the RE to extend the freeze on redemptions if it is in the best interest of unit holders.  (Lonsec report confirms this)
The fund could be classified as non-liquid (which is clearly was, see definition attached) which would enable all redemption requests to be extinguished thus removing the threat of liquidation.


----------



## RickH (18 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

You may not like what I am about to say but please at least consider. 

Obviously there are problems with the listing of PIF on the NSX - achieving a high selling price especially at this point in time.

Unfortunately many older people have invested way too much of their assets into the PIF and are desperately short of cash flow.

But there could be a side benefit for Centrelink entitlements based on the Income and Assets test.

IMAGINE if someone did sell 3,000 units.
2,000 @ 45 cents.
1,000 @ 15 cents.

The value of everyone's units/share will have fallen to 15 cents - but the NTA is still say 45 cents.

Centrelink will probably value all PIF units at the last selling price say 15 cents.

Everyone's Centrelink assets test and income test will be reduced and I would assume  their Centrelink entitlements will increase accordingly.
Regards, RickH:couch


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I know you guys and girls have been screwed over my Octaviar/MFS.

Many on Aussie Stock forums have similar stories. 

To increase the reach of ASF, please consider voting for ASF in a poll being conducted at Compareshares.

A knowledgeable investing community independent of advisers and brokers is a powerful entity.

Here is the link

http://www.thebull.com.au/the_stockies/forums.html

gg


----------



## newwwtrader (18 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

You would have thought after the vote that people would have simply got on with life. Like it or not Welllington were succesful and it is now listed. There is no undoing that.

I would think there is no point at all going over what has been talked about to death. Except maybe in weeks, months or years people can come on here and proudly say I told you so.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> I know you guys and girls have been screwed over my Octaviar/MFS.
> 
> Many on Aussie Stock forums have similar stories.
> 
> ...




sorry to intrude 

lets make sure investors are protected from financial advisers and brokers.

vote for asf, the investors own forum

gg


----------



## ian1328 (19 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> You may not like what I am about to say but please at least consider.
> 
> Obviously there are problems with the listing of PIF on the NSX - achieving a high selling price especially at this point in time.
> 
> ...




I can't imagine Centrelink revaluing PIF units on one sale of 15c.
No they will only look at revaluing each financial year and who knows, next year it may be more than 45c and entitlements could be less.


----------



## Rance (19 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



newwwtrader said:


> You would have thought after the vote that people would have simply got on with life. Like it or not Welllington were succesful and it is now listed. There is no undoing that.
> 
> I would think there is no point at all going over what has been talked about to death. Except maybe in weeks, months or years people can come on here and proudly say I told you so.




I agree with Newwwtrader... let's not go around in circles anguishing over whether we (as a whole) have done the right thing. For better or worse, for richer or poorer, the deed is done...  We have hooked our future on JH/WC. Only time will tell...

Rance


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021720763.PDF 
The above link has a document entitled:
Information Memorandum For An Application For Admission To The Official List Of The Nation Stock Exchange Of Australia (‘NSX’)

It was written on the 18th August 2008 and released on the NSX on the 15 Oct 2008.  

Here are a few extracts:
Page 2 is a one page address to unit holders from JH
View attachment 24923


From the risk section
View attachment 24924


Here you will be able to see that getting 10,000 units bought back in the buy back is unlikely.  JH said to me in her office that everyone would be able to have at least 10,000 units bought back under the buy back.  When we said that was impossible she said that due to a lot of people not having 10,000 units that it worked out to be possible and went on to refer to some wiz bang computer program which calculated this .  The statement was even made that there are 6,000 unit holders with less than 10,000 units!
View attachment 24921


I think this next one is saying WC have spent the entire $3mill in 4 months and yet the the above document says they only expect yearly expenses to be $1.32 mill.  I suppose the forums (in which I consider I was mislead) were not cheap.
View attachment 24925


----------



## Jadel (19 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Now the shocking truth emerges 

 Investors  had better enjoy the dividend  they were so desperate to receive at Christmas because it is likely to be the last payment they will ever get


----------



## danger danger (19 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Why do people want to come on here and alarm people.

You didn't listen to JH when she said to us in the forums and EGM? She already said that this year we will be given cash payments totalling 3 cents.

JH has stated we will get quarterly cash payments that will be tax free  and that the amount will be something that JH will be proud to anounce. She envisages that this will be the case for some time. Due to the losses incurred in this fund by MFS (not WC), there will not be payments classed as income / dividends for quite some. They are derived from a mix of some income, but mainly capital.

So you are using the same old PIFI scare tactics on here once again by the same old handful, you know who you are and it does not help anyone. I see that one poster on here says that they are still trying to recruit members. Plans for the future etc. Oh please accept your thoughts where not worth a pinch and not adopted by anybody except a hanful. Accept that the money you spent is now lost.


----------



## Jadel (19 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dangerous

 You sound like somebody familiar 

If you can not not  rely on the written word placed on the statement of   admission to the NSX by WC  then what in Gods name are investors supposed to believe in ?

 Believe me i hope you are correct for all our sakes


----------



## CableGuy (19 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Welcome back Javier/Guesswho/Maveric/Dangler Danger.  It was obvious from your second post, but your first confirmed it.  I've heard that excessive amounts of glam rock make people agressive...

-----
So what are you doing? Wanna catch a flick?


----------



## danger danger (19 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

And who are you Cable Guy, do I know you?


----------



## danger danger (19 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



newwwtrader said:


> You would have thought after the vote that people would have simply got on with life. Like it or not Welllington were succesful and it is now listed. There is no undoing that.
> 
> I would think there is no point at all going over what has been talked about to death. Except maybe in weeks, months or years people can come on here and proudly say I told you so.




Bravo, very well said. It's just that some people are bad losers and when they don't get their way they love to come on here as a way of venting their frustration at not being able to get their way to control the fund against the wishes of the majority of unit holders. It's laughable that they just can't let it go. I don't get it???? Please explain. That they reckon that they still have a plan for the future LOL@PIFI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Burnt (19 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021720763.PDF
> 
> It was written on the 18th August 2008 and released on the NSX on the 15 Oct 2008.
> 
> ...


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> Why do people want to come on here and alarm people.
> ...



The current state of the fund is alarming.


danger danger said:


> ...
> You didn't listen to JH when she said to us in the forums and EGM? She already said that this year we will be given cash payments totalling 3 cents.
> ...



The written information we are seeing from WC is very different to what they say in person.  I can see why one of the amendments to the constitution was to prohibit recording devices in members meeting.
You must know by know that WC's unwritten word means nothing to me.  Some are waiting to see the outcome over the next year or two but there are already countless things that I've been told by WC that I consider to have been misleading or perhaps just mistakes.


danger danger said:


> ...
> there will not be payments classed as income / dividends for quite some. They are derived from a mix of some income, but mainly capital.
> ....



The statement is saying there will be no income payments for the foreseeable future, it's not just the way they are classed.  If there are cash payments they will be from realising assets.  But there is no mention of any kind of cash payments in the new year.  Even saying they hope to provide some amount of quarterly payments would have been nice - i.e. might help to attract buyers.
_“This has in turn eliminated any of the Income the Fund currently available to distribute to Unitholders.  No Income payments are currently being made nor will they be made I the foreseeable future.”_


----------



## seamisty (19 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all positive investors in these volitile economic times. It sure has been quiet on here while I have been away or is it just that I have so many on ignore  that I  have missed out on all the negative diatrobe LOL!!! I have passed on information regarding my meeting with WC to the majority of investors of the PIF that I am in contact with. I am extremely busy and don't have the time to call you or e-mail you all personally as I have done previously, but would like to reassure any of those I have missed that I am still quietly confident with the path that WC is taking with the PIF. As with numerous other funds and investment schemes, we are at the bottom of a cycle and previous returns are just not going to be forthcoming. For those investors that were new to this fund, you are going to experience a real downside, as are many others in similar schemes. The choice you make as to wether you stay for the long haul or bail out is entirely up to yourselves. If you sell on the NSX and take a loss it is possibly no different to if you  had of stayed with the fund and observed the  "The risks of investing" page 20 of the last PDS with MFS and experienced a similar downside due to the declining economic market ( even without sticky fingers diping in the piggy bank). If there is any of the half dozen PIFI diehards still beating that poor dead horse skeleton out there that feels inclined to respond to this post, don't bother!! Move on and get a life, this is not the only fund suffering but possibly one of a minority that has a chance of recovering with a dilligent, experienced team determined to work in the best interests of all involved.Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (20 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

As I stated previously ,I f you can not believe in the written word what in Gods name do you believe in.

We did not write those words

 Somebody at Wellington Capital  sat down and thought those particular clauses up in their brain cells for a reason  .

 What are we supposed to do now ? totally ignore these words as if they never existed ! 

Would investors prefer that we not bring this  very important  information  to their attention ?

It appears that some people that post on this Forum people would prefer an Action group to be blind deaf and dumb

Any person with half a brain should be asking themselves -  why on earth would  WC publish something ,that is designed to frighten the living daylights out of investors , including myself at this late stage and only after we have voted.

 I can assure investors that I did not get much sleep last night 

 How many people have  entered  into a contract with a tradesman  based on a verbal understanding  because you like somebody and think he is honest and will do the Right thing 

If you have the the odds are you have been disappointed in human nature many time as I have 

It took me many years to wise up but now I insist on a signed contract before any work is started 

 It always comes back to what is placed on black and white on a piece of paper with a signature and witness.

I fervently hope as does every investor that we continue to receive a dividend yield 

However logic tells me that if this is constantly  based on  the drawdown of the funds capital it will not be possible over an extended term .

I might add that the PIFI has many investors from all parts of the world as members 

 We will continue to do everything in our power to ensure that our members are fully informed of the facts.


----------



## DoraNBoots (20 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Is anyone able to explain why WC said there were only 670,763,860 units in the PIF in the NSX Listing Application on 2 June? http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021720762.PDF

The 31 May 2008 balance sheet and the June 30 2008 audit both show there were 755,147,052  mill units in the fund.  Why would the listing application dated 2 June 2008 be for 84,383,192 units less than there actually were?

I was thinking it might have something to do with the $81 mill for the wholesale PIF (see Top20) but the listing application mentions this is part of the listing and even states that it represents 10.82% of the fund (which is calculated based on 755 mill units not 640 mill).  I was told that WC planned to pay out hardship cases before the listing but it was nowhere near $84 mill.  Also based on the percentages in the Top20 document it seems no hardship cases have been paid to date.  Can anyone confirm?

I was also told by WC on the 22 Aug 2008 that the number of units had declined since 30 June 2008, unfortunately I didn’t ask how this was possible and it seems it didn’t occur but perhaps it was the plan to offload some units?


----------



## selciper (20 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If there are to be no income payments in the new year, it is imperative that JH issue a statement to "confirm or deny" this latest rumour IMMEDIATELY. It is impossible to plan anything in the present circumstances - we have been thrown into a limbo world. The uncertainty is a great burden and must be lifted one way or the other.

If the scaremongers are wrong, they also bear a great responsibility and should in future refrain from terrifying everybody. Have they checked with JH?

Repayment of capital or part of, in present economic circumstances, is understandable. Can the AG get an answer on all this?


----------



## Jadel (20 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Selciper 

  Please ! Read  carefully what has been  written in my post

  We have transmitted to you  verbatim the exact words of  statement presented to 

   the NSX by Wellington Capital that is intended specifically for public consumption

   Every investor who looks at the NSX will read this

  Yes  they  are frightening words but please do not blame us ,we did not write them .

   What we want to know is, why is Wellington capital makeing these statements


----------



## DoraNBoots (20 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> ..
> If the scaremongers are wrong, they also bear a great responsibility and should in future refrain from terrifying everybody. Have they checked with JH?
> ..



I am not saying the statements are wright or wrong just posting WC's words because I found them alarming.

The statement was not taken out of context.  It was not surrounded by feel good statements where I picked out the bad bits.  This was the very first paragraph in a letter addressed to unit holders which didn't go on to mention any benefits to a potential buyer.

None of the selling points that WC used to get people to vote for the resolutions were in NSX document.  No mention of buy back at 45 cents, no quarterly cash payments after Dec (the opposite), no mention of adviser committee, no mention of returning any kind of value, let along $1 in 3 to 5 years.  JH told unit holders she would do what she can to create a market on the NSX but there is nothing in that document which would prompt people to want to buy in.


----------



## selciper (20 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Jadel -

I certainly don't discount the strenuous research that you undertake - it has often proved to be illuminating. However, we need a statement today from JH. I've tried the hotline (since 9am) and it seems to be very busy. Hopefully the right question is being asked by many.


----------



## Jadel (20 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Selciper

 I can assure you we want answers as well .


----------



## Duped (20 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Is anyone able to explain why WC said there were only 670,763,860 units in the PIF in the NSX Listing Application on 2 June? http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021720762.PDF




Dora. The NSX listing application was for 4 classes of units. I'm guessing these are for the 6, 9, 12 and 24 month terms.  SPLITPIN's post #2968 noted that there were 3 'at call' holdings.  Perhaps this is a 5th class of units; which adds up to the difference of 84,383,192.

But I ask myself why?  Why would the holders of the 84,383,192 units not want or perhaps not 'need' the liquidity? Was there a plan to give them alternative liquidity? (That smells like preferential treatment to me) The only thing I can think of is there are more of the 'interesting' holdings like the 60M units held between Jun and Sep 2007 by MFS Administration Pty Ltd - holdings that perhaps were going to be anulled

I also speculate that some unit holders had more than one holding/parcel.  I'd like to know how many 'unique' unit holders there are?  And how many units are still held by OCV related entities (something that WC is probably not required to report anymore)?  The holding by Michael King Suparannuation certainly wasn't reported in the 2008 Annual Report.


----------



## DoraNBoots (20 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Dora. The NSX listing application was for 4 classes of units. I'm guessing these are for the 6, 9, 12 and 24 month terms.  SPLITPIN's post #2968 noted that there were 3 'at call' holdings.  Perhaps this is a 5th class of units; which adds up to the difference of 84,383,192.
> 
> But I ask myself why?  Why would the holders of the 84,383,192 units not want or perhaps not 'need' the liquidity? Was there a plan to give them alternative liquidity? (That smells like preferential treatment to me) The only thing I can think of is there are more of the 'interesting' holdings like the 60M units held between Jun and Sep 2007 by MFS Administration Pty Ltd - holdings that perhaps were going to be anulled
> 
> I also speculate that some unit holders had more than one holding/parcel.  I'd like to know how many 'unique' unit holders there are?  And how many units are still held by OCV related entities (something that WC is probably not required to report anymore)?  The holding by Michael King Suparannuation certainly wasn't reported in the 2008 Annual Report.




Thanks Duped, I was hoping you would reply.
The Top20 shows that there are no big unit holders that could make up this 84 mill units.  If the 81 mill from the WPIF was to be included in the listing (as the doc states) then you have to assume there was a plan to remove 84 mill units from the rest of the fund somewhere but the next biggest amount is only 4 mill units.  The Top20 minus the WPIF is still only 39 mill units.

I'd say MK Super is no longer considered a related party unit holder.  I think JH has said the $60 mill from OCV was removed from the fund before the freeze.  If there is any doubt about that then it would have to be represented in the WPIF amount but again it looks like this amount was to be included in the listing.

I have to say I do like the disclosure that the NSX provides (some see it as a privacy issue), as any changes to the Top20 going forward will be transparent.


----------



## breaker1 (20 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

After verbal discussions with the Wellington office today, they advise PIF members will still receive the promised 1.5 cents payments in on 31 October, which could be a few days late because of the postponed EGM vote of 15 October and the other 1.5 cent distribution should be paid 24 December all things going well with the fund. I have requested clarification of future payments from Wellington in writing and will pass on the details when received.

Although there are no guarantees (what fund can give guarantees particularily in this economic environment) - I was advised by WC that the idea is to try and continue these payments each quarter. It has to do with the judge/magistrate advising WC that it "would not be wise" to put guarantees in writing. However, I am not happy with this verbal alone and have requested WC explain the NSX memorandum and PIF memorandum anomalies in writing on behalf of the PIF AG members. These memorandums contradict one another. They may have some thing to do with the Supreme court of QLD advice or even tax issues, but clarification is in order.

Results of the final October vote are as follows:
Resolution 1 - Change of Constitution:   For - 421,552,961 units      Against - 32,190,268 units
Resolution 2 - Buyback offer:                    For - 412,435,305 units      Against - 40,342,225 units
Resolution 3 - Change in Responsible 
                         Entity (Manager):               For - 387,083,658 units      Against - 67,678,820 units      

For full details see: http://www.newpif.com.au/publications/PIFResultsOfMeeting.PDF


----------



## DoraNBoots (20 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> ...
> I was advised by WC that the idea is to try and continue these payments each quarter. It has to do with the judge/magistrate advising WC that it "would not be wise" to put guarantees in writing. However, I am not happy with this verbal alone and have requested WC explain the NSX memorandum and PIF memorandum anomalies in writing on behalf of the PIF AG members. These memorandums contradict one another. They may have some thing to do with the Supreme court of QLD advice or even tax issues, but clarification is in order.
> ...




Please note the NSX memorandum and the PIF EM are both dated 18 August 2008 before the Supreme court case.


----------



## danger danger (20 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have it in writing via an email from a WC senior staffer who I won't mention that 1.5 cents per quarter is the target rate. I know this is totally different from an official WC memo being signed by JH herself and being available to all and sundry, but reality is that NOONE can guarantee a return in this type of fund currently. Only a bank term deposit can do this, and let's face it we are way from being a healthy and attractive fund for all to invest at the moment.

I just wish people would now give JH a go, she has been voted in and needs time. Would you guarantee anything in writing with what MFS did to it, the current downturn and builders defaulting left right and centre? We have to be realistic and hope things turn in our favour. I don't think JH wants to be in front of unitholders next year where NO returns came about, yet she took fees, walking sticks would be flung from all directions of the room.


----------



## seamisty (20 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

"walking sticks would be flung from all directions of the room"!!!! LOL, at least someone has a sense of humour!!!!!I also spoke with WC this morning and contrary to the doom and gloomers, distributions are on track at this point in time. I notice now at some of the banks any half decent interest rate being offered is around the 4-6 month term and long term outlook (12-18months) is 4.5%. Not very encouraging for self funded retirees. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (20 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I just received this from WC, it may clarify a few issues::REMIUM INCOME FUND
I refer to your telephone conversation with  the Wellington Hotline earlier today, and respond to
your queries as follows:
Distribution per unit
The Annual Report for the financial year ended 30 June 2007 provides at page 3 that a distribution of
4.9 cents per unit was paid to unitholders in the Premium Income Fund. This distribution is an average over
the entirety of units in the Premium Income Fund for the period I July 2007 to 30 June 2008.
During that period each unit was invested for a different investment period and there was movement in the
number of units because of the nature of the Fund as a redemption fund. Not all unitholders would have
received 4.9 cents per unit held in the Premium Income Fund for the period.Number of units in the Fund
As at 3 0 June 2008 there were a total of 7 55,747 ,052 units on issue. During the fmancial year the Fund
issued 115,043,949 units while 239,988,049 units were redeemed. This total number of units includes the
units invested by the Wholesale Premium Income Fund in the Premium Income Fund.
Cash payments
Wellington has resolved to make cash payments totalling 3 cents per unit by December 2008 to all
unitholders. Wellington plans to make quarterly payments after that date. However, as stated in our
Corrective Notice dated 18 September 2008, unitholders should be aware that whether such quarterly
payments are made, and the amount in which they are made, will depend entirely upon the financial
circumstances of the Premium Income Fund at that time.::: Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## breaker1 (20 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My info from a senior WC staffer today as regards *Cash Payments*

"As stated in the Corrective Notice dated 18 September 2008, Wellington has resolved to make cash payments totalling 3 cents per unit by 24 December 2008 to unitholders in the Premium Income Fund. Wellington plans to make quarterly payments after that date. However, unitholders should be aware that whether such quarterly payments are made, and the amount in which they are made, will depend entirely upon the financial circumstances of the Premium Income Fund at that time"

I would agree Seamisty that everywhere interests rates are biting the dust and many funds are failing (e.g., City Pacific) and its only going to get worse because of the meltdown, but for the 45% we have left in the fund, we are getting the equivalent of 13% interest, how long the fund can pay this I don't know, WC *aims* to continue paying it, but with the bonus of 55% less deeming from Centrelink & of course less tax.

I have asked for a further confirming statement to the above from WC.


----------



## SPLITPIN (20 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear PIF Members 

Thank you all of you for your recent comments and I note my single home owner pensioner friend down the road indicates some income numbers with a $300,000 PIF investment and impacts.

1. Prior To Redemption Freezing $ 616-00 per week.  

2. With Redemption Freezing $184-86 per week.  

3. Current Situation With $-45 Unit Holding Value $ 281-05 per week 

So my friend has lost $335 per week in income and maybe $255,000 in assets and at this stage nearly one year later nobody can tell my friend where the missing PIF unit money went.

My friend thinks all will be dead, buried and swept under the carpet with him as time marches on and all will be forgotten and forgiven.

What a national disgrace and shame on self interest PIF members. 

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## DoraNBoots (20 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> My info from a senior WC staffer today as regards *Cash Payments*
> 
> "As stated in the Corrective Notice dated 18 September 2008, Wellington has resolved to make cash payments totalling 3 cents per unit by 24 December 2008 to unitholders in the Premium Income Fund. Wellington plans to make quarterly payments after that date. However, unitholders should be aware that whether such quarterly payments are made, and the amount in which they are made, will depend entirely upon the financial circumstances of the Premium Income Fund at that time"
> 
> ...




Breaker1,  Thanks for this information but I don't know how can you say "we are getting the equivalent of 13% interest"
The information you received from WC today in no way indicates there will be a 13% return.  The statements WC have made today say they would like to make quarterly payments but they don't know if that is possible.


----------



## seamisty (20 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Dear PIF Members
> 
> Thank you all of you for your recent comments and I note my single home owner pensioner friend down the road indicates some income numbers with a $300,000 PIF investment and impacts.
> 
> ...



As a investor yourself Splitpin what do you suggest we do in addition to all of our combined phone complaints/letters/personal appointments/e-mails etc to numerous so called regulatory bodies and consumer watchdogs regarding the conduct of the former MFS board?Do you not have the same concerns as your 'friend'? I didn't realise pensioners could earn that much. My mum is an aged pensioner and gets nothing like that amount. Seamisty


----------



## breaker1 (21 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Breaker1,  Thanks for this information but I don't know how can you say "we are getting the equivalent of 13% interest"
> The information you received from WC today in no way indicates there will be a 13% return.  The statements WC have made today say they would like to make quarterly payments but they don't know if that is possible.




I appreciate your concerns Dora as there are NO guarantees, but as said that is JH's AIM to pay the 1.5c per mth > 4 quarters X 1.5c = 6c p.a and that is equvalent to 13% interest on the 45c in the $ we have left. Six of one half a dozen of the other. But I get your point, I appreciate this is an aim or a target and we all hope JH can pull it off over the next few years. The point I was making is that the comments made to the NSX do NOT indicate any *official* PIF cut off point for the 1.5c quarterly distributions to end now or in the near future. I believe many investors will be hit hard and carry huge losses over the next year or so. Our money did not disappear, it is being transferred into the pockets of the ultra rich elite.

I have studied this financial meltdown and saw it coming for the last 4-5 months, thats why I encouraged everyone I knew to put their money into cash and even that is not safe now. I perceive that this latest world/USA financial problem is only the first of another possible three to four phases yet to come.


----------



## simgrund (21 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> I have it in writing via an email from a WC senior staffer who I won't mention that 1.5 cents per quarter is the target rate...............................





DANGER DANGER
Would it be possible for you to post this E-mail here for us? It appears
to be a welcome evidence in writing from WC of moves forward.
Thanks

And to PIF AG: RE article in Australian 14 Oct 08 by Susannah Moran
"KPMG sued for $200m by ASIC over Westpoint" (to be heard on 7/11)

We must lobby hard to have ASIC give us the same rights of recognition 
of PIF being pilfered not just by "negligence" but by outright robbery by MFS directors. 
It is their ill gotten assets which ASIC's action could return to the Fund.
Can Action Group initiate these approaches? 
Can PIF Initiative switch their energies towards this goal and with such a united front demonstrate we can have an impact on our own destiny?

Regards


----------



## RickH (21 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> As a investor yourself Splitpin what do you suggest we do in addition to all of our combined phone complaints/letters/personal appointments/e-mails etc to numerous so called regulatory bodies and consumer watchdogs regarding the conduct of the former MFS board?Do you not have the same concerns as your 'friend'? I didn't realise pensioners could earn that much. My mum is an aged pensioner and gets nothing like that amount. Seamisty




Hi Seamisty,

*AGE PENSION TESTS:*
House contents say $3-5,000 (Garage sale prices).
Car – car yard cash quick sale price (wholesale).
Financial/Investment  assets


*TOTAL ASSETS TEST:*
Single	Home owner $171,750 (Full Pension) with a part pension up to $550,500.
Couple	Home owner $243,500 (Full Pension) with a part pension up to $873,500.
Single	Non H/owner $296,250 (Full Pension) with a part pension up to $675,000.
Couple	Home owner $368,000 (Full Pension) with a part pension up to $998,000.

NOTE: Pension reduces by $1.50 pfn for each $1,000 of assets above the full pension limit.

*TOTAL INCOME TEST:*
Single	$138.00 (Full Pension) with a part pension up to $1,557.75.
Couple	$240.00 (Full Pension) with a part pension up to $2,602.00.

NOTE: Pension reduces by 40 cents for single and 20 cents for couples above the full pension limit.

PLEASE REFER TO #2984 for possibly the only way that Centrelink can value PIF units since listing on the NSX.
Regards,
RickH:couch


----------



## simgrund (21 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> I have it in writing via an email from a WC senior staffer who I won't mention that 1.5 cents per quarter is the target rate...............................





DANGER DANGER
Would it be possible for you to post this E-mail here for us? It appears
to be a welcome evidence in writing from WC of moves forward.
Thanks

And to PIF AG: RE article in Australian 14 Oct 08 by Susannah Moran
"KPMG sued for $200m by ASIC over Westpoint" (to be heard on 7/11)

We must lobby hard to have ASIC give us the same rights of recognition 
of PIF being pilfered not just by "negligence" but by outright robbery by MFS directors. 
It is their ill gotten assets which ASIC's action could return to the Fund.
Can Action Group initiate these approaches? 
Can PIF Initiative switch their energies towards this goal and with such a united front demonstrate we can have an impact on our own destiny?

Regards


----------



## danger danger (21 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Xxxxxx,

Initial receipt of proxies indicates the three resolutions will all be
approved.

4 x 1.5 cents in 2009 will be a target rate.

Xxxxxxxx

[Message delivered by NotifyLink]

----------Original Message----------

From: >
Sent: Wed, August 27, 2008 9:52 AM
To: 
Subject: RE: Vote

Hi Xxxxxxx,



One more question.  Will $0.06 distribution per year (paid quarterly) be
a new target rate or more of a hopeful guideline?



Thanks again


----------



## seamisty (21 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Seamisty,
> 
> *AGE PENSION TESTS:*
> House contents say $3-5,000 (Garage sale prices).
> ...



Thanks RickH, will re do the maths for her.Damn, she was giving me some WES shares every year because they were interfering with her pension. Now they have dropped so much in value she will probablly keep them herself LOL!!!!Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (21 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> DANGER DANGER
> Would it be possible for you to post this E-mail here for us? It appears
> to be a welcome evidence in writing from WC of moves forward.
> Thanks
> ...




 Simgrund

The PIFI have been spending many hours of dedicated research  and effort into  this matter

 We are fortunate to have some very talented people who have been prepared to make this effort entirely at their own cost and time .

 All PIFI members and supporters well be receiving details shortly


I think the best approach with ASIC is for every investor to take on the responsibility of keeping the pressure on ASIC.

  If you have a compliant you can continue to add more information via email as it becomes available.


----------



## danger danger (21 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well if PIFI are now concentrating on trying to recover funds via litigation and bring those perpetrators to justice, I feel they may gain some support. If this is the case I look forward to receiving some literature, hopefully it is now accepted that the running of the fund is now WC and we can move on.


----------



## CableGuy (21 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> SNIP... hopefully it is now accepted that the running of the fund is now WC and we can move on.




Wellington have been the RE of the PIF since May.  If an action group is not constantly monitoring the RE then they are useless.

-----
"Come back here, so that I may brain thee!"


----------



## danger danger (21 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This is a long process, it has just started. What are you monitoring? Too early to guage performance. JH has stated one couple have taken up 70 hours of WC time. Sound familiar Cable Guy? That at this stage is pestering rather than 'monitoring'? Some groups have been a costly hinderance rather than a beneficial action group to the fund, and these individuals would not really be treated seriously or respected and definitely should not tout themselves as an action group representing the views and interests of the majority of the unitholders.


----------



## Jadel (21 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We have known all along where you stand Dangerous ???????????????????

  But when you make  remarks to the effect that you are so pally

  with JH that she discusses the details of other investors on a 

  personal basis it becomes beyond a Joke 

  Why dont you just get a flag with her name on it and put it on a pole 

   outside your house


----------



## CableGuy (21 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> This is a long process, it has just started. What are you monitoring? Too early to guage performance. JH has stated one couple have taken up 70 hours of WC time. Sound familiar Cable Guy? That at this stage is pestering rather than 'monitoring'? Some groups have been a costly hinderance rather than a beneficial action group to the fund, and these individuals would not really be treated seriously or respected and definitely should not tout themselves as an action group representing the views and interests of the majority of the unitholders.




Don't be so hard on yourself Dang!  I'm sure that you are considered a valued customer by the RE as are the rest of us, no matter how many queries and concerns you have to be answered.   I do not consider you a pest, a joke or unrespectable just because your views and needs are different.

An AG should be able to monitor without any RE involvement.

The RE as we all know is more than happy to blame others for their own shortcomings.  What was the reason for the late October payment again?

-----
"Call it one guy doing another guy a solid."


----------



## danger danger (21 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We all have concerns. By hounding WC daily will not fix the problems that are causing those concerns. If WC did everything the way you wanted it done, you would not have a problem with the RE. Unfortunately things don't work that way.

You can ring WC every hour on the hour, won't solve the problems we have. You can get up 3 hours earlier tomorrow, don't mean the sun will rise any quicker!!


----------



## CableGuy (21 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> SNIP...If WC did everything the way you wanted it done, you would not have a problem with the RE. Unfortunately things don't work that way...SNIP




Just some straight talk and honest answers is all I am looking for.

-----
"You know what the trouble about real life is? There's no danger music."


----------



## simgrund (21 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Simgrund
> 
> The PIFI have been spending many hours of dedicated research  and effort into  this matter
> We are fortunate to have some very talented people who have been prepared to make this effort entirely at their own cost and time .
> ...




THANKS TO  DANGER DANGER AND JADEL  FOR REQUESTED INFO.
Regards


----------



## danger danger (21 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



CableGuy said:


> Just some straight talk and honest answers is all I am looking for.




Sure, I'm all for that. Just don't think you are going to get all the answers you seek from WC, nor the action required for that matter. Now if you have a plan to get some of our money via a class action where people / parties have been previously negligent / dishonest, then that is a different kettle of fish.

You would get my support and the support of others perhaps?


----------



## selciper (21 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It does seem that the time is ripe for us all to be devoting our attention to vital matters such keeping ASIC on the PIF case and pursuing any possible other avenues to regain our lost money. Let's use our energies to fight MFS and not let ourselves be divided into factions!


----------



## Burnt (21 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Who are all these "Action Groups" - who is Philip Higson ???? *He's not a unit holder *and he doesn't seem to work for WC ??? (He's on the net - some kind of salesman.) Someone's employing him to "represent" unit holders - organising a staged protest with banners saying PIF OFF ASIC, giving interviews to the press, handing out flyers at meetings (encouraging people to call ASIC for help) for a group called "PIF Investors Support Group" that he runs. Who is this guy and who is paying him ?????

Who can be trusted with all this deception and misleading propaganda floating around ?

The only action I can see on here is people running off to JH to get reassurance that all their dreams will come true.

"Just got off the phone from JH........" ; "Just got an email from a really, really important person at WC........."     looks like, maybe, planning on, probably, depending on, aiming to, but no guarantees - let's wait and see !!

JH letter in EM *18/8/08 issued to unit holders*: "Dear Investor, blah,blah,blah.......cash payments totalling 3c/unit will be made by 24th Dec. 1st payment in Oct. & 2nd payment in Dec., and quarterly thereafter".
Ooops, stuffed that up (that's OK I'll blame someone else). What I've been ordered to say is, quarterly payments made after Dec.08 are planned, however, it all depends on the financial circumstances of PIF at that time. (How do I know what's gonna happen ? I can't be expected to plan for the future !)

JH letter in Info.Memo. to NSX *18/8/08 not issued to unit holders*: "Dear Unit Holder, blah,blah,blah.....due to changed circumstances, the RE does not envisage income returns being payable for the foreseeable future". (Gee, maybe it does look like I can makes plans for the future !).

Like I said, who can be trusted !!


----------



## seamisty (21 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Are you a unit holder Burnt and can you verify that Phillip Higson is NOT a unit holder? Seamisty


----------



## Burnt (21 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Are you a unit holder Burnt and can you verify that Phillip Higson is NOT a unit holder? Seamisty




I am a unit holder and I'm sure you've kept the newspaper clipping of your mate Phil - he's got friends who are unit holders apparantly ?

What's his fee ?


----------



## Juan Mortyme (21 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From GC Bulletin 

Title:
    ASIC's actions; upset investors
Authors:
    by Nick Nichols business editor
Source:
    Gold Coast Bulletin, The; 16/09/2008
Edition: B - Main
Section: Business, pg. 029

A SPLIT in the ranks of Premium Income Fund investors spilled on to
the streets of Brisbane yesterday.

About a dozen protesters stationed outside Wellington Capital's Queens
Street office were howling down plans by the corporate watchdog
to pull the pin on a planned meeting on the Gold Coast this Thursday
to vote on the fund's survival.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has responded
to concerns by some investors that Wellington Capital, headed by
Jenny Hutson, was not acting in the best interests of unit-holders,
many of them elderly, who poured $770 million into the fund when
it  was under the control  of MFS.

However, yesterday, other investors - said to be the majority - were
angry that ASIC was meddling with the rescue plan proposed by
Wellington, accusing the watchdog of failing to act on behalf of
investors when it was under the control of MFS.

Placards waved by protesters yesterday denounced PIF's former management
team, which included MFS founders Michael King.

It was unclear how many of yesterday's protesters were PIF investors,
but spokesman Philip Higson said many of his friends were investors
and he was willing to support them, calling for this Thursday's
meeting to proceed as planned.

``If they go down, there's going to be a lot of mum and dads go down,''
he said.

Yesterday's protest was directly opposed to the views of a splinter
group of investors, known as the PIF Initiative, who want Wellington
Capital removed as responsible entity for the fund and plans
to list on the National Stock Exchange abandoned.

Wellington has proposed a listing to allow cash-strapped investors
to sell their units in an open market, but PIF Initiative has argued
the price would be at a sharp discount to the fund's value.

Ms Hutson, Wellington's executive director, has said the fund, which
has a $55 million exposure to the Raptis Group, was valued at
45c in the dollar as a going concern.

Liquidation would only deliver unit-holders 14c in the dollar, she
said.

This Thursday's meeting, which will draw investors from as far as
Japan, has been called to vote on whether the fund should continue
as a going concern and whether Wellington Capital can proceed with
its plan to recover all investor funds over the next three to
five years.

``What's disappointing from our perspective is that ASIC has left
 this really late,'' said  Ms Hutson.

She said Wellington had provided ASIC with all materials requested
at the end of a series of investor forums in July and it had been
`well considered' by investors since then.

``Here we are at the end of the 28 days with ASIC coming out of nowhere
and challenging it,'' she said.

ASIC last week lodged a Supreme Court action, to be heard tomorrow,
restraining Wellington from calling the meeting.

``The only people that are going to be hurt  by this are the investors
themselves,'' said Ms Hutson.

She said Wellington was outlaying $120,000 to hold the meeting, which
could potentially draw thousands of investors to the Gold Coast
Convention Centre.

Ms Hutson said Wellington's planned resumption of distributions to
investors, who have been told they will receive a total of 3c a
unit by Christmas, was also in jeopardy following ASIC's actions.

ASIC yesterday declined to comment on the matter.

One Sydney investor, who would only identify himself as Javier, yesterday
slammed ASIC's actions and backed Wellington's plans for
the fund.

``ASIC has intervened to the detriment of investors,'' he said.

Javier said investors have `had enough'.

``They just want stability in their life.''

The 43-year-old businessman who said he was invested `substantially'
in the fund, said ASIC would better serve investors by investigating
the activities of the previous management of the fund.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I know you guys and girls have been screwed over my Octaviar/MFS.

Many on Aussie Stock forums have similar stories.

To increase the reach of ASF, please consider voting for ASF in a poll being conducted at Compareshares.

A knowledgeable investing community independent of advisers and brokers is a powerful entity.

Here is the link

http://www.thebull.com.au/the_stockies/forums.html

gg


----------



## Burnt (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Interesting job ad placed by Philip Higson on 15th Sept :-

http://www.ployme.com.au/SearchEmployers.aspx?ind=40&dis=50&nod=1&pg=3


----------



## DoraNBoots (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/g-KMP58?OpenDocument
_*More mortgage funds freeze redemptions*_
_Published 5:17 AM, 22 Oct 2008_
_Investment and Financial Association chief executive Richard Gilbert told the paper that the group is going to meet with treasury officials in Canberra to lobby for the government to provide support to "reassure investors." 
_
Here's an interview with Richard Gilbert on the ABC yesterday.  
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2008/10/21/2397038.htm


----------



## seamisty (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Interesting job ad placed by Philip Higson on 15th Sept :-
> 
> http://www.ployme.com.au/SearchEmployers.aspx?ind=40&dis=50&nod=1&pg=3



Even if Philip Higson is not a unit holder and was representing others who were, paid for his effort or otherwise, I personally don't see much difference than if some investors choose to pay lawyers for example, or call on ASIC to intervene to represent them, or  see fit to do mailouts lobbying for support. So what? It is all past history now, what is relevent is what is ahead of unitholders and the ability of WC to stabilise our Fund. Seamisty:


----------



## Burnt (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/g-KMP58?OpenDocument
> _*More mortgage funds freeze redemptions*_
> _Published 5:17 AM, 22 Oct 2008_
> _Investment and Financial Association chief executive Richard Gilbert told the paper that the group is going to meet with treasury officials in Canberra to lobby for the government to provide support to "reassure investors."
> ...




Wonder if any support will be provided to "listed funds" ???


----------



## Burnt (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Even if Philip Higson is not a unit holder and was representing others who were, paid for his effort or otherwise, I personally don't see much difference than if some investors choose to pay lawyers for example, or call on ASIC to intervene to represent them, or  see fit to do mailouts lobbying for support. So what? It is all past history now, what is relevent is what is ahead of unitholders and the ability of WC to stabilise our Fund. Seamisty:




It is very relevant for people to be accurately informed and not mislead. This is an ongoing issue. Everyone deserves the truth, particularly when being asked to place their trust in others who are going to act in ways that will effect their lives.

Personally, if I were looking to obtain support and advice, I know I'd prefer to go to professional experts - not stunt pullers. Anyway, got to go now & call PIF Investor Support Group to see if they'll pay me $75 to join........I could use the money !


----------



## seamisty (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I see on the NSX that 2,000 units have been sold@ 45cents and there is another 81,015 on offer for sale @ 45cents. Seamisty


----------



## CableGuy (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Interesting job ad placed by Philip Higson on 15th Sept :-
> 
> http://www.ployme.com.au/SearchEmployers.aspx?ind=40&dis=50&nod=1&pg=3




I tried the above link but alas could not find the add!  Nice to see WC are monitoring this thread   For those of you who missed it:
View attachment 25002

The successful applicants, what's $75 divided by 12?:
View attachment 25004

I had a chat with one of them:
Me:  What are they picketing about (gesturing at the students on the step)?  
Student:  Oh, we are just showing our support (looks around for support)...
Me:  Are they PIF investors?  
Student:  I don't know (still looking)...
Me:  Do you know them, are they your friends?  
Student:  Yes.
Me:  Are you a student?  
Student:  Yes.
Me: Where do you attend?  
Student:  QUT.

Luckily, Seamisty has me on ignore so we won't be hearing from her on this!


----------



## k.smith (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I see on the NSX that 2,000 units have been sold@ 45cents and there is another 81,015 on offer for sale @ 45cents. Seamisty




Seamisty....I was at the City Pacific meeting in Melbourne yesterday. I was interested to hear Lee D from CPFMF just mention in passing comment that when City Pacific did their duediligence on MFSPIF  earlier this year they valued the units at 90cents....City Pacific at the moment are saying that our CPFMF units are worth 97cents....my conclusion is either JH had foreseen and factored in  the massive turmoil in the markets, and been ultra conservative in her valuations, or City Pacific are over the top in their estimates.....????????????


----------



## seamisty (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> Seamisty....I was at the City Pacific meeting in Melbourne yesterday. I was interested to hear Lee D from CPFMF just mention in passing comment that when City Pacific did their duediligence on MFSPIF  earlier this year they valued the units at 90cents....City Pacific at the moment are saying that our CPFMF units are worth 97cents....my conclusion is either JH had foreseen and factored in  the massive turmoil in the markets, and been ultra conservative in her valuations, or City Pacific are over the top in their estimates.....????????????



Thats really interesting k.smith.Perhaps the real figures were still cleverly concealed at that point!!! Also in  a shareholder announcement dated 28th Feb, Citi Pacific  quoted "the City Pacific First Mortgage Fund has a clear strategy of only investing in
registered first mortgages over real property in Australia in locations where the property
market is strong and supported by population growth and the assets of the MFS financial
services business did not meet this strict criteria." From memory Citi expressed an earlier interest of doing some sort of merger with MFS. By the time they conducted due dilligence the 2nd time the writing was on the wall with MFS shares in suspension and I think their next offer was based on the contingency of the PIF. The rest is history!!! All unit holders can hope for in the present economic meltdown is that our unit valuation does not go any lower. Seamisty


----------



## Duped (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/g-KMP58?OpenDocument
> _*More mortgage funds freeze redemptions*_
> _Published 5:17 AM, 22 Oct 2008_
> _Investment and Financial Association chief executive Richard Gilbert told the paper that the group is going to meet with treasury officials in Canberra to lobby for the government to provide support to "reassure investors."
> ...




Thanks Dora.  There's also an artice in the Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24531049-643,00.html

All.
Looks like the non bank funds industry has finally found their blanket scapegoat to protect their business interests. Even sending heavies to Canberra to make sure it isn't challenged. Seems like an improbable causal link to me. They've plucked that one element; out of all that's going on?  More likely it's propaganda to protect the business model and keep them all in business.  Blame an element that forms no part of the business model. They're still trying to make these investments look lower risk than they are. 

Banks v Non-bank funds.  Stand back and enjoy this massive sibling power struggle.  You think businesses like competition? That banks like competitors bidding on the limited number of investment opportunities?  I don't.

So where's the protective legislation that limits fees to RE's while funds are frozen.  Talk about all care, no responsibility.


----------



## Jadel (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If you look at many of my previous posts i stated repeatedly that it would be wise to get an independent valuation  

 letting  JH do the valuations was tantamount to commiting Hari Kari with a blunt sword  

 I have a brother in law in the buisness and he has informed me repeatedly that Asset valuations done by fund mnanagers are not worth the paper they are written on .

 He estimated a 30 %to 50 % cut by WC and that according to Lonsec is exactly what WC did

 All this means of course is that our assets can now be flogged off at bargain basemet prices on the NSX and ultimately to some Institutional buyers when the inevitable Rights issue is made


----------



## seamisty (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> If you look at many of my previous posts i stated repeatedly that it would be wise to get an independent valuation
> 
> letting  JH do the valuations was tantamount to commiting Hari Kari with a blunt sword
> 
> ...



Jadel isn't Price Waterhouse Coopers Independant Auditors? Don't they have to comply  with the Australian Accounting Standards? Seamisty


----------



## mgr2118 (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Seamisty

I seem to recall that before City Pacific made an offer for MFS, that MFS actually performed due diligence on City Pacific with the view that MFS would acquire City Pacific sometime in 2007.

In trying to find the evidence for that, I came across this article from SMH on 28Apr07 titled "Homework tips to help avaid another Fincorp".

I have included an extract, which includes quotes from Grant Harris, the MFS PIF Fund Manager at the time ---  makes for some interesting reading, given the date, and his comments.

_
But mortgage funds or diversified high-yield income funds are not like equity investments, where the price of an underlying security moves up and down every day on a stock market. Instead, the funds will often quote a "target rate" of return.

Assessing the risk of a fund that offers a target rate of return is a tricky proposition. How do you rate the risk of a fund that has, for example, a target rate of 8.5 per cent a year, and has achieved this rate of return every year for the past five years?

There's no volatility - the traditional measurement of risk - in the target rate. And, unlike a fund that invests in equities, where an announcement by a company to the stock market can trigger a sudden price movement (up or down), investors in a mortgage fund or diversified high-yield fund often don't know about risk until an event has occurred - and by then it can be too late. Just ask investors in the failed Fincorp group.

If those investors had been guided solely by the ability of Fincorp to pay distributions, few investors would have recognised that there was any risk at all.

The target rate of return that Fincorp offered did not fluctuate from day to day, or even from month to month, in line with the financial health of the company.

Investors' views of Fincorp may have been quite different if the returns they received moved up and down regularly, or if the returns had reflected the financial well-being of the company itself.

There is the investment adage that the higher the return you get from an investment, the greater the risk must be.

But for reasons attributable to human nature, this warning often goes unheeded.

Besides, as the Herald reported recently, it can be difficult to recognise a "high" return in the first place - whether a particular return is high depends, among other things, on what underlying assets you're investing in, the risks associated with those assets, and how long you plan to invest for.

Even so, every investment involves risk. The potential trap in fixed-term products that offer some "certainty" of return, such as a target rate paid monthly, is that investors see the funds as low-risk. Or, at least, they fail to recognise the risk inherent in the product. They see a steady, stable rate of return and conclude (either consciously or subconsciously) that, because there's no volatility, there's no risk.

But the target rate of return quoted by the fund must be generated somehow and, if the target rate is greater than the prevailing cash rate (at the moment, that's 6.5 per cent a year), the investment simply must involve higher risk than investing in cash.

The risks of fixed-interest and mortgage portfolios are monitored closely by advisers and researchers. In early April the research firm Lonsec downgraded its recommendation on the LM Mortgage Income Fund from "fund watch" to "redeem".

"Lonsec recommends advisers commence action to withdraw client funds," the researcher said. "Where the fixed-term option is being used, Lonsec recommends that advisers withdraw client funds when those investments reach maturity.

"The primary reason for the recommendation downgrade to 'redeem' is the overall assessed risk/return profile of the fund."

Lonsec says the LM fund is one of only two funds it rates that offer a fixed return. "Whilst fixed returns are attractive to end clients in providing certainty, for large funds in the current environment, mortgage managers may face operational and market risk," it says.

"Funds adopting the fixed-return model are required to generate a portfolio return sufficient to pay the target return to all investors regardless of market conditions.

"As a result, managers in the mortgage fund sector employing this model are required to maintain a high investment level or charge favourable rates on funds lent to borrowers. In the current market it has been difficult to charge attractive rates to high-quality borrowers.

"Lonsec's research of mortgage fund managers and originators indicates that there is 'margin compression' in the lending market due to aggressive activity and the weight of money in the mortgage sector.

"Lonsec does note, however, that LM has a history of capital stability and meeting its advertised term return rates."

Lonsec says that where it "identifies high risk within a product/manager, it is appropriate that a suitable return is provided to investors for bearing that risk".

"In Lonsec's opinion, LM's return currently falls short of the return required to adequately compensate for the level of risk assumed relative to the risk-free rate and higher-yielding 'at-call' cash accounts.

"The risk profile of the product/manager is a function of internal factors specific to LM and external factors generic to all mortgage fund managers."

Investors, either on their own or with an adviser, have to identify what the risks are and then decide if the return they're likely to get from the investment justifies the risk.

Grant Harris, fund manager for MFS Investment Management's Premium Income Fund, says it can be like unscrambling an egg.

"For an investor attempting to measure the risk associated with a mortgage fund or an income fund, the challenge is to understand the investments in the fund's underlying portfolio, from which it's intended that the target rate of return will be earned, and to effectively pull it apart and assess what each component would earn in the market in its own right," Harris says.

He says Fincorp may serve as a textbook example of how to do this, and how different the investment picture might have looked if investors had done so. But it's a technique that investors can use for investment opportunities being promoted right now, because some still have the same structure as Fincorp.

"To understand the risks involved in an investment in Fincorp's income fund, investors needed to understand the underlying pool of investments in that fund from which Fincorp derived the returns that they then used to pay investors their return in the form of regular monthly distributions," Harris says.

"If an investor had read the fund's product disclosure statement [PDS] and the fund's annual report they would have learned that, at the time Fincorp announced it was in financial trouble, about 75 per cent of the fund's assets were 'related-party' loans.

"In other words, Fincorp was using the funds raised from investors to lend to its construction and development business, which in turn used the funds to secure vacant blocks of land for future development.

"In return for providing these funds, investors received an annual distribution of 8 per cent a year."

Investors could have gauged whether that was an adequate return for the risk only by comparing the underlying assets of Fincorp's fund with the assets of other funds that offer a similar return. Then they'd have to compare the risks and returns of each.

But in the case of Fincorp, Harris says, there was another warning sign. As well as its income fund, Fincorp offered a return of 9.75 per cent a year to investors who bought debentures issued by the company.

Given what we know about the relationship between risk and return, it would have been reasonable to conclude that the money raised from debentures was invested in a riskier pool of underlying assets.

But no.

"It turns out the funds were being used to finance exactly the same property developments as the 75 per cent of those funds invested in Fincorp's income fund, for which investors received a return of only 8 per cent," Harris says.

"Effectively, investors in the debentures and in the income fund were being exposed to similar underlying investment risks but receiving very different returns.

"This should raise alarm bells in investors' minds, and should make them wary of investing in structures like this in the first place."

Harris says investors need three pieces of information to compare one fund's assets with another fund's: first, how much related-party lending is going on; second, the size, number and purpose of the related-party loans; and third, the interest rates being charged on the loans.

Harris says this information should be disclosed in a PDS or annual report, or you could contact the manager's investor relations department. If they cannot or will not tell you, look for somewhere else to put your money.

Once you've got this information, you need to work out a few other things, such as what sort of construction and development the loans have been made on, whether the loans create a concentration of risk (is all the money lent for the same type of construction or development?), and whether the interest charged on the loans is similar to what the borrower would have to pay on the open market.

In this context, "related-party lending is problematic because it involves a situation where an investment fund owned by Parent Company A is lending to a construction and development company also owned by Parent Company A", Harris says.

"In other words, they are lending to themselves. Where this exists, investors who want to minimise their risk should assume that the interest being charged is below the market rate. Then it should be up to the fund manager to prove that it is not."_


I'm sure that many will have comments!! Isn't hindsight a wonderful tool??


----------



## JohnH (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> If you look at many of my previous posts i stated repeatedly that it would be wise to get an independent valuation
> 
> letting  JH do the valuations was tantamount to commiting Hari Kari with a blunt sword
> 
> ...




Jadel, Price Waterhouse can hardly not be called independent.  .................  and why would Wellington want to under value the fund ---------- their fee is based on the value!!!


----------



## Duped (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Has anyone got any info on NSX brokers?  Preferably a comparison of their costs and details on how to do a trade like do I have to open an account, what proof of ownership do I need and when and how to pay/get paid.  I've called two so far, Macquarie bounced me around their phone system and then never called back and Freeman Fox advised they're listed purely to trade for themselves and don't trade for clients.  I don't fancy calling all of them.

There's a announcement just out http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021720802.PDF


----------



## seamisty (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi MGR2118, perhaps Grant Harris picked up a few tips from Fincorp on how to rort a fund with inter related company loans etc!! I wonder where all these self professed gurus are now? I will make sure I never invest in anything that employs any of those  former employees that were in responsible positions in charge of running  MFS. Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If you look at the Lonsec report you will see that they state unequivocally  WC made an immediate across the board cut in asset Valuations of 35% a soon as they took over the Fund

 Just like that with a flick of the wrist 

And Auditors are not as independent as you might think 

Most people have wives and kids to feed 

 And guess who pays for the Audit

  Its pretty damn hard to go agaist the wishes of a fund manager when they   state something is only worth XXX amount

 Its near impossible to calculate what a particular asset would get at Auction that is why their is an unwriiten understanding within the valuation Industry  a sort of buffer Zone that they allowed to play with.

  Now you have forced me into one of my long winded anecdotes and i am only a slow one fingured typist with incipient Alzheimers desease

 Many  years ago a friend of mine was involved in a property trust the propert only had ten year leases to government tenants who had never ever missed a payment in over five years

  Same old predictable story property trust went belly up (not his property mind you )  

 Then in comes another manager with another Audit and Valuers 

 Next minute he is hit with a 50% devaluation 

  Of course two years later the very same property is sold at Auction for more than its original valuation

Always remember Seamisty

He who pays the piper plays the tune


----------



## seamisty (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Jadel,He who pays the piper plays the tune. You mean like Kalinda Cobby did for PIFI after she had previously personally told a unit holder that "The PIF could do a lot worse that have WC/JH at the realm"? Many funds of all types, shares, etc have had falls of up to 60% and more since earlier this year. We know the PIF was mismanaged and robbed by the previous board, it is totally unrealistic to think that our units are still worth close to their original value. WC has had ASIC all over them and some on here still think that there is a huge cover up!!!!! This is sheer stupidity but it is quite obvious that it is not going to matter what WC does it will be unacceptable to a few. Your energies would be better spent and more appreciated pursuing those responsible as in the previous board of directors. I would still be doing that myself but have run out of people to complain to!!!(and disallusioned from lack of action and response from those who are meant to be our corporate watchdogs) Have you got any  ideas as to how we could convince Mr King to go on a fishing trip, I have just the right size gum boots here for him!!!Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Has anyone got any info on NSX brokers?  Preferably a comparison of their costs and details on how to do a trade like do I have to open an account, what proof of ownership do I need and when and how to pay/get paid.  I've called two so far, Macquarie bounced me around their phone system and then never called back and Freeman Fox advised they're listed purely to trade for themselves and don't trade for clients.  I don't fancy calling all of them.
> 
> There's a announcement just out http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021720802.PDF



Hi Duped,
I spoke to ABN AMRO Morgans and as you would have read they are offering a deal until 16 Jan 09 a fix rate of .5% (min $75).  After that date it will be 1.5%.  You open an account with them and if the units sell they put the money in your account after taking their cut.  I would be interested to know what % other brokers are charging as I wouldn't count on being able to sell in the next 3 months so would compare against the normal rate of 1.5%.

We had an interesting conversation where he told me he doesn't like the small exchanges and that there is unlikely to be a buyer.


----------



## Jadel (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty 

 I did not state the units were worth close to their original value 

 Unfortunately King and Co has done to much damage for that and yes his Gumboots should be weighted with lead in a deep river

 However as i stated given what was in all likelihood a firesale valuation by JH
 they are probably conservatively valued as anothet poster  has recenty pointed out

 We are undoubtedly in the worst world equity crisis for fifty years 
  So all valluations have gone  haywire at the moment

 Lawyers will always do the the best they can for any particular client


----------



## gimmster (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I see the dummy sale for 2000 units went through. I guess that's now the official valuation as far as centrelink are concerned.


----------



## simgrund (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/money/planning/asic-clears-the-maze

If anyone's interested, here's a link to article on WESTPOINT case by ASIC.


----------



## SPLITPIN (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> 1. As a investor yourself Splitpin what do you suggest we do in addition to all of our combined phone complaints/letters/personal appointments/e-mails etc to numerous so called regulatory bodies and consumer watchdogs regarding the conduct of the former MFS board?
> 2. Do you not have the same concerns as your 'friend'?
> 3.I didn't realise pensioners could earn that much. My mum is an aged pensioner and gets nothing like that amount. Seamisty





Dear Seamisty

In response to your comments

Para 1 - It appears to be not working - maybe more affirmative action is needed. 

Para 2 - No comment.

Para 3 - Please note it appears the pension rate for my friend is now $281-05 per week. He does not earn that money, he has paid tax all his life for that retirement entitlement. Maybe you mother does not qualify for the full pension.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## seamisty (22 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Dear Seamisty
> 
> In response to your comments
> 
> ...



Thanks for your response Splitpin, any ideas as to where we can go re more affirmative action? I have run out of ideas/options.Seamisty


----------



## Juan Mortyme (23 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

PIF gets its first trade

by Anthony Klan | October 23, 2008 

THE embattled $770 Premium Income Fund, formerly managed by failed financier MFS, has recorded just one share trade.
This comes a full week after being floated in a bid to bolster its liquidity.
The PIF only yesterday recorded its first share trade, a parcel of $35,000 worth of shares at 45c each, underlining the problems facing ordinary investors amid a crunch that has seen $14 billion of funds frozen.
Property Investment Research director Dugald Higgins said the lack of buyers for PIF shares highlighted the slump in investor sentiment in the mortgage trust sector. "The performance shows market sentiment is just non-existent in the current market," Mr Higgins said.
He said other mortgage funds with suspended redemptions that were unable to work themselves out of trouble could find themselves facing the same liquidity crisis as the PIF.
"If you list on a secondary exchange there are going to be bugger-all trades," Mr Higgins said. "But if you listed on the ASX I have no doubt that your share price would immediately plummet. By listing you could really find yourself out of the frying pan and into the fire."
Although PIF units were valued at $1 before the collapse of MFS in January, yesterday's sale of the small parcel of PIF units for 45c each represented a reasonable price as it was the three-year target share price set by new manager Wellington Capital.
However, those investors seeking to get out at a similar price yesterday afternoon would have been disappointed. There were only two other buyers in the market, one offering 15c per share and another a highly opportunistic 5c.
NSX managing director Robert Bladier said the lack of trades in PIF was unusual.*

"It has been interesting that such a large entity has listed and there have not been any trades," Mr Bladier said on Tuesday.

"There was a lot of speculation in the lead-up to listing, whether it was a good thing or a bad thing and the value of the units under different situations.

"You would think under that scenario you would see some activity and so far that has not been the case."

Jenny Hutson, managing director of Wellington Capital, a financier that acquired the rights to manage PIF, said she was aware of the solitary share trade.

"We are pleased the sale was at 45c -- it has been a pretty volatile market and a very challenging marketplace," Ms Hutson said.

"This was not about an instant fix, it was about a journey to liquidity.

"To finally get to listing is of great benefit to the fund in terms of our ongoing negotiations with potential buyers concerning the fund's assets."

Last week fellow embattled mortgage fund City Pacific indefinitely postponed an attempt at floating its First Mortgage Fund, citing market volatility.


----------



## DoraNBoots (23 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> PIF gets its first trade
> 
> by Anthony Klan | October 23, 2008
> 
> ...



If Anthony thinks a parcel of $35,000 is a problem, wonder what he will think when he realises it was actually only $900.

Good to see Jenny's mate (maybe Phil?) is happy with their purchase   Not sure it's so good for us being such a small parcel, the only parcel and the Centerlink implications.


----------



## Burnt (23 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

PIF Investor Update October 2008 issued. Lets see if it contains any meaningful information, like distribution details, details of the plans for restoring full value back to unit holders, when buy-back can be expected :-

WC pleased blah blah, you all love us blah blah, momentous occassion blah blah, "viable going concern" - what ?, blah blah, to return value to all unitholders blah blah blah, encourage you to call if you have any questions - (what, I thought unitholders were a pestering nuisance ) blah blah blah blah blah................. NO REAL INFORMATION. Just promotional propaganda !!

Wait, here's some detail,  oh results of meeting......lots of detail here. blah blah blah we're delighted blah blah you all love us so much blah blah blah way forward for PIF is now clearly defined - maybe to JH but not me.

Taxation statements mailed in 1st week Oct. (aren't returns due end Oct.?), hang on Ooooops it's happened again, another stuff up, tax statements were wrong - correct one is on its way. Well this seems like pretty important information - should it be highlighted instead of being at the end of the page. Should there be an apology at least for the inconvenience caused. It's propably not WC's fault - couldn't be.

Next page NSX trading, yes we know, information on Brokers - handy for those wanting to sell their units at 15c or 5c.

That's it ????

Got to go and get on the phone to JH..............


----------



## demodocus (23 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> PIF Investor Update October 2008 issued. distribution details,




Wellington just advised me " Because of the Global upheaval we're hoping to be able to pay the 3c distribution just before Christmas".

Deary me.


----------



## danger danger (23 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



demodocus said:


> Wellington just advised me " Because of the Global upheaval we're hoping to be able to pay the 3c distribution just before Christmas".
> 
> Deary me.




So they told you that the 1.5c, 31 Oct payment is now canned?


----------



## demodocus (23 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> So they told you that the 1.5c, 31 Oct payment is now canned?




Yes.


----------



## roast (23 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The new, corrected, Tax Statement for PIF, dated 20 Oct, is now available for download from the Computershare website... Has anyone checked Part D? I'm no tax guru but simple maths tells me there's a boo-boo. Does anyone agree?


----------



## breaker1 (23 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



demodocus said:


> Wellington just advised me " Because of the Global upheaval we're hoping to be able to pay the 3c distribution just before Christmas".
> 
> Deary me.




I was told that the first payment might be a few days late going into November, but are you now saying that* both *1.5c payments won't be till late December?


----------



## DoraNBoots (23 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



roast said:


> The new, corrected, Tax Statement for PIF, dated 20 Oct, is now available for download from the Computershare website... Has anyone checked Part D? I'm no tax guru but simple maths tells me there's a boo-boo. Does anyone agree?



Hi Roast,
I just got my blue tax statement in the mail today.  Can you tell us which part of Part D looks wrong?  I thought Part A was strange in that it has the same figure for both "Assessable foreign source income" and "Other net foreign source income" and yet in Part D the figures for these two items are dramatically different.  Anyone know if this would be right?


----------



## selciper (23 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

So, it seems there is no distribution until December 24! This is a very bad start for WC PIF customer relations. Many of us have naturally planned around the Oct 31 distribution date as we believed what, in good faith,  we were told.  Ms Hutson, a quick explanation is required from you if this is the case.


----------



## like2ski (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> So, it seems there is no distribution until December 24! This is a very bad start for WC PIF customer relations. Many of us have naturally planned around the Oct 31 distribution date as we believed what, in good faith,  we were told.  Ms Hutson, a quick explanation is required from you if this is the case.




Hi selciper,
I wouldn't mind betting that unfortunately this is the first of many disappointments we are going to be subjected to from this crowd.... hope I am wrong??


----------



## DoraNBoots (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> So, it seems there is no distribution until December 24! This is a very bad start for WC PIF customer relations. Many of us have naturally planned around the Oct 31 distribution date as we believed what, in good faith,  we were told.  Ms Hutson, a quick explanation is required from you if this is the case.




You would think that something as important as the delay in the cash payment scheduled for 31st Oct would warrant an official statement to the NSX.  Looks to me like WC have breached the NSX continuous disclosure requirements.   I wonder if the NSX will see this delay as an issue as the information they have been told by WC is that there won’t be any cash payments for the foreseeable future.  For info on disclosure see the documents at this link: http://www.nsxa.com.au/rules_practicenotes.asp

The Continuous Disclosure doc states:
View attachment 25052


Any issues you have with the current disclosure of the PIF’s fund should be lodged at this link: http://www.nsxa.com.au/complaints.asp.


----------



## great dame (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi folks  Don't spend your 3 cents you get in Dec all at once  It may be the last one you will get for a long long time  But don't dis pare we can always sell our units on the NSX for 5 cents  HAVE A HAPPY DAY   Dane ////


----------



## selciper (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It was a contributor to this thread (yesterday approx 1400) who broke the news about the apparent change of the distribution date. That WC should be using such a channel for the breaking of extremely important news is quite incredible. Breaker 1 should have been informed immdediately.  Just let's consider the thousands of PIF investors who don't read this forum and are probably already spending their "distribution" money in advance and will be hit by the bombshell at a time convenient to WC. We surely all deserve more respect than this.


----------



## Burnt (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> It was a contributor to this thread (yesterday approx 1400) who broke the news about the apparent change of the distribution date. That WC should be using such a channel for the breaking of extremely important news is quite incredible. Breaker 1 should have been informed immdediately.  Just let's consider the thousands of PIF investors who don't read this forum and are probably already spending their "distribution" money in advance and will be hit by the bombshell at a time convenient to WC. We surely all deserve more respect than this.




I find it "incredible" that you find it "incredible" the WC has not passed on important information.
Also, why should Breaker 1 have been informed immediately ? Is there some kind of priority listing of unit holders ?????


----------



## simgrund (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



roast said:


> The new, corrected, Tax Statement for PIF, dated 20 Oct, is now available for download from the Computershare website... Has anyone checked Part D? I'm no tax guru but simple maths tells me there's a boo-boo. Does anyone agree?



Does't  part "D" relate to income paid for previous financial year; 
e.g July 07 to Feb 08; freeze date???


----------



## danger danger (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

NSX has a trading halt on the units. Looks like more trouble on the horizon via a challenge of a redemption allegedly made prior to the freeze.

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021720818.PDF


----------



## seamisty (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



demodocus said:


> Wellington just advised me " Because of the Global upheaval we're hoping to be able to pay the 3c distribution just before Christmas".
> 
> Deary me.



Hi demodocus and All, You must have misinterpreted your information demodocus, the distributions are STILL ON TRACK!!! The following is an e-mail I received from WC just now::::Thank you for your email. 

The directors of Wellington Capital Limited have resolved to make cash payments of 3 cents per unit to all unitholders by 24 Deember 2008, with the first instalment payable by the end of October 2008. 

Kind regards 

Caroline Snow
Associate Director 


In regard to the 30 minute Trading Halt on the NSX this morning, the claim is being made by several investors in the wholesale premium income fund. This fund had a 24hr redemption clause (wish I had known that was available) and was instigated as a result of the collapse in share price of OCV. The outcome will not be known any time soon, WC see it as another hiccup which will be dealt with accordingly. Fortunately, legal issues are their forte!! Regards, Seamisty


----------



## demodocus (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hi demodocus and All, You must have misinterpreted your information
> Kind regards
> Caroline Snow
> Associate Director




Tell you what, darlin' .... you have seven days to prove me wrong.


----------



## DoraNBoots (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> ...
> you for your email.
> The directors of Wellington Capital Limited have resolved to make cash payments of 3 cents per unit to all unitholders by 24 Deember 2008, with the first instalment payable by the end of October 2008.
> Kind regards
> ...



I find this statement vague for a company that should be in the process of organising a payment which is payable in 5 working days.  The NSX announcements should be interesting in the coming week.


----------



## like2ski (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I find this statement vague for a company that should be in the process of organising a payment which is payable in 5 working days.  The NSX announcements should be interesting in the coming week.




Hi DoraNBoots,
I fully agree, not the professionalism expected from such a supposedly high flying chairperson who promised a higher,fairer and more professional standard than MFS/Octaviar
More & more spin.............


----------



## SPLITPIN (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



roast said:


> The new, corrected, Tax Statement for PIF, dated 20 Oct, is now available for download from the Computershare website... Has anyone checked Part D? I'm no tax guru but simple maths tells me there's a boo-boo. Does anyone agree?




Roast

The numbers add up on original white version.

The numbers don't add up on the new blue version. 

There are differances in the coding and value allocations between the two versions.

The total dividend amount remains the same in both versions.

I will send both to my accountant just to confuse him.

Splitpin.


----------



## Burnt (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hi demodocus and All, You must have misinterpreted your information demodocus, the distributions are STILL ON TRACK!!! The following is an e-mail I received from WC just now::::Thank you for your email.
> 
> The directors of Wellington Capital Limited have resolved to make cash payments of 3 cents per unit to all unitholders by 24 Deember 2008, with the first instalment payable by the end of October 2008.
> 
> ...




Pretty hard to misinterpret a simple verbal statment.
Let me try to interpret the emailed statement, they have resolved to pay a cash payment of 3c to all unit holders by 24/12/08, 1st intalment payable by end Oct. I don't see them "resolving" to pay the 1st instalment. But as has been stated the truth will be revealed in a matter of days.

Nice to see that now trading has resumed, the 15c purchase bid has now dropped to 10c. Well done !!


----------



## breaker1 (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A senior staffer at Wellington has advised me in writing that WC is determined to make the *first* payment of 1.5c by the end of this October and the second by 24 December.

I pointed out to them that PIF investors need reliability in payments to plan their budgets.

Further, that they will be in touch with me in relation to the taxation statement query as to whether a new statement will have to be sent out. When I receive it, I will pass it on, probably Monday next week, hopefully.


----------



## selciper (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Demodocus -

Hard to imagine that any investor such as yourself would misinterpret the info you heard and then passed on to us. All very odd. We'll know fairly soon, but today's WC email to Seamisty reads rather like a Board minute that could have been written weeks ago. As Dora implies, it's a pretty thin paragraph. I certainly do hope that the distribution is on track.


----------



## seamisty (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> A senior staffer at Wellington has advised me in writing that WC is determined to make the *first* payment of 1.5c by the end of this October and the second by 24 December.
> 
> I pointed out to them that PIF investors need reliability in payments to plan their budgets.
> 
> Further, that they will be in touch with me in relation to the taxation statement query as to whether a new statement will have to be sent out. When I receive it, I will pass it on, probably Monday next week, hopefully.



Thanks for confirming that Breaker. It's a shame that some would prefer for the 1st payment not to go ahead as scheduled so that they would have some extra ammunition to fire at WC. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Burnt (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Thanks for confirming that Breaker. It's a shame that some would prefer for the 1st payment not to go ahead as scheduled so that they would have some extra ammunition to fire at WC. Regards, Seamisty




What a strange comment. Who on earth would prefer not to receive a payment ???
What some of us would prefer is that any statements made by WC are consistent and made to all unit holders not just a preferred few. What we would also prefer is to hear words such as "guaranteed", "definately", "absolutely", "unconditionally" etc. Not the words from the PR manual - "planning", intending", "determined", "hoping" etc.


----------



## DoraNBoots (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> A senior staffer at Wellington has advised me in writing that WC is determined to make the *first* payment of 1.5c by the end of this October and the second by 24 December.
> 
> I pointed out to them that PIF investors need reliability in payments to plan their budgets.
> 
> Further, that they will be in touch with me in relation to the taxation statement query as to whether a new statement will have to be sent out. When I receive it, I will pass it on, probably Monday next week, hopefully.




I agree Burnt.  WC saying at this late stage before a payment is due that they are determined to pay it is rather concerning.  I would have expected to see WC saying in yesterdays Invester Update we are delighted to inform you all unit holders will be receiving 1.5 cents on Oct 31st.  But nothing.  Not even a hopeful statement.

Anyone know how the bank debt is going?  The last I read the $9.5 mill debt was due end of Nov at 20%.


----------



## DoraNBoots (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> ...
> In regard to the 30 minute Trading Halt on the NSX this morning, the claim is being made by several investors in the wholesale premium income fund. This fund had a 24hr redemption clause (wish I had known that was available) and was instigated as a result of the collapse in share price of OCV. The outcome will not be known any time soon, WC see it as another hiccup which will be dealt with accordingly. Fortunately, legal issues are their forte!! Regards, Seamisty



If Seamisty is saying the claim was an 'at call' investment with a 24hr redemption clause and the NSX announcement is saying the investor lodged a redemption request on the 21 January then I'd say we've got a problem.  The fund wasn't frozen until 29 January!

Interesting how the announcement doesn't include this vital bit of info assuming the inside info that Seamisty has shared is true.  The claim just says “This was shortly prior to the suspension of redemptions."  8 days before the freeze on a 24hr redeemable investment isn’t that short


----------



## like2ski (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> What a strange comment. Who on earth would prefer not to receive a payment ???
> What some of us would prefer is that any statements made by WC are consistent and made to all unit holders not just a preferred few. What we would also prefer is to hear words such as "guaranteed", "definately", "absolutely", "unconditionally" etc. Not the words from the PR manual - "planning", intending", "determined", "hoping" etc.




Strange comment indeed??? is seamisty for real???


----------



## seamisty (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



like2ski said:


> Strange comment indeed??? is seamisty for real???



Well  my 'inside info' was hot of the  hotline this morning!! :grinskingSeamisty


----------



## JohnH (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



like2ski said:


> Strange comment indeed??? is seamisty for real???




Seamisty is definitely for real, which is more than I can say for a lot of you on here!

Why do you have to be so damn negative all the time - If Wellington managed to boost the current prices by 10% (e.g.) you would all probably cry that it should be 20%!!!

Would any of you be prepared to state categorically that the ASX will be 5000 by this time next year???  Of course not!  You might cautiously be "planning", intending", "determined", "hoping" etc."  but you would certainly not use phrases like ""guaranteed", "definately"  (_sic_), "absolutely", "unconditionally" etc.

As I said, "Get Real"  - I know that many "City Pacific" investors would love to have JH as their RE.
I am also glad to see that the last posting by “Demodicus” has rightly been removed. He has obviously taken Alcinous's advice, and put away his harping.


----------



## Rance (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Seamisty is definitely for real, which is more than I can say for a lot of you on here!
> 
> Why do you have to be so damn negative all the time - If Wellington managed to boost the current prices by 10% (e.g.) you would all probably cry that it should be 20%!!!
> 
> ...




Now, now John, don't be so harsh on the children... make sure they wash their hands before they come to the table... and in some cases, their mouths as well...  Perhaps we'll ask Aunt Jennie over to read them some bedtime stories... I'm sure they'll enjoy that! (SIC)

Boy, am I enjoying this!
Rance


----------



## Duped (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24542645-20501,00.html

"Moody's CEO Raymond McDaniel insisted to committee members that Moody's ratings were not influenced by the bottom line."

These guys are deluded. Unbelievable. Still trying to get away with "Move along, nothing to see here".  If the influence of these individuals isn't quickly severed, we're all in for a long long long haul before confidence can be restored IMO. 

The ship is riddled with rot to the point that the mast has flopped over the onto deck and this git is such a prat that he thinks we're stupid enough to still buy his 'nothing wrong with this ship' drivel.

Why does it always end up having to take a revolution for these twits to be removed?  Simply because they never concede. 

Pink Floyd 1982:
"take all your overgrown infants away somewhere
and build them a home 
a little place of their own
the fletcher memorial home for incurable tyrants and kings
and they can appear to themselves every day
on closed circuit t.v.
to make sure they're still real
it's the only connection they feel
.
.
.
did they expect us to treat them with any respect
they can polish their medals and sharpen their smiles, 
and amuse themselves playing games for a while
boom boom, bang bang, lie down you're dead
safe in the permanent gaze of a cold glass eye
with their favourite toys
they'll be good girls and boys
in the fletcher memorial home for colonial
wasters of life and limb "
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/pinkfloyd/thefletchermemorialhome.html



*Moody's knew of risk to credit ratings quality*

    * Font Size: Decrease Increase
    * Print Page: Print

Aaron Lucchetti, Judith Burns | October 24, 2008

THE chief executive of Moody's told directors last year that the push by the credit ratings agency to increase profitability posed a "risk" to the quality of the ratings process, according to an internal document released yesterday.

A five-hour hearing by the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee included a string of emails and other documents that showed in unflattering detail how far Moody's and Standard & Poor's, which dominate the business of rating debt securities, went to accommodate bond issuers that generated giant fees for the two firms during the housing boom.

While both firms have shaken up their management ranks, tightened conflict of interest rules and made other sweeping changes in hopes of restoring their credibility, lawmakers were sceptical that those moves would be enough. "The story of the credit ratings agencies is a story of colossal failure," said Henry Waxman, chairman of the House committee.

*Moody's CEO Raymond McDaniel insisted to committee members that Moody's ratings were not influenced by the bottom line.* But company documents suggested that he and other Moody's executives were torn between maintaining the integrity of the ratings process and easing standards in an effort to win more business.

"Analysts and managing directors are continually 'pitched' by bankers, issuers, investors -- all with reasonable arguments -- whose views can colour credit judgment, sometimes improving it, at other times degrading it (we 'drink the kool-aid')," the CEO wrote in a presentation for directors in October last year, according to a document released by the committee. "Coupled with strong internal emphasis on market share and margin focus, this does constitute a 'risk' to ratings quality."

Another document underscored the tension and anxiety expressed by some Moody's employees as sub-prime mortgage-related securities awarded top ratings by the firm were staggered by ballooning delinquencies. Billions of dollars worth of mortgage-backed securities were sold to investors on the premise that the securities weresafe under most market conditions.

"It seems to me that we had blinders on and never questioned the information we were given," an unidentified Moody's employee wrote as part of a survey after a September 2007 town hall meeting. "Combined, these errors make us look either incompetent at credit analysis, or like we sold our soul to the devil for revenue, or a little bit of both."

A separate email forwarded by Brian Clarkson, former president of Moody's Investors Service, showed that the firm competed fiercely to outdo its rivals. Mr Clarkson's aggressive push to win business was the subject of a page-one article in The Wall Street Journal in April.

At S&P, one employee wrote in an instant-message exchange: "By the way -- that deal is ridiculous." A colleague replied: "It could be structured by cows and we would rate it."

Deven Sharma, president of S&P, said the language was "inappropriate" but showed that the firm encouraged analysts to raise concerns. The Securities and Exchange Commission examined the exchange and found no misconduct, he added.

The latest revelations are likely to fuel efforts to rein in the industry and improve its reliability. The SEC will consider new rules as soon as next month.


----------



## Burnt (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Seamisty is definitely for real, which is more than I can say for a lot of you on here!
> 
> Why do you have to be so damn negative all the time - If Wellington managed to boost the current prices by 10% (e.g.) you would all probably cry that it should be 20%!!!
> 
> ...




Dear John,
If you are going to make critisisms of comments made, perhaps you should first make sure you understand the context in which they are made. Discussion has been had on whether or not the cash payment "promised" for October is actually going to be paid. What's your opinion ?
Is it "definitely" going to be paid ? 
Let's "Get Real" - we're all going to find out how real in a few days.
As far as current prices go, apart from the dummy trade at 45c (totalling $900 less fee), the only action so far has been a drop in price offered from 15c to 10c.
Where's the positives John?
Cheers


----------



## JohnH (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> Now, now John, don't be so harsh on the children... make sure they wash their hands before they come to the table... and in some cases, their mouths as well...  Perhaps we'll ask Aunt Jennie over to read them some bedtime stories... I'm sure they'll enjoy that! (SIC)
> 
> Boy, am I enjoying this!
> Rance




lol............  what a good idea, if she read them Chicken Little they would disbelieve it, and start thinking positively.


----------



## JohnH (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Dear John,
> If you are going to make critisisms of comments made, perhaps you should first make sure you understand the context in which they are made. Discussion has been had on whether or not the cash payment "promised" for October is actually going to be paid. What's your opinion ?
> Is it "definitely" going to be paid ?
> Let's "Get Real" - we're all going to find out how real in a few days.
> Cheers




I have no reason to believe it will not be paid!!  So next week somebody is going to have the opportunity to say "It I told you so"!!!   -  or "Sorry!!"


----------



## like2ski (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Seamisty is definitely for real, which is more than I can say for a lot of you on here!
> 
> Why do you have to be so damn negative all the time - If Wellington managed to boost the current prices by 10% (e.g.) you would all probably cry that it should be 20%!!!
> 
> ...




Hi John H,

I am really surprised at you as well, your example is not applicable and is like comparing chalk and cheese. No one here is asking anyone to state categorically what the ASX 200 will be this time next year!!(although if we took a stab we'd be probably more accurate than trying to predict WC's intentions?? LOL...) but, we sure are entitled to know with certainty, at the eleventh hour i.e. one week prior to the due date if we are going to receive a payment or not!!! Words like "definitely" "guaranteed" etc are certainly applicable and expected?? In fact all unit holders and the NSX should have been clearly notified well before now. 
I am just wondering to whom your term "get real" should apply.


----------



## Burnt (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> I have no reason to believe it will not be paid!!  So next week somebody is going to have the opportunity to say "It I told you so"!!!   -  or "Sorry!!"




Dear John,
Why do you have to lower the discussion to an argument between unit holders. If the payment is made next week - then that's great for all of us !!
A unit holder reported what he was told by WC staff - that the payment would not be paid. Another unit holder reported what they were told by WC - that they are determined to pay it. The fact of the matter is that until we actually see the money, we are still left guessing.
Let's all keep our fingers crossed and stop attacking. The only comments made questioning what information WC have given out, have been made against WC not being explicit in their intention - not against any individual unit holders. Why do you have to be so nasty to people in the same boat as you ?
I'm sick of seeing the WC believers constantly personally attack anyone that questions things.


----------



## SPLITPIN (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Seamisty is definitely for real, which is more than I can say for a lot of you on here!
> As I said, "Get Real"  - I know that many "City Pacific" investors would love to have JH as their RE.
> I am also glad to see that the last posting by “Demodicus” has rightly been removed. He has obviously taken Alcinous's advice, and put away his harping.





Dear John H

Still waiting for response a while back on long term investments.

Interesting comments on real world, by unreal people.

City Pacific investors have a real action group like PIFI, not a RE fan club like PIF AG.

We note the complain button has again been removed from the forum - are the facts getting too hot to handle for some.

Interesting times again with .10 c on offer, it is sure to hot up more.

Bugger, I should have sold some at .15 c.


Splitpin


----------



## JohnH (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Dear John H
> 
> Still waiting for response a while back on long term investments.
> 
> ...





Dear Splitpin,

I think you answered your own question with post #2968.

In my original post, I stated that I felt sorry for those who had "parked" their money for a short period.  By this I meant on call or up to 6 months.   I believed that most had invested for income - they certainly hadn't done for growth!  My own investment was for 2 years, and all being well I would have rolled it over.  That I would call "long-term"!

The complain button? .. somebody (not me) must have complained about Demodicus, as his abusive post has been removed.

Cheers,

John H


----------



## seamisty (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Dear John H
> 
> Still waiting for response a while back on long term investments.
> 
> ...



Hi Splitpin, Anyone reading this forum sure wouldn't be encouraged to invest in units in the PIF!!! The constant negativity (along with market sentiment) will do nothing but push buyers away and unit values down. I could be tempted to pay you 15 cents for your units if you are serious?or not? But being the astute business woman that I am (and with having my own personal, direct line to JH as has been suggested), I would insist on the deal being done prior to the end of OCT, just in case we get our divvies LOL!!!! Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## SPLITPIN (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hi Splitpin, But being the astute business woman that I am (and with having my own personal, direct line to JH as has been suggested), Seamisty





Seamisty

How could any of us be astute with our investments dropping from $1-00 to $-10 on offer.

I trust big brother Kev 747 acts to put stability back into all of this.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## Burnt (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Well  my 'inside info' was hot of the  hotline this morning!! :grinskingSeamisty




Dear Seamisty,
or after seeing the shining crown on your head, should I say your highness, would you please share with us humble meagre poor investors, the phone number to this Preferred Unit Holder Hotline. Many meagre poor investors do not get their calls or emails answered. Does JH only have time for you ?

I know she has made comment to other Preferred Unit Holders that she is annoyed at the pestering questions from unit holders and the amount of her time it takes up. After all, who do these people think they are ? Her time is valuable (about $1200 / hour).

Besides JH is a very busy person, she's got to find the time to write a speech to make at the upcoming NSX conference, it's very important. Wonder what the title will be ?.................I know "How to Gain Control of a Managed Fund and Have Your Way With It".  Yeah.....that's sexy. She'll also have to find the time to give the old red leathers a spit & polish............yeah sexy (in a dominatrix kind of way).


----------



## seamisty (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Burnt, I was being facesious!!!!! The only time I have ever spoken to JH was when I made an appointment to see her(and found her very humble and down to earth) The rest of the time, I get in the queue the same as any other investor. I post information I receive on here as I consider it may be of use to others and may help to eliminate the need for others to 'get in the queue'. I know that there are many who appreciate the few of us that do this. We have lost a lot of valuable contributors on this thread due to the constant negativity and WC downramping. How do I know? Because I have contact with a lot of these unit holders outside of the forum. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## SPLITPIN (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Burnt, I was being facesious!!!!! The only time I have ever spoken to JH was when I made an appointment to see her(and found her very humble and down to earth) The rest of the time, I get in the queue the same as any other investor. I post information I receive on here as I consider it may be of use to others and may help to eliminate the need for others to 'get in the queue'. I know that there are many who appreciate the few of us that do this. We have lost a lot of valuable contributors on this thread due to the constant negativity and WC downramping. How do I know? Because I have contact with a lot of these unit holders outside of the forum. Regards, Seamisty





Dear Seamisty

With 326 posts I think we all have had enough of the waffle.

Please go fishing for a month and give genuine forum contributors a go without a waffle response.

Regards

Splitpin


----------



## seamisty (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Seamisty
> 
> How could any of us be astute with our investments dropping from $1-00 to $-10 on offer.
> 
> ...



Well after the bloodbath anticipated on the Dow tonight, I might have to prune my offer to 12cents!!! I hope Krudd has had his 'brown undies' drycleaned because there is going to be more than one type of 'fallout' as a consequence to his actions!!!! Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Dear Seamisty
> 
> With 326 posts I think we all have had enough of the waffle.
> 
> ...



Ok, so I take it that if you are not are PIFI POSTER you are a WAFFLER? Man are you up yourself LOL!!!


----------



## SPLITPIN (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Ok, so I take it that if you are not are PIFI POSTER you are a WAFFLER? Man are you up yourself LOL!!!




Seamistry

You and many others know my indentity.

All my forum contributions are my own personal opinions and have never been any official PIFI statements, unless requested to present to the forum.

Please go fishing and relax.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## Rance (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Dear Seamisty
> 
> With 326 posts I think we all have had enough of the waffle.
> 
> ...






seamisty said:


> Ok, so I take it that if you are not are PIFI POSTER you are a WAFFLER? Man are you up yourself LOL!!!




Eh guys! Cool it! Personal insults will not get us anywhere. 
Let's keep our heads and try to argue facts not opinions; nor make outlandish statements. So far, there is little to get excited about. JH won the day and WC is the confirmed RE with a mandate to deliver value over the longterm. Sniping at unit prices on the NSX is futile and arguments about whether we will get 1.5 cents this Friday or nothing, are useless. It's early days. Give JH a chance. Holy moly, she's got a lot on her plate!

Rance


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sorry to intrude. I know you guys are stressed.

Aussie Stock Forums is the premier site for the Aussie Investor. 

Lets not let the bastards get us down


Please vote for Aussie Stock Forums at Compareshares
Don't forget to vote everyone... it only takes a few seconds and ASF deserves our support!

Here's the link again: http://www.thebull.com.au/the_stockies/forums.html

gg


----------



## seamisty (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Dear Seamisty
> 
> With 326 posts I think we all have had enough of the waffle.
> 
> ...



A bit more waffle for you Splitpin (and only to pacify some of my loyal supporters, oops, just let me re arrange my crown)it is deemed that I am way behind you with my posts but I am in front re postage costs as 3,500 letter post outs are a tad more expensive than posts on here. I have been fishing, but, I get more bites on here!! Seamisty


----------



## SPLITPIN (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> A bit more waffle for you Splitpin (and only to pacify some of my loyal supporters, oops, just let me re arrange my crown)it is deemed that I am way behind you with my posts but I am in front re postage costs as 3,500 letter post outs are a tad more expensive than posts on here. I have been fishing, but, I get more bites on here!! Seamisty




Seamisty

There are little fish left in the sea as we all know.

And not much future for fisher people.

Regards

Splitpin


----------



## seamisty (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Seamisty
> 
> There are little fish left in the sea as we all know.
> 
> ...



Do some more research  before you make unqualified statements Splitpin. Our fishery is actually in better shape now than previously due to good management and industry regulation!!! You are out of your depth here. We, along with advice from industry, had self imposed cutbacks via net reduction and mesh size along with day fishing restrictions. Introducing this debate on the forum does nothing for your integrity. Also being diversified and not having all of ones 'nets' in the same ocean lessens the risk.  I will refresh you with an old saying, (a bit more 'waffle') ' there is more than one fish in the sea', but I might have already caught the biggest herring  on here!!! Goodnight, Seamisty


----------



## SPLITPIN (24 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Do some more research  before you make unqualified statements Splitpin. Our fishery is actually in better shape now than previously due to good management and industry regulation!!! You are out of your depth here. We, along with advice from industry, had self imposed cutbacks via net reduction and mesh size along with day fishing restrictions. Introducing this debate on the forum does nothing for your integrity. Also being diversified and not having all of ones 'nets' in the same ocean lessens the risk.  I will refresh you with an old saying, (a bit more 'waffle') ' there is more than one fish in the sea', but I might have already caught the biggest herring  on here!!! Goodnight, Seamisty




Seamisty

Please apply all these management applications as noted above to your fund manager and maybe we can see some great results. 

Anyhow I don't accept your fishing response - that is a separete debate please nominate a suitable forum.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## Juan Mortyme (25 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Article in today's Australian

---------------------------------------
*Marketed mortgage funds carry unseen risk*


by Anthony Klan and Sara Rich | October 25, 2008

ABOUT 180,000 Australians now hold a combined $22 billion of funds frozen in the mortgage trust sector.

And in the current turmoil many investors are likely to begin heavily scrutinising where they parked their money during the good times.

What most don't know -- and what mortgage funds are not eager to advertise -- is that many of those funds now hitting the wall have their roots in the solicitors mortgage scandal of the late 1990s.

Many of the smaller mortgage funds -- those holding tens or hundreds of millions of funds rather than billions -- were created by small law firms seeking to make a buck by borrowing funds from clients and on-lending them at a higher rate.

Most of the funds were on-lent to property developers seeking cheap debt.

The practice ballooned during the 1990s but in the second half of the decade poor lending decisions -- and under-regulation -- meant many collapsed, with investors owed close to $1 billion.

Reacting to the failures, and media scrutiny, corporate watchdog the Australian Securities and Investments Commission required the solicitors -- largely unregulated -- in 1999 to become managed investment schemes if they were investing clients' money.

The result is that many of those former small law firms are now the major fund managers steering billions of dollars of investors' funds in the stormy market.

The Government's guarantee on certain bank and building society deposits has dramatically increased the pressure on the sector, with spooked investors bolting for the exit doors.

Yesterday the $1.5 billion MacarthurCook Mortgage Fund, managed by listed property group MacarthurCook, and the $70 million St George-managed Advance Mortgage Fund became the latest funds to freeze redemptions.

But the problems facing the sector are not new.

Several mortgages collapsed or were frozen many months before the Government's October 12 decision to guarantee deposits.

Poor lending by some funds, exacerbated by the downturn in property construction, has meant many funds have come under pressure.

*In January the MFS Premium Income Fund froze the funds of 10,000 investors, worth a combined $770 million.*

Two months later fellow Queensland-based borrower City Pacific suspended withdrawals from its $1 billion First Mortgage Fund.

Then, in July, property giant Mirvac -- which had boasted returns of up to 9.5 per cent per annum -- was forced to freeze more than $240 million of funds belonging to hundreds of ordinary investors.

*The failed multi-billion MFS investment empire was one of those mortgage funds born in the fallout of the solicitors mortgage scandal.
*
*MFS founders Michael King and Phil Adams were partners in minor Gold Coast law firm McLaughlins solicitors until 2000, when they formed MFS.

The pair went to the market raising billions of dollars from investors and buying up assets as diverse as ski fields and aquariums, often paying premium prices.

When the company collapsed many investors claimed they had no idea of the high risks involved with investing in the company.

One such investor is Christopher Cole, who sold his New Zealand home last year and invested the entire $600,000 proceeds in MFS PIF at the suggestion of a Gold Coast financial planner.

He had placed that money in the fund while searching for a new home. "I was going to buy a house with it but now I can't afford to and I'm living in a caravan," Mr Cole said.

"I did exactly what you're not supposed to do and invested it all in the one place, but the planner said it was a good idea.

"It's pretty devastating but you've just got to get on with your life."*

The gap between consumer expectation and the products marketed is widespread, according to experts.

Mortgage funds attract investors by either advertising to the public directly or paying financial planners to sell their product.

Unlike many financial planners, Neil Kendall, of financial planning firm Tupicoffs, said he refused to steer clients into mortgage trusts, which he said were "fundamentally flawed".

"They are often promoted as a safe liquid investment (but) in essence they are tied to the property market and they are not liquid," Mr Kendall said.

"If a lot of people want their money back, the mortgage fund doesn't have the ability to pay it back quickly."

He said mortgage funds were "fundamentally flawed" because they typically borrowed funds for periods much shorter than the loans they wrote. "Mortgage trusts and unlisted property trusts both have this issue that if any number of people want their money, they are clearly not going to be able to generate it quickly."

But mortgage funds were not all bad news, according to Property Investment Research associate director Dugald Higgins.

He said that although many more conservative mortgage funds were offering annual returns at 6 to 7 per cent -- similar to or less than risk-free bank deposits -- banks were not always the best option. Conservative mortgage funds typically made loans to a range of borrowers, rather than focus on lending predominantly to property developers, as many of the higher-risk funds did, he said.

He said mortgage fund loans were typically made at fixed rates over several years, which meant some mortgage trusts would become more attractive to investors, depending on their risk profile.

"Quite often superannuation funds like to invest in conservative mortgage funds because they have a very predictable income stream, even if it is a bit lower than other investments," Mr Higgins said.

In April, ASIC announced it would have a second crack at reining in the mortgage fund sector as part of its broader crackdown on borrowing institutions in the wake of the fall of the Fincorp and Westpoint property empires.

Over coming months mortgage funds will be required to report against a set of eight benchmarks -- such as the liquidity of the funds and withdrawal arrangements -- or explain to investors why they are unable to do so.

The plan is expected to go some way to improving transparency in the often cloudy sector, but for many investors it will be, like many ASIC initiatives before it, too little too late.

-----------------------------------
direct link: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24547993-5017996,00.html


----------



## selciper (25 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Link to revealing 20 minute audio from BBC explaining financial fraud.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/


----------



## roast (25 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Roast
> 
> The numbers add up on original white version.
> 
> ...




I don’t have an accountant … it’s me & taxpack  (disclaimer: I’m no tax agent) … which also means Oct 31 is my final deadline for the correct figures! I tried to get answers from WellCap but, as I read in this forum, I’m not the only one who doesn’t get a reply, so thanks to those who are also following this up as it effects all statements.

For DoraNBoots, who asked, & others, the problems are these:
The first (white) statement included foreign income in the total at label 13U & the supplementary section of  taxpack says that 13U is to include “Distribution from trusts, less net capital gains and foreign income” so it should show only the  total amount of non-primary Production income shown in Part D.
Also, the statement showed an amount at label 20E (assessable foreign source income) & 0.00 at 20M (other net foreign source income). Most statements show the same amount at both these labels.

In the new (blue) statement the amounts at label 20E & 20M are now the same… sounding good so far and, as SPLITPIN says, the total dividend amount (net cash distribution) remains the same on both statements … yes, the amounts we have received remain the same & are, I believe, correct. 

The problem now is that this blue statement has a hotchpotch of calculations in Part D. It should be: Total amounts under “Cash distribution” + “tax paid/offsets” = “Taxable amount” – this should apply both for Aust. Income as well as Foreign income. (If you look at the original statement they are). If you look at most (all) fund statements they are.

So, I’m looking forward to breaker1’s response from WellCap next week.

This is the great value of this forum – help from others who are in the same boat - & yes, I’d rather be sailing, fishing, gardening or even cleaning rather than doing the tax-mambo!!


----------



## great dame (26 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Can some one out there tell me when was X DIV day  for our 3 cents we are getting on Friday  PLEASE  There has to be a day but i cant find it  Thanks Dane ////


----------



## 2CentsWorth (26 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Can some one out there tell me when was X DIV day for our 3 cents we are getting on Friday PLEASE There has to be a day but i cant find it Thanks Dane ////





Hi Dane,
so far, no Record-Date has been received from WC, and hence, there can be no Ex-Date. (Normally 4 business days prior.) The only dates we have to work with are, 31st October 2008, which is the nominated payment date for the first installment, being 1.5 cents, and the 24th December 2008, being the payment date for the second installment of 1.5 cents. (Total of 3 cents)

If you have transferred your units over to your son, as you previously said you were going to do, you will have to ring WC and get details of when they settled on a Record date, to find out which one of you will receive the first Dividend, and who will receive the bigger Christmas present.

Best wishes,
2CentsWorth.


----------



## Dowdy (26 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Now this is listed on the NSX at .45c, do you think this will ever get back to 1.00


----------



## DoraNBoots (26 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Dowdy said:


> Now this is listed on the NSX at .45c, do you think this will ever get back to 1.00



Hi Dowdy,
I’m assuming you are not currently a unit holder in the PIF and I’m interested to know an outsiders point of view.  Can you tell us what price you would pay for units in the PIF right now and how long you would expect it to take for PIF units to be selling for $1 on the NSX?


----------



## great dame (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Dowdy said:


> Now this is listed on the NSX at .45c, do you think this will ever get back to 1.00



     Dowdy really it is listed at 10 cents bid which is really what the market thinks it is only worth  if you want to sell at market  ?An asset is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it   Which is bloody sad  Dane //


----------



## great dame (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



2CentsWorth said:


> Hi Dane,
> so far, no Record-Date has been received from WC, and hence, there can be no Ex-Date. (Normally 4 business days prior.) The only dates we have to work with are, 31st October 2008, which is the nominated payment date for the first installment, being 1.5 cents, and the 24th December 2008, being the payment date for the second installment of 1.5 cents. (Total of 3 cents)
> 
> If you have transferred your units over to your son, as you previously said you were going to do, you will have to ring WC and get details of when they settled on a Record date, to find out which one of you will receive the first Dividend, and who will receive the bigger Christmas present.
> ...



      Thanks 2CentsWorth  for that but if wc are going to pay a Div this Friday  X div day has been and gone   I might give them a ring today  They probelly dont know what i am talking about when i speak about X div day & Record day   will let you know how i get on  Dane ///


----------



## DoraNBoots (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jenny said:


> I have just received the following email from my financial advisor. We were put into the PIF through Avenue Capital Management, as I think many others were. I did not realise until now that we will not have a vote.
> 
> "I have attached the investor update which I assume you would have. Not mentioned in the attachment, however, is that retail unitholders will be given the opportunity to vote in August on the future of the fund (wholesale unitholders, of which you are one, cannot vote, though their custodian will vote on their behalf). THe custodian is Bond Street Custodians ( Macqaurie Bank). I am seeking further clarification on this point and will advise you in due course."
> 
> ...



Hi Jenny,
Did you got an update from your financial adviser on the above info?  I'm wonder if you were able to vote or if Bond Street decided on behalf of investors.  If the latter do you know which way Bond Street voted?


----------



## Dowdy (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Hi Dowdy,
> I’m assuming you are not currently a unit holder in the PIF and I’m interested to know an outsiders point of view.  Can you tell us what price you would pay for units in the PIF right now and how long you would expect it to take for PIF units to be selling for $1 on the NSX?




Actually i am a unit holder but i never really understood what was really going on but i see they're on the NSX now so that's why i'm wondering.

So since i don't fully understand what is going on maybe you can answer me a few question:

Is the NSX the only way to sell the PIF?
Will the fund ever recover to get a unit to be worth 1.00?


----------



## DoraNBoots (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Dowdy said:


> Actually i am a unit holder but i never really understood what was really going on but i see they're on the NSX now so that's why i'm wondering.
> 
> So since i don't fully understand what is going on maybe you can answer me a few question:
> 
> ...



Does that mean you didn't vote?
Apart from an off market transfer the NSX is the only way to exit the fund.
Some on this thread are thinking the NTA will be $1 in 3 to 5 years as WC tell us they are comitted to do but I personally don't think it will be possible to sell for $1 on the NSX.
"Wellington IM Ltd is committed to the full return of investors capital in the next 3 to 5 years"


----------



## JohnH (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Does that mean you didn't vote?
> Apart from an off market transfer the NSX is the only way to exit the fund.
> Some on this thread are thinking the NTA will be $1 in 3 to 5 years as WC tell us they are comitted to do but I personally don't think it will be possible to sell for $1 on the NSX.
> "Wellington IM Ltd is committed to the full return of investors capital in the next 3 to 5 years"




Thank you Dora, for ignoring your personal disbeliefs, and reporting accurately what Wellington has stated.


----------



## DoraNBoots (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Thank you Dora, for ignoring your personal disbeliefs, and reporting accurately what Wellington has stated.



I didn't ignore my personal beliefs. "  but I personally don't think it will be possible to sell for $1 on the NSX."
If I didn't mention Wellingtons statement at all that would have been fine.  Dowdy was asking our opinion if the units will ever be $1.


----------



## Duped (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Link to revealing 20 minute audio from BBC explaining financial fraud.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/




You beat me to it selciper.  Heard it on ABC News Radio on the weekend.  Very informative.

I love the bit where an interviewee said one fund was given a AAA rating in July and then a Junk rating in August.  A 17 point drop. Love to know the facts behind that doosie.

My financial advisor is blaming the quality of the info provided by the Ratings Agencies and MFS for my losses.  Ratings Agencies seem to be blaming the quality of the info provided to them by the funds/institutions they're rating.  What a bunch of self serving weasels.  The sort of weasels that go on about being 'glad they're out of the game' when they're retired and fishing - but perpetuated the problems and failed to fix the problems when they were in it up to their Saville Row collars.  

As far as I'm concerned the quality of the info provided by Ratings Agencies has gone from AAA to JUNK.


----------



## great dame (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi folks just go of the phone from WC  and boy am i pissed off with them  was told  they have not got an X div date yet let alone a record date  i then told them you wont be paying a DIV this Friday   Was told its looks like it then  At that stage i guess i lost my cool  and told them what i thought of them   All your all good for is delivering junk mail   Some one high is going to contact me so i wont go to the media  still waiting for the call  Dane ///


----------



## Dowdy (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Does that mean you didn't vote?
> Apart from an off market transfer the NSX is the only way to exit the fund.
> Some on this thread are thinking the NTA will be $1 in 3 to 5 years as WC tell us they are comitted to do but I personally don't think it will be possible to sell for $1 on the NSX.
> "Wellington IM Ltd is committed to the full return of investors capital in the next 3 to 5 years"





I voted.

Is the NSX the only way to sell the units or can you do it through Wellington


----------



## DoraNBoots (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Dowdy said:


> I voted.
> 
> Is the NSX the only way to sell the units or can you do it through Wellington



No you can't sell through Wellington.  Redemption clauses were removed from the Constitution.


----------



## great dame (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Dowdy said:


> I voted.
> 
> Is the NSX the only way to sell the units or can you do it through Wellington



 NSX EXCHANGE IS THE ONLY WAY  Dane //


----------



## Jadel (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It is really very sad to see  that investors like Dowdy  are so ill informed that they do not yet understand the full consequences  of being listed on the NSX

  This is one aspect that the PIFI continually attempede to highlite

   The majority of investors just do not realise what they have let themseves in for.

  Unfortunately Dowdy you can only sell through the NSX you will have to find a  special Broker that deals on this index  . 

  And the bid is 10c


----------



## danger danger (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> It is really very sad to see  that investors like Dowdy  are so ill informed that they do not yet understand the full consequences  of being listed on the NSX
> 
> This is one aspect that the PIFI continually attempede to highlite
> 
> ...




Maybe Dowdy isn't a top shelf investor that PIFI only sent the generic letter to?? WC have sent plenty of literature to ALL investors, the only reason Dowdy would have of not being informed is if their details were not current.


----------



## JohnH (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I didn't ignore my personal *beliefs*. "  but I personally don't think it will be possible to sell for $1 on the NSX."
> If I didn't mention Wellingtons statement at all that would have been fine.  Dowdy was asking our opinion if the units will ever be $1.




You misread me Dora,  If you reread my post, you will see I said "disbeliefs"!


----------



## great dame (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Thank you Dora, for ignoring your personal disbeliefs, and reporting accurately what Wellington has stated.



    Talking about  disbeliefe We are all lead to believe we wre getting a payment this Friday  from the fund  Now WC dont seem to know when it will  be   John could you give them a ring   You may get an answer  i think they like you Dane //


----------



## JohnH (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Talking about  disbeliefe We are all lead to believe we wre getting a payment this Friday  from the fund  Now WC dont seem to know when it will  be   John could you give them a ring   You may get an answer  i think they like you Dane //




GD, I have just spoken to their switchboard (my first ever call to them) and they said their "Investment team"  would get back to me within the half hour.  Will keep you posted.


----------



## Duped (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Dowdy said:


> I voted.
> 
> Is the NSX the only way to sell the units or can you do it through Wellington




Dowdy.  To clarify Dora's response.  If you find a buyer you can sell the units to them off-market.  Ask WC for the form.  I'm not exactly sure of the details.  I'm guessing the buyer needs to get a stamp to show duty has been paid and then send it to WC who will then record the new owner.


Just make sure you have the cash/bank cheque in your hand when you sign because you could be in a world of hurt if they do the dirty on you.  A convencing lawyer relayed a story of a transaction where the bank cheque was slid across the table as the Deed for the house was slid in the other direction.  Sad isn't it.

Trust is an amazingly valuable thing isn't it?  Imagine a world without it.


----------



## JohnH (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> GD, I have just spoken to their switchboard (my first ever call to them) and they said their "Investment team"  would get back to me within the half hour.  Will keep you posted.




Have now spoken again, and Wellington have confirmed that they still intend to make a payment as near to Oct 31 as possible.  As to how much now and how much on 24th 12th, I believe that is why they are hesitant about the exact time.  -  I suppose it depends on how much that is due to come in, comes in.


----------



## SPLITPIN (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Members

Can anybody enlighten us all as to the progress and status of the 3 PIF Unit member respresentation team to be appointed to WC and how it will function etc.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## JohnH (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Dear Members
> 
> Can anybody enlighten us all as to the progress and status of the 3 PIF Unit member respresentation team to be appointed to WC and how it will function etc.
> 
> ...




As far as I can remember from the meeting this month, they received c. 200 nominations.  Presumably they will hold a ballot.  

The experience should make voting for the senate next time seem comparitively easy!!


----------



## great dame (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Have now spoken again, and Wellington have confirmed that they still intend to make a payment as near to Oct 31 as possible.  As to how much now and how much on 24th 12th, I believe that is why they are hesitant about the exact time.  -  I suppose it depends on how much that is due to come in, comes in.



 John there has not been a X div day yet   And after that comes a record day  then after  that the payment day  the time from X div day to payment  day is never less then 3 weeks  WC has to give date in advance when X div date is also  That is the exchange rules i believe  .Well its the rules on the ASX anyway  i might give them another blast  Dane //
  J


----------



## DoraNBoots (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> John there has not been a X div day yet   And after that comes a record day  then after  that the payment day  the time from X div day to payment  day is never less then 3 weeks  WC has to give date in advance when X div date is also  That is the exchange rules i believe  .Well its the rules on the ASX anyway  i might give them another blast  Dane //
> J



The NSX is saying they are not aware of any payment to be made to PIF investors.  The X div date must occur for a payment to happen and the record date must be 5 working days after this (inclusive).  So if WC don't get on and notify the NSX today of a payment for Friday then it's not going to happen this Friday.  But it's also rule of thumb for there to be two weeks between the record date and payment so WC are really falling behind.

BTW:  Computershare have on their records a Record Date of 17th Oct 2008 for a cash payment due on 31st Oct of 3 cents per share.  This they say is "set in stone".  I told them WC are thinking this might be late and I don't think it's going to be 3 cents and they said that's very unusual and they don't think that has happened before.  Seems like WC have some work to do, do they ever get anything right?

Can someone please get on to WC and tell them to notify the NSX of the payment.


----------



## selciper (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I would telephone WC but cannot do so due to a pressing travel commitment. Frankly, all the contradictory info about this week's due payment is becoming a real concern. Surely WC can use their website to confirm the distribution. They definitely are missing a co-ordinator or two to run the show smoothly. That means that we all suffer.


----------



## breaker1 (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I actually had a journalist contact me today for advice to other investors of funds similar to the PIF that are being frozen or failing. Yes folks they are now actually asking us for advice. I did my best in the short conversation with some of the basics of starting an action group, etc. See how it come out *IF* published.

I advised that the journalist direct any of her readers to this web site ASF. 

We have more information to give to other failing funds than we think. We have learnt the hard way, what to do and what not to do. We may be, in some respects pioneers in this area. 

So be gentle with any new posters! As we do!


----------



## breaker1 (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Courtesy of WC:

New tax statements were issued to unitholders last week. The correct tax statement is the light blue statement which accompanies the October investor update and is dated 20 October 2008. You may also access your tax statement by downloading it from the Computershare investor centre www.investorcentre.com.au. 

The variation between the net cash distribution as reported on the tax statement and the total of cash distributions for the period paid to investors reflects income earned in the trust but not distributed. The Premium Income Fund is a trust. For a trust to maintain trust status, all income earned must be distributed to investors and is assessable in the hands of the investors. 

The effect of this is that for the 2007/2008 year, not all profit made by the Premium Income Fund was distributed to unitholders. Unfortunately, because of the mechanisms of a trust, regardless of whether the profit was distributed, unitholders must declare it on their tax returns.


----------



## sugar3157 (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all, can someone tell me if our $1 units now worth only 10 cents on the NSX are declared to social security at only 10 cents....so maybe wecan get some financial help from them?
Also has JH said anything about the new value of 10 cents?
a loss of 90% is just sickening....
she will have to be a miracle worker if she thinks she can turn it back to $1 in 3 to 5 years....mmmmm

also has anyone come up with any info on whether Mr King and associates will ever be made give our money back or be prosicuted and go to jail...?
cheers...


----------



## DoraNBoots (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The NSX is now closed.  There won't be a payment on Friday!

The NSX needs one day notice for announcements and then the x div date must be 5 days (inclusive) before the record day.  I.E. The NSX must be notified 6 days before a div is to be paid.

The info the NSX has been given by WC is the corrective notice so I was told by the NSX to expect 3 cents by 24 Dec.  I asked the NSX if they would follow this up with the Company as we have been lead to believe there will be a payment on Friday.  The NSX was not aware of this so I urge people to lodge a complaint with the NSX and let them know what is going on.http://www.nsxa.com.au/complaints.asp


----------



## breaker1 (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Sorry to intrude. I know you guys are stressed.
> 
> Aussie Stock Forums is the premier site for the Aussie Investor.
> 
> ...




To all readers of the PIF thread here on ASF, I encourage you to vote FOR ASF at the computershare click on site:
www.compareshares.com.au/vote_forum.php

Its quick and super easy. *I VOTED FOR AUSSIE STOCK FORUMS BECAUSE THEIR WEBSITE IS THE BEST!*


----------



## Jadel (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped

  The odds of finding anybody to buy in an off market transfer 

   at more  than 10c would be higher  than  finding a  live Tasmanian Tiger

   at the moment

    That is why i did not want to confuse that poor investor .


----------



## breaker1 (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Hi all, can someone tell me if our $1 units now worth only 10 cents on the NSX are declared to social security at only 10 cents....so maybe wecan get some financial help from them?
> Also has JH said anything about the new value of 10 cents?




Sugar,

That's a great thought! I actually had another valued PIF AG member bring this up via a phone call today.

The thought put to me was, have we seen the 10-15c value on the NSX consistently enough to ask JH to advise Centrelink (C/L) of this new value over the 45 cent C/L value recorded now?

To the best of my knowledge, WC valued our units at 45c according to the value of assets still in the fund, so those on the assets test get valued at that 45% of former capital assets amount and those who fall into the income test get deemed interest on that 45c amount.

So, who wins out for C/L - what JH values our fund at or what the market values our fund at?

The other question I would ask is, is it really JH's responsibility to advise C/L on behalf of PIF investors receiving a part pension OR is it acceptable for each investor to advise C/L themselves? I ask this question because when my dad had shares before, all he had to do was ring and advise C/L from time to time when the value changed significantly on the ASX, like once every 6 mths and that was enough. All C/L did was to check the current value themselves to verify and they would change his capital amount to be assessed.

Remembering that when JH gave this valuation to C/L, the PIF had not yet been listed on the NSX. 

WC will endeavour to pay us 1.5c in the full $ - not 1.5c of 45% of the $. So our 45c (45%) asset remaining amount passed onto C/L does not seem to have any bearing on the how the WC pays distributions.

If the only way we can presently get our money out of the PIF is via the NSX, would not that NSX price then be the funds real value in the eyes of C/L ? 

To balance this thought train off, would WC not advise C/L that our assessed amount needs to go up, if our NSX value had increased to say, 60c per unit - you can't have it both ways if this be true

It might boil down to a legal point of how assets are valued for C/L in funds such as ours, but it's certainly worth following up with WC..

But wouldn't it be good if investors could get the 1.5c per qtr. distribution and only get deemed or asseted @ 10-15c based capital, thus receiving more from C/L?


----------



## breaker1 (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A point I would make to those who formerly had fears (& probably still do) about the PIF getting taken over by outside interests buying up units at a very cheap price and thus controlling the fund according to their own interests once these outsiders got controlling unit amounts. 

What they and myself for that matter, did not appear to consider, was the good sense and self control of the average investor in our PIF, that being, *NOT* to sell for ridiculously low offers, even though desperate for cash. 

There are VERY FEW SELLERS of units by PIF investors - this bodes well for the PIF! Good on you fellow sensible investors!


----------



## ian1328 (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I spoke to WC a short time ago and again it was confirmed that a 3c distribution will happen before xmas  with the 1st one probably in the week of Nov. When one bears in mind that they have only had control of of the fund for 12 days thru an unnesessary delay surely a week late on their first distribution is acceptable. Misleading information on this thread about no payments caused a rush of phone calls and panic which helps no-one. Not forgetting there was a court case also about their operation. 

Its about time we investors let WC get on with their job and stop negativity, other companies are falling by the wayside with no one to pick. Give WC a chance and see what happens. Very few people have the knowledge, credentials and experience of Jenny H. She deserves some respect. 

I spoke also about the 50mil support facility and was told that negotiations are happening and when an agreement is reached it will be paid to investors.
As for the 147mil, whatever is agreed there will be added to the fund.

The 'member presentation ' is still going to but again there has only been 12 days of control so the  give them a break. 

I suggested that they put information on their website re court dates etc and they are going to look into this.

Regarding Raptis no money has been lost, it is being re paid, albeit under a different time frame.


----------



## Burnt (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Wellington has had control of the Fund since early June - that's 5 months not 12 days. Five months is sufficient time to get organised and plan future operations.

As far as any delay caused by the legal action instigated by ASIC, this should not have affected their operations, and in fact it could have been avoided totally had Wellington prepared clearly understandable and precise information to unit holders. They only have themselves to blame.

So called "misleading" information on this thread has been directly generated by Wellington via the information their staff are giving out. Often contradicting themselves and not giving any firm assurances. Regarding cash payments, confirmation from WC has been received previously and it has amounted to nothing.

Information now being given by WC in relation to the claims on Octaviar is yet another example of contradictory and misleading information. JH has made statements in the press that acceptance of their offer has been made, yet she is still telling us that agreements have yet to be finalised. What about the legal action against them ? As usual we are left guessing.

Unit holders voted for Wellingtons resolutions - with the encouragement of PIF Action Group. Unit holders did this believing the promises of October and December cash payments; listing on the NSX to provide liquidity and to allow those that needed to retrieve their investment a way to do it; that the units were valued at 45c and that this value would increase.

The current situation is no cash payment in October ("probably" December), no liquidity on the NSX and desperate unit holders can only retrieve 10c / unit at best, the value of each unit has dropped to 10c (as determined by the market).

What advice would PIF AG give to investors in other failing funds - "support every comment and action of your fund manager, then close your eyes and cross your fingers and hope for the best".


----------



## SPLITPIN (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Sugar,
> 
> That's a great thought! I actually had another valued PIF AG member bring this up via a phone call today.
> 
> ...




Breaker 1

Maybe who ever put up the .45c units did not think it through and all some people have to do is accept .10c.

From my friend up the road calculations as posted previously, is means no difference as he is now back to the basic pension from below that.

So it appears unit holders with very subtational investments in PIF and other failing areas would be the only ones considering selling (and see the units traded at .10/.15c) at this point in time, just to gain some income to exist from centerlink.

Maybe fait accompli.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## k.smith (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

..WC returned my call today, and I was told we will definitely be receiving our Oct. distribution soon, they told me that JH is very confident re; our fund....EVEN IN THIS ECONOMIC CLIMATE..."there are some great opportunities out there"...I am also in City Pacific, and I would rather be in WC at the moment. I really wonder now all this has happened, is it really worth "saving for retirement?" It seems to me that all investors who were not happy to accept the bank rates  over the last 10 years or so of what?5%  and invested in 2nd tier investments are now being punished and  I would ask how much Capital would it take to provide a Modest Income if you are only getting 5% interest.....?What chance would most people have of achieving such a sum? It is enough to make one think WHY BOTHER busting yourself to be financially independant, you could have a good time just spending, spending, spending! all your working life, and age 65!  age pension....you might have worries about how far it goes but LOOK AT US NOW!!!!! Perhaps we could lobby the government for a $15,000 "down and out pensioner" home grant, lets face it, its our taxes!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## SPLITPIN (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> ..What chance would most people have of achieving such a sum? It is enough to make one think WHY BOTHER busting yourself to be financially independant, you could have a good time just spending, spending, spending! all your working life, and age 65!  age pension....you might have worries about how far it goes but LOOK AT US NOW!!!!! Perhaps we could lobby the government for a $15,000 "down and out pensioner" home grant, lets face it, its our taxes!!!!!!!!!!




Dear K.Smith

Remember when you paid tax and on the taxation form it stated "retirement tax" or something to that effect and there were special tax's here and there etc

Did you note some years later the wording changes and the tax changes etc to GST and then compulsary superanuation and so on.

Where you are a good person who worked harder than ever later in life for some certaintity for a quality of life in retirement.

Was it a bloody waste of time and effort with the last 15 years of your life effort being been taken by Robber Baron's with the government's approval. 

Do you intend to go into retirement with nothing but the pension.

If so, you sound just like me.


Regards


Splitpin


----------



## breaker1 (27 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Breaker 1
> 
> Maybe who ever put up the .45c units did not think it through and all some people have to do is accept .10c.
> 
> ...




It's not good that your friend could not get any benefit from a 10-15c in $ valuation with C/L, but it's great he/she gets a full pension after being on a part pension. I take it that because JH got C/L to revalue from $1 down to  
 .45c ? If so, that at least is one good thing that many pensioner PIF investors are happy with.

Are you saying that there may have to actually be a significant number of PIF investors selling their units @ .10-.15 cents before we might get a valuation at that amount, rather than just offers at that amount (which makes sense)? If so I trust you might volunteer here - only kidding?

No I don't think too many would be interested in sacrificing their units for a gain in their pensions. Perhaps there may be a well to do philanthropist PIF investor out there who wants to pay for his sins - I know some Freemasons have this philosophy. Heh! Heh!


----------



## Juan Mortyme (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Article in The Australian by Stuart Wilson:
(note the last paragraph)

---------------------------------
*Deposit guarantee can't please everyone
*
SHAREHOLDER: Stuart Wilson | October 28, 2008

THE idea of a deposit guarantee was always going to put the Government between a rock and a hard place.

The guarantee is necessary because, like it or not, we are in a global financial marketplace. The know-it-alls that are criticising the decision to offer a guarantee are ignoring the fact that others, including Britain and several European countries, had already stepped up to the plate. This effectively took the decision away from us. Imagine where the Australian dollar would be now if there was no guarantee -- the fund outflows from Australian banks would be similar to, but on a much grander scale than, those being experienced by mortgage trusts right now.

There was always going to be an issue over which investments fell under the guarantee and which were left out in the cold.

Australia has had a robust and highly competitive finance industry for many years. That competition has led to product differentiation resulting in a spectrum of investments people can choose from with different risk and return combinations.

That means that wherever the Government draws the line, there will be a bunch of investments that just miss out on the guarantee, and will whinge about it. Their complaints will centre on the fact that the guarantee has materially changed their risk profile, and that this will in turn see an increase in redemptions.

Mortgage trusts are one of the asset classes that fall just outside the guarantee, and reports are filtering through that up to $25 billion worth of these funds have already been frozen -- all to stop a mass exodus in favour of guaranteed products. Within a week this could easily spread to all mortgage funds. Why wouldn't it?

This does not automatically mean that the Government should extend the guarantee to these funds, because there will always be those on the wrong side of the line drawn in the sand.

There are a number of property funds that have suspended redemptions for the very same reason as the mortgage trusts, including some provided by Mirvac and Macquarie Bank. Should the guarantee be extended to them, too, using the same logic? What about listed property trusts, which simply have a different structure? It is easy to see the danger of having a creeping guarantee.

The mortgage trusts need to look elsewhere to find a solution to their predicament. Some, such as Axa, Colonial First State and Perpetual, have relatively strong issuers behind them. Perhaps, for a fee of its own, the manager's parent could offer its own guarantee to stem the tide of outflows. They could even consider short-term funding in order to facilitate a smooth redemption process.

But perhaps they should avoid any inclination to follow the Octaviar Premium Income Fund down the road of making the fund close-ended and listing on a minor stock exchange. Investors who fell for the manager's line that this would provide liquidity and give their fund a better alternative to liquidation, are unlikely to confront the truth -- there has been just $900 worth of trades since the fund listed two weeks ago. If they were to sell at market now, they would receive just 10c in the dollar, if they are quick.

Stuart Wilson is the chief executive of the Australian Shareholders Association

----------end of article-------------

direct link: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24561201-36418,00.html


----------



## breaker1 (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> Article in The Australian by Stuart Wilson:
> (note the last paragraph)
> 
> ---------------------------------
> ...




This is serious business now, Why! because as soon as the Commonwealth Government started giving guarantees to ONLY banks, THEY became the ones responsible for causing the main panic of investors fleeing their non bank funds. Therefore I feel they are culpable in this growing mess and are morally bound to include non bank funds as well in their guarantees or have some mechanism to assist.

I still cannot believe that the taxpayer has to fund failing private banks, that is tantamount to Communist Socialism and control by of our nation by the banking elite. I still cannot believe that the government has NOT set sensible limits on the funds guaranteed. And if Commonwealth guarantees are to happen, then it should be spread as evenly across the board of all savings/investment type funds to be equitable and fair to the general public and to make that happen, it should be limited in value of funds guranteed across the board. Is a common investor in a motgage type fund to be penalised for NOT chosing a bank for his interest - how arbitrary, unfair and ridiculous? 

This government favouratism was predictably going to ruin funds such as the PIF, AXA, Perpetual, etc. This I predict is further going to dampen interest in NSX sales for the PIF. 

I heard that over 1 trillion dollars of the nations savings were at stake. What will happen if a good number of banks go bust and investors call in the governments guarantees ? - this country will become a banana republic! and the new currency we use will probaly be the Yen.

Doesn't this show up a truth - that the banks own our government and have for a long time!!! Where do you think Premier Bob Carr went after he sold government assets to the banks - thats right, MacQuarie Bank for a salary of $2 million a year!


----------



## like2ski (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> Article in The Australian by Stuart Wilson:
> (note the last paragraph)
> 
> ---------------------------------
> ...




Hi Juan,
Looks like Stewart Wilson is right on the money and has certainly understood the psyche of many of our unit holders. What a pity !!!!!


----------



## great dame (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



ian1328 said:


> I spoke to WC a short time ago and again it was confirmed that a 3c distribution will happen before xmas  with the 1st one probably in the week of Nov. When one bears in mind that they have only had control of of the fund for 12 days thru an unnesessary delay surely a week late on their first distribution is acceptable. Misleading information on this thread about no payments caused a rush of phone calls and panic which helps no-one. Not forgetting there was a court case also about their operation.
> 
> Its about time we investors let WC get on with their job and stop negativity, other companies are falling by the wayside with no one to pick. Give WC a chance and see what happens. Very few people have the knowledge, credentials and experience of Jenny H. She deserves some respect.
> 
> ...



              Did you think to ask WC when will  X DIV day will  be then  That is the KEY date we all must know  for the payment of DIVS   I have tried but they refuse to tell me  Dane //


----------



## seamisty (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Premium Income Fund
Tax Statement Clarification – 27 October 2008Wellington Capital Limited has engaged KPMG as taxation advisers in relation to the Premium Income Fund.
To assist individual investors in completing their 2008 income tax returns, Wellington makes these comments in
response to requests from investors to provide further information arising from the 2008 distribution statement. The
form of the tax statement has been recommended by the Tax Office and the Investment and Financial Services
Association (IFSA) for disclosure by managed funds of tax information to resident individuals for completion of
2008 tax returns.
General information regarding the Premium Income Fund’s 2007/2008 distributions
The Premium Income Fund is a managed investment scheme and operates in a unit trust structure. The Premium
Income Fund reported a net loss for the year of $379 million. The cash distribution to unit holders was
$37.1 million and the taxable income attributable to unit holders was $42.1 million.
As Unitholders have a present entitlement to the income of the Premium Income Fund, the Fund is obliged to
distribute all its taxable income for taxation purposes. For the 2007/2008 financial year, the taxable income was in
excess of the cash distributed to Unitholders.
Reasons for taxable income calculated to be in excess of accounting income and in excess of cash
distributed
During 2007/2008, the Premium Income Fund invested in various structured investments, including but not limited
to mortgages, property trusts, direct equity, and other managed funds. As a result, the Premium Income Fund
received many different streams of income.
Each source of income has its own income tax outcomes that flow through to Unitholders, for example interest,
dividends (franked and unfranked), foreign income, capital gains / losses and other income.
During the year the Premium Income Fund made a significant number of impairment decisions on its assets. These
impairments for accounting purposes are expensed through the profit and loss statement, but are not able to be
claimed as deductions for income tax purposes, either because they are unrealised or of a capital nature.
There are a number of other timing related income tax adjustments in the fund that has resulted in a variance
between accounting and taxable income, items such as but not limited to borrowing costs, accrued expenses and
insurance have all contributed to the variance.
As a result of the limited cash distributions paid from the fund during the year, an unusual variance has occurred
whereby the taxable income has exceeded the cash distributions paid to unit holders. Unit holders will need to
report in their income tax returns the taxable distribution made to them during the year, not just the cash distributed
income.
Why don’t I have a capital gain in my distribution?
During 2007/2008, the Premium Income Fund sold a number of its non core investments. As a result of these
disposals, the Fund has retained carried forward capital losses to be utilised in future periods. Under current
legislation these capital losses are unable to be distributed to the Unitholders, but must be retained by the fund for
future offset against capital gains.


----------



## great dame (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hear is thought for what its worth  .This 3 cents div will take about 23 Mill  out of the fund the fund will lose about 6.73%  Not good at all there is no way the fund can pay double that next year thats 6 cents a year   Guess you could keep paying it and just let the fund run down over time  But a good manager would stop paying DIVS  & try & build the fund  up  that would be the correct way to go  Jh would agree with that i am sure //Dane ///


----------



## Duped (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> The Premium Income Fund is a managed investment scheme and operates in a unit trust structure. The Premium
> Income Fund reported a net loss for the year of $379 million. The cash distribution to unit holders was
> $37.1 million and the taxable income attributable to unit holders was $42.1 million.
> As Unitholders have a present entitlement to the income of the Premium Income Fund, the Fund is obliged to
> distribute all its taxable income for taxation purposes.




This is not directed at you seamisty.

So I have to pay tax (out of my salary) on income the fund made and was paid to RBOS for the money looted by Peacock/King/Hutchings.

When will this nightmare end.

And the Fed wants us to spend and invest to keep the economy going.  Well it's a bit hard to spend and invest when your ATO keeps taking my income!!! What a crok.


----------



## simgrund (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Premium Income Fund
> Tax Statement Clarification – 27 October 2008Wellington Capital Limited has engaged KPMG as taxation advisers in relation to the Premium Income Fund...........




KPMG????????   See article in Australian 14 Oct 08 by Susannah Moran 
"KPMG sued for $200m by ASIC over Westpoint"; to be heard on 7/11.


----------



## Duped (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Duped
> The odds of finding anybody to buy in an off market transfer at more than 10c would be higher  than  finding a  live Tasmanian Tiger at the moment
> That is why i did not want to confuse that poor investor .




Agreed. When it relates to open market selling. I should have used a capital IF.  

But my mind is presently focussed on tax planning so I read the question from only that perspective. I'm hoping to book the capital loss but keep the up side in the family.  In which case I'll already have a buyer. I just need to make a capital gain that large first.


----------



## breaker1 (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just to advise - not only did I get interviewed by a newspaper yesterday, but this morning ABC radio Perth rang me to also tape an interview for replay at 10.45am about advice I/we could give investors of many other frozen funds.

I find these off the cuff interviews are only going to deliver what the interviewer wants - they ask the questions.


----------



## selciper (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Looking up the WC PIF website today is a useless act if you want any updated information on the distribution date. It doesn't add up. If there's to be a delay in the payment, why not publish an apology and explanation? Pleasant as they are, the people giving information on the hotline don't seem to have been briefed from one central command point. Reliable communication at this time is of the highest priority, so WC put a notice up on your website!


----------



## Burnt (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Just to advise - not only did I get interviewed by a newspaper yesterday, but this morning ABC radio Perth rang me to also tape an interview for replay at 10.45am about advice I/we could give investors of many other frozen funds.
> 
> I find these off the cuff interviews are only going to deliver what the interviewer wants - they ask the questions.





Please tell us what your advice is.


----------



## great dame (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

To my way of thinking  WC don't give a stuff about us now  . They have us all locked up in the bag  .We can squeal as loud as we want but it will do no good WC wont return my calls any more  And there is nothing we can do   /Dane //


----------



## breaker1 (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Please tell us what your advice is.




Set up a forum like this one
Start up an action group
Put out the odd media release
Get a hold of the fund register
Be preparred to sacrifice much of your spare time
Encourage the use of the talents of the members of the action group
Use the AG support base to gain respect and access of and to the fund managers
Don't worry, your health is more important than your money

....that sort of thing, but don't expect what you actually say to actually be printed.


----------



## Burnt (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> To my way of thinking  WC don't give a stuff about us now  . They have us all locked up in the bag  .We can squeal as loud as we want but it will do no good WC wont return my calls any more  And there is nothing we can do   /Dane //




Unit holders of the PIF own the Fund - WC work for the Fund and are answerable to Unit Holders. What professionalism they display in carrying out their role and in answering Unit Holders questions and providing them with accurate and reliable information !!!  LOL

We can actually do something - COMPLAIN TO THE NSX - WC are now answerable to them also !!!! Keep squealing.


----------



## Burnt (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Set up a forum like this one
> Start up an action group
> Put out the odd media release
> Get a hold of the fund register
> ...




You have done all this work and what have you achieved ? 

The PIF AG has only ever supported Wellingtons schemes. You could have just done nothing and the same outcome would have been achieved.

I'm thinking that quite a few unit holders that followed your advice to vote for Wellingtons resolutions are now feeling rather stupid after reading this mornings article in The Australian. Particularly given that on top of things, the promised October cash payment (which swung a lot of votes) is not going to happen.

Good Work !!!!


----------



## danger danger (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> You have done all this work and what have you achieved ?
> 
> The PIF AG has only ever supported Wellingtons schemes. You could have just done nothing and the same outcome would have been achieved.
> 
> ...




Well for one he started this thread that you come on all the time and offer nothing but criticism, so even if he only did that, he has done a darn sight more than you will ever do for unit holders.


----------



## seamisty (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The PIF AG has only ever supported Wellingtons schemes:::::: I wasn't aware that there was ever a better alternative scheme apart from liquidation on offer Burnt.Apparently I wasn't alone on making these very clever observations. Seamisty


----------



## Juan Mortyme (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This article by Michael West appeared in SMH last week.  Although its about City Pacific, I think it makes an interesting read.


*Time to shut down City Pac*

   by Michael West
   October 23, 2008


The legion of small investors stuck in City Pacific's mortgage fund should reject the swap proposal put by management, call in an administrator, put the thing under as quickly as possible and distribute whatever is left over.

To allow this questionable mob to trade on any longer is merely to allow Commonwealth Bank to clean up on penalty interest rates, Phil Sullivan and City's discredited management to rip out more lush fees, and their property developer mates to stay on the funding drip, all while asset prices are falling.

We will explain in a tick why City Pacific has little hope of ever trading out of its predicament. Firstly, though, it should be made clear what options are open to beleaguered investors in the mortgage funds in respect of a wind-up.

CBA is the major secured creditor to the City Pacific First Mortgage Fund (FMF). It gets paid out first in the event of insolvency. After the employees and the receiver that is. Unsecured creditors, with their $900 million in savings frozen in the fund, rank behind secured creditors.

Those who are unlucky enough to own shares in the parent company also, into which management is trying to switch FMF unitholders, rank even further back in the queue and would be a snowflake's chance in Hades of ever clawing back a cent were that to go belly up - which is probable.

Investors should also be aware that although CBA is also a creditor its interests are categorically not aligned with theirs.

Penalties

Already the bank appears to be charging penalty interest rates as City has been technically in default. Those penalties are likely to rise, and they bite directly into what FMF unitholders can expect to get back in a wind-up.

We are not suggesting there has been some sort of Faustian Pact struck here between City and its bankers, merely pointing out that CBA knows it has a buffer and will gouge as much out of this wobbling property empire as it can.

Simply, the bank is owed at least $121.5 million and a fire-sale of the assets would throw up more than that. The figure may be 50 cents to 80 cents in the dollar as long as the insolvency experts didn't dig in for the gouge.

However, the latest published ``average variable interest rate'' on the bank debt is 11.16%. As this is an average, we can assume that it is now higher than 11.16% as this time last year City was not in breach and bank rates were lower.

Leap of faith

What are the fund's assets worth?

There are 880.3 million $1 units. An impairment charge of $53 million has already been taken which gives a closing balance of $827.3 million. Strip out CBA's debt of $121.5 million (it would be higher now, that was on September 25).

If impairment charges - and this is being charitable - are worth 6 cents per unit and the CBA debt is worth 14 cents per unit, then there is 80 cents per unit of value left in the fund.

We are assuming here - and this is the greatest leap of faith since the Virgin of Lourdes - that City's property valuations can be trusted. And we are assuming that no more impairment charges will be taken.

Reaping

To the operations: City advertises to get peoples' savings into its fund then on-lends the money to either its own property development operations in the parent company and elsewhere, and to property developer associates, at a higher rate.

It makes money on the ``spread'', apart from reaping $38 million in funds management revenue last year (at a time when the funds were frozen), it booked $23.6 million in ``rendering of financial services''.

This spread becomes negative when you add in City Pacific's management fees of the FMF. (If counting just the interest charged to developers and interest technically due to be paid unitholders, the spread remains slightly positive.)

In other words, the interest which they receive from developers is less than the 11.16% interest payable on the debt in the mortgage fund - which was $13.6 million annualised. This will hit the value of the mortgage fund too.

Looking at the debt maturity breakdown in the FMF annual report, $575.8 million was due by September 30. That was due five days later and although there is nothing published lately you can bet City could not have got its hands on even a decent fraction of that.

The biggest loan was $188.4 million to Martha Cove, a flash development on the road out of Melbourne to Portsea, and a related party.

All up, some $336.7 million of loans were past due at the end of June, which were extended by the FMF. Related party loans as of June 30 totalled $255 million.

`Past due'

Which brings us to the next point: capitalised interest. Instead of making interest payments every month, as you would do under a normal loan arrangement, most of the City developers don't pay interest. Rather, it is added on to the principal of the loan to be paid back at the end of the term.

The question is, will it ever be paid back? City the parent company has been boasted of its profits for years but when you look through them you find they were based on revenue numbers bulked up by capitalising interest on its loans and booking it as income.

The loans are rolled over. The interest goes on top. Some are second mortgages with high-risk rates of 20% or more. So City is booking non-existent profits, though technically a legal practice, by rolling over developer loans.

That is coming home to roost, and every day this fund trades on with redemptions frozen the interest charges flow to the CBA and the capitalised interest to developers escalates.

At June 30, loans ``past due'', or in breach, were $159.5 million and loans due that were rolled over were $336.7 million. That's $496.2 million which would have been past due at the balance date had the loans not been renegotiated.

Over half of the entire loan book, in other words, would have been ``past due'' had these extensions not been made.

Piquant aromas

The sad thing is that while City is burning the savings of its small investors - now blaming the credit crunch - its executives got rich by generating supercharged profits from capitalised interest and ripping the money out via dividends in the head stock.

They should be forced to restate their profits like ABC Learning.

Even on the impairment charge, the principal was $33.3 million and the capitalised interest $19.7 million. If they didn't capitalise that interest they would not have dusted that $19.7 million which, incidentally, was dusted mostly outside the Gold Coast.

Melbourne, it seems, is City Pacific's nemesis.

This reporter first smelt a rat upon hearing that City was flying institutional investors down in a helicopter to visit the Martha Cove project two years ago.

Helicopters are ``tres'' Gold Coast 1980s. They throw up a piquant aroma of the flashy entrepreneur desperate to impress.

Following the helicopter ride, City last did an equity raising in the head stock via a placement to the likes of Perpetual, Dick Pratt's Thorney and others in February 2007 at $4.60 a share.

They raised $80 million and it was done one week prior to the release of the interim results. The stock got promptly slammed as a large chunk of the group's ``record'' interim profit was from asset revaluations. Without them profit would have fallen.

The institutions saw the writing on the wall and bailed. Still, the $80 million was in the bank and the stock was in the $3 range.

Now, the entire market cap is $25 million. This thing is gone.

Once the fund investors appoint their own administrator, CBA will go straight over the top with its own receiver. Still, the administrator is there to keep the receiver honest.

-----------------end------------------

Link: http://business.smh.com.au/business...20081023-56zo.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2


----------



## Juan Mortyme (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

...and here's City Pacific's response to the West article:

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20081024/pdf/31d3lgdl1qg4yj.pdf


----------



## Burnt (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> The PIF AG has only ever supported Wellingtons schemes:::::: I wasn't aware that there was ever a better alternative scheme apart from liquidation on offer Burnt.Apparently I wasn't alone on making these very clever observations. Seamisty




Alternative was to vote no, appoint an independent administrator.
See Michael West article above.


----------



## danger danger (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Alternative was to vote no, appoint an independent administrator.
> See Michael West article above.




Well it appears that the majority of unit holders did NOT think that this was the better alternative and clearly demonstrated that in their voting, giving WC an overwhelming vote of confidence.


----------



## seamisty (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Alternative was to vote no, appoint an independent administrator.
> See Michael West article above.



That choice was as popular as a 'pork chop in a synagogue', hence we are  with WC. Move on. Seamisty


----------



## Burnt (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Alternative was to vote no, appoint an independent administrator.
> See Michael West article above.




Response to your question regarding better alternative.

You are quite right on one point Dangler, Breaker did a great job in starting this thread. Thank you for that. The sentiments he expressed at the beginning of this saga reflected most others, however he ended up going down the "alternative" path, shame.


----------



## danger danger (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> That choice was as popular as a 'pork chop in a synagogue', hence we are  with WC. Move on. Seamisty




LOL!! Reminds me of that joke where you say in a sarcastic way someone was so popular that even as a kid their parents had to tie a pork chop around their neck, just to get the dog to play with them!


----------



## Burnt (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> Well it appears that the majority of unit holders did NOT think that this was the better alternative and clearly demonstrated that in their voting, giving WC an overwhelming vote of confidence.




Voting results seemed to also indicate that a very large number of unit holders were totally confused about what exactly they were voting on and therefore weren't able to register an opinion. 

But anyway, time will tell I guess. Let's just hold our breath, cross our fingers and hope for the best eh.


----------



## danger danger (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Response to your question regarding better alternative.
> 
> You are quite right on one point Dangler, Breaker did a great job in starting this thread. Thank you for that. The sentiments he expressed at the beginning of this saga reflected most others, however he ended up going down the "alternative" path, shame.




He went down the path of most investors, including me and many other players in this fund with a lot of cashola at stake went down. No shame in that at all mate. That's the way the smart investor voted, considering the 'alternative' stunk!!


----------



## great dame (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Unit holders of the PIF own the Fund - WC work for the Fund and are answerable to Unit Holders. What professionalism they display in carrying out their role and in answering Unit Holders questions and providing them with accurate and reliable information !!!  LOL
> 
> We can actually do something - COMPLAIN TO THE NSX - WC are now answerable to them also !!!! Keep squealing.



      And i know who will be squealing the loudest one day All the poor miss lead souls who votes yes    Saying what fools we were to be taken  like that  ////////////


----------



## CableGuy (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> SNIP...I wasn't aware that there was ever a better alternative scheme apart from liquidation on offer Burnt.Apparently I wasn't alone on making these very clever observations. Seamisty




Unit holders were only presented with a subset of available options which suited WC.  There was no real choice on offer.

You put blinkers on a horse to keep it's attention focused on what you want rather than what it wants, after a while it just forgets about the blinkers and what is behind them.  *insert flogged nag here*

-----
"I didn't do this to you, you did this to you."


----------



## JohnH (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Voting results seemed to also indicate that a very large number of unit holders were totally confused about what exactly they were voting on and therefore weren't able to register an opinion.
> 
> But anyway, time will tell I guess. Let's just hold our breath, cross our fingers and hope for the best eh.




Voting results also indicate that a very small number of unit holders were totally confused about what exactly they were voting against, and terefore weren't able to register a constructive opinion.


----------



## great dame (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> And i know who will be squealing the loudest one day All the poor miss lead souls who votes yes    Saying what fools we were to be taken  like that  ////////////



    Yes these miss guider souls were all lead to believe  by JH  that they could bail out on the NSX  & get about 45 cents a unit She also said stay in the fund and get a $1 on the exchange in 3 to 5 years  Gee whiz  Well all that cheap talk sure got all the  suckers to vote yes  I realy cant blame them in a way  none of them would clue about finance  which is now going to cost them plenty  /////////


----------



## selciper (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I couldn't wait any longer for the hotline to call me back earlier. Does anyone have any sort of update regarding the October distribution? If the hotline is over-extended because of investors wanting to know about this once-promised payment, WC have only themselves to blame for allowing it to reach this point. This is becoming a very serious situation for WC (apart from us) because trust is everything in these circumstances. The evolving tensions must be creating a lot of anxiety for many - but the ones who don't read this thread are probably unaware of the problems. And WC are presently making it a pretty rough ride for their loyal supporters.


----------



## great dame (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> I couldn't wait any longer for the hotline to call me back earlier. Does anyone have any sort of update regarding the October distribution? If the hotline is over-extended because of investors wanting to know about this once-promised payment, WC have only themselves to blame for allowing it to reach this point. This is becoming a very serious situation for WC (apart from us) because trust is everything in these circumstances. The evolving tensions must be creating a lot of anxiety for many - but the ones who don't read this thread are probably unaware of the problems. And WC are presently making it a pretty rough ride for their loyal supporters.



 Selciper i have been waiting 2 days now for WC to get back to me   Dane ///


----------



## DoraNBoots (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

NSX announcement regarding no Oct payment, and legal proceedings...
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021720841.PDF


----------



## seamisty (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Investor,
The financial services industry is experiencing a
most difficult period. The All Ordinaries index
has dropped by 28.15% since 1 July 2008, with
almost half of that decrease occurring in the 2
weeks since our general meeting of unitholders
was held on 15 October 2008.
The global financial crisis has seen the federal
government take extraordinary steps to attempt to
stabilise the nation’s financial system, including
the unprecedented step of guaranteeing all bank
deposits.
In response to these measures, all Australian
mortgage funds have experienced great
difficulties and many are frozen. It seems that an
unintended consequence of the announcement is
the creation of concerns amongst investors about
the security of income investments not covered by
the federal government guarantee. There is
currently a combined $22 billion of funds frozen
in the mortgage fund sector in Australia.
Historically, mortgage funds have provided
investors and borrowers with competitive
alternatives to traditional lenders. Recent market
events have seen this change. These fund
managers would have typically been the logical
place for borrowers from the Premium Income
Fund to seek to refinance once their loan term had
come to an end.
The availability of credit has tightened and this
had the effect of purchasers of the underlying
assets from the Premium Income Fund, or from
the Fund’s borrowers being unable to raise the
required finance to complete the transactions.
The 3 settlements planned for October 2008 with
planned realisations of over $25 million have
failed to settle. Consequently the Premium
Income Fund debt remains at $9.5 million and the
Fund is unable to pay an October distribution.
Asset realisations for the period
2 May 2008 to 24 October 2008
The following assets have been realised between
2 May 2008 and 24 October 2008.
Estimated
Realisable Value
at 31 May 2008
Actual
Realisation
Mortgages
Hastings Point NSW
(refinance)
$14 million $12.659 million
Sylvania NSW $19.682 million $20.018 million
Creswick VIC (partial
sale of underlying assets)
$2.434 million $2.434 million
Brooklyn West VIC $0.5 million $0.549 million
St Leonards NSW $8 million $8 million
Asset backed securities
Sydney based company
(partial realisation of
underlying assets)
$2 million $2 million
Living and Leisure
Australia Trust loan
(partial realisation)
$10 million $10 million
Diversified trust $10.084 million $10.2 million
Property Fund $17 million $17 million
Cash $15.417 million $15.417 million
Total $99.117 million $98.277 million
Wellington continues to work closely with each
borrower to facilitate the repayment of their
finance facilities in this difficult financial market.
In circumstances where the borrowers are
ultimately unable to repay, the Premium Income
Fund has first ranking security over these assets
and will take appropriate action to ensure
Unitholder’s funds are secured against the asset by
becoming mortgagee in possession.
Wellington remains focussed on orderly asset
management and realisation to enable cash
payments to be made to Unitholders.
Premium Income Fund
Investor Update: 28 October 2008
For further information please contact:
Jenny Hutson
Chairperson
Wellington Capital Limited
as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund
ACN 114 248 458 AFSL 291 562
Phone: 1300 854 885
Email: investorrelations@newpif.com.au
Bond Street Custodians Limited –
Federal Court Proceedings
As notified to Unitholders and the market on
Friday 24 October 2008, Bond Street Custodians
Limited filed a claim against Wellington
Investment Management Limited on
16 October 2008 being the day after our general
meeting for $16.254 million in relation to a
redemption request for 16.254 million units in the
Wholesale Premium Income Fund which was
lodged on 21 January 2008. This was shortly prior
to the suspension of redemptions.
Wellington Investment Management Limited
intends to vigorously defend the claim on behalf
of all Unitholders.
The underlying Unitholders of the 16.254 million
units are clients of Avenue Capital Management
Limited (‘Avenue’), a financial planning
organisation.
Paul Manka and Michael Hiscock were members
of the board of Avenue at the time the redemption
request was lodged. Paul Manka was a director of
MFS Limited at that time, and is now Chairman.
Michael Hiscock was a director of MFS Limited
until 16 January 2008. Paul Manka resigned from
the board of Avenue on 4 February 2008, and
Michael Hiscock on 4 June 2008.
The legal action is currently scheduled to be
before the Court on 14 November 2008.
Octaviar Limited –
Support Facility and Supreme Court
proceedings
The first meetings of creditors of Octaviar
Limited and four of its subsidiaries, including
Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd were held on 24
September 2008.
A further creditors meeting is due to be held by 19
December 2008. The board of Wellington is in
continued discussions with the administrator with
a view to recovery of the $50 million Support
Facility and $147.5 million the subject of legal
proceedings before the Supreme Court of
Queensland.
October cash payment
The first instalment of the cash payment was
scheduled to be paid by the end of October 2008.
The board of Wellington Capital Limited has
resolved that in view of the extraordinary market
instability and the current inability of borrowers
of the Premium Income Fund to refinance their
debt facilities away from the Premium Income
Fund, cash payments to investors cannot proceed
until there is more certainty.
It is a very difficult and uncertain time, and the
board is aware of and concerned about your
economic hardship. I assure you that the team at
Wellington is working hard to ensure the value of
Unitholders’ investment in the Premium Income
Fund is maximised.
Wellington, as you are aware, will not receive any
management fees from the Premium Income Fund
until after cash payments totalling 3 cents per Unit
have been made to all Unitholders


----------



## selciper (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Terrible news. Sounds like MFS-Speak all over again.


----------



## seamisty (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Wellington Capital staff had the decency to call me as the announcement was posted on the NSX as I had made several enquiries on behalf of myself and other unitholders earlier today. They were all briefed after an emergency meeting was called by the WC board at 3.00pm today. Thay are all extremely dissapointed and shattered at having to pass on this extremely unwelcome news.The distibutions were to be paid from 3 planned settlements that ALL fell through due to being unable to secure any refinancing from ANY institution. WC is continuing to work with these people but can do nothing until finance is secured. The banks are not even lending. Devastating news for all concerned. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Terrible news. Sounds like MFS-Speak all over again.



We can only be thankfull that our remaining assets will not be siphoned off. I actually sent a copy of one of your earlier posts to WC this morning Selciper and along with my e-mail and asked that we please be informed and updated. Sadly the news is very distressing. Seamisty


----------



## mgr2118 (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Can't understand that, less than 2 weeks ago, at the Shareholders Meeting, the Oct distributions were still promised.

Also, during the last week, many who have rung the WC hotline have been promised that the Oct distributions WILL BE PAID.

Surely, any professional organisation would have an understanding of their cashflow and expenses, and these would have been the basis of the assurances offered the shareholders during the Shareholders meeting and telephone responses to WC hotline callers.

One might think it very convenient that this last minute removal of distributions is now blamed on the current financial marketplace. We should remember:-

*      whereas other funds have recently had their redemptions frozen, the PIF redemptions facility has been completely removed;
*      WC have been managing assets for 5 months, so there should be no surprises

If we were shareholders in a public listed company (we are NSX listed) then I would think that we should have some recourse on the professionalism of the Management Team.


----------



## DoraNBoots (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mgr2118 said:


> Can't understand that, less than 2 weeks ago, at the Shareholders Meeting, the Oct distributions were still promised.
> 
> Also, during the last week, many who have rung the WC hotline have been promised that the Oct disctributions WILL BE PAID.
> ....



Here are some of the emails from WC to unit holders on Friday 24th Oct...


seamisty said:


> Hi demodocus and All, You must have misinterpreted your information demodocus, the distributions are STILL ON TRACK!!! The following is an e-mail I received from WC just now::::Thank you for your email.
> 
> The directors of Wellington Capital Limited have resolved to make cash payments of 3 cents per unit to all unitholders by 24 Deember 2008, with the first instalment payable by the end of October 2008.
> 
> ...





breaker1 said:


> A senior staffer at Wellington has advised me in writing that WC is determined to make the *first* payment of 1.5c by the end of this October and the second by 24 December.
> ....


----------



## seamisty (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Here are some of the emails from WC to unit holders on Friday 24th Oct...



Dora what do you hope to achieve by re posting these? Obviously WC fully intended to pay the money, the expected settlements budgeted for the payments were not made. Every single investor is in the same sinking boat. The global economy is far worse than it was 5 months ago and possibly will get much worse. Even if the Fund had of been liquidated, there is possibly no buyers except a few waiting in the sidelines for a bargain basement price. Seamisty


----------



## flatback (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Here are some of the emails from WC to unit holders on Friday 24th Oct...



Dora boots i have to agree with you i have been reading threads from seamisty for some months now , the many and varied threads from seamisty ( this person seems determined to always want to please everybody at the same time)and those that they dont agree with, they just shut them out of the thread, from their point of view, so that persons views are removed and cant influence seamistys.
Im sorry seamisty,, but you dont know any more than the rest of us do, so give us a break please . flatback


----------



## DoraNBoots (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Dora what do you hope to achieve by re posting these? Obviously WC fully intended to pay the money, the expected settlements budgeted for the payments were not made. Every single investor is in the same sinking boat. The global economy is far worse than it was 5 months ago and possibly will get much worse. Even if the Fund had of been liquidated, there is possibly no buyers except a few waiting in the sidelines for a bargain basement price. Seamisty



Any action group representative worth their salt would see the significance of these emails.


----------



## newwwtrader (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If it wasnt so sad for all the investors it would be funny.

You cannot possibly tell me that they did not have an inclination at least a couple of weeks ago that this was going to happen.

I would even be prepared to go out on a limb and suggest that they would've known (or should have known) many months ago.

This economic problem has not just appeared. It has been around for a while now. Using the governments announcement as an excuse (which they appear to be doing) is even more wrong.

The fact of the matter is they should not have made promises that they knew they could not keep.

There are many many many many people out there who voted "yes" based solely on the promise that they would be receiving regular distributions. That is why they invested in the fund and that is what they wanted to happen again. They needed that money for medication. For food. For general living costs.

I would be prepared to say that the proposed distribution was the enticement that got the vote over the line. Even though the yes vote was easily over the line. WC knew distributions were what the investors most wanted and they catered to that beautifully.

There hopes were built up and now they have been crushed.

So much for the statement last week that the fund was now well positioned, because essentially they were the first to experience the problems and now they were ready to move forward. Please!!!!!!!!!!!!

People can defend WC all they like. But the fact remains that they have let this rumour and innuendo simmer for about a week now. They knew the writing was on the wall. Yet they still built up peoples hope by maintaining the line that they would be paying.

In a way I feel for those who have earned the respect of this board for the information that they provide. Posting information which others rely on. Relaying messages from WC. And now, ending up with egg on your face. 

One thing that has amazed me has been the lack of trades. I first thought there would have been a rush. I was wrong. I then thought people wre hanging on to get the distribution and then they would sell. I think that might have been what was going to happen. But now what? With no distributions in sight one can only wonder what will happen next.

Either way I feel for the investors.


----------



## Burnt (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mgr2118 said:


> Can't understand that, less than 2 weeks ago, at the Shareholders Meeting, the Oct distributions were still promised.
> 
> Also, during the last week, many who have rung the WC hotline have been promised that the Oct distributions WILL BE PAID.
> 
> ...




Good comment.
Either Wellington has been lying repeatedly for the last two weeks by promising cash payments in October, OR they are far too incompetent to be managing the Fund if they have been taken by surprise in the last day or so.

I would like to see a list of assets realised since 30th June. This would be more helpful. Also why does the Sylvania mortgage show a realisable value at 2 May as $19.682mil when the balance outstanding as at 31 May was shown as $34.365mil ?


----------



## DoraNBoots (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Good comment.
> Either Wellington has been lying repeatedly for the last two weeks by promising cash payments in October, OR they are far too incompetent to be managing the Fund if they have been taken by surprise in the last day or so.
> 
> I would like to see a list of assets realised since 30th June. This would be more helpful. Also why does the Sylvania mortgage show a realisable value at 2 May as $19.682mil when the balance outstanding as at 31 May was shown as $34.365mil ?



The asset realisation table is a waste of space.  There should be a column that shows book value so we can track losses.


----------



## selciper (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This is now a horrendous situation. We can keep repeating that statement, but it doesn't help investors. Really, somebody who understands all the intricacies is required to help us fast. For instance, the government is nosing around PIF-type investment schemes and is even considering arms' length ways of providing liquidity (I could be wrong, but that's how I heard it.) The contradictory information recently coming out of WC regarding the distributions makes me fearful for the future. The MFS newsletters were a lesson in how to read between the lines. And I didn't feel comfortable with what I read today. Perhaps Dora who understands the technical aspects very well might have some ideas. We can hardly be expected to endure many more months of depressing broken promises. The NSX listing has hardly worked out. Can you ever unlist? Just a wild thought because the grand plan is clearly failing.


----------



## DoraNBoots (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> …The distibutions were to be paid from 3 planned settlements that ALL fell through due to being unable to secure any refinancing from ANY institution. WC is continuing to work with these people but can do nothing until finance is secured. The banks are not even lending. Devastating news for all concerned. Seamisty




Non bank lending stopped months ago.  Any person with business experience who has gone through a financing knows that the process is:
- loan application
- loan assessment and provision of further information including costs
- valuation
- indicative letter of offer
- formal letter of offer
- provision of information required in letter of offer
- loan documentation
- settlement

This process takes months not days. Therefore to have expected settlement to allow the payment of the distribution the loans should have been at loan documentation stage at least two weeks ago.

Any manager worth their salt would have been tracking the borrowers process and requiring copies of documents at each stage to ensure progress has been made. 

There is simply no way that WC were not aware on the 15th of October that there will be no funds available for the distribution. To have seen settlements occurring the borrower would have needed formal letters of offer at least a month ago.

WC told ComputerShare there was a Record Date of 17th Oct 2008 for a 3 cent payment on the 31st Oct 2008.  The fact that the NSX were not notified shows WC's intentions.


----------



## mgr2118 (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Non bank lending stopped months ago.  Any person with business experience who has gone through a financing knows that the process is:
> - loan application
> - loan assessment and provision of further information including costs
> - valuation
> ...




Hi Dora,

I couldn't agree with you more.

One can only conclude that:-

1.   WC are completely incompetent to perform as RE; and/or
2.   WC were aware of the problem but chose to withhold these details over the past 2-4 weeks.

I cannot comprehend how any professional RE can offer these MFS-like excuses at this late stage.


----------



## sugar3157 (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Non bank lending stopped months ago.  Any person with business experience who has gone through a financing knows that the process is:
> - loan application
> - loan assessment and provision of further information including costs
> - valuation
> ...




well well well
finally I can say good bye to all my money...
WC JH what a load of #@$% they told us...
promises promises...mmmm
very very depressed.....


----------



## selciper (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It's surprising how little traffic there is on this thread tonight considering the bad news now facing investors. Thousands are probably still believing that they'll have extra money to spare on 31st October.  MGR2118 - can only agree with you. But what could be a solution to this fiasco? We can't remain in these quicksands forever. We need Ms Hutson to provide a plan with timelines. But would we now have any confidence in them? I haven't forgotten 14 cents 45 cents and 65 cents and watching the WC DVDs. 

The global financial crisis was also used by MFS as an excuse. There's been been plenty of forewarning since at least December of last year about the present challenges.


----------



## danger danger (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Whilst this inability by the RE to pay the Oct distribution is devastating, it just goes to show that going down the liquidation / orderly realisation would have been a totally wrong decision.

It seems that your understanding of property settlements is of great use to the unitholders Dora. Will you be confronting JH about why it was not revealed to us earlier on that the Oct 31 payment was going to be a problem.

Things must be REALLY bad out there, as I am sure that nothing would have pleased WC more than to pay the first 1.5c payment, just for the PR component alone, and promoting confidence among the unit holders in JH and her company.

I am gobsmacked like most here. I just spoke to Seamisty and is devastated, she really believed as we all did that there would be stability. Things must be dire out there and no one can access money. We might end up with a stack load of real estate that we may have to hang on to till things get better, so this may mean no distributions for a while, this sucks!!

Does anyone know if WC will not getting their payment is limited to us getting the 3c total payment, or is it a case of once we get it then they will continue getting paid even if we never see another cent after the 3c for years to come??


----------



## Dexter (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Many thanks Dora for all your hard work and research - much appreciated.

It is a pity more people did not take note of your informed posts.

Now that all our rights have been voted away I can not understand everyones surprise at being let down.

Get use to it!

Read the NSX disclosure from WC firmly stating there will be no distributions after December '08 for the forseeable future and certainly no redemptions.  This is what the majority voted for.

PS.  J.H was not legally able to place the Fund in liquidation without unitholders approval.  This of course was not mentioned in the Information  Memorandum forwarded to voters.  

G.H.


----------



## DoraNBoots (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> …
> It seems that your understanding of property settlements is of great use to the unitholders Dora. Will you be confronting JH about why it was not revealed to us earlier on that the Oct 31 payment was going to be a problem.
> …



No I won’t be confronting JH.  I’ve tried to get answers from WC and continually get given incorrect information.  I am yet to decide if they are just inexperienced (which they are) or deliberately misleading. I’ll leave contact with WC up to people like yourself who have a good relationship with them.


danger danger said:


> …
> I am gobsmacked like most here. I just spoke to Seamisty and is devastated, she really believed as we all did that there would be stability. Things must be dire out there and no one can access money. We might end up with a stack load of real estate that we may have to hang on to till things get better, so this may mean no distributions for a while, this sucks!!
> …



We didn’t all believe there would be stability.  ALL spreadsheets and figures that were crunched by PIF unit holders show the PIF is not doing well and that the projections by WC were unrealistic.  That’s why people like myself were called ‘negative’.


danger danger said:


> …
> Does anyone know if WC will not getting their payment is limited to us getting the 3c total payment, or is it a case of once we get it then they will continue getting paid even if we never see another cent after the 3c for years to come??



WC told the judge and have put in writing that they will not take a management fee before unit holders get a 3 cent per unit payment.  There is no time frame for this.  But once the 3 cents if paid management fees will continue regardless of any further payments to unit holders.  What I wonder is if WC will backpay their fees once they pay us our 3 cents.


----------



## Burnt (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> Whilst this inability by the RE to pay the Oct distribution is devastating, it just goes to show that going down the liquidation / orderly realisation would have been a totally wrong decision.
> 
> It seems that your understanding of property settlements is of great use to the unitholders Dora. Will you be confronting JH about why it was not revealed to us earlier on that the Oct 31 payment was going to be a problem.
> 
> ...




Yes thanks again Dora - at least there is someone supplying us with accurate information. I'm sure that NSX will be confronting WC as to why disclosure of non-payment of the promised Oct distribution was not made earlier. Perhaps it was NSX that forced them to do it today ?

What has happened today does nothing to prove that an orderly realisation would not have been the best option !

I know of people who are currently being able to access money quite easily - maybe it depends on who those people are - but then we'll never know (or will we).

And yes, once a distribution is paid (if ever), WC will receive ongoing fees, which by the way are based on a 45c/unit valuation, while we get nothing.

This was the best alternative remember !


----------



## Burnt (28 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Dexter said:


> Many thanks Dora for all your hard work and research - much appreciated.
> 
> It is a pity more people did not take note of your informed posts.
> 
> ...




Well stated Dexter.

PS. Even though it was not mentioned in the memorandum issued to investors, it was mentioned many times on here that JH could not liquidate the Fund. Maybe you need to wear a red leather jacket and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on stage shows and glossy mail outs to be more convincing than the Corporations Act (no red leather or bright lights there).


----------



## breaker1 (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

At least the Comm. Government starting to think of assisting non bank funds, but it appears only if they are "bank quality"!

We need to be approaching WC to make sure they are lobying the treasurer for assistance for funds like ours.

"TREASURY officials are working on options to extend the Government's bank guarantee to some cash management funds under which the funds would open their books to prove that their assets are bank quality.

Regulators then would assess whether the bank deposit guarantee should apply to the funds, The Australian reports.

The plan could provide an acceptable compromise to Kevin Rudd's reluctance to extend the $1.2 trillion bank deposit guarantee to market-linked investments and offer greater security for cash management trust investors.

The Australian understands the Government is also considering boosting liquidity in the secondary market for debt that has dried up in recent weeks, via another top-up of investments in wholesale paper through The Australian Office of Financial Management.

The AOFM has already signalled an $8 billion investment in residential mortgaged backed securities (RMBS), but a further extension is likely to be far less, around the $1 billion mark.

The new investment would involve providing security or purchasing corporate debt that would not normally be marketed to retail investors. The AOFM would then own the loan.

Fund managers, the Government and regulators are continuing talks in Canberra today to find a way to unlock the $25 billion of frozen investment funds, including property trusts, that is threatening the retirement savings of about 60,000 Australians.

*Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner today flagged further measures to help free up frozen funds to investors facing hardship and predicted the pension bill would also rise as up to 500,000 more retirees seek part pensions.

“There are powers that are available potentially to deal with these kind of circumstances, but it is a very complex situation and it is very important to ensure that if any further initiatives are taken, they are done in a very considered way,” Mr Tanner told ABC radio.*

“But there are a number of factors bearing down on the sector that are having an effect, in particular the international circumstances generally, the fall in share markets, the squeeze in credit markets and the influence of the bank guarantee as well.

“So we are continuing to work with the key regulators to improve the situation.”

Former Commonwealth Bank chief David Murray, who chairs the Government's $63 billion superannuation Future Fund, also said today more thought should have been put into the original bank deposit policy.

“There was clearly a concern to announce the guarantee quickly, (but) there could have been more thought given to how it was done,” Mr Murray told ABC radio.

“What the Government and banks should do, with the support of the Reserve Bank, is to get in and find a way of providing some liquidity into these funds by buying their securities at market price.”

Read more on this story at The Australian.

Find the powers Lindsay!!


----------



## seamisty (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The federal government will give investment funds the opportunity to be covered by its bank deposit guarantee scheme, as long as they agree to increased regulation.To be eligible, entities will have to meet Australia's prudential regulatory requirements:::KEVIN RUDD told managers of frozen mortgage funds last night that they would have to behave like banks and undergo the same levels of scrutiny if they wanted the Government's guarantee on deposits.

The Prime Minister issued the challenge as he announced financial regulators would be given an extra $83 million to help them speed up applications by mortgage funds wishing to be reclassified.:::::: Wellington Capital is classed as a 'boutique merchant bank', what would it take for the PIF to meet the proposed criteria? If it was eligible, what would the advantages to unit holders be? Also from a media article:::::Becoming an authorised deposit-taking institution requires funds and others to meet new strict requirements from the prudential regulator, including holding a certain amount of capital in reserve to back their loans.

Finding the capital would be difficult in the current tight financial conditions, and fulfilling the regulatory requirements could take months or years.::::::Seamisty


----------



## communique (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



wallyt99 said:


> AYyyyyy.....
> 
> 
> What is backing the deposit guarantee?  Future debt obligations? Hyper inflation?
> ...




This was from the MORE TAXPAYERS - MONEY USED BADLY thread.

The bigger picture is more important here. Consequences of this action would be catastrophic.  I am now getting worried about our federal government.

The reality is WC is forcing people to use NSX - why would she pay your 3c when for no effort she can force you, if you are desperate to sell on NSX.


----------



## great dame (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

All the true believer fools who all got sucked in & voted yes  I wonder if you would vote yes now  You yes voters all thought i was wrong  But believe me it dose not give me pleasure in saying  now you were all   warned  I think our DORA could do a better job running the fund  standing on her head Eyre's closed & her hands tired behind her back   //Dane ///


----------



## professor_frink (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> All the true believer fools who all got sucked in & voted yes  I wonder if you would vote yes now  You yes voters all thought i was wrong  But believe me it dose not give me pleasure in saying  now you were all   warned  I think our DORA could do a better job running the fund  standing on her head Eyre's closed & her hands tired behind her back   //Dane ///




dame, there is no need to call people fools. It would be appreciated if you wouldn't do it again


----------



## JohnH (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

:microwave  ! ! !


----------



## Juan Mortyme (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



communique said:


> This was from the MORE TAXPAYERS - MONEY USED BADLY thread.
> 
> The bigger picture is more important here. Consequences of this action would be catastrophic.  I am now getting worried about our federal government.
> 
> The reality is WC is forcing people to use NSX - why would she pay your 3c when for no effort she can force you, if you are desperate to sell on NSX.




This from Business Spectator  : http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Rationalising-mortgage-funds-KSQWW?OpenDocument

*Mortgage fund makeover*

The liquidity crisis in the unlisted mortgage trust sector is likely to expose the weaknesses in the operating practices of some funds and accelerate industry rationalisation.

Mortgage funds involved in property development and construction are likely to come under closer scrutiny. Funds with related party transactions could also be vulnerable to further withdrawals. Funds borrowing to pay redemptions or those capitalising interest payments may also be put under the microscope.

Disclosure of these and other key bits of information about mortgage funds will be forced into the open when the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's new regulatory guide for mortgage schemes comes into force on November 30.

ASIC issued its regulatory guide last month. It covers issues relating to liquidity, scheme borrowing, portfolio diversification, related party transactions, valuation policies, lending principles, distribution practices and withdrawal arrangements.

It is clear from reading the guide that ASIC has been worried for some time about the way in which mortgage funds have advertised the availability of withdrawals within a few days despite the illiquid nature of the fund assets.

Funds will now be forced to remind investors that schemes may allow up to one year to satisfy withdrawal requests, that it may take a relatively long time to realise mortgage loans and that the strength of the market for mortgage loans is likely to vary according to economic circumstances.

There are about 80 unlisted mortgage funds in Australia according to Property Investment Research. The smaller funds will likely be rationalised as investors learn more about how the funds are structured and what they invest in.

ASIC's efforts to force more disclosure by the mortgage trust sector follows the near collapse earlier this year of the MFS Prime Income Fund, which froze withdrawals and distributions in January. Unit-holders later discovered that their fund was loaded up with high-risk construction projects and marginal property developments, many of which resulted from related party transactions.

The $770 million fund suffered a $367 million decline in the assessed fair value of its assets in the year to June 2008. The fund, which is now managed by Wellington Capital and is listed on the National Stock Exchange, is suing Octavier, formerly MFS, for $147.5 million. As well, the fund itself was sued on Friday by Bond Street Custodians claiming $16.5 million in relation to a redemption request lodged in January.

The Premium Income Fund debacle probably contributed to the increase in redemptions in the mortgage trust sector. Redemptions have been rising all year but the rate of withdrawals rose significantly following the government guarantee on bank deposits.

However, the Premium Income Fund also showed how to provide unit-holders with liquidity – list on the stock exchange.

Meanwhile, the response of the various unlisted mortgage and income funds to the upsurge in withdrawals has raised questions about the equitable treatment of unit-holders.

For example, Perpetual responded to the surge in withdrawals by suspending all applications and redemptions for its Monthly Income and Mortgage funds. These funds have assets of $2 billion.

Perpetual took the view that it would not be fair and equitable to allow new applications at a time when withdrawals had been changed to a quarterly basis.

Meanwhile AXA Asia Pacific Holdings said it would continue to accept new applications for its $2 billion Australian Monthly Income Fund at the same time as it deferred redemptions from the fund for a period of six months.

In a further sign of the industry's disjointed response to the crisis, Bendigo Bank said it would continue offering redemptions and withdrawals for its $2 billion Sandhurst Select Mortgage Fund.

The bank will provide liquidity to meet any spike in redemptions. Bendigo Bank earned $23 million in fees from the fund in 2007 including $1 million in loan origination fees that were capitalised.

ASIC does not address the issue of equity between unit-holders in its regulatory guidance note.


----------



## DoraNBoots (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There are more offers on the exchange this morning.  There is one for 15 cents!
http://www.nsxa.com.au/prices_alpha.asp?nsxcode=PIN&coname='Premium Income Fund'


----------



## Duped (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> And yes, once a distribution is paid (if ever), WC will receive ongoing fees, which by the way are *based on a 45c/unit valuation*, while we get nothing.




Maybe for this period but mayby not therafter.  NSX listing requires a half yearly report,  (see http://www.nsxa.com.au/documents/listing_rules/NSXLR2004.pdf) which requires reporting on "Net tangible assets per security with the comparative figure for the previous corresponding period."

The 45c valuation was in June 08 (from memory) so it falls outside the current 6 month period.  So there should be another valuation soon.  Right?

Cheers.


----------



## CableGuy (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



ian1328 said:


> I spoke to WC a short time ago and again it was confirmed that a 3c distribution will happen before xmas  with the 1st one probably in the week of Nov...SNIP




Do WC realise that there are 4 weeks in November?



ian1328 said:


> SNIP….Very few people have the knowledge, credentials and experience of Jenny H. She deserves some respect...SNIP




ian1328, could you elaborate on the knowledge, credentials and experience of JH and WC for that matter?  How many years have they been in the funds management business?  WC purchased Rimcorp February 2008 and the existing managers are continuing to manage it for at least 6 months.  WC then acquired the PIF in May.  It would be more accurate to say that JH is gaining knowledge, credentials and experience by experimenting on our fund!

-----
"It's too late for me, but there are alot of little cable boys and girls out there who STILL have a chance! Don't you understand?"


----------



## great dame (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



professor_frink said:


> dame, there is no need to call people fools. It would be appreciated if you wouldn't do it again



 message received loud & clear wont happen again   GD ////


----------



## Burnt (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Maybe for this period but mayby not therafter.  NSX listing requires a half yearly report,  (see http://www.nsxa.com.au/documents/listing_rules/NSXLR2004.pdf) which requires reporting on "Net tangible assets per security with the comparative figure for the previous corresponding period."
> 
> The 45c valuation was in June 08 (from memory) so it falls outside the current 6 month period.  So there should be another valuation soon.  Right?
> 
> Cheers.




Clause 23 of the new Constitution :

The RE is entitled to a fee equal to 0.7% p.a. of the value of the total funds under management as determined with reference to the preceding month and the most recent audited accounts. This fee will be calculated and payable monthly in advance. This remuneration accrues from day to day.

My assumption is that the number of units on issue would be determined by looking at the preceding month and their value would be determined by looking at the value as per the last audited accounts.

The next audited accounts will be done for the half year ended 31st Dec.2008 and will probably be finalised end of March going by past accounts. Therefore, WC will be paid a fee based on 45c/unit at least until end of April 2009 and it wouldn't surprise me if they backdate their fee to June 2008 when they took over - they're technically entitled to it.

Personally, I much preferred the old Constitution and the old fee structure. No profits - No distributions - No fees !


----------



## selciper (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I've just re-read Newwtrader's (yesterday) post 3203. Everything he says makes sense. A week ago a post on this thread asserted that information from WC indicated that there would be no distributions. This activated a flurry of activity with many questions being asked. But WC continued to say that payments would be made. Why? I don't swallow this "last minute" negotiation breakdown stuff. Credibility is everything and you have to earn it by example.


----------



## DoraNBoots (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Sugar,
> 
> That's a great thought! I actually had another valued PIF AG member bring this up via a phone call today.
> 
> ...



CenterLink told me over the phone that they value shares on the NSX in the same way they value shares on the ASX.  This means:
CenterLink do a bulk update two times a year on 20 March and 20 Sept.  They get the market data from 2 weeks prior to that date and update everyone’s details.  I was told we are able to call CenterLink as many times as we like during the year and ask for a reassessment of our shares (from market data which would be 2 weeks old).  The system will only update if doing this is to your benefit.  So if the price on the NSX has gone up compared to the price already on file, the update will not take place.

I don't know if CenterLink are aware yet if the PIF is listed as the person I was speaking to couldn't find any info on it but those that might benefit from this info should call CenterLink and find out.  There was a trade today at 15 cents on the NSX so a reassement in two weeks might be worth while.


----------



## mairmy (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Maybe we'll get our 3c Distribution in December.     We all need it badly.


----------



## great dame (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

They must be able to pay something  /Say half a cent   Just to put food on the table on Xmas day  / Dane ///


----------



## flatback (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> well well well
> finally I can say good bye to all my money...
> WC JH what a load of #@$% they told us...
> promises promises...mmmm
> very very depressed.....



i wouldnt be to worried about it sugar3157,(thats wrong you have every right to be worried about your money) because if the worst happens, the lady in red will end up beside her cronies from Mfs and oct, hopefully in the same cell, Dora is right, there is no way JH was not privy to information which has removed our ability to recieve a distribution in October, and im sure if proven we have the avenue to call a vote of no confidence in our so called RE, using the corporate bodies NSX and ASIC to demand this person and her group be called to task over these outlandish excuses (personally i hope there are enough of us left with a few bob to go after these crooks when the light at the end of the tunnel goes out)Flatback


----------



## seamisty (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

John H please check your PM for extra info.Seamisty


----------



## Duped (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Clause 23 of the new Constitution :
> 
> The RE is entitled to a fee equal to 0.7% p.a. of the value of the total funds under management as determined with reference to the preceding month and the most recent audited accounts. This fee will be calculated and payable monthly in advance. This remuneration accrues from day to day.
> 
> ...




Too true.  NSX rules allow 75 days for the 6-month report.  You got 3 months on me.
How did you justify backdating to Jun08? New fee structure came into effect on 15 Oct didn't it (or only after distributinons commence)? Or is there a back dating clause I missed?


----------



## danger danger (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hey seamisty, please check your PM and let me know what you think urgently. Thanks!!!


----------



## Burnt (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Duped,

You're quite right about the back dating of fees. There is no specific clause to that effect, so fees should only be back dated to the time the Constitution comes into effect. WC has given an undertaking that they will not be paid these fees until cash payments are made to unit holders.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

10,270 shares sold at 15cents (drop of 67% on previous close)
see  : http://www.nsxa.com.au/prices_alpha.asp?nsxcode=PIN


----------



## sugar3157 (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> 10,270 shares sold at 15cents (drop of 67% on previous close)
> see  : http://www.nsxa.com.au/prices_alpha.asp?nsxcode=PIN




this is so tragic...
I still can't believe that MFS/OCT/WC can keep taking our hard earned money and not be held responsible....(jailed)....and be made give all our money back.....


----------



## roast (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Premium Income Fund
> Tax Statement Clarification – 27 October 2008 Wellington Capital Limited has engaged KPMG as taxation advisers in relation to the Premium Income Fund.
> To assist individual investors in completing their 2008 income tax returns,




So, finally WC have released some clarification to all investors regarding the “unusual variance” in the latest tax statements – it would have saved a lot of trouble if this explanation had accompanied the statements in the first place. 

The best quote from that update is “During the year the Premium Income Fund made a significant number of impairment decisions on its assets.” I couldn’t have said it better!!

Unfortunately, these "are not able to be claimed as deductions” so if you’ve got an accountant ask them to calculate how many extra tax$ you have lost (this, obviously, depends on the number of units & your tax bracket).

Milk = spilt …. am I crying?.... aren’t we all?


----------



## like2ski (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> :microwave  ! ! !




Hi John,
I wonder whose head you are intending to place into the microwave ??? LOL...


----------



## JohnH (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



like2ski said:


> Hi John,
> I wonder whose head you are intending to place into the microwave ??? LOL...





That was my head "Like2Ski" -  nearest thing I could find to egg on my face


----------



## Dexter (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If it is in the new Constitution that penalty rates of interest on defaulting mortgages go to WC instead of PIF why would they pursue these payments vigorously?

I guess we may have to wait a little longer for our Xmas handout!

G.H


----------



## breaker1 (29 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> CenterLink told me over the phone that they value shares on the NSX in the same way they value shares on the ASX.  This means:
> CenterLink do a bulk update two times a year on 20 March and 20 Sept.  They get the market data from 2 weeks prior to that date and update everyone’s details.  I was told we are able to call CenterLink as many times as we like during the year and ask for a reassessment of our shares (from market data which would be 2 weeks old).  The system will only update if doing this is to your benefit.  So if the price on the NSX has gone up compared to the price already on file, the update will not take place.
> 
> I don't know if CenterLink are aware yet if the PIF is listed as the person I was speaking to couldn't find any info on it but those that might benefit from this info should call CenterLink and find out.  There was a trade today at 15 cents on the NSX so a reassement in two weeks might be worth while.




It may need JH to ring or write to C/L to advise them the PIF is now listed on the NSX and investors should be treated according to its average price of sales. 

I will try and get onto JH by phone or if I can't get her this week, I will email her. If PIF investor pensioners can get assets/deeming anything below 45c, it will be a great benefit, as they are on a sliding scale, but hold on, some can't get any pension because their assets in the PIF even @ 45c, keeps them out, therefore some may be able to get the C/L pension for the first time, as did a good number when the value was listed @ 45c instead of a dollar / unit. 

PIF pensioners have been getting NO income from this fund at all (for over 6 months now) and are STILL losing C/L income test deeming as well!!

I will ring C/L myself and another AG member is doing the same. It's NOT duplication, it has been my experience that when ringing C/L staff you can literally get 3 different answers from 3 different staff for the same question.


----------



## great dame (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

When the vote were taken on the 15/10/08  i am wondering did WC have some id ear that they were in trouble and could not pay the DIV on the 31/10/08  It could have changed the vote if WC had come clean & said there will be no payment  coming up in Oct    / Dane //


----------



## CableGuy (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

:birthday:







DoraNBoots said:


> CenterLink told me over the phone that they value shares on the NSX in the same way they value shares on the ASX.  This means:
> CenterLink do a bulk update two times a year on 20 March and 20 Sept.  They get the market data from 2 weeks prior to that date and update everyone’s details.  I was told we are able to call CenterLink as many times as we like during the year and ask for a reassessment of our shares (from market data which would be 2 weeks old).  The system will only update if doing this is to your benefit.  So if the price on the NSX has gone up compared to the price already on file, the update will not take place.
> 
> I don't know if CenterLink are aware yet if the PIF is listed as the person I was speaking to couldn't find any info on it but those that might benefit from this info should call CenterLink and find out.  There was a trade today at 15 cents on the NSX so a reassement in two weeks might be worth while.




Thanks Dora, such simple advice that can help so many.

So all I need to do is call Centerlink on the 10/11/2008 so that the 15c trade that occurred on the 29/10/2008 (and any subsequent trades of course) is included in Centerlink's 2 week window of market data and I will be assessed accordingly.  Of course at that point, the 45c trade that occurred on the 22/10/2008 will not be included in Centerlink's 2 week assessment window as it will have occurred 3 weeks ago!

That means that I could become eligible for the pension or my entitlement could increase!

-----
"So, what are you trying to say?"


----------



## Duped (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

At av unit price of $800k Sylvania would be worth $25M

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24572780-25658,00.html


Davidson says Miller Street Partners saves wrecks

Bridget Carter | October 30, 2008

IN 2007, after Trafalgar Corporate Group had a rocky few months, the man steering the ship, Mark Davidson, packed his bags and left.

He spent several months in what he describes as a "gap year" -- rather than unemployment.

Now he's back, in a company Davidson describes as "a white knight".

"We are not a vulture fund or picking over dead carcasses. We are a white knight. We are here to help people in difficult times, not take advantage of them," he says.

Miller Street Partners is the company he started in July, with major Trafalgar shareholder Robert Whyte. It was born almost a year after Davidson departed as managing director of the listed property firm.

Davidson has also recently become managing director of Nordic Capital, for which Miller Street undertakes development work.

He has dismissed reports that any fund run by Nordic Capital is only interested in assets or companies at less than 50 per cent of their original value, saying instead that it looks at "discounted development opportunities". The fund, run by Nordic Capital and called the Nordic Australia Opportunity Fund, has Norwegian and Australian private equity investors.

*It bought the failed waterfront residential project Sylvania in southern Sydney during July.

The purchase was from the Property Income Fund, which was overseen by the administrator-run Octaviar, then known as MFS.

The development was valued at $60 million almost two years ago, but the Nordic fund picked up the 32 apartments for $21 million.

"We spent the best part of $500,000 on the renovation," Davidson says.

This month 20 deposits were taken on 32 apartments, ranging in price from $600,000 to $2million.*

One waterfront apartment, originally priced at $2.4 million, was sold at $1.08 million. A non-waterfront town home valued at $1.25 million has been sold for $799,000. Twelve are still for sale. Nordic Capital is also undertaking other projects, including a 42-lot residential subdivision at Bonnyrigg, Sydney, due to be finished in December next year.

The project is a joint venture with Davidson's former firm, Trafalgar Corporate.

Others include 19 units at Hall Street business park at Spotswood, Melbourne, and eight units at Breadalbane Business Park, Launceston, Tasmania, to be finished in about a year.

Now in the business of picking up bargains, Davidson says the property industry faces tough times.

"I think we are in for the most difficult economic climate that we have seen in recent history," he says.

"Not only are we seeing a global recession emerging, but that is combined with the absence of widely available credit."

When Davidson left Trafalgar in 2007 it was 10 years since founding the firm that he took public in 2005.

"I had been there 10 years and had two years running a public company structure. I am not built for running a public company," he says.

"I handed it over to those with better management style for a public company.

"I am good at starting things. I don't mind finishing things. It is when you just have to manage it -- that's boring."

Originally from Avalon, he began working in real estate in 1981 as a valuer for Richard Ellis, now CBRE, with former AMP property head Jim Kruger as his mentor.

Next, he started a NSW office for a Queensland developer before working for a Sydney development company that shut down amid a property market downturn in the early 1990s.

"That was when I learned that property prices can, and do, fall."

Later he worked at CDH, which specialised in bank workouts before establishing the property advisory division of PricewaterhouseCoopers in the 1990s.

His latest job involves acquiring distressed assets and working with banks to finish projects run by troubled or collapsed companies. Davidson says the project at Sylvania, in Sydney's southern suburbs, is the first of a number to be picked up by Miller Street Partners and Nordic Capital.

Miller Street is also finishing about 15 apartments in the inner west Sydney suburb of Leichhardt, where a mortgage fund, which lent to a series of developers, ran into difficulty. The trustee appointed PwC to take over administration of the fund.

"We are working with the administrator to complete the project and get adequate compensation."

Davidson says he has no plans to return to the public sector.

"In private, what is your business can stay your business," he says.

In the listed sector, "so much of your day goes into looking after things that are not doing your business", he says.

In the months ahead, Davidson says, his focus will be distressed assets.

"There are more coming down the river.

"There is a waterfall," he says. "It is the drying up of the credit market."


----------



## DoraNBoots (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

ComputerShare are still telling investors this morning there will be a 3 cent per unit payment tomorrow.  Why WC wouldn't make it a priority to fix this is beyond me.  After referring a ComputerShare manager to the 28th Oct Investor Update he said they would fix this is their system (although it might take a few days).  This should have been done by WC!


----------



## seamisty (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> ComputerShare are still telling investors this morning there will be a 3 cent per unit payment tomorrow.  Why WC wouldn't make it a priority to fix this is beyond me.  After referring a ComputerShare manager to the 28th Oct Investor Update he said they would fix this is their system (although it might take a few days).  This should have been done by WC!



I just spoke with computershare and was told that registry does not answer enquiries regarding distributions and their instructions are to redirect all calls to the WC hotline regarding company info. After checking internal systems WC payment details for me regarding the anticipated distibution,I was told they did not have any confirmed date on the information lodged with them and was once again referred to the WC hotline for further information. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## flatback (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> ComputerShare are still telling investors this morning there will be a 3 cent per unit payment tomorrow.  Why WC wouldn't make it a priority to fix this is beyond me.  After referring a ComputerShare manager to the 28th Oct Investor Update he said they would fix this is their system (although it might take a few days).  This should have been done by WC!



If computershare aren't in the loop on such an important issue (our 1.5 + 1.5 payments before christmas) then how in gods name are the three representatives from our group ( who are supposedly going to be appointed to WC board to look after our interests) going to do their job, this is all starting to get very scary, for a long time ive tried to put a positive view into this forum for obvious reasons, but i'm rapidly losing confidence and faith in the people in charge.Flatback
Ps by the way seamisty ive just got rid of you for good,your opinions are just to much bye bye.


----------



## DoraNBoots (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I just spoke with computershare and was told that registry does not answer enquiries regarding distributions and their instructions are to redirect all calls to the WC hotline regarding company info. After checking internal systems WC payment details for me regarding the anticipated distibution,I was told they did not have any confirmed date on the information lodged with them and was once again referred to the WC hotline for further information. Regards, Seamisty



Call 1300 556 161 follow the prompts and when you get a person says "Can you tell me when my next payment will be"  The answer for the last 4 days has been:
There will be a payment for the rate of 3 cents on the 31st Oct.  It is often worded differently but always the same info.  I was even put though to the registry a few days ago and they said this info is correct and "set in stone".


----------



## CableGuy (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I just spoke with computershare and was told that registry does not answer enquiries regarding distributions and their instructions are to redirect all calls to the WC hotline regarding company info. After checking internal systems WC payment details for me regarding the anticipated distibution,I was told they did not have any confirmed date on the information lodged with them and was once again referred to the WC hotline for further information. Regards, Seamisty




seamisty, that is complete rubbish.  That sounds more like a response from the WC coldline. 

I just called Computershare on 1300 556 161 told the machine 'Premium Income Fund' keyed in number 1 then number 1 again.  The gentleman asked me my name, so I provided my first name, then I asked when and what will be my distribution for the PIF.  He said that 3 cents will be paid on the 31st of October which is tomorrow.  He didn't even ask for my SRN so anyone calling will be told this information.  I think ASIC might be calling them right now...


-----
"I forgive you. I only hope my neurologist will feel the same."


----------



## danger danger (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

So what happened to Perpetual, they used to be the ones sending payments /  advices. Are they out of the picture now and that role is now handled by Computershare? Either way we aren't getting the 1.5c payment tomorrow so who really cares who says what, we know for sure what is really going to happen tomorrow.


----------



## CableGuy (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> So what happened to Perpetual, they used to be the ones sending payments /  advices. Are they out of the picture now and that role is now handled by Computershare?




WC is ultimately responsible for information provided to unit holders.  Are you trying to change the topic and why?



danger danger said:


> Either way we aren't getting the 1.5c payment tomorrow so who really cares who says what, we know for sure what is really going to happen tomorrow.




I care!  It is extremely concerning that WC is content to allow unit holders to be lied to.  Keep in mind the majority of unit holders aren't internet users so rely on the telephone for their information.

-----
"HI! Is there a problem with your service?"


----------



## danger danger (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



CableGuy said:


> WC is ultimately responsible for information provided to unit holders.  Are you trying to change the topic and why?




So sorry CableTie, I was not aware that YOU controlled the topics to be discussed on this public forum, my apologies for the oversight!!!

My question was genuine and directed to whoever could answer it not just at you believe it or not. I am curious as to what happenned with Perpetual, the question remains unanswered, so whoever can answer it, please oblige. Cheers!


----------



## seamisty (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



CableGuy said:


> seamisty, that is complete rubbish.  That sounds more like a response from the WC coldline.
> 
> I just called Computershare on 1300 556 161 told the machine 'Premium Income Fund' keyed in number 1 then number 1 again.  The gentleman asked me my name, so I provided my first name, then I asked when and what will be my distribution for the PIF.  He said that 3 cents will be paid on the 31st of October which is tomorrow.  He didn't even ask for my SRN so anyone calling will be told this information.  I think ASIC might be calling them right now...
> 
> ...



This is a public forum Cableguy, Dora relayed her response, I relayed mine. I went through a different channel, I had to provide all my details. Perhaps there is a communication breakdown within computershare employees from within different departments. Whatever the reason, surely callers such as yourself who know we are not getting the distribution would have drawn this to the attention of the person whom you spoke with so that thay were aware of the fact that the information they were relaying was in fact, incorrect. Seamisty


----------



## Burnt (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Dora,

Thank you for your research and informative advice regarding Centrelink. I would suggest that all unit holders follow your advice and call Centrelink in two weeks and let them know the current traded value of PIF units.
Your advice is sound and logical, why would anyone turn to WC for advice regarding Centrelink !

Also I just called Computershare out of curiousity and got the same information that you have been reporting.

So far the information that you have given us is far more reliable and accurate than that of WC and her staff and other helpers. Good on you !!


----------



## great dame (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> So sorry CableTie, I was not aware that YOU controlled the topics to be discussed on this public forum, my apologies for the oversight!!!
> 
> My question was genuine and directed to whoever could answer it not just at you believe it or not. I am curious as to what happenned with Perpetual, the question remains unanswered, so whoever can answer it, please oblige. Cheers!



 Mr Danger Man give WC a ring  I am sure they will give some sort of an answer   Its up to you to believe it though  /////////


----------



## Burnt (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> If computershare aren't in the loop on such an important issue (our 1.5 + 1.5 payments before christmas) then how in gods name are the three representatives from our group ( who are supposedly going to be appointed to WC board to look after our interests) going to do their job, this is all starting to get very scary, for a long time ive tried to put a positive view into this forum for obvious reasons, but i'm rapidly losing confidence and faith in the people in charge.Flatback
> Ps by the way seamisty ive just got rid of you for good,your opinions are just to much bye bye.




How does one get "appointed to the WC board" ????
What is their job ?????


----------



## seamisty (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi Dora,
> 
> Thank you for your research and informative advice regarding Centrelink. I would suggest that all unit holders follow your advice and call Centrelink in two weeks and let them know the current traded value of PIF units.
> Your advice is sound and logical, why would anyone turn to WC for advice regarding Centrelink !
> ...



Knowing the information you received from Computershare was completely incorrect Burnt, I hope you drew the person's attention to that fact so others are not given the wrong information also. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> So sorry CableTie, I was not aware that YOU controlled the topics to be discussed on this public forum, my apologies for the oversight!!!
> 
> My question was genuine and directed to whoever could answer it not just at you believe it or not. I am curious as to what happenned with Perpetual, the question remains unanswered, so whoever can answer it, please oblige. Cheers!



Perpetual Nominees Limited is the custodian of the Premium Income Fund, and has been established for 122 years. Perpetual Nominees Limited holds the title to the assets on behalf of the Fund::: Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Perpetual Nominees Limited is the custodian of the Premium Income Fund, and has been established for 122 years. Perpetual Nominees Limited holds the title to the assets on behalf of the Fund::: Seamisty



Custodian
Perpetual Nominees Limited
Perpetual Nominees Limited was one of the first companies of its type, formed in 1885. The
company’s formation was part of a ground-breaking movement away from individual trustees to
larger trust and estate-administration focused entities.
Today it is one of the most trusted providers of financial products and services in Australia.
Perpetual Limited is an ASX Top 200 company with a market capitalisation of approximately $3.2
billion.
The Custodian's Role
The Custodian holds the title to the assets of the Fund and undertakes other duties as nominee. The
Custodian receives all income on behalf of the Fund.
Perpetual’s role as Custodian is limited to holding assets of the Premium Income Fund as agent of
the responsible entity. Perpetual as Custodian has no supervisory role in relation to the operation of
the Premium Income Fund and is not responsible for protecting your interests. Perpetual has no
liability or responsibility to you for any act done or omission made in accordance with the terms of
the Custody Agreement.
The Custodian’s Remuneration
The Custodian is entitled to receive annual fees and is entitled to be reimbursed for legal fees or any
other costs and expenses it incurs on behalf of the Fund.
Changing the Custodian
The responsible entity may require the Custodian to retire upon giving 60 days notice. Page 53 Explanatory Memorandum, Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## danger danger (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Perpetual Nominees Limited is the custodian of the Premium Income Fund, and has been established for 122 years. Perpetual Nominees Limited holds the title to the assets on behalf of the Fund::: Seamisty




Thanks seamisty, do you know by chance why the financial info is stored by Computershare and ultimate payments also arranged by them and not Perpetual as in the past? Cheers.


----------



## great dame (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Knowing the information you received from Computershare was completely incorrect Burnt, I hope you drew the person's attention to that fact so others are not given the wrong information also. Seamisty



 That is nots Burnts job to do that  Thats for your friends a WC to do that  //////


----------



## SPLITPIN (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Can anybody enlighten us all as to the progress and status of the 3 PIF Unit member respresentation team to be appointed to WC and how it will function etc.




Dear Members

Thanks for the JohnH response

_“As far as I can remember from the meeting this month, they received c. 200 nominations. Presumably they will hold a ballot. 

The experience should make voting for the senate next time seem comparatively easy!!”_

It appears WC may not want to deliver on this very important issue.

It is the only way we will be given any fully transparent facts.

Is this another WC non deliverable.

Regards

Splitpin


----------



## danger danger (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I think there's far more burning issues to occupy the RE's time at the moment like trying to get money out of borrowers that are defaulting left right and centre in this crazy climate; to bring some liquidity back to the fund so we can get payment by Xmas hopefully. Oh yeah there's also that matter with impending court action against the fund next month and then creditors meeting to secure our $197.5m interest in Dec.

It's called prioritising, I know that's where I want all resources available to go to. But don't worry mate, I am sure your seat at that committee will await, if you or any of the PIFI mob get a vote.


----------



## SPLITPIN (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> It's called prioritising, I know that's where I want all resources available to go to. But don't worry mate, I am sure your seat at that committee will await, if you or any of the PIFI mob get a vote.




Dear Danger

Dont worry, I did not nominate as I did not want to sit next to you.

Regards

Splitpin


----------



## danger danger (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Dear Danger
> 
> Dont worry, I did not nominate as I did not want to sit next to you.
> 
> ...




Why not? I shower and use deodorant.


----------



## great dame (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sorry Mr Danger Man Splitpin has won & there is no second price //


----------



## selciper (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I telephoned Computershare two weeks ago to inform them that I wanted my PIF payment made to a particular bank account. Previously, payments had been divided between two accounts. Well, the assistant told me that they had nominated one of the two accounts themselves for me and that was that. Could I change it? Yes, but it would take time to alter the BSB etc and would require that I fill in a Computershare form. (I could do it on my phone pad, I was also told. I wasn't going to risk that, thank you very much.) They would post a form out to me. After two weeks, there is no sign of it!

As I and others have mentioned before, there must be thousands of non-internet using PIF investors still believing in the Friday payment. I hope that WC have remembered them. There's a WC letter in the mail, no doubt.

It seems to me that WC have found themselves to be severely under-staffed to run the Fund. When those who are presently oblivious about the payment cancelation discover the facts, the WC hotline will become - excuse the pun - severely overheated. The situation has the making of a serious shambles. I hope that I'm wrong.


----------



## demodocus (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> I telephoned Computershare two weeks ago to inform them that I wanted my PIF payment made to a particular bank account. Previously, payments had been divided between two accounts. Well, the assistant told me that they had nominated one of the two accounts themselves for me and that was that. Could I change it? Yes, but it would take time to alter the BSB etc and would require that I fill in a Computershare form. (I could do it on my phone pad, I was also told. I wasn't going to risk that, thank you very much.) They would post a form out to me. After two weeks, there is no sign of it!




I think you can do all of that on-line. Just register with Computershare. I recently changed the ownership and character of my holding and consequently changed bank accounts and TFN. Everything went through without a hitch.


----------



## danger danger (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Sorry Mr Danger Man Splitpin has won & there is no second price //




Won what?? What prize?? What re you bumping your gums about??????????????????//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


----------



## selciper (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Demodecus -

Thanks for the info. Well, Computershare didn't mention the on-line facility to me. Yet another task! It was supposed to be a seamless transition from MFS/Octaviar to WC. What a joke.


----------



## ian1328 (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> When those who are presently oblivious about the payment cancelation discover the facts, the WC hotline will become - excuse the pun - severely overheated. The situation has the making of a serious shambles. I hope that I'm wrong.




You are not wrong selpciper, I wish you were. I spoke to WC today and there is NO good news. They said they could not forsee what was going to happen re the mortgage freeze.  Tomorrow their phone lines will be jammed. Its worse than a shambles its a disaster.


----------



## demodocus (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Thanks for the info. Well, Computershare didn't mention the on-line facility to me. Yet another task! It was supposed to be a seamless transition from MFS/Octaviar to WC.




If any of you want to change the character of your investment from, say, a Company Holding (in an SMSF) to a personal holding then you write to Perpetual as the SMSF Company Secretary transferring the holding to a personal name . Perpetual will acknowledge the transfer, do the necessary, and send you a new holding document.

You forward a copy of this document to Computershare together with a completed Transfer Form (you'll find 'em online) for Nil consideration (consequently no Stamp Duty is payable) and ask them to change the name and character of the holding. They will do this quite quickly and as soon as it's done you can go on line at Computershare and change your TFN (from Company to personal), and bank account details. Your ABN data will have disappeared.

My advice is not to trust WC to do any of this, they're very inexperienced. Do it yourself, do it slowly, carefully, and step by step then at least you know it's been done properly, get it wrong and you'll finish up with a paper nightmare when/if you want to sell your holding.


----------



## selciper (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Ian1328 -

I had meant to add that this thread has more or less eased us contributors into the bad news. But for those who are only just finding out about the non-payment, it will come as a huge bombshell. And herein lies a problem for WC. The large hunk of support they have developed amongst investors has the chance of turning sour. The sooner some finance-savvy AG people are elected the better.


----------



## Rance (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> then how in gods name are the three representatives from our group ( who are supposedly going to be appointed to WC board to look after our interests) going to do their job,




Careful Flatback...  you're starting another rumour. My reading of the role of the Advisory Committee is to advise the RE Board NOT TO BE APPOINTED TO THE BOARD!

And for all of you, go to the WC web site for this October 28 announcement to the NSX and unit holders:

http://www.newpif.com.au/investor_updates/NSX Release - 28.10.2008.pdf

I go to the WC's newpif.com.au site every day to catch the lastest announcements. You'd be crazy to rely on this forum for info!

Regards to all...

Rance


----------



## ian1328 (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Ian1328 -
> 
> I had meant to add that this thread has more or less eased us contributors into the bad news. But for those who are only just finding out about the non-payment, it will come as a huge bombshell. And herein lies a problem for WC. The large hunk of support they have developed amongst investors has the chance of turning sour. The sooner some finance-savvy AG people are elected the better.




I couldn't agree more. I for one believed in Jenny and her charade and now have a bitter taste in my mouth. I relayed this to WC today, however it was to no avail as they have no solution. I was told today that some of the people in the WC office cried when they found out there would be no distributions. I replied in saying that if they are not investors they cannot be hurting as much as us. The worrying thing is that WC have no idea as to when a distribution will be paid. Possibly from the outcome of the administrator of Octaviar.


----------



## seamisty (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

JohnH, You have mail. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## selciper (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

When client support for troubled organisations plunges, the internal ramifications for the companies' boards, managements and employees are often dramatic. Finger-pointing for seemingly bad decision-making begin, tempers flare and resignations follow. Goodnight.


----------



## Burnt (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> Careful Flatback...  you're starting another rumour. My reading of the role of the Advisory Committee is to advise the RE Board NOT TO BE APPOINTED TO THE BOARD!
> 
> And for all of you, go to the WC web site for this October 28 announcement to the NSX and unit holders:
> 
> ...




Rance, can I ask where you found information on this "Advisory Committee"?
What exactly is their role? (how much advice & suggestions from unit holders did JH take on board from the investor forums - none)
What are their responsibilities?
What power do they have?
What are their liabilities in representing others? (or misrepresenting others)
How are they selected?
Even though this is a relatively trivial matter at this point in time, it is again another example of deception and misleading information from WC (or in this case hardly any information), and we are left guessing.
And you are right, everyone reading this thread should be very careful about the information supplied here - especially when it is sourced from WC - time and time again it has proved to be BS ! Including the Update of 28th October.
I believe that this "Advisory Committee" is just another stunt to instill confidence in unit holders, when in fact it will be a useless, powerless group of people that will be hand picked by JH to serve themselves.
I know of one unit holder that was personally approached to join this committee. He declined because his belief (as is mine) is that unit holders would be best empowered by having at least two unit holders (elected by unit holders) given positions on the board of directors of WC. Why shouldn't we have this kind of real power. It is our money that these inept people are making decisions about.
Wellington Capital is the perfect example of a company that financial experts around the world are currently blaming for the current crisis - financial companies that engage in the practice non-disclosure or only provide misleading & deceptive information to investors. These are the types of companies that have destroyed all confidence - with good reason. 
MFS / Octaviar / Wellington - it still continues until we all stand up and do something to put a stop to them !


----------



## flatback (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> Careful Flatback...  you're starting another rumour. My reading of the role of the Advisory Committee is to advise the RE Board NOT TO BE APPOINTED TO THE BOARD!
> 
> And for all of you, go to the WC web site for this October 28 announcement to the NSX and unit holders:
> 
> ...



Rance get this and get it from somebody who does not like to be misrepresented by the likes of you or anybody else on this forum, at no time did i say what you have intimated i said, the facts are! if you want to go back and check the facts????? the board had infered they were open to a representative from this forum (which has turned out to be a representation of three) which i am sure was welcomed by all and sundry at the time, i suspect that this thread will not see the light of day because i am seeing more and more that our views are not allowed to be aired on this forum because of a few,  that seem to have a lot of power over the organisers of this forum (winging about a few comments directed at them or their policies)(at times well directed i might add )well we will see if i am right .Flatback


----------



## flatback (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Rance, can I ask where you found information on this "Advisory Committee"?
> What exactly is their role? (how much advice & suggestions from unit holders did JH take on board from the investor forums - none)
> What are their responsibilities?
> What power do they have?
> ...



Burnt to some extent i agree, my answer to you is, yes we may have the unfortunate misrepresentation by WC on this account, but who are you having a go at ,is it WC Rance or me, because the documentation on this forum clearly states that what i had said was quite true, we gain nothing from having people shafting each other without having the proof to back up what we say, what you said was right, at this point in time yes it is trivial to bring this up to a degree , but the point was made to highlight a problem we are having with our RE, for no other reason, so again Rance (you cant see the forest for the trees )Flatback


----------



## flatback (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> That is nots Burnts job to do that  Thats for your friends a WC to do that  //////



great dame you and i have locked horns a few times over the last few months for many and varied reasons( of which i will not retract)but upon this issue you are quite right, it is the responsibility of the RE to inform all unit holders of any changes to payments to us or not, ive said it before, we need you at times to lighten our load with your eloquent prose.cheers Flatback


----------



## Burnt (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> Burnt to some extent i agree, my answer to you is, yes we may have the unfortunate misrepresentation by WC on this account, but who are you having a go at ,is it WC Rance or me, because the documentation on this forum clearly states that what i had said was quite true, we gain nothing from having people shafting each other without having the proof to back up what we say, what you said was right, at this point in time yes it is trivial to bring this up to a degree , but the point was made to highlight a problem we are having with our RE, for no other reason, so again Rance (you cant see the forest for the trees )Flatback




Hi Flatback,

I am in no way having a go at you (or Rance for that matter).
I think it's great to read your recent posts pointing out the deficiencies in WC's management and communication skills (or lack thereof). We are the ones that suffer as a consequence (I don't care how many tears they pretend to shed).
Just trying to point out another example of deceptive behaviour on the part of WC. 
Cheers


----------



## seamisty (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Does  WC  deserve to  cop that much flack as a direct result of making a tough decision where they put the ongoing interest of the PIF before their own right to management fees and reputation by liquidating assets in the current financial climate to get access to some quick cash? Or is this not a concern to those that would have taken the risk of receiving 14cents in the dollar and liquidate the fund? I have noticed an absence of units for sale in this price range, the closest being 10,217 @15cents.The former board at MFS who created this mess should be hiring bodyguards do you think? Or are some saving the blame for the current board? Who would want to be on an advisory committee where they had to deal with abuse, ridicule and disbelief from a few other unitholders when they tried to share their information? Until such times as there is what I consider a better alternative to who controls the future of my investment in the PIF, I will continue to support the ONLY option available at the present time. If some of you don't like my posts, put me on ignore please, or would you prefer to slam me every time I share my own ideas/opinions and pass on information?Or do you just take the opportunity to use my posts to further discredit WC and the AG?
Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

1.4 Investor Advisory Committee
The establishment of a three person Investor Advisory Committee is being proposed by Wellington.
The purpose of the Investor Advisory Committee is to ensure Investor input into the decision making
process of the Fund into the future. The Investor Advisory Committee will meet directly with the
responsible entity through formal meetings and other communications.
The Investor Advisory Committee will comprise three democratically elected Unitholders.
Unitholders wishing to nominate themselves or another Unitholders for election to
the Investor Advisory Committee, should complete the nomination details at the
bottom of the Proxy Form.
Once the nominations are received all Investors will receive information on those
nominated individuals and will be able to vote to elect the three members of the
Investor Advisory Committee later in 2008.


----------



## danger danger (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Everyone is so stressed out, and just think, this is merely the beginning of a very long journey to come. I fear that even if WC does get our $1 per unit back in our pockets in the years to come, many unfortunately will not be able to enjoy it as they may have either suffered cardiac arrest or a fatal aneurysm by then!

Take a deep breath, and chill. This is a long ride, so pace yourself now, or you may not reach the finish line.


----------



## flatback (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Does  WC  deserve to  cop that much flack as a direct result of making a tough decision where they put the ongoing interest of the PIF before their own right to management fees and reputation by liquidating assets in the current financial climate to get access to some quick cash? Or is this not a concern to those that would have taken the risk of receiving 14cents in the dollar and liquidate the fund? I have noticed an absence of units for sale in this price range, the closest being 10,217 @15cents.The former board at MFS who created this mess should be hiring bodyguards do you think? Or are some saving the blame for the current board? Who would want to be on an advisory committee where they had to deal with abuse, ridicule and disbelief from a few other unitholders when they tried to share their information? Until such times as there is what I consider a better alternative to who controls the future of my investment in the PIF, I will continue to support the ONLY option available at the present time. If some of you don't like my posts, put me on ignore please, or would you prefer to slam me every time I share my own ideas/opinions and pass on information?Or do you just take the opportunity to use my posts to further discredit WC and the AG?
> Seamisty



Seamisty again, get this, you were the person who openly put people on your list of ignore, actually skited about it ( i might add to me was degrading as you appeared to put yourself on a pedestal) where your views were better than anybody elses, i hope you have learnt from this, and you realise we are all in the same boat, thank you for your support with some others in regard to the appointment of AG members to WC advisory Committee, 
 Now we dont know if it will be excepted or not, or what power these people may have, but as i understand it the offer was made and i feel we should appoint the right people for the job ( i really dont care if some on this forum believe it or not ) and by the way get over it Dora was right about computershare Flatback


----------



## seamisty (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> Seamisty again, get this, you were the person who openly put people on your list of ignore, actually skited about it ( i might add to me was degrading as you appeared to put yourself on a pedestal) where your views were better than anybody elses, i hope you have learnt from this, and you realise we are all in the same boat, thank you for your support with some others in regard to the appointment of AG members to WC advisory Committee,
> Now we dont know if it will be excepted or not, or what power these people may have, but as i understand it the offer was made and i feel we should appoint the right people for the job ( i really dont care if some on this forum believe it or not ) and by the way get over it Dora was right about computershare Flatback



Thats right Flatback,rather than respond negatively or abuse some I disagreed with, I chose to ignore some, unlike a few others. The issue regarding computershare was not who was right or wrong but who took the initiative to try and correct the content of the information given, not inflame anti WC sentiment. It is all very well to draw attention to mistakes, but in recognising those mistakes, it is of no advantage to unit holders in the PIF to use it as a tool to discredit our fund. The current economic market  does not need help in pushing our assets down by a few disgruntled investors. Get over it. Seamisty


----------



## Rance (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> I believe that this "Advisory Committee" is just another stunt to instill confidence in unit holders, when in fact it will be a useless, powerless group of people that will be hand picked by JH to serve themselves.
> I know of one unit holder that was personally approached to join this committee. He declined because his belief (as is mine) is that unit holders would be best empowered by having at least two unit holders (elected by unit holders) given positions on the board of directors of WC. Why shouldn't we have this kind of real power. It is our money that these inept people are making decisions about.
> !




Well Flatback,
Here it is: from Burnt "...belief (as is mine) is that unit holders would be best empowered by having at least two unit holders (elected by unit holders) given positions on the board of directors of WC."

I see nothing wrong with Burnt's belief (which is obviously your belief as well), in fact i'd support it BUT JH didn't say it and up till now (and probably beyond) doesn't appear to want or support the idea of the Advisory Committee being appointed to the RE Board. Get it!

Thank you Seamisty for quoting 1.4, page 20 of the Explanatory Memorandum issued in connection with the first scheduled (and then cancelled) meeting of PIF unit holders of 18 Sept 2008. I've been out having a meal with my grandchildren at Maccers. My accountant told me today I'll probably be having more meals at Maccers from here on!

Rance


----------



## Burnt (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Seamisty,

The only information supplied by WC as to this "Advisory Committee" is that it's purpose "is to ensure investor input into the decision making process of the Fund". By what process is the investor input "assured". 
What were the July investor forums about ? JH gave no acknowledgement to the input given by investors at these forums in the choices they were given to vote on.
Again I ask, what is this committees responsibilities, what power will it be given if it opposes anything proposed by the board of WC, what are its liabilities if unit holders object to this committees so called input ?

WC deserves every bit of flack given to it. They made promises and commitments to unit holders designed to get them to vote in favour of the resolutions that only WC put forward and that only WC would benefit by. 

On the 15th October, WC knew that the October distributions would not happen, but they still kept promising. If they didn't know at that time that the cash flow would not allow it, then obviously they are extremely incompetent in the role they have been given. (and I mean BEEN GIVEN).

These promises and commitments now all seem to amount to nothing just 2 weeks after the vote. If they cannot foresee any definate possibility of cash distributions (as stated in their Information Memorandum dated 18th Aug.), then it seems very likely that the "buy-back" scheme is another shallow promise made by them to swing votes.

You keep going on about "the only other alternative was liquidation resulting in a 14c/unit payout to unit holders". *This is absolutely untrue, in fact a blatant lie.* You continue to push the same deceptive and misleading information generated by WC. You are using the same methods of fear and intimidation used by WC - how do you think this might benefit unit holders - telling the same old lies for the purpose of enforcing submission.

Definately agree, previous MFS directors are responsible for placing the PIF in the position it was left in earlier this year - why is the current RE not doing anything about it. *An independant administrator or receiver would !*

As far as I am concerned, the whole idea of this "advisory committee" should be scrapped because in reality it will be totally useless and powerless, full of people like yourself who will just reinforce the deceptive, non-disclosing, misinformation that underlies all of WC's actions.

You are entitled to give your support to WC if your true beliefs lie there, but don't expect everyone to follow you and don't take personal offence when facts are presented that contradict whatever information has been given to you by WC to pass on. Perhaps you should take a good look at the position you have been put in.


----------



## seamisty (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> Well Flatback,
> Here it is: from Burnt "...belief (as is mine) is that unit holders would be best empowered by having at least two unit holders (elected by unit holders) given positions on the board of directors of WC."
> 
> I see nothing wrong with Burnt's belief (which is obviously your belief as well), in fact i'd support it BUT JH didn't say it and up till now (and probably beyond) doesn't appear to want or support the idea of the Advisory Committee being appointed to the RE Board. Get it!
> ...



Could you please give me the name of your accountant Rance? I met with mine yesterday and he told me that we had done a great job previously in building up our empire, but to continue in the lifestyle we had become accustomed to, I had to sharpen my scissors and my husband had to check and see if his gumboots still fit LOL!!!
Seamisty


----------



## flatback (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> Well Flatback,
> Here it is: from Burnt "...belief (as is mine) is that unit holders would be best empowered by having at least two unit holders (elected by unit holders) given positions on the board of directors of WC."
> 
> I see nothing wrong with Burnt's belief (which is obviously your belief as well), in fact i'd support it BUT JH didn't say it and up till now (and probably beyond) doesn't appear to want or support the idea of the Advisory Committee being appointed to the RE Board. Get it!
> ...



Rance what is the question here, it appears that you agree to disagree, and as for your upherism( get it )if you spent more time trying to look at positives and not eating Maccas which will not help the grey matter at your age, why can you not except that there are people working to fix our problem.Now go and have your icecream. cheers Flatback


----------



## Rance (30 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*"Rance get this and get it from somebody who does not like to be misrepresented by the likes of you or anybody else on this forum" 
*
Sorry about the plagiarism, but I got the "get it" from you (see above)! Get it! Imitation is the highest form of flattery so please feel flatter. Now, I'm off to bed. Goodnight all until tomorrow.

Rance :sleeping:


----------



## DoraNBoots (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> The issue regarding computershare was not who was right or wrong but who took the initiative to try and correct the content of the information given, not inflame anti WC sentiment. It is all very well to draw attention to mistakes, but in recognising those mistakes, it is of no advantage to unit holders in the PIF to use it as a tool to discredit our fund. ...



Do tell us Seamisty - Who took the initative to correct the information that ComputerShare had on it's records.  It wasn't WC it's wasn't you.  If you still don't know then answer keep reading....



DoraNBoots said:


> ...
> BTW:  Computershare have on their records a Record Date of 17th Oct 2008 for a cash payment due on 31st Oct of 3 cents per share.  This they say is "set in stone".  I told them WC are thinking this might be late and I don't think it's going to be 3 cents and they said that's very unusual and they don't think that has happened before.  Seems like WC have some work to do, do they ever get anything right?
> ....





DoraNBoots said:


> ComputerShare are still telling investors this morning there will be a 3 cent per unit payment tomorrow.  Why WC wouldn't make it a priority to fix this is beyond me.  After referring a ComputerShare manager to the 28th Oct Investor Update he said they would fix this is their system (although it might take a few days).  This should have been done by WC!


----------



## seamisty (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Do tell us Seamisty - Who took the initative to correct the information that ComputerShare had on it's records.  It wasn't WC it's wasn't you.  If you still don't know then answer keep reading....



Good work dora, you may have  my pedestal and crown! (get yourself a cushion though, it is not very comfortable and I do not want it back)Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> ...you may have  my pedestal and crown! ...



No thanks,  you can keep them.  I’m not good with heights and the crown was WAY too big


----------



## Rance (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> If computershare aren't in the loop on such an important issue (our 1.5 + 1.5 payments before christmas) *then how in gods name are the three representatives from our group ( who are supposedly going to be appointed to WC board to look after our interests) going to do their job* Flatback




G'day All
Another day, so back to the fray!

Flatback, I'm not agreeing to disagree with you. I'm pointing out that your statement that the three representatives are (quote) *supposedly going to be appointed to the WC board* (unquote) is not factual. JH has not suggested they are going to be appointed to the WC board. But your statement could lead some people to believe that she did say that! That's how misinformation and rumours start.

On another matter (not directed at you Flatback), there has been a lot of postings backward and forward to the effect that JH had not informed the NSX that the 3 cent distribution this year has been shelved. But the fact is, she did inform the NSX on Tuesday Oct 28 in an official notification. The fact that NSX telephone enquiry officers were not aware of this is not her problem. The fact that WC telephone enquiry officers were not aware of it, *IS her problem!*

Let me make this clear: I am not defending nor opposing JH/WC (Yes, I'm sitting on the fence) although I believe she needs more time to settle matters particularly in the current financial crisis. But I do see *red* with postings that attribute to her matters that she has not said nor commited to. I'll give give her six months from Nov 1 and judge her by what she has said; what she has commited to; and by what she has achieved to heal our wounds.

Rance


----------



## JohnH (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> G'day All
> Another day, so back to the fray!
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks Rance.  Nice to see a bit of balance for a change.:thankyou:


----------



## DoraNBoots (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> ...
> On another matter (not directed at you Flatback), there has been a lot of postings backward and forward to the effect that JH had not informed the NSX that the 3 cent distribution this year has been shelved. But the fact is, she did inform the NSX on Tuesday Oct 28 in an official notification. The fact that NSX telephone enquiry officers were not aware of this is not her problem. The fact that WC telephone enquiry officers were not aware of it, IS her problem!
> ...



None one has said the NSX were not aware of the Oct 28 announcement.  What was said was the NSX were not notified that any payments were to be made, which to me says WC were never sure enough of being about to make the payment.  A payment can't be made if WC do not notify the NSX of the x div or Record Date.

In the future if there is to be a payment the NSX must be notified first.  It is against the law for WC to tell people like Seamisty before telling the NSX.


----------



## seamisty (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> None one has said the NSX were not aware of the Oct 28 announcement.  What was said was the NSX were not notified that any payments were to be made, which to me says WC were never sure enough of being about to make the payment.  A payment can't be made if WC do not notify the NSX of the x div or Record Date.
> 
> In the future if there is to be a payment the NSX must be notified first.  It is against the law for WC to tell people like Seamisty before telling the NSX.



I was notified AFTER the announcement was posted on the NSX Dora, I was reading the announcement when I received the phone call. Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I was notified AFTER the announcement was posted on the NSX Dora, I was reading the announcement when I received the phone call. Seamisty



Yes,  I'm aware you thought there would be a payment right up till Oct 28.  What I'm saying is if WC are telling people now any details of a future payment then they are breaking the law.  Any info of this kind which would influence the market must go to the NSX first were everyone can be notified at the same time (too bad for the majority of unit holders who aren't on the Internet).

It will be good once WC grasp the concept of disclosure.  It will cut down on so much of the misinformation coming out of that company (and on to this forum.)


----------



## akernst (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I think it was wrong that WC gave the impression that they were going to Pay the October payment. Of course they will give the same excuse to not pay in December. 

Once again, if people have your money, they will not give it back very easily.

WC are now already incompetent and WC said they would resign if that was the case.


----------



## great dame (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> G'day All
> Another day, so back to the fray!
> 
> Flatback, I'm not agreeing to disagree with you. I'm pointing out that your statement that the three representatives are (quote) *supposedly going to be appointed to the WC board* (unquote) is not factual. JH has not suggested they are going to be appointed to the WC board. But your statement could lead some people to believe that she did say that! That's how misinformation and rumours start.
> ...



         Rance what about X div day  there was never an X div day  ever WC never was going to have a payment  We would need to have X div day at least 2 to 3 weeks ago ///


----------



## Rance (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Rance what about X div day  there was never an X div day  ever WC never was going to have a payment  We would need to have X div day at least 2 to 3 weeks ago ///




Great Doom
I agree with you (WOW, did I really say that?). Nevertheless, WC must have notified NSX, Compushare, and Perpetual of something because they have been quoting Oct 31 as X day for some time.

Rance


----------



## great dame (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

When i Spock to WC yesterday About the non payment we are getting I asked the lady about there was never an X div day  The answer i received was Whats an X div day  I then explained to her what it was  I then when on to say you then have a record day after that  she was un aware of that  to i then said it could be about 3 weeks from X div day to payment day    She then said Whats your point   I could not believe what i was hearing from her in saying that     I then said my point is WC must have known weeks ago about not paying a payment  today    I then asked to speak to someone else   Said they will get back to me  I wont hold my breath / Dane //


----------



## seamisty (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



akernst said:


> I think it was wrong that WC gave the impression that they were going to Pay the October payment. Of course they will give the same excuse to not pay in December.
> 
> Once again, if people have your money, they will not give it back very easily.
> 
> WC are now already incompetent and WC said they would resign if that was the case.



You are entitled to your opinion Akernst, But mine is that WC would have proved to be more incompetant in releasing funds for distributions using money ear marked for progress payments  on assetts that BELONG TO US.  If money was not provided to complete these unfinished projects and they in turn had to be sold off to the highest bidder, I would consider our unit price to be further impaired. The fund also has a $9.5million debt at 20% interest that is due to be repaid.The money for the OCT distribution was in place well in advance by way of 3 property settlements. One of these fell over on the 24th OCt and WC thought it was still possible to meet the payment, then the other 2 fell over on the 27th due to no fault of WC, hence the emergency meeting being called by WC at 3.00 pm to make the decision not to pay us. Seamisty::YOR]. Not an advisor. All postings by Seamisty are purely the personal opinion of Seamisty and should not be relied on in making your own investment decisions.


----------



## DoraNBoots (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> ... Nevertheless, WC must have notified NSX, Compushare, and Perpetual of something because they have been quoting Oct 31 as X day for some time.
> Rance



Only ComputerShare have been quoting Oct 31 as payment day of 3 cents.  Not the NSX.  Telling ComputerShare is not binding but notifying the NSX of an Record Date would be.  Wonder why WC would give ComputerShare a Record Date for a payment and not tell the NSX at the same time?
GD,
That is shocking that the WC person you spoke to didn't know about these important dates and that when explained she didn't see the significance.  These people are management our money!


----------



## great dame (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> Great Doom
> I agree with you (WOW, did I really say that?). Nevertheless, WC must have notified NSX, Compushare, and Perpetual of something because they have been quoting Oct 31 as X day for some time. ////
> 
> Rance



       Rance i believe they were quoting payment payment day on Oct 31 // Not x day //


----------



## DoraNBoots (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> You are entitled to your opinion Akernst, But mine is that WC would have proved to be more incompetant in releasing funds for distributions using money ear marked for progress payments  on assetts that BELONG TO US.  If money was not provided to complete these unfinished projects and they in turn had to be sold off to the highest bidder, I would consider our unit price to be further impaired. The fund also has a $9.5million debt at 20% interest that is due to be repaid.The money for the OCT distribution was in place well in advance by way of 3 property settlements. One of these fell over on the 24th OCt and WC thought it was still possible to meet the payment, then the other 2 fell over on the 27th due to no fault of WC, hence the emergency meeting being called by WC at 3.00 pm to make the decision not to pay us. Seamisty::YOR]. Not an advisor. All postings by Seamisty are purely the personal opinion of Seamisty and should not be relied on in making your own investment decisions.



No one is saying WC should have made a payment the fund cannot afford.  We are saying WC should have known well in advance that the fund could not make the payment and should have advised us as soon as they knew.  Funding unfinished projects is a huge concern for this fund and it should come as no surprise to WC when more money is needed for such things.


----------



## DoraNBoots (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Rance i believe they were quoting payment payment day on Oct 31 // Not x day //



That's right.  ComputerShare said the 17 Oct 2008 was the Record Date.  They said they didn't know the x div date as they don't record that but they said I could get that date from my broker.


----------



## Rance (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Rance i believe they were quoting payment payment day on Oct 31 // Not x day //




Yes Great Doom, I understand. Whatever, it ain't going to happen...  Rance


----------



## great dame (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> You are entitled to your opinion Akernst, But mine is that WC would have proved to be more incompetant in releasing funds for distributions using money ear marked for progress payments  on assetts that BELONG TO US.  If money was not provided to complete these unfinished projects and they in turn had to be sold off to the highest bidder, I would consider our unit price to be further impaired. The fund also has a $9.5million debt at 20% interest that is due to be repaid.The money for the OCT distribution was in place well in advance by way of 3 property settlements. One of these fell over on the 24th OCt and WC thought it was still possible to meet the payment, then the other 2 fell over on the 27th due to no fault of WC, hence the emergency meeting being called by WC at 3.00 pm to make the decision not to pay us. Seamisty::YOR]. Not an advisor. All postings by Seamisty are purely the personal opinion of Seamisty and should not be relied on in making your own investment decisions.



 Seamistey i will keep harping on x div day   On Oct 15 when the votes were taken X div day would have to be in place t
hen to make a payment on Oct 31    Well what dose that make one  think WC had no intention on making a payment   on Oct 31  /////////


----------



## selciper (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

One of the problems with this long-running thread is that it is not moderated. This results in a daily free-for-all which includes material which a moderator would challenge or edit. Moderated blogs frequently have a topic for the day which keeps contributions on track. 

Personally, I believe that WC could have taken on too much in deciding to manage the Fund. The idea that they are not doing their best to get things in order is to be overly critical of them. The economic climate is dreadful we have to admit, so I sincerely hope that WC can get us through these bleak days. WC will have to work twenty-five hours a day to get us a December payment, especially as the pressure on them from disappointed investors will increase greatly from now on. And they have the extra work facing them in preparing for two court cases. It sure calls for advanced crisis management knowledge.

Despite its shortcomings, this thread is often very helpful especially when the posts are supported by facts and secondary sources. The research done by some contributors is truly appreciated.


----------



## danger danger (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

In my opinion, when JH did due diligence on acquiring the management rights of this fund, she would have been under no illusion that it would be tough. I do not however, envisage that she would have thought that she would have to work this hard in view of the global economic credit crisis plus the many other challenges that were hiding under the surface.

I do believe that she is not someone to quit or turn herself away from a challenge. She has a HUGE task ahead of her, even if she is over her head in this, I hope that she has the tenacity to overcome all the current adversity that is faced by us all.


----------



## Sean K (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> One of the problems with this long-running thread is that it is not moderated.



Yes, it is. You don't see alot of the content that is moderated.

Sometimes we miss things as some of us are in different time zones, but generally, if we moderated anymore, there would be no thread.

kennas


----------



## Duped (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well summarised Jadel.   I'd like to add:

There's an additional approx $30M on top of the $147M that OCV Ltd are trying to worm their way out of with the current Offer to Creditors.  This is all on top of the $50M support facility. There's even a contract in place for that $50M promise. What a con job.  I'd just like to remind you all that the word 'con' is an abbreviation of none other than the word: confidence.

If stock markets return to their fundamentals, our 'shares' will be valued by the dividends.  Rule of thumb is 10x. Right? If the annual 'distributions' are 1.5c then the units (shares) will trade at 15c.  Maybe higher if there are imputation credits attached to the 'distributions'.  I'm not sure about capital return.

Don't shoot the messenger.


----------



## selciper (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Jadel - On my layman's score-card, the pessimists who contribute here are absolutely ahead on points when it comes to having forecast PIF's present circumstances. I can hardly think of an optimistic prediction that has come true so far. JH's rousing battle cries are sounding hollow unless she can soon pull a rabbit out of the hat. 

Pessimists correct: 100% Optimists correct: 0% (that includes me.)


----------



## great dame (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just to add to that Jadal i think the asst of the fund is about 341Mill  not 400 Mill which makes it worse   The money WC may get in the court action are just maybe money  Its verying up setting I will have to bring forward my Happy hour of drinks much Early today / Dane //


----------



## great dame (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Jadel - On my layman's score-card, the pessimists who contribute here are absolutely ahead on points when it comes to having forecast PIF's present circumstances. I can hardly think of an optimistic prediction that has come true so far. JH's rousing battle cries are sounding hollow unless she can soon pull a rabbit out of the hat.
> 
> Pessimists correct: 100% Optimists correct: 0% (that includes me.)




 QUOTE from JH I will not leave the battle field till i get the money     I would her say i will not take a fee till i get your $1 back / Dane ////


----------



## danger danger (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Jadel, I agree with parts of what you say. As you have fairly stated in the past everyone votes in relation to their own circumstances. I am a relatively young person, so the fact that JH is too appealed to me. She seems swithced on and doesn't appear to be a crook, as I find her very down to earth.

I have (touch wood my health stays well) time on my side, I can ride it out for 10, 20 years and believe if she does the right thing, I will get my money back with divs down the track to boot. I know that the situation looks crook now, but I am prepared to stick it out for the long haul, and not just take a large hit now and have no future earning potential with my invested funds.

That is why I remain hopeful, not because I think JH is the next messiah. I am under no illusions and am very much a realist. I am stupid for putting so many eggs in the one basket, I have learnt from this and so it is imperative I maintain a positive view, cos as I have said this will be a LONG journey, and have a lot of life (God willing) left, so I see this now as retirement money, and just get on with my life and work in my business to build it up again.

I really do feel sorry for the many unit holders who's situations are vastly different from my own, but that is why I voted for WC. There simply was no other alternative for me, I am not flippant and hang on every word JH says, I just think like, many other smart entrepeneurs here, and I have spoken personally to a few, that there was no other commercially viable alternative.

I just NEED to stay positive or else I will go nuts over the years if I maintain a pessimistic stance, but that is just me.


----------



## Joe Blow (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Jadel has asked me to temporarily remove his most recent post while he reviewed its content for accuracy.


----------



## great dame (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> Jadel, I agree with parts of what you say. As you have fairly stated in the past everyone votes in relation to their own circumstances. I am a relatively young person, so the fact that JH is too appealed to me. She seems swithced on and doesn't appear to be a crook, as I find her very down to earth.
> 
> I have (touch wood my health stays well) time on my side, I can ride it out for 10, 20 years and believe if she does the right thing, I will get my money back with divs down the track to boot. I know that the situation looks crook now, but I am prepared to stick it out for the long haul, and not just take a large hit now and have no future earning potential with my invested funds.
> 
> ...



       Your saying 10 to 20 years Mr Danger  But I heard JH say to me & others at the meeting She will get my $1 back in 3 to 5 years  Good to read your comming around to my way now  Might be closer to 30 years thought  A buck wont buy you much then though   Have a drink Mr Danger it helps a bit ////


----------



## danger danger (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I hope it is not that long, for the sake of the many investors I saw at the meetings, that unless a miracle youth elixir is invented, do not have the longevity to last even 10 years. I was just saying that even IF it takes 10-20, I may be able to absorb it.

I would love nothing more than ALL the unit holders get to enjoy their funds back, they deserve it. Just for the record I never believed WC could do it in 3-5 and told JH that myself, I will not state here what her response was, as people here will throw bricks at me here on this forum in light of what should have happened today. I will say that it was more 'realistic'.


----------



## Rance (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Back to $1 units in 3 to 5 years will probably see me out of the picture (yes I'm that old) so hopefully my daughter and grandchildren will benefit from my life's toil...  Meanwhile, the occasional distribution would help me with buying the hamburgers...

My daughter has a weird sense of humour probably inherited from me. For my birthday tomorrow, she has bought me an Australian classic novel: "Bitter Bread" by Ronald McKie; a story set in Melbourne during the Great Depression! Here's a Depression song my father (a wharfie) used to sing:

Dole bread is bitter bread,
Bitter bread and sour,
Grief in the taste of it,
Weevils in the flour,
Weevils in the flour.

Now that I've cheered you all up, I'll say goodnight...
Rance


----------



## danger danger (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If you're as old as you make out, I take my hat off to you as you are very tech savvy and thought you were a young dude! These days people live a hell of a lot longer than years ago, I wish you all the best and have a :drink: for me.

Happy birthday for tomorrow Rance. Many, many happy returns!


----------



## selciper (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Did anyone receive a snail-mail letter today from WC advising of the distribution delay? My postie is reliable and I didn't get a WC letter. If I hadn't been alerted by this thread, I might well have been blissfully  spending the non-existent payment.


----------



## Jadel (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Joe Blow

 Great Doom is in fact correct the assets are listed at 395 million but only 335 after liabilities
  so please take that into account  

Look I do not have anything against investors who want to believe in the Jenny Hutson Fairy Godmother story. Actually I am quite touched by the extraordinary  faith that some people that some investors that I thought were hard headed business people  have i placed in her abilities .

Believe me I would like to be able to believe in a miracle worker myself, I would sleep a lot better at night it is indeed very difficult thing to face up to the grim reality what you have made a bad investment and lost money permanently

 As the saying goes hope springs eternal in the human heart 


However logic tell me to look  at the hard facts 

What exactly is JH  claim to fame she made a bundle on S8 in a once in a lifetime in a raging bull market that may never be repeated 

She runs a small boutique investment bank that by Lonsec investment measures would never have got past their guidelines for a potential  fund manager.

 The fact of the matter is JH had  a special connection with certain people at OCV and was able to be in a unique position to gain control our fund by not allowing another manager to get a bid in edgewise 

Now are dealing in a cyclical down turn in the property market and a global loss of confidence caused by Subprime if anybody thinks that JH can influence macro economic factors   by any sort of advanced methodology or strategy they have been  terribly ill-advised 

Gone are the days of a property developer generating enormous profits over short timeframes . It is also an unfortunate fact that property cycles tend to be last a long time even decades 

The theft of the 147 million from our Fund by OCV Directors and the subsequent forced  pay out of the RBOS loan caused devastating losses  to our Fund  I am  certainly not suggesting this  was WC fault in any way shape or form.

Nonetheless lets look at what we have left after this disaster  We have a fund with  approx 700 million units and  about 400 million in assets 

To pay out the 6% promosed income per annum that JH promised and the many investors have pinned their hopes on we need to generate about 42 million in income  about 10 % on 400 million 

But is a fact that many assets in the fund such as the huge loan part of which is now converted into living and leisure shares are now generating negligible income .

Moreover 10% is probably a very conservative assessment of the available income potential of our remaining assets

Also the total asset base will be reduced at 2% per annum for her management fees before is dividend is even paid  

I think WC new exactly what they were doing when they made the NSX statement that no dividends on the foreseeable future 

They are all to well aware that paying out a Dividends yield  consistently at 6% over the coming years will be well nigh impossible  

In any event you cannot get growth  whilst  paying out all available  income and selling off assets ad hoc to pay out dividends.

Their will inevitably have to be a Capital raising down the track either on the NSX or ASX and this will undoubtedly be at a large discount to the NTA and severely dilute the value of the fund for existing shareholders.

Unless you are very wealthy and can afford to invest in this Rights Issue ,but even those people with a lot of money invested would be taking on an enormous risk and would surely think twice  about placing to much of their money in one investment

 I have previously mentioned that I am still invested in a property trust that after two Capital Raising with Rights Issues is seven years later still a fraction of my original investment 

You are absolutely correct about one thing Dangerous there is certainly going to be a lot of pain and suffering for investors in the months and years ahead. .


----------



## seamisty (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Happy birthday for Saturday Rance, hope you have a great day!!!:birthday:Cheers,Seamisty


----------



## marcom (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Happy Birthday Rance - hope you have a great day with the family.


----------



## SPLITPIN (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> I hope it is not that long, for the sake of the many investors I saw at the meetings, that unless a miracle youth elixir is invented, do not have the longevity to last even 10 years. I was just saying that even IF it takes 10-20, I may be able to absorb it.
> 
> .




Dear Danger

With the stress you are exihibiting on this forum, I would suggest that the majority of the investors as mentioned above will long outlast you.

Discipline is a wonderfull thing which you have never obviously experianced, so please pay some respect to the elderly.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## JohnH (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

With all this talk about stress, I received this email today which is highly appropriate:-  

New Wall Street Vocabulary


      CEO - Chief Embezzlement Officer.
      CFO - Corporate Fraud Officer.
      BULL MARKET - A random market movement causing an investor to mistake himself for a financial genius.
      BEAR MARKET -- A 6 to 18 month period when the kids get no allowance, the wife gets no jewelry, and the husband gets no sex.
      VALUE INVESTING -- The art of buying low and selling lower.
      P/E RATIO -- The percentage of investors wetting their pants as the market keeps crashing.
      BROKER -- What my broker has made me.
      STANDARD & POOR -- Your life in a nutshell.
      STOCK ANALYST -- Idiot who just downgraded your stock.
      STOCK SPLIT -- When your ex-wife and her lawyer split your assets equally between themselves.
      FINANCIAL PLANNER -- A guy whose phone has been disconnected.
      MARKET CORRECTION -- The day after you buy stocks.
      CASH FLOW-- The movement your money makes as it disappears down the toilet.
      YAHOO -- What you yell after selling it to some poor sucker for $240 per share.
      WINDOWS -- What you jump out of when you're the sucker who bought Yahoo @ $240 per share.
      INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR -- Past year investor who's now locked up in a nuthouse.
      PROFIT -- An archaic word no longer in use.

.................anybody else got any more??


----------



## SPLITPIN (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> With all this talk about stress, I received this email today which is highly appropriate:-
> 
> New Wall Street Vocabulary
> 
> .................anybody else got any more??




Dear John

Thank you for your humour.

Please add on the serious side of stress'

"Old age and treachery will beat youth and enthusiasm any time"

Regards 

Splitpin


----------



## danger danger (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Dear Danger
> 
> With the stress you are exihibiting on this forum, I would suggest that the majority of the investors as mentioned above will long outlast you.
> 
> ...




What stress exhibition
I have plenty of respect especially towards my seniors, I suggest you read closer as there is no suggestion I disrespected the elderly. Pfft you don't know me, so please keep your observations of me to yourself pal, as you are way off the mark ok.


----------



## DoraNBoots (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> ...
> Pessimists correct: 100% Optimists correct: 0% (that includes me.)



Don’t confuse being optimistic with being in denial.  It’s possible to see the fund can’t afford to pay 13% returns while growing over 100% in 3 to 5 years without being a pessimist.  

I consider the Action Group Reps to have been negligent in their posts and emails.  They have continually told people they could expect to receive a 13% return on their investment while it doubled in size.  This is very destructive to peoples lives when it doesn’t happen.  And to top it off one of the reps tells us today he (and JH) didn’t even believed this info he and WC were using to get people to pass the resolutions!

There was also the constant personal attacks on people who told the truth by highlighting the misinformation coming from WC.  Some AG Reps took offence at any proof that WC are incompetent and continually told us how experienced WC are!

I believe that if it wasn’t for the people who continued to highlight WC’s misinformation on this forum, with ASIC and the NSX that most would still be expecting to get the following:
•	A min of 10,000 units on a buy back which will occur within the year (or by Xmas if you are on Seamisty’s list)
•	Receive a 3 cent payment by Christmas
•	Get a 1.5 cent quarterly payment (some would be thinking 3 cents based on the EM)
•	Full return of capital in 3 to 5 years
It is possible that a lot of people are still expecting this as the only correction so far for non Internet users was the Corrective Notice which some received after the vote.

Perhaps the AG could focus on doing something useful such as getting WC to disclose info on the fund.  And that doesn’t mean giving you info over the phone so you can report back to the forum, it means getting them to disclose useful information to the market by way of an NSX announcement (and investor mail out).  The asset realisation in the Oct 28 Investor Update was misleading in that it didn’t show the book value of  the assets and gave the impression there were minimal losses on assets realised between May 2 and Oct 24.  We’ve also been given a table of 32 mortgage loans with their interest rate per annum but there is no mention how much interest and principal is in arrears.  We also need to know how WC plan to fund existing projects.


----------



## danger danger (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

So now if it weren't for the pro WC posters here on this forum, WC would not have got the resolutions of THOUSANDS that voted that wouldn't even know how to turn a computer on. OH PALEASEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

That'll do me LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## CableGuy (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

View attachment 25346

----
"Who told you that? What is his name? I want it."


----------



## seamisty (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A min of 10,000 units on a buy back which will occur within the year (or by Xmas if you are on Seamisty’s list)You will also recall Dora that I apologised for my mistake then, just to refresh your memory from my post on the 2nd of Sept:::
Sorry Dora, my mistake ,the buyback if voted will take place within 12 months of listing on the NSX, so before next Xmas!! Glad you are on to it.:::: Goes to show, none of us are perfect. Seamisty


----------



## SPLITPIN (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> So now if it weren't for the pro WC posters here on this forum, WC would not have got the resolutions of THOUSANDS that voted that wouldn't even know how to turn a computer on. OH PALEASEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!
> 
> That'll do me LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





Dear Danger 

Now please don't stress out about the old people who can't turn a computer on to watch the gospel.

An old time cure - a cup of tea with a bex powder and a good lie down.

Maybe when you wake up you may feel better, but I doubt it.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## danger danger (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Dear Danger
> 
> Now please don't stress out about the old people who can't turn a computer on to watch the gospel.
> 
> ...




I just came home a little while ago from a 4km run, no stress here pal! You should try exercising, it really does unclutter the mind and helps you concentate more, so that you may better understand what you are reading.

The endorphins running through my body from the exercise..wow I feel GREAT!!! I have maybe had 3 cups of tea in my life and have never had a Bex, do they still sell that stuff??


----------



## seamisty (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

WARNING!!!! This post is only for people with a sense of humour and in no way meant to offend the elderly, so please refrain from reading if you do not qualify!!!!I just realised why the loonies are out in force tonight Danger Danger, it's Halloween and instead of trick or treating, some prefer to use their walking sticks to give a beating!!!! Seamisty


----------



## danger danger (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> WARNING!!!! This post is only for people with a sense of humour and in no way meant to offend the elderly, so please refrain from reading if you do not qualify!!!!I just realised why the loonies are out in force tonight Danger Danger, it's Halloween and instead of trick or treating, some prefer to use their walking sticks to give a beating!!!! Seamisty




YEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, better lock the doors and make sure the firewall is ROCK SOLID then.  LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## SPLITPIN (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> I just came home a little while ago from a 4km run, no stress here pal! You should try exercising, it really does unclutter the mind and helps you concentate more, so that you may better understand what you are reading.
> 
> The endorphins running through my body from the exercise..wow I feel GREAT!!! I have maybe had 3 cups of tea in my life and have never had a Bex, do they still sell that stuff??





Danger

OK, enough of the BS, let us go forward together to fix our fund, unless you want to argue forever about nothing that matters.

Let us set the step by step to do it on this forum.

Is that acceptable.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## breaker1 (31 October 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

BEX POWDER !!!

Do you know the nickname for bex powders?

"Newcastle disease"!

Why, because every man and his dog use to take them down here for anything and everything, including with a cuppa. And there was an epidemic of kidney disease and intestinal problems.

When I was a little kid the lady across the road, my best friends mum, literally had half her stomach cut out because of taking BEX every day!

Danger, SPLITPIN is NOT trying to relax you he wants to BUMP YOU OFF!!         LOL HEh HEh!


----------



## great dame (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I can still hear some of the people  leaving the meeting in July  saying to each other  Jenny is nice she will help us we will et our money back soon  I will bet any one my house they are not saying it today  / Dane ///


----------



## DoraNBoots (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Dora. The NSX listing application was for 4 classes of units. I'm guessing these are for the 6, 9, 12 and 24 month terms.  SPLITPIN's post #2968 noted that there were 3 'at call' holdings.  Perhaps this is a 5th class of units; which adds up to the difference of 84,383,192.
> 
> But I ask myself why?  Why would the holders of the 84,383,192 units not want or perhaps not 'need' the liquidity? Was there a plan to give them alternative liquidity? (That smells like preferential treatment to me) …



Duped was right.  It’s been confirmed that WC were excluding the 3 'at call' investments in the PIF on the listing application.  This represented the units held by the Wholesale PIF.  Any ideas why you would plan to exclude these units from the NSX listing?  Note this didn’t end up happening and ALL units were listed in the end.

It’s interesting to read the following section of the Listing Application which to me reads like the RE is telling the NSX they are listing all units of the fund which wasn't the plan at the time:
_2 (vii) an outline of the principal terms of the securities the applicant wishes to list   
"The securities in respect of which listing is sought are all ordinary units and together comprise the whole of the issued unit capital."_

The link to the Listing Application was removed from the NSX announcements the day after some enquiries were made but you can still take a look at it here if you are quick. http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021720762.PDF


----------



## simgrund (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> Back to $1 units in 3 to 5 years will probably see me out of the picture (yes I'm that old) so hopefully my daughter and grandchildren will benefit from my life's toil...  Meanwhile, the occasional distribution would help me with buying the hamburgers...
> 
> My daughter has a weird sense of humour probably inherited from me. For my birthday tomorrow, she has bought me an Australian classic novel: "Bitter Bread" by Ronald McKie; a story set in Melbourne during the Great Depression! Here's a Depression song my father (a wharfie) used to sing:
> 
> ...





DEAR RANCE,
My heartfelt Happy Birhday to you!!!
You'll stick around this mob, that is us, for a damn long time yet because you just love it.
I will enjoin your depressive contribution with my version of english approximation of "Volga Boatmen":

Volga boatmen
Volga boatmen
Sweat your lives
On a river bank

Once in your youth 
You were strong and sprite
Now you can barely 
Lift your gaze off the ground
Heave on the ropes, men
Don’t spare the blisters
Your hearts and souls
Have long been lost in steppes


----------



## selciper (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There's any number of sites that can be googled for company Crisis Management advice. One rule I read about is relevant to WC's present problems with the failed October distribution: "Remember, it may not be your fault, but it is your responsibility."


----------



## deano1 (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

look guys - i haven't posted in a long time and i'm afraid you have all been conned - if you remember i have worked in the financial services area for over 25 years in senior executive positions - this market correction has fundamentally changed the way risk will be assessed and the cost of money will become more expensive - there is less of it availiable to lend so it becomes a more highly sought after commodity - banks will lend money to people who are buying their home to live in who can afford it and can afford to put up 20% deposit. Property Development companies are going to go the way of the dinosaurs and JH is kidding herself if she thinks she is going to get anywhere near your dollar per unit back - an ordely wind up of the fund was the best option - you could be realising assets now whilst your able to - the property market historically corrects 12 - 18 months after the share market corrects - remember the share market is a leading indicator of whats coming - once people start losing their jobs - thats when the property market corrects - JH did a great snow job on you all and who is the only one laughing all the way to the bank - she is covering her costs out of your money - she may not be getting a fee just yet - but shes having her salary paid and that of her staff by the money you have left in there. Good luck to her she played the pschological game well greed and fear won over common sense - if shes given 5 years - you will be lucky to get 5c back.


----------



## danger danger (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Ahhhh these so called financial experts, 25 years on and they are as accurate in their predictions as the weather bureau, and equally as accountable too!


----------



## JohnH (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



deano1 said:


> look guys - i haven't posted in a long time and i'm afraid you have all been conned - if you remember i have worked in the financial services area for over 25 years in senior executive positions - this market correction has fundamentally changed the way risk will be assessed and the cost of money will become more expensive - *there is less of it availiable to lend so it becomes a more highly sought after commodity *- banks will lend money to people who are buying their home to live in who can afford it and can afford to put up 20% deposit. Property Development companies are going to go the way of the dinosaurs and JH is kidding herself if she thinks she is going to get anywhere near your dollar per unit back - an ordely wind up of the fund was the best option - you could be realising assets now whilst your able to - the property market historically corrects 12 - 18 months after the share market corrects - remember the share market is a leading indicator of whats coming - once people start losing their jobs - thats when the property market corrects - JH did a great snow job on you all and who is the only one laughing all the way to the bank - she is covering her costs out of your money - she may not be getting a fee just yet - but shes having her salary paid and that of her staff by the money you have left in there. Good luck to her she played the pschological game well greed and fear won over common sense - if shes given 5 years - you will be lucky to get 5c back.




........... surely that's what PIF is all about!!


----------



## seamisty (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

i'm afraid you have all been conned - if you remember i have worked in the financial services area for over 25 years in senior executive positions - :::lease don't lose sight of the fact that it was so called experts in these positions who directed many investors Or 'conned' them, into investing in the PIF and other similar schemes for substantial fees in the first place. I hope you were not one of them deano, because thay are even less popular than JH at the moment. Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Deano for some commonsense analysis

 I think it should now be  manifestly obvious  to everybody  except a Neanderthal who has had two Frontol Lobotomies  that our fund is in a very dire position 

Duped who I am pretty sure has some very sound  Financial credentials in the industry  has calculated the current listed value at 15cents based on the recent  financial statements.

 Many years ago a friend of mine in the job I was in  got a shotgun a rope and a high chair when it all got to much ,perhaps I should  also add in a Bex powder just to be on the safe side.


----------



## great dame (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just done a bit of research  that some of  the true believers wont like                      Cant find any fund that is in the mess that our fund is in in the last 80 years ( 55% down ) has ever recovered  to the value it once enjoyed    You know folks getting something  will alway beats getting nothing /////


----------



## 2CentsWorth (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Just done a bit of research that some of the true believers wont like Cant find any fund that is in the mess that our fund is in in the last 80 years ( 55% down ) has ever recovered to the value it once enjoyed.
> 
> "You know folks, getting something will always beat getting nothing"/////




*PRAISE HEAVEN FOR THE NSX DANE, PRAISE HEAVEN !! LOL...LOL...LOL!*


----------



## selciper (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Could someone please explain what exactly the background to the delayed $29 million is about - a sort of Guide for Dummies approach would greatly assist any who can't quite follow the reasons for this latest mess. I'm assuming that a group owes PIF money, hasn't any and can't find a source to borrow to pay us back.


----------



## seamisty (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Could someone please explain what exactly the background to the delayed $29 million is about - a sort of Guide for Dummies approach would greatly assist any who can't quite follow the reasons for this latest mess. I'm assuming that a group owes PIF money, hasn't any and can't find a source to borrow to pay us back.



Selciper I can only tell you what I was told myself from WC. There were 3 planned settlements with all the paperwork in place  before the 28th of OCT which all fell through just prior due to the worsening credit market conditions. The projects involved  tried every possible avenue for re financing but failed to secure it. WC are continuing to work with the related parties. I have since spoken to 4other people who had done preliminary work with banks etc. for business and home loans and felt confident that once their final paperwork was submitted, they would qualify. They were ALL knocked back for various reasons. One was a mine worker earning good money but he was told he would need a bigger deposit and a renewed employment contract due to uncertainty in the mining industry. These are scary times. Seamisty


----------



## communique (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



deano1 said:


> look guys -  - if shes given 5 years - you will be lucky to get 5c back.





Other threads discuss "capitulation" basically where everyone just throws in the towel and gives up taking a loss.  I am very wary of your comments Deano because I honestly believe that nothing would be easier for our RE if everyone just threw in the towel and took 15 c on NSX.  Wow what a windfall to have all those pesky unitholders eliminated for peanuts and without ever having to give a "capital distribution".  I would love to know the origins and game plan of the bidders offering to buy on NSX.

Note to self, remember parents rule # 10.
Don't trust real estate agents and lawyers.  I have added financial advisors to my list.


----------



## great dame (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Can some body out there who knows something tell us investors this   If WC cant pay a div  in Dec  Can WC put the fund into a con trolled wind down if they wish  Like the old  MFS managers wanted to do   Before WC took over  /////////


----------



## great dame (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



communique said:


> Other threads discuss "capitulation" basically where everyone just throws in the towel and gives up taking a loss.  I am very wary of your comments Deano because I honestly believe that nothing would be easier for our RE if everyone just threw in the towel and took 15 c on NSX.  Wow what a windfall to have all those pesky unitholders eliminated for peanuts and without ever having to give a "capital distribution".  I would love to know the origins and game plan of the bidders offering to buy on NSX.
> 
> Note to self, remember parents rule # 10.
> Don't trust real estate agents and lawyers.  I have added financial advisors to my list.



             Or women in red coats preching on the stage sying   I WILL SAVE YOU //////////


----------



## Jadel (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Communique

           Yes  Communique their are quite a few Financial advisors masquerading as hard done by unit holders on this thread ,  we know exactly who they are ,however i can assure you Deano is not one of them.

        You will find that some are the people who most stridently  supported JH  in order to  get their wretched commission or should i say 30 pieces of silver .


----------



## breaker1 (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just listening to the 5 o'clock news - Wayne Swan was being pressured into giving investors in funds greater access to their frozen monies. Something like access to $20,000 or half their investment over 1 year, but I might have got that wrong.

Interest level raised, then another pollie comes on and says that it would have to be only if investors could prove hardship!! That's the case already - and its near impossible! Playing us like fools! Unless the hardship criteria are going to be set by the government and relaxed.

Any government interventions might not apply to our fund backdated anyway, as the PIF problems did not originate due to the bank guarantee. Neither does JH have the liquidity to pay such monies if hardship criteria get greatly relaxed at some future date.

If it does happen, it will just mean that those investors will take out whatever they can and put it in the banks. What a great banking scam! Give only the banks the guarantee and then they get all the money from their competition - then no competition! Accordingly, the funds will fail for the people who want to remain. Swan is an idiot unless he puts this guarantee across the board with heavy guarantee limitations. 

I am tempted to say this is all part of the plan and there not idiots! 

But the good thing about all this, is, that we are not a lone fund crying out in the wilderness anymore!


----------



## DoraNBoots (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Just listening to the 5 o'clock news - Wayne Swan was being pressured into giving investors in funds greater access to their frozen monies. Something like access to $20,000 or half their investment over 1 year, but I might have got that wrong.
> ...



ASIC media release from yesterday with details on withdrawals from frozen funds for hardship...
*08-214 ASIC facilitates withdrawals from frozen funds*
Friday 31 October 2008
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.ns...es+withdrawals+from+frozen+funds?openDocument

I’m thinking this no longer applies to the PIF now that it’s listed.  I suppose if anyone contacts ASIC now they will be told to sell on the NSX.  The rules for hardship are mentioned in the media release and an ASIC contact number for people wanting to apply.

I wonder what allowed WC to pay out hardship cases in the past as this article says it was not possible to pay hardship cases before they changed the law yesterday.


----------



## newwwtrader (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have a question for those who voted yes.....

With the benefit of hindsight........if you were to vote again, would you change your vote.

I suspect that the majority on here would say no, as they appear entrenched in their view that there was no other option.

But still curiosity makes me ask


----------



## communique (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> J
> But the good thing about all this, is, that we are not a lone fund crying out in the wilderness anymore!




Breaker, we are lonely because we are one of the only funds not currently paying a distribution.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



communique said:


> Breaker, we are lonely because we are one of the only funds not currently paying a distribution.




Others out there as well.

See following article in todays AFR and how City Pacific FMF customers are suffering:
http://www.afr.com/home/viewer.aspx...home&title=Stress+mounts+as+fund+freeze+bites


----------



## communique (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> Others out there as well.
> 
> See following article in todays AFR and how City Pacific FMF customers are suffering:
> http://www.afr.com/home/viewer.aspx...home&title=Stress+mounts+as+fund+freeze+bites



I did say "one of" but the majority of national mortgage funds are still paying distributions. It is  interesting it is the two Gold Coast funds suffering the most.   Something about the colour of shoes.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



communique said:


> It is  interesting it is the two Gold Coast funds suffering the most.   Something about the colour of shoes.




Indeed - the White Shoe Brigade.


----------



## breaker1 (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



communique said:


> Breaker, we are lonely because we are one of the only funds not currently paying a distribution.




Not too lonely:

"Today the Directors of City Pacific have announced that the City Pacific First Mortgage Fund (Fund) has been deemed non-liquid and that the payment of future distributions will be dependent upon the level and timing of loan repayments by borrowers to the Fund. The City Pacific First Mortgage Fund *will not be paying distributions for the months of September or October*. As a result of this the Income Fund will not be able to pay distributions for the months of September or October *and the payment of future distributions* by the Income Fund will be dependent upon the City Pacific First Mortgage Fund paying distributions."

Sound familiar? JH could almost have worded our 28 Oct investor update the same way.

When the average PIF investor, who has not got a clue, get their 28 Oct Update in the mail and find out their won't be any 1.5c distribution & sus out the Dec 1.5c is unlikely - #$%^>*<&!! They will do most of the talkin for us!

Regardless, if the money in asset sales fell through and is not their to be paid, it would appear that JH has decided to cope the flack, instead of jeopardize our already hard pressed fund any further. Under this painful circumstance, I would prefer that, to WC fire selling or taking loans to make it happen simply to save face.


----------



## communique (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Not too lonely:
> 
> "Today the Directors of City Pacific have announced that the City Pacific First Mortgage Fund (Fund) has been deemed non-liquid and that the payment of future distributions will be dependent upon the level and timing of loan repayments by borrowers to the Fund. The City Pacific First Mortgage Fund *will not be paying distributions for the months of September or October*. As a result of this the Income Fund will not be able to pay distributions for the months of September or October *and the payment of future distributions* by the Income Fund will be dependent upon the City Pacific First Mortgage Fund paying distributions."
> 
> ...




Posts 3360 and 3369 still apply.


----------



## zixo (1 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi,

As most of you know Wellington Capital and Jenny Hutson are proving they've taken over where Octaviar left off. 

Malcolm Turnbull is talking like he would want to clean up the reputation of Investment banks and lending institutions.

Possibly he may set in motion something that wont let future investors to be treated the same way that JH and wellington are treating us 

I urge investors to email Mr Turnbull with your complaints
Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au

Cheers


----------



## DoraNBoots (2 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Can some body out there who knows something tell us investors this   If WC cant pay a div  in Dec  Can WC put the fund into a con trolled wind down if they wish  Like the old  MFS managers wanted to do   Before WC took over  /////////



Section 26 _Winding up of scheme _of the constitution answers your question.  Have a look at it here: http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021720781.PDF as the constitution on the newpif website is the wrong one!
The constitution says the RE must comply with section 601NC(2) of the Corp Act before winding up which enables members to put this to a vote.  Also note 22.2.1 which enables members to direct the RE to wind up the scheme.


----------



## great dame (2 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> Section 26 _Winding up of scheme _of the constitution answers your question.  Have a look at it here: http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021720781.PDF as the constitution on the newpif website is the wrong one!
> The constitution says the RE must comply with section 601NC(2) of the Corp Act before winding up which enables members to put this to a vote.  Also note 22.2.1 which enables members to direct the RE to wind up the scheme.



    Thanks Dora   for that You sure are a great asset to the Forum  / Dane //


----------



## great dame (2 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I know WC cant make a payment when there is no  cash  But what bugs me is this  JH would have know this when she asked for an yes vote  at the last GC meeting   No body can prove me wrong on this point  / Dane //


----------



## DoraNBoots (2 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A unit holder called WC on Friday 28 Oct 2008 to ask about the cash payment which was due and was told:
_“It wasn't going to be paid because they had only just realised that they had to give nsx at least 2 weeks notice of any distributions to be paid. so it will probably be paid early november.
Can you believe it - I thought I had heard all their BS stories, but no here's another one.”_

It doesn’t surprise me that WC didn’t know about the NSX requirements after what GD posted (#3308) but surely if that was the reason and if they intend to pay early November there would have been an x div date on the NSX last week.


----------



## communique (2 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> A unit holder called WC on Friday 28 Oct 2008 to ask about the cash payment which was due and was told:
> _“It wasn't going to be paid because they had only just realised that they had to give nsx at least 2 weeks notice of any distributions to be paid. so it will probably be paid early november.
> Can you believe it - I thought I had heard all their BS stories, but no here's another one.”_
> 
> It doesn’t surprise me that WC didn’t know about the NSX requirements after what GD posted (#3308) but surely if that was the reason and if they intend to pay early November there would have been an x div date on the NSX last week.




WC is an advisor to NSX.  The below is what an adviser does.
http://www.nsxa.com.au/whatisa_NominatedAdviser.asp
Go figure.


----------



## JohnH (2 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> I know WC cant make a payment when there is no  cash  But what bugs me is this  JH would have know this when she asked for an yes vote  at the last GC meeting   No body can prove me wrong on this point  / Dane //




Dane,  think back to March this year.  I am sure many readers of this forum, had budgeted and promised to pay bills in the knowledge that they would be receiving their dividend from MFS around the 10th of the month!!!!


----------



## great dame (2 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Dane,  think back to March this year.  I am sure many readers of this forum, had budgeted and promised to pay bills in the knowledge that they would be receiving their dividend from MFS around the 10th of the month!!!!



     Yes thats true  But that is not the point I am making  Investers voted yes at that meeting being told we would get a payment at the end of Oct  WC were saying we would get one  But WC would have known then we were not getting one  Nobody can prove me wrong on this one        PS they were called payments with MFS in those days  not dividence  You can only call them dividends when they are listed on the exchange &  are a public company //  That should give you a clue why i am right  / Dane ///


----------



## seamisty (2 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Bleating like sheep here on the forum day after day as to what a  bunch of BS artists all and sundry are who is remotely connected to WC is not going to alter the fact that due to a GLOBAL ECONOMIC MELTDOWN, every single person in some way will be affected in some way!!!! On a daily basis there are reports of more hardship to come. The following snippets are from an interview with the PM  in todays AGE:::::::"You will see slower growth and you will see higher unemployment. It's important to level with people about the challenges we now face, the threats we now face. They are real ”” I don't wish to pretend otherwise."
In his strongest comments yet, Mr Rudd said Australia was facing a global recession that was getting "worse and worse and worse".His comments follow news that both the US and British economies are shrinking ”” despite end-of-week rallies in the American and European sharemarkets. Japan has also unveiled a $US277 billion stimulus package, with Prime Minister Taro Aso calling the crisis a "once-in-a-century event".


"When you look at the data in the US, the UK and elsewhere, you see the warnings from the International Monetary Fund, this unfolding global economic recession is going to make it tougher and tougher and tougher for Australia." 
PRIME MINISTER Kevin Rudd has warned it would be grossly irresponsible of the Government not to spend the remaining budget surplus to shield Australia from the "unfolding global economic recession".

But he concedes this might not be enough to protect the nation from higher unemployment and slower economic growth as the international crisis unfolds.

"It will be tough, ugly and hard,"

You will see slower growth and you will see higher unemployment. It's important to level with people about the challenges we now face, the threats we now face. They are real ”” I don't wish to pretend otherwise."In his strongest comments yet, Mr Rudd said Australia was facing a global recession that was getting "worse and worse and worse".

"When you look at the data in the US, the UK and elsewhere, you see the warnings from the International Monetary Fund, this unfolding global economic recession is going to make it tougher and tougher and tougher for Australia.":::::::: Have a look at what is going on outside of the PIF instead of wallowing in self pity, holding JH personally responsible for circumstances that are outside of her control. Every single unit holder will be bitterly disapointed at not receiving anticipated ditributions, but I will be happy just to see the remaining assetts not deteriorate further, or worst case scenario, the PIF placed in voluntary administration. Especially now some are actually estimating the current unit value at 15cents. Take out the costs involved in winding up the fund and other liabilities and you don't need to be a Rhodes scholar to work out what would be left. By all means hassle the butt off JH over wrong constitutions and other misdemeanors until she gets it right, but it will not change the fact that this fund and many others will struggle for survival, no matter who is at the helm or what colour jacket they wear. If JH manages to keep the PIF as a going concern, I will give her my crown and pedestal!!!! Seamisty


----------



## selciper (2 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My fears are growing that WC staff may be totally overwhelmed by this current situation. WC is a pretty small outfit, hardly large enough to cope with a crisis of this magnitude. Extreme fatigue will surely set in soon, so I hope that they are getting some external assistance providing clear-headed advice. Hopping mad as I am, I suspect that this is the wrong time to be slamming WC non-stop with our cudgels. To continue our 24/24 running critiques (myself included) may be ultimately self-defeating for us. It's up to the PIF board to take control of the situation and - from today - demonstrate their so-far concealed talents. There is a limit to how much pressure any administration can take on its own. Our fortunes are dependent on WC being able to maintain internal operational harmony. What's going to happen tomorrow when they can expect thousands of phone calls? Perhaps the board members can help man the hotline. And, as well, there are court battles WC are having to cope with! Exhausting.


----------



## great dame (2 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I disagree with some of the above posts  The pressure should be keep on WC as strong as we can give it to them   Its my money Your money they are playing with   As someone said many years ago  you got to keep the ba........ honest  If the kitchen get to hot Show them where the door is No one twisted there arm to take on this job & tell us all untruths   About getting our money back in 3 to 5 years  Selling  on the exchange & getting about 45 cents a share  & saying you will get a payment end of Oct    Just look back at my past posts  about 3 months ago  I got abused for saying these things  Some of you sort i was some sort of a joke   Well i tell you i may be dumb but i am no stupid ///Dane //


----------



## great dame (2 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



communique said:


> Other threads discuss "capitulation" basically where everyone just throws in the towel and gives up taking a loss.  I am very wary of your comments Deano because I honestly believe that nothing would be easier for our RE if everyone just threw in the towel and took 15 c on NSX.  Wow what a windfall to have all those pesky unitholders eliminated for peanuts and without ever having to give a "capital distribution".  I would love to know the origins and game plan of the bidders offering to buy on NSX.
> 
> Note to self, remember parents rule # 10.
> Don't trust real estate agents and lawyers.  I have added financial advisors to my list.



     You dont trust real estate  and LAWYERS  your words you dont trust LAWYERS   That means you dont trust your great leader JH   Who is a lawyer   Yes i must agree with you on that one  Cheers / Dane ///


----------



## great dame (2 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Bleating like sheep here on the forum day after day as to what a  bunch of BS artists all and sundry are who is remotely connected to WC is not going to alter the fact that due to a GLOBAL ECONOMIC MELTDOWN, every single person in some way will be affected in some way!!!! On a daily basis there are reports of more hardship to come. The following snippets are from an interview with the PM  in todays AGE:::::::"You will see slower growth and you will see higher unemployment. It's important to level with people about the challenges we now face, the threats we now face. They are real ”” I don't wish to pretend otherwise."
> In his strongest comments yet, Mr Rudd said Australia was facing a global recession that was getting "worse and worse and worse".His comments follow news that both the US and British economies are shrinking ”” despite end-of-week rallies in the American and European sharemarkets. Japan has also unveiled a $US277 billion stimulus package, with Prime Minister Taro Aso calling the crisis a "once-in-a-century event".
> 
> 
> ...



        None of us want a lecture about the world finance  mess  We all know that it gets shoved at us ever day   It started over a year ago  Your not telling us anything new 
It was there when WC took over the fund  JH must have knoun things were bad  well i did anyway  but she went on a road show saying things that will never happend  I am no financeual guro  but i knew  then  she had bit of more then she can chew   or did not have a clue  what she was saying  Well all the chickens Or is it rousters are comming home to roust  now


----------



## mgr2118 (2 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> My fears are growing that WC staff may be totally overwhelmed by this current situation. WC is a pretty small outfit, hardly large enough to cope with a crisis of this magnitude. Extreme fatigue will surely set in soon, so I hope that they are getting some external assistance providing clear-headed advice. Hopping mad as I am, I suspect that this is the wrong time to be slamming WC non-stop with our cudgels. To continue our 24/24 running critiques (myself included) may be ultimately self-defeating for us. It's up to the PIF board to take control of the situation and - from today - demonstrate their so-far concealed talents. There is a limit to how much pressure any administration can take on its own. Our fortunes are dependent on WC being able to maintain internal operational harmony. What's going to happen tomorrow when they can expect thousands of phone calls? Perhaps the board members can help man the hotline. And, as well, there are court battles WC are having to cope with! Exhausting.




Although I commend your emotions in this matter, this Forum would not comprise 170+ pages if WC were:-

       *   Clear
       *   Concise
       *   Honest

in all their communications. The majority of contributors on this Forum have been either:-

       *   Asking obvious questions of others
       *   Making comments on what they may have read or heard

and unfortunately

       *   providing opinion on whether they liked or dis-liked particular contribution.

None of this would have existed if WC, via their website or other modern communications and marketing tools, had kept their "customers" informed.

My fear is that NOW that we have been listed on the NSX, that, as previously suggested by Dora, that WC have a perfect excuse to NOT provide timely and accurate information to their "customers". If we knew what was happening, then we would have an UNFAIR advantage, BECAUSE we are now listed on the NSX, and the PIF is subject to the NSX disclosure rules.

Being even more cynical, a hypothesis could be devised, based on the track record over the past few months, that this was the plan all along - I recall a comment from the floor in the Sydney WC Information Session where a unitholder suggested that JH had the makings for a Politician.

Also, in terms of the "emotions" expressed at these sessions, does anyone know of a single case where WC paid out for hardship? ......just wondering?


----------



## deano1 (2 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> ........... surely that's what PIF is all about!!




John H - spot on right if the fund was long cash - there probably is some real bargins to be had out there - but the fund is long loans and exposed to the ability of the borrowers to make interest payments and capital repayments the very people who are going to have to liquidate if they can't make their interest payments - once they work out there no equity in the asset - they go guts up and guess who carrys the burden - yep your fund with your money in it.

What really pisses me off - is JH has told you guys you were to get some sort of money back ASAP - to make that sort of statement the money should have been locked in and have been ready to be distributed.

I can probably start a list here of the rest of the excuses your going to get in the next 6 months from JH & WC.

And you know what - your still going to stuggle to get any cash out of them and the value if the fund will continue to go down all the while - WC will be recovering their expenses at your cost.

and yep investment advisers, bankers etc all fall into the category of having reputations of used car sales men - and that to me is a very sad day for the profession i love and its going to be a long time before that reputation is restored.

An old mentor once told me - son you dont get judged on how well you do when the markets are good - but the person who does well for their clients when markets turn down and protects his clients capital will always have clients and will always do well.

Putting any credit on being a financial genius in the last 5 years - i just laugh at - i could put a monkey on the phone in the last 5 years and they would have made money for their clients - that monkey now has no clients because he has blown all their capital and without capital you cant play.


----------



## seamisty (2 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mgr2118 said:


> Although I commend your emotions in this matter, this Forum would not comprise 170+ pages if WC were:-
> 
> *   Clear
> *   Concise
> ...



Yes I do know of a personal hardship case receiving a payment. Regardless of how informed or uninformed investors are from management in relation to shares, funds, companies or just day to day events, that is what forums are for. Discussion. There are hundreds of them covering thousands of topics. This thread pales into insignificance compared to some elsewhere as far as content and length is concerned. So if these sites are purely for uninformed investors, WC is not alone in this regard or none of them would be necessary. Seamisty


----------



## deano1 (2 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mgr2118 said:


> Although I commend your emotions in this matter, this Forum would not comprise 170+ pages if WC were:-
> 
> *   Clear
> *   Concise
> ...




re hardship - i would bet my younger brother who is an investor in this fund and the only reason why i'm even remotely involved would have surely qualified - 35 year old - self employed - single man - diagnosed with cancer - had no private health insurance - so paid his own way on full fare to get the best medical help he could get - was unable to work so exhausted all his other savings bar the $75,000 he had in this fund that was within 1 month of maturing - he provided all the documentation that he was requested to provide - nothing - lucky he has a family that loves him and supports him that has been able to help him out - i know there are people out there who have similar stories and no other avenue of support.


----------



## selciper (2 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Mgr 2118 - Your post 3386 is very sound. I agree with every point that you've listed. I think the coming days will be critical to us all, as the pressures on WC are only increasing by the hour. I'm assuming that you feel that any temporary cease fire won't help one iota. Well, I only made the suggestion faintly hoping that it might somehow assist. Also, we all know that boards sometimes step as far back as possible when operations begin to fail. If there aren't internal energy-draining spats at present, I'd be very surprised.


----------



## SPLITPIN (2 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Mgr 2118 - Your post 3386 is very sound. I agree with every point that you've listed. I think the coming days will be critical to us all, as the pressures on WC are only increasing by the hour. I'm assuming that you feel that any temporary cease fire won't help one iota. Well, I only made the suggestion faintly hoping that it might somehow assist. Also, we all know that boards sometimes step as far back as possible when operations begin to fail. If there aren't internal energy-draining spats at present, I'd be very surprised.




Dear Selciper

Do you think that a possible way forward for us is to find a common ground (although this may be unpopular to some) and to meet with WC, as soon as possible to better understand the real facts and to consider some real rules / deliverables for the future.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## selciper (2 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Splitpin - From my previous experience at management-board level, any attempt at compromise and understanding between parties in a crisis is better than confrontation. At least the combined energies are then being used in a positive way. But the mood here seems to be (understandably) against such a strategy. You know the old saying, "Jaw- jaw not war-war."


----------



## breaker1 (2 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

"war war"

"jaw jaw"

Say no more!


----------



## simgrund (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> My fears are growing that WC staff may be totally overwhelmed by this current situation. WC is a pretty small outfit, hardly large enough to cope with a crisis of this magnitude. Extreme fatigue will surely set in soon, so I hope that they are getting some external assistance providing clear-headed advice. Hopping mad as I am, I suspect that this is the wrong time to be slamming WC non-stop with our cudgels. To continue our 24/24 running critiques (myself included) may be ultimately self-defeating for us. It's up to the PIF board to take control of the situation and - from today - demonstrate their so-far concealed talents. There is a limit to how much pressure any administration can take on its own. Our fortunes are dependent on WC being able to maintain internal operational harmony. What's going to happen tomorrow when they can expect thousands of phone calls? Perhaps the board members can help man the hotline. And, as well, there are court battles WC are having to cope with! Exhausting.



SELCIPER
I commend you on this show of common sense. 
Let's combine to bring in Great Doom's considerable clout to speed up this positive contagion. 
Stay on course, best wishes


----------



## k.smith (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Sorry been away trying to get some work to put food on the table.
> 
> Just went on the NSX website - -http://www.nsxa.com.au and found something very interesting. Wellington Capital Limited is one of the 32 Advisors registered by the NSX Australia wide to assist companies to list on the NSX - joined 2007. These advisors pay an application fee $2,500 and a annual fee $1,000. Issuers (companies that list) are required under the NSX Rules to obtain the services of the nominated advisor at all times while the listing is current. No wonder the PIF is headed to NSX - and yes another convenient source of fees for WC!!
> 
> ...




.....Does anyone else think this is strange?....McCullough Robertson were until about 2007 also the lawyers for MFS. McCullough Robertson are also the lawyers for CITY PACIFIC.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> .....Does anyone else think this is strange?....McCullough Robertson were until about 2007 also the lawyers for MFS. McCullough Robertson are also the lawyers for CITY PACIFIC.




Isn't one of them also the husband of JH?


----------



## k.smith (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> Isn't one of them also the husband of JH?




.....Yes, Brett Heading, Chairman of Partners and Partner,McCULLOUGH AND ROBERTSON, in the Corporate Advisory Group......has managed numerous capital raisings over his career, including many ASX listings.


----------



## selciper (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> SELCIPER
> I commend you on this show of common sense.
> Let's combine to bring in Great Doom's considerable clout to speed up this positive contagion.
> Stay on course, best wishes




Thanks, Simgrund. The sheep that recently followed behind WC in all good faith may well turn into howling wolves any day. Every morning on this thread somebody posts more worrying information that they've dug up - and so on it goes. Look at the huge number of well-meant posts/contributions to this site since May and consider where we are now. We're in the quicksands.


----------



## breaker1 (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> .....Yes, Brett Heading, Chairman of Partners and Partner,McCULLOUGH AND ROBERTSON, in the Corporate Advisory Group......has managed numerous capital raisings over his career, including many ASX listings.




Good research marcom and k smith

I remember at the Newcastle WC/JH roadshow meeting at Newcastle Panthers Club, that one intrepid investor asked JH a similar direct question, 

The question was something like, I understand your husband is on the board of the NSX is that true?

She appeared quite flummoxed by that question, halted and appeared to look around for advice from staff. JH then said, something like NO! I can categorically say, he is not!

It might be a matter of semantics, he may not be on the board, but if he had some connection, she should have said so, albeit via registered advisors McCullough Robertson Lawyers Brisbane. At the time of the meeting they may not have been advisors, I don't know. 

Do you remember that question? Most won't because it was in the second half of the meeting after the break. The poor guy felt like a fool because he thought he had a valid question.


----------



## seamisty (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Good research marcom and k smith
> 
> I remember at the Newcastle WC/JH roadshow meeting at Newcastle Panthers Club, that one intrepid investor asked JH a similar direct question,
> 
> ...



Has anyone actually confirmed that he is JH's husband or is it hearsay? I am not saying he isn't, justI have never seen anything to back this up thats all. Seamisty


----------



## k.smith (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> .Quote from this mornings AFR:-:::: " Another Octaviar creditor, Double Knob Pty Ltd, also hired a silk to help stop the winding up. Double Knob is headed by Brett Heading, chairman of Bribane law firm McCullough Robertson."  :::: For those of you who don't already know, Brett Heading is JH's husband. JH has already said she will do her utmost best  to restore stability and value to the PIF, so if she gets assistance from her husband to achieve this, I don't have a problem with that. (please don't shoot the messenger!:hide Seamisty




......you told us he is her husband, seamisty.


----------



## k.smith (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> ......you told us he is her husband, seamisty.




.....Sorry, to be exact, you posted this some time ago.


----------



## seamisty (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> .....Sorry, to be exact, you posted this some time ago.



 I was sent that info from another investor in the PIF ,from memory it was off the WC website, but I can't find any reference to it now.I did not keep a copy at the time. I think it may have been removed from the website.. A bit of a mystery. I will check with my original source. Perhaps they are no longer together? Seamisty


----------



## breaker1 (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I was sent that info from another investor in the PIF ,from memory it was off the WC website, but I can't find any reference to it now.I did not keep a copy at the time. I think it may have been removed from the website.. A bit of a mystery. I will check with my original source. Perhaps they are no longer together? Seamisty




Either way her initials are still JH! Heh Heh!

PS She was previously a partner for 10 years in the corporate division of McCullough Robertson Lawyers.


----------



## seamisty (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I was sent that info from another investor in the PIF ,from memory it was off the WC website, but I can't find any reference to it now.I did not keep a copy at the time. I think it may have been removed from the website.. A bit of a mystery. I will check with my original source. Perhaps they are no longer together? Seamisty



I just received 2 e-mails from my original source who confimed that he did in fact send it to me off the WC website. If it has been removed, I would think circumstances have changed or Jh does not want a connection being made. He also said that there was a reference to him on the video that was sent out .Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

]Its ok, I found it!!!Media articles of the WC website( not the newpif) July 2006   Team Hutson - The Australian Financial Review Boss Magazine Seamisty


----------



## danger danger (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Here is the link. The bit about her husband is on page 2 of the PDF. Some for you will have a field day with the WC 'mission' statement, 'The Wellington Way' LOL Especially in light of non-payment "Under-promise and aim to outperform". Bet you she wishes she could take that one back right now!

http://www.wellcap.com.au/articles/18-10-2007 - Millions of ways to raise a family - City News.pdf


----------



## Jadel (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I can definately remember an investor contacting me after the Brisbane meeting and stating JH husband was on the NSX Board

   Then afterwards i seem to remember a statement made  on this Forum or in the newspapers to the effect that she was not married

 Perhaps she is divorced ?

  Its all water under the brige now


----------



## selciper (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Don't forget that the PIFI Brisbane-based legal advisers would have checked all possibilities that might have been in PIFI's  favour...


----------



## breaker1 (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> Here is the link. The bit about her husband is on page 2 of the PDF. Some for you will have a field day with the WC 'mission' statement, 'The Wellington Way' LOL Especially in light of non-payment "Under-promise and aim to outperform". Bet you she wishes she could take that one back right now!
> 
> http://www.wellcap.com.au/articles/18-10-2007 - Millions of ways to raise a family - City News.pdf




Yeah! says "married her husband McCullough Robertson Chairman Brett Heading"

We're starting to sound like "Woman Weekly" on here. LOL

Exclusive  "Will Jenny Dump Brett for Chris?" Read inside!


----------



## danger danger (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Yeah! says "married her husband McCullough Robertson Chairman Brett Heading"
> 
> We're starting to sound like "Woman Weekly" on here. LOL
> 
> Exclusive  "Will Jenny Dump Brett for Chris?" Read inside!




LOL "Will Jenny Dump Brett for Jadel????" LOL


----------



## Jadel (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Selciper

   I can assure you the PIFI would not stoop to those depths

    We have never even discussed the issue.

   Their are more pressing matters at hand for example is the Fund capable of 
    paying out a dividend yield over the next few months and years 

   If not, then what options do investors have left.


----------



## seamisty (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well since Brett Heading owns Cloverly Estate Winery, he might shout us all a Xmas drink to stop us all 'whining'!!! Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Well since Brett Heading owns Cloverly Estate Winery, he might shout us all a Xmas drink to stop us all 'whining'!!! Seamisty




Great idea,  If we think the PIF is doing badly, look at these (I havn't checked them!):

If you had purchased $1000.00 of Nortel stock one year ago, it would now be worth $49.00.

With Enron, you would have had $16.50 left of the original $1000.00.

With WorldCom, you would have had less than $5.00 left.

If you had purchased $1000 of Delta Air Lines stock you would have $49.00 left.

But - if you had purchased $1,000.00 worth of beer/wine one year ago, drank all the beer/wine, then turned in the cans/bottles for the recycling REFUND in S.A, you would have had $50.00.

Based on the above, the best current investment advice is to Drink heavily and recycle.:alcohol:


----------



## seamisty (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I'll drink to that advice JohnH:bier:Only problem is, come blue recycle bin empty day, ours is the loudest on the whole estate! Do you have any tips on how to muffle the clunk of empty bottles apart from individually wrapping them in bubble wrap. I don't care how funny the crew find it, tis quite embarrassing at times LOL!!!! Seamisty


----------



## selciper (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Selciper
> 
> I can assure you the PIFI would not stoop to those depths
> 
> ...




Jadel - In no way was the query intended to question your integrity. The issue discussed seems hardly likely to get me my money back!


----------



## ian1328 (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A lot of information is being dug up and shows that WC have taken advantage of a wounded animal, namely MFS, and instead of taking it to the vet they decided to let the animal suffer to their greedy advantage. How long the illness lasts and whether it becomes terminal will become apparent over the next few months. I only wish they could somehow suffer the same pain as the animal.


----------



## SPLITPIN (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> LOL "Will Jenny Dump Brett for Jadel????" LOL




Dear Danger

As I recall from the GC forum the lady informed us she was fourty something and hot to trot or something like that.

About your age group - so please be careful as there may be some finacial risk involved.


Regards


Splitpin


----------



## SPLITPIN (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



ian1328 said:


> A lot of information is being dug up and shows that WC have taken advantage of a wounded animal, namely MFS, and instead of taking it to the vet they decided to let the animal suffer to their greedy advantage. How long the illness lasts and whether it becomes terminal will become apparent over the next few months. I only wish they could somehow suffer the same pain as the animal.




Dear ian1328

I always think about what WC said when things are down

"This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## breaker1 (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I'll drink to that advice JohnH:bier:Only problem is, come blue recycle bin empty day, ours is the loudest on the whole estate! Do you have any tips on how to muffle the clunk of empty bottles apart from individually wrapping them in bubble wrap. I don't care how funny the crew find it, tis quite embarrassing at times LOL!!!! Seamisty




Yeah! don't ya just get embarrassed when the bottles clink in the evening, its a dead give away. One of the loudest ear piercing noises around - goes straight through the neighborhood!

My alcohol consumption has definitely increased since the PIF freeze and with that, more clinking and clunking. If I get cirrhosis outta this - I'll sue!!   ROFL


----------



## JohnH (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I'll drink to that advice JohnH:bier:Only problem is, come blue recycle bin empty day, ours is the loudest on the whole estate! Do you have any tips on how to muffle the clunk of empty bottles apart from individually wrapping them in bubble wrap. I don't care how funny the crew find it, tis quite embarrassing at times LOL!!!! Seamisty




Buy two litre bottles!!


----------



## SPLITPIN (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Great idea,  If we think the PIF is doing badly, look at these (I havn't checked them!):
> 
> If you had purchased $1000.00 of Nortel stock one year ago, it would now be worth $49.00.
> 
> ...




Dear John & Members

What is this - preparation for a crash landing.

I did not think WC was the share market.

I think we may have more chance tomorrow in Melbourne.

Anyhow all have a nice day tomorrow and forget about our fund for at least one day 

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## breaker1 (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Buy two litre bottles!!




Now John, first Splitpin is trying to do in our kidneys with BEX, now your tryin to knock out our livers with 2 litre bottles.

See Jenny....see what your doin to us! If ya give us what ya promised we could all dry out!


----------



## JohnH (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Dear John & Members
> 
> What is this - preparation for a crash landing.
> 
> ...




No Splitpin,

As some of the participants are speculating on the marriageability of JH I am entering into the spirit of things, and working on the principle you have to either laugh or cry at our sad state of affairs. ( no pun intended!)
 The former is infinately preferable to the latter!


----------



## SPLITPIN (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Now John, first Splitpin is trying to do in our kidneys with BEX, now your tryin to knock out our livers with 2 litre bottles.
> 
> See Jenny....see what your doin to us! If ya give us what ya promised we could all dry out!




Breaker1

I forgot to mention about VINCENT POWDERS.

Try some of them, even better and coloured pink not white like BEX.

Regards

Splitpin


----------



## seamisty (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Breaker1
> 
> I forgot to mention about VINCENT POWDERS.
> 
> ...



I hope you are not trying to supplement your income with a little drug dealing on the side Splitpin! Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Breaker1
> 
> I forgot to mention about VINCENT POWDERS.
> 
> ...




They are both Acetylsalicylic Acid


----------



## SPLITPIN (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I hope you are not trying to supplement your income with a little drug dealing on the side Splitpin! Seamisty




Dear Seamisty

There was a banned book called "Onionhead" when I was young etc. and it had many drug tricks etc. before drugs were the go.

If I can remember try sniffing nutmeg etc. costs very little, so no money for me.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## JohnH (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Dear Seamisty
> 
> There was a banned book called "Onionhead" when I was young etc. and it had many drug tricks etc. before drugs were the go.
> 
> ...




When I was young, "drugs" were Acetylsalicylic Acid


----------



## breaker1 (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Dear Seamisty
> 
> There was a banned book called "Onionhead" when I was young etc. and it had many drug tricks etc. before drugs were the go.
> 
> ...




Do all the PIFI sniff nutmeg? Hmmm! Is that why you've got that cutting edge?


----------



## seamisty (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Dear Seamisty
> 
> There was a banned book called "Onionhead" when I was young etc. and it had many drug tricks etc. before drugs were the go.
> 
> ...



Thanks, but I'll save the nutmeg for cooking and keep sniffing the roses!!! Seamisty


----------



## SPLITPIN (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Do all the PIFI sniff nutmeg? Hmmm! Is that why you've got that cutting edge?




Breaker1

Of course, I have that cutting edge without nutmeg sniffing.

Please contact PIFI though their official email address for their response regarding sniffing.

Please tell us more about cutting, maybe the dividends.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## seamisty (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Do all the PIFI sniff nutmeg? Hmmm! Is that why you've got that cutting edge?



Or maybe diarrhoea? Seamisty


----------



## breaker1 (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Breaker1
> 
> Of course, I have that cutting edge without nutmeg sniffing.
> 
> ...




Gotta laugh!


----------



## breaker1 (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Or maybe diarrhoea? Seamisty




Whats that ABBA song:

Diarrhoea! Here I go again! Ma! Ma!

Oh sorry that Mamma Mia!


----------



## SPLITPIN (3 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Or maybe diarrhoea? Seamisty




Dear Seamisty 

That what you get from eating rotten fish or something unpalatable like your investement return.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## great dame (4 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dose anymore know if JH cries her self to sleep every night  from thinking about us poor investors  ?????????????


----------



## seamisty (4 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Extract from today's GC Bulletin::::Almost of quarter of the Coast's 27 listed companies have had either administrators or receivers appointed, or are operating under deeds of company arrangement.

Last week, administrators were appointed to Sanctuary Cove-based retirement village developer LV Living.

In September, administrators were appointed to the Rob Borbidge-chaired finance company Asset Loans and receivers were called in to four Raptis Group companies developing the third Southport Central tower.

Octaviar, formerly MFS, has had administrators and receivers appointed.

Two others, water technology firm Cumminscorp and Surfers Paradise financial services company Asian Pacific, have worked through their administration and operate under deeds of arrangement.::::::: Seamisty


----------



## great dame (4 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Dose anymore know if JH cries her self to sleep every night  from thinking about us poor investors  ?????????????




    OR cant sleep at night from thinking about how we all got conned  ///////


----------



## Smokey68 (4 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Easy fix, do not invest in anything north of the Tweed River.


----------



## selciper (4 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This could lead eventually to some slightly better news for us.

From the Australian today:

"The thawing in Australian lending rates also follows falls in US dollar LIBOR and its spread to the relevant overnight index swap rate.

"It has been a very gradual decline, but we are seeing signs of relief on the funding front," ICAP senior economist Adam Carr said.


----------



## Rance (4 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Many thanks to those who sent me birthday wishes and to Simgrund for words of Volga Boatman song. Much appreciated.

Except for some of you drinking more booze, nothing much has changed on this forum!

Rance


----------



## JohnH (4 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> Many thanks to those who sent me birthday wishes and to Simgrund for words of Volga Boatman song. Much appreciated.
> 
> *Except for some of you drinking more booze,* **
> Rance






... I wouldn’t say that Rance......... maybe some of us have lightened up a bit, or become more facetious.


----------



## Rance (4 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> ... I wouldn’t say that Rance......... maybe some of us have lightened up a bit, or become more facetious.




Yes John, you're right! I was going to pen a sarcastic reply to my old mate Great Doom; but I thought NO...  why do that? Why be a smart ass? It's not going to help fix our problems. If you don't have something constructive to say... don't say it. Three days away from the forum and our world (ie. this forum) has changed... for the better.

Cheers
Rance


----------



## simgrund (5 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> Many thanks to those who sent me birthday wishes and to Simgrund for words of Volga Boatman song. Much appreciated.
> 
> Except for some of you drinking more booze, nothing much has changed on this forum!
> 
> Rance




If we are not careful, the Government will step in with their "intervention" action customised for PIF drinking sods.
More Cheers to you again!!!


----------



## great dame (5 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I find in bad times like now  i get a lot of help & support from Johnny / Dane //


----------



## JohnH (5 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> I find in bad times like now  i get a lot of help & support from Johnny / Dane //




.......... so you are a bit of a Walker ........  should we take that as Red?


----------



## communique (5 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> This could lead eventually to some slightly better news for us.
> 
> From the Australian today:
> 
> ...




We should be seeing our capital distribution soon then?


----------



## demodocus (5 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Centrelink have now accepted my claim that $0.15 is the value of a Wellington PIF unit after the trade on NSX.

Those on partial pensions should now claim with appropriate documentation.


----------



## Duped (5 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> With all this talk about stress, I received this email today which is highly appropriate:-
> 
> New Wall Street Vocabulary
> 
> ...




How about:

MFS - 'Mortgage' Fund Scam ('Mort' is Latin for death isn't it?)

OCV - Others' Captial Vanishing/Vapourising  or Our Creditors Vanquished


----------



## seamisty (5 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all, A trade just went through at 35 cents for 20,000  units on the NSX. Not sure if it was an off market transfer but the sell or buy was not listed a short time prior to it appearing as having gone through. Seamisty


----------



## 2CentsWorth (5 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



demodocus said:


> Centrelink have now accepted my claim that $0.15 is the value of a Wellington PIF unit after the trade on NSX.
> 
> Those on partial pensions should now claim with appropriate documentation.




Hi Seamisty,
I have just sent Demodocus a private message regarding the above.
It would appear now, this last trade will reset the value to 0.35 cents for later applicants. I guess we will just have to pick our moment in time to make our application.

Best wishes.


----------



## seamisty (5 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



2CentsWorth said:


> Hi Seamisty,
> I have just sent Demodocus a private message regarding the above.
> It would appear now, this last trade will reset the value to 0.35 cents for later applicants. I guess we will just have to pick our moment in time to make our application.
> 
> Best wishes.



Yes 2CentsWorth, I fowarded the info on to a friend on the GC and she rang Centrelink and was told that they had no notification regardind the matter and they needed to be notified officially. Ten minutes later the price was 35cents! This is going to be difficult for centrelink to monitor and will be a confusing problem for pensioners I think Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (7 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It's very quiet in here:shake:


----------



## Rance (7 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> It's very quiet in here:shake:



Sure is!  Maybe everyone is absorbing the downfall of Allco, ABC, and the $40 billion hole in the budget. Sobering news. 

I'm glad JH is adverse to holding debt and has almost repaid it all from the fund's current income ($9.5 million still outstanding). Inability to finance debt seems to have been the downfall of the Australian companies going down the gurgler.

Rance :headshake


----------



## Burnt (7 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> Sure is!  Maybe everyone is absorbing the downfall of Allco, ABC, and the $40 billion hole in the budget. Sobering news.
> 
> I'm glad JH is adverse to holding debt and has almost repaid it all from the fund's current income ($9.5 million still outstanding). Inability to finance debt seems to have been the downfall of the Australian companies going down the gurgler.
> 
> Rance :headshake




Another broken committment/promise made by JH "bank loan will be repaid by end of Aug.2008". 

Do they leave all their financial planning/budgeting/management to chance ??
They're a bunch of juggling clowns who should be in a circus !!

On what basis are you making the statement "has almost repaid it all from the fund's current income", have you had the privledge of examining WC's accounts ?

By the way, ABC's downfall was not caused by "inability to finance debt" - it was directly caused by the fact that Eddy Groves is a well known CROOK !!
Much like our friends at MFS/OCTAVIAR/WELLINGTON !!


----------



## seamisty (7 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> It's very quiet in here:shake:



Trust you and Rance to flush 'em out LOL!!!!Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (7 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From a media article today:::ABC Learning appointed administrators on Thursday, two days after Allco appointed administrators to run its business after failing to refinance A$147 million ($98 million) of debt. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Rance (7 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Another broken committment/promise made by JH "bank loan will be repaid by end of Aug.2008".
> 
> Do they leave all their financial planning/budgeting/management to chance ??
> They're a bunch of juggling clowns who should be in a circus !!
> ...




Good on you Burnt! That's put the fire back into the forum!

The basis for my comment is the statement at the foot of page 1 of the PIF Investor Update: 28 October 2008:
_"The 3 settlements planned for October 2008 with planned realisations of over $25 million have failed to settle. Consequently the Premium Income Fund debt remains at $9.5 million and the Fund is unable to pay an October distribution."_

Did you not receive your copy of this update in the mail? It is also on the WC website (you can navigate to it). It just occurred to me, perhaps you're not a PIF investor? Surely I'm wrong about that.

Eddie may or may not be a crook, but three of the big four banks would sure like the money they loaned ABC back (read the papers; watch the business programs on TV... you'll be better informed).

Rance


----------



## JohnH (7 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Another broken committment/promise made by JH "bank loan will be repaid by end of Aug.2008".
> 
> Do they leave all their financial planning/budgeting/management to chance ??
> They're a bunch of juggling clowns who should be in a circus !!
> ...





Burnt,  A friendly warning! (and I have no axe to grind here) I think you better be sure of your facts if you make this sort of statement.  I believe I am correct that the laws of libel apply to postings on the internet


----------



## Burnt (7 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Rance,

You are perhaps the one who needs to look closely at your sources of information (or perhaps the way in which you are instructed or conned into interpreting them).

Nowhere in the Update of 28th Oct. does it suggest that the bulk of the bank loan has been repaid from the Funds current income. The statement you quoted is merely the excuse they have given (one of several) for not paying the balance of the debt or the promised distributions. A situation they knew they were facing on the 15th Oct. but chose to lie about !

I would like to know who the loan was re-financed through ? 

Also, as with MFS/OCTAVIAR/WELLINGTON, ABC Childcare (another Gold Coast set up) obtained finance that they had no hope of repaying, based on dodgey accounts and non-disclosures. (just to keep you informed)

Regards from the Gold Coast


----------



## Burnt (7 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> [/I][/B]
> 
> Burnt,  A friendly warning! (and I have no axe to grind here) I think you better be sure of your facts if you make this sort of statement.  I believe I am correct that the laws of libel apply to postings on the internet




Thanks for the warning John, but if the shoe fits !

There has been much reporting on Eddy Groves over the last 12 - 18 months and there has been lots of information uncovered and reported.

That's the value of accurate information and facts, it empowers people who otherwise might believe they are powerless.


----------



## SPLITPIN (7 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Trust you and Rance to flush 'em out LOL!!!!Seamisty




Dear Seamisty

I thought we all agreed on the forum that you were to go fishing for a month to give us all a rest.

Now it appears you are back early, with very bad sea sickness after looking on board SAT at your investment returns.

Please get rid of all these mod comms - nothing but trouble.

Get a good banker in future, and 747 Kevin will look after you.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## SPLITPIN (7 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> Good on you Burnt! That's put the fire back into the forum!
> 
> It just occurred to me, perhaps you're not a PIF investor? Surely I'm wrong about that.
> 
> ...




Dear Rance

I rang WC today and it may be that Burnt is very major unit holder.

Are you a unit holder also or an advisor or both and/or a Octaviar shareholder as well.

Previously we have established you are not a lawyer.

So what are you.

Regards

Splitpin


----------



## seamisty (7 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Dear Seamisty
> 
> I thought we all agreed on the forum that you were to go fishing for a month to give us all a rest.
> 
> ...



 Boats have internet access these days Splitpin, get with it!!! Eating fresh fish and not havng to resort to dining on 'BASA' which dominated not only restaurant menus but fishing co-op shelves in NSW and QLD ensures me a healthy disposition. I do however, and always have suffered seasickness, but my love for the ocean makes this a minor issue compared to the bigger picture out there. If it makes you feel better slagging me off, go for it. Your support group seems to have diminished. Fortunately, after studying finance for ten years, I learned not to put all my eggs in the one basket and it has payed off, also I am young enough to still earn an honest living. However, I feel for those that rely on the pension, supplemented with a bit extra from what they thought was a secure investment, and I will continue to support them in any way I can. I don't think you have as much support from the forum as you think, but if it helps your ego to pay me out publicly, go well. I am well looked after with a private bank thanks, which is a subsiduary of one of the BIG FOUR, so I have the govt backing. I am now starting to think that it is not diarreaha you are suffering, but constipation!!
You were far more congenial when you were recruiting for the PIFI. I hope you are not resorting to trying to humiliate me on a public forum because you failed to convince me to join the PIFI? Anyway Splitpin, at the end of the day, we are all victims of the  current economy status. Stirring up discontent and making enemies is not going to help unit holders so perhaps you would be better rewarded by 'Goin Fishing'!!! Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (7 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Dear Rance
> 
> I rang WC today and it may be that Burnt is very major unit holder.
> 
> ...



I refer back to a very earlty post from Burnt Splitpin just to refresh your memory and so you can get your facts straight (eat more good Aussie fish, does wonders for the memory and the bowell):::Hi Gazzan, I represent my father, who like many of the investors is quite elderly (& computer illiterate), which is why I am so angry about the way this fund has been managed & operated. Elderly people don't ask that many questions and are easily fobbed off and treated like idiots. They've had there savings stolen from them at a time in their lives when they need it most.

Sorry for those that didn't like my story, thought everyone could relate to the scenario. You know - misplaced faith & trust winning out against facts & logic.


----------



## Rance (7 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Dear Rance
> 
> I rang WC today and it may be that Burnt is very major unit holder.
> Are you a unit holder also or an advisor or both and/or a Octaviar shareholder as well.
> ...




Hi Splitpin

I'm a semi-retiree (what ever that means).
Worked 2; now 3 days a week.
In my mid-seventies.
I'm a PIF unit holder.
I'm not an Octaviar share holder.
I'm not an advisor.
You're right... I'm not a lawyer.
I have degrees &  diplomas in IT, Management, and Music.

I'm happy with the vote of the majority of unit holders to go forward with JH/WC.

I badly needed that 3 cent distribution before Xmas, but understand why it could not be delivered.

Perhaps I'm a nong for putting my faith in JH and believing what she tells us... time will tell.

I'm not really interested in what other people on this forum are or aren't. It doesn't bother me that Burnt may or may not be a very major unit holder or how you deduced that by a phone call to WC. 

Cheers
Rance :hide:


----------



## danger danger (7 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good on ya Rance, give it to them mate. Don't take any rubbish from these jokers. You voted with your head, these people are peeved at what has happened and want to take it out on JH, they want to cut their noses to spite their sour faces!

You are a very smart cool dude and hope I am as with it as you are in my mid seventies. Hope to catch up with you one day so we can share a beer and a cheeseburger, who knows if JH does well we can upgrade to a Big Mac soon bro.

Hang tough and keep the faith


----------



## danger danger (7 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty, I think some people on here have been eating too much carp with very high mercury levels and my God does it show, very angry and not making much sense. 

<Insert a line from a cheesy Jim Carey movie here>


----------



## Burnt (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Seamisty & Rance,

Just to set you straight in the ridiculous assumptions you make, I am in fact a unit holder, as is my father who has quite a substantial unit holding.

I stand by my theory that JH in her high cost promotional campaign, preyed on the elderly investors, making full use of their vulnerability and the fact that they give away their trust very easily (oldest trick in the book). It paid off for her.

I am totally with you Rance. I couldn't give a rats a..... about what other people on the forum are or aren't, although I do object to the paid financial advisors who post on here totally for their own (& WC's) purposes of self preservation. I couldn't care less about people who continually boast about being well educated, or more informed, or more influential, or more affluent, or more deserving. Money does not buy credibility.

Seamisty, you are correct. Every person on this planet is currently a victim of global economic conditions. However, to continue to promote this as the reasoning behind PIF's predicament is blatantly aiding and abetting WC's current tactic of taking attention off their own actions and responsibilities, and this in no way shows support for struggling unit holders.

Cheers !


----------



## Burnt (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> Good on ya Rance, give it to them mate. Don't take any rubbish from these jokers. You voted with your head, these people are peeved at what has happened and want to take it out on JH, they want to cut their noses to spite their sour faces!
> 
> You are a very smart cool dude and hope I am as with it as you are in my mid seventies. Hope to catch up with you one day so we can share a beer and a cheeseburger, who knows if JH does well we can upgrade to a Big Mac soon bro.
> 
> Hang tough and keep the faith





Yo D-man, sup dude?? Chill'n wit da ho's in yo crib?? yeeehhh bro....chillax !
(insert cheesy "cool" talk)


----------



## danger danger (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

You make it sound like all these elderly people are dumb and docile, maybe they were just not offered anything else, by anyone else and thought that the PIFI type of alternative, well just wasn't an alternative.

I am not elderly, neither are many substantial holders in the fund, far from it. Anyways I am repeating what has already been said here. Take it that some here made the best of a bad deal, we have given the vote for WC to make a go of it. JH is not stupid, she knows for a fact that there are some heavy hitting investors here that have the financial muscle to take her down should she not deliver given time. Example: a superannuation fund and several individual investors that make up a large stake of the fund that will demand results down the track, and they are not old and fragile either.


----------



## Burnt (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Rance,

Sorry mate, one more question. You say you understand why the 3c distribution cannot be made before xmas. I thought WC were still working on achieving it ?!??

Apart from this point though, I'm still confused as to how it is understandable.
Up until days before the end of October, WC was still promising a payment, so what possible reason could be understandable that would still leave them with any sort of credibility as "managers" of this Fund ??

This sort of behaviour is pretty much unheard of from reputable corporate management.


----------



## danger danger (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Yo D-man, sup dude?? Chill'n wit da ho's in yo crib?? yeeehhh bro....chillax !
> (insert cheesy "cool" talk)




:fu:


----------



## Burnt (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> :fu:




This one's better  :arsch:

or what about this one  :flush:  WC get it (God I'm funny)

PS, how far down the track are you planning on dragging struggling people ?


----------



## JohnH (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi Rance,
> 
> Sorry mate, one more question. You say you understand why the 3c distribution cannot be made before xmas. I thought WC were still working on achieving it ?!??
> 
> ...




..........fairly simple mate, - expected money don't come in - expected money don't go out!!!

Incidently Burnt - at what age do you define as "Old" ? ............ and who (or should that be whom) are the "paid advisors"?


----------



## Rance (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi Rance,
> 
> Sorry mate, one more question. You say you understand why the 3c distribution cannot be made before xmas. I thought WC were still working on achieving it ?!??
> 
> ...




Burnt, you're right! I'm being pessimistic.

*"Wellington continues to work closely with each borrower to facilitate the repayment of their finance facilities in this difficult financial market."
*

Rance


----------



## Cold Ghost (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hello all

Refered to this forum by a friend. Read some recent postings. Lots of fishing going on! Are you guys for real?? Or just letting off steam? I'm hear to learn.

Cold Ghost


----------



## Sean K (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Cold Ghost said:


> Hello all
> 
> Refered to this forum by a friend. Read some recent postings. Lots of fishing going on! Are you guys for real?? Or just letting off steam? I'm hear to learn.
> 
> Cold Ghost



I think a lot of the recent posting has resorted to joking because they've got nothing new to add, and this IS an outlet. It's resulted in lots of pointless slanging matches also.

At the same time, there's been some decent objective discussion along the way.

So, what's your position with the case in point CG?


----------



## Jadel (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Rance said:


> Back to $1 units in 3 to 5 years will probably see me out of the picture (yes I'm that old) so hopefully my daughter and grandchildren will benefit from my life's toil...  Meanwhile, the occasional distribution would help me with buying the hamburgers...




 Rance

  Do you really believe that the great majority of retirees who invested 
   in the fund for deperately needed  income to supplement their pension can so easily write of their investment and irreplaceble capital in the above scenario and live on " THE OCCASSIONAL DISTRIBUTION"


----------



## Rance (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Rance
> 
> Do you really believe that the great majority of retirees who invested
> in the fund for deperately needed  income to supplement their pension can so easily write of their investment and irreplaceble capital in the above scenario and live on " THE OCCASSIONAL DISTRIBUTION"




Jadel
I am speaking for myself not the "great majority of retirees". I don't know how they are thinking. Do you? Perhaps you could also tell me of your plans to reverse the effects of the recent majority vote favouring Wellington as the RE. That revelation might change the dynamics of the present stalled debate which is going round in circles sawing sawdust.

Rance


----------



## Jadel (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Rance

You are indeed in a very fortunate position It appears you only need the dividends for “THE OCCASSIONAL HAMBURGHER”

 If you are not fully cognisant of the devastating effects the loss of regular dividend payments and access to irreplaceable capital saved over a lifetime will have on the MAJORITY OF INVESTOR LIVES  95% WHO ARE OVER THE AGE OF 65 

 I would respectfully suggest that you reed some of the recent posts
 on this Forum 

 In regard to what can be done Rance you can either accept the situation carte blanche or try to plan an alternative strategy


----------



## selciper (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This thread is at its most useful when a contributor can pass on some reliable information. The last Wellington bulletin is now twelve days old. Had anybody got any later info? This increasingly depressing situation just seems to drag on forever. And what about the ballot for three AG reps? We need them elected now. I believe that WC should be communicating a lot better with investors - will there be a Dec. 24 distribution? It will soon be 12 months since we were locked out. Is there any news on the ASIC front?


----------



## seamisty (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A few unit holders have been investigating alternative strategies since the first day WC became involved with the PIF as they decided that they did not like JH and did not want her on board full stop, and to the best of my knowledge that is as far as they have got. Meanwhile, another 15 previous healthy funds have frozen redemptions on products that weren't in the dire state our PIF was in when WC took control. Is JH to blame for this also? What about Allco and ABC learning, do you think they didn't investigate all other avenues before going into VA?  The global financial crisis has smashed a $40 billion hole in the budget, look at the bigger picture Jadel.For gods sake be thankfull we have something left at all for WC to work with, JH said all along that her intentions were to stabilize the Fund. You might be happy for the PIF to be sold down in the current economy and further dilute our remaining assetts for the sake of a distribution, but there are many unitholders that are just content to recieve a bit extra in their pensions in the hope of preserving their remaining unit value in the hope of an economic turn around and sensible management practises. Who knows, we may still yet receive some sort of payment before Xmas depending on certain loan settlements being resolved which are outside of WC's control. Commercial property sales are down 53% so far this year on the Gold Coast and if you and a few others had of had their way, some of our assetts would be sitting there in the queue with them. What sort of a distribution would we have got then? If  and when you ever come up with a better scheme that will deliver a better outcome for unitholders and be unanimously voted in for, then point the finger at JH and say what a bad job she did. Until then, lets hope things do not get any worse. Seamisty


----------



## Rance (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well Seamisty, you have stolen my thunder! I was about to say to Jadel and other anti-JH contributors that I have not yet seen a coherent alternative plan from them. To quote Shakespeare, it's all been "piss and wind" and any female will tell you that just ain't good enough! So over to you guys, let's see your alternative plan to improve unit holders situation.

Rance


----------



## Rance (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Oh, and brush your your Shakespeare!


----------



## danger danger (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Brilliantly said Seamisty, nothing to add to that!!!


----------



## Jadel (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY RANCE  ... MEANWHILE, THE OCCASIONAL DISTRIBUTION WOULD HELP ME WITH BUYING THE HAMBURGERS...


RANCE FORTUNATELY YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE SHAKESPEARE TO MAKE A POINT


----------



## danger danger (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Fish, hamburgers, shakes..boy I'm getting hungry, must be dinner time.

Eat all your vegetables and drink all your milk so you can grow big and strong, and then maybe aunty Jenny will give us all a treat come Xmas.


----------



## Burnt (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

You're a good little Wellington Soldier Seamisty, reinforcing the tactic of keeping attention focused on global economic conditions, and even trying to brainwash people into believing they are lucky !!! Every time you post these comments, I will post mine highlighting the deception / mismangement of WC.

Yes, most Funds have frozen redemptions (but are still paying distributions) because people paniced and wanted to put their money in banks. This was not the case with PIF. Our fund was not permitted to release money because of default on the bank loan (taken out by the Fund for the benefit of MFS).
Yes, there is a credit squeeze, particularly in over-priced, over-valued property developments - the type that MFS liked to invest in.

On 15th Oct. (& even later) JH promised unit holders that the Oct. distribution would take place. Less than 2 weeks later she announced that they would not be paid. JH is either a liar or an extremely bad financial manager.




Burnt said:


> Seamisty, you are correct. Every person on this planet is currently a victim of global economic conditions. However, to continue to promote this as the reasoning behind PIF's predicament is blatantly aiding and abetting WC's current tactic of taking attention off their own actions and responsibilities, and this in no way shows support for struggling unit holders.


----------



## Burnt (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If unit holders had of been able to vote for a managed orderly wind down of the Fund, and voted for it, we probably wouldn't be receiving distribution payments now. (nothing different to our current situation).
But we would at least know that the assets of the Fund would be sold down over 3 to 5 years at the best prices achievable so as to return as much of our capital to us over this time frame.

Right now unit holders have no idea if they will ever receive a distribution or if they will ever see more that 10 - 15% of their capital again. I don't call that a great plan, especially when there is no honest communication with investors, and no transparency.

By the way "you guys", it is not up to any individual or any group of unit holders to come up with a detailed plan to manage the Fund - that is the job of the Fund Manager.  If the Managers plan is not working out for unit holders, what do you think should happen ??
Also, Rance keep your "piss & wind" to yourself please mate (gross!!)


----------



## seamisty (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Until I am offered a better option I will continue to support WC Burnt. Yes our fund was originally frozen when the 200 Million Dollar Loan , taken out by the former MFS board defaulted, which has since been reduced by a staggering $190.5 million!!!!! I really don't care if you are so bitter and the only scapegoat you can find to blame and verbally beat up is JH.(and anyone who is pro WC) We also don't know what the outcome would have been if WC did not step foward, you would like to think that there would have been a better result simply because you don't like the current situation. You can cry on here all you like if it makes you feel better, it will not change anything. Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY RANCE .. MEANWHILE, THE OCCASIONAL DISTRIBUTION WOULD HELP ME WITH BUYING THE HAMBURGERS...


I think all PIF AG members should now be made aware of their new  Machiavellian strategy 

Immediately change your will and bequeath all PIF  investments in the Premium income fund to your  next of kin 

.  Then you will have to have  to learn to use the OCCASIONAL DIVIDEND  for  Hamburghers ,preferably BIG MAC over the next 3 to 5 years . The cholesterol deposits will of course be the death of us all well  before then  so no need  to worry about seeing any return  of our capital after that period. 

 hhhmmm let me think now I aint  leaving  my hard earned to the daughter and her fat boyfriend to squander so its got to go to the RSPCA .drat


----------



## Burnt (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty, you are entitled to support WC if you believe their plan is going to provide the best outcome for you. Just as I am entitled to critise them when I feel that their actions deserve criticism or when I believe their plan is not going to provide the best outcome for other investors.

But as I said, if you continue to try and shift focus onto general economic conditions in an attempt to hide WC's inept skills in communication and management, I will continue to highlight their deficiencies. The $200mil bank loan had to be repaid or the bank would appoint receivers. Whoever took over management of the Fund had to repay this debt. I do not see this as a great accomplishment for WC (the way they like to portray it).

I am at a loss as to why you have always maintained the stance that the battle going on here is between unit holders. I am not bitter at all (as though I have lost some kind of battle with WC supporters as you might try to insinuate). I feel extremely saddened by events that have left all unit holders in a situation that I'm sure the majority did not expect. And no, it doesn't make me cry, it makes me want to encourage people to look at facts and face the truth.

My intention is not to beat up anyone, but of course I would be looking to JH and Wellington as the ones to blame for unit holders not getting what they expected. JH was the one making all the promises - it's only logical !!


----------



## Burnt (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> By the way "you guys", it is not up to any individual or any group of unit holders to come up with a detailed plan to manage the Fund - that is the job of the Fund Manager.  If the Managers plan is not working out for unit holders, what do you think should happen ??




I'd like some opinions on an answer to this question. If WC's plan for the Fund does not work out the way Unit Holders expected, what should happen.

I'll leave you with something to think about. *At the Wellington meeting held on 18th Sept., in front of 600 odd investors, JH made a committment to unit holders that if unit holders were not happy with Wellingtons management of the Fund and they felt that WC was incompetant in the management role, WC would step down and waive the 2% exit fee.*


----------



## like2ski (8 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> I'd like some opinions on an answer to this question. If WC's plan for the Fund does not work out the way Unit Holders expected, what should happen.
> 
> I'll leave you with something to think about. *At the Wellington meeting held on 18th Sept., in front of 600 odd investors, JH made a committment to unit holders that if unit holders were not happy with Wellingtons management of the Fund and they felt that WC was incompetant in the management role, WC would step down and waive the 2% exit fee.*




Hi Burnt,
I believe that we, the unit holders should "unite" and hold her to her promise.
in fact if we truly believe in her mismanagement we should insist/enforce the matter.
However, it will be very hard (almost impossible) to get her to conceed/admit to her incompetence in managing the Fund, listing on the NSX etc.


----------



## great dame (9 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> I'd like some opinions on an answer to this question. If WC's plan for the Fund does not work out the way Unit Holders expected, what should happen.
> 
> I'll leave you with something to think about. *At the Wellington meeting held on 18th Sept., in front of 600 odd investors, JH made a committment to unit holders that if unit holders were not happy with Wellingtons management of the Fund and they felt that WC was incompetant in the management role, WC would step down and waive the 2% exit fee.*



  Burnt I must toss in my 2 cents worth  JH sure said that i heard her   But thats just cheap talk   It is not down on paper & signed  by JH   I never believed her for a minute   But she sure got all the old folk hocked in  / Dane ///


----------



## great dame (9 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> I'd like some opinions on an answer to this question. If WC's plan for the Fund does not work out the way Unit Holders expected, what should happen.
> 
> I'll leave you with something to think about. *At the Wellington meeting held on 18th Sept., in front of 600 odd investors, JH made a committment to unit holders that if unit holders were not happy with Wellingtons management of the Fund and they felt that WC was incompetant in the management role, WC would step down and waive the 2% exit fee.*



                  Hi Burnt again JH also said at the Brisbane meeting    Investors who want to sell out of the fund could get about 40 to 45 cents a unit  on the NSX   Then went on to say unit holder who stay in the fund can expect to get a Dollar back in 3 to 5 years  Plus she added  a 3 cents payment  B4  Xmas    I did not believe any of this crap at all  & said so on this Forum at the time   I said you might get about 15 cents a unit  And maybe get your Dollar back in about 25 years    I got really bagged for saying these things  Well its all true now   An old saying  Never believe anything you hear & only half of what you read / Dane ///


----------



## JohnH (9 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Perpetual reopens income/mortgage funds 
9/11/2008 2:38:01 PM
Fund manager Perpetual Ltd has re-opened applications for its income and mortgage funds at the request of a number of clients.

The fund manager was forced to suspend applications and introduce a quarterly redemption facility after a rush of redemptions following the federal government's decision to guarantee bank deposits.

Perpetual group executive Richard Brandweiner said the company was re-opening applications to the funds at the request of a number of clients.

"*The recent sharp reductions in the RBA cash rate and falling term deposit rates make high grade mortgage funds very attractive," Mr Brandweiner said in a statement.*
Perpetual has re-opened applications for its Monthly Income Fund, Wholesale Monthly Income Fund and Private Investor Mortgage Fund, which have combined assets of $1.7 billion under management.

"We understand the current situation has been confusing for some investors," Mr Brandweiner said.

"As a leading fund manager, we need (to) restore the deserved confidence in these funds, which have proven to be a very secure option for investors for over 40 years."

Perpetual was one of a number of non-bank investment institutions forced to freeze some $12 billion of investor funds in the aftermath of the bank deposits guarantee.


................... might indirectly help PIF


----------



## SPLITPIN (9 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Perpetual reopens income/mortgage funds
> 9/11/2008 2:38:01 PM
> Fund manager Perpetual Ltd has re-opened applications for its income and mortgage funds at the request of a number of clients.
> ..............
> ...




Dear John


I think what has happened to our fund and other trusts has changed the public's perception of funds / trusts forever.

The exposure of excesses of the managers etc. is almost non stop in the media.

Weekend Australian yesterday on Gordon Fell and other articles in the businesss section is very interesting reading.

All these articles just shows how bad and mad our managers had / have become.

I think the days of managed funds as we know them are over.


Regards


Splitpin


----------



## Burnt (9 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Burnt I must toss in my 2 cents worth  JH sure said that i heard her   But thats just cheap talk   It is not down on paper & signed  by JH   I never believed her for a minute   But she sure got all the old folk hocked in  / Dane ///




HI GD,

JH's talk might be cheap, but she made this statement in front of an audience of hundreds of unit holders. There were some of us calling out asking her to put it in writing, of course we were ignored, but none the less it is not a statement that she can retract and I am certain that she can be held to it when there were 600 or more witnesses (& particularly as it was recorded).

Thanks for your comments Like2ski. I believe the way the statement was made, JH inferred that if it was the unit holders' decision that WC has been inept and incompetant in their management of the Fund, then they would step down and waive the exit fee.

This is something that we need to keep in our minds in the months to come.
Unit holders should never feel powerless.


----------



## seamisty (10 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Financial crisis leads to lower deeming rates for pensioners::::November 09, 2008 07:47pm::::
The Federal government is set to lower the social security income test deeming rates as a result of the global financial crisis.

The deeming rate will change from four to three per cent for the first $41,000 of a single pensioner's financial investments and the first $68,200 for couples. 

It will shift from six to five per cent for the balance of financial investments. 

"This is to reflect the recent reduction in interest rates and the impact the global financial crisis is having on returns on pensioners' investments,'' Community Services Minister Jenny Macklin said in a statement. 

"The Rudd government's decision acknowledges that many pensioners and social security recipients who also rely on own-source income have been adversely affected by the global financial crisis.'' 

Deeming rates are used to assess income from financial investments for social security pensions and allowance purposes. 

They assume that financial investments are earning a certain rate of income. 

Payments affected by the deeming rules include means tested pensions, such as the age pension, the disability support pension and carer payment, along with income support allowances and supplements such as the parenting payment and Newstart, Ms Macklin said. 

The changes will come into effect from November 17. 

Last week, the government announced Centrelink had updated the value of pensioners' listed securities and managed investments in the wake of the financial crisis.


----------



## Wolfgang (10 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Seamisty, you are entitled to support WC if you believe their plan is going to provide the best outcome for you. Just as I am entitled to critise them when I feel that their actions deserve criticism or when I believe their plan is not going to provide the best outcome for other investors.




Burnt

I am part of other investors You do not speak for me, the vote went to JH and I will support her.

Wolfgang


----------



## Duped (10 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> ....   An old saying  Never believe anything you hear & only half of what you read / Dane ///




Like Anthony Klan who in the Australian reported that the first PIF sale was for $35,000.  The trade was for $900.  Slightly different.

That article remains uncorrected online courtesy of the Australian.  Backed by the reputation of the Wall Street Journal (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24537986-643,00.html)

And no correction within cooee of that webpage.

I'm learning GD. Sadly, I'm learning.


----------



## danger danger (10 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Wolfgang said:


> Burnt
> 
> I am part of other investors You do not speak for me, the vote went to JH and I will support her.
> 
> Wolfgang




Don't worry Wolfy, Burntout doesn't speak for me either and only represents the views of a very small minority...but he THINKS he speaks (just like the PIFI organisation he represents) for many, but ssshhhhhh don't tell him that.


----------



## great dame (10 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> Don't worry Wolfy, Burntout doesn't speak for me either and only represents the views of a very small minority...but he THINKS he speaks (just like the PIFI organisation he represents) for many, but ssshhhhhh don't tell him that.



   You know something Mr Danger Man & Mr Wolfie  If we were half as smart as burnt  we would be 20 times smarter then we are now / Dane ///


----------



## danger danger (10 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> You know something Mr Danger Man & Mr Wolfie  If we were half as smart as burnt  we would be 20 times smarter then we are now / Dane ///




20 times you reckon, that's a big call. Do you have any concrete proof to back this statistic or any of your other outlandish statistics for that matter?

Perhaps we should all do an online Mensa test to prove your theory. Here is a link to facilitate this:
http://www.mensa-test.com/

I would be extremely curious to know what you scored!///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


----------



## Wolfgang (10 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> You know something Mr Danger Man & Mr Wolfie If we were half as smart as burnt we would be 20 times smarter then we are now / Dane ///




Hi all
I am the first to admit that I will get a score of 0 on the http://www.mensa-test.com/ test, for I invested in the PIF and now I am reading this forum.

Wolfgang    :homer:


----------



## great dame (10 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Every day we should thank the good Lord for having people like our Burnt caring about our interests  in the fund   .We should all  be so gratefully & thankful  WE are are very fortune to have such a great fighter on the side  Right   / Dane ////


----------



## great dame (10 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> 20 times you reckon, that's a big call. Do you have any concrete proof to back this statistic or any of your other outlandish statistics for that matter?
> 
> Perhaps we should all do an online Mensa test to prove your theory. Here is a link to facilitate this:
> http://www.mensa-test.com/
> ...



 About 50 times  more then your great leader  JH would get / Dane ////


----------



## danger danger (10 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Every day we should thank the good Lord for having people like our Burnt caring about our interests  in the fund   .We should all  be so gratefully & thankful  WE are are very fortune to have such a great fighter on the side  Right   / Dane ////




Oh yeah, what's he done? Apart from send 3000 letters to people in an unsolicited manner, just like junk mail arrives in our letterboxes. Oh and spending more of our funds money in a fruitless ASIC case that only prolonged the meeting by another month and cost even more money to us all. Yeah I reckon we should all pray for the Lord above to provide more of these constructive individuals like Burntout and you before us!!!!PLEAEEEEEEESE GOD MORE MORE...give us all a break!!!!!!!!/////////////


----------



## danger danger (10 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> About 50 times  more then your great leader  JH would get / Dane ////




HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...mate she would run rings around you/////:

This guy reminds me of when we were kids, "my dad is 20 times stronger than yours"...man this ain't the Mickey Mouse club//////


----------



## great dame (10 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> Oh yeah, what's he done? Apart from send 3000 letters to people in an unsolicited manner, just like junk mail arrives in our letterboxes. Oh and spending more of our funds money in a fruitless ASIC case that only prolonged the meeting by another month and cost even more money to us all. Yeah I reckon we should all pray for the Lord above to provide more of these constructive individuals like Burntout and you before us!!!!PLEAEEEEEEESE GOD MORE MORE...give us all a break!!!!!!!!/////////////



      Mr Danger  i wont you to look back in history  & you will find that RIGHT will always overpower WRONG in the end   In the end you true believers will see  what is  right   Remember history is on my side   / Dane ////


----------



## great dame (10 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...mate she would run rings around you/////:
> 
> This guy reminds me of when we were kids, "my dad is 20 times stronger than yours"...man this ain't the Mickey Mouse club//////




 Rung ring around me    She sure would  In giving fault hope  & conning   the Elderly  folk   And it seems the not so old  Could that cap fit you   / Dane ///


----------



## great dame (10 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Remember everything i said back in August on this Forum has come true   Shame you true believers  did not listen to me then  you are all now paying the penalty  How Sad / Dane ///


----------



## k.smith (10 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Hi Burnt again JH also said at the Brisbane meeting    Investors who want to sell out of the fund could get about 40 to 45 cents a unit  on the NSX   Then went on to say unit holder who stay in the fund can expect to get a Dollar back in 3 to 5 years  Plus she added  a 3 cents payment  B4  Xmas    I did not believe any of this crap at all  & said so on this Forum at the time   I said you might get about 15 cents a unit  And maybe get your Dollar back in about 25 years    I got really bagged for saying these things  Well its all true now   An old saying  Never believe anything you hear & only half of what you read / Dane ///




Great Dame, I wish that I had taken more notice of your posts. You have my apologies. Burnt, I am listening to everything you are saying. Between you both, I am CONVINCED that you are RIGHT.


----------



## danger danger (10 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Oh Great MunDane one you have proven NOTHING!!

You said it would be a 'BLOOD BATH" on the NSX, I hardly consider the paltry number of trades to date a bloodbath. So just what have you proven thus far? WC have only officially been voted by us since OCT 15, that is the date it all starts by her to rebuild the fund. What are you expecting, miracles. Rome wasn't built in a day. You being the so called expert in history would know that.

Speaking of history, it doesn't prove jack. Did you ever think that a country full of racist rednecks would ever vote for a black president? Well, stick that in your history pipe and smoke it. 

Talk to me in a few years if JH was a failure, till then you have got NUFFING. Just curious though Mundane, why were you having an argument with security at the GC meeting, what was in the bag that they refused to let you carry into the room. Boy were you mad, but then you let them take it away from you and then you were allowed in. What was that all about?


----------



## seamisty (10 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Great Dame, Since you are so adamant that we are not going to receive a brass razoo before Xmas from WC, in the event that god performs a miracle ( it would have to be a miracle because according to some, JH is a deceptive, incompetant BS artist) would you like to pledge  your distribution to me and I will distribute it to the needy here with their free fish for Xmas? If we get a divvy you won't miss  it since you never beleived you were ever going to get it, so what do you reckon? Have we got a deal? Seamisty:santa:


----------



## danger danger (10 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Whilst I am sure that Mr M Dane would love to take to up on that offer Seamisty, as he is a very gracious and generous soul, that even if we were to get that all so elusive Xmas payment, he himself would not be privvy to then re-distribute it to the needy. See you forget that he already transferred his units to his son, who was not too pleased about that as he may be too old to ever enjoy it.

Since it is coming up to Xmas soon, I will start playing my old LP's with those old Xmas carols. One of a few on here's favourite would be "The Little Drummer Boy"...as they LOVE to beat the same drum, day after day after day...ROMPAPOMPOM ROMPAPOMPOM.


----------



## Jadel (10 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY RANCE .. MEANWHILE, THE OCCASIONAL DISTRIBUTION WOULD HELP ME WITH BUYING THE HAMBURGERS...

 Seamisty

I am backing you on this one

 We will definitely get occasional  distributions over the next few months and years  for hamburgers the problem is will we be able to afford French fries


----------



## Sean K (11 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Stop baiting each other and get back on topic.


----------



## Sean K (11 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



kennas said:


> Stop baiting each other and get back on topic.



This was not directed at any particular individuals. The last page was full of people baiting one another, name calling, and being off topic. 

Now, lets start again; being polite, reasonable, respectful, and on topic. 

Good luck!!


----------



## SPLITPIN (11 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Members

Now we are listed on the NSX please note new requirements;

Regulatory Guide 45

Mortgage schemes ”” improving disclosure for retail investors September 2008

http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/rg45.pdf/$file/rg45.pdf

Interesting.

Regards

Splitpin


----------



## flatback (11 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Kennas i dont know how you can allow this childish retoric to go on, i havent been reading for a few days, and i cant believe that its gone to the levels of absolute rubbish, which has no bearing upon which the forum was opened for, in my view these people who have hijacked the forum for their own personel reasons are destroying the credibility of the site , its either a group of silly old men and women, or the other end of the scale, a few smart Ar-- young people, who are determined to shut this down, the lot of you if you have nothing to talk about (the PIF? )then find some other avenue for your rubbish, (probably play school)  flatback


----------



## communique (11 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> Kennas i dont know how you can allow this childish retoric to go on, i havent been reading for a few days, and i cant believe that its gone to the levels of absolute rubbish, which has no bearing upon which the forum was opened for, in my view these people who have hijacked the forum for their own personel reasons are destroying the credibility of the site , its either a group of silly old men and women, or the other end of the scale, a few smart Ar-- young people, who are determined to shut this down, the lot of you if you have nothing to talk about (the PIF? )then find some other avenue for your rubbish, (probably play school)  flatback




There is an answer to this.  A new thread called
WC PIF ONLY USEFUL INFORMATION POSTS


----------



## danger danger (11 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> Duped if you believe the statement that you just made is true( the days of easy cash and minimal disclosure are over ) i tell you what, i have three geese in my yard that lay, gold silver and diamond eggs, which one do you want to buy. as long as there are corporate lawyers,( who will bend every law to suite their own whims) and an asic body that doesnt have the kahoonas to use the power that has been bestowed on them , and there are a group of people (us ) who believe that there are gov agencys to look after us, and unfortunately the white shoe brigade that runs the financial world on the gold coast is allowed to operate as they do ,IT WILL HAPPEN UNTIL I SUCK IN MY LAST BREATH, i liken this form of investment to investing my money into the poker machines,you may say, well you were caught too you know ,and you are right, but because of my age and my health i can guarantee, it will not be physicaly possible for me to ever get caught again, and unfortunately its my wife and her well being that concerns me more than anything.
> i have put many threads on this forum trying to instill some sense and order to the retoric that has materialised but to no avail, constantly we hear from the same people cutting and pasteing exerps from papers etc etc, WHY when everything is out of our control. i wont say have a good day , have a bad day like i have to suffer.




Flatback, how are you, I hope this finds you well. I have been looking back at some of your posts, since I can't ever really remember much of what you have ever added here. I have noticed that you like to bag the likes of Seamisty, who has been an incredible wealth of knowledge and comfort to many, yet no real information worth noting, just posts like the one I have randomly selected.

Sir, the reason why there has been a bit of banter, granted not "directly" linked to new PIF info, as there hasn't been much of late, is that we are all on edge waiting and we were having a bit of FUN OMG dare to have a bit of fun in the sad times a lot of us are going through, here on the internet.

Anyway FB, since you love to use a certain word as this old post of yours suggests, I feel I must be informative (as that is what you like us to be). The word is spelt R-H-E-T-O-R-I-C. You're welcome

I hope you have all had a wonderful day and wish you all a peaceful night's sleep. My regards to you all.


----------



## SPLITPIN (11 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Members

I am interested to know more about;

1. Legal Action on 14 November.

2. Status of the legal proceedings before the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Is there anything new to report and is somebody going to attend the court case in Sydney and report back to the forum etc.

Regards

Splitpin


----------



## demodocus (13 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

An examination of the PIN component of the NSX site provides some interesting insights.

A couple of days ago there were 2 sellers at +/-$0.30 totalling 200,000 shares.

Today there are over 400,000 shares on offer at less than $0.30 through 4 sellers the lowest being 100,000 shares available at $0.20.

There have been no trades. However, these offers represent 4 individual investors who placed $400,000 into the care of MFS who subsequently reduced their value (under the examination of WC) to $0.45 or $180,000.

Today there have been no buyers at the still further reduced price of $0.20 or a TOTAL value of $80,000. So much for WC's expertise in valuation.

Our Great Leader's good friends (and debtor to the PIF) Mr Raptis's companies appear to be on the road to collapse. I presume we'll wait until they do collapse before our Great Leader thinks about doing something about investors funds.

There has been no word from our Great Leader regarding the magnetic 'vote for me' buy back at $0.45 or the now delayed disbursement of $0.03c/share by Christmas.

Somebody on the CIY Forum thought that Wellington Capital should be considered as an alternate RE for the foundering City Pacific FMF. The result, to say the least, was utter outrage on line. WC has managed to bring its (and our Great Leader's) credibility to almost zero by its performance with the Wellington PIF.

I hold over 100,000 shares in PIN and consider that if I can rescue more than $15,000 (including the nebulous distributions) I'll be doing well.


----------



## Burnt (13 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The NSX is an extremely depressing sight. Offers to sell just going lower and lower with original investments of $100,000's being flushed away.

It's shocking and depressing. These people are obviously either extremely desperate and in need of _something_, or else they are of the opinion that if they stick around too long they will get nothing.

Either way, it shows very little confidence in a 3c/unit payment next month.
It's truely stomach wrenching. 

Have also just been informed by someone that had received an email from WC, that the hardship cases that were paid out, totalled $51,427.80 in all. That is 114,284 units at .45c. 

What a pathetic effort that really goes to show just how unconcerned they were for the struggling unit holders. This amount of money would look insignificant in comparison to the huge PR bill that WC would have accumulated.


----------



## selciper (13 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It's certainly not a pretty picture at the moment. Yesterday I spoke to somebody on the hotline - they're always pleasant enough. But I soon realised that I was being given no fresh information on anything. There was no news on the much-needed distribution, just an assurance that WC were leaving no stone unturned to get money (well, that's their number 1 task, I hope). We are continually facing a headwind. It really is time for JH to inform us frankly what is going on. I understand that there are legal limitations in this respect, but better communication from the top (yes, the Board too) is essential and urgent. By not doing so, WC's image also loses out in the end.


----------



## SPLITPIN (13 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> It's certainly not a pretty picture at the moment. . I understand that there are legal limitations in this respect, but better communication from the top (yes, the Board too) is essential and urgent. By not doing so, WC's image also loses out in the end.




Dear Selciper

I am a member who was due some redemptions last January.

One could assume that there was a massive payout due.

I assume that that if the upcoming court case in Sydney is against WC, that means all redemptions due in January become due for payment at 100% from PIF.

This means for the remaining members a further massive reduction in fund valuation per unit.

Maybe other members may comment on this assumption.

Regards

Splitpin


----------



## DoraNBoots (13 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> ...
> Have also just been informed by someone that had received an email from WC, that the hardship cases that were paid out, totalled $51,427.80 in all. That is 114,284 units at .45c.
> 
> What a pathetic effort that really goes to show just how unconcerned they were for the struggling unit holders. This amount of money would look insignificant in comparison to the huge PR bill that WC would have accumulated.



Those hardship figures are shocking.  JH said on the 22 Aug 2008 that WC had a meeting on the 21 Aug to review the hardship cases and that there were just over 160 cases which represented about 15 mill units or 2% of the fund.  I was wondering if the Sept vote would impact on the hardship cases being paid and in particular if the buy back going ahead would impact on the hardship cases.  JH response was that the hardship cases would be paid before the vote.  Now WC are saying they only paid 0.01 percent of the fund to hardship.  WC are also saying that now that the constitution has been modified removing redemption clauses that no more hardship cases can be paid - they now advise unit holders sell on the NSX.

It's interesting how WC said the NSX would be a way of letting unit holders in hardship exit the fund but in fact unit holders who meet hardship grounds would have been better off if the fund was not listed so they could apply to ASIC under the new measure announced on 31 Oct 2008 - 08-214 ASIC facilitates withdrawals from frozen funds.  This allows hardship cases approved by ASIC to withdraw at least 50% of their investment.


----------



## seamisty (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good morning all, For those of you needing to keep Centrelink informed for pension adjustments, a trade of 50,000 units just went through at 20cents per unit. Seamisty


----------



## selciper (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

50000 at 20c! Of course this is a very difficult time to trade shares, but the 20c price is hardly a vote of confidence in WC's strategies. The seller might simply be in desperate need of $10k, but the much-touted 45c price seems a long way from reality.


----------



## prawn_86 (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



communique said:


> There is an answer to this.  A new thread called
> WC PIF ONLY USEFUL INFORMATION POSTS




Any threads to do with this topic will be merged into one. We have had this discussion before about too much moderation time being taken up, so if things continue to escalate the thread will simply be closed temporarily as it was last time.


----------



## seamisty (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Some background info for all sniffer dogs and conspiracy theorists to disect.::: Paul Manka and Michael Hiscock were both partners and directors of Avenue Capital management while at the same time were both directors of MFS at the same time the redemption request  for $16.254 million was lodged. The following is part of a media article dated Tuesday, 1 April 2008

Adam Schwab writes::::::One financial planning dealer group with links to MFS/Octavier is Avenue Capital Management. Avenue director Michael Hiscock recently resigned from MFS/Octavier board, and MFS/Octavier deputy chairman, Paul Manka, is also a director of Avenue. 

Avenue clients have about $51 million directly or indirectly invested in the MFS Premium Income fund – a small proportion of total $1.4 billion under advice. 


Despite board connections, Avenue Director Simon Clifford told the Weekend AFR on Friday that "MFS has nothing to do with us ... there is no link between MFS and ACM."

There are two points that should be corrected. First, despite Avenue’s claims, there do appear to be several key links between Avenue and MFS Premium Income Fund. And it appears that those links may have led to clients of Avenue investing a greater proportion of their savings in MFS PIF than if they'd been with a non-conflicted financial planner. 

Avenue director Michael Hiscock was, until last week, a director of MFS. Hiscock was also a director of MFS Living and Leisure and was chairman of MFS Diversified. MFS PIF invested unitholders’ funds in MFS Living and Leisure and MFS Diversified (MFS Living and Leisure owes MFS PIF $67 million, due in May, although Lonsec claims repayment of the sum is in "significant doubt"). Even though Hiscock wasn’t a director of PIF itself, he was a director of the responsible entity of PIF (MFS itself) and chairman of a fund which owes PIF $67 million. 

Similarly, MFS chairman-designate, Paul Manka, showed that he can be as conflicted as his fellow board member, simultaneously serving as an Avenue financial planner while also being a director of MFS Diversified, MFS Living and Leisure and MFS itself. 

Further, the claim that Avenue’s investment of $51 million (out of what is actually $1.7 billion funds-under-management) in MFS PIF is a "small proportion" of funds under advice seems somewhat hopeful. Avenue director, Simon Clifford, told Crikey that any advice provided to clients to invest in MFS PIF came after the fund was recommended by research house Lonsec and that "everything was done by the book". 

However, the fact remains that of the $754 million raised by MFS Premium Income Fund, $51 million came from clients of Avenue Capital Management. Avenue itself confirmed that across both PIF Wholesale and Retail funds it was the third largest investor in the funds despite it being far smaller than the likes of AXA’s Hillross (with FUM of more than $5 billion) or Count Financial (FUM of $12 billion). 

Clifford also noted that PIF wasn’t the major avenue for its clients, with Avenue investing greater amounts in Macquarie Cash Management Trust (more than $120 million) and Perpetual Premium Income Fund. However, Avenue only started funneling clients' funds into PIF in early 2005 after Lonsec started recommending the fund. 

By contrast, Avenue would presumably have been recommending clients invest in Macquarie and Perpetual since 2000. While not confirmed by Avenue, based on the numbers, it would appear that in the last three years, PIF may have been the largest recipient of Avenue clients’ funds. :::::::::: It seems that there was a component of those clients that had a 24 hour redemption clause. I am not familiar with insider information laws or pecuinary interest between companies, but it does seem  that there is something highly suspect going on with this claim. Also, why were only some wholesale clients offered the 24 hour clause and not all. Where is ASIC now? Or is this not a major concern to the majority that had them on speed dial previously? The legal action is before the Court today, I will be very interested in the outcome. Seamisty


----------



## demodocus (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

OGL (Our Great Leader) has told the NSX conference today that the $9.5m debt to RBOS will be cleared by December and that "this will enable us to resume distributions to unit holders".

I look forward to this coming to pass.


----------



## danger danger (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



demodocus said:


> OGL (Our Great Leader) has told the NSX conference today that the $9.5m debt to RBOS will be cleared by December and that "this will enable us to resume distributions to unit holders".
> 
> I look forward to this coming to pass.




Wasn't RBOS paid out and a remaining $20m was refinanced with another financier (not named) and we were being charged a 20% interest rate, of which we have brought it down to a $9.5m outstanding amount?

This was due to be paid by Oct, then Nov, but due to the current crisis borrowers had a problem in paying out / refinancing their existing PIF loans and that's why we weren't paid and the $9.5m loan still remains. 

Let's hope December is the 'lucky' month!

Also hope WC has got some damning 'insider' trading activity evidence to enable the redemption case with HISSSSSSCOCK and WMANKA to be thrown out, or else that will no doubt mean we will be under a huge cloud to receive timely qtrly distributions for 2009.


----------



## selciper (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

demodocus - 
Your information is usually very good. so what's the source of your latest news about the $9.5m? Is it on a website somewhere?


----------



## Wolfgang (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> demodocus -
> Your information is usually very good. so what's the source of your latest news about the $9.5m? Is it on a website somewhere?




Hi selciper maybe the source is from
http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/Article/Octaviar-set-to-clear-debts/430766.aspx

you will find it interesting
Wolfgang


----------



## Juan Mortyme (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Friday 14 November 2008
*Octaviar set to clear debts*
by John Wilkinson

Octaviar, the former MFS Premium Income Fund, could be paying distributions before Christmas this year, its fund manager believes. 

Wellington Capital managing director Jenny Hutson said the mortgage fund’s debts should be finally cleared by December.

“Today, the fund has debts of $9.5 million and we hope to repay this shortly,” she told the National Stock Exchange (NSX) conference in Melbourne.

“This will enable us to resume distributions to unit holders.”

Octaviar ran into trouble earlier this year and redemptions were frozen.

It had $755 million of capital in mortgages, but was laden with $100 million of debt.

Hutson said the fund’s bankers, The Royal Bank of Scotland, wanted the debt repaid immediately.

When Wellington was invited to become the responsible entity of Octaviar there were two options, a listing or liquidation.

“What we had to do was reduce debt through asset sales,” she said.

“But redemptions had to remain frozen if the fund was to continue, otherwise we wouldn’t realise the true value of the assets.”

The proposal was to list the fund on the NSX, with unit holders becoming shareholders.

“We had to change the fund to create liquidity and if we had wound the fund up, investors would only have got a third of their investments back,” she said.

“So we asked then to forego the right of redemption and in three to five years we will liquidate the assets at a better price.”

There are 32 assets in the fund and Hutson said her company has ruled out foreclosures on the mortgagees if they get into trouble.

“If a mortgagee gets into trouble, we will try and work with them as a joint venture partner to trade out of the problem,” she said.

“Our aim is to get the asset backing of the fund back to $1 a share.”

Hutson said the listing has given the fund transparency while protecting the privacy of the mortgagees.

“The listing has also created a platform for the future to protect the investor’s interests.” 

------------------------------------
Source: http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/Article/Octaviar-set-to-clear-debts/430766.aspx


----------



## selciper (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi, Wolfgang - Thanks for the Money Managementt link. At least it shows a glimmer of hope!


----------



## Burnt (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> Friday 14 November 2008
> *Octaviar set to clear debts*
> by John Wilkinson
> 
> ...




Does this article represent hope ? Represents proof of misleading information if you ask me.


----------



## seamisty (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Does this article represent hope ? Represents proof of misleading information if you ask me.



Burnt would you please clarify who edited the article posted by Juan Mortyme? Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Does this article represent hope ? Represents proof of misleading information if you ask me.



Yes it does represent hope!  ... and I agree that the editing misrepresents!


----------



## Burnt (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Burnt would you please clarify who edited the article posted by Juan Mortyme? Seamisty




Seamisty, apologies if it is not apparent to you that this is not the full article. The full article is at the top of the page.

I have taken the liberty of short-cutting the typing involved in posting my comments on the article. Sorry, thought it would be obvious.

And before you start, I am entitled to express my opinions about what I find to be contradictory statements.


----------



## Duped (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> demodocus -
> Your information is usually very good. so what's the source of your latest news about the $9.5m? Is it on a website somewhere?




WC mentioned the $9.5M outstanding debt in the 28 October letter to Investors.  Received mine just over a week ago. http://newpif/investor_updates/NSX Release - 28.10.2008.pdf

As for the 20%.  See page 26 of the annual report: http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021720709.PDF


----------



## seamisty (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Seamisty, apologies if it is not apparent to you that this is not the full article. The full article is at the top of the page.
> 
> I have taken the liberty of short-cutting the typing involved in posting my comments on the article. Sorry, thought it would be obvious.
> 
> And before you start, I am entitled to express my opinions about what I find to be contradictory statements.



 No one is disputing the fact that you can express your own opinion, but I would not like other posters to take the liberty of inserting their own ramblings on my original post and not accept responsibility for it by re posting it as an original quote. We all like to keep things accurate and transparent on here. All openess and honesty and no misleading information. Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

So we asked then to forego the right of redemption and in three to five years we will liquidate the assets at a better price.” 

There are 32 assets in the fund and Hutson said her company has ruled out foreclosures on the mortgagees if they get into trouble. 




Ok lets have openess and honesty and no misleading statements

   As I understand it we are paying somebody to manage 32   mortgage Assets in the fund and them liquidate them after 3 to 5 years a cost of 2% per annum or lets say approximately 8 million a year  

The rest of the assets are in managed investments and shares and I believe she has outsourced the bonds portfolio .You do not need to manage this stuff it looks after itself and any added value is almost entirely due to macro economic factors .

That means JH will suck about 40million or more out of the Fund for looking after 32 mortgages and them selling  them after 5 years ,   something an Administrator with an investor advisory panel could do at a fraction of the cost..

Of course we all know property values can remain dormant for decades but JH will wave her magic wand and invest in property investments that gets or money back in exactly 3 to 5 years while at the same time paying out 13% dividend yields consistenly from our remaining assets























 l


----------



## seamisty (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Jadel I wonder if this is another example of inaccurate media reporting and that should read::::'There are 32 MORTGAGES in the fund and Hutson said her company has NOT ruled out foreclosures on the mortgagees if they get into trouble.':::   I was under the impression that a couple of assets had already been repossesed when the loans could not be re paid and these were projects that were being finished by the PIF as income became available. (refer page 23 explanatory memorandum) A lot of these loans are short term and due to mature in 12-18 months and the money re invested into other projects which will be turned over regularly. Not sit there for the whole duration. We have mortgages(32) and asset backed loans. Big difference. I think the article is perhaps a bit misleading in itself due to the reporting, but that is just my interprtation. Seamisty


----------



## Burnt (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There are 32 assets in the fund and Hutson said her company has ruled out foreclosures on the mortgagees if they get into trouble.

“If a mortgagee gets into trouble, we will try and work with them as a joint venture partner to trade out of the problem,” she said.


Just to clarify, this is an extract from the article (unedited).


----------



## seamisty (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> There are 32 assets in the fund and Hutson said her company has ruled out foreclosures on the mortgagees if they get into trouble.
> 
> “If a mortgagee gets into trouble, we will try and work with them as a joint venture partner to trade out of the problem,” she said.
> 
> ...



Yes of course this is the better option if it is possible. Is this a qoute from  the article you found to be proof of misleading information Burnt?The following is from page 23 of the explanatory memorandum(unedited):::::
2.2 The Portfolio
Mortgages
Thirty two mortgages comprise this section of the portfolio of investments of the Fund. Each loan is
secured by a registered first ranking mortgage. There are 12 complying loans in the portfolio. These
loans are as at 31 May 2008 complying with all relevant elements of the lender/borrower
arrangements. The Fund has in relation to two loans totalling $15.52 million become mortgagee in
possession and taken control of the assets provided as security. The balance 18 loans are complying
with renegotiated arrangements. The portfolio continues to be managed to ensure the best possible
outcome for the Fund


----------



## Burnt (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> There are 32 assets in the fund and Hutson said her company has ruled out foreclosures on the mortgagees if they get into trouble.
> 
> “If a mortgagee gets into trouble, we will try and work with them as a joint venture partner to trade out of the problem,” she said.
> 
> ...




Seamisty, the reason for my post was to respond to your post where you thought that JH may have been misquoted and the article should have read that JH stated her company has NOT ruled out foreclosures. I think her second sentence confirms that she was not misquoted.


----------



## like2ski (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Jadel I wonder if this is another example of inaccurate media reporting and that should read::::'There are 32 MORTGAGES in the fund and Hutson said her company has NOT ruled out foreclosures on the mortgagees if they get into trouble.':::   I was under the impression that a couple of assets had already been repossesed when the loans could not be re paid and these were projects that were being finished by the PIF as income became available. (refer page 23 explanatory memorandum) A lot of these loans are short term and due to mature in 12-18 months and the money re invested into other projects which will be turned over regularly. Not sit there for the whole duration. We have mortgages(32) and asset backed loans. Big difference. I think the article is perhaps a bit misleading in itself due to the reporting, but that is just my interprtation. Seamisty




Hi seamisty,
Your interpretation may be correct however you have not addressed the major issue brought up by Jadel namely the outrageous fee of over $40 m to manage 32 mortgages and dispose of them in a 5 year (approx) period. Not bad hi?? I am sure many would have gladly taken that on and, even after paying the appropriate people to manage it, could have made a handsome profit!!


----------



## Burnt (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

NSX will be publishing presentations from it's conference soon.


----------



## JohnH (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> So we asked then to forego the right of redemption and in three to five years we will liquidate the assets at a better price.”
> 
> 
> As I understand it we are paying somebody to manage 32   mortgage Assets in the fund and them liquidate them after *3 to 5 years a cost of 2% per annum *or lets say approximately 8 million a year
> ...






like2ski said:


> Hi seamisty,
> Your interpretation may be correct however you have not addressed the major issue brought up by Jadel namely the outrageous fee of *over $40 m to manage *32 mortgages and dispose of them in a 5 year (approx) period. Not bad hi?? I am sure many would have gladly taken that on and, even after paying the appropriate people to manage it, could have made a handsome profit!!




Wellington's fee is .7% p.a. of the funds under management.  Presumably this year will be valued at 45cents a unit which gives about $2,350,000.  With a staff of 30 plus overheads, I don't see that as a fortune.  To make any real money, they have to make the fund increase in worth. -  Isn't that we all want???


----------



## Burnt (14 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I think Jadel may have made an error in his calculation of WC's fees.
They are entitled to .7% p.a. of funds under management. If this is based on a 45c/unit value, the fee would be approx. $2.5 mil per year. If it is based on $1/unit value it would be approx. $5.3mil per year. 
JH stated at the meetings that the fee would be based on 45c valuation (even though market value is currently 20c), however this is not stated in the constitution.

The constitution also provides that all WC's costs (including income tax) will be paid by the Fund.
Therefore, their fees represent net profit.


----------



## seamisty (15 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Wellington's fee is .7% p.a. of the funds under management.  Presumably this year will be valued at 45cents a unit which gives about $2,350,000.  With a staff of 30 plus overheads, I don't see that as a fortune.  To make any real money, they have to make the fund increase in worth. -  Isn't that we all want???



Thanks for picking up this mathematical error and putting this discussion back into perspective JohnH. It never ceases to amaze me how many experts there aren't around to disect the figures and correct a post when there is a bias against WC regarding misinformation from certain posters, but plenty of opinions to back up negative sentiment .Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (15 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Wellington's fee is .7% p.a. of the funds under management.  Presumably this year will be valued at 45cents a unit which gives about $2,350,000.  With a staff of 30 plus overheads, I don't see that as a fortune.  To make any real money, they have to make the fund increase in worth. -  Isn't that we all want???



I was just reading the MFS PIFannual report for 2007 where it cost us approx $16.9 million dollars to manage the PIF for that financial year, a far cry from the pittance WC can expect for the privledge of picking up the pieces and copping the blame for the current position of the fund from a select few. I know JH has stated this will be a no frills fund under WC management, but surely the budget can be stretched to shout a few 'mental enenema' vouchers for those in extreme need  of a good clean out. Seamisty


----------



## Burnt (15 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Thanks for picking up this mathematical error and putting this discussion back into perspective JohnH. It never ceases to amaze me how many experts there aren't around to disect the figures and correct a post when there is a bias against WC regarding misinformation from certain posters, but plenty of opinions to back up negative sentiment .Seamisty




Seamisty, it was obviously convenient for you to overlook my post correcting Jadel's innocent mistake. How typical of you to take the opportunity to ridicule others.


----------



## Burnt (15 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I was just reading the MFS PIFannual report for 2007 where it cost us approx $16.9 million dollars to manage the PIF for that financial year, a far cry from the pittance WC can expect for the privledge of picking up the pieces and copping the blame for the current position of the fund from a select few. I know JH has stated this will be a no frills fund under WC management, but surely the budget can be stretched to shout a few 'mental enenema' vouchers for those in extreme need  of a good clean out. Seamisty




Seamisty, 2007 accounts show that $16.09mil was paid in management fees that were earnt after costs and distributions (i.e. productivity based).
2007 accounts show that $66.9mil net profit was made by PIF (as opposed to $379.3mil loss in 2008), and the $66.9mil was distributed to unit holders in 2007 financial year. Unit holders were happy to receive the income they were expecting.

In the 2008 financial year $6.1mil was taken from the fund in management fees when the fund made a net loss of $379mil.(obviously taken before the fund froze distributions & wrote off assets).

In the 2009 financial year, WC may take $2.4mil. in fees plus costs & taxes, what amount will be shown as distributions, what will the net loss be? (and there will be a loss).

No one with any financial accounting knowledge would bother comparing these figures. To make a true & fair comparison, the same rules would have to apply - i.e. productivity based fees. If this were the case, bugger all fees would be paid to WC in the 2009 financial year.

Thought we were only posting concise facts here.

BTW what the hell is a "mental enenama" ? Who is it that needs a good clean out. Please stop resorting to badmouthing unit holders. For once can you adopt a perspective that supports the protection of unit holders and not WC.


----------



## Burnt (15 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Thanks for picking up this mathematical error and putting this discussion back into perspective JohnH. It never ceases to amaze me how many experts there aren't around to disect the figures and correct a post when there is a bias against WC regarding misinformation from certain posters, but plenty of opinions to back up negative sentiment .Seamisty




Sorry, one more point regarding correcting other peoples posts (if we want to be clear and accurate) and putting things into perspective.

JohnH posted that WC's costs would be bourne by WC i.e. inferring that WC would pay costs out of their fees. This is not true.

I'm sure this is an innocent mistake that anybody might make & I would not for one moment want to ridicule or demean him for making this mistake.

BUT, all costs (including taxes) are bourne by the Fund, not WC.

Hope this clarifies things for JohnH and Seamisty. Everyone makes mistakes, we are all only human.


----------



## seamisty (15 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Seamisty, it was obviously convenient for you to overlook my post correcting Jadel's innocent mistake. How typical of you to take the opportunity to ridicule others.



 I was not ridiculing anyone specifically Burnt, you have no sense of humour !!! Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (15 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Wellington's fee is .7% p.a. of the funds under management.  Presumably this year will be valued at 45cents a unit which gives about $2,350,000.  With a staff of 30 plus overheads, I don't see that as a fortune.  To make any real money, they have to make the fund increase in worth. -  Isn't that we all want???



I know JH gives the impression at members meetings that she is running the PIF for nothing until management fees kick in but WC are able to take all expenses out of the fund.  They do not have to wait till they have paid us our 3 cents, and on top of this were given $3,750,000 to help run the fund.  It’s likely WC are charging the PIF charge out rates which earn WC a margin so no need to feel sorry for WC.  The .7% they will get in management fees is pure cream as even the tax they pay on it can come out of the fund.



JohnH said:


> ...and I agree that the editing misrepresents!



John, in your post #2967 you also commented inline.  Don’t be so petty.


----------



## JohnH (15 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> I know JH gives the impression at members meetings that she is running the PIF for nothing until management fees kick in but WC are able to take all expenses out of the fund.  They do not have to wait till they have paid us our 3 cents, and on top of this were given $3,750,000 to help run the fund.  It’s likely WC are charging the PIF charge out rates which earn WC a margin so no need to feel sorry for WC.  The .7% they will get in management fees is pure cream as even the tax they pay on it can come out of the fund.
> 
> 
> John, in your post #2967 you also commented inline.  Don’t be so petty.




.....The difference being that I did not try to mislead!!!


----------



## Jadel (15 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I was of course aware that the published fees are 0.7% per annum however as Dora has pointed out  that represents Fees before costs.

I based my analysis on the average  of  a range of these type of funds I have invested in over the years

However I am more than happy to stand corrected and be enlightened in this matter 


The average expense rate for personal superannuation funds was 2.12 per cent at the end of 2006 down from 2.30 per cent in 2004, according to Rice Warner's recent Superannuation Fees Report published on behalf of IFSA.

Rice Warner quotes increased average balances and strong market performance as the key drivers of the reduction in fees over the past two years. Some super funds charge lower fees on higher investment balances, which would reduce the average fee paid.

The average expense ratio is split across administration costs (0.80 per cent), investment management costs (0.77 per cent) and adviser costs (0.55 per cent). Advisor costs are based on sample data of commissions actually paid from several financial institutions.

The types of fees charged on personal super varies from fund to fund and will depend on the investment options you choose amongst other things. So, it's important to compare fund fees before you invest. Look at things like contribution fees, adviser commissions and management fees as these can all add up over time.


----------



## great dame (15 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am so sad  that i dont have any shares in  WC    / Dane ///


----------



## seamisty (15 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> I was of course aware that the published fees are 0.7% per annum however as Dora has pointed out  that represents Fees before costs.
> 
> I based my analysis on the average  of  a range of these type of funds I have invested in over the years
> 
> ...



On top of the $16,091,892.00 management fee paid to MFS in 2007 they also received $821,250.00 in Administration costs as well as any surplus in the fund after all costs were met. I think JH was pretty safe in saying WC would not be taking any of the surplus anytime soon! Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (15 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



like2ski said:


> Hi seamisty,
> Your interpretation may be correct however you have not addressed the major issue brought up by Jadel namely the outrageous fee of over $40 m to manage 32 mortgages and dispose of them in a 5 year (approx) period. Not bad hi?? I am sure many would have gladly taken that on and, even after paying the appropriate people to manage it, could have made a handsome profit!!



I would much prefer WC at the helm charging 0.7% per annum(inclusive of GST) of the gross assets under management, which will not take place until unitholders have received their 3cent divvy than what Citi Pacific are paying!!!:::: The parent has just booked $71 million in "fund management" fees for the year to June, even though investors in its funds can't get their money back and receive no distributions::::: and this was based on 1 billion dollars of original investment, I have no idea what the current valuation is worth.  Do your sums and dry your eyes, at least we have a RE who is working on keeping the PIF as a going concern, lets all hope it is not temporary.Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (16 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty 


 Have a close look at the figures for managing a fund particularly the average costs   for Financial Advisors

They still get paid from our money permanently even though they have put their clients into what amounts to Ground Zero 

It is little wonder we were inundated with these people on the Forum incognito before the vote

 I wonder if a certain individual  at  OCV is still raking in a commission for  providing you with  advice ?

 However i know you dont hold any  grudges and remember, to err is human to forgive devine


----------



## seamisty (16 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I wonder if a certain individual at OCV is still raking in a commission for providing you with advice ?quote Jadel:::???? I'm not sure what u mean Jadel, the staff member we used to deal with at OCV was one of the first to go in the big wind down when CS got on the board. That particular staff member on several occasions signed off on correspondence as 'senior financial adviser', which in hindsight I don't think was any more qualified than myself to give advice. Also if I was paying someone with those credentials, I would expect them to at least know that perpetual nominees were just a figure head and the PIF assets were not held separately by them so they could not be accessed by MFS who 'did not invest any money from the PIF in any way to products, subsiduaries etc owned by MFS'. I am no longer angry with that staff member, I think the majority of employess were conned along with the rest of us. However, I have not forgiven Michael King, Andrew Peacock and other board members who illegally stripped the PIF to prop up other MFS products. These are the ones who erred in my opinion, you can forgive them if you like, but this is one grudge I will be holding on to for quite some time. SIGH, does that mean I have to be 'un devine' Jadel? (Does that mean I can't wear my crown anymore?):grinsking


----------



## Mary Lynch (16 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Can one of you legal eagles please answer this question:

If the class action that is seeking to determine when the PIF became insolvent and  persisted in trading....(maybe April 2007) succeeded, would all  investors who bought into the PIF post that date be paid out in full?

If this is so, what if they had sold their shares?  That would be a double whammy to the PIFinvestors left behind, because the new share-holder would be entitled to their $1/unit, if it ever gets to there, and the original investor would also get paid out!

Scary stuff....or am I wrong here?    What is their chance of succeeding here;   I know Jenny is defending it vigorously, BUT!!


----------



## JohnH (16 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> I was of course aware that the published fees are 0.7% per annum however as Dora has pointed out  that represents Fees before costs.
> 
> I based my analysis on the average  of  a range of these type of funds I have invested in over the years
> 
> ...




As there is now so much criticism of Wellington's supposed fees, it is interesting that you have omitted to mention that their estimate for "other management costs" is  just .32%.  This is inclusive of GST and is for the *TOTAL * other costs for managing the Fund.

Admittedly this is an estimate, but one could assume that if this is exceeded substantially it would be grounds for dismissing the RE without the 2% compensation.

When you compare this with the fees you have quoted above, a total of just 1.02% p.a. paid monthly and based on the value of the fund for the prior month seems extremely reasonable to me.  This is particularly so when you take into account the antagonism which is forthcoming from a section of unit holders and resulting extra expense .

_"...............source Explanatory Memorandum section 7.1_


----------



## Burnt (16 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> Can one of you legal eagles please answer this question:
> 
> If the class action that is seeking to determine when the PIF became insolvent and  persisted in trading....(maybe April 2007) succeeded, would all  investors who bought into the PIF post that date be paid out in full?
> 
> ...





Hi Mary,
Are you referring to the Bond Street Custodians case ? If so can you please share with us what information or details of this case that you have been given and also the source of your information.


----------



## Jadel (16 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

John 

As mentioned the average Administration and Financial Advisor costs of Fund Managers are about 1.3%

 I suspect the expense figure of 0.3% is low at the moment because the freeze on the funds distributions.

 This means financial advisors are probably not being paid any commissions

 If JH can keep these bloodsucking leaches out of the picture it would be great

 However I do not think that is going to happen.

Also I believe she outsourced the bond portfolio and its difficult to know how she has estimated costs in this regard.

I would be very surprised if WC can maintain expenses at the level of 0.3% over time.

Nonetheless nobody would be happier than myself if it can be done .


----------



## Burnt (16 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> As there is now so much criticism of Wellington's supposed fees, it is interesting that you have omitted to mention that their estimate for "other management costs" is  just .32%.  This is inclusive of GST and is for the *TOTAL * other costs for managing the Fund.
> 
> Admittedly this is an estimate, but one could assume that if this is exceeded substantially it would be grounds for dismissing the RE without the 2% compensation.
> 
> ...




Hi John,

You're right, WC did give an estimated figure of 0.32% of gross value of the assets of the Fund for the ongoing costs of managing the Fund.

They stated in the EM that "as at May 31 2008, the value of the assets of the Fund was $413mil. Based on this amount, the RE forecasts the total other costs for managing the Fund to be $1.32mil. Included in this amount are accounting, audit, custodian & compliance committee costs."

*In 2006 *the management costs of the Fund (excluding finance costs) were *$2.2mil*. As at June 2006, the gross assets of the Fund (as per Balance Sheet) were valued at $886.7mil. Therefore, management costs were *0.25%*

*In 2007 *the management costs of the Fund (excluding finance costs) were*$7.7mil. *(there was a huge increase in fees & commissions). As at June 2007, the gross assets of the Fund (as per Balance Sheet) were valued at $395.7mil. Therefore, management costs were *1.95%.*

What will the valuation of gross assets of the Fund be at June 2009 ? In regards to the management costs, commissions will obviously be down, but custodian, registry, accounting, auditing, insurance costs should remain pretty much the same as 2007. Legal fees will certainly be higher.

WC's estimates and forecasts are way out of the ball park !

Interesting to note your comments re: grounds for dismissing RE without the 2% fee.


----------



## JohnH (16 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi John,
> 
> You're right, WC did give an estimated figure of 0.32% of gross value of the assets of the Fund for the ongoing costs of managing the Fund.
> 
> ...




............ I think you are a year out........  surely that should be 2007 and 2008 - not 2006 and 2007  ----------- and although you mention "a huge increase in fees"  you don't mention a huge decrease in RE's fees!


----------



## Burnt (16 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> ............ I think you are a year out........  surely that should be 2007 and 2008 - not 2006 and 2007  ----------- and although you mention "a huge increase in fees"  you don't mention a huge decrease in RE's fees!




Thank you for the correction JohnH, you're quite right I am a year out (I've lost a year somewhere ! LOL).

However, I have not mentioned RE fees and these fees have not been taken into account in my calculations, as the RE fees bear no relevance to "other management costs" - this is what your post was referring to.

Also the decrease in fees is due to the fact that during these years, RE fees were performance based.

*Getting back to the point - in 2008 "other management costs" were 2.2%. For WC to forecast 2009 "other management" would be 0.32% is very hard to believe !*


----------



## JohnH (16 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Thank you for the correction JohnH, you're quite right I am a year out (I've lost a year somewhere ! LOL).
> 
> However, I have not mentioned RE fees and these fees have not been taken into account in my calculations, as the RE fees bear no relevance to "other management costs" - this is what your post was referring to.
> 
> ...




Well, as Jadel says let's hope that they are correct!


----------



## Burnt (16 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Well, as Jadel says let's hope that they are correct!




Hi John, thanks again for your reply.

I just cannot subscribe to the "cross your fingers & hope" method of financial analysis and financial management.

In my opinion, it is crucial that financial management, analysis and planning should be based on factual information, and after looking at facts, it is too hard to believe that WC's forecasts and plans are achievable.


----------



## JohnH (16 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi John, thanks again for your reply.
> 
> I just cannot subscribe to the "cross your fingers & hope" method of financial analysis and financial management.
> 
> In my opinion, it is crucial that financial management, analysis and planning should be based on factual information, and after looking at facts, it is too hard to believe that WC's forecasts and plans are achievable.




But also looking at the alternatives, or more importantly the lack of tangible alternatives, - better the devil we are about to know than the devil we don't.


----------



## DoraNBoots (16 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I agree $1.32 mill on expenses is not likely considering $3 mill was put aside for a 4 month period which only covered some costs.


DoraNBoots said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021720763.PDF
> ...
> I think this next one is saying WC have spent the entire $3mill in 4 months and yet the the above document says they only expect yearly expenses to be $1.32 mill.  I suppose the forums (in which I consider I was mislead) were not cheap.
> 
> ...



On another topic
Looks like WC won’t have to pay anything for purchasing the PIF!
The 9 May 2008 Investor Update says:


> In the event the Call Option is exercised, the purchase price payable by Wellington capital for the acquisition of Octaviar Investment Management will be equal to:
> *A multiple of four times the actual profit of Octaviar Investment Management for the 12 months period following the acquisition; plus
> *the value of the net tangible assets of Octaviar Investment Management at the end of that 12 month period.



The explanatory memorandum says:


> It is the intention of WIM to retire as RE of this fund and another two funds and to cease to be a licensed RE once all relevant steps have been taken to appoint WC as RE to three of the current funds and the winding up of the other two has been finalised….
> Section 601FL of the Corp Act provides that if a RE of a registered managed investment scheme wants to retire, it must call a Unitholders’ meeting to explain its reasons for wanting to retire and to enable Unitholder to vote…”



The judge asked WC on Sept 17 why they wanted to retire WIM and WC said the only reason they would give is to simplify operating arrangements within the Wellington group.  Perhaps it slipped their mind that they could be saving millions of dollars by ensuring WIM didn’t make a profit or even exist by the end of the financial year.


----------



## Burnt (16 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> But also looking at the alternatives, or more importantly the lack of tangible alternatives, - better the devil we are about to know than the devil we don't.




Hi JohnH,

Hate to disagree again (& I hope you see this as a discussion rather than an argument, as I am sure we are both after the same outcome), but I believe the "devil we don't know" would be an independent RE or Administrator - and of course this was not an alternative presented by WC. 

That is, a company that has no ties or relationship with MFS/Octaviar, McLaughlans Solicitors, McCullough Robertson Lawyers, or any Financial Advisor companies (I attended the first WC forum on GC where Paul Manka was a part of the team that stood up to give a speech).

A truely independant entity that Unit Holders can feel confident in, in believing that the management of the PIF will be conducted in the best interests of Unit Holders (no one else). I'm sure that the fees charged by an Administrator over 3 - 5 years would be comparible (possibly less), that what we're looking at now. On top of this, an Administrator would not have listed the Fund and people who are now experiencing extreme financial hardships would be able to redeem part of their investments under the new ASIC rules.

Comments are still being made about the lack of alternatives, the alternatives were always there, it is up to Unit Holders to agree to want to pursue them and accept them.

Hope this makes sense.


----------



## JohnH (16 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi JohnH,
> 
> Hate to disagree again (& I hope you see this as a discussion rather than an argument, as I am sure we are both after the same outcome), but I believe the "devil we don't know" would be an independent RE or Administrator - and of course this was not an alternative presented by WC.
> 
> ...




But the point is Burnt nobody came forward with a *tangible* alternative - I mean a name that could have been elected rather than "airy fairy" this is an alternative.   I also went to the first PIFI meeting in Mudgeeraba, and all three meetings at the Convention Centre.  There were things I didn't agree to (I voted no on item 3).  However, now that JH has been voted in, I believe we should give her and her team a chance to perform, rather than continual knocking.

I accept that her communications could be a hell of a lot better,  but I also accept that if expected funds do not come in on the expected date, then it is prudent to postpone (and I do believe it is postpone) payments until cash flow permits.


----------



## Burnt (17 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> But the point is Burnt nobody came forward with a *tangible* alternative - I mean a name that could have been elected rather than "airy fairy" this is an alternative.   I also went to the first PIFI meeting in Mudgeeraba, and all three meetings at the Convention Centre.  There were things I didn't agree to (I voted no on item 3).  However, now that JH has been voted in, I believe we should give her and her team a chance to perform, rather than continual knocking.
> 
> I accept that her communications could be a hell of a lot better,  but I also accept that if expected funds do not come in on the expected date, then it is prudent to postpone (and I do believe it is postpone) payments until cash flow permits.




John I hear what you're saying and understand your perspective. I did not attend the PIFI meeting, but my understanding is that JH gave assurances that other alternatives to listing the Fund would be offered. By the time it became apparant that this was not going to happen, it left very little time for anyone to try and organise any kind of strategy - (they're very clever). It's a lot to expect of individual people (who are only ordinary average people like you and me) to come up with a glossy, impressive alternative to present to 10,400 other investors in a matter of weeks.

I also attended all the meetings at GC, and personally I came away feeling sick in my stomach. To me it was all PR and show with no substance. Unfortunately, because the 2008 Annual Report came out so late (they're very clever), it didn't leave much time for investors to analyse factual information and compare it with WC's promises. If you really study the financial figures you will see that the projections and expectations that WC promoted cannot happen.

Also, I'm sorry but I think that JH making a committment to Unit Holders on 15th Oct to pay a distribution by the end of the month, and then not coming through with it, shows that she blatantly lied. She would have known on the 15th Oct. that there were extreme doubts about being able to make the payment and she should have been honest. In my books to highlight dishonesty is not knocking.

There are too many contradictory statements being made by JH, how can people have faith after analysing facts and trying to wade their way through contradictions and disappointments ?


----------



## PIFI (17 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

PIFI Initiative Incorporated will continue to focus its energies on pursuing its objects of promoting and protecting the interests of members of the Premium Income Fund. 
Nothing has changed in our focus or our purpose of achieving the most favourable outcome for unit holders.

We will continue to question and investigate all activities that do not appear to be in unit holders' best interests.  We will go on to pursue whatever avenues of action are available, based on sound advice and opinion, to achieve the most favourable outcome possible.

PIFI is continuing to receive memberships and we encourage more PIF unit holders to join our association to be able to obtain further legal opinion and advice to ensure that we are properly informed of what has happened in the past and what is happening to our Fund now.

So, if you are sick of being misled and confused, or feel bullied or intimidated for having doubts and uncertainties of what is happening and what has happened, being made to feel that you have no right to question anything;
 If you are prepared to join in and be pro-active in asserting your rights  
- then please get in contact with us.

PIF Initiative Incorporated
P.O. Box 2065
Sunnybank Hills
Qld 4109
pifinitiative@gmail.com     Investor I.D.will be required.

Members will receive a contact phone number.


----------



## seamisty (17 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There will be a media release made today in relation to the Bond Street Custodians Ltd Nov 14th Federal Court Proceedings. Nothing will be resolved imminently but formal proceedure has been instigated by WC on behalf of the PIF. There is no further PIF news to report since the 28 Oct Investor Update at this point. This information is for free and you do not have to join either the AG, (which has no joining fee) or the PIFI to receive it. Regards,Seamisty


----------



## Duped (17 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi Mary,
> Are you referring to the Bond Street Custodians case ? If so can you please share with us what information or details of this case that you have been given and also the source of your information.




I think it was the PTQ v OCV decision that led to OCV bringing in the voluntary (sic ) administrator.  One of my posts has a summary.  

PTQ was suggesting pushing insolvency back to 2006.  Gist I got from this part of the decision was PTQ were trying to suggest OCV(MFS) was insolvent when the $50M support facility was signed.

Why the PTQ (www.pt.qld.gov.au) want to hurt us Mum & Dad investors with their legal clout baffles me. (Tax payer backed clout I suspect) Maybe we're the lesser of 2 evils. Compared to the lack of due diligence they performed on MFS before handing over $350M cash.  Or maybe it was a warning shot for JH.


----------



## JohnH (17 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> John I hear what you're saying and understand your perspective. I did not attend the PIFI meeting, but my understanding is that JH gave assurances that other alternatives to listing the Fund would be offered. By the time it became apparant that this was not going to happen, it left very little time for anyone to try and organise any kind of strategy - (they're very clever). It's a lot to expect of individual people (who are only ordinary average people like you and me) to come up with *a glossy, impressive alternative to present to 10,400 other investors in a matter of weeks.*
> I also attended all the meetings at GC, and personally I came away feeling sick in my stomach. To me it was all PR and show with no substance. Unfortunately, because the 2008 Annual Report came out so late (they're very clever), it didn't leave much time for investors to analyse factual information and compare it with WC's promises. If you really study the financial figures you will see that the projections and expectations that WC promoted cannot happen.
> 
> *Also, I'm sorry but I think that JH making a committment to Unit Holders on 15th Oct to pay a distribution by the end of the month, and then not coming through with it, shows that she blatantly lied*. She would have known on the 15th Oct. that there were extreme doubts about being able to make the payment and she should have been honest. In my books to highlight dishonesty is not knocking.
> ...




That is where we will have to agree to differ Burnt.   I can quite believe that Wellington were assure that settlement on the three mortgages would be achieved in time to pay the distributions.  An awful lot happened in the money markets during the two weeks between her assurance and the due date.

Put it another way, if you had promised someone payment of a bill based on your expected receipt of distribution from the PIF - would that mean that you "blatantly lied"?

I don't believe that most investors needed a "glossy impressive alternative".  If something that was understandable *and tangible* had been put forward rather than just "an orderly liquidation", then maybe there would have been room for discussion.  My experience of "orderly liquidation" usually means that the only people who get anything back are the ATO and the receivers.


----------



## danger danger (17 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> I don't believe that most investors needed a "glossy impressive alternative".  If something that was understandable *and tangible* had been put forward rather than just "an orderly liquidation", then maybe there would have been room for discussion.  My experience of "orderly liquidation" usually means that the only people who get anything back are the ATO and the receivers.





Unfortunately, that is what the majority of liquidations, orderly or otherwise, end up being from my previous experiences in the business world. How can anyone argue with this, and that the FACT that there was indeed NO tangible alternative, meant people voted with WC.


----------



## seamisty (17 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Translated for those with a sense of humour, I repeat if you do not possess a sense of humour do not read:::::Quote PIFI "PIFI Initiative Incorporated will continue to focus its energies on pursuing its objects of promoting and protecting the interests of members of the Premium Income Fund. 
Nothing has changed in our focus or our purpose of achieving the most favourable outcome for unit holders."::::::: Unfortunately for unit holders our greatest achievement to date was to get ASIC involved  in postponing the general meeting scheduled for Sept 18 2008. The exact cost of this intervention to unit holders is  not currently available but we are endeavouring to find out so that the PIFI may reimburse the Fund for this error. Our extreme apologies in regard to this matter:::::
Quote "We will continue to question and investigate all activities that do not appear to be in unit holders' best interests. We will go on to pursue whatever avenues of action are available, based on sound advice and opinion, to achieve the most favourable outcome possible"::::::If this includes rubbishing the AG at every opportunity, we apologise for this also, but hey, they do the same to us. So, we will decide what is best for ALL unitholders and take appropriate action where WE think neccesary, even if the majority of you think otherwise:::::::
Quote" PIFI is continuing to receive memberships and we encourage more PIF unit holders to join our association to be able to obtain further legal opinion and advice to ensure that we are properly informed of what has happened in the past and what is happening to our Fund now"::::::: Our coffers are looking a tad empty, so if you have fat wallets and long tongues PIFI NEED YOU!!!! ( best stamp lickers for our post outs MAY receive a subscription discount)::::::
Quote"So, if you are sick of being misled and confused, or feel bullied or intimidated for having doubts and uncertainties of what is happening and what has happened, being made to feel that you have no right to question anything;
If you are prepared to join in and be pro-active in asserting your rights 
- then please get in contact with us.":::::: Yes, we know we are to blame for most of that confusion, intimidation and bullying, but hey, it is not our intention to mislead you as well, its just we all hate JH and will use WHATEVER it takes to rid our fund of this lying cheating individual who insists on wearing that RED jacket. Who does she think she is? Santa? So come one and all, JOIN UP JOIN UP, we need you to swell our ranks(and our bank balance). :jump:Seamisty


----------



## great dame (17 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> That is where we will have to agree to differ Burnt.   I can quite believe that Wellington were assure that settlement on the three mortgages would be achieved in time to pay the distributions.  An awful lot happened in the money markets during the two weeks between her assurance and the due date.
> 
> Put it another way, if you had promised someone payment of a bill based on your expected receipt of distribution from the PIF - would that mean that you "blatantly lied"?
> 
> I don't believe that most investors needed a "glossy impressive alternative".  If something that was understandable *and tangible* had been put forward rather than just "an orderly liquidation", then maybe there would have been room for discussion.  My experience of "orderly liquidation" usually means that the only people who get anything back are the ATO and the receivers.



John If JH intended to make the payment on Oct 31  There would have to be an X div day on  Oct 16 or Oct 17   Well we all know there was never one  So there for  there was never going to be a parment / Dane //


----------



## seamisty (17 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Bond Street Custodians Limited – Federal Court Proceedings
As reported in our Investor Update of 28 October 2008, Bond Street Custodians Limited filed a claim against
Wellington Investment Management Limited as responsible entity of the Wholesale Premium Income Fund
on 16 October 2008 in relation to a redemption request for 16.254 million units in the Wholesale Premium
Income Fund which was lodged on 21 January 2008. This was shortly prior to the suspension of
redemptions.
Wellington appeared in the Federal Court in Sydney on Friday 14 November 2008 before Registrar Hedge.
At this hearing, orders were made by consent that:
the proceedings continue on the pleadings;
Wellington file and serve its defence by no later than 5 December 2008; and
the matter be listed for a further directions hearing on 16 December 2008.
Wellington intends to vigorously defend the claim on behalf of all Unitholders.


----------



## Dexter (17 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I wonder when Seamisty will be too embarrassed to post her WC propaganda on this Forum.  

Blind faith may suit religious believers but has no place here where facts - not empty promises - are the currency.  

To vote to change the Constitution to cease further redemptions in favour of listing on the NSX is just an example.  I sympathise with those poor people who have no alternative but to accept a pittance for their units to raise a little cash.

COME TO THINK OF IT - SOONER OR LATER THAT IS ALL OF US!

I wonder who the buyer is?

Seamisty perhaps?

And to think some people blame PIFI members for derailing the Fund!


----------



## seamisty (17 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Dexter said:


> I wonder when Seamisty will be too embarrassed to post her WC propaganda on this Forum.
> 
> Blind faith may suit religious believers but has no place here where facts - not empty promises - are the currency.
> 
> ...



Dexter this train was derailed long before WC became involved. I also feel sorry for those forced to sell, same as I feel sorry for the millions of other people who are feeling the effects of this recession, losing jobs and barely making ends meet. Everyone will be affected, not just our fund. Ask anyone how their super is faring? But what some of you can't seem to grasp, is that alternatives are simply not there which will result in a better outcome. Do you think your little band of not so merry men and woman are the only investors that have not looked for better alternatives?  Drawing negative attention day in day out will not improve the performance of this fund, same as being positive probably won't make a scrap of difference.  If you want to drag your sorry butts around wallowing in self pity, go for it. The same as if I want to stay positive and support WC that is my right also. I have just as much right to post my 'propaganda' as anyone else and it will take a lot to embarrass me, so either don't read my posts or lighten up. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (17 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Dexter said:


> Good news!  As no one has taken up my offer of 20c/unit cash in hand we can only presume that we have 100% vote against liquidation.  Let hope this applies across the board.



Perhaps it is you buying Dexter now the units are in your price bracket?::grinsking I have enough for the time being thanks.Seamisty


----------



## selciper (17 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Shouldn't we be combining our energies to discover more information from WC? I want to know whether to expect a distribution by the end of December. WC are obviously held back by protocols when it comes to disclosing information. However,t I do believe that they need to be more communicative. At this rate. we could be waiting another twelve months before we see a cent!


----------



## seamisty (17 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Shouldn't we be combining our energies to discover more information from WC? I want to know whether to expect a distribution by the end of December. WC are obviously held back by protocols when it comes to disclosing information. However,t I do believe that they need to be more communicative. At this rate. we could be waiting another twelve months before we see a cent!



I agree Selciper and I did contact WC in regard to a regular update as did Breaker. Any information which can be construed as price sensitive cannot be divulged at all until it has been announced on the NSX so WC are reluctant to release any info that is not of a generic nature and that can be obtained by calling the hotline which does not seem to be so choked up lately as I have gotten through the last two times I have called. I was told that there is not a lot to report as even though the wheels are in motion on certain issues, these can be slow long drawn out affairs but not to discount the amount of work that goes on behind the scenes to achieve the best outcomes for the fund. I am reluctant to post this type of information as I often get howled down as being a puppet for WC or whatever. However if more unit holders were to suggest a monthly update from JH no matter how incidental or unimportant the news is, perhaps she will realise this is an important issue in relation to the transparency we were promised. Seamisty


----------



## SPLITPIN (17 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I agree Selciper and I did contact WC in regard to a regular update as did Breaker. Any information which can be construed as price sensitive cannot be divulged at all until it has been announced on the NSX so WC are reluctant to release any info that is not of a generic nature and that can be obtained by calling the hotline which does not seem to be so choked up lately as I have gotten through the last two times I have called. I was told that there is not a lot to report as even though the wheels are in motion on certain issues, these can be slow long drawn out affairs but not to discount the amount of work that goes on behind the scenes to achieve the best outcomes for the fund. I am reluctant to post this type of information as I often get howled down as being a puppet for WC or whatever. However if more unit holders were to suggest a monthly update from JH no matter how incidental or unimportant the news is, perhaps she will realise this is an important issue in relation to the transparency we were promised. Seamisty




Dear Seamisty

I apologise for my latest comments regarding your postings, as I now realise you are a new age sensitive person.

I trust you are reimbursed for all your expenses in regards to your direct communication with WC. 

Please keep us further informed on WC news.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## seamisty (17 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Dear Seamisty
> 
> I apologise for my latest comments regarding your postings, as I now realise you are a new age sensitive person.
> 
> ...



You mean a  'SNAG' SPLITPIN? Thats a 'Sensitive New Age Guy', or did you mean a 'SNAP'? Whatever, just another name to add to my growing repetoire. I shall inform WC that I will be fowarding an itemised account so it can be added to and deducted from  administration expenses. I should qualify to be reimbursed for PR expenses yes? All unit holders in agreeance to support SPLITPINS proposal please vote now, LOL!!! Seamisty


----------



## SPLITPIN (17 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> ..... I shall inform WC that I will be fowarding an itemised account so it can be added to and deducted from administration expenses. I should qualify to be reimbursed for PR expenses yes? Seamisty




Dear Seamisty

I don't recall your accounts being forecast in the budgets as previously discussed on the forum or accounts presented by WC.

Is it a considerable expense.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## seamisty (17 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

SPLITPIN, I was just looking at the amount of hours I have logged up in e-mails, phone calls and posts, not to mention the odd personal visit to unit holders on behalf of the PIF and it is quite a substantial amount and could impact on the unit value of the Fund. What do  you think would be a fair hourly rate to charge? I make approximately $90.00 per hour hairdressing and cop far less insults and abuse? Seamisty


----------



## SPLITPIN (17 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> SPLITPIN, I was just looking at the amount of hours I have logged up in e-mails, phone calls and posts, not to mention the odd personal visit to unit holders on behalf of the PIF and it is quite a substantial amount and could impact on the unit value of the Fund. What do  you think would be a fair hourly rate to charge? I make approximately $90.00 per hour hairdressing and cop far less insults and abuse? Seamisty





Dear Seamisty

Please go back and read page 1 of the forum and your posting #20.

Page 1 was probably the best page on this forum, precise / accurate and not much has changed since.

You don't have to cop the insults and abuse - it is entirely up to you.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## seamisty (17 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> breaker1 hi, I am a PIF holder and tried to e-mail you but it bounced.I spoke with ASIC yesterday and am not confident we will get much help in the near future there. I live in WA so I have to do everything by phone or e-mail which I don't mind, it is just very time consuming. I have also lodged a written letter of complaint with the the ASX. A few of us had funds accepted after Dec31st 2007 and our argument is that MFS was already  in default with the RBOS at this stage but did not disclose it to investors. We have asked ASIC to make a ruling on the failure to disclose angle but I won't hold my breath waiting on action from them. I have tried contacting Jenny Hutson and Guy Hutchings. I do not like dealing with anyone at OCV anymore. I am sick of their BS. I agree something needs to be done. Regards Seamisty



I agree SPLITPIN, ASIC have only intervened once that I am aware of (to our detriment), all my complaints are still lodged with them and lots more since to other avenues, and nothing has changed. The people responsible for our current situation have not been dealt with, the only difference is the blame appears to have been shifted. Besides who else are you going to pay out apart from me? 

 Seamisty


----------



## SPLITPIN (17 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I agree SPLITPIN, ASIC have only intervened once that I am aware of (to our detriment), all my complaints are still lodged with them and lots more since to other avenues, and nothing has changed. The people responsible for our current situation have not been dealt with, the only difference is the blame appears to have been shifted. Seamisty





Dear Seamisty

As I recall it, everybody complained to ASIC and they (ASIC) acted as usual as it appears for political purposes only. It may have not been to our detriment for the future as many issues are recorded in transcript.

In regards to the blame it has never shifted in my opinion, it has always been with the MFS/Octaviar. 

Not much has changed and we keep paying the bill.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## SPLITPIN (17 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I agree SPLITPIN, ..... Besides who else are you going to pay out apart from me?
> 
> Seamisty




Seamisty

Please explain what are you proposing to the PIF members and RE regarding these accounts from yourself and others, that may be considered as claims to the PIF.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## JohnH (18 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Seamisty
> 
> *Please explain* what are you proposing to the PIF members and RE regarding these accounts from yourself and others, that may be considered as claims to the PIF.
> 
> ...




Sounds like the once Member for Oxley


----------



## Duped (18 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Another trade went through today. 10,000 units @ 20c.

Average of the 92,270 units exchanged on the NSX so far is 23c


----------



## selciper (18 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The 4Cs I want from WC PIF:

Credibility 
Communication 
Constancy 
Cash


----------



## Jadel (18 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Another trade went through today. 10,000 units @ 20c.
> 
> Average of the 92,270 units exchanged on the NSX so far is 23c




 Duped 

 It is a tragedy, but this is only the beginning

 I believe this will be the trading range for many years to come.

 Your lucky to be a Young Fellah

 Just imagine in twenty years time you will still be around to maybe get your money back

  And i will be pushing up the Daisies .


----------



## JohnH (18 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> The 4Cs I want from WC PIF:
> 
> Credibility
> Communication
> ...




........and if you add Competence, Compassion and Confidence -  we'll then have 7!!


----------



## sume (18 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

hi all;  this is my first attempt to post so be gentle with me. if jh paid "north of $20m for the pif and the writen down value is $400m and she is going to recieve 0.7c p.a.  i estimate that it will take over seven years just to get her money back.providing the fund doesn't drop below that amount, and if as some one wrote on this blog that she paid between $20m and $30m it could be as long as eleven years. it doesn't seem like a very smart deal to me.


----------



## Jadel (18 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Sume

 Glad to see some new people on here , keep posting

 Actually JH has not paid a Red Razoo for the Fund at the moment

  She only pays if and when the fund makes a profit .


----------



## Juan Mortyme (18 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> The 4Cs I want from WC PIF:
> 
> Credibility
> Communication
> ...




Just hope you don't get these 4 C's:

Corruption
Chicanery
Craftiness
Cunningness


----------



## sume (18 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Hi Sume
> 
> Glad to see some new people on here , keep posting
> 
> ...




if she has not paid anything for it,by what right does she run the fund, my dear old dad used to  say 'a mans heart is where his money is,if you havent got your money in it your hearts not in it'' and it's easy to spend someone elses money


----------



## sume (18 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> The Premium Income Fund yesterday sold its 9.4 per cent of Geo Property Group, the former MFS Diversified, to listed investment company Trojan Equity for $10.22 million.
> 
> At 25.5 a share, this *represents a significant discount *to Geo's closing price yesterday of 39 cents.
> 
> ...




what happens when trojan equity sells the geo script to trojan equity investments for the same money or at a loss?  whats 40% of zero


----------



## seamisty (18 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sume said:


> if she has not paid anything for it,by what right does she run the fund, my dear old dad used to  say 'a mans heart is where his money is,if you havent got your money in it your hearts not in it'' and it's easy to spend someone elses money



Welcome to the forum sume, I will post an earlier press release in relation to the Call Option Deed in regard to WC management of the PIF::::
9 May 2008
Acquisition of Octaviar Investment Management Limited
Wellington Capital today announced that it had entered into a Call Option Deed with a wholly owned
subsidiary of Octaviar Limited which grants Wellington Capital an option to purchase the shares held by the
Octaviar Limited subsidiary in Octaviar Investment Management Limited, the responsible entity of:
Octaviar Premium Income Fund ARSN 090 687 577
Octaviar Wholesale Premium Income Fund ARSN 107 973 071
Octaviar Cash Enhanced Fund ARSN 118 285 760
Octaviar Maximum Yield Fund ARSN 109 106 658
Octaviar Dynamic Growth Equity Fund ARSN 121 883 020.
On 2 May 2008, the existing directors of Octaviar Investment Management resigned and a new board was
appointed, comprising:
Jenny Hutson;
Robert Pitt; and
Craig Wallace.
Following execution of the Call Option Deed, Wellington Capital will be paid a management fee in relation
to Wellington Capital’s management of Octaviar Investment Management and its underlying funds. The call
option is exercisable by Wellington Capital at any time up to and including 31 August 2008.
In the event the Call Option is exercised, the purchase price payable by Wellington Capital for the
acquisition of Octaviar Investment Management will be equal to:
a multiple of four times the actual profit of Octaviar Investment Management for the 12 months
period following the acquisition; plus
the value of the net tangible assets of Octaviar Investment Management at the end of that 12 month
period.
‘The current staff of Octaviar Investment Management will work with the funds management team at
Wellington Capital to ensure an orderly transition and to ensure that Octaviar Investment Management
continues to be committed to working in the best interests of Unitholders during this difficult time to ensure
that, given current market conditions and the position of the funds, the best possible outcome is achieved for
Unitholders’, said Jenny Hutson, Managing Director of Wellington Capital.:::also refer page 63 of the explanatory memorandum :::::1: Management fee - The responsible entity is entitled to be paid a management fee of up to 0.7% per annum
(inclusive of GST) of the gross value of assets under management. As at 31 May 2008, the value of assets
under management was $413 million. Based on this amount, an annual management fee of up to $2.89 million
is payable to the responsible entity out of the Fund’s assets. No management fee will be charged until after 3
cents in cash has been paid to Unitholders.
2: Other management costs - The Fund’s ongoing costs are estimated at an amount equal to be approximately
0.32% (inclusive of GST) of the gross value of the assets of the Fund. As at 31 May 2008, the value of assets
of the Fund was $413 million. Based on this amount, the responsible entity forecasts the total other costs for
managing the Fund to be $1.32 million. Included in this amount are accounting, audit, custodian and compliance and committee costs.:::: Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (18 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*



sume said:


> what happens when trojan equity sells the geo script to trojan equity investments for the same money or at a loss?  whats 40% of zero



GPM is currently trading at around 13.5 cents per share, WC sold it to Trojan Equity for 25.5 so in hindsight we are no worse off IMO. Seamisty


----------



## great dame (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have just been wondering If some of the PIF investors  have found this all to much for them & have taken the big dive & endeared it all  I guess we will never know / Dane //


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> ...
> 
> Actually JH has not paid a Red Razoo for the Fund at the moment
> 
> She only pays if and when the fund makes a profit .



It's only if WIM make a profit before May 2009 that WC would have to pay anything for the PIF.  WIM won't even exist by May 2009 so I can't see WC paying anything.  See post #3582 for details.


----------



## Jadel (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> It's only if WIM make a profit before May 2009 that WC would have to pay anything for the PIF.  WIM won't even exist by May 2009 so I can't see WC paying anything.  See post #3582 for details.




 Thanks Dora

I remember it was 4 times profit for one year after she aquired the Fund
but was not exactly sure oF the dates.

Switching managment from WIM to WC  to avoid paying any fees is  really very cunning

 However some OCV shareholders may see it in another light


----------



## Duped (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> ... It is a tragedy, but this is only the beginning.  I believe this will be the trading range for many years to come. Your lucky to be a Young Fellah. Just imagine in twenty years time you will still be around to maybe get your money back. And i will be pushing up the Daisies .




I hope you're wrong Jadel and we can celebrate together in the near future. You can count on me to toast to your health.

I'm saddened by how some of my generation have treated your generation in this.  But I'm sure it's nothing new and feel fortunate I've learnt this lesson now.  At your cost though.


----------



## Duped (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sume said:


> hi all;  this is my first attempt to post so be gentle with me. if jh paid "north of $20m for the pif and the writen down value is $400m and she is going to recieve 0.7c p.a.  i estimate that it will take over seven years just to get her money back.providing the fund doesn't drop below that amount, and if as some one wrote on this blog that she paid between $20m and $30m it could be as long as eleven years. it doesn't seem like a very smart deal to me.




Welcome sume. 
From my interpretation, NSX rules require a fresh valuation by Dec31.  I'd be be very surprised if the values don't go down.

From memory MFS/OCV GAVE WC $700K AND made around $4M available to the RE which presumably WC has accessed.  WC have invested their reputation and a lot of time.  In the absence of WC stating that they're running at a loss I'm going to assume that the 4.7M odd $ will keep them going until they can draw an income from PIF.

It wasn't long after the WC-MFS/OCV option was signed that the PTQ started firing legal shots at MFS/OCV.  It wouldn't surprise me if unloading PIF was a substantial motivating factor for PTQ to get on  with the job.  But the PTQ may also have been duped into believing the booked value of the RE, not being aware of the financial acrobatics behind the scenes.


----------



## sume (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

thanks seamisty.   your information says wc will pay four times the profit for the first twelve months ,it would have to have been obvious that it was never going to show a profit and if by some mirical of miricals it did i'm sure some creative accounting would take care of that. on the matter of the value of the net tangible assets how is this worked out? i'm guessing that if they can't pay a three cent distribution then the net tangible assets are zero which is the amount that they will pay


----------



## JohnH (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sume said:


> thanks seamisty.   your information says wc will pay four times the profit for the first twelve months ,it would have to have been obvious that it was never going to show a profit and if by some mirical of miricals it did i'm sure some creative accounting would take care of that. on the matter of the value of the net tangible assets how is this worked out? i'm guessing that if they can't pay a three cent distribution then the net tangible assets are zero which is the amount that they will pay




Doesn't necessarily follow Sume.  It's a question of cash flow.  If money they are owed from loans doesn't come in when expected, they can't pay out.


----------



## seamisty (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Doesn't necessarily follow Sume.  It's a question of cash flow.  If money they are owed from loans doesn't come in when expected, they can't pay out.



Exactly JohnH. Hardly rocket science is it? It doesn't take clever, cunning, concealing or cheating (4c's yes?) to determine that if the money doesn't come in theres none to go out. I won't trip over my bottom lip just yet, the year is not over. Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped

   So you believe their is a possibility that WC have devalued the assets  substantially  ???


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Exactly JohnH. Hardly rocket science is it? It doesn't take clever, cunning, concealing or cheating (4c's yes?) to determine that if the money doesn't come in theres none to go out. I won't trip over my bottom lip just yet, the year is not over. Seamisty



WC have to pay four times profit of WIM not four time profit of the PIF.
WC have to pay net tangible assets of WIM not of the PIF.  

WIM is no longer the RE of any funds.  It won't make a profit in the 12 month period following the acquisition. WC plan for WIM to no longer be a licensed RE and will probably have no assets by March 2009 when the price for the PIF will be calculated.


----------



## danger danger (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> WC have to pay four times profit of WIM not four time profit of the PIF.
> WC have to pay net tangible assets of WIM not of the PIF.
> 
> WIM is no longer the RE of any funds.  It won't make a profit in the 12 month period following the acquisition. WC plan for WIM to no longer be a licensed RE and will probably have no assets by March 2009 when the price for the PIF will be calculated.




I doubt that by a mere name change they will be rid of their obligation to pay nothing for the management rights..seems too easy and I think OCV would be all over WC. It's like racking up a bill on a credit card and then legally changing your name and saying, "hey that person on that credit card is no longer me..so I owe you nothing"...me thinks it ain't that easy to get out of it.


----------



## seamisty (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> WC have to pay four times profit of WIM not four time profit of the PIF.
> WC have to pay net tangible assets of WIM not of the PIF.
> 
> WIM is no longer the RE of any funds.  It won't make a profit in the 12 month period following the acquisition. WC plan for WIM to no longer be a licensed RE and will probably have no assets by March 2009 when the price for the PIF will be calculated.



I guess it won't be the only fund not recording a profit in that time frame, most managed funds were showing a minus 6-7% return for the first half of the year and I am sure that figure would be higher now.Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I guess it won't be the only fund not recording a profit in that time frame, most managed funds were showing a minus 6-7% return for the first half of the year and I am sure that figure would be higher now.Seamisty



The profit of the fund is irrelevant.  It's the profit of the RE that we are talking about.  I.E.  If OCV IM (now known as WIM) were to get fees in the 12 month period following the acquisition then WIM would probably make a profit.


----------



## JohnH (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> The profit of the fund is irrelevant.  It's the profit of the RE that we are talking about.  I.E.  If OCV IM (now known as WIM) were to get fees in the 12 month period following the acquisition then WIM would probably make a profit.




So Dora, would the payments to Octaviar be due from Wellington or the PIF?


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> I doubt that by a mere name change they will be rid of their obligation to pay nothing for the management rights..seems too easy and I think OCV would be all over WC. It's like racking up a bill on a credit card and then legally changing your name and saying, "hey that person on that credit card is no longer me..so I owe you nothing"...me thinks it ain't that easy to get out of it.



A name change from OCV IM to WIM wouldn't affect the obligation but I doubt you can substitute WIM for WC in the following clause.  It's an entirely different entity which does more than manage the PIF.
"_*A multiple of four times the actual profit of Octaviar Investment Management for the 12 months period following the acquisition; plus
*the value of the net tangible assets of Octaviar Investment Management at the end of that 12 month period._"


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> So Dora, would the payments to Octaviar be due from Wellington or the PIF?



The statment says payable by WC.
"_In the event the Call Option is exercised, the purchase price payable by Wellington capital for the acquisition of Octaviar Investment Management will be equal to:_"


----------



## danger danger (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Personally I hope WC pays nothing to OCV, they deserve just that...JACK!


----------



## seamisty (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> The profit of the fund is irrelevant.  It's the profit of the RE that we are talking about.  I.E.  If OCV IM (now known as WIM) were to get fees in the 12 month period following the acquisition then WIM would probably make a profit.



OH if thats the case, the distributions should come hard and fast after that 12 month period you reckon? Its not the fact that the PIF did not have the money to give us our divvy, its JH holding out on us until the 12 months is up so then she can qualify for management fees after that date!!! What about overheads and operating costs or is the staff working for free or on a deferred payment scheme? I think JH values her reputation too much to take that risk. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> Personally I hope WC pays nothing to OCV, they deserve just that...JACK!



 The money WC received from OCV to cover certain fund costs  was for the four months to 31st Aug. I would imagine WC would be as desperate for a management fee as unitholders are for a distribution. Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> OH if thats the case, the distributions should come hard and fast after that 12 month period you reckon? Its not the fact that the PIF did not have the money to give us our divvy, its JH holding out on us until the 12 months is up so then she can qualify for management fees after that date!!! What about overheads and operating costs or is the staff working for free or on a deferred payment scheme? I think JH values her reputation too much to take that risk. Seamisty



WIM is no longer RE of the PIF!  So I am not saying any of what you have just said.  Why are costs relevant, they come out of the PIF.  What risk are you talking about?


----------



## sume (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Doesn't necessarily follow Sume.  It's a question of cash flow.  If money they are owed from loans doesn't come in when expected, they can't pay out.




i understand that but what i can't understand is that if the loans from pif are not being repaid and intrest is not being paid how come jh has taken out loans which i presume are secured by pif assets AT THE RATE OF 20% to prop up failing deals, and if pif could borrow this money why not the receipents of the pif loan . who are the receipents of these loans?  is it raptis we haven't heard any thing about that $50000000 debt lately


----------



## seamisty (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sume said:


> i understand that but what i can't understand is that if the loans from pif are not being repaid and intrest is not being paid how come jh has taken out loans which i presume are secured by pif assets AT THE RATE OF 20% to prop up failing deals, and if pif could borrow this money why not the receipents of the pif loan . who are the receipents of these loans?  is it raptis we haven't heard any thing about that $50000000 debt lately



 That loan of $9.5million was the remaining part of the $100million outstanding from RBOS when WC took control. It was renegotiated not a new loan. It is due to be repaid by the end of this month. Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> Personally I hope WC pays nothing to OCV, they deserve just that...JACK!



The PIF is a major creditor of OCV.  WC not paying for the PIF effects us and way more than the OCV shareholders.  (In a normal situation creditors have to be paid in full before shareholders get anything.)

The PIF is a major creditor of OCV and wants to see OCV recover as much money as possible to maximise OUR return. As RE of the PIF WC should be pushing the administrator (Deloitte) to pursue the purchaser of the PIF.   Conflict of interest here - which hat will Jenny put on when thinking about this one.


----------



## seamisty (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> Personally I hope WC pays nothing to OCV, they deserve just that...JACK!



 I don't think we need to get our knickers in a knot over this issue anyway, I would be very surprised if there will be any profit to split hairs over, more likely a loss. Seamisty


----------



## danger danger (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I don't think we need to get our knickers in a knot over this issue anyway, I would be very surprised if there will be any profit to split hairs over, more likely a loss. Seamisty




Yeah, we should all go 'commando style', that way we won't get our knickers in a knot! LOL


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I don't think we need to get our knickers in a knot over this issue anyway, I would be very surprised if there will be any profit to split hairs over, more likely a loss. Seamisty




It’s hard to tell if Seamisty   - a rep of the AG realises the significane of this.  Here’s extract of an article with JH saying she expects OCV to get north of $20 million for the PIF...


> http://business.smh.com.au/business...ith-new-chief-and-new-deal-20080508-2cb7.html
> _*Scott cements Octaviar coup with new chief and new deal*
> May 9, 2008
> ...
> ...




For JohnH and Seamisty - I added the underline to the above article.


----------



## JohnH (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> Yeah, we should all go 'commando style', that way we won't get our knickers in a knot! LOL






seamisty said:


> I don't think we need to get our knickers in a knot over this issue anyway, I would be very surprised if there will be any profit to split hairs over, more likely a loss. Seamisty




.....now now girls, don't forget that most on here are taking blood pressure tablets.  You don't want to have us reaching for the pill box now , do you?


----------



## seamisty (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> It’s hard to tell if Seamisty   - a rep of the AG realises the significane of this.  Here’s extract of an article with JH saying she expects OCV to get north of $20 million for the PIF...
> 
> 
> For JohnH and Seamisty - I added the underline to the above article.



Well that would be absolutely freaking wonderful Dora if she has to pay that because then that would mean that the PIF was in a healthier state that most of its poor unit holders and we would be killing the pig. We wouldn't be on here bitching, we would be a cashed up bunch of happy little vegemites off spending our divvies. The only significance  here of importance is wether JH can hold the PIF above water until the economy picks up and this Fund doesn't sink altogether. If you and your bunch of not so happy chappies can prove negligence or wrong doing by JH by all means do so. Innuendo and surmising doesn't quite hold up in court though, so make sure you have some concrete prove before you waste any money on legal representation. Meanwhile, I have to take the health of my fellow holders into consideration, G Dame has already expressed concern about holders topping themselves and JohnH is running out of pills so will TRY  to be a bit more subtle in future. Seamisty


----------



## Burnt (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> WC have to pay four times profit of WIM not four time profit of the PIF.
> WC have to pay net tangible assets of WIM not of the PIF.
> 
> WIM is no longer the RE of any funds.  It won't make a profit in the 12 month period following the acquisition. WC plan for WIM to no longer be a licensed RE and will probably have no assets by March 2009 when the price for the PIF will be calculated.




Seamisty & Co., please re-read Dora's post again and see if you can get the drift. Seamisty you posted the facts regarding the purchase price WC contracted to pay for the PIF. Read it carefully.

IT IS 4 X NET PROFIT OF OCTAVIAR INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS WELLINGTON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED) FOR THE 1ST YEAR + NET TANGIBLE ASSET VALUE OF OIM (NOW WIM) AS AT 12MONTHS AFTER AQUISITION.

THE FUND'S PROFITS (LOSSES) HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT !!!

To repeat your own quote in your post 3626 when referring to someone elses comments - "IT'S HARDLY ROCKET SCIENCE".

If WIM were still the RE and they were to receive management fees before May 2009 (representing their net profit as all costs are paid by the Fund), then purchase price would be 4 x that amount.

WIM are no longer RE !! WIM will have no net profit !!!

Please also re-read Dora's post regarding the significance of this to PIF. If WC had to pay a purchase price (based on WIM's net profit) to OCV, then as the PIF is a creditor of OCV, it would mean more recovery of what we are owed. 

Can you see a conflict of interest here (it's not rocket science).


----------



## Burnt (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty,

When posting information for the benefit of others, please try to ensure that you give complete and accurate information.

1. Management Fees - management fee of up to 0.7% p.a. inc.GST of the Gross Value of the Assets under Management. JH has stated that this value would be based on 45c/unit.

2. Other Management Costs - estimated at 0.32% or $1.32mil. We have already established that this estimate is way out. WC have already been given around $4.7mil to cover management costs.

3. Re-financed Loan - the loan of $9.5mil is a completely new loan provided by a "non-bank" lender (as stated in the Annual Report).

There is nothing written in the Fund's Constitution that legally obliges WC to accept anything less than book value of 'Gross Value of Assets under Management' when determining their fee. They have to take into account unit holding as at the end of the previous month, and the gross value as per the last audited set of accounts.

There is also nothing that legally stops them from commencing payment of their fees whenever they like.


----------



## seamisty (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Seamisty & Co., please re-read Dora's post again and see if you can get the drift. Seamisty you posted the facts regarding the purchase price WC contracted to pay for the PIF. Read it carefully.
> 
> IT IS 4 X NET PROFIT OF OCTAVIAR INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS WELLINGTON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED) FOR THE 1ST YEAR + NET TANGIBLE ASSET VALUE OF OIM (NOW WIM) AS AT 12MONTHS AFTER AQUISITION.
> 
> ...



No its not rocket science, WELLINGTON CAPITAL IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN RESPOSIBLE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PIF NOT WIM!!!!!!:::::RESS RELEASE
Acquisition Of Octaviar Investment
Management Limited
9 May 2008
Acquisition of Octaviar Investment Management Limited
Wellington Capital today announced that it had entered into a Call Option Deed with a wholly owned
subsidiary of Octaviar Limited which grants Wellington Capital an option to purchase the shares held by the
Octaviar Limited subsidiary in Octaviar Investment Management Limited, the responsible entity of:
Octaviar Premium Income Fund ARSN 090 687 577
Octaviar Wholesale Premium Income Fund ARSN 107 973 071
Octaviar Cash Enhanced Fund ARSN 118 285 760
Octaviar Maximum Yield Fund ARSN 109 106 658
Octaviar Dynamic Growth Equity Fund ARSN 121 883 020.
On 2 May 2008, the existing directors of Octaviar Investment Management resigned and a new board was
appointed, comprising:
Jenny Hutson;
Robert Pitt; and
Craig Wallace.
Following execution of the Call Option Deed, Wellington Capital will be paid a management fee in relation
to Wellington Capital’s management of Octaviar Investment Management and its underlying funds. The call
option is exercisable by Wellington Capital at any time up to and including 31 August 2008.
In the event the Call Option is exercised, the purchase price payable by Wellington Capital for the
acquisition of Octaviar Investment Management will be equal to:
a multiple of four times the actual profit of Octaviar Investment Management for the 12 months
period following the acquisition; plus
the value of the net tangible assets of Octaviar Investment Management at the end of that 12 month
period.
‘The current staff of Octaviar Investment Management will work with the funds management team at
Wellington Capital to ensure an orderly transition and to ensure that Octaviar Investment Management
continues to be committed to working in the best interests of Unitholders during this difficult time to ensure
that, given current market conditions and the position of the funds, the best possible outcome is achieved for
Unitholders’, said Jenny Hutson, Managing Director of Wellington Capital.::::::: Lets put this one to rest, if you have any further enquiries please call the WC hotline. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

.Quote Burnt; Re-financed Loan - the loan of $9.5mil is a completely new loan provided by a "non-bank" lender (as stated in the Annual Report). End Quote ::::age 26 annual report:  Since the end of the financial year, the bank debt, which had been incurred by the previous directors and which carried with it the threat of liquidation, has been repaid. Accordingly the threat of receivership from this source has been extinguished. To enable the repayment of the bank debt, the fund has entered into a new finance facility with a non-bank financial institution.:::: I read that as the remainder of the existing loan was refinanced. Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Seamisty,
> 
> When posting information for the benefit of others, please try to ensure that you give complete and accurate information.
> 
> ...





Hang on a minute Burnt, if you are talking about accuracy!

Page 63 of the Memorandum clearly states in Note #1 "No management fee will be charged until after 3 cents in cash has been paid to Unitholders."


----------



## JohnH (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Seamisty,
> 
> When posting information for the benefit of others, please try to ensure that you give complete and accurate information.
> 
> ...




.. and again on the same page "How and when (the Management Fee)  is paid."
"Calculated monthly with reference to the value of the Funds *under management at the end of the prior month* and payable monthly in advance out of Fund assets."
(My highlighting!)


----------



## Duped (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> So you believe their is a possibility that WC have devalued the assets  substantially  ???




I don't know about substantial.  I'm not intimate with the 30 odd loan book but would guess that some would have been finalised and went to pay off the debt. Any debt prior to being paid off would have been accumulating interest.  So at the least, while the debt was paid off, the fund value would have gone down by the amount of interest accumulated.  Unless it's made up somewhere else.  Or am I wrong?  Does the fund value go up with the amount of interest we are 'earning' on the loans (whether we ever get the cash or not).  I.e. the fund value is based on the account balance of the loans rather than full term value of the contracts. It'll be interesting to see if there are any write downs of any of the loans or if they will be kept on the books for years, even if they have a snow flake's chance of delivering full contract value, until all legal avenues have been pursued.

If there are further write downs it seems savvy to book them now so you can cite the economic turmoil as the reason. I'm sure it's very interesting times for accountants.

Also, legal fees come out of our PIF and any distribution would reduce the value of the fund.


----------



## seamisty (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quote Burnt:::. We have already established that this estimate is way out. WC have already been given around $4.7mil to cover management costs. End Quote::: Please refer page 2 question and answer booklet::WC was paid a one of fee of $750,000 and an amount of $3 million was put aside to cover certain fund costs for the four months to AUG31 2008, that equals $3.75 mill to be accurate. Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> No its not rocket science, WELLINGTON CAPITAL IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN RESPOSIBLE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PIF NOT WIM!!!!!!::::::...
> Lets put this one to rest, if you have any further enquiries please call the WC hotline. Seamisty



Everyone agrees WC are responsible for the purchase price of the PIF.  What are you saying needs clarification from WC?  The following two statements are why we are referring to WIM...

"_a multiple of four times the actual profit of Octaviar Investment Management for the 12 months period following the acquisition; plus
the value of the net tangible assets of Octaviar Investment Management at the end of that 12 month period._"


----------



## sume (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

so as well as the pif and the wholesale pif wc also is the re for cash enhanced fund, maximum yield fund, dynamic growth equity fund how much are these funds contributing to the wc coffers and are they subject to the same requirements as pif[i.e. dividens paid before fees collected]   if not is the pif paying for their costs as well?    also jh claimed that wc had one billion dollars under management where did that money come from and is the pif being charged for that adminstration as well?


----------



## seamisty (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quote Burnt::If WIM were still the RE and they were to receive management fees before May 2009 (representing their net profit as all costs are paid by the Fund), then purchase price would be 4 x that amount.

WIM are no longer RE !! WIM will have no net profit !!! end quote::: What is the significance of this debate, if there is a profit WC will pay OCV four times that amount, and the value of NTA of assets of the PIF at the end of the 12 month period , regardless of who the RE is. End of story. Seamisty


----------



## danger danger (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

WHO CARES what WC may or may not pay OCV!!! Personally I couldn't give a toss as long as WC adds value to the fund and gets my money back while getting regular payments along the way..the rest is just meaningless crap really.


----------



## seamisty (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sume said:


> so as well as the pif and the wholesale pif wc also is the re for cash enhanced fund, maximum yield fund, dynamic growth equity fund how much are these funds contributing to the wc coffers and are they subject to the same requirements as pif[i.e. dividens paid before fees collected]   if not is the pif paying for their costs as well?    also jh claimed that wc had one billion dollars under management where did that money come from and is the pif being charged for that adminstration as well?



Look at http://www.wellcap.com.au/fundsman.html, WC has other interests apart from the PIF which are unrelated but included in the one billion under management. Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> WHO CARES what WC may or may not pay OCV!!! Personally I couldn't give a toss as long as WC adds value to the fund and gets my money back while getting regular payments along the way..the rest is just meaningless crap really.



20 cents in the dollar of our orginal investment that WC should be trying to get back is coming from OCV.  It's WC's job to be hounding the admin of OCV to ensure OCV gets all money owed to it which would max our return.  Is this not obvious?


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sume said:


> so as well as the pif and the wholesale pif wc also is the re for cash enhanced fund, maximum yield fund, dynamic growth equity fund how much are these funds contributing to the wc coffers and are they subject to the same requirements as pif[i.e. dividens paid before fees collected]   if not is the pif paying for their costs as well?    also jh claimed that wc had one billion dollars under management where did that money come from and is the pif being charged for that adminstration as well?



The explanatory memorandum states WCs intention for the other funds that WIM manages\managed.  WC have stated that the max yield fund's value is $0.
_"It is the intention of WIM to retire as RE of this fund and another two funds and to cease to be a licensed RE once all relevant steps have been taken to appoint WC as RE to three of the current funds and the winding up of the other two has been finalised"_

I don't believe WCs other funds were worth one billion when that statement was written (nor would it be true now even if you include the PIF)


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> What is the significance of this debate, if there is a profit WC will pay OCV four times that amount, and the value of NTA of assets of the PIF at the end of the 12 month period , regardless of who the RE is. End of story. Seamisty



OMG!!
A profit of what Seamisty?  A profit of WIM!  

No, they won't pay NTA of assets of the PIF.  They will pay NTA of assets of WIM!


----------



## seamisty (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> OMG!!
> A profit of what Seamisty?  A profit of WIM!
> 
> No, they won't pay NTA of assets of the PIF.  They will pay NTA of assets of WIM!



My correction, not PIF, WIM.Seamisty


----------



## sume (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> 20 cents in the dollar of our orginal investment that WC should be trying to get back is coming from OCV.  It's WC's job to be hounding the admin of OCV to ensure OCV gets all money owed to it which would max our return.  Is this not obvious?




so what is happehing with that claim in the supreme court lodged by wc ,that was months ago when is it going to be heard. or was it lodged just so nothing could be said because it is before the court


----------



## Burnt (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> [/B]
> 
> Hang on a minute Burnt, if you are talking about accuracy!
> 
> Page 63 of the Memorandum clearly states in Note #1 "No management fee will be charged until after 3 cents in cash has been paid to Unitholders."




Hi JohnH,

P.63 of the EM does in fact state exactly what you have quoted. On pages 14,15 & 73 explanations are also given about the management fee but no mention is made there about the fees not being charged until after the 3c cash payment to Unit Holders.

More importantly though, I think the thing to consider is that the Explanatory Memorandum is not a legally binding document (otherwise WC might be in trouble over Unit Holders not getting their Oct. cash payment!).

The legally binding document (Trust Deed) is the Funds Constitution. The constitution states that the RE is entitled to 0.7%p.a. of the value of the total funds under management as determined with reference to the preceding month and the most recent audited accounts. This fee will be calculated and payable monthly in advance.

In other words, in calculating the fee, reference is made to the number of units in the Fund as per the previous month and the value of those units is determined with reference to the last audited accounts. This fee is payable monthly in advance - no reference is made to payment of this fee being dependent on distributions being made to Unit Holders.

The Constitution determines what WC is legally entitled to do (as voted on by Unit Holders), it does not matter what may or may not have been stated in the EM or anywhere else. The Constitution should be read carefully, especially by all those that voted in favour of it.

I am not stating that "this is going to happen" or "that's going to happen", I'm just stating the facts.

On the matter of fees, wonder what the "Handling Fees" will work out to be. These are the fees WC promised to financial advisors who got their clients to vote in favour of WC's resolutions. 

Wonder who'll get paid first ?????


----------



## Burnt (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> .Quote Burnt; Re-financed Loan - the loan of $9.5mil is a completely new loan provided by a "non-bank" lender (as stated in the Annual Report). End Quote ::::age 26 annual report:  Since the end of the financial year, the bank debt, which had been incurred by the previous directors and which carried with it the threat of liquidation, has been repaid. Accordingly the threat of receivership from this source has been extinguished. To enable the repayment of the bank debt, the fund has entered into a new finance facility with a non-bank financial institution.:::: I read that as the remainder of the existing loan was refinanced. Seamisty




Regarding the $9.5mil Loan. Seamisty, your post 3640 stated "that loan of $9.5mil was the remaining part of the $100mil outstanding from RBOS when WC took control. It was renegotiated, not a new loan".

By the way, who is this loan with ?? What are the terms and conditions ??
Shouldn't Unit Holders be entitled to know - we are the ones that have to repay it.


----------



## SPLITPIN (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sume said:


> so what is happehing with that claim in the supreme court lodged by wc ,that was months ago when is it going to be heard. or was it lodged just so nothing could be said because it is before the court




Dear Sume

Please also refer to my post #3527.

To me it appears to be window dressing and another non deliverable.

I suppose we should start to simply list on the forum the non deliverables to date such as the members representatives, dividends etc. and list reasonable explanations as to why they may not able to be delivered. 

This is not helped by the WC publicity machine and non transperant operations with no member representation as promised.

The new ASIC reporting rules as previouly indicated on my other previous post may force WC into more disclosure.

No wonder this string is the most popular on Aussie Stock Forums with a fund and RE like ours.

Regards

Splitpin


----------



## seamisty (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Regarding the $9.5mil Loan. Seamisty, your post 3640 stated "that loan of $9.5mil was the remaining part of the $100mil outstanding from RBOS when WC took control. It was renegotiated, not a new loan".
> 
> By the way, who is this loan with ?? What are the terms and conditions ??
> Shouldn't Unit Holders be entitled to know - we are the ones that have to repay it.



Suggest if you think you are entitled to this information and would like to participate in the responsibility of repaying it, then by all means contact WC and inform them of what you perceive to be your right. I am quite happy for WC to earn their money and do  their job without  personal intervention from me. Seamisty


----------



## Burnt (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Quote Burnt::If WIM were still the RE and they were to receive management fees before May 2009 (representing their net profit as all costs are paid by the Fund), then purchase price would be 4 x that amount.
> 
> WIM are no longer RE !! WIM will have no net profit !!! end quote::: What is the significance of this debate, if there is a profit WC will pay OCV four times that amount, and the value of NTA of assets of the PIF at the end of the 12 month period , regardless of who the RE is. End of story. Seamisty




Seamisty, yes you are right WC did purchase the PIF. What you seem to have been terribly confused and mistaken about is the calculation of the purchase price it will pay. I hope you have managed to work it out by now.

The significance of it is that if WC manages to get out of paying the $10 - $20mil purchase price to OCV, then as creditors of OCV this means less for PIF. Dangler, I for one do not consider this to be meaningless crap.

*I sincerely hope that some of the information put forward on this forum today has helped to clear up some of the gross misunderstanding and misconceptions that some Unit Holders still have. Perhaps this is due to innacurate or inadequate information being given out.*


----------



## danger danger (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

OMG OCV have debts in excess of over $1.3B dollars and rising everyday, and you lose sleep over whether WC will or will not pay 10-20 million piddly dollars (in the scheme of things), to add to the pool to be divided amongst all creditors. PLEASE GET A GRIP ON REALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Such is the hatred that the likes of Burnout and Dora have for the fact that WC controls our fund by majority democratic vote, that they will soon start blaming WC for the fall of OCV itself. Look at the real culprits and don't tie yourself down by this any further, anyone would think you were asked to pay for the cost of acquiring the PIF out of your own pockets. Jeeze Louise!!!!

P.S. Where are you Rance...I miss your calming sanity?????


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sume said:


> so what is happehing with that claim in the supreme court lodged by wc ,that was months ago when is it going to be heard. or was it lodged just so nothing could be said because it is before the court



The claim was filed in the Brisbane Registry on 24 June 2008.  Assuming the papers were served on the defendants within 7 days (1 July 2008), the defendants had 28 days to file a defence (29 July 2008).  A Notice of Intention to Defend should have been filed with the court.  No Notice of Intention to Defend has been filed with the court.


----------



## SPLITPIN (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> Look at the real culprits and don't tie yourself down by this any further, anyone would think you were asked to pay for the cost of acquiring the PIF out of your own pockets. Jeeze Louise!!!!
> 
> P.S. Where are you Rance...I miss your calming sanity?????





Dear Danger

We all, as members pay for WC costs one way or the other.

I have suggested some calming solutions before, very well proven by past experiances of many.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## selciper (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There are now over 3700 posts to this thread. I agree, Splitpin, it is time for WC to meet with some PIF investor reps. It's our money that's been locked up. I guess we could reach a total of 7000 posts by this time next year and still be in a depressing fog!


----------



## selciper (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Correction: over 3600 posts.


----------



## sume (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DoraNBoots said:


> The claim was filed in the Brisbane Registry on 24 June 2008.  Assuming the papers were served on the defendants within 7 days (1 July 2008), the defendants had 28 days to file a defence (29 July 2008).  A Notice of Intention to Defend should have been filed with the court.  No Notice of Intention to Defend has been filed with the court.




so does that mean that the claim was just a sham and jh never intended to sue her friend chris scott,and accept the pittance offered to her and  all the other tame re's like msf pacific etc leaving stella untouched so then being debt free , the share price in oct will go up and chrssie will get his money back good plan


----------



## SPLITPIN (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> There are now over 3700 posts to this thread. I agree, Splitpin, it is time for WC to meet with some PIF investor reps. It's our money that's been locked up. I guess we could reach a total of 7000 posts by this time next year and still be in a depressing fog!




Dear Selciper

I will get howled down for this suggestion, but we will give it a go for discussion on the forum.

One nominated PIF AG rep + one nominated PIFI rep + one nominated neutral agreed respected person to hold a formal discussion with WC to see if we can go forward in a positive and not destructive way.

Now to me that is very easy to organise and nobody has to retract their views etc.

Lets do it

Regards

Splitpin


----------



## seamisty (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> There are now over 3700 posts to this thread. I agree, Splitpin, it is time for WC to meet with some PIF investor reps. It's our money that's been locked up. I guess we could reach a total of 7000 posts by this time next year and still be in a depressing fog!



Selciper, I don't think there would be a problem with meeting with JH, it is just that you will not be told any more information than you can get by calling the hotline. If those who answer your call are unsure of anything, I find they seek further advice from those more qualified and pass it on. JH has already indicated to the AG that there is very little at this point in time that can be passed on to investors, but that does not mean that WC is not sitting idle in the meantime. If you have questions you would like put foward that do not require a price sensitive market response contact WC yourself. JH is not going to risk making statements regarding distributions again that cannot be met until they are absolutely certain that they will take place, the priority being I think is re paying the outstanding loan of $9.5million which is due at the end of November. I just read SPLITPINS post, and yes by all means go for it, just not sure who you will get to agree to it. At the end of the day, it will not make one scrap of difference to some unit holders what JH says, they have already reached their own conclusions, but I personally have no problem with your suggestion. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sume said:


> so does that mean that the claim was just a sham and jh never intended to sue her friend chris scott,and accept the pittance offered to her and  all the other tame re's like msf pacific etc leaving stella untouched so then being debt free , the share price in oct will go up and chrssie will get his money back good plan



Sume, I seriously think that if you are a unit holder (and I am not saying you aren't) you have a lot of background research on your investment to catch up on. Most of the information can be obtained by googling each issue individually. All the information is out there, but you sound as though you have already formed an opinion and I am not sure of your agenda. Call WC hotline for any information you require, the number is on most of the correspondence you would have received from WC in regard to your investment. At least that way, you can get your answer from the (dead) horses mouth. Seamisty


----------



## Burnt (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty,

Thanks so much once again for giving instructions on contacting JH and WC -
how to, the purposes of, how JH & staff will respond, the restrictions, etc.

You sound like you might be JH's personal assistant.

Are you saying it is pointless for unit holders to meet with WC ? Or is it only certain unit holders that should be discouraged from trying to obtain information ? What would the point of having a unit holder advisory committee be then ?


----------



## seamisty (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Seamisty,
> 
> Thanks so much once again for giving instructions on contacting JH and WC -
> how to, the purposes of, how JH & staff will respond, the restrictions, etc.
> ...



Quite the contrary Burnt, I suggest you or Dora put your hand up to represent the PIFI, I am sure either of you will be well received by WC. It does seem that there a few who are a bit shy using the hotline and I have always found it very usefull, that is why I encourage others to use it. My expertise lies in other areas although I am sure I would make a good PR person just as some would qualify as  NR people. Seamisty


----------



## selciper (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Splitpin -

These are just random thoughts. Three reps to meet with JH in a non-confrontational manner, primarily to understand and pass on JH's present strategies. The reps, for convenience, should be Queensland residents. They would need a technical understanding of how the fund works, that is to have accounting knowledge.


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> ...JH has already indicated to the AG that there is very little at this point in time that can be passed on to investors, but that does not mean that WC is not sitting idle in the meantime. If you have questions you would like put foward that do not require a price sensitive market response contact WC yourself. JH is not going to risk making statements regarding distributions again that cannot be met until they are absolutely certain that they will take place,...



There is lots of information which WC should be providing us about our fund.  Do not be put off asking a question because it is price sensitive.  Information being price sensitive dose not prevent WC from disclosing, it just means WC must announce the information to the NSX first.  This is a good thing.  Hopefully if lots of unit holders contact WC asking for info we'll see NSX announcements worth reading.


----------



## DoraNBoots (20 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> OMG OCV have debts in excess of over $1.3B dollars and rising everyday, and you lose sleep over whether WC will or will not pay 10-20 million piddly dollars (in the scheme of things), to add to the pool to be divided amongst all creditors....



A fifth of $20 mill is 1% of our fund and not to be scoffed at.
I hope the administrators of OCV don’t have this attitude.  Deloitte are not going to find $1.3 billion under a rock, so if they aren’t going after smaller amounts (and I don’t consider $20 mill small!) then we’ve got no hope of seeing money from OCV.  Danger’s anger towards OCV seems to prevent him from seeing that creditors (us)  are the ones who loose out if OCV is denied money owed to it.

On the matter of the PIF claim against OCV -  As there has been no notice of intent to defend from OCV you could assume that WC and OCV were planning to do a deal but now that OCV is in administration the deal between Chris and Jenny might be irrelevant.  WC need to disclose the state of the claim and if the PIF is recognised by the OCV administrator as an equal first creditor.  If the PIF isn’t, then WC need to pursue the claim and get it recognised by the court.  Again this needs to be disclosed to the market.


----------



## danger danger (20 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My anger toward OCV is mild compared to your hatred of WC now controlling this fund. It is plain as day to see from your many posts, and this taints your judgement of the way this fund is being steered by the current RE. You wanted it to go a certain way and it didn't, something you can't get over and it has manifested into hate. Sorry, just calling it like I see it.


----------



## SPLITPIN (20 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Splitpin -
> 
> These are just random thoughts. Three reps to meet with JH in a non-confrontational manner, primarily to understand and pass on JH's present strategies. The reps, for convenience, should be Queensland residents. They would need a technical understanding of how the fund works, that is to have accounting knowledge.




Dear Selciper

I suppose PIFI and PIF AG would have to indicate through their representatives and communicate if they are interested and put some perceived differences of opinions aside in the best interests of all PIF members.

Regards

Splitpin


----------



## selciper (20 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Splitpin -

There's no reason why all members of a delegation have to agree with each other. The point of the exercise would be to gather information about the strategies that are planned for us by WC. Surely these plans shouldn't be a secret. It is concerning that WC haven't come good with that ballot for three AG reps. I'm afraid that JH has only herself to blame for not following through in providing this vital communications channel. I'd prefer to read posts demanding action on this front rather than the continual dredging up of the morale-sapping past. The clock can't be turned back. Let's keep our collective eye on the future - the lawyers can dredge up the past.

Cheers


----------



## charles36 (20 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have been with this forum since it's inception.  Whilst not active participant have read all threads.  I feel I know you all personally.  I have noticed one constant and that is we are all seeking justice in one form or another.  I am 72 years old and have had a lot of knocks in life and this one is not nice.  Can somebody please enlighten me as to what action is beiThankng contemplated against those incompetent;;;;;;; who orchestrated this castastrophe.  Namely, Peacock, Adams. King, and Hutchings.  Plus the auditors who must   have known of the loan from RBOS was used in contravention of the PDS.  Thanks in anticipation.   Charles36.


----------



## seamisty (20 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> I have been with this forum since it's inception.  Whilst not active participant have read all threads.  I feel I know you all personally.  I have noticed one constant and that is we are all seeking justice in one form or another.  I am 72 years old and have had a lot of knocks in life and this one is not nice.  Can somebody please enlighten me as to what action is beiThankng contemplated against those incompetent;;;;;;; who orchestrated this castastrophe.  Namely, Peacock, Adams. King, and Hutchings.  Plus the auditors who must   have known of the loan from RBOS was used in contravention of the PDS.  Thanks in anticipation.   Charles36.



Welcome Charles, I used to call ASIC regularly and ask the same question and was continually told that they were investigating the many complaints and that they were unable to comment on the case. I was also told it is not ASIC's job to track down missing funds, just to bring those to justice if they were found guilty of any wrongdoing. I gave up in the end as I felt I was just wasting my time. I know of others who lodged complaints and provided relevant details to back up those complaints. I did contemplate trying to prove a case of fraud against the directors, but felt that was up to ASIC. If justice is ever done concerning these criminals they would have well and truly divested themselves of anything of value. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## selciper (20 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Mentioned on this thread previously. From the Australian 14 October 08:

"THE Australian Securities and Investments Commission is suing accounting giant KPMG for $200 million, in a move that could see Westpoint investors compensated for their losses in the property group.

It is believed to be the first time ASIC has taken legal action against one of Australia's top four accounting firms and is one of the biggest cases designed to compensate investors that ASIC has undertaken."  

Also, even US VP Dick Cheney is being investigated and facing legal problems according to this afternoon's international wires. The law can have a very long reach.


----------



## flatback (20 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> My anger toward OCV is mild compared to your hatred of WC now controlling this fund. It is plain as day to see from your many posts, and this taints your judgement of the way this fund is being steered by the current RE. You wanted it to go a certain way and it didn't, something you can't get over and it has manifested into hate. Sorry, just calling it like I see it.



see, as i was infering in an earlier post this is the ramblings of some one who cant get their way, you see danger i did reply to your post some days ago, but some body who  can remove threads on a whim removed mine, and i didnt think mine was any more derogative than yours was towards me, ho,hum boring, you have again attacked one of the most informative people on this forum, yet your thread is allowed to pass scrutiny,i'll bet money this is removed, also,G/day to you Great Damei've not seen many posts from you for awhile, keep them coming flatback


----------



## danger danger (20 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> see, as i was infering in an earlier post this is the ramblings of some one who cant get their way, you see danger i did reply to your post some days ago, but some body who  can remove threads on a whim removed mine, and i didnt think mine was any more derogative than yours was towards me, ho,hum boring, you have again attacked one of the most informative people on this forum, yet your thread is allowed to pass scrutiny,i'll bet money this is removed, also,G/day to you Great Damei've not seen many posts from you for awhile, keep them coming flatback




What you think of my postings...care factor = 0 Capish?
Don't read them, God knows I haven't read anything of yours after your 5th posting..so no sweat.


----------



## JohnH (20 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> I am sorry Kennas but if you the moderaters, had done your jobs, and had somebody checking the threads that were being put on this forum, it wouldnt have degenerated to the standard it has, there are a lot of concerned unit holders out there, who have been trying to get some very important issues to their fellow members out there, but have this constant repetitive rubbish coming out of a few crazy people, it is not a good advertisement is it. yours Flatback






flatback said:


> see, as i was infering in an earlier post this is the ramblings of some one who cant get their way, you see danger i did reply to your post some days ago, *but some body who  can remove threads on a whim removed mine*, and i didnt think mine was any more derogative than yours was towards me, ho,hum boring, you have again attacked one of the most informative people on this forum, yet your thread is allowed to pass scrutiny,i'll bet money this is removed, also,G/day to you Great Damei've not seen many posts from you for awhile, keep them coming flatback




"Every speaker has a mouth; An arrangement rather neat. Sometimes it's filled with wisdom. Sometimes it's filled with feet. "   _Robert Orben_


----------



## ian1328 (20 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

As we investors are all in the same boat why not agree to a truce on bickering and nit picking each other and collectively put our energy, resources,knowledge and experience together and carefully watch the actions of WC, ensuring that they ARE in our best interests, list any relevant information on this thread, report them if they are inappropriate and then take action against them instead of the people in this boat who are trying to swim and not sink.


----------



## seamisty (20 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



ian1328 said:


> As we investors are all in the same boat why not agree to a truce on bickering and nit picking each other and collectively put our energy, resources,knowledge and experience together and carefully watch the actions of WC, ensuring that they ARE in our best interests, list any relevant information on this thread, report them if they are inappropriate and then take action against them instead of the people in this boat who are trying to swim and not sink.



Well said Ian1328 but I also think that if we want more co-operation from WC re transparency, that cuts both ways. WC  deserve the support of all unitholders without having to justify every move thay make, especially when in days gone by some unit holders have not shown the same transparency while working against them.  Until everyone is willing to give WC a chance to prove themselves and take into consideration that we are facing extremely difficult times, I am not sure how a united front will be achieved. Seamisty


----------



## ian1328 (20 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Well said Ian1328 but I also think that if we want more co-operation from WC re transparency, that cuts both ways. WC  deserve the support of all unitholders without having to justify every move thay make, especially when in days gone by some unit holders have not shown the same transparency while working against them.  Until everyone is willing to give WC a chance to prove themselves and take into consideration that we are facing extremely difficult times, I am not sure how a united front will be achieved. Seamisty




It is very hard to get a united front and one has to realise that some people will jump off the boat, one has to let them go. 

On a far more important matter I intend to pursue the 3 delegate nominees and ascertain why nothing has been put forward by WC. We could start by  nominating people on this forum. Who is prepared to be a representative???


----------



## seamisty (20 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



ian1328 said:


> It is very hard to get a united front and one has to realise that some people will jump off the boat, one has to let them go.
> 
> On a far more important matter I intend to pursue the 3 delegate nominees and ascertain why nothing has been put forward by WC. We could start by  nominating people on this forum. Who is prepared to be a representative???



Good luck Ian, sometimes this thread gets 1,000 hits a day, I will be interested to see how many replies you get trying to do something positive, regards, Seamisty


----------



## danger danger (20 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I would like nothing more than a truce Ian, but this thread is like the old playground at school. One moment it's peaceful, then someone chucks someone else's tennis ball over the other side of the courtyard, then it's ON. I think we are just frustrated that someone has robbed our lunch money, and we can't go to the canteen. Blood sugar levels go down and hunger pains set in...you know the rest!


----------



## flatback (20 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> "Every speaker has a mouth; An arrangement rather neat. Sometimes it's filled with wisdom. Sometimes it's filled with feet. "   _Robert Orben_



John H you see this is the kind of thing i was talking about, there are definately two schools of thought here, one who thinks they know more than the other, and the other that knows they know more than the other,you it seems think because you are an adviser, are very knowledgeable( so not )as you are in the same boat as the rest of us, and probably have the hounds knocking on the door, and seamisty who i gather works for Jh, the one who cannot do any wrong, and we have the break away group who are just as concerned as we are about our funds, we are all trying in our own way(passivelyas i chose to be ,agressively as some late comers are appearing to be, and constructively which both Dora and Seamisty have shown great ability to procure some of their very interesting threads, but unfortunatly have let their personal feelings get in the road of reason at times, believe me when i say i have no ill feeling against any of you, but i think we have lost the plot.Flatback


----------



## Burnt (20 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> John H you see this is the kind of thing i was talking about, there are definately two schools of thought here, one who thinks they know more than the other, and the other that knows they know more than the other,you it seems think because you are an adviser, are very knowledgeable( so not )as you are in the same boat as the rest of us, and probably have the hounds knocking on the door, and seamisty who i gather works for Jh, the one who cannot do any wrong, and we have the break away group who are just as concerned as we are about our funds, we are all trying in our own way(passivelyas i chose to be ,agressively as some late comers are appearing to be, and constructively which both Dora and Seamisty have shown great ability to procure some of their very interesting threads, but unfortunatly have let their personal feelings get in the road of reason at times, believe me when i say i have no ill feeling against any of you, but i think we have lost the plot.Flatback




Hi Flatback,

Very much like the sentiment of your post.

We all need to stick to facts and not feelings. Some percieve others to be bullies and visa versa. There's no need to resort to this kind of attitude.

We should all be sharing facts as we come across them. We all make errors and correction of those errors should be accepted in good spirit. 

Factual information is beneficial to everyone. We should all take note of facts and analyse their usefulness in helping us determine the exact postion we are in.

For example, in the current Bond Street Custodians case that Wellington is having to defend, Bond St has commenced action against Wellington Investment Mangement Limited (as RE of the WPIF). JH has stated that WC intends to vigorously defend this claim on behalf of all unit holders. How exactly are all unit holders at risk with this claim ? The claim seems to be against WIM not PIF ? 

If anyone can provide some substantiated facts in this matter, all of us would be better informed.


----------



## flatback (20 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> What you think of my postings...care factor = 0 Capish?
> Don't read them, God knows I haven't read anything of yours after your 5th posting..so no sweat.



mate you weren't around when i posted my fifth posting you are a late comer,if you were around, you would understand i believe in all postings that make sense, not drivel.


----------



## Burnt (21 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> mate you weren't around when i posted my fifth posting you are a late comer,if you were around, you would understand i believe in all postings that make sense, not drivel.




Ahhhhh........Flatback, don't be fooled. Danger comes in many forms (and names).

Don't be taken down by nasty personal attacks. Truth always comes out on top.


----------



## seamisty (21 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> John H you see this is the kind of thing i was talking about, there are definately two schools of thought here, one who thinks they know more than the other, and the other that knows they know more than the other,you it seems think because you are an adviser, are very knowledgeable( so not )as you are in the same boat as the rest of us, and probably have the hounds knocking on the door, and seamisty who i gather works for Jh, the one who cannot do any wrong, and we have the break away group who are just as concerned as we are about our funds, we are all trying in our own way(passivelyas i chose to be ,agressively as some late comers are appearing to be, and constructively which both Dora and Seamisty have shown great ability to procure some of their very interesting threads, but unfortunatly have let their personal feelings get in the road of reason at times, believe me when i say i have no ill feeling against any of you, but i think we have lost the plot.Flatback



Flatback some have lost the plot more so than others so will help you get back on track here. JohnH and myself are nothing more sinister than unitholders. It is precisely this style of post that creates animosity. Please get your facts straight before making inflaming, incorrect assumptions on here that are not exactly helpful in creating a united group. Seamisty


----------



## Sean K (21 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Starting to get a little heated again team.

Not blamming anyone but just cool it.

Cheers,
kennas


(PS, if anyone want to get on the right side of the Mods, keep mentioning us in glowing terms and all our good work here. Thanks!  )


----------



## JohnH (21 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



kennas said:


> Starting to get a little heated again team.
> 
> Not blamming anyone but just cool it.
> 
> ...




y todos ellos tienen tremenda sentidos del humor - que pensamos!

:burn:We think our Moderators, are wonderful! :burn:


----------



## ian1328 (21 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Is anyone going to put their name forward on this thread to act as a delegate?


----------



## danger danger (21 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Rick H is an adviser, JohnH is a unitholder. Facts not inaccuracy please. Oh and moderators rule OK.


----------



## seamisty (21 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



ian1328 said:


> Is anyone going to put their name forward on this thread to act as a delegate?



I did initially ian1328, but have since changed my mind. Perhaps it would be an idea to contact WC as to what their intentions are in regard to the Investor Advisory Committee. Seamisty


----------



## great dame (21 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



ian1328 said:


> Is anyone going to put their name forward on this thread to act as a delegate?



    Yes there has been one person i know  / Dane //


----------



## RickH (21 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Hi Flatback,
> 
> Factual information is beneficial to everyone. We should all take note of facts and analyse their usefulness in helping us determine the exact postion we are in.
> 
> ...



Hi Burnt,
If the Bond Street claim wins, where do you think the funds will actually come from?
Regards, RickH:couch.


----------



## communique (21 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My vote is for Dora. Dora is always objective, analytical and doesn't waffle.  Despite what some contributors have said, I don't believe Dora's intent is to permanently stick the n'boots into WC - rather to ensure protocol, regulation and promised results are adhered to.  As far as I'm concerned that is good representation.


----------



## Burnt (21 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> Hi Burnt,
> If the Bond Street claim wins, where do you think the funds will actually come from?
> Regards, RickH:couch.




If the Bond Street claim is successful, this would mean that the RE was in breach of the funds constitution by not paying the redemption. I'm sure PIF constitution doesn't allow costs to be taken from the Fund where this is the case. I could be wrong though.


----------



## SPLITPIN (21 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



communique said:


> My vote is for Dora. Dora is always objective, analytical and doesn't waffle.  Despite what some contributors have said, I don't believe Dora's intent is to permanently stick the n'boots into WC - rather to ensure protocol, regulation and promised results are adhered to.  As far as I'm concerned that is good representation.





Dear Communique

There appears to be two problems PIF AG and PIFI of which I am a member of.

Without their official nomination it is all meaningless. 

So individual nominations may take us nowhere and all the goodwill to go forward may be lost.

However recommendations must be seriously considered by the AG groups and be acknowledged as you present correctly in my mind.

Regards

Splitpin


----------



## SPLITPIN (21 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> .....Perhaps it would be an idea to contact WC as to what their intentions are in regard to the Investor Advisory Committee. Seamisty




Dear Seamisty

In that you have previously indicated your willingness to communicate with WC, would you please request and advise us of WC progress on this issue.

Regards

Splitpin


----------



## seamisty (21 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



SPLITPIN said:


> Dear Seamisty
> 
> In that you have previously indicated your willingness to communicate with WC, would you please request and advise us of WC progress on this issue.
> 
> ...



 Sorry Splitpin, I'd actually prefer to pass on this one, I fully endorse what ian1328 proposes and I hope if he/she achieves this objective. Because of my previous willingness to communicate with WC I have been called a 'dictator, puppet, WC employee, JH's personal assistant,'and numerous others, so I am not prepared to source further information and post it publically until such times as it is fully appreciated and recipricated. Every unitholder has  access to any information that is available to myself by doing what I do, and that is by e-mailing WC or calling the hotline. There has been in excess of 1100 hits to this thread in the last 24hours, surely the responsibility of sourcing information can be a bit more evenly distributed amongst unitholders. I am actually dissapointed at how little response ian has got. Seamisty


----------



## SPLITPIN (21 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Sorry Splitpin, I'd actually prefer to pass on this one, I fully endorse what ian1328 proposes and I hope if he/she achieves this objective. Because of my previous willingness to communicate with WC I have been called a 'dictator, puppet, WC employee, JH's personal assistant,'and numerous others, so I am not prepared to source further information and post it publically until such times as it is fully appreciated and recipricated. Every unitholder has  access to any information that is available to myself by doing what I do, and that is by e-mailing WC or calling the hotline. There has been in excess of 1100 hits to this thread in the last 24hours, surely the responsibility of sourcing information can be a bit more evenly distributed amongst unitholders. I am actually dissapointed at how little response ian has got. Seamisty




Dear Seamisty

It was a simple request for communication with senior management of which you have - no strings attached.

As I recall I have been called worse than you in previous comms.

Please reconsider simple request to WC or maybe somebody will advise same.

Forum will get more hits as only source of information of PIF.

I trust we will keep the forum informative only.

Regards


Splitpin


----------



## selciper (22 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Is it asking too much of WC PIF to give its 10300 investors an update? My patience is wearing thin. Am I alone in feeling like this?


----------



## great dame (22 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Is it asking too much of WC PIF to give its 10300 investors an update? My patience is wearing thin. Am I alone in feeling like this?



You are not alone Seliper . I have given up trying to get some info on the hot line from them  We may have to wait till the ACM in about 11 months time / Dane ///


----------



## selciper (22 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> You are not alone Seliper . I have given up trying to get some info on the hot line from them  We may have to wait till the ACM in about 11 months time / Dane ///



 Great Dame - Yes, the so-called hotline has become no more than a chat line, a sort of pseudo therapy session. JH put her hand up to fix things up, but she seems to have overlooked the importance of regular, reliable communication. The Board must also shoulder responsibility for this serious failure.


----------



## seamisty (22 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Published 0:04 AM, 22 Nov 2008:::James Thomson
RICH PICKINGS: White shoe shuffle::::They’ve always done things a little bit differently on the Gold Coast. Flash cars, tall buildings, beautiful people, fast money – this flamboyant Queensland city could never be called boring. 

But since the 1980s, the Gold Coast business community has fought hard to restore its somewhat tarnished reputation. A few years ago, mentioning the words “white shoes” on the Gold Coast was enough to get you a dirty look and a sharp dressing down. The explosive growth of listed companies such as MFS, City Pacific and Billabong had made the Gold Coast a legitimate business hub. 

But just as the white shoe jibes were fading from memory, a series of corporate collapses – including MFS, Asset Loans Group and a string of property projects – have rocked the Coast again. 

The credit crunch has not been kind to the city’s entrepreneurs, many of whom used debt to fund the expansion of their empires over the last five years. The losses are mounting. 

Michael King and Phil Adams 

The co-founders of MFS Group started the rot when their financial services, property and tourism group collapsed in a screaming heap earlier this year. King and Adams started out as lawyers in a Gold Coast firm before expanding into funds management. 

In 2007, the pair’s wealth peaked at $370 million, but the credit crunch exposed the company’s debt-fuelled business strategy and the company unravelled in a matter of weeks. Both men could face legal action as a result of the collapse. 

Phil Sullivan 

The founder of City Pacific resigned in early November after pressure from unitholders and institutional shareholders made his position untenable. It was an ugly ending for Sullivan, who steered the company from a float at $1.10 in 2001 to a peak of $5.39 in October 2006. His fortune, which included a 30 per cent stake in City Pacific, reached a high of $339 million in 2007. Today, that City Pacific stake is worth just $5 million. 

Clive Palmer 

Palmer made his first fortune selling Gold Coast property before retiring in the early 1980s at the age of 29. His comeback as an iron ore billionaire has been spectacular and the Gold Coast has been a big beneficiary, with Palmer stumping up $5 million for a licence to get a Gold Coast team in A-League soccer competition. 

Palmer was valued at $1.5 billion by BRW in May, and it is difficult to judge how much he has lost since then because of the private nature of his empire. However, the value of his stake in Australasian Resources Holdings has fallen from $496 million to around $94 million. 

Gordon Merchant 

Merchant is the founder of surfwear giant Billabong, which has been one of the best-performing Gold Coast companies in the last decade. Since the start of the year, the company’s shares are down 34 per cent, shaving $156 million of the value of Merchant’s stake, which is down to $303 million. 

Soheil and Sahba Abedian 

Father and son team Soheil and Sahba Abedian are the largest shareholders in Gold Coast property developer Sunland Group. James Packer also owns a large stake. At the start of the year, the Abedians' shares were worth $231 million, but the shares are down more than 75 per cent and the duo’s stock is now worth just $55 million. 

Eddy Groves 

Eddy divided his time between Brisbane and the Gold Coast, but his attitude was pure Surfers Paradise. Eddy’s fortune peaked at $325 million; now all he has left is a few property assets. Given his ex-wife Le Neve is suing Eddy for $44 million, he’ll be lucky to hold on to that. 

Tony Smith 

Fomer AFL footballer Tony Smith sold his tourism business to MFS in 2006 and owned a large stake in the business. After MFS collapsed, Smith was forced to sell parts of his portfolio of prestige property, including a double block on the richest street on the Gold Coast, Hedges Avenue. While he reportedly received a whopping $30 million for the property, most agents said it was worth $50-70 million. 

The outlook 

Things look pretty ugly on the Gold Coast right now. The mayor is predicting unemployment will rise to 8 per cent in the region and the locals are referring to the abandoned building projects as “bomb sites”. Given the region’s huge dependency on property, financial services and tourism, it could be some time before the Coast’s economy gets back on track. 

Not that you can dent the sunny optimism of the region’s entrepreneurs. As Soheil Abedian told investors at Sunland’s recent AGM: “The declinehas come much faster, so the recovery will come much faster.”


----------



## simgrund (23 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

FLATBACK, BURNT,
PERSONAL THANKS FOR YOUR POSTS 3698 & 3999 RESPECTIVELY.
THIS RESURRECTION OF COMMON SENSE IS COMING JUST IN THE NICK OF TIME.
IT SEEMS THAT A NON-DENOMINATIONAL AND COMMON DESIRE NOW IS TO ESTABLISH 3 MEMBER INVESTOR REPRESENTATION TO jh FOR WEEKLY OR FORTNIGHTLY BRIEFINGS.
LET'S CONCENTRATE ON THIS NOW AND SHOW RESULTS OF SUCH COMMON PURPOSE; BEFORE CHRISTMAS?


----------



## flatback (23 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> FLATBACK, BURNT,
> PERSONAL THANKS FOR YOUR POSTS 3698 & 3999 RESPECTIVELY.
> THIS RESURRECTION OF COMMON SENSE IS COMING JUST IN THE NICK OF TIME.
> IT SEEMS THAT A NON-DENOMINATIONAL AND COMMON DESIRE NOW IS TO ESTABLISH 3 MEMBER INVESTOR REPRESENTATION TO jh FOR WEEKLY OR FORTNIGHTLY BRIEFINGS.
> LET'S CONCENTRATE ON THIS NOW AND SHOW RESULTS OF SUCH COMMON PURPOSE; BEFORE CHRISTMAS?



Simgrund thank you for your concern, which many have lacked over the past few weeks (in regard to our fund) my reasoning all along has been to try to keep a straight and narrow sensible line on our predicament, for some who haven't read my threads on this forum beyond number 5, surely would have seen that my concerns have always supported (Great Dame ) NO NSX, and for those that shafted me about the 3 ag members being given a chance to speak on our behalf ( which was touted at one of the meetings with JH) it was mentioned!!, my only other very strong feeling was forming an associated group and take control ourselves,(which in the present climate wuold have been a form of harikari) and finally i have never claimed to be a master of investment in funds of any kind, i am just like the rest of us, been hoodwinked by blo--- experts, as this issue we are in, has nothing to do with the global meltdown in the financial world , this came along well before anything started world wide. have a fine day dangler.


----------



## Burnt (23 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> FLATBACK, BURNT,
> PERSONAL THANKS FOR YOUR POSTS 3698 & 3999 RESPECTIVELY.
> THIS RESURRECTION OF COMMON SENSE IS COMING JUST IN THE NICK OF TIME.
> IT SEEMS THAT A NON-DENOMINATIONAL AND COMMON DESIRE NOW IS TO ESTABLISH 3 MEMBER INVESTOR REPRESENTATION TO jh FOR WEEKLY OR FORTNIGHTLY BRIEFINGS.
> LET'S CONCENTRATE ON THIS NOW AND SHOW RESULTS OF SUCH COMMON PURPOSE; BEFORE CHRISTMAS?




One of the promises JH made in getting unit holders to vote for her resolutions, was the establishment of a 3 person Investor Advisory Committee. Unit holders nominated for positions on this committee on their proxy forms and the Committee members were to be democratically elected by unit holders.
The purpose of this committee was to ensure investor input into the decision making process of the Fund into the future. Taken from Explanatory Memorandum.

It has been stated here in the past that to press WC on the issue of establishing this committee is innappropriate as it is a minor issue.
Most of us are fed up with the lack of information from WC and what would appear to be a "closed door" policy they have adopted. I don't consider this a minor issue.

I agree with those that want to push ahead and establish a delegation of unit holders to meet with WC. However, it is WC's responsibility to act upon their committment to set up the Advisory Committee and we should push them to do it. 

I personally think it would be unfair (and undemocratic) to those unit holders that don't participate on this forum & who may have nominated to be part of the Advisory Committee, for a few forum members to select a delegation of unit holders. It is a possibility that the outcome of this would be that WC would accept this delegation of unit holders as an alternative to the Advisory Committee. We are unsure what the exact rights and powers of the Advisory Committe would have, but at least what we have been told is that it will ensure investor input. What rights & powers will the delegation have, will they be there just to pass on information on behalf of WC ?

I think we should all get on the phone to WC this week and press them for the voting date for members of the Advisory Committee. If we don't push them, it may not happen. Those on the Forum that have nominated for the committee will then have their chance to have a go and we can all let them know what we would like them to do for us.


----------



## ian1328 (23 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> I personally think it would be unfair (and undemocratic) to those unit holders that don't participate on this forum & who may have nominated to be part of the Advisory Committee, for a few forum members to select a delegation of unit holders. It is a possibility that the outcome of this would be that WC would accept this delegation of unit holders as an alternative to the Advisory Committee. We are unsure what the exact rights and powers of the Advisory Committe would have, but at least what we have been told is that it will ensure investor input. What rights & powers will the delegation have, will they be there just to pass on information on behalf of WC ?
> 
> An interesting and correct comment Burnt. However from when I asked for nominees to put themselves forward on this thread almost a week ago not ONE person has put their hand up and there has one nominee. It could very well be that no one who reads this forum chooses to be a representative and how they are then to be elected? As for what there powers will be, I wouldn't expect too much but hopefully an insight into the developments and progress of our fund with an avenue to monthly reporting to the unitholders.


----------



## selciper (23 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

To digress for a moment. This a resume of JH handed out by the Aust. Institute of Company Directors quite some time ago for a function.

JENNY HUTSON


Managing director and founder of Wellington Capital Limited, a merchant and investment bank. 

Precis

Jenny Hutson is the managing director and founder of Wellington Capital Limited, a merchant and investment bank.


Wellington Capital has been corporate adviser on over $1.5 billion in projects in the last 12 months. Jenny has led the team on each of these projects.


Jenny also chairs Wellington Funds Management the manager of the ASX listed S8 Property Trust, which owns $118 million of property and the Wellington Property Securities Fund.


Jenny was previously a partner for 10 years in the corporate division of McCullough Robertson Lawyers, which has 31 partners, over 300 staff, and is a top 20 Australian law firm. Jenny headed the Corporate Advisory practice from 2003 to 2006.


Jenny is the former Chairperson of ASX listed company S8 Limited, which is a global integrated travel company. S8 Limited prior to its take over by MFS in December 2006 was capitalised at in excess of $700 million. The group had staff of 2,700


----------



## ian1328 (24 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I spoke to WC today. I was told the following;

1. The advisory committee is still planned and will be discussed at the next board meeting in Dec. At present there are over 200 nominees who put their names forward under 'other business' when the 3 resolutions were voted on. Should there be any others who wish to be considered then submit their names directly to WC. A Ballot will be arranged as to who will be the representatives, however, how it will be done is yet to be said. Hence the board meeting. 

2.One of the 3 loans which were due to be repaid last month has now been repaid. The other 2 are on track to be repaid in Dec.

3.Daily discussions take place with outstanding debtors, including Raptis.

4.Priority still lies with repaying the 9 million to B of S

5.The second priority is to make a 3c dividend to the unitholders before Xmas.

6. They have diversified the way in which property under their control can be sold. i.e. it has been broken down and is now being sold to individuals who are able to raise money, unlike large corporations who cannot get money from frozen mortagee companies.

7. Financial reports will be made at the end of year showing the current value

8. December is going to be a very busy time with court and hopefully a settlement from Octaviar.

Thats all I can relay. Basically they said they are working hard, some with flood problems, however we must try and be patient.

Its very, very hard to wait I know. But what is the alternative?


----------



## charles36 (25 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Assuming the 3cents is not paid this year, does that mean sayonara to this distribution that will go with the rest of the unpaid distributions?  Is it possible that the 3 cents will be paid in the new year as well as other suggested distibutions.  It seems to me that we can wave goodbye to the 3 cents promised.  Any thoughts please.


----------



## danger danger (25 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> Assuming the 3cents is not paid this year, does that mean sayonara to this distribution that will go with the rest of the unpaid distributions?  Is it possible that the 3 cents will be paid in the new year as well as other suggested distibutions.  It seems to me that we can wave goodbye to the 3 cents promised.  Any thoughts please.




My mail is that it will be very unlikely be the full 3c, but there will have to be a catastrophe to prevent us receiving some payment amount by Xmas. I am just passing info that was passed to me...so please don't shoot me down the track if it comes off the rails. No idea what that amount to be announced will be. Money is really, really tight and that is what is causing the inability for loans to be settled / refinanced. Next year will be much of the same as the fund goes into a somewhat stability mode as we have inherited some real rubbish loans that had no fundamental criteria to them. So much for the rock solid lending policies that MFS was having us believe...it was just crap as they had soooo much money from suckers like us walking in the door, and rollover investments.


----------



## Burnt (25 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thank you Ian1328 for passing on this information you got from WC.

I'm a bit concerned though about this $9.4mil loan with B of S. The June Annual Report clearly stated that this bank loan had been repaid by the Fund entering into a new finance facility with a non-bank financial institution. Terms 20%p.a. interest to be repaid by 30 November.

WC are saying that one of the outstanding loans due in October has now been repaid. If repaying the $9.4mil is a priority why is the whole amount still outstanding. The other two loans are expected to be repaid in December, this is after the maturity date of the $9.4mil loan. 

All sounds a bit scary. What are the consequences of not repaying the loan by maturity date ??

The sooner the Advisory Committee is set up the better, we will know more about how much we should be worrying.


----------



## Duped (26 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



danger danger said:


> ..... Next year will be much of the same as the fund goes into a somewhat stability mode as we have inherited some real rubbish loans that had no fundamental criteria to them. So much for the rock solid lending policies that MFS was having us believe...it was just crap as they had soooo much money from suckers like us walking in the door, and rollover investments.




Hear Hear DD.  Add to that - PIF is a trust so we have to pay income tax on 'profit' that we never see. Another risk exposure that wasn't explained to me.  What a con job.


----------



## sume (26 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> Thank you Ian1328 for passing on this information you got from WC.
> 
> I'm a bit concerned though about this $9.4mil loan with B of S. The June Annual Report clearly stated that this bank loan had been repaid by the Fund entering into a new finance facility with a non-bank financial institution. Terms 20%p.a. interest to be repaid by 30 November.
> 
> ...




i know i'm stupid but maybe someone can explain it to me.  If jh is having trouble paying back a loan of $9.4 million how can we expect her to pay out $23.1million before christmas[=$770,000,000 at 3% is $23,100,000] or is the 3% of the writen down value of aprox.$400,000,000 which would be only $12,000,000 and then every one will be getting only half of what we were expecting[lol] but that would be misleading and i'm sure jh would never mislead us[again] i suppose that if it was the case we could get those auful people ,the PIFI, to force assic to take her to court again       oh  and one other question . how do you borrow your self out of debt paticulary at the rate of 20% intrest?


----------



## Sean K (26 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sume said:


> i know i'm stupid but maybe someone can explain it to me.  If jh is having trouble paying back a loan of $9.4 million how can we expect her to pay out $23.1million before christmas[=$770,000,000 at 3% is $23,100,000] or is the 3% of the writen down value of aprox.$400,000,000 which would be only $12,000,000 and then every one will be getting only half of what we were expecting[lol] but that would be misleading and i'm sure jh would never mislead us[again] i suppose that if it was the case we could get those auful people ,the PIFI, to force assic to take her to court again       oh  and one other question . how do you borrow your self out of debt paticulary at the rate of 20% intrest?



I count about 20 grammatical errors there sume. 

I'm not convinced by your argument.

Maybe use a spell check, or have your work proof read.

Cheers,
Kennas


----------



## selciper (26 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Ian1328 -  Your cautious report on the present situation was appreciated. Your points 1-8 covered a lot of ground and you gave a source for your info which helps a lot. Let's hope nothing more goes wrong before Xmas that might hold up a distribution of sorts.


----------



## ian1328 (26 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

One other point discussed when I spoke to WC was the lack of information being received from them. 

I was told that an update newsletter is happening monthly, they don't consider it necessary to update weekly.  Early Dec will be the next one. No specific date tho'.

Its driving me nuts like everyone else, frustrating beyond belief. I try to remain positive and not to think about it but still have a look each day at this forum to see if anyone has any good news.


----------



## seamisty (26 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Not a smart move challenging one of the forum moderators sume, they like to be recognized for their usefullness, not ridiculed by a poster making use of their forum. I might just say goodbye now in case it is your last post. Seamisty:ald:


----------



## simgrund (26 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



kennas said:


> I count about 20 grammatical errors there sume.
> 
> I'm not convinced by your argument.
> 
> ...




Greetings Kennas,
Your grammatical meticuluosity is truly appreciated.
I am using this forum to improve my English. Other contributors oblige profusely. And I am pleased that your interventions now are for grammar infringements rather than for exchanges of expletives.
In appreciation, 
Simgrund and no doubt many others


----------



## Jadel (27 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Keep posting Sume 

   Any person who takes the time and effort to write a post should be respected

   I am sure many people on the forum are interested  in content and how you feel about the issues, which has nothing at all to do with grammar.


----------



## great dame (27 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi folks Just had a look at the NSX Exchange  & its pretty grime  Buyers only have 320270 units  on offer to buy off us at an average price of only  8.75 cents  a unit   Its much much worth then ever what i for cast in the past    Anybody out there still believe what JH said  buyers will give us a Dollar each for our units in 3 to 5 years    Hmmmmmmm I DON'T THINK SO  / Dane ////


----------



## Sean K (27 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Keep posting Sume



But first review the ASF Posting Guidelines.

Please note No 4.

4. *Before clicking 'submit', please take a moment to proofread your post to avoid any unneccesary spelling or grammatical errors.* After submitting your post, you will have twenty minutes to make modifications to it. After this time if you wish to modify your post you will need to contact either the administrator or one of the site moderators.

And also the Code of Conduct.

Note No 2.

2. All members must treat other members with respect at all times. This means insults, name calling and personal attacks on other members are strictly forbidden. Forum trolling - the intentional provoking of other forum members - is also forbidden. Please treat other members as you yourself would wish to be treated. Repeated violations of this rule will result in the suspension of your Aussie Stock Forums account.

Cheers!


----------



## Juan Mortyme (27 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



great dame said:


> Hi folks Just had a look at the NSX Exchange  & its pretty grime  Buyers only have 320270 units  on offer to buy off us at an average price of only  8.75 cents  a unit




Yes, and I note that there are over 1 million units on offer from sellers.

With supply outstripping demand by more than 3 to 1, it doesn't look too healthy does it?


----------



## great dame (27 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> Yes, and I note that there are over 1 million units on offer from sellers.
> 
> With supply outstripping demand by more than 3 to 1, it doesn't look too healthy does it?



          OR another way of putting it Juan  Only  1buyer to over 3  sellers   I see some one cant flog them off at 15 Cents a unit  The buyers are holding there ground & will not budge from there bids  What  little there is is of them Its all very sad & upsetting / Dane ///


----------



## RickH (27 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

INTERESTING - What does everyone think of the following?

Andrew Peacock
Investment General Manager
Australian Securities Ltd
L1/180 Queen Street,
Melbourne
www.australiansecurities.com.au

25th November 2008:
Value of mortgage funds rose by 12.5% in the quarter ended 15 October 2008. Low management fee of 0.55%.
Conservative ratios 60% or less.
Regards, RickH:couch


----------



## Duped (28 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



RickH said:


> ...Andrew Peacock
> Investment General Manager
> Australian Securities Ltd
> L1/180 Queen Street,
> ...




The way I see it, the 12.5% growth is simply more money being deposited by investors.  Probably because "ASL has an 84 year history providing financial services to its investors and finance clients".  I.e. this is not a glam Gold Coast up start. 

From my reading - The fund charges interest to lenders at rates ranging between 7.85% to 11.75%, take their 0.55% cut and subtract 0.39% of the loan amount (p15 of the PDS) and give the rest to the investor as interest. Which is ???  You get your $ back when the loan's paid out. My guess, if you invest $100K in a 1 yr fixed mortgage paying 8.2% you get 7.26% i.e. 1.01% more than the Macquarie bank rate (6.25% for > $50K) listed as a comparison in the newsletter.  I.e. you get $1010 more a year (i.e. $19.42 a week) than the $6250 Macquarie would give you.  But is it worth the risk?  

IMO - not a chance. I'd rather cut my spending by that much.  E.g. Monday morning coffee & cake and a couple of Friday beers.  And if Ruddy doesn't like what that does to the economy then he needs to litigate against the PIF shysters to restore my confidence. 

Never forget ABS show total taxation revenue has increased from $217B in 01/02 to $319B in 06/07.  I.e. revenues are up 47% in five years.  Yep $319 BILLION. And they spend most of it. 28% of our GDP is under government control.


----------



## Duped (28 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

NSX update.  Offer to sell recorded: 100,000 at 13c.  Ouch!!!!!!


----------



## great dame (28 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> NSX update.  Offer to sell recorded: 100,000 at 13c.  Ouch!!!!!!



    Thanks Duped for that news  It seems to give me a hard feeling in my  tummy reading it  I will make happy hour run for 2 hours today  / Dane //


----------



## Duped (28 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> NSX update.  Offer to sell recorded: 100,000 at 13c.  Ouch!!!!!!




No takers yet.  And that's for securities that WC have promised 3c by Christmas and buyback at 45c in 09.

So you can buy 10,000 PIF units at 13c and get 48c back for them by end 09 and there's no takers.  WOW. Seems no one trusts WC. 

(Quoting myself??? What's become of me.)


----------



## Burnt (28 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

3 pm: 434,822 units sold for 12c

Gone below the threatened liquidation payout.

Interesting how JH said at the NSX conference that if the Fund had of been wound up, investors would have got one third of their investment back.


----------



## seamisty (28 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Media update NSX 28th Nov. $8.1 million debt still outstanding and has been extended to 19th Dec. A detailed fund update will be released on 10 th Dec. Please refer to NSX for complete update. Seamisty


----------



## demodocus (28 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> 434,822 units sold for 12c




Don't forget. On Monday if thou art a pensioner get thee down to Centrelink and get thy Wellington PIF holding value adjusted to gain a few more of Mr Swan's shekels.

I'd like to know who bought those shares


----------



## Jadel (28 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



demodocus said:


> Don't forget. On Monday if thou art a pensioner get thee down to Centrelink and get thy Wellington PIF holding value adjusted to gain a few more of Mr Swan's shekels.
> 
> I'd like to know who bought those shares





Likewise Demodocus 

 I also feel truely sorry for the poor  desperate souls that were forced to sell them

  Wonder if JH has any problems sleeping at night ?


----------



## ian1328 (28 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

In these sad times its important to laugh and I think is too funny not to share.


How to Shower like a Women

Take off clothes and place them sectioned in laundry basket according to lights and darks.

Walk to bathroom wearing long dressing gown.

If you see husband along the way, cover up any exposed areas.

Look at your womanly physique in the mirror - make mental note to do more sit-ups/leg-lifts etc.

Get in the shower.

Use face cloth, arm cloth, leg cloth, long loofah, wide loofah and pumice stone.

Wash your hair once with cucumber and sage shampoo with 43 added vitamins.

Wash your hair again to make sure it's clean.

Condition your hair with grapefruit mint conditioner enhanced.

Wash your face with crushed apricot facial scrub for 10 minutes until red.

Wash entire rest of body with ginger nut and jaffa cake body wash.

Rinse conditioner off hair.

Shave armpits and legs.

Turn off shower.

Squeegee off all wet surfaces in shower.

Spray mould spots with tile cleaner.

Get out of shower.

Dry with towel the size of a small country.

Wrap hair in super absorbent towel.

Return to bedroom wearing long dressing gown and towel on head.

If you see husband along the way, cover up any exposed areas.




How to Shower like a Man

Take off clothes while sitting on the edge of the bed and leave them in a pile.

Walk naked to the bathroom.

If you see wife along the way, shake willy at her making the 'woo-woo' sound.

Look at your manly physique in the mirror.

Admire the size of your willy and scratch your bum.

Get in the shower.

Wash your face.

Wash your armpits.

Blow your nose in your hands and let the water rinse them off.

Fart and laugh at how loud it sounds in the shower.

Spend majority of time washing privates and surrounding area.

Wash your bum, leaving those coarse bum hairs stuck on the soap.

Wash your hair.

make a shampoo Mowhawk...

Wee.

Rinse off and get out of shower.

Partially dry off.

Fail to notice water on the floor because curtain was hanging out of the bath the whole time.

Admire willy size in the mirror again.

Leave shower curtain open, wet mat on floor, light and fan on..

Return to bedroom with towel around waist.

If you pass wife, pull off towel, shake willy at her and make the 'woo-woo' sound again.

Throw wet towel on bed.

I KNOW YOU ARE LAUGHING CAUSE MOST OF IT'S TRUE!!!!!!!!!


----------



## seamisty (28 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

LOL at Ian and that is all very well for the guys that don't have a bad memory like old grandpa!!!:::::There was a family gathering, with all generations around the table.   Mischievous teenagers put a Viagra tablet into Grandpa's drink, and after a while, Grandpa excused himself because he had to go to the bathroom. 

When he returned, however, his trousers were wet all over.  'What happened, Grandpa?' he is asked by his concerned children. 

'Well,' he answered, 'I don't really know.  I had to go to the bathroom.  So I took it out and started to pee, but then I saw that it wasn't mine, so I put it back!'


----------



## ian1328 (28 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I was at my bank today. There was a short line. Just one lady in front of me . An Asian lady who was trying to exchange yen for dollars. It was obvious she was a little irritated . . . She asked the teller, "Why it change? Yesterday, I get two hunat dolla fo yen. Today I only get hunat eighty? Why it change?" The teller shrugged his shoulders and said, "Fluctuations." The Asian lady says, "Fluc you white people, too!"


----------



## seamisty (28 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



ian1328 said:


> I was at my bank today. There was a short line. Just one lady in front of me . An Asian lady who was trying to exchange yen for dollars. It was obvious she was a little irritated . . . She asked the teller, "Why it change? Yesterday, I get two hunat dolla fo yen. Today I only get hunat eighty? Why it change?" The teller shrugged his shoulders and said, "Fluctuations." The Asian lady says, "Fluc you white people, too!"



Lol Ian, but we will have to get back on topic or risk a drubbing. It is a major concern to me and others that the outstanding bank loan of $9.5 mill has only been reduced by $1.4mill in the past month and the loan has now been extended. This is a very real indication of how much income the PIF is not receiving and deserves a far more detailed update to unit holders from WC as to the current financial position of the fund and what we can expect in regard to future distributions and asset values in the interim.  The majority of us recognise the fact that we are experiencing extreme financial conditions that were not factored into WC's predictions and forecasts in regard to anticipated future returns and expectations originally of the PIF. However, the reality is that we need answers and expect that WC has a plan in place to deal with this current crisis and as unit holders, we deserve to be fully informed of the intentions of the RE as to how it intends to deal with this situation. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (28 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Likewise Demodocus
> 
> I also feel truely sorry for the poor  desperate souls that were forced to sell them
> 
> Wonder if JH has any problems sleeping at night ?



The last trades that totalled approx 494,00 were indicative to me Jadel of coming from one holder. I could be wrong but it looked to me that someone just wanted out, hence the last four being taken out in one hit of 12 cents. If this is the case, I  don't think this can be interpreted as 'panic' selling on a large scale. The buyer is probablly an astute investor that can recognise the long term potential of buying into a fund that has potential upside long term, and no, it was not me. Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (28 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> The last trades that totalled approx 494,00 were indicative to me Jadel of coming from one holder. I could be wrong but it looked to me that someone just wanted out, hence the last four being taken out in one hit of 12 cents. If this is the case, I  don't think this can be interpreted as 'panic' selling on a large scale. The buyer is probablly an astute investor that can recognise the long term potential of buying into a fund that has potential upside long term, and no, it was not me. Seamisty





You are right Seamisty.  Less than 0.1% of units are being listed by their holders.

Having said that, it is still so very sad that even this small number are forced to take what they can from the "vultures" who are hovering.


----------



## Burnt (28 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> The last trades that totalled approx 494,00 were indicative to me Jadel of coming from one holder. I could be wrong but it looked to me that someone just wanted out, hence the last four being taken out in one hit of 12 cents. If this is the case, I  don't think this can be interpreted as 'panic' selling on a large scale. The buyer is probablly an astute investor that can recognise the long term potential of buying into a fund that has potential upside long term, and no, it was not me. Seamisty




These are big assumptions to be making. I would certainly hope that this sale did not go through from one unit holder - that is one hell of a loss to take for one individual. They would have had to have been extremely desperate for access to funds - this is extremely sad and a situation that could have been avoided if this Fund had not been listed. No, it is not 'panic' selling if this is the case - it is an extremely sad situation of desperate need.

I seriously doubt it was one unit holder selling.

'Astute' investor - yes someone counting on the 3c distribution taking place - 25% on investment. The sellers obviously have no faith - the buyer does.
Anyone got any info on the cash payment expected ???

WC forecast was $1 back in 3-5 years - any info on that ??? 
Investors may have been able to wait the 3-5 years if the interim cash payments were to be made - in absence of these payments what alternative do they have ? Sell to the sharks waiting for the desperate to give in.


----------



## Jadel (29 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yes John,

   The Vultures are hovering  and have just had a tremendous feast . It is really irrelevant whether or not it is on one carcass or many.

 What I, (and probably Demodocus are both wondering) is ,if these particular birds are related in any way shape or form to WC.


----------



## seamisty (29 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Yes John,
> 
> The Vultures are hovering  and have just had a tremendous feast . It is really irrelevant whether or not it is on one carcass or many.
> 
> What I, (and probably Demodocus are both wondering) is ,if these particular birds are related in any way shape or form to WC.



Jadel do you also tag family members and friends 'vultures' when they go bargain hunting during retail sales where items are discounted to generate cash flow or to divest themselves of stock they can't afford to keep in their stores when times are tough? No one is disputing the fact that it is heartbreaking for investors who are forced to quit their units because of personal circumstances at these prices. Should people be called 'vultures' or greedy when they invest in products that offer a higher rate of return and risk than more conservative secure products offered by banks? Should every person that buys shares in companies that are trading well below current market value attributed to the current global financial be called 'vultures', or will we just save that name for people investing in the PIF? Seamisty


----------



## selciper (29 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It seems ages since we had expected the bank debt to be paid off. It just never seems to happen, so WC can't be critical of us "prisoners" being increasingly alarmed
by the fragility of their promises. What more bad news are we to expect? It's up to JH and the Board to get us off this treadmill and achieve the (anticipated) 45 cents value. The 45c was in writing and often spoken about by WC. The quote obviously influenced the vote outcome. Surely time will soon run out for a 24 December distribution. If WC think that they are misunderstood by PIF investors, it's due to WC's failings in communicating their strategies to us.


----------



## JohnH (29 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Jadel do you also tag family members and friends 'vultures' when they go bargain hunting during retail sales where items are discounted to generate cash flow or to divest themselves of stock they can't afford to keep in their stores when times are tough? No one is disputing the fact that it is heartbreaking for investors who are forced to quit their units because of personal circumstances at these prices. Should people be called 'vultures' or greedy when they invest in products that offer a higher rate of return and risk than more conservative secure products offered by banks? Should every person that buys shares in companies that are trading well below current market value attributed to the current global financial be called* 'vultures', or will we just save that name for people investing in the PIF*? Seamisty




Whoops - looks like I have had my wrist slapped! :whip I did put it in inverted commas - maybe "opportunists" would be more euphemistic.


----------



## seamisty (29 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Whoops - looks like I have had my wrist slapped! :whip I did put it in inverted commas - maybe "opportunists" would be more euphemistic.



 JohnH, can I have a loan of that whip please? I hope the PIF will have the funds to go ahead with the buyback as was promised as I know many investors are sweating on that. Does anyone know which specific projects linked to Raptis owe money to the PIF. I think there are 5-6 companies involved in Raptis developments that are now in the hands of receivers. Not looking good. Seamisty


----------



## great dame (30 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

You know folks an asset is only worth what a buyer is willing to pay for it  In the case of our fund PLF  the average  of all bids is 8,75 Cents  so the 12 cents of the last sale the sellers  did OK looking at it in that light    Remember always buyers control the sales not sellers  WE who are not selling are all stuck with shares that are only worth about 10 cents each   The sellers that got out at 12 cents each can now they can invest that money somewhere else  And watch it really grow  over the next 5 years  So really they did maybe the smart thing     I would  like to add in closing i totally blame the NSX exchange for the lack of buyers And the low bids   But there is nothing we can do about that now   / Dane ///


----------



## Mary Lynch (30 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well, Great Dame,  there you go!  It was me who sold all my shares on Friday for 12c.  I sold 62000 a couple of weeks ago at 20c...then no more life, so went the whole hog.

Macquarie Bank bought 50000 and a mob to do with cameras bought all the rest. The camera mob are responsible for all the present bids on the NSX.  My stockbroker approached them PRIOR to my sales @ 20c, and they offered 12c for the lot, so I whacked them on the market, and then they bought for 20c.  But when there was no more movement, I decided to get my money moving.

I am one to trust actions more than words, and with Blind Freddie being able to see that things were only getting worse for a while, I begin to see that JH is either stupid (thinking she could get 3c to us by Xmas) or hoping!!!

I decided to try and remove my "hope"...which I have long regarded as my eternal optimism that has served me well in the past (positive thinking and all that) and look hard at the long term view minus HOPE.....figures and logic added to the realisitic possibility of say a 3 year plateau and then maybe a gradual return.

For me, it wasn't a pretty site!!! As many of you know we were btwn houses when our $$$ froze 2 days before redemption. We had already signed a contract to buy an house, thus we are now sporting a whacking great mortgage, and I (having retired comfortably) am back at work full time ++.
My husband (70 yrs old) is trying to get a pension....and has been trying for 2 months. Both our allocated pensions have gone into the mortgage....he can't get another.   We also have over $450K with City Pac...and $200K with WPS who have also frozen!! Thus we are severely strapped, and maybe letting these shares go will give John his pension; after all the $$ with WC are pretty dead for the next 5+ years aren't they?

I want to thank all of you who have been an enormous support to me over this year. Its been a terrible nightmare, and I feel a lot less stressed now, and that means a lot to me. I don't want to "wonder if" any more....I want control!

Seamisty, Breaker, Dora, Rocky (are you there?) and (even) Great Dame....and many more, you have all been an inspiration. Thanks so much....and all the very best of luck with the WCPIF.


----------



## Jadel (30 November 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Mary

I am truely saddened

 Please accept my good wishes for the future 

Warm Regards Chris


----------



## Duped (1 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Likewise, I'm saddened to hear your story. Please accept my best wishes for your future prosperity.  And thank you very very much for that last posting.  The information you gave is more enlightening than a hundred phone calls to WC and a thousand of my postings of speculation and query.

Some of those NSX transactions were going through very quickly and I was beginning to wonder if there were off market dealings going on. Perhaps even wash transactions.  You've answered my questions.


----------



## Mary Lynch (1 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Actually, it was Camerons Stockbrokers in Sydney who bought my shares, in case anyone is interested.


----------



## selciper (1 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

For anyone who understands PIF's links to Raptis the following newspaper item might be of interest.

http://news.google.com.au/news/url?...762582&usg=AFQjCNGYcKNtMQlWNFlvjQgF5T3c46glpQ


----------



## sugar3157 (2 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Seamisty all, I keep dropping in to read if there is anything new going on with PIF...nothing exciting or uplifting lately...but one can only hope for a miricle or 2... 
would anyone know anything about "Orchard" investment property trust?
do you think the will hit the wall like other funds?
they are just another wonderful investment my financial advisor put me in...
thanks all...


----------



## breaker1 (2 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> I want to thank all of you who have been an enormous support to me over this year. Its been a terrible nightmare, and I feel a lot less stressed now, and that means a lot to me. I don't want to "wonder if" any more....I want control!
> 
> Seamisty, Breaker, Dora, Rocky (are you there?) and (even) Great Dame....and many more, you have all been an inspiration. Thanks so much....and all the very best of luck with the WCPIF.




God bless ya Mary!

The way the economy is going, you may be getting more than the rest of us get later!

The PIF was just the tip of the financial crash iceburg.


----------



## seamisty (2 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Hi Seamisty all, I keep dropping in to read if there is anything new going on with PIF...nothing exciting or uplifting lately...but one can only hope for a miricle or 2...
> would anyone know anything about "Orchard" investment property trust?
> do you think the will hit the wall like other funds?
> they are just another wonderful investment my financial advisor put me in...
> thanks all...



Never heard of this one Sugar and very little info out there in regard to it. Will send you some extra info in regard to PIF via personal message. Not much good news for investors in any context unfortunately. Seamisty


----------



## sugar3157 (3 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Never heard of this one Sugar and very little info out there in regard to it. Will send you some extra info in regard to PIF via personal message. Not much good news for investors in any context unfortunately. Seamisty




Thanks for that info Seamisty....
can our units be taken off the NSX and be made back to just units ?
like the $1 unit shares we originally bought?
or are we stuck forever on the NSX?
regards


----------



## great dame (4 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Thanks for that info Seamisty....
> can our units be taken off the NSX and be made back to just units ?
> like the $1 unit shares we originally bought?
> or are we stuck forever on the NSX?
> regards



  Sugar   Hudson got the vote  she wanted & its NSX for ever
  Our unit price has dropped 835% from a Dollar   So at a growth rate of 10% average a year it  you would be able to sell & get a Dollar for your units in about 75 to 80 years   A Dollar would be worthless by then  (inflation) so  really there is only one winner to all this mess  & we all know who that is  Enjoy your day  / Dane //


----------



## great dame (4 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Thanks for that info Seamisty....
> can our units be taken off the NSX and be made back to just units ?
> like the $1 unit shares we originally bought?
> or are we stuck forever on the NSX?
> regards



  Sugar   Hudson got the vote  she wanted & its NSX for ever
  Our unit price has dropped 90% from a Dollar   So at a growth rate of 10% average a year it  you would be able to sell & get a Dollar for your units in about 75 to 80 years   A Dollar would be worthless by then  (inflation) so  really there is only one winner to all this mess  & we all know who that is  Enjoy your day  / Dane //


----------



## selciper (4 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Interesting article in today's Australian about Fincorp and Trustees.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24748462-2702,00.html


----------



## breaker1 (4 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Quote from Crikey.com under:*
Dear Squatters,

What a difference two months can make in hard-nosed, informed assessment of the state of the domestic economy: 

October 4-5, editorial:
"Risk of recession looks remote"


November 11:
"We're heading closer to recession"


November 15-16:
"The perfect storm has only just begun"


November 22-23:
"Dark clouds on investment horizon"

December 4:
"Recession looms large as growth drops close to zero" 

Presumably that's why they call it the Financial "Review", because, you know, everything's always under consideration.
*Not looking forward to the January editorial!*


----------



## Mutchy (5 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> Hi Seamisty all, I keep dropping in to read if there is anything new going on with PIF...nothing exciting or uplifting lately...but one can only hope for a miricle or 2...
> would anyone know anything about "Orchard" investment property trust?
> do you think the will hit the wall like other funds?
> they are just another wonderful investment my financial advisor put me in...
> thanks all...




Sugar,
Sorry this reply is late - I don't come here very often.
I am an investor in Orchard.
You should have received your Orchard Outlook for the last quarter. You will see that this 30 page document details the investment strategy for each of the funds under management together with brief financial statements, an assessment of the past and future trading conditions, fund overview, tenancy details, debt maturity profile, portfolio overview, position in relation to key debt covenants, additional information with respect to the funds LVR (Loan to Value ratio), performance to date , a table of identified risks and the corresponding management strategy and a reference to their website where regular news bulletins are posted.
You will have received similar documents - not quite so long but equally informative each quarter without fail.
Now compare those documents, the quality of information and the level of information  with those that Wellington Capital have produced since they took over and you will see that your investment in Orchard is being managed by *professionals.*
You have more than enough information to judge for yourself whether or not your Orchard Investment is safe.

Mutchy


----------



## demodocus (5 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Those of you who play in ASX will be happy to see the bounce starting from 21/11/08, banks are up nicely on the bottom.

Those of you who believe in the Seamisty/Hutson/husband/Scott combine have watched the PIF slip from $1.00 to $0.45 to $0.13 as at 05/12/2008.

I'm happy to place a small wager that my "bottom" investment in ANZ at $13.01 will outperform this group of silly hairdressers and wastrels attempts by June 30 2009.

NEVER a consider a woman when you can buy a dog.


----------



## great dame (5 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just got off the phone from WC  to get the latest BC  Told an up date coming next Wednesday  About a payment B4 Xmas I asked when X div day will be then Got the same answer as once before  Whats an X div day ??   O boy nothing has changed   When ever will they train there staff to answer simple questions  / Dane ///


----------



## charles36 (5 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am one of the unlucky one's that have another investment gone bad.  Would anybody on this forum have an investment with LKM Capital Limited or if not know anybody that has such an investment.  I would like to contact any person in this predicament to compare notes.  Olease contact me through this forum to arrange further contact.


----------



## Burnt (5 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> For anyone who understands PIF's links to Raptis the following newspaper item might be of interest.
> 
> http://news.google.com.au/news/url?...762582&usg=AFQjCNGYcKNtMQlWNFlvjQgF5T3c46glpQ




Here's an earlier related article.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,24421499-664,00.html

It's a very tangled web.


----------



## 2CentsWorth (5 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> I am one of the unlucky one's that have another investment gone bad. Would anybody on this forum have an investment with LKM Capital Limited or if not know anybody that has such an investment. I would like to contact any person in this predicament to compare notes. Olease contact me through this forum to arrange further contact.




Hi Charles,

For the latest on LKM Capital, go here:

http://www.finda.com.au/story/2008/11/22/3-cents-forchristmas-three-cents-return-for-invest/

Unfortunately, not so good, but Merry Christmas any way! 
:xmaswave


----------



## charles36 (6 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks 2 cents worth, It never rains but it poors.  I have found out the hard way but  bit late in life to fully recover.


----------



## Jadel (6 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well Charles that is a hell of a lot better than we can expect for the PIF on the NSX over the next 3 years.

 At least they have a receiver that is obtaining the best possible value for the assets.



The report from receiver Ferrier Green Krejci Silvia has found the anticipated return for investors in LKM Capital is between 41 and 60 cents on the dollar, with future distributions expected to be made over a three-year time frame.

But even the lifeline of three cents in the dollar before Christmas may not be realised, due to an outstanding loan repayment. 

“We have now developed a realisation strategy for each asset held by LKM and we are now in the process of realising LKM's assets,” receiver Andrew Cummins said.

The receiver claims the assets, which include a sub-division in Coffs Harbour and two commercial properties in Sawtell, will need to be sold individually to recoup the money invested by 1180 investors, and certain projects in the LKM loan book require more than $3 million to complete to ensure the assets realise their full value.


----------



## JohnH (6 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I know it is not much of an improvement, but I see there were 3 sales yesterday.  2 at 12.5 and 1 @ 13 cents.  At least it is moving in the right direction!!


----------



## Joe Blow (9 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We have removed, and will continue to remove, posts in this thread (and elsewhere on the forums when we spot them) where entire articles are reproduced with no link to the original source.

I urge all participating in this thread to review this thread on respecting copyright: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10373


----------



## Juan Mortyme (9 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This in today's Australian 
link: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24770504-5012436,00.html

note: hope moderators are satisfied this time. Even though link wasn't included previously, author and source were cited. Also note that links after a certain time may be "broken" or no longer valid.



> Little Xmas cheer for Wellington Premium Income Fund
> 
> by SHAREHOLDER: Stuart Wilson | December 09, 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## Wolfgang (9 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good morning Juan
Thanks for the link and hang in there.
Wolfgang


----------



## selciper (9 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We should know a great deal more tomorrow. I certainly don't like the reference made to a"fire sale" in today's Australian article. The writer seems reasonably clued up and would appear to report accurately on PIF investors' present feelings.
The reference to ASIC was interesting.


----------



## Burnt (9 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Selciper,
I agree with you that Stuart Wilson in his article is reporting accurately on PIF investors' present feelings. I particularly agree with his point regarding three strikes 
- no disclosure of the accurate value of the fund,
- no distributions, 
- and no investor advisory committee.
All of these things were meant to be delivered prior to year end.

Stuart Wilson's reference to ASIC, is in relation to the outcome if PIF investors had of voted against Wellingtons resolutions. That is, if an administrator or receiver had of been appointed, investors may have only got the threatened 14c in the dollar (probably more as administrators have the necessary professional skills to manage funds for the benefit of investors), and as part of the administrators' investigations, the fraud and theft that had occurred would have been uncovered & then referred to ASIC (who may very well have instigated proceedings for prosecution and compensation).

As far as the reference to "fire sale" of assets, how may of the funds assets have been sold at a profit ?? Who knows - this sort of information is not being disclosed.

Danger, to suggest that what was inferred was that ASIC would step in because of a low return to investors is ridiculous. I'm sure that ASIC responds to complaints backed by facts and evidence of breaches of law.

By the way, how does one "research" Wellington's strategies ? 
How is it that you are aware of Wellington's strategies and operations ?
Now that the fund is listed, isn't it a requirement that all such information is disclosed to the public via the NSX ?

If Wellington is disclosing certain information privately, then we should all make complaints to the NSX !!!


----------



## sugar3157 (9 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

At the end of October, Wellington announced that despite asset sales of $98 million, the outstanding liability had only been reduced to $9.5 million. 

The much anticipated distribution of 3c per unit was cancelled. 

Last month, Wellington announced that it had only been able to pay off a further $1.4 million in debt and that the remaining $8.1 million is due by next Wednesday, after having been given a reprieve by its lenders. A fire sale is now in progress. 

Tomorrow, Wellington will provide a long-overdue "detailed fund update". This should include a breakdown of specific assets and their valuations, the status of the remaining debt and the manager's plan to find the $8.1 million owing to keep the fund alive. 

It also needs to fess up as to the likelihood of realising an extra $22 million to fund its planned distribution of 3c per unit, due to be paid in just over a fortnight. 

Its investors, badly burned by MFS, might have banked as little as 14c and wished ASIC well in its pursuit of the wrongdoers, but at least had some return and some closure. 

Stuart Wilson is chief executive of the Australian Shareholders' Association



Can someone please tell me 
if they have sold $98million and only paid off $9.5  million where has the rest of the money gone?


----------



## gimmster (9 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



sugar3157 said:


> At the end of October, Wellington announced that despite asset sales of $98 million, the outstanding liability had only been reduced to $9.5 million. ... Can someone please tell me
> if they have sold $98million and only paid off $9.5  million where has the rest of the money gone?




reduced *to* $9.5 million
not
reduced *by* $9.5 million


----------



## sugar3157 (9 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



gimmster said:


> reduced *to* $9.5 million
> not
> reduced *by* $9.5 million




Sorry...thank you


----------



## Juan Mortyme (10 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Don't Blame the Crisis*  Article in The Age 10/12/08

Link: http://business.theage.com.au/business/dont-blame-the-crisis-20081210-6va1.html

.........
Wellington's Waterloo

Comparing City with another Gold Coast outfit Wellington PIF (formerly MFS then Octaviar), Wellington jagged control of a similar sized fund on the promise of distributions, a buy-back of some units at 45 cents, and recovery over time with listing on the NSX at 45 cents per unit.

Since Wellington’s Jenny Hutson won control of the fund it has dropped to trade around 12 cents per unit, no payments, no buy-back, and practically no cash flow. Pensioners are getting out at 12 cents to ''bottom feeders'' with patient capital.......................


[excerpt only - see link for full article]


----------



## selciper (10 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Re the SMH article, it should be noted that Michael West is very well regarded as a financial journalist. He's a wizard with numbers and, daily, surveys the background chatter on investments. Now it's up to JH and her Board to prove his analysis as being wrong. Will that happen?


----------



## Burnt (10 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Selciper,

I agree with you regarding Michael West - he has an ability to see things as they are. His article nicely sums up the situation regarding what was promised and what has now happened. Also, his comments on JH's plan of locking the money into the Fund is spot on.

In spite of what some people's opinions might be, it is good to know that there are public commentators like Michael West and Stuart Wilson around to keep their eyes on what is happening and publish reports that reflect the thoughts and sentiments of a lot of investors.

Having been a victim of "Danger's" personal attacks, I understand and fully support the deletion of his posts, however, the information he posted (which I wish I had of saved) could be seen as evidence of breaches of disclosure requirements & would have been passed onto the NSX.


----------



## Prospector (10 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I really dont have time to read through 127 pages, but is anyone here joining the IMF class action against MFS?


----------



## selciper (10 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Important - NSX announcement


http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021721048.PDF


----------



## zixo (10 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hands up anyone who still have confidence in Jenny Hutson and wellington Capital


----------



## Duped (10 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Prospector said:


> I really dont have time to read through 127 pages, but is anyone here joining the IMF class action against MFS?




Class Action is for OCV shareholders who bought shares after a certain date.  Aug07 I think.  It's not open to PIF investors. OCV shareholder's interests conflicts with PIF unit holders'.

We're on our own. Nobody is doing squat to help PIF investors. Federal governments are throwing 100s of billions around, interest rates are plumeting and what do we have: press reports about fire sales because PIF can't cover a paltry $8M debt after the former leader of the conservative movement in this country presided over $147.5M being stolen from us. Still no action by ASIC or the ACCC. An ATO that's collecting taxes from our pockets for 'trust distributions' we are never going to see and is competing with us over the OCV carcass which was probably the remains of the RBOS cash laundered through PIF. 

And they wonder why confidence won't lift.  The whole thing is a giant farce.


----------



## Prospector (10 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Class Action is for OCV shareholders who bought shares after a certain date.  Aug07 I think.




Yep, I bought MFS on 31st August 07 and two more parcels in September 07.


----------



## selciper (10 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Zixo - Very few hands will shoot up. 
Imagine not being on the internet and being a PIF investor! There are thousands of our friends going to bed tonight not knowing of the NSX announcement. I guess they'll sleep better than I. The point is now being reached when I can longer have confidence in WC's strategies or statements. Until now, I have been cautiously willing to believe in WC, but the NSX announcement makes me uneasy. (I expected a distribution date to have been fixed.)

No doubt JH will soon tell us about the global financial crisis and even how Iceland's troubles have reached Brisbane. WC knew what they were taking on...it's their job to look after us. Good on the journalists for watching the twists and turns.


----------



## Burnt (10 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I wonder at what point in time investors will conclude that Wellington is incompetent. Bearing in mind the statement JH made at the investor meeting on 18th Sept.2008 regarding WC waiving their huge exit fee.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (10 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> I wonder at what point in time investors will conclude that Wellington is incompetent. Bearing in mind the statement JH made at the investor meeting on 18th Sept.2008 regarding WC waiving their huge exit fee.




I'd imagine some time soon now that WC's fan club has deserted this site. Some have now found solace at another forum which rhymes with "rot dropper" but unfortunately the moderators here will not let me mention


----------



## Burnt (10 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> I'd imagine some time soon now that WC's fan club has deserted this site. Some have now found solace at another forum which rhymes with "rot dropper" but unfortunately the moderators here will not let me mention




"rot dropper".........that's funny!!!! (and probably true!!)

Have noticed the absence of a few. I suppose it's less conspicuous (spell check please) than sending private messages via a public forum.

Anyway, it's very bad to have a market halt and then no announcement when it has been advised and awaited. WC must realise what they are doing to people and to themselves. It's a hole that is getting dug deeper and deeper.


----------



## Burnt (11 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Interesting to note that in WC's trading halt announcement today they wouldn't even commit themselves to publishing an investor update by Friday.

Also interesting that the Qld Supreme Court had ordered the OCV creditors meeting to be held by today & this did not happen.


----------



## BootsnAll (11 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Here's the latest from Wellington.

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021721057.PDF

Cheers


----------



## Duped (11 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

So 97% means further write downs?  I.e. we only got back 97% of the written down value? Does that account for the 1c drop in 'value' to 44c.

I love it how the 1st quote on page 2 puts the word 'value' in inverted commas. All the BS marketing material and reports til now certainly haven't had that term in %@$*ing inverted commas.  Would have painted a completely different picture if it did.

Looks like a lot of write downs have been crystallized.  Depressing reading.


----------



## selciper (11 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I'm no financial genius, but I thought the news would be worse than I read into it. The distribution failure after the promises made is very, very poor. Two weeks ago I was told that there would definitely be a payment of sorts by 24 December. WC's credibility as a result is at a low ebb. At least the management fee "bait" will keep them working hard. I remain sceptical in the extreme. Hopefully some clever contributor to the forum will crunch the numbers.


----------



## JohnH (11 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Burnt said:


> "rot dropper".........that's funny!!!! (and probably true!!)
> 
> *Have noticed the absence of a few. I suppose it's less conspicuous (spell check please) than sending private messages via a public forum.*
> Anyway, it's very bad to have a market halt and then no announcement when it has been advised and awaited. WC must realise what they are doing to people and to themselves. It's a hole that is getting dug deeper and deeper.




We are still out here Burnt - maybe a bit shell shocked by the (until now) lack of communication.. I do believe that Wellington would have had a lot less flack it they had been a bit more open on what was happening.

One small point I notice in the publication today which contradicts some speculation.  Wellington will not pay themselves fees (which we knew) *or accrue fees *(which the speculation was about) until they have paid us 3 cents!


----------



## Burnt (11 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> We are still out here Burnt - maybe a bit shell shocked by the (until now) lack of communication.. I do believe that Wellington would have had a lot less flack it they had been a bit more open on what was happening.
> 
> One small point I notice in the publication today which contradicts some speculation.  Wellington will not pay themselves fees (which we knew) *or accrue fees *(which the speculation was about) until they have paid us 3 cents!




I agree John, it is the one bit of good news that management fees are not accruing while we suffer - justified I'd say.
However, I am still not happy about the basis on which these fees will be calculated - 44c or 45c while the current average market value is approx. 15c


----------



## selciper (11 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I find it puzzling that a very damaging headline like WELLINGTON'S WATERLOO (SMH and AGE) can be apparently ignored by WC public relations. Very odd.


----------



## CableGuy (11 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

JH made big election promises to win the vote and now the truth can be laid bare for all to see.

WC estimated in the EM less than 4 months ago that the yearly ongoing costs of the fund would be 1.32M and now WC tell us they have spent 10.95M in only 6 months!  Projected over a year that's a 1900% cost blowout.  

I bet that WC are working around the clock for the benefit of unitholders, billing the PIF at inflated charge out rates for their time, just to keep the wheels on their porta-loo.

Everyone needs to press the NSX for disclosure of details relating to this massive cost blowout by WC.  Transperancy of costs to include expenses that WC are charging directly to the PIF along with how the 3.75M that OCV gave WC for the PIF has been spent.

-----
"Here is a comment card. Please mail it in when I am done."


----------



## Burnt (11 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Selciper, WC seems quite happy to ignore or overlook many things.
I've only started going thru their update and immediately several things stand out as being sloppy and show not that much attention is paid to detail and / or the amount of value they are providing in the information they supply.

These points may seem trivial, but if WC put the same amount of effort into providing quality information as they do into presenting excuses and PR speak, we'd all be better off.

1)  On page 3 the total of Actual Asset Realisations does not add up to $115.577mil,

2)  On page 4 the Liability figures do not add up, therefore the Net Asset figures are not correct.

3)  When comparing the figures in the Asset Realisations Table to the figures presented on the 24th Oct., it shows that $17.3mil was realised during the period 24/10/08 to 10/12/08. Only $3.6mil has been paid off the debt. Wouldn't it make more sense to stall creditors that are not charging interest than to keep a loan going at 20% interest.

4)  The Operating Costs for the last 7.5 months as shown on page 1 are nearly $11mil. This total cost over 7.5 months is nearly 10 times the amount WC "estimated" for the year as presented in their Explanatory Memorandum.

5)  On page 10 comments are made about Octaviar Limited. The second creditors meeting is due to be held on 17th December not the 19th. WC are still trying to make investors believe that they are going to recover the $50mil support facility and the $147.5mil claim. The administrators of Octaviar issued a creditors report yesterday that gives a realistic picture of the situation, yet WC doesn't bother to mention any of the facts given in this report.

These are my initial comments.


----------



## stmt (11 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good evening

Have been following the thread for some time and finally thought I should put my two cents worth in.

Wellington Capital got written a cheque for over $3.7 million by Octaviar when they took on the fund so not getting their fee would not be that stressful.

On top of this it is misleading when they say they are not drawing their fee.

The fund is paying all of their costs which would include staff, rent etc. Have a read of the constitition and they have a extensive array of things they can recover and are taking out in cash. Funny how their wording in the report uses the word "including" when talking about expenses and dont talk about the costs they are taking out.

So the management fee would be close to pure profit and they will get that at some stage and it will back dated using the 45 cents per unit value. Dont feel to sorry for our Jenny.

The other issue I find frustrating and I like others I believe have complained to NSX is that the tables only show what they achieved in a sale versus their own estimated realisable value.

I think I can get 10 bucks for it and then hey I got ten bucks for it. To bad we paid $30 for it but we wont tell them that !

For full disclosure we need to see what loss has occurred on each sale so we can more openly track the fund position.

The table without the original value is very misleading.

I guess though that NSX doesnt want to upset their biggest client by forcing them to provide meaniful disclosure.


----------



## Burnt (11 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Stmt,

Nice to see you posting your comments. You are quite right about WC not disclosing the costs they are indirectly charging the fund. 
Their managment fees will 100% tax free profit for them. The constitution not only provides for all costs to be reimbursed but it also states that all WC's taxes should be paid from the Fund.
Also you are 100% correct about WC not providing full disclosure when reporting asset realisations. Complaints and requests have been made to WC and NSX regarding this. The book value, even if written down, should be shown to compare realisations so that losses can be clearly seen.


----------



## Joe Blow (12 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We have discovered that stmt is another incarnation of former ASF member Iceman and this user name has also been suspended.

We have made it very clear from the outset that each individual is entitled to one user name only and those caught using more than one ASF account will be permanently suspended and be named in this thread. 

Registering more than one user name is deceptive behaviour and if you do it you will be caught.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (12 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Article in Courier Mail
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24787711-3122,00.html
By Anthony Marx
December 11, 2008 11:00pm
FAILED finance and tourism group Octaviar may have traded while insolvent and made up to $30 million in unfair preference payments, according to a creditors' report released yesterday.Administrators John Greig and Nicholas Harwood of accounting firm Deloitte are recommending that creditors owed more than $1 billion vote for a deed of company arrangement at a meeting to be held in Brisbane next Wednesday.

Under that scenario, those owed money would claw back at most 4c in the dollar.....
[continued - see link for rest of article]


----------



## deano1 (12 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

have a look at how many of those properties are now under wellingtons control as mortgagee in possession - the market tells no lies - forget the wishful thinking 44c valuation - your units are worth 11c and probably going to go south before they go north - Wellington is a distressed seller the market knows it and its now a game of brinkmanship - wellington need money to keep the fund running and recovering their costs - they have shareholders screaming for the dividend they have been promised and they have potential buyers of those assets fully aware of the predicament they are in - WC cannot deliver what they promised - never have been able to and never will - the excuses will keep coming thick and fast and they will continue to milk the liquidity out of the fund thru recoving costs.


----------



## selciper (12 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Breaker 1,

Could you tell us your thoughts about the present situation? It's thanks to you that this forum exists.


----------



## Juan Mortyme (12 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Octaviar - Report to Creditors from Deloitte's available here:
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/article/0,1002,cid%3D238832,00.html 
and here: http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/article/0,1002,cid%3D238831,00.html

Lots of information.


----------



## Duped (12 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The 5 Deloitte reports weigh in at a collective 335 pages.  Anyone know how many of them apply to PIF? Apart from the OCV Ltd one of course.

I'm wondering if the $3.7M paid to keep PIF going was seen as a preferential payment.  Or the direct payment to WC - $750K wasn't it.

RE the  costs of $10.95M since 2 May.  A chunk of that $11M would be interest on the $147.5M OCV laundered through PIF from RBOS.  How much interest?  We're not told. 20% on $20M for 3 months would be at least $1M. The outstanding RBOS debt would have incurred penalty rates of I'm guessing 12%.  12% of $100M for 4 months would be at least $4M.  So where did the other $5M go.  And is that on top of the $4M+ OCV Ltd threw PIF and WC's way?

Seems the rout is continuing.

The secretive behaviour continues.  

And ASA's Stuart Wilson wonders why unit holders aren't buying units.  I haven't seen anything to show he is putting direct pressure on the NSX for greater disclosure from WC. (All these press reports are doing $hit for us.  Still no action from ASIC.)


----------



## Duped (12 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



deano1 said:


> have a look at how many of those properties are now under wellingtons control as mortgagee in possession - the market tells no lies - forget the wishful thinking 44c valuation - your units are worth 11c and probably going to go south before they go north - Wellington is a distressed seller the market knows it and its now a game of brinkmanship - wellington need money to keep the fund running and recovering their costs - they have shareholders screaming for the dividend they have been promised and they have potential buyers of those assets fully aware of the predicament they are in - WC cannot deliver what they promised - never have been able to and never will - the excuses will keep coming thick and fast and they will continue to milk the liquidity out of the fund thru recoving costs.




Absolutely.

And I expect more big write downs. Status of 2 of the Mortgages is 'managed by liquidator' (Lane Cove $9,479,628 & Chatswood $4,608,231 - that's 1.87c per share or nearly 15% of the 12.5c the NSX market has valued our shares at) I read this as PIF having sub-prime securitisation over these properties.  Why else would PIF hand the asset over to a liquidator and not take possesion.  More junk in our portfolio?  

What about the $41M Creswick mortgages?  Anyone know if this is a 1st mortgage over 100% of the asset?


----------



## breaker1 (12 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Hi Breaker 1,
> 
> Could you tell us your thoughts about the present situation? It's thanks to you that this forum exists.




G'day Selciper,

Personally, although financially painful, I would have to agree with the WC strategy of paying off debt first, as going into debt further, to make distributions, has to be foolish in the current financial environment. Even if WC can pay the $5.95M by 19 December, I doubt it could raise the further $20M needed to pay the 3c by 24 December. Wellington says, "the timing of the [3c] payment is uncertain".

Looking at some of the figures in the update a very rough estimate is that WC is collecting approx. $16M per month and at that rate, after debt is hopefully paid by 19 December and all going well, we MAY see a 3c distribution paid by late January or early February 2009, either in one lump or in part payments.

We have to put this whole mess into perspective, otherwise we are fools to ourselves, we are one of about 40-50 funds that have been frozen (one report I heard on the radio even mentioned 89 funds frozen if you can believe it). I have been reading news reports on the net and there is talk that the USA might even slide from recession into a full blown depression. There is also talk that the recession will hit Australia hard come mid to end of next year when the long term mining/mineral contracts have to be renewed with China, Japan and India. It is being speculated that they will be bargaining for an 80% drop from current payments per tonne. If that happens our economy will be stuffed, because we don't manufacture anymore. I guess it will hit WA hardest. 

See this article on the Storm Financial Group - which might be our biggest upcoming crash so far: http://business.theage.com.au/business/storm-turns-into-typhoon-20081212-6x2y.html

We're now just one of many - even though that doesn't take the pain away.

I am surprised at the 19 mortgages we have in PIF possession - trusting that WC manages them wisely and that they contribute to the PIF in the future.


----------



## doctorj (13 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A reminder to those participating in this thread.  We have removed additional posts today.



Joe Blow said:


> We have removed, and will continue to remove, posts in this thread (and elsewhere on the forums when we spot them) where entire articles are reproduced with no link to the original source.
> 
> I urge all participating in this thread to review this thread on respecting copyright: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10373


----------



## Juan Mortyme (13 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Financial Review 12/12/08 by Lisa Allan
Link at time of upload : http://www.afr.com/home/viewer.aspx...n=property&title=Hopes+of+$341m+from+Octaviar

Key Points:
At least $2.7 billion is owed from the Octaviar collapse.
Shareholders will get nothing from the collapse of the company.


----------



## Burnt (13 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Juan Mortyme said:


> Financial Review 12/12/08 by Lisa Allan
> Link at time of upload : http://www.afr.com/home/viewer.aspx...n=property&title=Hopes+of+$341m+from+Octaviar
> 
> Key Points:
> ...




Surely inter-company loans will not be looked at seriously ?

What is PIF's position when the legal proceedings have not actually "proceeded" and no out of court settlement has been agreed upon ?
How can it be recognised as a debt ?


----------



## JohnH (13 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good to see that after the suspension the NSX is showing (albeit a tad) a bit more positiveness.


----------



## Rhys99 (13 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*




Juan Mortyme said:


> Financial Review 12/12/08 by Lisa Allan
> Link at time of upload : http://www.afr.com/home/viewer.aspx...n=property&title=Hopes+of+$341m+from+Octaviar
> 
> Key Points:
> ...




Is PIF a secured or unsecured creditor?


----------



## selciper (13 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This link has nothing do with our concerns. However, it's an interesting story from Bloomberg which sets your mind working on a few levels. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aMfFYXi.JhQI


----------



## danger danger (14 December 2008)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

What was required was another contender with the same calibre of presentation with a better alternative that was being proposed by WC. Unfortunately, that never happened so we had to gamble on the only RE that materialized. 

I wish we had another choice, it is sad we didn't. Maybe we should have done more to find one, and I felt guilty for not trying to do more. 

Now I realise why that alternative to challenge WC for the rights to be an RE to our fund was never going to happen. That is because our fund was so badly compromised. It was and still is a basket case. 

It will take a lot for it to be anywhere near the fund that we thought we had our money invested in. I am not making excuses for WC, but it it is a huge mess. They no doubt knew that, and so did anyone else that may have done due diligence.

Now looking back on my decision to go with WC, I am not regretful. I feel that based on how bad the state of the fund is, trying to liquidate the fund, even over a 2 year period would yield a very poor result in the current market downturn.

To be honest I think that even JH would be astounded at how difficult the situation is now. I just hope she doesn't quit it, I know others including the MFS previous board would have.

At the end of the day, we are just investors who are involved in an investment vehicle that crashed, and is now barely alive in intensive care. I hope we can live on, but it really is now a day to day proposition.

I hope 2009 will be better than this miserable old year!!!

I bear no grudges to people that in the past I had a differing point of view, and apologise to those that I may have offended at any stage of defending what I thought was (and still believe is for at least myself) the best way of going forward and protecting my investment and maximising my future return ,when there are more favourable market conditions.


----------



## Calliope (11 May 2009)

*Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Is discussion of the Wellington PIF still on the ASF banned list. If not I think a little bit of info would not go astray.


http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25457668-3122,00.html


----------



## coppo (12 May 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Yes, I'd love to hear some news. If anyone knows of anything, it would be much appreciated. 
Just thought I'd lengthen this post to 100 characters.


----------



## Calliope (12 May 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



coppo said:


> Yes, I'd love to hear some news. If anyone knows of anything, it would be much appreciated.
> Just thought I'd lengthen this post to 100 characters.




Yes coppo, we will just have to keep this thread prominent to find the hundreds of people who have perhaps almost given up hope regarding the outcomes of this fund. It would be appreciated if anyone who knows how the fund is tracking could respond.


----------



## atlas1950 (24 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

I stumbled on this site and am thrilled we have a forum to discuss the many issues that is in front of us.

The previous site was really informative, and I hope many investors can be made aware of this site, so that we can continue to be informed.

Let's get the message out there to the many MFS/Octaviar investors who are craving for information.

Michael


----------



## charles36 (24 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

If we are going to use this thread I respectfully request all users show consideration and courtesy to each other and leave no cause for elimination of site again.  This is a valuable asset and it is a critical time for us all to be constructive and work together towards a common goal and that is win the class action and restore some financial stability to us all.


----------



## atlas1950 (24 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

I totally agree with you that investors should be respectful and to use this forum as a vehicle to obtain information and to share different points of view.

Let us hope that this time that a few don't spoil it for all the others.

I believe that the next relevant date for us is Tuesday 30th June, when Carney's is back in court re: KPMG. If anybody hears anything, please post asap

Spread the word that this forum is up and running.


Michael


----------



## seamisty (24 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



charles36 said:


> If we are going to use this thread I respectfully request all users show consideration and courtesy to each other and leave no cause for elimination of site again.  This is a valuable asset and it is a critical time for us all to be constructive and work together towards a common goal and that is win the class action and restore some financial stability to us all.



Totally agree Charles and any PIF Unit Holders interested in the Class Action who have not contacted the lawyers previously may do so by contacting
George Hoddle 

Solicitor

Carneys Lawyers
Level 5
70 Castlereagh St
SYDNEY NSW 2000

DX 998 Sydney
P: (02) 8226 5555
F: (02) 8226 5556

Regards, Seamisty


----------



## atlas1950 (24 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Nice to see your posting, Seamisty. Looking forward to some positive posting from you and all the OLD gang. 

Michael


----------



## seamisty (24 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



atlas1950 said:


> Nice to see your posting, Seamisty. Looking forward to some positive posting from you and all the OLD gang.
> 
> Michael



Thanks Michael, As soon as I am able I will post any relevant info re the Class Action. Great to have the opportunity to post on here again! Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (24 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Good to see a few "old faces" on here.  Trust everyone has voted for their representatives, the voting forms must be in by next Tuesday to be valid.:iamwithst


----------



## Joe Blow (24 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

The moment this thread causes me any problems it will be shut down immediately.

This is the first and last warning that will be given.


----------



## atlas1950 (24 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

I for one want to thank you for allowing us back on. Just hope that the few that caused so much trouble won't spoil it for the rest of us. ASF is a wonderful site, as it allows us to talk to so many other investors, and to try to receive information which is hard to come by. Michael


----------



## simgrund (24 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

I am happy to be the lucky 13th to tread this thread of resurrection.
It would help if we all commit ourselves to a professional code of conduct which may reflect to Administrators that we regard our participation as a privilege and not a right.
Perhaps as main points, a code could abide by: 
1) brevity of posts
2) have only  useful content by way of informing *facts and developments*
3) forbid development of "arguments" and "opinions". 
4) post regular member warnings on forum.
I stress, that these are suggestions only. We all wish to be informed.
Regards to all


----------



## charles36 (25 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Thank you Joe Blow, the message will be delivered loud and clear, frequently.Tjhe fund as I have told you is entering a new ere and it is important that we unite for the common good of us all.  This forum is a valuable tool and will be treated as such.  Kind regards Charles.


----------



## seamisty (25 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Hi All PIF Unit Holders, Federal Court Application and Statement of Claim were served on Michael King this morning. Paul Manka and Ian Zellinski have also been served recently. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## breaker1 (25 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Thanks Joe - that's bonza! 

Keep it above the belt folks!


----------



## flatback (26 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



breaker1 said:


> Thanks Joe - that's bonza!
> 
> Keep it above the belt folks!



g/day Breaker, good to see the thread going again .Flatback


----------



## seamisty (26 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Latest PIN announcement on NSX, Regards, Seamisty ::Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v Wellington Investment Management Limited & Ors –
Class Action
As noted in the recent Investor Update, Wellington Investment Management Limited as the former
responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund was named as a Respondent in the class action files on
behalf of Fund Unitholders. A directions hearing is to be held on 30 June 2009.
Following negotiations with the Applicants’ legal representative these proceedings have by mutual
agreement been discontinued against Wellington Investment Management Limited with no order as to costs.
All Unitholders will be contacted shortly by the lawyers representing Unitholders in relation to these
proceedings. The lawyers will be seeking to ascertain which Unitholders wish to join the current Applicants


----------



## Sue_Fleur (26 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Im with WEllington and have only found out about the class action.  How did people join, as i have always wanted to do something, but didn't know anything was done.  I didn't know this existed and had no idea people were doing something.  Is it too late to join in?  I have lost alot of money, but what annoyed me even more was when i rang up MFS in January 2007 I was told that my money was safe and to renew my term deposit, if only i got that in writing.  I had one due June 2007 and to this day i am still awaiting my money like no doubt many others.  Even though i was told it could take up to 365 days which is only 1 year not 2 years.  

How did you all find out about it, i have tried to google it but didn't find much
Thanks
Sue


----------



## Sue_Fleur (26 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



seamisty said:


> Latest PIN announcement on NSX, Regards, Seamisty ::Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v Wellington Investment Management Limited & Ors –
> Class Action
> As noted in the recent Investor Update, Wellington Investment Management Limited as the former
> responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund was named as a Respondent in the class action files on
> ...




Does that meane that more people can join and who do you contact then


----------



## breaker1 (26 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



Sue_Fleur said:


> Im with WEllington and have only found out about the class action.  How did people join, as i have always wanted to do something, but didn't know anything was done.  I didn't know this existed and had no idea people were doing something.  Is it too late to join in?  I have lost alot of money, but what annoyed me even more was when i rang up MFS in January 2007 I was told that my money was safe and to renew my term deposit, if only i got that in writing.  I had one due June 2007 and to this day i am still awaiting my money like no doubt many others.  Even though i was told it could take up to 365 days which is only 1 year not 2 years.
> 
> How did you all find out about it, i have tried to google it but didn't find much
> Thanks
> Sue




Dear Sue

The PIF Action Group [ PIF AG ] has been serving its PIF investor members since May 2008. Certain members of the AG instigated this class action against several former MFS PIF directors and KPMG auditors via Carneys Lawyers, Sydney. This class action is strongly moving forward on behalf of all PIF investors if they wish to join.

You can contact Carneys Lawyers via details as in thread #7 above or if you would like some emailed information you can receive that from the AG by emailing: breaker7@optusnet.com.au 

If you wish to join the Action Group we will happily put you on our data base as a member for Premium Income Fund PIF AG class action updates.


----------



## Sue_Fleur (27 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Thank you very much for that information.  I googled them last night and sent an e-mail to them.  Hopefully will get a reply soon or I will ring them


----------



## breaker1 (27 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



Sue_Fleur said:


> Thank you very much for that information.  I googled them last night and sent an e-mail to them.  Hopefully will get a reply soon or I will ring them




Happy to help Sue!

One of Carneys staff should ring you back Monday.


----------



## breaker1 (27 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



flatback said:


> g/day Breaker, good to see the thread going again .Flatback




Good to see you on here Flatback - good onya! 

While on here - just a thank you to "Calliope" for giving this thread another go - much appreciated!


----------



## Calliope (27 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



breaker1 said:


> While on here - just a thank you to "Calliope" for giving this thread another go - much appreciated!




Thanks breaker. I watched the previous thread but didn't participate, but it's sudden closure left a big gap in our lives at a time when we needed all the support we can give each other. We can now come in out of the cold.


----------



## simgrund (27 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



Sue_Fleur said:


> Does that meane that more people can join and who do you contact then



Hello SUE,
These are contacts for Solicitors handling the class action.
Register with them your interest to join and forward details of your ComputerShare registry and other investor identification details.
Also ask about investor interim voluntary payments into fighting fund.
Welcome and best of wishes,
simgrund

*[[[   Kara Pope
Secretary to Arthur Carney

Carneys Lawyers
Level 5
70 Castlereagh St
SYDNEY NSW 2000
DX 998 Sydney

P: (02) 8226 5555
F: (02) 8226 5556
E: kpope@carneys.com.au]*


----------



## seamisty (29 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

New buyer sought for Latitude Owen Jacques | 29th June 2009 Daily Mercury:::;The whole article can be found here::: http://www.dailymercury.com.au/story/2009/06/29/new-buyer-sought-for-stalled-city-high-rise/::::  I believe this is one of WC PIF  'mortgagee in possesion' properties. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## AlanLowther (30 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Hi Folk,

Great to see this is alive again! I didn't post many comments previously but read all constructive comments with interest.

Looking forward to the result of the Directions hearing today.

Breaker, when is the next AG meeting planned for Sydney?

Cheers,
Alan


----------



## seamisty (30 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Hi All,
The proceedings were before the Federal Court of Australia today at 9.30am. 

The proceedings were adjourned until 1 September 2009 for further mention.  Tony Martin QC advised the Court that the reason the proceedings were adjourned were twofold.  The reasons were: -
That there are still a few respondents who have not been served and the adjournment would enable additional efforts to serve the remaining respondents.
That last week an agreement was reached with Wellington Capital Limited as the responsible entity for Wellington Premium Income Fund whereby Wellington Capital Limited has agreed to make available for inspection a large number of documents.  The large number of documents consist of approximately 1,000 lever arch folders.  The adjournment will enable time for the inspection of the documents to take place and thereafter any appropriate amendments to the statement of claim.
The adjournment is approximately eight weeks from today. 
We are also pleased to announce that IMF have agreed in principle to Fund the Class Action, however the exact terms have yet to be agreed upon.
I also note that Ian Zellinski has filed his Notice of Appearance as of today.
 Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Duped (30 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Thanks for the update Seamisty.


----------



## breaker1 (30 June 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



AlanLowther said:


> Hi Folk,
> 
> Great to see this is alive again! I didn't post many comments previously but read all constructive comments with interest.
> 
> ...





Will email you on that one Alan.


----------



## marcom (1 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



seamisty said:


> New buyer sought for Latitude Owen Jacques | 29th June 2009 Daily Mercury:::;The whole article can be found here::: http://www.dailymercury.com.au/story/2009/06/29/new-buyer-sought-for-stalled-city-high-rise/::::  I believe this is one of WC PIF  'mortgagee in possesion' properties. Regards, Seamisty




Hi all - good to see the thread back. excellent result in the Federal Court yesterday.

Looks like the Mackay developers of Latitude don't want Wellington selling the project. Brisbane Supreme Court applications today: LATITUDE AT MACKAY PTY LTD -V- WELLINGTON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED & others. 9:30AM– The list of applications will be called over in COURT 5 FLOOR 1 for allocation to a Judge and an order of hearing will be indicated for contested matters.

About 2 weeks ago a similar application was lodged by Latitude and another one by (from memory) Hadcorp who is the builder.

If you want all the detail on this project see: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=426181 

MARCOM


----------



## seamisty (1 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Hi Marcom, Does anyone know what the Lattitude project owes the PIF? In the Dec 11th 2008 update there are 2 Mackay properties listed with a combined amount owing to the PIF of approx $10.57mill but I am not sure if it refers to Lattitude. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## goldfinger38 (1 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Great to see we are all back and sharing information, anyone I have been speaking to I have recommended joining class action and have also contributed to the fighting fund and Action Group cost of mailout so looking forward to that correspondence going out to ALL investors seeking to join the action, hopefully we will get the support of Jenny Hutson from Wellington and our 3 representatives hopefully will be voted onto the investor committee, again I have been telling everyone to vote for them.


----------



## goldfinger38 (1 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Has anyone heard if any of the 11 properties marketed over the past few months through Jones LaSalle have had any interest or if any went to auction?


----------



## Mary Lynch (2 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Hi everyone.  Didn't think I'd ever need you all again after selling my units.
However , its a bit like"coming home"...a lot of bonding goes on in a crisis, even when most of us haven't even met.  But there you go,somehow I have been "touched" by many of you.

Any of you know the whereabouts of Great Dame?

A few questions re the class action...help me please:

1.Outside us unitholders, who are the other applicants?

2. Why are/were we suing WCIM.

3.Having withdrawn from suing WMIC...is this why JH is co-operating?

4. And has she released the unitholder's register yet?


----------



## seamisty (2 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Hello Mary, I will try and answer your questions.                            1.Outside us unitholders, who are the other applicants?

At this point in time there is the original 8 applicants who instigated the case. All other eligible unitholders have the choice to participate or 'opt out' but will have to register to do so.

2. Why are/were we suing WCIM.

WCIM was originally included to enable Carney Lawyers access to legal documents and other relevant material ie the register through the court if necessary.

3.Having withdrawn from suing WMIC...is this why JH is co-operating?

JH met with Carney Lawyers and agreed to provide access to all necessary documents and has offered her assistance .


4. And has she released the unitholder's register yet?

We have full use of the Client Register for the purpose of contacting Unit Holders regarding the Class Action.

Some of the applicants (and hopefully Arthur Carney) will be meeting with John Walker from IMF at 9.00am tomorrow to discuss the IMF Funding Proposal.
Regards, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (2 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

CVC private equity completely takes over Stella
Thursday, 2 July 2009 Source ;; Travel Blackboard



After acquiring a majority share of Stella group from MFS Limited early last year, CVC Asia Pacific has performed a fait accompli and snapped up all remaining shares left in a bold move yesterday.

 By making the disappearance of the court case part and parcel of the sell-off, Octaviar now had one less problem to take care of.
It is currently unknown how much the remaining 35% stake was sold for, only that it too was a “Share and Loan Note Sale Agreement”.




The link to the whole article is :::http://www.etravelblackboard.com/showarticle.asp?id=94200&nav=98
I guess there goes one of the few remaining assets we were relying on for recouping a small portion of what is owed to PIF from Octaviar.
Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Mary Lynch (2 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Thanks Seamisty.

We ex unitholders mustn't be forgotten out, floating around out in the wide world.  Someone said to me that there would be no way that I would have any status in the class action, having sold my units.  But not so.  However there may be others out there who think that they are in eligible.  Is there a way of contacting them?

When and how do we register?


----------



## seamisty (2 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Hi Mary, You can register by contacting ::::George Hoddle
Solicitor

Carneys Lawyers
Level 5
70 Castlereagh St
SYDNEY NSW 2000

DX 998 Sydney
P: (02) 8226 5555
F: (02) 8226 5556
E: ghoddle@carneys.com.au

As soon as Funding has been finalised I would imagine that the Funders will contact every elligible applicant/Unit Holder from information contained in the Client Register.
Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## Mary Lynch (2 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

I think I misunderstood Seamisty.  I thought you said only the original 8 applicants were registered.

I am sure I must already be registered...as I have made a contribution to Carney's and the mailout.


----------



## seamisty (2 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

No Mary, The 8 original applicants were needed to instigate the claim and are  instrumental in the preliminary decision making process. Anyone who has contacted Carney's and given their details will be included.Also by registering with Carney's I think they may keep investors informed.  I imagine every investor will have to officially sign a form from the Funder stating whether they wish to participate in the Class Action or opt out. Also previously when we did not have official permission to use the register Carney was keen to contact as many investors as possible. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (3 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

CVC paid the staggering sum of $3.2mill for the remaining 35% of Stella. Not bad, they aquired an asset that reportedly cost $2.4billion for just over $500mill. (plus $900 mill debt)

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/07/03/94551_gold-coast-business.html


----------



## seamisty (3 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



seamisty said:


> CVC paid the staggering sum of $3.2mill for the remaining 35% of Stella. Not bad, they aquired an asset that reportedly cost $2.4billion for just over $500mill. (plus $900 mill debt)
> 
> http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/07/03/94551_gold-coast-business.html




That should read just over $400mill plus the debt, so 100% of Stella was sold for less than half the original cost.  I know these figures are not exact but it is not looking good for the rest of the OCV creditors. Seamisty


----------



## k.smith (3 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Hello ..

Seamisty,
Can you try to explain the part that Fortress took in MFS?
And why the court re-classed Fortress as an unsecured creditor?
It is great to have this forum open again.


----------



## seamisty (4 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



k.smith said:


> Hello ..
> 
> Seamisty,
> Can you try to explain the part that Fortress took in MFS?
> ...




Hi K.Smith, http://www.lavanlegal.com.au/go/pub...td-re-octaviar-administration-p/l-2009-qsc-37  ::: http://www.aar.com.au/pubs/baf/fobafmar09.htm  :::here is a couple of links with some information in relation to the fortress loan. 
Regards, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (5 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

For those investors patiently waiting for news/correspondence in relation to the PIF Class Action, the applicants in Premium Income Fund unit holder action against partners of KPMG and directors of the Responsible Entity are currently negotiating with IMF Litigation Funders to achieve the best possible terms. Once these negotiations are finalised it is anticipated every elligible PIF Unit Holder will be contacted regarding the Class Action. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Duped (6 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



k.smith said:


> Hello ..
> 
> Seamisty,
> Can you try to explain the part that Fortress took in MFS?
> ...




I regard myself as a lay, mug investor so don't take any of this as true and correct.

*Can you try to explain the part that Fortress took in MFS?*
Fortress is one creditors that lent money to the Octaviar thicket of companies. Including the likes of PIF investors, OCV shareholders, PTQ's note holders, OPI Pacific, NAB and Challenger. 

It seems to me that Fortress was one of, if not the last, big bundles of cash OCV could get their hands on.  After that, OCV had to resort to more desparate measures like raid PIF.  Fortress were demanding their money back.  Other probably too, including the ATO. Finally, instead of going into voluntary administration, King and Peacock went to the market and asked for another $550M to recapitalise, price crashed and ASX trade was permanently suspended on 23 Jan 08.

*And why the court re-classed Fortress as an unsecured creditor?*
Octaviar guaranteed (by an instrument dated 25 May 2007) a loan agreement (dated 31 May 2007) whereby Fortress lent money to  Young Village Estates Pty Ltd (YVE).  Octaviar/YVE DIDN't provide security to Fortress.  Lets call this the OCV/YVE loan.

The next day (1 June 2007) Octaviar (through a subsidiary called Castle) entered into a "cash advance facility" agreement with Fortress for borrowing up to $250m.  This time Octaviar/Castle provided security.  Lets call this the OCV/Castle loan.  The limit for the OCV/Castle loan was reduced from $250m to $100m some time in late 2007 and at least prior to 22 January 2008.

The OCV/Castle loan was repaid in full on or about 29 February 2008.

The OCV/Castle loan has an ambitious clause (clause 2.1) in it that, given the flap the decision has caused amongst lawyers, appears to be common in the industry.   This clause allowed Fortress to get Octaviar to agree that the security from the OCV/Castle loan now applies to the OCV/YVE loan. Octaviar and Fortress agreed to this on 22 Jan 08 which was AFTER the share price plunged and a day before ASX halted trade.  Lets call this the Post Crash Agreement.

McMurdo held that the Post Crash agreement was legit.  But is voided for other reasons - a notice wasn't lodged.

Say you lend a $100M to a company knowing that it has 3 other unsecured creditors and one *secured *creditor that have also each chipped in a $100M.  If the company goes belly up, you know that the secured creditor is going to get all his $ back and you'd split the rest 4 ways with the other 3 unsecured creditors.  Now say the secured creditor gets his $100M back but also agrees with the company that one of the other 3 unsecured $100M loans is now covered by the secured $100M loan agreement. There's now $100M less for you to share with the other 2 remaining unsecured creditors. This is pretty much well what happened with OCV.  

As an unsecured creditor you'd think it only fair that you should at least be told that one of the other unsecured $100M parcels was now secured.  

*The Corporations Act requires that a notice of a "variation" that "has the effect of increasing the amount of debt or increasing the liabilities" be lodged within 45 days.*

Fortress, with the behemoth Deloitte falling into line behind them, went to court believing that the 22Jan08 Post Crash Agreement couldn't be regarded as a variation because they didn't change a word of the OCV/Castle agreement and didn't increase the $ amount. 

Sensibly, McMuordo rejected this legal mischief stating "That is unlikely to have been an intended consequence of the scheme of registration of charges prescribed by Chapter 2K." It's a pretty straight forward decision with McMurdo going back to first 'principles' in para [33] "whatever the form of the transaction, the owner of the property retains an equity of redemption to have the property restored to him when the liability has been discharged".  

So for my example above, Fortress, Deloitte and cohorts believed that the creditor could have their $100K secured debt (i.e. 1/5th) stretched to cover the whole $200K in two $100K mouthfulls (i.e. 2/5ths) without having to file a notice.

McMurdo disagreed with Fortress, Deloitte and cohorts.  Seeing that such a notice hadn't been lodged in time (not even 45 days after Deloitte took over let alone from the date it was signed) and that OCV is now in administration, the 22 January 2008 Post Crash Agreement is void and the OCV/YVE loan *remains *unsecured.

So it looks like the court and legislators are doing their job. It's the lawyers and administrators that aren't doing their jobs very well. Deloitte sounds like they were tripping themselves up over the issue during the proceedings.  See para [35] "The administrators’ argument appears to accept that this would represent an increase in the liabilities secured by the charge in the relevant sense, if it came from a variation in the terms of the charge."  

Fortress were wrong.  Deloitte were wrong.  And the legal militia aren't happy because they have to advise their pay masters to repair the armaments at their masters expense, armaments that the militia were paid to design, build and maintain in the first place.  IMLO


----------



## Jadel (8 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

I urge everyone who was ever misled by OCV PIF to make a submission and tell their story  to the following inquiry. Only 3 weeks left.
There has been a combined effort made by  the  Storm Action group to draw attention to their plight with  this inquiry
 Unfortunately only two submissions made by PIF investors thus far  . I am certain that there are a great many PIF investors who have suffered greatly from the  cynical deceit and dishonesty  that has resulted in the ruin of our fund.
A link is: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sublist.htm 
or click here

You can withhold your name, & if you specify 'in confidence', then no details at all will be publicly revealed.
Otherwise, the submission is freely available to be read, as you can see from the link.

Why submit to this inquiry?
·  1 - Submissions can be made public, to be on the record for anyone to see & be warned .·  2 - Journalists can use these inquiry submissions (even when made in confidence) to report on the story. Parliamentary privilege comes into play. that could be very useful for many people..
·  3 - Privacy of identity of the submittor is assured, if required. 
·  4 - The 'failure' or shortfalls of ASIC/ASX cannot be reiterated enough by as many people as possible. This inquiry has oversight of ASIC.
People need to SPEAK UP & here is an opportunity. 
Run with it!


Link Provided: www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/corporations_ctte/...


----------



## k.smith (8 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Jadel,

Wouldn't  collective efforts create more impact ?
If say, 1000+ investors were to sign a comprehensive letter which detailed a collected precis of unitholders complaints,and this was written by one of the eloquent writers on this forum....(thank you for your eloquent answer to my inquiy re the Fortress loan, Duped!)...
 Most of us would share many similar grievances regarding our investments in MFS, there is a wealth of info on the ASF OCV thread. Perhaps lack of confidence in literary skills holds a lot of people back ,especially in these circumstances where one is addressing Government bodies. I also imagine these Government bodies reading 1000+letters...the time involved....
perhaps one letter with 1000+ signatures would have more impact.
Just a thought, anyway.


----------



## seamisty (8 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

I believe  Federal Court Application and Statement of Claim were served on Guy Hutchings today. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Mary Lynch (9 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Hi Jadel, 
 Would it be pertinent to write in about the sumptuous morning teas that they had at top hotels shortly before they froze all our funds? Do you  remember those? The whole line up of directors, and entourage, must have been 20 I would think in all, swanned from state to state blowing their horns about how WELLLL they were going....unstoppable....INVEST MORE OF YOUR DOLLARS WITH US!!!

Does anybody remember the dates of any of those meetings, so that I can have detailed evidence; I think it was around October 2007.

Also would I mention that they offered me a bonus to stay with them when I put in my redemption form to pay for the house I had just contracted to buy? (They froze 2 days before I redeemed!)

Is this the kind of thing that you are suggesting we write about?


----------



## marcom (9 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



seamisty said:


> I believe  Federal Court Application and Statement of Claim were served on Guy Hutchings today. Regards, Seamisty




Seamisty, Who is left to serve the statement on?

MARCOM


----------



## selciper (9 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

When can we expect the Investor Advisory Committee Voting results?


----------



## seamisty (9 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Hi Marcom, I am not positive but it is my understanding that  Stuart Price and Steven Kyling who are both in Dubai have not been served. 
Selciper I emailed WC on Tuesday morning and asked about the IAC results but have not received an answer. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (9 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Mary & K Smith

 I have had two meetings with Bernie Ripoll, who is the chairman of this Commission and believe me every single letter that this enquiry receives will be of value. 

 Bernie informed me that the enquiry primary   purpose is to identify the core of the problems in the financial Industry.   Obviously the recent mayhem and carnage caused by the global financial crisis has highlighted the fact that there is a fundamental   structural flaw in the somewhere in the system and this urgently   needs to be addressed. Of course what it is also permeating the  collective political consciousness   of the politicians is that the consequent drain on the social security of this country and  the losses to self funded suppeannuation will, over time be enormous.

 My own view is that these failing and inadequacies in the financial industry can be squarely laid at the feet of ASIC.

ASIC in my humble opinion lacks the fundamental organizational and investigative structure required of a Regulatory Authority. I think it needs the same level of oversight and accountability as the police forces if investors are ever to be protected from corporate crime. In fact I think ASIC should be integrated into the police forces, but unfortunately that will not happen, to many highly paid bureaucrats will lose an easy meal ticket.  
.  

What we basically have at the moment is 9 to 5 bureaucrats who shield a small legal team that may, or may not, provide a free legal service after the apocalypse has occurred, which of course is always after investors are financially ruined and their lives destroyed. Prevention and deterrence is not an option under the current regulatory regime   


 Mary, if you were mislead by Octavier employees when deciding to invest in the Premium Income fund, then yes, you should absolutely relate the circumstances of their deception and what this has done to your life both financially and emotionally. 

K Smith unfortunately the logistics and costs involved in getting 10 400 investors to sign are monumental .In any event parliamentary privilege is only granted after your submission has been reviewed by the Inquiry Committee.


----------



## Duped (9 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Forget ASIC, forget Bernie Ripoll and forget Deloitte.  None of them will do anything to help us.

The only clout we have is through legal action.

We MUST get behind the class action. And 10,000 of us chipping in $100 each is a massive $10M fighting fund. $500 each will scare the pants off any big firm. The more we put in , the less we need IMF.  IMF are great but don't forget that they have a duty to their share holders and that could conflict with our interests.

Deloitte didn't back us against Fortress.  Deloitte chose the warm safety of the legal pack.  McMurdo corrected that pack generated misconception, IMLO.  But Deloitte have gone and done the same again by rolling over to CVC's heacy intimidation and handed them the rest of Stella for $3.2M. No investigation into insolvent trading.  Deloitte simply dump the risk elsewhere, anywhere it will least likely return from to bite them, on you and me; then send us the bill.  They are simply administrators that won't carry any risks on our behalf in the same way that Perpetual Nominees were simply administrators with as little as possible obligation to protect our interests that they can justify.

As for ASIC, have a read of the SMH article: http://business.smh.com.au/business/asic-sells-us-short-20090303-8mo0.html "Watching ...  D'Aloisio flailing around on Lateline Business last night demonstrated ASIC's failure as both a watchdog and regulator, leaving it as just a legal administrator - perhaps all it aspires to be."

As for Ripoll.  Please, yes, put in a submission. But I've now learnt that many in the industry have been SCREAMING about the problem of commissions for YEARS.  See Alan Kohler's article of 27/02/09 'Too Little, Too Late': "It is all very well supporting the Member for Oxley’s initiative, but he [Nick Sherry] is the minister!
In fact, I interviewed Nick Sherry for Eureka Report on this subject shortly before he took over in 2007 and he explicitly declined to do anything about financial planning commissions.
“It’s far too difficult practically”, he said. “I want to focus on disclosure.”
And so he did. That went well, didn’t it Storm, Westpoint, Lift and Opes clients?""

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Financial-advice-$pd20090227-PMS7C?OpenDocument 

The other option is hit them with the only other real force we have apart for legal action, hit their wallets. Signup to yourshare.com.au.  Have a read of yourshare's submission to the Inquiry at http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sub113.pdf

Sorry if I'm coming across too harsh but today, I'm not happy Jan.


----------



## Duped (9 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Correction for my last post, #57. $100 each by 10K investors is $1M not $10M.  Aren't legal fees for protecting an investment deductable? Or just go towards increase cost base for calculating Capital Gain or Capital Loss?


----------



## Mary Lynch (9 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Hey Duped, Aren't we still awaiting results of the negotioations with the IMF around funding liturgation for the class action?  I had assumed we are getting funded, and it is just a matter of how much it is going to cost us.


----------



## seamisty (9 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



Mary Lynch said:


> Hey Duped, Aren't we still awaiting results of the negotioations with the IMF around funding liturgation for the class action?  I had assumed we are getting funded, and it is just a matter of how much it is going to cost us.



Thats correct Mary and those negotiations are close to being finalised but I can see where Duped is coming from in relation to Senate enquiries not helping investors such as ourselves. I put a lot of time and effort into contacting Mr Ripoll (among others) in Feb with  all the details of the situation with our PIF and the impact it had on investors and never even received acknowledgement! Mr Sherry at least wrote me a three page letter alerting me to all the handouts directed at self-funded retirees under the Economic Security Strategy which I must not have qualified for and assured me  that ASIC were on the case of the PIF. He also told me I had the option to take private legal action against those I considered had breached the law. WELL THANKS NICK, some have taken your advice once they realised that in actual fact, that was the ONLY OPTION open to them!! While I am not discouraging others from lodging a submission I prefer to dedicate my time to the Class Action where we have a compelling case against KPMG and the former MFS/OCV directors, advisors etc with an excellent chance of being financially compensated and those responsible exposed. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (9 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Duped , you must have really had a bad day; I have never seen you get so worked up in a post before. I guarantee two bottles of a good red wine will make the world look a whole lot better. 

  However, I totally agree with your basic premise of investors self funding  the legal case .The whole concept of litigation funders taking 30% or more of the settlement amount from financially distressed investors is offensive and outrageous.

Whether or not self  funding can be practical is another matter. For example, recently a committee member of the PIFI asked an acquaintance who was also an investor in the PIF  to donate to the mail out ,to fund our preliminary legal action. She immediately contacted her financial advisor who stated not to bother, as Jenny Huston would get her money back .I mention this only to demonstrate the mindset of some investors. 

 The fact of the matter is that the government;i.e., ASIC should be running  this action on behalf of Premium income fund investors.  They have been provided with irrefutable evidence that our fund was fatally compromised by serious breaches of the corporation act and potential criminal activity; hence my recommendation that all investors  put a submission to the parliamentary enquiry.

 The Americans may have a lot of faults and crooks in their financial   industry ,but look at their system of compensation in these instances.  Take, for example the Madoff case, a situation not that dissimilar to our own., they have a government  indemnity  provider in place, which will at least compensates  investors for  the original capital  amount invested .

.


----------



## Mary Lynch (10 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Thanks Seamisty....I wholeheartedly agree.....and for all of your tireless hard work.  There are many of you who have been just so amazingly generous with your time and energy.  I have no idea how we will ever thank you, but hopefully we will find a way in due course.


----------



## Duped (10 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Maybe it's the quality of the wine that's the problem.  The clean skins and cask white aren't doing the job.

The following is not directed at you Jadel.

If there's any chance that ASIC will help us then we should all push. Our case seems to tick one of the criteria for ASIC to take the risk of litigation. Over whelming evidence and a clear cut breach.  Unfortunately that's not so for some of the other criteria in our case.  

Public image: while there's 10K investors, for some reason the press sees us as comlplicit through our own greed, not quite the innocents as a Storm clients.  Even Wayne Swan was intimating he took this view when he answered the question from the PIF investor at the London School of Economics earlier this year. Totally inaccurate though. But when you have the rarely accurate journalists in this country reporting things like the first NSX PIN transaction of 2000 shares @44c being worth $35,000 instead of $900 (in the Australian, no less) - what can we do.  And don't forget the two slappings we've had from the ASA's Stuart Wilson.  All sowing the seeds of doubt of our plight.

Public interest:  We're hardly an Enron.  We're just one of a number of failed businesses that failed in a system with conflicted financial advisors that Nick Sherry explicitly declined doing anything about shortly after taking over in 2007 saying "It's far too difficult practically". And why would ASIC spend money on a case that proves him wrong. It seems financial planners are a protected species.  Hence the need for such a high level inquiry.  So the pollies can say, well that all is a surpirse; or we had a high level inquiry and there wasn't the evidence that the commissions knockers are claiming.  (Maybe I've been watching too much Hollowmen) 

Easy target: MFS is hardly an Eddy Groves, a Bernie Madoff, the Cassimatis, with no influential friends and no bite and extroverted or displaying other character flaws so they can be easily isolated from their peers and not bring the whole system into disrepute in the minds of us punters. Add to that the Andrew Peacock factor.  An untouchable?  A holy cow?  ASIC would be attacking one of the Melbourne establishment.

I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.


----------



## Duped (10 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

This is a bit of a revelation to me. Would explain a lot.  It wouldn't be the first time that pollies didn't understand the forces that shaped the better parts of their country and went messed them up.

Am I allowed to post the whole article?

"The 'irresponsible' entity
MICHAEL WEST
July 8, 2009 .
"The administrators have done the analysis and found that, first of all, Timbercorp, the responsible entity, is hopelessly insolvent."

This was the finding of Timbercorp's administrator last month. Likewise, the verdict on Great Southern's responsible entity - "totally insolvent".

Unfortunately for investors in these entities, and a legion of others in the likes of managed investment schemes and mortgage funds, their REs have failed them.

Then again, they were never "their" REs, which brings us to the essential policy problem: independence.

It was the RE which was supposed to be looking after the interests of investors. Now that there are more lost savings, recriminations, lawsuits and inquiries than you could poke a stick at, the question can be posed: is the RE a failed experiment?

There used to be an independent third party whose role was to look after investors: the trustee. That all changed under the Managed Investments Act of 1998, a reform of the Peter Costello years. The RE was born.

Under the new system the product promoters - be they the spruikers behind a Timbercorp, City Pacific, Allco, or Great Southern - would now operate their own fiduciary (trustee). They would fund it, too.

These fiduciary reforms were espoused in the first place by the BTs, AMPs and Macquaries of the world who argued, with some reason, that third-party scrutiny by a trustee only added another layer of costs. Why not take it

in-house? they asked. Let's have a "single responsible entity". We will fund it, and be responsible.

This was all OK for a financial giant with ample resources. The only problems were that costs marched merrily higher anyway as investors were gouged by ever-imaginative fee formulas, regardless of the savings to have been made via an in-house fiduciary.

And meanwhile, at the racier end of the investment market we get Babcock, MFS, Allco and the MIS schemes such as "hopelessly insolvent" Timbercorp running their own scrutiny, veritably monitoring themselves. Kids in charge of the lolly shop.

It should be noted that the trustee system was, and is, far from perfect. The collapse of the debenture players such as ACR, Fincorp and Bridgecorp is testament to that.

At least the trustee was independent though, not to mention alive and still kicking in the aftermath. The notion of a promoter having to provide data to an independent fiduciary must carry some measure of deterrence.

The "single responsible entity" regime appeared to have served investors reasonably well, until the ructions of the global financial meltdown exposed its frailties. And how frail they were, dead-frail. As good as unregulated.

The excess of bull market spawned such a welter of dodgy financial products that the system was effectively out of control. With lost savings from investment schemes and products bloating into the billions the integrity of the financial services system in Australia is at stake.

If it is accepted wisdom that best practice in corporate governance entails a truly independent board of directors for public companies so that shareholders' interests are represented, then why not exact the same principle when it comes to investment schemes?

Who is independent, if not the fiduciary? Who can provide comfort that the interest of investors will be upheld?

In the recent disasters the RE scheme was often tangled in a conflict between perpetuating its own existence - and therefore fees for the holding company - and putting investors' interests first, which would in many cases involve winding the scheme down.

The complex structures of most of these schemes made it impossible for the investor to see a clear line of responsibility.

An independent fiduciary is in a far better position to appoint an administrator while there are still assets left to be sold. It can also bring scrutiny to related party transactions, a prolific factor in almost every collapse."

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

http://business.theage.com.au/business/the-irresponsible-entity-20090707-dbu2.html


----------



## Jadel (11 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Duped 

     Committee members of the PIFI have spent over three hours in  intensive discussions with Bernie Ripoll .We are unfortunately unable to divulge any sensitive information, however we can tell you ,that he now has a very clear and comprehensive understanding of the exploitation and abuse that has devastated our fund and the suffering this has caused investors. 

This is why we strongly recommend that investors tell their story and put in a submission to the Parliamentary Enquiry .

Eos adiuvat Deus qui se ipsos adiuvant


----------



## Mary Lynch (11 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

I am not knowlegeable about these things, but my barrister son-in-law says that the legal fraternity frowns upon the IMF funding class actions because it foretells the outcome of the case.

This throws light on what you guys are thinking for me, in that if the IMF are willing to back us, then it is (almost) a foregone conclusion that we will win, is it not?

Thus, with them taking a third of the $$ outcome, it makes sense for us to fund our own case, especially as I believe we have the register of unitholders.. Does the register include names and addresses?

So maybe, once it is definite that the IMF have accepted us, we should do an "ask around", as to who would be prepared to contribute say $1000 (or get an estimate from Carneys and apportion pro rata $s per units) and see what everyone thinks, before we accept the IMF terms.  

One question though...Does the IMF  charge more if the risk is higher?

If this was greed on our behalf I'd be worried; but this money is OURS...not the IMF's; so let's put our mony where our mouth is!


----------



## atlas1950 (12 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Hi Mary,

It's nice to see a lot of people posting there thoughts and views on the forum again. Helps us all to be informed.

The point I would like to add is that if we self fund, and if we lose, we could then be liable for there costs, which would run into the millions of dollars. From what Carney's said at the meeting 6 or so weeks ago, is that if we go with a funding litigator (eg IMF) they would pay all legal costs as well as damages should we lose. If we are successful and the judge orders them to pay interest as well, then the provider will be entitled to the 30% of the interest component as well.

Keep posting everyone,

Michael


----------



## seamisty (13 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Hi All, Please find attatched link to the ASX announcement regarding IMF Funding for the PIF Class Action.http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20090713/pdf/31jjgl8m44rblv.pdf

Regards Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (13 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



seamisty said:


> Hi All, Please find attatched link to the ASX announcement regarding IMF Funding for the PIF Class Action.http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20090713/pdf/31jjgl8m44rblv.pdf
> 
> Regards Seamisty



Here is a copy of the announcement which can also be found on the IMF website, http://www.imf.com.au/ in the shareholders section. I imagine IMF will contact all elligible investors by mail with further information as soon as it is available, Regards Seamisty   RELEASE TO AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES EXCHANGE (“ASX”)

13 JULY 2009

NEW FUNDING AGREEMENT

UNIT HOLDERS OF PREMIUM INCOME FUND

V MFS DIRECTORS & KPMG PARTNERS

1. The Board of Directors of IMF (Australia) Limited announces that it proposes to fund claims

that certain unit holders in Wellington Investment Management Ltd (formerly MFS

Investment Management Ltd (MFSIM), being the Responsible Entity for the Premium Income

Fund, have against:

(a) Directors of MFSIM; and

(b) Partners of KPMG as auditors of MFSIM’s Compliance Plan

2. The claims relate to alleged beaches by the MFS Directors and KPMG partners of the

Corporations Act in 2005, 2006 and 2007.

3. All unit holders who held units as at 29 January 2008 are eligible to participate in the claim

which IMF will fund subject to due diligence and a level of unit holder participation

acceptable to IMF.

4. The claim is currently envisage to be in the form of a representative proceeding for all of

those unit holders who held units at 29 January 2008 and who sign a litigation funding

agreement with IMF.

5. IMF will include the claim value in its quarterly Case Investment Reports as they are

published.

Diane Jones

Chief Operating Officer


----------



## charles36 (13 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Thanks seamisty for all your efforts, you are a breath of fresh sea air.


----------



## atlas1950 (13 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Do we know the terms of the IMF funding????

They were indicating a level of 30%.

Michael


----------



## Mary Lynch (13 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

WAHOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

My wholehearted thanks to a brilliant hard working team of incredibly generous people.


----------



## seamisty (13 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Thanks Mary and Michael, I believe all relevant information will be fowarded to investors in due course. I assure you that the applicants negotiated to the best of their ability to achieve the final terms with IMF on behalf of every elligible PIF unitholder. Having pursued many other avenues in the past 14 months seeking legal representation to no avail, I am really happy to have the opportunity to participate in the Class Action.  Regards, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (14 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Hi All, PIF unit holder Class Action participation will impact on the success of the IMF due dilligence so apart from you MaryLynch and myself who are extremely excited at the strong chance of financial compensation what do other investors think? Even though elligible investors are still waiting for all the relevant details I thought there would been more enthusiasm and comment on the forum in regard to it? Cheers, Seamisty 
3. All unit holders who held units as at 29 January 2008 are eligible to participate in the claim

which IMF will fund subject to due diligence and a level of unit holder participation

acceptable to IMF.


----------



## marcom (14 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Hello Seamisty

Just read your post on the other forum about the hardships experienced by PIF investors. We are in that category - 12 months ago we had to rent out our house (we now live with my wife's parents) to generate some extra income to make payments to the ATO for a capital gains tax liability on the sale of a property, the proceeds of which are stuck in PIF along with all the rest of our hard earned savings. We have managed to make just enough to live from our business so far. We have 5 and 7.5 years to go until we can get a pension. As it looks like the class action will take some time, we now have to sell our house so that we will have enough to continue on for a couple of years. We will manage to cope some how.

My question is: What constitutes losses incurred in PIF? Naturally losses include capital, lost interest? But can they also include losses on sale of personal property as a result, removal expenses etc? What about compensation for the years of stress and misery, even loss of health as a result? Can you help with some clarification of what will be covered.

MARCOM


----------



## Calliope (14 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Seamisty, I support the action wholeheartedly.  Do you know what role Wellington PIF has in this action if any?


----------



## BootsnAll (14 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

To all you hard working members of PIFAG out there.

I have been following all your information here and on HotCopper.
What great news to think something is finally being done to catch those crooks who took our money.

I have sent a letter to the Parliamentry Committee hoping someone there will listen.

Thanks for all your time and effort.  

Great work!


----------



## Duped (14 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

The following is not directed at anyone here.

One thing I have learned from MFS is BUYER BEWARE. Including governments selling the idea the've done something material about protecting consumers. Government and the likes of ACCC and ASIC are WAY overselling their capability in a dangerous game of self promotion by well meaning but totally naiive, ambitious bureaucrats. 

I'll make a submisson to Ripoll but read/listen to this morning's ABC Newsradio report 'CBA Squeezes Brokers' by Di Bain to see how fearless players are of the regulators.  How little regard they have for the concept of independence in financial advice.  Or perhaps more sinister, taking advantage of the perception of independence. The ACCC's response "the ACCC at this point has decided that they're constrained by the Trade Practices Act, aren't able to do anything in this case". It's simply stunning. 

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2624978.htm?layout=popup

I've had a look at the ACCC and ASIC websites.  Couldn't find anything there detailing what they CAN'T do.  Look at the ACCC page about professions as an example.  http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/5975  It lists examples of professions.  What a great opportunity to list industry groups that are NOT professions. 

ACCC's page then declares under "Financial Service"

"(ASIC) is the consumer protection regulator for financial products and services. ASIC has powers to protect consumers against misleading or deceptive and unconscionable conduct affecting all financial products and services.
If your concern relates to misleading or deceptive conduct involving a financial product or service, such as credit, banking, investments, superannuation or insurance, the ASIC may be able to help you. Contact ASIC on ..."

WHY ON EARTH IS THE ACCC advertistising this capability, these powers; when ASIC is NOT in a position to exercies these powers even in an extreme circumstance like ours. It's blantantly misleading and disarmed consumers like me against the totally conflicted behaviour by my licensed advisor.

There's ASIC's website. It directs us to FIDO.  The name implying some sort of watch dog capability?  Another dangerous misconception.  Sorry cat lovers, ASIC is more of a watch-cat. Soft and cuddly, good company but only really good for keeping the small rodents out of the house.

FIDO's "Managing Your Money" declares "Always check the facts: ask questions and get professional advice."  Use of the word 'professional' is a bit misleading now isn't it? It's a stretch to fit Financial Advisers in the ACCC's definition of 'profession'.  I couldn't find any definition of a "professional" on ASIC's website. ASIC's page 'Starting Your Personal Investing' states "It may suit you better just to go out and choose a licensed financial adviser and follow their advice. If you want to do that, please read our tips on Getting advice."  WHAT??? 

ASIC's 'please' sent me to the page 'Choosing your advisor'. What a total and utter cop out from saying in a few simple words: BUYER BEWARE. ASIC puts ALL the onus back on us consumers in a dangerously understated manner.  

Not only are ASIC's warnings understated but their assertions of regulation are overstated. How about this clanger "ASIC licenses and regulates the financial advisory industry so that it operates efficiently, honestly and fairly".  WRONG.  

Then under Fees we're told that commissions and bonuses "can set a up a conflict of interest between what’s good for your adviser and what’s good for you. (The law deals with this potential problem by requiring advisers to manage conflicts and also to tell you about all commissions.)"  FAILED law in our case.  This clause is dangerously misleading, omitting that ASIC is in no position to prosecute on your behalf.

And there's impressive TLA's like FPA and CPA, contributing to the perception of quality. 

More dangerously overstated and misleading propaganda is the "see if we've banned someone from advising".  Sounds impressive.  WRONG.  The list is severly limited and wallpapered with disclaimers.  Stunningly, it only covers those that are CURRENTLY banned/disqualified. Some of the shonkiest advisers (IMO) get just a few years ban. It's a step above useless for the exercise of finding a quality financial 'professional'.  A watch-cat taking out a few small rodents; that's all.  But that's not the messege the ASIC 'Choosing your advisor' webpage is selling.

The government is complicit, even actively promoting conflicted financial planners. Even now, while so many of us have been hurt, continues to participate.  Giving licensed financial advisers a big tick of approval and steering us into their conflicted web.

I for one was duped.


----------



## Duped (14 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

CBA Squeezes Brokers
Di Bain 14 July 2009 8:21am
View or listen to the report on http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2624978.htm?layout=popup

"TONY EASTLEY: The financial crisis has turned Australia's mortgage sector on its head. Banks now write nearly 90 per cent of Australia's home loans.

Small home lenders have been squeezed out of the market and mortgage brokers say the big four banks are starting to flex their muscles.

The Commonwealth Bank has told thousands of mortgage brokers they won't be allowed to offer the banks loans if they don't write enough business for the CBA.

Di Bain reports.

DI BAIN: In Australia the mortgage broking industry writes about 35 per cent of the nation's $15-billion home loan market.

But as the number of home loan's shrink in line with the financial crisis and the banks get bigger, the industry that thrives on keeping loan rates competitive says it's coming under pressure.

Wayne Ormond is the executive chairman of Queensland based mortgage brokers Refund Home Loans.

*He says the Commonwealth Bank has told 8,000 mortgage brokers that they must write a certain number of its loans or face the chop.*

WAYNE ORMOND: This is the issue. *The issue is that if they are, their accreditation is taken away, what happens is they then have to go and sit through a reaccreditation workshop which is telling them all the same things they already know and then charge them $500 for the privilege. So my whole point is that rather than doing that, what a broker is going to do is write Commonwealth Bank home loans.*

DI BAIN: The new policy into effect on July 1st.

Mr Ormond says the new rules are bad for customers and he claims other banks are considering tightening up their lending policies too.

WAYNE ORMOND: I think they are thinking about it and that is where it is particularly dangerous and that is why I made the complaint to the ACCC.

DI BAIN: And what has been the response from the ACCC?

WAYNE ORMOND: Well, the ACCC at this point has decided that they're constrained by the Trade Practices Act, aren't able to do anything in this case but I am sure that they will be monitoring the situation.

DI BAIN: The Mortgage Industry Association's Phil Naylor says the *banks have a lot of power over the mortgage market and they're using it*.

PHIL NAYLOR: The facts are that over the last two years, the major four banks have increased their market share significantly, mainly because the non-bank have fallen out of the market largely because they rely on securitization and that securitized market to mortgages has just pretty well disappeared.

DI BAIN: In saying that they have market power, are they using that to muscle in on brokers?

PHIL NAYLOR: *Brokers are writing still about 40 per cent of all mortgages so the broker channel is very important to the lenders but what they have been doing over I suppose the last couple of years is trying to rationalise their use of brokers and from their point of view, to make that, their use of brokers more efficient.*

DI BAIN: The Commonwealth Bank and the Australian Bankers Association has been contacted for comment.

TONY EASTLEY: Di Bain reporting."


----------



## charles36 (14 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

M/S Hutson has agreed to assist the class action.  The register of unit holders has been supplied for use by the lawyers and IMF.  It has also been agreed that all relevant documentation will be provided to our (unit holders) legal team for use in the litigation where appropriate.  In addition Wellington PIF staff will be available to assist our team with the documentation.  This was a major breakthrough and will save countless man hours and subsequent cost. 

I take this opportunity of urging all unit holders to read the relevant documentation upon receipt from IMF and join the class action.  After all is said and done we are in this together and it is our one chance of recouping some of our lost investment.  Just remember 60% of something is better than 100% of nothing.


----------



## charles36 (14 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Duped, Have read your posts with interest.  No doubt you are the same mind as a lot of us, not much interested in what ASIC and other Government authorities can't do but what CAN they do is the salient point and also what have they achieved.


----------



## seamisty (14 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Hi Marcom, Sorry to hear of yet another PIF investor who has had to make huge personal sacrifices as a direct result of the mismanagement of our Fund. Your  question is: What constitutes losses incurred in PIF? Naturally losses include capital, lost interest? But can they also include losses on sale of personal property as a result, removal expenses etc? What about compensation for the years of stress and misery, even loss of health as a result.
The answer is only my own assumption and opinion I have formed from discussion with others. I imagine our lawyers will be seeking compensation for loss of Unit Value the guide being the average price of units sold on the NSX (the PIF does have a small advantage of being listed) and loss of distributions plus interest. I imagine that all other personal losses as a direct result would be seen as a civil matter and one for investors to pursue on their own individual behalf. This is just my unqualified opinion and I was quoted a minimum of $500,000 for personal legal representation early in 2008. Hence the need for Class Actions to represent large numbers of investors who otherwise would never have the financial means to take a case to court, no matter how compelling the evidence. I am sure this Class Action will be well supported for that reason alone and any financial compensation will be a bonus as far as I am concerned. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## marcom (14 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Thanks Seamisty - If we get capital (based on av NSX shareprice $0.10 ie 90% loss) and lost distributions (@ 8.5%) PLUS court determined interest (9%) less IMF % I think we will be adequately compensated.

MARCOM


----------



## selciper (14 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Seamisty 
As far as I'm concerned, the AG team have proved themselves to be very savvy. The class action is the best news we could expect. Thanks for the all the hard work.


----------



## k.smith (14 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



BootsnAll said:


> To all you hard working members of PIFAG out there.
> 
> I have been following all your information here and on HotCopper.
> What great news to think something is finally being done to catch those crooks who took our money.
> ...




Thank you to all the hardworking people who have been so committed.
We have also lodged our submission to the Parliamentry Committee. 
We  have been waiting for this class action for a long time.
Thank God..!


----------



## Dexter (14 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

It sems many members of this Forum are under an illusion as to the scope of the claim against KPMG.  The claim is limited to the funds transferred to MFS satelite companies without unit holder approval.

IMF have stated that no claim will be made for lost interest or other consquential losses.

Sorry to disappoint.


----------



## simgrund (14 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



charles36 said:


> M/S Hutson has agreed to assist the class action.  The register of unit holders has been supplied for use by the lawyers and IMF.  It has also been agreed that all relevant documentation will be provided to our (unit holders) legal team for use in the litigation where appropriate.  In addition Wellington PIF staff will be available to assist our team with the documentation.  This was a major breakthrough and will save countless man hours and subsequent cost.
> 
> I take this opportunity of urging all unit holders to read the relevant documentation upon receipt from IMF and join the class action.  After all is said and done we are in this together and it is our one chance of recouping some of our lost investment.  Just remember 60% of something is better than 100% of nothing.




Well said, Charles. 
Let's all bite the bullet and nip in the bud any diversionary 
talk about "Self Funding" or any such other alternatives to IMF Agreement.
Let's realize once and for all that such diversions will, in all probability, cause diminished participation in this class action. Apart from IMF directors not being amused, we will fore-go the only solid life line to responsible recovery.
And let's bite the bullet on saying "thank God" for Wellington Capital coming to the party at this crucial stage. 
I for one am prepared to say, Thank you Jenny, for a show of corporate common sense. 
I recall many maligned posts from previous thread which presupposed the absence of such common sense. 
I am relieved to see in this  thread an exchange of truly happy and hopeful postings.
*Heartfelt thanks to breaker, seamisty and ALL the PIFAG & PIFI warriors for these happenings. 
*
Simgrund


----------



## seamisty (14 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



Dexter said:


> It sems many members of this Forum are under an illusion as to the scope of the claim against KPMG.  The claim is limited to the funds transferred to MFS satelite companies without unit holder approval.
> 
> IMF have stated that no claim will be made for lost interest or other consquential losses.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint.



Thanks Dexter, There may be some misunderstanding as to the actual contents of the claim. One of the applicants in going to seek clarification from the lawyers as to avoid confusion. 
I was going on 'Proceedings have been commenced on behalf of investors to recover damages for losses incurred as a result of statutory breaches, misleading or disceptive conduct and negligence' and from prior discussions with the lawyers.
Either way, the funds transferred to MFS satellite companies is a significant amount in itself. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (14 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



Dexter said:


> It sems many members of this Forum are under an illusion as to the scope of the claim against KPMG.  The claim is limited to the funds transferred to MFS satelite companies without unit holder approval.
> 
> IMF have stated that no claim will be made for lost interest or other consquential losses.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint.




Hello Dexter,
I thought most investors are under the impression that it is Carneys Lawyers who made the claim with its parameters.
An article in the Australian, dated 18 April 2009 by Andrew Main (Business Editor) informs of "$1 billion claim being filed against MFSIM & KPMG".
Actual amounts appear to be, (as shown in CL's outline of proceedings) 
$745 mil. less NSX value of the Fund on a nominated trading date plus $80 mil. interest @ 9% or thereabouts. 
Please provide more info on this discrepance so I could be better informed.
Thanks


----------



## Mary Lynch (16 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Does anybody know how things play out in court?  Do they get going on KPMG first, and get that out of the way...and hopefully some $$$ rolling back to us, and then start on the ex directors, or what?


----------



## Duped (16 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



Mary Lynch said:


> Does anybody know how things play out in court?  Do they get going on KPMG first, and get that out of the way...and hopefully some $$$ rolling back to us, and then start on the ex directors, or what?




My understanding is the court can decide to hear them together.  Each side may push to influence the court to have them heard separately or together if it's in their interests to do so.


----------



## Duped (16 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



goldfinger38 said:


> Has anyone heard if any of the 11 properties marketed over the past few months through Jones LaSalle have had any interest or if any went to auction?




I've done some digging around online to try and identify the properties.  But I'm concerned that too much detail might weaken PIF's position in selling them. What's the concensus?


----------



## atlas1950 (16 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Good or bad news, I feel we need to know were we stand with these properties. If you know anything, please post as we don't want to stick our heads in the sand.

Michael


----------



## Mary Lynch (16 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

No flies on the IMF. I have all the papers already!  WHOOPEE!!!


----------



## marcom (17 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



Duped said:


> I've done some digging around online to try and identify the properties.  But I'm concerned that too much detail might weaken PIF's position in selling them. What's the concensus?




Better to know what we are facing on property realisations as it will have a big bearing on timing and amounts of distributions in the future. I have put up some details of the Port Macquarie portfolio earlier on HC - absolute dog of a project (and still not finished!) with no chance of realising the $28M loan after 2 sales campaigns!

MARCOM


----------



## Duped (17 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Not much but here goes:

Forest Resort (Novotel); Creswick, VIC
$41.3M
Status: ?

Latitude;  Mackay QLD
$9.2M
Status: Listed (Colliers) EOI closed April 09
http://www.colliers.com.au/site/page.cfm?u=145
Property ID 5510096

Kooralbyn Hotel Resort; SE QLD Hinterland
$41.4M
Status: Listed (Jones Lang Lasalle) Auction 7 May 09
http://www.latestproperty.com.au/ma...ue/archived/1/section/For Sale/page/5/id/107/

Ocean View City Beach; Wollongong, NSW
$58M
Status: Listed (Jones Lang Lasalle)
http://www.joneslanglasalle.com.au/Australia/en-AU/Pages/Properties.aspx
Property ID 5517747

Aston Hill Apartments; 20 Mort St Port Macquarie; NSW
$22.8M
Status: Listed (Ray White) by EOI
http://www.realcommercial.com.au/commercial-real-estate/5526142


*Guesses*
Duns Creek, NSW
$7.1M
?Mahogany Ridge Resort Development  (Subdivided into 24 Lots) 
Status: Lots listed (CBRE) EOI by June 08
http://www.realcommercial.com.au/commercial-real-estate/2527680

Yeppoon, QLD
$9.9M
? Tabone & McBean St (31.4 Ha Residential Development)
Status: Listed (Ray White) Private Treaty
http://www.raywhitespecialprojects.com.au/mcbean-street-yeppoon.html


----------



## simgrund (18 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

With regard to post #86;  this is the exact wording from IMF "Funding Agreement", FAQ page 1:

*2.  Who is the claim against and what is the claim for?*

Last paragraph:  "The claimants will allege an entitlement to compensation and/or damages for losses caused by the alleged breaches."

This sounds reassuring. And it is hoped, that quantum estimates will be run past PIF committee members. 

I will then join the "WHOOOOPEE" brigade.


----------



## selciper (18 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Simgrund -

You're not the only one who waited for a follow-up  to #86 as you had requested. #86  offered no source. Like you, I'll hold back my cheering for a while yet - these cases usually take a long time to resolve.


----------



## selciper (19 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

This is an article in today's Age about class actions in general.

http://business.theage.com.au/business/class-conscious-rise-of-the-class-action-20090718-doz9.html


----------



## Duped (20 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

What's the response deadline?  I haven't received my pack from IMF yet.


----------



## marcom (20 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Duped, We also haven't received ours yet. As with Wellington mail outs we always seem to be at the end of the list.

Marcom


----------



## mgr2118 (20 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

The Packs are available from www.imf.com.au

Currently second entry on page is for this action - just enter your details, and their automated system emails all relevant documentation.

Interesting to also note that IMF are funding the action by Octaviar shareholders - hopefully this would enable their lawyers to get the whole truth about the MFS/Octaviar saga.


----------



## Duped (20 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

PIN NSX Release 20 July 2009

"Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v KPMG & Ors - Class Action

Wellington Capital Limited, as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund, has been advised by IMF (Australia) Limited (ASX:IMF) ('IMx") that documentation has been mailed to all Unitholders in tÃ±e Premium Income Fund for the purposes of the class action proceedings currently before the Federal Court of Australia.

IMF is seeking to ascertain which Unitholders wish to join the current Applicants in this proceeding against the partners of KPMG as auditors of the Premium Income Fund and those persons who were directÃ³rs of MFS Investment Management Limited (now called Wellington Investment Management Limited) on or before 29 January 2008 in respect of alleged breaches of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

A copy of the IMF documentation follows this release.

*Unitholders should carefully read the IMF documentation* and note that if a Unitholder wishes to have an opportunity to join the class action funded by IMF, the Funding Agreement must be returned to IMF by *3 August 2009.*

Unitholders should note that the proceedings proposed to be funded by IMF will be for a 'closed class'. Unitholders will not be included as a member of the class simply because they held units in the premium Income Fund as at29 January 2008.One of the criteria for membership of the class is entry into a Funding Agreement with IMF prior to 3 August 2009. Any settlement of the funded class action will be for the benefit of the class members only.

As advised on 26 June 2009, following negotiations with the Applicants' legal representative these proceedings have by mutual agreement agreed to be discontinued against Wellington Investment Management Limited with no order as to costs. This means that Wellington Investment Management Limited will not be a party to these proceedings going forward.

Unitholders with queries in relation to the IMF documentation should contact IMF directly:
Mr Tim Mclernon
Toll Free 1800 016 464
Direct:
Email
+618 9225 2300
tmclernon@imf.com.au"


----------



## Mary Lynch (20 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

3rd August


----------



## lawry1dog (21 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Could someone inform me that, what #86 wrote is wrong?
I am hoping that I will get all my money back plus interest.
But IMF, I understand will get 30% of that.

Is this correct?
This forum should shut down again, if #86 is wrong and if she or he is an
investment adviser or someone from Octaviar.


_What #86 wrote.
It sems many members of this Forum are under an illusion as to the scope of the claim against KPMG. The claim is limited to the funds transferred to MFS satelite companies without unit holder approval.

IMF have stated that no claim will be made for lost interest or other consquential losses.

Sorry to disappoint._


----------



## marcom (21 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Application today to the Supreme Court, Brisbane: WATSON & another -V- LATITUDE DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD. This has something to do with the sale of the Mackay project. A couple of weeks ago there were 2 other applications with Latitude V Wellington Investment Management. Not sure of the outcome of those applications and there has not been any NSX disclosure.

MARCOM


----------



## Calliope (21 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Duped,

I have just received the documentation from IMF. I have only had a quick scan of the papers, but nowhere have I seen a reference to PIF litigants.

In the Investigation, Management and Funding Agreement they have asked for details of Octavair (MFS) *securities* bought and sold for a specific period with no reference to *Income Fund units.* 

On page 2 Item 5, we will obviously have to overwrite changes. Do you suggest a standard approach to this?

Cheers.


----------



## Dexter (21 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Re my post #86

Please remember that Wellington still values the remaining units in the Fund at 44c in the $.

We cannot claim that from KPMG nor can we redeem it from Wellington as the majority of Unit Holders voted to end redemptions and have the units placed on the NSX.

Please contact Carneys or IMF regarding their current stance on claiming lost interest.

I have approx. $1m at stake so I am in the same boat as every one else.


----------



## atlas1950 (21 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Having been at the meeting at Carney's at the Law Society some eight weeks ago, I do recall Mr Carney saying that we will be claiming lost interest on our investments. Unless there has been a change, I do expect lost interest to be part of our claim.

Michael


----------



## Duped (21 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Calliope,  

We can track the case online at https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD324/2009/actions. The current plaintiffs and repondents are listed under the Parties tab.

IMF is also funding litigation on behalf of the Octaviar (MFS) Ltd (parent company) shareholders. Are you sure you have the correct IMF pack?  

I got my pack from the NSX release (http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021721669.PDF).  Box 4 and Box 5 of page 2 of the agreement in the NSX release refer to Premium Income Fund Units.  

I'm not sure how this will work if you opted for the automatic reinvestment because the interest and hence reinvestment units earned in January 2008 were 'paid'in Feb 2008 weren't they? I can't remember. Maybe that last issue of reinvestment units were already accredited by 29 January 2008. Can anyone confirm? Logically that last issue of reinvestment units should be included IMLO because they are rights associated with the units you had before 29 January 2008. Rights that have been affected by MFSIM's shenanigans and KPMG's failure to warn. 

Please call Tim McLernon on 1800 016 464 to confirm any questions you have.

Hope this helps


----------



## Duped (21 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Something I asked some time ago but got no response.  Has anyone taken any legal action against their financial advisor for putting them in this fund? Depending on the progress/outcome of this class action, I'm thinking of taking action against mine.  I just can't see any way that my advisor could have correlated PIF with the risk profile he gave me.  PIF is essentially an investment in commercial property which I now read and learn, is hit fast and hard in a downturn. 

Also, if a financial advisor has successfully argued that they couldn't be expected know the fund was dodgy if KPMG were OK with it then: wouldn't this add weight to our case against KPMG.

Anyone? Send me a private message.  But don't breach your 'do not tell' clause from your settlement agreement. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

See http://www.slatergordon.com.au/docs... Quantum Westpoint PII court win 1_090707.pdf


----------



## charles36 (21 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*

Dexter, I agree we are all in the same boat.  Wellington may value the properties at 44 cents, but the true value of the fund is what can you readily sell units for.  The answer is about 12 cents and that is what the fund is worth.  Since listing on the NSX there has been one transaction at 45 cents by Wellington itself.  I like others would like to know the source of your contrary information.


----------



## Calliope (21 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



Duped said:


> IMF is also funding litigation on behalf of the Octaviar (MFS) Ltd (parent company) shareholders. Are you sure you have the correct IMF pack?
> 
> Fund Units.




Thanks Duped. Yes I had the wrong pack.


----------



## Joe Blow (21 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The two seperate threads on this topic have now been merged.


----------



## marcom (21 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Something must be happening with the Mackay Latitude property as there is now an application to be heard 9.30 tomorrow in the Brisbane Supreme Court: LATITUDE AT MACKAY PTY LTD -V- WELLINGTON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED & others. As I posted eariler, the same application was introduced a couple of weeks ago. Hope it means that a sale is getting closer.

Still no word on Justice McMurdo's long awaited judgement on the Octaviar liquidation case involving the Public Trustee of Queensland.

Marcom


----------



## simgrund (21 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



mgr2118 said:


> The Packs are available from www.imf.com.au
> 
> Currently second entry on page is for this action - just enter your details, and their automated system emails all relevant documentation.
> 
> Interesting to also note that IMF are funding the action by Octaviar shareholders - hopefully this would enable their lawyers to get the whole truth about the MFS/Octaviar saga.




This is helpful, mgr2118. Let' s get it really noticed:

GET YOUR IMF PACKS FROM 
www.imf.com.au

MUST MAIL BEFORE 3 AUGUST 2009


----------



## Duped (22 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My understanding:

IMF must *RECEIVE *your application *BY *3 August.


----------



## wally3218 (22 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My mother who is the unit holder hasnt recieved any informaion about this class action, how many other unit holders who dont use this forum will miss out on joining in the class action because they havent recieved any information either.


----------



## breaker1 (22 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The previous return date for IMF kits was 3 August 2009, after an enquiry with IMF that it might be extended, I received the following reply extending it to 30 August 2009:

"The investigation period ends 30 August so lets use that as the extended return date."
signed John Walker Executive Director IMF.

AS OF LATE THIS AFTERNOON THE NEW RETURN DATE FOR IMF KITS HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO *30 AUGUST 2009*


----------



## simgrund (22 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> My understanding:
> 
> IMF must *RECEIVE *your application *BY *3 August.




WELL POINTED, DUPED
In the unlikely event of the return envelope (provided with the pack) vanishing in your household, here is the IMF address for mailing out your packs:[/SIZE]

IMF (Australia) Ltd
Reply Paid  Z 5106
PERTH ST GEORGES TCE  WA  6831[/SIZE]


----------



## marcom (22 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Breaker, we finally received our pack yesterday because it was originally sent to our previous address and luckily forwarded by a good neighbour. We checked that our current address was registered with Wellington 2 months ago, so IMF have been given an ouy of date list by Wellington.

Marcom


----------



## Tybalt (22 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have been told by IMF that they now only require Page 1 of the Agreement to be completed and returned to them.   The reason for the change is that Wellington has provided with them with details of all unit holdings.  Future packs to be sent out will advise this.   However, they say they are not able to separately advise those to whom packs have already been sent out.


----------



## breaker1 (22 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Breaker, we finally received our pack yesterday because it was originally sent to our previous address and luckily forwarded by a good neighbour. We checked that our current address was registered with Wellington 2 months ago, so IMF have been given an ouy of date list by Wellington.
> 
> Marcom




Will advise IMF as above - see if they can get the updated version - it may be too late however as I assume the mailout is too far underway to change.

thanks M

NOTE: AS OF LATE THIS AFTERNOON THE NEW RETURN DATE FOR IMF KITS HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO 
30 AUGUST 2009


----------



## JohnH (22 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

For what it's worth, I emailed a copy of my forms to IMF last night, and received an acknowledgement email this morning.


----------



## Towbar (22 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Myself & my wife, both substantial unit holders have not receivrd our Imf packs, how many other investors are still waiting?


----------



## Calliope (22 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

All this "shouting" is unnecessary. It is not only annoying, it is against the rules.


----------



## Duped (23 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sorry.  I didn't intend for my last message to come across as shouting.


----------



## Duped (23 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hopefully the claims under related party transactions extends far deeper into the PIF portfolio than e.g. the $147M that WC is pursuing.  

Hopefully even deals like the Forest Resort in Creswick and Latitude in Mackay.  They certainly reek of conflict. Have a look at the case studies at www.mfsversa.com.au.  Versa is claiming to have done these amazing deals for their clients ("Versa ... were able to structure a funding package through MFS" - Forest Resort), but surprise surprise, the 'funding' came from PIF.  So whose interests was MFS representing? Their Developer clients or us PIF investors? Conflicted Conflicted Conflicted.  Chinese walls and regulatory oversight? - FAIL.

As for the Latitude 'case study': no mention that this was also funded by MFS (i.e. PIF). 

I wonder how many of the other 'case studies' were 'funded' by PIF.  They are:
Enterprise Industrial Estate (Lots 8 & 9 Tilley Lane, Frenchs Forest NSW)
Shores (39-41 Head St, Forster NSW)
Central Park Estate (Cemetary Rd, Sarina QLD)
Waterfront (131-137 Princes Hwy, Sylvania NSW)
Volante (Captain Cook Hwy, Port Douglas QLD)

Then of course there's our 'investments' as unsecured creditors in MFS  'assets' like Sheraton Mirage Port Douglas and Gold Coast.  How much do they owe us?

Don't forget our losses in other MFS funds like LLA and GEO. 

Seems like there's materially little that wasn't a related party transaction.  An MO given a big tick of approval by KMPG.  Now that the 'commercial in confidence' veil has been removed it's apparent MFS didn't have a clue what a 'related party transaction' was - but KPMG gave them the go ahead.


----------



## marcom (23 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped, I was trawling around and found this old article about the $147.5M loans situation with a very important point about the Ray Group loan which I have highlighted.

The source is http://www.smartcompany.com.au/Free...itors-want-more-than-1-billion-from-MFS-.html 

Angry creditors want more than $1 billion from MFS 
Wednesday 25 June 2008 22:01 

Embattled funds management group MFS (now known as Octaviar) is facing more legal action, after allegations that $147.5 million was siphoned from MFS’s Premium Income Fund and lent to seven parties just months before the fund was frozen.

Octaviar confirmed yesterday that Wellington Investment Management, the new manager of the frozen Premium Income Fund, has launched legal action to recover the cash. 

According to The Australian Financial Review, Wellington director Jenny Hutson – a close associate of new Octaviar executive director and major shareholder Chris Scott – claims $37.5 million of the money was lent to a joint venture between MFS and Ray Group, the property development group founded by the late Gold Coast developer Brian Ray and now run by his son Tom. 

The Ray family – who were valued at $130 million on BRW’s Rich 200 in 2006 – was involved with several projects with MFS, including the developments at Port Douglas and the ski resort of Mount Hotham in Victoria. 

A spokesman for the Ray Group declined to comment and referred all inquiries to Octaviar, as responsible entity for the Octaviar/Ray Group joint venture. 

*Octaviar’s company secretary David Anderson did not return calls before SmartCompany’s deadline. However, one source close to Octaviar has suggested that the company’s initial investigations into Hutton’s claims of a loan to the Octaviar/Ray joint venture has failed to find any record of the transaction. *

MFS’ debt-ridden business model unravelled earlier this year as global credit markets as a result of the sub-prime crisis. 

A creditors’ update released by the company yesterday reveals a queue of organisations lining up to claim cash from Octaviar. The tax office wants $60 million, OPI Pacific Finance (a company associated with Octaviar) has claimed $270 million, and National Australia Bank is demanding $40 million. 

In addition, the Public Trustee of Queensland (PTQ) is seeking winding up orders against Octaviar and three subsidiaries in relation to unsecured notes and interest totalling approximately $351 million, with that claim to go before the Queensland Supreme Court on 9 September. Financial services company Challenger is also owed $100 million.


----------



## Blueboy1 (23 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

FYI 

The return date for IMF contracts relating to the funding agreement has been extended from the original date of 3 August 09 to 30 August 09.


----------



## Duped (24 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I've just received the pack through the link (http://www.imf.com.au/cases_ip.asp?case=KPMG) on the IMF website.  

The deadline given is still *3 August * so that's the deadline I'll be meeting.


----------



## Cookie1 (24 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Article in _Money Management_ today of interest

Source: http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/a...-demand-inquiry-into-MFS-Octaviar/491652.aspx

Burned investors demand inquiry into MFS/Octaviar
24 July 2009 | by Mike Taylor   

The collapse of Gold Coast funds management and investment group MFS and its impact on investors in the Premium Income Fund has now emerged as an issue before the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry into Financial Services and Products.

Successive submissions to the so-called Ripoll inquiry have referred to the Premium Income Fund, all distributions and redemptions of which were frozen in January last year.

The submissions relating to the Premium Income Fund make clear that as a result of the freeze and the loss of distributions, many investors have been left relying on social welfare benefits.

The submissions have also requested a Senate Inquiry into allegations that MFS and its successor firm, Octaviar, may have improperly dealt with funds from the Premium Income Fund to prop up other operations.

The submissions allege that as much as $330 million belonging to the Premium Income Fund may have been affected by the operations of MFS and Octaviar.

The submissions argue that the Federal Government’s bank deposit guarantee has impacted funds such as Premium Income Fund and that any Senate inquiry should extend to include a government guarantee to investment deposits of injured funds such as Premium Income Fund.


----------



## simgrund (26 July 2009)

*Re: Wellington Premium Income Fund*



Calliope said:


> Duped,
> 
> I have just received the documentation from IMF. I have only had a quick scan of the papers, but nowhere have I seen a reference to PIF litigants.
> 
> ...




Hello Calliope,
The reference you seek is in the "Note" on page 1 inside "Applicant Details".
You probably came across it by now.
I am here to ask PIF AG to post if possible the IMF notice of extension which will verify and provide peace of mind to some still confused.
Best regards, simgrund


----------



## Calliope (26 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Simgrund,

My problem was, as Duped suggested, was that I had the wrong pack. With the correct pack I still had a problem as I could not complete the Trade Details because I haven't kept the details of Purchases and Redemptions over the years.

The only detail I could provide was Closing Balance i.e. Number of Units Held on 29th January 2008.

These of course are the units which haven't  been redeemed.

Cheers.


----------



## Duped (27 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Calliope. The IMF pack I received on Friday through filling out the online form at http://www.imf.com.au/cases_ip.asp?case=KPMG confirms that you don't need to complete all the details on page 2.

Might be best to do download the pack again.


----------



## The Owls (27 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good morning. 
I have a few questions regarding the action being instigated by FMI against KPMG / MFS Premium Income Fund and would appreciate any advice.

1. Are the actions by IMF independent and in addition to all claims being made or likely to be made by Wellington.

2. If the claims being made by IMF against MFS are successful would there be sufficient funds available from MFS to pay the settlement. I understand their Professional Indemnity Insurer would pay any successful claim against KPMG.

3. Will any money recovered from KPMG / MFS Premium Income Fund affect any current or future claims made by Wellington.

4. If the claim is successful will the net asset backing of a unit in the Fund remains at
44 cents per unit.

5. Will other fund members not entering into a litigation funding agreement with IMF benefit from any successful claim.

6.  What would be the maximum fee IMF would be entitled to taking in to account costs and the Project Management Fees? Would anyone have an estimate of costs?
In the info from IMF it states the following:
If any proceedings are brought and are successfully resolved, IMF will receive a return of the costs it has paid, a Project Management Fee based on those costs and between 25% and 35% of the recovery proceeds for your claim, depending upon the time it takes to achieve the recovery. 

7. What is approximately the amount of the claim being made against KPMG / MFS Premium Income Fund and the separate amounts if possible.

8. Would any settlement to unit holders be return of capital or income?

I realize that these questions may not be easy to answer and should I direct them to either or both IMF or Wellington.

Thank you in advance.


----------



## Cookie1 (27 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Duped, 

Is there any way to download the updated IMF package without ordering another information pack from IMF? It seems such a waste of paper! I've gone on to the IMF website but don't see an option to actually just do a download of the documents. Pardon my ignorance... 

Thanks.


----------



## Calliope (27 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This statement is in the pack I received;


> 7. Please return the material referred to in paragraph 4 above. lf possible, could you please scan and email the documents to tmclernon@imf.com.au and post the original documents to the address below:
> IMF (Australia) Ltd
> PO Box 25106
> St George's Terrace
> ...




I would have thought that the unredeemed units were the more relevant considering that the redeemed units were redeemed in full.

Cookie,  

They email it to you.


----------



## Duped (27 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

You're right Calliope. Have just reread the covering email.   But the agreement form doesn't include that page 2 with the boxeds 4 and 5 anymore.

Shall phone for clarification when I get the time.


----------



## lawry1dog (28 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This is what I think the future will be:-  (hope I am wrong!)

1.  It will take over 2 years for the Class Action to be finalised. Because
     the longer it takes the more fees IMF & Carneys get.

2.  The judge will probably order KMPG to pay a few million from there
     liability insurance.

3.  The few million(a piddly amount), will be given to Wellington Fund.

4.  Wellington will then mayble decide to pay the 3c distribution, which 
     I reckon will be at the end of 2011.

5.  Wellington will then be left with all the shonky properties or developments
     that are not finished or in mortgagee possession.

6.  Mean while all the PIF investors will be no better off.


Just shows you that, if you give money to someone in Australia, you most
likely will never get it back, unless you go to court many times.

I am all for the class action, as we have to do something, and hope my
scenerio is wrong.


Regards
Lawry1Dog


----------



## Mary Lynch (28 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Lousy attitude lawryIdog.  We need positive attitudes.  It's crazy to put such crap into peoples' minds.


----------



## Calliope (28 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> You're right Calliope. Have just reread the covering email.   But the agreement form doesn't include that page 2 with the boxeds 4 and 5 anymore.
> 
> Shall phone for clarification when I get the time.




In answer to my email query from IMF I received this reply;



> There is no longer a need for you to provide any trade details as we have received those from Wellington.


----------



## selciper (28 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just letting you know that I posted my paperwork to IMF last Friday via snail mail and received an email receipt for it this afternoon.  A nice example of efficiency.


----------



## simgrund (28 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

To DEXTER and lawry 1 dog re #86  now #3911

Please refer to "Outline of Proceedings" from Carneys Lawyers, dated 24 April
page 2 under "Amount of damages".
It is pointless to speculate on the eventual outcome in the event it will be reached. 
For now, that is what is on the table and IMF seems to agree.
With best wishes,
Simgrund


----------



## BABIHUTAN (29 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

As I see it the action being run by Carneys for the AG and hopefully to be funded by IMF - if in investment dollar terms sufficient investors sign up to make it worth their while - is against KPMG & others, who contributed to get us into this mess.
IMO the action has nothing to do with return of Capital, distributions etc.etc. That is an issue between Investors & Wellington and hopefully Jenny will perform as she indicated she would when she took over PIF. 
IMO anything realised on behalf of those that join the class action is separate from any returns that may be received from Wellington and/or the sale units on the NSX.


----------



## Duped (29 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> I've just received the pack through the link (http://www.imf.com.au/cases_ip.asp?case=KPMG) on the IMF website.
> 
> The deadline given is still *3 August * so that's the deadline I'll be meeting.





Just received the pack again through the link (http://www.imf.com.au/cases_ip.asp?case=KPMG) on the IMF website. 

The deadline given is now *30 August*. I.e. in writing from IMF.  Cheers.


----------



## JohnH (29 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

IMO anything realised on behalf of those that join the class action is separate from any returns that may be received from Wellington and/or the sale units on the NSX.[/QUOTE]

.............That's how I read it BH -  as far as I can see we have nothing to lose, and possibly a lot to gain by supporting the Class Action.

If we have got it wrong, perhaps somebody more knowledgeable can enlighten us.


----------



## reasonable (29 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Just received the pack again through the link (http://www.imf.com.au/cases_ip.asp?case=KPMG) on the IMF website.
> 
> The deadline given is now *30 August*. I.e. in writing from IMF.  Cheers.




Have just downloaded and can only see 3 August.  Where does it quote 30th August?


----------



## simgrund (29 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



reasonable said:


> Have just downloaded and can only see 3 August.  Where does it quote 30th August?




Hello reasonable,
Below is the response from IMF Mr. McLernon to my request for extension verification.
It is definitely ON!
Cheers, simgrund

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Tim McLernon ( IMF )
To: ... name... (simgrund)
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 10:36 AM
Subject: RE: IMF class action; extension date 30 August 2009
Simon,
We will try and let as many people know regarding the extension and new date.
Tim


----------



## Duped (30 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



reasonable said:


> Have just downloaded and can only see 3 August.  Where does it quote 30th August?




Reasonable.  It was in the covering email.  I didn't check the actual docs in the pack delivered to my inbox yesterday.

I appreciate you all here that have been advised by IMF that the deadline was the 30th but I'm going to give precendence to anything in writing from IMF.  Sorry, once bitten.  And I'm not going to risk even the slightest chance of missing out on being in this class action.


----------



## The Owls (30 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Below is the reply to me from IMF re deadline.

Robert,
I have just emailed you the full information pack.
We have extended the deadline to return Funding agreements to the 30 August.

Regards

 Tim McLernon


----------



## lawry1dog (30 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

What I thought of future, looks flawed, but at least we should know what
the future might entail, so we can plan ahead.

My new scenerio is:-

1. The class action has no bearing on Wellington at all. They have to
    still work towards getting the NSX unit price back to $1.00.

2. As far as I know you can get your money out via the NSX, but Wellington
   will also one day provide us with distributions. Hoping this will happen 
   sooner than later.


3. I still contend that it will take over 2 years for the Class Action to be 
   finalised. Because the longer it takes the more fees IMF & Carneys get.
   Of course I am hoping that it will be finished by next year.

4. The judge will probably order KMPG and others to pay many millions back to
    unit holders in a evenly distributed manner.


Just wondering if there is a guarantee of getting some money, can we go to a
bank now and borrow against these coming funds?

Just a thought.


Regards
Kalvin1Dog


----------



## marcom (30 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Octaviar Judgements out tomorrow!!!!

COMMERCIAL LIST
RE: OCTAVIAR LIMITED
	Justice Philip McMurdo
	Banco Court
Floor 2 	9:45 AM 
(Judgment)
RE: OCTAVIAR ADMINISTRATION PTY LTD
	Justice Philip McMurdo
	Banco Court
Floor 2 	9:45 AM 
(Judgment)
FORTRESS CREDIT CORPORATION (AUSTRALIA) II PTY LIMITED -V- OCTAVIAR LIMITED & others
	Justice Philip McMurdo
	Banco Court
Floor 2 	9:45 AM 
(Judgment)


----------



## The Owls (31 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Will any of these judgements assist or financially reward unit holders in PIF


----------



## selciper (31 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Information about Octaviar in today's Gold Coast Bulletin.

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/07/31/103385_gold-coast-business.html


----------



## Duped (31 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



The Owls said:


> Will any of these judgements assist or financially reward unit holders in PIF




If Fortress lose, the $25M that was going to them will be spread amongst all the creditors including PIF. PIF's is very roughly 20% of the total claims.  Correct?  So there should be an extra $5M for us. The current wind up proposal sees us get 4c in the $ right?  I.e.  $8M of the $197M we're claiming.  So a win will greatly increase what we get. Correct? Still pittance compared to what we've lost.  It's still not enough for WC to pay us 3c - need $23M for that.

We also don't know how much Deloitte have allowed what's left in OCV to erode these last 3 months.

So there's a lot at stake for Fortress.  Their payout would drop to about $1M.  Might be an appeal to the High court if they lose. Difficult to determine if the PTQ will appeal if they lose.  Their claim is very roughly 35%. So they're set to gain an extra $8M. 

Many in the legal throng have voiced their disapproval of McMurdo's decision. Wouldn't this give Fortress confidence?


----------



## marcom (31 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The Octaviar decision is on this link:

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2009/QSC09-202.pdf.


----------



## Blueboy1 (31 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Extract from Gold Coast news today:-

July 31, 2009 02:59pm
Octaviar into liquidation
Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:13:40 EST

GOLD Coast company Octaviar, formerly known as MFS, was this morning placed into liquidation following a Queensland Supreme Court order.

OCTAVIAR was this morning placed into liquidation following a Queensland Supreme Court order.

Justice Philip McMurdo terminated a deed of company arrangement that has been in place since last December, naming company administrators John Greig and Nick Harwood, of Deloitte, as provisional liquidators.

The move finally spells the end for the listed Gold Coast company, formerly known as MFS, which has been heaving under debts of up to $2 billion since its collapse in January last year.


----------



## Duped (31 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The Owls:-  I forgot to mention that Fortress probably also needs to return assets that it has already been given.  So their losses are greater than in my previous post.  But there is a discussion in para [203] that indicates all these $ go to the ATO anyway - which I didn't follow.

Looks like the door has been kicked open for the sale of Stella to be voided. I don't really know to what extent this all helps PIF financially.

Some choice quotes: 

Para [130] "As already discussed, in their s 439A reports, the administrators said that the group may have been insolvent as from the date of the Stella contract. Professor Gray’s evidence provides a logical basis for concluding that the position was no different as at 22 or 24 January 2008."

Para [137] "The relevant question then is whether the Public Trustee has established that there is at least a serious question to be tried that OL was insolvent on 22 January 2008. Even on the basis of Professor Gray’s evidence alone, there is such a serious case."

Para [221] "On the present evidence, it is far from demonstrated that Fortress had “no reason to have any concern with the solvency” of OL."

Para [182] "The public interest is therefore a consideration in favour of terminating the deeds"

Para [141] and [142] relate to OCV raiding of PIF and include "Were that case to be established, the facts would strongly support a conclusion that the group was insolvent by 30 November 2007, because if directors of OL had to resort to a misappropriation of the assets of the PIF, it could be inferred that OL was unable to pay Fortress by any lawful means."

This was followed up in para [218]""But I still don’t know how they paid us the $100MM in Nov.”
That last reference, of course, was to the payment to Fortress on 30 November 2007, which WIM alleges was made with misappropriated funds."


----------



## breaker1 (31 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Information about Octaviar in today's Gold Coast Bulletin.
> 
> http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/07/31/103385_gold-coast-business.html




I went through that with Wellington a long time ago and the PIF is a separate entity with its own board of directors. 

Further, my initial reading of it is that the PTQ seems more interested in recovering the money Wellington Capital owes the Octaviar group for the fees in taking over the PIF which I understand Wellington has not paid yet or are disputing.

Nevertheless, it is serious business and I have sent Caroline Snow an urgent email for explanation.

Supreme Court of Qld - Judge McMurdo - in part as to Wellington
[156] The Public Trustee also suggests that there is a case to be investigated that there was an unfair preference by the transfer of “beneficial ownership of $5 million in cash to Wellington Capital Ltd or an entity controlled by it”. The evidence for this submission is a net realisable value statement of the Octaviar group as at 31 May 2008. There is evidence there that $5.05 million had been held by WIM. The likely explanation of this document representing that the cash was no longer available to the group is that the cash was held by WIM, which ceased to be a member of the group upon the acquisition of its shares by Wellington Capital. *Perhaps a liquidator would wish to investigate this*, *but* on the present evidence, a liquidator would not be obliged to do so, one reason being that if there has been a loss, it was not a payment by or the appropriation of property of OL or OA (as
distinct from WIM).
[157] Then the Public Trustee says that the terms of the sale of the shares in WIM should be investigated, because they were adverse to the interests of the seller by the price being dependent upon the future earnings of WIM. The sale agreement and the call option from which it arose were apparently negotiated at arm’s length and the Octaviar side had its own legal advice. On the face of it, the terms as to price do not seem to be so unusual. The Public Trustee did not press its pleaded case that there was some wrongdoing on the part of Wellington Capital by its causing WIM not to charge fees for managing the PIF, thereby resulting in there being no profit within the 12 months from the sale. *I am not satisfied *that the liquidator would wish to
investigate the terms of the share sale agreement.
[158] The final point in relation to Wellington Capital was not pleaded, but it arises from evidence given by Ms Hutson that Wellington Capital had received something of the order of $3 million from the Octaviar group in respect of services provided in relation to the PIF between May and August 2008. *I accept that a liquidator would wish to investigate such a payment *as a potential preference.


----------



## breaker1 (31 July 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*WELLINGTON NSX release 31 July* Octaviar Update
Public Trustee of Queensland – Application against Administrators of Octaviar Limited (In Administration) and Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd (In ministration)
Supreme Court of Queensland
The Honourable Justice McMurdo in the Supreme Court of Queensland today handed down judgement in relation to the applications filed by the Public Trustee of Queensland on 19 February 2009 in relation to Octaviar Limited (In Administration) (Receivers & Managers Appointed) and Octaviar dministration Pty Ltd (In Administration). Each Application sought orders under sections 445D and 447A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and particularly sought termination of the Deed of Company Arrangement for Octaviar Limited and Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd. 
His Honour Justice McMurdo has today ordered that:
each of the Deeds of Company Arrangement for Octaviar Limited and Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd be terminated John Lethbridge Grieg and Nicholas Harwood (the current Administrators of Octaviar Limited and
Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd) be appointed provisional liquidators until further order of the Court. *It is unclear at this time what effect the appointment of liquidators to each of Octaviar Limited and Octaviar
Administration Pty Ltd will have in relation to any potential recovery by the Premium Income Fund.*

Reply from Wellington to my email: The Public Trustee is not in control of any investigations in relation to any party which transacted with Octaviar Limited or Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd - that is for a liquidator to determine after reviewing the facts. In court, the Public Trustee challenged each and every transaction between the Octaviar entities, and this is set out in the judgement link.

 We await advice from the liquidator before it is clear what investigations into the Fund transactions they will undertake upon their appointment. This could take some time.


----------



## simgrund (1 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> *
> 
> Reply from Wellington to my email: The Public Trustee is not in control of any investigations in relation to any party which transacted with Octaviar Limited or Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd - that is for a liquidator to determine after reviewing the facts. In court, the Public Trustee challenged each and every transaction between the Octaviar entities, and this is set out in the judgement link.
> 
> ...



*

Breaker1,
Any reaction from Carneys as to any impact on the Class Action?*


----------



## marcom (1 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A Directions hearing stemming from McMurdo's decision will be held at 2PM Wed 5 August - OCV release to ASX by Deloitts. This will probably decide the final liquidators and set reporting timetable etc


----------



## breaker1 (2 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Breaker1,
> Any reaction from Carneys as to any impact on the Class Action?




No, but they have been advised by the AG. 

The new liquidators will now be another group looking at the OCV / PIF transaction in addition to our Carneys Lawyers team.


----------



## selciper (2 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This is a handy summary describing liquidations generally. 

http://www.worrells.net.au/factsheets/Liquidation.htm


----------



## breaker1 (2 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> This is a handy summary describing liquidations generally.
> 
> http://www.worrells.net.au/factsheets/Liquidation.htm




Good post selciper!

Particularly the part on the liquidators power to: exam the directors and others under oath


----------



## seamisty (4 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all, nice to see some new posters. I have been travelling with little computer accesss so not quite up to date with the McMurdo ruling and apologise to PIF unitholders who have not received replies to their emails. The following is an interesting article in todays Couriermail  . Regards, Seamisty
By Anthony Marx 
August 04, 2009 12:00am
Liquidators to pursue Octaviar cash:
LIQUIDATORS of the last two entities in the failed Octaviar tourism and finance group will try to claw back more than $150 million in unfair preference payments, loans and investments.

Deloitte partners John Greig and Nicholas Harwood are also expected to grill former company directors and auditors over allegations of insolvent trading and other corporate wrongdoing.

The two men were appointed by Brisbane Supreme Court Justice Philip McMurdo on Friday to wind up Octaviar Limited and Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd. Both had already been serving as administrators since late last year.

The court ruling was a victory for the Public Trustee of Queensland, which had sought liquidation on behalf of more than 560 noteholders owed $359 million by the group formerly known as MFS.

The decision scuttled deeds of company arrangement proposed by Fortress Credit Corporation and approved by creditors, which the Public Trustee had however criticised as unfair.

Public Trustee Peter Carne said the wind-up would allow for a thorough investigation of the Gold Coast companies and provide the best chance for creditors to recover some of their money.

But Brisbane merchant banker Jenny Hutson, whose firm Wellington Capital is trying to recover $200 million owed to its Premium Income Fund, said creditors should have accepted a deal last year that would have paid 22.5c on the dollar. She said liquidation would lead to a return of only 2c-4c on the dollar.

Liquidators may examine Wellington's acquisition of the management rights to the Premium Income Fund, which the Public Trustee claimed in court documents had been secured from MFS for "no real consideration". Ms Hutson has defended the move, maintaining that her firm's intervention prevented the appointment of receivers.

Octaviar group collapsed in September last year with debts of more than $1.5 billion.

Only $120 million in cash remains in Octaviar Administration, with the ATO set to take $58 million and the balance to be split by creditors.

A spokeswoman for accounting firm KPMG declined to comment about its auditing work for Octaviar. Investors have launched a class action against KPMG.

Justice McMurdo has previously ruled in favour of the Public Trustee, deciding in March that a $38.5 million charge held by Fortress over Octaviar was void as security. Fortress has appealed against that decision.


----------



## marcom (4 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tomorrows directions hearings in the Brisbane Supreme Court before Justice McMurdo - particularly note the last directions re the PTQ and the provisional liquidators:

COMMERCIAL LIST

RE: OCTAVIAR LIMITED
	Justice Philip McMurdo
	Banco Court
Floor 2 	2:00 PM 
(Directions Hearing)

RE: OCTAVIAR ADMINISTRATION PTY LTD
	Justice Philip McMurdo
	Banco Court
Floor 2 	2:00 PM 
(Directions Hearing)

FORTRESS CREDIT CORPORATION (AUSTRALIA) II PTY LIMITED -V- OCTAVIAR LIMITED & others
	Justice Philip McMurdo
	Banco Court
Floor 2 	2:00 PM 
(Directions Hearing)

RE: OCTAVIAR LIMITED (FORMERLY MFS LIMITED)
	Justice Philip McMurdo
	Banco Court
Floor 2 	2:00 PM 
(Directions Hearing)

PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF QUEENSLAND -V- GREIG & others
	Justice Philip McMurdo
	Banco Court
Floor 2 	2:00 PM 
(Directions Order)


----------



## Duped (5 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Why would Deloitte care?  They get paid the same no matter how little we get back.  How could going straight to Liquidation mid last year have been any worse than Vol Administration under Deloitte?  Deloitte rolled over when Fortress applied pressure and then they rolled over when CVC applied pressure. So are Deloitte supposed to be executing any judgement or are they largely administrative like Perpetual were in their role as trustees? Anyone? 

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Stella-pd20090803-UK6TH?OpenDocument&src=kgb

*"BUSINESS SPECTATOR
Stephen Bartholomeusz
3 August 2009*

Somehow, within the restructuring and recapitalisation of Australia’s largest tourism business, *more than $600 million of debt has disappeared*.

Stella Group, once part of the MFS empire, announced what it terms a "comprehensive corporate restructure and recapitalisation" today, splitting its business into three discrete, separately managed units – the hospitality group (which operates the Peppers, Mantra and Breakfree brands), the Australasian Stella Travel business and Stella Travel Services in the UK.

The restructuring was made possible when CVC Asia Pacific, which acquired a 65 per cent interest in Stella for $409 million (and the assumption of $905 million of debt) in February last year, bought the remaining 35 per cent from Octaviar, as MFS is now known, last month.

It paid only $3.2 million for a stake that was valued at about $700 million by the original deal, but dropped litigation claiming compensation for the fact that Stella had missed, grossly, the earnings forecasts provided when CVC bought in.

Last month’s deal left CVC as the sole owner of the equity in Stella. Conveniently, Stella had only one bank. UBS was owed more than $900 million.

Today’s statement from CVC doesn’t explain the recapitalisation, but does say that Stella Hospitality had assumed $245 million of long-term debt and Stella Travel Australia/New Zealand $40 million. The UK business has been left debt-free.

That leaves about $620 million of the original debt unaccounted for. It would appear a reasonable assumption that CVC has put some more equity into the business. However, one of the positives of having just one banker in an over-leveraged business is that the bank has more to lose than the equity provider. It’s also a lot easier to negotiate with one bank than a syndicate.

It appears UBS has converted a significant proportion of its exposure to Stella from debt to equity. There was no reference to UBS in today’s statement but it did say that the Stella businesses would continue to be "majority owned and controlled" by funds advised by CVC Asia Pacific, which implies that its equity has been either sold down or, far more likely, diluted by new capital provided by UBS, swapping some of its debt for equity.

Had Stella not been recapitalised its distressed condition, or even failure, would have caused significant damage to the local tourism and hospitality sector.

The fact that the two main stake-holders have been able to so substantially re-make its balance sheet signals that they think that there is an attractive future for the group as the economy and the economics of the travel sector recovers.

Stella will now have the balance sheet and liquidity to enable it to survive until that occurs.*"*


----------



## marcom (5 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

During the earlier hearings the PTQ expressed confidence in the Deloittes administrators as being suitable liquidators, if the court so determined. Now after the Stella transaction they do not appear to be of the same mind - this could well be an action against Delloittes for the damage caused. I'll be watching to see if the directions are posted on the ASX and NSX as an Octaviar update.


----------



## Duped (5 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

How about this from Fairfax's Business Day. http://business.brisbanetimes.com.a...etaway-from-stella-debacle-20090803-e7a7.html

*"*chief executive of Stella Travel Services, Peter Lacaze,  
...

Having talked down the impact of the economic slowdown on business over the past few months, Mr Lacaze admitted yesterday that conditions had been extremely tough. ‘‘*The last 12 months have been really difficult.*’’ Mr Lacaze replaced the former boss Rolf Krecklenberg late last year, after he left in acrimonious circumstances. In April a spokeswoman from the Stella hospitality arm said: ‘‘It’s just business as usual.’’ *"*

So which is it eh?? That Stella was a dud as CVC's $600M warranty claim against OCV asserts OR is the truth more that trading conditions deteriorated after the acquisition.


----------



## marcom (6 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Correction to my last post - the PTQ did not support the Deloittes team as potential liquidators. It was Challenger and Fortress who nominated them - the PTQ has opposed their appointment.

I've been looking for details of the Directions from yesterdays Supreme Court hearings but no announcements yet maybe Deloittes are not on the case anymore.

Duped, the last paragraph of Deloittes ASX OCV announcement re the sale of the remainder of Stella concludes with "Completion of the sale of shares and loan note is subject to a number of conditions, including regulatory approvals (this is probably Foreign Investment Review Board approval) which are required to be satisfied by 31 August 2009."

It will be interesting to see what effects McMurdo's decision on OCV liquidation has on completion of the deal. Presume that the liquidator would want to look at it as a potential uncommercial transaction. And given that the original sale of 65% of Stella may be voided due to insolvency, it will be interesting to see how the liquidator proposes to "unscramble the egg".

After reading the judgement I can see the potential for PIF to recover the $130 Mil from RBS if misappropriation is proven - better this is done via the class action so that the compensation is in our hands, rather than pursued by our RE, as the money would go back to the fund.

Also if the $50Mil support facility is voided because it was provided for no value etc, there arises the prospect of further action against MFS/OCV Directors and Officers for issuing a false statement in a PDS. And remember that it was just the issuance of false statements in a PDS that put "Rocket Rodney" in gaol.

My reading of the judgement also seems to point to the $147.5Mil of dud loans being part of a ruse to cover the alleged misappropriation, or is it another misappropriation by exchanging PIF cash for worthless loans? Either way I am sure that it will figure in the class action.

MARCOM


----------



## lawry1dog (7 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We have lived in hope that we would get our money or some of our money back by now, but according to the NSX value (7c) and that Wellington has
legal problems with how they acquired our fund, we have resigned to the fact that nothing will be forthcoming ever.

We did not vote on going into the NSX and thought Wellington was above board. But we have no choice but to sell at 7c and claim a loss.
It is a pity, because Wellington on the 29 May 2009, said QUOTE:-
_The Fund realisations during this period are on target in terms of
estimated realisable values. The net asset backing of a unit
remains at 44 cents per unit._

All other class actions and liquidator actions that will proceed, is just another
money making exercise for the lawyers, etc. and of course nothing will come of them. Even if something does happen it will be years down the track.
And after all, life is short.

Also the Senate Inquiry will not do us any good, as they will pass new laws on future funds management schemes.

We tried to live in hope, but life goes on and it is good to see this forum is back, and giving some people a hobby in life. Always interesting to see other
people's theories and point of view.

Hope the 3 AG members voted, finally see the Wellington books and how
they operate. Hope they do not uncover a big mess there.


Regards
Lawry1dog


----------



## Mary Lynch (7 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Lawryidog and Great Dame are abviously one and the same person.


----------



## seamisty (7 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Lawry1dog I sincerely hope you are wrong regarding the outcome of the class action as it appears we have a strong case of negligence against OCV directors and staff as well as KPMG auditors. IMF are not in the business of representing actions that do not demonstrate that there is a very strong case to be answered and I know they did their research before committing themselves. The Federal court also has provision for a 'fast track'  proceedure, also known as 'rocket docket' but I do not know if IMF will be using this facility at present. It expediates the case and keeps costs to a minimum. I personally see the class action delivering a positive result and have no choice but to be patient and trust our legal team.
I do not think that the 3 IAG representatives will have access to PIF documents.
I asked WC how the IAG was progressing and was told it had not been finalised at this point.
I asked WC how the marketing capaign of the 11 PIF properties was going and was told that even though there was interest there currently were no contracts locked in.
The PIF is stable and holding its own and financialy sustainable at present with incoming funds matching outgoings. The PIF is not accruing debt.
Was told the PIF is not a 'basket case' and JH will not appease bad press. When there is some positive news to report we will be told.
The financial reports should be available mid Sept.
So nothing much new happening with the Fund.
Regards, Seamisty (PS, are you Great Dame reincarnated LOL?)


----------



## Cookie1 (7 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all,

There's a company announcement for Octaviar on the ASX website dated 7/8/09 (letter dated 5/8/09 from Deloitte's). I tried to copy it to post here but was unsuccessful. It has to do with the sale of the final 35% of Stella. 

The last paragraph: "On 5 August 2009, a notice of discontinuance in the Proceeding was submitted to the Court and it has subsequently been filed with leave."

Does this mean they're not going ahead with the final sale of 35%? just putting it on hold? or something else??? I'm not versed in legal speak; can anyone enlighten me?

Also, does anyone know what the outcome is from the Directions Hearing on 5/8/09?

Thanks very much.

Cookie


----------



## Calliope (7 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty,

Congratulations on posting #4000. You always look on the bright side, but as Lawridog  knows the shadows are getting longer.


----------



## lawry1dog (10 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am not Great Dame, feel a bit peeved that you put in me in his league.
Thought he was so outrageous with his comments. Mine are very sublime
compared to his.

I am a Matematician by profession, and as you know Wellington has so many properties in the portfoilio, worth a certain amount on paper. Unless Wellington creates a miracle by investing in some other money making strategy, the unit value will never reach $1.00. Because as you know MFS was receiving fresh deposit money from unsuspecting investors all the time, and so they could maintain a $1.00 unit value.

For Wellington to reach $1.00 again, needs for them to accept deposits again.
But of course this needs the PDS changed. Why does this not happen now?


Regards
Lawry1dog


----------



## marcom (10 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Lawry1dog, thanks for a timely post. Yes we do need to consider where the fund should be headed in the future. In my view, as the current assets are liquidated our fund should move in the direction of a traditional property fund where appreciating and income producing property assets form the core of the fund, rather than the speculative developer finance model which has failed so badly. This type of fund is still paying distributions, some at 8.5%, even though redemptions are frozen.

I do not agree that PIF was a ponzi scheme. Certainly it is much easier to balance liquidity when there is a constant inflow of new capital. Remember, MFS did very well out of the 3+% management fees they were taking as well as all the surplus interest above the interest rate provided to investors - Developers forced to accept 12 - 15%+ repayments on overdue funds. This provision was inserted in the constitution as a success fee by MFS, but it is no longer in the PIF constitution.

The circumstances required to allow new investment into PIF are several: Current assets are near impossible to realise in the current economic climate - there are simply no loan funds for property investors/developers, so nothing moves. There are some overseas investors picking over the bones but so far none interested in ours.The Government's bank guarantee arrangement does not help PIF, and they are reluctant to assist property based funds with perceived "toxic assets". The Government knows that if it guarantees funds like PIF there would be an investor exodus of biblical proportions, leaving the Government holding the toxic assets. There is little investor confidence in funds in our predicament, and the current constitution only provides for replacement investment via the NSX. Therefore, there will have to be a significant positive change in credit markets before PIF can be restructured.

Hopefully the class action will return a significant slice of our investment and that over time PIF can be transformed into a profitable fund. If this happens we will be better off in the long term. Unfortunately we all have to suffer in the meantime.

MARCOM


----------



## seamisty (11 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I was joking re the reincarnation Lawry1dog, LOL = 'laugh out loud', so no offense intended but where is GreatDame anyway?
You and Marcom are right to be concerned with how PIF unit value will ever be restored in the current economic climate without new revenue streams in my opinion. I have asked WC on many occassions (and JH herself) what the future strategy is to take the fund forward and have been given answers that refer to 'value adding' , 'maximising existing assets'  and returning the Fund to its original purpose of lending money.(Capital raising has also been mentioned) I am totally perplexed as to how this can happen with any income currently generated by the Fund being used to financially maintain itself with nothing left to finish incompleted properties/projects. It's great to hear the PIF has been stabilised/reshaped but where to from here?

When WC initially took on the role of RE for the PIF they were paid a 'one -off' fee from OCV of $750,00 & GST which was the equivalent of one months running costs.(This included staffing, premises, other administrative and management functions and the costs of the forums) WC was also paid an additional $3million for this purpose. I find it highly unlikely that the PIF is generating this type of income so I sincerely hope that this being the case that it does not compromise the ability of WC to manage the Fund successfully. I would have thought these type of questions/issues should have been addressed via an investor update by now. Also the 12 months is up and I am curious as to just how much did it cost WC to accquire the PIF? When WC first became involved with the PIF I was encouraged by JH's credentials and legal background and like others thought that she had exceptional qualifications that would be essential to get the PIF operational again? I am still peeved that the PIF had to pay 20-25% for the interim loan!  The following is copied from  http://www.wellcap.com.au/finance.html

'Wellington Capital specialises in arranging flexible, innovative financing for both small and large property related transactions.

Our financing capabilities provide one-off tailored solutions to meet our client's specific project requirements and risk profiles. Wellington Capital has a strong relationship with a number of senior debt providers and our corporate team provides a single point of contact and consultation in complex property and corporate transactions. 

Through extensive ties with major financiers, Wellington Capital can provide optimally-tailored financing for property developments and projects including securitisation, asset backed securities and general structuring of cash flows, assets and liabilities.

The property based financing projects which the Wellington team have been involved in are diverse, ranging from fund raisings associated with the acquisition of further development of CBD offices, residential towers, commercial and industrial facilities, and large scale sub-divisions.'

Regards, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (11 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Interesting to see that Stuart Price (Stuart Price commenced as Chief Executive Officer of the United Arab Emirates subsidiary 'MFS International Limited' in2007) has severed his tie with Agilis Global where he was also the CEO, the very similar to MFS International Dubai based company managed by former MFS director Phil Adams. No mention of his previous MFS/OCV connection? Stuart Price is also a named respondant in our class action. I hope Kelly and Co is more successful than MFS/OCV  Seamisty

Agilis Global boss named new Kelly and Co CEO 
By Richard Szabo | Wednesday, 22 July 2009 


The CEO of Dubai-based investment banking business Agilis Global, Stuart Price, has been appointed as Kelly & Co's new CEO.

Price was short listed after a global headhunt. "It was important to identify a candidate who embraced Kelly & Co's culture and values and brought skills and experience that complemented the business. Stuart has international experience working in the UK and Middle East, and an acute appreciation of client needs," a spokesperson from the firm said.

Bringing his experience in areas of commercial and banking & finance law,  Price has also been a business executive entrepreneur in the banking and funds management industries.


----------



## Jadel (11 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I do not know who Lawry1dog is but can confirm he is definitely not Great Dame.

Great Dame is a very sick man , he sold his shares on the NSX  some time ago for 20cents  which just  proves  he was in fact a lot smarter than the rest of us poor souls who still  have to suffer every time we look at that wretched Index  . It will be a long time before we see 20 cents again on the NSX methinks.


----------



## marcom (11 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty, Has Price been served yet?


----------



## lawry1dog (11 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am definitely not Great Dame.

I hope Wellington is not using our money to pay PIF staff and thus deny us the 3c distribution. I do not want to keep people employed at my expense!

It is about time Wellington, borrow or do whatever and pay us the 3c distribution now, and then sell all PIF assets over the next year or so, and then divide the proceeds to us PIF unitholders equally. Of course sell at realistic prices. 

And then hopefully the Class action, will then provide us with the balance owing to us, with maybe a bonus, for hardship over the last 2 years.

I think all unitholders just want there money back and get on with life again.
We should not be held to ransom by Wellington, who maybe just
using our fund to keep them in job and a mansion.

Can the 3 AG members please think about this proposal.


Regards
Kalvin


----------



## seamisty (11 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Seamisty, Has Price been served yet?




I am not sure Marcom but the lawyers are aware he is back in Australia and his new employment position, so if he hasn't, he will be!!!
 Lawry!dog, no one knows who the 3 IAG representatives are at this point. Seamisty


----------



## Duped (11 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Too true Seamisty. We've seen none of the benefits of the Hutson magic of doing deals. Just comments about tough conditions.  

Maybe it's all going on behind the scenes.  But that doesn't help the share price.

In the light of CVC's bully purchase of the last 35% of Stella, she certainly seems to have been spot on that the 22c offer last year was a good deal. CVC totally outplayed PIF and the other creditors on that deal.

Somehow I expected voluntary administration to deliver a more favourable outcome than straight out liquidation.  How could the outcome of liquidation have been any worse for PIF and OPI Pacific investors and PTQ's note holders than this VA under Deloitte? 

As for Deloitte's crumbling to CVC's gun to our head tactics, how about this for some more infuriating truths about Stella from the Australian on 4 August:

"About half of the group's assets are in Britain and it is that British expansion from 2005 that is understood to have been most costly for the group, *with spending on accommodation and travel plunging into the economic downturn*. ...

Stella Hospitality Group's chief executive, Bob East, said the market remained challenging, but the long term debt arrangement meant the company could focus on operational growth and was "cautiously optimistic" about the future.

"The corporate market is still challenged," Mr East said.

"Sydney has been a challenging market." Mr East said that while the travel business was "doing it tough", he expected conditions to stabilise."

But somehow CVC have been convincing in arguing that their losses were OCV's fault. That OCV should have been able to forecast the great recession.


----------



## seamisty (11 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Duped, Cookie1 posted (post4001) "On 5 August 2009, a notice of discontinuance in the Proceeding was submitted to the Court and it has subsequently been filed with leave."

Does this mean there is a slim chance that the remaining 35% of Stella may NOT go to CVC? And yes, I would have much preferred 22c  under the proposed OCV DOCA. Meanwhile the OCV coffers continue to shrink, swallowed up by fees. Seamisty


----------



## marcom (11 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty, I think this refers to the discontinuance of the CVC action against Octaviar - therefore the sale is to proceed subject to "a number of conditions, including regulatory approvals (this is probably Foreign Investment Review Board approval) which are required to be satisfied by 31 August 2009."

This was all handled by the Administrator (Deloittes) and the Liquidator (???) may or may not take a different view of the 35% sale (and indeed the original 65% sale) based on decisions on insolvent trading.


----------



## Duped (11 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty.  My guess is that the leave is merely a formality to allow for the FIRB to do their thing. I recall reading that the takeover of Stella by the foreign CVC would require Fed approval.

I've seen nothing from Deloitte that indicates they have any intention of not handing the rest of Stella over to CVC.  And I certainly haven't seen anything at all which suggests that the Federal Government will do anything whatsoever  to stop us PIF investors get screwed over - again.  Maybe we'll get a pat in the back and a 'there there, yes it was a horrible thing that those nasty boys did to you at school'  from the Ripoll inquiry.  But that's all I see on the horizon from our $320BN a year governments.  In fact from what I've seen it's the opposite, they seem to think we were all greedy. 

I had a misguided desperate hope that the 65% sale to CVC may be voidable but selcipher's post #3990 dashed that.  http://www.worrells.net.au/factsheets/Liquidation.htm. See

"If transactions appear improper, uncommercial or to have been undertaken to defraud creditors, that property or its value may be recovered from the recipient. The liquidator may also recover money from creditors who have received payments that gave them 'preferential' treatment in the six months before the liquidation."

The sale to CVC may have been stupid, idiotic, moronic and desparate. (Smashing OCV's position in Stella in a completely pointless and futile attempt at avoiding to have to come clean) CVC may have taken advantage of a desperate and pathalogically proud seller.  But is any of it 'improper' and 'uncommercial'? I don't know. Did CVC 'defraud' OCV's creditors?   How do you prove something like that?  Especially considering that CVC seems to have been able to be convincing enough for Deloitte to concede that OCV mislead CVC in the deal.  

By the way, if CVC's $600M of claims against OCV for its 65% share of Stella are fair then Stella is worth up to $1.1BN.  (Remember CVC paid about $1.3BN - $400M cash + assumed $900M UBS debt. This valued Stella at $2BN.) Meaning Stella dropped from costing $2.4BN to put together in a bubble to $1.1BN in the depths of the Great Recession.  A drop of 54%. Not unreasonable is it, given the difficult conditions and that Stella provides services that are a highly volatile discretionary  purchase? If so then how is that OCV's fault?


----------



## seamisty (11 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Duped and Marcom, Your input is much appreciated. The liquidation of OCV should not take long as there is very little left to 'liquidate' it seems. Seamisty


----------



## marcom (11 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped, I see your point - even if both sales are voidable through insolvency it looks like it would still be a very difficult (and expensive) case to argue.

I still can not find anything on McMurdo's directions last week, or any formal appointment of a Liquidator.


----------



## Duped (11 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I'm not really sure Marcom, I'm guessing that the 35% sale could possibly be voided relatively easily if challenged.  I'm guessing that Deloitte would be well aware of the risks. I.e. the risk of being sued by us creditors for not fighting CVC on this against the cost of fighting CVC in court. Costs that Deloitte would have to outsource to a law firm?  What's in it for the liquidator/administrator? I'm also guessing that CVC are also well aware that Deloitte are aware of the position.  After all Deloitte is an accounting firm and CVC have their own accountants who play in the same court.  CVC are playing hard ball business (a-la Donald Trump's The Apprentice) and there's no one really out there with any inherent motivation to be our muscle. CVC know that too. Maybe the initial $270M? claim wasn't a big enough knock on the head so CVC stepped it up to $600M. That's our system for ya IMLO. A game of poker.  Blind man's bluff. It's quite sad really.   But maybe I'm wrong.  But if so, then whoever gave OCV's last sets of books the tick have got some embarrassing questions to answer - if anyone will ever get around to asking for an answer.


----------



## lawry1dog (12 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

All sounds good, the information coming from duped, marcom, etc, but it does
not get our money back.

I think it is about time we took things into our hands, and somehow make Wellington tell us what exactly they are doing. For instance:-

1.  How many staff have they employed in our fund and how much are they being paid, including the CEO.

2.  Give a statement on what assets are in the fund, and the condition they are in. 

It is our fund, and we should have a vote on Wellington, to force them to give us the information. I was hoping the 3 AG members would do that.

I wonder if I can get the unit holders mailing list from Carneys or IMF, so I can
contact all unitholders. I am will to pay for this mail out.

I feel since the QLD Supreme court rulling, something must be done now or we miss our chance. I am going to pursue other people and media on this, and force Wellington to come clean. I am starting with NewsCorp.

Also it is a bit distressing to see other people on this forum, who seem to know more information than the rest, or do they ask more questions.
Wellington should be telling us, not coming third hand.

Hope other people can help me out.

Regards
Lawr1dog


----------



## simgrund (13 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



lawry1dog said:


> All sounds good, the information coming from duped, marcom, etc, but it does
> not get our money back.
> Also it is a bit distressing to see other people on this forum, who seem to know more information than the rest, or do they ask more questions.................
> _*Wellington should be telling us, not coming third hand.*_
> ...




Hello lawry1dog,
Hopefully you received PIF AG e-mail update from breaker of 12 August. 
It may remove some of the frustrations felt by us all.
However, not so long ago, we felt much greater frustrations at having no FORUM access at all.
Since "resurrection", we are more then ever aware of the special attention Moderators are paying to this site. The above remarks (accents added by me) may be seen as inflammatory and incorrect. Wellington's site is http://www.newpif.com.au/ and Federal Courts site for our case is 
https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD324/2009/actions.
The latest info available can be followed there; with PIF AG and PIFI
updates complementing. You will agree that these sources can not be classed  as "third hand". 
I will be among the first to sign up to any actions you may initiate, as long as they are not detrimental to current efforts made on our behalf.
With best wishes, simgrund


----------



## marcom (13 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We will soon have an important piece of information about the performance of the fund and our RE, in the form of the 2009 Accounts for PIF. As there have been no distributions in the last financial year, it will be clear to see cost outgoings, remaining revenue streams and a more accurate picture of asset realisations. We may even get to find out who provided the extortionate 25% interest rate loan to PIF. The Directors will need to report on the expected future performance of the fund and importantly on the timing and amounts of any future distributions.

We also need to wait for the Octaviar Liquidators report - not that I think that we will gain much of the diminishing Octaviar kitty - to see the outcome of the various issues Justice McMurdo raised in his judgement in relation to PIF: the whereabouts of the alleged unfair preference payment of $5M that was in OIM when it was transfered to WIM; determination of whether the $3M paid by Octaviar to WIM is an unfair preference payment or is voidable; whether the sale of OIM is a voidable transaction; investigation of the alleged misappropriation of $130M via the RBS loan facility and the alleged misappropriation of $147.5M dud loans sold into PIF; and whether the $50M support facility is voidable on the basis that it was provided for no consideration. On this last point, if the $50Mil support facility is voided because it was provided for no value etc, there arises the prospect of further action against MFS/OCV Directors and Officers for issuing a false statement in a PDS.

We are at a turning point in the future of our fund. We might not see a return for some time, but at least we will know where we are headed.

MARCOM


----------



## selciper (13 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for your informative posts, Marcom. Frankly, if it weren't for the  class action I'm sure that we'd all be absolutely at our wits end. We deserve a distribution after all this time...I well recall the October 08 
"distribution" mantra and the now unreal sounding "14, 45, 65"
 war cry. This may be a dumb question - is an AGM due at some point?


----------



## lawry1dog (14 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have now leave, to look after my mother who has cancer, so keep the good
posts going. 
I have to sell our home now, and was keen to see if the 3c distribution would eventuate this year. As this will not be the case, unfortunately I cannot hold
off the bank any longer. And of course selling on NSX as I have discovered will not cut it.

Still think my plan of borrowing to give the 3c distribution and then selling assets over the next year, and then getting our balance owing from the Class Action,was feasible.

Anyway, it is big concern, that WC do not communicate anything. Of course if everything was going well, then as human nature would tell us, WC would issuing statements every week or day, on how great things are going.
Which only means WC have problems, they never figured on.

Sorry if I have offended anyone on this forum. I wonder how many other unit holders have a story like mine, or worse. I still would have liked to sent a mailout, giving people options and hope.

Regards
Lawry1dog


----------



## seamisty (14 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Lawry1dog, Unfortunately there are far too many PIF investors suffering dire financial circumstances (if not all!) as a direct result of the actions of a few greedy, dishonest individuals. A mailout to investors would have cost you approx $10,000 to what purpose? Borrowing money at 20-25% to pay a distribution would erode the remaining unit value even further and it is quite obvious that potential buyers of our assetts at there current value are non existant. Reducing the price of the assetts to make them more attractive would be the equivalent of liquidation and there would be a very real chance in ending up with 14 cents per unit.The fund is at a stalemate at this point in time in my opinion and needs a new injection of income to kickstart it.  A successful outcome from the class action may alter  PIF unit holders ideas regarding the future of their investment if the current situation does not improve.
 I am sure the few regular forum posters will continue to update others to the best of their ability and if you ever want to discuss PIF related issues please let me know your Ph no and I will call you. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Blueboy1 (14 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am new to this forum and have read many of the topics which I have found helpful and interesting with so many viewpoints shedding light on this confusing situation.
I am curious to know if any other investors in the PIF were exposed to the same circumstances that led to the loss of my investments in this fund.
I have been invested with the PIF for several years,using it as a retirement fund and I was due to retire in January 2008 and my investments were maturing in April 2007 so I decided to roll them over for a further six months at 8.5% to mature in November 2007.
About two weeks after the new investment started I received advice from "IZ" from MFSIM offering me a 9 months special rate of 9%. 
I told "IZ" that the investment was already two weeks in the running but he immediately offered to redeem it and re-start it as another new investment for 9 months due to mature on 29 February 2008 (one month after I was due to retire).
I thought it was a little unusual for him to do this but put it down to goodwill as I had been invested with MFS for so many years.
We all know the remainder of the story as the fund was frozen just before these investments were due to be redeemed.
I see that "IZ" has been served as a respondent by Carney's Lawyers and I would be curious to find out how many other investors were approached in this way by "IZ" or others at MFSIM, when at the time that my investments were due to mature (April 07) the fund may well have already been in deep trouble.
Did they do this deliberately to secure our funds when the ship was already sinking? Surely if this was the case it can be proved and where was KPMG when this was going on?
I for one have already signed to join the class action and support it to the hilt.
Please let me know if you have been exposed to the same or similar circumstances.
Kind regards,
Blueboy1


----------



## marcom (14 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

lawry1dog, we are in the same position. We put our home on the market 10 weeks ago and today have accepted an offer less than we wanted but at least we will now have some financial backup to continue on until the class action provides some return.

I think JH and WC have some serious issues to face with the Octaviar liquidation and the current state of the credit markets, which means no 3% in the foreseeable future. All we can do is watch the events unfolding and wait till we get something out of the class action.

MARCOM


----------



## seamisty (14 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Blueboy1 you were not on your own with those circumstances. I know of many more including myself who were totally reassured the fund was in fine shape and was doing so well that we were offered a loyalty rate bonus for being long term investors blah blah blah. We dealt with D M for approx 10 years and never had a problem so had complete trust in her, especially when we were led to believe she was a 'senior financial advisor' for MFS. I wonder did anyone ever receive an apology from their contacts there or were all the OCV/MFS staff in on the scam and happy to get commissions  for misrepresenting the true state of the Fund and convincing investors to reinvest? I am sure I have incriminating e mails from OCV/MFS that could be used as evidence in the CA, did anyone else keep personal correspondence? Regards, Seamisty


----------



## marcom (14 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Blueboy 1 and Seamisty, we had a similar experience. On 10/4/07 we provided JS also a Senior Bull dust Advisor at MFS with a roll over of an investment that was to mature on 31/7/07 as we would be overseas on that maturity date. We completed the reinvestment form with a 9 months at 9% term. When we arrived back we didn't notice that she had reinvested for 12 months at 8.5%. There was no communication explaining why this had happened against our instructions.

When the freeze was applied we were 2 days away from receiving another of our investment amounts that had matured on 31 December 07.


----------



## Blueboy1 (14 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty and Marcom,thank you for your advice.
I have archived ALL correspondence from MFSIM but whether or not it can be construed as incriminating would be a matter for the courts as the most important aspects were carefully written.
The most odious aspect was the fact that had they NOT persuaded me to re-invest for the extra 3 months I would still have the funds.
In retrospect,it is strange that they would offer to redeem funds prior to maturity in order to re-invest for a longer duration when they make it almost impossible for you to redeem an investment,in this case,what was good for the goose was not good for the gander.
Prior to the maturity date I started to get cold feet and tried to redeem all of my investments but they blocked my every move citing that my levels of 'hardship' were insufficient for their parameters,yet when it suited THEM they were quite happy to redeem them.
I sympathize with you Marcom as we both know how it feels to be so close to redemption of our investments and I am sure that it was a deliberate attempt to secure our funds when the anchor was already half way down.
Regards,
Blueboy1


----------



## Duped (14 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Blueboy1. Something I've raised before might help.

Have a look at chart from the Jun 2007 PIF Investor Update. 

http://www.newpif.com.au/pifreports/pif_InvestorUpdate200706.pdf

I vaguely recall that PIF dramatically reduced % commissions to 'Advisors' in Jan 07. Possibly halved. Lo and behold - the fund size flatlines from Feb 07.

That spike in June 07 was almost certainly a trick by MFS to make the fund look better. Namely, a VERY short term holding by related company MFS Administration. This was likely intentionally and deliberately excluded from the  Investor Update (In my lay opinion - IMLO).  

But it couldn't be excluded from the Annual Report of YE June 2007 (issued months later). See way down on page 52. A holding by MFS Administration P/L of 60M.  Say now, isn't that awfully close to the size of that Jun 07 spike.  Coincidence? BWAH!!!!!!!!!!    

Now have a look at the Distribution paid to MFS Admin for that period two columns over - $17,753.  A rate of 6% means that 60M holding was in there for less than 2 days before YE.  60M units at 10.5% pa divided by 365 days is $17,206.  Surprise!

Oh, and did anyone else here get 10.5%?  ..... at call?

MFS Administration P/L pulled that holding out soon after. Even before the Annual Report was issued, I vaguely recall JH saying.

Smoke and Mirrors? Or am I speculatemenationing.


----------



## Duped (14 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty. lawry1dog.  Following article might raise your hopes.  Did mine.  PIF essentially only holds rights over commercial property.

Business Spectator
12 August 2009
Stephen Bartholomeusz

*  Stockland's silver lining*

"The sharemarket response to a Stockland result awash with red ink from impairment charges was less than enthusiastic. There are signs within the results, and more particularly in the group’s view of its outlook, that the rate of decline in property markets might be slowing.

Stockland announced a loss of $1.8 billion for the 2009 financial year, while claiming an underlying profit of $631.4 million. The operating result was overwhelmed by more than $1 billion of impairment charges and a further $1 billion of devaluations of its investment properties.

The group, however, has entered this financial year with modest gearing (16 per cent) and a lot of cash (more than $1 billion) thanks mainly to the $2.7 billion of new equity it raised over the past year and, while it expects capitalisation rates in its commercial portfolio to soften further before the end of this year, appears to see a floor to the market.

Cap rates have been blowing out steadily across the commercial property sector at the rate of 50 basis points each six months.

Stockland now anticipates further softening of between 25 basis points and 50 basis points in the first half but says this would take its average capitalisation rate to about 2004 levels and, in the absence of material rent reductions or a large over-correction in values, it expects rates to stabilise around those levels.

Given the capital it has raised, the write-downs Stockland has already taken against its residential communities and apartments business and the $334 million of charges against its "strategic" investments, the general commercial property market environment is probably the most significant residual source of near-term risk to its balance sheet.

The worst fears about the condition of the broader economy haven’t yet been realised. Business and consumer confidence is improving. Residential property activity and prices have picked up. The rate of decline in commercial property values appears to be slowing. The influences that have destabilised the listed property sector over the past year may now be, if not actually stabilising, at least waning.

The view that a massively recapitalised A-REIT sector has overcome the worst of the threats to its stability is shared by the market. The A-REITS have rebounded nearly 50 per cent from their sharemarket lows in March, although the sector is still trading at only about a third of the levels it held before the failure of Lehman brothers sent it into a tailspin and forced a spate of big capital raisings under pressure.

Stockland believes buying opportunities are emerging and has its foot on strategic holdings in GPT (13 per cent) and the FKP and Aevum retirement living groups (15 per cent and 14 per cent, respectively). It is, however, conscious that the massive amounts of equity it raised at distressed prices has pushed up its cost of capital and therefore the hurdle rates at which acquisition might make sense.

The levels of uncertainty and risk that have pervaded the sector over the past year have inhibited large-scale corporate activity. Stockland began its initial assault on the weak and wounded prematurely and has taken some big hits as a consequence.

Having had that experience, one would expect that any significant move the group makes from this point would be a significant demonstration of conviction that the worst is, if not behind the sector, then almost. "


----------



## Blueboy1 (14 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped, Very interesting analogy, more than a coincidence,let's hope that the forensic team of accountants can see through the smoke and mirrors of the creative accountants.
Thanks for the link,regards,
Blueboy1


----------



## simgrund (14 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



lawry1dog said:


> I have now leave, to look after my mother who has cancer, so keep the good posts going. ................................
> .....................................................  Sorry if I have offended anyone on this forum. I wonder how many other unit holders have a story like mine, or worse. I still would have liked to sent a mailout, giving people options and hope.
> 
> Regards
> Lawry1dog




Hello Lawry1dog,
Allow me to call you a Good Friend, so I can offer you my best wishes for the coming times. 
No need to apologize as we all fight similar frustrations felt by you.
As to other stories akin to yours; have no doubt that immense hardships are experienced by ALL. It is when we will overcome them with success in the class action (are you in?), I will come back to find you in a lighter mood to ask what did you do to deserve being called "lawry1dog"???
CHEERS, simgrund


----------



## simgrund (14 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Blueboy, Seamisty, Marcom; re your posts 4024, 4026 & 4027 respectively,

Guy Hutchings, on an Octaviar letterhead dated 15 May 2008 has re-confirmed  maturity date of my investment as 30 June 2008. He then proceeded in a pro-forma manner to inform me of a deferment of redemptions in line with amended Constitution by "up to 360 days". 
The telltale passage in the letter was this:
*"Octaviar IM has not set a date to recommence the processing and payment of distributions and redemptions, however Octaviar IM will advise all investors when the processing and payment of redemptions recommences." *
A withdrawal form was enclosed, which I duly filled again; in addition to one in  December 2007. 
It can be seen, that in this case, the "encouragement" by way of smoke and mirrors was applied as late as middle of May of 2008. 
The encouragement being the belief, that redemption will eventually be made.
From no less than Chief Executive Officer of the moment out of Level 21 Governor Macquarie Tower. 
I should have asked why CEO attends to such a routine client mailing? There were no inducements to stay with the Fund.
And I had verbal assurances over the phone from Ian Zielinsky that my redemption request will be honored.  
I will offer Carneys Lawyers whatever corroborating docs they may ask of us in the future.
Regards, simgrund


----------



## seamisty (14 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Interesting Simgrund. You were 'honoured' to have even received communication from Mr Guru Hutchings!!! I have five e mails from DM informing me the she had asked GH to contact me which he never did. Another investor I know personally has a letter written from 'Mr Andrew Peacock' assuring her that her investment would be redeemed in May 2008 when it was due. None of these BS specialists should ever have the right to be reinstated in a position where they can repeat the same performance which resulted in the outcomes we all have to now endure. I wonder if the former employees of MFS/OCV that are not named respondants in the CA will ever have a case to answer to from other regulatory bodies? Will the senate enquiry investigate further or fob us all off with some pathetic excuse to justify the usual lack of action I have now come to expect from so called 'regulators'? Seamisty


----------



## marcom (15 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped re your post #4029 - sounds like misleading and deceptive conduct under the Trade practices Act.

MARCOM


----------



## seamisty (15 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Duped re your post #4029 - sounds like misleading and deceptive conduct under the Trade practices Act.
> 
> MARCOM



HMNN, This was the same year Michael King was paid a $1.6million  cash bonus on top of his $800,000 salary for doing such a great job !!!  Seamisty


----------



## communique (16 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Breaker, would you please supply your latest email address
Thanks


----------



## Mary Lynch (16 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I don't remember "MFS Optimiser One" ever being mentioned on this thread. It was a long term investment scheme (up to 5 years with options to withdraw at a premium after 18 mths) that I was lured into by DM in 2006.

In May 2007 I received a letter from Guy H. saying that the PIF had bought out Optimiser One for $0.964cents per unit, however I was to be repaid at $1 per unit (clever ploy to cement my loyalty).  He suggested that I re-invest with the PIF if I choose....and naturally I did!

Soon after we went to the "gorgeous" morning tea at a posh Melbourne hotel where no expense was spared, and anyone could have sworn they were firing on all fours....


----------



## lcee (16 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This is my first post and thank the 'old hands' for their time and effort in providing information through this forum.  Also a big thank-you to the action group members for getting the class action underway.  

Class actions of some years back were a trap for the unwary in that sometimes the payouts were less than the costs. A win could actually mean applicants had to pay the difference between costs and the pay-out.  This appears not to be the case for this IMF agreement.  However, can anyone explain the effect of clause 10.3 of the agreement?  I would expect that property may well be used as a payment in kind if the action was successful.  I would not like to have to pay a pro-rata cash equivilent into the trust account (presumably so that IMF could be paid) until such time as the property could be sold.

Cheers

lcee


----------



## marcom (16 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Icee, this means that if property was provided as part or all of the compensation paid, it would be sold by IMF or the representatives of the applicant group at the then current market value on behalf of the Applicants (us) and converted into cash so a cash distribution can be made to all applicants who signed the funding agreement.

As the thrust of our class action is directed at the PI insurers for KPMG and MFS Directors it is unlikely that they would be surrendering property as a settlement of the claim.

However, if our claim was widened to seeking compensation from the Directors personally (where it is proven they traded while insolvent and are thus personally liable) it may be the case that property could form part of a settlement. Fancy a share in a used polo field anyone?

MARCOM


----------



## lcee (16 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Marcom,

Thank you for your reply.  However, my reading of clause 10.3 is that the Applicant (us) has to pay the lawyers the market value of a non-monetary component of the 'Resolution Sum so received'.  It does not specify 'received' by whom.  Is this clause meant to cover the situation where, for example, shares are used as part settlement and are paid directly to each applicant rather than to the lawyers? If so, OK but if it covers the situation where shares are given to the lawyers but the applicants have to pay the market value and are then allocated their proportion of the shares, not OK by me.

regards
lcee


----------



## seamisty (17 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Media Aricle in the SMH of interest for all PIF investors curious as to what the Peacock is up to these days!!! Cheers Seamisty

Feathers fly as Peacock faces putschCBD
August 17, 2009 
Michael Evans finds any old political stoush a bit of frivolous fun.

AS FORMER Liberal party pony Andrew Peacock might once have noted, this is a very serious matter.

For the last few years, Peacock has been chairman of oil and gas explorer Amadeus Energy.

But he's found himself in something of a disagreement with a major shareholder - the listed investment company CVC Ltd (not to be confused with privateers of a similar name) - which is sitting on a 5 per cent stake in his company.

Peacock's crew wants to raise $25 million via a placement to institutional and ''sophisticated'' clients of the Perth-based broker Hartleys - but not to existing shareholders.

That hasn't greatly pleased CVC's boss, Sandy Beard, who is keen to point out, ahead of a shareholder meeting to approve the transaction, that the discounted private placement would dilute existing stakeholder somewhat by increasing the number of shares on issue by, oh, a cool 50 per cent.

Beard points out that the issue of new shares at 26c is at a bit of a discount to the 93c of Hartleys' own valuation of the stock and argues that the placement ''constitutes a transfer of wealth from existing shareholders of approximately $43 million''.

And he's not stopping there. Instead, he's asked the company to hold another special meeting to roll the current board, including Peacock.

Far from letting his feathers get ruffled, Peacock's chaps issued a statement pointing out the threats of ''recent global financial instability'' and how everybody else is also raising money while noting the money is needed to ''strengthen the balance sheet''.

A political showdown to woo the hearts and minds of shareholders beckons.

Question being, can a souffle rise three times?


----------



## Mary Lynch (17 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

So Marcom, where are the MFS directors getting it from if it isn't personal?  Surely insurance doesn't cover their fraudulent activities...


----------



## Mary Lynch (17 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

sorry Marcom,cancel above question...you already answered it....


----------



## Duped (17 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Media Aricle in the SMH of interest for all PIF investors curious as to what the Peacock is up to these days!!! Cheers Seamisty
> 
> Feathers fly as Peacock faces putschCBD
> August 17, 2009
> ...





Seamisty.  Have a look at what Stephen Mayne has to say about this latest trend of SPPs. SM even has a shame list.  http://www.maynereport.com/articles/2008/03/05-1155-9903.html

Playing one group of shareholders off against another to make capital raising and hence life for the Exec teams easier. Straight forward path-of-least-resistance behaviour. That's the status of business ethics in Australia for you. 

Welcome to mixed market capitalism.  Pray you've prepared yourselves enough and haven't let yourselves be disarmed.  Teach your children.


----------



## marcom (17 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hello Icee, contact Tim McLernon at IMF by email tmclernon@imf.com.au who will be able to answer your question. When you get a reply please post it here.


----------



## Duped (17 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Duped re your post #4029 - sounds like misleading and deceptive conduct under the Trade practices Act.
> 
> MARCOM





Absolutely .... but what if MFSIM could argue it was inadvertant? Certainly wasn't out of character. On the balance of probabilities, MFSIM had intention; IMLO.  But I'm in a position which has a natural pressure to be biassed against MFSIM.


----------



## selciper (17 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This explanation in "Find Law" regarding directors and their insurance is interesting.

http://www.findlaw.com.au/article/5178.htm


----------



## marcom (17 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hello selcipher, thanks for the interesting paper. I think that some or all of the MFS/MFSIM Directors and Officers may have something serious to think about over our class action and the coming report of the Octaviar Liquidator.

On your earlier question re a requirement for an AGM, there is no requirement in our scheme constitution. I looked at the Corporations Act and that doesn't seem to extend the requirement to managed investment schemes. It does seem strange that public companies, incorporated bodies and bodies corporate all have the AGM requirement but not funds such as ours.

But if we did have an AGM here's what happens if you get it wrong. This is a video (only 33 seconds) of Fortis's recent AGM in Belgium where shareholders showed their disapproval by throwing shoes at the Chair. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuVAPQ7UVlQ&feature=player_embedded


----------



## seamisty (17 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Marcom, Selciper, I was told by WC there will be no AGM this year and we are due an investor update at the end of April. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## selciper (17 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty, Marcom -

I trust that there's always the option that we could call for an EGM.


----------



## communique (17 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Does Breaker exist anymore?  Anyone have the email address.


----------



## erniel (17 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I wonder if we will at least see the financials of the PIF for the year end.
I suppose non of us really want to see how poorly the PIF has performed under the new IM.
Surely now that we are a listed public company on the NSX ,Wellington are compelled to hold an agm , and publicly announce the results for the year.
Strictly speaking we are no longer a fund , as if we were ,then the PIF would of been insolvent.


----------



## seamisty (17 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Erniel I have been told that the end of year financials should be completed mid Sept. Seamisty


----------



## erniel (17 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for that Seamisty


----------



## Mary Lynch (17 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Communique,  I used breaker7@optusnet.com.au to email Peter last week, and he replied; so I guess that is his up-to-date email address.


----------



## communique (18 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thank you Mary for Above.

An article in The Australian today advises ASIC will sue KPMG on behalf of Westpoint investors.


----------



## Mary Lynch (18 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Let's hope they still have enough left in their insurance to pay us!!!


----------



## seamisty (18 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My information is that Stuart Price has now been served with the Application and Statement of Claim. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## breaker1 (18 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



communique said:


> Thank you Mary for Above.
> 
> An article in The Australian today advises ASIC will sue KPMG on behalf of Westpoint investors.




In a separate action *that began last October*, ASIC is suing KPMG for $200 million, in an attempt to compensate Westpoint investors for their losses. 

KPMG said the undertakings would not affect their “vigorous defence” of the civil action. 

This measely amount would not even put a dent in KPMG's worldwide insurance cover. I don't think the ASIC/Westpoint claim would affect our PIF KPMG class claim. ASIC took over the Westpoint debacle because it was in a bigger mess than ours. They considered the PIF was viable and that it had a management that was voted in by its investors.

We now have a strong class action via IMF Australia with over 2,200 participants - it would be most unlikely that ASIC would try to take over this well run class. ASIC'c view is, what is for the best interests of investors - intervening in our class would not be in our best interests. If they were thinking of doing anything, they certainly would consult with our lawyers and IMF first. Nothing like that is in the works to the best of my knowledge and I strongly doubt that it ever will be.


----------



## seamisty (18 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Here is a link to the ASIC website for those interested in the details of the 'audit conduct' performed by KPMG employees relating to Westpoint Group companies::www.asic.gov.au


----------



## breaker1 (18 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> In a separate action *that began last October*, ASIC is suing KPMG for $200 million, in an attempt to compensate Westpoint investors for their losses.
> 
> KPMG said the undertakings would not affect their “vigorous defence” of the civil action.
> 
> ...




The above are simply my unprofessional opinions, before making any decisions on joining the IMF/KPMG class action or not, prospective participants should get whatever professional advice you can from:

Tim McLernon [as your first point of contact]
IMF Australia
Level 5, 32 Martin Place SYDNEY NSW 2000
Telephone:  02 8223 3567
M +61 414 589 531
D +61 2 8223 3576
F +61 2 8223 3555
OR click on  http://www.imf.com.au/contact.asp    and send a website direct email    

If ASIC advice is required contact ASIC on phone 1300 300 630   
or via on line email on: http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/FAQs+-+main+page?openDocument.

If further legal advice is required, contact Carneys Lawyers on:
Carneys Lawyers Level 5  70 Castlereagh St SYDNEY NSW 2000 DX 998 Sydney
P: (02) 8226 5555
F: (02) 8226 5556
Email:  law@carneys.com.au 

OR obtain your own private legal advice

If anything is bothering you about the class action or the contract just contact the above beginning with IMF first - be general or be specific - these professionals are there to serve you. They are under considerable pressure to advise you honestly and accurately.  Please take advantage of these great services now available to PIF investors.

I was advised by IMF Aust. that IMF will do another mail out "with the current [updated] database and prior databases" to the 10,000 PIF investors as a reminder to get their KPMG agreement application in.

Also that when appropriate, every class action applicant will receive regular updates from IMF.


----------



## Duped (20 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> ...
> We now have a strong class action via IMF Australia with over 2,200 participants -
> ...





I'm interested to know what % of the 755M units this represents


----------



## marcom (20 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped, this is from the Wellington disclosure statement to the NSX:

PIN
Size of Unitholding parcel   No. of Unitholders     Total Units

1 – 1,000 - -
1,001 – 5,000                      203                    1,014,916
5,001 – 10,000                  1,230                  10,035,525
10,001 – 100,000               7,437                286,708,888
100,001 and over               1,517                457,436,213

TOTAL                            10,387                755,195,542

I would guess 2,200 represents around 60-70% of the capital held.


----------



## BABIHUTAN (20 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Duped, this is from the Wellington disclosure statement to the NSX:
> 
> PIN
> Size of Unitholding parcel   No. of Unitholders     Total Units
> ...




Duped - Marcom's guess is probably about right, as I suspect most if not all of those top end investors [and a lot of others] hv signed up. I don't think we will actually know percentages/values until after the IMF invitation to join the class action is closed


----------



## Duped (20 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks marcom.  I agree.  That's good news.


----------



## seamisty (20 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



lcee said:


> Marcom,
> 
> Thank you for your reply.  However, my reading of clause 10.3 is that the Applicant (us) has to pay the lawyers the market value of a non-monetary component of the 'Resolution Sum so received'.  It does not specify 'received' by whom.  Is this clause meant to cover the situation where, for example, shares are used as part settlement and are paid directly to each applicant rather than to the lawyers? If so, OK but if it covers the situation where shares are given to the lawyers but the applicants have to pay the market value and are then allocated their proportion of the shares, not OK by me.
> 
> ...



Hi Icee, I referred your question to Mr John Walker of IMF who has kindly sent the following response:::: "Icee asks a good question. IMF will not rely upon clause 10.3, but rather the sale of the property."

Hope this helps, Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Duped (20 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Here is a link to the ASIC website for those interested in the details of the 'audit conduct' performed by KPMG employees relating to Westpoint Group companies::www.asic.gov.au




Following also is revealing: 

http://business.smh.com.au/business...ers-shapeup-to-audit-firms-20090608-c0x7.html


----------



## marcom (20 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Got a letter from our EX-financial advisor today saying that if we have not already joined the class action we should "seriously consider IMF's proposal by obtaining an information pack". Looks like the financial advisors are working to get the remainder of the investors in so they can get their fee payments back.


----------



## marcom (20 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tomorrow in the Brisbane Supreme Court costs judgements on the Octaviar cases:

RE: OCTAVIAR LIMITED
	Justice Philip McMurdo
	Court 15
Floor 3 	9:30 AM 
(Costs Judgment)

RE: OCTAVIAR ADMINISTRATION PTY LTD
	Justice Philip McMurdo
	Court 15
Floor 3 	9:30 AM 
(Costs Judgment)

FORTRESS CREDIT CORPORATION (AUSTRALIA) II PTY LIMITED -V- OCTAVIAR LIMITED & others
	Justice Philip McMurdo
	Court 15
Floor 3 	9:30 AM 
(Costs Judgment)


----------



## lcee (20 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty,

Thank you for passing on Mr Walker's response.  I did e-mail Tim at IMF who responded along similar line to Mr Walker.  However, I asked two questions and Tim's response was not specific.  I was about to request clarification but you now have that for me.

Looks like there is a good response so far to the class action.

Lcee


----------



## Duped (21 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Got a letter from our EX-financial advisor today saying that if we have not already joined the class action we should "seriously consider IMF's proposal by obtaining an information pack". Looks like the financial advisors are working to get the remainder of the investors in so they can get their fee payments back.




So would I if I were the advisor.  The more I get back through the class action the less likely I'm going to sue my advisor.


----------



## marcom (21 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The outcome of the Octaviar costs decision today is at 

http://www.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2009/QSC/273

Here are the relevant paragraphs relating to Wellington: 

[3] With one exception, none of the respondents has argued that the Public Trustee should not have some order for costs. But for the most part, they argue that he should have them out of the winding up of the two companies as “costs in respect of the application for the order [for winding up]” under s556(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The exception is an argument for Wellington that the Public Trustee pay Wellington’s costs in relation to certain allegations made against Wellington in the Public Trustee’s points of claim. These were mostly allegations as to matters which a liquidator of Octaviar Ltd would wish to investigate. I accepted that some of those matters would be likely to be investigated by a liquidator. As to the transaction pleaded in paragraphs 53 and 54 of the points of claim, I found that a liquidator would not be obliged to investigate that transaction
but might wish to do so.2 The matters pleaded in paragraphs 58 to 72 related to the disposal of the responsible entity for the PIF, upon which Wellington’s argument prevailed.3 Paragraph 80 of the points of claim made allegations about the amendment of the MFS Support Mechanism, about which I found that a liquidator would wish to investigate the circumstances of the amendment.4 Paragraphs 102 and 103 pleaded one of several ways in which Wellington was said to be a party with an interest in avoiding a liquidation of these two companies. It was a question which I found unnecessary to discuss, because for other reasons which were
discussed, *Wellington clearly had an interest in avoiding a winding up and
consequent inquiries by a liquidator.*5 The Public Trustee was successful, for the most part, in arguing that there were matters which a liquidator would wish to investigate in relation to Wellington. The fact that he was not wholly successful should not result in an order for costs against him. *More generally, Wellington should not have an order for costs against the Public Trustee in the circumstance where Wellington also made extensive submissions against these applications, which went far beyond the transactions in which Wellington had been involved.* Overall, Wellington was quite unsuccessful in its response to these applications.
*The bold submission* by Wellington that it should have some order for costs against the Public Trustee must be rejected.

[7] The positions of OPI Pacific Finance Pty Ltd and Wellington Capital Limited may be considered together. Neither made any substantial argument as to the operation of the Octaviar Limited deed. On the face of things, each is a large creditor with an interest as such in whether the deed remained. Each was concerned to rebut the Public Trustee’s case that a liquidator would wish to investigate matters concerning it and its debt. In those circumstances, I am not persuaded that it would be just that
it be ordered to pay the Public Trustee’s costs. Nor am I persuaded that it should recover its costs in the winding up. Accepting that the approach of Finkelstein J in the above passage will in many cases be appropriate, *in this case each of these parties had another reason to oppose the termination of the deed, which was that it would be likely to be subject to a liquidator’s investigation. In other words its interest was not purely as a creditor in the proper application of the available funds.*


----------



## seamisty (21 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Marcom, Clear as mud to someone like me who is unfamiliar with legal matters!!!! Hopefully some one can translate it into something less complicated. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (23 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Michael's Elysian Fields Fit for a king 
By TIM HUNTER and ROB STOCK - Sunday Star Times::Last updated 05:00 23/08/2009
Elysian Fields, the Gold Coast estate of MFS founder Michael King, had a clubhouse for its polo-playing owner "decked out like something out of Arabia", according to one visitor. 

The $A20m property, inland from Surfer's Paradise, was a highly tangible status symbol for King, whose stated ambition was to run one of the top 50 companies in Australia.

For a while, he looked like making it. His business had a market capitalisation of $A2.2 billion in 2007. Now, not even the company's name remains and its remnants gather under the moniker Octaviar.

For New Zealand victims of his hubris the cost has been huge when the whole sorry enterprise collapsed last year the New Zealand company, MFS Pacific Finance, owed investors $454 million. So far secured debenture holders have got back just $57m and the prospect of further recoveries is receding into the distance.

It's New Zealand's biggest finance company failure after Hanover Finance and Bridgecorp, but hugely more complex. This month, after a court ruling in Australia on July 31, the shaky moratorium agreement voted in by Kiwi investors last May looks certain to be replaced by receivership or liquidation.

Financially this is not good news for investors, but there is a silver lining liquidators may finally untangle the web of related party deals and accounting trickery to reveal what, and who, wrought such billion-dollar devastation.

The business began modestly enough. King and business partner Philip Adams were lawyers at McLaughlins Solicitors on the Gold Coast where they established a small funds management business called McLaughlins Financial Services, later spinning the business out of the law firm and acquiring several property management rights, including that of the then-listed MFS Leverage Investment and Securities Trust in 2001. In January 2005, they merged the trust with the funds management business to create MFS Ltd. Thereafter they made a string of acquisitions, including accommodation businesses BreakFree and S8 that were to become the foundation of travel business Stella.

How MFS made money was a mystery to many people, but make money it did. An analyst with ABN Amro Morgans, Belinda Moore, said in 2007: "They are high-calibre people who always exceed their promises. So we are very confident about them."

A former chief executive of S8, Chris Scott, admitted to business magazine BRW: "At first I did not understand MFS so I didn't want to be involved with it. But as I listened to their story and it became more transparent to me, I became more understanding and more comfortable with them."

Ad Feedback The business model appeared similar to that of Macquarie Bank in its focus on being a manager of other people's money, creating a range of investment funds from which it extracted fees. What some observers struggled with, however, was the extent of related party dealing which made it hard to keep track of assets and liabilities as they were shuffled around the group.

This was a major factor in the demise of its New Zealand arm, MFS Pacific Finance, and its related financial advisory firm, Vestar.

Pacific Finance was born from a much smaller finance company taken over in 2003 by MFS, which was keen to expand into New Zealand after stunning growth in Australia. In December 2006 MFS added Vestar, acquired from its Ferrari-driving founder Kelvin Sims, which was already selling debentures from Pacific Finance.

The idea was simple Vestar would channel investor cash into Pacific Finance, which would pass it on to MFS in Australia for use in lending to property developments in Queensland and New South Wales. A 2007 prospectus showed loans of $109m in NSW, $94m in Queensland and $22m in Auckland. Tens of millions of dollars of these loans were bought from, or sold to, other parts of the MFS group. The company also fed money into other MFS channels $22m, for example, was invested in units of funds managed by MFS.

Disclosure of related party transactions, the heart of the financial alchemy in MFS, took up nine pages of the document.

In July 2006 MFS agreed a "put option" deal with Pacific Finance whereby the New Zealand company would have the right to sell any loans more than three months overdue back to the Australian company at face value. The deal also covered investments such as the funds units if the market value fell below the price Pacific Finance had paid.

This arrangement formed a big part of the sales pitch to attract investors to Pacific Finance, who understood that its financial future was literally guaranteed by its huge Australian parent, a guarantee that came at a cost of millions each year.

Pacific Finance boasted: "Notwithstanding the protection provided by the company's prudent lending and investing practices," it had "transferred all credit risk" to its parent by way of the put option agreement.

That sounded great to investors, who, perhaps encouraged by the presence of economist Donal Curtin on Vestar's investment committee, were accepting interest of 9.5% for a 12-month term deposit as it turned out, a paltry return given the risk compared to the 8.5% they could have been drawing from AAA-rated Rabobank.

What wasn't in the sales pitch, however, was that the put option allowed MFS to turn bad loans into good, as if by magic, by transferring them to Pacific Finance.

As at September 2007, Pacific Finance recorded loans of $37m more than two years overdue, but still classed as not impaired because they were covered by the put option. The bulk of these loans were acquired at face value in the previous six months from related parties in Australia.

This was bad enough, but when the MFS group collapsed under the weight of its debts in January 2008, it was the tip of the iceberg.

Not only was MFS effectively guaranteeing Pacific Finance through the put option, it was also publicly committed to providing cash flow to support the finance company's repayments to investors commitments of up to $27m, $32m and $22m, in January, February and March.

But MFS didn't have the money it was also due to repay corporate financier Fortress $189m in February, and was trying to raise money from a float of travel group Stella. On January 18 the Australian sharemarket suddenly realised MFS was much more heavily in debt than was previously thought and the share price went into free-fall.

Interest due to Pacific Finance investors on January 31 went unpaid and MFS, it rapidly became clear, was in no position to make good on the promises it had so expensively sold to Pacific Finance.

By the time investors were ready to vote on a moratorium deal offering an early repayment of $23m, they knew there was a massive black hole in the finance company's loan book. Of $476m of loans and investments, just $122.8m looked recoverable, they were told.

Although directors Jason Maywald and David Anderson signed financial statements in December saying 27% of loans by value had security of a first mortgage over real property, moratorium documents revealed the real picture was just 13%.

Maywald, who joined the firm in December 2006, has not spoken publicly about what happened, other than in veiled terms.

He told the Sunday Star-Times in May last year that there had been some "issues in the origination of the loan book at Octaviar" and "it appears some loans haven't got the position we would have liked".

As it transpired, a common practice was for Pacific Finance to provide top-up mezzanine finance to a property development, taking a second mortgage behind the first lender, a related Australian MFS fund called the Premium Income Fund which had about 10,000 investors.

All their lending was managed centrally by MFS in Australia.

To complete the circle, Premium Income Fund also lent huge sums on an unsecured basis to Pacific Finance, a portion of which funded debenture redemptions for Kiwi investors.

Such tangled relationships mean MFS-related companies have a Gordian Knot of claims against each other and the parent company, further complicated by the claims of third parties such as Fortress.

When the original moratorium deal was voted in last May, it looked like all those parties would agree on an orderly disposal of remaining assets, but hopes of a orderly wind-up have been dashed by court action from one creditor, the Queensland Public Trustee.

It was this that led to a court ruling on July 31 forcing Octaviar into liquidation and triggering an "event of review" in the moratorium deal. Other lawsuits are in train, including a class action against the Premium Income Fund's auditor, KPMG, alleging the fund's loans to Pacific Finance were illegal under related party rules in the Corporations Act and KPMG failed to alert regulators to this fact.

For Pacific Finance investors, there are only two routes to further recoveries. One is enforcement of the put option against Octaviar, the other is a damages claim against Octaviar Administration alleging negligence and mismanagement of the loan book. Both claims are for $461m.

Louise Edwards, CEO of Pacific Finance's trustee Perpetual, says she has asked Maywald, now based in Australia, for further information before deciding whether to appoint a liquidator to the Kiwi company.

"It's a complicated matter," she told the Star-Times last week. "It's not something we want to rush into."

Meanwhile, precious little is left in the Octaviar kitty to fight over. One of its biggest assets listed in December by then-administrator Deloitte was a 35% stake in Stella valued at $A128m. It was sold a few weeks ago for just $A3.5m.

As for King, he still has Elysian Fields, although according to one media report in Australia, its holding company, Canungra Property, is subject to a charge held by a New Zealand firm Pacific Finance


----------



## selciper (23 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Some salient points about auditors are made in this UK Telegraph article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-accountants-PwC-over-feeder-fund-audits.html


----------



## simgrund (23 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Some salient points about auditors are made in this UK Telegraph article.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-accountants-PwC-over-feeder-fund-audits.html




[[[As auditors, PwC would have been required to check that the treasury notes existed. However, Madoff was able to conceal any shortfall because he was not just the "execution agent" for Fairfield Sentry's investment strategy but also the *custodian* of the money. As such, PwC would have received assurances from Madoff that the treasury notes existed.]]] 

Hello Selciper,
Salient points indeed. I took the liberty of extracting this passage from the article with my bolding for emphasis on the role of "custodian". 
Shadows of Perpetual Nominees in doling out funds from our fund without verified security. Painful.


----------



## Duped (25 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Thanks Marcom, Clear as mud to someone like me who is unfamiliar with legal matters!!!! Hopefully some one can translate it into something less complicated. Cheers, Seamisty




From my late night, beer tinted, single reading:

PTQ won the case on 31 July so it went back to court to get the costs it incurred in winning the case paid for by someone else.  Furthermore, it wanted to get paid out of the pockets of those who opposed it - rather than getting paid out of OCV's dwindling cash. 

McMurdo ruled that PTQ should get paid. But paid from OCV cash and not out of the pockets of those that supported the Deed of Company Arrangements.  Supporters included Fortress, PIF, OPI Pacific etc.  Deloitte have immunity.

WC was faced with potentially having to pay money out of its own pocket (or our pocket) to PTQ for some of PTQ's costs.  Consequently WC showed up in court prepared and countered PTQ arguing that in his decision of 31 July McMurdo knocked back some of PTQ's allegations against  WC and hence PTQ should pay some of WC's costs.

McMurdo had already decided that costs were to be paid out of OCV cash so WC's submissions were redundant.  But McMurdo ruled against WC's argument.

Seems this whole costs court decision was simply enforcing well established law.

That about right?

This whole recent saga and its cost to us PIF investors seems to me, a lay observer, to be an excellent example of legislative failure. Failure by the legislators to anticipate how the finance/account/auditor pack would push the law around. Or monitor and fix the way the law was being applied in practice. And failure by the individual players like Deloitte from stepping out of its comfort zone, leading by example and protecting its client from erroneous pack mentality. Unless of course McMurdo is wrong whereby Deloitte would be vindicated. 

Basically, back in the March decision McMurdo said the way the pack interpreted the law was wrong because in the Octaviar case, the pack interpretation couldn't satisfy what must have been the INTENT of the law. (If you've ever done a course in law then you'll remeber learning about 'purposive construction'; probably in your first day)

Had Deloitte viewed the law the way McMurdo viewed it, then Deloitte might have discounted Fortress claim of being a secured creditor and suggested Fortress be required to pay back some $10s of millions.  There could then have been an extra approx $50m to divide amongst all the unsecured creditors AND we may not have needed to endure the last 12 months of expensive litigation.

If your interested in the fuss McMurdo's March decision has created see http://www.thenewlawyer.com.au/article/mallesons-allens-unite-on-octaviar/479534.aspx

Who pays for this clarification of the law?  Government?  No.  Professional fraternity?  No.  We pay.


----------



## marcom (25 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Tomorrow in the Brisbane Supreme Court of Appeal:

Re: OCTAVIAR ADMINISTRATION PTY LTD

Justice Holmes
Justice Muir
Justice White

Appeal Court
Floor 5 	10:15 AM 
(Appeal)

This could be the long awaited Fortress appeal hearing.


----------



## breaker1 (26 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Info Submitted by an AG member:*
SECOND SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION
an investor in the City Pacific First Mortgage Fund
and the City Pacific Income Fund
Inquiry into Financial Products and Services in Australia
Parliamentary Joint Committee
on Corporations & Financial Services
Department of the Senate
Parliament House - Room SG - 64
“I BLAME THE MANAGER, I DO NOT BLAME THE MARKET”

See:http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/supsub182b.pdf
Some all to painful similarities between the City Pacific mess and that with PIF/Octaviar

*PIF part page 24 to 27 *in Particular "What some observers struggled with, however, was the extent of related party dealing which made it hard to keep track of assets and liabilities as they were shuffled around the group."


----------



## marcom (27 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

In the Aust Financial Review today:

Adams goes global, is wanted local
12:00AM | Lisa Allen | The Australian Financial Review

The co-founder of the failed MFS property group, Phil Adams, has started an investment banking advisory firm in Dubai. But this was news to his Brisbane liquidators yesterday - they are still trying to track down the former Gold Coast high-flyer.


----------



## seamisty (27 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> In the Aust Financial Review today:
> 
> Adams goes global, is wanted local
> 12:00AM | Lisa Allen | The Australian Financial Review
> ...



 I have often wondered if Agilis Global was the original MFS International and is included in the OCV asset pool Marcom. 

 Company Register  


Agilis Global Holdings (Dubai ) Limited   

Names Agilis Global Holdings (Dubai ) Limited 
Registered Offices Unit 3, Level 1, The Gate Building 1, DIFC, P.O. Box 506704, Dubai, UAE 
Registered Number 0395 
Type of Entity Company Limited by Shares 
Company Secretary Kerrie-Ann Achilles 
Type of License Non-Regulated 
Trading Names Agilis Global Holdings (Dubai ) Limited 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Incorporation 14 May 2007 
Commercial License Number CL0395 
Commercial License Validity Date 14.05.2009 - 13.05.2010 
Amount of Authorised Share Capital USD 5,000,000 
Amount of Paid Up Share Capital USD 323,661 
Number of Issued Shares 323,661 
Class of Issued Shares Ordinary 
Nominal Value of One Share USD 1 
Financial Year End 30th June 
Directors Philip William Adams 
 Stuart Robertson Price 
Shareholders Agilis Global Holdings Limited (Cayman) 
Majority Shareholders Agilis Global Holdings Limited (Cayman) 
Business Activities  Proprietary Investments 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Former Properties 
Names MFS International Investments Limited 2007-05-14 to 2008-03-25 

 Company 395 Limited 2008-03-25 to 2008-05-18 

Registered Offices Office 51, Level 15, DIFC The gate building P O Box 125118 Dubai UAE to 2008-08-22 

Directors Michael Christodoulou King to 2008-01-21 

 Paul Philip Tuckey to 2008-10-13


----------



## simgrund (27 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This from yesterday. Will be appreciated by our grandchildren.

Regulator's backflip
John Collett  SMH
August 26, 2009

Advisory industry overhaul 

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has finally awakened from its long hibernation and presented the Government with a blueprint to protect investors from bad financial advice.

It's taken the loss of billions of dollars of investors' money through negligent financial advice, the biggest downturn in markets in 70 years and a very effective advertising campaign by the not-for-profit industry funds to rouse the regulator into action on the policy front.

ASIC's submission to the parliamentary inquiry to end sales-based commissions and put planners under a legal obligation to act in their clients' best interests comes as regulators in the US and Britain are already well advanced down the same track.

Even Australia's financial institutions appear to have moved ahead of the regulator by calling for more to be done. The industry could see the writing on the wall for commission payments and produced a plan to head off the wholesale changes that now look inevitable. Its plan to wean itself off commissions was going to take too long.

Under the industry's road map, commissions would only be able to be switched off by members of new super accounts, leaving hundreds of millions of dollars a year in commissions coming out of existing accounts for years to come. Although members are free to switch funds, many funds that charge commissions also have exit fees. Commissions have really been on the nose since the industry funds started an advertising campaign raising awareness of how they can distort advice.

ASIC's submission, if recommended by the parliamentary inquiry and accepted by the Government, would go a long way to bringing financial planning standards closer to those of other professions. Given the industry has grown out of the sales culture of life insurance, it is a very big step.

The global financial crisis has discredited, once and for all, the "self executing" regulatory regime of tick-box compliance. ASIC's performance since the Financial Services Reform Act came into effect in 2004 has been found wanting. While planners have been banned, these actions have only come after investors' money was well and truly lost and lives ruined.

Some people say ASIC is culpable for not using its already-considerable powers to better protect investors and there is truth in that.

The regulator has never fully tested the limits of its power, which is more considerable than it lets on. In time, when a full account is made of how billions of dollars were lost and the lives of many thousands of retirees devastated, ASIC will be judged in a harsher light than today.

For more than a decade, it has been testing planners with shadow shops, where people posing as investors are sent out to seek advice from planners.

It has known better than anyone else that unsuspecting investors were being exposed to unscrupulous planners. Those giving negligent, shoddy and conflicted advice, were, by and large, allowed to continue to operate under the licensing regime administered by the regulator.

Investors were none the wiser. They were told that as long as they used a licensed adviser, they could be reasonably assured of receiving, if not good advice then at least advice that was reasonable and appropriate to their personal circumstances. But the regulator knew that investors could have no such assurance. ASIC preferred to coach the miscreants and their employers in the hope they would reform themselves.

It chose to remain mute on policy improvements, even though it has been clear to even the most casual observer that the system in place was flawed and failing investors.

ASIC deflects blame in its submission for its lack of action by saying it can only use the cards dealt it by Government. Section 945A of the Corporations Act says a planner must have a reasonable basis for the advice. But it had no meaning and no deterrent value because what constituted reasonable advice was never tested properly in the courts.

Let's hope the proposals contained in the submission are reflective of a genuine change of heart and a much greater willingness to tilt the balance of the industry towards protecting investors.


----------



## marcom (27 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hello Seamisty, no, the current Agilis Global Limited was formerly known as Company 415 Limited according to the Dubai International Finance Centre - 415 was the registration certificate number when the company was registered on 12 June 2007.

However, Agilis Global Holdings (Dubai ) Limited according to your info shares the same registration number (03950) as MFS International Investments Limited 2007-05-14 to 2008-03-25. Company 395 Limited 2008-03-25 to 2008-05-18

Of interest in your info is major shareholders of Agilis being: 
Shareholders Agilis Global Holdings Limited (Cayman)
Majority Shareholders Agilis Global Holdings Limited (Cayman).

MARCOM


----------



## selciper (27 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Reading daily that Afghan election results are very slow to come through, I'm reminded that there is an even slower process that bogs down PIF-investor communications. The delay by WC in announcing the results of the Investor Advisory Committee ballot results is beyond belief. That promised teleconference is urgently required.


----------



## marcom (27 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Full marks for persistence! This is the third time in two months!

In the Brisbane Supreme Court tomorrow -
LATITUDE AT MACKAY PTY LTD -V- WELLINGTON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED & others Application to be heard 10:00 AM.

And this is the second time for for this one:
OPI PACIFIC FINANCE LIMITED -V- REEF COVE RESORT LIMITED & others at 10:00 AM 

Selciper, no wonder we don't hear anything from her - she's always in court! (Well it sounds like a good excuse anyway).


----------



## seamisty (28 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all,

      Just spoke with WC  re PIF update and was told the financials are completed as are the tax statements and will be signed off by JH either today or Monday then sent to the mailhouse to be collated and mailed to PIF investors. The Investor Advisory Committee results will be included in the update. As soon as it has been signed off and sent the contents will be put on  www.newpiff.com.au  so it will be available to investors before the mailed out copy is received by most.
Regards, 
Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (28 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Just spoke with WC  re PIF update and was told the financials are completed as are the tax statements and will be signed off by JH either today or Monday then sent to the mailhouse to be collated and mailed to PIF investors. The Investor Advisory Committee results will be included in the update. As soon as it has been signed off and sent the contents will be put on  www.newpiff.com.au  so it will be available to investors before the mailed out copy is received by most.
> Regards,
> Seamisty




THIS IS WELCOME NEWS, SEAMISTY. After all this anxiety, we were heard.
For those who want to get into PIF site, delete one "f" to get in.
Regards,


----------



## The Owls (28 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Just spoke with WC  re PIF update and was told the financials are completed as are the tax statements and will be signed off by JH either today or Monday then sent to the mailhouse to be collated and mailed to PIF investors. The Investor Advisory Committee results will be included in the update. As soon as it has been signed off and sent the contents will be put on  www.newpiff.com.au  so it will be available to investors before the mailed out copy is received by most.
> Regards,
> Seamisty




Hello 
Your link to look at the report has one to many fs  should be www.newpif.com.au


----------



## seamisty (28 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Simgrund and TheOwls, was in a rush and then had trouble getting back into AussieStockForums!!! www.newpif.com.au I presume the update and financials will get posted on the NSX also. Seamisty


----------



## breaker1 (30 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Full marks for persistence! This is the third time in two months!
> 
> Selciper, no wonder we don't hear anything from her - she's always in court! (Well it sounds like a good excuse anyway).




I would say that if JH is representing us in court she would likely be getting paid for that representation from PIF assets! If so, I would like to know how much JH has been paid to date?


----------



## lawry1dog (31 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am with Breaker. 
How much money has been paid to WC for what has seemed a waste of time going to court. I have not seen any positive result in WC favour yet. Also what other money has been paid to WC for there call centre and CEO.

Not expecting anything great from WC financial report, probably a sad story of how times are difficult and no one buying or banks are not giving credit to
developers. And of course the 3c distribution will not be paid and not in the foreseeable future.

I still stick to my scenerio of WC borrowing money to pay us the 3c distribution and then selling all assets over the next year. 
We then get the balance of money owing to us from the Class Action.

But of course there is the Bond Street case, which may involve a payment of millions out of our fund early next year.

Anyway I hope things will improve next year, but does not help existing unit holder doing it tough now.

Can anybody, Please tell me I am horrible in my sentiments, which of course they are, if there is any hope in getting our money back?
Is there anything we can do now! What our our options?

From desperate unit holder


----------



## marcom (31 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Breaker, I agree particularly in the light of the comments in J McMurdo's costs judgement:

 At clause 3 - "in the circumstance where Wellington also made extensive submissions against these applications, *which went far beyond the transactions in which Wellington had been involved".*

In whose interests was she acting?

At clause 7 - "in this case each of these parties (OPI and PIF) *had another reason to oppose the termination of the deed, which was that it would be likely to be subject to a liquidator’s investigation. In other words its interest was not purely as a creditor in the proper application of the available funds"

And it's not just her costs that will be billed to our fund here is the legal team for the many days in the Supreme Court.

Barrister - P P McQuade for Wellington Capital Ltd as responsible
entity of the Premium Income Fund

Solicitors - McCullough Robertson for Wellington Capital Ltd as
responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund

Breaker this would be a good question for the AG to ask of JH - ie will the amount be divided between representation of purely PIF issues and other issues to do with Wellington, which should not be billed to the fund.*


----------



## selciper (31 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The objective to stabilise and consolidate the PIF has not been realised. All those cheery forecasts have proved to be virtually worthless. The only positives I see are the Octaviar liquidation process and the class action. Both forums will provide masses of information for us to consider in the future. I hope that the successful Investor Advisory Committee candidates spring into action the moment their names are announced - they must ask hard questions on behalf of us marooned members - with no punches pulled. Information must be sought about PIF lawyers' costs.


----------



## marcom (31 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Results of the Federal Court Directions hearing on the Class Action:

ORDER

JUDGE:
	Justice Perram
DATE OF ORDER:
	31 August 2009 
WHERE MADE:
	Sydney


THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.	The time for the applicants to serve on the respondents a proposed draft amended statement of claim be extended to Friday 25 September 2009.
2.	The matter be stood over for further directions at 9:309am on Tuesday 6 October 2009.
3.	Liberty to apply on 3 days’ notice.
4.	Costs reserved.

Next hearing date 6 October.


----------



## charles36 (31 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Breaker and others, a good point, what has it cost us to have JH as the RE.  Breaker you should ask her how much to date and what of the future costs for litigation? As the leader of the PIF Action Group I believe you are entitled to know on behalf of the unit holders you represent  I have been waiting since April for replies to my inquiries and have not had the courtesy of any sort of reply.  I wish you well and hope you can get some reaction from the Responsible Entity.  I know many others in the same boat as myself.


----------



## waleroo (31 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



lawry1dog said:


> I am with Breaker.
> How much money has been paid to WC for what has seemed a waste of time going to court. I have not seen any positive result in WC favour yet. Also what other money has been paid to WC for there call centre and CEO.
> 
> Not expecting anything great from WC financial report, probably a sad story of how times are difficult and no one buying or banks are not giving credit to
> ...




The shareholders of Cty Pacific Got rid of them is it not time we started to do something along similar lines WC have done nothing and should be dismissed


----------



## erniel (31 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I would suggest that we wait for the year end  financials of the PIF before we start a campaign to replace wellington as the RE.
We are fortunate as to having the list of the 10 000 investors now.
Should we replace Wellington as the RE we have not had anyone come forward to replace them as Balmain trilogy did for the first Mortgage fund of city pacific.
I must again say that JH spin about a distribution of 3 c before Christmas and 1.5 cents every quarter therafter has turned out to be deceitful in my opinion and I feel that wellington should relinquish the Re of the PIF.


----------



## k.smith (31 August 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



waleroo said:


> The shareholders of Cty Pacific Got rid of them is it not time we started to do something along similar lines WC have done nothing and should be dismissed




Being a "victim" of both MFS and City Pacific I am very cynical of the motives of any new RE. They are doing what they do to make money from our money...and yet we have to resort to begging and pleading for snippets of infomation about our own investments. There should be mandatory updates on their websites on a weekly basis, transparency about all aspects of the loan arrangements between the fund and the borrowers, and full disclosure about any financial facility arrangments that are or have been in place.


----------



## The Owls (1 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> There should be mandatory updates on their websites on a weekly basis, transparency about all aspects of the loan arrangements between the fund and the borrowers, and full disclosure about any financial facility arrangments that are or have been in place.




What you have said is very true. There are many unlisted property funds out there that are operating in the same manner as Wellington. Some send notices every 3 months with statements such " We are committed to cash payments to unitholds as soon as the fund is in a position to do so. or we are doing everything possible to protect your capital." 

What I would like to see is  a proper  plan  with  proper time frames and exactly what the fund managers are doing.- not statement like we are doing our best etc.


----------



## Dexter (1 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

When will JH follow through on any of her promises?

Any comments or current thoughts re my post No: 337 on 17th June 2008.  (page 17).


----------



## seamisty (1 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The PIF update and financials are now on the NSX http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021721830.PDF  Regards Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (1 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi follks, I'm an investor (loser) in FMF.  I've just been sent a copy of your Fund's Update.  I'm really surprised that your manager is going on with the old line of 'completing the development', to keep the drip flowing to the lenders.

In the FMF, I believe this action was the cause of great losses to the fund, especially when contracting with so called 'development partners' (those who bring in the money, but want as Shiloh did, 'a pound a flesh').

Further, I notice that your manager has a given an undertaking to the Supreme Court of Queensland not to draw management fees unless certain conditions prevail.

However, does your manager take 'direct fees' from lenders?  I've been asking this question of the new manager of the FMF for quite some time now and they simply refuse to answer.

From newspaper reports it seems that City was taking up to $20m in these fees directly from lenders.  I'd guess they continued to take them (ahead of the FMF) right up to the day they lost the mangership of the FMF.  

When a fund is frozen and income into the fund has stopped, any money that a manager takes directly from a lender comes straight out of the pockets of the investors in the fund.

I think its a worthwhile question to ask managers.

I hope this information might be of use to you. 

I've often wondered why members of the PIF don't have a meeting and de-list the fund since listing the fund seems to have been quite a disaster and caused such a great deal of stress to many investors in the PIF.


----------



## lawry1dog (1 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I agree with mellifuous.

If we have the Unit Holder list, then why don't we hold a meeting ASAP,
and de-list the fund, and find a bank to take over our Fund.

As I said before, the latest WC Update, says :-  _the difficulty has been the lack of buyers for the 11 assets which were prepared for sale and then marketed over the last 4 months.
Consequently the Fund has not been able to make any cash payments to Unitholders. My team continues to focus on finding ways to maximise the value of the underlying assets._

Which proves my predictions are correct. Also I notice the Unit value went down to less than 6c, which indicates WC should resign ASAP.

WC thinks they did a great job in repaying the debit facility, which I do not think should have existed in the first place. So WC did something, lets move on, as it is old news (over 9 months ago).

How come Breaker was not elected?

Come on lets get our act together.


----------



## Cookie1 (1 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I've had a quick read through of the Annual Report and other releases on the NSX but don't see any indication of who the PIF paid 25% interest to on the $20M borrowed to pay off debt - have I missed it? or is it just not there? I thought we were to learn that information when the year end reports came out.... Where is the transparency???


----------



## Cookie1 (1 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Re the Investor Advisory Committee, would the Wholesale PIF units have been voted as a block? 84.4M units would have been a lot of votes for each of 3 candidates...if so, who decided who those votes would go to? Just wondering???

Am very disappointed none of the PIF Action Group leaders who nominated for the IAC were voted in. Does this mean they can no longer communicate directly with WC and JH as in the past? I hope not as they've been a wonderful source of information and support for all of us.


----------



## seamisty (1 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If it is there it is heavily disguised Cookie1!! Why am I not surpised? Seems it is ok to reveal the top 10 holders to all and sundry but keep important information that further financially burdened the PIF a closely guarded secret. WHAT TRANSPARENCY????? Seamisty


----------



## k.smith (1 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It is like another kick in the guts...again and again. It really is not right, this lack of full disclosure to unitholders.
 It is difficult to understand why not ONE of the prominent identities of this forum have been elected to the ICC...this site has incredible exposure, over 275,000 views..! !   Most viewers and posters alike have an affinity with some of the identities from this forum that ran for election to the ICC....what ever happened..? ? 
I think we should collectively demand to know the details of the loan on which we payed 25% interest..


----------



## seamisty (1 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

k.smith it would be interesting to get hold of the (real) vote results!! Do any of the elected IAC candidates post on here or does anyone actually know them? Perhaps we could send a request to iac@newpif.com.au asking our newly appointed reps if they would please consider using the forum as a contact/discussion point? Many investors do not waste their time with the hotline or WC investor relations email any more as they are sick of not receiving replies. Very dissapointed (and not surprised) that the AG did not get a rep elected but I was told months ago by a Fund manager that the IAC would be a total farce and a waste of time. I sincerely hope that is not the case. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## selciper (1 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

After scanning the report intro, I get the feeling that we'll be reading it again in a slightly modified version in a year's time. WC seem to think that we are all dullards, prepared to ingest their shameless self-congratulatory comments time and again. Lawry1dog, your sentiments may become infectious. My allegiance will continue to be to the AG's energetic and dedicated committee. Is there anything written in the report about a teleconference between the IAC and WC? That was the original plan: dial a number and listen in. The class action should help keep our spirits up. But it's a slow process...thanks to the AG we now have lawyers inspecting vital files and that's a comforting thought.


----------



## seamisty (1 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This interesting reading is off the Allens Arthur Robinson website:::Focus: Mistakes and misdeeds: Setting aside the Octaviar DOCAs
1 September 2009
In brief: The Queensland Supreme Court recently set aside two deeds of company arrangement because they were not in the best interests of the company's creditors, and because misleading and incomplete information had been provided to the creditors at the time they voted on whether to approve the two deeds. Senior Associate Christopher Prestwich and Lawyer Ruth Greenwood report.

Background 
The OA DOCA: Contrary to the creditors' interests? 
Grounds for setting aside the OL DOCA 
What you should be doing in light of the decision
How does it affect you?
When administrators are appointed to a company, a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) is one possible outcome that the creditors can agree to instead of a liquidation. DOCAs are straightforward to implement and are flexible in terms of the outcomes for which they can provide. Creditors would typically vote for a DOCA if it offers a better return than a winding up. 
This case illustrates the broad powers that the court has to set aside a DOCA, even against the wishes of a majority of creditors. It also demonstrates that if the proponent of a DOCA wishes to limit the chances of it being set aside, it must ensure that the DOCA offers a better outcome for creditors than a liquidation. Administrators must also take care to ensure that creditors are provided with a proper analysis of the likely outcome of the DOCA as compared with a liquidation, and provide complete and correct information about matters which creditors should take into account when deciding whether or not to vote in favour of a DOCA as opposed to a liquidation. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Background
Administrators were appointed to Octaviar Ltd (OL) and Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd (OA) in September 2008. A DOCA was proposed for each of those companies by a secured creditor of OL, Fortress Credit Corporation (Australia) II Pty Ltd (Fortress), which was a secured creditor by way of the operation of a charge over OL (the Fortress security). Fortress contended that each DOCA offered a better outcome for creditors than under a liquidation.

The administrators recommended that creditors vote in favour of the OL DOCA, but that they reject the OA DOCA and put OA into liquidation instead. At the second creditors' meeting, the required majority of creditors of both OL and OA voted in favour of the DOCAs which had been proposed by Fortress. 

One of the creditors of OL, the Public Trustee of Queensland (the Public Trustee), subsequently brought an application seeking to have both of the DOCAs terminated under section 445D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act). The Public Trustee contended that the DOCAs should be set aside because a liquidation would be in the best interests of creditors, would avoid unfairness to some creditors under the DOCAs and would be in the public interest generally.1 

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Queensland held that the Fortress security was invalid but that decision has been appealed.

Return to top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The OA DOCA: Contrary to the creditors' interests? 
Justice McMurdo held that the OA DOCA provided no benefit to the creditors of OA; rather, it was intended to 'facilitate' the OL DOCA. As such, its effect was very similar to a liquidation, save that certain claims which would be available to a liquidator would not be available in a DOCA.

The administrators had concluded that creditors should not vote in favour of the DOCA because it did not offer a better outcome than a liquidation. Even though the creditors had voted for the DOCA, Justice McMurdo held that the OA DOCA should be set aside under s445D(1)(f) of the Act on the ground that it was 'contrary to the interests of the creditors of the company as a whole'. Alternatively, Justice McMurdo held that even if the DOCA did 'facilitate' the OL DOCA and thus offer some benefit to creditors of OA who were also creditors of OL, then it should still be set aside – on the ground that it was unfairly prejudicial to those creditors of OA who were not also creditors of OL.

Return to top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grounds for setting aside the OL DOCA 
Contrary to the interests of creditors as a whole
The OL DOCA was premised on the validity of the Fortress security and provided for Fortress to receive more than it would receive if it were an unsecured creditor. Justice McMurdo found that the OL DOCA would subvert the usual operation of the law to the detriment of the creditors, and should be set aside as being contrary to creditors' interests. Given that the court's earlier decision to invalidate the Fortress security was on appeal, his Honour went on to consider the position of the OL DOCA even if the Fortress security was valid.

The main asset of OL was a distribution it expected to receive from OA. The administrators argued that the effect of the OL DOCA was that it would defeat a garnishee notice lodged by the Australian Tax Office (the ATO) against OA. The ATO garnishee notice had been issued to OA in the ATO's capacity as a creditor of OL. If the garnishee notice could be trumped, then the return to ordinary unsecured creditors would be improved.

Justice McMurdo concluded that the administrators' interpretation of the way the OL DOCA would operate was incorrect. In a liquidation, there would be a range of possible recoveries that a liquidator might make. Those claims would not be available under a DOCA and, accordingly, the OL DOCA would not put creditors in a better position than would a liquidation. The OL DOCA was set aside on that basis.

Misleading information and omission of information
Justice McMurdo found that there were a number of instances of misleading information that had been provided to creditors and omissions of material information that constituted grounds for the OL DOCA to be set aside. By way of example, creditors were not sufficiently informed of:

the possibility that the ATO's claim would rank ahead of creditors' claims; 
an explanation of the terms of the proposed OL DOCA; 
the entitlements of Fortress, the ATO and another company in the Octaviar group; 
the potential recoveries under a loan facility that had been guaranteed by OL; and 
whether the date of OL's insolvency was earlier than the date identified by the administrators, such that additional claims would be available to a liquidator.
Justice McMurdo found that each of these misleading statements or omissions meant that the creditors were not able to compare the outcome of the OL DOCA with a winding up.

Although a majority of creditors voted for the OL DOCA and a number of creditors still supported it at the hearing of the Public Trustee's application, Justice McMurdo held that this was of 'little significance' and that the grounds for setting aside the DOCA had been made out. 

Justice McMurdo noted that regardless of whether the Fortress security is upheld as void on appeal, the misleading comparisons and the prejudicial effect of the OL DOCA mean that it should be terminated under s445D of the Act.

Public interest in the affairs of the Octaviar group being examined by a liquidator
The Public Trustee argued that there was a public interest in the affairs of the Octaviar group being examined by a liquidator. In particular, it argued that there were a substantial number of potentially voidable transactions that should be investigated by a liquidator.

Although Justice McMurdo found that the terms of the OL DOCA were not, on their face, offensive to commercial reality or, more broadly, to public policy, he noted that there is a public interest in the size of the corporate collapse and the fact that it has had an impact on many institutions and individual investors. His Honour commented that the public interest in a financial inquiry needed to be balanced against the unfairness to the creditors.

Ultimately, Justice McMurdo found that, on balance, s445D(1)(g) did provide another ground for termination of the OL DOCA because the size of the potential recoveries that may result from a liquidator's inquiry may be substantial and the liquidator's inquiries 'would lead to at least some of the persons responsible for some of the group's demise being brought to account'.

Return to top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What you should be doing in light of the decision 
This decision highlights the fact that the court has broad-ranging powers to set aside a DOCA even against the wishes of a majority of creditors. 

Proponents of a DOCA must ensure that it offers a better outcome to creditors than a liquidation – otherwise it is liable to be set aside. Proponents must also ensure that the DOCA is not unfairly prejudicial to a sub-class of creditors.

Administrators must exercise great care in preparing s439A reports to creditors and in determining whether to recommend a DOCA to creditors. Incorrect information in that report or the omission of material information are also grounds on which a court might subsequently set aside a DOCA.

Footnotes
Re Octaviar Ltd (No.8) [2009] QSC 202. 
Published 1 September 2009


----------



## lawry1dog (2 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Love everybody's persistence and I am with you all the way.

Still think WC must now resign or we form meeting ourselves and vote on being *de-listed *from the NSX and inviting banks or whatever the chance to manage our fund.

WC seemed to have goofed by there legal proceedings, which we paid for, and then seemingly WC lost. Did WC really think they could take on the Government.
Yes, we did pay for the legal proceedings, as stated by Caroline Snow(CEO):-
_Wellington as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund have been party to a number of court proceedings since 2 May 2008, and consequently the Premium Income Fund *has paid the legal fees and expenses *incurred in relation to the initiation and conduct of these court proceedings inorder to protect the interest of Unitholders._

WC did not win anything at all, and so how did they protect the interest of Unitholders. Did they think the PTQ would come after our fund, as that is the only thing, I can think of? Anyway how much are we talkng about?


I will be adding up the financial figures and seeing if somebody else can manage our fund, from my figures.

WC has had there chance now for 1 year, and the fund has gone backwards. We are not in a recession and there is money to be made out there now.


Come on, lets send out a mailer to all unitholders and form a meeting.


----------



## Duped (2 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

re the Annual Report?

Of the $62.486M of 'Other financial assets', $26.877M is with OCV related entities LLA  & Octaviar Causeway P DOF.  Anyone know the nature of the other $35.609M?  It represents 12% of the fund value; i.e. 4.7cents per unit.  Any chance of us getting paid out by this asset?


----------



## Duped (2 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



lawry1dog said:


> ...
> WC seemed to have goofed by there legal proceedings, which we paid for, and then seemingly WC lost. Did WC really think they could take on the Government.
> Yes, we did pay for the legal proceedings, as stated by Caroline Snow(CEO):-
> _Wellington as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund have been party to a number of court proceedings since 2 May 2008, and consequently the Premium Income Fund *has paid the legal fees and expenses *incurred in relation to the initiation and conduct of these court proceedings inorder to protect the interest of Unitholders._
> ...




In my lay opinion and from what I've read I wouldn't call WC's legal affront reckless.  After all, in hindsight, the approx 22c in the $ offer by OCV this time last year looks like it was an excellent offer. PTQ missed that one. WC didn't. (Whether or not the deal could have worked is of course an important question.  Maybe PTQ saw the answer would be NO.)

While PTQ's wild swinging of punches is costing us big $$$ a lot of that could probably have been avoided without the counter position of Fortress and Deloitte.  A counter position that is hardly diminished by WC's backing.

Look at the pasting Deloitte is getting from McMurdo. 

One:- first McMurdo ruled against Fortress' secured creditor status. Deloitte didn't push back against Fortress on that one. 

And next, as succinctly put by Allens Arthur Robinson (posted by seamisty), McMurdo landed another two on Deloitte.

Two:- McMurdo disagreed with Deloitte that liquidation couldn't defeat the ATO's garnishee notice.  Or something along those lines.

Three:- McMurdo then went on to say, more or less, that Deloitte's "misleading statements or omissions meant that the creditors were not able to compare the outcome of the OL DOCA with a winding up."

Is this a pasting or the usual argy bargy over interpretation that goes on at this level?    

Either way, I don't know what rules Deloitte are playing by but they certainly don't seem to be the rules according to McMurdo.

But who's paying for the guns and soldiers in this skirmish.  The creditors  - i.e. you and me.  From my perspective - this is legislative failure!!!!


----------



## marcom (2 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

These are the hearings that were foreshadowed in the WC Update - the PTQ is seeking to have Deloitts removed as liquidators and provisional liquidators for these Octaviar entities.

COMMERCIAL LIST
RE: OCTAVIAR LIMITED (FORMERLY MFS LIMITED)
	Justice Philip McMurdo
	Banco Court
Floor 2
9:30 AM 
(Hearing)

RE: OCTAVIAR ADMINISTRATION PTY LTD
	Justice Philip McMurdo
	Banco Court
Floor 2
9:30 AM 
(Hearing)

RE: OCTAVIAR ADMINISTRATION PTY LTD
	Justice Philip McMurdo
	Banco Court
Floor 2
9:30 AM 
(Hearing)


----------



## breaker1 (2 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Hi follks, I'm an investor (loser) in FMF.  I've just been sent a copy of your Fund's Update.  I'm really surprised that your manager is going on with the old line of 'completing the development', to keep the drip flowing to the lenders.
> 
> In the FMF, I believe this action was the cause of great losses to the fund, especially when contracting with so called 'development partners' (those who bring in the money, but want as Shiloh did, 'a pound a flesh').
> 
> ...




$20M is very good income for this upfront style of fee. So these upfront fees *replaced* normal interest profit on lending which should have come into the CP fund as general revenue for distribution to investors or expenses paid. Very cunning if true!


----------



## k.smith (3 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Breaker,
I would like this issue of "direct fees" discussed....
Is it common practice for MIS to charge these fees, 
and what happens when the fund is illiquid? How are these fees accounted for in financial statements?


----------



## seamisty (3 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> Breaker,
> I would like this issue of "direct fees" discussed....
> Is it common practice for MIS to charge these fees,
> and what happens when the fund is illiquid? How are these fees accounted for in financial statements?



 Perhaps Breaker could present WC with a list of concerns/questions on behalf of AG members which need more clarification? I would like the following clarified:::

Question for WC. In the PIF annual report dated 30 June 2008 it clearly states on page 26 that the bank debt had been re paid as at 31 July 2008 and a new loan facility had been entered into with a non-bank facility on 1 August 2008 for $20mill of which $9.5mill was drawn (source remains anonymous). Why then in the next years 2009 financial report are we paying PriceWaterhouseCoopers $107,030.00 for preparation of report of asset values for RBOS when the loan had already been repaid? Bearing in mind that PriceWaterHouseCoopers had already been paid $161,679.00 for audit Services in 2008 and not to mention that WC had already received $3.75million from OCV to cover PIF operating expenses and certain Fund costs to August 31 2008, well after our assets had been disposed of to pay down the RBOS loan. When was the audit conducted? 
Regards, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (3 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Hi follks, I'm an investor (loser) in FMF.  I've just been sent a copy of your Fund's Update.  I'm really surprised that your manager is going on with the old line of 'completing the development', to keep the drip flowing to the lenders.
> 
> In the FMF, I believe this action was the cause of great losses to the fund, especially when contracting with so called 'development partners' (those who bring in the money, but want as Shiloh did, 'a pound a flesh').
> 
> ...



Hi Mellifuous, I am sure most would like to see PIN delisted, not only to save the PIF money on a little used service but also to eliminate WC using the NSX listing as an excuse for 'non disclosure' of information due to strict rules of being a listed company. Investors were promised many things from JH when they put their support behind her only to be let down time and time again, especially with the lack of information and transparency JH touted we would get at the Investor Forums and dribbled through numerous media articles!!

In regards to Balmain Trilogy acting as the new RE for FMF has the issue of fees be resolved yet? Are they taking 'direct fees' over and above the 1.5% in management fees? Regards, Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (3 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi,

We're all on a learning curve here, so E & OE.

Since there are investors whose interests fall between two stools, the FMF and PIF, we all tend to become more and more aware of each other's situations.

I'm aware that J.H. has an 'out' clause built into your fund's constitution and that a change of manager is not so easy to do as to say.  However, I have noted that investors in the PIF seem somewhat demoralised by the low price of units on the NSX.

Since transactions are few, it doesn't seem to make sense to me that the listing persists because there simply no good reason to do so, especially when balanced against the depression that seems to set in as a result of the low prices.

It also seems to me that there is no motivation for a manager (in the FMF and the PIF) to sell down assets, because that in turn reduces the FUM, and thereby the fees, or in the case of the PIF, the value of the 'out' clause.

No, Trilogy have not answered as to whether they're taking 'direct' fees, and some of us have formed opinions as to the reality of what they are doing.  I would have thought it an easy question to answer, 'yes' or 'no'.

There isn't too much participation from investors in the FMF and this makes things difficult to effect change.  

That's why I suggested that you ask your manager about these 'direct' fees - I have no idea whether or not W.C. takes these fees, but if they do, then they're coming out of investors pockets in circumstances whereby the lenders are unable to repay loans to the PIF.

The trouble is that managers tend to talk about 'management fees' and leave out all other fees.  A good example of this is Trilogy's run for the FMF, neither City nor Trilogy spoke to 'direct' fees.

I mentioned them in my submission to the senate inquiry - 182a.

We continue to learn.

By the way, I have met Justice McMurdo and he's a very astute man.  Very talented and fair minded.


----------



## selciper (3 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This prescient article appeared in the Australian just a year ago. As I recall, some PIF investors were angered by it and criticised its author.

http://www.asa.asn.au/ShareholderOpinion.asp?ID=SO186.xml


----------



## mellifuous (3 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I should add (as I see your case no different from the FMF):-

I believe that fund managers benefit from a listed fund because they have the whole pool of money invested in the fund to themselves without the need to repay one penny of it (so to speak).  Investors have to go to the market, which in the case of the PIF, has been abysmal for investors. 

Further, I think that investors are substantially disadvantaged by the fact that there is no direct link between the 'true' value of the funds assets and the market value of their shares/units.  I think it's human nature to always seek a discount when there is no need to pay full price, and if the seller is desperate, then the price will naturally be reduced.

Investors will get the best price by realising the assets by sale (wind up).  The time to sell is always the critical issue and something that needs to be thought through carefully. Nevertheless, the value is in the assets, not in the NSX units/shares.

To my mind, that's the prime motivator to go and de-list, others will see it differently.  As in all funds, the managers have potential to make a lot of money from a lot of different things - court cases, do this, do that - so, adding up ALL the fees (when you know them), auditors fees, maintenance on property, legal fees, and custodian fees will give investors a good idea of the expenses of the fund in order whether to persist with the fund.

J.H. has an 'out' clause but as I understand it, it's triggered by 'over throwing' her, not by winding up the fund.   Maybe it might be worthwhile seeking some legal advice about that one.

Whether you have to de-list and then windup, or whether you can simply de-list  or windup, I don't know.

I just think listing is not terminal - rather a place to learn and make decisions about the next steps.

However, if apathy sets in, then listing will be terminal.


----------



## marcom (3 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The case continues again tomorrow in the Supreme Court - not sure if WC is a party?

RE: OCTAVIAR LIMITED (FORMERLY MFS LIMITED)
	Justice Philip McMurdo
	Banco Court
Floor 2
2:00 PM 
(Hearing Part Heard)

RE: OCTAVIAR ADMINISTRATION PTY LTD
	Justice Philip McMurdo
	Banco Court
Floor 2
2:00 PM 
(Hearing Part Heard)

RE: OCTAVIAR ADMINISTRATION PTY LTD
	Justice Philip McMurdo
	Banco Court
Floor 2
2:00 PM 
(Hearing Part Heard)


----------



## Mary Lynch (3 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A great many of you have warmed my heart with your knowledge and energy, not to mention time given to getting the class action up and going.
However, having sold my shares, and continued to read your posts, my heart is bleeding for you....as in my now objective position, it would seem that it is possible that many of you are blinded by hope!

From where I am sitting, there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that JH has one person's interests at heart, and that person is NO different to any other fatcat's no.1....let me leave you to guess who that is!  

The problem is...who is going to be any different; they are all vultures.

In another "vein"..Why would JH be delaying the proceedings for the class action, if she wasn't covering her own ass in some way?  There has been some wheeler-dealing going on...just mark my words...and she's up to her ears in it!   She needs to be made to come clean with some cold hard truths....and unfortunately, because all of you have a vested current interest in the fund, you are walking on thin ice when you confront her...a very difficult position...however  it should not be insurpassable....you need someone with real guts to take that woman on...oh yes!!!


----------



## k.smith (3 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> A great many of you have warmed my heart with your knowledge and energy, not to mention time given to getting the class action up and going.
> However, having sold my shares, and continued to read your posts, my heart is bleeding for you....as in my now objective position, it would seem that it is possible that many of you are blinded by hope!
> 
> From where I am sitting, there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that JH has one person's interests at heart, and that person is NO different to any other fatcat's no.1....let me leave you to guess who that is!
> ...




Some exerpts from the SMH.....

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business...d-to-redemption/2009/09/02/1251570744233.html

...While investors in mortgage trusts are enjoying the benefit of a concerted effort by the investment management industry and the corporate watchdog to get liquidity back into their funds and get redemption payments back on track, investors in most unlisted property trusts remain in limbo, with no idea when they will see their money.....

No investor puts their money into a unit trust expecting that it could take years to get it back.

Mortgage trust managers appear to have taken this commitment a lot more seriously. Recognising that investors in mortgage trusts treat them as a form of at-call cash fund, they have worked through the industry body, the Investment and Financial Services Association (IFSA), to lobby the Government to use a bit of stimulus money to put liquidity into the funds.

Asked whether property fund managers had taken action along similar lines, the chief executive of IFSA, Richard Gilbert, says: "They have not approached us."........

I wonder why not?
I agree with you, Mary...and the reality is the way that these funds are able to operate leaves the investor....that's us!...in the dark. There seems to me to be an area of "hallowed ground" for these fund managers, where relevant questions asked by unitholders are not answered, where they can say one thing one day and renege on it the next, where our "right to receive distributions proportionate to the unitholding in the fund"(pg. 67 WPIF Explanatory Memorandum) has disappeared, where unitholders bear all the disadvantages of the NSX listing as they are forced to trade in a market that does not reflect the NTA value of their units.....


----------



## Duped (4 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

How much time can the properties sit on the market unsold before WC have to begin writing them down?


----------



## k.smith (4 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There are so many people out there affected by what has happened ...
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...zes-redemptions-pd20090826-VAA69?OpenDocument

One of Australia’s most historically successful balanced superannuation funds has taken the unusual step of freezing redemptions, after reporting a drop of 16.8 per cent in the year to June, below the average 13 per cent decline for balanced funds over the period. 

Until recently a top five fund, the New South Wales Bookmakers Superannuation Fund (BSF) reported its first loss last financial year, hurt by its holding in collapsed investment bank MFS, related investment in the MFS Premium Income Fund, and other investments in the City Pacific Cash Funds.


----------



## Duped (4 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> These are the hearings that were foreshadowed in the WC Update - the PTQ is seeking to have Deloitts removed as liquidators and provisional liquidators for these Octaviar entities.
> 
> COMMERCIAL LIST
> RE: OCTAVIAR LIMITED (FORMERLY MFS LIMITED)
> ...




And if PTQ win then their legal costs will be paid for out of the remaining OCV cash.  If Deloitte fight PTQ then they're costing us even more money.


----------



## selciper (4 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The latest AG news update revealed to members numbers indicating how many investors have signed up for the class action. It seems that IMF are very pleased with the final figure. To a layman, there still seem to be an awful lot who declined the offer. Isn't it the case that these reluctant invitees now run the risk of missing out on what could be many thousands of dollars? I wonder what prompted them to decline participation. Any ideas, anyone?


----------



## marcom (4 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Selciper, based on the investor figures I posted earlier, my estimate is that 4,200 represents around 80-90% of the funds capital. Those that have not responded are likely to be in the lower investment range $5K to $20K - and they have probably written off their investment.


----------



## marcom (4 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This afternoon I had a look at the PIF Port Macquarie project highlighted in the latest WC update. The new builder is already on site and here is a link to his details http://qldpropertydevelopers.com/pdf/Capability_Statement.pdf. In the interests of full disclosure you would think that JH would have given at least some detail.


----------



## seamisty (4 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Another interesting media article which I consider relevant to our own Class Action, Regards, Seamisty ; ;http://www.wabusinessnews.com.au/en-story/1/75052/EY-settles-Sons-of-Gwalia-claim-at-125m
EY settles Sons of Gwalia claim at $125m
The long-running saga of the Sons of Gwalia collapse has reached another milestone with the former mining company's auditor Ernst & Young agreeing to pay $125 million.

If approved by creditors, the sum will add to $3 million to be paid by former directors and $50 million agreed to be paid by their insurers.

Provided creditors accept the deal struck between EY and SoG administrators, Garry Trevor, Andrew Love and Darren Weaver, the accounting firm will become the biggest contributor to creditors, usurping American International Group, the giant insurer rescued by US taxpayers last September.

AIG will contribute $30 million and the balance of the insurance contribution is coming from two Lloyd's syndicates.

About $20 million of that was to be available to fund the directors' legal defence.

The four directors to contribute directly - company founders Peter and Chris Lalor, finance director Eardley Ross-Adjie and audit committee chairman Thomas Lang - will contribute $3 million without any admissions.

Tantalum and gold miner SoG colllapsed in 2005 under the weight of its own hedge book owing about $800 million.

That amount grew substantially when some shareholders won the right in the High Court to considered as creditors.

Litigation funder IMF Australia says it will receive $18 million in revenue if the settlement with EY is approved.




Below are releases from EY, Ferriers and litigation funder IMF:

Ernst & Young Australia today announced that it had settled, subject to creditor approval, the
Sons of Gwalia proceedings.
Ernst & Young has been vigorously defending claims made against it by the Administrators for
Sons of Gwalia, since 2005.
The parties entered into mediation in August 2009.
The proposed settlement is for an amount of A$125 million, including interest and costs. In
settling, there were no admissions of any liability by any of the parties.
In announcing the settlement Mr Gerard Dalbosco, Oceania Managing Partner and Chief
Executive Officer, Ernst & Young Australia said: "The decision to settle is a commercial one
and after four years of litigation we want to bring this matter to a close."
"By settling this matter we will be able to put it behind us. The firm remains financially strong
and we are continuing to, invest in and, grow our business," said Mr Dalbosco.
"It is important that due process is respected. The Administrator will now seek creditor approval
for the proposed settlement in a meeting on 23 September 2009", said Mr Dalbosco.



Ferrier Hodgson Partners Garry Trevor, Andrew Love and Darren Weaver announced today
that they have reached a settlement with Ernst & Young and the Shareholders that will
result in $125m being payable to Sons of Gwalia Limited - subject only to creditor approval
at a meeting to be held on 23 September 2009.
Mr Trevor said: "This settlement together with the previous settlement of $53 million, made
with the directors and their insurers, will add $178 million to the asset pool which will allow
for a significant dividend to be paid by December 2009 and will assist in bringing this longrunning
administration to a close."
"The decision that the settlement was in the best interests of creditors was made in
consultation with our legal team and the Creditors Committee and after consideration of a
range of legal and commercial issues."
A report to creditors that recommends creditors of Sons of Gwalia approve the terms of the
settlement is to be posted to creditors on 8 September 2009. Notices of meetings will be
provided on the same day by advertisements in the West Australian and Australian
newspapers.
Should creditors resolve to approve the terms of the settlement, the Administrators confirm
that they will be in a position to declare and pay a dividend by the end of 2009.



1. The Board of Directors of IMF (Australia) Ltd ("IMF") is pleased to announce the conditional
settlement of litigation against the auditors of Sons of Gwalia Ltd (Subject to a Scheme of
Arrangement and Deed of Company Arrangement) ("SOG") by SOG itself and by
shareholders of SOG by way of a class action.
2. The conditional settlement is subject only to the approval of the creditors of SOG. The
Administrators' have set the meeting of creditors to be held on 23 September 2009.
3. IMF will recommend the settlement to creditors and expects that they will give their approval.
4. If the conditional settlement is approved by creditors, IMF expects to receive revenue of
approximately $18M from the total dividend to be paid by SOG and generate a profit after
capitalised overheads of approximately $17M (before tax).
5. IMF advises this was the confidential settlement announced on 24 August 2009.


----------



## To Trusting (4 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I thought you might also like to see this newspaper article from NZ:

 stuff.co.nz/business/2778374/Michaels-Elysian-Fields-Fit-for-a-king (sorry you will need to add the w's as the forum will not allow me to add a llink)

Thank you for all of your posts. We have learnt so much from this forum.

FYI - we have joined the class action, although still not sure if it is the right thing to do?????


----------



## seamisty (4 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



To Trusting said:


> I thought you might also like to see this newspaper article from NZ:
> 
> stuff.co.nz/business/2778374/Michaels-Elysian-Fields-Fit-for-a-king (sorry you will need to add the w's as the forum will not allow me to add a llink)
> 
> ...



Welcome to the forum 'To Trusting', my unqualified opinion is that you have nothing to lose by participating in the PIF CLASS ACTION. I think any negative costs is the responsibility of IMF ( or at least I hope so !! ) Regards, Seamisty


----------



## gardie (6 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi 

I have been reading through this thread history with some interest. 

It seems Wellington made a whole lot of promises about distributions and buy backs which have been broken.

They say they are not drawing fee's but they are drawing out all of their costs.

The fee when they start to get it will be pure profit as they can even draw out their tax as a cost to the fund. 

The financials are the bare minimum that can be provided.

Question is what are unit holders going to do. With City Pacific the unit holders I understand actively pursued a new manager rather than with Wellington you got a manager who was paid $4 million to fund the road show by MFS to convice you they were the one.


----------



## seamisty (6 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Gardie I hope investors in City pacific FMF do not end up 'out of the frying pan into the fire'. I have been doing some research into their new RE, Trilogy Balmain and it appears  Trilogy was previously MDRN. Hhere is an interesting article on ASIC's website. Regards, Seamisty

06-172 Queensland investors recover losses in failed solicitors mortgage scheme

Tuesday 30 May 2006


Thirty-seven investors in a Queensland-based mortgage investment scheme have today been awarded $792,509.25 in damages and interest after ASIC mounted a successful class action.

In August 2003, ASIC brought the class action against Lawyers Private Mortgages Pty Ltd (LPM) to obtain damages for the mostly retired investors from south-east Queensland. LPM was a practitioner nominee company of the Brisbane legal firm McCarthy Durie Ryan Neil Solicitors (MDRN), which promoted the solicitors’ mortgage scheme (the scheme).

The relatively inexperienced investors, whose original investments ranged from $5,000 to $250,000, were promised an annual return of 9.25 per cent. Their money was used by LPM to lend $1.4 million to Rivett Project Results Pty Ltd (RPR) in 1999. RPR was the developer of the Yandina Greens Retired Folks Village Pensioner Accommodation at Yandina, Queensland.

The loan defaulted in March 2000 and Jessup and Partners were subsequently appointed as the liquidator to wind up the scheme together with other schemes run by MDRN.

MDRN partners, Mr Jonathan McCarthy, Mr Bruce Durie, Mr Philip Ryan and Mr Ian Neil, who promoted and managed the scheme, were also included in the ASIC action.

The Federal Court subsequently found that MDRN made misleading statements as well as negligent misstatements when they promoted the mortgage scheme to investors. These statements concerned the asset position of RPR and its director Mr John Rivett, whose net asset position was considerably less than stated in the investment summary, while his company, RPR, had no net worth.

A statement concerning the pre-sale of the retirement village units was also found to be misleading by the Court. The investment summary contained statements that all 12 units in stage one of the retirement village development had been sold. The Court found that although there were contracts of sale and pre-sale offers for some of the 12 units in stage one, there were no sales of, or offers for, all 12 units.

‘The decision is an important one for ASIC in that it provides a judicial interpretation of the law regarding misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to the promotion of solicitors mortgage investments, and related insurance issues’, Ms Jan Redfern, ASIC’s Executive Director of Enforcement said.

‘Fortunately these schemes are no longer a significant issue because all such schemes are now required to be registered with ASIC and to hold an AFSL. However, this outcome will assist ASIC in formulating future regulatory responses in relation to losses incurred under the old scheme’, Ms Redfern added.

The manner in which the Court made determinations as to which aspects of MDRN’s alleged conduct was misleading and deceptive provided ASIC with significant guidance to determine the merits of future cases.

The Court also determined that where there was dishonesty involved in the conduct which was found to be misleading and deceptive, such conduct was not covered under an insurance policy taken out by MDRN which contained an effective clause exempting dishonest conduct from cover.

Cross-claims were made by MDRN against insurers St Paul International Insurance Company Limited (St Paul) and QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited (QBE). The cross-claims were made by MDRN because both St Paul and QBE declined to indemnify MDRN for civil liability arising out of the proceedings. 

The Court directed MDRN to recover against St Paul in respect of one investor and against QBE in relation to the remaining thirty-six investors. 

Background
In February 2001, ASIC commenced a major investigation into solicitors mortgage investment schemes.


----------



## mellifuous (6 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just for info, that case relates to a fraud by an employee.  It's the case they always use.

However, Mr. Ryan, a senior executive of Trilogy was found to have breached a client's trust (_Jessup's _case).

Some background here (my site)  http://www.moneymagik.com/trilogy1.php

No one is sure if we have jumped from the 'frying pan' into the 'fire'. 

I think most are hopeful, but there's already a rumble of discontent.

Anyway, we had to get away from City - so, what's the choice?

Away from the shark, to the net of the fisherman?


----------



## selciper (6 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Anyone with a spare couple of hours might like to replay the DVD made at last year's WC Melbourne road show. A fresh viewing of this JH address is certainly interesting, especially after the first 25 minutes have passed.


----------



## mellifuous (6 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

In one of my submissions to the senate inquiry (submission 182) I noted that '*a frozen fund was a manager's delight*' at page 24.   http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sub182.pdf

I read the following article and note that investors in the Octaviar fund were in a position not unlike that of FMF investors. http://www.asa.asn.au/ShareholderOpinion.asp?ID=SO186.xml

In my submission 182b on page 3 under the heading '*the FMF has a new manager*'  I stated that I felt compelled to make a choice to change manager without really knowing what I was heading into because I was so concerned about City's management of the FMF.  I think investors in Octaviar were likewise compelled to make a choice they didn't want to make.

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/supsub182a.pdf

I would like to add, that what you give (by way of a constitutional amendment), you can take away.  If the 'out' clause is too oppressive, then you might have a meeting and delete it.  As I mentioned before, if you feel oppressed by the fund being listed, then you can de-list by way of a meeting.

In the main, investors in Octaviar will  probably suffer from what FMF investors suffer from, investor apathy.   Many investors live in hope, but I have a strange feeling that they'll wallow in mire.  It's good the see your class action go ahead, but it's a shame you couldn't run the class action yourselves to save up to the whole amount it's cost you.  I'm fearful any future FMF litigation (if any) will go the same way.

I've learnt a lot from reading the Octaviar thread, thanks.


----------



## gardie (7 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty 

You may be right about moving from the frypan to fire regarding Trilogy.

However the more I look back on the thread, the video's etc and the promises made versus what has been achieved I get the view that investors were conned by Wellington and the lady in red.

Recently she was singing the praises of Raptis and I even found an article where JH was talking up how smart and astute Michael King was !

The primary thing you need from your RE is honesty and openess and so far there has been very little of this.

In a fin review article JH stated that the final purchase price that Wellington would pay for acquiring the fund was "north of twenty million" then they convienently side stepped any payment by getting investors to vote to change the RE for "administration" purposes to their own company. Where was the disclosure about what this meant in relation to the purchaser price to be paid.

No wonder Qld trustee's are not happy with this as they are chasing every cent for their investors. Wellington should be doing the same but on this one how could they as they are so conflicted.

The changes that investors voted through were done on the back of a fear campaign of accept this or be liquidated which was not the truth. It is the unit holders who control the fate of a fund not a manager telling you do this or face oblivion.

It appears investors on this forum ended in two camps and two action groups both going at each other's throats. The thing was both groups had investors interests as their primary concern. Just one group seemed like they saw through the threats made by RE about the implications of not accepting the changes.

If investors are serious about change then a media campaign with a contact point would flush out interested alternative RE's.

I am sure the exit fee voted through could be challenged based on a number of statements made about "accept this or face liquidation".


----------



## k.smith (7 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The exit fee came about by a constitutional ammendment  and can be removed by a vote at a meeting of unitholders. To go to court would be expensive and the outcome would be uncertain. What was voted in can be voted out..two ammendments..
1. delete the clause relating to the exit fee
2. change the manager...providing we can find an alternative RE standing by !


----------



## Duped (7 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> ... Tuesday 30 May 2006 ...
> 
> ‘Fortunately these schemes are *no longer a significant issue because* all such schemes are now *required to be registered with ASIC* and to *hold an AFSL*. However, this outcome will assist ASIC in formulating future regulatory responses in relation to losses incurred under the old scheme’, Ms Redfern added.




This is not directed at you seamisty.

Fat lot of good it did us.  This is exactly the sort of government propanganda that disarmed me.   It's so insidious. Even ASIC were probably caught out by believing their own spin.  What's the point of Commissions like ASIC anymore?  The functions might as well be brought back into the Departments again because the objective of having an impartial Commission ASIC failed the likes of us. 

APRA on the other hand looks like a far more effective instrument.


----------



## seamisty (7 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Gardie and others, I hear you!!! Unitholders priority must be the Class Action as we have a far better chance of recovering some of our losses through a succesfull outcome from that than relying on our current RE, BUT, JH is meant to be cooperating with our lawyers and we don't want to take any action which would could be detrimental to the legal proceedings at this point in my opinion. In saying that we do have the power and there is nothing to stop us as a united group to investigate other options which may need to be implemented at some furure stage so I would not deter anyone from making enquiries regarding what those options are. I think we are well on the way to closing the previous 'split in ranks' and I am prepared to work with anyone willing to pursue a result which will ultimately(hopefully) benefit all concerned as in the CA. Some speak of apathy and lack of interest from PIF investors, personally I think most have become so disheartened and dissillusioned with the lack of result from WC and the sliding value of their investment that  they have put their faith and hopes in the CA. Many I have been in contact with who were once as hopefull and believing as myself in WC and her 'travelling sideshow of promises' are now so depressed and shattered or suffering deteriorating health, that they sit on the sidelines and rely on a few who are stronger and more determined to do the work. I know many are truly greatfull for the efforts of others on their behalf. We need to discretely continue working and exploring all our options and carefully do our homework. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (7 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thank you for your insightful comments Mellifluous.

I agree with your remarks regarding the integrity of fund managers. Given that they are all basically tarred with the same brush the question then becomes how can you extract the best deal from these people and  ensure that they do not put their  proverbial snout in the trough?.

I note, that you stated, staying with the previous City Pacific management was out of the question and investors in your fund  have now accepted what is probably the best they could get out of the situation. I think PIF investors are  exactly  the same  position at this point in time .

With regard to the NSX listing , unfortunately the effort and costs of reversing  these changes   are almost impossible to carry out in practice by investors acting independently and unaided. Regrettably I can state this with some experience on the subject. . By the way I attended the Trilogy Balmain EGM as an interested observer and it was apparent that the organization  to put that endeavor  in place  ,would certainly not have come cheaply. 

However ,I agree with you that listing on the NSX or ASX will become permanent if nothing is done . If I recall FMF investors were  dead set against any listing by City Pacific and this is one of the primary reasons the majority decided  to go with Balmain Trilogy. 

Listing is unquestionably a slow cancer, in that new “Vulture” investors enter the fund with absolutely no allegiance to the original investors in the fund. Of course the amount of PIF shares traded at the moment is tiny , but  as you have pointed out this  will inevitably reach a ‘,Tipping Point’ ,after which it will be impossible for the former investors to effect change.  This , I have no doubt is the primary reason WC choose to  leave us on that benighted Index, as they were well aware the vast majority of investors wanted nothing to do with the NSX .

Of course, WC was well aware they were unable to keep their promise of a 6 cents per annum dividend yield for any great length of time. This missive below was written when listing on the NSX  giving  information ,concerning the capacity of the to the Fund to pay a dividend . This memorandum, was in fact  made ,before WC  held the vote to become RE  of the PIF .

The above link has a document entitled:
Information Memorandum For An Application For Admission To The Official List Of The Nation Stock Exchange Of Australia (‘NSX’)

It was written on the 18th August 2008 and released on the NSX on the 15 Oct 2008. 

Here are a few extracts:
Page 2 is a one-page address to unit holders from JH

 For some reason this did not copy correctly, but it basically states that WC will not be able to pay a dividend in the forseeable future .

If you look at submission No 63 at the Parliamentary enquire you will find that efforts were made to give investors the benefits of considering all available options including  a controlled sale of the assets. However most people trusted WC at that time, nobody can be blamed for this belief, considering how desperate the circumstance were for some investors.   It is after all human nature to live in hope . I also hoped that WC  would be able to deliver ;I can tell you  there have been some drastic changes in my families lifestyle recently. 


Perhaps investors  will now look at the grim reality and make some hard decisions regarding  their best long-term interests , taking into account all available factors. Personally I think there is only a very  small window of opportunity left to effect any change .The alternative is to accept WC as RE and  the pittance that other are prepared to pay for our assets as a listed entity, as interminable and unending fixtures..


----------



## selciper (7 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I certainly agree with Seamisty that we should do nothing to adversely affect the progress of the all-important class action. It looms as our best hope for some cash to be returned into empty pockets. Nevertheless, we should be quietly considering all credible scenarios and be ready to strike when the time is right. But Jadel correctly underlines the need for some speed in coming to conclusions. The longer we allow this mess to roll on, the more financially damaging it becomes. Meaningful options will sooner or later have to be drawn on.


----------



## gardie (7 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It is good to hear that bridges are being mended as investors are all in the same boat and need to row in the same direction !

There are ethical managers out there that will run this fund for members benefit if investors push for change. THis fund doesnt need a fund manager in terms of where your funds are,  you needs property experts.

The fee structure rather than a percentage of FUM (which is open to manipulation) should be result driven. The more recovered the more they earn.

It would be interesting to see how Wellington Capital reacted if they knew there was was a real push for change. If they felt threatened they would either take a legal approach and fight or they may realise that they have to be open and accountable to keep the job.

THis time araound there is no OCV to write a big cheque out to fund the propoganda machine like paying students to protest.


----------



## seamisty (7 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It is good to see some sensible and constructive debate on the forum. Please bear in mind it is a public forum and monitored by all who have a vested interest in  matters pertaining to the PIF. Without appearing paranoid please accept that we are dealing with issues that need to be dealt with responsibly and some information at this stage should be dealt with the same non disclosure we as unit holders have recently experienced regarding the JV with one of our assets in the Fund. It seems it was well under way prior to the release of the last PIF update and used as a carrot to dangle as the only positive to take the spotlight off the dismal non performance of management indicated by the sliding unit value. I was informed in Mar 2009 that the PIF had been stabilised and left with a strong asset base which could be built on. I think the foundations are crumbling or our operating costs are too high!! Why else would  the proceeds of the last two PIF assets be totally absorbed into running costs of the PIF( not to mention incidental earnings of the PIf)? I had been reassured by WC staff ( on 19th Mar 2009) that operating costs of the PIF hotline costs were absorbed by WC operating costs and other PIF expenses were being absorbed by WC infrastructure. Was this information correct? If it wasn't and the PIF is being billed for staff manning a phone providing information of a generic content and contributing to costs we are expected to pay for, can the PIF justify the expense of having access to a facility used solely for the purpose of placating irrate investors? I think we have had a huge wake up call. On the 20th Jan 2009 I was told the financier of the short term loan at 25% would be disclosed in the annual financial report. This information certainly was not correct, sorry JH, not good enough and if this  service is what we can expect  to have to pay for, I  for one am not prepared to sacrifice any more of our diminishing assets so you can be seen to be running a successful business and justifying a hotline profiding incorrect or misleading information. Regards Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (8 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Amadeus a sour note for PeacockCBD
September 8, 2009 

Gun for hire...Andrew Peacock tried a Kansas play. Illustration: John Shakespeare. 
Scott Rochfort knows when it's time to fold 'em.

A FORMER Liberal leader, Andrew Peacock, is a shrewd operator of the political process. A man who knows when the numbers are stacked against him. A man who knows when to fold.

So it has come as no surprise Peacock has decided to ''retire'' as the chairman of Amadeus Energy after a face-off with the group holding 2.65 per cent of the company, CVC Limited (not to be confused with the private equity group that has dud investments such as Stella Group and PBL Media).

After some rants from CVC's managing director, Sandy Beard, over Amadeus's plans to raise $25 million in a private placement that would dilute existing shareholders by 50 per cent, Peacock finally buckled yesterday.

In a statement to the market, Amadeus said a vacancy had suddenly appeared on its board for Beard following Peacock's decision to step down, along with another director, Caroline Bentley. Apparently, ahem, Peacock ''had previously indicated his wish to retire at this time''. The company additionally announced plans to replace its managing director, Geoff Towner.

Amadeus also relented by announcing why it actually wanted to raise the $25 million (to buy a company based in Wichita, Kansas, called TNT Engineering) and that it would also allow its current shareholders to participate in the raising via a share purchase plan.

CVC all of a sudden appears OK about the raising now it has a seat on the Amadeus board. The group has withdrawn its request for an extraordinary general meeting to block the raising.

Adviser at large
And it is not the first time Peacock has resigned the chairmanship of a company following intense pressure from a minor shareholder.

Peacock pulled the pin on his chairmanship at the now collapsed MFS Limited (rebadged Octaviar) after some agitation from a banana-bending businessman, Chris Scott, who at the time had allegedly received a margin call over his 3.5 per cent stake.

Scott managed to get himself planted on the MFS board with two of his business chums. The 70-year-old Peacock is now without a seat on a public company. His previous boards include Boeing Australia; the company that never made an orbital engine, Orbital Group; and Child Care Centres Australia.

At least Peacock has enough to see him through the next few months. His 2 million options in Amadeus are now in the money. But it is unclear if the former politician will continue his consultancy agreement with Amadeus. On top of his modest $87,500 in chairman fees, Peacock earned an extra $25,000 offering his ''corporate advisory services'' last financial year. It is unclear if his corporate advisory skills helped with the group's planned $25 million raising.


----------



## Jadel (8 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty

     Would you please look at the Private Message Folder


----------



## lawry1dog (8 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We have been unit holders of PIF since January 2007, in which we deposited all our life savings.
When we put in our redemption on the 20 January 2008, the PIF was frozen a few days later.

Of course since then we have not received any money at all from the PIF. 
We did vote for Wellington to take over the fund, but not to go on the NSX.

The facts are the following:-
1.  Wellington promised(or indicated) that we will get a 3c distribution by December 2008.
2.  Wellington would then pay quarterly distributions.
3.  Wellington proceeded with legal actions, to get owing funds from MFS(Octaviar) windup.
4.  Public Trustee Queensland won their case, and Octaviar is to be liquidated.
5.  Wellington did payoff the $100 million debt facility.
6.  Wellington now have the strategy of selling 11 properties and consolidating the other properties.
7.  The unit value has gone from 45c down to around 39c, at this point in time.
8.  NSX prices range from 5.6 cents to 45 cents per Unit. The 45 cents was back on 22 October 2008.
     The last 2 months it has gone from 6.6 cents to 12 cents.

The following is my conclusions:-
1.  Wellington thought that Octaviar would not be completely liquidated, and thus receive around $22 million
     from the Deeds of Agreement(which was squashed by the PTQ). This $22 million was going to pay the
     3c distribution.
2.  Wellington employed several legal firms on behalf of the PIF, but the PTQ(the government) won their
     case, and so our PIF will receive an equal slice of the liquidated Octaviar, which will be a few million dollars,
     but when. Our PIF has paid for all these legal actions.
3.  Wellington is now back to square one, and our fund has no money to pay any 3c distribution or any other
     payments. 
4.  Wellington is paying staff, CEO and administration, from the PIF fund.

From the above facts and conclusions, Wellington Capital, should resign and voluntary hand the PIF to someone
else(Perpetual or a Bank), to manage.
To my way of thinking, Wellington has mis-mangaged our funds, and paid themselves along the way. Nothing given to us.

If Wellington had sent a letter or memo, explaining the situation, and how sorry that things have not panned out
as expected, and giving us some sort of distribution(eg 1cent distribution), then I would be happy and not embark
sending opinions on their questionable performance.

We all make mistakes.


----------



## marcom (8 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Judgements in the Octaviar cases will be delivered by Justice McMurdo tomorrow at 9.30am Brisbane Supreme Court.


----------



## flatback (8 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> This is not directed at you seamisty.
> 
> Fat lot of good it did us.  This is exactly the sort of government propanganda that disarmed me.   It's so insidious. Even ASIC were probably caught out by believing their own spin.  What's the point of Commissions like ASIC anymore?  The functions might as well be brought back into the Departments again because the objective of having an impartial Commission ASIC failed the likes of us.
> 
> APRA on the other hand looks like a far more effective instrument.



duped ive been reading quietly ,and for what its worth i believe that the sooner Breaker1 can get his hands on that list of investors names and address's the better, we are very rapidly reaching the point where she (JH)must be removed, she made some changes to our constitution, that at the time beggard belief. i asked this question of breaker some time ago how can IMF work on our behalf when JH is the controlling entity of our fund, surely the restrictions placed on IMF because of the connections JH has, to all of the previous RE's must make the whole process that much more difficult, If as things were explained to me (regarding IMF/JH )i was told that IMF are going at an Insurance Group which was quite separate from JH, if that is the case why are some on this forum reluctant to address the problem of JH.
flatback


----------



## JohnH (9 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> The exit fee came about by a constitutional ammendment  and can be removed by a vote at a meeting of unitholders. To go to court would be expensive and the outcome would be uncertain. What was voted in can be voted out..two ammendments..
> 1. delete the clause relating to the exit fee
> 2. change the manager...providing we can find an alternative RE standing by !




Hi all,  Just back on line after a period in a "non broadband" location.

I don't know whether it was mentioned at other September meetings, but at the Gold Coast JH stated when challenged that "if she was judged not to have performed" then the exit fee would be waved.  How that is quantified???- but I am sure there are 900 + investors who would be prepared to sign an affidavit that it was said!!!
..............  John H:angry::iamwithst


----------



## selciper (9 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Re the Investor Advisory Committee election results: why were the successful candidates' names published but no relevant statistics provided? Surely it's a democratic right to know how votes were distributed. The result seems meaningless without the figures.


----------



## seamisty (9 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Welcome back JohnH. I am sure there would be many prepared to sign statuatory declarations re the waiving of exit fees. Does anyone know if that discussion was ever recorded or documented?
Selciper who counted the votes, WC or Computershare? I think Breaker was chasing up on that. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (9 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Judgements in the Octaviar cases will be delivered by Justice McMurdo tomorrow at 9.30am Brisbane Supreme Court.



http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2009/QSC09-283.pdf


----------



## marcom (9 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

As a result of Justice McMurdo's judgement today the new liquidators for Octaviar and Octaviar Administration are William Fletcher and Katherine Elizabeth Barnet of Bentleys Chartered Accountants Brisbane. Here is their web site http://bris.bentleys.com.au/index.cfm/Home/index.cfm/Home

The judgement is a bit tedious to read through but it is well worth the effort to see what has been going on with the administrators and the 35% Stella sale, and the $19.5M transfered to Fortress, and the "prospect that the present liquidators are in a position of conflict between their duty to investigate the circumstances of that payment and their interest in an outcome of that investigation favourable to them".

Wellington was there again (at our expense) and in an interesting plot twist the new liquidators (Fletcher and Barnet) appointed by the court are the ones suggested by counsel for Wellington. Talk about "hoisted on ones own petard" - I can hardly wait for the liquidators investigations and report.


----------



## Duped (9 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2009/QSC09-283.pdf




Pure Gold. 
Looks like Deloitte got slapped by Fortress.  Just as OCV got slapped by Fortress in the first place - demanding their money back.

Basically from my lay reading McMurdo is saying:

The boys from Deloitte wanted access to OCV cash so they could pay themselves.  To get CBA to release the cash they exchanged a few letters with the ATO and Fortress. 

Then Deloitte appears to have been a bit enthusiastic in interpreting their legal advice and handed ~$20M to receivers in December 08 and didn't  instruct the receiver not to pass the $20M to Fortress.  Fortress won't give the $20M back and Deloitte potentially could be sued by the rest of us creditors for that amount.

Deloitte have been busy getting Fortress to agree to put the $20M in an escrow account to remove Deloitte's conflict of interests. McMurdo wouldn't give the agreement his blessing. (Who paid for all that negotiation and court time? Us creditors?)

Wasn't enough and McMurdo found that Deloitte are now conflicted.  

McMurdo got stuck into the question of solvency in para [34]: "But it was one thing to say that the company may have been solvent as at that date. It was another to express the opinion that it was probably solvent."

Deloitte at least got some reprieve. "Absent such an enquiry", McMurdo didn't agree with the PTQ that Deloitte's sale of 35% of Stella warranted sacking Deloitte.


----------



## seamisty (9 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

New liquidators appointed to Octaviar:::BRISBANE, Sept 9 AAP
September 09 2009, 5:39PM
The Queensland Supreme Court has appointed new liquidators for beleaguered fund manager Octaviar.

The Public Trustee of Queensland, supported by the tax commissioner, sought to have liquidators John Greig and Nicholas Harwood replaced.

The court agreed to the request on Wednesday, concluding a potential conflict in relation to an issue surrounding trust monies "is of itself a sufficient reason for appointing someone other than Mr Greig and Mr Harwood as liquidators". 

The new liquidators for Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd and Octaviar Ltd are William Fletcher and Katherine Barnet from Bentleys Corporate Recovery.

The Public Trustee successfully sought the wind-up of the two Octaviar companies in July.

The Public Trustee started legal proceedings in its role as trustee for more than 560 noteholders who were owed $359 million by the failed Octaviar Group.
Source:::http://www.tradingroom.com.au/apps/...ished/2009/9/252/catf_090909_173900_5070.html


----------



## seamisty (10 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Was sent the following article out of the SMH from another unhappy PIF investor who asked me to post it on the forum. Seamisty
Australia lags on investor rightsCLANCY YEATES
September 10, 2009 
SMALL investors' rights are better protected in countries such as Botswana, Romania, Ghana and Georgia than they are in Australia.

That is the finding of a World Bank study which ranked Australian laws and regulations on investor protection at 57th in the world, lagging behind many commercial backwaters.

The report gave high marks to Australia's disclosure regime and shareholders' ability to sue a company, but it found laws on director liability were unusually weak. Overall, the Doing Business 2010 report ranked Australia the ninth-best place to conduct business of 183 economies, based on an assessment of 11 aspects of running a business here.

To gauge investor protection, the study examined laws on related-party transactions - where companies enter into deals with entities that have a close relationship to the company, such as firms owned by directors.

Australia's disclosure rules in this field were strong, and shareholders had access to a large pool of evidence if they chose to lodge a class action, it said. But the legal system was weak at holding directors liable for related-party transactions.

''If the transaction is not fraudulent, then there is very little recourse to hold the director liable,'' said the lead author of the report, Sylvia Solf.

The report comes after several collapses have thrown the spotlight on related-party transactions. The failed finance company Octaviar (formerly MFS Limited) faces a potential litigation claim from IMF Australia, which has alleged MFS failed to disclose related-party transactions associated with its Premium Income Fund.

Administrators of the collapsed Allco Finance Group have also queried several related-party dealings, including a $50 million loan made to an investment vehicle owned by Allco directors and senior management.

The managing director of IMF, John Walker, said there were few precedents when suing directors over related-party transactions, and the directors' capacity to pay damages was uncertain.

However, the poor result on investor protection is unlikely to deter investment in Australia on its own. Official figures show the stock of foreign investment increased 83 per cent between 2002 and 2007, mostly from Britain and the US.


----------



## Calliope (11 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I would suggest that if any posters on this thread personally know any of the members of the Investor Advisory Committee; 

Mr Chris Mangan,

Ms Bronwyn Andrejic, or,

Ms Alana Woodford, 

to request them to contribute to this thread under their own names. At the moment we are all separate voices crying in the wilderness. We need a focal point for our worries, if we are ever going to influence JH, and this forum would give us this opportunity.


----------



## breaker1 (11 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Welcome back JohnH. I am sure there would be many prepared to sign statuatory declarations re the waiving of exit fees. Does anyone know if that discussion was ever recorded or documented?
> Selciper who counted the votes, WC or Computershare? I think Breaker was chasing up on that. Cheers, Seamisty




I sent the following to Wellington on behalf of the PIF Action Group:

Regarding the IAC - would you please confirm:

* Who counted the votes and scrutinised the votes for veracity - was it WC staff or Computershare or Perpetual or other? 
waiting the answer

Breaker


----------



## selciper (11 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This article by Alan Schwab appeared in Crikey in May 08.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/05/19/plus-ca-change-conflicts-continue-at-octaviar/


----------



## selciper (11 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Typo., sorry! ADAM Schwab.


----------



## seamisty (11 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> This article by Alan Schwab appeared in Crikey in May 08.
> 
> http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/05/19/plus-ca-change-conflicts-continue-at-octaviar/



Selciper, that is a really interesting article and I don't know how I have missed it it my constant research!!!

This is a list of who signed off on the WC PIF aquisition  deal::

Freehills, Korda Mentha, Minter Ellison, McCullough Robertson  and Jenny Hutson as well as 6 OCV directors.

Was the PIF offered to any one else? All will be revealed eventually, the PIF is under constant scrutiny and gone are the days of concealing 'related party transactions , golden handshakes, mates rates, etc'. A lot of PIF investors are far more vigilant, not so trusting and not prepared to be as complacent as they once were. They want the transparency they were promised and will explore all avenues to achieve it. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## marcom (12 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Selciper, a timely repost of this important article.

Just think about it - if Octaviar was insolvent in November 2007 when the RBS loan misappropriation occurred as McMurdo suspects (remember the email quoted from Fortress "we don't know how they got the $100M ") then all transactions from that date *are voidable*. That includes the "sale" of PIF to Wellington and investigating the circumstances of the selection of Wellington.

The liquidators will have to follow McMurdo's judgement and investigate the "missing" $5.05m from OIM accounts as well as the $3M for operations, as voidable transactions.

I am not sure how the liquidators will "unscramble the egg" of the web of voidable transactions involved in the Octaviar liquidation - by either seizing assets or suing for compensation or both.

But it seems that as soon as the potential for the removal of Deloitt and the appointment of another liquidator arose, JH reneged on the class action arrangement. (Jh was quoted as saying the PIF sale was cleared by Delloitt -  now they have been removed under circumstances of "conflict"). Now the whole episode will be scrutinised. Well you can not give one group unfettered access to your documents and the expect to reject the liquidators requests for the same. She has bunkered down and that's why the noticeable lack of transparency. Remember that Wellington Investment Management is still listed as a respondent to our class action - looks like we will be suing them so don't expect much communication.

The whole issue of the misappropriation of the RBS loan funds begs another question - if JH knew that the the funds had been illegally misappropriated at June 2008 (as evidenced by lodging of the Court action) why on earth did she continue to pay the RBS loan out - PIF would be in much better financial shape now with $100M in the kitty! Seamisty, it looks like further actions against RBS and Wellington Capital for the class action.

Now that McMurdo has decided that the PTQ's costs in each case are paid by the Octaviar windup, I am sure that they will continue to legally pursue aspects of the Octaviar liquidation via the court. 

As the new liquidators start their investigations, just watch the legal actions start!


----------



## marcom (12 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Selciper, just another thought on the Adam Schwab article - is it that the business community in Brisbane/Gold Coast is so small that everyone has to do business with each other? Is this the reason for such a high level of conflicts? .....LOL


----------



## mellifuous (12 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Selciper, just another thought on the Adam Schwab article - is it that the business community in Brisbane/Gold Coast is so small that everyone has to do business with each other? Is this the reason for such a high level of conflicts? .....LOL




ASIC  should set up an office on the Gold Coast so they don't have to drive down from Brisbane for a cool lunchtime drink with the managers.    City Pacific's old office was in Queen Street, not too far from ASIC.

If ASIC have already done it, then they're still no use to us, just streets ahead.


----------



## Mary Lynch (12 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Adam Schwab's article interesting!!!! I find the adjective more to be foul and sickening.

I can't believe there are such conniving ruthless corporate  thieves in this world getting away with masquerading as "clever".  It's just common, low-life grand theft. Not to mention that thy are pathological (no conscience) liars and cheats. I would prefer to associate with house breakers than these covert thugs.

Is there any chance that we can see them sent to gaol?


----------



## seamisty (12 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Foul and sickening works for me too Mary!! (Among other expressions not permitted here!) Every dog has their day, and I feel that day of reckoning for all involved is rapidly approaching. Sure finding it hard to trust anyone these days. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (12 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Selciper, just another thought on the Adam Schwab article - is it that the business community in Brisbane/Gold Coast is so small that everyone has to do business with each other? Is this the reason for such a high level of conflicts? .....LOL



 More of a case of 'birds of a feather, flock together' Marcom, or is 'if you hang out with dogs, you catch fleas' more appropiate? What ever, I am sure IMF will be on to anything that can be used in the CA to cement our case. Seamisty


----------



## marcom (12 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



			
				Is there any chance that we can see them sent to gaol?[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> Yes Mary, there is now.
> 
> Under the DOA scenario with Deloitts/Fortress I think much of the dirt would have been swept under the carpet legally. Hence the desperate and costly legal efforts to force a DOA and then frustrate the appointment of an independent liquidator.
> 
> ...


----------



## selciper (12 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yet another visit to the past...


http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/01/31/comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups/


----------



## flatback (13 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Selciper, a timely repost of this important article.
> 
> Just think about it - if Octaviar was insolvent in November 2007 when the RBS loan misappropriation occurred as McMurdo suspects (remember the email quoted from Fortress "we don't know how they got the $100M ") then all transactions from that date *are voidable*. That includes the "sale" of PIF to Wellington and investigating the circumstances of the selection of Wellington.
> 
> ...



Marcom i think this might just bring a smile to a lot of people who have very patiently stood by each other (generally) in this forum and elsewhere, i know this, in the short term means nothing but it does have potential to erupt ,and maybe ,just maybe we will see the right people bought to task a bit quicker.
by the way i am sorry to here the Great Dame is not well, if anybody contacts him please give him my regards, Flatback


----------



## Duped (14 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> More of a case of 'birds of a feather, flock together' Marcom, or is 'if you hang out with dogs, you catch fleas' more appropiate? What ever, I am sure IMF will be on to anything that can be used in the CA to cement our case. Seamisty




Too true. And the contagion spread to our Federal government too. ASIC, ACCC etc are now itching from the fleas from their association with the industry.  Sociopathic Taibbi squids everywhere.

Another great example is the press. (more like a 'press gang' than journalism) Did you read the Financial Review and Fairfax (The Age) reporting of McMurdo's decision against Deloitte last week? No mention what so ever by either of the basics of the decision that Deloitte erred which led them to be conflicted. Instead the Fin Review was more interested in reporting, from memory, a side show featuring OPI and PIF.  Incidentally - does anyone have a copy of that AFR article from Sept 10 (page 44) - 'Court Replaces Deloitte at Octaviar'. It's like Deloitte are some kind of holy cow now - like the ratings agencies and the 'masters of the universe' were.


----------



## Duped (14 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hmmm. Interesting marcom. 

My understanding is that a transaction wouldn't be voidable if it doesn't unfairly disadvantage one group or advantage another.  Please correct me if I'm wrong

So if PIF now keeps writing everything down and doesn't return to profit (i.e. pay WC) for a long long long time then WC would seem (to lay me) to have a strong argument that WC haven't been advantaged. I.e. it could be in WC's interest to keep profitability down. Or to hold back on the 3c distribution to hold off paying WC.  Hmmm. Smells a be conflicketty to me. Am I wrong?


----------



## marcom (14 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped, I think the disadvantage accrues to Octaviar as a valuable asset has been disposed of for no consideration. Eventually PIF will pay the 3c and WC will start accruing fees into the future, regardless of whether we see any further distributions they will benefit - and thats what the liquidator will want to get some value for.

Further disadvantage flows from the potential preference payments - ie $5.05M and $3M paid by Octaviar Administration to Wellington.


----------



## Duped (14 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Duped, I think the disadvantage accrues to Octaviar as a valuable asset has been disposed of for no consideration. Eventually PIF will pay the 3c and WC will start accruing fees into the future, regardless of whether we see any further distributions they will benefit - and thats what the liquidator will want to get some value for.
> 
> Further disadvantage flows from the potential preference payments - ie $5.05M and $3M paid by Octaviar Administration to Wellington.




Thanks marcom. With WC under threat now I fear big write downs of PIF's assets.  I mean, none of the 11 properties have sold yet have they?  Seems to be an opportunity for WC to diminish the value of the fund's assets to help defend any allegation of preference payments. Who's watching WC's performance? ASIC?  Bwahahaha!!! ROFL!

Aside from that wild allegation, how will the new OCV liquidators account for value WC have added e.g. through amending the PIF constitution?  Without which PIF would be in the hands of liquidators by now and the value in the RE would now be gone wouldn't it?  If WC could argue that they materially improved the value of the RE and received no consideration for say two years (if the 3c distribution proceeds in a year from now) then wouldn't the liquidator be a bit hard pressed arguing the RE was worth a lot?  

Say OIM was still in charge of PIF when Deloitte took over. What would Deloitte have done with the RE? Auctioned it off at the height of the market disruption? What would Deloitte have valued the RE at given that there was less than 6 months till all those redemptions were due.  With such a small time frame - isn't that a fire sale. 

Would OIM have managed the fund better than WC did? 

If OCV kept the RE (OIM) then wouldn't it have incurred those costs anyway?  Weren't the only options for OIM to fire sales PIF's assets to pay for the ongoing management OR stump up its own cash.  If OIM tried to fire sale they could have been voted out post haste and the value of the RE would be gone.  My lay view is that the value of OIM was already smashed (If it ever really existed in the first place. How do you value a ponzi scheme?). Seems far more likely the RE at the time was a liability. Maybe that's wishful thinking but I'm very concerned that WC might be motivated to diminish the value of the PIF to strengthen their defence.

All Q's that come to my mind.


----------



## marcom (15 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sydney Morning Herald 15/9/09  http://www.smh.com.au/business/king-cuts-a-deal-with-creditors-20090914-fnus.html

*King cuts a deal with creditors*
CBD
September 15, 2009
Roped in...Michael King has creditors who appreciate polo. <i>Illustration</i>: John Shakespeare.

Roped in...Michael King has creditors who appreciate polo. Illustration: John Shakespeare.

Scott Rochfort just needs to cut down on financially engineered doughnuts.

MFS LIMITED'S founder and polo enthusiast, Michael King, has dodged bankruptcy after striking a deal with his creditors for more than $130 million of debts.

Last month King's creditors quietly agreed to a two-year ''personal insolvency agreement'' with the founder of the financial group, which collapsed last year owing more than $1 billion.

The former MFS chief and his co-founder, Philip Adams, still owe $127.2 million on margin loans they took over their now worthless 13 per cent stake in the company, once worth more than $440 million.

King is now locked into an agreement that will require him to make undisclosed payments to his creditors.

Good luck. According to documents filed to the insolvency trustee, King's assets include a laptop and iPod music player (worth a collective $800) and some watches and a wedding ring worth $2000. The former BRW rich lister also had $60.26 in a Commonwealth Bank account and minus $23,442.51 in another account.

One asset not included in the filing was a patch of turf King purchased inland from the Gold Coast for more than $6 million, which is now his polo farm, Elysian Fields.

Given the polo field is held in trust on behalf of King, it would have been out of reach of creditors had the MFS founder been declared bankrupt.

But under the deal struck with creditors last month, the farm has been included. The trustee of the agreement, the Grant Thornton partner Nick Mellos, declined to provide details, noting more information would have been publicly available had King been declared bankrupt. But he stressed creditors could expect to get more out of King through the deal than if he had been declared bankrupt.

In his original filing to the bankruptcy trustee in April King noted he had flogged his Mercedes Benz to a used car dealer on the Gold Coast for $43,000. There was $231,000 from shares, including a small holding in Fone Zone, and $150,000 for his half share of a holiday house at Mount Hotham that was jointly owned by a Kate Manka.

It is unclear if it is the same Kate Manka that is married to the former MFS chairman Paul Manka.

King's (and Adams's) creditors include the Westpac-owned BT Financial ($41 million) and St George ($26 million), NAB ($22 million), CBA ($12.6 million), Lift Capital ($13.7 million), Macquarie ($7.5 million), Adelaide Bank ($4.4 million) and the Tax Office ($15,293).
Numbers man

After the insolvency agreement, a raft of companies owned by King, such as Black Teak Pty Ltd and Elysian Fields Canungra Hotel Pty Ltd, adopted their company numbers (ACNs) as their new names. At least King's Canungra Property and Subdivisions' catchy new name, ACN 097 679 788, is better than its original name, Bradmat Sunshine Coast Weed Control Pty Ltd.

King has been replaced as the sole director of all of his business interests by the Gold Coast private eye Michael Featherstone, who was a little cagey to CBD about his new role.

''I'm not trying to be rude, I just don't have any comment,'' he said. He failed to say whether the name changes could relate to King wanting a more reclusive lifestyle. A former policeman, Featherstone now runs a private investigation and ''risk management'' business and recently authored the book, Bullet Proof Your Business.
Pay up or else

Phil Adams, who moved to Dubai in 2007, remains elusive.

Let's hope he keeps up with his bill payments over there. The United Arab Emirates still has debtor prisons for people unable to pay their dues.


----------



## lawry1dog (16 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We have been unit holders of PIF since January 2007, in which we deposited all our life savings.
When we put in our redemption on the 20 January 2008, the PIF was frozen a few days later.

Of course since then we have not received any money at all from the PIF. 
We did vote for Wellington to take over the fund, but not to go on the NSX.

The facts are the following:-
1.  Wellington promised(or indicated) that we will get a 3c distribution by December 2008.
2.  Wellington would then pay quarterly distributions.
3.  Wellington proceeded with legal actions, to get owing funds from MFS(Octaviar) windup.
4.  Public Trustee Queensland won their case, and Octaviar is to be liquidated.
5.  Wellington did payoff the $100 million debt facility.
6.  Wellington now have the strategy of selling 11 properties and consolidating the other properties.
7.  The unit value has gone from 45c down to around 39c, at this point in time.
8.  NSX prices range from 5.6 cents to 45 cents per Unit. The 45 cents was back on 22 October 2008.
     The last 2 months it has gone from 6.6 cents to 12 cents. And now at 9 cents(15 September 2009).

The following is my conclusions:-
1.  Wellington thought that Octaviar would not be completely liquidated, and thus receive around $22 million
     from the Deeds of Agreement(which was squashed by the PTQ). This $22 million was going to pay the
     3c distribution.
2.  Wellington employed several legal firms on behalf of the PIF, but the PTQ(the government) won their
     case, and so our PIF will receive an equal slice of the liquidated Octaviar, which will be a few million dollars,
     but when. Our PIF has paid for all these legal actions.
3.  Wellington is now back to square one, and our fund has no money to pay any 3c distribution or any other
     payments. 
4.  Wellington is paying staff, CEO and administration, from the PIF fund.

From the above facts and conclusions, Wellington Capital, should resign and voluntary hand the PIF to someone
else(Perpetual or a Bank), to manage.
To my way of thinking, Wellington has mis-mangaged our funds, and paid themselves along the way. Nothing given to us.

If Wellington had sent a letter or memo, explaining the situation, and how sorry that things have not panned out
as expected, and giving us some sort of distribution(eg 1cent distribution), then I would be happy and not embark
sending opinions on their questionable performance.

We all make mistakes.















Regards
Kalvin


----------



## charles36 (16 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Can any member of this forum enlighten me as to whom JH borrowed the $5 million dollars from to repay the remainder of the loan to RBOS.  I believe the interest rate started at 20% and then escalated a further 5% to 25%.  With our assets and no doubt contacts with banking organisations a loan of that size on security of our assets would have been at a commercial rate of approximately 8-10%.  I have been trying since April to receive a reply to my inquiry of JH and have been ignored.   I would appreciate an explanation.    I have asked ASIC to inquire in my behalf but I have not received a REPLY.  I can recall a unit holder asking JH for an explanation and was told that it would be revealed in the annual report.  I also contacted Price Waterhouse and was told it was not the function of the auditor to inquire into the loan.  Where are our rights and who do we turn to?.


----------



## marcom (16 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duper, I can see your point and that possibility is a worry to us all. We won't know how the situation will develop until the liquidators preliminary report on solvency and preference payments etc. Not sure how long this will take as Deloittes have done some work and the PTQ has information to present as discussed in McMurdo's judgement.

Most liquidators reports to creditors are available on their websites so hopefully we will get to see how the situation develops.

Charles 36, we would all like to know who the mystery lender is. It is appalling that you have not received a reply from WC, but not suprising since it highlights another potential non-commercial transaction involving the fund. Have you tried a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service - their website is  http://www.fos.org.au/centric/home_page.jsp 

Perhaps this should also be done by the PIF Action Group as there are other unresolved issues that Breaker is awaiting a satisfactory response.


----------



## mellifuous (16 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I don't know if I should feel good or bad about being in the 'same boat' with you guys - seems neither the manager of the FMF or the PIF seem inclined to show transparency and answer reasonable questions.

We've only had Balmain Trilogy for a few months and for nearly the past month they simply refuse to disclose whether or not they are taking 'direct' fees out of the fund.

I get the feeling that the system is dead against investors.  We don't seem to have any rights whatsoever, not even to have managers answer reasonable questions, and ASIC seems like a 'pidgeon-hole' to an abyss.

Maybe investors in all of these stuffed-up funds should get together somewhere/somehow and start to get political?


----------



## selciper (16 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I worry about an organisation that engages in too many battles at once  - we know what often follows: fatigue and internal bickering.


----------



## seamisty (16 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Trust in managed funds and planners takes hit:::
Source:http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/article/Trust-in-managed-funds-and-planners-takes-hit/498487.aspx ;;
16 September 2009 | by Mike Taylor 

The managed funds industry may emerge the biggest loser from the erosion of investor sentiment resulting from the global financial crisis (GFC).

That is the bottom line of new Investment Trends research, which found 54 per cent of active investors agreed with the statement that they no longer trust fund managers and intend investing directly in the future.

Commenting on the research findings, Investment Trends principal Mark Johnston said a similar exercise conducted in November had revealed that the GFC had dented investor confidence, with the latest data suggesting that while investor sentiment towards markets had improved, there was increasing distrust in fund managers.

“The problem is that many investors blame ‘financial services’ companies for creating the global financial crisis, and don’t necessarily distinguish between greedy Wall Street investment bankers and local fund managers,” Johnston said.

The investment trends research also held bad news for superannuation funds, with 19 per cent of respondents suggesting they no longer trusted their superannuation fund.

Johnson said older investors had emerged as being most distrustful of fund managers – something that posed a problem in circumstances where most wealthy investors tended to be older.

Financial planners also have reason to be concerned in circumstances where the research suggests fewer people are using them than a year ago, with a 34 per cent decline having been recorded in the number of people saying financial planners were the main influencers of their investment decisions.


----------



## seamisty (17 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It would be nice to know where PIF stands in the grand scheme of the 'Raptis Resurrection'. We are owed $20mill as 2nd mortgagee on the Sheraton and $32.6mill on another Raptis project. I don't recall any update on our position from JH, does anyone else know? Seamisty
Raptis resurrection begins
Source::http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/09/16/137695_gold-coast-news.html







 Raptis resurrection begins
Shannon Willoughby   |  September 16th, 2009

RAPTIS Group is manoeuvring for a comeback almost a year to the day after it collapsed.

This week, the development company's corporate doctors will put forward a plan to quarantine the group's debt to allow shares to resume trading, documents have revealed.

This means Jim Raptis's listed empire, which crumbled under almost $1 billion worth of debt, will once again be free to raise funds on the Australian Securities Exchange to kickstart future developments. 

The proposal comes amid rumours Mr Raptis -- who built a large chunk of the high rises at Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach -- is on the prowl for acquisitions.

If the plan goes ahead, this will be the second time the Chevron Renaissance developer has survived financial devastation, having emerged from administration in the early 1990s.

On Friday, administrators Brian Silvia and Andrew Cummins, of BRI Ferrier, will ask creditors, many of whom have suffered their own financial setbacks since the group's implosion last year, to vote on establishing a creditors trust.

Creditors trusts carry the debt of a company, leaving the corporate shell with no liabilities.

Unsecured creditors, mainly tradies and small businesses, are owed almost $30 million.

Already, the company is operating under a deed of company arrangement as its administrators continue to sell assets.

This would end if a trust were established.

The trust will include 35 million preference shares worth 1c each of which will be sold or converted into ordinary shares at a later date.

This will dilute Mr Raptis's 62 per cent holding in the company.

If voters agree to go ahead with the trust which, according to a creditors' report obtained by The Bulletin will deliver a more promising outcome than liquidation, it will see Raptis Group emerge from the financial crisis wounded but not dead, unlike many other Gold Coast development companies.

Just over a year ago, a shortfall in equity led Capital Finance Australia to appoint receivers to Raptis Group's Southport Central Tower 3.

Capital Finance, owed $200 million, appointed KordaMentha to oversee the completion of the third tower and the repayment of the $21 million owed to unsecured creditors.

This triggered a default of all other loans to associated Raptis Group entities and, earlier this year, administrators to the parent group were called in.

The impact on the Gold Coast was widespread.

Work on the proposed Hilton development, which employed thousands of sub-contractors, stalled for months until ANZ appointed Brookfield Multiplex to manage the completion of construction.

Mr Raptis could not be reached for comment yesterday.


----------



## marcom (17 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Investors caught in big freeze*

Florence Chong | September 17, 2009
Article from:  The Australian

UP to $14 billion has been trapped in unlisted retail property trusts as their managers, mostly linked to investment banks such as Macquarie Group, Westpac and Deutsche, are expected to keep redemptions frozen and distributions cancelled until at least next year.

Melbourne-based asset consultant Ken Atchison told The Australian that at least 20 managers had closed their funds to redemptions.

They include large and well-known managers such as Deutsche Bank's Dexus Property Group, Centro Properties Group, Macquarie Group, Axa, Westpac, Charter Hall, Blackrock and a host of smaller managers such as Aspen Property group.

Mr Atchison says these managers, who have about $7bn to $8bn of funds under management, could possibly face redemptions in the order of $2bn-$3bn, but it was difficult to estimate.

At least a dozen managers of unlisted trusts have either kicked off or are in the throes of embarking on a capital raising to replenish their cash.

Compared with billion-dollar raisings in the listed sector, unlisted trusts look to raise money in the $10 million to $50m range. The Perth-based Aspen Property Group sought to raise up to $25m for its unlisted Aspen Diversified Fund. "We've raised our minimum of $15m and will keep the issue open until we get the full amount," said Aspen managing director Angelo Del Borrello.

Mr Del Borrello said it would resume redemptions when the capital raising was completed for the $140m trust.

Funds such as Aspen's are grappling with debt repayments at a time when fresh fund inflows have dried up. Unlike listed trusts, which recapitalised in the past 12 months and substantially reduced their debts, unlisted trusts have only recently started to raise capital.

However, those that have ventured into the capital market are finding the going tough. Analysts and industry sources say as asset values fall, these funds risk breaching their loan covenants and many are forced by their lenders to top up their capital. In a recent report, Aegis/PIR noted that the 73 funds that populate the sector own assets valued at about $14bn, but carried a debt of $7.3bn at December 31, 2008.

Dinesh Pillutla, head of property at Aegis/PIR, said pre-crisis unlisted retail trusts held between 5 and 10 per cent of their assets in cash or liquid investment (such as shares) to meet redemption requests.

With retail investors having a significant proportion of funds locked up with unclear exit timeframes, the sector had been under pressure, he said.

Managers had been forced to suspend redemptions into the foreseeable future to deal with the upsurge in investors seeking to redeem units at the same time, he said.

Industry analysts said most funds had been closed since last October.

Mr Pillutla said trusts could open for limited withdrawal only when they had stabilised their balance sheet and were not at risk of breaching debt covenants.

Zenith Investment Partners director David Wright said investors had no option but to participate in capital raisings, otherwise they risked seeing their trust breaching covenants and selling assets at distressed prices.

"Investors are suffering a double whammy. They can't take their money out and they are not getting incomes," Mr Wright said.

Kevin Prosser, head of property at stockbroking and financial research firm Lonsec, said managers who had been able to sell assets to raise the cash were slowly reopening their funds.

APN Property Group chief executive Howard Brenchley said the group sold the Bendigo Bank building in Melbourne's Docklands for $33m to replenish the liquidity of its trusts.

"All our five funds will have a three-week redemption window next month," he said. The APN trusts manage about $1bn of funds.

Mr Howard said unitholders could withdraw a set amount from the funds, closed since last October, but it was a temporary solution.

Managed fund manager Axa's chief investment officer, Mark Dutton, hopes the market will improve sufficiently over the next 12 months to lift the ban on redemptions. Axa manages a billion-dollar unlisted property trust.


----------



## Duped (17 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> I worry about an organisation that engages in too many battles at once  - we know what often follows: fatigue and internal bickering.



Too right.


----------



## seamisty (17 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It is my understanding OPI owes the PIF money, I wonder if we are a secured creditor? Seamisty                                                                           OPI Pacific Finance in Receivership:::Source:http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/2874323/OPI-Pacific-Finance-in-receivership
New Zealand’s third largest failed finance company OPI Pacific Finance has been placed into receivership by the trustee for its investors Perpetual Trust bringing down the curtain on its moratorium. 

Perpetual Trust has appointed Colin McCloy and Maurice Noone of PricewaterhouseCoopers as receivers.

The moratorium of OPI Pacific looked destine to collapse following the court-ordered liquidation of its Australian parent Octaviar, formerly MFS, in July.

"The decision to appoint receivers follows the Supreme Court of Queensland's order that Octaviar, over which OPI had a put option, be put into liquidation," said Matthew Lancaster, head of corporate trust at Perpetual.

"The trustee's opinion is that a receivership is now appropriate and in the best interests of OPI's investors."

When OPI Pacific Finance, formerly MFS Pacific Finance, hit the wall in March last year the state of its loan book left around $314 million of debenture and capital note investors fearing for their money.

Debenture holders have since received back 22.17c in every dollar they had invested, but the final amount was dependent on the success of a "deed of company arrangement" with the creditors of its debt-ridden parent, the Australian investment company Octaviar, formerly MFS.

But on the last day of July, the Queensland Supreme Court ordered Octaviar into liquidation and set aside the deed, triggering an "event of review" under the moratorium, which allowed Perpetual Trust to call in receivers or liquidators, but only after consulting with OPI's management for at least 10 working days.

The balance owing to OPI's secured debenture holders amounts to approximately $200m and $56.7m to unsecured note holders. Unsecured noteholders have not received any payments.

At the time of its demise, OPI Pacific's collapse ranked behind only Bridgecorp and Hanover in size, owing creditors $456.6m including $313.4m of debenture and noteholders.

When investors were asked to allow OPI Pacific Finance to enter moratorium, and so avoid the receivers and liquidators, the company said just $122.8m of its loans and investments looked collectable.

"In May 2008, OPI received an upfront part payment of A$20m from Octaviar in respect of its put option liability to OPI and this was distributed to secured debenture holders following the approval of the moratorium," said Mr Lancaster.

"The receivers will investigate whether it will be possible to obtain any further payment from Octaviar as well as from other parties."

PwC partner Mr McCloy said he was working with the company and the trustee to review the situation, but it was still to early to offer detailed information.

"However, we will send all investors a report as soon as possible. In the meantime we've set up a dedicated help line and web page to allow investors to ask questions and find out more information."


----------



## marcom (17 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Here is the PWC NZ website link to the OPI receivership -  http://www.pwc.com/nz/en/opi-pacific-finance/index.jhtml


----------



## charles36 (18 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Marcom and Selciper for your enlightening posts.  Could you explain what you and Selciper meant in the post 4184.  The way I see it, we have been dragged into this financial quagmire and the people responsible hope we will get fatigued and slink away into the sunset.  I for one do not have that in mind, I am in for the long haul and I know many others who possess the same tenacity to pursue this unsatisfactory state of affairs to the bitter end. We can be ignored but there will come a time when we will get the answers we seek and hopefully some of our hard earned money back.


----------



## seamisty (18 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

King of cowboys
  |  September 18th, 2009;;Source;;http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/09/18/138375_gold-coast-business-bizzy-bits.html

SPOTTED having a drink with the boys in town was former MFS boss Michael King.

The one-time high-flyer, who continues to lie low at his Canungra property Elysian Fields, appeared to be relaxing after a day out on the polo fields of Guanaba.

The polo day last Sunday was part of a Make A Wish Foundation charity event.

Mr King, resplendent in a checked 'cowboy' shirt, was accompanied by fellow riders and vets from the event.


----------



## lawry1dog (18 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The only reason I put anything on this forum or read it, is in the hope that WC or someone of power can help our financial situation.

But looks like after all this time, nothing has eventuated. Seems this forum is for letting off steam, so why does it exist at all.
I hoping and will be asking the administrator of this forum to close it down, as I think it has caused much confusion among unit holders. 

Why give people false hope or portray doom & gloom.


----------



## marcom (18 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Fortress full bench appeal decision in Supreme Court this morning.


----------



## lawry1dog (18 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yes, you will all say I am crazy, and why look at this forum at all.

You are right, I think I will give this forum a rest, for my own sanity.

Maybe in the new year, I will check it out again. But of course nothing will
have changed.

I should have never given my money to someone else to manage, as of course
you will never see it again.


----------



## seamisty (18 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



lawry1dog said:


> The only reason I put anything on this forum or read it, is in the hope that WC or someone of power can help our financial situation.
> 
> But looks like after all this time, nothing has eventuated. Seems this forum is for letting off steam, so why does it exist at all.
> I hoping and will be asking the administrator of this forum to close it down, as I think it has caused much confusion among unit holders.
> ...



Lawry1dog I hardly think the instigatation by a few PIF investors of one of the biggest Class Actions in Australian corporate history can be seen as nothing eventuating from this forum. Without this forum those people would never have connected and gathered the strength and support it took to get the CA up and running. While you obviously consider that as a non event, I know there are many other investors who are gratefull for the chance to participate in the hope of seeing some sort of return from the outcome. It is also  used  to post all relevant PIF information so others with less time and computer skills can access the latest PIF related news, court events and outcomes etc. Yes, we do also use it to let of steam and voice our concerns and frustrations as you yourself have done. If you want direct communication to WC use investorrelations@newpif.com.au   Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Mary Lynch (18 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hey Lawry1dog....you've only just come aboard compared to many of us; we welcome you of course, as you are a repacement clone of the Great Dame, who is severely ill apparently...and we became very fond of him...in a masochistic way. 

This forum was kicking along soon after the **** hit the fan, early 2008. Many of us have been using it as an outlet for our stress and "steam" for yonks, and it has been an absoute godsend to most; No-one else understands the intricate details and the importance of having such a place to come to, to share are anger and information.

I just wish that there was a way that ALL criminal corporate fatcats, greedy assholes that they are, could be forced to PIMP on eachother. The only way to do that would be for them to have to cough up more $$$ (cos that's all they know...loyalty etc doesn't count for anything) if their fellow directors were sidestepping blame,  skipping the country, or feigning bankrupsy using family trusts etc.  Wouldn't it be good for them to dob eachother in, whilst saving their own skin, meanwhile saving Carneys a lot of hours.


----------



## k.smith (18 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Lawry1dog I hardly think the instigatation by a few PIF investors of one of the biggest Class Actions in Australian corporate history can be seen as nothing eventuating from this forum. Without this forum those people would never have connected and gathered the strength and support it took to get the CA up and running. While you obviously consider that as a non event, I know there are many other investors who are gratefull for the chance to participate in the hope of seeing some sort of return from the outcome. It is also  used  to post all relevant PIF information so others with less time and computer skills can access the latest PIF related news, court events and outcomes etc. Yes, we do also use it to let of steam and voice our concerns and frustrations as you yourself have done. If you want direct communication to WC use investorrelations@newpif.com.au   Regards, Seamisty




Lawrydog these sites are also connecting unitholders in other funds that are in these circumstances. Who was it  that said knowledge is power? It is only by reading these sites that we collectively have knowledge, the enabler for us to pursue avenues of action, which hardworking members of this forum and other like forums have achieved and are still working at....


----------



## selciper (18 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Charles 36,

Hi. It’s not us who will become fatigued or  start bickering. Actually, I’m feeling that within a year, a surprising intervention or two will improve our situation (that reads like a horoscope; I know). Realistically, the class action, expertly organised by the AG, should keep our spirits high. 

Cheers.


----------



## Blueboy1 (18 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Interesting article from the NZ perspective.
Adviser: OPI cash hope lies in court
By ROELAND van den BERGH - The Dominion Post
Last updated 05:00 18/09/2009

Government-funded court action is the only hope investors in collapsed finance company OPI Pacific Finance have of recovering any of the remaining $200 million they are owed, investment adviser Chris Lee says.

OPI has been put in receivership by its trustee Perpetual Trust, ending a moratorium in place since May last year.

The move follows the court-ordered liquidation in July of OPI's Australian parent Octaviar.

At the time of the moratorium 12,000 investors were owed $314m, making it the third-largest finance company failure after Bridgecorp and Hanover.

OPI, formerly MFS Pacific Finance, was forced to default on repayments in January last year when Octaviar, previously MFS, withdrew financial support.

Debenture holders received 22.17 cents in the dollar when the moratorium was approved, leaving $200.1m owed to secured debenture holders and $56.7m to unsecured note holders, who have not been repaid anything.

Perpetual Trust head of corporate trust Matthew Lancaster said: "The trustee's opinion is that a receivership is now appropriate and in the best interests of OPI's investors."

OPI had a "put option" over Octaviar for the rest of the money owed. But Mr Lee said the "put option" was an unsecured guarantee and never had any value because Octaviar itself had negative shareholder funds.

New Zealand investors' money was lent to Octaviar with no more security "than a handshake", Mr Lee said.

However, a potentially multi-million-dollar settlement in favour of investors in Australia this week could provide a way for OPI investors to get more of their money back, Mr Lee said.

In an unrelated case, Australia's biggest financial planning group Professional Investment Services this week agreed to compensate 247 clients for alleged misleading and deceptive conduct in advising clients to invest A$393m in risky investment products.

The case was brought by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, which was initially seeking A$23m in compensation for the investors.

"That might be a signal as to what should be happening here," Mr Lee said.

The Government could not repay investors, but it could fund the cost of seeking compensation from company directors, trustees or auditors if they had failed in their duty of care, Mr Lee said.

The Government would recover its costs from any settlement.


Blueboy1


----------



## marcom (18 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The Fortress Appeal Decision is at http://www.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2009/QCA/282

Looks like McMurdo got it wrong on the Young Village Estates document and Fortress have the secured position.


----------



## flatback (18 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Blueboy1 said:


> Interesting article from the NZ perspective.
> Adviser: OPI cash hope lies in court
> By ROELAND van den BERGH - The Dominion Post
> Last updated 05:00 18/09/2009
> ...



Ah! we have another player, g/day blueboy, it seems we may have another alternative, for recovering some of our funds, you see lawry1dog every other day we see another avenue, and by the way you couldn't pretend to be as good as Great Dame, as many will fortell , HE was unique .Flatback


----------



## JohnH (19 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



flatback said:


> Ah! we have another player, g/day blueboy, it seems we may have another alternative, for recovering some of our funds, you see lawry1dog every other day we see another avenue, and by the way you couldn't pretend to be as good as Great Dame, as many will fortell , HE was unique .Flatback




Bit unfair flatback, as you rightly say, he was unique, and nobody could replace Great Dame.  I had several gentle "run ins" with him, and he has proved to be a lot wiser than me.  Whoever is in touch with him, please give him my best wishes....John H


----------



## marcom (19 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Here are some links to commentary explaining the Fortress Appeal -

http://www.deacons.com.au/legal-services/banking-finance/legal-updates/legal-update.cfm?objid=7249

Octaviar decision is dead - or is it? - Diccon Loxton - Partner at Allens Arthur Robinson Boardroomradio.com Audio webcasts of investor presentations - Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:00:00 +1000 - 16 hours, 38 minutes ago


----------



## seamisty (22 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Some interesting figures:::::Gross Assets $869.4 million (unaudited as at 31 March 2008)
Loan owed to a third party bank $168.0 million (as at 31 March 2008)::::
As at the 30th June 2009 The value of the PIF's net tangible assets was $296.4 million with the debt having been repaid. Somewhere the PIF lost $277mill in value to repay $168 mill. 

Because it is a bit boring on here at the moment here is something to read that found its way into my WC collection of trivia. Seems to have been discarded or put on hold when all those millions were handed to WC to save the PIF or is it still lurking out there somewhere? Seamisty

Islamic Investment –
The Opportunities in Australia ;;;;Kazbah Capital Limited;;;;Jenny Hutson, Managing Director
Wellington Capital Limited
5 March 2008 LINK;;;;;http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/58310/Hutson.pdf


----------



## selciper (22 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Anybody interested in reading about Islamic Banking Principles can do so on the following link. Quite illuminating.

http://www.bankersonline.com/vendor_guru/edcomm/edcomm_mkt_100107.html


----------



## Duped (22 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My guess is PTQ probably didn't put up much of a fight during this appeal. Maybe revelations during subsequent legal actions make it look increasingly likely that Fortress' attempt on 22 Jan 08 to secure the YVE money ($59M?) will be voided anyway.  

Deloitte weren't that out of step on this one afterall.  Still doesn't vindicate them from all of McMurdo's findings.  

Can anyone show me where the Fortress fixed and floating charge is reported in the 30 June 2007 annual report (http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=00764882)? (Notification of the charge was filed at ASIC on 5/6 June 07).

Was it shifted off balance sheet under 'liabilities classified as held for sale'?  Or is it reported under note 23?  I.e. 'Bank loans - secured $254,344,000'.  If so then there's no mention that the 'bank' was Fortress.  Either way a diligent creditor had to go elsewhere to find that Fortress held the charge. Instead we were told important things like 20% of the MFS staff gave blood. 

Then there's the Interim Report for 31 Dec 2007 (signed off of 28 April 2008) (http://asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=00835917).  Loads of text about events subsequent to the 31 Dec 07 balance date (pages of it actually) but absolutely no mention that the YVE (Fortress) gaurantee had been moved into the ambit of the charge. Then 'Note 8(d)' even goes so far as to state Fortress held a fixed and floating charge and that "*this *loan has been repaid in full".  Now now, that's false isn't it?  Aren't Fortress today still owed ~$19M under that charge?  So how could a loan under the charge be repaid in full? How did the auditor KPMG miss that ~$19M 'slip up' in their 'review'?

Now that I've poked my head behind the veil of government and regulator spin about how good a job they're doing, all I see is a scattering of regulations that OCV managed to drive a $39M truck through while I was distracted by the fanfare of all that trumpet blowing. I don't think it was just me though?  Didn't JH tell us at the forum that all creditors had equal standing?

So Justice Holmes.  At para [51] you added "which should at least alert any *prospective *investor or creditor to the need for further enquiry as to what those liabilities might comprise". How were OCV creditors supposed to do that? And how were the existing creditors, as opposed to 'prospective' creditors, interests protected? Once signed up, the borrower's motivation to cooperate with the lender is, lets say, different. How were the existing creditors to police their risk positions and timely identify  defaults? IMO the para [45] quote from the High Court in _Wilde _ "the provisions are intended to protect persons who *may become * unsecured creditors" leans more towards protecting the position of existing creditors as opposed to "prospective" creditors.

The skills for "further enquiry as to what those liabilities might comprise" seems to have been beyond KPMG in their 'review' of the Dec 2007 Interim Fin Report.  And KPMG were PAID to sniff out such info weren't they?  What chance did us existing creditors have?  I'm sorry but I can't see how Chapter 2K protected me as a creditor in this instance where the borrower appears to have been incompetant or rather adept at obfuscation.


----------



## k.smith (23 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> "..............Now that I've poked my head behind the veil of government and regulator spin about how good a job they're doing, all I see is a scattering of regulations that OCV managed to drive a $39M truck through while I was distracted by the fanfare of all that trumpet blowing. I don't think it was just me though?  Didn't JH tell us at the forum that all creditors had equal standing?......."





I am totally aghast to read that ASIC works with a system whereby they lump unitholders complaints together and then do what they call a "merged mailout", that is, they send the same letter to x?number of complaintants, and ****! ! ! matter resolved! ! !

There should be a big, massive push here by investors in these funds, we should band together and send the regulators and the government a strong message collectively...a "merged message" on behalf of all investors in these funds so adversely effected by the actions of these incestuous, self-interested **!!##

I have read somewhere that there are more than 100,000 of us...and that ASIC have received "file-drawers full of complaints". Isn't it time that the very urgent problem of the frozen funds was addressed?What is the point of the Corporations Act unless it is regulated? http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,26082922-36418,00.html


----------



## seamisty (23 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> I am totally aghast to read that ASIC works with a system whereby they lump unitholders complaints together and then do what they call a "merged mailout", that is, they send the same letter to x?number of complaintants, and ****! ! ! matter resolved! ! !
> 
> There should be a big, massive push here by investors in these funds, we should band together and send the regulators and the government a strong message collectively...a "merged message" on behalf of all investors in these funds so adversely effected by the actions of these incestuous, self-interested **!!##
> 
> I have read somewhere that there are more than 100,000 of us...and that ASIC have received "file-drawers full of complaints". Isn't it time that the very urgent problem of the frozen funds was addressed?What is the point of the Corporations Act unless it is regulated? http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,26082922-36418,00.html



k. smith I was just as aghast when I found out that my  correspondence to Bernie Ripoll on the 26th Feb 2009 regarding a letter seeking support ( which I initiated) was placed in quarantee and never acknowledged until I followed up on the 8th July 2009 and sent the following:

 'I was going to go to all the trouble of composing a submission for the The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on behalf of investors in the Wellington Capital Premium Income, but I am not sure it would be worth the time and effort involved. 
In Feb 2009 I sent the following letter to 22  people. I had seven responses acknowledging having received my email , none from Mr Ripoll, and no further follow up from anyone. What difference will it make sending my same complaint to the Senate Enquiry? Will being in the media spotlight ensure some intervention? As a direct result of no help from the inadequate powers that be, individual investors have had to take the responsibility of instigating legal proceedings on their own behalf  to seek answers, justice and hopefully financial compensation.

 I sincerely hope there are some positive outcomes from the Senate Enquiry and it is not an ineffectual waste of individuals time and tax payer funds'.;;;

On the 15th July I received the following;;;;

Thank you for your email of 8th July 2009.



Our apologies for not getting back to you sooner.   In relation to your email of 26 February 2009, it seems the email went into quarantine instead of coming through to our main email system. 



Your email has been brought to Bernie’s attention also;;;;

The outcome was my original 'letter of complaint' was submitted to the Senate Enquiry. 

  Any wonder the majority of investors are apathetic and have absolutely no faith in govt representatives or so called regulatory bodies.


For some of us, that just makes us all the more determined to expose the inadequacies and total incompetence of those on  tax payer funded gravy trains. I certainly will not be holding my breath waiting for any sort of outcome which will impact on our situation or deal with those responsible for our predicament. Seamisty


----------



## k.smith (23 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty...

Ditto..

I have lodged two submissions to the Parliamentary Inquiry and have written to Asic on quite a few occasions(will have to check my filing cabinet for correct tally!) Result to date...one letter which I quickly discovered was one of Asic' "merged mailouts"...their term, not mine!

 Result...one big ZERO..

I read this letter on the Storm actiongroup website tonight, and feel that there are so many unresolved wrongdoings out there, and that the lives of so many elderly people are in really dire straights.Where  can they voice their concerns, if ASIC doesn't listen?
http://www.sicag.info/index_files/An open letter to banks.pdf

 Like you and  others in this forum and other forums, I feel compelled to keep chipping away as best I can.... 
seems to me that as taxpayers we have right of input, and I am sick of being ignored...


----------



## Duped (25 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

For a bit of nostalgic entertainment have a look at the Mayne Report vid of the 28 March 2008 EGM. (Warning - it might upset some viewers)

http://video.maynereport.com/

From what I've read the trigger was the stance of the No-Compromise-Lender Fortress. (Hmmm - How do I invest in Fortress?)


----------



## seamisty (27 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Jenny hopes PIF won't be in the red
  |  September 25th, 2009

HEAVY discounting is paying off for the Sheraton Mirage, with occupancies well up on last year, but there is still no word on who has won the bidding war for the trophy asset.

The hotel property, part of the Raptis Group, is in the hands of receivers who have been taking their time sorting through a shortlist of potential buyers.

A deal for the Sheraton Mirage has been at least 12 months in the making, with bids for the property touted to be between $55 million and $80 million.

Anything less than $60 million would not be much good for second mortgagee, the Premium Income Fund.

Wellington Capital's Jenny Hutson, who controls the fund, says at this price there would be nothing left for PIF investors.

While Ms Hutson says she is still in the dark on when a deal will be struck for the Sheraton, she says there are signs that the property has seen the worst of the business cycle.

"We're very encouraged," she says of the Sheraton's rising occupancy which she attributes to improved consumer sentiment.

The big discounts also are helping, with some guests paying as little as $195 a night for a room, half the price of the Palazzo Versace across the road.
Source::Gold Coast Bulletin::http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/09/25/140801_gold-coast-business-bizzy-bits.html
Quote Jenny Hutson 'We're very encouraged," she says of the Sheraton's rising occupancy which she attributes to improved consumer sentiment.'
What an absolutely insulting, inane comment from JH!!!! The St Geotge Bank bank holds a 1st mortgage of $60mill and the current best offer is $55million after possibly knocking back an earlier offer of $70million 'The offers are said to have been pitched about $70 million, although Raptis Group, which paid $82 million for the
property in 2005, had been seeking offers of $80 million.'(GCB Mar, 2009):: and from another article 'It is understood well known Queensland property developer Don O'Rorke had been willing to pay about $80 million for the Gold Coast hotel, but two large Asian investors were also making offers.' (April7, 2009  http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25299556-36418,00.html)

The receivers are going to be working in the best interest of the bank, not the PIF and still nothing from JH on the other outstanding Raptis 1st mortgage PIF loan of $32mill. You may be encouraged Jenny but I can't hear any cheering from anyone else!!!!! Seamisty


----------



## Duped (28 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty, has this $32M loan to Raptis already been written off or is it still on our books.  Is it part of the asset I queried in my post #4113:

"Of the $62.486M of 'Other financial assets', $26.877M is with OCV related entities LLA & Octaviar Causeway P DOF. Anyone know the nature of the other $35.609M? It represents 12% of the fund value; i.e. 4.7cents per unit. Any chance of us getting paid out by this asset?"


----------



## seamisty (28 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Seamisty, has this $32M loan to Raptis already been written off or is it still on our books.  Is it part of the asset I queried in my post #4113:
> 
> "Of the $62.486M of 'Other financial assets', $26.877M is with OCV related entities LLA & Octaviar Causeway P DOF. Anyone know the nature of the other $35.609M? It represents 12% of the fund value; i.e. 4.7cents per unit. Any chance of us getting paid out by this asset?"



Duped I honestly don't know but I will hazzard a guess and say it is most likely still on our list of assets as money owed for two reasons:
1. to pump up the cent per unit value
2. so when we get paid 3 cents of our capital back the value of the outstanding Raptis loans ie $55mill will enable JH to take a larger management fee by including it 

Or none of the above. Someone else might have a better idea. Seamisty


----------



## Blueboy1 (29 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Another one bite's the dust!

 Verdict due on extending Boston Finance moratorium
4:00AM Tuesday Sep 29, 2009
By Tamsyn Parker

Finance companies in freefall

    * Court slams bankrupt property developer
    * Golf buddies win out over advisers

Investors in one of the first finance companies to go into moratorium should know soon if it will be extended.

Boston Finance entered into a 20-month repayment plan in March last year promising to pay investors back all of their money as well as 9 per cent interest.

The moratorium was due to end on November 14 but seems likely to be extended after the firm's independent adviser KordaMentha warned the company was unlikely to meet its repayment schedule in the current market conditions.

Matthew Lancaster, a spokesman for Perpetual Trust, the trustee for the company, said it expected to give investors a "comprehensive" update in a couple of weeks.

Lancaster said he was waiting to get some certainty on the outcome of a number of events before talking to investors about "where things were at."

One of those events is likely to be a Blue Chip test court case in the High Court at Auckland.

According to its annual report Boston Finance loaned money for a number of Blue Chip apartments.

The judgment is expected to be released in the next few weeks.

Boston Finance went into moratorium several months before its sister company OPI Pacific Finance, both of which were ultimately owned by Australian investment company Octaviar.

OPI Pacific Finance was recently placed into receivership after Octaviar went liquidation. But Lancaster said Boston operated as a separate company and the fate of OPI was not linked to it.
Blueboy1


----------



## Duped (29 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Duped I honestly don't know but I will hazzard a guess and say it is most likely still on our list of assets as money owed for two reasons:
> 1. to pump up the cent per unit value
> 2. so when we get paid 3 cents of our capital back the value of the outstanding Raptis loans ie $55mill will enable JH to take a larger management fee by including it
> 
> Or none of the above. Someone else might have a better idea. Seamisty




This PIF unsecured 'loan' smells suspiciously to me like it was likely another of the related party transactions. I understand Raptis bought the Sheraton Mirage from the MFS Sheraton Mirage Trust. (Less than a year after the Trust bought it in the first place) I could speculate that the unsecured PIF 'loan' could have been used as a deal sweetener for the Trust to get a good price from Raptis.  MFS got their sale and/or management rights and could then plump up their books. 

Please anyone, correct me if I'm wrong. I'll be mighty displeased (to say the least) if these Raptis 'loans' plump up WC fee and then WC write them down/off.


----------



## seamisty (30 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> This PIF unsecured 'loan' smells suspiciously to me like it was likely another of the related party transactions. I understand Raptis bought the Sheraton Mirage from the MFS Sheraton Mirage Trust. (Less than a year after the Trust bought it in the first place) I could speculate that the unsecured PIF 'loan' could have been used as a deal sweetener for the Trust to get a good price from Raptis.  MFS got their sale and/or management rights and could then plump up their books.
> 
> Please anyone, correct me if I'm wrong. I'll be mighty displeased (to say the least) if these Raptis 'loans' plump up WC fee and then WC write them down/off.



 The Sheraton was jointly owned by the Ray Group 50%, MFS Limited 33.75% and 'other investors' 16.25%. The other investors could  have been the PIF in all likelihood hence the 'outstanding loan' to the PIF. Also of interest one of the potential buyers for the Sheraton is/was Don O'Rorke.  Don O'Rorke was the former managing director
 of the 'struggling Trinity Property Fund' of which he is/was the 2nd largest share holder.  Brett Heading (named as Jenny Hutsons husband  in the same media article where it states :"Jenny Hutson, the highly intelligent and hard-nosed businesswoman who is rapidly earning a reputation as one of the shrewdest deal brokers in corporate Australia"( source www.wellcap.com.au/.../18-10-2007 - Millions of ways to raise a family )
 is  the new chairman of Trinity. The links and connections are very interesting and worth some further research IMO. Seamisty


----------



## Duped (30 September 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> The Sheraton was jointly owned by the Ray Group 50%, MFS Limited 33.75% and 'other investors' 16.25%. ...




Yep.  That's what I read.  They were the ownership ratios for MFS Sheraton Mirage Trust.  Hope I didn't mislead.


----------



## marcom (1 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I'll post this one under the heading "SPOT THE B S"

*National Stock Exchange to list frozen funds*
Anthony Klan | October 01, 2009
Article from:  The Australian

THE nation's second largest share trading platform, the National Stock Exchange, is preparing to list dozens of frozen mortgage and property funds - holding hundreds of millions of dollars - in a bid to return funds to desperate investors.

NSX chairman Steven Pritchard said the exchange was negotiating with several property and income fund managers representing "more than a dozen funds", which were seeking to list their frozen funds in a bid to provide liquidity to investors.

"Many of these frozen mortgage and property funds hold good-quality assets and *I have no doubt many investors in those funds will receive all their capital back as well as their distributions," Mr Pritchard said.
*
"This is about providing a liquidity mechanism for investors who want to exit the funds."

In October last year more than 30 funds, holding more than $25 billion on behalf of 250,000 investors, froze redemption facilities after a run on non-bank deposits.

That run on mortgage and property funds was prompted by a federal government move to guarantee bank deposits amid the turmoil in financial markets.

Mr Pritchard said listing on the NSX, which operated similarly to the Australian Stock Exchange but typically attracted far smaller companies and lower levels of transactions, would help improve liquidity.

"With the inability of investors to currently redeem their investments in the many mortgage and property funds which have suspended redemptions, NSX Ltd and its subsidiary exchanges are in an ideal position to list the securities of those funds," Mr Pritchard said.

*He said the frozen Octaviar Premium Income Fund - which had raised $750m from investors and listed on the NSX late last year after the collapse of parent company MFS Ltd - was an example of how frozen funds could trade.

Units in the fund began trading at 11c on listing with the NSX and are now selling for 28c, although they are relatively thinly traded.*

Consumer groups yesterday expressed concerns cash-strapped investors desperate to access funds might sell their frozen funds for much less than they were worth.

"The danger here is desperate investors might be forced into selling their investments for much less than they're worth because they can't afford to hold out until funds are unfrozen," consumer advocate Denise Brailey said.

"Investors looking to get out of frozen investments need to be very careful about the price they seek to sell at.

"Just because some funds are frozen now does not necessarily mean they are worth far less than they were before they were frozen," she said.

One of those aggrieved investors holding frozen funds is Roy Abrims, the former chief executive of photographic chain Rabbit Photo, who personally has about $540,000 invested in the AMP Capital Enhanced Yield Fund which he has been unable to withdraw.

Mr Abrims said he would rather the AMP Capital Enhanced Yield Fund move to unfreeze redemptions than list on an exchange.

The AMP Capital Enhanced Yield Fund is not understood to be considering listing on any exchange.
Story Tools


----------



## k.smith (1 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Where does 28cents come into the equation???

from the NSX site today...

SECURITY TRADING HISTORY - PIN
Full trading history is displayed up to the close of business for the previous business day.



Statistics Summary:
Total Trades: 99 
Average Price: $0.13 
Total Volume: 2,823,547 securities
Total Value: $357,930.57 
Cancelled Trades: 2.


the last trade was on the 29th September for 12cents....
I dont recall any trades for 28cents....and I will be writing to this journalist to ask him why he published what I consider to be a grossly misleading figure.

I wonder if all those hapless investors in mortgage funds that accept this scenario to list their funds ever get to hear a unbiased appraisal of these proposals......seems to be, once again, that investors have no voice anywhere...


----------



## seamisty (1 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

'I dont recall any trades for 28cents....and I will be writing to this journalist to ask him why he published what I consider to be a grossly misleading figure.' It appears there is no end to people who handle the truth carelessly or simply Steven Pritchard has absolutely NO IDEA of what companies are what that are listed on the NSX already of which he is chairman. Unfortunately I don't have time at the moment to follow up on this but urge others to do so. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## Duped (1 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Like Anthony Klan who in the Australian reported that the first PIF sale was for $35,000.  The trade was for $900.  Slightly different.
> 
> That article remains uncorrected online courtesy of the Australian.  Backed by the reputation of the Wall Street Journal (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24537986-643,00.html)
> 
> ...




Not the first time this Walkely Award journo got things soooooo wrong. 

(That link is now http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,,24537986-36418,00.html and the page still hasn't been supplemented with a correction or a link to a correction.) 

Anthony Klan's reporting of our experience on the NSX is in stark contrast to Fairfax's Michael West when on 10 December 2008 he reported  under 'Don't Blame the Crisis': 

"...Wellington jagged control of a similar sized fund on the promise of distributions, a buy-back of some units at 45 cents, and recovery over time with listing on the NSX at 45 cents per unit.
Since Wellington’s Jenny Hutson won control of the fund it has dropped to trade around 12 cents per unit, no payments, no buy-back, and practically no cash flow.*Pensioners are getting out at 12 cents to "bottom feeders" with patient capital*".

Then there's Gold Coast Nick Nichols on 15 May 2009:

"In the case of City Pacific, its fund has been revalued down to 61c a unit, while Wellington's First Mortgage Fund is worth about 45c a unit, although investors are unwilling to pay much more than about 12c on the National Stock Exchange."


----------



## seamisty (1 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am not suprised the NSX had a shocking year with incompetant practices of late opening times, multiple recordings of single trades, and  totally irresponsible, untrue and misleading media articles!!!!!  I wonder if shareholders are happy with 'THEIR NEW BOARD' of directors?  Seamisty::::::                                                                                          Better times to follow shocker, NSX hopes::CITY BEAT: Andrew Main | October 01, 2009 
Article from:  The Australian 

NSX, the National Stock Exchange, had a shocking year. That's not journalistic licence; that's the company's own assessment. "The only word that your new board can use to describe the 2009 consolidated operating loss of $15,247,916 for NSX Limited is, shocking," chairman Steven Pritchard and managing director Paul Seymour state in the opening line of the group's annual report, lodged yesterday.

Pritchard and Seymour are part of the new team installed at the NSX, the former Stock Exchange of Newcastle, in May after a disastrous period that involved a failed alliance with the New Zealand Stock Exchange, which hoped to use the NSX as a beachhead to take on the far bigger ASX in Australia. The annual report shows a five-fold increase in legal expenses to $803,000 in the past year, reflecting the new guard's battle with the old crew, which was forced out in May. 

The NSX, an exchange for small to medium companies that is listed on the ASX, is now promising better times ahead for its shareholders, who include Ron Brierley's Guinness Peat Group. Pritchard and Seymour are cutting annual operating costs by $2million and refocusing the company on its core business of running exchanges, including the Bendigo Stock Exchange and markets for water rights and taxi licences. They're also looking at creating more specialised trading boards in areas such as mining, clean technology, debt and even frozen mortgage funds. "The board," they write hopefully, "looks forward to receiving your continued support in the coming year."


----------



## k.smith (1 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,26148168-30538,00.html

".....They're also looking at creating more specialised trading boards in areas such as mining, clean technology, debt and even frozen mortgage funds. "The board," they write hopefully, "looks forward to receiving your continued support in the coming year......." 

How can Mr. Steven Pritchard use us as an example ..the only example in this article

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26149214-601,00.html

...and get the facts so wrong? Has he anything to gain...?? An honest mistake..??


----------



## selciper (1 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Let's see if JH points out Mr Prtichard's error by way of a public statement.


----------



## seamisty (1 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,26148168-30538,00.html
> 
> ".....They're also looking at creating more specialised trading boards in areas such as mining, clean technology, debt and even frozen mortgage funds. "The board," they write hopefully, "looks forward to receiving your continued support in the coming year......."
> 
> ...



Has he anything to gain you ask k.smith? The NSX listing charges are::                                          MKT Cap.          2 mil  6 mil   12 mil 
Application Fee 5,500 9,900 14,960 
CHESS Fee      1,650 1,650  1,650 
Total App.       7,150 11,550 16,610 
Annual Fee      5,500  6,900  8,432 
Annual 
CHESS Fee      825    825    825 
Total Annual   6,325 7,725 9,257 
* Excluding GST.  

I guess PIN will get a reduction in  fees this year since it is worth less than last year. What a waste of our money!!! Doesn't Mr Pritchard realise that the only PIF investors selling are those that are destitute or dying? The very astute Mr Pritchard obviously used the Trade Statistics from Oct last year because the oh so efficient NSX is so up to date this is the last month of trade history recorded on the PIN company data::17-Oct-2008 10:57:50 AM 0.275  10,000 $2,750.00 
I bet other investors of frozen mortgage funds are as highly excited as us at the prospect of a NSX listing!!(NOT) Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (2 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If anyone feels inclined to contact Steven Pritchard at the NSX re the BS article http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,24897,26149214-601,00.html in the media yesterday here is a contact e mail address:::steven_pritchard@reespritchard.com.au           Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (3 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Let's see if JH points out Mr Prtichard's error by way of a public statement.



 HAHAHA, surely you jest selciper!!!!! That would be like admitting JH has FAILED by drawing attention to the fact that the NSX is only there (at great expense to the PIF dwindling coffers) to provide liquidity to investors who are destitute or bloody dying!!!!!( She would probablly be 'encouraged' by those positive figures!) Because it sure as hell does has not attracted much in the way of confident new investors who have faith in JH's ability to turn this fund around and provide an income stream as was intended. Investors are prepared to pay 6-12 cents per unit as they obviously think that is all it is worth. Some could even be trading, buying low and re selling  a smidge higher. Did anyone contact Mr Pritchard re his grossly misleading article?http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,24897,26149214-601,00.html

I have fowarded it to Mr Rippolls office as I think it is appropriate that this type of misleading information needs to be dealt with as part of the Senate Enquiry re 'The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services'. Remains to be seen if the enquiry will be another waste of time or if someone actually has the energy to do something other than blow hot air. Seamisty


----------



## marcom (3 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Other fund managers do not seem to like the idea of listing frozen funds according to the AFR:  

*No sign of thaw for frozen funds
*
12:00AM | Ben Wilmot and Nick Lenaghan | The Australian Financial Review

Investors stuck in frozen property funds can expect little relief from the prospect of publicly listing their investment vehicles, with managers playing down the idea.

I guess the NSX will have to look for other business to keep the exchange a float.


----------



## k.smith (3 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Other fund managers do not seem to like the idea of listing frozen funds according to the AFR:
> 
> *No sign of thaw for frozen funds
> *
> ...





hmmmmm...

It is the fund managers that DO like the idea of publicly listing their investment vehicles that worry me...
the investors seem (imo)  to be the only ones exposed to risk by listing, as we are finding out...


----------



## selciper (4 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty - I rather like the following quote by American author, Mason Cooley:  

"Magic trick: to make people disappear, ask them to fulfill their promises."


----------



## seamisty (5 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Seamisty - I rather like the following quote by American author, Mason Cooley:
> 
> "Magic trick: to make people disappear, ask them to fulfill their promises."



PUFF, and all that was left with a long list of unfilled promises, was an empty red leather jacket!!!!!!!!

On a more serious note, the next court hearing for the Class Action is 9.30 am  this Fri, 9th Oct when I believe the Statement of Claim, a rather 'volumous document' will be lodged. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (6 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Someone has taken a punt this morning at 17 cents a unit!!!  A whole $170 trade!!!  Can anyone suggest any logic to this, other than to raise the perceived value of the fund?   ........  I wonder why!!


----------



## seamisty (6 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Someone has taken a punt this morning at 17 cents a unit!!!  A whole $170 trade!!!  Can anyone suggest any logic to this, other than to raise the perceived value of the fund?   ........  I wonder why!!



My sentiments exactly JohnH!!! The egg is only on one side of the face now. (Unlike mine where it is still smeared all over!!!) How much is it for a trade on the NSX? Seamisty


----------



## gardie (7 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Why not establish your own RE and run the fund yourselves.

The fund itself could own the RE

It has the required funds to establish required asset backing.

There is ample evidence that Wellington acted in misleading manner in getting changes through so replacement fee could be avoided.

I am sure among investors their would be suitable qualified people to sit on board and required services could be outsourced.

This way costs are kept to a minimum and full transaparency could be achieved.


----------



## seamisty (8 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

MFS bosses, auditor pursued over $420m lossMICHAEL EVANS
October 8, 2009 
LAWYERS for investors in the collapsed Gold Coast property company MFS Limited, now called Octaviar, are pressing ahead with a $1 billion class action against former executives including chief executive Michael King and auditor KPMG.

In an amended statement of claim before the matter returns to the Federal Court in Sydney tomorrow, Carneys Lawyers prepared a 560-page document detailing a series of claims against officials of MFS Investment Management, the manager of MFS's main fund that held $1 billion in deposits from more than 10,000 investors.

It includes details of related party transactions and claims that officers failed to exercise care and diligence. Auditor KPMG is accused of failing to carry out compliance audits and to notify suspected breaches of the Corporations Act. There are allegations that Mr King and two fellow company officials were directors of both MFS's management company and another company, McLaughlin Financial Services Limited - the responsible entity of the MFS Diversified Trust - at the time of a series of loans.

''Unauthorised payments by MFS Investment Management'' were made from the fund in related party transactions, it is claimed.

It is also alleged that MFS Investment Management officers made unauthorised investments against the stated investment criteria and the managers' ''wrongful transactions'' led to investors suffering losses of more than $420 million.

The claim says KPMG partner Andrea Waters failed to refer transactions to ASIC despite ''awareness of suspected breaches''
Source:::http://www.smh.com.au/business/mfs-bosses-auditor-pursued-over-420m-loss-20091007-gn5j.html


----------



## mgr2118 (8 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Story from yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald:-

Only wish that ASIC could be this active in working for our cause !!!


_ASIC starts Brighton Hall legal action
October 7, 2009 - 7:34PM

The corporate watchdog has commenced legal action against Brighton Hall Securities Pty Ltd relating to recommendations it made to its clients to invest in collapsed property scheme Westpoint.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has filed an application for leave in Perth's Federal Court to start proceedings against the financial services firm, which is in liquidation.

ASIC will seek damages of about $14 million on behalf of several Westpoint investors who were clients of Brighton Hall.

ASIC alleges Brighton Hall was negligent in its investigation of Westpoint products and its subsequent recommendations to its clients to invest in such products.

"Given Brighton Hall's liquidation, it is anticipated that the funds available to satisfy this claim will be limited to any available insurance proceeds," ASIC said in a statement on Wednesday.

About 170 investors could benefit from the action should it prove successful, ASIC said.

The matter will return to the court on November 16.

*It is one of 19 civil actions ASIC is taking to recover funds for Westpoint investors.*

Westpoint collapsed in February 2006, leaving 4,000 investors out of pocket by a combined $300 million._


----------



## seamisty (9 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Bankrupt King dodges $650m bullet
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  October 9th, 2009

MFS founder Michael King is said to have declared bankruptcy, taking him out of the firing line for a $650 million lawsuit being brought by investors in the frozen Premium Income Fund.

Sydney legal eagle Arthur Carney, of Carneys Lawyers, said Mr King would not be responding to an amended claim lodged in the Federal Court this week against the former MFS chief executive and company auditors KPMG.

"He has declared himself bankrupt," said Mr Carney of Mr King's position.

But he said the bankruptcy could open the way for Premium Income Fund (PIF) investors to probe further into Mr King's financial affairs.

"We're not looking at that at the moment," said Mr Carney, who is acting on behalf of more than 5000 PIF investors seeking to retrieve their lost savings.

"What we are trying to do is recover money for these people, and the best way to do that is to go for the directors' and officers' liability policy and, of course, KPMG.

"We think we have a really strong case."

The matter is up for mention in the Sydney Federal Court this morning.

The legal action, first launched in April, had alleged that prior to its collapse last year MFS directors had transferred tens of millions of dollars in unsecured loans to various MFS entities, loans which were now worthless.

It also alleged KPMG, and auditor Andrea Waters in particular, 'failed to exercise appropriate professional judgment' in their capacity as auditors of the fund.


The original 71-page document has now blown out to a 560-page amended filing which includes more details of related-party transactions and allegations that MFS officials failed to exercise care and diligence.

KPMG has yet to respond to the claims.

The Premium Income Fund, originally worth $770 million, was valued at just $131 million yesterday. The $1 units last traded at 17c on the National Stock Exchange.

Mr Carney described the litigation, which is targeting KPMG's $1 billion indemnity cover, as 'horribly complicated' that could drag on for years.

He said most investors who poured their retirement savings into PIF were elderly and could not afford a protracted legal stoush.

Mr King's reported bankruptcy, which is yet to show on official records, comes just months after he was said to have reached a two-year repayment agreement with margin lenders who are owed about $127 million.

The loans are supported by now worthless shares in MFS, now named Octaviar which is in liquidation.

When Mr King last spoke to The Gold Coast Bulletin in May last year, he foretold of a near certainty of being declared bankrupt.

"The chances of me not being bankrupt are one in a million," he said at the time.

He could not be contacted for comment yesterday
Source:::Gold Coast Bulletin


----------



## Duped (9 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mgr2118 said:


> Story from yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald:-
> 
> Only wish that ASIC could be this active in working for our cause !!!
> 
> ...




Wish is about all that I can hope for.  See http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/02/mfs-directors-get-back-on-the-gravy-train/

Then if you want to get an idea of the sort of people ASIC jails see Mayne's list of the mere 347 jailed over the last 18 years at http://www.maynereport.com/articles/2007/07/17-2354-2207.html


----------



## Mary Lynch (9 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I will email Carneys if no one knows the answer to my question... Would it be likely that, say KPMG be tried first...and then have to settle? ..so that we can get some $$$ in our kicks before all the directors go into "mock" bankrupsy.

Are all the respondents tried separately...and each given a sum to settle immediately?  

I know little about such things, and I daresay many others are the same.

I wonder if Michael King still plays polo on his polo farm!...owned now by who?...probably his wife or daughter.


----------



## selciper (10 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Another Directions hearing is listed for the Federal Court on December 2nd. I haven't read anything about  yesterday's hearing...any news on that front?


----------



## marcom (10 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

ORDER

JUDGE:
	Justice Perram
DATE OF ORDER:
	9 October 2009 
WHERE MADE:
	Sydney


THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.	Leave be granted to the applicants to file and serve a notice of motion within 28 days, to be made returnable on a date to be fixed following consultation with his Honour’s associate, to make an application seeking:
(a)	approval pursuant to section 33V(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 to discontinue the proceeding on condition that the eighth applicant forthwith file and serve an application and statement of claim substantially in the form of the draft Further Amended Application and draft Amended Statement of Claim served on the respondents on 2 October 2009;
(b)	approval of the form and content of the notice concerning the matters referred to in sub-paragraph (a) above, to be sent to Group Members in the proceeding pursuant to an order to be made under s 33X(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976; and
(c)	directions concerning the method of service of the notice referred to in sub-paragraph (b) above on the Group Members in the proceeding.
2.	The matter be stood over for further directions on Wednesday 2 December 2009.
3.	Liberty to apply on 3 days’ notice.

This seems to be a procedural matter where the original group that initiated the class action is replaced by the Group Members (ie all those who registered with IMF). We will be receiving a notice to this effect.


----------



## seamisty (11 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Can Michael King still be a director of AGILIS GLOBAL (Dubai) if he has now declared himself BANKRUPT? Not sure if the following article has been posted on the forum previously, Seamisty:::The chase for MFS identity Phil Adams beginsArticle from:  September 24, 2009 11:00pm

ONCE upon a time there was a Gold Coast company called MFS, which became so big and so successful (seemingly) that it had former pollie Andrew Peacock as a chairman.

Then things went pear-shaped. Lots of people lost a lot of money. 

Fingers of blame were pointed at founders Michael King and Phil Adams. But since Adams was over in Dubai, King, who once played polo with likes of the Packers, took the brunt of it. 

Each still owes more then $60 million on loans they took out to buy MFS shares, now worthless. 

Early in the year, burned ex-shareholders who'd lost more than $1 billion were infuriated to learn Adams was on the speaker circuit in Dubai and that the website of his Agilis business was touting him as a business genius, with no mention of the disaster back in Oz. 

Still, it seems those chasing up Adams for cash have had some trouble getting in touch. 

Here's where Confidential can help. 

A source close to the family has told us that Phil, who, like jailed ex-pollie Gordon Nuttall, started out as a bank teller (in Ipswich), will be back late next month to prepare for his second wedding. 

He informed first wife Liz, to whom he was married for 30-odd years, of these developments by text message. 

The ceremony will take place near Warwick in December, we're told. It's understood elusive Phil has been crying poor somewhat during his brief Oz sojourns. 

But when he stayed on the Coast in May while attending his daughter's wedding, he was booked into the Hyatt at Sanctuary Cove for 10 days. 

Not exactly slumming it.


----------



## Blueboy1 (12 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

King: I'm not bankrupt
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  October 12th, 2009

MFS founder Michael King has vowed to 'vigorously' defend a $650 million class action brought against him and his former company's auditors by Premium Income Fund investors.

The Gold Coast businessman, through his lawyer, also emphatically denied yesterday that he had been declared bankrupt.

The Gold Coast Bulletin yesterday reported Arthur Carney, of Sydney firm Carneys Lawyers, was not expecting a defence from Mr King against the class action as Mr King had been declared bankrupt.

"They (Carneys) have alleged to your reporter our client is bankrupt (when he is not)," wrote Mr King's lawyer, Mark Lacy, in a letter to The Bulletin yesterday.

Mr Lacy's statement was backed by Nick Mellos, trustee for a July agreement reached by Mr King with margin lenders to which Mr King and MFS co-founder Phil Adams owed about $127 million.

Mr King has agreed to repay an undisclosed part of the debt, thwarting bankruptcy proceedings.

"He is definitely not bankrupt," said Mr Mellos, a partner with Grant Thornton. He said the agreement was 'on track' and Mr King had 'some work to do' in order to make good on his commitments to creditors.

Meanwhile, in a broad response to yesterday's Bulletin report, Mr Lacy, of Hickey Lawyers, said allegations that Mr King was not planning to respond to the class action were incorrect.

"(Mr King) has never conveyed such fact to them (Carneys Lawyers) and, to the contrary, has conveyed any such action will be defended vigorously," wrote Mr Lacy.

"In circumstances where such basic facts are misstated, one must question the assertions made in connection with the class action itself.

"(Mr King) continues to deeply regret the financial loss many have suffered through the collapse of MFS ... and sincerely apologises for his inability to undo the events of early January 2008 once he had to resign as a director and CEO of MFS.

"In due course, he expects that the true causes of the failure of MFS will emerge, and the true people and organisations behind such failure will be identified, as will the wrongful conduct of those organisations and people."

Mr Lacy said Mr King welcomed the appointment of liquidators to MFS, which is now known as Octaviar.

"He has already indicated to such liquidators his full co-operation with such process and he looks forward to such investigation," wrote Mr Lacy.

"He personally intends to spend significant time in the next few years pursuing a range of people and organisations for their wrongful conduct in the demise of MFS and the losses caused to so many.

"Our client invites further investigations into the affairs of MFS as he believes, in due course, such investigations will show the true cause of (and people and organisations behind) the demise of MFS."

Mr Lacy said 'each and every independent investigation conducted to date has not identified one thing alleged to be wrongfully done by our client'.

"Our client expects in due course further investigations will continue to clear him of any wrongdoing concerning MFS."

Mr King also was prepared to spend the next few years defending the 'unblemished reputation and integrity' of former MFS staff who had been subjected to 'wrongful reporting concerning events at MFS prior to January 2008'.

These reports had left him 'deeply saddened' for staff he described as 'talented, loyal and dedicated'.

Hmmmm...............
Blueboy1


----------



## Blueboy1 (12 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

MFS executive nets nearly $1m
SCOTT ROCHFORT
October 12, 2009
The company secretary of the collapsed Octaviar (formerly named MFS) collected close to $1 million in consultancy fees for helping the administrator and liquidator Deloitte sift through the wreckage of the collapsed Gold Coast finance group.

Accounts filed to the corporate regulator by Deloitte show a company founded by former Octaviar finance director David Anderson was paid more than $940,000 in ''professional fees'' from early October last year to September this year.

Mr Anderson is the most senior former Octaviar executive kept on by the administrators and now liquidators of the financial group, which has more than $1.7 billion in debts.

He said several people were paid from his business, of which he is the sole director.

But Mr Anderson declined to say how many people were paid from his company. ''That's wrong. I am telling you it was a number [of staff] and I told you that I don't wish to talk to you any more,'' he said.

He referred BusinessDay to recently appointed liquidators Bentleys Corporate Recovery.

Accounts filed to the Australian Securities & Investments Commission also show further wages were paid to staff working for Octaviar after it went into administration in late 2008.

The last set of accounts provided by Deloitte show around $40,000 a week in wages continued to be paid out of the carcass of Octaviar.

This was on top of what went to Mr Anderson's firm, Deloitte and in legal fees.

About five Octaviar staff, including Mr Anderson, continue to work with Bentleys. It is believed one staff member who stayed on is Craig Chapman.

Mr Chapman was installed as chief executive of Octaviar last year, after his business associate, the Singapore-based business identity Chris Scott, led a spill of the company's board.

A Bentleys spokesman said Mr Anderson was on an existing contract inherited from Deloitte.

The fees Mr Anderson's company has charged over the past year are almost double his base wage in the financial year before Octaviar imploded.

In the 2007 fiscal year, Mr Anderson was paid a $532,133 base salary and a $287,844 cash bonus. He also collected about $1.9 million in now worthless Octaviar scrip.

Deloitte partner John Greig, who filed the accounts, declined to comment.

''These are questions that are better off with the incumbent liquidator,'' he said, referring the matter to Bentleys, which replaced Deloitte as liquidator last month.

The Supreme Court ordered Deloitte be replaced by Bentleys last month after one of Octaviar's creditors, the Public Trustee of Queensland which represents noteholders who are owed $359 million, objected to Deloitte paying $20 million to another creditor, Fortress.

In a sign set to further infuriate investors and unsecured creditors who lost billions in the company and its various listed and unlisted funds, tens of thousands more was paid in consultancy fees on top of the hundreds of thousands of dollars paid in administration fees to Deloitte.

The accounts filed by Deloitte also show a firm called AFS Strategic Consulting was paid about $4300 a week for ''professional services''.

The owner of the business, Joanne Hill, is the company secretary of the hedge fund HFA Holdings, which once had Octaviar as a cornerstone investor. Ms Hill did not return phone calls.

More for the pot!
Blueboy1


----------



## seamisty (12 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

How do you solve a puzzle like OctaviarCBD
October 12, 2009 



By Scott Rochfort

The company secretary of Octaviar (aka MFS Limited), David Anderson, must have had some sympathy for administrators of the Gold Coast financial group when they came on board last year.

Just two months before Deloitte was appointed the voluntary administrator of Octaviar in September '08, Anderson set up a firm called Business Puzzle Solutions Pty Ltd.

Maybe the former chief financial officer and right-hand man of MFS founder Michael King realised the tough job any corporate undertaker faced in untangling the complex maze of relationships the company had with its former satellites and other related parties.

In helping Deloitte work out the puzzle, Anderson stayed on board and allowed Business Puzzle Solutions to provide services, collecting about $1 million in fees along the way.

In a tell-all interview with CBD, Anderson said: ''You should speak to the administrators. I think you are making the assumption that I am the only person whose services are paid for through that [entity].''

Anderson declined to say how many people were paid through Business Puzzle Solutions, for which he is the only director and shareholder.

CBD: How many people are paid by Business Puzzle Solutions?

Anderson: Anything do with this and the payments of the administrators, you should … speak to the administrators.

''Speak to them,'' the former KPMG partner confided to CBD. In MFS's final annual report Anderson, who joined the firm in 2002, is referred to as ''responsible for treasury and financial structuring roles throughout MFS, oversees the financial reporting and taxation functions and assists in investment banking projects''
Source;;;http://www.smh.com.au/business/how-do-you-solve-a-puzzle-like-octaviar-20091011-gscz.html


----------



## k.smith (12 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This article is worth re-reading in the light of recent news..

hmmmmm...

http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/02/04/kpmg-the-common-link-in-allco-and-mfs-fiascos/

KPMG: the common link in Allco and MFS fiascos
Adam Schwab writes:
Of all the similarities between struggling financial companies Allco and MFS, one obvious link has so far escaped media attention: the role of auditor KPMG in the twin fiascos. 

While MFS remains suspended (it lasted traded at 99 cents compared with a high of around $6.70 in June) and Allco continues to struggle (closing at $3.30 compared with a high of approximately $13.00 in March) the common ground between the two companies is that they were both audited by (and more importantly, paid significant non-audit fees to) KPMG.

Both of MFS’s company secretaries were previously employed by KPMG; David Anderson, chief financial officer of MFS, was previously a partner at KPMG in the finance area while Kim Kercher, MFS’s chief “governance” officer was previously a manager at KPMG.

The auditor signing off on MFS reports (which in light of recent announcements, don’t seem to be entirely accurate) was Mitch Craig (who is KPMG’s National Partner in Charge of Risk Advisory Services). According to MFS’s 2007 Annual Report, KPMG were paid $483,600 for audit services. However, the audit fees pale in comparison to the non-audit related services performed by KPMG. The firm was paid $771,098 for assurance, taxation and diligence services in 2007. KPMG also provided $665,600 in non-audit services to MFS satellite, MFS Diversified (KMPG also audited MFS Diversified until last year). 

In the Sarbanes-Oxley era, this is a farcical situation, with KPMG collecting almost double as much from MFS for non-audit related services as they did for conducting the audit. As noted by The Guardian back in 2002: 

Regardless of the individual integrity of those involved, this situation [of auditors performing non-audit related services] raises a serious conflict of interest.

Where an auditor is providing other services to a company it is auditing, it can hardly be said to be independent and it is less likely to be critical or do anything that might embarrass management.

Companies may hire or fire an auditor. Consequently, with future career prospects and income hanging in the balance, there is little incentive for an auditor to publicly expose improper behaviour or “creative” bookkeeping being used by the company they are auditing.

KPMG signed off on MFS’s financials on 20 August 2007. MFS shareholders paid KPMG handsomely to ensure that the financial information provided was true and fair. Based on recent announcements, and the sudden departure of executive Michael King, it seems that MFS shareholders didn’t get great value for money.

Across at David Coe’s Allco things seem similar. Allco’s auditor was also KPMG. During 2007, Allco paid KPMG a significant $3.1 million for audit fees (signing off on the report was Chris Whittingham). On top of that, Allco also handed KPMG a very tasty $2.96 million for other services, including financial due diligence and taxation services. Allco’s Annual Report noted that:

It is the Consolidated Entity’s policy to employ KMPG on assignments additional to its statutory duties where KPMG’s expertise and experience with the Consolidated Entity provides an efficient solution to [Allco’s] professional service needs.

This situation was meant to have stopped after Arthur Andersen’s infamous association with Enron. In 2001, Anderson was paid US$25 million for audit services and US$27 million for non-audit services. Many believe that Andersen’s willingness to turn a blind eye to the frauds occurring at Enron was partially caused by its willingness to retain non-audit revenue. Many Enron executives had previously worked at Arthur Andersen. Similarly, several key MFS executives were employed by KPMG.

Interestingly, the ratio of audit services to non-audit services paid by MFS to KPMG was even worse than Enron’s although its fate may very well be similar.


----------



## selciper (12 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Mention of Octaviar in today's 
Sydney Morning Herald.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/how-do-you-solve-a-puzzle-like-octaviar-20091011-gscz.html


----------



## seamisty (12 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am sure OPI Pacific Finance investors will not be impressed to see M King has retained the services of Mark Lacy for legal representation!!!
Mark Lacy, is Michael Kings lawyer. He is a partner at Hickeys Lawyers who handled most of MFS property work. Mark Lacy  was also the chairman of MFS New Zealand and an independant director of OPI Pacific Finance which has since been placed in receivership. The company lost 75% of its funds while David Anderson, Mark Lacy and Jason Maywald were directors. At the time of its demise, OPI Pacific's collapsed owing creditors $456.6m including  $313.4m of debenture and noteholders.

That is the same David Anderson who was paid more than $940,000 in ''professional fees'' from early October last year to September this year in consultancy fees for helping the administrator and liquidator Deloitte sift through the wreckage of the collapsed Gold Coast finance group. David is a former partner of KPMG Australia, holds a Bachelor of Commerce and is a Member of the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Australia, The Institute of Credit Management and is a Certified Fraud Examiner.



Jason Maywald is a former solicitor and holds a Bachelor of Laws degree 
He was Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director of MFS New Zealand

In Feb 2008 Jason Maywald was quoted 'the company had been open and transparent about related party exposures in the past'.
"We are comfortable. It is not a concern to us," he said. 
AH, MC'KING, youv'e done it again!!!!!!!! Seamisty


----------



## Duped (12 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Blueboy1 said:


> King: I'm not bankrupt
> Nick Nichols, business editor   |  October 12th, 2009
> 
> ...
> ...




Is that the same Grant Thornton that is administrator for the Sheraton Mirage?   




> ... "(Mr King) continues to deeply regret the financial loss many have suffered through the collapse of MFS ... and sincerely apologises for his inability to undo the events of early January 2008 once he had to resign as a director and CEO of MFS.
> 
> "In due course, he expects that the true causes of the failure of MFS will emerge, and the true people and organisations behind such failure will be identified, as will the wrongful conduct of those organisations and people."
> 
> ...




Yeah, Maybe for MFS LTD but what about the PIF? 



> ... Mr King also was prepared to spend the next few years defending the 'unblemished reputation and integrity' of former MFS staff who had been subjected to 'wrongful reporting concerning events at MFS prior to January 2008'.
> 
> These reports had left him 'deeply saddened' for staff he described as 'talented, loyal and dedicated'.




Yes hmmm. I'd expect I'd be marketing my support for former staff too if I was in King's shoes. Imagine the damage they could do if they felt abandoned/betrayed/let down?


----------



## marcom (13 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

An update on progress with the sale of the PIF Port Macquarie project:

*Two-year saga ends with for sale sign*
12/10/2009 4:00:00 AM 
Port  Macquarie News  http://www.portnews.com.au/news/local/news/general/twoyear-saga-ends-with-for-sale-sign/1646126.aspx

ONE Port Macquarie development has overcome its initial hurdles and is ready to make a comeback.

Icon Apartments will soon release 24 luxury three-bedroom apartments to the market.

Hastings investors may remember the property from its original name, Aston Hills Apartments.

The original construction was started by companies associated with property developer David Bloomfield.

Administrators were appointed to three company’s Mr Bloomfield was a director of in April 2007.

Finvest, Shores Australia and Scorpion Securities were placed in the hands of Worrells Solvency and Forensic Accountants.

Sources at the time said individuals were owed $5 million for investments in three apartment projects in Port Macquarie, including Aston Hills.

The construction of the property will be completed by Wellington Capital Limited and Brisbane-based Geocal Constructions.

Wellington Capital is a merchant bank who has owned the site for more than 12 months.

It is the bank’s first foray in the local real estate market.

Wellington’s general manager, funds management, Anthony Stanton believed Port Macquarie’s real estate market would remain strong.

“Port Macquarie has a lot of potential and we believe it has a strong future.”

He said local contractors had been paid over $1 million by the new owners for work done before construction stopped in 2007.

Mr Stanton said the sale of the units would allow local investors a chance to recoup funds tied up since administrators were appointed.

The property will be marketed jointly by Port Macquarie real estate agents Mark Carter and Greg Laws.

The agents said the “house-sized” apartments, which would start at $650,000, were coming on to the market at just the right time.

Mr Laws said there has been more activity recently in this segment of the market.

“There have been commitments given on seven of the apartments already.” he said.

The sale of the apartments will be launched on Friday from 2.30pm at Mort St.


----------



## marcom (13 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The Federal Court Judge on our class action case Justice Nye Perram has demonstrated his worth in a recent case reported at

http://www.smh.com.au/business/judge-rebukes-apra-over-insurer-probe-20091012-gu2m.htm

Worth a read.


----------



## The Owls (13 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> The Federal Court Judge on our class action case Justice Nye Perram has demonstrated his worth in a recent case reported at
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/judge-rebukes-apra-over-insurer-probe-20091012-gu2m.htm
> 
> Worth a read.




Marcom
Went I hit the site you mentioned I get the following message.


We could not find the page you requested. This is either because:

there's an error in the address or link, 
due to a technical fault it has not been properly published, 
it is an older article that has been removed from our site.


----------



## selciper (13 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The Owls - I had the same link problem. The item can be found by Googling "Justice Perram" in the News section of that search engine.


----------



## Duped (13 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Does this work
http://www.smh.com.au/business/apra-conduct-reprehensible-says-judge-20091012-gu00.html


----------



## BABIHUTAN (13 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Does this work
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/apra-conduct-reprehensible-says-judge-20091012-gu00.html




Yes it does - it works for me
tks


----------



## waleroo (14 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

How can I get a value of PIF units ?  I need this for centrelink as they still value them at $1 help needed  
Waleroo


----------



## The Owls (15 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



waleroo said:


> How can I get a value of PIF units ?  I need this for centrelink as they still value them at $1 help needed
> Waleroo




Waleroo
If you try the link below it might be of some help.

http://www.newpif.com.au/pifreports/pif_InvestorUpdate210708.pdf

As this link is as at 21st July 2008 more upto date infor may be available from Wellington Income Fund www.newpif.com.au


----------



## pjay (15 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

centrelink value for pif is i believe 7c as at september 09


----------



## selciper (15 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I don't recall seeing this GG Bulletin item published on 12 September posted on this thread.

--------

"King: I'm not bankrupt
Nick Nichols, business editor | October 12th, 2009

"MFS founder Michael King has vowed to 'vigorously' defend a $650 million class action brought against him and his former company's auditors by Premium Income Fund investors.

The Gold Coast businessman, through his lawyer, also emphatically denied yesterday that he had been declared bankrupt.

The Gold Coast Bulletin yesterday reported Arthur Carney, of Sydney firm Carneys Lawyers, was not expecting a defence from Mr King against the class action as Mr King had been declared bankrupt.

"They (Carneys) have alleged to your reporter our client is bankrupt (when he is not)," wrote Mr King's lawyer, Mark Lacy, in a letter to The Bulletin yesterday.

Mr Lacy's statement was backed by Nick Mellos, trustee for a July agreement reached by Mr King with margin lenders to which Mr King and MFS co-founder Phil Adams owed about $127 million.

Mr King has agreed to repay an undisclosed part of the debt, thwarting bankruptcy proceedings.

"He is definitely not bankrupt," said Mr Mellos, a partner with Grant Thornton. He said the agreement was 'on track' and Mr King had 'some work to do' in order to make good on his commitments to creditors.

Meanwhile, in a broad response to yesterday's Bulletin report, Mr Lacy, of Hickey Lawyers, said allegations that Mr King was not planning to respond to the class action were incorrect.

"(Mr King) has never conveyed such fact to them (Carneys Lawyers) and, to the contrary, has conveyed any such action will be defended vigorously," wrote Mr Lacy.

"In circumstances where such basic facts are misstated, one must question the assertions made in connection with the class action itself.


"(Mr King) continues to deeply regret the financial loss many have suffered through the collapse of MFS ... and sincerely apologises for his inability to undo the events of early January 2008 once he had to resign as a director and CEO of MFS.

"In due course, he expects that the true causes of the failure of MFS will emerge, and the true people and organisations behind such failure will be identified, as will the wrongful conduct of those organisations and people."

Mr Lacy said Mr King welcomed the appointment of liquidators to MFS, which is now known as Octaviar.

"He has already indicated to such liquidators his full co-operation with such process and he looks forward to such investigation," wrote Mr Lacy.

"He personally intends to spend significant time in the next few years pursuing a range of people and organisations for their wrongful conduct in the demise of MFS and the losses caused to so many.

"Our client invites further investigations into the affairs of MFS as he believes, in due course, such investigations will show the true cause of (and people and organisations behind) the demise of MFS."

Mr Lacy said 'each and every independent investigation conducted to date has not identified one thing alleged to be wrongfully done by our client'.

"Our client expects in due course further investigations will continue to clear him of any wrongdoing concerning MFS."

Mr King also was prepared to spend the next few years defending the 'unblemished reputation and integrity' of former MFS staff who had been subjected to 'wrongful reporting concerning events at MFS prior to January 2008'.

These reports had left him 'deeply saddened' for staff he described as 'talented, loyal and dedicated'."


----------



## Blueboy1 (16 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> I don't recall seeing this GG Bulletin item published on 12 September posted on this thread.
> 
> --------
> 
> ...




It was previously on this thread (#4244) 
Blueboy1


----------



## seamisty (16 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quote M King ;;These reports had left him 'deeply saddened' for staff he described as 'talented, loyal and dedicated'."
I wonder if Mr King is as deeply saddened as the tens of thousands of investors who trusted the dedication and loyalty of his former staff also? I also question the talents and abilities of his former senior financial advisors etc and seriously wonder if they were not in fact 'brainwashed'? Or were they like the poor investors, just plain 'greedy' for higher monetary reward? Were they prepared to do anything to get their fat pay checks and bonuses, did they seriously not know that our PIF assets were in fact not held by Perpetual Nominees in a separate trust which could not be touched? Did they seriously think that because for example Living and Leisure (previously MPY) was not a related party because it was a 'separately listed' company? 
To be assured repeatedly that it was 'all good' even after the fund was frozen and there was nothing to worry about because the PIF was safe with Perpetual and FINALLY, nothing!!! Our loyal, dedicated and talented advisors did not want to talk to us anymore when  the penny finally dropped!!!! They had been lied to, we had been lied to and it was time to jump the sinking ship and leave the poor unsuspecting, not so trusting investors to flounder and drown. Those same unsuspecting investors will probablly find it difficult to ever trust anyone regarding their life savings again and suffer anger and frustration when they see the same loyal, talented and dedicated former staff pop up again working in the same capacity for a similar business. In my case, Donna Meadows, my loyal 'senior financial advisor' and the 'national business development manager of MFS/OCV' is now
Business Development and Marketing Manager for Wealthfarm Financial Planners in Southport. I rest my case. Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (16 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> ...  I wonder if Mr King is as deeply saddened as the tens of thousands of investors who trusted the dedication and loyalty of his former staff also? ...




I know it's a rhetorical question that you pose - but I'd guess it's one that no investor really needs to give any time to at all.

I think we have to realise we're on our own - and if we don't do something, no one else will.  

As I look at all the wrecked and/or frozen funds I note that one thing stands out above all others,  that ASIC either lacks the will and/or the resources to protect investors in the first place, and lacks the will and/or resources to pursue investors' rights after a managed fund goes pear-shaped under dubious circumstances.

Merely by not pursuing our rights, ASIC forces members to resort to class action specialists in order to recover, thereby causing investors to accept a substantial discount (more of less 30%) on the  recovered  amount (if any).

Nevertheless, something is better than nothing.  Good luck with your class action... (sort of meant in the same spirit as one might say 'merry xmas').

But, you gotta hand it to these managers who control frozen funds, not too much somes out in the way of detailed information - at the very best, it's unsettling.


----------



## Duped (16 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Quote M King ;;These reports had left him 'deeply saddened' for staff he described as 'talented, loyal and dedicated'."




Just like the care and concern OCV had for us PIF investors?  Leopard doesn't change its spots? OCV needs the staff to not break ranks?  For now. But once they've served their purpose? PIF was sacrificed in Nov/Dec 08.  Who's next?

I forsee a comic strip ending with those responsible (King?) riding off into the sunset on a polo mount, saddle bags-o-cash and the caption: SUCKERS.

Sadly OCV's not the first and very unlikely will be the last. Not even a first among equals.


----------



## seamisty (16 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The silence is deafening!!!! Am I the only PIF investor totatally peed off with our current situation? I have spent the equivalent of two full time jobs times worth in unpaid hours researching and collating information that is relevant to our  fund. It is getting VERY interesting!! After reading some of  my research with provided links, another PIF investor suggested my research would be worth publicising and that is a potential outcome. Coincedential corporation connections or incentutious relations was the title suggested to me. I am not so sophisticated, I  suggested 'the wheels on the bus go round and round'. Meanwhile, I will just keep dotting the i's and crossing the t's. For the life of me, I cannot believe we have been conned again!! Or if not, I am the first to give credit due, if and when it is deserved. If I had of held my breath waiting from our current RE for results from promises made which saw them elected they would be celebrating my death!! Unfortunately for them, I have the constitution of tenacious rat and am here for the long term. The ranks are strengthening, we will not be so easily 'shut up'. Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (16 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I received a Google Alert for this article this evening; I don't know why it says "New Zealand entity MFS"??? Usually the Business Spectator is a bit more accurate.

From the Business Spectator
7:16 PM, 16 Oct 2009

Octavier liquidators secure $125m cash

By a staff reporter

Liquidators of Octaviar, formerly MFS, have secured $125 million in cash from the company, and are moving to sell its child care assets.

Hit by the credit crisis early last year, New Zealand entity MFS addressed its debt woes by selling a 65 per cent interest in its Stella tourism business – the largest travel and accommodation group in the country – to private equity firm CVC Asia Pacific for $409 million.

However, the move only delayed Octaviar's end, with the company placed in administration in September 2008.

Investigation into collapse

Adviser to Octaviar's creditors, Taylor Woodings partner Quentin Olde told a meeting of Octaviar's creditors he was confident there would be a complete investigation and full disclosure into all material regarding the group's collapse.

"Clearly there have been some questions asked about the conduct of the current and former directors of the Octavier group as well as some questions about a number of transactions that have occurred prior to and during the administration period," Mr Olde said.

Mr Olde said the appointment of Bentleys Corporate Recovery as new liquidators was a positive step, providing a truly independent platform for the investigations to take place.

Updating creditors at a meeting on Friday, the liquidators said they had terminated the employment of redundant employees, and begun closing down operations at Octaviar's head office.

Public examinations had been scheduled for the first half of 2010.

A Committee of Inspection had been formed, with the first meeting expected in the next month, to provide consultative assistance to the liquidators.

The liquidators also said they were continuing to liaise with the Australian Tax Office and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. 

www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf...ecure-125m-cash-pd20091016-WVB85?OpenDocument


----------



## Cookie1 (16 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I also received a Google Alert on this article of interest from Blake Dawson.

BANKING & FINANCE ALERT
16 October 2009
Octaviar: Leave to appeal filed with High Court on 15 October 2009
In brief
The judgment for the appeal in Re Octaviar was handed down by the Queensland Court of Appeal on 18 September 2009.
An application for leave to appeal the decision was filed at the High Court on 15 October 2009.

Leave to appeal
Earlier this year, the first instance judgment in Re Octaviar caused many market participants to reassess their approach to ASIC registrations for Transaction Document securities.  The Re Octaviar decision raised questions as to whether the designation of new Transaction Documents, or amendments to existing Transaction Documents, required registration with ASIC under s268(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) as a variation of a registered charge, even though the charge document itself had not been amended.
Due to the concerns created by the Re Octaviar decision, many banks as a matter of policy began to require all monies security on new transactions or, where Transaction Document specific security was accepted, adopted administratively onerous designation structures in order to ensure no commercially sensitive documents were required to be lodged with ASIC.
Last month, the Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the first instance judgment in Re Octaviar (see our Banking & Finance Alert – 18 September on the first instance case and subsequent appeal).
Although the Court of Appeal's decision was welcomed, market participants did not immediately revert to pre-Re Octaviar practice.  For the last four weeks, they have been waiting to ascertain whether there would be a further appeal to the High Court.
An application seeking leave to appeal was filed with the High Court on 15 October 2009.

Grounds for appeal
Leave to appeal has been sought on the grounds that:
the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a deed (Deed) designating a guarantee as a "Transaction Document" for the purposes of a registered charge did not vary the registered charge by increasing the liabilities secured by the registered charge within the meaning of section 268 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act); or
in the alternative, the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Deed did not constitute a new charge within the meaning of section 263 of the Act.

Going forward
Until the outcome of the application for leave to appeal is known, it is likely that banks will continue to follow a conservative approach requiring all monies security or the administratively onerous designation structures in respect of Transaction Document specific security. 
We expect that any hearing of the application for leave to appeal will not be before February 2010, and could well be later given the limited sitting days of the High Court each month.

www.blakedawson.com/Templates/Publications/x_publication_content_page.aspx?id=56891


----------



## seamisty (17 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well I am 'encouraged' by the new liquidators actions. I just hope Mr Anderson's fees a renegotiated to a more reasonable level!! Seamisty
MFS directors to face the music Source: Gold Coast Bulletin
  |  October 17th, 2009

FORMER directors of Octaviar, including the Dubai-based Phil Adams, will be unable to hide early next year with a public examination set to lay bare the events that led the company's spectacular collapse.

Creditors of the failed financial services giant, formerly known as MFS, were yesterday told the new liquidators to the company, Bentleys, had wasted little time in trying to get to the bottom of the $2 billion hole left by the company's implosion early last year.

Bentleys has scheduled a month-long public examination of Octaviar directors, which would include founders Michael King and Phil Adams, and former chairman Andrew Peacock.

It will be a broad-ranging probe into the affairs of the company, a move yesterday welcomed by insolvency specialist Quentin Olde, of Taylor Woodings, an adviser to some creditors.

"Clearly, there have been some questions asked about the conduct of the current and former directors of the Octaviar group as well as some questions about a number of transactions that have occurred prior to and during the administration period," said Mr Olde.

He said a public examination would 'benefit all creditors'.

The Queensland Supreme Court last month replaced Deloitte with Bentleys as liquidator to Octaviar.

Bentleys held meetings in both Sydney and Brisbane yesterday to update creditors who are owed more than $2.2 billion by the failed company.

Liquidators Kate Barnet and Bill Fletcher revealed they had secured about $125 million in cash held by the company and had moved to shut down Octaviar's headquarters at Southport -- a once bustling hub that supported more than 250 staff across Australia.

Former Octaviar chief financial officer David Anderson, who has been assisting the liquidators' investigations, will likely stay on.


The liquidators said they were negotiating with Mr Anderson for an ongoing role.

The liquidators have placed all the company's remaining assets on the market, including the Sunkids childcare business, which was bought from Gold Coast developer Sunland in 2006.

While creditors welcomed the progress, some yesterday were concerned when they could expect a payout from the MFS wreckage.

Jenny Hutson, whose merchant bank Wellington Capital manages the Premium Income Fund, was yesterday frustrated that the $200 million held by Octaviar when the company hit the wall last year had now been whittled down to $125 million.

"There needs to be an urgency to get to the other end," she told the Weekend Bulletin.

"I think in five weeks (the liquidators) have made good progress.

"They seem to be going about it in a systematic fashion and quickly, but that rage needs to be maintained. There's been a lot of activity and action which hasn't resulted in a return to creditors."

PIF investors, mainly elderly retirees, are owed about $200 million by Octaviar.

Ms Hutson yesterday said the liquidators gave no indication of when a payout would be made.

She said it was likely to be some time next year.


----------



## seamisty (17 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Another media article relating to Octaviar Liquidation. Seamisty
Octaviar directors under microscopeLIQUIDATION SCOTT ROCHFORT
October 16, 2009 
THE recently appointed liquidator of the collapsed Gold Coast finance concern Octaviar Limited has provided a glimmer of hope that creditors could still expect to salvage something out of the wreckage of the company formerly known as MFS Limited.

Bentleys Corporate Recovery told creditors at meetings in Sydney and Brisbane yesterday that it had secured $125 million in cash from the group and was moving to raise more cash from the sale of Octaviar's childcare business, Sunkids, which operates 20 centres.

The group has an estimated $1.7 billion of secured debts.

One month since replacing Deloitte as the liquidator under court order, Bentleys said it planned to hold ''public examinations'' in the first half of next year, which could shed more light into the dealings that led to the collapse of the financial group after it fell into administration in September 2008.

Bentleys said it had liaised with the Australian Securities & Investments Commission. Bentleys said it was also negotiating the former MFS chief executive David Anderson's ''ongoing role'' with the group, following a revelation in BusinessDay this week he was paid more than $940,000 in consultancy fees from the group's former administrator and liquidator Deloitte.

''Mr Anderson is on a pre-existing contract through a service company, which is controlled by Mr Anderson,'' liquidators Kate Barnet and Bill Fletcher confirmed in a statement.

Bentleys said it had started closing down Octaviar's offices and was in talks with the Tax Office to access $60 million that was under a ''freezing order''.

In the statement, the corporate recovery specialist hired by creditors, Taylor Woodings partner Quentin Olde, said: ''There have been some questions asked about the conduct of current and former directors of Octaviar group as well as some questions about a number of transactions that have occurred prior to and during the administration period.''

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald


----------



## BootsnAll (17 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty I would like to thank you so much for your research and postings on this site. It is the only way of keeping up to date on our stolen money. Please keep up the good work.


----------



## zamitabha (17 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Folks,

I bought MFS's share before they collapse...Then I received no more information from them except that they changed name to Octaviar. I just know that they are bankrupted now. Could anyone here kindly let me know, simply, is it still possible to get any money back from them? I got about $20,000 in their share before they collapse.


----------



## selciper (17 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This article about MFS appeared in the Australian on January 21 2008. It describes MFS events at that time as they saw them. I'm looking forward to the public examinations!
-------------------
Debacle at MFS a lesson to others
Adele Ferguson | January 21, 2008

THE 70 per cent share bludgeoning of Gold Coast financial services and tourism group MFS is a lesson to all companies with opaque balance sheets and high debt levels: the jig is up.

The lesson to investors is to steer clear of complex companies that have been using financial engineering. And for financial analysts, it is to be far more prudent when putting valuations on companies they patently don't understand.

On January 15, three days before the MFS share price meltdown, Macquarie Equities put out a report with an "outperform" recommendation and a 12-month share price target of $7.15. At the time its shares were trading at $3.94. They are now trading at $1.

The analyst, Mark Carew, wrote the report on the back of a proposal from City Pacific to acquire the whole of MFS's business excluding the Stella travel group. He wrote: "This partial takeover bid is a positive development for MFS and provides a valuation data point for the financial services division. We expect another potentially positive announcement on Friday this week as to the December quarter assets under management figure, which should show good growth despite fragile equity market conditions."

How wrong he was. Friday's announcement included plans to split the company and raise $550 million through a rights issue to fund short-term debt.

The result was $1.5 billion wiped off the company's market capitalisation, and heightened scepticism about MFS's accounts and corporate structure - and whether it is under more financial pressure than it is giving away.

What happened next is a travesty. MFS chief executive Michael King said: "We don't actually need the equity. We could stay as we are and keep going. Our earnings guidance is unchanged and there is no change to our debt position."

Given the 70 per cent share price fall on Friday, if King is serious about pulling the rights issue, he should do so immediately. MFS is one of the most financially impenetrable companies on the ASX. It has also been one of the most acquisitive - just two weeks ago it announced it was interested in buying the management rights to the shopping centres in the failing Centro Properties Group, a move that caused its shares to slump 11 per cent. And it is one of the stingiest companies when it comes to releasing information.

In an investment climate that is punishing companies that aren't transparent, MFS's fatal flaw was to announce a rights issue, and then let slip that it would use the funds to repay inter-company loans as well as a short-term debt facility due in March.

This was in sharp contrast to an announcement made by King in November that the company would not need to raise new equity.

This, coupled with revelations that it had company loans and debts of up to $900 million owed to UBS and Investec, has done nothing to pacify investors about the company's debt profile.

MFS was founded in 1999 by two criminal lawyers, Phil Adams and Michael King, to specialise in funds management. Since then it has made its name by styling itself on Macquarie Bank and Babcock & Brown. In recent years, the company has made countless acquisitions, including Harvey World Travel, Gullivers Travel Group, Let's Go Travel, Saville Hotel Group, Peppers Resorts and the S8 resorts and travel business, spun off a stake in funds management company HFA Holdings and created a range of listed and unlisted property trusts.

Then last year, the public face of the company, Phil Adams, left Australia to run the company's Dubai operation.

This was followed by the aborted sale of a 50 per cent stake in its Stella tourism business.

MFS appointed UBS to find an equity partner for its Stella Group, for about $1.2 billion, and to keep management control.
The plan was to use the funds to beef up other parts of the MFS empire, then list the Stella entity on the Australian Securities Exchange in the next two or three years. The deal, with CVC Asia Pacific, fell over in November with virtually no explanation.

The task was always going to be a challenge, given that the various assets inside the Stella Group had not been merged, and one of the Stella Group's key assets, S8, which MFS acquired in 2006 for $700 million, was under investigation by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) in Queensland.

The OFT investigation followed allegations of double-dipping on holiday bookings, by allegedly redirecting tourists to book holiday units through its retail and wholesale businesses, enabling them to claim extra commission potentially worth millions.

S8 was also in dispute with the body corporates of certain properties, specifically Equinox, Aruba, Phoenician, Sirocco, Zanzibar and South Pacific Noosa, over allegations that they were claiming too much commission.

And buried on page 94 of its 113-page financial accounts is a note for a contingent liability of $27 million.

The only explanation is the following: "A controlled entity is the subject of a counter-claim of approximately $27 million made by a party against which the controlled entity had launched recovery proceedings for fees owed in 2002. Such counter-claim was not foreshadowed until the controlled entity had launched its own recovery proceedings in 2003.

"The controlled entity's view is that the claim is frivolous and without merit. The allegations are denied and this counter-claim is being strenuously defended.

"There are a small number of other legal actions in which the company or controlled entities are involved. However, the amounts involved are not material," according to the full year financial accounts.

But, like most companies that make a lot of acquisitions, raise a lot of equity and compare themselves to investment banks, the accounts of MFS are hard to penetrate and often attract controversy.

For instance, there is controversy over the sudden resignation of Michael Hiscock on January 16 for "personal circumstances".

The day before he had put out a change of director's interest notice showing he had sold 500,000 shares, due to a margin call on the shares. These shares were sold during a black-out period when the company was discussing restructuring plans and an equity issue.

This is scandalous and the spotlight should be put on chairman Andrew Peacock to fully explain whether other directors are vulnerable to a similar thing.

The reason is simple: directors such as Michael King own 6.6 per cent of the company, and so any forced sale would have a significant impact on the share price.

At the group's annual meeting in November, Peacock referred to the outlook for the company: "MFS is well positioned for another year of substantial growth across its businesses in financial 2008. The company will enjoy a full year's contribution from our more recent tourism-related acquisitions while our deal pipeline is considerably stronger and more diverse now than at the same time a year ago.

"The Australian funds management business is targeting at least $10 billion of fee paying Assets Under Management by June 30, 2008, despite recent equity and debt market volatility.

"Our investment banking business is pursing an abundance of opportunities in Australia while Stella Group's first quarter - traditionally its slowest quarter - is well ahead of plan."

MFS will no doubt join the growing list of companies facing class actions by aggrieved shareholders over lack of information.

The big question is, when will the board and senior management take responsibility for their actions and fall on their swords.


----------



## Mary Lynch (17 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

"Criminal" lawyers is right...lol!


----------



## seamisty (17 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> "Criminal" lawyers is right...lol!



Perhaps they were 'conned' into taking lessons in lieu of fees Mary?


----------



## marcom (18 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yesterday I attended the "launch" of the renamed ICON apartments 20-22 Mort St Port Macquarie which has a mortgage to our fund of $28M. The project is being marketed with the comment in the sales brochure "serious developers seek early sales".

The new builder has been busy completing the second of two town houses on the site as well as finishing the interiors of the 24 units - one furnished unit is open for inspection. The 2 town houses are being separately split off from the units strata. Ray White and L J Hooker are jointly marketing the units and town houses.

Three units have been sold and 4 others are on "hold". The unit pricing contained in the sales flyer is as follows:

Level 1  6 units X $650,000 = $3.9M
Level 2  6 units X $725,000 = $4.35M
Level 3  6 units X $825,000 = $4.95M
Level 4  6units  X $1.2M     = $7.2M
The 2 town houses are $TBA but they should get at least $0.8M.

Total sales = $21.2M LESS commissions, builders costs etc etc etc.

Presume that the $28M carrying cost includes interest, but we will be a long way short on this one.

I do not know why JH thinks that details of the PIF projects are so confidential that she will not even disclose the address - except that we may find out the poor grade of assets in which our money has been invested.


----------



## mellifuous (18 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Yesterday I attended the "launch" of the renamed ICON apartments 20-22 Mort St Port Macquarie which has a mortgage to our fund of $28M. The project is being marketed with the comment in the sales brochure "serious developers seek early sales".
> 
> The new builder has been busy completing the second of two town houses on the site as well as finishing the interiors of the 24 units - one furnished unit is open for inspection. The 2 town houses are being separately split off from the units strata. Ray White and L J Hooker are jointly marketing the units and town houses.
> 
> ...




I couldn't imagine any properties would be sold at the asking price - you might further discount 'Total sales' by allowing for sale price discounts, after all, it's a buyer's market.

We've just seen some of the FMF's  security assets knocked off at discounted prices.  One asset went for $80m and we stand to lose about $135m - we don't even know the true figures.  Although City claimed 40% ownership in the project ('Pacific Beach'), it was never declared as a related party transaction.

Neither manager has really told investors about the details of the deal - we only know what we hear in the media.  Since the loan wasn't declared as 'related', then it wasn't separately disclosed in financial statements.

$205m (or more) was lent - $100m went to acquire the property - but no further work was carried out on the site.  It's a good read to see just what can be promised and how little really needed to be done.

We also have a dud deals yet to be fully disclosed at Grande Pacific at the Broadwater, and down at Martha Cove.

Of course, ASIC didn't care.  ASIC did care enough to go to bat to get back $2m for the CBA (info from the Storm thread) - but for us, nothing.

The winners ->  fund managers, real estate agents, liquidators, receivers, consultants, lawyers .. yes, etc. etc. etc.

Ah! the frozen fund is truly a 'manager's delight'.   Watching all the frozen funds moving along is like looking at a train wreck is super slow motion.    

We really should get together and get the government to enact laws to force managers to provide (1) complete details on ALL loans, (2) debt, and (3) expenses, at least while funds are frozen.

While the funds are frozen, managers do not give information and seem to have a free hand to do as they like without regard to investors' concerns.

There is always a review, a strategy, or a promise - but nothing happens - delay, delay, delay - our money melts away before our very eyes and there is nothing we can do about it.

We just get the surprises when we read the finanicals which come months and months after the deeds are done.

.


----------



## seamisty (18 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

'Presume that the $28M carrying cost includes interest, but we will be a long way short on this one.':: From memory from an earlier enquiry to WC I don't think interest is included marcom. Also if she manages to get the full $21 mill then that is even short of the amount needed to give us our 3cents so JH will have to quit more assets to pay herself management fees. So much for re building and stabilising the PIF. JH said the PIF was stabilised in June 2008, if it was so bloody stable, why did it incur impairment and losses of $36.4mill in 2009?!!!!!! I am becoming more and more concerned as to JH's ability to do anything more than act  as an expensive liquidator and procurer of mezzanine finance from a provider I believe she has had prior business dealings with. The evidence of an astute, successful business person in control of our fund is yet to be proved and I shudder to think what the true unit value of the PIF is now, NOT after we receive our 3 cents of capital from the sale of dwindling PIF assets. How can you rebuild and strengthen something that is no longer there and the proceeds are not re invested. The heady days of boom where Funds had money to burn and deals were done on inflated prices to procure kick backs are over! I welcome any investigation into the past and present dealings of PIF related business, I just wish it was not so slow.
'I do not know why JH thinks that details of the PIF projects are so confidential that she will not even disclose the address - except that we may find out the poor grade of assets in which our money has been invested.'
Exactly, it will be interesting to see how much we end up with from the Wollongong Hotel JV deal with the original builder/developer. I know when I enquired with the Real estate marketers after the auction, I was told an offer of $40 mill had been passed in but they were still in negotiation with a potential buyer. I will be peed off if we end up with less than the offer! Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (18 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quote mellifuous:'We really should get together and get the government to enact laws to force managers to provide (1) complete details on ALL loans, (2) debt, and (3) expenses, at least while funds are frozen'
I was hoping something like that would be the outcome from the  The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services  enquiry mellifuous. Otherwise it will be a complete waste of time and tax payers funds.
How do you propose it could be done by us mere mortals? Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (18 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My husband and I also went along on Friday to have a look at the Aston Hill Apartments (rebadged "Icon Apartments") since we have a personal stake in the project. I forgot to ask about the Townhouses so, thank you, Marcom for that update. There was no price on the sales sheet so I wasn't sure if they were even built.

Further to Marcom's description: All the apartments are 3 BRs (quite spacious) & 3 baths (with square sinks..._hard to clean_), Miele appliances, also a computer alcove. Total living area is from 179-195  square meters. Penthouses and ground level apartments have large terraces and the rest have good sized balconies and all have parking for 2 cars. There is visitor parking under the building, then a secure area for owners with marked parking spaces and no extra storage (which I found surprising). All apartments go through from front to back, so should have water views. 

In JH's August Investor update she said "A developer known from a previous transaction put forward a proposal to complete the property and assist the Fund to market the units in return for a modest share of the profits." It would certainly be good to know what % a "modest share of the profits" is and a lot more transparency. Let's just hope there IS some profit.

We saw the initial presentation by David Bloomfield (original developer) when they first started selling off the plan and prices up to at least $1.75m were mentioned (can't remember exactly any more). Back then I had bad vibes about him, not realising or knowing that some of my money was supporting the development. We asked where he expected to find his market and he told us those "cashed up" Eastern suburbs and North Shore people in Sydney; we wished him luck. He obviously needed a lot more luck than he got and so do we.

There are a number of luxury apartment/unit buildings in Port Macquarie with units that have been for sale for 3+ years, so I won't hold my breath that these units are going to sell like hot cakes!

I suggested to the fellow from LJ Hooker that if they would take the amount of my investment off the price of one of the apartments, I thought I could live there and I would consider that I had at least partly recouped my investment. LOL.


----------



## mellifuous (18 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Quote mellifuous:'We really should get together and get the government to enact laws to force managers to provide (1) complete details on ALL loans, (2) debt, and (3) expenses, at least while funds are frozen'
> I was hoping something like that would be the outcome from the  The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services  enquiry mellifuous. Otherwise it will be a complete waste of time and tax payers funds.
> How do you propose it could be done by us mere mortals? Seamisty




Well, as you're aware from my posting, I'm an FMF investor.  FMF investors generally are not as motivated as many MFS investors seem to be because we're lacking leadership. 

The so called group was a self-elected group that proceded  on their own to buy the registry disk/s, hook up with Balmain, and the rest is history.  They stated clearily on the Phil Pot forum that they proceded by themselves because no one else was doing anything.  They canned Phil Pot in their last (and final) update for his lack of co-operation.

So, as an investor in the FMF, I'm disadvantaged (at this time) and I'm interested in improving my chances.  It's my motivation to post here - idle chat is a waste of time and will not help get my money back (yes, we're all guilty of idle chat, but nevertheless, it takes us nowhere).

However, all frozen funds do share common traits, as I expressed in my last posting on this thread - I should point out that I post only because I believe what I have to say will be of interest to members here.

How do we get together? Well, the need to get together is clearly going to be driven by common concerns.  It's clear that every forum has trouble maintaining threads, and since there is no need for investors in the FMF and MFS to discuss those issues unique to each other, then there is no value to attempt to deal with the issue of common concerns on our existing respective forums. 

One suggestion is to set up a simple yahoo forum (takes 5 mins) to create and the sole function of the forum is to formulate ideas, like creation of documents which could sent on behalf of the group to the media and to government.

For example, media documents about dissatisfaction with managers in general and issues relating to lack of transparency and the like.  I'm sure there are many issues to raise, especially if the forum is well patronised.

Issues to present to government might relate (among other things) to issues I raised in my previous post.

I'd guess that the forum would be open to members of all managed funds who wish to participate, and even if members don't want to post, they would be able to add their names (or even stage names/handles) to the list of members which would accompany any such document be it to the media or to government.

I think we're all aware of just how few people actually do get involved.

It would be easy to set up a simple vote to approve any document before it is sent.

It's a basic idea, but it'd be  a start.


----------



## seamisty (18 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Fair call mellifuouos, I have spent  hours of my not so plenty spare time compiling letters and fowarding them to journalists, govt dept, asic etc with detailed complaints and relevant issues, often with the support of other investors and getting nowhere. However I am prepared to give my support and input to a separate forum and contribute if you are prepared to set it up. I know there are many others also that would have liked to have seen govt intervention long before now and worked tirelessly at lobbying different bodies, with the same result. Empty promises, buck passing and just simply being ignored. Whether their interest or energy could be re ignited remains to be seen. Are any other PIF investors interested in contributing to such a forum? I 'm not prepared to admit defeat just yet! regards, Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (18 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Fair call mellifuouos, I have spent  hours of my not so plenty spare time compiling letters and fowarding them to journalists, govt dept, asic etc with detailed complaints and relevant issues, often with the support of other investors and getting nowhere. However I am prepared to give my support and input to a separate forum and contribute if you are prepared to set it up. I know there are many others also that would have liked to have seen govt intervention long before now and worked tirelessly at lobbying different bodies, with the same result. Empty promises, buck passing and just simply being ignored. Whether their interest or energy could be re ignited remains to be seen. Are any other PIF investors interested in contributing to such a forum? I 'm not prepared to admit defeat just yet! regards, Seamisty




I just set up a forum, http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/managed_fund_cooperation_group/

Anyone is able to join, and posts are not moderated.


----------



## seamisty (18 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> I just set up a forum, http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/managed_fund_cooperation_group/
> 
> Anyone is able to join, and posts are not moderated.



Mellifuous i think I have joined? I always find Yahoo groups complicated and hard to navigate. Are you sre we can't just have a separate thread on aussie stock where most interested already visit? Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (18 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Mellifuous i think I have joined? I always find Yahoo groups complicated and hard to navigate. Are you sre we can't just have a separate thread on aussie stock where most interested already visit? Seamisty




Well, I don't mind - in the end, it's not up to me.   

However, if we decide to restrict general public view, then we will be able to do that.  Another issue is with a 'private' forum, we will be freer to express some opinions.

However, if you feel that yahoo is difficult, then you are free to start a thread here.

I'll delete the forum, remove my posting from our small FMF forum and take the director from the front page of my site.

Please let me know.


----------



## mellifuous (18 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

All done - forum deleted.. it only took a few minutes to create and less to delete.

It is better than you set up the thread and post it here.

Thanks.


----------



## seamisty (18 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Well, I don't mind - in the end, it's not up to me.
> 
> However, if we decide to restrict general public view, then we will be able to do that.  Another issue is with a 'private' forum, we will be freer to express some opinions.
> 
> ...



I appreciate what you are saying but if I have difficulty I know others will and it will be a deterrent for some. This was the case in a previous Yahoo group for some.Please consider just starting a new thread on here and anything too sensitive can be shared by private message or off forum via e mail? just my observations anyway. Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (18 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I appreciate what you are saying but if I have difficulty I know others will and it will be a deterrent for some. This was the case in a previous Yahoo group for some.Please consider just starting a new thread on here and anything too sensitive can be shared by private message or off forum via e mail? just my observations anyway. Seamisty




yes, it was deleted.  I'm happy for you to do what is easiest for you.
I'm sorry, i didn't realise people had trouble with yahoo.
Thanks.


----------



## seamisty (19 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> yes, it was deleted.  I'm happy for you to do what is easiest for you.
> I'm sorry, i didn't realise people had trouble with yahoo.
> Thanks.



Mellifuous can I suggest you start a new thread  titled 'managed funds cooperation group' in the General Chat section on here and I will be happy to add any input. Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (19 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Ok 'seamisty', the thread is MANAGED FUND CO-OPERATION GROUP

If you do a search fro FMF or MFS the thread will come up on the list because I've placed FMF and MFS in the text of the first post.

Let's see.


----------



## seamisty (19 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Ok 'seamisty', the thread is MANAGED FUND CO-OPERATION GROUP
> 
> If you do a search fro FMF or MFS the thread will come up on the list because I've placed FMF and MFS in the text of the first post.
> 
> Let's see.



Thanks Mellifuous, I have fowarded the link by e mail to other PIF investors that I have a contact for. Perhaps Breaker can also include the link in his next AG update? I have also added the link to my favourites list for easy access. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Duped (19 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

"Creditors shiver as ATO freezes Octaviar funds

Monday, 19 October 2009 | The Australian Financial Review | Lisa Allen

The Australian Taxation Office has ordered the freezing of $60 million worth of Octaviar funds to prevent creditor access."

As I've posted before, not only did the ATO funded ASIC disarm me with their self promoting spin and now sit back watching  PIF get plundered, their pay masters at ATO are competing with us PIF investors over the remnants of the OCV carcass. How the f*$% did the ATO allow OCV to go so long without paying the tax.  If the ATO had acted earlier, the plundering of PIF might have been avoided.  

PIF is my Red Pill. Welcome to the REAL WORLD.

Wish I'd taken the Blue Pill and left my savings my ING Savings Maximiser Account.


----------



## seamisty (19 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> "Creditors shiver as ATO freezes Octaviar funds
> 
> Monday, 19 October 2009 | The Australian Financial Review | Lisa Allen
> 
> ...



 I want to know why the  ATO's claim would rank ahead of other OCV creditors' claims? PIF investors had a legally binding agreement with OCV by way of the $50 mill support facility which was triggerd in FEB 2008, before there was a list of other creditors. Why should the ATO have extra powers that excludes and is detrimental to the rights of the 'little man'? Seamisty


----------



## k.smith (19 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> "Creditors shiver as ATO freezes Octaviar funds
> 
> Monday, 19 October 2009 | The Australian Financial Review | Lisa Allen
> 
> ...




Hi Duped..

wouldn't it be even sadder if the $60million tax bill was on profit that was never really profit in the first place, just looked looked profitaccrued accounting, I am slowly learning, can obscure reality...


----------



## seamisty (20 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Interesting to see Mr Pritchards comments in the following media article after his gaff re our unit prices! http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-20142,00.html::
'One of the unhappy shareholders, Steven Pritchard, the principal of stockbrokers and financial advisers Pritchard & Partners, said NSX had lost $12.5million in the past six months and continued to lose money while remuneration paid to the executives and the board continued to rise. 

"We're concerned that at the current rate of operation the business is unsustainable, and significant cost reductions need to be made immediately," Mr Pritchard said. "We want a smaller board, we want to cut the $2million of corporate overheads out, and we want to get the thing back to a break-even position in a very short space of time. In our view that can be achieved. There's a raft of non-productive people involved, and you can start with the managing director."


----------



## selciper (20 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The NSX has recently installed a "new team." We know what a new team can mean.


----------



## Duped (20 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> Hi Duped..
> 
> wouldn't it be even sadder if the $60million tax bill was on profit that was never really profit in the first place, just looked looked profitaccrued accounting, I am slowly learning, can obscure reality...




.... then I'm sorry to make things sadder but yes, the ATO does tax the twaddle economy as well as the real economy.

That's not the only anguish the ATO is causing us.  On advice from our ASIC promoted 'licenced financial advisors' some of us parked proceeds from selling our homes in PIF.   But now that we've had to take out loans to put a roof over our family's head, we cannot claim that interest as a deduction against the PIF investment. The ATO won't budge. The ATO don't give a rats about what the ASIC promoted sharks have done to us.  

ASIC is STILL spruiking financial advisors. See page 3, 8, 9, 24 and 26 of ASIC's brochure 'Investing in Mortgage Funds'. It's &%$@&^* infuriating.

E.g. page 9 "Get professional advice from a licensed financial adviser
if you’re not sure what to do."  Aaaargh!!!!!

http://www.fido.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/ASICMortgageFundsBrochure-Dec2008.pdf/$file/ASICMortgageFundsBrochure-Dec2008.pdf


----------



## marcom (20 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I noticed on the Federal Court site that a Hearing is scheduled for: 	 30-Oct-2009 at 10:15 before Justice Perram.

Not sure what this is about but it is in addition to the scheduled Directions at 9.30am on 02-Dec-2009.


----------



## seamisty (21 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Here is a link to Bentleys website, the new liquidators for OCV.http://www.bentleys.com.au/Home/Octavair  Also a very interesting article which may help other funds (eventually) :::ASIC in legal swoop on former Centro Property Group leaders, link http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,26240120-36418,00.html  Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (21 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Here is a link to Bentleys website, the new liquidators for OCV.http://www.bentleys.com.au/Home/Octavair  Also a very interesting article which may help other funds (eventually) :::ASIC in legal swoop on former Centro Property Group leaders, link http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,26240120-36418,00.html  Cheers, Seamisty




From the article re: Centro:-

"... Such was Centro’s contempt for shareholders that in 2007 it paid bonuses to executives for the year before it had even finished, misstated its accounts and its structure was so complex that it took the banks months to work out who was owed what. ..."

And, such is the contempt of those managers of frozen funds who take tens of millions of dollars in fees when members of the fund get nothing, while mistating accounts, and creating structures so complex that it will take months to work out who is owed what.

Such is the contempt of those  managers of managed funds who take tens of millions of dollars in fees while paying distributions and all the while they are aware that their respective funds are doomed to failure.

Such is the contempt of those managers who take care to avoid the financial losses they know will impact on those who trust and rely on them.

Such are those who are worthy of our contempt.


----------



## selciper (21 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Adam Schwab looks at the Centro situation in today's Crikey. MFS is mentioned.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/21/centro-charges-put-heat-on-directors-club/


----------



## selciper (22 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The business section of the Sydney Morning Herald today has an article by Michael West about the role of "Custodians." Also, there are some interesting pieces about directors' responsibilities in the Centro coverage.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/a-storm-over-just-who-knew-what-20091021-h93k.html?autostart=1


----------



## Duped (22 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Octaviar III - The PTQ Strikes Back

WOW! The legal community isn't happy at all. Using comparatively strong words in their Alerts.  Are they hoping the High Court reads them?  Check out this from Mallesons http://www.mallesons.com/publications/2009/Oct/10112207W.htm.  Emphasis added.
“which had overturned the *unsettling *first instance judgement”
“The *relief *felt by the market at the Court of Appeal decision has been *dented*. While that decision was unanimous and, in our respectful view, correct, the market now *has to live with* an element of uncertainty”
“The grounds go to the very heart of the issues that *caused such disruption* following the first instance decision”
“Although the Court of Appeal decision represents the current state of the law and in our respectful view, is correct and likely to be upheld, we cannot dismiss the possibility that the High Court might adopt some or all of McMurdo J's reasoning in the first instance decision, or even adopt a new course”
“While the Court of Appeal decision did not quash or reverse every element of the reasoning at first instance, it at least meant that the position regarding transactions within the facts of the Octaviar case was *restored *to what the market understood it to be before the first instance decision.”

If the legal/business community hurried up and assisted to void the 22 January 2008 transaction then they wouldn't have to suffer this pain.

To me the reasoning is simple.  

IMO the 22 January 2008 transaction failed Holmes JA test because of the subsequent actions of the OCV board.  In para [51] Holmes states that the policy of Chapter 2K was to “alert any prospective investor or creditor to the need for further enquiry as to what those liabilities might comprise”.  This intent of the legislation was circumvented by OCV making subsequent misleading statements.  In the Interim Financial Report for the Half Year to 31 December 2007 OCV stated that “Note 8(d) … Fortress ... held a fixed and floating charge ... *THIS *loan has been repaid in full..." and “Note 13(l) … the Group repaid in full *THE *loan facility to Fortress". (Emphasis added)

IMO - OCV mislead the market and hence fell foul of the legislation.  

And there is evidence that the market has been misled.  Our own JH said there were 5 equally ranked creditors: PTQ, PIF, Challenger, ATO and OPI Pacific.  No mention of Fortress as a creditor, let alone a secured creditor.  It’s all on the DVD.

McMurdo seems correct to me – I describe the legislation’s intention to catch you out if you attempt to mislead investors and creditors on your debt position.  After all, there wouldn’t be any need for this piece of legislation if companies promptly, diligently and uniformly announced their debt positions.  Seems to me the High Court has room to move against Fortress on this one.

The law firms’ commentaries seem all about technicalities.  Perhaps the High Court will take McMurdo’s more purposive construction of the legislation.  And perhaps the lawyers wouldn’t be so stressed if they knew that the real cause of the breach, IMO, is not the technical form of the contract and ‘documents’ but is, as I’ve speculated, OCV’s subsequent misleading statements on their debt position.


----------



## BABIHUTAN (23 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> The business section of the Sydney Morning Herald today has an article by Michael West about the role of "Custodians." Also, there are some interesting pieces about directors' responsibilities in the Centro coverage.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/a-storm-over-just-who-knew-what-20091021-h93k.html?autostart=1




I can visualise similar tactics when our 'friends' eventually come b4 the courts. 
Hearing aid battery failed at critical time during meeting, lost my specs, couldn't read &/or understand documents distributed or whatever defence some clever legal beagle might throw up. One thing is for sure - there will not hv been any confusion on remuneration issues passed at those meetings.
I am reasonably confident our action will succeed - ultimately - the question is how many of us will be around when that occurs and how much of our $ will we be able to recover thru the NSX to bolster a successful CA payout.


----------



## seamisty (26 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Business Gold Coast

 Print   Share 






 Indians' $70m offer for resort no mirage
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  October 26th, 2009

SHERATON Mirage could be the first cab off the rank in a potential multi-million-dollar spending spree on the Gold Coast by a new wave of wealthy Indian investors.

Veteran property figures Peter Madrers and Paul Brinsmead have brokered a $70 million deal for the Sheraton Mirage from the ashes of their development company Resort Corp.

While a contract is yet to be signed, the Resort Corp directors have established a new entity, Pearls Australasia, to seek more property opportunities in Australia, focusing on major trophy assets on the tourism strip.

The Madrers-Brinsmead link to the Sheraton deal has raised eyebrows among creditors to Resort Corp, which faltered earlier this year with debts of $300 million.

The company was kept alive through a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) in May.

The DOCA, described as a 'quasi-receivership' by administrator David Clout, involved the sale of all company assets in the next 30 months to repay creditors.

Mr Brinsmead and Mr Madrers met the wealthy Indian developers, Nirmal Bhangoo and Gurpartap Singh, during a campaign to sell Resort Corp assets in India.

This led to the Indians deciding to make a pitch for the Sheraton Mirage, which was placed into receivership last year by St George Bank.

The Indian investors are understood to be vying for the Sheraton Mirage under a separate entity to Pearls Australasia, a Burleigh Heads-based company registered on September 1.

The Indians are directors of Pearls Australasia, as are Mr Madrers, Mr Brinsmead and Brisbane-based property industry figure David Higgins.


The Indian investors own a single A-class and B-class share in Pearls Australasia, while MBH Holdings, directed by Mr Brinsmead and Mr Madrers, holds one C-class share.

The ultimate shareholders in MBH are Sally Madrers and Heidi Brinsmead, the respective wives of the Resort Corp directors who will share in any profit generated from the Indian-backed ventures.

One Resort Corp creditor, who declined to be named, said the Sheraton deal did not breach any of the terms of the Resort Corp DOCA.

"I just hope they (Mr Brinsmead and Mr Madrers) have the best interests of Resort Corp creditors at heart," he said.

Jenny Hutson, chair of Wellington Capital which controls the Sheraton's second mortgagee the Premium Income Fund (PIF), yesterday confirmed a deal was on the table for the property by Indian parties. She could not say how much of the $20 million owed to PIF would be recovered from a $70 million sale.

But Ms Hutson said there 'would be something in it for PIF investors'.

St George Bank, as first mortgagee, is owed $60 million plus costs from the property.


----------



## seamisty (26 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All, I invite you to add to this list of suggestions to be fowarded to Mr Rippoll for consideration ASAP. I know that several PIF investors have voiced  greivances on this thread previously, now is another opportunity to get them recognised. This list will be fowarded to several key govt representatives and the parliamentary enquiry. A few of us haven't given up yet, so please support us by contributing!!! If you do not wish to contribute but agree with the content and are prepared to put your name to the document please let me know.  Thanks, Seamisty

1. We propose recommending to Parliament that legislation be enacted to create an independent entity charged with the assessment of frozen managed funds ..(perhaps to work in conjuction with ASIC..)


2. That the entity could assess whether any tax payable/paid by the fund in recent years related to REAL profit, or to 'profit' calculated on some false or fraudulent basis.

3.That managed funds should be prohibited from being listed in the event they are frozen.

4.That the concept of 'offer' be erased from the Corporatons Act, and be replaced with compulsory redemptions paid by the manager of frozen funds as soon as some predetermined level of surplus cash appears in the fund, say every 2% - each member should be paid a fixed percentage on a pro rata basis - that is, for example, each member be paid 2% of their holdings.

5.If a manager really thinks that the 'fund will be strong again'', then that manager should call a meeting, give members A COMPREHENSIVE REPORT on the state of the fund, put forward A DETAILED STATEGY, and seek members' support - otherwise, leave the unit price at the constitutionally determined price at the time the fund was frozen and progress to wind up the fund as opposed to depleting fund assets to cover operating costs and management fees


----------



## mellifuous (26 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Jenny Hutson, chair of Wellington Capital which controls the Sheraton's second mortgagee the Premium Income Fund (PIF), yesterday confirmed a deal was on the table for the property by Indian parties. She could not say how much of the $20 million owed to PIF would be recovered from a $70 million sale.
> 
> But Ms Hutson said there 'would be something in it for PIF investors'.
> 
> St George Bank, as first mortgagee, is owed $60 million plus costs from the property.




Yes, seems those managers of yore didn't mind risky deals - Mirvac Aqua (Balmain JV) did the same - the good old second mortgage - City took things one step better and controlled the first mortgage lender (FMF) before its relatives lend out on second mortgages.

Although I didn't invest with the PIF, I follow its progress (if one could call it that) along its tortuous path.

It'll be interesting to see just how much less than $10m you guys get back.


----------



## seamisty (26 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Yes, seems those managers of yore didn't mind risky deals - Mirvac Aqua (Balmain JV) did the same - the good old second mortgage - City took things one step better and controlled the first mortgage lender (FMF) before its relatives lend out on second mortgages.
> 
> Although I didn't invest with the PIF, I follow its progress (if one could call it that) along its tortuous path.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see just how much less than $10m you guys get back.



From memory that 2nd mortgage loan of approx $20 matured in Dec 2008. I would expect the outstanding loan is accruing interest at 25% in these difficult times as I understand that is the going rate!!!! Seamisty


----------



## Duped (26 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hi All, I invite you to add to this list of suggestions to be fowarded to Mr Rippoll for consideration ASAP. I know that several PIF investors have voiced  greivances on this thread previously, now is another opportunity to get them recognised. This list will be fowarded to several key govt representatives and the parliamentary enquiry. A few of us haven't given up yet, so please support us by contributing!!! If you do not wish to contribute but agree with the content and are prepared to put your name to the document please let me know.  Thanks, Seamisty




6. If an unlisted fund is frozen (or listed fund is suspended from trade) then all transactions AND transfers under e.g. lines of credit with related parties be banned. Or something less restrictive such each and every transaction above a very low threshold requiring an auditor sign off, or quarantined in a separate entity which is in voluntary administration.  Total ban on drawing down of unsecured facilities when a fund is frozen.

7. Severe restrictions on unlisted funds undertaking related party transactions. E.g. Every related party investment by an unlisted trust  requires registration of a floating charge whereby the fund's investment is automatically regarded as secured as at the date of the initial investment if:
the related party or any party related to the related party, within 6 months:enters administration or has liqidators appointed, share price drops by a certain amount, initiates divestment of major assets etc.     

8. Compulsory insurance against the action of directors, officers, compliance committee officers, etc up to the value of e.g. 25% of the funds reported value. Key details of insurance policy included in the PDS, changes to the policy to be announced to the investors AND market within 1 week, and the entire policy document available free of charge within 1 week from request in paper or electronic format.  Electronic format must be text searchable.

9. Any attempts by trusts or RE's preventing or extorting investors/unit holders seeking unit holder lists, trust documents, insurance policies be severly punished.  Namely, codify amounts that can be charged and penalties of 10 times the difference.  (Legisalating that this must be covered by insurance policies.) Such requests to be fulfilled within 1 week.  Penalty $1000 a day. In paper or electronic format.  Electronic format must be text searchable.

10. Total ban on related party transactions by unlisted trusts when any director or officer or their family or associates of the related party owns shared in the related party or party related to the related party and has a loan secured by those shares.

11. Fix up the notification of variations in chapter 2K. E.g. any drawn down of a facilities of 10% of the value of facility brought about by something like a 'transaction document' is to be regarded as a change in the terms of the charge. Massive punitive measures where company anouncements conflict with the credit facility as well as some sort of automatic ASIC litigation measures in the legislation for breaches. 

12.  Take punitive $$ legal action against Deloitte for failing in their duties and putting themselves in a position whereby PTQ now has an arguable case that Deloitte has a conflict of interest.

13. Any draw down of a credit facility by a fund (e.g the facility PIF had with RBS) of more than 10% of current value (audited value within the previous 3 months) be reported to the shareholders/credit holders within a week. And/or, mandatory reporting to shareholders/unit holders of new credit facilities or where existing facilities have been extended, or/and drawn down by 50% AND 75% AND 90%. Penalty - automatic administration. 

And a reminder why this is a good idea.  Most of the damage to PIF occured from late 2007 when OCV was on the ropes. Even after the freeze on PIF, Guy Hutchings was authorizing MFS Living and Leisure drawing $$$ out of the fund according to Scott Rochford http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/new...up-leisure-unit/2008/02/13/1202760399558.html


----------



## Duped (26 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> From memory that 2nd mortgage loan of approx $20 matured in Dec 2008. I would expect the outstanding loan is accruing interest at 25% in these difficult times as I understand that is the going rate!!!! Seamisty




I wish.  Then again, if the secured creditor has also been accruing penalty rates then I'd guess PIF's junk mortgage will be completely wiped out and we can kiss another 6%-7% of our 'value' goodbye.  Another dog of a loan.

What did JH say about going after the previous RE's insurers? Not worth it?  Maybe WC should reconsider. $20M is beginning to look like a big % of our dwindling fund.


----------



## seamisty (26 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> From memory that 2nd mortgage loan of approx $20 matured in Dec 2008. I would expect the outstanding loan is accruing interest at 25% in these difficult times as I understand that is the going rate!!!! Seamisty



OOPS!! Sorry duped, I meant $20mill!!!!! Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (26 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well, Someone is interested in PIF - 235,705 units sold today @ 14 cents!!


----------



## Blueboy1 (27 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Indians' $70m offer for resort no mirage

Nick Nichols, business editor   |  October 26th, 2009

SHERATON Mirage could be the first cab off the rank in a potential multi-million-dollar spending spree on the Gold Coast by a new wave of wealthy Indian investors.

Veteran property figures Peter Madrers and Paul Brinsmead have brokered a $70 million deal for the Sheraton Mirage from the ashes of their development company Resort Corp.

While a contract is yet to be signed, the Resort Corp directors have established a new entity, Pearls Australasia, to seek more property opportunities in Australia, focusing on major trophy assets on the tourism strip.

The Madrers-Brinsmead link to the Sheraton deal has raised eyebrows among creditors to Resort Corp, which faltered earlier this year with debts of $300 million.

The company was kept alive through a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) in May.

The DOCA, described as a 'quasi-receivership' by administrator David Clout, involved the sale of all company assets in the next 30 months to repay creditors.

Mr Brinsmead and Mr Madrers met the wealthy Indian developers, Nirmal Bhangoo and Gurpartap Singh, during a campaign to sell Resort Corp assets in India.

This led to the Indians deciding to make a pitch for the Sheraton Mirage, which was placed into receivership last year by St George Bank.

The Indian investors are understood to be vying for the Sheraton Mirage under a separate entity to Pearls Australasia, a Burleigh Heads-based company registered on September 1.

The Indians are directors of Pearls Australasia, as are Mr Madrers, Mr Brinsmead and Brisbane-based property industry figure David Higgins.

The Indian investors own a single A-class and B-class share in Pearls Australasia, while MBH Holdings, directed by Mr Brinsmead and Mr Madrers, holds one C-class share.

The ultimate shareholders in MBH are Sally Madrers and Heidi Brinsmead, the respective wives of the Resort Corp directors who will share in any profit generated from the Indian-backed ventures.

One Resort Corp creditor, who declined to be named, said the Sheraton deal did not breach any of the terms of the Resort Corp DOCA.

"I just hope they (Mr Brinsmead and Mr Madrers) have the best interests of Resort Corp creditors at heart," he said.

Jenny Hutson, chair of Wellington Capital which controls the Sheraton's second mortgagee the Premium Income Fund (PIF), yesterday confirmed a deal was on the table for the property by Indian parties. She could not say how much of the $20 million owed to PIF would be recovered from a $70 million sale.

But Ms Hutson said there 'would be something in it for PIF investors'.

St George Bank, as first mortgagee, is owed $60 million plus costs from the property.

Something in it for PIF investors........ I should hope so!
Blueboy1


----------



## gardie (27 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Morning all

A while ago I posted a question about why dont unit holders take control of the fund themselves through their own RE. Alternatively there are RE's out there for hire such as Huntleys for example who would allow investors to take an active role.

There was no real response but again with the likely sale of the mirage this is another example of a manager just accepting the position and not acting as a turn around specialist.

Why havent they gone out and sought a partner. Get 10 million in from partner and take a 50% stake. The world is turning out there so why sit back and take another hair cut when often all these assets need is to be removed from the taint of receivership.

Living and Leisure and Geo were other examples of opportunities that were sold with LLA in particular going to show that it is a great long term cash producing business. The fund was in a great position to take a cornerstone stake in LLA and instead Artic got control and the fund took a bath.

The danger is the the assets of the fund that offer opportunity are being cherry picked and only the crap will be left behind.


----------



## Duped (27 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for the name gardie.  Got any more.  I called about 3 possible RE's about a year ago.  None were interested.  I think you might be right - WC are beginning to look like they're one dimensional. Any last hope I had that WC were investment managers rather than just an administrator are fading.


----------



## mellifuous (27 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Thanks for the name gardie.  Got any more.  I called about 3 possible RE's about a year ago.  None were interested.  I think you might be right - WC are beginning to look like they're one dimensional. Any last hope I had that WC were investment managers rather than just an administrator are fading.




Remember, you'll have to amend your constitution to erase the $8m 'kick me out' clause .. that's take 75% + 1 vote.  Otherwise you'll give your present manager a nice going away present.

change of manager, 50% + 1 vote.


----------



## JohnH (27 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Remember, you'll have to amend your constitution to erase the $8m 'kick me out' clause .. that's take 75% + 1 vote.  Otherwise you'll give your present manager a nice going away present.
> 
> change of manager, 50% + 1 vote.




Doubt whether it would stand up in court, but there are about 900 witness's who heard JH state that if we deemed she hadn't performed, she would not take the payout!!!!


----------



## seamisty (27 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Doubt whether it would stand up in court, but there are about 900 witness's who heard JH state that if we deemed she hadn't performed, she would not take the payout!!!!



JohnH, I am sure I read on here where some investors have documented evidence from that meeting where that was stated. 900 statuatory declarations could not be ignored in my opinion and not only has JH not performed, the PIF is in retreat. 

Quote:::'A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad.' 
Theodore Roosevelt
I rest my case!! Seamisty


----------



## marcom (27 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am hopeful there may be an another path to changing our RE. The OCV liquidator *may* be able to retrieve the fund from WC as part of the OCV liquidation process. This would then allow investors to vote for a new RE based on a proper independent analysis of PIF’s potential. Some of the issues that may trigger such an outcome are:

-	The comments in McMurdo’s  judgement regarding OCVs insolvent trading and whether the WIM transaction was valid
-	The clouded circumstances surrounding the “sale” of PIF by the OCV Board
-	The status of the $5M held in OCV Administration transferred to WC
-	The misappropriation of RBS loan funds by OCV
-	The transfer of the dud loans into PIF to cover OCV’s insolvency
-	High legal fees incurred by WC which have funded court action in which McMurdo described as going beyond WC’s position as a creditor
-	The repayment of the RBS loan by WC under circumstances where it was known that the loan was increased by a misappropriation and legal action had been commenced.

Some of these issues will also be covered in our class action but the more recent ones should be looked at for inclusion. Currently it is only WIM that is a respondent – WC should also be sued particularly in the light of the withdrawal of assistance with documents to support our class action. If WC is unable to manage the fund properly and will not assist investors to recover damages what use are they!


----------



## mellifuous (27 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Doubt whether it would stand up in court, but there are about 900 witness's who heard JH state that if we deemed she hadn't performed, she would not take the payout!!!!




Well, I'd guess that a vote would put it to bed once and for all, rather than get into protracted litigation - IMO



marcom said:


> I am hopeful there may be an another path to changing our RE. The OCV liquidator *may* be able to retrieve the fund from WC as part of the OCV liquidation process.




If OCV was the manager of the fund and doesn't  'own' the fund, then wouldn't the fund  be a no-go zone for OCV's liquidator?


----------



## marcom (27 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The liquidator would not have any call on the assets of the fund.

But as OCVIM (an Octaviar entity) was the previous RE and the "sale" of the RE by OCV to WIM could be voided, the current RE should have to retire and a new RE installed by a vote of investors.

However,if the 'sale" to WIM was voided, JH may then try to argue that investors voted to accept WC as RE and that outcome should prevail. However, that vote was achieved on the basis of several key documented promises which have not been fulfilled - something ASIC may well be interested in as it sought to have the vote documentation clarified in the Supreme Court last year.

Essentially if the original "sale" was voided and JH contended that she had the investor vote, I am sure that an investor protest to ASIC could achieve intervention to have a new vote under the circumstances.


----------



## mellifuous (27 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Essentially if the original "sale" was voided and JH contended that she had the investor vote, I am sure that an investor protest to ASIC could achieve intervention to have a new vote under the circumstances.




I'll butt out on this issue  after this post.

All of the issues you raise would be remedied by a meeting, and as investors in the fund, you have the power (pursuant to the corporations act) to call a meeting.

Why try to seek ASIC's sympathy?  You won't find sympathy there.

Why try to argue in the Supreme Court about she said this, did that?  The outcome of a court case is unpredictable, even if you think you have a good case. 

Why not just go ahead and have a meeting? -- Proposal 1 - amend the constitution to erase the $8m - and, Proposal 2 - to intall XYZ as manager.

I'd also like to add that it's worthwhile to vet the new manager and ensure that you will have confidence.  I can only say from our experience in the FMF, that running from one manager  into the 'arms' of another is not a smart move, unless (as we were), you are compelled to make the run.

But, I really do wish you well.


----------



## selciper (27 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Marcom's observation regarding WC's apparent withdrawal of assistance in providing documents to push along our class action is a timely reminder of a very disappointing decision. Perhaps they are now co-operating, but if they aren't, the WC board must surely understand that by this disappointing backflip, they have put many PIF investors' minds into overdrive. We are now asking ourselves "for what reasons are we being let down so badly?" 

Too many adverse results and broken promises are piling up to feel comfortable with the WC operation.

It's true that the OCV liquidation public hearings may provide some answers to our questions, but in the meantime we just watch our situation getting worse...


----------



## Cookie1 (27 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I just saw this article from the Business Spectator www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf...ro-ASIC-pd20091022-X2QZZ?OpenDocument&src=kgb

What does this mean for our PIF class action against KPMG and others? A Federal Court has ruled that class actions must be registered as "Managed Investment Schemes" with a PDS etc. They must be kidding!


" THE KGB DOSSIER: THURSDAY, 22 OCTOBER 2009 by Alan Kohler 

*Registering investor rage
*
Is the Centro action filed by ASIC yesterday really a test case? Surely there isn’t a director in the land who does not think he or she is responsible for what’s in the accounts. All directors that I know certainly act as if they are.

If James Hardie directors were held responsible for a press release they didn’t see, then how much more accountable are all directors for the balance sheet, P&L and directors’ report that they spend a week poring over before actually signing?

The idea that directors can sign off the accounts and then go “Oh whoops, sorry” if there’s a big mistake in them is plainly absurd, and no director really thinks that. Mind you, they will wriggle out of it if at all possible, so the Centro case will be hard fought and controversial.

In my view the more important legal development on this subject this week was the ruling on Tuesday by the Federal Court that all shareholder class actions are managed investment schemes (MIS), and must be registered as such.

Having filed its long-awaited non-test case against the directors of Centro, ASIC should now quickly issue a blanket exemption for class actions against having to register as MISs.

On Tuesday the Federal Court, in a majority two to one judgment, ruled that all class actions were actually MISs and that the one against Multiplex – the subject of the case – was invalid because it hadn’t been registered with ASIC.

The case was on appeal by the defendant, Multiplex, after Mr Justice Finkelstein ruled against it. That means two Federal Court judges think class actions are MISs and two think they’re not; the majority ruling by the Full Court means, at this stage, that they are.

This is ridiculous, and can’t be allowed to stand. It would mean that only “sophisticated investors”, as defined by MIS regulations, would be able to bring class actions to recover their money because of the nuisance of registering an MIS, along with Product Disclosure Statement and the rest of it.

Unless ASIC exempts shareholder class actions then it will have to launch all proceedings against the directors.

There is already a class action against Centro directors over the same issue at the centre of ASIC’s claim – that directors mis-classified about $2.5 billion of debt as non-current in the 2007 accounts, when it was, in fact, current.

A cross-claim was filed by the company against its auditors, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, but so far no direct actions against the auditor. It’s expected they won’t be long arriving.

But perhaps the people most interested in the future of class action law are those running credit ratings agencies.

There is potentially a great dam of actions against ratings agencies that’s about to break, including in Australia. Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch would like nothing better than for these to become managed investment schemes requiring a PDS and registration, although most of the claimants would probably by “sophisticated investors” (an ironic term, perhaps, in the case of those who bought CDOs).

Two claims against ratings agencies have been filed in the US over the ratings of structured investment vehicles like CDOs – one by Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank and another by California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS).

It is likely that if either of those lawsuits succeed then enough class actions will be filed against Moody’s, S&P and Fitch over their ratings of CDOs and other SIVs, to send them broke several times over. 

It’s the last shoe of the global financial crisis to drop. "


----------



## seamisty (27 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

just saw this article from the Business Spectator http://www.businessspectator.com.au/...cument&src=kgb

What does this mean for our PIF class action against KPMG and others? A Federal Court has ruled that class actions must be registered as "Managed Investment Schemes" with a PDS etc. They must be kidding!

Cookie1 my information is that IMF are covered but at this point are the only litigation funders in Australia that are. Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (27 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks, Seamisty; I thought you might know where we stand. I'm pleased to learn that with IMF we're OK!


----------



## breaker1 (27 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*SHEDDING SOME LIGHT ON KPMG PRACTICES* - it appears they have a character trait - thanks for the article "L" 
*Breaker*

o Nick Mathiason
          o The UK Observer, Sunday 25 October 2009
          o Article history

To be fair, it was not an item to set the financial news pages alight. Few noticed when, two months ago, the all-powerful Securities and Exchange Commission on Wall Street forced General Electric, the world's biggest company, to restate two years' worth of accounts.

Accused by the SEC of four separate accounting violations, GE, while not admitting guilt, paid out $50m to settle the case last August. During the investigation, it appeared one of GE's "issues" was its apparent need to avoid a $200m hit to its profits caused by a hedging position that went wrong.

The SEC filing claimed that KPMG, GE's auditors, "rejected" accountancy measures to avoid the hit. But after several redrafts, KPMG approved the numbers and GE's hedges were reduced to manageable proportions. While GE endured the regulator's attention, KPMG is silent when asked why it has so far seemingly escaped scrutiny.

For KPMG, read the entire global auditing industry. As bankers take a kicking from an increasingly irate public, auditors have avoided the anger, even though they signed off trillion-dollar balance sheets, sanctioned increased dividends in bank shares that collapsed months later, blithely assumed markets would function seamlessly and established controversial rules that inflated bubbles and amplified losses.

It is why one fund manager dubbed the profession an army of Morlocks – the fictional troglodyte characters from HG Wells's Time Machine who spend their lives underground, away from the light.

The fact that auditors have not been brought to book for their role in the crisis is causing frustration and alarm to a growing number of politicians, regulators, fund managers and academics.

But the G20 and, in particular, the European Commission are beginning to ask questions about apparent conflicts of interest and the seeming cosy self-regulatory structures that govern what is a pivotal financial function: an investor's first line of defence in assessing the viability of the world's biggest and most important companies.

The commission is warning the bean counters' most powerful global organisation, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), that it has just one month to redraw key accountancy laws on how to value assets. Failure to do so in time will make it impossible for the world's biggest companies to state their 2009 accounts.

There is, says the commission, a risk of the London-based IASB, dominated by former KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers staff, being stripped of its power as a global rule-setter. In a number of European states, this would be seen as a victory over a disliked UK institution.

It comes as the Observer understands one European government has launched a scoping exercise to establish whether it is possible to sue the profession in one hit. Any such action, it is believed, would be on the basis that accountants took the lead in regulating themselves, setting international standards while also advising audit clients, and so are partly responsible for the financial mess.

While experts believe it will be at least another year before the trickle of legal actions launched so far becomes a flood, there have been developments. Last Tuesday, KPMG was named in a civil lawsuit for its role as auditor for Bernard Madoff, who perpetrated the world's biggest financial fraud. KPMG has issued no comment.

And all eyes are on the first case due to come before courts in America, where KPMG is being sued for $1bn (£690m) in damages by the trustee of a collapsed US sub-prime lender, New Century Financial. KPMG is accused of conducting "reckless and grossly negligent audits" that failed to show the lender's financial problems. The auditing firm has denied any wrongdoing.

It is hardly surprising that KPMG's name crops up so regularly. A trawl through the list of failed banks reveals the same audit names over and over again, because multinational auditing is the near-exclusive preserve of four firms - PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, Ernst & Young and Deloitte & Touche.

The roll call of shamed institutions links PricewaterhouseCoopers to Northern Rock, Landsbanki, Carlyle Capital Corporation and Glitnir. Deloitte & Touche signed off Alliance & Leicester, RBS and Bear Stearns. KPMG did the numbers for HBOS, Kaupthing, and Bradford & Bingley, while Ernst & Young had the big one: Lehman Brothers.

"The cosy cabal which cocoons management and auditors has failed us," says Emile Woolf, an internationally respected forensic accountant who acts as a consultant for accountancy firm Kingston Smith. "Take HBOS: the 'independent' experts selected by the bank to review its risk manager's allegations concerning its insane business model just happened to be the bank's own auditors, who concluded, after vetting compliance (but not strategy), that there were no serious failings in corporate governance. Their fees... are reported to have exceeded £100m in the past eight years."

"Auditors have got away with murder," suggests one senior fund manager. "Why did they allow banks to pay out dividends that months later crashed?"

There is no one answer to that question. Some suggest the evolution of mark-to-market accounting – valuing assets in line with what the going rate is rather than what they originally cost or whatever is the lowest price – is central to auditors failing to look behind their assumptions.

Mark-to-market was born in 1993, according to the US's Brookings Institution thinktank. It was a reaction, it says, to the US savings and loan bank crisis, which was exacerbated by assets valued at what they originally cost rather than current value.

The subsequent remedy swung completely the other way at a time when the world was entering a 15-year growth cycle. The result, suggest some analysts, was that mark-to-market exaggerated the boom because it allowed banks and private equity to borrow on assets whose value was seen to be continually rising.

But others are less sure. The SEC last December pointed out that 31% of bank assets were reported using the fair value measure, rather than mark-to-market, as of first-quarter 2008. "Banks generally carried investment securities, trading assets, and derivatives at fair value."

For decades, auditors have enjoyed self-regulation. This has led to senior accountants, mainly from PricewaterhouseCoopers and KPMG, assuming rule-making status. Many argue that this apparent conflict of interest has led to auditors skilfully deflecting blame for failing to spot glaring black holes or fraud at a range of institutions from Enron to Madoff and the failed banks.

UK forensic accountant Richard Murphy says: "The fundamental question is how accountants got away with changing rules of accountancy, which state they don't have to assess the valuation of assets underlying the assets on a balance sheet. How did they get away with changing the audit rules?"

A source at the IASB, which is responsible for setting accountancy rules in virtually every country bar the US says: "There are lessons to be learned. There are enhancements we need to make. The question is about the root causes [of the financial crisis] and they are pretty clear. Bad lending decisions, poor risk management, rating agencies, lack of investor oversight. I would suggest auditing and accounting is low on the list."

"The profession has been fudging the independence issue for decades," says Woolf. "If that is not sorted soon, someone else will have to do the work – but properly."

In his book on the Equity Funding Corporation fraud – the Enron of the 1970s – Raymond Dirks wrote: "If routine auditing procedures cannot detect 64,000 phony insurance policies, $25m in counterfeit bonds and $100m in missing assets, what is the purpose of audits?" More than 30 years later, investors are asking themselves the same questions.


----------



## seamisty (27 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Interesting article Breaker. Another quote comes to mind which is appropiate in my opinion:::'No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it.' 
Theodore Roosevelt 

It is quite obvious there is a trend being exposed re just how much protection investors did not have in managed funds etc because what was offered and what we got was not only exploited and manipulated by directors and other staff, the compliance and safety nets that were 'window dressing' to lure investors was just that!!! These funds have not only been previously exploited, manipulated and robbed, the wrongdoings have been protected from being exposed from so called  professional auditors!! This issue is not going to go away, in fact, I think very soon there will be investigations more complex than the fund structures themselves. Seamisty


----------



## selciper (28 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This 08 Sydney Morning Herald article is a reminder of how we were to become Wellington PIF. 

----------

Scott cements Octaviar coup with new chief and new deal
SCOTT ROCHFORT
May 9, 2008

THE management and boardroom coup at Octaviar by the Singapore-based businessman Chris Scott appeared all but complete yesterday, after the former Liberal Party leader Andrew Peacock quit his chairmanship at the stricken financial company formerly known as MFS.

Two months after the elusive businessman began his drive to install his own people on the Octaviar board, Mr Scott has wasted little time putting his stamp on the company - just five days after the resignation of the former chief executive Craig White.

In a market statement Octaviar announced the appointment of one of Mr Scott's close associates, Craig Chapman, as its new chief. It also outlined plans to sell its investment management arm to Wellington Capital, an investment firm closely linked to Mr Scott.

Octaviar announced it had entered into a "call option deed" granting Wellington Capital rights to buy the management rights over five unlisted Octaviar funds, including the $1 billion Premium Income Fund - where the deposits of its 11,000 unit holders remain frozen.

Octaviar's new "independent" chairman, Paul Manka, said: "The board has recognised it is not in the best interests of creditors, shareholders and other company stakeholders for Octaviar IM to remain a wholly owned subsidiary."

Mr Scott, who inherited a large shareholding in Octaviar through the sale of his listed leisure business S8 two years ago, did not return the Herald's calls.

Wellington Capital's managing director, Jenny Hutson, who joined the Octaviar board last week as part of Mr Scott's coup, said she expected the final purchase price - judging by the current performance of the business - to be "north of $20 million".

This is a far cry from the $1.33 billion that Octaviar's financial services business was worth when its rival, City Pacific, lobbed a merger proposal for it in January.

Ms Hutson said there was nothing untoward in the transaction, which will result in Wellington earning management fees from the funds.

Wellington made $9.2 million in fees and commissions last financial year. Ms Hutson said she would act in the best interests of unit holders in the funds, arguing that she would pursue a $50 million debt from Octaviar and the $67 million owed by MFS Living and Leisure to the Premium Income Fund.

"Our interests are quite different to the people in the Octaviar group," she said.

Ms Hutson noted that Mr Scott was no longer a director or shareholder of Wellington Capital.

-------


----------



## Duped (28 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Does the fact that this was all out in the public domain weaken PTQ's case against WC's acquisition of the PIF RE?


----------



## mellifuous (28 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I've posted the first rough draft of a proposed 'investors' letter' on the 'Managed Fund Co-operation Group' thread for comment if anyone is interested.

It's also available here:-

http://www.moneymagik.com/investors_letter.php

Thanks.


----------



## Duped (28 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Wellington Capital certainly is appropriately named.  WellCap.com.au  They've put a cap on the well from which we used to draw funds. They don't seem to have capped the seepage.  Our funds are seeping away underground.


----------



## seamisty (28 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

For someone who took their NSX listing obligations seriously, thus preventing JH from adhering to her promise of 'openess and transparency' due to strict 'NSX guide lines', she sure is taking her time to inform investors she did not cooperate with Carney lawyers as promised re the Class Action and legal proceedings have NOT been DISCONTINUED and WIML is still a named respondant in said Class Action!! Nearly two momnths on from the last NSX  PIN announcement and this incorrect information has still not been updated!!! Who is responsible for  regulating information posted on the NSX????? How many PIF investors still have faith in JH because they think even though she FAILED to DELIVER on nearly all other promises she is compensating by letting them believe she is helping them by assisting our lawyers???? Seamisty

Sorry, can't help myself, another qoute from 'Teddy':::It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things. 
Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## selciper (29 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

"Escapology is the practice of escaping from restraints or other traps. Escapologists (also called escape artists) escape from handcuffs, straitjackets, cages, coffins, steel boxes, barrels, bags, burning buildings, fish-tanks and other perils, often in combination."


----------



## seamisty (30 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

According to the NSX, we have a trading halt. Perhaps we will get an update? Yes, see below.Seamisty
PREMIIIM INCOME FtlllD (NSXIN) - REQUEST FOR TRADING HALT
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund requests a trading halt on the
trading of units in Premium Income Fund. The reasons for the requested trading halt are to ensure that there
is an informed market in the trading of units in Premium Income Fund through the release of a fund update
announcement.
The Fund considers that the trading halt would last for 48 hours or until the making of an announcement by
the Fund, whichever occurs first.
V/ellington Capital Limited is not aware of any reason why the trading halt should not be granted.
Kind regards
Jenny Hutson
Director
Wellington Capital Limited
as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund
ACN I 14 248 458 AFSL 291 652
Phone 1300 854 885
Fax 1300 854 893
Email
#1 8l 58
Level22 307 Queen Street Brisbane Qld 4000 GPO Box 694 Brisbane Qld 4001
T 1300


----------



## seamisty (30 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I see Wellington Capital http://www.wellcap.com.au/ has finally posted an update on its site :::'In September 2008 the Australian Securities and Investments Commission released ASIC Regulatory
Guide 46 – Unlisted Property Schemes – Improving Disclosure for Retail Investors.'

I am particularly interested in the fact that all loans related to other Wellcap projects are 'bank' orientated  and do not exceed 7%!!!

More in line with what one would expect to pay when rates are at historic 49 year lows. I think PIF investors will be starting to ask more questions and expect to receive honest answers. Seamisty


----------



## charles36 (31 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty, what you expect and what you will receive are two entirely foreign entities as you well know.  I was reading my stars the other day and they indicated, "If you don't know what you are dealing with, how can you develop a credible plan for dealing with it? That's why people often prefer the devil they know to the one they don't.  The trouble is, devils are devils.  They like to lull folk into a false sense of security.  They connive with our inner demons to produce misplaced confidence.  As long as we reckon we know what we are up against, we won't notice them siirring up more trouble behind our backs."  (Does this ring a bell with anyone)  

On a serious note there are people behind the scenes actively working to find the right solution to our problems and I simply ask for people to exercise a little patience and caution.  Our next step is forward up the ladder not two steps back everytime.  Best of luck to all who read the forum and of course to those who contributre regularly.


----------



## communique (31 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

At last!!!!  

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/10/31/153831_gold-coast-business.html


----------



## wally3218 (31 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> Our next step is forward up the ladder not two steps back everytime.  Best of luck to all who read the forum and of course to those who contributre regularly.



Totally agree we can'nt go down any further were all ready on the bottom rung of the ladder. If we did go lower, bugger the ladder we will need spades to start digging a hole and I know who I would love to see put in it too.


----------



## seamisty (31 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Very interesting article Communique. I will post the full article. Seamisty

Source: Gold Coast Bulletin






 MFS cops $147.5m claim from watchdog
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  October 31st, 2009

THE corporate watchdog has finally moved on failed financial services giant MFS, launching a $147.5 million action against former directors, including chief executive Michael King.

The claim, which makes sensational allegations of falsified documents, is dwarfed by the $2.3 billion owed to creditors, but it is the first tangible move by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission against the Gold Coast company since its implosion almost two years ago.

It also comes a week after ASIC launched action against directors of Centro Properties Group over alleged failings in the company's accounts.

ASIC yesterday filed the claim in the Supreme Court of Queensland to recover money from a number of former MFS directors, as well as a senior manager, after an 18-month investigation.

Along with Mr King, the action has named former directors Craig White, Guy Hutchings and David Anderson.

Mr Anderson, the former chief financial officer, is still with the company, now known as Octaviar, assisting liquidators.


ASIC's strongly documented claim focuses on the transfer of $147.5 million from the Premium Income Fund (PIF) to MFS in the months leading up to the $4 billion company's collapse.

The funds were allegedly used in part to repay a $103 million debt to financier Fortress Capital as MFS, at the time, is said to have had just $40 million in the bank.

ASIC alleges the payment, in November 2007, was authorised by Mr Anderson.

It further alleges Mr King, knowing MFS had insufficient funds to repay the loan, did nothing to prevent this money being drawn from the fund. ASIC lists a series of emails between various parties to support its claims.


It further alleges MFS created 'false financial documents' to 'disguise' the payment from PIF, which held about $800 million in investor funds, most of it the life savings of retirees.

One investor, who declined to be named, yesterday said this is the 'action investors have been waiting for' over 18 months.

The action also has been welcomed by Mr King who yesterday declared he would be 'absolutely' lodging a defence.

"It's really important that we finally get these matters out in the open," he said. "We're really looking forward to having this resolved in an open court."

Mr King told The Gold Coast Bulletin earlier this month that an open examination would uncover the 'true causes' of the MFS failure and the 'true people' behind that failure.

ASIC is seeking that all people named in the action be disqualified from managing a corporation.

MFS was founded by Mr King and Phil Adams, two lawyers who built a property and financial empire worth more than $4 billion at its peak in 2007. Mr Adams resigned as director in early 2007 and has been in Dubai since.


----------



## marcom (31 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quote: "If you don't know what you are dealing with, how can you develop a credible plan for dealing with it? That's why people often prefer the devil they know to the one they don't. The trouble is, devils are devils. They like to lull folk into a false sense of security. They connive with our inner demons to produce misplaced confidence. As long as we reckon we know what we are up against, we won't notice them siirring up more trouble behind our backs." (Does this ring a bell with anyone)

Charles36 fitting thoughts for this Halloween - looks like we are finally starting to exorcise our devils!:evilburn:


----------



## charles36 (31 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

You are right Marcom, the lights are on and there is someone at home.  You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.  Stay tuned.  Like your posts.


----------



## Cookie1 (31 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Here is an article from today's Weekend Financial Review also to do with ASIC going after MFS executives.


----------



## seamisty (31 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Cookie1 said:


> Here is an article from today's Weekend Financial Review also to do with ASIC going after MFS executives.



Thanks Cookie!! Your a legend!! This is a MUST READ!! It just gets beter and better. I hope ASIC can move faser than JH to catch Michael King and cohorts because JH has been on the battlefield chasing M King since 26th June last year and still hasn't caught him!!!!!!Seamisty


----------



## selciper (31 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There will be three open hearings: the ASIC case, the Liquidator's examinations and the Class Action. We finally do seem to be seeing favourable signs. We certainly deserve them! And it does demonstrate that those of us who contacted ASIC didn't waste our time after all.


----------



## Jadel (31 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yes Selciper I think everybody who took the time and effort to contact ASIC and place a submission to the Parliamentary Enquiry should be commended for their efforts.


----------



## marcom (31 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just to remind you about MFSIM's dynamic duo, here is a piece from the Sydney Morning Herald's CBD column on 11 Feb 2008:

*Mark their words*

Investor, a glossy magazine published by MFS and left in the lobbies of MFS hotels and properties, features golf tournaments sponsored by MFS, interrogating pieces on MFS products *and illuminating interviews with MFS executives.*

Take the December edition, which features *an illuminating interview with Guy Hutchings, the chief executive of MFS Investment Management, and one of his fund managers, Marilyn Watts.*

Hutchings runs the MFS Premium Income Fund, which manages about $770 million in funds and two weeks ago put a stop on punter withdrawals for six months, given the few issues the company is facing.

The parent company MFS remains suspended from trade as it tries to shore up its debt position with moves including emergency asset sales like the Stella tourism group.

Hutchings's breezy chat with Watts began with some of the broad challenges ahead. *But, oh, the irony of what was around the corner.*

Hutchings: "The US subprime debt problem looks like it will take a while yet to sort out."

Watts: "Yes, I think it will be well into 2008 before they see the worst of it."

Gosh, hope it's not going to get too much worse.

And among Hutchings's thoughts just weeks before MFS and its funds hit the skids: "I see the main risk from this US subprime problem being the flow-on effects to other borrowers around the globe. We still don't know which banks or other companies are holding the bulk of the losses. *It's been the parcelling up of those dud loans and their on-selling to other banks and investors that is causing the current credit market problems."* Oh, dear.

There's more from Hutchings. "Corporate America - and for that matter Corporate Australia - have their borrowing costs hitched to the wholesale money market rates."

Watts was a touch prescient: "I think investors this year [2007] have had quite a few surprises sprung on them *and next year [2008] will probably be no different."*

*Watts even gave some tips on the importance of "actually understanding what you are investing in. There is no substitute for doing your own homework."*

So there you go, straight from the horses mouth! - and we didn't really understand what they were trying to tell us.


----------



## charles36 (31 October 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Can anyone recall the statement made by M/S Hutson that the directors and former RE only probably would have a million dollars between them and it was not worth spending a million dollars in legal expenses to pursue them.  I am waiting to see what statement is made to the NSX within 48 hours from Friday by M/S Hutson as I guess we all are.


----------



## mellifuous (1 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Re: Costs to list on the NSX

DUDWEISERS

"... The Newcastle Stock Exchange-listed beer maker Brewtopia Limited has taken the mantle for possibly the smallest corporate transaction of the year.

The firm is pressing on with plans to sell its beer operations for $10 after plans to outsource its operations to the Wetherill Park label manufacturer AC Labels last November appear to have backfired.

*In the group's recent annual report, the chief executive, Liam Mulhall, described the original outsourcing deal as a ''major milestone''.

''We doubled our production capacity during this time and our revenues reflect [this] for the period,*'' he reasoned.

But now Brewtopia has been forced to sell its beer business to AC Labels in order to extinguish the debts racked up over the outsourcing deal.

''*The operational challenges and costs associated with maintaining a listing on the NSX has led the company to be in debt to its supplier,* AC Labels Pty Ltd,'' Mulhall explained. ..."

{Emphasis mine}

http://www.smh.com.au/business/inspector-d-releases-the-news-hounds-20091004-ghv4.html

Is the NSX really expensive?


----------



## selciper (1 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From Investor Weekly:

MFS fund unfazed by credit squeeze

By Vishal Teckchandani
Mon 05 Nov 2007

Research house Lonsec has maintained its investment grade rating for the MFS Premium Income Fund (MFSIM) following a recent review.

MFSIM fund manager Marilyn Watts said the fund was unaffected by this year's financial market volatility and credit crunch.

The $796 million fund had been structured for income dependability for investors who wanted monthly distributions, Lonsec said. 

MFSIM invests in commercial loans, property-backed managed investment schemes, assets, cash and fixed interest securities.


----------



## marcom (1 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> Can anyone recall the statement made by M/S Hutson that the directors and former RE only probably would have a million dollars between them and it was not worth spending a million dollars in legal expenses to pursue them.




charles36,  In a report on the Brisbane forum (post 706 page 36 7/7/08) DoraNBoots reported:

"Q:  Are you pursuing people like Guy (Hutchings) for PI?

JH:  As a group they only have $20mill PI that could be pursued and this is a tiny amount in relation to the fund."

Dora also commented: "I find this kind of answer very frustrating. She didn’t answer the question but it indicates to me the answer is no. I think every cent should be pursued; $20mill should not be scoffed at!"


I was at the Newcastle forum and recall that JH said the same thing and said something like "it is not worth spending $1Million of fund money to pursue PI worth only $20m." There was a comment from the floor to the effect that "$20m is a lot of money and should be pursued", to which JH replied "is it retribution that you want!", she then went on to another question.


----------



## charles36 (1 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Marcom, I was the same meeting and heard the same comments but I also heard her say that she would chase them to the end of 'THE WORLD' which I thought at the time was odd because most people say the earth, what good would it be to chase someone to the end of the world, we would not be here to see the result.  Cheers.


----------



## breaker1 (1 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

JH may think the end of the world *is* near!!!

See what Wellington gives for the NSX trading halt then...?

Regarding ASIC's claim in the Supreme Court of Australia, Mr King tells us that he is looking forward to the truth coming out regarding the MFS & PIF failures >  :grinsking    :casanova:



Just to inform - IMF Aust will shortly be sending out an update on matters class related - possibly this week sometime - to signed up class members is my understanding.


----------



## marcom (2 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

charles36,  That quote was also in an article in The Australian on 26/6/08:

"I will chase that $147 million to the end of the world" Ms Hutson said. "I will stay on the battlefield untill I get it".  http://www.newpif.com.au/articles/AUS_OBIseesred_260608.pdf

Yes it is a very strange mix of metaphors. Is there a battlefield at the end of the world????

But on a more serious note, after telling us all that it would not be cost effective to spend $1m to pursue the OCV directors and officers PI, JH turns around and in 2009 FY spends $2.997m in legal and professional fees the majority of which would have been on the OCV creditors action in the Qld Supreme Court.


----------



## seamisty (2 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

$130m holiday rental dream turns into a nightmare;;; Bridget Carter | November 02, 2009 
Article from:  The Australian 
IT was a $130million waterfront resort promoters promised would become the pride of Port Douglas. Guests would pay a minimum of $1000 a night and investors would secure annual returns on their investment of as much as 7 per cent.

Now some of the 50-odd owners of the villas at the exclusive Peppers Bale Port Douglas, in north Queensland, have joined others around the country in declaring war on the resort's manager -- the former Stella Hospitality Group, rebranded as Mantra. 

Owners of the villas at the resort, where Desperate Housewives star Teri Hatcher is rumoured to have stayed this year, claim Mantra is slashing rates so severely that, after deducting commissions and costs for the property's upkeep and management, they are essentially paying guests to stay. 

Instead of guests being charged $1000 a night, as promised by resort developers MFS and Ray Group, they are being offered villas for as little as $200, the owners say. 

Bruce Gold said he paid the Ray Group more than $1.6m for a villa at the resort. Now his investment was virtually unsaleable and it was costing him more in fees than he was receiving in income from his villa -- one of about 50 individually owned. The majority are managed by Mantra, which is owned by the private equity investor CVC Asia Pacific. 

At a recent mortgagee auction, one of the villas had a reserve of half that price. Mr Gold said he was no longer paying Mantra, which also owned the Peppers brand, for its management services, and claimed other owners, including some overseas, were equally unhappy. "It is not just me. I might be dirty about it, but I'm not the only one," he said. 

Mr Gold said the owners of the villas received only 45 per cent of the income, with funds going to the administrator of the resort owner. 

The resort was part of the MFS group, which was renamed Octaviar after going into administration. 

Mantra chief executive Bob East hit back at the villa owners, saying his company, which was brought in as manager only this year, had not promised the high rages of return. 

"We have come in more recently and put the Peppers brand on top of the Bale brand to give it some market penetration," he said. 

Mr East said it was the owners who had asked Mantra to manage the resort and, with realistic room rates it was approaching break-even. 

"We called in the owners, saying we don't believe in what you are trying to do, we don't believe you are going to get $1000 room rates," he said. "We put realistic room rates into the market and we start running it as we see fit." 

Mr East said the villas were being rented out at market rates. 

"I understand (the owners') situation, but we are there because they paid us a fixed fee to try to get them out of trouble." 

Mantra is facing criticism from other apartment owners around the country, including those who own apartments at the Mantra Circle on Cavill in Surfers Paradise and at the Mantra Ettalong Beach. 

At the Ettalong Beach resort on the NSW central coast, some of the 236 owners are moving to rent out apartments individually. 

Ettalong apartment owner Daryl Lynch said people had gone out on their own after paying about $100,000 more in costs each year than the almost $200,000 they believed would be the original amount. 

"If you don't get enough occupancy you have to keep paying the fees and there is no return," he said. 

Mr Lynch said the project was bought first by Outrigger before being managed by Mantra. 

"Basically, our prospectus for the unit was to have 65 per cent occupancy within two years, conservatively. It is more like 40 per cent." 

Apartment rates were supposed to average about $180 a night, he said, but some nights rooms were $99. 

He had purchased his one-bedroom unit for $340,000, but he would be fortunate to receive $250,000 if it was sold, he said. "Right now, we are subsidising them dramatically." 

At Surfers Paradise, Mantra is in a Federal Court battle with a private operator over the use of its trademark for the Circle on Cavill apartments. 

Private operators of apartments in that building -- those who have elected not to pay commission to Mantra -- were told last week they were no longer able to promote their accommodation on the website roamfree.com.au. 

Roamfree chief executive David Oliver said the contract stated that if a manager of a resort had a problem with private operators using the website, the company would support the manager. 

The company was supporting Mantra because there were situations where private operators were trying to check in guests in the car park, Mr Oliver said. 

"We want to make sure we look after managers and consumers."


----------



## seamisty (2 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well according to the NSX PIN is no longer in a 'trading halt', but no sign of any announcement!!! Seamisty


----------



## breaker1 (2 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Well according to the NSX PIN is no longer in a 'trading halt', but no sign of any announcement!!! Seamisty




Thought trading halts were to ensure that there is an informed market in the trading of units in Premium Income Fund and an announcement to explain?


----------



## seamisty (2 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Thought trading halts were to ensure that there is an informed market in the trading of units in Premium Income Fund and an announcement to explain?



I can't see any purpose to the exercise of requesting a halt then letting it expire without providing the promised fund update unless JH is stalling for time? Something doesn't gel here!!!! I wonder if JH as the RE had acess to the same documents/information that ASIC are using, or for that matter did Deloittes have the same info when they contracted David Anderson? This whole saga is starting to smell worse if that is at all possible!!!!! I hope ASIC come through with the goods. Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (2 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I can't see any purpose to the exercise of requesting a halt then letting it expire without providing the promised fund update unless JH is stalling for time? Something doesn't gel here!!!! I wonder if JH as the RE had acess to the same documents/information that ASIC are using, or for that matter did Deloittes have the same info when they contracted David Anderson? This whole saga is starting to smell worse if that is at all possible!!!!! I hope ASIC come through with the goods. Seamisty




You raise an interesting issue -- and that is access to information.  

ASIC has powers way beyond mere mortal managers.


----------



## seamisty (2 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From ASIC media centre...
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.ns...nst+former+officers+of+MFS+Group?openDocument 

09-214AD ASIC commences civil proceedings against former officers of MFS Group

Monday 2 November 2009


ASIC has commenced civil proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland against three subsidiary companies of the formerly listed MFS Ltd (now known as Octaviar Ltd (in Liquidation) and four former officers and one manager of MFS Investment Management Ltd.

The proceedings relate to the use of $147.5 million in funds of the Premium Income Fund (PIF), for which MFS Investment Management Ltd (‘MFSIM’, now known as Managed Investments Ltd) was the responsible entity at the relevant time. 

In taking this action, ASIC is addressing the core obligations of a responsible entity and its directors and officers to operate the fund with care and diligence, and in the best interest of the fund’s members.

The defendants in the matter are: 


Michael Christodoulou King of Canungra, Queensland, former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Director of MFS Ltd; 
Craig Robert White of Holland Park West, Queensland, former Deputy CEO (and for a short period, CEO) and director of MFS Ltd and MFSIM; 
Guy Hutchings of Paddington, NSW, former CEO and director of MFSIM; 
David Mark Anderson of Robina, Queensland, former CFO and Company Secretary of MFS Ltd; 
Marilyn Anne Watts of West Pennant Hills, NSW, former fund manager of MFSIM; 
Managed Investments Ltd (formerly known as MFSIM and Octaviar Investment Management Ltd); 
Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd (formerly MFS Administration Pty Ltd) (In Liquidation); and 
Octaviar Castle Pty Ltd (formerly MFS Castle Pty Ltd and MFS Investment Holdings No 17 Pty Ltd).

ASIC is seeking orders for declarations of contraventions, pecuniary penalties, compensation and disqualifications from managing corporations. 

A schedule of allegations and orders sought in relation to each defendant is attached.

The transactions:
ASIC alleges that in November 2007, officers of MFSIM caused PIF to transfer $130 million to MFS Administration Pty Ltd so that MFS Administration could use those funds to pay financial obligations of other MFS Ltd subsidiaries, including $103 million owed to Fortress Credit Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd by MFS Castle Pty Ltd. 

ASIC also alleges that in December 2007, officers of MFSIM caused PIF to transfer $17.5 million to MFS Pacific Finance Ltd, a New Zealand registered company (now known as OPI Pacific Finance Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed)).

ASIC further alleges that in about January 2008, officers and the fund manager of MFSIM created and used false documents, relating to the use of the $147.5 million.

As a result of the funds being transferred, ASIC alleges that the PIF suffered a loss of $147.5 million.

Background:
MFS Ltd was a publicly listed company with interests in financial services, travel and leisure and child care businesses.

MFSIM was an unlisted public company and wholly owned subsidiary of MFS Ltd (now in Liquidation). MFSIM was the responsible entity for six unlisted managed investment schemes, including the PIF and the Maximum Yield Fund (‘MYF’). MYF is also relevant to the current civil penalty proceedings.

The PIF was an unlisted managed investment scheme which offered investments to retail and wholesale investors through a Product Disclosure Statement. 

Wellington Capital Ltd took over as responsible entity of the PIF in late 2008. PIF units have since been listed on the National Stock Exchange.


----------



## Duped (2 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Lifting of the trading halt could have been a stuffup by NSX.  Or maybe the need for the halt passed when the ASIC action was made public.  I can't see why WC would halt trading in PIF prior to releasing info on their other trusts. But then again, I'm a lackey.

Question: any $ penalties eventuating from the ASIC action against King and Co, do they go to us or ASIC?  The damage was caused against us Unit holders?  

As for King & Co's PI insurance.  I expect it doesn't cover them for fraud. But should they tap their insurance, does it mean there's less for us Unitholders?  I.e. has ASIC beaten our class action, or any future action by WC, to the PI insurance $$?


----------



## seamisty (2 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well , well well, we are back in HALT!!!!!Seamisty


----------



## Duped (2 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Maybe ASIC were embarrassed into acting now.  Anderson getting another $1Mil odd out of the trough.

seamisty: I read through the ASIC website release. It reads to me that MFSIM transferred the money first, and then created the paper 'assets'.  

I'm waiting on action by ASIC about the false statements in the interim financial report (announced to the ASX on 28 April 2008) that the loan against the Fortress charge had been paid "in full".  Remember what Holmes JA: that the notification regime in chapter 2K was merely to alert creditors to go and find out what the company owes.  Thanks for the decision.  Bit difficult to achieve when the company makes false statements.  So a bit of legislation that was probably set up to balance out companies' public release shennanigans has been hobbled.  Lets hope the High Court sees it as McMurdo did.  Otherwise it's back to the drawing board for the Reps and Senate.


----------



## selciper (2 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There couldn't possibly be panic in the ranks, could there?


----------



## marcom (2 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There you go - the March 2009 Issue of VICDIRECTOR the Victorian chapter of the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) lists Mr Guy Hutchings MAICD Manager, Health Super as having recently completed AICD's Company Directors Course.

See the list at page 3 - http://www.companydirectors.com.au/...B67-4A4B96A0909C/0/AICDVICNewsletterMar09.pdf

The $550 membership and joining fees also entitle members to a range of Member Only services at special rates including D&O Insurance Connect (that's Directors and Officers Insurance).

I am sure all PIF investors will wish Guy hearty CONGRATULATIONS on completing the course!!


----------



## mellifuous (2 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> There couldn't possibly be panic in the ranks, could there?




I'm hoping words like these will strike fear into the hearts of a lot of past and present fund managers:-

"... In taking this action, ASIC is addressing the core obligations of a
responsible entity and its directors and officers to operate the fund with care
and diligence, and in the best interest of the fund's members. ..."

http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/09-214AD+ASIC+commences+civil+pr\ oceedings+against+former+officers+of+MFS+Group?openDocument


----------



## marcom (2 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Is this the earth shattering price sensitive disclosure  http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722118.PDF *listed as Market Disclosure Other!*

Apart from the Court date, all other information was released last Friday - it's a disgrace!!!!!


----------



## marcom (2 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Here is the detailed list of the alleged contraventions and Orders sought from the ASIC news release.

Defendant  Michael King

Alleged contravention*
Section 601FC(5) (duties of a responsible entity)
Section 601FD(3) (duties of officer of responsible entity)
Section 209(2) (related party transactions)

Orders sought
in relation to the payment of $103 million to a related party not for the benefit of PIF members	Pecuniary penalty (max: $200,000 per breach)
Compensation of $103 million
Disqualification from managing corporations

Defendant  Craig White

Alleged contravention*
Section 601FC(5) (duties of a responsible entity)
Section 601FD(3)
Section 209(2)
Section 344(1)

Orders sought in relation to the payment of $147.5 million to a related party not for the benefit of PIF members and the creation of false documents	Pecuniary penalty (max: $200,000 per breach)
Compensation of $147.5 million
Disqualification from managing corporations

Defendant  Guy Hutchings

Alleged contravention*
Section 601FC(5)
Section 601FD(3)
Section 209(2)
Section 344(1)

Orders sought in relation to the payment of $17.5 million to a related party not for the benefit of PIF members and the creation of false documents 	Pecuniary penalty (max: $200,000 per breach)
Compensation of $17.5 million
Disqualification from managing corporations

Defendant  David Anderson

Alleged contravention*
Section 601FC(5)
Section 601FD(3)
Section 209(2)
Section 344(1)

Orders sought in relation to the payment of $147.5 million to a related party not for the benefit of PIF members and the creation of false documents	Pecuniary penalty (max: $200,000 per breach)
Compensation of $147.5 million
Disqualification from managing corporations

Defendant  Marilyn Watts

Alleged contravention*
Section 601FC(5)
Section 601FD(3)
Section 344(1)

Orders soughtin relation to the creation of false documents 	Pecuniary penalty (max: $200,000 per breach)
Disqualification from managing corporations

Defendant  Managed Investments Ltd	

Alleged contravention*
Section 601FC(5)

Orders sought In relation to the payment of $147.5 million to a related party not for the benefit of PIF members and the creation of false documents	Pecuniary penalty (max: $200,000 per breach)
Compensation of $147.5 million

Defendant  Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd

Alleged contravention*
Section 601FC(5)
Section 601FD(3)
Section 209(2)

Orders sought In relation to the payment of $130 million to a related party not for the benefit of PIF members	Pecuniary penalty (max: $200,000 per breach)
Compensation of $130 million

Defendant  Octaviar Castle Pty Ltd

Alleged contravention*
Section 601FC(5)
Section 601FD(3)
Section 209(2)

Orders sought In relation to the payment of $130 million and $103 million to a related party not for the benefit of PIF members. Pecuniary penalty (max: $200,000 per breach)
Compensation of $103 million

* All contraventions are of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cwth).


----------



## simgrund (2 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Here is the detailed list of the alleged contraventions and Orders sought from the ASIC news release.
> 
> Defendant  Michael King
> Compensation of $103 million
> ...


----------



## seamisty (2 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Just to remind you about MFSIM's dynamic duo, here is a piece from the Sydney Morning Herald's CBD column on 11 Feb 2008:
> 
> *Mark their words*
> 
> ...



Yes Marcom, and quoted from the 'dynamic duo' at the end of that article;

M Watts;"Well I think there are plenty of good fund managers who, LIKE US, are well positioned for the opportunities which will no doubt arise over the next few months."

Hutchings; "Thats true, Got time for a coffee?"


Watts; "No, thanks anyway. I've diversified into tea."

The dynamic duo could well be in 'deep poo'oh with some interesting unexpected opportunities!!!!!! Seamisty

Seamisty


----------



## charles36 (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If ASIC is successful Mr. Guy Hutchings recent alleged academic qualification may not be of much use to him but may help a lot of others.  For an indication as to how brazen they all were you  should try and obtain a copy of the presentation video that MFS presented to a hearty Christmas function that we all paid for at the Sebel Hotel, The Rocks, N SW on the 27 November, 2007 wherein they outlined how secure the fund was and the projections for the future.  On the following day, the 28 November, 2007 they removed the $200 million and distributed it in quick style, not to our benefit of course.  Talk about misleading?


----------



## seamisty (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

ASIC may look at more MFS charges ;;; Bryan Frith | November 03, 2009 
Article from:  The Australian 
AS with Centro, ASIC's civil proceedings against former executives of the failed MFS involves charges of breach of fiduciary duties and failing to present accounts giving a true and fair view of the company's affairs, with the added spice of claims that a paper trail of false transactions was created to deliberately mislead the company's non-executive directors, auditors, bankers and even its own compliance officers.

Moreover, reading between the lines, more charges may be in the offing if ASIC succeeds in these proceedings, because the events outlined by ASIC would indicate MFS was probably already insolvent before the alleged contraventions took place. 

Essentially, ASIC claims the executive officers caused MFS Investment Management, now known as Managed Investments Ltd, the responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund, to draw a $150-$200 million facility granted to the fund by Royal Bank of Scotland, and immediately pass the funds to MFS, apparently without even going through the fund's bank account, to enable the parent company to pay down pressing debt obligations. 

The funds were the property of PIF, which received no benefit from the transaction, and in fact suffered losses. Moreover, as passing the funds up the tree to MFS entities was a related party transaction it required prior unitholder approval, which was not obtained, in contravention of the Corporations Act. 

ASIC is seeking not only civil penalties (of up to $200,000 for each breach) against the former executives, but orders against all but one of the executives, that they be required to pay compensation ranging from $103m to $147.5m. 

ASIC is seeking also to have the former officers disqualified from managing a corporation, which includes being unable to act as a director of a company. 

PIF's responsible entity, now controlled by Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital, already has proceedings afoot seeking compensation of $147.5m in relation to the funds that were transferred MFS entities, and litigation funder IMF is funding a class action. Although the responsible entity's action is against MFDS corporate entities, ASIC is after the executive directors and officers involved. 

But unlike Centro, or for that matter James Hardie, ASIC is not pursuing the non-executive directors because it considers they were misled and provided false information and documents, which according to ASIC, created sham transactions that were backdated and purported to transfer assets (largely valueless) as security for the $150m. 

The defendants are former MFS chief executive Michael King, former deputy chief executive and MFSIM director Craig White, former MFSIM chief executive and director Guy Hutchings, former MFS chief finance officer David Anderson, and former MFSIM fund manager Marilyn Watts. 

ASIC claims that in June 2007 MFS borrowed a $250m short-term facility from Fortress Credit, which was due to be repaid on August 31. MFS negotiated an agreement under which it would repay $100m of the debt, plus a $3m extension fee by November 30, and repayment of the remaining $150m would be extended until March 2008. 

MFS did not have sufficient funds to repay the $100m and so MFSIM was used to borrow on behalf of PIF and transfer the funds to MFS entities, in breach of its fiduciary responsibilities to PIF and its unitholders. 

Interestingly, King is among those charged by ASIC although he was not a director of MFSIM or the other MFS entities involved, and he was not a signatory to any of the documents. However, ASIC contends that he was fully aware of what was taking place, that White was in contact with him on almost a daily basis and acted in accordance with his instructions, and the regulator cites a bundle of emails to back up its contentions.


----------



## seamisty (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I notice in yesterdays PIN NSX release that WELLINGTON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED as the former responsible entity of the PREMIUM INCOME FUND has had a name change to MANAGEMENT INVESTMENTS LIMITED!!!!!!! The long awaited release containing price sensitive information which had already been in the public domain since friday????And still no correction to the previous PIF update of 31st Augusthttp://www.newpif.com.au/investor_updates/InvestorUpdate_310809.pdf to inform existing and potential investors that WELLINGTON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED as the former responsible entity of the PIF is STILL a named respondant in the Class Action as a result of failing to cooperate with the lawyers regarding access to information and documentation which may have assisted in the successful outcome of the CA:nono:I consider this to be price sensitive and should have been corrected immediately it became known.:frown:Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A further paragraph to the article from the Australian today (Seamisty's Post #4371) as follows:

"In view of the claims about falsifying records, deliberately misleading the auditors, bankers, non-executive directors, and compliance officers who suspected breaches in relation to the transfers, it is perhaps surprising that some of the parties were charged only with civil breaches of their fiduciary responsibilities to a managed investment scheme and not with criminal offences."


----------



## marcom (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty, yes it looks like ASIC will pursue criminal charges but will probably wait until the full results of the liquidators investigations into insolvent trading etc. It is no coincidence that the PIF RBS loan affair is the first of the ASIC actions - while it helps us investors (& reduces the political pressure on ASIC) the main reason is to have the issue of the insolvency date fixed by court decision. Once this is established to be November 2007 all of the liquidators investigations can flow from that fact - then all of the Directors are caught in the net and the various transactions that were completed during the insolvency period will need to be examined.

Here is what ASIC has to say on the question.

*What are the consequences of insolvent trading?
* http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.ns...nsequences+of+insolvent+trading??openDocument

There are various penalties and consequences of insolvent trading, including civil penalties, compensation proceedings and criminal charges.

The Corporations Act provides some statutory defences for directors. However, directors may find it difficult to rely upon these if they have not taken steps to keep themselves informed about the company’s financial position.


Civil penalties

Contravening the insolvent trading provisions of the Corporations Act can result in civil penalties against directors, including pecuniary penalties of up to $200,000.


Compensation proceedings

Compensation proceedings for amounts lost by creditors can be initiated by ASIC, a liquidator or a creditor against a director personally. A compensation order can be made in addition to civil penalties.

Compensation payments are potentially unlimited and could lead to the personal bankruptcy of directors. The personal bankruptcy of a director disqualifies that director from continuing as a director or managing a company.


Criminal charges

If dishonesty is found to be a factor in insolvent trading, a director may also be subject to criminal charges (which can lead to a fine of up to $220,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both). Being found guilty of the criminal offence of insolvent trading will also lead to a director’s disqualification.

ASIC has successfully prosecuted directors for allowing companies to incur debts when the company is insolvent, and has sought orders making directors personally liable for company debts. ASIC also runs a program to visit directors, where appropriate, to make them aware of their responsibilities to prevent insolvent trading.

The good news is that taking steps to ensure your company remains financially sound will minimise the risk of an insolvent trading action. It may also improve your company’s performance.


----------



## The Owls (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> ASIC may look at more MFS charges ;;; Bryan Frith | November 03, 2009
> Article from:  The Australian
> AS with Centro, ASIC's civil proceedings against former executives of the failed MFS involves charges of breach of fiduciary duties and failing to present accounts giving a true and fair view of the company's affairs, with the added spice of claims that a paper trail of false transactions was created to deliberately mislead the company's non-executive directors, auditors, bankers and even its own compliance officers.




I notice in the above quote the executives failed to present accounts giving a true and fair view of the company's affairs, with the added spice of claims that a paper trail of false transactions was created to various groups including the Auditors. Will this help the Auditors in the CA and reduce PIFs claim againts there PI insurance.


----------



## marcom (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A bit more detail on the RBS loan misappropriation in
http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic-accuses-mfs-five-of-deceit-on-150m-loan-20091102-htjp.html

ASIC's allegations, pieced together from its investigation of email and computer document trails, go on to say that the PIF deal, and a separate $17.5 million in December to a New Zealand subsidiary were only recorded as ''a one-line entry'' in company accounts until January 23, 2008.

ASIC claims that on that date, Craig Robert White, the former deputy chief executive of MFS, and David Mark Anderson, the former chief financial officer and company secretary, instructed staff to draw up documents saying the total $147.5 million had been invested by an MFS subsidiary on behalf of PIF.

The commission's draft statement of claim then alleges that from early February 2008, *various officers in the MFS group participated in the creation of false documents, backdated to the last three months of 2007 and designed to show meetings and an approval process for the transactions.*

It suggests that the $150 million from Royal Bank of Scotland was paid into a bank account of MFS's investment management arm early on November 30, 2007, and by lunchtime, $130 million was switched across to MFS Administration - with $103 million of that money sent on to Fortress.

ASIC's allegations are that MFS's former chief executive, Michael Christodolou King, authorised Mr White's proposal to obtain the $150 million loan and negotiated an extension to November 30 on the Fortress loan at a time when he knew the company could not meet its obligations. The extension required MFS to repay $100 million and pay a $3 million ''extension fee'' by November 30.

Apart from Mr White and Mr Anderson and MFS Investment Management's former CEO Guy Hutchings, all of whom ASIC is suing for $147.5 million in compensation, it is claiming $103 million against Mr King, and penalties and disqualification against a former fund manager of MFS Investment Management, Marilyn Watts.

Source: The Age


----------



## Duped (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Seamisty, yes it looks like ASIC will pursue criminal charges but will probably wait until the full results of the liquidators investigations into insolvent trading etc. It is no coincidence that the PIF RBS loan affair is the first of the ASIC actions - while it helps us investors (& reduces the political pressure on ASIC) the main reason is to have the issue of the insolvency date fixed by court decision. Once this is established to be November 2007 all of the liquidators investigations can flow from that fact - then all of the Directors are caught in the net and the various transactions that were completed during the insolvency period will need to be examined.




Too true. Had ASIC moved a year ago to establish the date of insolvency then all these wasteful court actions, that had all the 'law' 'firms' in a flap and caused so much "disruption", would likely have been unecessary.  What a  total and utter waste of time, money and Australia's intellectual capital.  

ASIC shouldn't have left their duties to Deloitte.  KPMG shouldn't have left their duties to their former employee King.  When will these people learn that it's easier to just do the job you're paid to do.


----------



## selciper (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The Owls - I was just about to ask the same questions as you. It seems to me - as an amateur - that the CA submissions could be affected, but I guess that we have to be patient (again) and leave it to the experts. Meanwhile, WC give me no cause for confidence and any distribution in the near future seems unlikely.


----------



## Duped (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hmmm.  Perhaps the only reason ASIC has finally made a move is to make the application for the High Court Appeal go away.  I'm guessing ASIC are under a lot of pressure from the 'law firm' lobby to restore industry practice to pre McMurdo days. 

ASIC may simply be taking the path of least resistance.  Not only has the PTQ's High Court application made that path look increasingly arduous, but it's very likely that the path for this ASIC current action against MFSIM was made less arduous by the discoveries during McMurdo's hearings and Carney's/IMF class action.  

I'm sorry but this whole experience has made me a little cynical.  I'm reserving my judgement on ASIC's true motivation; for the moment.

The Treasurer's answer to the question from the floor at the London School of Economics is beginning to look increasingly heartless. We suspected their was foul play with PIF but we were ignored and to some degree even dismissed for being greedy.


----------



## seamisty (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> The Owls - I was just about to ask the same questions as you. It seems to me - as an amateur - that the CA submissions could be affected, but I guess that we have to be patient (again) and leave it to the experts. Meanwhile, WC give me no cause for confidence and any distribution in the near future seems unlikely.



John Walker from IMF has promptly responded to my query in relation to concerns being raised as to what  potential impact ASIC's action will have on the CA. His response below:: Hopefully this will clarify our concerns, Seamisty

'I am trying to get a mail out update happening this week. It will address ASIC’s action.'


----------



## marcom (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped, I share some of your cynicism, but we can now see that the Deed Of Arrangement saga was probably more designed to forestall ASIC action than to compensate creditors. As soon as McMurdo cancelled the DOA's and Delloittes were removed and Bently's installed ASIC could start moving.

I have another question that I have been looking for an answer on the ASIC website: Whatever the amount of compensation we get out of the ASIC action, is it paid directly to investors or does it go to the PIF fund? In many of ASIC's other cases the companies have been or are being liquidated and it seems that shareholders and investors share the compensation directly.

So, is ASIC doing this in the name of PIF or individual investors? I really would not want to see WC get control of our compensation (particularly as WC commenced an action and never proceeded with it - instead wasting our money on pursuing the ridiculous DOA's) as I have better and safer avenues to invest any compensation I receive.


----------



## seamisty (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

FINALLY!!!::http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722127.PDF
Glass Action Update
Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v KPMG & Ors - Federal Gourt Proceedings NSD324/2009
On26 June 2009, Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund advised the
market that following negotiations with the Applicants' legal representative these proceedings have by
mutual agreement been discontinued against the former responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund with
no order as to costs.
This agreement was recorded in the attached agreement.
At the date of this release, the former responsible entity has not been discontinued as a Respondent in the
proceedings.
A hearing of the class action took place on Friday 30 October 2009 before Justice Perram in the Federal
Court in Sydney.
A Notice of Motion will be frled by the former responsible entity in accordance with the Court timetable
which was set out by Justice Perram on 30 October 2009. The Notice of Motion will seek to have the former
responsible entity (currently the Third Respondent) discontinued as a party to the class action.
The Notice of Motion to have the former responsible entity discontinued as a party to the class action will be
heard from 16 December2009.
Further announcements will be made as the proceedings progress.
For further information please contact:
Jenny Hutson
Chairperson
Wellington Capital Limited
as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund
ACN 114 248 458 AFSL 291 562
Phone: 1300 854 885
Email:
#2


----------



## seamisty (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Also on the NSX today::http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722128.PDF

ASIC Proceedings Update
Australian Securities and lnvestments Gommission v Michael King, Graig White, Guy Hutchings,
David Anderson, Marilyn Watts Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd (ln Liquidation) Octaviar Castle Pty
Ltd and the former responsible entity of the Premium lncome Fund
Reference is made to the release of 2 November 2009 made by Wellington Capital Limited as responsible
entity of the Premium Income Fund in relation to the proceedings commenced in Supreme Court of
Queensland by ASIC.
Annexed is a release made by the ASIC in relation to those proceedings.
Further announcements will be made as the proceedings progress.
For further information please contact:
Jenny Hutson
Chairperson
Wellington Capital Limited
as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund
ACN 114 248 458 AFSL 291 562
Phone: 1300 854 885
Email:
ADVISORY
Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC)
Monday 2 November 2009
^D09-214
ASIC COMMENCES CIVL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST FORMER
OFFICERS OF MFS GROUP
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has commenced civil proceedings in
the Supreme Court of Queensland against three subsidiary companies of the formerly listed MFS Ltd
(now known as Octaviar Ltd (in Liquidation) and four former ofhcers and one manager of MFS
Investment Management Ltd.
The proceedings relate to the use of $ 147.5 million in funds of the Premium Income Fund (PIF), for
which MFS Investment Management Ltd ('MFSIM', now known as Managed Investments Ltd) was
the responsible entity at the relevant time.
In taking this action, ASIC is addressing the core obligations of a responsible entity and its directors
and officers to operate the fund with care and diligence, and in the best intelest of the fund's members.
The defendants in the matter are:
o Michael Christodoulou King of Canungra, Queensland, former Chief Executive Ofhcer
(CEO) and Director of MFS Ltd;
. Craig Robert White of Holland Park West, Queensland, former Deputy CEO (and for a short
period, CEO) and director of MFS Ltd and MFSIM;
. Guy Hutchings of Paddington, NSW, former CEO and director of MFSIM;
 ¡ David Mark Anderson of Robina, Queensland, former CFO and Company Secretary of MFS
Ltd;
. Marilyn Anne Watts of West Pennant Hills, NSW, former fund manager of MFSIM;
 ¡ Managed Investments Ltd (formerly known as MFSIM and Octaviar Investment
Management Ltd);
 ¡ Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd (formerly MFS Administration Pty Ltd) (In Liquidation);
and
o Octaviar Castle Pty Ltd (formerly MFS Castle Pty Ltd and MFS Investment Holdings No 17
Pty Ltd).
ASIC is seeking orders for declarations of contraventions, pecuniary penalties, compensation and
disqualifications from managing corporations.
A schedule ofallegations and orders sought in relation to each defendant is attached.
The transactions:
ASIC alleges that in November 2007, ofhcers of MFSIM caused PIF to transfer $130 million to MFS
Administration Pty Ltd so that MFS Administration could use those funds to pay financial obligations
of other MFS Ltd subsidiaries, including $103 million owed to Fortress Credit Corporation (Australia)
Pty Ltd by MFS Castle Pty Ltd.
ASIC also alleges that in December 2007, officers of MFSIM caused PIF to transfer S17.5 million to
MFS Pacific Finance Ltd, a New Zealand registered company (now known as OPI Pacific Finance Ltd
(Receivers and Managers Appointed)).
Page 1 of 1
ASIC further alleges that in about January 2008, officers and the fund manager of MFSIM created and
used false documents, relating to the use of the $147.5 million.
As a result of the funds being transferred, ASIC alleges that the PIF suffered a loss of $147.5 million.
BacÃ¾round:
MFS Ltd was a publicly listed company with interests in financial services, travel and leisure and child
care businesses.
MFSIM was an unlisted public company and wholly owned subsidiary of MFS Ltd (now in
Liquidation). MFSIM was the responsible entity for six unlisted managed investment schemes,
including the PIF and the Maximum Yield Fund ('MYF'). MYF is also relevant to the current civil
penalty proceedings.
The PIF was an unlisted managed investment scheme which offered investments to retail and
wholesale investors through a Product Disclosure Statement.
Wellington Capital Ltd took over as responsible entity of the PIF in late 2008. PIF units have since
been listed on the National Stock Exchange.


----------



## Duped (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> FINALLY!!!::http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722127.PDF
> Glass Action Update
> Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v KPMG & Ors - Federal Gourt Proceedings NSD324/2009
> On26 June 2009, Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund advised the market ...




Correct me if I'm wrong seamisty but this release doesn't imply that WC has removed it's support for the class action.


----------



## Jadel (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Too true. Had ASIC moved a year ago to establish the date of insolvency then all these wasteful court actions, that had all the 'law' 'firms' in a flap and caused so much "disruption", would likely have been unecessary.  What a  total and utter waste of time, money and Australia's intellectual capital.
> 
> ASIC shouldn't have left their duties to Deloitte.  KPMG shouldn't have left their duties to their former employee King.  When will these people learn that it's easier to just do the job you're paid to do.





 I agree Duped, I can still clearly recall a comment made by Dreloitte after their investigation to the effect that they could find " no evidence of illegal activity" Of course they were being advised by Anderson . This demonstrates that there is something intrinsically wrong with a system that allows former directors of a failed company  to participate in the investigation process initiated by liquidators.


----------



## k.smith (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Duped, I share some of your cynicism, but we can now see that the Deed Of Arrangement saga was probably more designed to forestall ASIC action than to compensate creditors. As soon as McMurdo cancelled the DOA's and Delloittes were removed and Bently's installed ASIC could start moving.
> 
> I have another question that I have been looking for an answer on the ASIC website: Whatever the amount of compensation we get out of the ASIC action, is it paid directly to investors or does it go to the PIF fund? In many of ASIC's other cases the companies have been or are being liquidated and it seems that shareholders and investors share the compensation directly.
> 
> So, is ASIC doing this in the name of PIF or individual investors? I really would not want to see WC get control of our compensation (particularly as WC commenced an action and never proceeded with it - instead wasting our money on pursuing the ridiculous DOA's) as I have better and safer avenues to invest any compensation I receive.




Marcom,
I seem to remember JH telling us at the Melbourne meeting that any recovery of the $147million would be shared by unitholders directly


----------



## simgrund (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Duped, I share some of your cynicism, but we can now see that the Deed Of Arrangement saga was probably more designed to forestall ASIC action than to compensate creditors. As soon as McMurdo cancelled the DOA's and Delloittes were removed and Bently's installed ASIC could start moving.
> 
> I have another question that I have been looking for an answer on the ASIC website: Whatever the amount of compensation we get out of the ASIC action, is it paid directly to investors or does it go to the PIF fund? In many of ASIC's other cases the companies have been or are being liquidated and it seems that shareholders and investors share the compensation directly.
> 
> So, is ASIC doing this in the name of PIF or individual investors? I really would not want to see WC get control of our compensation (particularly as WC commenced an action and never proceeded with it - instead wasting our money on pursuing the ridiculous DOA's) as I have better and safer avenues to invest any compensation I receive.




*THESE ARE GOOD AND VALID QUESTIONS MARCOM,
IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THIS IS AN URGENT ISSUE FOR OUR ELECTED COMITTEE TO PRESENT TO OUR [CA] LAWYRS  FOR CLARIFICATIONS. ASIC ACTIONS CAN RESULT IN FAIRLY RAPID RESOLUTION AS WAS SEEN IN THEIR WESTPOINT ACTION (over 61 cents in a dollar recovered for members)  
JUST LIKE YOU, MANY OF US WOULD PREFER DIRECT DISTRIBUTION TO MEMBERS. AND UNLIKE WORKER'S INSURANCE COMPENSATIONS, WHERE DOLLAR AMOUNTS ARE REGULATED TO EQUAL THE  MAXIMUM COMPENSATION ALLOWABLE,  ACTION THROUGH CARNEYS/IMF IS NOT LIMITED BY ASIC ACTIONS FOR COMPENSATION. 
THESE UNDERSTANDINGS NEED VERIFICATIONS NOW. ASIC CLEARLY SAYS IN ITS FILING OF PROCEEDINGS OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTIONS OF THE ACT, THAT DIRECTORS MISUSED THE MONEY BELONGING TO PIF MEMBERS. 
I DREAD THE THOUGHT OF THE RECOVERED FUNDS BEING POURED INTO NSX HOLDINGS. WE MUST PREVENT IT.  
SO LET'S COMMENCE THIS VERY URGENT ACTION THROUGH EITHER OR BOTH OF OUR 2 COMMITTEES.
PLEASE SURFACE,*


----------



## Duped (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yep Jadel.  But how deep did they look? Even with a heavy dousing of disclaimers ANY comments like that by Deloitte are reckless IMO.  McMurdo said as much at para [34] of QSC09-283 "But it was one thing to say that the company may have been solvent as at that date. It was another to express the opinion that it was probably solvent." 

Our institutions and business leaders need a large dosing up of humility and common sense so they don't get sick from their vested interests. Codification in statute is secondary and a poor substitute.

Below is much of what I posted on H0tC0pper on 23 Dec 08 (while this ASF thread was shut) about the Deloitte Dec08 report on OCV Ltd.  Deloitte were all over the shop on the subject of solvency. Relying too much on Anderson's word perhaps? Pretty poor judgement call if they did? Then again, many seem to be losing their heads over the OCV mire.  (I listened to my hack of a financial advisor didn't I.) My apologies if I've already posted it on this thread.

RE:Insolvency
The biggest EH!!! moment is half way down page 23 "we consider that as at 22 January 2008 OCV should have identified that it may have been BALANCE SHEET INSOLVENT [emphasis added]because ...".

Hang-on chiefs, para 3 of Sect1.1 says "We believe that the Company and the Group may have become insolvent during the period from 4 February 2008 to 4 June 2008".

So which is it then? Jan or Feb-Jun? 

Do I need an accounting degree to understand 'balance sheet insolvency'?

Or is Deloitte's just throwing enough ambiguity in so they won't get injured in the OCV creditor crossfire?

Of course there's the main conclusion at page 2 "We have not identified sufficient evidence to date that would allow us to form a conclusive view as to when insolvent trading may have occurred or commenced". Soft!! [Back peddle]

Then at page 42 is this JACKPOT:

"Within the Fortress DOCA proposal is a condition that the Company not pursue a claim against Fortress or the Receivers. This should be considered in light of the following comments:
• Prior to 22 January 2008 Fortress held UNSECURED [emphasis added]guarantees from OCV for facilities provided to Octaviar related investments, Young Village Estates and OPI Pacific Investments
• On 22 January 2008 a deed was executed with the effect of CONVERTING [emphasis added]the aforementioned guarantees to a SECURED [emphasis added]position, under the Fortress facilities previously advanced to Octaviar Castle, incorporating OCV.
Creditors have asked us to investigate the circumstances surrounding that conversion."

"We have considered if the CONVERSION [emphasis added] could be regarded as a VOIDABLE TRANSACTION [emphasis added]. For that to be the case the relevant Octaviar companies or Group would have to been insolvent on 22 January 2008 when the document was executed. We consider that *UNLIKELY* [emphasis added] based on our findings to date." *But that's not really what Deloitte's said on page 2 is it now - "not identified sufficient evidence to date that would allow us to form a conclusive view"*. And what about "BALANCE SHEET INSOLVENT" on page 23??

Because Deloitte's look like they dodged the issue [of insolvency] and are [maybe] inviting PTQ to go for it with e.g in bold on page 24: "The above investigations would be continued by a LIQUIDATOR TO ESTABLISH THE DATE [emphasis added] when the Group became insolvent, however, the Administrators *preliminary view is that this may have occurred on 4 February 2008 but no later than 4 June 2008* [emphasis added]." But that conflicts with what Deloitte's said on page 2 and 'balance sheet insolvency' on page 23. And there's that magic word "preliminary". 7 occurances. My favourite is half way down page 25 under 9.2 Insolvency Trading: "our investigations have been *extensive *but *PRELIMINARY *[emphasis added]" and then 2 paras later "Based on the above PRELIMINARY [emphasis added]investigations outlined above, further investigations would be required by a LIQUIDATOR [emphasis added]."


RE Director Responsibility: (Love this bit)
One of my favourite sections is 9.2. (See also S1.1 paras 4-6, S1.2 para 2). Basically Deloitte's is saying that the laws in place to punish directors for insolvent trading are ineffectual. "Claims for insolvent trading are often difficult to prove and directors have a number of defences available to them." MFS Directors, at shareholders/creditors expense, appointed 333, Freehills and another law firm and hence are likely to "have a defense available to them". I.e. it will cost too much to get the money out of them - "assessment of a company’s solvency is complex and comes down to a question of fact in the circumstances which requires detailed examination"


----------



## Duped (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> ... I have another question that I have been looking for an answer on the ASIC website: Whatever the amount of compensation we get out of the ASIC action, is it paid directly to investors or does it go to the PIF fund? In many of ASIC's other cases the companies have been or are being liquidated and it seems that shareholders and investors share the compensation directly....




IMO it would be very unfair if compensation from the ASIC action went to unitholders that bought into PIF at 6, 7, or even 14c  and not to unitholders who had to sell on the NSX.  Then again, under our regulatory and legal regime, I've seen stupider outcomes.

I'm a little disappointed by the size of compensation. ASIC are only seeking the actual amount.  What about the interest we paid to RBS and then to the 10%/20% to the mystery lender? What about lost earnings? What about the colateral destruction to the rest of the fund in the scramble to liquify our better assets (IMO) to keep RBS off our backs and all the extra management fees/expenses/costs we unitholders had to pay to achieve this?  BUt I guess that if we're not even likely to get the raw $ number back, then why bother complicating the proceedings.


----------



## Cookie1 (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quoting Duped's last post (I don't know how to do quotes, sorry.)

_"IMO it would be very unfair if compensation from the ASIC action went to unitholders that bought into PIF at 6, 7, or even 14c and not to unitholders who had to sell on the NSX. Then again, under our regulatory and legal regime, I've seen stupider outcomes.

I'm a little disappointed by the size of compensation. ASIC are only seeking the actual amount. What about the interest we paid to RBS and then to the 10%/20% to the mystery lender? What about lost earnings? What about the colateral destruction to the rest of the fund in the scramble to liquify our better assets (IMO) to keep RBS off our backs and all the extra management fees/expenses/costs we unitholders had to pay to achieve this? BUt I guess that if we're not even likely to get the raw $ number back, then why bother complicating the proceedings."_

I'm in total agreement with Duped but am also wondering what happened to the other $50 million of the $200 million loan from RBOS. I haven't seen any mention of it. ASIC should be going after compensation for all the damages/costs the PIF suffered; where will the money come from????


----------



## Mary Lynch (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My barrister son-in-law says that ASIC's action will probably impact positively on the class action, as they will provide proof of criminal activity, and anything already proven won't need to be proven again.

He says that the guilty directors will be fined and stripped of directorships etc...and if they can't pay the fine, goaled.   The rest will be left up to th CA.


----------



## Cookie1 (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This article by Adam Schwab appeared on "Crikey" 4 Feb 2008.

www.crikey.com.au/2008/02/04/kpmg-the-common-link-in-allco-and-mfs-fiascos/

"Monday, 4 February 2008
*KPMG: the common link in Allco and MFS fiascos
*Adam Schwab writes:

Of all the similarities between struggling financial companies Allco and MFS, one obvious link has so far escaped media attention: the role of auditor KPMG in the twin fiascos.

While MFS remains suspended (it lasted traded at 99 cents compared with a high of around $6.70 in June) and Allco continues to struggle (closing at $3.30 compared with a high of approximately $13.00 in March) the common ground between the two companies is that they were both audited by (and more importantly, paid significant non-audit fees to) KPMG.

Both of MFS’s company secretaries were previously employed by KPMG; David Anderson, chief financial officer of MFS, was previously a partner at KPMG in the finance area while Kim Kercher, MFS’s chief “governance” officer was previously a manager at KPMG.

The auditor signing off on MFS reports (which in light of recent announcements, don’t seem to be entirely accurate) was Mitch Craig (who is KPMG’s National Partner in Charge of Risk Advisory Services). According to MFS’s 2007 Annual Report, KPMG were paid $483,600 for audit services. However, the audit fees pale in comparison to the non-audit related services performed by KPMG. The firm was paid $771,098 for assurance, taxation and diligence services in 2007. KPMG also provided $665,600 in non-audit services to MFS satellite, MFS Diversified (KMPG also audited MFS Diversified until last year).

In the Sarbanes-Oxley era, this is a farcical situation, with KPMG collecting almost double as much from MFS for non-audit related services as they did for conducting the audit. As noted by The Guardian back in 2002:
Regardless of the individual integrity of those involved, this situation [of auditors performing non-audit related services] raises a serious conflict of interest.

Where an auditor is providing other services to a company it is auditing, it can hardly be said to be independent and it is less likely to be critical or do anything that might embarrass management.

Companies may hire or fire an auditor. Consequently, with future career prospects and income hanging in the balance, there is little incentive for an auditor to publicly expose improper behaviour or “creative” bookkeeping being used by the company they are auditing.

KPMG signed off on MFS’s financials on 20 August 2007. MFS shareholders paid KPMG handsomely to ensure that the financial information provided was true and fair. Based on recent announcements, and the sudden departure of executive Michael King, it seems that MFS shareholders didn’t get great value for money.

Across at David Coe’s Allco things seem similar. Allco’s auditor was also KPMG. During 2007, Allco paid KPMG a significant $3.1 million for audit fees (signing off on the report was Chris Whittingham). On top of that, Allco also handed KPMG a very tasty $2.96 million for other services, including financial due diligence and taxation services. Allco’s Annual Report noted that:

It is the Consolidated Entity’s policy to employ KMPG on assignments additional to its statutory duties where KPMG’s expertise and experience with the Consolidated Entity provides an efficient solution to [Allco’s] professional service needs.

This situation was meant to have stopped after Arthur Andersen’s infamous association with Enron. In 2001, Anderson was paid US$25 million for audit services and US$27 million for non-audit services. Many believe that Andersen’s willingness to turn a blind eye to the frauds occurring at Enron was partially caused by its willingness to retain non-audit revenue. Many Enron executives had previously worked at Arthur Andersen. Similarly, several key MFS executives were employed by KPMG.

Interestingly, the ratio of audit services to non-audit services paid by MFS to KPMG was even worse than Enron’s although its fate may very well be similar."


----------



## breaker1 (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A huge thank you to all AG reps and members and others who did not relent in continual follow up and liaison with ASIC and supply of relevant information!!!


----------



## seamisty (3 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Where will the money come from? Who knows, but Octaviar has $125 mill and Sunkids in its coffers. There has been so much money wasted by Deloittes, Korda Mentha, Wellington Investment Management LTD  etc pursuing and investigating what??? No results after millions of investors funds wasted!!!

From day one of the collapse of MFS/OCV certain investors have been trying to get recognition to the fact that the PIF was PLUNDERED!!! I sincerely hope every single person in positions of authority that was contacted previously with our concerns that did  nothing but fob us off or procrastinate as to how it was our own fault for being greedy etc now realise we had a LEGITIMATE reason to complain!!!! It appears we are finally being heard and our complaints acted on. I have kept every response (or lack of), and notes of relevant conversations, e mails etc. on record!!!! Not only will the brown undies be trotted out by those who failed to help, but the media may even be interested in reporting in favour of  penalised investors, NOT inadequate fund managers who take their NSX listing  obligations that seriously they don't or won't keep investors informed of relevant facts until prompted or former company directors who are not facing bankruptcy and want the truth exposed!!!  In my opinion, this is just the begining of exposures and accountability concerning MFS/OCV. More to come I am sure!! Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (4 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Media article from Crikey, don't think it has been posted. Seamisty

Wednesday, 2 September 2009 
MFS directors get back on the gravy train
by Adam Schwab
More than 18 months after the collapse of MFS/Octaviar, former directors of the failed fund manager continue provide financial advice to clients of financial planning firm Avenue Capital Management.

Those directors and financial planners not only oversaw the billion-dollar collapse of MFS, but also recommended clients invest in the MFS Premium Income fund. PIF has frozen investor redemptions since January last year, leaving many investors to rely on social-security payments. Octaviar itself is being wound up, with liquidators of the failed group seeking to reclaim $150 million in alleged unfair preference payments, loans and investments.

Despite the collapse of MFS, Paul Manka, former chairman of MFS (Manka replaced Andrew Peacock as chairman, after serving as a director of the failed entity) and Michael Hiscock (also a former director of MFS) still appear to be employed by Avenue Capital Management as financial planners.

Hiscock had multiple links with MFS, serving as a director of MFS Living and Leisure (whose share price has subsequently dropped by almost 98%) and chairman of MFS Diversified (now GEO Property Group) which has seen its share price drop 85% and recently saw the value of its property portfolio slump by $15.3 million to $67.9 million. Manka also served as a director of MFS Diversified, MFS Living and Leisure and MFS itself.

Avenue’s website notes that the company was “built on a core philosophy of respect, honesty, integrity and professionalism, Avenue Capital Management provides quality investment and financial planning advice to a broad range of clients”.

One suspects clients of Manka and Hiscock who were advised to invest in the Premium Income Fund would dispute that description. As the Financial Review revealed in April last year, clients of Avenue Capital Management invested $51 million either directly or indirectly in PIF.

Investigations by Crikey revealed that while $51 million represented a reasonably small proportion of Avenue’s funds-under-management, it was a very sizeable proportion of the $754 million invested in PIF.

It remains remarkable that two financial planners who recommended that their clients invest in a company in which they had a clear personal interest and that  subsequently collapsed (or in the case of MFS PIF, froze redemptions) are still able to provide financial advice.

It was reported in the Financial Review that 10,000 PIF investors (many of whom were clients of Avenue’s financial planning business) have “not received a cent since Wellington Capital [an advisory firm run by Jenny Hutson, a close associate of former MFS CEO, Chris Scott] took over last year”. PIF lost $39.3 million in 2008 when it was under the control of MFS, of which Manka and Hiscock were directors.

ASIC has not publicly announced whether it is pursing criminal or civil actions the directors of MFS/Octaviar or former executives, including, Michael King and Phillip Adams. An ASIC spokesperson told Crikey that it could not confirm or deny the existence of an investigation and would not comment on operational matter.

It is understood that litigation funder, IMF, is currently pursuing a class action against MFS regarding misleading representations.


----------



## Duped (4 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Doesn't excuse the theft from PIF but King is threatening to  come out swinging.  The press report that he's going to reveal the real culprits for killing OCV.  I speculated a couple of potential targets:

*Fortress*: It's not imposible that Fortress clearly saw OCV's weaknesses.  Then swooped in pretenting to be the rescuer with a bucket load of cash.  Meanwhile it took a massive short position and then squeezed OCV for its cash back (could they also have dyed the ether a bit with a little bashing) until the share price went kerplunk.  From the limited reading of this hack I expect this won't shock the market, seems Fortress already has such a reputation. If so, then how reckless was it to get into bed with Fortress.

*Krecklenberg*: Following is the posting from a once only poster over at h0tc0pper.  The poster picked a very annonymous and unmemorable name:  625402.  Could it be King himself?

"Rolf I have heard was punted and certainly did not resign.

How he has escaped scrutiny and acountability for his trail of destruction for so long is beyond me…poor old M King has taken the whole rap for MFS when for the last 12 months it operated there was actually one other executive director....one R Krecklenberg the last accounts show..yes he was the silent one on the infamous conference call

For MFS shareholders the execution of Rolf obviously came about 2 years too late....…after all this was the man that paid $2.2billion for assets now perhaps worth NIL in todays’ market…that has got to be some sort of record in the history of Australian corporate incompetence and pissing shareholders money up against the wall……first MFS shareholders and now CVC shareholders the victims….M King at MFS went along with it but word has it was Rolf Krecklenberg who was out there spending other peoples money like a drunken sailor on over inflated assets. ...one of the greatest wood ducks coporate australia has seen……

The stella accounts lodged for 30 june 08 seem to reflect the stunning level of write downs required by CVC to get the business on the books at a reasonably defensible WDV. The operating business must be performing much better than that in Aust and NZ but who knows about all the overseas stuff...

But in the end rolfs departure is like the old saying….you can fool some of the people some of the time, etc etc

Good riddance Rolf……you almost got away with it....."


----------



## selciper (4 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This government site explains what happens when a person is declared bankrupt.

http://www.itsa.gov.au/dir228/itsaweb.nsf/docindex/Bankruptcy->FAQ?OpenDocument#16


----------



## Duped (4 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Never forget that some believed and probably still think, to some degree, that we deserved what we got for being greedy: "because they were looking for higher gains". Perhaps even our Treasurer. 

This legal action is not the only one ASIC needs to take. I was mislead. I didn't go out looking for schemes like PIF. I would never have crossed paths with such a scheme if it wasn't for my financial advisor's recommendations. I was and still am a cautious 'investor'. I would have had to go *AGAINST *my financial advisor's advice to avoid ending up in PIF.  A registered advisor from the pack that is STILL being promoted on the ASIC website.

If you missed the discussion and you're interested, have a look at what Swan said on 13 March 2009 to a fellow PIF victim at the LSE. (PodCast is at http://www.lse.ac.uk/resources/podcasts/publicLecturesAndEvents.htm#generated-subheading1)

Question asked from the floor re Octaviar is at 36m33s. She is a unit trust investor, so probably a PIF investor. "... That sounds great for the toxic assets of banks. I'm glad that you - I'm an Australian citizen and an Australian tax payer - I'm glad that you said we're all in this together because I'm I've lost all of my money for the rest of my life in the failed Queensland unit trust MFS, that's your State, that was from January 08. And it was a result of the failure of the oversight authority ASIC and you take government, you take responsibility and I'd like to know what you're going to do about that. A forward looking Senate inquiry looking at future regulation is no good for people like me. I'm asking on behalf of ten thousand people, what are you going to do about it?"

Swan: "Well I think the people who invested in those schemes are right to be disillusioned and angry with what has happened to their money. They made an investment in a market linked investment proposal which didn't have the security that an investment in a APRA regulated institution would have because they were looking for higher returns and sadly the worst has happened. Naturally I think there will be implications that need to be studied for what this means in terms of organisations such as ASIC and the government is very accutely aware of that and we have recently as you have indicated, announced an inquiry principally into the events surrounding Storm but I think it goes to core of your question: How could the regulatory system allow or tolerate these sorts of activities by a number of people in market linked investment schemes? And I don't pretend to have the answer to that, that's what the inquiries will show us. But there is nothing the Australian Government can do for those people who unfortunately lost their money in those market linked schemes other than to try and learn the lessons of that experience and fix the regulatory system."

What is Swanny really saying? If it was just greedy us looking for higher returns then why does the regulatory system need to be looked into? Why the cost of a Joint Committee Inquiry? If you ask me, Canberra may slowly and reluctantly be realising it's completely out of touch with what is going on in the street?  Completely out of touch with the risks they are exposing people like us to.  KPMG, Deloitte, MFS - are all off the leash and are running wild, pushing boundaries without fear.


----------



## Duped (4 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> This government site explains what happens when a person is declared bankrupt.
> 
> http://www.itsa.gov.au/dir228/itsaweb.nsf/docindex/Bankruptcy->FAQ?OpenDocument#16




Interesting.  So all King needs to keep his polo property is make sure he's not bankrupted within 5 years after he transfered it to his farmhand?  Any Trustee would not have grounds to void it after that.  How long has it been?


----------



## selciper (4 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Crikey 2 November 09:

ASIC takes a serious swing at MFS
Adam Schwab writes:

Perhaps stung by public criticism that it hasn’t done enough to prevent and prosecute corporate fraud, ASIC has launched a second action in as many weeks, announcing a civil claim against various directors of collapsed fund manager MFS. The $147.5 million claim alleges that various MFS executives, including former managing directors Michael King and Phil Adams, created false documents and provided fabricated information to its auditors and creditors.
The action appears more serious than the claims launched against various Centro directors in late October (the Centro claim alleged that directors failed to accurately report current liabilities to shareholders). 
Of the corporate collapses of the past few years, MFS appeared to be the one laced with the most stupidity. The white-shoe Queensland fund manager adopted the worst elements of the Macquarie Model and combined it with a business plan that appeared to consist of buying assets for more than what they were worth and raising money from gullible punters. MFS utilised a network of financial planners to raise money for its satellite funds (including the Premium Income Fund) -- some of those financial planners (from Avenue Capital Management) also happened to be non-executive directors of MFS. 
Some of MFS greatest fiascoes included buying the Mount Hotham and Falls Creek ski resorts and quickly selling them to satellite funds MFS Living and Leisure for a $15 million "profit". Within three years, Living and Leisure wrote off $40 million from the value of the ski resorts while paying millions on "management fees" to MFS for the privilege. MFS also paid more than $2.2 billion to acquire a string of tourism assets including BreakFree, S8 and the Sheraton Mirage to form the Stella Group. After slipping into administration, MFS sold 65% of Stella to private equity firm CVC for $430 million. It would give the rest of Stella to CVC for nothing a year later after CVC sued MFS for misleading behaviour after MFS allegedly overstated Stella’s profitability. It takes a truly incompetent business to turn $2.2 billion into less than $500 million in a couple of years. 
ASIC’s statement of claim gives the impression that in its dying days, desperate MFS executives adopted a similar tactic to that used by one of Australia’s most colourful corporate characters, Alan Bond. That is, pilfering money from one part of the empire to prop up another. While Bond diverted $1 billion from Robert Holmes a Court’s Bell Resources, the MFS crew allegedly used $147.5 million from its PIF satellite to repay a $103 million loan to hedge fund Fortress Capital. MFS’ desperation may have stemmed from the fact that Fortress is known as being a brutal creditor, unafraid to tip borrowers into administration if not repaid. 
At the time, MFS allegedly had only $40 million in its account and would have been unable to repay the US lender. 
The problem with what the MFS executives appear to have done is that PIF was a completely separate fund, which was meant to be a safe, reliable investment for mainly older investors seeking a stable yield. Few investors in PIF would have expected their savings to be used as a cashbox to prop up MFS’ ailing empire. 
ASIC alleges that Craig White (who was King’s deputy and took over running MFS after King’s resignation in January 2008) authorised the $103 million transfer and the creation of false documents to "disguise" the payment. Former KPMG employee David Anderson, who is remarkably still being paid almost $1 million per year to work at MFS (now called Octaviar), was also charged with "aiding and abetting" the payments. KPMG was MFS’ auditor. 
Colourful former MFS boss Michael King, who is believed to spend most of his time at his multimillion dollar polo complex in Queensland, told the Financial Review that he looked forward to having the matter resolved in open court. (Admittedly, such confidence is not out of character for King, who claimed days before the company’s collapse that MFS didn’t "actually need the equity … We could stay as we are and keep going. Our earnings guidance is unchanged and there is no change to our debt position.") 
King’s partner, Phil Adams, has not commented, with the former BRW Rich List member remaining in Dubai running an investment advisory firm called Agilis. Agilis’ website claims that its "business is conducted with ethics and integrity, with a corporate governance structure that underpins a sustainable business and enhances our reputation". There is no mention of the civil charges that have been laid against Adams nor the fact that Adams’ former margin-lender, Lift Capital, moved to bankrupt him last year after the he failed to repay debts of more than $13 million. 
While the civil claim will be welcomed by PIF unitholders (and MFS shareholders), some may be questioning whether the conduct of various MFS executives, especially that of creating false documents, may have been more fitting of criminal action, rather than civil charges.


----------



## seamisty (5 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If there was a concern re funding for class actions it has now been resolved. http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.ns...for+funded+class+actions?openDocumentSeamisty
   09-218MR ASIC grants transitional relief from regulation for funded class actions

Wednesday 4 November 2009


ASIC today announced its intention to grant transitional relief to lawyers and litigation funders involved in legal proceedings structured as funded class actions. 

The relief, which will apply until 30 June 2010, is from the requirements that would otherwise apply to funded class actions as ‘managed investment schemes’ under Chapter 5C and Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act). These requirements include:

appointing an AFS licensed public company as 'responsible entity' to operate the scheme 
adopting a complying constitution and compliance plan for the scheme 
registering the scheme with ASIC 
preparing a Product Disclosure Statement for the scheme 
providing ongoing disclosure to members of the scheme.

The Full Federal Court’s recent decision that a funded class action was a ‘managed investment scheme’ within the meaning of the Act has the potential to disrupt the conduct of a number of class actions currently underway. 

ASIC will grant transitional relief to avoid any disruption that could adversely impact plaintiffs in those actions, or interfere with the timely and efficient conduct of the subject litigation. The relief will allow time for Government and ASIC to consider and consult on how funded class actions should be regulated under the Act in future. Depending on the outcome of that process, existing class actions may need to be restructured to meet the requirements of the Act by the end of the relief period. 

Relief will generally be granted, on individual application, to lawyers and litigation funders involved in the conduct of class actions that were commenced before 4 November 2009.

Applications in respect of class actions to be commenced after that date will be considered separately and ASIC will assess whether or not and on what terms it will grant transitional relief. Applications should be prepared in accordance with ASIC Regulatory Guide 51: Applications for Relief and lodged through applications@asic.gov.au. 


Background

On 20 October 2009 the Full Court of the Federal Court handed down its decision in Brookfield Multiplex Ltd v International Litigation Funding Partners Pte Ltd [2009] FCAFC 147. The Full Court held that a funded class action currently being maintained against Brookfield Multiplex was a ‘managed investment scheme’ within the meaning of section 9 of the Corporations Act. 

A managed investment scheme must be registered with ASIC in certain circumstances, including where it has more than 20 members or is promoted by a professional promoter. To qualify for registration, it must be operated by a public company that holds an Australian financial services licence and must have a constitution and a compliance plan that meet the requirements of Chapter 5C of the Act. 

The offer of interests in a registered managed investment scheme must generally be made through a complying Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) that contains information about the scheme.

In deciding to grant the relief, the Commission's considerations included the consequences of the decision in Brookfield Multiplex, the options currently available to existing class action plaintiffs and the consequences of ASIC not providing relief, the case for and against regulating class actions as managed investment schemes and what additional obligations would be imposed if class actions were so regulated.

Commission noted the full Federal Court has not yet made orders in the Brookfield Multiplex matter, but has ordered a timetable for submission on the form of orders over a period until 12 November 2009, and there is likely to be a further period while the Court considers those submissions before orders are made, perhaps in early December 2009.

Commission also noted that without any form of relief from ASIC, existing class actions with members who would qualify as retail clients under the Corporations Act will immediately suffer considerable delay, expense, uncertainty and disruption as a consequence of the decision.

ASIC has power under the Act to modify or grant exemptions from some or all of the regulatory requirements. Government may, by regulation, declare a particular arrangement not to be a managed investment scheme. 
   ASIC Website: Printed 05/11/2009


----------



## Mutchy (5 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The link in Seamisty's post above has a few words extra and doesn't load.
The link should be:
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.ns...ief+from+regulation+for+funded+class+actions?


----------



## seamisty (5 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mutchy said:


> The link in Seamisty's post above has a few words extra and doesn't load.
> The link should be:
> http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.ns...ief+from+regulation+for+funded+class+actions?



Thanks Mutchy! I am looking for and can't find where it is documented or reported in a media article as to where it says JH was overwhelmingly elected  with a 89% or 90% yes vote. Can anyone please help? Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## marcom (5 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

seamisty, here is an article in the Gold Coast Bulletin 5 Sept 2008 saying she had 97% of PROXIES: http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2008/09/05/15894_gold-coast-business.html

Wellington's results update: http://www.newpif.com.au/publications/PIFResultsOfMeeting.PDF


----------



## Duped (5 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Interesting article by AAR - "Focus: Removing REs – what the courts have been saying". 

http://www.aar.com.au/pubs/fmres/foreoct09.htm


----------



## mellifuous (5 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> seamisty, here is an article in the Gold Coast Bulletin 5 Sept 2008 saying she had 97% of PROXIES: http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2008/09/05/15894_gold-coast-business.html
> 
> Wellington's results update: http://www.newpif.com.au/publications/PIFResultsOfMeeting.PDF




"... Ms Hutson has said a wind-up would deliver only 14c in the dollar for investors who poured $770 million into the fund.

She said Korda Mentha had estimated it would be worth 45c in the dollar as a going concern. ..."

I wonder if any evidence was  furnished to support the propositions?

Generally speaking, investors aren't given reports in order to make decisions about their fund's future.


----------



## marcom (5 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped, an excellent and timely article.

So if a scheme constitution imposes stricter/higher requirements on the number of votes needed to requisition a meeting than those specified in the Act, the constitution provisions would be held inconsistent with the requirements of the Act and would not prevail. 

Would a requirement in the scheme constitution bestowing compensation (2%) for a RE terminated by a valid meeting also be classed as inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, if the Act is silent on the question of compensation? Is the issue of compensation at odds with the structure and intent of the legislation? This is a very important issue for all PIF investors.


----------



## Duped (5 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I don't know marcom.  I haven't studied the Act yet.  Shall do when I can.


----------



## k.smith (5 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Duped, an excellent and timely article.
> 
> So if a scheme constitution imposes stricter/higher requirements on the number of votes needed to requisition a meeting than those specified in the Act, the constitution provisions would be held inconsistent with the requirements of the Act and would not prevail.
> 
> Would a requirement in the scheme constitution bestowing compensation (2%) for a RE terminated by a valid meeting also be classed as inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, if the Act is silent on the question of compensation? Is the issue of compensation at odds with the structure and intent of the legislation? This is a very important issue for all PIF investors.




couldn't this requirement be  removed by the same process as it was  "inserted" ...by a vote of unitholders??


----------



## breaker1 (5 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Thanks Mutchy! I am looking for and can't find where it is documented or reported in a media article as to where it says JH was overwhelmingly elected  with a 89% or 90% yes vote. Can anyone please help? Thanks, Seamisty




Try para 7 for 90%

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-support-for-pif/story-e6frg96f-1111117761478


----------



## mellifuous (5 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My two bob's worth (constitutions are always interesting).



marcom said:


> Duped, an excellent and timely article.
> 
> So if a scheme constitution imposes stricter/higher requirements on the number of votes needed to requisition a meeting than those specified in the Act, the constitution provisions would be held inconsistent with the requirements of the Act and would not prevail.
> 
> Would a requirement in the scheme constitution bestowing compensation (2%) for a RE terminated by a valid meeting also be classed as inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, if the Act is silent on the question of compensation? Is the issue of compensation at odds with the structure and intent of the legislation? This is a very important issue for all PIF investors.




I think the constitutional amendments made by Ms. Hutson are legal.  

I think you could vote  to pay for a clown to dance down at the Queen Street Mall every Thursday at 2pm if you wished to.



k.smith said:


> couldn't this requirement be  removed by the same process as it was  "inserted" ...by a vote of unitholders??




Yes.... special resolution (75%).


----------



## simgrund (6 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Try para 7 for 90%
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-support-for-pif/story-e6frg96f-1111117761478




So this would be a clear breach of trust open to successful challenge???


----------



## zixo (6 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Can anyone tell me if there has been any information come from our "elected" investor committee members.
Have they added anything to this thread ?

Perhaps someone could help me with what the election results were and how the votes were distributed from our vote 

Cheers


----------



## k.smith (6 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

http://www.businessday.com.au/busin...-liquidators-fees-expenses-20091105-i0aq.html

".....THE corporate regulator has launched a review of the fees and legal expenses of One.Tel's special purpose liquidator, Paul Weston.

Mr Weston has spent $9.5 million, mostly on legal bills, since his appointment by the NSW Supreme Court in 2003.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission began its review after an acrimonious annual meeting of creditors in August, when Mr Weston traded sharp criticism with the four-member committee representing One.Tel's creditors....."

What about our legal bills...???


----------



## selciper (6 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> Can anyone tell me if there has been any information come from our "elected" investor committee members.
> Have they added anything to this thread ?
> 
> Perhaps someone could help me with what the election results were and how the votes were distributed from our vote
> ...




We were invited to participate in a novel electoral process which is  undoubtedly a rare one in western democracies: the successful candidates are named but no scrutinised figures are provided when the results are eventually announced.


----------



## seamisty (7 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> We were invited to participate in a novel electoral process which is  undoubtedly a rare one in western democracies: the successful candidates are named but no scrutinised figures are provided when the results are eventually announced.



Leading up to the 'election' I enquired at WC as to if JH would use the voting power of the wholesale premium income fund and was assured that no, that wouldn't be an issue. I asked because I knew that if JH used that voting power it would be a complete waste of time to even nominate. The three extremely popular investor advisory group representatives who obviously were 'overwhelmingly elected' are very conspicuous by their absence! Unless there is another well used PIF forum or contact point that none of the regulars on here are aware of I find it rather intriguing as to how they canvassed support to get the majority vote and more importantly, what means do the reps have of communicating with other investors other than through a WC screening process? I have lost all confidence in JH and her experienced team of professional staff. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (7 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

To add further insult to injury, PIF investors can kiss another $20million plus interest goodbye. Thanks for the update Jenny, your openess and transparency is 'overwhelming'. Seamisty

Business Gold Coast, source: gold coast bulletin






 Sheraton Mirage sold for under $60m
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  November 7th, 2009



Sheraton Mirage has been sold to Indian company, Pearls Infrastructure Projects.

THE drawn-out haggling over the Sheraton Mirage has come to an end with an Indian company yesterday signing a bargain deal for the Gold Coast's biggest beachfront resort.

Apartment and shopping centre developer Pearls Infrastructure Projects is understood to have snared the trophy asset for less than $60 million from receivers to a Raptis Group subsidiary.

A year ago, it was thought buyers would be looking to spend up to $100 million.

The deal has been locked down by a strict confidentiality clause with no one prepared to comment.

But news of a sale has been circling the market for the past few weeks, lifting the hopes of market observers that the Coast's paralysed property market may be on the move again.

More Gold Coast business news
Have your say on the feedback form below 
The deal is Pearls' first foray outside India and is expected to lead to a major refurbishment of the ageing hotel, developed in 1987 by failed tycoon the late Christopher Skase.

It also opens the floodgates for a rush of new money from India into a capital-starved Coast market that has claimed some of the city's biggest developers.

Pearls already has flagged its intention to pursue new opportunities in Australia to add to its residential and commercial portfolio in India.

Representatives from Pearls have been on the Coast all week inspecting the property and making final adjustments to the Sheraton contract.

The Pearls executives, who have been staying across the road at Palazzo Versace, are believed to have signed the deal yesterday.


The 3.4ha property went on the market in September last year, put on the chopping block by Jim Raptis after his company's Southport Central development was placed in receivership.

Tired of waiting for a buyer, St George Bank, which is owed $60 million plus costs on the property, appointed receivers to the Sheraton in March.

While the sale will largely pay out St George, the deal leaves nothing for unit holders in the former MFS-controlled Premium Income Fund which is owed $20 million as second mortgagee.

The five-star Sheraton Mirage cost Raptis Group $82 million to acquire from MFS and the Ray Group in 2005.

The sale is the latest in a string of bargain deals on the Coast and comes on the heels of a Chinese buyer paying $80 million for the Pacific Beach site on the southern end of Surfers Paradise. That property, controlled by failed financier City Pacific, cost more than $100 million to amalgamate.

The Sheraton had been expected to sell for $70 million to $80 million, with Casuarina Beach developer Don O'Rorke linked to a deal about that level a year ago.

The Pearls purchase is understood to require regulatory approval from both Indian and Australian authorities


----------



## seamisty (7 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There is an article in todays 'Age' titled::How Michael King's dream turned to dust 
I can't get the article to load, can anyone else please? 
http://www.theage.com.au/how-michael-kings-dream-turned-to-dust-20091106-i2b9.html
 or alternatively has anyone got a copy that can be scanned and posted, thanks, Seamisty


----------



## Blueboy1 (7 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty,the article is too long to post in it's entirety so will Post it in two parts herewith part one..........part two to follow ,regards, Blueboy1:-

How Michael King's dream turned to dust
IAN MCILWRAITH
November 7, 2009

Michael King ambitiously named his estate after the paradise rewarded to fallen heroes in Greek mythology. Investment group MFS has left its investors only an angry regulator and a tale of woe.

On the Saturday night that John Howard's dynasty was swept into history in November 2007, Michael King stayed up campaigning by email for the one vote he needed to keep his $1.5 billion investment group, MFS, from a similar fate.

While Kevin Rudd was making his victory speech at Brisbane's Suncorp Stadium just after 11pm, down the Pacific Highway in the Gold Coast region, King was continuing the negotiations he had begun at 7am, via computer ”” well before the polling booths even opened. Coincidentally, MFS's chairman was someone who had also swept Howard aside 20 years earlier ”” former Liberal leader Andrew Peacock.

For King, the political battle of that day was persuading David Kelleher, the Sydney-based chief of the Australian arm of US hedge fund Fortress Investment Group, to give MFS yet another stay of execution on the $250 million it needed to repay within a week.

Fortress had been an opportunistic lender to other property-based groups like City View, which bid for MFS in January 2008, just before the balloon went up and the shares went down, and payday lender Amazing Loans as well as a host of finance companies in New Zealand.

The bargain King eventually struck with Kelleher, and other actions to meet Fortress' November 30 deadline, are now the subject of an Australian Securities and Investments Commission civil suit in Queensland's Supreme Court.

ASIC is trying to claw back up to $147.5 million from King, three other former executives and three MFS subsidiaries ”” money the corporate regulator claims was debt drawn against the assets of the then MFS-managed Premium Income Fund, but wrongly used to repay liabilities of MFS companies rather than benefit the fund's investors.

ASIC not only wants to prove that the MFS management team wrongly used other people's money to bail out their companies, but that King's deputy and brief successor, Craig White, the then chief financial officer, David Anderson, the head of its investment management arm, Guy Hutchings, and former fund manager Marilyn Watts also tried to “legitimise” the late 2007 financing arrangements by organising the fabrication and backdating of documents in the opening months of 2008.

(King and Anderson have told BusinessDay they are looking forward to having the matters aired and resolved in court. BusinessDay was unable to get responses from White, Hutchings or Watts.)

The MFS case is ASIC's second such law suit in as many weeks against officers and directors of companies, designed to both bring to account people it believes have breached their duties, and send a message to others in corporate Australia that the watchdog can bite, as well as bark ”” even if it has had to go the "soft" route of civil actions, where the hurdle for proving guilt is set much lower.

Both the first case, against current and former directors and executives of the Centro shopping centre group, and the MFS action contend, among other things, that it is not just what you do that could see you in court ”” what you do not do, could land you there, too.

Among documents filed by the regulator in its MFS case is a draft statement of claim based on ASIC investigators' forensic ferreting in the hard-drives of those involved. It meticulously details what it believes are the timing and content of emails and other electronically created documents on which its case is based.

ASIC also revealed that King, and others from MFS, were subjected to an interview under section 19 of the Corporations Act ”” which compels people to attend, and forbids them from telling anyone it even happened, let alone the content. One positive for anyone grilled in such "star chambers" is that any evidence gathered there cannot be used against them in subsequent criminal proceedings.

It is not known whether ASIC, before turning to a civil suit, tried to persuade the Commonwealth prosecutor it had enough evidence to support criminal charges in relation to MFS ”” but it is telling that ASIC's claim states that King appeared before it in August last year, or 14 months before it went to court.

In one of life's little coincidences, ASIC's Brisbane office in Queen Street is high up in the Commonwealth Bank's tower. Many of the transactions King and White were quizzed on involved money cycling through their companies' accounts at CBA's Southport branch.

Ultimately MFS, which King and fellow solicitor Phil Adams had created out of their property lending within Gold Coast law firm McLaughlins, collapsed just a few months later under the weight of $2.7 billion of debt.

By that time, Adams had already been gone almost a year, relocated to Dubai and running Agilis Global Holdings, a renamed MFS subsidiary that he had wanted to develop into the international version of the Australian parent.

King, who in recent months signed a three-year personal insolvency deal with his creditors, says he is living in a "shed" on his ambitiously named "Elysian Fields" polo estate in the Gold Coast hinterland. The estate is now being managed for those to whom he reportedly owes up to $130 million ”” much of it due to margin calls on his and Adams' now worthless, jointly owned stake in the deceased MFS.

In Greek mythology the Elysian Fields were the after-life reward for the heroic and virtuous. Located about 30 minutes' drive west of brash Surfers Paradise, closer to Wonglepong than Canungra, King's version not only has several polo fields, hedges cut to spell out its name to passing satellites, and $15 monogrammed stubby holders for sale, but offers itself for weddings, parties and almost anything.

On the Sunday evening after the federal election, while King and Kelleher were still bargaining over their computers, Elton John was belting out tunes at the polo estate before a crowd of almost 10,000 on his “Knight Under the Stars” tour.

Technically, MFS subsidiary MFS Castle had borrowed the money from Fortress, but was backed by guarantees from the parent company and MFS Financial Services. The $250 million had been due on August 31, but MFS had won one extension to November 30.

According to the commission's claim, King showed, in an email sent at 6.03am on November 22 to the then head of MFS's lucrative Stella tourism arm, Rolf Krecklenberg, he was aware that MFS group did not have the money to pay Fortress ”” and that he "admitted" it in his section 19 examination.

It was little surprise King and Krecklenberg were communicating. All during the debt renegotiations in November, Stella was pumping out statements to the stock exchange about its performance because MFS was looking at selling half the business it valued at nearly $3 billion, but intriguingly decided to drop the idea two days after a deal with Fortress was struck. MFS's tourism business was the company's star performer, too, providing more than half the profit.

In his first email to Fortress' Kelleher on election morning, ASIC claims King offered to repay $25 million of principal to Kelleher immediately, so long as it won an extension on the balance.

A flurry of emails over the next three days, many of them copied to White and Anderson, ended just after lunch on the Monday with MFS agreeing to pay $100 million by Friday, and the rest by February 29 ”” but Friday's payment had to include a $3 million "extension fee" to Fortress.

The crux of ASIC's case is that King and his team then signed off on a loan amendment for which MFS would struggle to find the cash. That hovers on the brink of trying to argue that MFS was trading while insolvent (that a debt had been incurred that company officers knew could not be paid when it was due).

On that Monday evening, King received an email from his CFO, Anderson, telling him there was $40 million in MFS Investments ”” the arm run by Hutchings and responsible for the funds of Premium Income Fund (PIF) and others.

PART TWO TO FOLLOW.....


----------



## Blueboy1 (7 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

PART TWO............

ASIC then claims that White told King he knew of a way to "obtain $150 million", use part of that to satisfy Fortress, and "undertake . . . transactions which would legitimise the use".

Interestingly, in spite of ASIC supporting other allegations against the men by referring to admissions made in their section 19 interviews, the claim document does not reveal how the commission knows that White made that proposal, or that King agreed to it ”” or even if anyone else was party to the conversation and told ASIC.

It goes on to say White knew that MSF Investments had a $200 million credit line with Royal Bank of Scotland for Premium Income Fund, and that on November 27 (the day after the Fortress deal), he jointly signed a request to draw down $150 million of that.

On Friday, November 30, in ASIC's view, the millions zapped quickly from one account to another. RBoS sent its $150 million into PIF's operating account (held under the name of PIF's custodian, Perpetual Nominees) at CBA's Southport branch. MFS Investments then crossed $130 million to another account at the same branch, owned by MFS Administration, which in turn had by mid-afternoon sent $103 million to Fortress' National Australia Bank account.

ASIC says that last transfer was cash belonging to PIF investors, and that under the fund's constitution should have been put into recognised investments.

A month later, the day after Boxing Day, another $17.5 million was moved from PIF's account to another at the Southport CBA ”” this time for the benefit of MFS Pacific Finance in New Zealand, where ASIC alleges it was used to pay redemptions for debentures and noteholders at a time when nervous investors in NZ were withdrawing funds.

ASIC argues that only three days later, on December 30, MFS Investments put PIF's finance from Royal Bank of Scotland in jeopardy by allowing the fund's ratio of assets and liabilities to breach the limit allowed under the loan.

It was three weeks, January 23, before RBoS sent a formal "Event of Default" notice ”” and by then King had already been forced out after $1 billion of MFS's market worth was destroyed when its shares crumbled from $4 to 99 ¢ (triggering the margin calls on his and Adams' shareholding, and that of another director, Michael Hiscock), trading in the shares was suspended (as it turned out, forever), MFS had revealed its debts were larger than thought and that pretty much all its assets were for sale.

ASIC says that the very next day, White and Anderson ordered staff to begin drawing up documents to show the $147.5 million had been invested on PIF's behalf.

A week later, RBoS's Bailey demanded details of where its money had been spent. ASIC says that of the list of 12 loans produced by Anderson, and amended by White, only three, totalling almost $53 million, related to the bank's cash.

It contends that from around early February a series of documents were created, revolving around another MSF Investments-managed fund, Maximum Yield, issuing special units to other MFS group companies that paid for them using loans from PIF ”” thus justifying the $150 million drawdown of money from RBoS.

The documents were signed and backdated, says ASIC, and created a trail that even convinced its auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and external lawyers, Mallesons Stephen Jaques, that there had been no breaches


----------



## seamisty (7 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Blueboy, may the bastards rot in hell!!! How do they think the investors feel who invested money in MFS in Jan 2008? Not to mention those already being robbed. In all of this, the $50million support facility seems to be forgotten. It is quite obvious that MFS was insolvent before the RBOS loan was implemented and yet after spending millions (of OUR money) paying big money to David Anderson, Delloites, Korda Mantha etc ASIC finally gets the goods. I am sure there are thousands affected financially by the actions of these inept managers who would be happy to be living in a 'shed' at Elysium Fields Mr King!!!Seamisty


----------



## charles36 (7 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thank you Blue Boy for your effort.  A lot of the contents were known to quite a few of us which we discovered by countless investigations. What I would really like  to get to the bottom of what was the RE doing all this time.  We have incurred many millions on apparently unsuccessful legal jaunts.  Let us all hope there is some light at the end of the tunnel and ALL the people responsible for the parlous state of our fund receive their just deserts.  I like many other unit holders I know are not going anywhere until the final dollar is accounted for, no matter who is responsible.


----------



## Jadel (7 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Lets not forget the role of  ‘Perpetual Custodians ‘in this appalling tragedy ..Its am absolute disgrace that they are even allowed to use the word, ‘Custodian’!!!  .They allowed 150 million to be drawn dawn at a moments from a dedicated income fund without even as much as a ‘ hows your father” or  query to ASIC as to where the money was going and what it was to be used for. . Why in Gawds name are we still paying these people millions to remain as   stamp lickers? and  so called registration clerks for our fund after this fiasco . I am certain we  could find somebody who could do that task for a tenth of the cost, or even less ???


----------



## selciper (7 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A truly unpleasant ten minutes to read through the Age story. I agree with Jadel about Perpetual. How many of us were told in early 08 "not to worry" as PIF was "a stand alone" and Perpetual was our vigilant custodian. And to have to absorb the fact that we repaid RBO all that money is just too horrible for words to describe.


----------



## marcom (7 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Some questions which remain unanswered:

WC had a Corporations Act responsibility to advise ASIC of the misappropriation from PIF - presume this happened because of new details of ASIC's grilling of KING and White in August 08. Did WC also advise Perpetual and RBS with the view to having the remaining loan balance frozen pending ASIC and other legal action?

Who discovered the $17.5M OPI transfer by Guy Hutchings?  If it wasn't WC, what does that say about the standard of monitoring of PIF accounts by WC and auditors?

If Perpetual were advised (and they certainly would have known after 26 June 2008 when lodgement of the Supreme Court action was announced) what action did they take as Custodian to secure PIF assets?

How were the loan funds cleared so quickly (same day) through the Perpetual CBA Account and who authorised the transfer at Perpetual and what reason was given?

Why did WC launch the Supreme Court action and then not proceed further?

What did the Octaviar administrators (Deloitts) do about the misappropriation other than register our claim as a debt against Octaviar?

Why did Deloitts employ David Anderson and co to assist in the winding up of Octaviar after the misappropriation was made public, and potentially allowing evidence to be tampered with?


----------



## seamisty (7 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Some extracts from emails I received from MFS after the :fan from the MFS National business development manager::

'Octaviar Limited does not have a loan to PIF.
PIF does have an investment in L&L but I am not sure of the amount.
The loan to Royal Bank of Scotland is currently approximately $156 million and those funds were used to buy additional assets in PIF'


'OCV has a legally binding contract with OCVIM to pay the Support Facility to PIF'


 'I have forwarded to Guy Hutchings and asked him to contact you ASAP'

'I have again gone in to see the Head of Distribution. She has escalated again to Guy.

Apparently he is working on getting out a letter today to investors and I have been told he will personally call you and a few of our large investors'


'I  have sent him another email.'

'I  have asked them again to give you the courtesy of a phone call.'

'I am chasing it up.'

'The assets In PIF are held by the custodian Perpetual Nominees Ltd for the investors, not MFS Ltd.'



'The unsecured notes have nothing to do with PIF and there is no liability by PIF to Challenger'

'Also Guy has been chased up again today to call you.'
'It is referring to the MFS Limited debt which is separate from PIF.'

I never received my promised ph call from Guy Hutchings and then the last email I received ::
'Thank you for your email.

If you can please direct your specific queries to this email address mail@octaviar.com.au we will ensure your queries get passed on.'

The National Business Development manager  who I had dealt with personally for 10 years at MFS who was also a 'Senior Financial Advisor' refused to answer any more of my emails. It was probablly then than she realised she had been 'conned' along with the investors. I bet she rues the day she quoted::: " I was there from day one and worked closely with Chief Executive Michael King. It's a cliche but Michael taught me everything I know - the man is an inspiration"

And yes Marcom, there are many unanswered questions, and the only thing we can be certain of is that from past performance, our illustrous leader will not enlighten us. Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (8 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Lets not forget the role of  ‘Perpetual Custodians ‘in this appalling tragedy ..Its am absolute disgrace that they are even allowed to use the word, ‘Custodian’!!!  .They allowed 150 million to be drawn dawn at a moments from a dedicated income fund without even as much as a ‘ hows your father” or  query to ASIC as to where the money was going and what it was to be used for. . Why in Gawds name are we still paying these people millions to remain as   stamp lickers? and  so called registration clerks for our fund after this fiasco . I am certain we  could find somebody who could do that task for a tenth of the cost, or even less ???




Ahhhh!!! Perpetual Nominees.
My favourite itch. 
ASIC must be made aware by whatever means necessary that a definitive description MUST be formulated by them of the role, responsibilities and accountabilities of a "CUSTODIAN".
All PIFers without exception were snared by the presence of Lloyd's insurances and a custodian to guard our backs.
Tell me Jadel, could Carneys insert this into the CA proceedings to ask the court to make such determination for the benefit of the new financial environment. Any other way we could make this happen?


----------



## Dexter (8 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Re sale of Mirage Resort, Gold Coast*

Another $20M down the drain and an oportunity lost.  

Surely an R.E. worth their salt would have found ways and means to pay out the first mortgagee on the Mirage and secure a worthwhile asset for our Fund rather than taking another giant loss.

Changes to the Constitution elicited by a miriad of threats, unrealistic promises and out right lies will not be sustainable.

The time has come for JH to honour her pledge to stand down, without penalty fee, if and when unitholders became disatisfied with her performance.

As the Fund seems to be liquidation mode why not appoint an administrator to act in the interest of unitholders.

Surely they would be more cost effective and transparent with at least occasional contact with the owners of the Fund.

As things are going .14c is looking better all the time.

We are supposed to be an action group  -  lets see some action and call for a vote.

Your thoughts please.


----------



## marcom (8 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dexter, the reason JH let this one go is contained in the attached article in The Gold Coast Bulletin 19 Sept 2008: (It is on the WC site under investor and media updates)

*Jenny's confident money will be repaid
*

The Raptis Group may owe the Premium Income Fund $55 million, but Jenny Hutson (pictured) is comfortable she will see that money repaid.

The Fund has mortgages over three Raptis assets, including the Sheraton Mirage and the Holiday Inn, with the Sheraton held through a second mortgage.

*"I think we're well secured, and Jim (Raptis) is a great man,"* said Ms Hutson at yesterdays Premium Income Fund meeting at Broadbeach. *"I am a huge Raptis supporter.
*
*We're going to work with Jim on the three projects we are financing".*

I ask has JH acted in investors best interests?


----------



## selciper (8 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Out of interest I clicked on "Management Team" on the Wellington PIF page.  There are three persons listed. 

http://www.newpif.com.au/management.html


----------



## seamisty (9 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quote marcom :::"What did the Octaviar administrators (Deloitts) do about the misappropriation other than register our claim as a debt against Octaviar?

Why did Deloitts employ David Anderson and co to assist in the winding up of Octaviar after the misappropriation was made public, and potentially allowing evidence to be tampered with? ":::::::

An extract from an AFR media article 'Court replaces Deloitte at Octaviar', 10th Sept 2009 JH is quoted as saying 'My great concern is now for the 10,000 unit holders who will now have to bear, together with other creditors, the cost of a new team of advisers starting again'

It is my understanding that JH knew prior to making this statement that Deloitte had information that was required by Carney lawyers to use in the Class Action on behalf of PIF investors and that Deloitte  were reluctant to cooperate and were 'frustrating' and 'impeding access to documents' as was JH herself. It is also my understanding that the lawyers still had not received cooperation from JH as of last Friday.
If the best interests of PIF unit holders were not being met by Deloittes, why would you NOT want someone in control of OCV who just might do the right thing by us!!!! As to COSTS those 10,000 PIF unit holders would have to be feeling mighty uneasy as to WHO is looking after our best interests!!!!! I am used to the smell of fish, but none as rotten as what is coming to light at long last. Seamisty


----------



## selciper (9 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Apologies for being back so soon, but it's fascinating to find that JH has made it on to YouTube. She's telling kids about moving from "me to we"*or something or other that this silly old codger couldn't quite follow. The short video, since posted in March 09, has had about 220 hits. Enjoy!

ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H60lzsGvAWQ


----------



## marcom (9 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

seamisty, It is now clear that the DoA saga was all about stalling off liquidation
and avoiding all the nasty consequences of inslovent trading. Protecting one's own but from having the "sale"of PIF declared as an uncommercial transaction and not wanting to see mates sued as a result of trading while insolvent, are motives which seem to have transcended responsibility to investors.

I wonder if JH was as concerned about the costs for investors when billing up $2.9M in legal cost for the year?

selciper, thanks for this amazing piece of theatrics. Two observations: Does JH live in that red jacket? And, in one of the other videos covering the results of this AIM event the chair states that the event is sponsored by....wait for it....KPMG!!!!!!!


----------



## selciper (9 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Marcom - The KPMG paradox is a hoot. Perhaps the Gods are laughing at this twist. 

As regards insolvency etc, I feel that the liquidator's public hearings next year may provide a quantity of explosive moments.


----------



## marcom (9 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

selciper, just replayed the youtube video again and I think you have stumbled onto something very important - starting at 5m 25sec JH tells the audience that she has just taken her management team to New Zealand for one of those team bonding exercises (moving from me to we, she explains) that involved participation in "extreme sports" including jet boating.

That management team services PIF. WHO PAID FOR THIS JUNKET!!!! Strange corporate behaviour for a RE who has not been paid for nearly 18 months!

The debate was held for International Women's Day which was 8 March 2009, a Sunday. JH says that "... this week my team has been jetboating in New Zealand... in fact last Monday..." which would have been Monday 2 March 2009.

seamisty, this is starting to smell more like MFS and Storm all over again!!!

I've kept a copy of this video as I have a feeling it may come in useful in the future.


----------



## Cookie1 (9 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Attached is an article from "The Princes" column in the Weekend Australian Financial Review on Saturday 7 November 2009 entitled "MFS five reject such PIF piffle". I think instead of "Chris" Hutchings it should say "Guy" Hutchings; according to the article he's been through an ASIC enquiry before and came out unscathed. Hopefully, this time it will be different!


----------



## zixo (9 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Quote marcom :::"What did the Octaviar administrators (Deloitts) do about the misappropriation other than register our claim as a debt against Octaviar?
> 
> Why did Deloitts employ David Anderson and co to assist in the winding up of Octaviar after the misappropriation was made public, and potentially allowing evidence to be tampered with? ":::::::
> 
> ...





I think its about time that everyone in the PIF realises that JH and wellington are obviously not working in our best interests.
Perhaps ASIC could have some more court apperances with the very people who we were conned to trust. 

What do we do now - keep waiting whilst she siphons off the rest of the fund and hides any incriminating evidence?


----------



## marcom (9 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

cookie 1 I think they have got the wrong person - Guy Hutchings came from the UK and worked for Tower Financial, along with Watts. Do not think he was in Aust at that time. Shows you the standard of journalism in this country!


----------



## Cookie1 (9 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Marcom for your research. I wonder who the article is referring to since the journalist obviously got the name wrong???


----------



## seamisty (9 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I know that many PIF investors follow this thread and I am very interested to get an idea as to a general overview from investors like myself that initially supported and elected JH and her team of experienced  professionals to take our fund forward and  deliver promised distributions, buybacks, transparancey, legal action to recoup losses and rebuild our unit value etc who no longer have confidence in WC's ability to honour those empty promises. Instead of regular investor updates, the majority of our information is sourced from media articles, including unit price sensitive data which by right should be announced on the NSX, the listing of which was forced upon us. Yes, I agree, JH's use by date is up and I also agree Jenny  'we is me', BUT I have earned that right!!! It was not derived from being handed something for nothing!! I worked hard and saved hard and was subsequently semi retired as a result of that effort!! 'We is me' was a reward of my own efforts and personal achievements and NOT from sitting back and taking credit and monetary gain for something I took for granted, relying on others to do the work,  I had already earnt my money which was stolen from me, we and every single person who 
invested in the PIF and who was under the misguided impression that you, Jenny was going to do your utmost to help us recover and rebuild that Fund. Not hinder and prolong outcomes implemented by others that we consider was your responsibility to pursue originally. IMO you have not delivered and I personally will be surprised if you do. I think the spelling of we in 'me is we' should be WEE!!! A disgusted, disillusioned Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (10 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This is extracted from a media article from the GCB published in Mar this year:::::http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/03/25/62815_gold-coast-news.html:::::::"Wellington Capital's Premium Income Fund, as second mortgagee, is owed $20 million, a loan that has been in default since October.

Jenny Hutson, Wellington's chairman, yesterday said the receivership provided breathing space to achieve a better price for the Sheraton Mirage after discussions with the two potential buyers had stalled.

It has been suggested St George may not be in a rush to offload the property at a discount.

"There's a fair dose of commonsense on this," said Ms Hutson.

"Everybody's interests are aligned here in terms of trying to get the best outcome. There is total co-operation between us, St George and their receivers."

Ms Hutson said a new campaign to sell the property was some time away.

"Step one is about the receivers understanding the property and maximising what the property delivers for everyone's benefit," she said.

The Premium Income Fund needs a price of $80 million to meet 95 per cent of the $20 million it is owed by Raptis.

Ms Hutson yesterday stamped her faith in the property yesterday, describing it as one of the 'best bits of real estate on the eastern seaboard'.

She said at the asking price, there was a 'fortune to be made' for a potential purchaser.

"There is just not a question about that," she said.

"If the consequence of the St George receivership is that the property is held for some time, when it does come on to the market it is going to be at a number that is much, much higher than that because the world would have moved."::::::::

If the media is correct in the following article in today's GCB, who knocked back the supposedly $70mill offer for the Sheraton mirage in Jan 2009 from Don O'Rorke before it was placed in receivership by St George bank in Mar,  Raptis, the bank or our RE? JH is conspicuous in her absence in this article and still no update to investors regarding another huge financial blow to the PIF. Seamisty

Flying dollar to help repel foreign raids
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  November 10th, 2009

GOLD Coast developers just cannot win a trick as foreign investors continue to beat them to the punch on big-ticket properties.

But it could all come to an end thanks to a resurgent Australian dollar.

Despite the currency putting the brakes on big deals, most market players agree that the latest offshore spending spree has been a confidence boost for the city's flagging property market.

"It's some relief to the local development industry (that) new money is finally starting to filter into Australia," said DTZ's Gold Coast managing director Cameron Wilson.

His comments come on the heels of The Gold Coast Bulletin revealing last week that an Indian property giant had snared the Sheraton Mirage for less than $60 million.

The deal is $40 million less than the price expected by receivers to the ageing hotel property more than a year ago, and $20 million less than the price Casuarina Beach developer Don O'Rorke was willing to pay in January.

Mr O'Rorke is one of several Coast property players who have missed out on bargain deals this year.

His problem is understood to have been a lack of enthusiasm by financiers amid tightened credit conditions.

For others, like cashed-up developer Sunland Group, it has been due to zealous buying from foreign investors.

Sunland was second in line to pick up the Pacific Beach site, which was part of the failed City Pacific empire.


An undisclosed Chinese buyer has signed an $80 million contract for the Surfers Paradise site, around twice the price offered by Sunland to City Pacific's receivers.

The Coast is now awash with foreign money, mainly from Korea, China and now India, all vying for a limited piece of the Coast pie.

CB Richard Ellis's Mark Witheriff, who negotiated the Sheraton and Pacific Beach sales, was confident the wave would continue despite the strong dollar.

"There is no question there's more money coming this way from offshore," he said.

While Colliers International's Gold Coast boss Stewart Gilchrist said the rising dollar had caused a cooling of interest from Hong Kong and Singapore, he was confident domestic institutions could take up the slack.

Listed property groups and fund managers have raise about $16 billion in capital in the past year, and Mr Gilchrist said some of this would make its way to the Coast.

"We're seeing value on the Coast and more so than in the capital cities," he said.

DTZ's Mr Wilson said the Sheraton Mirage sale last week to New Delhi-based Pearls Group was a classic example of receivers deciding it was time to shift bad debt from bank balance sheets.

"They've realised the market has found its natural level, that there are only so many buyers for these assets and they're accepting the only real offers on the table," he said.


----------



## seamisty (10 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> cookie 1 I think they have got the wrong person - Guy Hutchings came from the UK and worked for Tower Financial, along with Watts. Do not think he was in Aust at that time. Shows you the standard of journalism in this country!



It's our GUY, Marcom!!! Seamisty

TAM replaces its CIO
Monday, October 29th 2001, 1:02PM 
Tower Asset Management (TAM) has made several new appointments to strengthen its Australian investment operations. 
Guy Hutchings has taken over as general manager, investments, for Australia. He will have specific responsibility in Australia for integrating client strategy with portfolio design and structure, manager selection and monitoring. 
Hutchings was a senior investment manager with the BHP Pension Plan in Melbourne for the past four years and prior to that was an Australian equity manager for FAI.
Source::http://www.goodreturns.co.nz/article/976486729/tam-replaces-its-cio.html


----------



## communique (10 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I know that many PIF investors follow this thread and I am very interested to get an idea as to a general overview from investors like myself that initially supported and elected JH and her team of experienced  professionals to take our fund forward and  deliver promised distributions, buybacks, transparancey, legal action to recoup losses and rebuild our unit value etc who no longer have confidence in WC's ability to honour those empty promises. Instead of regular investor updates, the majority of our information is sourced from media articles, including unit price sensitive data which by right should be announced on the NSX, the listing of which was forced upon us. Yes, I agree, JH's use by date is up and I also agree Jenny  'we is me', BUT I have earned that right!!! It was not derived from being handed something for nothing!! I worked hard and saved hard and was subsequently semi retired as a result of that effort!! 'We is me' was a reward of my own efforts and personal achievements and NOT from sitting back and taking credit and monetary gain for something I took for granted, relying on others to do the work,  I had already earnt my money which was stolen from me, we and every single person who
> invested in the PIF and who was under the misguided impression that you, Jenny was going to do your utmost to help us recover and rebuild that Fund. Not hinder and prolong outcomes implemented by others that we consider was your responsibility to pursue originally. IMO you have not delivered and I personally will be surprised if you do. I think the spelling of we in 'me is we' should be WEE!!! A disgusted, disillusioned Seamisty




Don't forget the people who didn't vote for JH.  I remember a few people being ridiculed for questioning the vote for JH.  I have learnt a few golden rules from this fiasco.
1. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
2. Always do your own research.
3. Have a healthy distrust for anybody with light coloured shoes.
4. Never ridicule an opposing point of view
and if all the above fails watch the movie "FLAWLESS" again.


----------



## lawry1dog (10 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am glad that everybody is so passionate about our fund.

I am hoping like everybody else that we get most of our money back.

I appreciate all your invaluable information that comes forth here, but
at the end of the day we want our money back.

I personally do not think anything will come of the IMF Class and ASIC legal
actions, as most or all of the money will go to the lawyers and back to IMF.
This can be backed up by the last bulletin from the IMF:-

_First IMF PIF Update
(b) will seek in any settlement to have all class members receive the same percentage of their claims by way of net settlement, after payment of all costs, including the cost of IMF’s funding.

Proceedings commenced by ASIC
11. The amount of compensation that ASIC can recover for investors is uncertain as it depends upon the financial positions of the parties being sued and the existence of any insurance polices which may respond to ASIC’s claims._

I hoping that the NSX unit value will increase in value the next couple of years.
I do not expect WC to pay any distributions in that time.

Also what happened about Andrew Peacock? Should he be part of the ASIC
action?
Or is this a conspiracy, where the Labor Government, when they got into power just as our Fund went bust, decided to crucify the Fund because
the blue blood Liberal Andrew Peacock was on the board.
The Rudd Government probably assumed the unit holders were all Liberals and
were too greedy.
Of course as time has past, they have relented and decided to keep us satisifed by a ASIC action. Not that, I am a Liberal.


----------



## Jadel (10 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Ahhhh!!! Perpetual Nominees.
> My favourite itch.
> ASIC must be made aware by whatever means necessary that a definitive description MUST be formulated by them of the role, responsibilities and accountabilities of a "CUSTODIAN".
> All PIFers without exception were snared by the presence of Lloyd's insurances and a custodian to guard our backs.
> Tell me Jadel, could Carneys insert this into the CA proceedings to ask the court to make such determination for the benefit of the new financial environment. Any other way we could make this happen?




Hi Simgrund

 Let me first congratulate you on how greatly your English expression has improved

 I can remember you telling us that you were using the forum to improve your skills.

  In regard to Perpetual I think that  somebody with the expertise of IMF or Carneys should indeed examine the legal implications. In any event the transfer of such a large amount of money in the  blink of an eye demonstrates a complete lack of any responsibility or accountability.  I can therefore see can see no logical reason whatsoever to retain these people on the enormous fees that they are charging to our fund. .

Many investors had the experience (as I did )of being repeatedly informed by MFS staff that our money was as safe as the gold in, ‘Fort Knox” at Perpetual .This was even confirmed in a telephone conversation by one of the Perpetual staff, prior to the collapse. Subsequently their attitude completely changed to a defensive posture, whereby they  now gave self work descriptions as no more than postal clerks, no doubt fearing any kind of legal repercussions.

By the way Simgrund, I also seem to remember that in one of your posts you stated that you had a letter signed personally by Andrew Peacock guaranteeing the return of your investment. I think you should pass that letter on to Carneys Solicitors or perhaps even the media to highlight the deception of the Octavier directors.


----------



## Bessie223 (10 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Seamisty This is my first post. Yes there are those who watch this forum closely. We also made our hard earned savings from the fishing industry and invested it in the PIF only to have someone steal it from us. We also voted for J.H and W.C. and are now sorry we did so. In all this time she has not delivered on one promise but sits and watches what is left of our money slowly dwindle away. Thankyou to all the people who post on this forum and who work tirelessly to keep us informed. Thankyou to those who worked hard to get Asic moving and for the class action. All this work is very much appreciated. I too hope King and his Buddies rot in Hell and are held accountable for the misery they have caused so many people. J.H. is now adding to this misery. Please keep the information coming on this forum as this is the only place that it is coming from. Thanks


----------



## seamisty (10 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for posting Bessie223!! Jadel, I know someone else who also received a signed letter from Peacock saying they would be repaid in full or something similar. I think she got the letter in May 2008, I will follow it up. Seamisty


----------



## selciper (10 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just a thought about the "results" of the Investor Advisory Committee election process.

1. We (PIF) obviously paid for it - mailouts, processing etc.

2. As no figures have been provided, surely we cannot be fully confident in the result.

3. If a Body Corporate election announcement did not reveal figures alongside candidates' names to owners when requested, there would be an uproar. Body Corporate members would immediately appeal to the Dept of Fair Trading or its equivalent.

4. Does Queensland have an authority to whom the AG could appeal on this matter?


----------



## Cookie1 (10 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We have an email from our financial adviser indicating MFS told them we would receive our February 2008 redemption the end of February as requested but they couldn't give us a date for the January 2008 redemption at that time. This was in January 2008 after the :fan and before redemptions were frozen. I'll need to find out if the info was received from MFS in writing or verbally.


----------



## seamisty (11 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It appears there are lots of relevant PIF questions that deserve answers and are not being satisfactorily responded to by the Wellington Capital hotline or JH. I suggest we collate investor queries on a monthly basis from contact we receive re the forum or email as in my opinion this forum is still the only independent contact and information point and send them directly to our RE requesting adequate responses. If the issues are not addressed and answered satisfactorliy and promptly , we then have the right to lodge a formal complaint with ASIC who are already 'on the case' and should take on board these issues and deal with them appropriately.


Also, in our investor ranks do we have some one qualified to simplify the latest IMF report as I have had several enquiries as to what the implications are re Wellington Investment  Management Ltd still being named a respondent in the IMF Class Action as a result of their lack of cooperation with our lawyers, contrary to what JH indicated she would do in exchange for being removed from the same .Thanks, seamisty


----------



## zixo (12 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Just a thought about the "results" of the Investor Advisory Committee election process.
> 
> 1. We (PIF) obviously paid for it - mailouts, processing etc.
> 
> ...




I totally agree. 
We never had an independent evaluation done on the vote when our advisory committee was processed , nor for that matter when JH and wellington weasled their way into controlling our money.
It was all done in house. 

Perpetual are also past their used by date and I think they still stink from the mfs theft. For the life of me I dont know why we are still using Perpetual 
Is there any chance we can at least have those morons flicked as they are as useless as what wellington is now.


----------



## Duped (12 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Industry body for 'custodians' is ACSA.  See www.custodial.org.au.

Perpetual is a member.

I think a lot of us were led to misunderstand the role of a custodian.  They're effectively a safety deposit box.  A VERY VERY expensive safety deposit box service. Amonst other things they hold the physical legal papers e.g. deeds to land we hold mortgages over.  They release them when an authorised person turns up and follows an authorised process.  No questions asked about where the assets (paper/cash) goes.  In their eyes, that's not their problem. They probably wouldn't have a clue what was in the PDS.

The client (MFSIM/PIF in our case) writes the authorisation rules and nominates the authorised signatories. 

All the 'custodian' does is prevent one staff member taking off with the assets and moving to Majorca.  I'm fairly sure that Perpetual would have allowed Hutchings to move cash into an account in his own name if the authorisation rules allowed it. 

We of course, were led to believe otherwise.

However it may be that Perpetual had some say in writing or vetting the authorisation rules.  If so, then they've just brought the value of the service their industry provides down to the lowest possible rung. 

Or worse, Perpetual didn't police PIF's rules.  

I mean handballing $130m straight from RBOS over to MFS Administration without any reason or paper assets being given to Perpetual? What sort of "Custodial " service is that? Sets a benchmark marginally above useless?

Anyone know a reporter we can raise this issue with to embarrass ACSA, or better still, Perpetual?


----------



## k.smith (12 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Industry body for 'custodians' is ACSA.  See www.custodial.org.au.
> 
> Perpetual is a member.
> 
> ...




Michael West wrote this article  about "custodians" a few weeks ago...
Below the link are a few exerpts from the article..

http://www.businessday.com.au/busin...-doing-their-jobs-properly-20091021-h96r.html

"......Custody lies at the core of the financial system. The integrity of the system comes with the trust that an independent party, a custodian, knows where your assets are at a given point in time....."

".....Custody, where the big dollars are safeguarded, has been the one remaining refuge of true independence. The system can hardly do with a custodial blow-up......"

"...The custodian is the equivalent of the vending machine. The machine protects the drinks (assets). You can only get the can of drink out (the asset) if you put in something valuable (cash).

Custodians look after the contents of trusts. They essentially are the machine and they are meant to be unbreakable because they have trillions inside - not just a few cans of soft drink.

They can ill afford to leave the key in the machine. And they should know what is inside......"


----------



## marcom (13 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Article in the Australian about frozen funds:

*Freeze makes no sense, says investor*

    * Anthony Klan
    * From: The Australian
    * November 12, 2009 12:00AM

ROY Abrams is one of the estimated 25,000 investors caught out when $25 billion of investment funds were frozen last year amid the meltdown caused by the global financial crisis.

Mr Abrams, who has about $450,000 frozen in AMP funds, said many of those frozen funds were highly compromised as they were reluctant to sell assets to repay investors because it would slash their fee earnings.

As an aggrieved investor, his comments carry considerable weight.

*Mr Abrams is a former chief executive of the Rabbit Photo chain* and, unlike many of the thousands of small investors burned by the asset freezes, has a solid grasp of finance.

"I understand business and I understand investments, but a lot of what is going on in the current market with these frozen funds just doesn't make sense," Mr Abrams said.

"These funds have an incentive not to sell down their assets and repay investors because many of them derive their income from charging management fees based on the size of the funds.

"This is particularly the case where funds have cash and easily transferable equity investments, which they are not selling despite huge demand from investors to withdraw funds."

Zenith Investment Partners senior investment analyst Dugald Higgins said many funds charged fees based on gross assets and faced potential conflicts of interest in selling down assets.

Those potential conflicts had also raised eyebrows during the boom years, with question marks over the motives behind some groups, he said. "You could argue as far as the funds go, most managers seemed to be reluctant to dispose of assets . . . which could be driven by their desire to increase funds under management," Mr Higgins said.

However, the current market posed a range of problems for fund managers and there were many reasons why funds could be reluctant to sell assets, he said.

Property funds, in particular, were reluctant to sell assets now because commercial property markets had fallen by about 25 per cent from the peak of the market and sentiment was slowly improving, Mr Higgins said. Other funds were reluctant to sell assets because they were embroiled in legal battles and some were in negative equity.

"Some funds have an ability to sell and some don't. There are some very high-risk and high-return funds holding very high levels of debt, which could further complicate things," Mr Higgins said.

Funds would be unwilling to take a hit to management fees by selling assets and repaying investments if it could cause the fund to collapse.

"Then everybody loses."


----------



## seamisty (13 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

extracted from an article in todays SMH titled Birthday boy keeps his presence SCOTT ROCHFORT
November 13, 2009 
DEBT RECKONINGThe company secretary of the Octaviar Group, David Anderson, has attempted to settle any confusion among the imploded Gold Coast financial engineer's legion of creditors, who are owed around $1.7 billion.

The former chief bean counter of the company, who was paid $940,000 by MFS's former administrator and liquidator Deloitte in consultancy fees, has explained he was actually not involved in the decision making at the company over that time.

''At no time since 3 October 2008 have I been in control of the affairs of the company or had transparency as to the assets and liabilities of the company or the transactions undertaken,'' explained Anderson, whose firm Business Puzzle Solutions had been invoicing Deloitte for helping piece together the riddle that was MFS (aka Octaviar).

In a statement of affairs issued by Octaviar's new liquidator Bentleys Corporate Recovery, Anderson explained he was not involved in the payments made to one of the group's creditors, Fortress, by Deloitte. Anderson also said he had no details of the claims from former and present Octaviar employees, ''as not only would … these [have] been subject to natural fluctuations since October 3, 2008, but I understand the voluntary administrators or deed administrators had settled with one or more past employees regarding their claims.'';;;;;;;;


Business Puzzle Solutions biggest job may very well be in finding solutions and explanations as to what went on at OCV for the 6 years the David Mark Anderson was company secretary there. If the allegations from ASIC  regarding his alledged involvement with the missapropriation of PIF money is proved correct he possibly will  be needing that money he received from Deloittes to pay his fines!!!! Seamisty


----------



## marcom (13 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*John Fish chases $200m investors*

Nick Nichols, business editor Gold Coast Bulletin |  November 13th, 2009

GOLD Coast property developer John Fish is snubbing the banks and planning to create a new financial powerhouse to kickstart the tourism strip's flagging construction industry.

Mr Fish, who is one of the city's few major developers still standing after the global credit crisis, is launching a new finance vehicle to target the distressed assets of fellow developers.

Fish Capital is planning initially to raise $200 million from up to 400 investors during the next four months to capitalise on 'once in a generation' opportunities.

The venture, which will enlist local high-end investors as well as sovereign wealth funds from Asia, is intended to fill a gaping hole in the financial landscape created by the loss of second-tier mortgagees such as City Pacific.

"The banks have hijacked all second-tier lenders, sending them to the wall," said Mr Fish.

He said with development finance gone, many prime construction sites were close to worthless even with approvals in place.

While this was placing added pressure on southeast Queensland's housing supply, Mr Fish said it also created unique development opportunities, supplemented by an estimated 25 per cent drop in construction costs.

"Southeast Queensland has in-built demographic (pressures), a huge undersupply of housing due to the global financial crisis and no funding for developers," he said.

"This is the best buying opportunity for real estate for the past 16 years.

"Whoever gets money first is going to win.

"Over the next 18 months, my aim is to start an finish 750 apartments and 200 house and land packages."

Fish Capital is solely targeting residential projects, including subdivisions, apartments and townhouses, all of which Mr Fish said would be 'firewalled' from his existing development empire.

Mr Fish, known as Mr Fix-it in some quarters, is hoping his reputation for buying low and adding value to assets will encourage investors to climb on board.

The former real estate agent from Ipswich built a fortune from the sale of the Martha Cove project to City Pacific, on top of his interest in the Hope Island resort to billionaire property man Lang Walker.

"Dealmaking is what I'm best at, and restructuring assets is my forte," said Mr Fish.

Fish Capital is focusing almost exclusively on Gold Coast opportunities.

The opportunities would be 'deal specific' and undertaken by specially created entities.

"I'm going to have my money in every one of these deals," said Mr Fish.

*He said Fish Capital could offer a solution for frozen mortgage funds still carrying debt-laden assets linked to failed Gold Coast companies MFS and City Pacific.

Stressed Raptis Group assets also were on the radar.
*
Over the past month, some of these assets have been bought by offshore bargain hunters, including the Sheraton Mirage which has sold for less than $60 million to an Indian development giant.

Mr Fish said the plan was to recapitalise targeted projects, restructure them and take them to completion.

Fish Capital has been on the drawing board for more than two years, since well before the financial crisis hit.

The company secured a financial services licence in September 2007.


----------



## marcom (13 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Today in the Brisbane Supreme Court  - Court of Appeal - FORTRESS CREDIT CORPORATION (AUSTRALIA) 11 PTY LIMITED -v- OCTAVIAR LIMITED & others  (Mention) at 9.30am.


----------



## seamisty (13 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From the Business Spectator::::::ASIC tackles ratings agencies::::The corporate regulator says it will hold credit rating agencies accountable for the ratings they give on investment products by imposing strict new licence conditions and removing the exception shielding them from legal action. 

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) released its long-awaited statement about its plans to reform to the way the major ratings agencies - Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch Ratings - are regulated, on Thursday. 

The agencies will be required by the federal government to hold Australian Financial Services (AFS) licences from next year, which forces them to manage conflicts of interest in the same way that others in the industry already do. 

ASIC said agencies holding a licence will be required to have adequate resources to manage the scale and complexity of their business, ensure credit analysts are properly trained to issue ratings that should be provided efficiently, honestly and fairly, as well as having risk management systems in place. 

If the agency offers ratings for products available to retail investors, dispute resolution systems must also be installed. 

Additionally, ASIC said the agencies will not be able to "notch" up ratings for an anti-competitive purpose. 

The agencies, which have largely operated outside the regulatory framework, have been labelled by some as the, as yet, unpunished contributors to the global financial crisis. 

The industry has been accused of aggravating the problem by offering strong ratings to subprime-linked investments that turned out to be far more vulnerable. 

For the last 14 years, ratings agencies have been exempt from being sued in Australia for the ratings they give for various financial products. 

The loophole occurs when banks offer investment products as debt obligations with strong ratings given by the agencies, indicating the investment was sound. 

But, even if the ratings weren't accurate, the agencies did not have to give consent to the banks for using the ratings in their disclosure statements, and were thus protected from legal action. 

Ratings agencies will now be required to give consent to their ratings being used, which imposes on them greater control and responsibility for the ways their ratings are promoted. 

Apparent conflicts of interest have also damaged the industry's reputation. 

The conflicts arose from fees paid to the agencies by the companies issuing the products being assesses, which gives the impression that fees can buy a better rating. 

Standard & Poor's and Moody's said they would examine the proposals and continue to co-operate with ASIC:::::                                                   Looks like ASIC has a new set of dentures!!!! Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (14 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Hi Simgrund.....................
> .....................By the way Simgrund, I also seem to remember that in one of your posts you stated that you had a letter signed personally by Andrew Peacock guaranteeing the return of your investment. I think you should pass that letter on to Carneys Solicitors or perhaps even the media to highlight the deception of the Octavier directors.




Hello Jadel.
Phenominal memory you got there. 
It was #4033 and the letter was from Guy Hutchings; the slum dweller of Elyssian hinterlands.
*What about getting our forces behind an effort to STOP any recovered funds to be placed with existing (and dwindling) PIF in the NSX???
This is really and extremely urgent to make our strong objections known.*
WC can be nominated for prorata distribution of any funds recovered directly to members. JH owes us this service on a "gratis" basis having failed us so many emotions ago.

WHERE ARE THE ELECTED COMITTEE MEMBERS? PLEASE SURFACE; WE NEED YOU!!!


----------



## selciper (14 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

As a regular reader and contributor to this thread, it is absolutely clear that without the facility we would all be in the dark - like the thousands who don’t use it. The posts seem to comprise: 1. Bittter and justified comments about the past and present. 2. Conjecture about where we are heading. 3. Very useful updates from media sources etc. 5. Opinions about what we should be doing, often backed by time-consuming research. 6. Some black humour. 7. Action - as in the CA arrangement by the AG which was really impressive.

We really must not give up on defending our rights. Let’s all keep working together!


----------



## charles36 (14 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There are many members using the forum and it is great to see.  It would be nice if all of the users who are unit holders login, even if you don't have much to say, it would be nice if we could hear your views in order that the people who are really working on your behalf behind the scenes could get a sense of the mood out there and what future directions we should take. I am simply saying, "knowledge is power" "strength in numbers" and "people power".  Please seriously consider this option.


----------



## Cookie1 (14 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

For anyone who is interested, Bernard Ripoll will be interviewed by Alan Kohler on the Inside Business program Sunday morning (tomorrow) on the ABC at 10am (EDT).


----------



## JohnH (14 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> There are many members using the forum and it is great to see.  It would be nice if all of the users who are unit holders login, even if you don't have much to say, it would be nice if we could hear your views in order that the people who are really working on your behalf behind the scenes could get a sense of the mood out there and what future directions we should take. I am simply saying, "knowledge is power" "strength in numbers" and "people power".  Please seriously consider this option.




You are right Charles, it would be good to know how many unit holders view this forum.  Sadly, I doubt it is more than a couple of percent of Members...........  I could be, ( and hope that I am), wrong.


----------



## selciper (14 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

JohnH -

There are about 400 hits to this thread within a 24 hour cycle. (The link to the JH YouTube video scored about forty hits after being posted here.)


----------



## Hiekka (15 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I haven't been back through the posts to check, but has the draft ASIC Statement of Claim been posted on the forum? If anyone is interested I'm happy to email it to them for posting on the forum.


----------



## marcom (15 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Hiekka

The ASIC originating application is also on the IMF website http://www.imf.com.au/caseoverview.asp  Just click on the right hand side link - *Current Cases* - and in the dropdown click on *KPMG* 
At the bottom of the page you will also find the Amended and Further Amended versions of our Statement of Claim. This page also lists future Court dates etc.


----------



## marcom (15 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> It appears there are lots of relevant PIF questions that deserve answers and are not being satisfactorily responded to by the Wellington Capital hotline or JH. I suggest we collate investor queries on a monthly basis from contact we receive re the forum or email as in my opinion this forum is still the only independent contact and information point and send them directly to our RE requesting adequate responses. If the issues are not addressed and answered satisfactorliy and promptly , we then have the right to lodge a formal complaint with ASIC who are already 'on the case' and should take on board these issues and deal with them appropriately.
> 
> 
> Also, in our investor ranks do we have some one qualified to simplify the latest IMF report as I have had several enquiries as to what the implications are re Wellington Investment  Management Ltd still being named a respondent in the IMF Class Action as a result of their lack of cooperation with our lawyers, contrary to what JH indicated she would do in exchange for being removed from the same .Thanks, seamisty




This seems to be the most efficient course of action at the present time. What we need is a list (not too long) of key questions that WC is not giving us answers on. Such as the 25% INTEREST LOAN, INVESTOR REPS VOTING, LOAN PORTFOLIO VALUATION, etc.

Submit these directly to WC on behalf of the PIF AG and its members seeking an official response. If we receive an unsatisfactory response then we lodge a complaint with ASIC. If we can demonstrate a lack of transparency, lack of disclosure and actions which are not in the interests of investors, ASIC may take action against the WC financial services licence.

Many contributors to this forum have raised important questions which can form the basis of the list. I will go through the posts and extract a a list of questions and I will post these for coment. Anyone who wishes to add to the list just put up a post.

While I was composing this I thought "is it wise to compile this on an open forum"?  I concluded that WE HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, WC IS THE ONE WHO IS NOT BEING OPEN WITH INVESTORS.

Comments on the strategy please.


----------



## seamisty (15 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Hiekka said:


> I haven't been back through the posts to check, but has the draft ASIC Statement of Claim been posted on the forum? If anyone is interested I'm happy to email it to them for posting on the forum.



Thanks Hiekka and welcome to the forum. I have read the ASIC SOC (Marcom it is not the IMF SOC) and it is compelling reading. I am hoping someone else will post the attatchment as my computer skills are challenged when it comes to attatchments!  Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (15 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> This seems to be the most efficient course of action at the present time. What we need is a list (not too long) of key questions that WC is not giving us answers on. Such as the 25% INTEREST LOAN, INVESTOR REPS VOTING, LOAN PORTFOLIO VALUATION, etc.
> 
> Submit these directly to WC on behalf of the PIF AG and its members seeking an official response. If we receive an unsatisfactory response then we lodge a complaint with ASIC. If we can demonstrate a lack of transparency, lack of disclosure and actions which are not in the interests of investors, ASIC may take action against the WC financial services licence.
> 
> ...



 Yes please Marcom my time is limited so collate away and I am sure Breaker will forward them on to WC on behalf of PIF investors. Many of the issues raised have been raised previously with WC and as yet have not been satisfactorily answered. It is bad enough the deteriorating state of the PIF with out having the added insult of not being adequately informed. I also think in view of the fact that had ASIC intervened when they were first alerted to the fact of a gross missapropriation of PIF funds our current situation may have been avoided, so in view of the evidence available now to substantiate our original complaints perhaps they will be more supportive. I urge all investors to take avail of this opportunity to put your concerns forward and those who don't normally post to please do so. We are at an important crossroad and it is imperative to combine and utilise any support offered. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## marcom (15 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Thanks Hiekka and welcome to the forum. I have read the ASIC SOC (Marcom it is not the IMF SOC) and it is compelling reading. I am hoping someone else will post the attatchment as my computer skills are challenged when it comes to attatchments!  Seamisty




Seamisty, the ASIC Application is also on the IMF website - here is the direct link  http://www.imf.com.au/pdf/KPMG_3.pdf


----------



## seamisty (15 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Seamisty, the ASIC Application is also on the IMF website - here is the direct link  http://www.imf.com.au/pdf/KPMG_3.pdf



Sorry, Thanks Marcom. What did you think of it? Below is a letter sent to Fund Advisers after the alledged crimes had already been committed and not long before the alledged forged documents were invented to cover the alledged activities!!! The letter is the biggest load of BS and had ASIC stepped in earlier the proceeds from the original sale of the 65% Stella should have been used to pay down the RBOS loan and pay the support facility. We are owed far more than 147.5mill my friends!!! Seamisty


1
23 January 2008
Dear Adviser
MFS Premium Income Fund
Following recent events regarding MFS Limited and current financial market
volatility, we thought it would be beneficial to write and clarify the management and
operational structure of your MFS Premium Income Fund investment.
The following points should answer many of your questions and we will continue to
provide you with updates in relation to the fund.
Fund Performance History
Over the last seven years since the inception, of the Fund it has always achieved its
performance targets and delivered the published Target Rates of Return. This is a
result of the disciplined investment process adopted by MFS Investment
Management.
We anticipate that the Fund will continue to meet its investment objectives for unit
holders.
Fund Objective
MFS Investment Management’s investment approach has always been as an active
manager who invests in assets which have simple and transparent structures with
an emphasis on the diversification of risk.
The objectives of the fund are:
• Preservation of Unit holder capital
• Maintenance of liquidity to meet forecast withdrawals and monthly distributions
• Achievement of a positive net portfolio yield in order to meet target return
obligations to Unit holders
• Matching the maturity profile of investment assets with investors’ investment
term options
Fund Governance
MFS Investment Management is overseen by a five member Board of Directors
(three independent members) who are committed to industry best practice corporate
governance and providing investors with full disclosure of corporate governance
practices.
The MFS Premium Income Fund is a registered managed investment scheme
governed by a constitution and compliance plan. MFS Investment Management is
the Responsible Entity and issuer of units in the Fund. The Fund is managed to its
2
Constitution with a focus on the security of assets and income on those assets. The Premium
Income Fund’s assets are held by an independent custodian (Perpetual Nominees Ltd).
Exposure to MFS Limited shares
Your Fund does not invest in MFS Limited shares and is not impacted by the recent movements
in the MFS Limited share price.
MFS Limited
MFS Limited is a company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange and a completely separate
legal entity to the Premium Income Fund. Please note the share price performance of MFS
Limited does not affect your investment in the MFS Premium Income Fund.
As announced today, MFS is presently in detailed discussions with a number of parties interested
in acquiring a substantial interest in the Stella tourism business. MFS is aiming to reach an
agreement within the next two weeks. The proceeds of any transaction would not only result in
full repayment of all short term maturing debt facilities, but further strengthen the financial
position of MFS.
For current announcements to the market on MFS Limited, please visit the MFS Shareholder
Centre at www.mfsgroup.com.au, or the Australian Stock Exchange at www.asx.com.au.
Yours sincerely
CRAIG WHITE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
MFS LIMITED
GUY HUTCHINGS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
MFS INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED


----------



## marcom (15 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

seamisty, Given the chain of emails, accounting entries, Board Minutes etc which which I am sure support the ASIC application, it looks like they have the respondents "on toast". No amount of argument that "we were going to replace the RBS loan funds with the sale of 65% of Stella" will wash. These are clear breaches of the Act, PIF Constitution, AFS License etc. Critically, the misappropriation proves MFS were insolvent in November 2007 and that fact when judicially accepted will assist the liquidator to claw back funds/compensation in relation to some of the transactions that were perpetrated while insolvent.

Some concerns are - the ASIC application calls for the respondents to "...pay the Responsible Entity for the Premium Income Fund $XXX M compensation for loss caused by the contraventions..." That means the amount of compensation secured will be paid to WC when it should be paid directly to investors.

How much we will get is another question. After payment of ASIC fines $200,000 each plus all costs, some respondents may be a tad short. There is also the prospect of further CRIMINAL charges after the civil action. In the end it will come down to the D&O insurance - but as there is an element of criminal activity here the insurers may be able to lessen liability.

As for our CA - findings in the ASIC case will lessen the burden of proof in relation to these transactions in our CA.


----------



## selciper (15 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It would be a real blow if any ASIC compensation gained were to be handed straight to WC. We want cash! After all, its our money that was lost, not WC's. And to add insult to injury, WC are not exactly being helpful when it comes to our CA.


----------



## Mary Lynch (15 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

And what about all of us who have sold our shares; it was OUR money, not the new investors money that was "stolen", and it will all go into JH's coffers.

It could also ensure that it bankrupts them all prior to the CA, wouldn't it? Then, apart from insurance, what is there left to pay us then.   Can they be asked to pay for some of the same crimes twice? Obviously not!


----------



## marcom (15 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Mary Lynch said:


> And what about all of us who have sold our shares; it was OUR money, not the new investors money that was "stolen", and it will all go into JH's coffers.
> 
> It could also ensure that it bankrupts them all prior to the CA, wouldn't it? Then, apart from insurance, what is there left to pay us then.   Can they be asked to pay for some of the same crimes twice? Obviously not!




Mary, I'm not sure that it would be for the benefit of the "new" investors - surely it would be fixed at the date of the misappropriation - worth asking your barrister son-in-law.

As Carney has said all along we will receive most of the CA compensation from KPMG's insurance policy.


----------



## Hiekka (15 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Marcom/Seamisty,

The document on the KPMG site is only the Application (circa 10 pges). There is also a circa 65 page Affidavit from the ASIC lawyer which attaches the draft Statement of Claim. That document goes into great detail (email trails etc) re the internal communications at MFS & PIF re the $147.5m. It is very apparent from the claim who was driving the show.

I don't know how to post the attachement, but I'm happy to email through to you.

Regards,

Hiekka.


----------



## seamisty (15 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well OK, so ASIC are actually admitting that yes there is a case and they are investigating and have instigated legal proceedings. Where is the bloody media that sat up JH's derriere and followed her and the travelling well paid circus around , reporting on every cough, fart and sneeze?? Hey guys and girls, there is an even bigger story emerging and it appears the blinkers have been slapped on and ear plugs inserted. Whatever happened to supporting the victims and the current repurcussions being experienced by thousands of innocent trusting individuals?? Don't you recognise the opportunity to actually report the truth and expose one of the biggest possible rorts and culumative crime from previous associated parties? I thought PIF investors were apathetic but journos and media reporting on this subject are either totally short sighted, lazy  or have a different agenda. Time to direct effort to individuals that may benefit directly for being honest and focus on getting the facts out there  I think. We are at least recognising those with vested interest to know who not to rely on. Early days with more to come IMHO. SHAME SHAME SHAME to those that failed to help and intervene on behalf of those that cried for help, and yes, a smart journo would have followed up on investor sentiment, not accepting  a bunkered down mentality from someone that  found delivering on promises that snared a yes vote was not sustainable but rather than be open and transparent as previously promised has gone to ground . Every dog has its day, wearing a red jacket just makes it more easier to spot. Seamisty.


----------



## seamisty (16 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

SMH business day ::: http://www.smh.com.au/business/lots-of-wear-and-tear-down-at-the-waterfront-20091115-igce.html   SCOTT ROCHFORT
November 16, 2009 

TANGLED WEBS

David Anderson, founder of Business Puzzle Solutions and company secretary of the collapsed Gold Coast financial concern Octaviar, appears to be a gun for hire.

Bentleys Corporate Recovery, the new liquidator of Octaviar (aka MSF), will terminate the services of Business Puzzle Solutions from Wednesday.

Anderson set up the firm last year to help the former administrator and liquidator Deloitte untangle the financial mess that was MFS.

The former chief financial officer of MFS saw his firm get paid $940,000 in ''consultancy fees'' from Deloitte in less than a year. Bentleys is yet to disclose how much extra was paid to Business Puzzle after it took charge.

The fees compare with the $532,133 base salary Anderson pocketed in his last full year as chief financial officer at MFS, before things went pear shaped. Bentleys served Anderson his notice when they replaced Deloitte in September. It is believed Anderson was also restricted by Bentleys to only being allowed to visit the office during working hours. Anderson will probably not be around to answer questions when the next Octaviar creditors' meeting is held next month. The company has more than $1.7 billion of outstanding bills.


----------



## marcom (16 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hello Hiekka, I have sent you a private message with my email.


----------



## Duped (16 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Just a thought about the "results" of the Investor Advisory Committee election process.
> 
> 1. We (PIF) obviously paid for it - mailouts, processing etc.
> 
> ...




From memory, the IAC has no powers.  If so, then I expect any authority wouldn't be particularly interested in investigating.  

IMO, in absolutely no way does the existence of the IAC diminish or subordinate WC's fiduciary duty to me, an investor.


----------



## Duped (16 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> *John Fish chases $200m investors*
> 
> Nick Nichols, business editor Gold Coast Bulletin |  November 13th, 2009
> 
> ...




Oooh I love that word 'solution'. Especially when it's in my favourite phrase: 'innovative financial solutions'. All I read now is WARNING WARNING WARNING DANGER DANGER.  Feels like there's more sharks on land in SE Queensland than in the heavily netted waters.


Mr Fish seems to have missed out on the Sheraton Mirage.  If he was invited to the table and made an offer that didn't even top Pearl's price that looks like netting PIF .... NOTHING .... then his 'solutions' are likely to be very bitter to swallow.


In writing this I enjoyed revisiting Michael Wests' Dec 10, 2008 article 'Don't Blame the Crisis'.

"Since Wellington’s Jenny Hutson won control of the fund it has dropped to trade around 12 cents per unit, no payments, no buy-back, and practically no cash flow. Pensioners are getting out at 12 cents to *''bottom feeders'' with patient capital.*"

What sort of fish is Fish?


----------



## selciper (16 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

"What sort of fish is Fish?" asks Duped.
I think that leatherjackets could be in abundance.


----------



## Duped (16 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for the articles:

k.smith: "Are our custodians doing their jobs properly?"
marcom: "Freeze makes no sense, says investor"

I enjoyed reading them. Here's one in return. Hold on to your sides.  Some real insight into how embarrassing our federal institutions look like when they  come up against the greed they let off the leash.  I hope the same doesn't happen to us.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/bu.../story-e6frez7r-1225797579171?from=public_rss

"Tax office says $680m Myer haul likely lost

    * By Susannah Moran
    * From: The Australian
    * November 14, 2009 12:01AM

The tax office is unlikely to be paid the bill without setting off on a worldwide legal chase 

THE Australian Tax Office has admitted it has little hope of clawing back the $452 million Myer share sale proceeds sent offshore in the past week by global private equity company TPG.

And despite hitting the Cayman Islands-based TPG parent company with an extra $226m penalty for being involved in an alleged tax avoidance scheme, the tax office is unlikely to be paid that money either without setting off on a worldwide legal chase.

TPG says it has complied with all relevant tax laws, The Australian reports.

The tax office appears to have been stung in the past by complex overseas structures - involving ultimate parent companies located offshore that are not paying tax on Australian deals - prompting its extraordinary actions this week.

On Wednesday night, the ATO asked the Victorian Supreme Court to freeze the National Australia Bank accounts relating to the $2.4 billion float of Myer, which listed on the stockmarket last week in a blaze of publicity involving model and shareholder Jennifer Hawkins.

Two TPG companies were also banned from dealing with the Myer share sale proceeds.

The float cystalised a huge profit for TPG, which led the $1.4bn 2006 purchase of Myer from the Coles Myer group. TPG and its minority partner Blum Capital, which comprehensively restructured Myer and had already recouped their original investments in Myer, pocketed an extra $1.58bn by selling their entire stake in Myer as part of the float.

Yesterday, further details of the tax office's arguments in urgently requesting the account freeze were made public. It took the action after discovering at lunchtime on Wednesday where the money had been deposited.

Judge David Habersberger was told on Wednesday night that, while the tax office had no specific allegations to make about TPG, "in the commissioner's experience when dealing with structures such as these, one of the effects of that structure is that once funds are remitted offshore, then there is nothing in Australia which can be used to satisfy a judgment debt".

TPG's Australian office is 100 per cent-owned by the Texas-based TPG Capital, and it is believed not to have any substantial assets in Australia.

The court was told the TPG structure involved the private Myer Holdings being owned by a Netherlands-based company, in turn owned by a Luxembourg company, and then, ultimately, the Cayman Islands-based TPG Newbridge Myer. The tax office believes the scheme was set up so that the Luxembourg and Caymans Islands companies would not pay tax on the profits they made on the share sale.

The tax office's barrister, Terry Murphy SC, also said there was "virtually no hope" of being paid the $678m it has claimed - the $452m tax debt plus $226m penalty - once the money had left Australia. On Thursday, the ATO's worst nightmares were realised when it was discovered TPG Australia's account had $45 in it, with $1.5bn moved overseas in the previous 10 days. The freezing orders were lifted, and the tax office's application dismissed. "

_________________________________

According to BusinessSpectator, no tax was due anyway thanks to generous laws introduced by Costella and Dutton. Doh!
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...TPG-tax-pd20091116-XU86Q?opendocument&src=rss


----------



## targav 8 (17 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> There are many members using the forum and it is great to see.  It would be nice if all of the users who are unit holders login, even if you don't have much to say, it would be nice if we could hear your views in order that the people who are really working on your behalf behind the scenes could get a sense of the mood out there and what future directions we should take. I am simply saying, "knowledge is power" "strength in numbers" and "people power".  Please seriously consider this option.



 yes i' been reading these post for a while , and i stopped  crying last year. one question is what is happening to the income from the pif fund  which is i believe  is 19 to 20 million dollars a month?  ALl


----------



## seamisty (17 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



targav 8 said:


> yes i' been reading these post for a while , and i stopped  crying last year. one question is what is happening to the income from the pif fund  which is i believe  is 19 to 20 million dollars a month?  ALl



Hi Targav and welcome. The PIF 'USED' to generate that sort of money before it was robbed by OCV/MFS. Since February 2008 any worthwhile PIF assets have been flogged off to repay the $200mill RBOS loan used to prop up related OCV/MFS entities. Nowdays I believe any income or capital from further sale of assets is chewed up by WC operating expenses and legal fees never to be seen again by unit holders and to date, rather than increase unit values and commence distributions as promised by WELLINGTON CAPITAL and JENNY HUTSON we have the complete opposite. A complete lose lose situation. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (18 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all, Marcom has volunteered to collate investor complaints and issues that deserve an answer from WC. Is there a PIF investor with  time, willing to collate details of all media journalists who has had previous association reporting on issues relating to PIF/OCV/MFS? I feel  it will be an advantage to have a data base of interested/previous media contacts on stand by for future contact with PIF related issues in view of the fact that it is now known that PIF investors had legitimate complaints that went unadressed/ignored indefinitely from numerous contact points. For those that continued to support us in the media I feel that there is plenty more to come, including details from those in a position of power who not only did nothing to help, also did not even acknowledge original complaints. Including those govt elected bodies which departments in their wisdom,  quaranteed vital correspondence from investors with indisputable evidence and concerns alerting them to blatant fraud and misconduct. I know this arguement is getting repetative, but from past experience, the louder the noise, eventually, the louder the response. So start SHOUTING PIF investors, we have not achieved a Class Action and (finally) ASIC support from sitting back and reading posts on aussie stock forums. BE HEARD!! MAKE NOISE!! Cheers Seamisty::::Wellington Hotline:: 1300 854 885 ASIC ::http://www.asic.gov.au/fido/fido.ns...ts+-+guide+to+making+a+complaint?openDocument


----------



## marcom (18 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From todays AFR: (anyone got a copy?)

*PIF backers get a $38m sale to savour*

Long-suffering Premium Income Fund investors can expect some joy next year after the sale of the first major asset in the $300 million portfolio.

What has she sold??? Wollongong hotel??


----------



## targav 8 (18 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks seamisty  i thought Jenny hutson was going to be our savior, now i just don't know.how can they take all that money ,and make it disappear on fees . is'nt there any control by lawers or administrators on our side?


----------



## marcom (18 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just received this email from our financial advisor:

Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:02 AM
Subject: UPDATE: Wellington (MFS) Premium Income Fund

Dear Investor,

 It is with great pleasure that I can finally provide you with some good news in relation to your investment in the Wellington Premium Income Fund.

 It was announced yesterday that the Premium Income Fund had sold the partially completed City Beach Hotel in Wollongong for $38m. The development was the largest in the Premium Income Fund portfolio, comprising 168 hotel rooms, 75 apartments and 10 luxury penthouses.

 This is the first major asset sale for the Premium Income Fund. Jenny Hutson of Wellington said that the sale will allow the Fund to make distributions to unitholders from next year.

Regards,

Never mind the price sensitive price disclosure to the NSX!!!!!!!!


----------



## seamisty (18 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Just received this email from our financial advisor:
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:02 AM
> Subject: UPDATE: Wellington (MFS) Premium Income Fund
> ...



Marcom and all, that property owed us $58million plus interest as at Mar 2007!!!! Disgusting, absolutely disgusting!!! When I met with Jenny Hutson and Caroline Snow, the only strategy offered regarding the rebuilding of PIF unit value was that dead assests would be weeded out and good assets would be VALUE ADDED with possible future capital raising. What happened to  joint venture partnerships? and I quote:::                               "Wellington has undertaken an analysis of all assets with respect to identifying those that are suitable for immediate disposal, those that should be held as is pending market recovery, and those that can be developed and in time will deliver a premium to the fund."::::::Looks like we will receive our long awaited distribution before Xmas if we are lucky. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to our unit value now?
Seamisty


----------



## selciper (18 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for making my day a little brighter, Marcom. How many distributions can be made out of 38 million?


----------



## seamisty (18 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Heres your NSX announcement Marcom, what does it mean? Do we get $38mill next year when the hotel is completed? Do we get a share of the profits. very obscure announcement or am I just dumb? Seamisty

Commercial Loan Portfolio
Mortgagee in Possession: Harbour Street, Wollongong
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity for the Premium Income Fund in its capacity as mortgagee
in possession of 60 – 62 Harbour Street, Wollongong has sold the partially complete asset, hotel and
apartment complex to Harbour Street Development Pty Ltd for $38 million (plus GST).
This sale will see the Premium Income Fund realise its carrying value for the asset over time. Cash will be
available to the Fund following completion of building works and sale of the 75 apartments which form part
of the project. Completion of building works and completion of sales are expected to occur during 2010.
Jenny Hutson, Managing Director of Wellington Capital said ‘Our team has been in negotiations with
various parties in relation to this asset all year. This property was taken to auction in May 2009 and there was
significant interest in the project from a range of parties. The sale to Harbour Street Development Pty Ltd
represents a very positive outcome for the Premium Income Fund.’
It is anticipated that the net proceeds from the sale of the apartments will enable a cash payment to be made
to unitholders of the Premium Income Fund during 2010.


----------



## Duped (18 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The NSX announcement states "This sale will see the [PIF] realise its carrying value for the asset over time."  What does that mean? The Dec08 Investor update reported the asset owed us $58M by May 08. 

Had the $20M difference already been written off (impaired) in the current 39.2c valuation per share? From my lay reading of the above sentence the $58M was already written down to $38M. (See Note 11 of the 09 Ann Report)

If I'm wrong then its $20m last week, $20M this week - gone forever. 

A further $40M write off would bring the fund value down from  $296M to $256M. Or from 39.2c per share to 33.9c (Based on the 30/6/09 audited figures.)

The 3c distribution WC needs before it can start paying itself a profit (?) would cost $23M. 

The full $38M would deliver a return of capital of 5c a share. But expect much of it to evaporate into fees to WC and its top secret service providers.

Seems everything is selling at a 30-40% discount to the market peak.   Last week it was the Sheraton Mirage. 

Am I correct to assume that substantially contructed assets are the worst for us? Because they can don't bring income and can begin to deteriorate/date and lose value.  Whereas empty land can just be land banked and completed assets can be bring income.


----------



## Duped (18 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Looking through the 09 Annual Report again I note that Perpetual Nominees Ltd holds the units on behalf of the 84.4 million Wholesale Premium Income Fund units.

Are non 'Wholesale' unit holders paying for this Perpetual service?  I fear we do.  How else could Perpetual's fees come to nearly a $MILLION  last financial year.  

Note 2 (e) states "There are no separate classes of units and each unit has the same rights attaching to it as all other units of the Fund".  Given that Wholesale unit holders get no extra benefit anymore, why don't they get rid of the WPIF structure so we can save us all some money and take a moment together to enjoy the pleasure of sacking Perpetual.

Or perhaps WC could offer WPIF holders the option of transferring out of WPIF.  I'm guessing Perpetual's fees are proportional to the size of WPIF.  Even if we could cut Perpetual's fees by $100K.  Wouldn't that pay the salary of a couple of the nice people at WC who take all our nasty calls?


----------



## seamisty (18 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Looking through the 09 Annual Report again I note that Perpetual Nominees Ltd holds the units on behalf of the 84.4 million Wholesale Premium Income Fund units.
> 
> Are non 'Wholesale' unit holders paying for this Perpetual service?  I fear we do.  How else could Perpetual's fees come to nearly a $MILLION  last financial year.
> 
> ...



Yes Duped, but would it also not relinquish WC's  11% voting control? Seamisty


----------



## Duped (18 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Yes Duped, but would it also not relinquish WC's  11% voting control? Seamisty




I didn't know WC had voting control.  Can I see the WPIF PDS and constitution?


----------



## lawry1dog (18 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good to see something has been sold by WC.

The problem I have, is that WC will give us a Distribution, all from the $38million, but then we will be back to square one again.
This Distribution amount will be laughable to me.

The NSX Unit value will go down, because the fund worth has gone down.

I thought the idea was to increase the NSX unit value to $1.00, so then we
can get our money back.

The $38 million should be kept in the fund, so as to increase its value.

What exactly are we trying to do here. Waiting on some compensation from
the ASIC and Class actions. I do not think so.

I am totally confused on you people, thinking it is a great outcome.
WC has to have a lot more money in the fund, before it is back to
its original value.

Isn't a matter of mathematics. 

Or am I missing something?

Lawry1Dog


----------



## marcom (18 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity for the Premium Income Fund in its capacity as mortgagee in possession of 60 – 62 Harbour Street, Wollongong has sold the partially complete asset, hotel and
apartment complex to Harbour Street Development Pty Ltd for $38 million (plus GST).

This is a substantial asset in the fund, so I want to know who the purchaser is?

Searched the ASIC company database for this company:

Extracted from ASIC's database at AEST 13:49:01 on 18/11/2009
Name 	HARBOUR STREET DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD
ACN 	140 144 869
Type 	Australian Proprietary Company, Limited By Shares
Registration Date *	22/10/2009*
Next Review Date 	22/10/2010
Status 	Registered
Locality of Registered Office 	*Capalaba QLD 4157*
Jurisdiction 	Australian Securities & Investments Commission
Documents Lodged 22/10/2009  1E5925831  pages 3  201C Application For Registration as a Proprietary Company

The company was only registered on 22/10/09 - could be a special purpose vehicle set up for the project, BUT
- Who are they?
- Do they have the requisite funds to complete the purchase and the project? 
- What are the terms of the sale?
- Are we in effect financing them into the purchase?
- When and how much will the sale realise?
- Are we protected if they default?

TOTALLY INADEQUATE DISCLOSURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! iT'S OUR MONEY JENNY!!!!!!!!!


----------



## evelyn (18 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> There are many members using the forum and it is great to see.  It would be nice if all of the users who are unit holders login, even if you don't have much to say, it would be nice if we could hear your views in order that the people who are really working on your behalf behind the scenes could get a sense of the mood out there and what future directions we should take. I am simply saying, "knowledge is power" "strength in numbers" and "people power".  Please seriously consider this option.




Hi All, I discovered this forum just before the CA was announced and have been regularly logging on to keep up to date with the posts. I have been a unit holder since approx. 03/04 and unfortunately also suggested the fund to my mother (82yrs). We moved from Qld to Tas. in dec 06. The ceasing of distributions has caused my partner to take up odd jobs at a very low hourly rate in this isolated part of Tas, we have been unable to visit family members, are pretty much mostly 'holed up' here and have delayed medical attention, etc, many of you have similar or worse tales.
I appreciate all the effort many of you have and still do put into the PIF (I was unaware of the PIF AG unitl I discovered ASF).
Both ours and my mother's terms were 'rolling over' 31.01.08 and we were told the same spin I have read of in the posts - ie PIF is at arm's length", etc, etc. I had actually written a cheque to add to our investment, filled out the form, stamped the envelope, but my "higher self" prevented me from posting it, couldn't explain it at the time! wish it had kicked in earlier!
Anyway there may be others out there like me logging on and appreciative but not contributing.
Thanks again for all efforts by all.


----------



## selciper (18 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Earlier today I was just a little happier, thinking that I might soon be able to get a few of my locked-away bank-notes out of the PIF vaults. Having read today's informative posts, I can see that this may well be another typical Queensland mirage(!). Until WC improve their credibility by being more informative, they will face increasing anger from their members' ranks.


----------



## Duped (18 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> ...
> - What are the terms of the sale?
> - Are we in effect financing them into the purchase?
> ...




My lay reading - yes we are effectively still financing the project because the last sentence reads like we only get money trickling in as the apartments are sold. (Free credit to the new 'owners' Harbour Street?)  How long will it take for all of them to be sold? Were time limits put into the contract? What happens if there are unforseen circumstances like another economic downturn or if there are problems with the buildings' structure? What control do we have?  Are there penalties built in if the new 'owner'  doesn't perform the contract? 

From my reading of the NSX release we are still carrying risk but now we've lost our most powerful right - the right of sale.  Or have we?  Is the right of sale written into the new contract of 'sale'?


----------



## Janiss (18 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Like Evelyn, I too regularly read these posts as it's the only way to find out what's going on with the fund. The investor updates put out by Wellington are useless as the average person would not understand a word. Why can't they write things in plain english instead of all that legal gobbledegook? (Maybe because then we would all learn about the reality of the situation.)
As usual, in relation to the sale of The Wollongong Hotel, it's very unclear about when PIF will get the money and exactly how much will be returned to investors. It's obvious that the drawn out negotiations have certainly ended more favourably for the buyer than the seller! 

Seamisty's idea of media attention is a good one, preferably on television.
I'd suggest Stateline or even 4 corners - they produce very good investigative journalism.  Wellington and JH need to be publically exposed for their lies and deception before their official takeover of the PIF as well as the current appalling management strategies. The previous managers and directors also need to be exposed for the fraud they've committed and the misappropriation of our money. Unfortunately this could have a detrimental effect of devaluing the fund even further, but what else have we got to lose?


----------



## Duped (18 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



lawry1dog said:


> ...
> 
> Or am I missing something?
> 
> Lawry1Dog




No you're not.  

But recall that JH told a Judge that PIF wouldn't pay WC a fee until the unitholders received 3c a unit.  Not the sort of 'promise' one ignores? Think WC would resist the right to start feasting on those fees?  Not me. Not after what the unlisted funds sector has put me through these last two years. That 3c will be on us faster than Fortress were all over OCV Ltd. (We'll just have to trust WC that they got the best price despite being inherently highly motivated to bring some cash into the fund. What do the wooden heads call it: moral hazard.  Duh? It took them until the 21st century to put that ancient wisdom down on paper? Or is moral hazard just a rebranding of 'conflict of interest'?)

As for the unit price (read share price. How else do I get my money out?)  Who knows why the price is so suppressed? At 17c its at a 56% discount to the 39.2c valuation given in the 09 annual report. Pretty poor but better than the 7c it was in June.   Maybe trust in WC's valuations in the 2009 annual report is building? Nothing speaks louder in the share price game than dividends right? I.e. a great example of delivering on promises, being true to your word. Will increasing the 'assets' on paper be as effective?

On the other hand the $7M in expenses certainly gave the fund a battering and there's no evidence yet these massive expenses will abate? $2.9M in legals!!!! That's nearly one % of the fund a year? For what? We get nothing in the way of reassurance from WC and so we do what every self respecting investor can only do: go on past performance and assume the worst.  Ergo, the share price remains smashed.

To make things all the more complicated there's the stoush between WC and the PTQ. More moral hazard. WC is inherently highly motivated to position PIF to make it look like WC was the only way to go and hence maybe avoid being held accountable for a voidable transaction.

Me, I prefer the share price to go up than get cash payments.   But do I trust WC to achieve that?  Track record isn't looking good.

Double up on the moral hazards.  Final call soon to place your bets.  Red for TRUST, black for DON'T TRUST.


----------



## marcom (18 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

More info on the Wollongong "sale" from Realestate source http://www.realestatesource.com.au/pif-reaps-38-million-from-city-beach-development-wollongong.html 

THE Premium Income Fund has reaped $38 million from the sale of a partially completed hotel and apartment complex south of Sydney.

Harbour Street Developments, controlled by Queensland developer George Callianiotis and Rockhampton retailer Solly Stanton, have reportedly agreed to purchase the City Beach development, south of Wollongong, which includes 168 hotel rooms, 75 apartments and 10 penthouses.

Other PIF assets include the Koralbyn Resort and Hotel in Queeensland, and a 144-room resort in Creswick near Ballarat in Victoria, according to the AFR.

It also owns a prominent site on Main Beach in the Gold Coast once controlled by developer Jim Raptis.

And seamisty you'll love the last JH quote 

*PIF spokeswoman Jenny Hutson said "there is nothing in the portfolio that we are not happy to sell at the right price."*

So it's OK to give the real estate media details of the deal but only give minimal details to the people who own the money!!!!

Developer George Callianiotis is the joint venture partner in the Port Macquarie units. http://qldpropertydevelopers.com/pdf/Capability_Statement.pdf


----------



## marcom (18 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped, register us as* BLACK*


----------



## seamisty (18 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All, Thanks to the new forum contributors for taking the time to add your input. I have also had several personal communications from other PIF investors who are just as concerned as to the future direction of the PIF and the potential consequences as a result of the handling of OUR ASSETS by our current RE, WELLINGTON CAPITAL and the impact it will have on unit value and overall PIF deterioration. Sentiment and support for JH has diminished to an almost nil level from the PIF investors I have contact with and her much touted business acumen is seriously being questioned.  If you still have confidence in WC, please feel free to dispute this opinion and post your thoughts. PIF  investors are not going to see the latest developments as a positive outcome, especially if my information was correct that there was an offer of $40million at the Jones Lang LaSalle auction regarding the Wollongong Hotel earlier in the year. Enquiries regarding todays PIN NSX announcement are continuing from some Pif investors and results will be posted on the forum I am sure. I also understand that several PIF investors have requested further details from WC and have contacted ASIC with appropriate concerns also. Keep up the pressure and the forum posts please. regards, Seamisty (Marcom, PIF spokeswoman Jenny Hutson said "there is nothing in the portfolio that we are not happy to sell at the right price",::: I will expand on that when I have more time)


----------



## charles36 (19 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Marcom, I feel sorry for you.  If your financial advisor considers this good news please spare me when he reports to you some bad news.  When is M/S Hutson going to wake up, her total lack of transparency causes all the speculation and suspicions to run riot.  Whatever happened to the lady in the redcoat who stood in front of us and told us all the wonderful things she had planned for the fund including transparency.  I don't know about what other people think but for her to pay us 3 cents she needs 22 million dollars.  How on earth is she going to get that in one hit from the alleged sale (pardon me "give away") of the Wollongong Hotel.  Once we are paid 3 cents we are in for a bumpy ride.  Expenses, fees, legal expenses, economic downtuirns etc.  The longer our RE continues to lack transparency the more angst she is generating amongst the unit holders.  By the way I don't know whether other unit holders are aware but JH commenced negotiations with the NSX on the 2 May, 2008.  Anything that was said to the contrary about the wisdom of such intention obviously fell on deaf ears during the red coated roadshow.  I am sorry to say this but the longer the RE acts this way the fund will deteriorate further from the parlous state it is already in.  Hands up all those who are satisfied with the performance of the fund.


----------



## seamisty (19 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It appears PIF investor sentiment is at an all time low (along with unit values). I received an email from another PIF investor yesterday :::Quote "I am despairing over the complete lack of information re PIF.  I emailed the investor advisory group  --  no response after one week. I have called Jenny Hutson  --  no answer back."::::: 


Has anyone else contacted the IAG and have they received a response? Seamisty


----------



## selciper (19 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

How Ian Verrender (SMH) views ASIC.

ttp://www.smh.com.au/business/a-sick-asic-should-be-put-out-of-its-misery-20091118-imj4.html?autostart=1


----------



## simgrund (19 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*This is an open letter to the elected representatives
of Investor Advisory Committee:
*
Bronwyn ANDREJIC; Alana WOODFORD;

Chris MANGAN;     David HUNTER



*Dear Bronwyn, Alana, Chris & David,**



Somewhere in an earlier post I have extended to you my personal and sincere congrats on being elected to these significant and important representative positions. No less than 41 others have nominated; so your elections should indeed be seen as a respected accomplishment.

I am certain that you follow closely this thread with twin interests; one of a PIF unit holder and the other in your capacity as the elected representative wishing to communicate with others for feedbacks, ideas, etc.

This thread was started with the sole purpose to give an open conduit for all interested unit holders to discuss and exchange all manner of interesting, and many a time, vital information. And its presence led to unitholder activism giving many of us a sense of strength and purpose.

Thanks to this facility, a sizable (over 4500) class action task force was raised.

And a great deal of noise was raised on this thread to send loud representations to government agencies. 

ASIC’s actions of late are cases in point; not coincidences. 

I appeal to you directly to present yourselves to us so that urgent issues can be properly prioritised and channelled where necessary. Your roles are needed.
As you are aware, there are 2 actions afoot with good prospects of recovery for PIF unit holders. 
Our current and most pressing concern is this:

   *That none of the recovered funds be placed into existing NSX pool where they would be subject to market valuation (7 – 14c band) 
    *That all recovered funds be immediately distributed to unit holders on a prorate basis.

Please advise if these concerns can be canvassed by the committee. 
If privileged conduit is preferred to start these contacts, please contact me through members private messages facility. 

With best regards, simgrund*


----------



## seamisty (19 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Simgrund, David Hunter was sucessful IAG candidate number four if one of the first three were not able to fulfill their role. He is also the investor that never received a response from the IAG at WC or calls to JH!!! Has JH seriously lost the plot and WANTS us to get rid of her so she can collect her generous severence payout?!?!?! Incompetency at its best IMO!!! Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (19 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The time has come to bite the bullet. Disband the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and start all over again.

For if there is one thing that has come of yesterday's mammoth Supreme Court judgment it is this: ASIC, even though it is run by lawyers, seems incapable of putting together a decent case to present to the courts.

Given it already has a less-than-impressive record when it comes

to the investigation of corporate malfeasance and white-collar crime in general, this embarrassing episode should hammer home the final nail in its coffin.

Yesterday's 3000-page judgment by Justice Robert Austin is a damning indictment on the ability of our corporate regulator.

The case against the One.Tel founders was ill-conceived, poorly conducted and riddled with errors at almost every step. Its arguments to the court were embellished and exaggerated, its evidence and analysis of the company's financial

situation deeply flawed and it failed comprehensively to convince the judge of the fundamental basis of its case - that the defendants misled the board and the market.

In a bizarre twist, Jodee (real name John David) Rich has emerged a hero, lauded by the judge for his honesty and the diligence and thought he employed during his 25 days under the blowtorch of cross-examination.

His co-accused, Mark Silbermann, was not put on quite the same pedestal but emerged with his reputation relatively untarnished.

Unfortunately, many of ASIC's witnesses were not accorded quite the same degree of credibility.

The eight-year case against Rich and Silbermann - three of them spent in court - spans three ASIC administrations; that of David Knott, Jeff Lucy and Tony D'Aloisio.

Each will have fingers pointing at the others for responsibility but only D'Aloisio could claim with any degree of credibility that the blame lay elsewhere, given the case had been running for years before his ascension to the top job.

It now will be up to D'Aloisio to convince the Federal Government and the public that ASIC's systems have been overhauled and that there will be no repetitions.

From day one, ASIC's approach appeared to be stunningly misconceived. One.Tel collapsed when the Packer and Murdoch families pulled the plug on a crucial $132 million capital raising shortly after announcing they would support it.

Any investor who bought shares during that period rightly would have felt aggrieved, as would creditors.

Instead, the investigation turned to Rich, his business partner Brad Keeling, chairman John Greaves and Silbermann after ASIC accepted arguments from the junior media moguls that they had been ''profoundly misled''. Both James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch were on the board. Both had been cornerstone investors from the start.

For more than six months before it collapsed, One.Tel had virtually no market credibility. It was burning cash by the truckload, its forecasts were being altered - usually in the negative - and its billing systems were a disaster. The share price had crashed and it was clear the company was running out of money. But incompetence is not a crime. Nor is hubris. And ASIC's shredded credibility stems from that one word - crime.

Towards the end of the last decade, the regulator embarked on a deliberate ''two-pronged'' attack when it came to prosecutions.

The theory was, given there is a lower threshold of proof required for civil action, the regulator would take a shotgun approach with a broad civil case. If it managed to hit some targets, it would then use whatever evidence was accepted in the civil action on a more focused criminal case.

The scatter-gun approach instead has led to lazy investigation and poor prosecution.

Over the years, ASIC has taken an uneven approach to white-collar crime, often employing its resources to take trophies with cases against easy targets. It was a strategy that made the statistics look good, with an overwhelming success rate in prosecutions. But it did little to instil public confidence in its abilities to rein in the excesses of the corporate world.

Its most notorious failing was its case against Steve Vizard, the alleged comedian and former Telstra director. Vizard admitted using information gained as a Telstra director to engage in share trading. While insider trading is a criminal offence, charges were never laid. Instead, ASIC cut a deal where, in exchange for frank admissions, it would impose a civil penalty of a substantial fine and a 10-year ban as a company director.

There is no shame in a regulator losing in court. Cases involving corporate crime by their very nature are complex and usually involve well-heeled defendants who can employ the best defence money can buy.

It is essential a regulator takes on the tough cases. But it cannot afford to mount the kind of sloppy arguments employed in this example.

Rich and Keeling - the founders of One.Tel - may have difficulty ever getting back into business with money raised from the public, particularly given the One.Tel debacle wasn't their first


----------



## simgrund (19 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Simgrund, David Hunter was sucessful IAG candidate number four if one of the first three were not able to fulfill their role. He is also the investor that never received a response from the IAG at WC or calls to JH!!! Has JH seriously lost the plot and WANTS us to get rid of her so she can collect her generous severence payout?!?!?! Incompetency at its best IMO!!! Seamisty




*Thanks Seamisty,
I stand corrected.  Please place all IAC names on this post so we are all aware of the current composition of the committee.
With apologies to David,
simgrund 
*


----------



## Duped (19 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From AFR yesterday:
"Long-suffering Premium Income Fund investors can expect some joy next year after the sale of the first major asset in the $300 million portfolio.

The partially completed City Beach hotel and residential apartment block at Wollongong, south of Sydney, has sold for about $38 million to Harbour Street Developments.

The company is controlled by Queensland developer George Callianiotis, with the backing of Rockhampton retailer Solly Stanton, founder of the discount Silly Solly's chain.

The development comprises 168 hotel rooms, 75 apartments and 10 luxury penthouses.

PIF's responsible entity, now controlled by Jenny Hutson's Brisbane based Wellington Capital, still has 29 assets on the market.

She said returns would be made to PIF's 10,000 plus unitholders from next year.  "This (Wollongong) sale lets us make the payment to PIF," Ms Hutson said yesterday.

"Now we are going to be able to see the completion, realisation and cash return to the fund and therefore our investors."

Although Wollongong was the largest, other assets in the PIF portfolio include the Koralbyn Resort and Hotel in Queensland comprising accommodation, a golf course and vacant land.

At Creswick, near Ballarat, the PIF also controls an Accor-managed 144-room resort along with vacant land and a golf course.  The last remaining vacant block on Main Beach at the Gold Coast, which was once controlled by developer Jim Raptis, is also on the market.

"There is nothing in the portfolio that we are not happy to sell at the right price," she said.

But Ms Hutson said she had been dogged by people wanting to pay below market value for the PIF assets for the past 18 months.

"We are delighted to sell Wollongong. I have been in negotiations all year and finally the market has to come to understand we will only accept what the assets are worth.

"There's a whole lot of people who have been wanting to pay below market value. We have been in deep negotiations. "I have been a seller every day for the past 18 months , talking to someone about selling the asset.  I have seen a real shift in the past three months.  There is a realisation that if people don't move now they will look back and see they have missed the bottom of the cycle."

Ms Hutson said more than 40 apartments in the City Beach project had sold to individual buyers in the past couple of months."



So we are getting joy from selling into the bottom of the cycle?  I don't think I'd like to hang out with Lisa Allen if this is her definition of joy.

40 apartments sold in the past couple of months eh?  At an average price of $400K that would have given us about $16M.  $20M at an average price of $500K.  Maybe we will get our $58M back? Depending on how much more we've spent on the development.

Anyone know the address of the Main Beach vacant block?

As for the people "wanting to pay below market value" - picked up the Gold Coast Sheraton didn't they? Thanks for putting us in that position King/Hutchings and posse.  That one was all your fault. Second mortgage junk.  St George was always going to do what they did.  Epic fail.  But then again how else were you going to sell the thing in the first place at a high enough price so you could book a nice fat profit for the OCV Ltd shareholders.  Talk about related party transaction.


----------



## seamisty (19 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> *Thanks Seamisty,
> I stand corrected.  Please place all IAC names on this post so we are all aware of the current composition of the committee.
> With apologies to David,
> simgrund
> *



Bronwyn ANDREJIC; Alana WOODFORD;

Chris MANGAN; ARE the three elected IAG representatives. I see they don't take their role very seriously if they are so disinterested in PIF related data that they do not know of the existance of this thread as the main contact point and source of information. Or if they do know of it, they are not participating. Apart from that, the investor input has to pass WC scrutiny before it is passed on to them to pass back to WC on our behalf. :bad:Seamisty


----------



## marcom (19 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Jadel, there is also a political perspective which is unfolding in the media today:  http://www.smh.com.au/business/howard-pressured-me-on-case-rich-20091118-imjj.html

From the Sydney Morning Herald today "...JODEE RICH has accused the former prime minister John Howard of using his brother, Stan, to pressure him to admit defeat and settle the case the corporate regulator brought against him.

Speaking yesterday after his victory in defending the legal claims that he failed to monitor One.Tel's finances and misled his fellow directors, Mr Rich said Stan Howard telephoned his father, Steven Rich, in June 2001 with a request that he drop his defence to the case.

''The prime minister was sending a message through Stan Howard that it was very important that I settled and didn't defend the case,'' Mr Rich said.

Mr Rich said he believed the prime minister was urged to make the move ''because Kerry [Packer] had an interest in [the case]''.

''My theory all along has been that Kerry really did what he could at the time to stir this up,'' Mr Rich said.

Looks like the ASIC case was a diversion to deflect attention away from Packer and Murdoch. You know how it works ASIC gets a budget increase to fund lengthy legal action, hoping that Rich would fold and settle the case as other One Tel Directors had done.

Now there is a judgement critical of P & M's testimony and the receiver is poised to issue legal action against them for damages.

Talk about *Independent* Statutory Authorities!


----------



## Blueboy1 (19 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Here's one from the Shaky Isles*

Another finance co calls in receivers
The latest finance company to be put into receivership is Boston Finance; trustees say it is now the most effective option

19 November 2009
Boston Finance has finally been put into receivership.

A moratorium arrangement has been in place since March 2008, but the Trustees Perpetual Trust called in receivers today.

At the time of the moratorium 1,300 investors had $38.5 million tied up in Boston Finance. Since then investors have been repaid $14.24 million, equating to a return of 37 cents in the dollar. The figure includes a distribution of $2.3 million to be made now.

Perpetual Trust spokesman Mathew Lancaster says calling in the receivers is the is now the most effective and efficient option. The trustee and directors of the company say seeking an extension to the moratorium would have resulted in a costly process for investors, with little or no benefit to them.

They say the moratorium has enabled the directors to use their knowledge of the company to maximise recovery of 24 of the original 32 loans and put a strategy in place to maximise the recovery of the remaining eight loans.

There are eight loans to be recovered with a book value net of provisions of $15.85 million. A substantial portion of the dollar value of the loans is subject to High Court litigation.

Boston Finance is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Australian Octaviar (ex MFS) group which is itself in liquidation.


----------



## selciper (19 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I would expect the IAC to be represented in a little box within the pages of the next so-called update. There might be five or six Dorothy Dixers. Hope that I'm wrong.


----------



## Duped (19 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Blueboy1 said:


> *Here's one from the Shaky Isles*
> 
> ...




Hmmm.  Is this a vision of our future?


----------



## seamisty (20 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I find this article in todays Gold Coast Bulletin extremely flawed and misleading. Any PIF investors there on the Coast feel like giving Nick Nichols the facts?
City Beach???:screwy:
The sale of 48,279 units up from 16cents to 19cents and 20,000 units at 19.5 cents out of a possible pool of approx 755 MILLION units eqautes to a SURGE of activity and price increase?
A sale of $38million on the never never when the PIF was owed just under $58million plus interest as at the 19th Mar 2007 is not considered a fire sale price? The Near Complete Ocean Front Hotel + Apartments
60-62 HARBOUR STREETWOLLONGONG HOTEL was passed in at auction for $40.5 million pending further negotiations  on May 7th 2008.
"The PIF missed out from any cut from the $60mill sale of the Sheraton Mirage". You bet your **** we did Nick, down another $20million plus interest that was due in Dec 2007 and had to read about it in the paper with still no word from our Responsible Entity regarding another big hit.
Jenny Hutson may not be available for comment but I am Nick!!! Seamisty


 $38m Wollongong sale some relief for PIF's investors
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  November 20th, 2009

PREMIUM Income Fund unitholders are finally seeing some value returning to their investment after the sale of a Wollongong residential project this week for $38 million.

The fund's units surged 21 per cent yesterday to close at 19.5c, after wallowing for the past year at just above 10c.

The units, which are listed on the National Stock Exchange, are still well below the $1 they owe original investors, who bought when the fund was under the control of failed Gold Coast financial services empire MFS.

More than 68,000 units changed hand yesterday, although most buying orders were at less than 10c.

The surge follows news that the City Beach sale, the first major asset disposal since the fund was frozen last year, would lead to a cash payment to investors next year.

It would be their first return from their investment in at least two years.

City Beach has 168 hotel rooms, 75 apartments and 10 luxury penthouses, and it is still to be completed.

Jenny Hutson, whose Wellington Capital now manages the fund, has long insisted City Beach would not be sold at a firesale price.

The fund missed out on any cut from the $60 million sale of the Sheraton Mirage.

As second mortgagee to the former Raptis Group asset, it needed a price of $80 million to get back most of the $20 million it is owed.


Ms Hutson could not be contacted for comment last night. The Premium Income Fund has about about $755 million in mainly retirees' savings tied up.

At yesterday's close, their investment is now worth $147.2 million.

The corporate watchdog has launched legal action against several former MFS directors, seeking to recover about $147 million it alleges was illegally transferred from the fund.


----------



## Bessie223 (20 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi, Carney's and IMF have all our email addresses. Is there anyway possible through their mailing list or next update that PIF Investors could be guided to this forum ? I also think that we need heaps of Media Exposure and I am certainly not happy with the way our fund is heading. Thanks for all the information. It is certainly not coming from W.C.


----------



## selciper (20 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

"Ms Hutson could not be contacted for comment last night..." - GGB Mike Nicholls. Keep ringing, Mike.

(A story is told as much by silence as by speech - Susan Griffin US author)


----------



## zixo (20 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I wonder if there are still any PIF investors who may have confidence in the way JH and her merry men have been handling the fund since she took over.

There must be an awful lot of us out there considering she claims to have won our support by such a large margin.

How many thumbs up would she get from PIF investors given the way she is "legally" handling her way into our demise.

Perhaps its time to call in liquidators - with WC in charge this is proven to be a slow death of cuts by a thousand knives.


----------



## seamisty (21 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/11/21/160895_gold-coast-business.html

 Escape plan for frozen funds
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  November 21st, 2009

FROZEN mortgage funds have been given a new option to release unitholders from their troubled investments without the need to pay them out.

The National Stock Exchange, which already has the former MFS-controlled Premium Income Fund on its boards, has devised a trading window for the distressed funds.

NSX companies manager Ian Craig, who was on the Gold Coast yesterday promoting the initiative, said the window offered a six-week timeframe for unitholders to sell out of their investment.

The window would open twice a year, two weeks after the release of the funds' financial results.

Mr Craig said the NSX had talked to several law firms operating managed funds, and many had expressed interest in the proposal.

Mortgage funds, in particular, have been hardest hit by the global economic meltdown, including a raft of Gold Coast operations.

Many unitholders have been prevented from cashing in their investment for more than a year, with some closer to two years.

The Premium Income Fund, now controlled by Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital, has a full listing on the NSX.

Its units have languished just above 10c each for most of the past year at a fraction of the most recent valuation of 39c a unit.

Mr Craig said that the trading window was less likely to depress unit prices because of its limited timeframe.


"What it does is concentrate liquidity in that period," he said.

Legal firm McCullough Robertson has praised the plan.

Partner in the projects and property group, Kristan Butler, described it as an 'innovative solution for property managers'.

"Our experience has shown us that there is a need for a focused liquidity facility for property managers of frozen funds that is yet to be answered by the traditional frameworks," she said.

"The innovation proposed by the NSX is a sensible solution to a long-standing problem."

Mr Craig said the proposal would be implemented by the NSX within the next few weeks.


----------



## seamisty (21 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hutson defends PIF Gong sale http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/11/21/160905_gold-coast-business.html
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  November 21st, 2009

Related Links
How the Holiday Inn stacks up against the Sheraton
JENNY Hutson has hosed down Premium Income Fund unitholders' criticism of a $38 million property sale in Wollongong this week.

Although the City Beach hotel-apartment project had found a $40.5 million buyer after auction earlier this year, that deal fell through after a 'very short' due diligence, said Ms Hutson who controls the fund through Wellington Capital.

"This ($38 million deal) represents the best value we can find in the market, having been in discussions up to and beyond the auction date," said Ms Hutson of the sale to Harbour Street Developments. 

Ms Hutson also said the deal had been struck at book value, dismissing concerns by some unitholders that the sale would diminish their already-eroded investment in the fund.

"We're not selling anything less than book value. That's been our philosophy."

City Beach is at least five months from completion.

The first phase of construction will deliver 75 apartments, with Ms Hutson hopeful the settlement of those sales will bring the $38 million cash from the sale into the fund.::::::


The $40.5 million deal fell through!!!!! Of course it fell through, you didn't accept it Jenny!!!!!! The PIF could have had that money 6 months ago. WC announced on the 9th of May 2008 that it had entered into a call option deed which is exercisible by WC up to and including 31 August 2008.  Does anyone know exactly when that option deed was exercised by WC? Why wait so long to take Wollongong  Hotel to auction originally and then not accept a deal which once again we read in the press appears to have been better than book value? My fish smell like roses compared to this deal!!! Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (21 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

How the Holiday Inn stacks up against the Sheraton http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/11/21/160885_gold-coast-business.html
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  November 21st, 2009



MORTGAGE funds controlling the Holiday Inn Surfers Paradise will be hoping for better sentiment among property investors after the $60 million sale of the Sheraton Mirage Resort earlier this month.

The deeply discounted deal for the former Raptis Group asset compares with the $100 million being sought for the Holiday Inn by six mortgage funds, many of them based on the Gold Coast.

The strata-titled Holiday Inn, also part of the Raptis Group and now in the hands of receivers, may have 100 more rooms than the absolute beachfront Sheraton, but it has nowhere near the location premium or land component.

One of the biggest financiers of the property, Wellington Capital's Premium Income Fund (PIF), failed to make a dent in the debt it is owed on 104 hotel suites that went to auction two weeks ago, the same day the deal for the Sheraton was signed with Indian property group Pearls Infrastructure Projects.

The suites did not receive a single bid, but Wellington's chair Jenny Hutson said yesterday that talks had continued with several parties since the auction.

"We've had discussions with people who are interested in more than (our) 104 apartments," she said.

PIF is seeking about $250,000 per hotel suite, while the Sheraton has sold for just under $205,000 per room.

The Holiday Inn has 404 suites, all controlled by six mortgage funds: LM Investments, Guardian Securities, Resimac, Securecorp, Shakespeare Haney and PIF.

They are owed a total of $72.2 million plus costs, according to government records.

PIF is the biggest secured creditor at $22.6 million, followed by LM Investments ($21.1 million), Shakespeare Haney ($16.8 million) and Securecorp ($7.4 million)

Despite the big price difference between the Sheraton and Holiday Inn, both properties are priced at similar yields.

Based on an annual income of $5 million, the Sheraton Mirage sale has been struck at an 8.3 per cent yield, while the Holiday Inn, with income of $7.5 million, is just shy of that at 7.5 per cent.

Ms Hutson yesterday said the Holiday Inn's occupancy had 'continued to perform really well', thanks to a major refurbishment by Raptis in 2007.

The Sheraton will need a significant overhaul by its new owners if it is to regain its mantle as one of the tourism strip's premier hotels.


----------



## selciper (21 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Info about Holiday Inn, Surfers. Photos etc.

http://book.hotel.com.au/DirectHotel.asp?Checkin=2009-12-8&Checkout=2009-12-10&ncl=&id=565


----------



## BootsnAll (22 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Duped
The property in Main Beach is a 12 unit three storey walk up which was fully leased.
The tennants vacated about 18 months ago.
It is now covered in graffiti and at one stage had squatters. The windows are either smashed or boarded up.
The maximum height for redevelopment was 7 levels.
Raptis did a deal with the Gold Coast Council to approve17 levels in return for $1.5 million to spend on Cable Park a small area next door.
The property is accross the road from the beach.


----------



## seamisty (23 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

'Although the City Beach hotel-apartment project had found a $40.5 million buyer after auction earlier this year, that deal fell through after a 'very short' due diligence, said Ms Hutson who controls the fund through Wellington Capital.'
Hutson defends PIF Gong sale http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/...-business.html

This is BS, the last bid was for $40.5million and was PASSED IN not found AFTER the auction. This is a FACT!!!! Further negotiations continued AFTER the auction. The facts are that $40.5million could have been accepted on the day of the auction. Not looking too good in the transparency department as usual!! Seamisty


----------



## Duped (23 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Boots.  Is it 3496-3498 Main Beach Pde?  Nice spot

Google Street View (probably out of date) is: 

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=-2...oid=bmZsOpR581deb2DC2FP7UQ&cbp=12,247.42,,0,5

GCCC's online Property Enquiry service includes a heap of info http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_standard2.aspx?pid=1095

Site is 1232 sq.m 

Council value is given as $9.9M but wow, that's a lot of documents for the approval process.  What's that worth?


----------



## BootsnAll (23 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Duped
That is the property.
According to local Real Estate Agent the property was sold to Raptis on Feb 07 for $10m.
PIF has a first mortgage exposure of $14,318.669 as far as I can see.
Current value is what someone is prepared to pay. Which is anyones guess.


----------



## BABIHUTAN (23 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I wonder what the proposal in the quoted article - if it comes to fruition - might mean to happless PIF Investors down the track!
Nowadays, I when I see the " trade" offering innovative schemes to Investors I wonder who will be the ultimate beneficiaries - while there is a carcase the voracious sharks will keeping tearing off strips until there's nothing left.

"Qte" :-

*Escape plan for frozen funds*

Nick Nichols, business editor   |  November 21st, 2009

FROZEN mortgage funds have been given a new option to release unitholders from their troubled investments without the need to pay them out.

The National Stock Exchange, which already has the former MFS-controlled Premium Income Fund on its boards, has devised a trading window for the distressed funds.

NSX companies manager Ian Craig, who was on the Gold Coast yesterday promoting the initiative, said the window offered a six-week timeframe for unitholders to sell out of their investment.

The window would open twice a year, two weeks after the release of the funds' financial results.

Mr Craig said the NSX had talked to several law firms operating managed funds, and many had expressed interest in the proposal.

Mortgage funds, in particular, have been hardest hit by the global economic meltdown, including a raft of Gold Coast operations.

Many unitholders have been prevented from cashing in their investment for more than a year, with some closer to two years.

The Premium Income Fund, now controlled by Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital, has a full listing on the NSX.

Its units have languished just above 10c each for most of the past year at a fraction of the most recent valuation of 39c a unit.

Mr Craig said that the trading window was less likely to depress unit prices because of its limited timeframe.

"What it does is concentrate liquidity in that period," he said.

Legal firm McCullough Robertson has praised the plan.

Partner in the projects and property group, Kristan Butler, described it as an 'innovative solution for property managers'.

"Our experience has shown us that there is a need for a focused liquidity facility for property managers of frozen funds that is yet to be answered by the traditional frameworks," she said.

"The innovation proposed by the NSX is a sensible solution to a long-standing problem."

Mr Craig said the proposal would be implemented by the NSX within the next few weeks.
"Unqte"


----------



## mellifuous (23 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



BABIHUTAN said:


> I wonder what the proposal in the quoted article - if it comes to fruition - might mean to happless PIF Investors down the track!
> Nowadays, I when I see the " trade" offering innovative schemes to Investors I wonder who will be the ultimate beneficiaries - while there is a carcase the voracious sharks will keeping tearing off strips until there's nothing left.
> 
> "Qte" :-
> ...










Well, here we are, floundering in the mire of a highly impaired, debt ridden non-liquid managed fund. In an article relating to listing managed fund, a solicitor stated (among other things) "... "Our experience has shown us that there is a need for a focused liquidity facility for property managers of frozen funds that is yet to be answered by the traditional frameworks," she said. "The innovation proposed by the NSX is a sensible solution to a long-standing problem." ...". (emphasis added)

Now, what the solicitor means is that the 'traditional framework' (the corporations act) doesn't show us how to get out of the non-liquid state for managed funds which have suffered impairments and carry debt.

This solicitor believes that the problem could be solved if the link between investors and their investments could be severed. City Pacific thought that too - in fact, even in the face of report they themselves had commissioned that indicated it would disasterous for investors, City pressed on with much gusto - even after they desisted with the listing, they still indicated they had not lost their urge to list the fund in the future.

On report cited (in part) :-
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2008/08/20/15273_gold-coast-business.html

"... But it said the issue was an 'important step by City Pacific to ensure the ongoing inflow of income from the fund'. City Pacific generates about $50 million in fees from the fund a year.

"City Pacific's key objective is to ensure the fund continues to fund existing developments to ensure projects are completed, thereby maximisig the potential value of the fund," said Aegis. ..." (emphasis added).

Contrary to what many investors thought, City's 'key objective' was to '... ensure the fund continues ...'. The key objective was not to give investors money back - unit holders might have inferred that was City's motivation was to get money to investors suffering hardship, but it wasn't the key objective at all - getting their greedy hands on what was left our money was their objective.

Here we start to see the dichotomy of views - from the unit holders perspective it's the return of capital, and for City it was the fund - the self-interested developments, and the management fee. It didn't matter about defaults, a dwindling market, debt, and the Aegis reports, City continued with the listing - City did well, it took over $20m from the fund in one of the worst economic climates in Australian business history.

Unit holders on the other hand got zilch - with the pleasure of a 50% potential loss on their investments.

Another reported cited (in part):-
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2008/09/04/15852_gold-coast-business.html

"... Aegis has warned previously that the shares are likely to trade at a significant discount to the $1 investors effectively would have paid for the stock. ..." (emphasis added)

"... "The success ... of the restructure of the mortgage fund has a significant bearing on whether City Pacific can recover from the considerable difficulties it experienced throughout the 2008 financial year," it said. ..."

The reality is that this last excerpt is true today for the fund as it was true for City Pacific (and the fund), and I imagine that the new manager is acutely aware of it too. I would imagine that B/T's 'key objective' is the longevity of the fund too - one only has to look at the public statements made by B/T to see that it's reasonable to make such an assessment.

*The tension between investors wanting to get their money back on the one hand, and the manager's desire to the keep the money on the other hand, has to be resolved.*

There are three ways that a manager might resolve this tension, (1) to wind up the fund in an orderly manner, (2) the manager devises ingenious ways of keeping unit holder money in the fund, or (3) a balance between (1) and (2).

Option (1) does not sit well for a manager because it means an ever reducing fund value accompanied by an ever reducing management fee.

I'd guess options (2) and (3) would be more to a manager's liking, with option (2) of more interest than option (3).

A manager might reduce a $1.00 unit price to a variable unit price and thereby improve the changes that investors would reject offers in the hope of an improved unit price, especially if the air was full of unsubstantiated statement of a wonderful and glorious future for a fund.

A manager might attempt to list a fund - for the FMF, this is not an option that the manager can persue, but nothing is to stop a group of investors proposing such a path.

The Corporations Act 2001 states (in part):-
"... CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601FC
Duties of responsible entity

             (1)  In exercising its powers and carrying out its duties, the responsible entity of a registered scheme must ... (c)  act in the best interests of the members and, if there is a conflict between the membrs' interests and its own interests, give priority to the members' interests; and ..."
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s601fc.html

To my mind, this section of the act should direct the manager's mind towards the return of our capital in as short as period as reasonably possible - option (1).

I believe that the correct path is to write down the debt as soon as practicable, and then as assets are sold and the value of cash in the fund exceeds the value required to maintain the obligations of the fund, then the excess should be returned to unit holders based on a set percentage [pro-rata] of each member's holdings [unit price = $1.00).

I believe that the framers of the Corporations Act 2001 did not really anticipate the calamity that has befallen us, rather they expected that impaired managed funds would simply trade back or wind up - yet, they did not provide a 'switching' mechanism to determine whether a fund should be wound up or trade back If there was a 'point of no return', then the FMF is certainly past that point.

Some managers try to overcome this deficiency in the act by finding ways to retain the capital rather than give the money back from a failed enterprise - I think that such activity is contrary to s. 601FC(1)(c) because it really is putting their interests before investors' interests.

The PDSs of these non-liquid funds have long been withdrawn and investors are trapped inside the funds.

But I ask one question 'would any investor trapped in a managed fund invest in that fund if he/she knew that the fund would be listed (that is, the investor would not have future access to his/her investment)?'

I guess the answer is 'NO' - so, since it was a step never anticipated by investors, then it is a step that should never be taken by managers.

If a manager has a dream of of wonderfully bright future for a badly impaired, debt ridden, non-liquid fund, then that manager should wind up the fund over the necessary time frame to protect investors' money as far a possible, and then start another fund lauding their success in winding the damaged one.


----------



## mellifuous (23 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

TIME TO SEPARATE US FROM OUR MONEY
by http://www.moneymagik.com

BIND UP THE INVESTOR
FREE THE CAPITAL
A MANAGER'S DELIGHT

This is an interesting article because, at least to me, it shows how entities see the manipulation of investors funds as being beneficial. No one would doubt that investors in MFS PIF (Octaviar) have had no returns from their shares on the NSX, in fact the average price paid for the shares (once $1.00) is about $0.10c. The listing has been what many might regard as a disaster.

In the following article, the NSX is proposing a new way to list non-liquid funds - now, one can't blame them for making a buck just as B/T have done, but I think the NSX's self-interest seems to completely disregard the reality of the plight of investors in badly impaired, debt-ridden non-liquid managed funds.

However, in making comment on the proposal, a law firm which is a 'nominated advisor' on the NSX's website, suggests that listing these damaged funds is a way to gain liquidity for the manager. To me, the law firm's perspective sums up the concerns of managers and discloses the very essence of the dichotomy of needs and concerns that exists between managers and investors.

A narrow window of trading

"... FROZEN mortgage funds have been given a new option to release unitholders from their troubled investments without the need to pay them out. The National Stock Exchange, which already has the former MFS-controlled Premium Income Fund on its boards, has devised a trading window for the distressed funds.

NSX companies manager Ian Craig, who was on the Gold Coast yesterday promoting the initiative, said the window offered a six-week timeframe for unitholders to sell out of their investment. The window would open twice a year, two weeks after the release of the funds' financial results.

Mr Craig said the NSX had talked to several law firms operating managed funds, and many had expressed interest in the proposal. ..."

Yes, might this have something to do with drumming up some business for the NSX? I'm guessing it has all to do with doing just that - it's just a croc for investors.

"... Mortgage funds, in particular, have been hardest hit by the global economic meltdown, including a raft of Gold Coast operations. ..."

Well, if one was to believe this, then one might as well fly with the fairies - it is simply not true to blame the GFC, and we all know that - many of these funds were poorly managed by a lot of self-interested managers who didn't give a hoot about investors.

"... Many unitholders have been prevented from cashing in their investment for more than a year, with some closer to two years. ..."

Yes, that's true, and listing with the NSX didn't help the Premium Income Fund either - so, listing a badly impaired non-liquid managed is not the answer either. We can only feel some comfort in the fact that the FMF was not listed - it's a disaster for investors to be separated from their capital (as listing do, and, by the way, as a variable unit price will do).

"... The Premium Income Fund, now controlled by Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital, has a full listing on the NSX. Its units have languished just above 10c each for most of the past year at a fraction of the most recent valuation of 39c a unit. ..."

Yes, the PIF (Code PIN on the NSX) has languished - not even a decent part of 1% of the fund has traded in over twelve (12) months. The smart thing for PIF investors would be to delist and get a new manager.

Oh, by the way, the manager of the PIF is a 'nominated adviser' to the NSX too.

Oh, and we shouldn't really be surprised, but so is Hynes Lawyers (of Investaguard fame)

"... Mr Craig said that the trading window was less likely to depress unit prices because of its limited timeframe."What it does is concentrate liquidity in that period," he said. ..."

Well, what an amazing statement - Investors would wait for the returns to be published and there would a massive demand to invest in badly impaired non-liquid funds - what qualifications to these guys hold to make these statements? I make a disclaimer because I don't want anyone to be misled by my nonsense - where are their disclaimers? I don't recall law school, or perhaps any school teaching anything about marketing shares of highly impaired debt ridden non-liquid managed funds on a stock market in Steel City, Australia.

What about reporting? no reporting; no chance to take advantage of good news in the market from time to time? So, if some good news comes along, an investor can't sell, and then if that good news if followed by bad news prior to publication of the next return, then the opportunity is lost.

Are these guys nuts? How could they expect investors to risk what is left of their life savings like that?

Anyway, investors who voted to list their funds on the NSX (or ASX) didn't vote to list in a 'window of opportunity', they voted for a listing - I'm guessing if fund managers like Wellington think this is a good idea, then Wellington will have to go back to investors/shareholders with a proposal to do so, otherwise, no can do.

Oh, what a mess. What some folks can dream up for their own benefit.

"... Legal firm McCullough Robertson has praised the plan. Partner in the projects and property group, Kristan Butler, described it as an 'innovative solution for property managers'. "Our experience has shown us that there is a need for a focused liquidity facility for property managers of frozen funds that is yet to be answered by the traditional frameworks," she said. "The innovation proposed by the NSX is a sensible solution to a long-standing problem." ..." (emphasis added)

Yes, McCullough Robertson - an NSX Nominated Adviser

One has to read the words 'a focused liquidity facility for property managers' - it's not a benefit for investors, it's a benefit for managers - yuk!

Yes, get the funds listed - then the pool of investors' money stays with the fund - banishing investors out to the unkind free market environment that investors in the PIF have endured without reward for over a year.

What's that saying 'a fool and his money are easily parted'?

That might have worked once, but now, I'll go with Pres. George W. Bush:-

"... There's an old saying in Tennessee ”” I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee ”” that says, fool me once, shame on ”” shame on you. Fool me ”” you can't get fooled again. ..." ”” President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

"... Mr Craig said the proposal would be implemented by the NSX within the next few weeks. ..."

Let's hope it's a non-starter.

ALL OF THESE WISE WORDS TRANSMITTED BY MR. NICHOLS
WITHOUT ONE WORD FROM AN IMPARTIAL
SUITABLY QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL

NO WONDER INVESTORS GET LOST IN IT ALL


----------



## Duped (23 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/11/21/160895_gold-coast-business.html
> 
> Escape plan for frozen funds
> Nick Nichols, business editor   |  November 21st, 2009
> ...




Thanks Seamisty and others.

There's that phrase again 'innovative solution'.  Makes me want to run a mile.

So basically what JH has said was she wants to return our money.  Great. Nice objective.  The nice sounding lady at WC told me on the phone that while at S8, JH helped return shareholder wealth multiple fold. Awesome. 

But what's the business plan?  Apart from selling everything - can anyone remind me if I've missed it. 


What's the business plan? The PDS has been withdrawn right?  
What's the business plan?  Start lending out again? (Banks are more risk averse now so doesn't that mean more opportunities?) 
What's the business plan? Buying defaulted mortgages and using the RE's expertise to extract value? 
What's the business plan?  Buy other frozen funds?

With a business plan of merely 'sell everything at the right price' combined with the NSX listing, the share price is just a bet between buyers and sellers on how much of the 39c valuation (plus any of ASIC's winnings; less the cost of capital; less some sort of profit margin) WC is going to return to shareholders.  A bet based on what - JH's word?  Currently the market is saying: 50%.


----------



## Dexter (23 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There are no prizes for guessing whose husband has connections to the NSX and is a senior partner in McCullough Robertsons, the law firm recommending the NSX as our salvation.


----------



## simgrund (23 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Dexter said:


> There are no prizes for guessing whose husband has connections to the NSX and is a senior partner in McCullough Robertsons, the law firm recommending the NSX as our salvation.




It is hoped that every potential signee to the NSX "lifeboat" looks very closely at at the PIF sorry story, which is being spruced up by NSX and other self interested parties (dare I say "related")  as a very prized convert for its self promotion.
*BEWARE!!!*


----------



## seamisty (24 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> It is hoped that every potential signee to the NSX "lifeboat" looks very closely at at the PIF sorry story, which is being spruced up by NSX and other self interested parties (dare I say "related")  as a very prized convert for its self promotion.
> *BEWARE!!!*



Simgrund I suggest you contact Nick Nichols business editor of the Gold Coast Bulletin personally nicholsn@gcb.newsltd.com.au) It is time he recognised there is the need to listen to PIF investors to get the correct information and not let his media articles be influenced from word of incorrect mouth information from the PIF RE as opposed to  well researched and documented evidence readily available to those with the dedication and effort needed to source and compile facts related to all PIF related issues, those people being , 'the victims', past and present. Before I sign off, a few words of wisdom from 'Teddy', Theodore Roosevolt:::::

"We demand that big business give the people a square deal; in return we must insist that when anyone engaged in big business honestly endeavors to do right he shall himself be given a square deal."
Letter to Sir Edward Gray, November 15, 1913


Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Duped (24 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Jenny better put forward a business plan for PIF before she signs us up for this NSX trading window 'experiment'.

How about a bit of good old fashioned *work *before we go experimenting with 'innovative solutions'?


----------



## seamisty (24 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Parliamentary Committee Report - Inquiry into financial products and services‏
'The Chairman of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, Mr Bernie Ripoll MP, tonight tabled the Committee's report Inquiry into financial products and services in Australia.

The Committee's report is available online and can be accessed via the following link:  http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/report/report.pdf 

It is now a matter for Government to respond to the Committee's report and the recommendations it contains. The Government's response will be linked to the inquiry web page when it becomes available'


----------



## marcom (24 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

seamisty Quote:   '"WC announced on the 9th of May 2008 that it had entered into a call option deed which is exercisible by WC up to and including 31 August 2008. Does anyone know exactly when that option deed was exercised by WC?"

During the period 25 March to 30 April 2008 WC provided corporate advisory services to OCV.

On 2 May 2008 Ms Hutson and two other directors of Wellington Capital became directors of WIM and the existing directors resigned. This was prior to the execution of the call option deed in relation to the shares in WIM.

On 8 May 2008 Octaviar Property granted a call option to Wellington Capital to purchase the shares in WIM. On 9 June 2008 Wellington Capital exercised that option and on 13 June 2008, a share sale agreement was signed in the terms for which the option had provided. The shares in WIM were then transferred to Wellington Capital


----------



## seamisty (24 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> seamisty Quote:   '"WC announced on the 9th of May 2008 that it had entered into a call option deed which is exercisible by WC up to and including 31 August 2008. Does anyone know exactly when that option deed was exercised by WC?"
> 
> During the period 25 March to 30 April 2008 WC provided corporate advisory services to OCV.
> 
> ...



Thanks Marcom, So had JH accepted the Wollongong Hotel sale at auction  on 7th May 2009 it would have occured inside the 12 month period of when the purchase price of the PIF would have been calculated. Had the offer of $40.5million passed in on the day been accepted we would have received our 3 cent return of capital thus triggering WC right to management fees =  profit. Interesting. Seamisty


----------



## Duped (24 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Have had a scan through the Parliamentary Joint Committee's report.

Julie Matheson's submission ruffled a few feathers.  She appears to be pro Independent advisors.

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sub262.pdf

The spectacular exchange of correspondence including a threat of charges for interfering with witnesses is on pages 233 to 246. I'm not surprised though, when there's money involved the pressure groups jump out of the shadows.

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/report/report.pdf

Couldn't find a single mention of PIF. Not such a bad thing if we wish to avoid prejudicing the public on ASICs action.  I think the Committee had their hands full with Storm and Opes Prime.


----------



## simgrund (24 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Simgrund I suggest you contact Nick Nichols business editor of the Gold Coast Bulletin personally nicholsn@gcb.newsltd.com.au)
> Regards, Seamisty




*Done; will there be some professional courtesy in response, or will it go the way of an appeal for contact with Investor Advisory Committee,
Regards, simgrund*

Mr. Nick NICHOLS
Editor,
Business Gold Coast

Dear Mr. Nichols,

My name is S................ and I am a retiree deprived of my retirement funds by the many adverse factors not of my making.
In an article written by you for Business section of the Gold Coast newspaper titled *"Escape Plan for Frozen Funds" *and dated November 21st, 2009, you inform the readers that :* "FROZEN mortgage funds have been given a new option to release unitholders from their troubled investments without the need to pay them out."*
You further inform the readers * "The Premium Income Fund, now controlled by Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital, has a full listing on the NSX."* adding that *"Its units have languished just above 10c each for most of the past year at a fraction of the most recent valuation of 39c". *
It would have been helpful to inform the readers of the original purchase price of $1. Hardly an endorsement of the saviour plan, where such diminution (90%) of capital  occurs. 
And then further on, you inform the readers that: *"Legal firm McCullough Robertson has praised the plan."*
Again, the helpful addition for the readers would be a disclosure, that the firm is closely related to the Responsible Entity for the PIF;  Wellington Capital.
Another example of the destructive factor of the "related party", which ruined the PIF in the first place.
So the truthful reading of this news should be: *"Opportunity to sell your life savings  for pennies".*
While the intention may have been to inform of the "option" available to unitholders;  this must be seen for what it is; a blatant attempt to deodorise a putrid corporate vice grip on "distressed" unitholders whose personal financial situations drove them to that desperation. This is an inconvenient truth.
And your readers would appreciate your unbiased and transparent presentation of such important details as I have pointed above.
Instead Mr. Nichols, the subject of the article would, sadly, be mistaken for the endorsement of a "liferaft" thrown to miserable unfortunates who got caught in the games played by the "Big Boys", that went awry. 
You are aware of the Rippoll Report. It has been tabled recently.  (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committ...ort/report.pdf) 
Should some or all of the proposed amendments be incorporated into a new corporate landscape, the lot of many would improve.
And the Big Boys will be forced to pledge allegiances to the "unstressed" clientele.
Many of the proposals came from "distressed" unitholders and who may not benefit in time for their possible implementation.
Please Mr. Nichols; help us to bring these brighter horizons a little bit closer by putting the hopes of the contributors to the Rippoll Report into the pages of your reports.
Repeating Mr.Kristian Butler's comments on NSX initiative (obvious and blatant self interest)  as *"innovative solution for property managers"* is not a step in that direction. Rather a continuation of the carnivorous mindset. I personally am putting my faith in the ASIC action against the "Big Boys" of ex MFS and PIF class action against auditors KPMG.

Respectfully, 

S....................
EM address


----------



## seamisty (25 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

'Done; will there be some professional courtesy in response, or will it go the way of an appeal for contact with Investor Advisory Committee,'
Regards, simgrund

Actually Simgrund the IAG (being the only PIF investor JH promise upheld that went through the motions of actually being implemented) deserves further mention. If PIF investor questions sent to  info@wellcap.com.au; investorrelations@newpif.com.au; Caroline Snow (csnow@wellcap.com.au) 

take from 2-3weeks to be responded to, and I reiterate 'responded', not necessarily answered, I see little value in  investors sending their concerns to WC for them to then  on send to the IAG reps for them to re submit to WC.   A lot of pissing around to ultimately achieve the end result of calling the hotline originally that if they can't give a satisfactory answer they will either get back to you, or, not.

We can monitor the efficiency of  my latest email sent to WC on the thread to guage the WC committment to PIF related issues;;;;;;sent to  info@wellcap.com.au; investorrelations@newpif.com.au; Caroline Snow (csnow@wellcap.com.au) on the forum::
Subject: Wollongong Hotel
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:14:01 +0800



Dear Caroline,

                 I have had several enquiries this morning from PIF investors regarding todays PIN announcement and the Wollongong Hotel.

1. Will the PIF be receiving interest on the deferred sale?
2. Will the PIF receive further upside in the $38million or will that be the total amount amount recovered ?
3. Is the PIF now an unsecured creditor of the property?
4.Has the $20M difference already been written off (impaired) in the current 39.2c valuation per unit? If not what is the current value of PIF units?
5. Was the property passed in at auction for $40million earlier this year?
6. How much money was needed to bring the property to completion and why weren't interested PIF investors given the opportunity to participate in a JV to complete the project

Sent: Thursday, 19 November 2009 2:22:01 PM 
To:  info@wellcap.com.au; investorrelations@newpif.com.au; Caroline Snow (csnow@wellcap.com.au) 

    In addition I have received confirmation that the PIF asset 60-62 Harbour St Wollongong
property was passed in at $40,500,000 on Thursday 7 May, 2009 and there were ongoing negotiations with interested parties. I am completely astounded with the final outcome negotiated by WC and reported in the press before the NSX was informed, on a property that PIF investors regarded as one of the only decent assests left remaining in the PIF. 
    I was also told that approx 20 completed units in the complex were sold prior to the auction. What was the total amount achieved through the sale of these units.

I will keep investors informed of ::
1. The time frame from when inquiry was sent to WC as to response received.
2. The  response received or lack of.
3. The amount of times the original enquiry had to be submitted before receiving a response.
4. Who actually responds to initial enquiry.

It certainly appears investor enquiries are not a high priority, as is the transparency promised but not delivered and we won't even go into distributions, coz if we can't even get a 3cent per unit  return of capital 12 months after they were promised , regardless of the loss of several fund assets, our overwhelmingly elected RE and her band of assorted dedicated professionals aren't quite what we thought we were getting. Certainly not as competent and as professional as I personally thought I had elected. I can also see why JH received this award (which is conspicuous by its absence on the WC website of glowing achievements)

'J' is for genius
Reflux's modest press release award for this week goes to Jenny Hutson, the former chairwoman of travel agent S8.
According to a statement put out by "her own" merchant bank, Wellington Capital, Hutson is apparently "a born leader" who is often compared to Richard Branson "when it comes to business tactics".
Jenny Hutson, however, does not have a Bransonesque beard.
Nor has she, as has Branson, trotted out countless authorised biographies glorifying her genius (only press releases at this stage).
A mother of two, Hutson has supposedly "forged a reputation as one of Australia's emerging entrepreneurial corporate stars". Her story is "inspirational".
She apparently led a rowing team to victory twice and she has had a "phenomenal career". Hutson, who won the Queensland Businesswoman of the Year award this week, according to the press release "is just getting started".http://www.smh.com.au/news/business...the-love/2007/03/23/1174597886058.html?page=2


Cheers and thanks Simgrund for drawing media attention to what is left of our fund, Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (25 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

AN ANNUAL (OR BI-ANNUAL) GENERAL MEETING
FOR MANAGING FUNDS (LISTED/UNLISTED)

A very astute unit holder has come up with a very good idea - an annual general meeting for managed funds.

Companies have them - managed funds don't.

Write to the Hon Chris Bowen MP and request that the Corporations Act be amended to incorporate annual (or bi-annual) general meetings for managed funds.

A great idea. 

http://www.chrisbowen.net/contact-chris-bowen/home.do


----------



## mellifuous (25 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> AN ANNUAL (OR BI-ANNUAL) GENERAL MEETING
> FOR MANAGING FUNDS (LISTED/UNLISTED)
> 
> A very astute unit holder has come up with a very good idea - an annual general meeting for managed funds.
> ...




**** CORRECTION ****

The heading should have been:-

AN ANNUAL (OR BI-ANNUAL) GENERAL MEETING
FOR *MANAGED *FUNDS (LISTED/UNLISTED)

My email has been sent to Mr. Bowen's office.

Thanks.


----------



## selciper (25 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It would seem that any RE wishing to remain remote from its investors can take advantage of there being no obligation to hold AGMs. It's an annomoly that should be cleared up.


----------



## simgrund (25 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> AN ANNUAL (OR BI-ANNUAL) GENERAL MEETING
> FOR MANAGING FUNDS (LISTED/UNLISTED)
> A very astute unit holder has come up with a very good idea - an annual general meeting for managed funds.
> Companies have them - managed funds don't.
> ...




Good day Mellifuous,

No, no; that would be just another JUNKET in the old tradition.
Have a look at Recommendation 9, @6.160 p141 of the Rippoll Reprt. If such a meeting is forthcoming, it has to be for the sole purpose of restating to the cadres the *"reform principles"* to ensure, they did not forget them during the course of the year just passed.  
Regards, simgrund


----------



## mellifuous (25 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Good day Mellifuous,
> 
> No, no; that would be just another JUNKET in the old tradition.
> Have a look at Recommendation 9, @6.160 p141 of the Rippoll Reprt. If such a meeting is forthcoming, it has to be for the sole purpose of restating to the cadres the *"reform principles"* to ensure, they did not forget them during the course of the year just passed.
> Regards, simgrund




hahah.. no, that's not what I meant - I meant like a shareholder meeting, except it would be called a 'unit holders meeting'.

I didn't mean a meeting of managers - 

nothing to do with the rippoff report.

(opps, my speeling is not so good)

"... It would seem that any RE wishing to remain remote from its investors can take advantage of there being no obligation to hold AGMs. It's an annomoly that should be cleared up. ..." per selciper

Yes, is does need to be cleared up - thanks.

My email:-

The Hon Chris Bowen MP
Federal Member for Prospect - Minister for Human Services
Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate L

Re: Annual General Meeting for Managed Funds.

Dear Sir,

I am an investor in what was once known as the City Pacific First Mortgage Fund, now the Pacific First
Mortgage Fund ("PFMF").

I have previously sent correspondence to your office (via. Senator Tanner's office) regarding my concerns
about the plight of investors in a numbers of non-liquid, badly impaired, debt ridden managed property
funds (listed and unlisted).

The focus of my concerns relate to the fact that parliament could not have envisaged the calamity that
has befallen investors in these funds.  The greatest shame is that while we flounder, our investments dwindle,
and the benefits seem to be flowing to mostly foreign investors.

Now, my concerns are not directed to foreign entities taking advantage, rather, my concerns
are about where we find ourselves and the law's inability to resolve the situation in a practical and
fair way.

The Corporations Act in its present state cannot resolve the tension between a manager's desire to continue
on dragging these badly impaired funds along to make their commissions on the one hand, and investors' 
needs to see a return of what remains of, what is in many cases, their lives' savings on the other hand.

As you would be aware, there is no facility in the Corporations Act to cause a managed fund to hold an annual
(or bi-annual) general meeting.   Public companies hold them, but managed funds do not.

One of the greatest concerns unit holders have is that managers simply fail to disclose even simple things. By way of example, I have written two emails to the manager of the PFMF (Balmain Trilogy  (B/T)) asking whether the B/T is charging borrowers from the fund any direct fees (that is, fees the borrowers pay managers directly -  no part of such fees go to the unit holders in the fund) and have received no answer from B/T.

There is really very little information flowing from a manager to investors.  Furthermore an investor
has no means to challenge the manager on any issue in any public forum.  

Consequently, investors wait with bated breath until a morsel of information is drip-fed to them
by the manager, or until they find out their units are worth less, or until such time as they
find out that the fund has been engaged in another catastrophic event.

If such a mechanism of an annual general meeting is so necessary for the proper functioning of
a public company, then  so should it be for a listed/unlisted managed (property or otherwise) fund.

Right now these funds are in great need of a lot of legislative support from your department.

I sincerely hope that you will give this matter serous consideration.

Thank you.



Yours faithfully,


----------



## seamisty (26 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> 'Done; will there be some professional courtesy in response, or will it go the way of an appeal for contact with Investor Advisory Committee,'
> Regards, simgrund
> 
> Actually Simgrund the IAG (being the only PIF investor JH promise upheld that went through the motions of actually being implemented) deserves further mention. If PIF investor questions sent to  info@wellcap.com.au; investorrelations@newpif.com.au; Caroline Snow (csnow@wellcap.com.au)
> ...



 Hi all, I resubmitted my enquiries to WC this morning and received acknowledgement from C Snow and was told a reply to my enquiries will be sent shortly. Our next PIF investor update is not due until end of Dec and was told Investor Updates are provided for the periods ended April, August and December'. I was sure we were promised quarterly updates? Isn't that 4 a year, not 3?


http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021721385.PDF
How do we communicate?
Advisers and investors assisted with by the Wellington Hotline:
1300 854 885
Adviser email: adviserservices@newpif.com.au
Regular NSX releases
Quarterly investor update mail out directly to investors

Will keep you posted on response to enquiries. Seamisty


----------



## Duped (26 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Offers at 20c went from 3 offering 192,000 to 4 offering 1,072,000

Someone is bailing out of 980,000 units at 20c? Our biggest departure?  Just before it looks like we might get some return of capital.

What's up?  Just booking a capital loss to offset against gains on real shares?  Or do they know something about the true value of the fund?

Lets see if any buyers will put some real money up for our units.  

Total sales to date has only just topped $500K. Average price per trade is $4543.  There's been only 4 trades over $20K. Biggest trade to date was $52K at the lofty price of 12c.


----------



## Duped (26 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

CORRECTION: My last post should have read 880,000 rather than 980,000

BTW nobody has got back to me about WC's business plan for PIF.  
Are we just in a Boston Finance type moratorium?


----------



## mellifuous (26 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

For those interested:-

*City Pacific in serious breach..*







FMF compliance report 2009
(from B/T's site)

http://www.balmaintrilogy.com.au/pdf/Compliance%20Plan%20Audit%20Report-PFMF%20%28Year%20End%20June%202009%29.pdf


----------



## simgrund (26 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Offers at 20c went from 3 offering 192,000 to 4 offering 1,072,000
> Someone is bailing out of 980,000 units at 20c? Our biggest departure?  Just before it looks like we might get some return of capital.
> What's up?  Just booking a capital loss to offset against gains on real shares?  Or do they know something about the true value of the fund?
> Lets see if any buyers will put some real money up for our units.
> Total sales to date has only just topped $500K. Average price per trade is $4543.  There's been only 4 trades over $20K. Biggest trade to date was $52K at the lofty price of 12c.




What a treadmill, Duped.
Remember Dexter's offers of 30 cents just before voting in WC as RE and with it the NSX deadweght?
As to bailing out, my understanding is that if the u-holder has registered for class action, they will still benefit from any recovery; perhaps minus sale proceeds. Please correct me, if that's an error.
Regards, simon


----------



## seamisty (26 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have had a response today to my enquiries below from Ms Snow.

Dear Caroline,

I have had several enquiries this morning from PIF investors regarding todays PIN announcement and the Wollongong Hotel.

1. Will the PIF be receiving interest on the deferred sale?
2. Will the PIF receive further upside in the $38million or will that be the total amount amount recovered ?
3. Is the PIF now an unsecured creditor of the property?
4.Has the $20M difference already been written off (impaired) in the current 39.2c valuation per unit? If not what is the current value of PIF units?
5. Was the property passed in at auction for $40million earlier this year?
6. How much money was needed to bring the property to completion and why weren't interested PIF investors given the opportunity to participate in a JV to complete the project

Sent: Thursday, 19 November 2009 2:22:01 PM 
To: info@wellcap.com.au; investorrelations@newpif.com.au; Caroline Snow (csnow@wellcap.com.au) 

In addition I have received confirmation that the PIF asset 60-62 Harbour St Wollongong
property was passed in at $40,500,000 on Thursday 7 May, 2009 and there were ongoing negotiations with interested parties. I am completely astounded with the final outcome negotiated by WC and reported in the press before the NSX was informed, on a property that PIF investors regarded as one of the only decent assests left remaining in the PIF. 
I was also told that approx 20 completed units in the complex were sold prior to the auction. What was the total amount achieved through the sale of these units.

Response received today pm:::

PREMITJM INCOME FT]ND - WOLLONGONG TRANSACTION
Thank you for your emails of 18 and 19 November 2009 in relation to the Premium lncome Fund. I respond
as follows:
1.
2.
I trust this assists. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact the Wellington Hotline
on 1300 854 885 orby email to investorrelations@newpif.com.au.
Kind regards
Caroline Snow
Associate Director
Wellington Capital Limited
as Responsible Entity for Premium Income Fund
ACN 114248 458 AFSL291562
Phone 1300 854 885
Fax 1300 854 893
Email
#25856
Level22 307 Queen Street Brisbane Qld 4000 GPO Box 694 Brisbane Qld 4001
T 1300854885 F 1300854893 E enquiries@newpif.com.au Wwww.newpif.com.au
You have asked whether the Fund will be receiving interest on the deferred sale. This is not the case,
as there is no debt involved.
You have asked whether the Fund will receive further upside in the $38 million or whether that will
be the total amount recovered. The sale price under the contract is $38 million (plus GST).
PIF is not an unsecured creditor ofthe property.
The market release of 18 November 2009 states that the property has been sold at carrying value.
This sale has not caused impairment in the curent 39.2 cent valuation per unit.
The property was passed in at auction on Thursday , 7 May 2009 at a price of $40.5 million. There
were ongoing negotiations with interested parties which saw a contract signed with that party. One
of the conditions of the contract was that it was subject to a due diligence period of one week. At the
end of that week, the potential purchaser withdrew from the contract.
The apartments are not complete. There were no contracts capable of being settled at the time of the
action.
The cost to complete the Wollongong project is approximately $16 million. The property was taken
to a public marketing campaign and all interested parties were spoken to in relation to the project.
There was no discrimination as to whether those parties were investors or not investors in the
Premium Income Fund.



I was told that there was a line of approx 20 apartments that were complete and were sold individually prior to the auction by an employee in the Wollongong real estate industry. I was also told on Dec 3rd 2008 from WC Hotline staff that WC was targeting retail investors for the sale of individual completed units which was providing money to WC for PIF operating expenses and overheads. (which I found a tad confusing as I was told on AUG 4th 2008 that 'the fund was holding its own and was self sustaining and incoming revenue was matching outgoing expenses?) Would I be wrong in assuming it was completed units in the Wollongong investment that were being sold piece meal or did the PIF have other completed units that were being sold? It is my understanding that the Wollongong hotel and apartments were 75% complete so if the carrying value for that 75% completed is $38million, $16million to complete the remaining 25% appears expensive??
I am still not happy with the deal and many WC quotes come to mind, 'value adding', 'duty of care to do the right thing', 'long term outlook very positive', 'JH mentally focussed on new ideas', 'cap raising at some point to increase future growth', 'strong asset base that can be built on' etc etc.

Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Duped (27 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for all your work seamisty.

I like the quotes at the end. To which I'm predictably going to ask WC:  

All very nice sentiments/objectives but ..... what's the business plan?


----------



## Duped (27 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> What a treadmill, Duped.
> Remember Dexter's offers of 30 cents just before voting in WC as RE and with it the NSX deadweght?
> As to bailing out, my understanding is that if the u-holder has registered for class action, they will still benefit from any recovery; perhaps minus sale proceeds. Please correct me, if that's an error.
> Regards, simon




That's my understanding too. But the seller would miss out on any proceeds from ASIC's action - if there are any.

My point is more that someone is going to take a massive loss and at a sniff over merely HALF of Jenny's valuation.  Is it a huge vote of no confidence or is the seller just restructuring their financial affairs?  Money speaks louder than words.

Forgot about Dexter.  Where is he? Like all others of his ilk - vanished as soon as it looks like they will be held to their word.


----------



## seamisty (27 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Thanks for all your work seamisty.
> 
> I like the quotes at the end. To which I'm predictably going to ask WC:
> 
> All very nice sentiments/objectives but ..... what's the business plan?



 Duped, I used to ask regularly what the strategy was to take the PIF forward, hence all the quotes notated in my diary. I stopped asking when in my veiw, it was becoming increasingly obvious that those promises were made on the strength of recovering a lump sum of $44.5million from OCV to pay a 3 cent return of capital to investors, open the coffers for management fees and have some money left to finish a couple of projects like Wollongong, Aston Hill etc. Everything changed when that cash payment from OCV DOCA was not forthcoming and the PTQ put a spanner in the works IMO. 
Quote page 43, explanatory memorandum https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=513937
'Wellington Capital’s directors and senior management team have a wide variety of skills and
experience in areas critical to the successful acquisition, management and sale of the assets of the
Fund including property acquisition, valuation, financial analysis, funds and asset management,
accounting and management. These skills and experience will assist in maximising performance':::::


Well all I can say is where would our fund be without all these highly qualified individuals at the helm, responsible for securing finance at 25% to pay down debt and accepting $38million in a deal that is appears nowhere as good as an offer of $40.5 million passed in at auction 6 months previously (not received after the auction as reported to have been said by Jenny Hutson  in the media article 
Hutson defends PIF Gong sale http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/...-business.html).
Not forgetting also::: 'Wellington Capital is differentiated by its innovative style and access to capital, which enables it to be faster and more creative in designing suitable solutions. Wellington Capital's experienced team focuses exclusively on finance and property based transactions, and offers clients proven expertise in de-risking opportunities and innovatively structuring transactions.

Our areas of expertise range from property based funds management to organising long term finance for our clients, advising on mergers and takeovers, project financing and management, all with an emphasis on finance property'::::

I can honestly say that to date all these skills do not appear to have  benefitted PIF investors, quite the contrary IMO. I am interested to see a list of the remaining PIF assets, their current book value and a STRATEGY of how our unit values will be restored to full value in 3-5years because IMO it is not going to happen if there are not changes made to the'current strategy' that is being implemented, but I am just an average person, what would I know? Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (27 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I can honestly say that to date all these skills do not appear to have  benefitted PIF investors, quite the contrary IMO. I am interested to see a list of the remaining PIF assets, their current book value and a STRATEGY of how our unit values will be restored to full value in 3-5years because IMO it is not going to happen if there are not changes made to the'current strategy' that is being implemented, but I am just an average person, what would I know? Seamisty




For what it's worth - I think they're all amateurs.

They seem to see opportunity, and they grab it with both hands, especially when it's so easy to take.


----------



## JohnH (27 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> That's my understanding too. But the seller would miss out on any proceeds from ASIC's action - if there are any.
> 
> My point is more that someone is going to take a massive loss and at a sniff over merely HALF of Jenny's valuation.  Is it a huge vote of no confidence or is the seller just restructuring their financial affairs?  Money speaks louder than words.
> 
> Forgot about Dexter.  Where is he? Like all others of his ilk - vanished as soon as it looks like they will be held to their word.




Dare we draw any hope? There is somebody out there who is prepared to invest over $70k in PIF!!!!

................... and "Duped"  some of us are still here, and have eaten Humble Pie!!!


----------



## simgrund (27 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Dare we draw any hope? There is somebody out there who is prepared to invest over $70k in PIF!!!!
> ................... and "Duped"  some of us are still here, and have eaten Humble Pie!!!




Hi JohnH,
Sorry to curb your enthusiasm; that offer was made way back in Feb 08.
I would have thought we are past the "Us v Them" stage with most being happy to rub shoulders with each other while standing patiently in the couple of queues formed by ASIC and CA actions.
What WE really need NOW is an assurance that in the event of recovery, the funds recovered be distributed immediately to unitholders. 
Preferably via same instrumentality that would have been used for 3c Christmas distribution. 
Let’s work on that. Suggestions of first steps??? 
The call to IAC is still out. Please let this appeal be answered!!! 
Cheers, simgrund


----------



## selciper (27 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The IAC, in its present form, appears to be a toothless body which isn't going to help us very much - unless it begin to canvas our concerns expressed on this thread. Hopefully, the AG membership will increase, probably to a point where making some form of face-to-face meeting with the RE will be possible. The thought of another year of obfuscation is decidedly disturbing. ASIC and CA settlements are hardly around the corner. And let's face it, the Law is always unpredictable. Many of us are watching our capital decline while Rome burns.


----------



## charles36 (27 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty, I think you will agree that all the management expertise that is alleged to be behind the Premium Income Fund is engrossed in liquidating the fund by STEALTH or at the very least REDEMPTION BY FORCE.  I contend and always have that the return of our own capital cannot be classed as a DISTRIBUTION.  We  all know that if ever we get 3 cents (22 milliion dollars)of our own money back the floodgates on expenses will open forever more.  I have sent a number of emails to WC but for some reason I am persona-non-grata.  Oh well, you cannot help bad luck.  You never know there may be better days ahead.


----------



## mellifuous (27 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Hi JohnH,
> Sorry to curb your enthusiasm; that offer was made way back in Feb 08.
> I would have thought we are past the "Us v Them" stage with most being happy to rub shoulders with each other while standing patiently in the couple of queues formed by ASIC and CA actions.
> What WE really need NOW is an assurance that in the event of recovery, the funds recovered be distributed immediately to unitholders.
> ...




Simon,

'the funds recovered distributed immediately'?

I'm perplexed about this - apart from $.03c/unit to be distributed, how do you expect to get more?

I hope you don't mind me asking, but isn't the reason the fund was listed to bring up and the fund and let you get a better share price in the market?

I don't think it's in J.H.'s mind that the fund is going to be wound down.

This is the same problem we have in the FMF with B/T wanting to get a V.U.P. (variable unit price) in play, so they might be able to someone resurrect the carcass of the FMF. 

Ah! the plans made for so many by so few.

Allan.


----------



## Mary Lynch (27 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped,  I asked John Walker about the situation surrounding the ASIC claim, if we have sold our shares.  His response was: "selling your shares doesn't effect your right to claim."


----------



## simgrund (27 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Simon,
> 
> 'the funds recovered distributed immediately'?
> 
> I'm perplexed about this - apart from $.03c/unit to be distributed, how do you expect to get more?......................Allan.




This shouldn't  be confusing. Any distributions; 3c onwards, were already designated as "capital return". It follows logic, that should recoveries occur, they must go to u-holders. There is not much argument as to which outcome is of real benefit;  immediate distribution or pooling with existing and constantly diminishing funds at the mercy of NSX market forces.
Isn't the CA statement of claim about "compensation" for losses through mismanagement? See Mary's post. And ASIC was successful for Westpointers. The only question to be resolved will be the unit pricing at that time. Any suggestions who will rule on that resolution?
Regards, Simgrund


----------



## Duped (27 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> For what it's worth - I think they're all amateurs.
> 
> They seem to see opportunity, and they grab it with both hands, especially when it's so easy to take.




Yep.  Wannabees everywhere.  All mouth and confidence and then fail to deliver anything of quality. But still commanding full price. I see it everywhere. Seems to be the Australian way. I'll give it a go.

Either that or I'm just a mug giving the hacks air while the clued up are cruising past shaking their heads.  Am I a mug for retaining the faintest glimmer of hope that WC is not just there to fleece me?  (Irrespective of WC themselves believe. My Advisor is still calling me. He's totally deluded.  I think he actually genuinely believes that he adds value.) Be honest.


----------



## mellifuous (27 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> This shouldn't  be confusing. Any distributions; 3c onwards, were already designated as "capital return". It follows logic, that should recoveries occur, they must go to u-holders. There is not much argument as to which outcome is of real benefit;  immediate distribution or pooling with existing and constantly diminishing funds at the mercy of NSX market forces.
> Isn't the CA statement of claim about "compensation" for losses through mismanagement? See Mary's post. And ASIC was successful for Westpointers. The only question to be resolved will be the unit pricing at that time. Any suggestions who will rule on that resolution?
> Regards, Simgrund





Simon,

So, to make it clear my  mind, you say that J.H. will return all capital to you (and yes, you are right, there is no income, there can only be capital return to the fund) - she is winding up the fund.

She is winding up the fund to zero?

Allan


----------



## Duped (27 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> This shouldn't  be confusing. Any distributions; 3c onwards, were already designated as "capital return".




Think I might have asked this before: 

Will a 'capital return' to an investor who buys units on the NSX at say 7c be tax free? Anyone?

If so then the current market price of 17.5 - 20c looks even more woeful.


----------



## JohnH (27 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Hi JohnH,
> Sorry to curb your enthusiasm; that offer was made way back in Feb 08.
> I would have thought we are past the "Us v Them" stage with most being happy to rub shoulders with each other while standing patiently in the couple of queues formed by ASIC and CA actions.
> What WE really need NOW is an assurance that in the event of recovery, the funds recovered be distributed immediately to unitholders.
> ...




Not really enthusiasm Simon, just curious that someone is prepared to Invest $70k+.  I assume you mean Feb 09 - not 08, and I'm sure that some of the 11 and 12 cent sellers would have been happier with 17 cents.   
re:"Us v Them", I totally agree that is in the past.  My point is that several of us who *were* very strong (misguided) supporters of JH are still using this site.

I also wish my initials were not JH - it could give me a phobia.  lol


----------



## Dexter (27 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi John H,

I am still here.  While I campaigned against the W.C vote I had enough faith at the time to offer 30c per unit. THANK GOD THERE WERE NO TAKERS.

Now I am trying to unload 880,000 units at 20c, but once again there are no buyers.  

Incidently this is almost our entire super fund, so we understand your nightmare.  We also would like to get on with our life as a little would be better than nothing.


----------



## Cookie1 (27 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just letting you all know that the Icon Apartments in Port Macquarie are now being advertised from *$400,000* - $1,200,000, a reduction in the lower priced apartments of *$250,000*! Looks like fire sale pricing to me - certainly not fair market value. There would be no 3 BR, 3 bath apartments with quality fittings in such a location for sale anywhere in Port Macquarie for only $400K, especially brand new ones.

I may need to go have another look as I was told previously that the builders/contractors were to be finished and off-site by the end of November. They're open tomorrow from 1.00-2.00pm. Will let you know if I can find out anything.

Marcom, have you heard anything about them?


----------



## marcom (28 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Cookie 1, no haven't heard a thing. Not surprised at the price drop as the finish and internal design are below the market. It is such a pity to see such a poorly executed development on one of the prime sites in Port Macquarie.

I still can not understand how the project was valued at $17 M (see earlier post Port News article) when Bloomfield went broke and then ended up at $28M on PIF books. MFS did the deal - another one of Guy's "brilliant" deals!!!!!!

We received an email from our financial advisor about the Wollongong sale and possibility of a distribution he gleaned from the AFR article. He inadvertently included client email addresses - I thought that there were more PIF investors in Port. How many people attended the WC roadshow in Port last year? We were at the Newcastle roadshow.


----------



## seamisty (28 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Cookie1 said:


> Just letting you all know that the Icon Apartments in Port Macquarie are now being advertised from *$400,000* - $1,200,000, a reduction in the lower priced apartments of *$250,000*! Looks like fire sale pricing to me - certainly not fair market value. There would be no 3 BR, 3 bath apartments with quality fittings in such a location for sale anywhere in Port Macquarie for only $400K, especially brand new ones.
> 
> I may need to go have another look as I was told previously that the builders/contractors were to be finished and off-site by the end of November. They're open tomorrow from 1.00-2.00pm. Will let you know if I can find out anything.
> 
> Marcom, have you heard anything about them?



Cookie nothing will surprise me as to what price our RE is prepared to accept for OUR assets after the crap deal finally negotiated for the Wollongong Hotel. Sounds like the cupboards are bare at WC!! 

Structure and Strategy::http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021721528.pdf
The Fund is now mortgagee in possession of a number of
properties across the Eastern seaboard. The properties range
from vacant land to nearly completed multi-storey hotel and
residential towers. Strategies are being progressively formulated
and implemented, aimed at realising those assets at the maximum
possible value, in the context of the changing dynamics within
the property and finance markets.
What is the strategy?
A number of the security properties will be assets that the Fund
must by necessity retain for at least the medium term. Where this
is not the case, those assets have been earmarked for disposal or
alternative treatment, as appropriate with reference to the
particular characteristics of each asset.
The broad model is to assess the individual assets in respect of
the highest and best use outcome for each. This assessment takes
into account the full range of alternative uses in the context of
present market conditions, prospects for fundamental
improvement in the relevant geographic or market segment, and
the level of interest and quality of potential development
partners.
The Fund’s intention in relation to certain assets is to introduce
experienced and proven developers to the property to enable the
asset to be completed with a view to achieving the highest
possible net asset value for the Fund. This is an investment
strategy that will have a three to five year horizon and the
magnitude of its success will be largely dependant on a gradual
recovery of the property market.
Detailed discussions have occurred with a range of interested
parties in relation to all assets within the portfolio. This process
has given the Fund’s management team a clear set of alternatives
for the key properties in possession. The aim is to reposition
properties appropriately for the next cycle in a way that
maximises the return to Unitholders.
Obviously, the timing of improvement in the property cycle is
inherently uncertain and not something that the Fund can predict
at this time. However, the Fund is well placed to take advantage
of market recovery when it occurs.::::

What a load of BS Jenny, no wonder there are so many unhappy PIF investors. IMO I think you and your team of experienced professionals should reread some of your previous correspondence to investors and present us with a NEW revised structure and strategy  (accompanied with an updated list of our assets and their current value, including a list of EVERY single property sold of which investors will not see a cent from as proceeds have been absorbed by WC for 'operating expenses' )because your original one appears to have FAILED big time!! Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (28 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> This shouldn't  be confusing. Any distributions; 3c onwards, were already designated as "capital return". It follows logic, that should recoveries occur, they must go to u-holders. There is not much argument as to which outcome is of real benefit;  immediate distribution or pooling with existing and constantly diminishing funds at the mercy of NSX market forces.
> Isn't the CA statement of claim about "compensation" for losses through mismanagement? See Mary's post. And ASIC was successful for Westpointers. The only question to be resolved will be the unit pricing at that time. Any suggestions who will rule on that resolution?
> Regards, Simgrund




Simon,

Well, I can't interpret the proposal as winding up the fund, the only payment that is a quantified is 3c/unit/share payment which hasn't come about (plus the buy back which don't look like it's going to happen).

I'm probably wrong, but it seems that first payment is a 'capital' return, *but generally it seems you might be  getting your capital offered back as a taxable 'distribution' at other time*s.

Unit holders are not entitled to anything really, except for the 3%.

You might understand the proposal better than I, but the document is a little scary.

The purpose of listing was to get your money back in the market, not by way of winding up the fund.

Your fund could go on forever.

Allan.

I had a look at J.H.'s proposal, and this was the effect of unit holders accepting the three proposals:-
http://www.moneymagik.com/Wellington.pdf

On page 17:-

"... The outcome for the Fund if all 3 resolutions are passed is:
The Fund will be listed on NSX. *Redemption rights will be extinguished *completely.

A *3 cent cash payment will be made to Unitholders,* with the first payment in October 2008, the second by 24 December 2008 and quarterly 
thereafter.

Buy-back of up to 37.75 million units at 45 cents by 18 September 2009.

Wellington Capital Limited will be the new responsible entity. ..."

On page 30:-

"... 3.4 Liquidity
The Fund is admitted to the official list of the National Stock Exchange of Australia (‘NSX’). The Fund currently has 10,387 Unitholders. The proposed trading of Units on the NSX will provide

Unitholders with the ability to trade their Units on the open market. *Liquidity is not guaranteed.* The size of a fund and its number of unitholders are influencing factors in enhancing interest in market activity. ..."

On page 38:-

"... 4.4 No Cash Payments
While in the past Unitholders in the Fund have invested on the basis that cash payments will be made to Unitholders at various rates, in the current circumstances the responsible entity anticipates being in a position to pay 3 cents per Unit by way of a cash payment by 24 December 2008. ..."

"... 4.6 No Redemptions
Recent events faced by MFS Limited, which is currently suspended from ASX, resulted in a significant increase in the number of Unitholders in the Fund seeking to redeem their funds.

While the Constitution of the Fund currently technically allows for redemptions, the responsible entity has suspended payment on all and any valid withdrawal requests in regard to Units in the Fund for a 360 day period as permitted under the Constitution *and is seeking to amend the Constitution to remove Unitholders rights of redemptions as it will be listed on NSX. *..."

On page 57:-

"... Cash Payments to Unitholders
The amounts paid to Unitholders for accounting purposes are treated as a financing cost expense. *For taxation purposes, these payments continue to represent distributions under the Income Tax Assessment Act*. Unitholder entitlements have been recognised on an accrual basis. ..."

On page 59:-

"... 6.4 Cash payments
The responsible entity intends to make cash payments to Unitholders totalling 3 cents per Unit with the first payment to be made in October 2008, the second in December 2008 and thereafter quarterly.

*Due to the significant impairment recognised at 31 May 2008 it is anticipated that the cash distribution will be a capital repayment and tax deferred.* See section 9 in relation to taxation issues. ..."


----------



## mellifuous (28 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Simon,]..."
> 
> On page 57:-
> 
> ...





Now that the fund has listed, I think  unit holders are effectively separated from their investments - so,* after listing *any payments to share holders will be deemed as a 'financing cost' (an expense to the fund) paid as 'distributions'.

Since these funds use the accruals accounting method, even though the payments are not made to share holders, they are accounted for as expenses (that is, recognised on an accrual basis).

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accruedexpense.asp

On page 6:-

"... Unitholders have a right under the Constitution to call a general meeting and consider other alternatives. *If the resolution to change the Constitution is not approved and no alternative option is subsequently presented to and approved by Unitholders the board is of the view that the assets of the Fund will need to be liquidated to enable the net proceeds to be paid to Unitholders.* ..."

Seems the fund was listed to avoid winding it up by way of liquidation - so, the dream (at least for the manager) will live on.


----------



## Cookie1 (28 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Went back to the Icon Apartments in Port Macquarie this afternoon; there were a few couples there having a look, of which one had sold the land to David Bloomfield (the original developer) and "finally got his money". I told him that was better than we've done!

I must apologise for jumping to the conclusion that the price of some of the $650K apartments had been cut by $250,000; in fact, the 2 x townhouses have been added to the sales info and are priced at $400,000. The townhouses are NOT finished and the agent hasn't even been in them yet...so much for the builder being out by the end of November. The townhouses seem to be an afterthought and are down toward the bottom of the hill on the other side of the pool. I'm not sure of access to the townhouses nor parking. The sales material shows no information other than they have 3 bedrooms and are for sale at $400,000.

There is still work to be done on a number of apartments as well. Two were open for viewing on the 1st level and one was open on ground level (but not necessarily for viewing as it is not quite finished; we just wandered in since the door was open). You can check out the apartments on the Ray White website http://www.raywhite.com/cgi-bin/rse...p=10&s=nsw&t=res&tm=1259383677&cu=fn-raywhite

The builder is still on site but we were told expects to be gone before Christmas. My assessment is that unless he can work some magic, I would expect him to be there into 2010.

I was told by the agent that 4 x apartments have been sold and 4 x are under contract according to the sales material. Apparently the developer bought one of the $1.2m penthouses for himself (it would be nice to know what the PIF got for that one!). The 3 x apartments that were on  "HOLD" are not on hold any longer and are up for sale.


----------



## simgrund (28 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Simon,
> 
> So, to make it clear my  mind, you say that J.H. will return all capital to you (and yes, you are right, there is no income, there can only be capital return to the fund) - she is winding up the fund.
> She is winding up the fund to zero?  Allan




Mellifuous, good day to you!
Firstly thanx to Dexter for backing me up on facts of "OFFER" in Feb '08 (not '09, JohnH).
It will help to clear our minds as to which payments we refer to: 
1.  those from JH operations 
2.  those anticipated from current ASIC and CA actions.
In the case of the first, the twice promised 3cents was ALWAYS a payment out of our personal holding in PIF; nominal or otherwise. Not an interest or income payment.
AND in second case, the "any amount" potentially recovered with CA action needs to be classed outside the PIF holding and distributed to u-holders prorata.
We need action on that to prevent this potential recovery falling into the NSX pot.
As to ASIC potential recoveries, this too needs clear statement now. Hopefully, these are agreeable urges.
Regards, simgrund


----------



## mellifuous (28 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Mellifuous, good day to you!
> Firstly thanx to Dexter for backing me up on facts of "OFFER" in Feb '08 (not '09, JohnH).
> It will help to clear our minds as to which payments we refer to:
> 1.  those from JH operations
> ...




Simon,

Ok... I understand about the $0.03c payment, but how do you get money from the J.H. operations and ASIC (if it's successful)? 

Investors no longer have access to fund assets, so any money which comes into the fund, belongs to the fund, not to investors - so, you'll get nothing there.

If the ASIC action recovers anything, then that will be go to the fund also - it's the fund's money - so, nothing there either.

Of course, the CA action has nothing to do with the fund, so you'll share any windfall.

My guess is that there will be some surprises up the path, and they won't be good ones.   

Even the offer to buy back units at $0.45c seems to be a smoke and mirrors trick - using the fund's money to by back shares in the fund, the shares will become the fund's assets, and then in wind-up/liquidation (if it happens), they'll again be shared between the shareholders.

IMO, it would seem crazy not to accept the offer if its made - I couldn't imagine the fund rising to $0.45c/unit, but time will tell.

An interesting proposition, offering to buy back shares with one's own money (or, with what was once one's own money).

so, we stand with a difference of opinion - let's see.

thanks for the reply - it satisfies my curiosity.

Allan.


----------



## JohnH (28 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Mellifuous, good day to you!
> Firstly thanx to Dexter for backing me up on facts of "OFFER" in Feb '08 (not '09, JohnH).
> 
> Crossed wires Simon - I was referring to the NSX $70k trade, which (as we are all sadly aware) listed in October 08


----------



## selciper (28 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Cookie -

Thanks for the inspection you undertook and the report. Sounds like the old familiar story.


----------



## seamisty (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Cookie, I am over being concerned as to the current RE management and marketing strategies of OUR assets, I am now ALARMED!!! PIF Investors are watching their few remaining assets being whittled away and proceeds absorbed by the very people who promised us they would achieve far better results if they were elected to take control of our fund , and yes thats you, JENNY HUTSON of WELLINGTON CAPITAL!!

Dora or anyone else,  what percentage do we need  re investor numbers or unit holder percentage to call an EGM please? Is it 5% representation of units held or 100 PIF investors or either? Does WC have to pay for the meeting expenses which is ultimately us? The current situation is unacceptable and contrary to what PIF investors 'overwhelmingly voted' for. Does anyone actually think JH will still 'deliver'? This is a serious question and responses valued. Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## Duped (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Now that the fund has listed, I think  unit holders are effectively separated from their investments - so,* after listing *any payments to share holders will be deemed as a 'financing cost' (an expense to the fund) paid as 'distributions'. ...
> Seems the fund was listed to avoid winding it up by way of liquidation - so, the dream (at least for the manager) will live on.




We didn't change from being 'unit holders' to 'share holders' upon listing on the NSX. 

What we buy and sell through the NSX are "Security Type: 06 - *Trust Units*"

Does this change your conclusions?  I'm not a finance person so I need the big print version.  Phrases like 'tax deferred' and 'accrual basis' are a bit gobbledegook to me so I can't draw conclusions from them.

IMO this issue of whether or not we need to pay income tax on any cash WC sends us is MASSIVE.

Can WC structure the PIF so we don't need to pay income tax on the cash we get from PIF? If so then why wouldn't WC do it?

If any cash 'distributions' are tax free then wouldn't that have a MASSIVE effect on the attractiveness of our units on the NSX and hence help push the price up?

Anyone?

(BTW forget about *logic* when it comes to tax in Australia)


----------



## mellifuous (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> We didn't change from being 'unit holders' to 'share holders' upon listing on the NSX.
> 
> What we buy and sell through the NSX are "Security Type: 06 - *Trust Units*"
> 
> Does this change your conclusions?




No, it doesn't  change my view.   J.H. is not obligated to give you guys any of the fund's assets other than the 3% promised, the 'buy-back', and any meager 'distribution' (which is fact, as she puts it, an expense relating to 'cost of the facility').

It's true that you 'own' it, but you can't 'get' it.

However, if you delist, then of course, everything would be as it was before the listing.

The listing 'isolated' members from their capital - and that is that - believe it or not.

How investors would benefit if the $147.5m was paid back to the fund, would be that the unit price on the NSX would rise - but that would be tempered by the fact that you receive no income from your shares/units.

The CA may give some bouyancy to the units/shares.


----------



## Duped (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Duped, I used to ask regularly what the strategy was to take the PIF forward, hence all the quotes notated in my diary. I stopped asking when in my veiw, it was becoming increasingly obvious that those promises were made on the strength of recovering a lump sum of $44.5million from OCV to pay a 3 cent return of capital to investors, open the coffers for management fees and have some money left to finish a couple of projects like Wollongong, Aston Hill etc. Everything changed when that cash payment from OCV DOCA was not forthcoming and the PTQ put a spanner in the works IMO.
> 
> ....
> 
> I can honestly say that to date all these skills do not appear to have  benefitted PIF investors, quite the contrary IMO. I am interested to see a list of the remaining PIF assets, their current book value and a STRATEGY of how our unit values will be restored to full value in 3-5years because IMO it is not going to happen if there are not changes made to the'current strategy' that is being implemented, but I am just an average person, what would I know? Seamisty




Thanks for the comprehensive answer Seamisty.  I hear ya.

But I think we all need to still ear-bash WC about releasing their business plan/strategy for PIF. (Selling everything and returning the cash to unit holders is NOT a business plan - its administration.)

It'll be an uphill battle to get PIF back onto a straight path using legal means. JH has got a head start and will throw all her legal muscle against those who threaten her business.

We need to hedge ourselves and keep the pressure on WC to run PIF like it should be run, like a business for the benefit for the PIF investors. And not to treat the funds assets like legal footballs for the benefit of WC's investors.  Its disgraceful.  That's the sort of behaviour we suffered under from the previous RE. 

My view is, obviously, that without a business plan to grow PIF, the sell down means the fund is, for all intents and purposes, in Administration. 

If we ignore the Madoff/Cassimatis style 'trust me' campaign that WC rolled out (don't you worry your little heads about the complex details)  then we have nothing and JH's aims and goals for the fund have no credibility. We need to pressure test WC's business credibility.


----------



## Duped (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> No, it doesn't  change my view.   J.H. is not obligated to give you guys any of the fund's assets other than the 3% promised, the 'buy-back', and any meager 'distribution' (which is fact, as she puts it, an expense relating to 'cost of the facility').
> 
> It's true that you 'own' it, but you can't 'get' it.
> 
> ...




So what you're saying is that because the fund is not "obligated" to give our money back then no matter how WC structure the finances of the fund, we nust pay income tax on any cash we're given from the fund.

I'm not convinced that we can't call a meeting and vote to wind up the fund.


----------



## mellifuous (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> How*ever*, investors would benefit if the $147.5m was paid back to the fund, *c*ould be that the unit price on the NSX would rise - but that would be tempered by the fact that you receive no income from your shares/units.
> 
> The CA may give some buoyancy to the units/shares.




just an amendment .. 'how' should have been 'however'.
'would' should be 'could'

---  old touch typists simply make too many mistakes.


----------



## mellifuous (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> So what you're saying is that because the fund is not "obligated" to give our money back then no matter how WC structure the finances of the fund, we nust pay income tax on any cash we're given from the fund.
> 
> I'm not convinced that we can't call a meeting and vote to wind up the fund.




Please understand, I'm not qualified to give advice here - you really should seek some professional advice.

However, J.H. is not obligated to give you any more than she promised in the proposal.  

Even the first payment of 3% has tax implications (deferred tax - of which I know nothing about), but the remainder of 'distributions' will be taxable (IMO).

I read this thread regularly, and it's helped me understand funds and managers.

I think many here have the view that J.H. is going to give them their capital back, but it's my view that J.H. will not.

If you want to wind up the fund, then you should amend the constitution to remove the clause on page 15 of the Explanatory Memorandum:-

"... Fees upon removal
The removal fee of 2% is payable if Wellington Capital Limited becomes the responsible entity of the Fund and is subsequently removed without consent. If this occurs, this payment would adversely affect the Fund’s net assets as the fee would be paid from available cash or through the liquidation of assets of the Fund. ..."

Whether it be wind up, liquidated, or change of manager, the fee would probably still apply.

My view is (1) delist, (2) drop the clause in the constitution that supports the removal fee, (3) wind up or change manager.  Mere serious talk about a delisting will cause the manager some concern - in the event that the fund was delisted then that would reflect negatively on J.H.

A lawyer would give you the proper advice for not too much of a fee.

I think this is where the Corporations Act fails investors like ourselves who are locked away  in these stuffed-up funds - there should be some sort of entity that is able to wind the fund up over time, while generally administering the fund (a pseudo-manager).

That's one of the reasons why I wrote the letter to the Finance Minister.


----------



## selciper (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty - I would vote in a flash for an EGM. I'm sure many others would too. We should demand one and see the response from the former Businesswoman of the Year. We can't allow this situation to drag on. We need a meeting where the Wellington "team" face investors in the flesh.

If an EGM is refused, the authorities may listen to an investors' appeal.

Nothing to lose by demanding an EGM and much to gain from such a potential confrontation.


----------



## pixierich (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty - the only thing Hutson is going to deliver is increasing fees to WC at our expense. I agree that an EGM is needed immediately; the very fact that an investor has to say "we should keep the pressure on WC to run the PIF like it should be run" (thank you, Duped) tells us that she is not the right person to be at the helm.

We have been deceived, our fund has been hi-jacked in the name of self-interest, and once sufficient of our assets have been dumped to enable Hutson to pay the promised "distribution" - which will not really be that at all, just a return of capital, and she is able to start charging management fees, it will be rapidly downhill from thereon. 

I believe, if things are allowed to get to that point, that we will not see any more of our hard-earned. I believe the fund should be de-listed, and a new manager appointed. I also think that if we end up having to pay Hutson a 2%fee to get her out, it would be a worthwhile investment - much better than seeing the lot disappear.

Bring on an EGM NOW - we will vote in favour, and attend, as I'm sure many others will. If we have the numbers to demand this, and don't get rapid agreement, we surely have grounds to refer the matter to ASIC who finally seem to have woken up to what is going on.

While we don't post here very often, we are AG members, and read the posts daily, and once again thank all contributors for their intensive research and comments.

On the subject of the Class Action, here is a quote which may be of interest:
"The judge said that the complaint, if true, would show BankAtlantic's executives acted with scienter - the intent or knowledge of wrongdoing that is the key to a plaintiff's argument in a class action complaint."
Brian Bandell; Judge Lets Class Action Suit Proceed Against BankAtlantic Bankcorp; South Florida Business Journal; May 22, 2009.

I wonder how many of our friends acted with "scienter" in the sorry saga of MFS, Octaviar, WCIM, et al? Any guesses?


----------



## mellifuous (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



pixierich said:


> "... to pay the promised "distribution" - which will not really be that at all, just a return of capital ..."




This is what I hate about the darn grossly-impaired funds - the managers talk about 'distributions' but the the reality is that it can never be any more than your own capital coming back to you - and if it's paid back as a 'distribution', then tax is applicable.

It's the same as the 'buy-back', all that can be used is your own money as it comes back - and such an offer would split you all up - between those who would take it, and those who wouldn't - some will lose, some will win (depending on the outcome).

So, why the offer sounds nice, it's really bullsh1t - it would have been better to say 'a repayment of $37.5m of unit holders capital back to them (without tax implications)".

Also, the first 3% should have be a repayment of unit holder's capital too.. there is no need to get into tax implications with your own money.

I'm sure we've all learned a lot on these forums.

I hope what I've contributed is correct and of use to you.

Sometimes it's a little easier to see things from 'outside the box' (so to speak).

It might also be useful to contact your manager and ask about the tax situation IF 'distributions' are made.


----------



## Blueboy1 (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I read these posts regularly and occasionally I will post something on this forum but it is becoming increasingly obvious to me that there are only a handful of people who care enough to join in.
Obviously there are people out there who read this forum either on a regular basis or just intermittently and we do know that there are a good number of us who have joined the class action.
What concerns me is the apparent lack of real numbers on this forum as the same old recycled names keep appearing.
I recently wrote to JH pushing hard for her to show more transparency and I asked her why the PIF updates were not being shown on the WC website,in addition I asked her why she was blocking information requested by Carneys. 
I received a response from one of the WC client service personnel and she took the tack that this forum was made up of a small number of 'diehard's' who held misconceived grudges against either WC or JH or both,she went on to say that the vast majority of unitholder's in the PIF were backing JH and WC and the forum was just a minor annoyance which most people wouldn't bother reading as it was too negative and had little impact and neither she,WC or JH are reading the forum any longer as it simply throws a negative shroud over all the positive things that JH was trying to do for the fund.
I was told that a distribution was definitely coming in 2010 and the reason that they are withholding information from Carney's  is due to the fact that it involves legalese that can only be decided in Court and it is lawyer against lawyer in that regard.
I was also told that they are not giving updates on their website until they have something positive to report and,unlike this forum which constantly waffles on with the same old negative recycled rhetoric,they live in the real world of fact not fiction and only see things from a legal standpoint and it would be pointless for them to join in and answer to a handful of individuals who do not represent the bulk of the fund's unit holders.
So there you have it..........This is their attitude ( not necessarily mine)however it would be intriguing to find out how many people read the forum and also intriguing to know their own viewpoints on the day to day matters discussed by the most prolific posters.
Any views on how this can be accomplished?
I am aware of the IMF letter to CA members recently,which was step in the right direction.
Blueboy1


----------



## seamisty (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Blueboy1 said:


> I read these posts regularly and occasionally I will post something on this forum but it is becoming increasingly obvious to me that there are only a handful of people who care enough to join in.
> Obviously there are people out there who read this forum either on a regular basis or just intermittently and we do know that there are a good number of us who have joined the class action.
> What concerns me is the apparent lack of real numbers on this forum as the same old recycled names keep appearing.
> I recently wrote to JH pushing hard for her to show more transparency and I asked her why the PIF updates were not being shown on the WC website,in addition I asked her why she was blocking information requested by Carneys.
> ...



Hi Blueboy, I can tell you I receive many complaints  and concerns from other investors either by ph, private message or email in relation to PIF. Over the past month I have received contact from numerous investors I have never been in touch with previously, ALL of them are seriously concerned with  the lack of PIF performance  even though they choose not to post on the forum, (though I encourage them to do so.) They have ALL offered their assistance if needed and are ALL extremely unhappy with our current situation. I am not surprised of the answer you received from WC but I can assure you the sentiment and views relayed by the 'few anti JH die hards' posting on the forum is backed up and supported by many hundreds of individual PIF investors. Everone who follows this thread will know that I was an avid JH supporter initially along with many others. I can think of only one who still holds a glimmer of hope but also thinks it neccesary to call a meeting with JH to discuss issues. I seriously doubt JH would get an overwhelming yes vote at the present time. There are no splinter groups of investors anymore and there are many working together to find solutions and alternatives to adress investor concerns and achieve the best possible outcomes for the future of the PIF. It is very encouraging to see support from IMF and Carneys and others outside of the PIF who continue to offer us assistance with information and opinions.  

There has been over 1500 hits to this thread since Friday, I doubt they are all  from a handfull of disgruntled posters. Why would we expect regular updates as promised, good news or bad, we didn't get anything else that was promised either!

I can assure you for certain, if I thought for one minute this thread was NOT monitored by WC staff, there would be a lot more information posted on it!!!!!Regardless of a few of us 'constantly waffling on with the same old negative recycled rhetoric', this thread is still our one main source of contact and information. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Blueboy1 said:


> "... she took the tack that this forum was made up of a small number of 'diehard's' who held misconceived grudges against either WC or JH or both ..."




Well, I gotta tell you, I'm an outsider here, and I've never seen a group of unit holders sent out 'into the cold' so easily before in my life - I'm really happy that the FMF was spared a listing - the whole of the PIF has achieved nothing by being listed - IMO it's been a waste of time and money.

"... she went on to say that the vast majority of unitholder's in the PIF were backing JH and WC and the forum was just a minor annoyance which most people wouldn't bother reading as it was too negative and had little impact and neither she,WC or JH are reading the forum any longer as it simply throws a negative shroud over all the positive things that JH was trying to do for the fund. ..."

Well, what she didn't say was that forums allow an exchange of ideas and views, and to a  certain degree, they are educational.  Where unit holders sit at home in their own little worlds, waiting for the 'good news', they're easy to manipulate, and quite frankly, in most cases they simply don't have a clue what's going on - and yes, as a consequence they have to have great faith in the manager.

None of these managers like criticism - they see themselves as saviors of the little packages (managed funds) they pick up with not much effort at all.  The funds are shattered and the investors are begging for help - help doesn't come from the government, it comes from 'folk' like J.H. and B/T (BalmainTrilogy).

"... I was also told that they are not giving updates on their website until they have something positive to report and,unlike this forum which constantly waffles on with the same old negative recycled rhetoric,they live in the real world of fact not fiction and only see things from a legal standpoint and it would be pointless for them to join in and answer to a handful of individuals who do not represent the bulk of the fund's unit holders. ..."

What they don't say is that they live in their own world, and it's a world very different to unit holders - these managers seem to relish in withholding information.

The real problem is that people on the forums are aware of the realities of their circumstances but they fail to make contact with the 'bulk of the fund's unit holders' to counterbalance the nonsense that comes from the managers.

Nearly every case of radial reform/change comes about by the diligent few, not by the brain-numbed multitudes who have to pushed along like a herd of cattle: managed funds will not change either until the pushing begins.


----------



## JohnH (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hi Blueboy, I can tell you I receive many complaints  and concerns from other investors either by ph, private message or email in relation to PIF. Over the past month I have received contact from numerous investors I have never been in touch with previously, ALL of them are seriously concerned with  the lack of PIF performance  even though they choose not to post on the forum, (though I encourage them to do so.) They have ALL offered their assistance if needed and are ALL extremely unhappy with our current situation. I am not surprised of the answer you received from WC but I can assure you the sentiment and views relayed by the 'few anti JH die hards' posting on the forum is backed up and supported by many hundreds of individual PIF investors. Everone who follows this thread will know that I was an avid JH supporter initially along with many others. I can think of only one who still holds a glimmer of hope but also thinks it neccesary to call a meeting with JH to discuss issues. I seriously doubt JH would get an overwhelming yes vote at the present time. There are no splinter groups of investors anymore and there are many working together to find solutions and alternatives to adress investor concerns and achieve the best possible outcomes for the future of the PIF. It is very encouraging to see support from IMF and Carneys and others outside of the PIF who continue to offer us assistance with information and opinions.
> 
> There has been over 1500 hits to this thread since Friday, I doubt they are all  from a handfull of disgruntled posters. Why would we expect regular updates as promised, good news or bad, we didn't get anything else that was promised either!
> 
> I can assure you for certain, if I thought for one minute this thread was NOT monitored by WC staff, there would be a lot more information posted on it!!!!!Regardless of a few of us 'constantly waffling on with the same old negative recycled rhetoric', this thread is still our one main source of contact and information. Cheers, Seamisty




Hi Seamisty,
Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
I suggest that we all add our names to a list together with our number of units.  This will give us an indication of our strength, (and the number of votes we represent.)  Anonimity will be maintained, as we all publish under our nom-de-plumes. 
Click on the “quote” button and then add in your forum name, and your holding.
As we know from past experience, the administrators of this site are vigilant if people log on under different names....... so let’s keep it honest, and accurate!
Here is mine for starters:-
Forum Name                 
John H.                                   -------        100,000


----------



## pixierich (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Hi Seamisty,
> Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
> I suggest that we all add our names to a list together with our number of units.  This will give us an indication of our strength, (and the number of votes we represent.)  Anonimity will be maintained, as we all publish under our nom-de-plumes.
> Click on the “quote” button and then add in your forum name, and your holding.
> ...



Pixierich                                  -------        222,000


----------



## k.smith (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



pixierich said:


> Pixierich                                  -------        222,000




K.Smith 55,000


----------



## Cookie1 (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Hi Seamisty,
> Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
> I suggest that we all add our names to a list together with our number of units.  This will give us an indication of our strength, (and the number of votes we represent.)  Anonimity will be maintained, as we all publish under our nom-de-plumes.
> Click on the “quote” button and then add in your forum name, and your holding.
> ...




Cookie1                                  -------         245,000


----------



## marcom (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Marcom - 615,000


----------



## seamisty (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quote John.H ::Hi Seamisty,
Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
I suggest that we all add our names to a list together with our number of units. This will give us an indication of our strength, (and the number of votes we represent.) Anonimity will be maintained, as we all publish under our nom-de-plumes. 
Click on the “quote” button and then add in your forum name, and your holding.
As we know from past experience, the administrators of this site are vigilant if people log on under different names....... so let’s keep it honest, and accurate!
Here is mine for starters:-
Forum Name 
John H. ------- 100,000 


Seamisty,  2.18million units


----------



## JohnH (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quote John.H ::Hi Seamisty,
Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
I suggest that we all add our names to a list together with our number of units. This will give us an indication of our strength, (and the number of votes we represent.) Anonimity will be maintained, as we all publish under our nom-de-plumes. 
Click on the “quote” button and then add in your forum name, and your holding.
As we know from past experience, the administrators of this site are vigilant if people log on under different names....... so let’s keep it honest, and accurate!
Here is mine for starters:-
Forum Name 
John H. ------- 100,000 
Pixierich------- 222,000
KSmith  -------     55,000
Cookie1 ------- 245,000
Marcom ------- 615,000
Seamisty ---- 2,180,000


----------



## selciper (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Quote John.H ::Hi Seamisty,
> Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
> I suggest that we all add our names to a list together with our number of units. This will give us an indication of our strength, (and the number of votes we represent.) Anonimity will be maintained, as we all publish under our nom-de-plumes.
> Click on the “quote” button and then add in your forum name, and your holding.
> ...



Selciper--------300,000


----------



## JohnH (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quote John.H ::Hi Seamisty,
Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
I suggest that we all add our names to a list together with our number of units. This will give us an indication of our strength, (and the number of votes we represent.) Anonimity will be maintained, as we all publish under our nom-de-plumes. 
Click on the “quote” button and then add in your forum name, and your holding.
As we know from past experience, the administrators of this site are vigilant if people log on under different names....... so let’s keep it honest, and accurate!
Here is mine for starters:-
Forum Name 
John H. ------- 100,000 
Pixierich------- 222,000
KSmith ------- 55,000
Cookie1 ------- 245,000
Marcom ------- 615,000
Seamisty ---- 2,180,000
Selciper  ------  300,000


----------



## Dexter (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Quote John.H ::Hi Seamisty,
> Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
> I suggest that we all add our names to a list together with our number of units. This will give us an indication of our strength, (and the number of votes we represent.) Anonimity will be maintained, as we all publish under our nom-de-plumes.
> Click on the “quote” button and then add in your forum name, and your holding.
> ...



Dexter ---------880,000


----------



## JohnH (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quote John.H ::Hi Seamisty,
Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
I suggest that we all add our names to a list together with our number of units. This will give us an indication of our strength, (and the number of votes we represent.) Anonimity will be maintained, as we all publish under our nom-de-plumes. 
Click on the “quote” button and then add in your forum name, and your holding.
As we know from past experience, the administrators of this site are vigilant if people log on under different names....... so let’s keep it honest, and accurate!
Here is mine for starters:-
Forum Name 
John H. ------- 100,000 
Pixierich------- 222,000
KSmith -------- 55,000
Cookie1 ------- 245,000
Marcom ------- 615,000
Seamisty ---- 2,180,000
Selciper ------  300,000
Dexter  ------- 800,000


----------



## JohnH (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quote John.H ::Hi Seamisty,
Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
I suggest that we all add our names to a list together with our number of units. This will give us an indication of our strength, (and the number of votes we represent.) Anonimity will be maintained, as we all publish under our nom-de-plumes. 
Click on the “quote” button and then add in your forum name, and your holding.
As we know from past experience, the administrators of this site are vigilant if people log on under different names....... so let’s keep it honest, and accurate!
Here is mine for starters:-
Forum Name 
John H. ------- 100,000 
Pixierich------- 222,000
KSmith -------- 55,000
Cookie1 ------- 245,000
Marcom ------- 615,000
Seamisty ---- 2,180,000
Selciper ------ 300,000
Dexter ------- 880,000

Sorry Dexter I under quoted you.  JH


----------



## To Trusting (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Quote John.H ::Hi Seamisty,
> Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
> I suggest that we all add our names to a list together with our number of units. This will give us an indication of our strength, (and the number of votes we represent.) Anonimity will be maintained, as we all publish under our nom-de-plumes.
> Click on the “quote” button and then add in your forum name, and your holding.
> ...



To Trusting ----- 150,000


----------



## wally3218 (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Quote John.H ::Hi Seamisty,
> Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
> I suggest that we all add our names to a list together with our number of units. This will give us an indication of our strength, (and the number of votes we represent.) Anonimity will be maintained, as we all publish under our nom-de-plumes.
> Click on the “quote” button and then add in your forum name, and your holding.
> ...




wally3218  ........90,000


----------



## JohnH (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnH  
Quote John.H ::Hi Seamisty,
Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
I suggest that we all add our names to a list together with our number of units. This will give us an indication of our strength, (and the number of votes we represent.) Anonimity will be maintained, as we all publish under our nom-de-plumes. 
Click on the “quote” button and then add in your forum name, and your holding.
As we know from past experience, the administrators of this site are vigilant if people log on under different names....... so let’s keep it honest, and accurate!
Here is mine for starters:-
Forum Name 
John H. ------- 100,000 
Pixierich------- 222,000
KSmith -------- 55,000
Cookie1 ------- 245,000
Marcom ------- 615,000
Seamisty ---- 2,180,000
Selciper ------ 300,000
Dexter ------- 880,000 
To Trusting ---150,000
Wally3218----- 90,000  Total so far  4,837,000


----------



## Janiss (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Marcom - 615,000




Janiss 1,499,000


----------



## astevo (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

astevo - a comparatively insigniificant 40350


----------



## seamisty (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

al







To Trusting said:


> To Trusting ----- 150,000



Wow, thanks John.H. The early response is 'encouraging'!!! I hope more unit holders will participate as from my own personal contact with PIF investors I would have to dispute the response Blueboy1 got from WC, but, I have been wrong before!!

From my own personal perspective, (at the risk of being too WC negative and having no impact) it was not the lack of distribution, buyback of units, taking the fund forward, value adding, pursuing those responsible to the end of the world etc. etc. that started to ring the alarm bells as to what we voted for and actually got, it was the bloody arrogance of being ignored by JH who personally gave me her business card and 'encouraged' me to contact her with concerns of PIF related issues.!! 

I will post some early PIF related correspondence to the WC PIF Hotline ::ear Caroline, I rang WC this afternoon and asked Justine how come on the 24th Dec the following was released to the NSX::
Update: Debt Facility
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity for the Premium Income Fund advises that its debt
arrangements have been extended for 3 months from 24 December 2008 to 24 March 2009.
Wellington advises that a further project has settled and that the current debt is $5 million.
Further conditional contractual arrangements are in place. Until the conditions are satisfied and settlement
finalised, the timing of discharge of the remaining $5 million in debt remains uncertain as does the proposed
cash distribution to Unitholders.::::::
In the financial report released today, on page 14:::
The interest bearing loan is secured by a fixed and floating charge over all of the assets of the Fund. The  ¡nterest rate is
25%pa. The loan is repayable by 31 March 2009 and early repayment is allowable should circumstances permit.:::::
The loan is for $5.705mill, where did the other $705,000 come from?
On page 26 of the PIF annual report, 30 June 2008, it states the loan rate as 20% due to mature 30th Nov 2008. I asked when did the interest rate change from 20% to 25%?
I also pointed out the error on page 11 re the wrong date with distributions and asked how PWC, Jenny Hutson and Robert Pitt had all signed off on the document and not picked up on the mistake?
 Justine was going to get back to me but obviously was too busy or hadn't been able to speak with you so will send this and hopefully you may be able to clarify the debt/loan situation for me. ::
Followed by::
From:  Caroline Snow (csnow@wellcap.com.au)  
Sent: Thursday, 12 March 2009 5:45:12 A

Dear , 

I will discuss your queries with the finance team and get back to you by close of business today. 

Kind regards 

Caroline Snow
Associate Director

next email:::
 Monday, 16 March 2009 5:35:39 AM 
To:  jhutson@wellcap.com.au; jhutson@newpiff.com.au 

Dear Jenny,
                 Rather than re writing a series of already sent questions to Caroline Snow who obviously has been too busy to get back to me could you please tell me if we can expect some answers to our concerns in relation to the PIF? It is extremely time consuming representing so many investors in the PIF which is done by a core group of AG reps and it is frustrating not to get adequate replies. Many of these investors will not use the hotline because not only do they not get to speak with anyone, their messages remain unanswered which creates additional angst and more noticeably of late, anger. The question of the cost to investors of running the hotline is also becoming an issue. Inquires which are regarded as important relevant PIF Fund information are often being referred onto senior management by the hotline attendants and are not being responded to. I am told many e mails to investor relations also remain unanswered. While we appreciate the efforts of those who do answer the hotline to the best of their ability, we are concerned the cost may outweigh the usefulness of the service. Perhaps it is time to reveal the cost of the hotline service along with the NSX listing expenses and give unitholders the option to vote yes or no for the continuation of these services in view of the fact that unnecessary Fund expenses at this point in time should be addressed.
             For future reference, there are also unitholders who would like the opportunity to partake in the high rate of interest the PIF RE is prepared to pay for money loaned to the Fund secured by all the Fund  assets by being approached before other 'non bank lenders' . Also, Peter Grenadier asked me to attach the following from him::::

'Please remind Jenny that only a few days ago Caroline Snow promised to remind Jenny about my earlier request for the PIF AG's request to "approve the insertion in the next Wellington PIF Update, mailed to all PIF investors, of the PIF contact email address  breaker7@optusnet.com.au and my name Peter Grenadier [Representative PIF Action Group] as the contact point for any investors wishing to join us in lobbying the government to achieve the above goal of becoming ADI, legally, accredited." I sent this email to Jenny Hutson via Caroline 23 Feb. - as yet I have received no reply. I understand that the PIF is listed on the NSX - this would NOT be insurmountable if the Federal Government were to come to our diversified / property sector with ADI deposit guarantee aid [of any kind].  Even so, if listing were a problem and any substantial aid was offered, investors would expect immediate delisting as a matter of course.'  :::

I refer to your telephone conversation with the Wellington Hotline earlier today. 

I confirm that the answer to your question is yes - the $5.7 million debt facility balance set out in the HY08 report includes interest on the debt facility until the end of March. 



Caroline Snow
Associate Director 
Dear  

I refer to your telephone conversation with the Wellington Hotline earlier today. 

I confirm that the answer to your question is yes - the $5.7 million debt facility balance set out in the HY08 report includes interest on the debt facility until the end of March. 

Kind regards 

Caroline Snow
Associate Director 


I can go on and on, it is all documented and still WC have the audacity to shove their head up we all know where and continue to think they are still well supported and popular among PIF investors and slam those who know better and  dare voice their well documented opinions!!??!! Get over it and face reallity!! You did not deliver as promised Jenny and to add insult to injury, the PIF is a 'basket case', quite the contrary to what we expected. I hope the BS rhetorical served to us to support JH is held accountable by WC because not only have we been robbed by the previous RE, our current RE has delivered ZIP!!! Suck it up and accept accountability. At least I have the decency to acknowledge I made a mistake in giving you my support  initially publically and am prepared to eat humble pie and try and make a difference. My popularity stakes will not be held accountable because I am not benefitting financially ( quite the contrary), WC is. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (29 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thankyou all for your support, WC would like nothing better to prove this thread and its support to those dedicated to providing correct information to unitholders as insignificant and I would like to prove them wrong. 

Another of Teddys quotes that I consider meaningfull::

I have a perfect horror of words that are not backed up by deeds."
Oyster Bay, NY, July 7, 1915

Seamisty


----------



## atlas1950 (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

atlas1950 has 323,000 units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnH  
Quote John.H ::Hi Seamisty,
Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
I suggest that we all add our names to a list together with our number of units. This will give us an indication of our strength, (and the number of votes we represent.) Anonimity will be maintained, as we all publish under our nom-de-plumes. 
Click on the “quote” button and then add in your forum name, and your holding.
As we know from past experience, the administrators of this site are vigilant if people log on under different names....... so let’s keep it honest, and accurate!
Here is mine for starters:-
Forum Name 
John H. ------- 100,000 
Pixierich------- 222,000
KSmith -------- 55,000
Cookie1 ------- 245,000
Marcom ------- 615,000
Seamisty ---- 2,180,000
Selciper ------ 300,000
Dexter ------- 880,000 
To Trusting ---150,000
Wally3218----- 90,000  Total so far  4,837,000[/QUOTE]


----------



## BABIHUTAN (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

BABIHUTAN - 490,000 units


----------



## charles36 (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

You can add my 400,000 units.  By the way I would like those interested to click onto http://www.youtube.com/watchpv=hb55qEY8RAE.  This video was presented to a lavish Christmas party at the Sebel Hotel, The Rocks, Sydney on the 27 November, 2007.  You will note the date for the very next day the 200 million or so borrowed from RBOS was siphoned off to related party entities.  HOW HONEST IS THAT  The party was attended by selected investors and no doubt potential investors.  I wonder how many people got conned that day.  No, I was not invited but sure as hell you can bet we all contributed towards the  cost.  Keep up the good work everyone, I am sure as hell doing my best.


----------



## charles36 (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sorry people, the correct link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb55gEY8RAE.  Try that.


----------



## Bessie223 (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Quote John.H ::Hi Seamisty,
> Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
> I suggest that we all add our names to a list together with our number of units. This will give us an indication of our strength, (and the number of votes we represent.) Anonimity will be maintained, as we all publish under our nom-de-plumes.
> Click on the “quote” button and then add in your forum name, and your holding.
> ...



Bessie 223 ----- 140,000


----------



## seamisty (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

MFS MONEY TRAIL::http://www.smh.com.au/business/debt...ubai-to-new-poetic-heights-20091129-jysf.html

Creditors of the collapsed MFS Limited (aka Octaviar) are expected to push tomorrow for the liquidator of the Gold Coast finance group to dig deeper into transactions undertaken by the group before its collapse and when it was in the hands of its former administrator Deloitte.

Of particular interest are the $940,000 in consultancy fees paid by MFS to a firm set up by the group's former chief financial officer, David Anderson, over an 11-month period when it was under the control of Deloitte.

A nine-member committee representing creditors of the fallen investment group will hold a meeting in Brisbane tomorrow to discuss the next steps they want the court-appointed liquidator, Bentleys Corporate Recovery, to take.

Last week Bentleys issued an update to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission that estimated the group had $2.24 billion of liabilities. Heading Bentley's list of reasons for MFS's collapse: ''Poor strategic management of business.''

Some creditors are also believed to be interested in the $2 million-odd in wages paid out by Deloitte when it was in charge, even though the company was running on a skeleton crew.

One of the crew members is believed to have been Craig Chapman, who was appointed chief executive when the former MFS shareholder Chris Scott led a management and board coup of the company. Scott also happens to be a former colleague of one of the creditor committee members meeting tomorrow, Jenny Hutson. Her firm Wellington Capital took management control of MFS's Premium Income Fund early last year, which happened to be owed money from its parent MFS.

Other transactions that may attract interest are the payments to a Gold Coast document shredding business, Shred X Pty Ltd. Deloitte took more than $1 million in fees.


----------



## mellifuous (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> You can add my 400,000 units.  By the way I would like those interested to click onto http://www.youtube.com/watchpv=hb55qEY8RAE.  This video was presented to a lavish Christmas party at the Sebel Hotel, The Rocks, Sydney on the 27 November, 2007.  You will note the date for the very next day the 200 million or so borrowed from RBOS was siphoned off to related party entities.  HOW HONEST IS THAT  The party was attended by selected investors and no doubt potential investors.  I wonder how many people got conned that day.  No, I was not invited but sure as hell you can bet we all contributed towards the  cost.  Keep up the good work everyone, I am sure as hell doing my best.




Interesting video - just a couple of days before City Pacific Limited de-consolidated the FMF from its accounts (name change on 31 November 2007 and de-consolidation on 1 December 2007), an act that commentators were to say was for their own protection:-

"... "It smells like the company is doing everything possible to make things look like they are OK," trader Daniel Loeb said. "But off balance sheet vehicles and a cash loss/accounting profit do not make for investor comfort.

"The reality is that their mortgage funds are likely to be hiding bad debts and this is the real reason for the deconsolidation. Why would you go to this hassle if there wasn't a loss pending? All they do now is charge hefty management fees from the fund – and for what?" ..."
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23298694-3122,00.html

Sadly, this statement come on 29 February 2008, just a few days before the FMF was frozen on 3 March 2008.

There must have been a feeling in the air that wafted through these managers' offices to cause them to go out and give grandiose presentations in a declining market.   

Here's City Pacific's effort:-

http://www.moneymagik.com/20080331_City_Pacific_Update_-_March_2008.pdf


----------



## Mary Lynch (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Mary ex 493000


----------



## Mary Lynch (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



astevo said:


> astevo - a comparatively insigniificant 40350




Mary Lynch ex 493,000


----------



## AlanLowther (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Alan Lowther--------1,172,363


----------



## BootsnAll (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All
826,695
Merry Christmas LOL
BootsnAll


----------



## JohnH (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnH 
Quote John.H ::Hi Seamisty,
Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
I suggest that we all add our names to a list together with our number of units. This will give us an indication of our strength, (and the number of votes we represent.) Anonimity will be maintained, as we all publish under our nom-de-plumes. 
Click on the “quote” button and then add in your forum name, and your holding.
As we know from past experience, the administrators of this site are vigilant if people log on under different names....... so let’s keep it honest, and accurate!
Here is mine for starters:-
*Forum Name *
John H. ------- 100,000 
Pixierich------- 222,000
KSmith -------- 55,000
Cookie1 ------- 245,000
Marcom ------- 615,000
Seamisty ---- 2,180,000
Selciper ------ 300,000
Dexter ------- 880,000 
To Trusting ---150,000
Wally3218----- 90,000
Janiss --------1499000		
astevo --------    40350		
atlas1950 ------ 323,000		
BABIHTAN ------ 490,000		
charles36 ------- 400,000		
Bessie223------ 140,000 		
Alan Lowther--- 1,172,363		
BootsnAll-------- 826,695	  Total so far 	9731408 or 1.29% of fund


----------



## mgr2118 (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Mgr2118                380,000


----------



## Duped (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Duped - 100,000


----------



## breaker1 (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

IMPORTANT NOTE

The call on the ASF for unit numbers is* NOT *authorised by the PIF AG representatives and was not instigated by the PIF AG

I am even getting email asking if the PIF Action Group is using the ASF to call an EGM - WE ARE NOT!

The PIF AG if conducting any important matters would advise it's members via direct group email

It would appear this numbers call has come about as a spur of the moment attempt to get Wellington attention - this has NOT been authorised by the PIF AG representative committee.


----------



## glendaw101 (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Glendaw101------404,000


----------



## Blueboy1 (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by JohnH
> Quote John.H ::Hi Seamisty,
> Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
> ...




Interesting reading John H: So far there are 18 unit holders holding a total of 9731408 units,an average holding of 540633 units each.
The average unit holding for the (approx)10400 unit holders in the fund is very roughly 72,000 from memory.
If this is the case (so far) the majority of unit holders are not utilizing this forum but the most aggrieved (those that lost more than the average) are doing so. 
The above average unit holding of 540633 is 468633 units above the average holding in the fund,this is a considerably more and suggests that people only start contributing to this forum when they have lost nearly half a million.
It is also of interest that 0.173%(18 people) approx, of all the unit holders in the fund hold nearly 1.3% of the total units and a vague picture is starting to emerge as to the size of the following on this forum and how it scales in relation to the size of the fund.
Blueboy1


----------



## The Owls (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Could someone please advise the email address for the Premium Income Fund Action Group. I have been trying pifactiongroup@gmail.com and ispifactiongroup@gmail.com with no success.
Thank you in advance


----------



## ian1328 (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



glendaw101 said:


> Glendaw101------404,000




ian1328   290000


----------



## coppo (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Brett - 98,000

Our life savings


----------



## 17340 (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Bessie223 said:


> Bessie 223 ----- 140,000




17340   100,000 thank You


----------



## simgrund (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Blueboy1 said:


> Interesting reading John H: So far there are 18 unit holders holding a total of 9731408 units,an average holding of 540633 units each.
> It is also of interest that 0.173%(18 people) approx, of all the unit holders in the fund hold nearly 1.3% of the total units and a vague picture is starting to emerge as to the size of the following on this forum and how it scales in relation to the size of the fund.
> Blueboy1




These were the numbers prior to NSX listing:

*203 *with holdings  $1,000  to   5,000
*1230*                       5,001      10,000     
*7437 *                    10,001     100,000 
*151387 *                   100,001     and over
(total *10,387*)
I suppose that is how it is still represented in WC books
Sourced from one of the update tables; unable to cut & paste.
Regards, simgrund


----------



## breaker1 (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



The Owls said:


> Could someone please advise the email address for the Premium Income Fund Action Group. I have been trying pifactiongroup@gmail.com and ispifactiongroup@gmail.com with no success.
> Thank you in advance




Hi Owls

The PIF Action Group email is: breaker7@optusnet.com.au

Their was a breakdown in the other emails over the weekend
- my apologies

Breaker


----------



## simgrund (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> These were the numbers prior to NSX listing:
> 
> *203 *with holdings  $1,000  to   5,000
> *1230*                       5,001      10,000
> ...




Last No of holders should be *1517 *   100,001     and over


----------



## Duped (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> IMPORTANT NOTE
> 
> The call on the ASF for unit numbers is* NOT *authorised by the PIF AG representatives and was not instigated by the PIF AG
> 
> ...




Thanks Breaker.  I confirm I'm not under the impression that the  test of numbers is a call for an EGM.  

Similarly, I don't see the test of numbers as muscle flexing. Merely, an exchange to see how loud our squeak is. Not very.  As WC pointed out to Blueboy1, allegedly. WC certainly do seem to have all the FACTS, as reported by Blueboy1. I just wish they'd share more of them with me. 

To be clear the 100,000 I posted should read 'at least 100,000'.  I'm not taking any chances that someone won't break the law and use the unit holder register to identify me.  I don't have the resources to take legal action. My annonymity is the only defense at my disposal against the aggressive and unethical big-end-of-town.


----------



## Mary Lynch (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by JohnH
> Quote John.H ::Hi Seamisty,
> Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
> ...



Mary Lynch ex 493,xxx


----------



## Hogan (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hogan -  35,000.


----------



## simgrund (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by JohnH
> Quote John.H ::Hi Seamisty,
> Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
> ...




Dear Comrades,
With all due respect, but all these outings will not translate into realization of our shared goals. The only OUTING I personally wish to materialize is a transparent contact with the elected IAC. All of our discordant discontent delivered ad lib via forum runs the risk of being further marginalized by the very targets we aim at.
Please, if anybody has or had any contacts with any or all of the elected members of IOC, please let PIF AG know. 

As regards the u-holders numbers, I took them from post #2983 page 150. 
They speak for themselves; that indeed a smaller number of u-holders control a larger proportion of fund holdings. 

Regards simgrund


----------



## Duped (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sent you a message seamisty.


----------



## pjay (30 November 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Quote John.H ::Hi Seamisty,
> Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
> I suggest that we all add our names to a list together with our number of units. This will give us an indication of our strength, (and the number of votes we represent.) Anonimity will be maintained, as we all publish under our nom-de-plumes.
> Click on the “quote” button and then add in your forum name, and your holding.
> ...




pjay----------405.000


----------



## breaker1 (1 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Ripoll inquiry needs to shout, not whisper

 Comment on this article  |  See what others are saying 
Wet, wet, wet. That's the best description for the Ripoll inquiry's final report into financial products and services delivered this week. After months of hearings and more than 400 submissions, the best this group of politicians could come up with was that financial planners should have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their clients.

Sydney Morning Herald - 28th Nov 2009 - Annette Sampson

Wet, wet, wet. That's the best description for the Ripoll inquiry's final report into financial products and services delivered this week. After months of hearings and more than 400 submissions, the best this group of politicians could come up with was that financial planners should have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their clients.

Well, golly gee. Don't they realise it came as a nasty shock to most investors to be told this year (ironically enough by the Financial Planning Association, which was proposing such a duty be required from its members) that such a duty doesn't already exist?

Clients' expectations of their financial planners, and the reality of much of the industry, are now so far apart that even the industry was expecting more from Ripoll. The fact that the report was almost universally welcomed by the industry shows just how industry-friendly it was.

No recommendation to ban on-the-nose commissions, just that the Government work with the industry to develop "the most appropriate mechanism by which to cease payments from product manufacturers to financial advisers" - whatever that may turn out to mean.

No crackdown on conflicts of interest generally, just a recommendation that they be disclosed more prominently in marketing material, along with any restrictions on the advice that can be given. As if disclosure overload wasn't already a problem, with most consumers either switching off or not understanding the information they get. No minimum standards for advisers, or recognition that some so-called advisers are really just salespeople in disguise. Flick-pass that one to a new professional standards board that ASIC should set up in consultation with the industry.

No recommendation that some complex products - such as the securities lending agreements that gave Opes Prime clients so much grief - should simply not be allowed to be sold to retail investors.

The committee reckons investor awareness and scepticism following recent collapses should stymie future offerings, along with increased reluctance from the banks to do this sort of business, laws bringing margin loans into ASIC's regulatory arena, and increased obligations on financial planners.

But to be fair, the committee did recommend ASIC be given the power to ban individuals from the industry, to deny, cancel or suspend a licence where it had a "reasonable belief" the licensee might not comply with its obligations (though how you prove that will be interesting to test), and that it be appropriately resourced to effectively police the advice given by planners - including annual shadow shopping exercises. (One industry group has already expressed concerns about that one.)

Oh yes. There was also a final recommendation for ASIC to develop more effective education for those likely to be seeking financial advice for the first time - as though the regulator's website is not already littered with such advice (including advice on conflicts of interest), which is apparently ignored by the many it targets.

It's not that requiring financial advisers to act in their clients' interest is a bad thing. In fact the only real question is why it wasn't required long ago.

But trusting that this alone will ensure all financial planners behave ethically smacks of either naivety or political expediency.

The fact is that the bulk of the 246-page report, was commissioned after the collapse of groups such as Storm financial and Opes Prime, presents a compelling case that parts of the industry don't meet the current, less stringent requirements.

The Corporations Act already requires personal advice to have a reasonable basis and be appropriate for the client.

As the report points out, advisers must know their client, know the product and/or strategy they are recommending, and ensure that the product and/or strategy is appropriate to the clients' particular needs. It doesn't require that the advice be ideal, perfect or "best" - but those are subjective terms anyway. In the case of Storm, one of the serious issues identified by the inquiry was its "one-size-fits-all" approach to financial planning. While investors might have assumed they were getting tailored personal advice, it was all coming out of the company's head office in Townsville.

As the group's former accountant told the inquiry: "No advisers were permitted to undertake their own financial planning modelling. Rather, their role was to explain the Storm model to clients who were interested and ensure clients who were not comfortable with this did not become a client."

Under questioning about whether the advice offered was really like a factory churning out the same result for everyone, the company's founder, Emmanuel Cassimatis, agreed it was like selling a car - those who wanted it could buy it and those who didn't could go somewhere else.

The advice was typically for clients to borrow against their home to invest in share-based index funds, then borrow further through margin loans.

Appropriate? Certainly the investors nearing retirement or on lower incomes didn't think so when the whole thing came tumbling down. Even if the advice was appropriate for some clients, it beggars belief that it was appropriate for all, despite the supposed self-selection Storm claimed occurred.

If ASIC couldn't identify or act on this, can we really have faith that it will have the will or muscle to pick up advice that falls short of the proposed fiduciary standard?

Or will its main effects be to provide unscrupulous planners with yet another comfort that they can spin to prospective clients - "I'm legally required to act in your best interests" - and to make prosecuting them a little easier after the damage is done.

The Government is also awaiting a final report from the Cooper review, which will look at fees, charges and other issues in relation to super. Let's hope it has a few more teeth.

Let's hope, too, that the industry's own efforts to get rid of the bad eggs, orchestrated through the FPA, proves more than a token effort. By embracing the recommendation for a fiduciary duty of care, the industry has shown it can talk the talk.

But it will need to go further than the Ripoll report's recommendations to walk the walk


----------



## Duped (1 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

IMO the only reason the Federal Government is getting off it's butt to do something about this is for its own self interest. It gave a huge helping hand to the problem through it's compulsory super system.  The Fed has skin in the game.  

When people like us start popping out the end of the Fed's system without enough to live on, the Fed will still have to cough up.  We'll be knocking on Centrelink's door by the million despite all those financial service providers having got fat off the system. 

From *Business Spectator*

Alan Kohler

'A Grim Outlook for Commissions'

"Just because the report from the joint parliamentary committee on financial services did not explicitly recommend banning commissions, don’t think that they don’t have to go.

That’s the message financial planning luminaries have been getting this week as they troop around Canberra, cooling their heels in lobbies and waiting rooms, infesting Parliament House cafes.

The financial services industry has had just one thing on its mind this week: finding out whether the Ripoll Report will mean an end to commissions for financial planners.

It was unclear in the recommendations. The joint committee recommended an explicit fiduciary duty for financial planners (putting clients first), and that the government should consult with the industry to develop the “most appropriate mechanism by which to cease payments from product manufacturers to financial advisers”.

The immediate reaction from the commission-payers was that commissions and volume bonuses were compatible with a fiduciary duty, and that life would go on. The word “consult”, it was thought, means finding loopholes and ways around things. Phew.

But the message in Canberra this week has been quite different. As I understand it, the heads of all the industry bodies, as well as the lobbyists for the banks, AMP and AXA, are hearing the same thing from Bernie Ripoll, head of the inquiry, the Minister Chris Bowen, the Shadow Minister Chris Pearce, and from Treasury: commissions have to go.

It’s just that the politicians on both sides, as well as Treasury, don’t want to legislate for that – they are insisting that the industry leaders do it themselves (under threat of legislation).

The reason for this is quite interesting, and logical – and not a million miles from that other story in Canberra this week: the deal over the CPRS legislation and the convulsions in the Liberal Party.

It’s about compensation. Legislation that destroys private wealth requires compensation or risks ugly High Court lawsuits and damage to sovereign investment standing.

The focus of the negotiations over the CPRS has been on compensation for power generators and coal miners because of the legislation that reduces the value of their assets. They’ve got more compensation, but they’re still complaining it’s not enough.

A legislated ban on commissions would wipe out colossal amounts of wealth among financial planners. A firm that earns steady trailing commissions is worth 3-4 times revenue when it is sold; a firm that charges by the hour or a fixed rate for a financial plan gets one times annual revenue on sale.

Even if such a scheme were grandfathered, so that existing commission arrangements could continue, they would have to end when dealerships were sold, so value would still be destroyed.

Financial planners around the country are in a state of panic and uproar about this; their own retirement plans are going up in smoke and it’s clear they won’t go down without a fight.

Unlike other industry bodies, the Financial Planning Association has been working for years to persuade members to move away from commissions and finally, in October, the board approved the new policy from CEO Jo-Anne Bloch. But even that hard-fought victory only involves a transition beginning in 2012, and it’s only for FPA members.

Interestingly, ASIC has now dealt itself out of this discussion with a radical submission to the Ripoll Inquiry, recommending a legislated ban on commissions as well as percentage-based fees paid by clients. Like your correspondent, ASIC is now regarded as a terrorist.

As a result, Treasury has now become the key bureaucratic player in the progress towards reform, with politicians on both sides demanding an end to commissions and all other payments from investment product manufacturers to financial planners – smoothly, and without compensation. Somebody has to negotiate this, and it will be Treasury, not ASIC.

Reform will be tricky and require leadership from the top of the industry that has so far not been evident, except from the FPA.

But the alternative is bad legislation, because legislation is always bad. Just look at the mess known as the CPRS. "


----------



## Duped (1 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> These were the numbers prior to NSX listing:
> 
> *203 *with holdings  $1,000  to   5,000
> *1230*                       5,001      10,000
> ...




Note also that 1.5 million units will get you well into the top 20.  Apart from the Wholesale PIF, no individual entity had much more than half a % of the fund at 1 Sep 08.

But it looks like the top 20 doesn't take account of multiple holdings.  There are two 2 million holdings for the same super fund held by the same trustee.  One trustee is spelt with a 'Limited'  the other with a 'Ltd'.  

With only just under 4 million units traded, the situation probably hasn't changed that much.  Can't account for off market transfers though. As for block voting - who knows what holders are still under the spell of their advisors.

When does WC have to update the top 20?


----------



## breaker1 (1 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*




Duped said:


> IMO the only reason the Federal Government is getting off it's butt to do something about this is for its own self interest. It gave a huge helping hand to the problem through it's compulsory super system.  The Fed has skin in the game.
> 
> When people like us start popping out the end of the Fed's system without enough to live on, the Fed will still have to cough up.  We'll be knocking on Centrelink's door by the million despite all those financial service providers having got fat off the system.






Duped said:


> > Your right - just from PIF investors alone I regularily get feedback people telling me they have just gone on a part pension because of their declined income


----------



## simgrund (1 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> ...................Your right - just from PIF investors alone I regularily get feedback people telling me they have just gone on a part pension because of their declined income




This is the sort of "show of hand" we need to conduct to present as a % out of PIF's 10,387 potential retirees who wanted to be self funded.
Now they draw full or partial social benefits.
If it is revealed that such number is significant, the Ripoll recommendations; real, implied or strengthened, will definitely be fast tracked.


----------



## Towbar (1 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



pjay said:


> pjay----------405.000




towbar 75000


----------



## seamisty (1 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sorry PIF holders, I have been really busy  with off forum related  work issues, but thanks to all investors that have posted and registered their interest/participation of our thread. Your continued support  by taking the time to respond to  forum posts is acknowledged  and hope you all continue to support the AG and concerned PIF investors in the ongoing efforts of which we hope will result in a better outcome for all concerned. Thank you for your continued interest and support. Seamisty


----------



## marcom (2 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

In the AFR today 2/12/09:

Bentleys gets $140m from Octaviar

Bentleys Corporate Recovery has secured almost $140 million in funds from the collapsed Gold Coast finance group Octaviar since it took over the company's liquidation two months ago....

There was a creditors meeting yesterday - can not find any media release from Bentley's.


----------



## seamisty (2 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Here is Decembers  list of scheduled Class Action  court appearances. Cheers, Seamisty

 03-Dec-2009  9:30 Directions Justice Perram 

16-Dec-2009  10:15 Hearing Justice Perram 

18-Dec-2009  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram


----------



## atlas1950 (2 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If these reports are true from the AFR,then this should be a positive development to our cause. Can you post the link on the ASF. 

Let us all be strong and together in these difficult times.


----------



## zeva (2 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all! zeva 100000


----------



## Cookie1 (2 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Here is an article from The Age 2/12/09 about LLA; things are looking up for LLA thanks, partly, to the negotiated debt reduction by JH on behalf of the PIF investors! Need I say more!

http://www.businessday.com.au/busin...wner-expects-strong-growth-20091201-k406.html

"Melbourne Aquarium owner expects strong growth
PHILIP HOPKINS
December 2, 2009
LIVING and Leisure Australia (LLA), the owner of the Melbourne Aquarium, has dramatically cut losses and debt, and expects strong cash flow and growth driven by its key tourism assets.

Chief executive John Schryver told the annual meeting in Melbourne that the group's net loss in 2008-09 was $15.4 million, compared with a loss of $74.8 million the year before. Total revenue was $123.5 million, a rise of 8.8 per cent. ''All business units are profitable and generating cash,'' he said.

LLA, previously an offshoot of failed property trust Octaviar, the former MFS Ltd, is now controlled by its rescuer, Arctic LES, owned by James Packer's Consolidated Press Holdings, after a $100 million recapitalisation underwritten by Arctic.

LLA's key Australian assets are the Melbourne Aquarium, skiing operations at Falls Creek and Mount Hotham, and the Otways and Illawarra treetop walks.

Chairwoman Julanne Shearer said the recapitalisation reduced LLA's debt, allowing the group to consolidate its business and operations.

''We refinanced more than $200 million of current debt and entered a new senior secured-term and working capital facilities arrangement with ANZ Banking Group,'' she said. ''We also restructured unsecured debt with long-term mezzanine facilities to reduce our gearing from 50 per cent to 30 per cent.''

Mr Schryver said that LLA expected continued growth this financial year. The focus remained on marketing and branding, the organic growth of each business, low-risk and high-return improvement of existing assets, and the continued strengthening of LLA's cash position to pay down debt."

Source: The Age


----------



## noirua (2 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi everyone on this very busy thread.  If you have time there is a vote at The Bull for the best forum of 2009. If you have a moment to vote it is at:  http://www.thebull.com.au/the_stockies_list.php?c=Forums

Our lead has crumbled somewhat in the last few weeks and your vote is needed in the final run in -  Thank You!


----------



## Cookie1 (2 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Have scanned the AFR article today re Bentleys recovering $140m from Octaviar but have had no success in including the attachment. Will try again! Don't know what's the problem but will retype the article if I have to.


----------



## Cookie1 (2 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Have tried again to include the Bentleys $140m article. It's still not working to include an attachment...so here goes!

Source: *The Australian Financial Review 2/12/09* 

"BENTLEYS GETS $140M FROM OCTAVIAR
Michelle Singer

Bentleys Corporate Recovery has secured almost $140 million in funds from the collapsed Gold Coast finance group Octaviar since it took over the company's liquidation two months ago.

A group of about 15, all members of the creditors committee, met in Brisbane yesterday for an update on the investigations being carried out by Bentleys, which took over from receivers Deloitte in October.

Bentleys has told the Australian Securities and Investments Commission the company's liabilities are estimated to be about $2.24 billion, with the main reason behind the group's collapse being "poor strategic management of business".

Following yesterday's meeting, a Bentleys spokesman said the group was undertaking substantial investigation work to recover funds on behalf of the creditors with $138.2 million already recovered to date.

"Cash flow, including all costs, will have more recoveries than expenses for the foreseeable future," the spokesman said.

The Australian Taxation Office has ordered $60 million of those funds to be frozen, although it is understood that Bentleys has submitted a freedom of information request to the ATO regarding its decision.

The brief meeting is also understood to have covered the litigation under way, including ASIC's charges against the former directors and the Public Trustee of Queensland's appeal to the High Court in relation to the $19.5 million Fortress debt.

Previously, the Court of appeal had unanimously overturned the original decision, which held the Fortress security was valid.

Bentleys is understood to still be considering what to do with Octaviar's only remaining asset, a child-care business worth about $35 million, which owes about $33 million to St George Bank."


----------



## breaker1 (3 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*




Cookie1 said:


> "BENTLEYS GETS $140M FROM OCTAVIAR
> Michelle Singer






Cookie1 said:


> Where did they get the money from?


----------



## seamisty (3 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Cookie1 said:
> 
> 
> > "BENTLEYS GETS $140M FROM OCTAVIAR
> ...


----------



## selciper (3 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It sure would be nice to know whether we are regarded as "special case" if ASIC succeeds. There are lots of other people with their hands out for a share of remaining OCV funds from a pretty small pot. My unhelpful guess is that we should hope for something, but not to be too optimistic. It could be that any potential pay-out to PiF might come from directors' insurances only. Perhaps somebody knows of a precedent  if the case is eventually favourable to us.


----------



## Duped (4 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

PIN is in a Trading Halt.  But there is no Request for a Halt under PIN Announcements.  How does that happen?


----------



## JohnH (4 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> PIN is in a Trading Halt.  But there is no Request for a Halt under PIN Announcements.  How does that happen?




No Panic - looks like the whole NSX is on hold.


----------



## JohnH (4 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> No Panic - looks like the whole NSX is on hold.




................ now trading again


----------



## simgrund (4 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Here is Decembers  list of scheduled Class Action  court appearances. Cheers, Seamisty
> 03-Dec-2009  9:30 Directions Justice Perram
> 16-Dec-2009  10:15 Hearing Justice Perram
> 18-Dec-2009  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram




Good day,
Any clues what happened to 3rd Dec directions session at Courts?
Some documents were filed on that day.
And this date is no longer on the list when I opened it yesterday. 
regards,


----------



## k.smith (4 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I  have just.received a reply from Wellington Capital regarding an email I had sent them about the sale of the Wollongong property.

They acknowledge that the sale ..."will enable a cash payment to be made to unitholders of the Premium Income Fund in 2010"

The issue that should be a big concern to all of us is how will we receive this payment...

In the same letter from Wellington Capital they say..

"...at this time we have not been provided with guidance in relation to whether the cash payment will be in the form of a capital return or distribution. This guidance will be given closer to the time that a payment is given to unitholders...."

So how will we be paid...if we receive this as income, that is, a credit from the fund....we will have to pay tax on the income....is the alternative  that the fund will have to pay tax on the income? Isn't that us anyway? So why the listing? Would't we be far better off delisting the fund and receiving the what is now classed as income as redemptions with no tax? Is there anybody here that could advise us?


----------



## seamisty (4 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> I  have just.received a reply from Wellington Capital regarding an email I had sent them about the sale of the Wollongong property.
> 
> They acknowledge that the sale ..."will enable a cash payment to be made to unitholders of the Premium Income Fund in 2010"
> 
> ...



Thanks k.smith, as usual, the answer you get from WC results in more questions! I am so over WC and their non commital responses and open ended promises that to date have delivered PIF investors ZIP!!! I seriously question the continuation of PIF as a going concern under our current management. What is the cut off point where our assets are so eroded to cover WC inoperating expenses (which I was told on several occasions by WC hotline staff were being met by WC staff) that it will be impossible to deliver the return of PIF unit value in a 3-5 year time frame??When is JENNY HUTSON of WELLINGTON CAPITAL going to reassess her unfulfilled promises and come clean??? Payments from income?? What income?? Any profitable assets have been sold and absorbed. And exactly when in 2010 will we see a return of our capital?? Not forgetting we were promised the same in Oct 2008? IMO = in my opinion, WC has not and will not deliver and like milk, their use by date is questionable. Any one still have faith in WC??? Seamisty


----------



## marcom (5 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty, there is more movement at the station!

From the daily list of applications before the Brisbane Supreme Court on Monday: APPLICATIONS TO COURT
10:00AM– The list of applications will be called over in COURT 5 FLOOR 1 for allocation to a Judge and an order of hearing will be indicated for contested matters. Practitioners should be prepared to deal with adjournment and consent orders immediately before the callover of contested matters.

*AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION -V- MANAGED INVESTMENTS LIMITED & others    10:00 AM Monday 7 December 2009*

This application is in addition to the ASIC application lodged on 29/10/09.

Managed Investments is the MFS/Octaviar company which transfered PIF to WC. MI is a respondent to the ASIC action.

The first directions hearing is also on in the Brisbane Supreme Court on Monday. I wonder if this is also over a problem with obtaining documents?


----------



## seamisty (5 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Seamisty, there is more movement at the station!
> 
> From the daily list of applications before the Brisbane Supreme Court on Monday: APPLICATIONS TO COURT
> 10:00AM– The list of applications will be called over in COURT 5 FLOOR 1 for allocation to a Judge and an order of hearing will be indicated for contested matters. Practitioners should be prepared to deal with adjournment and consent orders immediately before the callover of contested matters.
> ...



MARCOM!!!! Thanks for keeping a close watch and consistantly informing us all  on PIF related court activity. Well this latest action is VERY INTERESTING. I am sure all will be revealed in due course. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## selciper (5 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty -
From a position of weakness, a majority of PIF investors in 2008 voted in favour of a new regime. Any doubts were cast aside and the rosy future that was outlined gave everyone hope. In effect, we were unwittingly voting to be shunted into a thick fog. 

For example, the NSX listing (few investors really wanted it) has been a massive flop. You can hardly say that it has provided any solution for us. And one could go on about the list of continuing disappointments - but we all know what they are, so I’ll just say bluntly, ”Give ‘em the flick.” Of course, there may be strategic legal reasons for not doing so now. That’s for the experts to decide.


----------



## k.smith (5 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> I  have just.received a reply from Wellington Capital regarding an email I had sent them about the sale of the Wollongong property.
> 
> They acknowledge that the sale ..."will enable a cash payment to be made to unitholders of the Premium Income Fund in 2010"
> 
> ...






With regard to all cash payments by the fund to members, we really need advice on these scenarios, imo...both from the manager and from an independent source.....

(1)   If payments are made as 'distributions' then what are the 
tax considerations for :-

(a ) members, and;
(b ) the fund.

(2)  If payments are made as 'Capital Returns' then what are the
tax considerations for :-

(a ) members, and;
(b ) the fund.

With regard to the offer at $0.45c, why can't the offer be converted
to a pro rata  payment at $0.45c.?

In this way all members have access to cash and all members interests in the fund remain proportionally the same, so we would all be treated equally.


----------



## selciper (5 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

K. Smith - How we can mange to ensure members' interests come first is a real challenge. You wrote "With regard to the offer at $0.45c, why can't the offer be converted
to a pro rata payment at $0.45c.?"
I seem to have missed something. Would you kindly explain more about the 0.45 cents proposition? Is it the once-touted buyback which, I thought, had was abandoned?.  Thanks.


----------



## Dexter (5 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Are there any Brisbane AG members able to attend the court hearing at 10am Monday and report back to us re proceedings?  Thanks. Dexter.


----------



## k.smith (5 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> K. Smith - How we can mange to ensure members' interests come first is a real challenge. You wrote "With regard to the offer at $0.45c, why can't the offer be converted
> to a pro rata payment at $0.45c.?"
> I seem to have missed something. Would you kindly explain more about the 0.45 cents proposition? Is it the once-touted buyback which, I thought, had was abandoned?.  Thanks.




Hi Selciper,

Below is the link to WC update from 31st August, and the section therein that relates to the buyback

http://www.newpif.com.au/investor_updates/InvestorUpdate_310809.pdf

"....one of the resolutions passed at last year's extraordinary general meeting
of Unitholders was the buyback of units..........

.....while management is still of the opinion that the buyback is a valid strategy that will benefit a number of unitholders, it is a secondary strategy to that of generating a cash payment in the near term...

....Overall, the Fund's particular circumstances and the broader economic situation are not conductive to the anticipated buy back at present, or in the immediate future....."

Because the buyback was one of the resolutions that we voted on last year, I believe it will eventually  come onto the agenda again....they still are of the opinion that it is a valid stategy.
The issue is that we are all forever living in hope that we will get our money back, but if we start getting a small percentage of our money back,( from either cash distributions and or the buyback proposal) and we then have to pay tax on that small percentage, wouldn't we then compound our losses even further? Would we be better to get our money back as a return of our own capital investment, which would then not be income, and thus not taxed?
Shouldn't we be advised re all tax implications before the deed is done, rather than after the event?


----------



## selciper (5 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi K Smith,

Good to get your quick reply to my query. Obviously your knowledgeable take on a possible buyback should be considered.


----------



## mellifuous (5 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> K. Smith - How we can mange to ensure members' interests come first is a real challenge. You wrote "With regard to the offer at $0.45c, why can't the offer be converted
> to a pro rata payment at $0.45c.?"
> I seem to have missed something. Would you kindly explain more about the 0.45 cents proposition? Is it the once-touted buyback which, I thought, had was abandoned?.  Thanks.




The resolutions you passed on (page 3 of the explanatory memorandum):-

"... The responsible entity proposes three separate resolutions. Each resolution is independent. If all three resolutions are approved:
The Fund will remain a going concern and Units in the Fund will be able to be traded on the NSX;
Up to 37.75 million units in the Fund will be redeemed by the Fund at 45 cents per unit by 18 September 2009; Wellington Capital Limited will be the new responsible entity of the Fund; and
Cash payments totalling 3 cents per Unit will be made to Unitholders by 24 December 2008 and quarterly thereafter, with the first payment to be made in October 2008. ..."

If you think that the manager is able to renege on the $37.75m then it would seem to me that you may as well say that investors can renege on W.C. being manager - I can't see how it's possible that you're not given the money - it's yours and it was promised to you.

W.C. made a representation on you which you relied - you voted for them on the redemption of the units and the 3% payments - they are in fact promises by the manager,  promises which have been defaulted on - could it be that if you do nothing, then you have been said to have waived your rights to sue in breach?

Ok, so, the manager  will take more  time to amass the money, but I would think members should be able to press for part-payments as and when sufficient spare cash is amassed within the fund.  I'd guess that most of you would want to see excess cash come to you and not stay in the fund.

Why don't you guys get some legal advice from a professional on this issue if you're unsure of where you stand?

On Page 57 W.C. states (in part):-
"... Cash Payments to Unitholders
*The amounts paid to Unitholders for accounting purposes are treated as a financing cost expense.  For taxation purposes, these payments continue to represent distributions under the Income Tax Assessment Ac*t.
Unitholder entitlements have been recognised on an accrual basis. ..."

Any cash payments to unit holders will be classed as 'income' to each unitholder - that is, taxable - so, your impaired capital is coming back taxable - if you're happy about that, then so be it - but I'm sure you won't be if you have a lot invested, or if you're already paying tax.

On Page 59:'
"... 6.4 Cash payments
The responsible entity intends to make cash payments to Unitholders totalling 3 cents per Unit with the first payment to be made in October 2008, the second in December 2008 and thereafter quarterly.
*Due to the significant impairment recognised at 31 May 2008 it is anticipated that the cash distribution will be a capital repayment and tax deferred. See section 9 in relation to taxation issue*s. ..."

Your manager sent this to K. Smith, "...*at this time we have not been provided with guidance in relation to whether the cash payment will be in the form of a capital return or distribution*. This guidance will be given closer to the time that a payment is given to unitholders...."

So, it seems your manager of over 12 months doesn't know whether you should be paid as 'a tax-deferred capital payment' or a taxable distribution (financing cost to the fund).  It seems to me to be a big shift between a tax deferred position and a taxable position.

Wouldn't you think it is straight-forward?   It seems to me that some income tax advice is needed on these items.  It might be nothing, or it might be a real big headache for the lot of you.

Again, sorry to butt in (again), but it seems to me to be a really important issue.

Listing a properly working fund with income is one thing, but listing a badly impaired fund with no income is quite another - I find it amazing that you only get some of your decimated capital back, and it may all be classed as  income on which tax may or may not be payable.

*Corporations Act s. 601FC(1)(d)* provides that unit holders must be treated equally, but if some have to pay tax and others do not have to, then as far as I can see, they don't seem to be treated equally.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s601fc.html

PS.  You must seek professional legal advice before acting on anything contained in this posting - I am not qualified to give either legal or taxation advice - my comments come from personal experiences only.


----------



## seamisty (5 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Seamisty -
> From a position of weakness, a majority of PIF investors in 2008 voted in favour of a new regime. Any doubts were cast aside and the rosy future that was outlined gave everyone hope. In effect, we were unwittingly voting to be shunted into a thick fog.
> 
> For example, the NSX listing (few investors really wanted it) has been a massive flop. You can hardly say that it has provided any solution for us. And one could go on about the list of continuing disappointments - but we all know what they are, so I’ll just say bluntly, ”Give ‘em the flick.” Of course, there may be strategic legal reasons for not doing so now. That’s for the experts to decide.



Yep, selciper, and I recall that a few of us who were prepared to back WC and JH also said that if in 12 months investors weren't happy we would review the the RE management situation. I continually ask on this thread if there are any PIF investors who still think JH will deliver on the BS offered to us that 'encouraged' us to vote for her but no support appears to be forthcoming so I take that as a 'NO' vote of confidence. I strongly suspect JH is otherwise occupied with court appearances, providing legal documentation and representation and pleading her case to ASIC and the Supreme Court etc to expect any transparent PIF investor related updates. I hope there is a comprehensive list of  LEGAL FEES being accrued so that we know which PIF is accountable for and which WELLINGTON CAPITAL investmnet management should be responsible for! I assume these  fees are being monitored in house, because I can assure you that the 'small number of 'diehard's' who held misconceived grudges against either WC or JH',  who are a minor annoyance which most people wouldn't bother reading as it was too negative and had little impact who also 'constantly waffle on with the same old negative recycled rhetoric' are constantly on the case 'outhouse' (doesn't outhouse and WC have something in common?) Anyway, to cut the waffle short I am sure the next few weeks will be interesting and I for one will not be spending any promised income, distribution or return of capital from WC before Xmas because I strongly believe this Xmas will be much the same as the last one and Santas stocking will be empty. Seamisty


----------



## DepressedDad (6 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All.  Like Zeva & Hogan we have never posted before but once asked to stand up &  'be counted' here we are. 100,000.  I'm sure there are many others who love to read all the posts & be kept updated but don't feel they have anything as valuable to contribute as all the smart savvy tireless workers that write so often here.  Without this we would know absolutely nothing.  I'm sure I'm speaking for many others when I thank the contributors for their fantastic efforts & investigations & postings.

The 100,000 Units are my 85 year old Dad's.  It's 100% of his wealth, well what was his wealth. Needless to say the events that have passed have gravely affected his health. He continually talks about 'selling' and I'm not sure what he means. Can he sell at any time on the stock market & what would he get at this week's rate?  Would this be a wise option, given his age?  Anyone like to be brave enough to say there is a possibility (probability?) of any light at the end of this tunnel?  Is there any reason to be more optimistic this month than say 3 months ago?  What would you recommend to your Dad?

Any opinions welcome & once again thanks to the contributors who have not just taken this littany of mismanagement lying down. It's not just about the theft of money, its also about the right to be treated fairly and with honesty & integrity.  Please don't stop until the dishonest are singled out & punished so they can't cause the same grief to others.  You guys are GREAT!!!!


----------



## seamisty (6 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DepressedDad said:


> Hi All.  Like Zeva & Hogan we have never posted before but once asked to stand up &  'be counted' here we are. 100,000.  I'm sure there are many others who love to read all the posts & be kept updated but don't feel they have anything as valuable to contribute as all the smart savvy tireless workers that write so often here.  Without this we would know absolutely nothing.  I'm sure I'm speaking for many others when I thank the contributors for their fantastic efforts & investigations & postings.
> 
> The 100,000 Units are my 85 year old Dad's.  It's 100% of his wealth, well what was his wealth. Needless to say the events that have passed have gravely affected his health. He continually talks about 'selling' and I'm not sure what he means. Can he sell at any time on the stock market & what would he get at this week's rate?  Would this be a wise option, given his age?  Anyone like to be brave enough to say there is a possibility (probability?) of any light at the end of this tunnel?  Is there any reason to be more optimistic this month than say 3 months ago?  What would you recommend to your Dad?
> 
> Any opinions welcome & once again thanks to the contributors who have not just taken this littany of mismanagement lying down. It's not just about the theft of money, its also about the right to be treated fairly and with honesty & integrity.  Please don't stop until the dishonest are singled out & punished so they can't cause the same grief to others.  You guys are GREAT!!!!



 Hi DepressedDad, Your dad can sell his units on the NSX http://www.nsxa.com.au/prices_alpha.asp?nsxcode=PIN    The last trade was for 17cents per unit on the 25th Nov and the highest bid listed at present is 17.5 cents for 95,000 units. A far cry from our original $1.00 per unit purchase price. I don't know what to advise you in relation to holding or selling. Most investors would be hoping to receive something back from the Class Action but if your father is participating in the IMF CA should any money be recovered he would be entitled to his share regardless of whether he retains or sells his units. I do not know how money from the ASIC MFS/OCV  compensation claim against former emplyees will be distributed in the event money is recovered on our behalf. I have asked ASIC to clarify this but did not receive a response. 

I am not certain what direction the PIF is heading but am interested in seeing what ASIC determine regarding the original aquisition of PIF management rights by Jenny Hutson. Hopefully there will be some more feedback over the next few weeks. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## marcom (6 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Dexter said:


> Are there any Brisbane AG members able to attend the court hearing at 10am Monday and report back to us re proceedings?  Thanks. Dexter.




hello dexter
The ASIC case opens on Monday with a directions hearing where a lot of the legal technical stuff is sorted out. As with our CA there may be more directions hearings before the actual case starts.

You can track progress with the case here http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...rt=&LastName=&GivenName=&PartyRole=&DateFrom= Click file details in the botton right hand corner for more detail. I see that Michael King is representing himself and that Craig White has engaged a specialist litigation and D&O insurance lawyer.

It would be good if someone who has time could follow the case by attending.


----------



## selciper (6 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty - You wrote in #4680 "I am not certain what direction the PIF is heading but am interested in seeing what ASIC determine regarding the original aquisition of PIF management rights by Jenny Hutson. Hopefully there will be some more feedback over the next few weeks..."
Intriguing.


----------



## seamisty (6 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Seamisty - You wrote in #4680 "I am not certain what direction the PIF is heading but am interested in seeing what ASIC determine regarding the original aquisition of PIF management rights by Jenny Hutson. Hopefully there will be some more feedback over the next few weeks..."
> Intriguing.



 I was recently told by someone whe represented 'an interested party' regarding the possible aquisition for the PIF that he was dealing with Jenny Hutson at Wellington Capital who was handling it for Chris Scott/OCV.  He was quite surprised to see JH end up with the PIF!!! I think someone from Brisbane who has units in the PIF is hoping to attend the court tomorrow so hopefully will get some indication of where the case is heading. Wasn't the PTQ also questioning the original aquisition? The whole saga is becoming extremely complex, I hope we get some clarity in the not too distant future. Seamisty


----------



## selciper (6 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

2008 JH interview in Gold Coast Business News.

-----------------------------------
Crunch time for PIF

by Jason Oxenbridge

It’s do or die for the Premium Income Fund (PIF) as it scrambles for unity prior to an investor meeting to determine its fate later this month. A reprieve by the embattled Octaviar to continue as a going concern following a win against the Public Trustee to wind up the company is good news for PIF investors - but it may be a case of too little, too late.

PIF director Jenny Hutson is confident the board can return capital value from 45 cents to one dollar in the next three to five years as investor funds remain frozen as of January this year following the ‘Black Friday’ share price plummet.

The fund was set up by MFS co-founder Michael King and taken over by Hutson’s Wellington Capital vehicle in May 2008. PIF commenced legal proceedings on June 24 against former funds manager MFS (now Octaviar) to recover $147.5 million in debt that is expected to deliver 65 cents per unit for out of pocket investors.

Hutson is confident of delivering a three cent distribution to shareholders in October and December and subsequent quarterly distributions. Units will also be listed on the NSX to give investors trading options.

“We are hoping to make some recovery there and that will improve the value of the unit, we will be asking them (investors) to vote on a three to five year proposal to come with us, which we aim to turn that 45 cents back into one dollar,” says Hutson.

Hutson, the 2007 Queensland Businesswoman of the Year, set up Wellington Capital in 2005. The company employs 30 staff and has more than $1 billion of funds under management. She says PIF has reduced its bank debt from $184 million to $55 million and is on track to reduce back debt to zero by the end of this month.

“That means we can restart distributions. This was a high performing income fund and we believe it can become a high performing income fund again. Recommencing the distributions is a really important part of that strategy,” she says.

“If the 10,345 investors stay with us, we believe we can get their money back. Some of the disappointments we have seen in corporate Australia in recent times are funds that have struck difficulty.

“What we are trying to here is a little bit different. If we had not of stepped in on May 2, the board before us had decided that receivership was the only option left open to them. We hopped into the ring and worked very hard through the month of May to reduce bank debt from $100 million to $55 million.”

Of the10, 345 disgruntled investors in the Premium Income Fund, 95 per cent are aged 65 and over and have invested an average of $72, 213. But some good news may sway investors this month following Centrelink and the Department of Veteran Affairs decision to write down shares by 55 per cent to 45 cents each, allowing disgruntled shareholders access to government benefits.

“It’s been a challenge, it remains a challenge but we think that we can return the Premium Income Fund to being a great fund and a flagship fund for Wellington Capital and for the investors that are involved. That is our primary aim,” says Hutson.

Hutson says that if PIF was to liquidate in 2009, the best investors could expect on their return would be 14 cents while overall liquidation will cost the company $31 million.
With litigation against Octaviar underway to recover $147.5 million, the former S8 chair is hopeful of increasing PIF unit value to 45 cents, but says her relationship with Octaviar executive director Chris Scott has ‘changed’. Hustson will accept a $48 million pay out offer from Octaviar, following the decision by the Supreme Court to adjourn the winding up action until September 9.

“MFS board is a new board, Chris’ role is to look after shareholders and creditors, my role is one single role, and that is to look after investors in the Premium Income Fund,” she says.

“To say that our relationship at a business level has changed is really to state the obvious, we have quite different interests in terms of the economic interests of different groups. Chris Scott is a fine businessman who I am sure will look after the interests of Octaviar. It is my job and the job of my board to look after the interests of the Premium Income Fund and we have taken a very aggressive position at a particular point in time for a very deliberate reason and that is to make sure that we get the best outcome for (PIF) investors.”

Hutson says she will fight to avoid liquidating the company, vowing to rally alongside investors for the long-term.

“It’s important to be economically rational, and it’s economically irrational to take 14 cents in March as opposed to returning 45 cents plus what we recover from MFS,” she says.

“This fund has been very strongly supported from the Gold Coast, its home as the flagship fund of MFS. We’d like the opportunity to work with investors to reinstate its position in this market.

“People realise that it is the perfectly wrong time to be selling assets. The feeling is that people are going to come with us. I envisage a three to five year time frame to turn capital value from 14 cents back into one dollar. It’s the biggest economic statement I have made in my life.”


Jenny Hutson tells Gold Coast Business News that it’s not over yet for PIF


Is the current Funds model dead?
In respect to the funds model, it has been a redemption fund. We have made an application to list units in the fund on the National Stock Exchange (NSX). We think that will give people who want to take their cash out now the opportunity to do that and we think it’s a really important part of repositioning the fund to give people a choice. The National Stock Exchange will facilitate that trading. Modifications are required to ensure that the fund is properly positioned for the future and that’s what our August proposal is about - a long-term commitment, public listing, and working together united in terms of the go forward.

Is three to five years a realistic time frame to return money to investors?
Three to five years is a realistic time frame. Step one was stabilisation of the fund, step two is repayment of the bank debt, which we’re on track to do and step three is a value re-creation strategy. We have a lot of good assets in the fund, what we need is the time to work out those assets. We had a property that we had valued about three months ago at $11 million, when we undertook an expression of interest campaign recently, the best offer was only $1.5 million. It is the perfectly wrong time to be selling that property in our opinion. We need to recognise that this has been a difficult market, given the impact of the property index on this fund, so we need to be patient to get the recovery that investors want and need.

What about all the doom and gloom in the market?
I have had a fantastic connection with the Gold Coast in business with S8. I think I can take the Premium Income Fund and do something similar. We are in the right part of the country with the right sort of assets and I’m looking forward to the support of the Gold Coast people.
It’s been a tough market, in our view the toughest in the last 10 years for property and finance. We think it has been a great fund, are looking to have investors to make a decision about the fund. It can be a great fund again.



How will Wellington Capital perform in the current market?
At the moment we are have $1 billion of funds under management and a team of 30 professionals based in Brisbane and Sydney. There are fantastic opportunities for sensible growth. We would like to be connected to the 10,345 investors for a very long time and have them come with us, not only this investment but others as they are presented.

What advice would you give to future investors in similar income funds?
It’s important to have a manger that understands all the risk and that you have the right team to deliver and we certainly think that Wellington Capital is the right team for the Premium Income Fund. People made the right decision going into it. Unfortunately there are two things that changed that. The market movement with listed property trust down 43 per cent plus transactions that didn’t deliver.

What impact has this had on you personally?
There are a lot of small investors who have been committed to the fund for a long time and seeing them recover their money would give me immense personal pride.


----------



## JohnH (6 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> 2008 JH interview in Gold Coast Business News.
> 
> -----------------------------------
> Crunch time for PIF
> ...


----------



## mellifuous (6 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> 2008 JH interview in Gold Coast Business News.
> 
> -----------------------------------
> 
> PIF director Jenny Hutson is confident the board can return capital value from 45 cents to one dollar in the next three to five years as investor funds remain frozen as of January this year following the ‘Black Friday’ share price plummet..




Ah, the search for the  elusive mighty dollar, you had it, and you gave it away.

That's what B/T wants to do with the PFMF, give us a V.U.P. (variable unit price), just like a listing, and then we too can go and chase the elusive dollar.

One dollar that is, when we have it, we have to keep it - once we lose it, it's so hard to get back.

It's a great story - just like Cinderella, the manager will work for the $1.00, but if you'd stayed unlisted (if your fund's  unit price was $1.00 in your constitution), then you'd be getting back money without having to wait and wait for the unit price to rise.

You could simply take the $1.00s while they are available and make the manager work - but they hate that idea because they want to keep the cash in the fund as a cash cow.

A V.U.P. or a listing are just devastating to investors in  highly impaired managed funds without any chance of  income.   Listing such a fund is, IMO, the worst single step that investors could take.

Believe it or not.

ASIC should have never allowed your fund to list in the circumstances.


----------



## mellifuous (6 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The reason I have interest in your fund is that I've been warned for nearly a year  by a member of your forum not to allow the FMF to go the way of the PIF.

The member of your forum is a member of the FMF also, but has a lot more at risk in the FMF.

So, studying where your fund has gone is extremely important to some of us in the FMF - you might say that the FMF has followed in your fund's 'footsteps', except the listing proposal by  City Pacific was set aside 'because of market conditions'.

I have constructed a document containing my views about your listing and posted it on my site at : http://www.moneymagic.com/listing_funds.php

While it doesn't cover all the issues, it will give you an outsiders view of what happened.

Also, as to other issues on my site, if you have interest, you may like to read about the V.U.P. (variable unit price) which is just like having a listing without having one.  You will see that it is the refusal of offers that keeps you without money - a VUP has the same effect as listing the fund, no one takes the money: investors refuse offers in the hope of a better future (the recovery of the unit price to the magical $1.00)

I think it essential that we help each other with information - every little bit helps.

Thanks.


----------



## mellifuous (6 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

http://wwwmoneymagik.com/listing_funds.php

sorry, I shouldn't  type while drinking.


----------



## breaker1 (6 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> http://wwwmoneymagik.com/listing_funds.php
> 
> sorry, I shouldn't  type while drinking.




Oh! Your drinking too are you? Most of us were teetotalers before Wellington took over!

With the class action will be putting in a claim for causative addiction and stages I and II of Chirrosis !


----------



## Duped (7 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Not directed at you Selciper 



selciper said:


> 2008 JH interview in Gold Coast Business News.
> 
> -----------------------------------
> Crunch time for PIF
> ...



  Progress report.  Sorry for being such a "diehard" negative but Unit value is now 39.2c. Shelling out about a million to Perpetual and about $3M to lawyers in one year didn't help did it. I'm expected a further $20m impairment subsequent to the Sheraton Mirage sale. Looking forward to that half yearly report?



selciper said:


> Hutson says that if PIF was to liquidate in 2009, the best investors could expect on their return would be 14 cents while overall liquidation will cost the company $31 million.



 Instead we got an average 14c on the NSX and costs of $7M in one year.  Hey, at least Perpetual and those lawyers got some $.



selciper said:


> “.... It is my job and the job of my board to look after the interests of the Premium Income Fund and we have taken a very aggressive position at a particular point in time for a very deliberate reason and that is to make sure that we get the best outcome for (PIF) investors.”



  And that's despite the conflicts of interests between PIF invetsors and WC investors.  Lucky us to have such White Knights swoop in to save us.



selciper said:


> “People realise that it is the perfectly wrong time to be selling assets. ... " ... "... step three is a value re-creation strategy. We have a lot of good assets in the fund, what we need is the time to work out those assets. We had a property that we had valued about three months ago at $11 million, when we undertook an expression of interest campaign recently, the best offer was only $1.5 million. It is the perfectly wrong time to be selling that property in our opinion. We need to recognise that this has been a difficult market, given the impact of the property index on this fund, so we need to be patient to get the recovery that investors want and need."



 So why is it then that less than a later WC put most of the properties on the market?  You confused?  I'm confused? (I could dream up an answer: the market turned around.  Maybe I could get work as a media consultant.)



selciper said:


> I have had a fantastic connection with the Gold Coast in business with S8. I think I can take the Premium Income Fund and do something similar. We are in the right part of the country with the right sort of assets ..."



 Commercial property on the Gold Coast? I'm sure I read somewhere that such assets have been hardest hit. Well if so then ... they simply must all be wrong.




selciper said:


> "...There are fantastic opportunities for sensible growth. ..."



 So what's the business plan for said growth?



selciper said:


> "...We would like to be connected to the 10,345 investors for a very long time ..."



 I'm sure you would.

Am I just in Monday Morning sarcasm overdrive?


----------



## Duped (7 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> ...In the same letter from Wellington Capital they say..
> 
> "...at this time we have not been provided with guidance in relation to whether the cash payment will be in the form of a capital return or distribution. This guidance will be given closer to the time that a payment is given to unitholders...."



  NOt directed at you k.smith.

So that's it.  WC don't give  rats about giving me time to do some tax planning.  Thanks heaps WC. I'll stand still while you punch me again.


----------



## Duped (7 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Blueboy.  I appreciate your posting. My response is:



Blueboy1 said:


> ...What concerns me is the apparent lack of real numbers on this forum as the same old recycled names keep appearing. ...



 Ouch. I guess you're right I'm a nobody with only about a PIFfling $100K of my life savings in this fund. You're right: I'm a nobody. But did you have to remind me.



Blueboy1 said:


> ... I received a response from one of the WC client service personnel and she took the tack that this forum was made up of a small number of 'diehard's' ...



 She wants me to die does she?



Blueboy1 said:


> ... who held misconceived grudges against either WC or JH or both, ...



 'Misconceived' is not a very nice way of saying 'stumbling around in the dark'.  So then JH - remind me what's the business plan for growing the fund?  It's been a year and all I have heard from WC is - sell. But ... what then?  Park the money in the fund and pat each other on the back?  Do I need to remind WC that the PDS, and hence the business plan therein, has been withdrawn?



Blueboy1 said:


> ...  and the forum was just a minor annoyance which most people wouldn't bother reading as it was too negative ...  as it simply throws a negative shroud over all the positive things that JH was trying to do for the fund ...



  'Positive things' - I'll have to take WC's word for it because WC keeps everything so so secret; you know like ... here it comes on cue ..... like the business plan to grow the fund. 



Blueboy1 said:


> ...  and had little impact and neither she,WC or JH are reading the forum any longer . ...



  Stiff upper lip is a bit 19th century isn't that.  WC risk missing out on any constructive criticism that might help.  I mean really, I can't see how a share price languishing at 50% of your valuation is hardly something to be resolute about. Or am I just thick? In case WC isn't sure I'm being POSITIVE about the fund here.



Blueboy1 said:


> ... due to the fact that it involves legalese that can only be decided in Court and it is lawyer against lawyer in that regard. ...



 Again - I'll have to take WC's word on this.



Blueboy1 said:


> ...unlike this forum which constantly waffles on with the same old negative recycled rhetoric, ...



  Attack the attacker. 



Blueboy1 said:


> ...they live in the real world of fact not fiction and only see things from a legal standpoint and it would be pointless for them to join in and answer to a handful of individuals who do not represent the bulk of the fund's unit holders....



  That's because WC HAVE the facts.  I don't. And that's why I'm here: to share info.  E.g. How else am I going to do any tax planning? If WC can declare that I won't have to pay income tax on any "distributions" this financial year then I'll shut up about the topic - until next financial year.  OH and there's NOTHING "legal standpoint" about wanting to see a business plan. A plan is a basic principle of business.  As for the term 'fiction' - bit harsh isn't it - how about 'stumbling around in the dark'.



Blueboy1 said:


> ...handful of individuals who do not represent the bulk of the fund's unit holders....



  Thanks for reminding me again.  I know, I know - I'm a nobody.



I don't really hold the help line in high regard anyway.  But that's just my waffling negative opinion.  One of the handful of times I've called was to ask if we were getting a tax statement.  Answer was an incorrect: NO. We did get a statement and I'd already sent my tax return.  While all the amounts on the PIF statement were zero, I still had to pay my accountant regarding filing an amendment. What can I do eh? What does it matter to WC - I lack 'real numbers'!  I just have to 'suck it up princess'.

*General*
As i clearly said before - I'm in PIF for the money. 

Not to make friends.  Not for adulation of peers. Adulation from you lot. Not for exchanging 'negative' waffling postings on this forum. Not to engage in spin and rhetoric. Not to satisfy a grudge. Not to get on TV or get into the papers. Not to be WITH WC or AGAINST WC.  

It's business. Hey, I'm being honest. I'm in PIF and here on the ASF to make money. What is WC involved in PIF for? To make me money?  I hope so, because that's what I expect from WC. That's WC's fiduciary duty to me isn't it?  So ...... where's the business plan to grow PIF?  What business plan are investors buying into when they buy units on the NSX?


----------



## BABIHUTAN (7 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I hv being trying to capture the holdings posted by various Investors since JohnH started the ball rolling with his #4596. Not a huge showing but totals have been climbing slowly & I believe are complete.

I compiled a list in Excel on my PC but hv not found the way to transfer it "as a spreadsheet" attachment to this Forum message format. I hv only been able to copy and paste the text below tt is no longer an 
Excel spreadsheet. 

*Holdings in PIF as posted on ASF * 

*Forum Nom de Plume* *Units Held*​John H	 100,000​Pixierich	 222,000​K Smith	 55,000​Cookie1	 245,000​Marcom	 615,000​Seamisty	 2,180,000​Selciper	 300,000​Dexter	 880,000​To Trusting	 150,000​Wally 3218	 90,000​Janiss	         1,990,000​Astevo	 40,350​Atlas 1950	 323,000​BABIHUTAN	 490,000​Charles 36	 400,000​Bessie 223	 140,000​Mary Lynch	 493,000​Alan Lowther1,172,363​BootsnAll 	 826,695​Mgr2118	 380,000​Duped	 100,000​Glendaw	 404,000​Ian1328	 290,000​Coppo  [Brett?]	 98,000​17340	 100,000​Hogan	 35,000​pjay	 405,000​Towbar	 75,000​Zeva	100000​DepressedDad	100000​Totals to date 	 12,799,408​
I will be happy to continue to update as & when Investors add the information on this Forum if in some way it helps our collective cause.
Cheers ---------BABIHUTAN


----------



## Valn (7 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Please add Valn = 140,000.


----------



## simgrund (7 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



BABIHUTAN said:


> I will be happy to continue to update as & when Investors add the information on this Forum if in some way it helps our collective cause.
> Cheers ---------BABIHUTAN



Dear BABIHUTAN, please access message box, thanks


----------



## erniel (7 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



BABIHUTAN said:


> I hv being trying to capture the holdings posted by various Investors since JohnH started the ball rolling with his #4596. Not a huge showing but totals have been climbing slowly & I believe are complete.
> 
> I compiled a list in Excel on my PC but hv not found the way to transfer it "as a spreadsheet" attachment to this Forum message format. I hv only been able to copy and paste the text below tt is no longer an
> Excel spreadsheet.
> ...




erniel                      450000


----------



## Janiss (7 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

BABIHUTAN correction, that should be Janiss 1,499,000


----------



## seamisty (8 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Business Business Gold Coast

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/12/08/166965_gold-coast-business.html






 King wants details of ASIC case against him
Emmaline Stigwood   |  December 8th, 2009

FORMER MFS chief executive Michael King has indicated he might accept Australian Securities and Investments Commission charges against him, only if he knows what its case is.

Mr King appeared in the Supreme Court in Brisbane yesterday to represent himself and oppose basic directions about how ASIC's proposed $147 million civil penalty case would proceed.

In October ASIC filed court papers declaring its intention to recover money from several former MFS directors, as well as a senior manager, after an 18-month investigation.

It is alleged money was wrongly syphoned out of the Premium Income Fund before the company's collapse and financial documents were then faked to cover the transfers.

Along with Mr King, the action has named former directors Craig White, Guy Hutchings and David Anderson, and manager Marilyn Watts, as well as Octaviar Castle, Octaviar Administration and Managed Investments Limited.

In court yesterday lawyers for ASIC said the case was large and likely to end up being a lengthy trial, so it proposed more extended deadlines for orderly filing of material between all the parties.

However Mr King objected, saying if ASIC better articulated its case against him he might choose not to proceed down a long and expensive legal path of defending the matter.

This in turn led ASIC lawyers to recommend Mr King, a solicitor who has not practised in about 10 years, seek proper legal advice about any such moves.

Justice Ann Lyons said she could see no prejudice in ordering parties serve and file documents over the next few months, and if Mr King wanted to short-cut the process by formally lodging no defence to the case he was able to do so.


----------



## Duped (8 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This one of ours? 

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cach...wellington+capital"&cd=24&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au


----------



## seamisty (8 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> This one of ours?
> 
> http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cach...wellington+capital"&cd=24&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au



 Could well be Duped,  
Maroochydore, QLD $14,109,465 interest rate 11.5%  due 30 November 2005

In a later investor update 11th Dec 2008 it was stated 'Fund was mortgagee in possession. External marketing to realise asset undertaken with Realway Real Estate. Part of the asset has been sold and is awaiting settlement.'


Further research:::
Application Details                                                                                    8/12/2009 
Application: REC09/0041
   Details Date Lodged: 22/05/2009 
  Stage Decision Period Commenced 
  Categories Reconfiguration of a Lot (Code) 
Reconfiguration of a Lot - Residential 
  Properties 30 Trinder Ave, MAROOCHYDORE
30 Trinder Ave, MAROOCHYDORE
30 Trinder Ave, MAROOCHYDORE
30 Trinder Ave, MAROOCHYDORE
30 Trinder Ave, MAROOCHYDORE

  People Wellington Capital Limited C/- Ken Hicks & Associates (Applicant) 
Ken Hicks & Associates (Consultant) 

  Events Description  Outcome  Completed  
Is application Properly Made? Yes 22/05/2009 
Are External Referrals required? Not Reqd 01/06/2009 
Is Acknowledgment Notice Required? Yes 01/06/2009 
Acknowledgement Notice Finalised Yes 05/06/2009 
Is Information Request Required? Yes 10/06/2009 
Is Information Request Extension Required? No 10/06/2009 
Information Request Finalised Yes 23/06/2009 
Has applicant responded to Information Request? Yes 20/10/2009 
Is Public Notification Required? No 05/06/2009 
Decision Stage Commenced Yes 21/10/2009 
Is an extension required to Decision Stage? Yes 16/11/2009 
Is further extension required by agreement? No 07/12/2009 
Decision Type Full DA 07/12/2009 
Prepare Decision Notice DevPermit 07/12/2009 
Update Proclaim - Decision Made Date   
Appeal Filed   


  Assessment Team Planning Assessment Unit 
  Related Applications No parent applications recorded against this application.
No child applications recorded against this application.

  Documents Date  Title  Description  Size  Link  
25/05/2009 Development Application part 1 of 2 Covering Letter Form 1 Development Application Part A Owners Consent Part F IDAS Assessment Checklist CD Verification 30 Trinder Avenue Maroochydore  8670 KB  [View]  
25/05/2009 Development Application part 2 of 2 Planning Report Attachment A Code for Reconfiguring a Lot Attachment B Plans Sheets 1-7 30 Trinder Avenue Maroochydore  9000 KB  [View]  
05/06/2009 Acknowledgment Notice Acknowledgment Notice - 30 Trinder Ave MAROOCHYDORE QLD 4558 63 KB  [View]  
23/06/2009 Information Request 30 Trinder Avenue Maroochydore - 33 Lot Subdivision - Wellington Capital Limited - Ken Hicks and Associates 82 KB  [View]  
18/11/2009 Extension of Decision Making Period Letter Extension of Decision Making Period Letter - 30 Trinder Ave MAROOCHYDORE QLD 4558 52 KB  [View]  


If you require further information please contact Customer Services Unit on 5475 8501


----------



## marcom (8 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quote from GCB article December 8 2009: 

"However Mr King objected, saying if ASIC better articulated its case against him he might choose not to proceed down a long and expensive legal path of defending the matter.

This in turn led ASIC lawyers to recommend Mr King, a solicitor who has not practised in about 10 years, seek proper legal advice about any such moves.

Justice Ann Lyons said she could see no prejudice in ordering parties serve and file documents over the next few months, and if Mr King wanted to short-cut the process by formally lodging no defence to the case he was able to do so."

Where is the "I will vigorously defend the matter" that King responded to the media only a few weeks ago. AND King's comments about the wonderful, hard working MFS staff. Obviously ASIC have King on toast! Don't anyone tell him he could very well end up in prison LOL


----------



## Duped (8 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From AFR 10 June 2008

http://calibrecapital.com.au/downloads/newsdocs/Calibre finds strength in adversity.pdf

"Large groups, such as Mirvac Group and Perpetual Trustees, have indicated their interest in establishing opportunistic or vulture style funds."  

WOW! Is this the same Perpetual Trustees who sat watching while MFSIM breached and forged ('allegedly'). Now they're looking at profiting from what they could have done something to stop.  That's ruthless. 

Maybe they're just following Calibre's lead.  Afterall, it's chairman is Mark Korda of KordaMentha fame.  Hmmmm.  Lets talk about inherent conflicts of interest shall we?

I suppose this seems to be acceptable in Australia.  After all, our legislators  make millions in taxes from cigarrettes and junk food and then takes more taxes from the health care required to clean up the mess. 

Sad.  Very sad.  I guess that's the outcome of a 'that's not my responsibility' culture.


----------



## marcom (8 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quote from AFR article 10 June 08 - !8 months later it looks like WC's strategy is still flawed.


----------



## oldjap (8 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



BABIHUTAN said:


> I hv being trying to capture the holdings posted by various Investors since JohnH started the ball rolling with his #4596. Not a huge showing but totals have been climbing slowly & I believe are complete.
> 
> I compiled a list in Excel on my PC but hv not found the way to transfer it "as a spreadsheet" attachment to this Forum message format. I hv only been able to copy and paste the text below tt is no longer an
> Excel spreadsheet.
> ...




oldjap 497472


----------



## ozzy (8 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Also add Ozzy = 150000


----------



## mellifuous (8 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Quote from AFR article 10 June 08 - !8 months later it looks like WC's strategy is still flawed.




Hi, I wonder if you guys have made complaints on specific issues to ASIC?

And if so, have any of the specific complaints (if any) posted on the forum?

There are only a few of us (FMF contributors, as there always seems to be), but we making a start at http://www.moneymagik.com/complaints.php

I think if it's possible that we are able to focus on specific issues then we might stand a better chance.

Also, it's nice to see 'Duped' contribute to the managed fund thread.

Thanks.


----------



## loulou2 (8 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Please add 119,000 LouLou2.


----------



## Towbar (8 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Does anyone know what happened to our Hastings Point asset,This property has diappeared from the latest list of assets"The Point" as it is known locally is almost finished & some units have apparantly been sold


----------



## seamisty (8 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Hi, I wonder if you guys have made complaints on specific issues to ASIC?
> 
> And if so, have any of the specific complaints (if any) posted on the forum?
> 
> ...



Hi mellifuous, I can assure you that every specific OCV/MFS complaint in relation to the PIF has been lodged correctly with ASIC since (in my own case) Mar 2008 and in addition any Wellington Capital complaints have been well documented and forwarded to ASIC as they have occured. I was told by WC staff on the 3rd JUNE 2008 that ASIC was watching the pIF closely and was in constant contact with WC. What investors need clarifying is just how much WC knew in relation to the alledged misconduct by former OCV employees regarding the RBOS bank loan we were left to repay for non existant PIF aquisitions which were backed up by alledged fraudulent documentation!! Where is C Scott? His silence is deafening for someone who alledgedly lost millions as a result of alledged dealings that led to the demise of MFS/OCV thus rendering his remaining 22.4 million shares worthless
or did he make enough from the sale of his $20million shares he off loaded before the:fan and he had to pay a $9 million margin call?  I can only hope no stone is left unturned and all dealings leading up to the deminishing value of our PIF unit value is disclosed. There is no doubt in my mind we have been robbed, but the burning question is, what will be done to remedy the situation and how long will it take? seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (9 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hi mellifuous, I can assure you that every specific OCV/MFS complaint in relation to the PIF has been lodged correctly with ASIC since (in my own case) Mar 2008 and in addition any Wellington Capital complaints have been well documented and forwarded to ASIC as they have occured. I was told by WC staff on the 3rd JUNE 2008 that ASIC was watching the pIF closely and was in constant contact with WC. What investors need clarifying is just how much WC knew in relation to the alledged misconduct by former OCV employees regarding the RBOS bank loan we were left to repay for non existant PIF aquisitions which were backed up by alledged fraudulent documentation!! Where is C Scott? His silence is deafening for someone who alledgedly lost millions as a result of alledged dealings that led to the demise of MFS/OCV thus rendering his remaining 22.4 million shares worthless
> or did he make enough from the sale of his $20million shares he off loaded before the:fan and he had to pay a $9 million margin call?  I can only hope no stone is left unturned and all dealings leading up to the deminishing value of our PIF unit value is disclosed. There is no doubt in my mind we have been robbed, but the burning question is, what will be done to remedy the situation and how long will it take? seamisty




Good morning Seamisty,

I just think it's a great idea to publish complaints/letters/information on your own website so your members would be able to reference them as they wish.

The trouble with 'threads' is that important issues get swept along with news and comment, and are subsequently lost to both  the regular and casual visitors - a website overcomes that problem.  I've noticed your postings of your letters get washed away within a day or two.

I'm  surprised you guys don't have a website - storm had one very early and I'm sure it is accessed by all storm members from time to time.

I only started mine because I was blocked from Phil Pot's forum, nevertheless, I think it has become a valuable resource.

I also cross-post as much as I can, because it brings issues to the attention of a broader audience which results in input from non-members from 'outside the box' - sometimes a very beneficial exercise

Yes, the $147m - that's going to be an interest matter - It still seems to me that if all or any of that money is recovered then it will go into the fund.

You guys will get your buy back and 3% payment for sure then (if you haven't by that time), but I'm guessing that's all you'll get.  Your share/unit price will rise, but if you don't want to sell, then it won't be of any other benefit to you.

Did anyone write to your manager to ask about the tax implications for your members with respect to  a Capital (tax deferred) payment and  a 'distribution' (taxable) payment?  It would be interesting to get your manager's view of just how the listing has changed the relationship between 'unit holders' and the fund from both a legal and taxation perspective.

It it will also be interesting to see if there are implications flowing from whether the 3% (or part thereof) cash payment is a capital payment or distribution.

I wonder if the choice between one or the other is a choice of the best outcome for share/unit holders or for the fund (the manager)?


----------



## selciper (9 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Let's not forget that there will be OCV liquidators public hearings apparently  during the first half of next year. We might well anticipate cross-examinations of persons who are associated with PIF's woes. This Nov. 2 article by Adam Shwab (Crikey) is worth reading again as a kind of roadmap.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/02/asic-takes-a-serious-swing-at-mfs/


----------



## Duped (9 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Towbar said:


> Does anyone know what happened to our Hastings Point asset,This property has diappeared from the latest list of assets"The Point" as it is known locally is almost finished & some units have apparantly been sold




The investor update of 30April09 states that asset was 'realised' (sold, refinanced etc) at a loss of $1.341M.  Hence it should have dropped off any list of current assets if it has been 'realised'.


----------



## marcom (9 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From the Brisbane Supreme Court website:

Last/Company name  First name  ACN  	 Party role  	        Representative
ANDERSON 	DAVID MARK 		         Respondent        DIBBSBARKER
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION 			                  Applicant 	        Self Represented
HUTCHINGS 	GUY 		                 Respondent 	
KING 	MICHAEL CHRISTODOULOU 		 Respondent 	Self Represented
*MANAGED INVESTMENTS LIMITED101634146 Respondent 	MCCULLOUGH  ROBERTSON      *
OCTAVIAR ADMINISTRATION PTY LIMITED 101069390 	Respondent 	
OCTAVIAR CASTLE PTY LTD 		124889381 	Respondent 	
WATTS 	MARILYN 		Respondent 	JAMES CONOMOS LAWYERS
WHITE 	CRAIG ROBERT 		Respondent 	BRIAN BARTLEY & ASSOCIATES


----------



## mellifuous (9 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Hi, I wonder if you guys have made complaints on specific issues to ASIC?
> 
> And if so, have any of the specific complaints (if any) posted on the forum?
> 
> ...




Good afternoon again,

As some of you may be aware, I see that a Variable Unit Price (VUP) in the FMF as a Clayton's listing (you know, the listing you have when you don't have a listing).

I am also  aware that when managers talk about 'distributions' in damaged funds such as the FMF and PIF that they mean payments from the return of our own capital - and it is my opinion that we may be in a position to have to pay tax on our money which has been substantially impaired and has incurred  real losses.

In order to be helpful, I have drafted a simple letter that might be of interest to you in order to find out if any tax implications might  arise for yourselves in your current predicament.


The letter is only my idea and is easy to modify to your own style if you wish to do so.

Hopefully it canvasses most of the issues that might be of interest to members of the PIF.

Here it is:-

Dear [addressee]
Wellington Capital
as Manager of the [name of fund]

Re: Tax implications with respect to my investment in the W.C. P.I.F. ("the PIF").

Dear   [name],

I refer to a letter from your company in which a unit holder was advised, among other things, that "...at this time we have not been provided with guidance in relation to whether the cash payment will be in the form of a capital return or distribution. This guidance will be given closer to the time that a payment is given to unit holders....".

As I do not have any experience with either taxation nor listed trusts.  I do not understand exactly how a cash payment that is tax deferred differs from a distribution that is taxable.

I refer to your company's Explanatory Memorandum ("the Memorandum")  and its proposal to take over the fund, and in particular to the following three excerpts from the Memorandum disclosed herein.

On page 57,  "...  NOTES TO THE BALANCE SHEET - ... Cash Payments to Unit holders -The amounts paid to Unit holders for accounting purposes are treated as a financing cost expense. For taxation purposes, these payments continue to represent distributions under the Income Tax Assessment Act. ..." [emphasis is mine]

As I understand it, the fund is highly impaired and is unlikely to recover its $1.00 unit price in the near to mid-term, if at all.   

Redemptions are now not possible,  as explained on Page 38 of the Memorandum, "...  4.6 No Redemptions - Recent events faced by MFS Limited, which is currently suspended from ASX, resulted in a significant increase in the number of Unit holders in the Fund seeking to redeem their funds. While the Constitution of the Fund currently technically allows for redemptions, the responsible entity has suspended payment on all and any valid withdrawal requests in regard to Units in the Fund for a 360 day period as permitted under the Constitution and is seeking to amend the Constitution to remove Unit holders rights of redemptions as it will be listed on NSX. ..."

The Memorandum states on page 59, "...  6.4 Cash payments - The responsible entity intends to make cash payments to Unit holders totaling 3 cents per Unit with the first payment to be made in October 2008, the second in December 2008 and thereafter quarterly. Due to the significant impairment recognized at 31 May 2008 it is anticipated that the cash distribution will be a capital repayment and tax deferred. See section 9 in relation to taxation issues. ..." [emphasis is mine]

I understand that the fund is highly impaired, and I understand that redemptions are now not possible, so please be kind enough to answer the following questions:-

(A)  If a distribution is paid from the PIF to me, will I be required to declare that distribution as income in my annual tax return? (I refer to the note on  page 57 'Cash Payments to Unit holders - 'For taxation purposes, these payments continue to represent distributions under the Income Tax Assessment Act')

(B)  if a capital payment is made as noted on page 59 of the Memorandum, '6.4 - Cash Payments', the note states that the payment will be a 'capital repayment and tax deferred, therefore (a) (i) what level of tax is deferred?  (ii) for  how long?, and (iii) how will such a potential tax be offset? and (b) how does it relate to any tax paid by way of a distribution, this is, will one offset the other, or will they cumulate?

(C)   Is all of the money being paid to me, by way of either distributions or capital repayments, nothing more than the return of a portion of my original investment? (since the fund is so highly impaired).

(D)  Overall, what is the difference from both a legal and an accounting perspective between my investment in the fund (a) before the listing, and (b) after the listing?

(E)  What is the source of the guidance you are expecting? 

(F)   If you do not choose to answer question (E), then is the Australian Tax Office the source of the guidance?



I  eagerly await your reply.

Your faithfully,


----------



## mellifuous (9 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If anyone does use the letter or part of it, please note that Question B(b) should include the words 'that is', and not 'this is'.

The two instances of [emphasis is mine] are not needed because the underlining did not carry through to the posting.

Of course, no matter how often I look at a document, I never find all the errors, so I'm sure there are others.

Another question for the manager would be what the manager anticipates would be done with the $147m or part thereof in the event  either the manager's action or ASIC's  action was to be successful.  

I hope these postings are of use to you.


----------



## mornaw (10 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Babihutan

Please add 

mornaw = 60,000


Thank you, I appreciate your efforts.  I appreciate the efforts of all the regular posters I've been following on forums for nearly two years.  I appreciate not feeling like I'm a grubby little mushroom ........


----------



## marcom (10 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Recent documents filed in the Federal Court for CA hearings on 16 & 18 December 09:

Date Filed 	        Document Title 	        Filed By 	
*10-Dec-2009 	Notice of Appearance 	Michael King * 
09-Dec-2009 	Outline of Submissions 	Guy Hutchings 	
03-Dec-2009 	Outline of Submissions 	Michael Hiscock 	
03-Dec-2009 	Outline of Submissions 	Andrea Waters 	
02-Dec-2009 	Outline of Submissions 	Wellington Investment Management Ltd 	
02-Dec-2009 	Amended Document 	Wellington Investment Management Ltd 	
02-Dec-2009 	Affidavit 	Max Investments (Aust) Pty Ltd 	
02-Dec-2009 	Outline of Submissions 	John Whateley 	
02-Dec-2009 	Affidavit 	Max Investments (Aust) Pty Ltd 	
16-Nov-2009 	Notice of Change in Address for Service or Contact Details 	Ian Zelinski 	
04-Nov-2009 	Affidavit 	Wellington Investment Management Ltd 	
02-Nov-2009 	Affidavit 	Wellington Investment Management Ltd 	
02-Nov-2009 	Notice of Motion 	Wellington Investment Management Ltd 	
23-Oct-2009 	Affidavit 	Max Investments (Aust) Pty Ltd 	
23-Oct-2009 	Notice of Motion 	Mansted Enterprises Pty Ltd

Seems Michael King has decided to make an appearance.


----------



## marcom (10 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From todays AGE:

*Pensioners 'kidnap and torture' financial adviser*
ALLAN HALL, BERLIN
December 10, 2009

CHARGES have been laid against a gang of pensioners who kidnapped and tortured their financial adviser when their fortunes dipped due to the global crisis.

American-born James Amburn, 56, was ambushed outside his home in Speyer, western Germany, bound with masking tape and bundled into a car boot after being bashed in the head with the Zimmer frame of an elderly client.

''It took them quite a while because they ran out of breath,'' said Mr Amburn, who was driven to the Bavarian lakeside home of one of the gang, who lost close to $A3.6 million.

Another couple, retired doctors, joined the kidnappers in the cellar where Mr Amburn was chained and tortured for four days in June.

''The fear of death was indescribable,'' he said. Mr Amburn was rescued when he sent a fax to release funds from a Swiss bank and scribbled a message on it for the receiver to ''call police''.

Police in Germany said the gang - popularly known as the ''OAP Mob'' (old-age pensioners) - had received fan letters since the kidnapping but that ''nothing could excuse'' their violent behaviour.

Two of his kidnappers, Roland Koenig, 74, and Willy Dehmer, 60, attacked Mr Amburn and bundled him into an oversize cardboard box that they wheeled on a trolley to their waiting car.

He was then stuffed in the boot of the silver Audi saloon and driven 480 kilometres to Koenig's home in Bavaria.

They were among five pensioners who said they lost their ''nest eggs'' through Mr Amburn's investment firm Digitalglobalnet.

After he was bundled into a cellar another couple, retired doctors Gerhard and Iris Fell, aged 63 and 66, arrived to assist his kidnappers, who also included Koenig's wife Sieglinde, aged 79.

''I had known these people for 25 years. I had no reason to be afraid,'' Mr Amburn said. ''But as I went into my home I was jumped from the rear and struck. They bound me with masking tape until I looked like a mummy.

''It took them quite a while because they ran out of breath. When they loaded me into the car I thought I was a dead man.''

During his confinement in the unheated cellar, Mr Amburn claims, he was burned with cigarettes, beaten, had two of his ribs broken when he was hit with a chair leg and chained up ''like an animal''.

He says he was fed only two bowls of watery soup during his four days in the dungeon.

''I told them what I had told them before, that due to market conditions, unfortunately it was gone.

''Again and again they threatened to kill me. I never thought I would make it out alive.

''I tried to buy time. I told them that if I sold certain securities in Switzerland they could get their money and for this I had to send a fax to a bank so funds could be transferred.''

The kidnappers agreed, but unbeknown to them, Mr Amburn had scribbled his ''call police'' message on the bottom of the paper. ''Someone at the bank was bright enough to pick up on it.''

Allowed out of the cellar for a cigarette break in the garden while the kidnappers waited on their loot, Mr Amburn attempted to escape over the wall.

In the pouring rain he ran down the street pursued by his captors in the kidnap car.

Several people saw him but Roland Koening shouted: ''He's a burglar!''

He was dragged back to the cellar where he sustained the broken ribs as a ''punishment'' for trying to escape.

Shortly afterwards, the Swiss bank telephoned police in Germany and an armed team of commandos stormed the house.

The kidnappers each face a minimum of five years' jail for illegal hostage taking and grievous bodily harm when their trial begins next year.

Chief public prosecutor Volker Ziegler said: ''They were angry because they invested money in properties in Florida and Kuwaiti funds and he lost it all.

''This was black money - they hadn't declared it to the revenue authorities.''


----------



## selciper (10 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good to see from the "documents filed list" that there's movement taking place. This is inevitably a lengthy process, but I'm sure that at some point we'll see light at the end of a long tunnel.

Just a thought - I wonder if the stats associated with the Advisory Committee election results will ever be shared with us? If not, why not?


----------



## mellifuous (10 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Just a thought - I wonder if the stats associated with the Advisory Committee election results will ever be shared with us? If not, why not?




Sounds like a great question for Ms. Hutson.

A MFS unit holder has advised me that a copy of the letter I posted on your forum has been sent to Wellington Capital.


----------



## Jadel (10 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Pensioners 'kidnap and torture' financial adviser
ALLAN HALL, BERLIN
December 10, 2009

Please Marcom ,do not give Duped any Ideas. We all know what he thinks of his Financial Advisor


----------



## simgrund (10 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Just a thought - I wonder if the stats associated with the Advisory Committee election results will ever be shared with us? If not, why not?




Willy nilly, we will need to accept the result.
And we need to show the encouragement to the elected representatives to make CONTACT and to show a GENUINE commitments embedded in the Committee charter. 
Please; *Alana, Bronwyn, Chris,* we urgently need communication on a number of matters, foremost of which may be the matter of determining "distribution" issue in the event of successful recovery.
And I feel that Wellington Capital can have an influential and beneficial input if approached by Committee mandated by all of us.
Regards,


----------



## selciper (10 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Simgrund - Re the IAC. Do you remember this old song?

I talk to the trees
But they don't listen to me
I talk to the stars
But they never hear me

The breeze hasn't time
To stop, and hear what I say
I talk to them all
In vain


----------



## JohnH (11 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Simgrund - Re the IAC. Do you remember this old song?
> 
> I talk to the trees
> But they don't listen to me
> ...




I feel a bit more like the Spike Milligan version - " I talk to the trees, that's why they put me away....................  etc.,:nuts:


----------



## charles36 (11 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If the IAC have not had the desire to contact the unit holders I certainly do not need their imput.  How can we be confident that they have been duly elected.  Where are the numbers, do we even know a ballot was conducted, maybe there was but I sure as hell do not know.  Until we have transparency about this issue I totally lack confidence in the IAC and have more faith in the PIF Action Group.  The RE steadfastly refuses to cooperate with the class action then how can it be construed she will cooperate with us through the IAC.


----------



## Mary Lynch (11 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Ahhhhh!!!   At last a glimmer of humour.  Yes, I rediscovered it recently too.  Not a bad emotion, in fact, with my foot in so many frozen pies, I am thinking it could be my saving grace!!


----------



## Duped (11 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Pensioners 'kidnap and torture' financial adviser
> ALLAN HALL, BERLIN
> December 10, 2009
> 
> Please Marcom ,do not give Duped any Ideas. We all know what he thinks of his Financial Advisor





Not my thing at all.  

Having the authorities imprison them in one of their 'cellars' is infinitely more .... appropriate.  I just hope that ASIC has what it takes to see it through. 

I'm more of a Karma person. But I'm also the kind of person that likes to give Karma a nudge to hurry it along its way.


----------



## marcom (11 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Wellington NSX Announcement 10 Jan 2009

"ASIC Proceedings Update
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Michael King, Craig White, Guy Hutchings, David Anderson, Marilyn Watts, Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) Octaviar Castle Pty Ltd and the former responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund

A directions hearing of the proceedings brought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission was held in the Supreme Court of Queensland on Monday 7 December 2009 before Justice Ann Lyons. Orders as to the orderly conduct of the proceedings were made, *including that a defence be filed by the First Respondent, Management Investments Limited being the former responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund, by 30 April 2010.*

Further announcements will be made as the proceedings progress."

Was anyone at the hearing who can shed light on the bolded comment above? Looks like WC may have argued that they do not have a case to answer - the Judge obviously thought differently!


----------



## simgrund (11 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Simgrund - Re the IAC. Do you remember this old song?
> I talk to the trees
> But they don't listen to me
> I talk to the stars
> ...




Yes, perhaps. And some more that I keep on mumbling with seething rage:

*[[[[*  'Outcast of Nature, man!  the  wretched  thrall
       Of bitter-dropping sweat, of sweltry pain,
       Of  cares  that  eat  away  thy  heart  with  gall,
       And  of  the  vices,  an  inhuman  train,
       That  all  proceed  from  savage  thirst  of  gain:
       For  when  hard-hearted  Interest  first  began
       To  poison  earth,  Astraea  left  the  plain;
       Guile,  Violence,  and  Murder  seized  on  man,
       And,  for  soft  milky  streams  with  blood  the  rivers  ran.

       Canto I, verse XI, from James Thompson; 
       "poetical works"             circa 1744 * ]]]]*

You can substitute "Interest" with your own pet dislike.


----------



## Duped (11 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Could well be Duped,
> Maroochydore, QLD $14,109,465 interest rate 11.5%  due 30 November 2005
> 
> In a later investor update 11th Dec 2008 it was stated 'Fund was mortgagee in possession. External marketing to realise asset undertaken with Realway Real Estate. Part of the asset has been sold and is awaiting settlement.'
> ....




Proposal is to subdivide the remaining 5 lots of 1.6 hectares into 30 lots ranging from 709-354m2  + 3 common areas.  Probably a nice spot between the Golf Course and the Beach so the block size seems right.

If the partial sale took a big chunk out of the $14M we might get all our money back.

What do you think?  Or are we up for another impairment roasting?


----------



## evelyn (11 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Please add evelyn 75900 and evelyn's mother 25000 (ish will check)

I'd expect there may be others like myself who appreciate this forum, the input and huge effort by others, but feel inadequate or unable to contribute!
I really do appreciate and acknowledge this effort. thanks heaps. evelyn


----------



## simgrund (11 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good day seamisty,
Can I ask whether it is possible to compile from your and other dossiers a 
$ figure of realised PIF assets of the past 12 months?
Perhaps we could question WC why the first distribution is planned in 2010 as we are told in k.smith post #4667 and not sooner if there is an amount ready for distribution.
Thanks,


----------



## Duped (11 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I think I might be able to help with the answer to that simgrund. Because WC racked up nearly $7M in bills last financial year including nearly a Million to that millstone Perpetual and nearly $3M to all those nice, friendly and really really really helpful lawyers.

Hey - why hang out on this negative forum when you can enjoy the company of good looking, pleasant, happy, intelligent and friendly lawyers at the clients' expense. Know why they're happy? Oh dear, now I'm suffering sarcasm on Fridays as well as Mondays.


----------



## simgrund (11 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> I think I might be able to help with the answer to that simgrund..........................................................Know why they're happy? Oh dear, now I'm suffering sarcasm on Fridays as well as Mondays.



This doesn't help me at all. 
What would be the total from PIF asset sales or realisations as is the fad to call them???


----------



## selciper (11 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If we don;t know the total asset sales to date, it can be attributed to the way WC release information to PIF investors. Anybody would think that they were managing a portfolio of highly classified atomic plants.


----------



## JohnH (11 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> If we don;t know the total asset sales to date, it can be attributed to the way WC release information to PIF investors. Anybody would think that they were managing a portfolio of highly classified atomic plants.




Presumably all will be revealed in the "Investor Update" at the end of this month!!!!:chimney

Incidently they have also stated in an answer (yes! I got one!) to one of my emails  that "The committee members - Mr Mangen, Ms Andrejic and Miss Woolford - will provide jus _(sic_) with information to be included in the next investor update.."


----------



## simgrund (12 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> ...............Incidently they have also stated in an answer (yes! I got one!) to one of my emails  that "The committee members - Mr Mangen, Ms Andrejic and Miss Woolford - will provide jus _(sic_) with information to be included in the next investor update.."




Hopefully there will be a communication plank extended to us along which we can narrow the divide. Thanks John, this helps. Can we all share in the "ANSWER"?


----------



## JohnH (12 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Hopefully there will be a communication plank extended to us along which we can narrow the divide. Thanks John, this helps. Can we all share in the "ANSWER"?




Hi Simgrund,

Can’t quote it verbatim here as it is covered by the usual limitations.
“The content of this e-mail, including any attachments is a confidential communication between Wellington Capital Limited (or the sender if this email is a private communication) and the intended addressee and is for the sole use of that intended addressee” etc etc
However, it’s probably OK for me to state that after my initial letter and two follow ups, where I complained about the lack of communication both from them and our elected Advisory committee they pointed out that in their April investor update, that updates would be released three times a year, in April, August and December.  They also added that The Investor Advisory Committee members would provide them with information for inclusion in the December update.
................... so we should have something in the next couple of weeks.  I agree with you that it would be nice to have the opportunity to interact with our IAC members – who knows?  After all, Christmas is coming!!! 


:wreath


----------



## simgrund (12 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Hi Simgrund,
> 
> Can’t quote it verbatim here as it is covered by the usual limitations.
> ................... so we should have something in the next couple of weeks.  I agree with you that it would be nice to have the opportunity to interact with our IAC members – who knows?  After all, Christmas is coming!!!
> ...


----------



## JohnH (12 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

y un feliz aÃ±o nuevo


----------



## Geoffrey D (12 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thank you for all the updates and hard work that has taken place over a long period. We all hope that it comes to some sort of positive oiutcome. Geoffrey d 214,000


----------



## mellifuous (13 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Hi Simgrund,
> 
> Can’t quote it verbatim here as it is covered by the usual limitations.
> “The content of this e-mail, including any attachments is a confidential communication between Wellington Capital Limited (or the sender if this email is a private communication) and the intended addressee and is for the sole use of that intended addressee” etc etc




Although I can't give you a legal opinion, I think that is a standard disclaimer to the effect, that if the email is received by another person, then the clause applies - it does not apply to you, because you are the 'intended addressee'.

Such a disclaimer is standard on ALL emails (and not letters) because of the likelihood of an email document being misdirected by the mechanisms of the net.

It is your document - you are able to do with it as you wish.

There is no need for you to be intimidated by such a clause - that's not the clause's intention.

Have a good one.


----------



## JohnH (13 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Although I can't give you a legal opinion, I think that is a standard disclaimer to the effect, that if the email is received by another person, then the clause applies - it does not apply to you, because you are the 'intended addressee'.
> 
> Such a disclaimer is standard on ALL emails (and not letters) because of the likelihood of an email document being misdirected by the mechanisms of the net.
> 
> ...




Thank you mellifuous,

They also included a copyright note!!!!  Here is the disclaimer in full!!!

The content of this e-mail, including any attachments is a confidential communication between Wellington Capital Limited (or the sender if this email is a private communication) and the intended addressee and is for the sole use of that intended addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorized and prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender immediately and then delete the message and any attachment(s). There is no warranty that this email is error, virus or defect free.  This email is also subject to copyright.  If this is a private communication it does not represent the views of Wellington Capital Limited.  This document (including attachments) is only intended for its addressee/s and may contain privileged or confidential information.  Unauthorised use, copying or distribution of this document or any part of its contents, is prohibited.  If you receive this document in error please telephone us or by return email.


----------



## simgrund (13 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Thank you mellifuous,
> They also included a copyright note!!!!  Here is the disclaimer in full!!!
> The content of this e-mail, including any attachments is a confidential................................................




Good day mellifuos,
I hope this will not become a blown out issue. If "sharing" will be limited to a general outline of this and similar private communications, then we simply need to accept it. At least this shows there are communications. Would you agree? 
Cheers, simgrund


----------



## mellifuous (13 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Good day mellifuos,
> I hope this will not become a blown out issue. If "sharing" will be limited to a general outline of this and similar private communications, then we simply need to accept it. At least this shows there are communications. Would you agree?
> Cheers, simgrund




Well, no, not really - if it was  a letter addressed to me, then I would publish it.

Such warnings are meant to deter use by third parties, not the addressee.

Seek some proper advise - but, I can say this, if you're scared to post a letter from the manager to a member of your fund, then things just ain't looking good for you.  

The Corporations Act mandates that the manager must treat all members equally, so a letter to one which would give information to be excluded from  others would be in breach of the law.  Think about it!

Of course, this would exclude the addressee's private information, however, if the addressee wished to release that information, that is fine.

If you're unsure, hide the letter in a dark corner of the attic of your house, or better still, bury it  in a small safe somewhere deep within a state forest.

Funny? you bet.


----------



## mellifuous (13 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I should add that members of managed funds have a lot of legal rights yet do not seem to know even the slightest extent of the limits of those rights.

I think you do yourselves a great disservice to limit your expression on this site and elsewhere due only to a  lack of proper advice.

Why don't you put a few pennies each into a common fund to gain legal advice from time to time as you need it, or perhaps you could  have such advice given to you by your leadership (you have the CA - I'm sure the lawyers there would be helpful to you all).

Each of you should feel free to express yourselves to the fullest extent of the law.

Don't be intimidated by the unknown - it is not necessary.

The notices/warning included at the bottom of emails is a normal commercial practice and it not in any way intended to be interpreted as a limitation of the rights of the addressee.  Your manager is not doing anything different to most legal firms and businesses.


----------



## k.smith (13 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Presumably all will be revealed in the "Investor Update" at the end of this month!!!!:chimney
> 
> Incidently they have also stated in an answer (yes! I got one!) to one of my emails  that "The committee members - Mr Mangen, Ms Andrejic and Miss Woolford - will provide jus _(sic_) with information to be included in the next investor update.."




Can anyone please advise me as to where the details of the charter for the investor committee can be found ?


----------



## seamisty (14 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> Can anyone please advise me as to where the details of the charter for the investor committee can be found ?



Hi k.smith, this is about as good as you will get regarding the role and responsibility of our duly elected IAG reps:::



Committee members must be unitholders in the Fund.
Can spouses of unitholders nominate?
No. Nomination is available to current unitholders of the Fund only. Where a unitholder is a company or trust, one
nominated representative from the unitholder may nominate themselves.
How will the vote be conducted?
All unitholders will be provided with a booklet containing information on each nominee, together with a voting
form.
Each unitholder will be able to vote for the three unitholders they wish to nominate for the committee. The three
unitholders with the highest number of votes will be invited to be appointed to the committee.
The vote will be conducted in the same way as the proxy count was conducted in 2008. Each unitholder vote will
depend on the number of units held by the particular unitholder. For example, a unitholder who holds 10,000 units
will have 10,000 votes.
How long is the appointment for?
Appointment to the committee is for a period of 2 years. In the event a member of the committee:
no longer wishes to participate or is no longer able to participate;
sells their entire unitholding and therefore becomes ineligible to remain on the committee,
the unitholder who received the next highest number of votes in the initial voting process will be invited to join the
committee for the remainder of the outgoing committee member’s 2 year term.
Members of the committee are not representatives of the board of Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity
of the Premium Income Fund, nor part of the management of the Fund, but are independent representatives which
form a consultation group.
How often will the meetings be held and where?
Committee meetings will be held quarterly by teleconference. There will be no cost to unitholders who will be able
to dial in to a private 1300 teleconference facility from within Australia.
What is the role of the Investor Advisory Committee?
The purpose of the Investor Advisory Committee is to ensure investor input into the decision making process of the
Fund into the future.
Members of the committee will have an opportunity to discuss current issues with the board and management team
and the outcome of each committee meeting will be provided to all unitholders in the following Investor Update.
Each committee member will have the discretion to decide whether or not to provide an email address for contact
by other unitholders in the Fund.


What is the role of the Investor Advisory Committee?
The purpose of the Investor Advisory Committee is to ensure
investor input into the decision making process of the Fund.
Members of the committee will have an opportunity to discuss
current issues with the Board and management team and the
outcome of each committee meeting will be provided to all
Unitholders in the following Investor Update

What more can I add, we have 3 extremely popular PIF investors who are our elected IAG reps which remain anonymous to the only popular public contact point for PIF investors where concerns and issues are openly discussed. Who will be bothered to contact and trust WC to pass on complaints and current issues to a third party without censoring the original question? Not me, my time is limited and I know when not to waste it. ( Besides, we will probablly get billed for the effort!!) Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (14 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> What more can I add, we have 3 extremely popular PIF investors who are our elected IAG reps which remain anonymous to the only popular public contact point for PIF investors where concerns and issues are openly discussed. Who will be bothered to contact and trust WC to pass on complaints and current issues to a third party without censoring the original question? Not me, my time is limited and I know when not to waste it. ( Besides, we will probablly get billed for the effort!!) Seamisty




Thanks for the information Seamisty - I'm hoping we'll be able to replace the committee B/T is putting together for the FMF with a 'Suggestions Box' (email address)

http://www.moneymagik.com/new_proposal.php

Perhaps your experiences will allow us to avoid the false hope that such committees give to members.

Thank you.


----------



## seamisty (14 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Thanks for the information Seamisty - I'm hoping we'll be able to replace the committee B/T is putting together for the FMF with a 'Suggestions Box' (email address)
> 
> http://www.moneymagik.com/new_proposal.php
> 
> ...



 'FALSE HOPE' is right Mellifuous, PIF investors were given plenty of that from Wellington Capital and Jenny Hutson. IAC, suggestion box, hotline, personal business cards with contact details etc, all services are as much use as t1ts on a boar pig if not answered with correct information!!! The installation of such services is to appease restless investors but at the end of the day are only window dressing and another excuse to clock up more 'operating expenses' and increase the number of staff to make the business look successfull IMO. I will be surprised if FMF is any different from PIF. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (14 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Good day seamisty,
> Can I ask whether it is possible to compile from your and other dossiers a
> $ figure of realised PIF assets of the past 12 months?
> Perhaps we could question WC why the first distribution is planned in 2010 as we are told in k.smith post #4667 and not sooner if there is an amount ready for distribution.
> Thanks,



 Simgrund I doubt we would ever have access to all that information. My guess is the real figures will be kept from investors, just like the correct details of the Wollongong hotel sale which had to be ferreted out from several sources. It is my understanding not even N Nichols from the Gold Coast Bulletin was provided with the correct information from JH regarding the sale! We can only hope that with the involvement of ASIC the truth and accountability of all those involved in the management of the PIF, past and present, that the facts will be closely monitored and documented. It is up to us investors to ensure we keep up the effort of being heard until we are satisfied all that is humanly possible has been done to retrieve every last cent in compensation from those responsible and somewhere along the way the way and the few remaining PIF assets are actually managed profitably.

I am interested to see what the outcome from Wednesdays and Fridays court appearances will be. Seamisty


----------



## marcom (14 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Documents filed with Federal Court that will be considered at the hearings 16 & 18 December: (Note the various documents filed by WC)

*11-Dec-2009  	Affidavit  	Wellington Investment Management Ltd  	*
10-Dec-2009 	Notice of Appearance 	Michael King 	
09-Dec-2009 	Outline of Submissions 	Guy Hutchings 	
03-Dec-2009 	Outline of Submissions 	Michael Hiscock 	
03-Dec-2009 	Outline of Submissions 	Andrea Waters 	
*02-Dec-2009 	Outline of Submissions 	Wellington Investment Management Ltd 	*
*02-Dec-2009 	Amended Document 	Wellington Investment Management Ltd * 
02-Dec-2009 	Affidavit 	Max Investments (Aust) Pty Ltd 	
02-Dec-2009 	Outline of Submissions 	John Whateley 	
02-Dec-2009 	Affidavit 	Max Investments (Aust) Pty Ltd 	
16-Nov-2009 	Notice of Change in Address for Service or Contact Details 	Ian Zelinski 	
*04-Nov-2009 	Affidavit 	Wellington Investment Management Ltd 	
02-Nov-2009 	Affidavit 	Wellington Investment Management Ltd 	
02-Nov-2009 	Notice of Motion 	Wellington Investment Management Ltd * 
23-Oct-2009 	Affidavit 	Max Investments (Aust) Pty Ltd 	
23-Oct-2009 	Notice of Motion 	Mansted Enterprises Pty Ltd


----------



## selciper (14 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Seamisty. I'm not going mad after all. I thought that I had dreamt this released WC info about the IAC: "Committee meetings will be held quarterly by teleconference. There will be no cost to unitholders who will be able
to dial in to a private 1300 teleconference facility from within Australia."

OK, Ms Hutson, please give us a date and time - and a 1300 number for the teleconference.


----------



## seamisty (14 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Documents filed with Federal Court that will be considered at the hearings 16 & 18 December: (Note the various documents filed by WC)
> 
> *11-Dec-2009  	Affidavit  	Wellington Investment Management Ltd  	*
> 10-Dec-2009 	Notice of Appearance 	Michael King
> ...



'Lawyer versus lawyer' Marcom, Iv'e read the correspondence between  Wellington Capitals Jenny Hutson and Carney lawyers in relation to the cooperation of the current RE on behalf of PIF investors and have also discussed the lack of cooperation with one of the CA lawyers and even though I'm not a  judge, I am intrigued as to the outcome and what evidence JH (Wellington Investment management Ltd) will offer to be removed from the CA. If WIML is not removed, in my opinion it will be further evidence of JH not working in the best interests of unit holders. Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (14 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Thanks Seamisty. I'm not going mad after all. I thought that I had dreamt this released WC info about the IAC: "Committee meetings will be held quarterly by teleconference. There will be no cost to unitholders who will be able
> to dial in to a private 1300 teleconference facility from within Australia."
> 
> OK, Ms Hutson, please give us a date and time - and a 1300 number for the teleconference.




Just had a relook at the "September Update".  Wellington have given an email address for our representatives - iac@newpif.com.au!  They say it will be checked daily, and forwarded on to the relevant member.  
Has anyone invited them to contribute to this forum???


----------



## seamisty (14 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Just had a relook at the "September Update".  Wellington have given an email address for our representatives - iac@newpif.com.au!  They say it will be checked daily, and forwarded on to the relevant member.
> Has anyone invited them to contribute to this forum???



 Go for it JohnH!!! Will be a good test to see a) if investors input is passed on.

                                                b) if the duly elected IAC reps are dedicated enough to consider making  contact other with PIF unit holders so they can represent us without WC intervention.


Surely if they are genuinely concerned about the future direction of the PIF, their concerns would be similar to ours voiced on this thread. It may also put to rest  our concerns as to how effective the whole IAC issue will be. Seamisty


----------



## Duped (14 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

All these legal battles must be enthralling for the battle ready lawyer JH   ......   but that's not her job.  Where's the business plan to grow PIF?

C'mon.  Anything.  Or is this thing going to be run like a Madoff fund - all secret secret and 'just trust me'.

C'mon WC, lets get that share price up.  ASIC gave our share price a free kick with the proceeds of its action going back into the fund. Non taxability of cash payments, a good business plan, good brand (i.e. delivering on promises), low costs, growing value, etc.  They all help the share price up.


----------



## marcom (14 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> 'Lawyer versus lawyer' Marcom, Iv'e read the correspondence between  Wellington Capitals Jenny Hutson and Carney lawyers in relation to the cooperation of the current RE on behalf of PIF investors and have also discussed the lack of cooperation with one of the CA lawyers and even though I'm not a  judge, I am intrigued as to the outcome and what evidence JH (Wellington Investment management Ltd) will offer to be removed from the CA. If WIML is not removed, in my opinion it will be further evidence of JH not working in the best interests of unit holders. Seamisty




seamisty, I think you have identified the central problem - *If WIML is not removed, in my opinion it will be further evidence of JH not working in the best interests of unit holders.*

Therefore WC would be (and indeed already is) placed in a position of conflict between the Corporations Act requirement for a RE to act in the best interests of investors and WC's desire not to be sued in the CA. The Act calls on a RE to subjugate its corporate interests and promote investors interests. The mere fact that investors are suing the RE (albeit in its past guise) in a CA environment immediatly places that RE in conflict with its basic responsibility to investors.

The appropriate course of action in the knowledge that the CA will take some time to conclude, is for WC to stand aside and place PIF in the experienced hands of the Trustee Perpetual until a satisfactory resolution.


----------



## simgrund (14 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Simgrund I doubt we would ever have access to all that information. My guess is the real figures will be kept from investors, just like the correct details of the Wollongong hotel sale which had to be ferreted out from several sources. It is my understanding not even N Nichols from the Gold Coast Bulletin was provided with the correct information from JH regarding the sale! We can only hope that with the involvement of ASIC the truth and accountability of all those involved in the management of the PIF, past and present, that the facts will be closely monitored and documented. It is up to us investors to ensure we keep up the effort of being heard until we are satisfied all that is humanly possible has been done to retrieve every last cent in compensation from those responsible and somewhere along the way the way and the few remaining PIF assets are actually managed profitably.
> 
> I am interested to see what the outcome from Wednesdays and Fridays court appearances will be. Seamisty




Thank you seamisty. As with other progresses, this will be a slow one. But signs are there that information will be forthcoming more readily once the IAC channels are firmly established. 
And to JOHN H re """"Just had a relook at the "September Update". Wellington have given an email address for our representatives - iac@newpif.com.au! They say it will be checked daily, and forwarded on to the relevant member.
Has anyone invited them to contribute to this forum???"""" ............
We can rightly claim that recent pushes to open the communication channels have hit their marks. A modest pat to our collective back is apropriate. 

With best wishes to all, simgrund


----------



## JohnH (14 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Thank you seamisty. As with other progresses, this will be a slow one. But signs are there that information will be forthcoming more readily once the IAC channels are firmly established.
> And to JOHN H re """"Just had a relook at the "September Update". Wellington have given an email address for our representatives - iac@newpif.com.au! They say it will be checked daily, and forwarded on to the relevant member.
> Has anyone invited them to contribute to this forum???"""" ............
> *We can rightly claim that recent pushes to open the communication channels have hit their marks. A modest pat to our collective back is apropriate. *With best wishes to all, simgrund




........... In fairness simgrund, we can't claim any credit for that!  It has been on Wellington's site, (and in their mail-out) since September!!!


----------



## seamisty (15 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Extracted from Article in SMH  ::::    Hedge fund could be back for secondsSCOTT ROCHFORT
December 15     PALM IN A GALE http://www.smh.com.au/business/hedge-fund-could-be-back-for-seconds-20091214-ks9d.html

Philip Adams, the co-founder of the sunken Gold Coast financial engineer MFS (aka Octaviar), could be forgiven for having a sense of deja vu.

Adams, who left Australia to help MFS's expansion into Dubai before the firm's multi-billion dollar collapse, might be getting the wobbles living on one of the fronds of the giant man-made palm tree island which juts out of the emirate.

Yesterday Nakheel, builder of Palm Jumeirah, was desperately seeking a reprieve from the repayment of a $US3.52 billion ($3.9 billion) bond issue that is due. At the time of its listing, it was the largest listed sukuk (Islamic bond) on issue.

Adams, meanwhile, continues to keep a low profile. Last month he was sent a bankruptcy notice from the liquidator of Lift Capital, McGrathNicol.

Adams and MFS co-founder Michael King took $13.7 million in loans from Lift. Altogether, they had $127.2 million in margin loans over their now worthless 13 per cent stake in MFS. While King struck a two-year insolvency agreement with creditors in August to avoid bankruptcy, Adams has so far proved harder to track down.

PRICE IS RIGHT

Adams appears to be struggling to find clientele for his corporate consultancy in Dubai, Agilis Global. The firm still has Stuart Price listed as its chief executive, despite the former head of MFS's international (aka Dubai) operations having returned to Australia midway through the year.

Price is now chief executive of the Adelaide law firm Kelly & Co. On the Kelly & Co website Price appears coy about his recent job history. It notes his time as head beancounter at Elders Rural Bank but makes no mention of MFS, where he worked for two years before helping set up Agilis.

When the Herald contacted Price he said he was tied up in a business lunch and would have to call back. He failed to call and also appeared to have his phone on message bank for a large part of yesterday afternoon.


----------



## mellifuous (15 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Extracted from Article in SMH  ::::    Hedge fund could be back for secondsSCOTT ROCHFORT
> December 15     PALM IN A GALE http://www.smh.com.au/business/hedge-fund-could-be-back-for-seconds-20091214-ks9d.html
> 
> Philip Adams, the co-founder of the sunken Gold Coast financial engineer MFS (aka Octaviar), could be forgiven for having a sense of deja vu.
> ...




Yes, one can only wonder whether Mr. King gave advice to the wheelers and dealers up there in Dubai.

I wonder just how many former high fliers in MFS and City Pacific would be proud to include their involvement in the fund management business in their resumes (on and off line)?

I always find Sharia law has some interesting aspects, to wit:-

"... "What's wrong with chopping off thieves' hands, Imam asks," by Christian Peregin for the Times of Malta, November 19 (thanks to Twostellas):

    Imam Mohamed El Sadi, the Muslim leader in Malta, believes chopping off the hands of thieves is a "deserving punishment".  ..."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/imam-misunderstands-islam-asks-what-is-wrong-with-sharia-law-if-someone-stealswhy-is-it-wrong-to-cut.html


----------



## selciper (15 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

By chance, I came across this JH quote from the 7.30 Report transcript of 11/03/08. The program explored the ruins of MFS. There was no mention of PIF.

JH: "With people whose lives have truly been destroyed in a financial sense by the plight of MFS, is something that is just extraordinary. This is about ordinary Australians, who believed what they read, who put trust and faith in the board and there's an enormous human cost."


----------



## seamisty (16 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thankyou to all the regular forum readers who have not previously contributed in the past but who have recently  made the effort to post on this thread to offer their support and make themselves known. I personally thank you for your contribution which  is acknowledged and appreciated. I also thank  the input and effort from regular PIF interested posters as I know how time consuming the research is behind many posts. I look forward to anything better than the past 20 months  PIF investors have endured  and hope 2010 delivers a more positive outlook. 


'The most important single ingredient in the formula of success is knowing how to get along with people. '
Theodore Roosevelt 

Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (16 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



CableGuy said:


> Judgment
> 
> The judge and ASIC seem to be under the impression that Wellington are providing an orderly realisation of assets over a period of 3 to 5 years which will return 45 cents to unit holders.  There was no mention during the 5 hour proceeding of Wellington returning $1 in 5 years!  And interesting to note an orderly realisation of assets is over 3 to 5 years is assumed to be occurring despite Wellington stating to numerous unit holders the law does not permit this option and it’s not something they are interested in.
> 
> ...




A great posting to bring to the fore again.


----------



## Cookie1 (16 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From the NZ Herald 18 Sept 2009
It just seemed appropriate to post this article being that it's so close to Christmas. I hadn't seen it before today but it does bring a tear to the eye....
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10598124&pnum=1

Obituary for Octaviar
By David Chaplin
11:15 AM Friday Sep 18, 2009

This was MFS' Christmas 2007 message for New Zealand investors:

"MFS Limited continues to see great opportunity to solidify its market leading position in the New Zealand debenture finance market."

Now this reads like a punchline to a bad joke but even then I thought there was something odd about issuing a press release just days before Christmas telling investors not to worry - this was a classic contra-indicator.

I recall a financial adviser rang me to ask what the story meant - he didn't realise there was anything he shouldn't be worrying about at MFS.

"It means you should worry," I told him.

With Christmas 2009 just around the corner MFS (subsequently renamed Octaviar after an hilarious court battle with a US investment firm that used the same acronym) has finally liquified  leaving its NZ subsidiary OPI Pacific Finance in similar circumstances and the thousands of debenture investors who bought its useless bits of paper, at a cost of about $300 million, devoid of hope.

And all along the way NZ MFS/Octaviar investors have been buoyed by false hopes - first the famous 'put' option that the NZ management failed to put, followed by a moratorium that is now officially dead.

Meanwhile, the MFS chief, Michael King, was out enjoying himself with his pony  prompting one of his disgruntled investors to vent: "He pretends to be media shy and I just find it disgusting that he's playing polo while the rest of us with our hard-earned are suffering."

There's a lesson here: never entrust your money to Australians who play polo, even if they think of you at Christmas.

David Chaplin


----------



## seamisty (16 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Cookie1, there is more than one lesson PIF investors have learnt::






 Tears amid fund rescue bid
Nick Nichols and Shannon Willougbhy   |  September 19th, 2008



Jenny Hutson addresses a meeting of 400 Premium Income Fund investors at the Gold Coast Convention & Entertainment Centre yesterday.

THE emotion of four months at the helm of the embattled Premium Income Fund breached the normally composed exterior of Jenny Hutson on the Gold Coast yesterday.

While the outcome was the best she could have expected -- a postponement of the vote on three key resolutions until October 15 -- Ms Hutson fought back the tears as she detailed the road ahead for the fund's 10,300 investors.

"I've put my heart and soul into (this) over the past 139 days," she told the meeting of about 400 at the Gold Coast Convention and Exhibition Centre.

"It's about winning," she said, her voice quivering with emotion after investors clearly backed her vision. "I am not going to leave this battlefield until I am victorious."

It was the rhetoric an overwhelming majority of investors wanted to hear.

The Premium Income Fund, formerly operated by fallen corporate star MFS, has $755 million of their funds locked up until at least the beginning of next year.

At the latest count, those funds were worth just $340 million.

Since taking over the fund from Octaviar (formerly MFS) on May 2, Ms Hutson's Wellington Investment Management has slashed bank debt from $100 million to $9.5 million. "We are proud of what we have achieved," said Ms Hutson.

She has promised investors they will receive a 3c per unit capital payout by December 24, with part of that to be paid next month.

Yesterday's meeting was called to vote on three resolutions, including approval for a listing of the fund on the National Stock Exchange to allow cash-strapped investors an option to cash in their units.


But the Australian Securities and Investments Commission on Wednesday ruled the resolutions could not be put to a vote at the meeting. 

It has sought clarification from Wellington on the proposed payout, saying that some investors could be confused into thinking they could expect continued quarterly distributions of 3c a unit.

Wellington has 28 days to clarify this point before investors gather again in October.

Yesterday began auspiciously for Ms Hutson despite tight security as about 400 filed into the auditorium. Investors applauded her as she took to the podium.

As questions were called, one woman described Ms Hutson as 'like a breath of fresh air'.

Another investor voiced his anger at MFS founders Michael King and Phil Adams, describing them as 'two average solicitors' who amassed an incredible fortune on the savings of small investors.

He described the MFS debacle as the equivalent of Mr King and Mr Adams 'building a plane and then crashing it'.

Ms Hutson yesterday said the Premium Income Fund was not looking at legal proceedings beyond the initial action to recover funds owed to the fund by Octaviar, but she said it was understood ASIC had been investigating some aspects of the MFS collapse since January.

While it was 'not the right time' for such action by the fund, Ms Hutson did lay open the possibility of legal proceedings against individual parties.

On the question of the fees to be charged by Wellington for operating the fund, one investor was clear.

"We don't personally give a stuff how much you make, as long as we get our money back," he said.

Wellington will not be paid until investors receive their initial 3c payout and Ms Hutson has vowed she will return full value to unit-holders over the next three to five years
z;;

Well, here we are and nearly 15 months on and Xmas nearly upon us again and not only have we not see a cent in return of capital or PIF distribuion, 
we have insult added to injury in the fact that our unit value has deteriorated  further and it appears WMIL as former RE of our fund (unless todays court outcome proves different) is still involved with legal ramifications which could possibly have a detrimental effect to PIF unit holders re conflict of interest. This being the case, can we expect JH to put her hand up and do the right thing by us and admit WC cannot deliver (and has not to date) and give us the opportunity to explore other avenues which do not have exposure to related party transactions and prior dealings with the parent company? Personaly, from past experience, no, we cannot rely on WC to act in the best interst of PIF unitholders unless I am totally brain dead and not as clever as some claim to be. Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (17 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks, Seamisty. Here's an article from WAtoday BusinessDay 16/12/09

http://www.watoday.com.au/business/pack-enough-for-a-threeweek-stay-20091216-kxjs.html

"Pack enough for a three-week stay
SCOTT ROCHFORT
December 16, 2009

Michael King...clear the diary for an April public examination.
Creditors and general observers who want to see MFS Limited's co-founder, Michael King, help provide an explanation for the collapse of the Gold Coast investment firm might need to pack more than a sandwich.

The liquidators of the firm now called Octaviar have hinted a public examination in the NSW Supreme Court could stretch out for weeks, after the first batch of summonses was sent out to five former MFS staff this week. Aside from the polo-loving King, they include Craig White the former MFS chief executive, David Anderson, ex-chief financial officer and well-paid consultant to the former liquidator, Deloitte, the ex-company secretary, Kim Kercher, and the former chief operating officer, David Kennedy.

The liquidator, Bentleys Corporate Recovery, has allocated three weeks from April 12 for the five former executives to provide evidence to help it work out the reasons for the collapse of the firm with $2.24 billion of liabilities.

It is yet to be disclosed whether summonses will be sent to the firm's former auditor, KPMG, former administrator-liquidator, Deloitte, and some of the non-executive directors of MFS. Nor is it known whether the former MFS chairman and ex-Liberal leader Andrew Peacock will make an appearance."

Sounds like it's going to be a long wait to hear about "what went wrong"! Hopefully, investors can all manage to hang on long enough to find out the truth.


----------



## selciper (17 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I think that a key phrase in today's Scott Rochfort article re the public examinations is: "The first batch of summonses was sent out to five former MFS staff this week..." First batch! I bet that there are some nervous persons wondering whether they might receive a mention on another future list. Should be a revealing three weeks of evidence.


----------



## seamisty (17 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It is my understanding that the findings from the liquidator, Bentleys Corporate Recovery will be on the public record so this information can be accessed to be used in conjuction with the  IMF Class Action and ASIC's investigations if needed. No stone will be left unturned and Jenny Hutson will be able to get off the battlefield and stop chasing that $147.5 million to the end of the world and get on with fullfilling some of her original promises like  restoring unit values!!

Yesterdays IMF court hearing will resume/continue tomorrow so hopefully we will hear something after that. Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (17 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

In The Australian today...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...rns-of-a-dilemma/story-e6frg8zx-1225811150505

CITY BEAT: Andrew Main From: The Australian December 17, 2009 12:00AM

Vintage Bentleys

SYDNEY corporate ghouls might like to note some forthcoming dates in April and May for liquidator Bentleys' examination of four former MFS directors, David Anderson, Michael King, Craig White and David Kennedy, plus the defunct group's company secretary Kim Kercher, to ascertain the reasons for the property and leisure group's demise.

Three one-week blocks have been set aside starting on April 12 in the NSW Supreme Court and ending on May 14.

King, at least, should know his way around a courtroom, since -- along with co-founder Philip Adams -- he was a Gold Coast criminal lawyer before he got the property bug. Bentleys Corporate Recovery took on the liquidation job on three months ago from Deloitte because of potential conflicts. MFS changed its name to Octaviar in March 2008 and went into administration six months later.


----------



## k.smith (18 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

http://www.dailymercury.com.au/story/2009/12/18/buyer-ready-to-take-on-troubled-high-rise-project-/


----------



## mellifuous (18 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I hope you folk enjoy my effort to give you all a piece of light refrain.


----------



## mellifuous (18 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> I hope you folk enjoy my effort to give you all a piece of light refrain.




I should point out that it was just a cartoon modified from the one I did for the FMF.  I did it at the request of one of your members who is in both funds:-


----------



## seamisty (19 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I would have thought Jenny Hutson would have been too busy 'restoring PIF investors unit value' and attending court cases to take on another empire building role with her good friend Chris Scott. Seamisty

Business Gold Coast

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/12/19/171171_gold-coast-business.html






 Childcare empire
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  December 19th, 2009

TOURISM entrepreneur Chris Scott is set to return to the corporate scene following a proposed $40 million merger that will see Early Learning Services become a new force in the national childcare industry.

Mr Scott will take over as managing director of Early Learning Services once shareholders approve the Gold Coast company's union with larger rival Payce Childcare early next year.

The surprising deal comes just three months after Sydney developer Payce Consolidated sold 75 per cent of subsidiary Payce Childcare to private equity group Wallace Infrastructure, a company which is headed by Brisbane accountant Brian Wallace.

Payce Childcare operates 60 centres under the Ramsay Bourne and World of Learning banner, bringing the total number of centres under the ELS umbrella to 98.

Payce Consolidated will retain about 15 per cent of the merged venture, which also reunites Mr Scott's executive team at holiday and travel group S8.

Jenny Hutson, the former S8 chairman, will come on board as the new ELS chairman, replacing Tony Hartnell.

Mr Scott, who until earlier this year was assisting receivers to failed Gold Coast company Octaviar, has been running Payce Childcare since the Wallace buyout in September.

Details of the financial backers at Wallace have not been disclosed, but Mr Scott said the finders were Australian based.

The merger, which has been in the pipeline for more than a year, will create the largest 'for profit' childcare company in Australia, a title formerly held by Eddy Groves' failed ABC Learning Centres.

Earlier this month, a charity-based syndicate bought almost 700 of the embattled ABC centres, ending months of uncertainty for the industry.


"I think now that the ABC assets have found a home, there will be stability in the sector and a redefining of how childcare education is delivered," said Ms Hutson.

She said the business model remained sound and the merger would give ELS 'critical' scale from which it could continue to grow.

"It's moving to the next level and we hope under our leadership we'll be the 'for profit' leader for some time to come."

Under the merger agreement, ELS, which will continue to be based on the Gold Coast, will issue 40 million new shares at 25c each, more than double their trading price for the past year.

ELS also will pay the Payce partners $6 million in cash, or the equivalent in shares if it is unable to find sufficient funding.

Outgoing chief executive Chris Sacre, who will return to his role as chief financial officer, said the deal has been structured with low debt of 37 per cent of assets.

He said the merger offered immediate elevation of ELS's business, which until now had been struggling with minor acquisitions from small operators.

"It is so much more efficient to buy groups for a listed structure, so we can bolt it on and move on to the next deal," he said.

Payce Consolidated formerly operated its childcare business in joint venture with Babcock & Brown, which collapsed last year.

It since has managed to disentangle itself from the failed financial engineer and comes into the ELS fold debt free.

Payce Consolidated chief executive Brian Boyd, regarded as a seasoned operator in the field, also will join the ELS board as director.

ELS shares surged 26 per cent to close at 14.5c yesterday.


----------



## marcom (19 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

seamisty, Yet another example of the types of cosy business relationships that got us into this situation!


----------



## k.smith (19 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> seamisty, Yet another example of the types of cosy business relationships that got us into this situation!




I feel like we the PIF are just a collector item...we are like bone china locked in the display cabinet, to be looked at and spoken about.

We in the display cabinet along with a few other bargain bits...must take a lot of time and energy to put the collection together.  The sad reality is that we are not bits of bone china, we are real people who have been collected and displayed and we are waiting and waiting for justice and the return of what is rightfully ours.


----------



## seamisty (19 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> I feel like we the PIF are just a collector item...we are like bone china locked in the display cabinet, to be looked at and spoken about.
> 
> We in the display cabinet along with a few other bargain bits...must take a lot of time and energy to put the collection together.  The sad reality is that we are not bits of bone china, we are real people who have been collected and displayed and we are waiting and waiting for justice and the return of what is rightfully ours.



Exactly k.smith, unfortunately for JH though, most of the trophies on display in the bargain bin still retain their full faculties and even though the key to the cabinet has been thrown away, the glass is smeared and the shelves covered in dust, the contents are not prepared to sit idly by while others grow fat on the spoils!!! Seamisty


----------



## marcom (19 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

seamisty,  Any news of progress in the Federal Court?


----------



## seamisty (19 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> seamisty,  Any news of progress in the Federal Court?



Nothing Marcom, One of the applicants will try and contact Carney on Monday to get a report. I will post if I get any feedback. seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (19 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Exactly k.smith, unfortunately for JH though, most of the trophies on display in the bargain bin still retain their full faculties and even though the key to the cabinet has been thrown away, the glass is smeared and the shelves covered in dust, the contents are not prepared to sit idly by while others grow fat on the spoils!!! Seamisty










I started a cartoon strip 'Rodger the Dodger'. http://www.moneymagik.com/rodger_and_members.php

You guys might consider doing likewise - maybe 'Generous Jenny'?


----------



## flatback (19 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Well, no, not really - if it was  a letter addressed to me, then I would publish it.
> 
> Such warnings are meant to deter use by third parties, not the addressee.
> 
> ...



Mellifuous the paranoia is amazing, people, understand this women has no intention of recouping your money(and mine)sad but true,IMF is our saving grace!!!, the one in red is not a truthful person.
Flatback


----------



## seamisty (20 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I often sit back and regurtitate all the relevant available information that is pertinant to the PIF and assess where we are at, what our options are and  why we are steadily going backwards and constantly look for better alternatives. I am sure that the majority of PIF investors that gave JH their overwhelming support must seriously ask the same question because I am inundated with enquiries from other PIF investors seeking another alternative to the current regime. Contrary to what WC hotline staff read from their daily directives, I am sure we are being deprived of the correct PIF relevant info!! That is why I do not waste my time directing inquiries to the IAC reps who still remain allusive and incognito!! They are so illusive I question the very existance of at least one and consider the other two a non event because this site is the contact point, NOT WELLINGTON CAPITAL INVESTMENT MAnagement.


----------



## mellifuous (20 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I often sit back and regurtitate all the relevant available information that is pertinant to the PIF and assess where we are at, what our options are and  why we are steadily going backwards and constantly look for better alternatives. I am sure that the majority of PIF investors that gave JH their overwhelming support must seriously ask the same question because I am inundated with enquiries from other PIF investors seeking another alternative to the current regime. Contrary to what WC hotline staff read from their daily directives, I am sure we are being deprived of the correct PIF relevant info!! That is why I do not waste my time directing inquiries to the IAC reps who still remain allusive and incognito!! They are so illusive I question the very existance of at least one and consider the other two a non event because this site is the contact point, NOT WELLINGTON CAPITAL INVESTMENT MAnagement.




I'm now of the opinion that there is only ONE way to save investors money, and that is for investors themselves to start up a company, get a financial licence, and take over the fund.

Subject of course, to the chances of the 'animal farm' complex setting in, and  in lieu of a completely transparent, communicative, open, and  low cost manager - if there is such a beast lurking out there in the ether somewhere.

To me, my experience in the FMF may be likened to flying as a passenger in a jet, experiencing violent turbulence within a darkened cabin, and not knowing what is happening.

The Corporations Act is a disgrace for entrusting managers as much as it does, and for leaving investors at the mercy of those managers.


Yes, paranoia and fear - all benefit the managers and disadvantage the investors.


----------



## selciper (20 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I'm pretty certain that the next PIF update will contain mostly platitudes like "the Board is very aware that investors are undergoing hardship" The point is that surely we can't endure another year of being pushed backwards through a maze while losing buckets of money. Let's go to action stations in 2010! A timely EGM warrants consideration.


----------



## seamisty (21 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722338.PDF

Bond Street Custodians Limited – Federal Court Proceedings
A directions hearing of this matter took place on 8 December 2009 before Justice Perram in the Federal
Court in Sydney.
The current hearing date for this matter has been vacated as a result of the Plaintiff, Bond Street Custodians
Limited, seeking to file a notice of motion in relation to amendment and/or discovery against the Defendant,
the former responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund.
Further directions in this matter will be heard on 10 February 2010.
Further updates will be provided as the matter progresses.


----------



## seamisty (21 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722339.PDF
Class Action Update
Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v KPMG & Ors – Federal Court Proceedings NSD324/2009
(‘Class Action’)
A hearing of the class action took place on Wednesday 16 December 2009 and Friday 18 December 2009
before Justice Perram in the Federal Court in Sydney.
The Court was unable to deal with the Notice of Motion filed by the former responsible entity seeking to
have the former responsible entity (currently the Third Respondent) discontinued as a party to the class
action due to timing restrictions.
As the Federal Court year has now ended, the Notice of Motion will be heard on a date to be fixed in
February 2010.
Further updates will be provided as the matter progresses.


----------



## seamisty (21 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722340.PDF
Business Update
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund advises that its offices,
including the Wellington Hotline, will close for the holiday season from 4.00pm (AEST) on Wednesday 23
December 2009, until 9.00am (AEST) Monday 11 January 2010.


----------



## JohnH (21 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722340.PDF
> Business Update
> Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund advises that its offices,
> including the Wellington Hotline, will close for the holiday season from 4.00pm (AEST) on Wednesday 23
> December 2009, until 9.00am (AEST) Monday 11 January 2010.




I'll give you one guess as to when they will release their 4 monthly "Investor Update"!!!!!:xmastree


----------



## simgrund (21 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I often sit back and regurtitate .......................................................................................................................That is why I do not waste my time directing inquiries to the IAC reps who still remain allusive and incognito!! They are so illusive I question the very existance of at least one and consider the other two a non event because this site is the contact point, NOT WELLINGTON CAPITAL INVESTMENT MAnagement.




*I will take time and effort to plug another call to IAC to integrate with us.
And I hope I am joined by many in wishing the WC and IAC a very Merry Christmas and may 2010 be the defining year of our relationships.*

_*A sincere Merry Christmas TO ALL!!!*_

*indefatigably simgrund*


----------



## JohnH (21 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> *I will take time and effort to plug another call to IAC to integrate with us.
> And I hope I am joined by many in wishing the WC and IAC a very Merry Christmas and may 2010 be the defining year of our relationships.*
> 
> _*A sincere Merry Christmas TO ALL!!!*_
> ...




:alcohol: I'll drink to that!!!!!


----------



## marcom (21 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Justice Perram's Orders following hearings on 16 & 18 December in the Federal Court:

NSD324/2009

ORDER

JUDGE:
	Justice Perram
DATE OF ORDER:
	18 December 2009 
WHERE MADE:
	Sydney

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.	The applicant file and serve any evidence in response to the affidavit of Jennifer Hudson sworn 11 December 2009 by 29 January 2010.
2.	Leave be granted to the parties to approach my Associate to determine a hearing date. 

Date that entry is stamped:  

Deputy District Registrar


----------



## seamisty (22 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all, I would just like to take this opportunity to tell all OCV/PIF forum participants and readers that I hope you all enjoy the Xmas break and put aside the total lack of promised performance from Wellington Capital and Jenny Hutson and endeavour to surround yourselves with family and friends and celebrate regardless!!
Next year is a new year and we have a few positives to look foward to. Best wishes to my fellow PIF investor who unfortunately will be spending Xmas in the John Flynn oncology ward:xmastree
Thankyou to all of you who have sent me relevant PIF info and media articles to share or put to better use and thanks to other PIF Action Group reps who work tirelessly in the pursuit of better outcomes for all and to individual investors for acknowledging and thanking us for our work.
Take care all and cheers. Seamisty


----------



## Duped (23 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thank you Seamisty.

My Christmas wish list:


Unit list price approaching something close to the audited value.

A business plan to grow the fund (something a bit more than just: sell everything)

It's not too much to ask for is it?  

I'm mean ... c'mon.  Are we here to do business WC or just some resume building?

Maybe someone with a propensity for red suits will finally deliver.


----------



## JohnH (23 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Thank you Seamisty.
> 
> My Christmas wish list:
> 
> ...




:chimney  Ho! Ho! Ho!  ........... I suppose we could believe in Santa!!!


----------



## BootsnAll (23 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Interesting

Wallace Infrastructure bought 6,567,000 shares in ELY on 18/12/ 09.

The substancial shareholder announcement to ASX was faxed from WC

JH is replacing Tony Hartnell as Chairman of ELY

Chris Scott is to be Managing Director

Shares have gone from 0.14  to 0.29.

 Is this the same Craig Lewiss Wallace who is a director of the NSX?

Is there any hope for long suffering PIF holders?


----------



## seamisty (23 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



BootsnAll said:


> Interesting
> 
> Wallace Infrastructure bought 6,567,000 shares in ELY on 18/12/ 09.
> 
> ...



I will be closely following the  sale of Octaviars 20 Sunkids childcare businesses which Bentleys have placed on the market. 'The wheels on the bus go round and round.............' Seamiaty


----------



## The Owls (23 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Below is an update from Wellington-Premium Income Fund site.

Business Update
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund advises that its offices, including the Wellington Hotline, will close for the holiday season from 4.00pm (AEST) on Wednesday 23 December 2009, until 9.00am (AEST) Monday 11 January 2010.

It is great to see they have their priority correct. As yet no update as to the current financial postion of PIF.

I should not be this cynical at this time of the year..

Merry Christmas to all.


The Owls


----------



## selciper (23 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The Owls - You never know, perhaps they have set their computer to fire off an update on 30 Dec. I doubt it, but nothing would surprise me anymore when it comes to PIF/WC.

A Merry Xmas to all who contribute so usefully to this thread.


----------



## DepressedDad (23 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Yes, Merry Christmas to all. And again a huge heartfelt thank you to those contributors here who are working so hard to unlock so much of the mysteries lurking around and for keeping us informed. You guys rock!!

It's been an interesting journey watching events (& particularly, contributor's responses to events) unfold on here.  Because I can't follow all the 'deals' that blur past me, I can't help simplifying it to a basic level where we forget all the technical data & rules, administrative garbage & 'reports'.  At a basic level, one investor here trusted $2 million of *HIS* dollars to supposedly 'experienced, clever, honest, savvy' business people to invest & hopefully grow. Reducing it to a one-on-one level, imagine the two parties sitting in a room, discussing how & where it could be best invested.  Imagine lots of discussion, balancing risk & returns and agreeing to constantly monitor the ever changing situation together to be able to react & move with the market. Simple concept really. 

Now fast forward to a situation where things *start* going badly. The same two people presumable are feeling pretty bad.  (one more than the other). The one suffering the loss would be somewhat disappointed that the 'adviser' hadn't done a good job. But the important thing now is for the two of them to get *together* and for the adviser/professional to ensure the investor is aware of current available choices and *THE INVESTOR*  is in on all the following decisions since, after all it is *HIS MONEY*.

Fast forward again to things now turning really badly. (To put it politely) Now it's REALLY important that *COMMUNICATION* is excellent & immediate and transparent between the two parties so the adviser/professional can do exactly what the investor wants, because it's *STILL HIS MONEY.*

Substitute 'investor' for investors, (even though one guy here has actually put in a very significant 2 mill) and that's us and yes we did request help/a service initially to grow our money from some so-called experts.  But they need to now show some BASIC human respect in the way they are (NOT) communicating with the 2 million dollar investor & us little guys.  It's *OUR MONEY*. Tell us, ask us if you want to buy, sell merge.  *BECAUSE IT'S OUR MONEY........*

Do others find it flabbergasting,frustrating & incredulous that 'these people' can keep carrying on in their own world, marching to their own tune, without feeling any need to inform or include the investors, in any meaningful way, even though *ITS THEIR MONEY???*


----------



## mellifuous (23 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Merry Xmas and happy new year to all...

I guess you'll all be disappointed with ASIC's latest blunder:-

"... BRENDAN TREMBATH: But first, the corporate watchdog has suffered yet another humiliating legal defeat. The Federal Court today dismissed legal action by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission against the mining magnate Andrew Forrest and his company, Fortescue Metals.

Justice John Gilmour was highly critical of ASIC's conduct. He found there was no basis for its claim Andrew Forrest and Fortescue knowingly issued misleading statements to the Stock Exchange. And he attacked ASIC for making public allegations of deliberate dishonesty against Mr Forrest and his fellow board members without foundation. ..."
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2009/s2779648.htm

If ASIC has so much trouble getting the facts right - what chances have we got in our respective funds?

I'd guess they wouldn't have much time to bother about our funds with all the mess they seem to be making in the courts.


----------



## seamisty (23 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Merry Xmas and happy new year to all...
> 
> I guess you'll all be disappointed with ASIC's latest blunder:-
> 
> ...



 Fortunately we have, Bentleys, IMF and Carney lawyers on the case  as well, between them all ( and I do not include our illustrious leader and her token gestures costing PIF investors millions in fees  to the likes of McCoughupRobertsons for legal representation!!) we should at least have access to all the facts pertinent to the case. At least ASIC has revealed the extent of the alledged fraud surrounding falsified documents etc relating to the missappropriation of PIF  money. Two last quotes from Teddy for the year!!!

Nobody cares how much you know, until they know how much you care. 
Theodore Roosevelt 

 To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. 
Theodore Roosevelt 

'Onwards and upwards'!!! Complacency is a thing of the past. Cheers all, Seamisty


----------



## BABIHUTAN (30 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From an article by  Scott Rochfort for BusinessDay, December 25, 2009  & relevant to MFS/Octaviar matters/COLOR]  
QUOTE

*PALM IN A GALE*

Philip Adams, the co-founder of the sunken Gold Coast financial engineer MFS (aka Octaviar), could be forgiven for
having a sense of deja vu.
Adams, who left Australia to help MFS's expansion into Dubai before the firm's multi-billion dollar collapse, might be
getting the wobbles living on one of the fronds of the giant man-made palm tree island which juts out of the emirate.
Yesterday Nakheel, builder of Palm Jumeirah, was desperately seeking a reprieve from the repayment of a $US3.52
billion ($3.9 billion) bond issue that is due. At the time of its listing, it was the largest listed sukuk (Islamic bond) on
issue.
Adams, meanwhile, continues to keep a low profile. Last month he was sent a bankruptcy notice from the liquidator
of Lift Capital, McGrathNicol.
Adams and MFS co-founder Michael King took $13.7 million in loans from Lift. Altogether, they had $127.2 million in
margin loans over their now worthless 13 per cent stake in MFS. While King struck a two-year insolvency agreement
with creditors in August to avoid bankruptcy, Adams has so far proved harder to track down.
PRICE IS RIGHT
Adams appears to be struggling to find clientele for his corporate consultancy in Dubai, Agilis Global. The firm still
has Stuart Price listed as its chief executive, despite the former head of MFS's international (aka Dubai) operations
having returned to Australia midway through the year.
Price is now chief executive of the Adelaide law firm Kelly & Co. On the Kelly & Co website Price appears coy about
his recent job history. It notes his time as head beancounter at Elders Rural Bank but makes no mention of MFS,
where he worked for two years before helping set up Agilis.
When the Herald contacted Price he said he was tied up in a business lunch and would have to call back. He failed to
call and also appeared to have his phone on message bank for a large part of yesterday afternoon. UNQUOTE


----------



## seamisty (30 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This is not PIF related but interesting. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;Print Mail Logistics Limited Market Release  http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722233.PDF
25 November 2009
Subscription for Minority Interest in Armstrong Registry Services Limited
Print Mail Logistics Limited has subscribed for a minority interest in Queensland based registry
services provider, Armstrong Registry Services Limited.
Armstrong Registry Services Limited provides tailored registry services solutions to listed and
unlisted companies and funds. With talented staff and first class technology, Armstrong Registry
Services Limited is equipped with the resources and skills to appropriately communicate with their
clients' key stakeholders in a personalised and timely fashion.
Managing Director, Nigel Elias said, 'both Print Mail Logistics Limited and Armstrong Registry
Services Limited are in the business of efficient, effective and precise communication. There is a
positive synergy existing between the work undertaken by Armstrong Registry Services Limited
and Print Mail Logistics Limited. This synergy has the potential to create additional income for
Print Mail Logistics Limited'.
For further information please contact:
Nigel Elias
Print Mail Logistics Limited ;;;;;;;


Why have I posted this? Read on my friends. Our JH has been  very busy!!!

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722325.PDF ;;;I think the following are all substantial holders in Armstrong Registry Services Jennifer Joan Hutson is a director of Armstrong Registry Services. She is also a director of Crossborder Investments
                 Queen Bee Enterprises
                 FUB Investments Pty Ltd
                 Wellington Capital LTD::::::::
Details of relevant interestsThe nature of the relevant interest the substantial holder or an associate had in the following voting securities on the date the substantialholder became a substantial holder are as follows:Holder of relevant interestNature of relevant interest (7)Class and number of securitiesArmstrong Registry ServicesLimitedRegistered HolderORD 2,720,000Nigel Benjamin Elias andBenjamin Nissim Elias<Elias Super Fund>Registered HolderORD 110,000Nigel Benjamin EliasRegistered HolderORD 3,290,720Jennifer Joan Hutson<James Andrew Heading A/C>Registered HolderORD 7,000Jennifer Joan Hutson<Thomas William Heading A/C>Registered HolderORD 7,000Jennifer Joan HutsonRegistered HolderORD 7,000Crossborder Investments PtyLtdRegistered HolderORD 140,334Queen Bee Enterprises Pty LtdRegistered HolderORD 7,000FUB Investments Pty LtdRegistered HolderORD 7,000<Wellington Capital LTD Registered Holder ORd 1,500,000

Jenny Hutson from Wellington Capital Ltd has been appointed corporate advisor
Wellington :::Full announcement here  http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722273.PDF

17 November 2009
Ms Jane Pollard
Settlements Manager
NSX
Email jane.pollard@tsxa. com. au
Dear Jane
PRINT MAIL LOGISTICS LIMITED (NSXNT) -FORMS 603
I confirm that I am contacting you in my capacity as corporate adviser to Print Mail Logistics Limited.
Print Mail Logistics Limited is due to commence trading on the National Stock Exchange of Australia (NSX)
on Monday, 23 November 2009.
I enclose Forms 603 for the following initial substantial holders:
1. Jeremy Capo-Bianco, Suzanne Capo-Bianco and NSS Trustee Limited as trustees for the Capo-Bianco
Retirement Trust;
2. Landav Pty Ltd;
3. Pumbaa Investments Pty Ltd;
4. Nigel Benjamin Elias; and
5. Armstrong Registry Services Limited.
I confirm that the above listed initial substantial holders are all of the initial substantial holders of the
Company.
Please do not hesitate to contact me or Simone Fraser of my office on sfraser@.wellcap.com.au or
07 3009 9877 inthe event you have any queries in relation to the enclosed documents.
Jenny Hutson

Print Mail Logistics (copy of prospectus http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/PNT_Prospectus_2009.pdf) is trading on the NSX as PNT and has had 4 trades to date. The listing price was 30cents and It commenced trading on the 23rd Nov 2009 at 33cents. The last trade was for 30cents on the 2nd Dec and there are no current bids.
I can only hope JH  finds the time to update the long suffering PIF investors with some  efficient, effective and precise communication.
Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (31 December 2009)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all PIF Investors and I wish you all good health and better PIF outcomes for the new year.
 I received the following from 'Ms Snow' on the 25th Nov 2009:::

Dear Ms Seamisty, 

I confirm that your email has been received. The Fund receives a large volume of correspondence, and I apologise for the delay which has occurred in responding to your queries. A reply to your queries will be sent shortly. 

Investor Updates are provided for the periods ended April, August and December, and are mailed to investors in the following month. The December update will be release to the market and mailed to investors in January 2010. In the intervening periods, market releases are made via the NSX and also posted on the Fund's website. These market releases are included in the investor updates. 

Regards 

Caroline Snow
Associate Director 

  Well  my calender says its the end of Dec and no PIF update as yet although there are a few of hours left!!!
Bad enough the quarterly updates mysteriously became four monthly instead of three monthly. Oh well, I guess this could well be my first complaint to ASIC for 2010!!!

Happy New Year all PIF investors  :bier: Seamisty


----------



## selciper (1 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

“In the end, you make your reputation and you have your success based upon credibility and being able to provide people who are really hungry for information what they want.” (Britt Hulme, US journalist.)

Is anybody listening in a certain boardoom?


----------



## seamisty (1 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> “In the end, you make your reputation and you have your success based upon credibility and being able to provide people who are really hungry for information what they want.” (Britt Hulme, US journalist.)
> 
> Is anybody listening in a certain boardoom?



Reputations are worth nothing if you do not live up to them, whether they are earnt or self professed in my opinion. What matters are results based on promises and projections from  supposedly qualified experts and if they are not forthcoming then reputations can be reassessed and judged accordingly to performance. From a  PIF investors point of view WC has delivered nothing but empty promises and to add insult to injury it appears investors are being punished by Wellington Capital by way of lack of communication!! It is not our fault you did not live up to investor expectations and you failed to deliver. Obviously it is even too much to expect a four monthly update on time ( rather than the original three monthly one promised.) When does the IAG meet and report back to investors?  What a joke!!! Yep, sure I am cynical, but just expressing my opinion as I see it, Seamisty://www.wellcap.com.au/articles/About%20Wellington.pdfWellington Capital has a reputation for high standards of client service, innovation and devising successful
commercial solutions to complex issues.
Our growth has been fuelled by strong, long standing relationships which have been built on trust, a commitment
to delivering commercial advice and focusing on helping clients and investors achieve their long term corporate
and growth aspirations.


----------



## JohnH (2 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Reputations are worth nothing if you do not live up to them, whether they are earnt or self professed in my opinion. What matters are results based on promises and projections from  supposedly qualified experts and if they are not forthcoming then reputations can be reassessed and judged accordingly to performance. From a  PIF investors point of view WC has delivered nothing but empty promises and to add insult to injury it appears investors are being punished by Wellington Capital by way of lack of communication!! It is not our fault you did not live up to investor expectations and you failed to deliver. Obviously it is even too much to expect a four monthly update on time ( rather than the original three monthly one promised.) When does the IAG meet and report back to investors?  What a joke!!! Yep, sure I am cynical, but just expressing my opinion as I see it, Seamisty://www.wellcap.com.au/articles/About%20Wellington.*pdfWellington Capital has a reputation for high standards of client service, innovation and devising successful
> commercial solutions to complex issues.
> Our growth has been fuelled by strong, long standing relationships which have been built on trust, a commitment
> to delivering commercial advice and focusing on helping clients and investors achieve their long term corporate
> and growth aspirations.*





............. and we still believe in fairies??????????:cuckoo:


----------



## selciper (3 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

This Wikipedia rundown chronicles the demise of MFS. There appears to be no entry in Wiki for WC. (The Wiki KPMG section gives a useful overview the auditor's history and operations.)

------------------------------

1999: McLaughlins Financial Services Limited, founded by Michael King, receives ASIC AFSL 227010
June, 2000: Acquires Noosa Junction Shopping Centre
November, 2000: Launches MFS Premium Income Fund
July, 2001: Acquires MFS Leveraged Investment and Securities Trust
2002: MFS subsidiary, McLaughlins Financial Services Limited acquires over AUD$250 million of real estate assets
2003: MFS subsidiary, McLaughlins Financial Services Limited, acquires property at Queen Street, Melbourne and retail premises of Louis Vuitton at the intersection of Collins and Russell Streets.
March, 2004: MFS subsidiary, McLaughlins Financial Services Limited, acquires a number of homemaker centres in Queensland and New South Wales.
May, 2004: Acquires the AAE group of companies, which owns and operates the Victorian ski field businesses at Mount Hotham and Falls Creek
September, 2004: Acquired approximately 18.5% of the ASX listed BreakFree Limited.
October, 2004: MFS Premium Income Fund was sized at approximately $440 million
January, 2005: Re-lists a restructured MFS group on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) and announces merger with BreakFree Limited.
February, 2005: reaches 50.1% interest in BreakFree Limited
March 2005: acquire luxury accommodation group Peppers Leisure Limited and the Sheraton Mirage Resorts located on the Gold Coast and Port Douglas.
April 2005: BreakFree expands into Queenstown
May 2005: Completed BreakFree Limited merger
June 2005: HFA Asset Management announces the closure of its HFA Octane Fund Series Two which attracted over $90 million in investments.
July 2005: MFS wins the 2005 Hotel Investor of the Year Award for the Sheraton Mirage Resorts
September 2005: MFS subsidiary, McLaughlins Financial Services Limited is appointed the Responsible Entity for the PH Sydney Hotel Trust and the Challenger Howard Property Trust. The major asset of the Trusts is the Park Hyatt Hotel on Sydney Harbour.
October 2005: MFS launches a golf industry investment fund in conjunction with its title sponsorship of the 2005 MFS Australian Open.
February 2006: The MFS Living and Leisure Trust (MPY) announced that it has acquired the Melbourne based Oceanis Group, the world’s largest aquarium owner and operator.
January 2008: After a capital raising proposal is not well received by the market the company's shares are suspended and the CEO resigns.
September 2008: After a proposal to major creditors fails to get acceptance the Directors appoint voluntary administrators to the group with the aim of trying to reach an accommodation with the majority of creditors through a Deed of Company Arrangement.
August, 2009: Octaviar Limited is placed in liquidation.
November, 2009: Supreme Court of Queensland launches lawsuits againt former directors, among others founder Michael King, for illegally withdrawing AUD$130 million from the Premium Income Fund of which MFS Investment Managment was in control.
--------------------------------------


----------



## seamisty (4 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

:topic:topic A bit of interesting reading while we are waiting for our Dec PIF update!!! Seamisty

Di Fingleton sues her lawyers for $20m 
Michael McKenna From: The Australian September 20, 2008 12:00AM  
FORMER Queensland chief magistrate Di Fingleton -- jailed for six months in 2003 after being wrongly convicted of threatening a subordinate -- is suing her star-studded defence team for almost $20 million after it took a High Court appeal to determine she should never have been charged. 

The lawyer and author, who has since been returned to the magistracy on the Sunshine Coast, has taken aim at some ofAustralia's most distinguished legal brains -- including state Solicitor-General Walter Sofronoff -- after she was jailed despite being immune from prosecution under the Magistrates Act and Queensland Criminal Code.

The prosecution was overseen by then director of public prosecutions Leanne Clare, who was later elevated to the District Court bench.

It proved to be a huge embarrassment to the Queensland legal community after the damning High Court decision in June 2005 -- almost three years after charges were first laid.

Ms Fingleton, who was awarded a $475,000 ex gratia compensation payment in 2005 by the Beattie government, is alleging negligence and/or breach of contract by her defence team, led by one of Queensland's biggest legal firms, McCullough Robertson.

In a statement of claim filed in the Queensland Supreme Court, Ms Fingleton said her solicitors and barristers -- including two Queen's Counsels -- failed to discover her immunity from prosecution during the Crime and Misconduct Commission investigation, committal hearing, two trials and an appeal in Queensland.

Ms Fingleton says she is still receiving psychological counselling over her conviction and imprisonment.

She is seeking damages of $3.2million each from McCullough Robertson, barristers Russell Hanson QC, Walter Sofronoff QC and Glenn Newton (appointed to silk after the case) and solicitor Patrick Murphy for either negligence or breach of contract.

Ms Fingleton is also seeking several million dollars in damages, loss of earnings and legal expenses.

She could not be contacted yesterday by The Weekend Australian but in her claim said she had been humiliated, deprived of her liberty and proper medical care in jail, and robbed of future promotion to the industrial commission.

Appointed Queensland's chief magistrate in 1999, Ms Fingleton became Australia's first serving magistrate to be jailed when she was found guilty in June 2003 of retaliating against Basil Gribbin, the co-ordinating magistrate at Beenleigh, south of Brisbane.

The case centred on an email Ms Fingleton sent -- which she claims was written with the advice of McCullough Robertson -- to Mr Gribbin on September 18, 2002, asking him to show cause within seven days why he should not be sacked.

Mr Gribbin had produced an affidavit in support of another magistrate, Anne Thacker, who was fighting a transfer, ordered by Ms Fingleton, from Brisbane to Townsville.

She was investigated by the CMC and charged by the DPP with threatening retaliation against Mr Gribbin and an alternative charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

In May 2003, a Supreme Court jury failed to reach a verdict. A second jury found Ms Fingleton guilty.

In June 2005, a unanimous decision of the High Court ruled Ms Fingleton should not have been charged with the offence because she was entitled to immunity from prosecution under the Magistrates Act and the Queensland Criminal Code.


----------



## Duped (4 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Anyone have a copy of the PIF PDS dated 13 December 2006?  Can you scan and post the section on Fees and Costs.

Ta.

Following article from AFR a couple of weeks ago. I hope some of it will benefit us unit holders.  Hope and trust is all we've got because we certainly don't appear to have a business plan.

"*Global funds catch the Australian wave*
Ben Wilmot

Worldwide investment capital for commercial property will double to $US315 billion ($353 billion) next year as major pension funds reenter the market.
Local property is expected to grab a disproportionate share of the funds as overseas investors view Austrlia as one of the few stable markets globally and see the potential for rental growth as a result of the resources boom.
Real estate group DTZ estimnates $US630 billion will be invested over the next two years.  Much of this is relatively certain, with $US535 billion already raised.
Some will be taken out of pension funds but even more is expected to be forthcoming.
DTZ said that as new capital oured into the sector, sentiment shifted from extremely pessimistic earlier this year to be more constructive.  It expects buying pressure to emerge in 2010. "The weight of capital targeting rea; estate in the next year is equivalent to $2 of total available capital in 2010 for every $1 of deal volume in the last 12 months," DTZ said.
Asian and European markets are also slated to attract a greater shar of capital.  Managed funds are expected to dominate as they account for about 60 pre cent of capital.  Othe institutions constitute another 28 per cent, while the remainder has been raised by sovereign wealth funds, German open-ended funds, pubilicly listed companies and private investors.
DTZ regional director, capital markets, Alistair Meadows said that on a regional basis, Australia, alongside Japan and more recently China, was at the top of allocations by global investors.
He said investors were buying Australian office buildings and shopping centres and taking stakes in companies at this low point in the cycle because they could get healthy capital appreciation and income growth.
"Now, instead of chasing opportunistic returns from distressed assets, they're looking at enhanced returns frm more stabilised assets," he said.
DTZ also noted that there was a "comsiderable amount of commercial real estate lending due for refinancing over the nest two to four years".
But it said the amount required by real estate groups to rebuild their balance sheets would depend on government and central bank policies, which would influence bank lending."

Too late for the Sheraton Mirage.


----------



## simgrund (4 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Anyone have a copy of the PIF PDS dated 13 December 2006?  Can you scan and post the section on Fees and Costs.
> 
> May be able to help there duped.
> Have 3 PDS, last one sent to me by Mr. Zielinsky in 2008.
> ...


----------



## seamisty (4 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I don't have a copy of the PDS but  the 2006 annual report is found here Duped, it may be of some help:::::http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021720767.PDF ;;; It won't copy. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (4 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I don't know if it will help, but attached is a copy of the 2 July 2007 PIF PDS. I don't have the Dec 2006 PDS.

Hope it helps!


----------



## The Owls (5 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good morning. I have just received and read the email from Carneys re the class action being organised by IMF. I would appreciate it if someone more informed in these matters could please explain in simple language what it means to the class action.. Is it to our advantage what happened with Multiplex or not. Is it still full steam ahead on the class action with IMF still funding the whole thing. I apprecaite any advice. Enjoy the day ahead.


----------



## seamisty (5 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



The Owls said:


> Good morning. I have just received and read the email from Carneys re the class action being organised by IMF. I would appreciate it if someone more informed in these matters could please explain in simple language what it means to the class action.. Is it to our advantage what happened with Multiplex or not. Is it still full steam ahead on the class action with IMF still funding the whole thing. I apprecaite any advice. Enjoy the day ahead.



I spoke with Breaker last night Owls regarding the email from Carneys. PIF AG will try and get some clarifications/interpretations today from Carneys and IMF which hopefully will be easier to understand. Alternatively investors could contact the Investor Advisory Committee  members to discuss this current issue, Mr Mangan, Ms Woodford or Ms Andrejic at iac@newpif.com.au  The answers could be included in the overdue Dec 2009 PIF Investor update or.........maybe not!!! Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## selciper (5 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I found the Carneys email quite complex to interpret. However, the link they give to ASIC is useful as ASIC explain the situation in simpler terms.


----------



## atlas1950 (5 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Could somebody please post email from IMF.

For some odd reason, I didn't receive mine.

Michael


----------



## simgrund (5 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> I found the Carneys email quite complex to interpret. However, the link they give to ASIC is useful as ASIC explain the situation in simpler terms.




This yet another maddening example of concepts of Justice in Australian jurisdiction reminds me of case where John Singleton avoided speeding fine by arguing that his Rolls Royce could do so "safely" and the Magistrate accepting that argument.
Here, we, the injured party seek redress and are injured further by the same judiciary entrusted with dispensing Justice.
For our sake let's hope Multiplex digs dip for an Appeal and does not allow such disgraceful precedent to be recorded in the annals of Australian legal history.
That's my view in a nutshell.


----------



## simgrund (5 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



atlas1950 said:


> Could somebody please post email from IMF.
> For some odd reason, I didn't receive mine. Michael




Hi Michael,
Have E-mailed all, check your registration details with IMF, contact 
tmclernon@imf.com.au.
regards


----------



## The Owls (5 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> This yet another maddening example of concepts of Justice in Australian jurisdiction reminds me of case where John Singleton avoided speeding fine by arguing that his Rolls Royce could do so "safely" and the Magistrate accepting that argument.
> Here, we, the injured party seek redress and are injured further by the same judiciary entrusted with dispensing Justice.
> For our sake let's hope Multiplex digs dip for an Appeal and does not allow such disgraceful precedent to be recorded in the annals of Australian legal history.
> That's my view in a nutshell.




What is it in the email from Carneys worries you the most about our class action.


----------



## selciper (5 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Melbourne Herald Sun - 23 Dec. 09 Extract:

MULTIPLEX has failed in its latest bid to quash a $150 million class action over its disastrous Wembley Stadium project but won a victory over evidence in the long-running case.



The full court of the Federal Court yesterday threw out a bid to injunct law firm Maurice Blackburn and its backer, International Litigation Funding Partners.

"The court rejected Multiplex's application for injunctive relief," Maurice Blackburn chairman Bernard Murphy told BusinessDaily.

"It illustrates that this proceeding never had a point other than to derail the Multiplex class action.

"The class action will now
proceed."

Multiplex made legal history in October when the Federal Court found that the class action was a managed investment scheme.

Australian class actions were thrown into chaos because none of them have a product disclosure statement or are run by a company holding a financial services licence, as required by law.

But last month, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission acted to allow class actions to proceed.


----------



## simgrund (5 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



The Owls said:


> What is it in the email from Carneys worries you the most about our class action.



Thanks to Selciper's post just preceding, it no longer is a threat.
Implication of 20/11/09 judgement  was that ALL class actions would suffer from
added burdens of being forced into "managed investment scheme" category.
Had IMF been forced to take into account these added monetary and other burdens, they could decide to abandon its support of PIF action through Carneys.
And IT IS this that would be a worry; would you agree?
Hopefully this helps, regards


----------



## seamisty (6 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi all, John Walker from IMF has kindly fowarded the following to me after I contacted him on behalf of several concerned PIF investors regarding the latest IMF Class Action announcement. I will also ask Breaker to include it in his next PIF Action Group update. Cheers, Seamisty

Premium Income Fund: representative proceedings
Many Action Group Members have asked for information and assistance regarding the letter from Carneys dated 21 December 2009. 
Some of the common questions (together with answers) are set out below.
Disclaimer: This information set out below is not legal advice and should not be relied upon in place of legal advice.  The Action Group believes this information to be accurate and complete but accepts no liability for any inaccuracy or omissions. 
Q. What does the Multiplex decision mean for the class action relating to the Premium Income Fund (PIF) funded by IMF (Australia) Ltd ?
A. The Multiplex decision may mean that the funding arrangements between IMF, the representative parties and the group members in the PIF class action are a managed investment scheme which to operate legally requires registration. However, due to the exemption granted by ASIC until 30 June 2010, the Multiplex decision does not presently affect the conduct of the PIF class action or the funding agreements between IMF and participants in that action. 
Q. Is IMF continuing to fund the PIF Federal Court class action proceedings?
A. Yes.
Q. The ASIC exemption expires on 30 June 2010. What happens when it expires?
A. ASIC granted the exemption on a temporary basis while it considers how to regulate litigation funding in Australia. Neither IMF nor Carneys can predict what position ASIC may adopt in June 2010. If ASIC requires more time to consider its position, it is possible the exemption may be extended for a further period of time.
Q. Does the Multiplex decision mean that the group members will have to bear any substantial additional legal or other costs ?
A. No.
Q. Does the Multiplex decision mean that the group members will now have to personally bear costs of the PIF class action proceedings?
A. No. Group members continue to be protected from liability for costs under Section 43(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act (Cth).
Q. Will there be an appeal from the Multiplex decision ?
A. Neither IMF nor Carneys are parties to or otherwise involved in the Multiplex proceedings. IMF did not fund the Multiplex proceedings. IMF understands that an application for special leave to appeal will be made to the High Court of Australia. It is possible that if the High Court hears an appeal, the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Multiplex will be overturned. If this occurs, the matters the subject of the letter will become irrelevant. If the High Court hears an appeal, this should occur during 2010.


----------



## seamisty (6 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Two new PIN announcements on the NSX, still no PIF update!!! Seamisty

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722372.PDF

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722373.PDF


----------



## simgrund (6 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hi all, John Walker from IMF has kindly fowarded the following to me after I contacted him on behalf of several concerned PIF investors regarding the latest IMF Class Action announcement. I will also ask Breaker to include it in his next PIF Action Group update. Cheers, Seamisty
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.




*What about Selciper's #4822?*
[The full court of the Federal Court yesterday threw out a bid to injunct law firm Maurice Blackburn and its backer, International Litigation Funding Partners.
"The court rejected Multiplex's application for injunctive relief," Maurice Blackburn chairman Bernard Murphy told BusinessDaily.]

Can Marcom or other diligent researcher post verification of this matter being closed to any further proceedings. We don't need this so early in the new year.
One hopes that ASIC, in its new found alert mode, informs all stakeholders that the "freeze" is off and all positions remain as prior to this moronic act by Multiplex back in October.
Regards,


----------



## Duped (6 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

New Clause 25.2(e) seems to have a gramatical error.  Should it read "and only the persons specified" rather than "and only by the persons specified"?

New Clause 25.4(d) - shouldn't "Compliance Officer" read "Complaints Officer"?


----------



## simgrund (6 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> New Clause 25.2(e) seems to have a gramatical error.  Should it read "and only the persons specified" rather than "and only by the persons specified"?
> New Clause 25.4(d) - shouldn't "Compliance Officer" read "Complaints Officer"?




Hello Duped,
These seem to be amendments to the "Compliance Plan" so perhaps that reference seemed O'K to proof readers.


----------



## seamisty (6 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> New Clause 25.2(e) seems to have a gramatical error.  Should it read "and only the persons specified" rather than "and only by the persons specified"?
> 
> New Clause 25.4(d) - shouldn't "Compliance Officer" read "Complaints Officer"?



 And one could ask what monumental event/crisis  has occurred that would motivate Ms Hutson to be propelled into action while on holiday to post deed poll ammendmants to our constitution dated 10th Dec 2009 on the NSX today?? Did you not see fit Ms Hutson to also post PIF investors overdue Dec update at the same time or is that of little significance or of no importance to WC? One could well ask where do your priorities lie? With the best interests of PIF investors or with WC? Is your complaints department receiving more than they can handle? Oops, thats right, WC do not monitor this thread so probablly wasting my time!(yeah, right!!!)I received the following from a concerned PIF investor today.


'I find it amusing that both of 
 these files are dated the 10th December 2009 obviously in JH's 
 handwriting. Both of these files were created in the early hours of this 
 morning i.e. 3.09am and 3.28am and modified at approx 1.30pm. (this 
 afternoon) and then posted at approx 2.30pm on the NSX. Maybe it would 
 be wise to seek some informed opinion on this, then again it may not be 
 of importance, it is just an obsevation. Someone is working back late in 
 Wellingtons office, thought they were on holidays?'

:bs: Seamisty


----------



## marcom (7 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

New Years wishes to all.

Seamisty, looks like ASIC may have forced the upgraded complaints procedure, probably based on the volume of complaints they have received about WC's indifference to queries and complaints. I've waited weeks sometimes for even an acknowledgement - then all you get is a sales spiel or some doubtfully optimistic projections from one of the call centre operators. This will force WC to put responses in writing so that some further action can be taken.


----------



## k.smith (7 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> New Years wishes to all.
> 
> Seamisty, looks like ASIC may have forced the upgraded complaints procedure, probably based on the volume of complaints they have received about WC's indifference to queries and complaints. I've waited weeks sometimes for even an acknowledgement - then all you get is a sales spiel or some doubtfully optimistic projections from one of the call centre operators. This will force WC to put responses in writing so that some further action can be taken.




I think you are right, Marcom.


----------



## mellifuous (7 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> I think you are right, Marcom.




But isn't this bs just another example of ASIC's passion for 'form' over 'substance.

Like the S.E.C. in the U.S., ASIC is a stickler for getting the forms filled out right and for  making sure the act is followed.

Everything else that goes wrong is a matter of your prudential choice - if W.C. is a lousy manager, then that's the result of your selecting the manager.

ASIC wrote us and told us our losses in the FMF were the result of our 'prudential choice'.

City filled out the forms, crossed the 't's and dotted the 'i's - and lost $500m, a form complying dud.

One day investors will realise that managers protect themselves more than investors can believe, just by making sure the forms are filled out right.

For ASIC, the whole world  is FORM over SUBSTANCE.

Have a read of my post on the managed group thread about payments of capital as distributions - ASIC wouldn't deal with it  -  I had to contact the tax office - as I said, if payment of capital to investors as distributions isn't a matter for ASIC, then what the hell is a matter for ASIC?

What good is a "complaints system" to investors in the W.C.?

If ASIC doesn't act when you complain about W.C., why would you expect W.C. to act on your complaints?

Good luck with the new integration into your fund's compliance plan.



..


----------



## selciper (7 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Could it be that WC are strained in trying to keep up with newly-found investor savvy. I believe that it's thanks to the internet and its forums like this one that have changed the landscape. When WC took charge in 2008, they probably expected a comfortable ride for themselves. In pre-blog days that might have been possible. So, let's keep airing our legitimate complaints - somebody is indeed hearing us.


----------



## seamisty (7 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722372.PDF
So step one for making complaints includes a ph no for Caroline Snow, 07 30099800.
I called the no this morning believing WC would be back on deck after their lovely Xmas rest, full of enthusiasm and energy to enquire to the where abouts of the Dec 2009 PIF update and what do I get? A recorded message advising WC staff were on Xmas break until Mon 7th Jan when normal business hours would take effect!!!! Today is the 11th Jan, the day we were informed http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722340.PDF WC business would resume and the line is unattended. When do they resume work? 
What is the point in making announcements to the NSX which relate to incorrect PIF information? I sent an email as well to 'test' the new complaints system. Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (7 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722372.PDF
> What is the point in making announcements to the NSX which relate to incorrect PIF information? I sent an email as well to 'test' the new complaints system. Seamisty




Hey Seamisty, how many times do you have to throw the light switch before you realise the light isn't going to come on?

Although my experience with managed funds is not as lengthy as yours, I have learnt one thing, and that is -> if you don't make the manager feel real pressure, then you waste your time.

I wonder if any of your membership (or leadership) has phoned the help liine at the Tax Offfice and sought advice about the tax implications of 'distributions' and  'payments' by your manager to yourselves - I'm betting there'll be tax implications no matter how payments/distributions are made.

Your manager is able to pay taxable distributions (cost of capital - expense of the fund) even in a fund devoid of income - and that's because the fund is now listed.   W.C. can't allow you to be paid  redemptions because you're no longer entitled to them.

If the fund had not listed, W.C. (1) could  not pay distributions because there is NO income (after expenses of the fund have been accounted for, including impairments) from which to pay them, and (2) could pay members some level of redemptions without any tax considerations.

I wonder if listing the fund is going to cause more BIG troubles than it was worth?

Would payments of 'distributions' or 'payments' comply with the Corporations Act if some members actually have to pay tax?  That is, would they be treated equally to other members who did not pay tax?

Food for thought?


----------



## mellifuous (7 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hey, I'm not qualified to give advice, but I am opinionated.

I reckon that unlisted managed funds were never designed to be listed unless they have a clear history of good management, have a demonstrated growth potential (that is, they are speculative), are unimpaired, and have little to no debt (leverage). 

As I've posted here before, *ASIC should never had allowed your fund to list * because (1) an investor's chance of getting a good price on the NSX is not good  (there is no income in the fund and the fund's prospects are not good), and (2) listing separates investors from their capital which gives rise to two problems, (a) simple payments (or redemptions of money as investors might see it) are no longer able to made without tax considerations, and (b) capital is able to be repaid as assessible taxable income (this would not be allowed if the fund was unlisted).

In my opinion, the separation of investors from their investment (the listing)  will bring nothing more than grief to investors in the PIF.

Sometimes I think that ASIC would allow investors to give money to a monkey.

ASIC does not care about the 'prudential' value of an investment, just whether the investment is legal.

How the listing of the PIF was in unit holders' best interests is beyond my understanding.

ASIC should really go and take a long hard look at itself.

As a 'corporate regulator', ASIC makes a great 'corporate undertaker'.



..


----------



## glendaw101 (7 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722372.PDF
> I called the no this morning believing WC would be back on deck after their lovely Xmas rest, full of enthusiasm and energy to enquire to the where abouts of the Dec 2009 PIF update and what do I get? A recorded message advising WC staff were on Xmas break until Mon 7th Jan when normal business hours would take effect!!!! Today is the 11th Jan, the day we were informed http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722340.PDF WC business would resume and the line is unattended. When do they resume work?
> What is the point in making announcements to the NSX which relate to incorrect PIF information? I sent an email as well to 'test' the new complaints system. Seamisty




Hi Seamisty
We still have a couple of days to formulate our complaints. 
This quote is taken from the Wellington website "The Wellington Hotline will be closed for the holiday season from 4.00pm (AEST) 23 December 2009 until 9.00am (AEST) *11 January 2010*."


----------



## simgrund (7 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Hey, I'm not qualified to give advice, but I am opinionated.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> As a 'corporate regulator', ASIC makes a great 'corporate undertaker'.
> ..




Mellifuous, with all due respect, we crave constructive inputs on this thread.
I am sticking my neck out here rather than on member's message facility by pointing out that self flagellation was left behind in 2009.  
Just as all are entitled to their own opinions, so too all are entitled to a consideration by fellow members. 
Don't mean to patronise, but I consider posting POSITIVE to be a consideration.
Such as the news from Melbourne Herald Sun (23 Dec, as posted by Selciper) that Multiplex's attempt to have Class Actions deemed as "managed investment scheme" thrown out. 
That was a big win for "reason & logic". More of the same to be hoped for in the future.
Regards


----------



## seamisty (7 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



glendaw101 said:


> Hi Seamisty
> We still have a couple of days to formulate our complaints.
> This quote is taken from the Wellington website "The Wellington Hotline will be closed for the holiday season from 4.00pm (AEST) 23 December 2009 until 9.00am (AEST) *11 January 2010*."



Yeah thanks Glendalow and sorry others for that error, I was rushing again and looked at the wrong month. The recorded message does however state, Monday the 7th of Jan, so we both got it wrong!! Seamisty


----------



## k.smith (7 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Mellifuous, with all due respect, we crave constructive inputs on this thread.
> I am sticking my neck out here rather than on member's message facility by pointing out that self flagellation was left behind in 2009.
> Just as all are entitled to their own opinions, so too all are entitled to a consideration by fellow members.
> Don't mean to patronise, but I consider posting POSITIVE to be a consideration.
> ...




Simgrund,

I think the truth is that we all crave some GOOD NEWS.
The last two years have worn us ragged, and of course we are all optimistic that this year will be better. But hoping and wishing will get us nowhere, we need to make a loud noise so that the powers that be take notice.
I do not consider Mellifuous' comments to be either positive or negative, but informative. It is only when we question, analyse and criticize every avenue and every issue that we can effect change, and this is a very tough industry, and it needs a tough stance to take on the issues.
GOOD NEWS will only come by effecting changes in this industry, and the more changes that can be made to strengthen the unitholders position, the better.


----------



## mellifuous (7 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Mellifuous, with all due respect, we crave constructive inputs on this thread.
> I am sticking my neck out here rather than on member's message facility by pointing out that self flagellation was left behind in 2009.
> Just as all are entitled to their own opinions, so too all are entitled to a consideration by fellow members.
> Don't mean to patronise, but I consider posting POSITIVE to be a consideration.
> ...




Ok, sorry Simgrund, you want 'positive',  you don't want 'factual'.    

When I sit back and watch members  too scared to post an email from the manager, and too afraid to face the reality of their circumstances to ask the ATO just what a mess they are in respect to respect to tax, and then read your post, then I say at best, many prefer to live in a fool's paradise.

We have the choice of either facing the reality of the circumstances in which  we find ourselves, or alternatively sticking our respective heads in the sand.

It's not about 'positive' or 'negative', it's about the facts.

But, up to you how you prefer to deal with it.

Your fund has one chance, and that is your class action.

That is only my opinion.  Give the ATO a call - if I'm wrong, then I'll stand corrected.

..


----------



## Duped (7 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> But isn't this bs just another example of ASIC's passion for 'form' over 'substance.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




Too true about form over substance.  I blame my losses on ASIC's incompetance at pragmatism. Bunch of lofty idealistic appartchiks. They're out of touch breathing in the pure mountain air in Canberra with their clear views of Black Mountain, Brindabellas and Mt Ainslie. The federal agencies have soiled themselves by extending their empire to include the murky bottom end of the market. They should totally distance themselves from anything below the level of APRA compliant.  Not tomorrow, today.

ASIC's 'approval' of these funds gave them an air of quality. ASIC effectively elevated their prudential status. Knowingly? Then ASIC stamped Financial Advisors with it's magic stamp of quality to broaden the highway to steer us into these funds.

This is all the agencies' fault. Fiddling with the markets.  All they ended up doing was removing the natural defensive barriers that kept us fish away from the sharks.  Maybe it's deliberate. To supercharge the velocity of money in Australia. Maybe the Godwin Grechs deep at the core of the earily quiet metropolis of the Federal Triangle didn't like the rate of investment in Australia so it got the agencies to trick us into reallocating our resources.  Disarming me. Bang - all our money is spent in a flash instead of over the next 20-30 years of us sitting around in retirement.  Oh and presto - the Feds bonus is we all have to go back to work for another ten years producing more GDP, GST, 9% super guarantee, income tax etc etc.

Am I the only one stunned by the Ripoll revelation that my 'Financial Advisor' didn't have a fiduciary duty to me.  I mean WTF.  What a collosal reckless oversight ... or was it an oversight?


----------



## k.smith (7 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> "....ASIC's 'approval' of these funds gave them an air of quality. ASIC effectively elevated their prudential status. Knowingly? Then ASIC stamped Financial Advisors with it's magic stamp of quality to broaden the highway to steer us into these funds..."




Duped,

You are so right. We didn't invest in Fincorp because their PDS dislosed they had some conflict with ASIC...just the mention of conflict in the PDS deterred us.
And from the news today...

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/kleenmaid-founder-turns-to-property-20100106-lspy.html
'...Mr Young’s son Jared, of Next Property Group, is listed as the sales agent for the Stringybark Road development.

Thousands of customers and repair businesses were left out of pocket when the Maroochydore-based Kleenmaid Group collapsed last April with a net debt of at least $82 million.

Mr Young, the original owner of the four-hectare site, who sold it for $890,000 in 1996, denied he was behind the development...."


Enough to make us feel downright negative.
All the more reason to keep up our efforts to effect some changes.


----------



## seamisty (7 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Hey Seamisty, how many times do you have to throw the light switch before you realise the light isn't going to come on?
> 
> Although my experience with managed funds is not as lengthy as yours, I have learnt one thing, and that is -> if you don't make the manager feel real pressure, then you waste your time.
> 
> ...



mellifuous lListing our fund on the NSX was never a popular option  with PIF investors and WC was always aware of this but never the less proceeded with their own agenda regardless. From my own perspective it has been a dismal, albeit expensive exercise and I am sure that Jenny Hutson from Wellington Capital has ignored investors concerns regarding the issue along with many others, ie lack of transparency and failure of initial promises being high on the agenda.  

Until such times as PIF investors actually receive their 3 cent return of capital, (income from PIF assets  having already being listed on the endangered species list!!!) enabling WC to trigger their ultimate motive of receiving management fees at little or no capital outlay initially, the taxation issue on income cannot be adressed IMHO!! Investors have different circumstances, mine being that any return of capital below the original $1.00 aquisition of unit cost becomes a capital loss which can be carried over or off set from other income in my superannuation fund. We cannot plead our individual cases with the ATO until this scenario actually eventuates!! I do thank you for drawing attention to this potential problem, as you can bet your buttocks PIF investors will be left to do their own research when this long awaited outcome actually eventuates. (if ever)

The difference with PIF investors is, we always knew we were victims of greed, lies, gross mismanagement and yes, even fraud!!! From day one some of us raised the alarm bells (thanks Jadel) which were grossly ignored and  fobbed off, only to be recognised and acknowledged well and truly after the damage was done and the evidence supplied from others apart from us!! Yes k.smith, you are correct, results will only be achieved by the decibel of the voice and noise made, otherwise it is of no use shutting the gate after the horse has bolted!!! Keep up the good work those individual investors that plug along regardless and I know you are many. We will make a difference, the blinkers have been discarded and the power will be switched back on, thanks. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (7 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I would also like to add that this thread is for all PIF investors and related entities to voice their individual opinions/concerns and be open for discussion while at the same time recognising we are all not of the same opinion but respect others  point of view even if we disagree. I would hate to see this avenue of communication lost due to conflict of opinion again. Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (8 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> mellifuous lListing our fund on the NSX was never a popular option  with PIF investors and WC was always aware of this but never the less proceeded with their own agenda regardless. From my own perspective it has been a dismal, albeit expensive exercise and I am sure that Jenny Hutson from Wellington Capital has ignored investors concerns regarding the issue along with many others, ie lack of transparency and failure of initial promises being high on the agenda.
> 
> Until such times as PIF investors actually receive their 3 cent return of capital, (income from PIF assets  having already being listed on the endangered species list!!!) enabling WC to trigger their ultimate motive of receiving management fees at little or no capital outlay initially, the taxation issue on income cannot be adressed IMHO!! Investors have different circumstances, mine being that any return of capital below the original $1.00 aquisition of unit cost becomes a capital loss which can be carried over or off set from other income in my superannuation fund. We cannot plead our individual cases with the ATO until this scenario actually eventuates!! I do thank you for drawing attention to this potential problem, as you can bet your buttocks PIF investors will be left to do their own research when this long awaited outcome actually eventuates. (if ever)
> 
> The difference with PIF investors is, we always knew we were victims of greed, lies, gross mismanagement and yes, even fraud!!! From day one some of us raised the alarm bells (thanks Jadel) which were grossly ignored and  fobbed off, only to be recognised and acknowledged well and truly after the damage was done and the evidence supplied from others apart from us!! Yes k.smith, you are correct, results will only be achieved by the decibel of the voice and noise made, otherwise it is of no use shutting the gate after the horse has bolted!!! Keep up the good work those individual investors that plug along regardless and I know you are many. We will make a difference, the blinkers have been discarded and the power will be switched back on, thanks. Seamisty




Yes, we're all seeing things a lot clearer with 20-20 vision.

My comment about the light switch relates to asking manager questions that remain unanswered.  

Sometimes I get the feeling that it's all a fait accompli - like a motor vehicle accident - one is behind the wheel, one's foot is hard on the brake, but the impact is unavoidable.

No matter what we do, it seems nothing improves for us.  Managers have accept to legal resources (at members' expense), we have to pay for our own.

Managers have direct access to ASIC, ASIC treats members like grumblers.

Managers have ALL the information about the fund, members have next to nothing.

There is a gross imbalance between the powers of the manager viz-a-viz investors, and it's all in managers' favour.

As Harry correctly pointed out, these funds were in the new BIG time when they were failing, but now they've failed, there is next to no media coverage.

There just has to be a better system for managed funds that been so decimated.


----------



## Mary Lynch (8 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A bit of humour never goes astray either.


----------



## Duped (8 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> ...
> No matter what we do, it seems nothing improves for us.  Managers have accept to legal resources (at members' expense), we have to pay for our own.
> 
> Managers have direct access to ASIC, ASIC treats members like grumblers.
> ...




Too true.  Why is this so?  Because of the cosy relationship between the two major parties and industry. And in our case, the finance industry. The vested interests in the finance industry have mobilised forces to fight the introduction of a 'fiduciary duty'. Would they bother trying if they didn't think they might succeed?

Liberal/Labour appease us with words (committees, studies, panels, reviews, boards, etc) but appease the vested interests of industry with actions.  

Well, its time to show parliament who's boss.  We are. 

I believe the only voice we'll ever have, voice that they can't fob off,  is on election day. So it's time to shake things up a bit. So this year maybe we should all vote for anything but the two major parties. Remind them us voters are their boss and not industry.  Maybe a bit of chaos in parliament house for a few terms will reverse the trend of imbalance and remind them who's boss. Think about it.  Am I wrong?

They have their lawyers and lobbyists. We have our vote. Use it.


----------



## selciper (8 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If the "December" update does not contain the actual numbers which led to the IAC results, we have something extra to worry about. That such fundamental figures (within a democratic country) could be withheld for such a long time is a serious matter. Hopefully, the figures will be published shortly (six months after the event). If they aren't, we can't allow the situation to rest there.


----------



## simgrund (8 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Ok, sorry Simgrund, you want 'positive',  you don't want 'factual'.
> When I sit back and watch members  *too scared to post an email from the manager,* ,,[balding added],,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> It's not about 'positive' or 'negative', it's about the facts.
> But, up to you how you prefer to deal with it.
> ...



Hello Mellifuous,
"Sorry" accepted. If nothing else, these exchanges helped me finally to spell your name right.
Please believe me when I say that "constructive" is exactly that.
But "flogging over flogging over flogging" in a dog's tail chasing exercise is not constructive. Together with you and many, I have a mile long list of destinations where I can spit my venom. 
But on review, our combined wisdom could not prevent Constitution changes in mid 2006, which in my view have started the decay. 
It would be a progress to have IAC involved on this thread. 
I again appeal to John H to post that answer from IAC (#4738). That would be both informative and inclusive.

Stay positive, good friend,
Regards


----------



## simgrund (8 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



			
				seamisty; said:
			
		

> Good Day Seamisty,
> There is no chance of that.
> I have been attending anger management courses recommended by ASIC, no less, and have not known despondency since.
> Thanks for your last update.
> Cheers, simgrund


----------



## seamisty (8 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> If the "December" update does not contain the actual numbers which led to the IAC results, we have something extra to worry about. That such fundamental figures (within a democratic country) could be withheld for such a long time is a serious matter. Hopefully, the figures will be published shortly (six months after the event). If they aren't, we can't allow the situation to rest there.



In my opinion selciper (for what it is worth) the whole Investor Advisory Committee exercise was nothing more than WC making token gestures to pacify PIF investors by delivering one promise made initially. What is there to hide? Why do the results remain a closely guarded secret by WC unless as was predicted by a fund manager, 'the whole exercise will be a total farce'!!!. Well from the amount of correspondence I have received in relation to the issue, JH certainly has not done herself any favours by refusing to make the results public. Just another bit of :bs: useless WC rhetoric, same as telling investors the next investor update was due to be released at end Dec 2009. 

Blueboy previously posted comments he received from WC staff;;" WC live in the real world of fact not fiction and only see things from a legal standpoint and it would be pointless for them to join in and answer to a handful of individuals who do not represent the bulk of the fund's unit holders."


Well hello JH, fiction:::a. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented. b. The act of inventing such a creation or pretense. ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/fiction 

It is FACT that you have provided  investors with information which has not eventuated, thus becomes FICTION in my opinion, although it could also be called by other names as well.

Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (8 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

My recent posting on the Managed fund group.


  Re: Managed fund co-operation group 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have an idea ---

The following overcomes one of the drawbacks for investors, the lack of cohesion amongst investors in their respective managed funds (listed and unlisted).

The fact that the manager is organised and focused always puts the manager at a distinct advantage over individual investors.

In order to bring some degree of balance between respective powers, I suggest the following:-

When a managed fund is created, a necessary step in the process is to establish a website (be it the manager's website or elsewhere) with a forum, or alternatively with Yahoo Forums.

The website forum should be moderated by democratically elected members of the fund.

Leadership should be democratically elected from within the forum, with guidelines published for 
elections, time frames, etc. It should not be ad hoc.

As each member invests in the fund (scheme), the manager should be compelled to provide that member with a username and password for access to the forum.

There should also be some mechanism for the forum to handle postal communincations to and from members who do not have access to a computer.

I believe that no one should be banned (but postings should necessarily be moderated), and it should be illegal for anyone to join the forum who is not a member of that managed fund.

Any comments?


----------



## Duped (8 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty.  Perhaps this explains everything. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z86V_ICUCD4


----------



## selciper (8 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Newcomers to this forum are advised that Ms Hutson's short homily about life's journey taking us "From Me to We" is still available on Youtube. In other words, the key to success is offered to you in a quick lesson. I sense the video has been modified a little since I last saw it, but I could be wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H60lzsGvAWQ


----------



## JohnH (8 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Hello Mellifuous,
> "Sorry" accepted. If nothing else, these exchanges helped me finally to spell your name right.
> Please believe me when I say that "constructive" is exactly that.
> But "flogging over flogging over flogging" in a dog's tail chasing exercise is not constructive. Together with you and many, I have a mile long list of destinations where I can spit my venom.
> ...




Simon,  There is really nothing to add that is of relevance. Copywrite issues aside, I could post the complete pdf, but that includes my personal details, and my PDF writer which is 10 years old won't recognise it for editing.


----------



## k.smith (8 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Newcomers to this forum are advised that Ms Hutson's short homily about life's journey taking us "From Me to We" is still available on Youtube. In other words, the key to success is offered to you in a quick lesson. I sense the video has been modified a little since I last saw it, but I could be wrong.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H60lzsGvAWQ





nice banner in the background......


----------



## simgrund (8 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Simon,  There is really nothing to add that is of relevance. Copywrite issues aside, I could post the complete pdf, but that includes my personal details, and my PDF writer which is 10 years old won't recognise it for editing.




Sorry John H, I certainly was not prodding for inclusion of any Personal Details. Just the gist of IAC reply to feel their breath. 
If it's just a proforma as a PDF, then perhaps it indeed is of no relevance.
Thanks, regards


----------



## JohnH (8 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Simon, see your Private Message box


----------



## seamisty (9 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

What about PIF investors Michael?? Don't you feel you owe something to those that contributed 'indirectly' to the original purchase of those properties, some who are left totally financially ruined due to alledged misapproppriation of their funds by yourself and some of your loyal employees? Do you ever wonder how those folk are surviving the aftermath of those alledged actions? The truth would do for starters. Seamisty



Business Gold Coast

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/01/09/177051_gold-coast-business.html






 Land sale helps King chip away at $127m debt
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  January 9th, 2010

MFS co-founder Michael King has taken a big step towards meeting his commitments to margin lenders after part of his polo property Elysian Fields was sold yesterday afternoon.

The 113ha grazing property near Canungra found a buyer following a fruitless auction more than a year ago.

The contract settled yesterday afternoon and neither the purchaser nor the sale price has been disclosed.

It is understood to be a local buyer.

The property went to auction in December 2008 and was passed in at $950,000 after failing to reach the reserve.

There were hopes at the time that it could fetch up to $2 million, but that was thwarted by a soft property market.

All proceeds from the sale will go to meet Mr King's commitment to margin lenders under a two-year agreement struck in August.

Both Mr King and his former business partner Phil Adams were left with a combined personal debt of $127 million after the collapse of MFS in January 2008.

Mr King yesterday described the sale as 'another step forward' in his bid to meet his obligations to creditors.

Under the personal insolvency agreement, financiers also will receive all proceeds from the sale of the adjacent Elysian Fields polo complex, which was developed by Mr King almost a decade ago.


Elysian Fields, Mr King's last remaining asset, is seeking a buyer at $20 million.

A $20 million deal for thoroughbred racing complex Wadham Park, located next door, fell through late last year after Queensland Racing pulled out of the contract.


----------



## charles36 (9 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty, thanks for the update on Kings' property sale.  Do we have any stake in the proceeds.  Also, whatever happened to Blue Boy?       I noticed that there was some advice given on the forum about fund managers creating a forum etc for investors in Managed Funds.  That would no doubt work but I have better advice for potential investors.........DON'T INVEST.  USE THE BANK.      Has anybody been able to contact the IAC members.  I am very interested to see how this all unfolds.  The way I see it we send our concerns that are not serious enough for the Complaints Officer to the RE (JH) who will vet them, prepare an answer and give it to the IAC to reply.  What is the time frame for such turnaround of information?  a new name for the IAC perhaps could be CLAYTONS.  CHEERS AND BEST WISHES TO ALL FOR THE NEW yEAR.


----------



## seamisty (9 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

IAC could also stand for:: 


Invisible Advisory Committee

Inactive Advisory Committee

Inaccessible Advisory Committe

Investor Appeasment Committee

Investor Apathetic Committee

Invented Applicants Committee

Ignore All Complaints

Invalidly  Approved  Committee
Yes, sure could have some fun with the initials IAC!!!. Any other suggestions? :jump: seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (9 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> IAC could also stand for::
> 
> 
> Invisible Advisory Committee
> ...





I wonder, did you complain to ASIC?

I made three complaints about our ICC (your IAC).

http://www.moneymagik.com/complaints.php

The FMF's committee was set up by the manager.


If you think I'm trying to stir up unit holder complaints to ASIC, then you're right !!!


----------



## charles36 (9 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty I like your style, they all are relevant, well done.  I did make a complaint to ASIC re the RE not allowing unit holders to have a scutineer to check on voting, the refusal point blank by the RE to provide the voting results when requested.   ASIC indicated to me that the appointment of an Investor Advisory Committee was not a statutory requirement and therefore they have no power to force the RE to reveal the details sought.  It is therefore my view, who wants the IAC anyway, I sure as hell do not.


----------



## JohnH (9 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> IAC could also stand for::
> 
> 
> Invisible Advisory Committee
> ...




How about "Inevitably against communications"?


----------



## selciper (10 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It's significant that we investors paid for the unsatisfactory IAC electoral process - printing and mailout etc. Imagine being told before casting a vote that the results would not include the release of any figures after the ballot! In my opinion the numbers (evidence) belong to us and not to WC to withhold.


----------



## seamisty (10 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> I wonder, did you complain to ASIC?
> 
> I made three complaints about our ICC (your IAC).
> 
> ...



ASIC has had so many complaints regarding WC and their handling of PIF related issues I strongly suspect that is why the complaints dept for our fund has been upgraded!!!! I also think that between OCV/MFS and WC related complaints from the  Action Groups and individual investors  is why Asic intervened. Investors  instigating a class action themselves probablly helped as well. The few diehard posters on this forum dribbling the same old rhetoric have a lot of support from many other PIF investors off the forum, contrary to what WC would have others believe. Also we have found ASIC to be helpful and supportive on several fund related issues, more so since they have the documented evidence to support many of our original complaints, albeit at times we consider their actions a bit slow.  So yes mellifuous, our complaints are many and not just directed to WC and ASIC. I do think the media could be more supportive from an investors perspective, but perhaps they think the fund managers, RE's etc weild more power and have more influence than us mere mortals!!! Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (10 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> It's significant that we investors paid for the unsatisfactory IAC electoral process - printing and mailout etc. Imagine being told before casting a vote that the results would not include the release of any figures after the ballot! In my opinion the numbers (evidence) belong to us and not to WC to withhold.



 It did take OCV/MFS emplyees over a year to get their paper work in order relating to certain fund related  figures selciper!!! Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## selciper (10 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty - By way of anecdote: an elderly person I know who can't handle computers too well, visits his daughter twice a week to read this forum. He tells me that it relieves his anxiety to know that there is fellow-investor anger, which he shares in abundance. I bet WC are still avid readers of this space. (WC, we know you're reading us. It's part of your morning drill.)


----------



## wally3218 (10 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Seamisty - I bet WC are still avid readers of this space. (WC, we know you're reading us. It's part of your morning drill.)




I hope they are reading this I'm another one that regular reads this forum on my elderly mother behalf to keep her informed.
If it was'nt for this forum many of us would still be in the dark as WC do'nt tell us anything thats currently happening.
Keep up the good work guys and gals lets hope 2010 brings us closer to a better output for investors.


----------



## k.smith (10 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



wally3218 said:


> I hope they are reading this I'm another one that regular reads this forum on my elderly mother behalf to keep her informed.
> If it was'nt for this forum many of us would still be in the dark as WC do'nt tell us anything thats currently happening.
> Keep up the good work guys and gals lets hope 2010 brings us closer to a better output for investors.




Hi Wally,

Glad to see your still reading this forum. I met you and your mother at the 
meeting in March....hope things improve for us in 2010

A member from another forum made a astute remark....
"..Importantly ALL unitholders have the right to communicate directly with the managers, it is the managers that have control of OUR monies not the....."(Investor Committee)


----------



## simgrund (10 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> ASIC has had so many complaints regarding WC and their handling of PIF related issues I strongly suspect that is why the complaints dept for our fund has been upgraded!!!! ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, *I do think the media could be more supportive * (bolding added) from an investors perspective, but perhaps they think the fund managers, RE's etc weild more power and have more influence than us mere mortals!!! Seamisty




Looks like all this chipping away finally produces. Though we are still waiting for response from Nick NICHOLS of Business Gold Coast.


----------



## seamisty (11 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Perhaps we will see our investor update today? Media article from TheAustralian today. Cheers, Seamisty

Watchdog eyes going-concern statements as a big issue 
Matt Chambers From: The Australian January 11, 2010 12:00AM 
THE nation's corporate watchdog is warning companies it will target going-concern statements related to debt refinancing and the value of asset writedowns, of which it expects more, in the coming reporting season. 

In a review of 350 June 2009 full-year accounts, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission claims some companies were unrealistic about growth and discount rates and others failed to show how they determined fair values of assets, particularly investment properties.

ASIC commissioner Michael Dwyer said the review highlighted a number of areas where companies and auditors needed to pay greater attention.

"Despite signs of improvement in the Australian economy, we encourage companies and their auditors to continue to focus on issues such as going concern, asset impairment and fair value determination," Mr Dwyer said.

The five main areas the watchdog said it would focus on were the same as those it said it would home in on six months ago: going concern, asset impairment, fair value of assets, off balance sheet exposures and financial instrument disclosures.


No one from ASIC was available yesterday to comment on the review of last year's accounts.

According to ASIC, going-concern assumptions remained a big issue.

Since companies such as OZ Minerals struggled to refinance last year, ASIC warned directors to be mindful of their prospects even when refinancing was needed outside the 12-month period.

"Where the ability of a listed entity to continue as a going concern is subject to refinancing, the entity must keep the market informed about the status of finance negotiations,"ASIC said.

In the past financial year, writedowns were 11 per cent of the total value of indefinite life intangible assets, which include things like trademarks and goodwill, up from 6 per cent in the previous December half and up 1 per cent in the previous financial year.

According to ASIC, directors need to focus on asset values in their December 2009 accounts, after the review showed unrealistically optimistic discount and growth rates, and flawed discounted cashflow calculations.

It found investment property writedowns were 12 per cent of the properties' carrying value, compared with 6 per cent in the six months to December 2008.

"ASIC is contacting some entities to better understand the basis for the extent of their writedowns," the watchdog said.

"Some entities carrying investment properties at fair value failed to appropriately disclose the methods and significant assumptions applied in determining the fair values."


----------



## Blueboy1 (11 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> Seamisty, thanks for the update on Kings' property sale.  Do we have any stake in the proceeds.  Also, whatever happened to Blue Boy?       I noticed that there was some advice given on the forum about fund managers creating a forum etc for investors in Managed Funds.  That would no doubt work but I have better advice for potential investors.........DON'T INVEST.  USE THE BANK.      Has anybody been able to contact the IAC members.  I am very interested to see how this all unfolds.  The way I see it we send our concerns that are not serious enough for the Complaints Officer to the RE (JH) who will vet them, prepare an answer and give it to the IAC to reply.  What is the time frame for such turnaround of information?  a new name for the IAC perhaps could be CLAYTONS.  CHEERS AND BEST WISHES TO ALL FOR THE NEW yEAR.




I am still alive and well Charles and,contrary to what I was told by WC that there are only a few 'diehards' that communicate on this forum,there is a strong following from the silent ones that prefer to look and listen and learn from the opinions expressed so well by others and whom I suspect gain some comfort in knowing that they are not alone and I am one of those.
WC's lame statement that they did not bother to read this forum,in my opinion is poppycock as is most of their rhetoric concerning our fund and as you know from my previous post their was a flurry of activity from the silent numbers that proved there are more of us out there than they would want to believe, it is a pity that we have to bite the hand that is supposed to be feeding us.
Best wishes,
Blueboy1


----------



## The Owls (11 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Blueboy1 said:


> I am still alive and well Charles and,contrary to what I was told by WC that there are only a few 'diehards' that communicate on this forum,there is a strong following from the silent ones that prefer to look and listen and learn from the opinions expressed so well by others and whom I suspect gain some comfort in knowing that they are not alone and I am one of those.
> WC's lame statement that they did not bother to read this forum,in my opinion is poppycock as is most of their rhetoric concerning our fund and as you know from my previous post their was a flurry of activity from the silent numbers that proved there are more of us out there than they would want to believe, it is a pity that we have to bite the hand that is supposed to be feeding us.
> Best wishes,
> Blueboy1




I read this thread at least twice a day-it is the only place I get a wide source of information from very informed and helpful members. I wish I could get get this info for other UPFs that I am involved with. When you were told by WC that there were  only a few diehards that in my opinion is just not accurate. If you have $1.00 or millions invested you need regular and accurate advice.
Enjoy the day


----------



## selciper (11 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

In early March 2008, JH was asked to comment on the collapse of MFS. ( Ezxercerpts from 7.30 Report transcript.)

JENNY HUTSON: With people whose lives have truly been destroyed in a financial sense by the plight of MFS, is something that is just extraordinary. This is about ordinary Australians, who believed what they read, who put trust and faith in the board and there's an enormous human cost.

JENNY HUTSON, WELLINGTON CAPITAL: It is about bringing the general on the field of battle, who in this instance, is Andrew Peacock to account. 

When Andrew took over as chair, the company was worth in excess of $2 billion. It last traded at less than $500 million. So, less than 25 per cent of that value. And corporate Australia has always been about accountability, as has political Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2186788.htm


----------



## selciper (11 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Excerpts...sorry about the previous typo.


----------



## charles36 (11 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Selciper, I do not know if I read you right but was JH referring to herself as a General.  If so the war is well and truly over for us.;  I cannot recall one positive strategy or promise that has been completed. JH is not interested in the small amount of so called troublemakers apparently but she will one day be surprised to learn that many of us have many skills and have the ability to see through BS when confronted with it.  I know of many people who do not post on the forum but are regular readers and it might interest JH to know that there is a groundswell of unfavourable opinions being expressed concerning the management of OUR fund.


----------



## seamisty (11 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All, Just to let you know I lodged the following complaint with C Snow at WC this morning on behalf of myself and other Action Group members. I will post my response if and when received. Cheers, Seamisty

Hi Caroline,
               I would like to make a formal complaint regarding the late PIF  investor update which was due to be released at the end of Dec 2009 as promised by Wellington Capital. 

I would also like to know the voting results of the IAC and why approximately six months after the election there has been no report from the IAC committee to unitholders, or will the results and report be included in the overdue update? If not, then I would like this issue lodged as an official complaint also.

Was the 11% voting power of the PIF wholesale fund exercised by WC in the IAC election process? I was distinctly told by WC hotline staff that WC definitely would not be using these votes but would like this clarified by yourself regardless. Has any of the IAC elected representatives provided a contact email to communicate with other investors? If so please provide me with them.


----------



## selciper (11 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Charles36,
Hi. In 2008, JH was prone to the use of militaristic metaphors. I assume the "Wellington" in WC is in honour of the venerable Duke of Wellington. Hence the image of battlefields and generals being used to describe deadly economic combat. In that context, we are mere soldier ants. The March 09 video in which JH speaks to young people lacked any reference to military tactics. Rafting and other risky sports might now slip into the vocabulary of the talented team, like "The parachute hasn't opened yet."  Nevertheless, it may be that new, unwelcome fronts will open up in 2010. Wars aren't ended all that easily.


----------



## simgrund (11 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hi All, Just to let you know I lodged the following complaint with C Snow at WC this morning on behalf of myself and other Action Group members. I will post my response if and when received. Cheers, Seamisty
> 
> Hi Caroline,
> I would like to make a formal complaint regarding the late PIF  investor update which was due to be released at the end of Dec 2009 as promised by Wellington Capital.
> ...




Thank you Seamisty,
This is a good start to the year with this clear statement of our rights to have WC fulfil the commitments dating back to the national forums.


----------



## seamisty (11 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> Selciper, I do not know if I read you right but was JH referring to herself as a General.  If so the war is well and truly over for us.;  I cannot recall one positive strategy or promise that has been completed. JH is not interested in the small amount of so called troublemakers apparently but she will one day be surprised to learn that many of us have many skills and have the ability to see through BS when confronted with it.  I know of many people who do not post on the forum but are regular readers and it might interest JH to know that there is a groundswell of unfavourable opinions being expressed concerning the management of OUR fund.



Charles36 one would have to seriously question "What management of of the Wellington Capital Premium Income Fund?"  WC cannot even deliver an investor update on time!! JH shut the office for two and a half weeks holidays over Xmas and New Year and still fails to provide us with promised communication on return!!!!!! No wonder the JH fan club petered out, we all feel like total fools! ( Busy ones though) 

Looking at the http://www.wellcap.com.au/ site it does not appear to be a hive of activity. One compulsary RG46 Disclosure notice in October 2009 the previous announcement almost 12 months prior in 2008 when JH got control of the PIF.

Wellington Merchant bank does not appear to be a thriving expanding concern as I am sure any activity would be duly announced. 

Extracted from the site::
'Our growth has been fuelled by strong, long standing relationships which have been built on trust, a commitment to delivering commercial advice and focusing on helping clients achieve their long term corporate and growth aspirations. Wellington Capital has significant contacts within leading financial institutions and across the property and funds management sectors':::

What growth? Sure doesn't appear to have helped PIF investors.

:luigi: Seamisty


----------



## Towbar (11 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi I was one of those investors who invested money into MFS as late Nov 2007.only to have it frozen in 2008! Then we gave WC the thumbs up to run the fund,expecting at least some info on how the fund is going,but we hear nothing. We do follow this forum avidly,its the only scource of info available,
Thankyou Seamisty & others for all your work,& a happier New year to you all:


----------



## seamisty (11 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Towbar said:


> Hi I was one of those investors who invested money into MFS as late Nov 2007.only to have it frozen in 2008! Then we gave WC the thumbs up to run the fund,expecting at least some info on how the fund is going,but we hear nothing. We do follow this forum avidly,its the only scource of info available,
> Thankyou Seamisty & others for all your work,& a happier New year to you all:



 Thanks towbar and others, we will continue to plug away and hopefully make a difference by sheer numbers alone. It is easy for WC to ignore one investor as opposed to a data base of hundreds, even though I'm not so sure JH gives a **** either way, as demonstrated time and time again by failing to communicate with openess and transparancey regularly with PIF investors as was promised. (not to mention performance or lack of!!) I would hate to put the 2007 Qld business woman of the year to the test of a vote for support in 2010!! Stay tuned, we know we are not a minority group and we thank you all for your on going support. Seamisty (on behalf of myself and  the PIF Action Group)


----------



## seamisty (12 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well fellow PIF investors, it is quite obvious we are not a priority to JH of WELLINGTON CAPITAL who is our current RESPONSIBLE ENTITY!!! JENNIFER JOAN HUTSON has failed once again to deliver on her committment to Premium Income Fund Investors. So much for ' Tears and
applause
am ¡d fund
rescue b ¡d' I am not going to leave this battlefield
until I am victorious.';;;At what cost to investors JENNY??? And more to the point, WHAT RESULT??? For crying out loud, we are fed up with empty promises and hefty bills at our expense. Deliver or bow out, we have been duped!!! Liquidation was never an option for many but we are wallowing in limbo while you deny us communication because you appear to have nothing to offer to support your trumped up qualifications. If I personally had someone working for me who appeared to be so incompetant you would be long gone, as in sacked!! Fortunately for you, it is not up to me alone. Thanks, I feel better now, and as WC do not monitor this thread, we can expect no WC repurcussions LOL LOL LOL !!! AS always, my own opinion, Seamisty


----------



## Investor262 (12 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

thanks seamisty and all the others for a magnificent effort so far! have been following the thread for a long time now. Can someeone explain in simple terms - i have signed up with IMF (and they will get 30% of any success i believe) Is Carneys IMF's solicitor? Where does the class action fit into all of this? Should we stay signed up with IMF?


----------



## seamisty (12 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Investor262 said:


> thanks seamisty and all the others for a magnificent effort so far! have been following the thread for a long time now. Can someeone explain in simple terms - i have signed up with IMF (and they will get 30% of any success i believe) Is Carneys IMF's solicitor? Where does the class action fit into all of this? Should we stay signed up with IMF?



Yes Investor262, Carney Lawyers are doing the legal work for IMF who are litigation funders responsible for all costs involved with the class action win or lose. By not participating in the class action, ie 'opting out' means in the event that money is recovered, only those who remain 'signed up' with IMF will benefit financially after IMF take their 25-30%. Cheers, Seamisty


Disclaimer: This information  is not legal advice and should not be relied upon in place of legal advice.  The Action Group believes this information to be accurate and complete but accepts no liability for any inaccuracy or omissions


----------



## Duped (12 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I'm not holding my breath for the December Update.  I'm guessing WC is waiting for some cash to come in from the Wollongong 'sale' so they can make a positive announcement of a 'distribution' to counter the negative news that we lost another $20M thanks to St George underselling us out of getting anything out of our Sheraton Mirage junk 'loan'.

I'm guessing that WC feel the negative feedback from a late Update is nothing compared to the negative impact of an update full of predominantly bad news.


----------



## marcom (12 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From Aust Fin Review:  
*Retiree group fumes over frozen assets*
PUBLISHED : 08 Jan 2010 01:51:09 PRINT EDITION: 04 DEC 2009
The Association of Independent Retirees has written to the federal government and regulators raising concerns about the treatment of investors in frozen property funds....

Anyone know what they are proposing?


----------



## selciper (12 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Congratulations to the AG committees for their tireless work which is resulting in the latest huge increase in membership! 

It's truly puzzling when an enterprise allows its corporate image to trashed and never makes a robust response. Very strange indeed.


----------



## seamisty (12 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Congratulations to the AG committees for their tireless work which is resulting in the latest huge increase in membership!
> 
> It's truly puzzling when an enterprise allows its corporate image to trashed and never makes a robust response. Very strange indeed.



WC don't know their reputation is being 'trashed' on here selciper, it is beneath their dignity to follow a thread that posts nothing but regurgitated rhetoric from a few disgruntled diehards!!! But yes you are correct, the numbers of disatisfied PIF Action Group investors is rapidly increasing and JH has only herself to blame. Her lack of empathy will perhaps ultimately be her undoing. Seamisty


----------



## Investor262 (12 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Seamisty, you have confirmed my thoughts. I also cannot understand why WC and JH  cannot provide more frequent info. Any ball park guesses as to when IMF may achieve anything....many months? many years?
cheers, investor 262


----------



## selciper (12 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Marcom,

This link might assist you.

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-...lock-frozen-mortgage-funds-20091224-leen.html


----------



## seamisty (12 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Investor262 said:


> Thanks Seamisty, you have confirmed my thoughts. I also cannot understand why WC and JH  cannot provide more frequent info. Any ball park guesses as to when IMF may achieve anything....many months? many years?
> cheers, investor 262



 No one can predict how long the CA will take before seeing results Investor262, however with the evidence and action being instigated by ASIC, I can only see this as complimenting our case. I wouldn't expect anything for at least a year or longer but would love to be proved wrong. Historically this type of litigation takes time. Be interesting to see how many other 'dodgy deals' are uncovered from all the investigation. Seamisty


----------



## marcom (12 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*HUSTON...We have a problem!  Or was that HUTSON ...we have a problem!*

The problem is the Bond Street Custodians case. I have not bothered to follow up on this because of the lack of WC updates on the issue over the past 15 months and the minimal description of the case progress given by WC in only 3 further updates.

But when I loaded the Federal Court file number into the court portal https://www.comcourts.gov.au ( you will need to register and load the file NSD1628/2008 into bookmarked files)  and looked at the directions, a whole new perspective emerged.

In terms of the case itself I found the following:

•	There have been 14 Federal Court appearances over the 15 months
•	There is a further directions hearing set for 10 February 2010
•	There have been 12 orders made
•	On 27-Feb-2009 a Defence and Cross-Claim against Bond Street   Custodians was lodged by Wellington Investment Management Limited
•	Bond Street Custodians are represented by Henry Davis York
•	WIM is represented by Mc Cullough Roberson
•	The Judge is Perram J who is also doing the class action

*I have abstracted the main Directions in the attached Word file.*

I have some serious reservations about the conduct of this case:

* If you thought that $3 Million was steep for last years legal fees just what will this legal saga cost us investors this year.

* The disputed amount of redemptions is $16.254M - we have lost more than that on one Raptis loan alone!

* Why are all investors required to fund this ridiculous legal folly! This is a Wholesale Fund matter and WC have held this amount out from the NSX listing.

* Why the lack of disclosure re the conduct of the case - don't draw attention to the fees charged by McCR.

* The parties are considering whether to participate in a mediation and, if so, to take place no later than 15 December 2009. What are the mediation terms.

* If the $16.254M has to be paid where will the money come from and will Bond Street investors be paid at full or discounted rate?

*The effect on our fund if this is paid is obvious - no distribution for a very long time!!!*

Please read the attached file for the detail of what has been happening.


----------



## seamisty (12 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Marcom, JH may not be getting management fees, but her husbands cohorts at McCullough Robertsons will be cleaning up big time at our expense. As usual any information regarding our fund has to be sourced by investors themselves.

The NSX contacted WC today regarding a PIF update and was told  they hope to have it out next week.

Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## DepressedDad (13 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I'm feeling this whole fiasco is coming to a head by the minute not the month. Am I reading this right in that WC & JH supposedly don't read this forum because its only a few angry people?   So the 'Business Woman of the year' couldn't get a damn about what HER investors are thinking?  That sounds good business practice. No wonder she won.  Even if just *one* investor wanted to say something on here, a GOOD business woman would be very eager to listen. (Even if they are a tad angry that they trusted professionals with THEIR money and not only did they whittle it down to nothing but unforgivably they THEN refused to build a business plan to rebuild losses and even more unforgivably refused to show any respect to investors by telling them anything that's going on.)

So a 'few' angry people read this forum?  What an arrogant insult to democracy. And indication of what a lousy businesswoman JH is , if she admits she couldn't care less about her investor's opinions.  

I suggest they certainly read it, for purely selfish reasons as they NEED to know what's brewing (and there's plenty) so they can stay their little 'avoidance of the issues' dance ahead.  And as it becomes plainly apparent by the minute there is *not just a few* lunatics using this forum as shamefully the ONLY source of information, but a significant number.  And hey JH & WC we're not lunatics, but yes we are angry & frustrated at being treated like foolish nobodies.  

Too much time has passed with no business plans & for keeping us in the dark.  There's plenty of clever people on here, who will somehow (and soon) find ways to stop the  'dancing' & replace these immoral clowns with genuine people who really do have the skills to re-build, to communicate, to have the skills to be voted 'Business Person of the Year'. People who walk the walk not talk the talk.  Although even some TALK would be nice right now JH & WC!!!!!


----------



## selciper (13 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

“Wellington Capital has a reputation for high standards of client service, innovation and devising successful commercial solutions to complex issues.”

The above is a sentence from the WC website mission statement. The rest can be read on the attached link. The same link contains a Who’s Who of the WC board/managemnt structure, including CVs (left sidebar).

http://www.newpif.com.au/overview.html


----------



## DepressedDad (13 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

IAC:

Incredibly All-Exaggerated CV


----------



## seamisty (13 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hi All, Just to let you know I lodged the following complaint with C Snow at WC this morning on behalf of myself and other Action Group members. I will post my response if and when received. Cheers, Seamisty
> 
> Hi Caroline,
> I would like to make a formal complaint regarding the late PIF  investor update which was due to be released at the end of Dec 2009 as promised by Wellington Capital.
> ...



 Hi all, I have received a response from WC re the above complaint. Initially I felt like the village idiot when I read it, but then realised this is just another WC stalling tactic!! I know for a fact that there has been other AG members and PIF investors who have contacted WC (including Breaker) regarding the IAC results from when they were first released and to date I have not heard of anyone having received a satisfactory reply. Please correct me if I am wrong. I will follow the time delaying proceedure and keep you informed of the progress (or lack of). I assume the long winded process of receiving a simple answer to a simple question is to deter investors from making complaints. Regards, Seamisty

13 January 2010
Ms XXXXXXXXXXXX
PIF Action Group

Dear Ms XXXXXXXXXX
YOTJR RECENT COMPLAINT
By email received on 1l January 201,0, you provided us with information which we are treating as a
complaint and which will be handled in accordance with our Internal Dispute Resolution Program. Apart
from the information you provided to us when making your Complaint, we invite you now to provide us with
any other information which you think would be useful or helpful in resolving your Complaint, If there is
any information of this kind, would you please send it to Caroline Snow, the designated Complaints Officer
in the next seven days. I will then review your written Complaint in detail or altematively, assign your
Complaint to one of our Complaints Ofhcers to review and investigate your Complaint in detail.
I anticipate that a decision on your Complaint will be conveyed to you by 5.00pm 23 February 2010.
So far as is practical, the investigation will involve enquiries being made within our Company and the
checking of circumstances you have mentioned against records we have or based on recollections of our staff
with whom you have had contact.
If you feel there is an issue relating to your privacy, which remains unresolved, or you wish the Privacy
Commissioner to further investigate your Complaint, you can contact the Office of the Privacy
Commissioner as detailed below:
Office of the Privacy Commissioner
GPO Box 5218
SYDNEY NSW 1042
Telephone: 1300 363 992 (local call anywhere in Australia)
Email: pivacy@privacy.gov.au
The Company is a member of an independent dispute resolution scheme, the Financial Ombudsman Service
('FOS'). If , at any time, you feel your Complaint remains unresolved or you wish FOS to further investigate
your Complaint, you can contact FOS as detailed below:
Financial Ombudsman Service
GPO Box 3
MELBOURNE VIC 3OO1
Telephone: (03) 9613 6399
Facsimile: (03) 9613 6399
Internet: http://www. fos.org.au
Email: info@fos.org.au
Wellington Capital L ¡m ¡ted
Level 22 307 Queen Street Brisbane Qld 4000 GPO Box 694 Brisbane eld 4001
T 07 3009 9800 F 07 3009 9893 E info@wellcap.com.au W www.wellcap.com.au
ACN 1 1 4 248 458 . AFSL 291 562
Corporate Finance


----------



## JohnH (13 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hi all, I have received a response from WC re the above complaint. Initially I felt like the village idiot when I read it, but then realised this is just another WC stalling tactic!! I know for a fact that there has been other AG members and PIF investors who have contacted WC (including Breaker) regarding the IAC results from when they were first released and to date I have not heard of anyone having received a satisfactory reply. Please correct me if I am wrong. I will follow the time delaying proceedure and keep you informed of the progress (or lack of). I assume the long winded process of receiving a simple answer to a simple question is to deter investors from making complaints. Regards, Seamisty
> 
> 13 January 2010
> Ms XXXXXXXXXXXX
> ...




Seamisty................... This from a (_so called_) professional organisation????  ......The good Lord help us all!!!!


----------



## mellifuous (13 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

"... I anticipate that a decision on your Complaint will be conveyed to you by 5.00pm 23 February 2010. ..."


ha ha ha ha 

just one of those things one gets to read that give one a really good belly laugh.

Yes, it's all such a complex matter and will take time to complete .. ha ha ha


----------



## simgrund (13 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Seamisty.(post 4900).................. This from a (_so called_) professional organisation????  ......The good Lord help us all!!!!




Far from fearlessly, I will stick my neck out in defence of Ms Snow.
Her job description sourced from WC site is as below

Caroline Snow - LL.B (Hon) Age 30
Systems Manager
Caroline is the Systems Manager for the Premium Income Fund. Caroline is responsible for the management of the internal processes of the Fund and for the *day-to-day management of investor communications.*
In her role with the Premium Income Fund, Caroline draws on her experience as an associate Director of Wellington Capital, where Caroline has been involved in a wide variety of funds management issues, including the following:

• commercial documentation in relation to mergers, acquisitions and investments;
• monitoring and evaluating* investor relations *activities;
• undertaking research and analysis concerning investment opportunities; and
• developing and maintaining relationships with analysts and institutions.


It appears since the start of "compliance plan", that ALL approaches to WC are now categorised as complaints. Redirection into "complaints" basket follows and PIF is waiting some weeks for proforma response.
Perhaps it is unfair to see Ms Snow snowed under our avalanches of complaints.
Perhaps we could self-regulate our contacts with WC by placing
either "ENQUIRY" or "COMPLAINT" as the subject of the correspondence.
Perhaps then such simple questions as election results for IAC would be treated as requested and not lobbed into "C" basket.
And Ms Snow could fully transfer her investment skills, currently under utilised due to fund stagnation, to those of "INFORMATION OFFICER".
It would be fair to expect a dramatic improvement in "investor relations"
What do you think, seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (13 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Marcom (post #4889). I know it's a bit late now but you were asking about the article in the AFR 8/01/10 entitled "Retiree group fumes over frozen assets" - attached is a scanned copy of the article which I got from the library this afternoon.


----------



## seamisty (14 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Far from fearlessly, I will stick my neck out in defence of Ms Snow.
> Her job description sourced from WC site is as below
> 
> Caroline Snow - LL.B (Hon) Age 30
> ...



My view simgrund is that WC is clutching at anything that will provide a delaying tactic to addrees PIF issues and I can tell you I have enquiries dating back nearly a year ago that still remain unanswered, ie the PIF loan which I not only sent to WC, I  also fowarded to Nick Nichols, business editor of the Gold Coast Bulletin::


 Monday, 27 April 2009 8:57:29 AM 
To:  Nick Nichols (nicholsn@gcb.newsltd.com.au) 

Hi Nick,
          In addition to my previous correspondence to you please note I asked WC via Caroline Snow, Jenny Hutson and the hotline staff in Mar on several occasions to answer the following:::In the Interim financial report released today (Mar 11), on page 14:::
The interest bearing loan is secured by a fixed and floating charge over all of the assets of the Fund. The interest rate is
25%pa. The loan is repayable by 31 March 2009 and early repayment is allowable should circumstances permit.:::::
On page 26 of the PIF annual report, 30 June 2008, it states the loan rate as 20% due to mature 30th Nov 2008. I asked when did the interest rate change from 20% to 25%?::

Despite re asking this I was never given an answer. In view of the fact that Ms Hutson touted her areas of expertise as specialising in corporate finance we were stunned to hear that 'this was the going rate' for this type of loan in this economic environment. All the more reason for our funds to be re lent to take advantage of the current environment if developers are willing to pay these exorbonent rates which would be the perfect opportunity to add value to our depleted fund rather than use our own capital to pay a possible one of distribution and her fees. Jh was overwhelmingly elected as RE by unitholders on the promise of rebuilding unit value and ongoing distributions, not for the purpose of liquidating of our assets to meet prior promises that cannot be met. These are serious issues that investors need to be fully informed of.
                                         Regards XXXXXXX

To this day, having re sent the initial enquiry to our complants officer, Caroline Snow on many occassions, the issue has never been addressed!!
It was only from further research we strongly suspect the finance was provided from Venerdi finance in the form of mezzanine debt, a company with previous links to WC.

The fact remains, Wellington Capital has not lived up to their promises.
I doubt it will be nominated for 'Fund Manager of the last two years'
seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (14 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> My view simgrund is that WC is clutching at anything that will provide a delaying tactic to addrees PIF issues and I can tell you I have enquiries dating back nearly a year ago that still remain unanswered,




Seamisty, you hit it on the head.   For a start, a manager will not tell you something that manager is not going to tell you.   Next, that manager might feel compelled under some pressure to tell you more than that manager might otherwise tell you.

Whether you put it as a complaint or a query, I'll bet the preceding observations apply.

Why put it as a complaint if it's going to take nearly two months to get a response?      The complaints process clearly delays progress, and there is no obliqation to give you the answer you want.  There are many reasons to give for a failure to provide information, and we've seen many of them given by manager from time to time.

The right thing to do is go straight to ASIC.  I getting a warm and fuzzy feeling that ASIC is doing things.  Sure it might not be doing things as we think they are.

It might be that ASIC phones a manager and says "G'day Fred (or whatever), sorry to bother you .. but we've received another one of those silly complaints .. could you [do this/do that].  We know you're doing your best, but just to keep the punters happy, could you [do this/do that] .. pretty please?"

I asked 35 questions of the manager, and the manager responded.  I was surprised to see this statement in the reply: "... Whilst I must be careful in providing any projections (ASIC would frown on such behaviour) ...".

Now, it might be nothing, but directors of b/t had made public statements about the price of a unit in the future (that is would be $0.80) and that the fund would be strong.  Such statements were unqualified and I made several compaints to ASIC about them.

I would like to think that ASIC did have a 'chat' (as the example I made up) to the manager and asked them to tone it down.    The words 'frown' seems to be used in a knowingly mocking way.

Anyway, if there are any investors in the FMF here, the question, answers, and my reply comments (still updating) can be found at: http://www.moneymagik.com/answers_reply.pdf

I think the best thing to do it be persistent with ASIC.  They are the regulators.  Create your complaint with a word processor and then use ecomplaints.

If you want a place to put the complaints (subject to my checking the contents), then I'm happy to allocate a page all members will be able to reference.

In that way, all your members can reference all the complaints and the progress (if any) of any complaint can be monitored.  

eg. at moneymagik.com/oct/complaints

Just a thought ... accept or reject .. up to you.

I believe that taking the fund's slow complaints channel does no more than allow what ever you complain about to continue unabated.   

Thanks.


----------



## seamisty (14 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quote mellifuous,
The right thing to do is go straight to ASIC.
Yes I agree mellifuous and I will inform ASIC of the issue. Talk about taxing investors intelligence!!! It appears WC are doing everything they can to hinder parting with PIF related information. When something as simple as providing the results of the IAC vote has to turn into a drawn out saga it only creates suspicion and distrust as to the real reasons the results have not been publicised. WC are obviously not concerned with PIF investor sentiment. :headshake Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (14 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I was contacted by another PIF investor this morning who suggested it would be a good idea if others making general complaints/enquiries to WC would also post them on the forum for us all to monitor the progress/responses or lack of as it appears this thread is becoming increasingly popular as the only apparent comprehensive source of PIF related news/information. Seamisty


----------



## selciper (14 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Could it be that WC now bitterly regret having agreed to the formation of the IAC? As if they hadn't enough problems on their plate before announcing the ballot!

After all, publishing the relevant numbers after any election is hardly a novel concept. So, why the extraordinary delay?

Great to see the ever-increasing number of hits being received by this forum.


----------



## mellifuous (14 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I was contacted by another PIF investor this morning who suggested it would be a good idea if others making general complaints/enquiries to WC would also post them on the forum for us all to monitor the progress/responses or lack of as it appears this thread is becoming increasingly popular as the only apparent comprehensive source of PIF related news/information. Seamisty




Please don't forget my offer to give you space on my website and then you'll have a link to look at them all in one place.

It works for us : http://www.moneymagik.com/complaints.php

[moneymagik was NOT a site created by me .. it is a site lent to me by a friend -  it's not an investment site - just a name he picked up some time ago]


----------



## seamisty (14 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It has been a concern of mine for quite some time that Jenny Hutson and Wellington Capital staff have used the following excuse to avoid providing certain general fund related information::
                                           'Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund takes its disclosure obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the National Stock Exchange Listing Rule'

There have been many instances where I considered investors could have been updated re http://www.newpif.com.au/ with certain non price sensitive PIF related news providing us with extra communication and transparancy as originally promised so I have asked someone at the NSX to clarify this issue on behalf of PIF Action Group members and received the following:::

 All price sensitive information needs to come to the Exchange first. However there is plenty of information that doesn’t fall into that category.



Taking an example that falls in neutral territory, the major banks all make various media releases all the time regarding what they are doing and what’s important to them and their marketing. But very little of that makes its way to the ASX announcements. Most just appears on the company’s website. Again the exchanges are only concerned with price sensitive information and other corporate information e.g. changes to key personnel etc.::::

You are correct selciper, it certainly appears the forum activity has increased. Investor apathy is being replaced with anger and frustration and rightfully justified in my opinion. Cheers to all who support us and participate on here no matter how seldom you post. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (14 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Please don't forget my offer to give you space on my website and then you'll have a link to look at them all in one place.
> 
> It works for us : http://www.moneymagik.com/complaints.php
> 
> [moneymagik was NOT a site created by me .. it is a site lent to me by a friend -  it's not an investment site - just a name he picked up some time ago]



mellifuous I don't have a problem with suggestion, I just don't have the time to do anything about it. Cheers, seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (14 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> mellifuous I don't have a problem with suggestion, I just don't have the time to do anything about it. Cheers, seamisty




This link is created  http://moneymagik.com/complaints_oct.php

If anyone wants to post a complaint,  they're  welcome to.   If no one wants to use it, I won't be offended.

Just mail a copy to allan161@msn.com requesting it to be put on the link and it'll be done (subject to checking).

The link is dedicated, with no mentioned links to or from the rest of the website.

Thanks.


----------



## Duped (14 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It's all good and well to get the good ship PIF in ship shape but what's WC's plan to do with it? What's the mission? What's the business plan for growth?

No plan and all this talk of battle reminds me of the Crimson Permantent Assurance from Monty Python's Meaning of Life. Enthusiastic after organising themselves, defeating  their oppressors and releasing their shackles they set off for more battles and promptly (assuming the round earth theory is correct) tragically sail off the edge of the world.  Is that where WC has us heading?

I've always been told that businesses never succeed if they don't have a plan. Not having ever had my own business: what would I know?  Why is PIF so special?

Or is WC running PIF like a Berkshire Hathaway.  Just trust the leader, the Oracle of Queensland.  I've heard of another business with that MO - Madoff Investments. Where does our Oracle sit between these extremes?


----------



## seamisty (14 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> This link is created  http://moneymagik.com/complaints_oct.php
> 
> If anyone wants to post a complaint,  they're  welcome to.   If no one wants to use it, I won't be offended.
> 
> ...



 I have emailed you my first official complaint (already posted on this forum) to be posted on the site, thanks, Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (14 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Could it be that WC now bitterly regret having agreed to the formation of the IAC? As if they hadn't enough problems on their plate before announcing the ballot!
> After all, publishing the relevant numbers after any election is hardly a novel concept. So, why the extraordinary delay?
> Great to see the ever-increasing number of hits being received by this forum.




Good day selciper,
Is it possible that such results could be listed outside WC records management as maybe required by, say, "Public disclosure" group that we may not be aware of?
For example, I was astonished to see on GOOGLE my Table Tennis competition results from way back. Alas, keyed in "IAC" and no joy.
Regards


----------



## mellifuous (14 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I have emailed you my first official complaint (already posted on this forum) to be posted on the site, thanks, Seamisty




It's posted ---http://www.moneymagik.com/complaints_oct.php

Thanks Seamisty.


----------



## Duped (14 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Cookie1 said:


> Marcom (post #4889). I know it's a bit late now but you were asking about the article in the AFR 8/01/10 entitled "Retiree group fumes over frozen assets" - attached is a scanned copy of the article which I got from the library this afternoon.




Excellent.  Thanks Cookie.

IMO: through their combined lack of action ASIC, APRA and the banks have just killed this type of Unlisted Fund.  I'm sure the banks are quite pleased at having eliminated another sector of competition.  I'll have to contain my repugnance at Wayne Swan the next time he gets on TV and winges and sooks about the behaviour of banks.  Swan/Rudd have a chance to do something about it right here, right now.

After this experience, why would anyone ever invest in such a fund again? (Unless of course it's swept under the carpet by the combined spin of ASIC and Financial Advisors again at some time in the future.)


----------



## DepressedDad (14 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I think it's a very generous offer & a really good idea Mellifuous! A long list of unanswered complaints collated together is more justification & reason (not to mention evidence) for the groundswell of discontent with the current very unsatisfactory situation. We need to be united in every possible way to get immediate action.  List away!!


----------



## selciper (14 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Good day selciper,
> Is it possible that such results could be listed outside WC records management as maybe required by, say, "Public disclosure" group that we may not be aware of?
> For example, I was astonished to see on GOOGLE my Table Tennis competition results from way back. Alas, keyed in "IAC" and no joy.
> Regards




Hi, Simgrund -
Somebody has to have those IAC ballot numbers. Who was auditing the ballot? Why isn't the scrutinier insisting that WC release the vital information? Every folder in WC seems to be labeled SECRET, CONFIDENTIAL, UMBRA, SENSITIVE, CLASSIFIED or FOR YOUR EYES ONLY. That policy had better change very soon.

Perhaps the matter should be drawn to the attention of a Qeensland local member by a Queensland PIF investor.


----------



## marcom (14 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Cookie 1 Thanks for following up on the AFR article. Duped, you are right about the banks killing off this type of investment. When we finally get some compensation via IMF we will all put the proceeds safely in the bank. Just like after the great depression the banks will be stronger and richer and more powerful than ever.

MARCOM


----------



## simgrund (14 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Hi, Simgrund -
> Somebody has to have those IAC ballot numbers. Who was auditing the ballot? Why isn't the scrutinier insisting that WC release the vital information? Every folder in WC seems to be labeled SECRET, CONFIDENTIAL, UMBRA, SENSITIVE, CLASSIFIED or FOR YOUR EYES ONLY. That policy had better change very soon.
> 
> Perhaps the matter should be drawn to the attention of a Qeensland local member by a Queensland PIF investor.




This could be the path to take. Queenslanders; please volunteer!!!
And who was the SCRUTINEER?. 
Is it too much to hope it was and is a person with impeccable neutrality and integrity?.


----------



## seamisty (15 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> This could be the path to take. Queenslanders; please volunteer!!!
> And who was the SCRUTINEER?.
> Is it too much to hope it was and is a person with impeccable neutrality and integrity?.



  Simgrund I am sure we would have at least  more than one PIF AG investor in Brisbane who could possibly make an appointment with WC to discuss the results of the IAG and ongoing PIF strategies. Hey, I actually made a special appointment (from WA) with WC to meet Jenny Hutson and make myself known and offer my support initially. I met with Jenny Hutson and Caroline Snow in 2008 and was assured the PIF was in good hands with their team of experts with a strategy in place to deliver on promises made by WC. ( why I was given personal business cards from both  remains a mystery because the contact details are not exactly  a foot in the door!!! ) OK, so now we are in a worse situation financially, investors are basically being ignored, unit value has diminished, legal cooperation with Class Action is questionable etc etc. We have not even had the courtesy from Wellington Capital and Jenny Hutson to deliver a 2009 Dec update as indicated. WC are obviously reluctant to provide any PIF relevant information or are deliberately avoiding the promised update I ask you all why? Seamisty


----------



## selciper (15 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

It's all history now, but this article from the Australian dated Oct. 08 is interesting to read.

---------------------------------

 Wellington Capital to revamp frozen fund

    * Fiona Cameron
    * From: The Australian
    * October 16, 2008 12:00AM


BOUTIQUE merchant bank Wellington Capital has won support yesterday for its plans to restructure the frozen $770 million Premium Income Fund.

The moves will allow PIF to begin trading on the National Stock Exchange, a secondary trading platform.

Unitholders cheered and clapped as Wellington managing director Jenny Hutson spelt out plans to rebuild the fund's fortunes and pay a 3c distribution before Christmas.

PIF's debt had been reduced from $200 million in January to $9.4 million now, Ms Hutson said, and it was on track to reach zero within a month.

"We were the first into this (financial) crisis, and we will be the first out of it," the former lawyer told the extraordinary general meeting of 410 unitholders at the Gold Coast Convention Centre.

PIF had offloaded assets earlier this year when business conditions were better than now, she said.

Wellington secured proxy votes from more than 90 per cent of unitholders in favour of the three resolutions it proposed yesterday, but there was also almost unanimous support in the show of hands at the meeting.

Unitholders agreed to change the fund's constitution, removing their rights to redeem units, which Ms Hutson said was a requirement for the fund to list on the NSX.

Yesterday investors voted in favour of allowing the redemption of 37.5 million units to allow some investors to exit the fund now.

Unitholders also approved a motion allowing Wellington Capital to take over from Wellington Investment Management as PIF's responsible entity. The resolutions would allow the listing on the NSX.

The meeting was adjourned last month after Justice Philip McMurdo agreed with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and ruled that information Wellington had sent to unitholders was misleading and deceptive.

In the only slightly hostile question from the floor yesterday, one unitholder asked about the $700,000 in fees Wellington would be owed if it were removed as fund manager.

Ms Hutson said Wellington had been up against six other firms in seeking to manage PIF and its appointment was "a commercial transaction done on arm's-length terms".

She said Wellington envisaged restoring 45c in the dollar to unitholders in three to five years.

Under a liquidation scenario, unitholders would have received 14c, she said.

PIF was formerly part of the MFS Group, but like other entities in the group, extracted itself from the head stock after MFS (now renamed Octaviar) hit a financial crisis in January.

PIF is now one of Octaviar's five largest creditors -- being owed about $197.5 million -- and has appeared repeatedly in the Supreme Court of Queensland alongside the other major creditors, who are collectively owed more than $1 billion by the former high-flying tourism and funds management giant.

Neither MFS (Octaviar) nor any executives associated with the company currently held any PIF units, Ms Hutson said yesterday.

The fund had a $55 million exposure on a loan to the troubled Raptis Group.

In the current "hugely challenging" environment, PIF had taken possession of a number of properties over which it held mortgages.

"We are speaking to everyone on every asset," Ms Hutson said.

PIF had a value of $770 million at its peak but the value has since declined to about $400 million.

After yesterday's meeting, Gold Coast retiree Ian Grey, 74, said he was "very impressed" with Ms Hutson and her plans.

Mr Grey had about $40,000 invested in PIF.

Sid Waugh, 80, who had $140,000 in the fund, said he felt "very reassured" and had great confidence in Ms Hutson.

PIF had more than 10,000 investors with a $72,000 average holding.

   ---------------------------


----------



## seamisty (15 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi All, I  called the Wellington Hotline to enquire about the late Dec PIF update and was informed we may receive it in a couple of weeks. When I commented that it was late and was there any reason for the delay I was informed "No". Seamisty


----------



## glendaw101 (15 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> It's all history now, but this article from the Australian dated Oct. 08 is interesting to read.
> 
> Ms Hutson said Wellington envisaged restoring 45c in the dollar to unitholders in three to five years.
> 
> Under a liquidation scenario, unitholders would have received 14c, she said.




The units are currently trading on the NSX @ 14c.

We are so much better off with Ms Hutson at the helm aren't we! (sarcasm intended)


----------



## seamisty (15 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



glendaw101 said:


> The units are currently trading on the NSX @ 14c.
> 
> We are so much better off with Ms Hutson at the helm aren't we! (sarcasm intended)



Make that 10 cents glendaw, a small parcel of 2,500 just went through at TEN CENTS!!!! Shame Shame Shame that  some investors are so desperate for money they have to sacrifice their investment for such a pittance!! It is a total disgrace. Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (15 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Make that 10 cents glendaw, a small parcel of 2,500 just went through at TEN CENTS!!!! Shame Shame Shame that  some investors are so desperate for money they have to sacrifice their investment for such a pittance!! It is a total disgrace. Seamisty




Keep your HOPES UP!
If these investors were on the IMF registry list, they will recoup some funds should Class Action succeed.


----------



## Duped (15 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



glendaw101 said:


> The units are currently trading on the NSX @ 14c.
> 
> We are so much better off with Ms Hutson at the helm aren't we! (sarcasm intended)




Absolutely glendaw101.  At 18 months since the Brisbane forum we're 1/2 of the way towards the 3 year mark.  At over 20 months since WC took over management of the RE (when WC got the options to buy the RE) we're a 1/3 of the way towards the 5 year mark.

And which way is the fund value still heading WC?  South isn't it? You're running out of time WC.  And I still haven't heard anything about this mythical business plan WC have for growing the fund.

First King, then ASIC and now possibly also WC.  All have failed me. It seems to me that overselling your capabilities is an essential trait for getting attention and hence getting ahead in the finance sector.  Promise more than you can deliver.  Like sprinters showboating. (Just imagine if you're surgeon or anaesthetist did the same. Or the mechnical engingeer or manufacturer of the brakes on your car or the wing of the next plane you fly in. And groups in the finance sector dare to lump themselves with such highly ethical businessmen and women by inappropriately branding themselves with label 'professionals'.)

Hope. That's what I had. Hope.  Hope that WC were more ethical.  (Rather than the far lower standard of being just legal.)

At best, WC failed to fathom the effect that MFS' mismanagement had on the realisable value of PIF.  Including failing to forsee and/or plan for the assertiveness of the likes of the PTQ and Bond Street.  And were we really ever in with a real chance of getting anything meaningful back from our unsecured loan in Sheraton Mirage. (When push comes to shove in business??? Thanks for that one Westpac.)


----------



## marcom (15 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Don't get angry...get litigious:

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601MA
Civil liability of responsible entity to members

             (1)  A member of a registered scheme who suffers loss or damage because of conduct of the scheme's responsible entity that contravenes a provision of this Chapter may recover the amount of the loss or damage by action against the responsible entity whether or not the responsible entity has been convicted of an offence, or has had a civil penalty order made against it, in respect of the contravention.

             (2)  An action under subsection (1) must be begun within 6 years after the cause of action arises.

             (3)  This section does not affect any liability that a person has under other provisions of this Act or under other laws.

I'm hoping that JH does not manage to worm out of the class action as this could be used to mount a S601MA claim. I bet she will be pushing the "substantial compliance" argument at the directions hearing on 18 February. If you look at the lengths WIM has gone to resist the discovery of documents in the Bond Street Custodians case, it is clear that there was never an intention to fully support the class action with access to WC files and financial records.


----------



## seamisty (15 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Don't get angry...get litigious:
> 
> CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601MA
> Civil liability of responsible entity to members
> ...



 I just hope JH is not as slow to pay her insurance premiums as she is to get investor updates out Marcom!!! Seamisty


----------



## Duped (15 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Don't get angry...get litigious:
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm hoping that JH does not manage to worm out of the class action as this could be used to mount a S601MA claim. I bet she will be pushing the "substantial compliance" argument at the directions hearing on 18 February. If you look at the lengths WIM has gone to resist the discovery of documents in the Bond Street Custodians case, it is clear that there was never an intention to fully support the class action with access to WC files and financial records.




Marcom. A law firm I called wouldn't take on my case against my advisor. Their comment - not worth their while for damages less than $200K. I'll have to pay as I go.

As for Bond Street Custodians, the more road blocks WC throw up the better for PIF isn't it?  (Provided cost and risk are evaluated and balance). If the the Bond Street At Call investors in PIF want to play hardball against us long term PIF investors (locked in for 6, 9, 12 and 24 months) then ... game on. Bond Street are harassing PIF.  Think WC has got it's hands full with us ASF investors, what about Bond Street and it's 16M units?

Bond Street lodged a redemption with Wholesale PIF on 21 January 2008.  Yep, that's THE day OCV trading on the ASX halted - forever on. A Monday.  The Monday after Michael King's Friday teleconference during which the OCV price crashed, ending the day 69% down

Oh and don't forget that by that time PIF had breached it's loan covenants hadn't it? I find myself asking: did Hutchings hold the redemption door open just long enough for his bosses over at Avenue??

According to Crikey, both of OCV's Directors Michael Hiscock and Paul Manka were directors of Avenue Capital Management

From 2008 financial report of Avenue Capital Management's Avenue Retirement Service (Avenue Superannuation Plan RSE R1069020) (http://www.avenue.com.au/files/mpmacm_annual_report_0708.pdf):
"One investment impacted significantly by market volatility was the Wholesale Premium Income Fund. At 30 June 2008, the last price received was for 1st February 2008 valuing these investments at $12,274,998. Subsequent to year end a 1st August 2008 price has been received valuing these investments at $5,475,564. The value of the investments as at 30 June 2008 has been written down accordingly in these financial statements. On 16 October 2008, in respect of various interests including some owned by the Fund (7.845 million units), Bond Street Custodians Limited, who is the custodian of the assets of the Fund, commenced a legal proceeding in the Federal Court in Sydney against Wellington Investment Management Limited, the responsible entity for the Wholesale Premium Income Fund. The proceedings are in relation to a claim for damages arising out of the alleged failure on the part of the responsible entity to fulfil a redemption request for 16.254 million units which was lodged with the Wholesale Premium Income Fund on 21 January 2008. This was shortly prior to the suspension of redemptions. It is not possible at this stage to reliably estimate the likely outcome of the court action."


----------



## selciper (16 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

When WC took charge of PIF in 2008, I rated them a 5 out of 10. The mawkish roadshow didn’t convince me, but it seemed that despite too many promises having been made, surely some good would come out of the new management group.

After the October 08 promised distribution was not realised, my rating sank immediately to 2 (where it has sat too generously since then). Promises continued to be broken.

Now I rate the RE’s performance at 0/10.


----------



## seamisty (17 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A bit of background info from the AFR July 2008::

Plan for PIF worth65$ in the dollar Mathew DunckleyWellington Capital's nation wide sales pitch to investors in the crippled Premium Income Fund is picking up momentum following another marathon meeting in Melbourne yesterday.The $775 million fund was formerly managed by MFS and has been in crisis since a run by panicked investors forced it to be frozen earlier this year.Wellington took over the fundfrom MFS in May and about 700 people packed into the Melbourne Convention Centre yesterday to hear the company's founder Jenny Hutson explain a plan that could take three to five years but boost returns to as much as 65$ in the dollar and perhaps more.If the fund was liquidated the return to unit holders would be just 14$ in the dollar, she said. More than 1000 investors areexpected to attend a meeting in Sydney today before the road show winds up on the Gold Coast on Thursday. Miss Hutson stressed her personal commitment to getting the best  return possible. "I have put every thing on the line to stand before you today, I have put my reputation on the line,' ' she ,said. Adam Thorn, a founding member of the PIF Action Group, said he was encouraged by Ms Hutson's comments at the meeting which stretched for more than four hours."Her job was to sell herself to us today, a bit like a car salesman, and I think she did a good job of that,"he said."I think the majority would go with her three to five year plan.' 'Mr Thorn said Ms Hutson had agreed to look into the possibility of providing more information on PIF's portfolio of 37 loans. Ms Hutson did provide details on one further loan to reinforce her point about a rushed liquidation. She said a residential subdivision site was recently valued at $ 11million but when it was taken to the market the highest offer came in at just $1.1 million. Mr Thorn said he was also pleased Ms Hutson had agreed to consider the option of allowing investors to sell their units to other unit holders as an alternative way of providing liquidity as opposed to Wellington's proposal to list the fund on the National Stock Exchange. Ms Hutson had earlier defended the plan to list on the NSX saying there were some investors who needed cash for reasons that were "significant and quite serious".Wellington's Jenny Hutson says her reputation is on the line. ;;

Too bloody right Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital Ltd, your reputation was on the line and the current status of said reputation is in tatters!! The longer PIF investors do not see a cent in return of their investment and a continuing decline in unit value and no sign of any PIF worthwhile strategy to take this fund foward, it will continue to deteriorate!! Not forgetting that because you have delivered nothing to date and  rather than stand up and admit you cannot deliver and appear to have over estimated your ability to fullfill the promises made to investors originally, you appear to be missing in action along with our Dec 2009  PIF update. I sincerely hope that we have not been misled from day one with the original WC aquisition of the management rights to the PIF, bcause it is becoming blatantly obvious that we were misled as to what we should have received in comparison to what we voted for. If you are stalling with our promised update in the hope of delivering some good news, it would want to be pretty damn sensational to restore investor confidence. Waiting, Waiting, Waiting and patience has been tested to the max. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (17 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/01/17/179445_gold-coast-business.html







 Michael King opens up about MFS
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  January 17th, 2010



Michael King opened up to goldcoast.com.au's business editor Nick Nichols about the collapse of his company, MFS. Pic: Michael Ross.



IT WAS a pleasant spring day in Sydney in November 2006 when MFS founder Michael King received a jolt more life-changing than the demise of his business empire.

Mr King was walking through the city bustle from his Bent Street office to a meeting, alone but for the relentless hum of the corporate machine in his head.

Then he collapsed in an unconscious heap on the street.

It was only thanks to the kindness of a stranger that he soon was in an ambulance and swept away to the nearby Prince Alfred Hospital, where he remained in the cardiac care unit for a week.

Mr King's diagnosis was a potentially life-threatening blood clot -- a legacy of a life consumed by the unnatural pressure of billion-dollar deals.

Details of the incident were never made public, and for good reason.

Mr King, the driving force behind the then $4 billion financial services company MFS, was acutely aware that news of the health scare could have a devastating effect on his company's share price, which at the time was sitting comfortably above $4.


A year later, he would be helpless against the powerful forces that would lay siege to all that he had built.

Late in 2007, short sellers were on the scent of unbridled riches, picking the eyes out of a share market that was full of debt-laden balance sheets and drowning in a rising tide of fear.

The sub-prime crisis in the US was getting serious, sucking trillions of dollars out of the financial system worldwide.

Related Coverage
Michael King sheds more than money 

The first domestic giant to feel the sting of the market's short sellers was Centro Properties in December 2007.

A month later, the short selling barbarians were at MFS's gates and the Gold Coast company had little more than a couple of hours' warning of their arrival.

On the morning of January 10, 2008, Mr King received a gut-churning call from an institutional broker who warned him that hedge funds were looking to 'short' his company to 'zero'.

While he declined to disclose the identity of the broker, Mr King said he took the threat seriously.

The alarm bells were triggered in earnest that morning when the trading volume of MFS shares exploded by more than five times the previous day to 11.6 million, pushing the share price below $4.

A second assault came the following day, January 11, with more than 15 million shares changing hands and the shares dropping to as low as $3.21.

"It was a problem, and it became a bigger problem as the days went on and as the implications of it grew wider," recalled Mr King in an exclusive interview with The Weekend Bulletin.

The falling share price that Friday -- January 11, 2008 -- triggered a margin call on then MFS director Michael Hiscock's shareholding, wiping out his personal stake in the company.

Apart from margin calls also hanging over Mr King and his business partner Phil Adams, the falling share price was also putting pressure on the group's tenuous debt position.

All options were placed on the table, with wealth manager UBS recommending MFS raise $550 million through a rights issue.

The funds would help repay $150 million in debt owed to Fortress Capital at the end of March 2008 as well as providing working capital to help the planned spin-off of tourism and travel group Stella into a separate company.

In hindsight, the advice was flawed -- largely due to its unfortunate timing.

In early 2008, any company that went cap in hand to investors seeking a cash injection was thought to be on the ropes, perhaps even suicidal.

Of course, Mr King didn't help matters when, two months earlier, he told the market MFS had no need to raise fresh capital.

It was little wonder then that short sellers were on a 'bet the house' winner that would eventually claim billions of dollars in investor funds as the company crashed and burned in less than an hour on the morning of January 18.

The fact that UBS was willing to support MFS by underwriting the new share issue was swept aside that Friday morning during a disastrous conference call to brokers and investors.

Mr King, who is a measured orator and is still regarded in the industry as one of Australia's foremost authorities on funds management law, uncharacteristically lost control of his audience that day, and possibly with good reason.

Mr King fronted brokers and analysts at the teleconference after he and his team spent three sleepless days putting together details of the $550 million issue with UBS.

"We basically worked 24-7 on that proposal," he said.

Mr King took the microphone on January 18 with his mind not as sharp as usual.

During a gruelling session of questioning, many peppered at him by Lehman Brothers analysts, the MFS share price went into a death spiral, falling from $3.18 to a close of 99c.

The short sellers made a killing.

If the Friday conference was tough, Mr King's weekend was not much better.

With his fortune gone and his company on the brink, Mr King began negotiating with six different parties who had lined up with their own brand of opportunism to secure MFS assets.

Among them was Macquarie Bank, which wanted to buy MFS's tourism company Stella Group, and Challenger Investments, which wanted to inject capital into MFS.

The ill-fated City Pacific also was in the mix, after a previously unsuccessful attempt at a merger with MFS.

The capital-raising proposal ultimately sounded the death knell for MFS, which, under its present guise as Octaviar, is in the throes of liquidation.

But advice from Macquarie Bank six months earlier was equally critical to its fate, showing that no one was anticipating the catastrophic events of 2008.

Macquarie compiled a 500-page report for MFS in which it recommended it should not sell Stella, a business which cost $2.2 billion to assemble.

It was advice MFS did not ignore.

In November 2007, it rejected a $1.7 billion offer from CVC Asia Pacific for Stella, only to be forced into a fire sale to the same raider in February 2008.

Mr King does not resile from his own errors of judgment.

One of them was his decision to quit as MFS chief executive during the weekend following the conference call.

GAfter emailing staff Saturday morning on January 19 that he would stay the distance, Mr King said he ultimately decided at 11.30pm the following Sunday night that the best course would be to relinquish his position.

It was doubtful that outcomes would have been much different had he remained in the chair.

But MFS and Michael King were inextricably linked.

Mr King built the company deal by deal, and there was no denying his departure put both internal management and institutional investors into a bigger panic than they had been the previous week.

He said the loss of confidence in the company was too much to overcome at a time when the world was on the brink of economic chaos.

"The people that owe you money don't want to pay you, and the people you owe money to want to be paid yesterday," he said.

"The deals you've got on the go that will grow your future profits disintegrate, and overnight you go from everything being sweet to it all being over.

"Whether anything changed between the Thursday and Friday didn't matter.

"It was a complete play into short sellers hands."

Mr King ultimately blames himself for not being better prepared for the rout.

"My job was to see all risk and manage all risk, even if that risk was fair or unfair."

"Not only did (short sellers) charge at a company, but even the fact that they might charge at a company was enough to scare everybody out of that company.

"Everyone in the game knew what was going on and if you thought they were going to target a company you had invested in, there was no point in hanging around."

Market analyst Charlie Green, formerly a long-time supporter of MFS, is probably the man who crystallised the collapse of MFS.

He's the one who called it 'all over' during the teleconference.

"I don't think you'll make Valentine's Day, Michael," Mr Green told Mr King at the time, and he was right.

He stunned market observers when he opened fire on Mr King that morning.

Normally it would have been the kind of conversation held behind closed doors.

Mr Green this week played down his role in the demise of MFS.

"I don't think it had anything to do with the conference call, but everything to do with MFS overpaying for assets," he said.

But there was no denying his effect on the share price on the day.

It also was the beginning of years of pain for the thousands of investors who were either shareholders in Octaviar or unitholders in any of its funds.

Although creditors are still squabbling over the $130 million in cash the company still holds, the good news is that all of Octaviar's businesses - Stella (now known as Mantra Group), GEO Property Group, Living and Leisure Australia and HFA Holdings - have made a new start.

Certainly, investors in these companies have a long way to go before they claw back their losses, as do unitholders in the Premium Income Fund.

Octaviar shareholders can only count on a tax write-off.

The pain of the past remains raw for some, while others have moved on.

Some may still blame Mr King for the devastating collapse, but others have taken it in their stride.

The body count across the Australian Stock Exchange in 2008 - including the likes of Allco Finance and ABC Learning Centres - made it clear we were all in exceptional times.


----------



## seamisty (17 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/01/16/179455_news.html




 Michael King sheds more than money
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  January 16th, 2010



The former high-flying executive has also shed the kilos.

Those who knew the old Michael King will notice a strikingly thinner man, yet one who still carries the weight of insurmountable debt on his shoulders.

Mr King has dropped 20kg thanks to a lifestyle that is far removed from the frenetic pace set during his tenure at MFS.

Despite his fall from grace, Mr King's extensive knowledge of funds management law and mergers and acquisitions has kept his skills in demand from lofty corporate quarters.


The consummate dealmaker probably struck the best agreement of his professional career with his creditors, including margin lenders.

His debt is about $127 million, held against dwindled assets of less than $20 million, and without the agreement he would have likely been bankrupted.

Under a personal insolvency agreement, the creditors to his private companies are selling his polo property Elysian Fields.

As part of the agreement, Mr King continues to pay back those creditors in instalments through a personal income consulting to a handful of clients, some of them international.

Most days he travels into Surfers Paradise to a modest rented office, from where he sends off emails and makes calls.


Apart from his debt commitments and a class-action claim, Mr King has to contend with ASIC, which is taking civil action against him and a raft of MFS's former directors.

The case centres on the transfer of $147 million from the Premium Income Fund to various other MFS entities at the end of 2007.

Mr King has denied any wrongdoing and to this day stands behind former MFS staff members and directors, whom he described as loyal and hardworking.

He told goldcoast.com.au that he was not the sort of person to hide away from responsibility.

"You can't run away from what was a big corporate failure," he said.

"A lot of issues have to be worked through and, like everything in life, you just have to take one step at a time and deal with it."

Mr King said he had no intention of moving away from Canungra -- where he still enjoys local support -- once Elysian Fields is sold.

Support also comes from the top end of town and in recent times he has been spotted 'deep in discussion' with business icon James Packer on his Hunter Valley property Ellerston.

Despite the fallout from the collapse of MFS, these days Mr King is an infinitely more relaxed man.

"The stress I've been subjected to in the past two years, to my way of thinking, would be 20 per cent of the stress I was subjected to when I was working with MFS, and that takes into account the media bashing me," he said.

"It (the pressure) doesn't even rate on the scale of the day-to-day running of (MFS)."


----------



## marcom (17 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I hope ASIC reads the article - several admissions of non-disclosure that will help nail him.

And in relation to stealing from PIF -" Mr King has denied any wrongdoing and to this day stands behind former MFS staff members and directors, whom he described as loyal and hardworking." A different story to what he said at the first directions hearing where he wanted to know the full case ASIC has against him and he would consider not defending the case. Even the ASIC lawyers had to caution him over his legal rights!


----------



## seamisty (18 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

'The pain of the past remains raw for some, while others have moved on.

Some may still blame Mr King for the devastating collapse, but others have taken it in their stride.':::

PIF investors should not be expected to take this in their stride, we should never have been placed in such a compromising position if the guidelines of the PIF had been adhered to and yes, the pain will remain raw until such times as the individuals who gambled with our money and lost are exposed and held accountable!! PIF holders have  far too much at stake to let those responsible for our current situation to wallow in self pity and buck pass!! At least Mr King has not bunkered down and is in hiding or on a annual leave like our own RE, JENNY HUTSON of WELLINGTON CAPITAL who to date has not delivered our Dec 2009 PIF update!!
 That does not mean you are off the hook Mr KING, , no, no , no!! Same as Ms Hutson, investors in the PIF will not give up until we ensure we have left no stone unturned and exhausted every avenue to expose those responsible for our current situation, especially since we appear to be billed for substantiall legal representation which to date has delivered nothing!!! Nothing!!!We can only hope PIF investors have been represented adequately with their best interests the main priority, if not then rest assured, the wheelchairs are oiled, hearing aids are finely tuned, walking sticks have been honed, and age, time and experience are of an advantage and complacency was left behind in 2008!!! We can't afford to move on!! Seamisty


----------



## selciper (18 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The lateness in publishing the December 09 update speaks as a symbol of WC attitudes. To them, remoteness is a virtue, especially when the pressure is on. Don't good “generals” lead from the front?
The update might be delayed because:

1. There’s nobody around to sign important documents.

2. As Seamisty suggested, they are holding the information back in the hope of being able to publish a rare bit of good news. Conversely, they await more bad news.

3. The board can’t agree on the wording of the update.

4. The update has no priority on the board’s agenda. 

Whatever the reason, we are owed an apology and explanation.


----------



## mellifuous (18 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Don't good “generals” lead from the front?




Generals lead from the front.

Phoney corporate 'generals' lead from within a corporate shell with personal assets safely locked away in trusts or spouses' names.


Looking at your case, I would say you are being 'duped' (no pun intended).  

I'd guess you're all just being played along - I think W.C. is playing for time.

I'm guessing there's bad news out there, and W.C. doesn't know how to tell you.

Bad news about tax --- you know, the sort of thing that a lot of you don't want to think about.

IMO.


----------



## seamisty (18 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Generals lead from the front.
> 
> Phoney corporate 'generals' lead from within a corporate shell with personal assets safely locked away in trusts or spouses' names.
> 
> ...



 mellifuous we will deal with tax implications when we know what they are. As has been stated on here previously, different investors will be affected differently and until such times as we actually receive any money from WC this problem can't be adressed. It is also quite obvious JH has delayed our Dec update for a reason and I doubt anyone will be expecting good news on past performance. Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (18 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> mellifuous we will deal with tax implications when we know what they are. As has been stated on here previously, different investors will be affected differently and until such times as we actually receive any money from WC this problem can't be adressed. It is also quite obvious JH has delayed our Dec update for a reason and I doubt anyone will be expecting good news on past performance. Seamisty




Seamisty, I didn't make any reference to 'performance'.  Yes, different investors will be treated differently, but I would think it must be hard to tell an investor that he/she has to declare part of what is left of one's own investment as assessable income. You must remember the letter posted here, the one from W.C. about  how the payment of money was subject to advice - if that is what is holding up payment, then it must be an important issue.

I know of one unit holder in your fund who has written to W.C. to clarify the tax position, and that letter remains unanswered for nearly a month.

If it was a simple matter, the letter could have been answered in a few days.

Investor confidence is important  - already there is a lot of discontentment, what would it take to "break the camel's back" ? (so to speak).  Investors will only tolerate being mushroomed for a finite period of time.

We all have opinions, that is mine.


----------



## lawry1dog (18 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We have been unit holders of PIF since January 2007, in which we deposited all our life savings.
When we put in our redemption on the 20 January 2008, the PIF was frozen a few days later.

Of course since then we have not received any money at all from the PIF. 
We did vote for Wellington to take over the fund, but not to go on the NSX.

The facts are the following:-
1.  Wellington promised(or indicated) that we will get a 3c distribution by December 2008.
2.  Wellington would then pay quarterly distributions.
3.  Wellington proceeded with legal actions, to get owing funds from MFS(Octaviar) windup.
4.  Public Trustee Queensland won their case, and Octaviar is to be liquidated.
5.  Wellington did payoff the $100 million debt facility. With what did they pay this with?
6.  Wellington now have the strategy of selling 11 properties and consolidating the other properties.
7.  The unit value has gone from 45c down to around 10c, at this point in time.

The following is my conclusions:-
1.  Wellington thought that Octaviar would not be completely liquidated, and thus receive around $22 million
     from the Deeds of Agreement(which was squashed by the PTQ). This $22 million was going to pay the
     3c distribution.
2.  Wellington employed several legal firms on behalf of the PIF, but the PTQ(the government) won their
     case, and so our PIF will receive an equal slice of the liquidated Octaviar, which will be a few million dollars,
     but when. Our PIF has paid for all these legal actions.
3.  Wellington is now back to square one, and our fund has no money to pay any 3c distribution or any other
     payments. 
4.  Wellington is paying staff, CEO and administration, from the PIF fund.

From the above facts and conclusions, Wellington Capital, should resign and voluntary hand the PIF to someone
else(Perpetual or a Bank), to manage.
To my way of thinking, Wellington has mis-mangaged our funds, and paid themselves along the way. Nothing given to us.

If Wellington had sent a letter or memo, explaining the situation, and how sorry that things have not panned out
as expected, and giving us some sort of distribution(eg 1cent distribution), then I would be happy and not embark
sending opinions on their questionable performance.

We all make mistakes.


----------



## Duped (18 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/01/17/179445_gold-coast-business.html
> 
> Michael King opens up about MFS
> Nick Nichols, business editor   |  January 17th, 2010
> ...




Thanks Seamisty.

IMLO What a load of selfish conceited spin. Or perhaps worse, crafted spin to garner sympathy for King's troubles ahead.  I'm saddened that Nick Nichols fell for it.  Are we living in the 21st century or in the pre-enlightenment millenium when the lives of a footsoldier were inconsequential to the fortunes and day to day minutae of the generals.

"Mr King's diagnosis was a potentially life-threatening blood clot -- a legacy of a life consumed by the unnatural pressure of billion-dollar deals."  Rubbish. My 40yo mate had the same thing happen last year. Blood clot in his lungs. He's a chef running a busy kitchen. Two kids.  Diagnosis was - genetic disposition.  King should have been looking after his health for his dependents (shareholders and investors) or at the least had processes and sccession planning in place to manage the risk. Was it caused by hours worked or too much indulgence King? If King doesn't have a genetic disposition then this incident could provide another example of reckless risk taking by King.  

"Details of the incident were never made public, and for good reason."  What about continuous disclosure???

"Late in 2007, short sellers were on the scent of unbridled riches, picking the eyes out of a share market that was full of debt-laden balance sheets and drowning in a rising tide of fear. ... A month later, the short selling barbarians were at MFS's gates and the Gold Coast company had little more than a
couple of hours' warning of their arrival."  That was your fault King.  You promised us a safe investment and then built a risky business model. Short sellers will continue to be supported by economists and Government because they cause price discovery.  Corporates like King don't like shorters because then corporates can't get away with overselling themselves.  King, you painted a giant target on MFS and then stepped aside for us to take the bullet.  They were always going to come for MFS weren't they?  You then heaped risk apon risk when you and your similarly, let's say ambitious, fellow board memebers took out margin loans exposing the MFS empire to a sudden flood of shares on the market when you were forced to sell. 

"In hindsight, the advice was flawed -- largely due to its unfortunate timing."  Or perhaps you didn't tell UBS the full story did you now Mr King.  That Fortress had you on the ropes and was pushing hard. What did that email from Fortress say? Something along the lines of: we don't know where they got the $100m from. Perhaps Fortress were all over you and were behind the shorting attack. 

"The fact that UBS was willing to support MFS by underwriting the new share issue was swept aside that Friday morning during a disastrous conference call to brokers and investors." Now now Nichols. How can you paint this as support for King. You seem to have forgotten that UBS was already on the hook for $100s of millions. $900m of debt that went with Stella to CVC Asia Pacific wasn't it. 

"Mr King, who is a measured orator and is still regarded in the industry as one of Australia's foremost authorities on funds management law," Did he tell you that himself did he Nichols.  Perhaps PIF investors might agree he's an authority for managers, but certainly not investors.  Conclusion, if King had anything to do with setting up a fund, don't invest because its expertly crafted to protect the manager to the detriment of the investor.  Maybe that's why WC were keen to give it a go.

""The people that owe you money don't want to pay you, and the people you owe money to want to be paid yesterday," he said." WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Were you running a finance company or a pub.  That's the sort of spin you hear from your local builder. Managing this issue is exactly what makes a finance company a finance company isn't it?  I'm very sure it is.  OMG!!!!!  Who put this guy behind the wheel?  Where was the Chairman!!!!!  Perhaps MFS success had a lot more to do with the quality of the guidence from the previous Chairman.  Peacock's predecessor. Perhaps King's first mistake was as early as May 07 when he let Fortress tie a noose around MFS's neck.

"Mr Green this week played down his role in the demise of MFS.
"I don't think it had anything to do with the conference call, but everything to do with MFS overpaying for assets," he said."  Could that guy have put it an clearer and more succinct for you Nichols.  But no.  You went on to conclude: "The body count across the Australian Stock Exchange in 2008 - including the likes of Allco Finance and ABC Learning Centres - made it clear we were all in exceptional times."  Yeah, the exceptional times that allowed the debt laden business model to flourish in the first place.  No relief for King in Nichols last statement, King precipitated it and heaped it on us.

Perhaps the press is falling for King's 'charm' like his Canungra locals have.  Who charms the piper, chooses the tune.


----------



## simgrund (18 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Thanks Seamisty.
> 
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I'm saddened that Nick Nichols fell for it........



Exactly. Not sparing his time on this diatribe, but stingying to respond to my letter asking for a shred of sympathy from the Press for shareholders; the only wronged party.
Keep hammering.


----------



## seamisty (18 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Something is not right here!!! Anything to do with http://www.elysianfields.com.au/ is not loading on my computer, it is like all prior website links/communication to Elysium fields has been removed. Add to this the adjoining property to Elysium Fields has been sold to an undisclosed buyer, M king has come out of hibernation, seeking sympathy and excusing/justifying our current predicament by blaming everyone but himself !! I smell something really bad here. Jenny Hutson our intrepid saviour is appearing as sour and as usefull  as the unwanted grapes that have been ploughed in at Clovelly Wine estate to put cows to pasture and is  still missing in action!! What is going on? Mushroom season is over, we are watching every move remotely associated with our fund. Seamisty


----------



## charles36 (19 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty, if you were Mr. King and made a press release you would remove your website and email address forthwith.  All the sympathy calls would be too much for him to handle.  Perhaps you might feel it in your heart to take up a collection for the poor and distressed Mr. King.  Perhaps JH might  be able to help him out, she knows how to organise.  What further bad  news awaits us?


----------



## seamisty (19 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Business Gold Coast

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/01/19/179825_gold-coast-business.html





 Anger at Wellington over PIF
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  January 19th, 2010

WELLINGTON Capital has denied it is running behind schedule with its latest update to investors of the Premium Income Fund.

A spokesperson for the Brisbane-based funds manager said the latest report was due at the end of January, in line with the target of updating investors every four months.

The release of the report was 'imminent', said the spokesperson.

A PIF investor who contacted The Gold Coast Bulletin said that unitholders were 'becoming increasingly frustrated' with Wellington Capital and its chairwoman Jenny Hutson.

"Lack of information and transparency as well as lack of performance is creating intense anger, frustration and in some cases, ill health," said the unitholder who declined to be named.

Investors are still waiting on the first of a promised partial capital repayment from the fund, which has been frozen for the past two years since the collapse of Gold Coast funds manager Octaviar, formerly known as MFS.

The first of a series of quarterly capital repayment was expected in December 2008, as proposed by Ms Hutson before she took control of the fund three months earlier.

The $1 units in the fund now have a net asset backing of 44c.

They last traded on the National Stock Exchange at 10c.


----------



## seamisty (19 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

More BS from Wellington Capital!!!! It clearly states at the end of page three on the August 2009 PIF investor update " The next investor update id due to be released at the end of Dec"!!!http://www.newpif.com.au/investor_updates/InvestorUpdate_310809.pdf
The August update was posted on the NSX 1st Sept 2009. Today is the 19th January 2010. The four monthly update is now looking more like a five monthly update. How does that equate to updating investors every four months as stated?????? And WC have the hide to deny they are running behind schedule??? That statement is irresponsible and totally untrue. Anger and frustration is a putting it politely. Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (19 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Business Gold Coast
> 
> http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/01/19/179825_gold-coast-business.html
> 
> ...




Seamisty,  As we all know, the last update 31st of August was released on the 1st of September, so if it is the end of this month that's 5 months!!!! - I thought people who managed funds were supposed to be good at figures!!!
..............but the thing that really pi**es me off is the shear arrogance of the Company!!!  I just cannot believe the cavalier attitude from somebody *WHO IS EMPLOYED BY US*  :disgust:  ...John H


----------



## Duped (19 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Business Gold Coast
> 
> http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/01/19/179825_gold-coast-business.html
> 
> ...




Press is wrong again. Net asset backing is 39.2c.

At least Nick Nichols got the last trade price correct.  Not like Anothony Klan over at the Australian.


----------



## marcom (19 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Application to the Brisbane Supreme Court today:

OPI PACIFIC FINANCE LIMITED -V- REEF COVE RESORT LIMITED & others 10:00 AM 

Also in today's District Court Criminal Sittings:

*KING*       to be heard by Chief Judge    Court 7 Floor 1 	9:30 AM 
(Mention - Appearance and Legal Representatives Required) *One day our boy will get a listing just like this LOL.*


----------



## selciper (19 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good to see that Mike Nichols is starting to follow the scent. No doubt Melbourne and Sydney finance journalists will become interested again in our fate. The OCV liquidators' public hearings in April might be a trigger for more coverage.

As for the Wellington spokesperson, I can hardly take anymore obfuscation from this group.


----------



## Duped (19 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Occasionally I doubted my view on all things financial.  Well that won't happen so much any more.  Not after after reading:

"The Crisis and the Australian Financial Sector" Evan Jones

http://www.jape.org/component/option,com_remository/Itemid,26/func,showdown/id,129/

The one paragraph that refers to us is on page 9.

A selection of my favourite bits;
Page 12 :

"A hardline view of economic crisis is that it desirably ‘cleans out’ the system, with the inefficient falling by the wayside. Rather, crises generally eradicate the less powerful rather than the less efficient."

Page 19:
"Everything about the Storm model oozes fraudulence. The ASIC submission to the Parliamentary Storm inquiry simultaneously denies regulatory failure, insists that ASIC has been vigilant, yet claims that it has been dramatically restricted by an inadequate legislative brief."

Page 23:
"The new dominance of the big four banks as allfinanz conglomerates has been legitimised in the political and regulatory arenas. The banks’ leverage to extract booty from their customers has been enhanced. The dimensions of their operations that embody recklessness, incompetence and unconscionability will go unchecked. At the other end of the spectrum, the bottom feeders will continue to spawn and wreak havoc on the gullible. Every reform proposal has been opposed by the vested interests, with proposals delayed, compromised or abandoned."


----------



## marcom (21 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Latest trade on PIF on NSX:

21-Jan-2010 12:04:58 PM    0.090    32,743

Now there's a vote of no confidence in WC!!!!!! Makes the claim of 14c on liquidation look like a positive outcome!!!!


----------



## glendaw101 (21 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Latest trade on PIF on NSX:
> 
> 21-Jan-2010 12:04:58 PM    0.090    32,743
> 
> Now there's a vote of no confidence in WC!!!!!! Makes the claim of 14c on liquidation look like a positive outcome!!!!




Make that 185,390 units traded(originally dollars!) traded today ranging from 11c down to 9c.
Somebody knows more than us what is probably more bad news in the *LATE*st report.


----------



## Duped (21 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From Illawarra Mercury. 9 January 2010

"Special Sales of 2009

...

6. Fire sale in paradise

A fire sale of apartments within the stalled Ocean View City Beach project in Harbour St in October sparked a buyer frenzy.

In just four days more than $28 million worth of property was snapped up with 47 of the 67 discounted apartments selling, including the building's five penthouse apartments which were priced from $981,000.

The top price achieved was $1.05 million. A week later all but a handful of apartments had been sold.

The units are being sold by a number of agents as "a 14-day pre-completion clearance" on the basis of a "buy now and settle in March 2010" when the project is expected to be completed.

A number of agents were appointed to sell the units including Simon Kersten of Colliers International and Michael Sullivan from CB Richard Ellis.

Mr Kersten described the response as "staggering" but said the units were sold at well below market value.

Mr Sullivan said two-bedroom units that had previously sold off the plan for above $700,000 before developer Jempac's collapse were sold in the low $500,000s.

In November the project changed hands with Premium Income Fund, the financial backers of the project, to receive $38 million from the new owner Harbour Street Developments.

Harbour Street Developments is controlled by Queensland developer George Callianiotis, with the backing of Rockhampton retailer Solly Stanton. ..."


----------



## selciper (21 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The share price is warning us of another potentially miserable year with WC. Having read the GGB article on 19 January, I expected to find the overdue December update appearing by today. After all, the WC spokesperson reportedly said that the update’s release was “imminent.” In case WC don’t know ii, the dictionary definition of “imminent” is: “close in time; about to occur.” Calendars and dictionaries seem to mean nothing in this case.


----------



## seamisty (21 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

What totally frustrates me with WC, apart from WC not honouring their promises and delivering on Jenny Hutsons commitment to investors among other issues, is what explanation we can expect on the PIF asset Wollongong Hotel deal? In our PIF 11 Dec 2008 update it clearly states that this particular property was in default, or due to mature 19/03/2007 owing us the investors, $57,9932,841 (yes, thats pretty close to $58 million) PLUS INTEREST and yet our RE in their wisdom accepted a $38 million price tag nearly three years later, if and when received on one of our major assets that could have been value addded to get some of that GROWTH POTENTIAL mentioned in the strategic plan to take the PIF foward and rebuild our unit price while making quarterly distributions along  the way. (and quote' and Ms Hutson has vowed she will return full value to unit-holders over the next three to five years.')

Meanwhile, PIF investors have not been updated on the two Jim Raptis loans,

quote Jenny Hutson    'I think we're well secured and I think Jim (Raptis) is a great man," said MS Hutson at yesterdays PIF meeting at Broadbeach. "I am a huge Raptis supporter.  'We're going to work with Jim on the three projects we are financing. '

Are you still working with your good mate Jim, Jenny? I am sure the owners of the Premium Income Fund, yes thats us, the unit holders, who are not as  tolerant these days and are still waiting to be advised of our losses incurred from those loans as well.

What happened to our 'imminent' PIF Dec 2009 quarterly investor upadate?
Why are PIF investors having to wait nearly 5 months to be informed of the current PIF situation??

I am sure not one single person who overwhelmingly offered you support initially  and voted for you can honestly say they are happy with your performance. Is it any wonder investor sentiment is turning against you? (oops, sorry, just venting, I forgot WC and JH do not monitor this thread anymore!!) Seamisty


----------



## Duped (22 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Doesn't LLA still owe us $10M?

"Melbourne Aquarium owner expects strong growth
PHILIP HOPKINS
December 2, 2009

LIVING and Leisure Australia (LLA), the owner of the Melbourne Aquarium, has dramatically cut losses and debt, and expects strong cash flow and growth driven by its key tourism assets.

Chief executive John Schryver told the annual meeting in Melbourne that the group's net loss in 2008-09 was $15.4 million, compared with a loss of $74.8 million the year before. Total revenue was $123.5 million, a rise of 8.8 per cent. ''All business units are profitable and generating cash,'' he said.

LLA, previously an offshoot of failed property trust Octaviar, the former MFS Ltd, is now controlled by its rescuer, Arctic LES, owned by James Packer's Consolidated Press Holdings, after a $100 million recapitalisation underwritten by Arctic.

LLA's key Australian assets are the Melbourne Aquarium, skiing operations at Falls Creek and Mount Hotham, and the Otways and Illawarra treetop walks.

Chairwoman Julanne Shearer said the recapitalisation reduced LLA's debt, allowing the group to consolidate its business and operations.

''We refinanced more than $200 million of current debt and entered a new senior secured-term and working capital facilities arrangement with ANZ Banking Group,'' she said. ''We also restructured unsecured debt with long-term mezzanine facilities to reduce our gearing from 50 per cent to 30 per cent.''

Mr Schryver said that LLA expected continued growth this financial year. The focus remained on marketing and branding, the organic growth of each business, low-risk and high-return improvement of existing assets, and the continued *strengthening of LLA's cash position to pay down debt.*"


----------



## Duped (22 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> ...owing us the investors, $57,9932,841 (yes, thats pretty close to $58 million) PLUS INTEREST and yet our RE in their wisdom accepted a $38 million price tag nearly three years later,...




Seamisty.  I'm hoping we'll also get some of the proceeds of the discounted sale of nearly 67 of the Wollongong apartments.  I say hope, because hope is all I seem to have.  (I certainly don't have a buiness plan for growth from WC.)

Settlement of those apartment sales is reported as due in March. Perhaps that's when WC can announce the 'distribution' and hence when we'll get our update.


----------



## selciper (22 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

On Tuesday 19th January, WC had told the GCB that the December 09 Update release was imminent. Well, today is 22nd January and there’s still no update! (With a holiday next week, we shouldn’t hold our breaths.)

The number of hits to this forum is increasing daily. Some new readers/ contributors may not have viewed Ms Hutson’s March 09 YouTube video. Here’s the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H60lzsGvAWQ


----------



## seamisty (22 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Seamisty.  I'm hoping we'll also get some of the proceeds of the discounted sale of nearly 67 of the Wollongong apartments.  I say hope, because hope is all I seem to have.  (I certainly don't have a buiness plan for growth from WC.)
> 
> Settlement of those apartment sales is reported as due in March. Perhaps that's when WC can announce the 'distribution' and hence when we'll get our update.



Duped hope is right! I hope JH of Wellington Capital doesn't end up having to cough up any sale proceeds to pay Bond Street Custodians (or McCullough Robertsons lawyers who seem to be popping up every time legal representation is mentioned!) I have plenty of hope but unless JH finally starts to demonstate her exceptional abilities as posted by WC on her website http://www.newpif.com.au/pifoverview.html my hope will continue to lie with IMF, Carney Lawyers and ASIC!! Present potential investors and sellers value our units at a miserable 9 cents!!! I hope other PIF investors are complaining to WC about our late Dec update. Not even an apology or explanation, just pathetic fob offs and dare I say misleading information to the Gold Coast Bulletin by reputing to have  said the missing update release was 'imminent'!!!! Seamisty

Quote WC:::Investment Objective

'Our approach in managing the Fund is to use well defined investment analysis and risk management processes. Wellington Capital Limited selects investments for the Premium Income Fund based on their capacity to maintain capital value and on their ability to deliver a stable income stream.

Wellington Capital Limited adheres to investment and risk management guidelines to create asset diversification and performance.

Experienced Management and Custodian

Investments are managed by Wellington Capital Limited. This company has an experienced board of directors with a wide variety of relevant skills and experience to maximise the performance of your investment.

Perpetual Nominees Limited is the custodian of the Premium Income Fund, and has been established for 122 years. Perpetual Nominees Limited holds the title to the assets on behalf of the Fund.'


----------



## marcom (23 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Cash delay, merger push ELS shares to new heights*

Nick Nichols, business editor GCB   |  January 23rd, 2010

THE rising price of Early Learning Services' shares has prompted the merger deal with Payce Childcare to be an all-scrip affair.

When the merger was revealed last month, ELS announced a $6 million cash component for the $40 million deal.

Yesterday, the company said delays in putting together the cash component had prompted the parties to change tack.

ELS shares were trading around 10c before last month's merger announcement, but they have since surged as high as 45c. Yesterday, they closed 1.5c lower at 31c.

Under the original deal, ELS was to pay the owners of Payce $6 million in cash, or the equivalent in shares up to 25c each if it was unable to find sufficient funding.

With the share price trading well above this level, the scrip deal has become more attractive to both parties.

"Both parties are enthusiastic about the opportunities for growth as a merged entity and wish to complete the merger transaction as soon as possible," said ELS chief executive Chris Sacre.

The scrip deal will see Payce's shareholders -- Sydney developer Payce Consolidated and private equity group Wallace Infrastructure -- emerge with a 59 per cent stake in ELS.

*The merger also will mark the return of Gold Coast tourism entrepreneur Chris Scott to the corporate scene.

Mr Scott, who has headed Payce Childcare for the past four months, will become ELS's chief executive and his former tourism colleague Jenny Hutson will become chairman.
*
The merged entity will have 98 centres in its stable, with Payce adding 60 centres operated under the Ramsay Bourne and World of Learning banner.

How long do you think it will take for PIF to emerge as a funding source for this venture?????? What does the PIF Constitution say about related party loans?


----------



## seamisty (23 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Marcom this would be the same business we are talking about? Seamisty

Early Learning expects $200k 2009 loss

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...cts-200k-2009-loss-YZCBT?opendocument&src=rss



Source: News Bites


Early Learning Services Ltd expects a $100,000 to $200,000 loss for 2009, after a revised accounting standard forced the company to treat $110,000 worth of investigation and due diligence expenses on a proposed merger as expenses.

The company said had the merger been finalised before the end of 2009, the costs could be treated as capital costs and the 2009 loss would have been $110,000 lower.

Separately, the company has decided to sell its freehold childcare property for $1 million, and then lease it back, to reduce debt. It says property ownership is not a core activity.

The sale will result in a $150,000 book loss.

The projection assumes there will be no further write downs in 2009


----------



## marcom (23 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty

Yes that looks like the same business - and yes I have a feeling PIF is about to be done out - I smell a Rat!.

Well, "property ownership is not a core activity" of ELS. The rate that PIF is presently travelling it also won't be our funds core activity!

Do related party transactions have to be approved by investors?


----------



## marcom (24 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hello Cookie1 - if you know of any Port Pacquarie investors in LKM Capital (Coffs Harbour based solicitors mortgage fund that went belly up owing $63M) the article in the SMH Business Day today will be important information for them. It is also interesting to note the various actions of the receivers and ASIC in this case which may be relevant to our situation.

For the full story behind this failure go to http://www.jenman.com.au/news_item.php?id=406  This is also worth a read.

*Watchdog fears LKM founders will flee*
VANDA CARSON
January 23, 2010

The founders of failed investment group LKM Capital plan to move to Europe and may never return to Australia if the corporate regulator can assemble evidence to lay criminal charges of dishonesty against them, a court has heard.

Rolf Koops, 49, and Sandra Martin, 48, appeared in the Federal Court in Sydney yesterday where the Australian Securities and Investments Commission argued the pair should surrender their passports and one-way plane tickets to London.

A solicitor for ASIC, Jonathon Moore, filed a statement by an ASIC investigator, Paul Rowland, who said the regulator was considering charging the company directors with reckless or intentional dishonesty for failing to act in the best interests of their mostly elderly investors.

Nearly 1200 debenture holders who invested in LKM Capital lost $63 million when it collapsed in August 2008.

Mr Rowland said he also believed the millionaires had sold all of their Australian assets, including the family home in Coffs Harbour. He said they may have transferred the funds overseas to avoid any future orders to pay damages to investors who lost their life savings.

Mr Roland said he needed four months to complete his investigation into several issues including where $7 million in dividends from the fund had gone; these were paid to the couple over the past four years.

Mr Koops, who was born in Sydney, has both an Australian and a German passport, and Ms Martin and their children have applied for European Union passports, the court heard.

The solicitor Harland Koops, who was representing his brother Rolf and Ms Martin, rejected the claim that they had sold their assets and transferred the funds overseas, saying there was ''not a scintilla of evidence'' to support such serious allegations.

Mr Koops said the pair had only ever sold assets in arm's-length transactions. They planned to move to London so Mr Koops could start a job with his sister's financial services company on February 2.

Mr Koops said his clients should not have to give up an opportunity to take up work overseas just because ASIC was too slow to complete its probe, which began in February last year. ''Very little has been done. They [ASIC] have been riding on the coat-tails of the receivers,'' he said.

Once its investigations are complete ASIC hopes to examine the pair under oath, which may trigger civil or criminal action. Mr Koops and Ms Martin offered to allow ASIC to question them under oath next week, before they are due to leave for London. They have offered to return to Australia to speak with ASIC later this year, provided the regulator gives them six weeks' notice.

The couple claim they have only $10,000 in the bank, and could no longer live in Coffs Harbour because the 1180 debenture holders who lost money in the collapse lived in the area. LKM Capital was the investment arm of the local law firm run by the couple.

The moves to stop the pair leaving the country came a day after *the receiver of LKM Capital filed a civil suit for damages against them, alleging they are liable for breaching their duties as directors and misleading investors.* *The receiver alleges they breached their obligations to tell the trustee of the fund when their loan-to-value ratios exceeded 70 per cent.*

The receiver had found instances where a loan-to-value ratio on loans to property developers had reached 740 per cent, and another where it reached 450 per cent.

*ASIC also plans to examine whether the pair breached obligations to maintain sufficient liquid assets so redemptions could be met.*

Justice Margaret Stone has res-erved her decision on the matter


----------



## Cookie1 (24 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks, Marcom. I'm sure I've heard someone mention being invested in LKM but can't  think who it is; I'll pass the info on to our local PIF AG and the Port Macquarie Ass'n of Independent Retirees.


----------



## charles36 (24 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thank you Marcom for your post re LKM.  I am the AG leader and can assure any investor with LKM that we are right on top of this matter and have left no stone unturned, I should say rock in this instance, to see the perpetrators of the funds' demise brought to justice.  I know ASIC gets criticised but in this instance they have been very involved trying to untangle the web of intrigue created by the managers.  The receivers have worked hard to unravel the mess.  Contrary to Wellington Capital Ltd., of which I am also heavily involved, both in the class action and AG., the receivers took possession of a block of unfinished town houses, amongst a lot of other properties, finished the town houses, advertised and sold them.  So far, in a short space of time relative to the task, have returned 20 cents in the dollar, with estimate of up to 60 cents return in total.  A competent manager at the helm of the PIF should be able to do the same with our fund (Wellington).  Of course the receivers of LKM are competent experienced fund managers.  Whilst ASIC has taken action so have the Receivers.  They have launched civil proceedings in the Supreme Court, Sydney against the same people with a view to recovering any funds that may be found that the managers of the fund have forgotten about. The investigation into LKM has been so refreshingly different to the PIF.


----------



## simgrund (24 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear Comrades,

In all these seas of gloomabilities. I wondered if it would be appropriate to give 
a brief thought on fast approaching 5,000th post on this thread and how we could mark this milestone;
(definitely "milestone", not a "millstone" misprint).
Bear in mind, that "Storm" thread is not far behind and we can have the privilege of posting a blazing precedent.
Any Suggestions? 
Cheers


----------



## JohnH (24 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Dear Comrades,
> 
> In all these seas of gloomabilities. I wondered if it would be appropriate to give
> a brief thought on fast approaching 5,000th post on this thread and how we could mark this milestone;
> ...





How about sending Wellington and up-to-date update???

............. but of course, they don't monitor this thread!!


----------



## seamisty (24 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Dear Comrades,
> 
> In all these seas of gloomabilities. I wondered if it would be appropriate to give
> a brief thought on fast approaching 5,000th post on this thread and how we could mark this milestone;
> ...



simgrund,what a great idea!!! I laughed at your suggestion initially and then I thought, why not? What have we got to lose, it certainly won't be a 'celebration' in any way shape or form, perhaps all thread users/lookers could indicate their confidence/support or lack of in our current RE? just a simpleor:badassror:fur:beheadror:horse:r:swearr:shootr a comment as to their continued confidence/allegiance and overall satisfaction regarding the perfomance of WC  to date as opposed to the promises made and not delivered. I am interested to see what the general overview is, just so I can determine if it is just a few of us who are of the opinion we were misled and if anyone still actually supports Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capial and believes she will deliver!! An RE who cannot even deliver a much awaited for PIF investor update on time and offers no excuse or apology is sadly lacking in competance or PIF investors best interest in my opinion. Investors thoughts and input greatly appreciated, thanks, Seamisty


----------



## selciper (25 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Dear RE,

I heartily agree with you. The PIF investors who continue to post hundreds of messages on that stupid internet Forum are just a small group of malcontents. Unlike myself, they show no gratitude for the RE’s great performance over the past year or so. I am truly delighted that we have had no distributions as originally promised. Congratulations for borrowing, on my behalf, millions of dollars at a terrific 20 - 25 per cent interest rate. Excellent move also to cancel the promised buyback scheme. I also like the share price. Let me add, the IAC is an example of a splendidly functioning committee to assist investors. No voting figures were provided after its election which is really an original idea.  Who are these people who complain about the “late” delivery of an update? Who really wants an update anyway! The answer is easy: a handful of ignorant malcontents.

Keep up the sterling work. Your communication skills are beyond reproach.

Yours sincerely,

A Very Satisfied Investor.


----------



## Duped (25 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Seamisty 

I hope no one is taking as a compliment when I say that all I have left for WC is 'hope'.  It reflects a very sad state of affairs. An accurate comparison is perhaps the hope regarding the stand-over men and gangs in our community that the police can't do any thing about.  All you can do is 'hope' that they don't pick you out of the crowd and turn their efforts against you.  

That's the situation I find myself in now with WC.  The evidence is against WC.  Broken promises of buy backs and distributions. Fund value going DOWN rather than being restored. NSX sales averaging at not much more than one third of the audited value. Loan shark rates of 20%-25% charged to the fund. Millions still being sucked out of the fund by lawyers and Perpetual. Properties sold at the bottom of the market; exactly what JH said we shouldn't do. No business plan for growing the fund. WC inserting a dismissal penalty. Completely in the dark about the chances of a better future with a different RE. 

Hence, all I have is hope.  Hope that WC's excuse, that it's all because of the GFC, is a true and fair assessment.  Hope that JH is genuine and true to her word.  

I have far more than, the bottom rung of certainty, 'hope' when it comes to getting a return from the Carney/IMF action.

As for the quote under heading 'Quote WC:::Investment Objective'.  I don't see anything in that quote that pertains to a plan.  Plenty of 'process'  but no 'plan'.  What are they going to apply those 'processes' to?  At least we knew with the original PDS. Not that MFSIM stuck with the plan.  But at least there was a plan. Borrow money from us and lend it against property at a higher rate.  Simple.  But WC hasn't even given us that. 


PS: Given that we two have posted over 1000 of those 5000, I'd say that any mileage anyone attempts to get out of the number could be :rippergun down. One thing I've learnt is that simplistic spin like that works on the faithful.


----------



## seamisty (25 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am posting three media articles regarding what I class as a 'FIRE SALE OF PREMIUM INCOME FUND ASSETS BY WELLINGTON CAPITAL' the property being the Wollongong Hotel. It is precisely because of these type of management decisions made on the behalf of  PIF investors by JH that I have no confidence in her ability to run this fund. For the life of me with all the talk of strategic plans and a highly qualified team of professionals at the helm, why on earth could JH not have achieved the same results over a year ago without having to sell out to a third party at what I consider a huge loss of potential upside and accepting a very discounted price for the asset to boot. Not my idea of value adding!!! Seamisty

Discounted ocean view units sell like hotcakes
BY ALEX ARNOLD  Source:Illawarra Mercury
03 Nov, 2009 04:00 AM
A fire sale of apartments within the stalled Ocean View City Beach project in Harbour St has sparked a buyer frenzy not seen in Wollongong for some time.

In just four days more than $28 million worth of property has been snapped up with 47 of the 67 discounted apartments selling, including the building's five penthouse apartments which were priced from $981,000.


The top price achieved was $1.05 million.


The units are being sold by a number of agents as "a 14-day pre-completion clearance" on the basis of "buy now and settle in March 2010" when the project is expected to be completed.


A number of agents have been appointed to sell the units including Simon Kersten of Colliers International and Michael Sullivan from CB Richard Ellis.


Mr Kersten described the response as "staggering" but said the units were being sold at well below market value.


He said those buying were primarily investors with an even mix of out-of-town and Wollongong buyers.


Mr Sullivan said two-bedroom units that had previously sold off the plan for above $700,000 before developer Jempac's collapse were now selling in the low $500,000s.


He expected all apartments to be sold before the end of the week.


Two-bedroom units start from $451,440.


The former Jempac project sits about 90 per cent complete.


After failing to sell the unfinished building earlier this year, the mortgagee is pushing ahead with completing the project itself.


When finished, the complex will comprise a 41/2-star hotel containing 168 rooms, function rooms and restaurant and conference facilities with the eastern wing containing three commercial tenancies and residential apartments.::::::::::::::::::::::


A follow up to the above article:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Pub: Illawarra Mercury
Pubdate: Saturday 09th of January 2010



6. Fire sale in paradise
A fire sale of apartments within the stalled Ocean View City Beach project in Harbour St in October sparked a buyer frenzy.
In just four days more than $28 million worth of property was snapped up with 47 of the 67 discounted apartments selling, including the building's five penthouse apartments which were priced from $981,000.
The top price achieved was $1.05 million. A week later all but a handful of apartments had been sold.
The units are being sold by a number of agents as "a 14-day pre-completion clearance" on the basis of a "buy now and settle in March 2010" when the project is expected to be completed.
A number of agents were appointed to sell the units including Simon Kersten of Colliers International and Michael Sullivan from CB Richard Ellis.
Mr Kersten described the response as "staggering" but said the units were sold at well below market value.
Mr Sullivan said two-bedroom units that had previously sold off the plan for above $700,000 before developer Jempac's collapse were sold in the low $500,000s.
In November the project changed hands with Premium Income Fund, the financial backers of the project, to receive $38 million from the new owner Harbour Street Developments.
Harbour Street Developments is controlled by Queensland developer George Callianiotis, with the backing of Rockhampton retailer Solly Stanton



Pub: Illawarra Mercury
Pubdate: Saturday 23rd of January 2010





New hotel to be run by Chifley chain  
By LAUREL-LEE RODERICK    
HOTEL chain Chifley has signed on to operate Wollongong's newest hotel, which could be open by the middle of the year.
Work on the hotel and apartment complex opposite WIN Stadium came to a halt when the Jempac group of companies folded with a debt of $191 million.
Originally marketed as City Beach Ocean View, it was purchased by Harbour Street Developments late last year and construction restarted in November.
The director of Harbour Street Developments, George Callianiotis, told the Mercury the hotel was on track for a July 1 opening and would be branded as Chifley Wollongong. 
Chifley operates 10 hotels around Australia, including properties in Newcastle, Alice Springs and Cairns. 
It is part of the Constellation Hotels Group, which also operates Country Comfort, Australis and Sundowner hotels and resorts.
"Construction on the building is in full swing, on budget and on schedule," Mr Callianiotis said.
The 4.5-star hotel on Harbour St will have 168 rooms, as well as conference and leisure facilities. 
"Our aim is to create a relaxed and friendly hotel that will complement the entertainment precinct of Wollongong," he said.
"The hotel will be focused on sport, health and entertainment while providing a first-class conference facility. We are planning to have the doors open mid-year and have a few surprises in store."
Tourism Wollongong general manager Greg Binskin welcomed the announcement of the hotel operator and construction progress. 
"It is important as a city that we keep developing infrastructure and this is infrastructure that creates employment," he said.
"Hotels or tourism-related products actually create entry-level employment for youth and others in the community. This will help soften the impact of the high unemployment around the area," he added.
Mr Binskin said the availability of a new hotel provided a great opportunity to target even more conferences and big sporting events in the city.
The residential units attached to the complex are expected to be ready for occupancy by April.
During a two-week pre-release before Christmas, 55 units sold in the complex.
The remaining 20 units in the 75-unit complex will be placed on the market with agents Colliers International next weekend. 
"There were a lot of disappointed potential buyers on our database that missed out prior to Christmas," Colliers International executive salesperson Julian Hall said of the pre-release.
"On top of this, there are still a lot of people that are only just noticing the recent progress of work to complete the complex and ongoing enquiry is strong."  

Caption:  
Photo: Going up: Work is progressing steadily on the hotel complex and units at the corner of Harbour and Stewart streets. Picture: KEN ROBERTSON


----------



## simgrund (25 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Thanks Seamisty
> 
> I hope no one is taking as a compliment when I say that all I have left for WC is 'hope'.  It reflects a very sad state of affairs. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> I have far more than, the bottom rung of certainty, 'hope' when it comes to getting a return from the Carney/IMF action.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,




Duped, 
Carney/IMF  boat is carrying a lot of weight. I like to think that it is not a weight of just "Hope", but a solid ballast of legal certainty in the righteousness of our cause. We all carry this hope, that judicial vigilance will prevail and all slippery loopholes will be plugged by ASIC and other supervisors.
I invite ASIC to post 5,000th post here to give us exactly such reassurance.
Alas, for now at least, all I can allow myself are these brief moments of lighthearted relief.
Regards,


----------



## marcom (25 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Isn't it just typical that JH thinks so little of PIF investors that she did not give us an early opportunity to purchase PIF properties at what is now the heavily discounted market value so as to allow some to recoup a portion of their investment through capital gain.

The company motto should be* "Promise everything...Deliver nothing"*.


----------



## DepressedDad (25 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Dear RE,
> 
> I heartily agree with you. The PIF investors who continue to post hundreds of messages on that stupid internet Forum are just a small group of malcontents. Unlike myself, they show no gratitude for the RE’s great performance over the past year or so. I am truly delighted that we have had no distributions as originally promised. Congratulations for borrowing, on my behalf, millions of dollars at a terrific 20 - 25 per cent interest rate. Excellent move also to cancel the promised buyback scheme. I also like the share price. Let me add, the IAC is an example of a splendidly functioning committee to assist investors. No voting figures were provided after its election which is really an original idea.  Who are these people who complain about the “late” delivery of an update? Who really wants an update anyway! The answer is easy: a handful of ignorant malcontents.
> 
> ...




I'm loving this post selciper!!  How could this whole situation be spun any other way? And what self-respecting business person carries on picking up further work when they have done such a blatantly lousy job here? That utube clip where JH is all puffed up full of self-importance is enough to make me throw up, knowing what we know.  Time to enlighten others.

I'd like to see a journalist take someone's personal story & describe from their viewpoint the frustration & discontent with the last 12 months  (mis) management & the present situation.  Journalists have to have an angle for human interest & everyone likes to read and relate to hard-luck stories.  I think we need to get selciper's message out (that things have progressed horribly for investors) and it could have & should have been handled better  and is hugely & painfully adding to severe hardship.  Perhaps seamisty could just do a matter-of-fact very simple list of the blatant undeniable wrongs (as per above blog) and someone here could take it to a local newspaper with 'their 'story.  Include a photo holding a piece of paper with the miserable share price and a heading along the lines  of ' We were promised so much & now further heartbreaking disappointment'. ......   Wouldn't an exposing article with such undeniable truths get WC & JH squirming? Gee maybe they'd even be answerable somehow......Answerable or not, time to expose & I think the only way to scream this message from rooftops is with a human face & story attached...any volunteers? Even a small local paper might be a start and then forward the story to a bigger paper who might see how scandalous this is....


----------



## simgrund (25 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DepressedDad said:


> I'm loving this post selciper!!  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I think the only way to scream this message from rooftops is with a human face & story attached...any volunteers? Even a small local paper might be a start and then forward the story to a bigger paper who might see how scandalous this is....




DD,
With due respect, however loud we bleat, the inevitable retort will be " What are they on about; haven't they class action going?"
The real concern is finding a way of inducing WC to prove her goodwill so indelibly stamped into our desperate minds at national forums.
As Duped reluctantly capitulated by admitting to holding some "hope" for JH;  so too we need to wait for the class action to run its course.
As far as sympathetic Journalists taking up our cause; they rarely spit into wells they may have to drink from God knows when.
So they stick to formula avoiding self destruction.
If there is one Journalist bereft of this fear, it may well be Paul Sheehan, SMH.
If there is a volunteer able to approach him, please do so.
I am still too discouraged from Nick Nichols non-response. 
ASIC on the other hand, seems to come around, belatedly for some. 
But it deserves encouragement
Regards


----------



## marcom (26 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Update on the LKM story:

*Travel ban slapped on LKM pair*
VANDA CARSON SMH
January 26, 2010

The founders of the failed investment group LKM Capital have been forced to shelve plans to leave Australia for an indefinite stint in London.

Rolf Koops, 49, and Sandra Martin, 48, had bought one-way tickets to London to travel on Friday with at least two of their three children.

Mr Koops had planned to take a job with his sister Liz Koops's company and was set to start work on Monday.

But in an unscheduled sitting of the Federal Court late yesterday, Justice Margaret Stone ordered the pair surrender their Australian and German passports as well as their airline tickets until the end of May.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission successfully argued that the pair should not be allowed to leave until the commission finishes its investigation into whether they breached their duties as directors.

*The commission is also considering laying criminal charges of reckless or intentional dishonesty against the pair for allegedly failing to act in the best interests of their mostly elderly investors, and the LKM receiver is suing the pair for damages.*

Nearly 1200 debenture holders had $63.6 million invested when the fund was placed in receivership in August 2008. The shortfall was between $25 million and $38 million.

I have highlighted the second last paragraph as it contains an important pointer to what may happen with PIF:

If the ASIC civil case against King etc succeeds, ASIC may refer the matter to the DPP for criminal prosecution. This could be strengthened by the results of the Receivers examination mid-year. This examination will draw more MFS people into the net (it has already been reported that other MFS  Directors and Officers have been sent subpeonas to appear at the examination in the Supreme Court.) Criminal charges of reckless or intentional dishonesty may see some of the miscreants serve custodial sentences.

Also the Receiver may itself sue other MFS/Octaviar/Wellington Investment Management parties for a broader range of damages than the current ASIC case involves.

All of this will inevitably take time, but we will get an indication of the likelihood of action from the receivers mid-year examinations.


----------



## zeva (26 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

What has happen to the to PIN offers? 
Its a blank on my screen, has NSX thrown out WC for lack of transparency.


----------



## seamisty (26 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zeva said:


> What has happen to the to PIN offers?
> Its a blank on my screen, has NSX thrown out WC for lack of transparency.



HA HA Zeva, thats exactly what I thought, but no, all the listed NSX companies are the same, maybe something to do with it being a public holiday? Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (26 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DepressedDad said:


> I'm loving this post selciper!!  How could this whole situation be spun any other way? And what self-respecting business person carries on picking up further work when they have done such a blatantly lousy job here? That utube clip where JH is all puffed up full of self-importance is enough to make me throw up, knowing what we know.  Time to enlighten others.
> 
> I'd like to see a journalist take someone's personal story & describe from their viewpoint the frustration & discontent with the last 12 months  (mis) management & the present situation.  Journalists have to have an angle for human interest & everyone likes to read and relate to hard-luck stories.  I think we need to get selciper's message out (that things have progressed horribly for investors) and it could have & should have been handled better  and is hugely & painfully adding to severe hardship.  Perhaps seamisty could just do a matter-of-fact very simple list of the blatant undeniable wrongs (as per above blog) and someone here could take it to a local newspaper with 'their 'story.  Include a photo holding a piece of paper with the miserable share price and a heading along the lines  of ' We were promised so much & now further heartbreaking disappointment'. ......   Wouldn't an exposing article with such undeniable truths get WC & JH squirming? Gee maybe they'd even be answerable somehow......Answerable or not, time to expose & I think the only way to scream this message from rooftops is with a human face & story attached...any volunteers? Even a small local paper might be a start and then forward the story to a bigger paper who might see how scandalous this is....



Any Brisbane Gold Coast investors willing to make some noise or for that matter anyone on the East Coast? I can help with content/info or maybe we should contact all the original reporters who couldn't get enough of this story in the early days and ask them to do a follow up on investor sentiment and how the lady in the red jacket making statements to the media such as the following has delivered nothing and is proving so incompetant Wellington Capital  cannot even provide investors with  a PIF update on time, then deny it is late to the media!!!!!


'Ms Hutson said if the voters stuck with her, Wellington Capital would work to recover between 45c to 65c per unit.

She said that liquidation would return just 14c in the dollar to investors.

She also reminded investors there would be a 3c-per-unit payment made by December, with half paid in October.' (20 Aug 2008)






'She said PIF was better placed now after moving 'harder and faster' earlier than other troubled funds, a tactic that drew considerable criticism from some quarters at the time.

"There is no room for hesitation in this market.' (16 Oct 2008)



Ummmn, it appears whatever that tactic was it is possibly drawing even more criticism now!!! Seamisty


----------



## charles36 (26 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty, you are a glutton for punishment.  Why do you want the update?  It wil no doubt be depressing.  You may find the Wollongong Hotel was mortgaged, some suggestion up to 12 million, if she pays back 3 cents of our own money (capital, 22 million, so 34 million,  legal expenses for McCullough Robertsons, say 2 million, Wellington Capital Ltd fee for using their expertise in financial dealings and there goes the Wollongong Hotel.  Next project please.  Don't forget the cost of the glossy update, I still do not know what is wrong with Reflex A4 paper, other than it is miles cheaper. Oh, I forgot, once she pays us we then pay .07% on remaining assets at date of last official valuation.


----------



## seamisty (26 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> Seamisty, you are a glutton for punishment.  Why do you want the update?  It wil no doubt be depressing.  You may find the Wollongong Hotel was mortgaged, some suggestion up to 12 million, if she pays back 3 cents of our own money (capital, 22 million, so 34 million,  legal expenses for McCullough Robertsons, say 2 million, Wellington Capital Ltd fee for using their expertise in financial dealings and there goes the Wollongong Hotel.  Next project please.  Don't forget the cost of the glossy update, I still do not know what is wrong with Reflex A4 paper, other than it is miles cheaper. Oh, I forgot, once she pays us we then pay .07% on remaining assets at date of last official valuation.



 I wonder if the company Print Mail Logistics (of which Wellington Capital is the nominated advisor for and a substantial shareholder) is responsible for PIF updates/mailouts etc? Can anyone tell me what  the role of Perpetual Nominees LTD is apart from holding the title to PIF assets? Seamisty


----------



## selciper (26 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Extract from "Findlaw."
--------------------
Australian courts have had the view in the past that a director is acting without good faith, if the director failed to exercise the care and diligence expected of an ordinarily prudent director, even though they acted quite honestly. This was adverted to in the leading case of the State of South Australia v. Marcus Clarke (1996) (19 ACSR), which involved an indirect conflict of interest.

In addition, sections 199B and 199C of the Corporations Act, contain specific prohibitions on a company providing D & O Insurance in cases of a wilful breach of duty, good faith or misuse of a director’s information or position. Beyond this, in many D & O Insurance policies, cover is not provided to directors who are involved in "wrongful acts". A "wrongful act" is commonly defined as "any actual or alleged breach of duty, breach of trust, neglect, error, misstatement, misleading statement, omission, breach of warranty or authority, or other act done or wrongly attempted by a person in their capacity as a director, other officer or employee of the company". There is a real risk that directors will not be personally covered by D & O Insurance for any loss suffered as the result of any behaviour that might be deemed to be a wrongful act.

All directors should be aware that there will be no insurance cover for any fraud or dishonesty, or any criminal act or deliberate statutory breach or any transaction involving insider trading or personal profiteering on their part. However, some actions giving rise to minor offences might not be so obvious as being matters that fall outside the level of insurance protection provided. 

For instance, D & O insurers traditionally do not provide compensation for directors who are fined or penalised for any acts of wrongdoing in their capacity as a director. This even extends to the civil penalties under the Corporations Act, which fall short of criminal offences. 

-------------------------------


----------



## reasonable (26 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> simgrund,what a great idea!!! I laughed at your suggestion initially and then I thought, why not? What have we got to lose, it certainly won't be a 'celebration' in any way shape or form, perhaps all thread users/lookers could indicate their confidence/support or lack of in our current RE? just a simpleor:badassror:fur:beheadror:horse:r:swearr:shootr a comment as to their continued confidence/allegiance and overall satisfaction regarding the perfomance of WC  to date as opposed to the promises made and not delivered. I am interested to see what the general overview is, just so I can determine if it is just a few of us who are of the opinion we were misled and if anyone still actually supports Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capial and believes she will deliver!! An RE who cannot even deliver a much awaited for PIF investor update on time and offers no excuse or apology is sadly lacking in competance or PIF investors best interest in my opinion. Investors thoughts and input greatly appreciated, thanks, Seamisty




I am someone who voted for receivership rather than what has turned out to be the WC debacle and demonstration of sheer incompetence.  I had hoped that other’s confidence in WC was well founded but it is no comfort to witness the non-delivery of anything by WC,

Is it still too late for receivership?  At least we may get something back.


----------



## Mary Lynch (26 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

All those apartments that are being "snapped" up at rock bottom prices are probably being bought by JH's friends....Chris Scott and co.

Residential property prices are soaring, higher than ever before!!!...something's wrong somewhere!


----------



## zeva (26 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Reasonable.
We are in receivership. It's our loss and WC are the receivers and that will go on until there is nothing left, then JH will receive another mention for the  great job and move into another fund to rescue insuring that WC get all the rewards and the investor become entitled for the pension.


----------



## reasonable (26 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zeva said:


> Reasonable.
> We are in receivership. It's our loss and WC are the receivers and that will go on until there is nothing left, then JH will receive another mention for the  great job and move into another fund to rescue insuring that WC get all the rewards and the investor become entitled for the pension.




If we were in receivership at least we might expect a competent receiver to extract some value.


----------



## seamisty (26 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Any Brisbane Gold Coast investors willing to make some noise or for that matter anyone on the East Coast? I can help with content/info or maybe we should contact all the original reporters who couldn't get enough of this story in the early days and ask them to do a follow up on investor sentiment and how the lady in the red jacket making statements to the media such as the following has delivered nothing and is proving so incompetant Wellington Capital  cannot even provide investors with  a PIF update on time, then deny it is late to the media!!!!!
> 
> 
> 'Ms Hutson said if the voters stuck with her, Wellington Capital would work to recover between 45c to 65c per unit.
> ...



Ok, so I had one PIF investor contact me by private message who continues to offer support and who is willing to chase up perpetual nominees. It would be really great if a few more thread followers would also help out here. Would a PIF investor who has time and computer research skills please compile a list of media journos/reporters with past links to associated PIF media articles since the collapse of OCV and if possible collate which newspaper they represent and a email contact? Also has anyone kept a current comprehensive summary of investor complaints/issues posted on the forum which can be submitted to the illusive IAC reps via the email provided by WC which I am prepared to submit on behalf of the PIF Action Group? If not is anyone willing to compile one on the forum or alternatively contact me by private message or email which can be added to?  A lot of work is done by a few investors on behalf of many, who would appreciate some assistance if anyone has the time and skills to assist. Thanks in adavnce. Also thanks to those that do help out and continue to lobby ASIC etc with relevant information and complaints. Seamisty


----------



## k.smith (27 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A must read...

http://www.smh.com.au/business/real...y-train-of-management-fees-20100126-mwc8.html

Real estate investment trusts a gravy train of management fees January 27, 2010 
Two recent inquiries have ignored problems with the structure, writes David Nunnerley. 

The failures and disappointments of listed property or real estate investment trusts over the past two years have revealed shortcomings in their management fee structures.

The investment trusts represent a big investment sector but were clearly not on the radar of the Joint Parliamentary Inquiry into Financial Products and Services, chaired by Bernie Ripoll, or the Productivity Commission inquiry into executive remuneration.

The trusts are very different from corporations. The management fees in effect replace directors' fees,

which create real or perceived conflicts of interest between managers and investors.

Almost without exception, real estate investment trusts are marketed on the basis that management will use its skill in selecting properties for future acquisitions, lowering investment risk and providing growth. The motivation of the promoters and managers of the trust is presumably to build recurring management fees, as well as the capital value of the management business, which is determined by the value of funds under management.

This strategy creates an inherent conflict of interest. Adding to the size of the property investment portfolio may result in a dilution or slowing of the income generation of the property portfolio of the particular trust .

Besides any inherent conflict, some of the trust management fees are simply excessive. The detailed fee structures of the trusts vary, but operational and management costs are similar.

Operational costs covers the management of the individual properties - letting agents' fees, supervision of property maintenance, agents' payments of direct property expenses, property insurance, preparation of monthly income and expense statements, etc. These expenses are usually charged directly against the property income of the properties concerned to arrive at net property income. Management costs essentially comprise the cost of the administration of the real estate investment trust and typically include accounting, audit fees, preparation of management and unit holder reports, office costs, cost of compliance, legal fees, etc.

On top of these costs, a management fee is payable to the manager, usually expressed as a percentage calculated on the gross asset value of the trusts. These fees are recurring and represent fees for directing the trust involving strategy, review of budgets, instructing property managing agents, approving unit holder reports, etc. The costs incurred by the manager for providing these services would be only a small fraction of the fee.

It is this management fee, based on a percentage of the gross value of the trust assets, that provides a secure recurring cash flow for the manager. In some cases management fees are increased by incentive-related fees linked to index performance.

Some trusts also charge fees of up to 2.5 per cent on the value of any properties acquired, on the value of property sold and on the amount of loans raised. These fees can be severe, are usually capitalised to the value of the property assets acquired and typically not presented as costs in income statements.

Corporations law provides for replacement of trust managers. However, there are a number of trusts where the manager has been able to entrench its position with management contracts for up to 20 years. It is difficult to understand how such contracts can be considered to be in the investors' interest. Real estate trust management contracts are valuable assets, essentially developed at the expense of the investor.

At what level fees become excessive is a matter of subjective judgment. Payment of fair fees is expected to allow for the administration of the properties and the trust, but management fees that could be regarded as directors' fees are questionable and are conducive to exploitation.

Management fees are payable whether the trust makes a profit or a loss. A far more equitable arrangement would be for management contracts to be subject to periodic approval by unit holder resolution, rather like company director appointments. After all, the manager is a contractor, and many others would be willing to take on the job.

For this to happen, annual general meetings - no longer a requirement for the trusts - would need to be compulsory so unit holders would have a forum to question the performance of the manager. The Joint Parliamentary Inquiry into Financial Products and Services recommended that Australian corporations legislation be amended to state that financial planners hold a fiduciary duty to put the interests of their clients first.

For real estate investment trusts, the corporations legislation already includes similar provisions dealing with conflicts of interest between officers of the responsible entity on the one side and investor interests on the other.

Nonetheless, one cannot help questioning the effectiveness of

the legislation and the trusts' governance procedures.

David Nunnerley is an accountant.


----------



## Duped (27 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Nice Post.  k.smith.

When you read that with Nick Nichols view that King "is still regarded in the industry as one of Australia's foremost authorities on funds management law", then it explains everything. We didn't stand a chance.  

Rhetorical Q: How do we protect ourselves from another Sting like this?

Govt won't help us. They're more interested in making Oz a Finance Centre of the World.  Which I read as: financial 'innovation' is welcome.


----------



## Duped (27 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Maybe the following article has a solution to the tax problem . ( Because of the crash of PIF many of us have had to return to work.  Hence, any 'distribution' that isn't a 'capital return' (whatever those terms are supposed to mean) is likely to be taxed.)

This SMH by John Kavanagh (20Jan10) article mentions that Fund Managers can make withdrawal offers and call for withdrawal requests.  I.e. Memebers can withdraw funds to the tune of 3c per unit. The article even goes on to mention fund managers offering 'rolling withdrawals' which are:  "A single withdrawal request (for all or part of the investor's funds) will apply to all withdrawal opportunities in a 12-month period."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business...1263663071854.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

Downside: 

You miss out if you don't file a withdrawal request.  (Although WC could ameliorate this by putting some resources into chasing each individual down.  Maybe Perpetual could actually do something for the approx $1million we pay em.)

Less scrupulous individuals can attack WC because WC promised a 'distribution'. As opposed to a withdrawal. I think there's enough of us with common sense to shoot such disingenous tot down. (Lets just hope WC runs the gauntlet on our behalf for a change.)

Upside: 

Not taxable income.

Some investors might actually choose not to withdraw their funds which means PIF stays that much stronger.

Anyone got any other downsides? If not we could all push it.  How's that for an 'innovative financial solution' WC?


----------



## mellifuous (27 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*




Duped said:


> Maybe the following article has a solution to the tax problem . ( Because of the crash of PIF many of us have had to return to work.  Hence, any 'distribution' that isn't a 'capital return' (whatever those terms are supposed to mean) is likely to be taxed.)
> 
> This SMH by John Kavanagh (20Jan10) article mentions that Fund Managers can make withdrawal offers and call for withdrawal requests.  I.e. Memebers can withdraw funds to the tune of 3c per unit. The article even goes on to mention fund managers offering 'rolling withdrawals' which are:  "A single withdrawal request (for all or part of the investor's funds) will apply to all withdrawal opportunities in a 12-month period."
> 
> ...




Well, I'm guessing you guys really don't understand your tax position as a consequence of the listing, or, I'm wrong - and it could be either way.

I think you've all got a tax problem.  

When you listed the fund, you 'divorced' yourselves from your capital.

If you don't want a problem with tax, then de-list the fund.

Shoot me if you like, but I'm just the messenger.

Danielle wrote a letter to Hutson sometime in early-mid December 2009 asking questions about tax, and as yet, no answer - now, doesn't that give you at least a hint that there might a problem?

Simple questions requiring simple answers, but no answers.


----------



## mellifuous (27 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Well, I'm guessing you guys really don't understand your tax position as a consequence of the listing, or, I'm wrong - and it could be either way.
> 
> I think you've all got a tax problem.
> 
> ...




I think what happened when you listed your fund, from a tax perspective, is that you isolated yourselves from your capital - the fund owes each of you nothing.

So, if it was to make a payment, there has to be some tax consequence (as I understand it).

If your fund wasn't listed, then you would entitled to make redemptions if the fund was liquid - but if not non-liquid then such a fund falls under the non-liquid provisions of the Corporations Act which means the manager would either make an offer or a payment (depending of the unit price regime).

The idea of the 'rolling redemption' was directed to non-liquid, but not damaged,  managed funds - ones that are in good order with investors merely wanting their money back.

The PIF and PFMF are badly damaged non-liquid managed funds, and the 'rolling redemption' program certainly can't apply to them.

In the PFMF which is not listed, the manager will make payments to unitholders because the unit price is $1.00.  In the PIF, members have to sell their units on the NSX.

Caroline Snow (of the manager PIF) wrote to Danielle and stated (among other things), "At this time we have not been provided with guidance in relation to whether the cash payment will be in the form of a capital return or distributions.  This guidance will be given closer to the time that a payment is made to unitholders."

Clearly the manager can't make her mind up without 'guidance' - now, to my mind, that's should of concern to investors in the PFMF.

You guys just can't get money from your fund without some sort of tax consequence.

To my mind, it really is a matter that should resolved sooner than later.


----------



## seamisty (27 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> I think what happened when you listed your fund, from a tax perspective, is that you isolated yourselves from your capital - the fund owes each of you nothing.
> 
> So, if it was to make a payment, there has to be some tax consequence (as I understand it).
> 
> ...


----------



## mellifuous (28 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> mellifuous said:
> 
> 
> > I think what happened when you listed your fund, from a tax perspective, is that you isolated yourselves from your capital - the fund owes each of you nothing.
> ...


----------



## charles36 (28 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

On the subject of taxation everyone has a different problem and it is really for them to sort out.  I think we are worrying prematurely about any return of capital, redemption or liquidation by stealth.  It will be some time, in my humble opinion, before we see anything from Wellington Capital.  Since Wellington Capital became RE it has been all smoke and mirrors,complaints and inquiries unanswered.  Perhaps we should devote some of our time and energy and follow the developments of the Wollongong Hotel saga.  The people who have possession of our property,  you cannot really call it a sale, a $20 company have demonstrated to our RE the way the hotel should have been handled in the first place.  Unfortunately the profits generated by our give away will not be ours.  This matter deserves more attention from this forum.  Any suggestions.  My emails to the RE have been unanswered since April, 2009.


----------



## seamisty (28 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> On the subject of taxation everyone has a different problem and it is really for them to sort out.  I think we are worrying prematurely about any return of capital, redemption or liquidation by stealth.  It will be some time, in my humble opinion, before we see anything from Wellington Capital.  Since Wellington Capital became RE it has been all smoke and mirrors,complaints and inquiries unanswered.  Perhaps we should devote some of our time and energy and follow the developments of the Wollongong Hotel saga.  The people who have possession of our property,  you cannot really call it a sale, a $20 company have demonstrated to our RE the way the hotel should have been handled in the first place.  Unfortunately the profits generated by our give away will not be ours.  This matter deserves more attention from this forum.  Any suggestions.  My emails to the RE have been unanswered since April, 2009.



I agree the Wellington Capital investment management handling of the disposal of one of our potentially best PIF assets, the Wollongong Hotel resort is a total disgrace. The true details of the disposal have had to be researched and revealed by investors, ie the original auction price turned down by WC being a far better deal than the one accepted much later. With the help of another PIF investor I am compiling a complete 'dossier' on the handling of the Wollongong deal for future reference. If anyone has any extra info on this that has not been posted here please make sure I get it so it can be added to the file. thanks, Seamisty


----------



## Duped (28 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks for your postings mellifuous.  I'm not convinced the NSX listing has an effect on the tax position.

I understand that transfer of ownership of PIF units could always occur off market. I assume that if you buy your units off market from a former owner (as opposed to directly from MFS) then you won't be treated differently under the tax law. The NSX is just a mechanism (market) for matching buyers and sellers.

The PIF securities traded on the NSX are Trust Units, not shares. 

So why would the NSX listing change the nature of the tax relationship between the PIF Trust and PIF Unit holders/beneficiaries?

I'm open to being corrected.  To save you the effort of typing a posting you can just point me to the relevant material.

My understanding is that WC can choose the Trust's accounting methods and that this CAN have an effect on how payments to unit holders is taxed.

I think it's clear that I want a Return of Capital and not a 'distribution' that is assessable for tax. Other unit holders may want the opposite.  I can't imagine why.  Even if units are held by Private Superannuation, a 3c 'distribution' will attract 15% tax won't it? If so then there's another 0.5 cents per unit vaporised.  At 30% tax (i.e. company tax rate or if your taxable income is more than $653 a week), kiss about 1c per unit goodbye.  At 39.5% tax (ie if you earn between $80K and $180K a year), another 1.2 cents per unit of our SAVINGS gets flushed. 

All - Make no mistake.  The 3c ditribution/RoC WILL happen.  WC is HIGHLY motivated to pay us 3c. First and foremost, because WC can then start profiting from PIF and secondly: she told a Judge she would.

On what planet does WC think we can tax-plan if it won't confirm what form the payment will be.


----------



## selciper (28 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks to those who are examining the Wollongong deal. Hotel property transactions are well beyond my expertise, but as a layman I am becoming increasingly worried about the way WC operate. They give the impression that they don't know whether they are Arthur or Martha. My concern is that they  actually do know the difference.


----------



## mellifuous (28 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Thanks for your postings mellifuous.  I'm not convinced the NSX listing has an effect on the tax position.
> 
> I understand that transfer of ownership of PIF units could always occur off market. I assume that if you buy your units off market from a former owner (as opposed to directly from MFS) then you won't be treated differently under the tax law. The NSX is just a mechanism (market) for matching buyers and sellers.
> 
> ...




Hi Duped,

Well,  I'm just giving my opinion - I'm not skilled in tax - The best 'advice' I can give you is to ask your manager (as Danielle did, and hasn't got an answer), or phone the ATO help line.

You say, "... So why would the NSX listing change the nature of the tax relationship between the PIF Trust and PIF Unit holders/beneficiaries? ..."  Actually, my point wasn't at all directed to whether one sells one's units on the NSX (or privately), it was just about tax.  Of course, any purchasers of units would be entitled to any monies paid by the fund (but would not benefit from your class action unless that was assigned separately).

"...Cash Payments to Unitholders
The amounts paid to Unitholders for accounting purposes are treated as a financing cost expense. For taxation purposes, *these payments continue to represent distributions under the Income Tax Assessment Act*.  ..."
(pg. 57 Memorandum - Notes to the Balance Sheet)

In an unlisted managed fund with so much loss, there is no profit, and therefore distributions will never be paid again.  However, in a listed fund, 'distributions' are able to be paid as a 'fund expense - financing cost'.

*To my mind, the words 'continue to represent' are misleading *because 'distributions' after the listing are not of the same character as distributions before the listing.  Again, before the listing, distributions are only able to paid from profits, whereas after the listing, 'distributions' are able to be paid from your capital.   

*The First Distinction* - It would be a breach of the tax act to pay distributions to you if the fund was still unlisted and in its present state.  But, now, no problems - if investors aren't going to give a hoot now, then let them give a hoot later, especially the ones who expect a large amount of money.

Under the proposal put by W.C. you are only entitled to one offer and 3% 'distributions' if available for payment - but I can't see where you're entitled to anything more - that is, you get your money back from selling your units (on the NSX or elsewhere).

I can't see anywhere that W.C. is obligated to wind the fund up.

This section deals with the dilemma facing the manager, payment as a tax assessable 'distribution', or a tax deferred 'redemption'.

"... 6.4 Cash payments
The responsible entity intends to make cash payments to Unitholders totalling 3 cents per Unit with the first payment to be made in October 2008, the second in December 2008 and thereafter quarterly.

Due to the significant impairment recognised at 31 May 2008 it is anticipated that the cash distribution will be a *capital repayment and tax deferred*. See section 9 in relation to taxation issues. ..."

*The Second Distinction* -   the unlisted fund would made a payment to you $xxxx = y units * $ (unit price) - no tax treatment except a loss to offset somewhere or other, but now as a listed fund, such  payments are 'tax deferred'.

I think these issues are important, because even if you're going to get back $20k/$30k, depending on your income now, then you may be forced to pay tax on all or some of that money.

I just wonder if it really is treating unitholders equally (corporations act s. 601FC(1)(d)) if some pay tax and some don't?

I just wonder what anyone thought the benefits of listing the fund would be?  

There is no good offers on the NSX (or elsewhere), no income (except redirected capital to 'distributions' (if at all)), and tax deferred payments of damaged capital (if any).

Yes, we're in the same position in the PFMF, and one has to really start getting some transparency from these managers otherwise it's starting to make a lot more sense to see them all wound up rather than play this stupid game where we'll all mushroomed as managers, receivers, lawyers, liquidators, auditors, custodians, real estate agents and others make big bucks - and yes, I can't imagine W.C. isn't making something nice out of this mess.

I should point out that W.C. explained all this in the memorandum to the proposals.

I won't raise this issue again, but I do recommend that you ask your manager to explain the tax considerations of any payments made to you, or perhaps put those questions to the free ATO infoline.

Thanks.


----------



## seamisty (28 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Its a pity this type of deal wasn't implemented two years ago for PIF investors rather than fire sale $200mill worth of premium assets and then have to watch the remaining dead wood dwindle away to nothing. Seamisty


Pacific First avoids fire sale January 28, 2010 - 11:34AM 
Ads by Google
Invest in a Mortgage Fund
8.34%pa since inception. Invest frm$1000 in registered 1st mortgages.

www.ProvidentCapital.com.au

AAP 

Pacific First Mortgage Fund has avoided an asset fire sale after Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd (CBA) extended a $82 million loan facility for the beleaguered fund.

Fund manager BalmainTRILOGY (BalmainTRILOGY) says the new loan facility will now expire on June 30, 2010 and will be renewable every year if CBA remains comfortable with the fund's performance.

BalmainTRILOGY's joint chief executive Andrew Griffin said the bank's decision enhanced the fund's ability to improve recoveries from its assets and prevented a fire sale of some assets.

"As a lender to the fund CBA is entitled to act immediately to recover its loan funds," Mr Griffin said in a statement on Thursday.

"Had they done this a fire sale of some fund assets would have been forced.

"Their decision to extend the loan removes this damaging consequence and enables us to better protect the asset values," he said.

BalmainTRILOGY took over responsibility for the unlisted fund last July after former manager City Pacific Ltd went into receivership and then liquidation.

City Pacific froze redemptions and distributions to more than 11,000 investors in the first half of 2008, and loan defaults in the portfolio drove writedowns in 2009, leaving the fund valued $521.1 million by November, 2009.

Mr Griffin said CBA's loan extension was a significant win for unitholders of the fund and BalmainTRILOGY was comfortable the fund could comply with the new terms.

"We are now able to map the future of the fund with greater certainty and finalise a strategy to restarting some payments to unitholders," he said.

Unitholders, CBA and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission will be consulted throughout this process, he added.


----------



## mellifuous (28 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Its a pity this type of deal wasn't implemented two years ago for PIF investors rather than fire sale $200mill worth of premium assets and then have to watch the remaining dead wood dwindle away to nothing. Seamisty.




Thanks for the link Seamisty.  Members of the PFMF are always the last to find out about anything.

Well, that means the fund pays about $20m/year  in bank and management fees + others ... yes, a great deal for some - but not for unit holders.  That means a fire sale of $400k per week, just to keep the FUM (and management fee) high.

Just as bt took over 'Pacific Beach' at the Gold Coast was sold for $80m - $40m went to Fortress, $40m to the CBA - the fund lost $70m - great management.  The PFMF holds 43% of the fund in vacant land - and just about every loan is under external receivership. Fees to the manager, the bank, and to the receivers.

The list of fire sales just goes on - Hope Island, Martha Cove.

And some negotiations - the CBA got us into this mess by giving the fund $90m when it couldn't back $150m it already owed.  For the generosity of lending the fund money, they again tie up the whole of the funds assets - the bank and the manager are fine, but members?

Yes, a great deal (meant to be sarcastic).

By the way, members were going to have a meeting about the fund's future, now they're just going to 'consult' us.

Wow... aren't we lucky?

..


----------



## seamisty (28 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Below is my last two formal complaints made to Wellington Capital today. I will keep you updated on the response.I was also told by Caroline Snow by email today that " Investor updates are published every four months - April, August and December, and are published during the following month. The December update is due to be released in January, and will be released via the NSX. ''  :::band                                                                                      So only today and tomorrow left of January, the long awaited for update must be 'IMMINENT'!!!!!!Seamisty

COMPLAINT 2
I wish to make a formal complaint regarding the release of PIF quarterly updates.

PIF 17 Oct 2008 update was released on the NSX on the 22nd Oct 2008.
     11 Dec 2008 update was released on the NSX on the 11th Dec 2008. =7 week interval
    30 April 2009 update was released on the NSX on the 29th May 2009. =24week interval
     31 Aug 2009 update was released on the NSX on the  1st Sept 2009. =14week interval
          Dec update                                                                       =21week+ interval


Considering we were initially told we would be provided with regular reports/quarterly updates, approx 5 months between investor updates can hardly be considered as being provided with 'regular' PIF information. I consider a quarterly report to be just that, delivered regularly every four months. Can PIF investors expect more of this type of erratic provision of information reporting  or is it possible for WC to deliver quarterly fund updates at regular four monthly intervals?

COMPLAINT 3

I would like to lodge a formal complaint as to why Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital has not given PIF investors the option to be kept updated by email as opposed to the expensive alternative of a mail out?
Ms Hutson has been involved with the PIF in a managerial capacity for approx two years and has not made this option available which was ALREADY in place with Octaviar when she first became involved with the PIF.
In view of the fact that the PIF is severely impaired financially and appears to be getting more so, why is money being unnecessarily wasted in this manner?
It is my understanding that of the approx 5,000 investors who signed up with the IMF PIF Class Action, approx three quarters of those supplied an email contact which is being utilised by IMF rather than costly mail outs of which investors ultimately will have to cover the costs. Email is a far more efficient, less expensive option and I would consider any professional business would implement this cost saving strategy. I discussed it with Justine Buckley on the WC hotline well over a year ago and was told it was definitely an option and WC was collating a data base of PIF investor email addresses.
Does Print Mail Logistics provide the printing and mail out service for WC? If they have not in the past will they be in the future?


----------



## seamisty (28 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Minister Bowen unveils ASIC's proposed new powers 


Source: Bloomberg 
AUSTRALIA'S securities regulator will be given greater powers to pursue and penalise individuals and corporations for market misconduct under proposed changes unveiled by the government today. 

The government will introduce legislation later this year that, if passed into law, will increase the maximum penalties that can be imposed by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for the breach of market misconduct provisions, Financial Services Minister Chris Bowen said in a statement.

"These changes will ensure that ASIC is properly equipped to investigate and prosecute serious corporate misconduct which has the potential to cause significant harm to the economy and investors," Bowen said.

ASIC's telephone interception and search warrant powers will also be improved, he said.

"Importantly, these reforms will bring ASIC's investigative powers into line with other regulators, such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission," Bowen said.
The changes will increase the pecuniary penalties for individuals to $500,000 or three times the profit made or loss avoided, whichever is greater.

For corporations, the penalty will be the greater of $5 million, three times the profit made or loss avoided, or 10 per cent of the company's annual turnover during the period the breach occurred.

And, the maximum term of imprisonment for these offenses will be increased to 10 years from five years currently. 

Mr Bowen told reporters in Sydney the changes were prompted in part by "ASIC's advice to me that they find one hand tied behind their backs" when investigating some cases.

As part of the proposals, ASIC will be able to access telecommunications interception material collected by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) under a court-issued warrant.

ASIC's search warrant powers will also be improved to dispense with the need to issue a notice to produce before a warrant is enforced.

"The proposed change to ASIC's search warrant power will significantly reduce the potential for evidence to be destroyed before a warrant is executed," Mr Bowen said.

The government will release an exposure draft of the proposed changes later this year.

Other related article links below. Cheers, Seamisty
http://www.smh.com.au/business/corporate-crooks-face-tougher-penalties-20100128-n0g1.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/28/2803589.htm?section=australia


----------



## Duped (28 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Its a pity this type of deal wasn't implemented two years ago for PIF investors rather than fire sale $200mill worth of premium assets and then have to watch the remaining dead wood dwindle away to nothing. Seamisty
> 
> 
> Pacific First avoids fire sale January 28, 2010 - 11:34AM
> ...




My guess why:


Our lender RBOS was in a far more desperate situation than CBA and was trying to get repatriate capital any way it could.


Unlike RBOS, CBA is on home turf, meaning public backlash is more damaging?


Unlike RBOS, CBA has a massive exposure to Australia property and is hence far more motivated than any private lender on the planet to do anything it can to preserve property value in Oz.  I.e. it would be stupid not to do a deal and hence prevent more property hitting the market at fire-sale prices.

It seems that in everyway possible MFSIM under King & Co exposed PIF to as much risk as possible. His selection of counterparties .... is there anything positive I can say.

Apparently, it turns out Lehman Bros were a substantial lender to Fortress.  And guess whose firm's people have been reported as hitting King hard with questions on that fateful phone conference in Jan 08.  None other than, Lehman Bros.  Does the expression Bunny in Headlights apply here.  At least McGrath had the humility to admit he wsn't a batsman.  Perhaps King should have stuck with practicing law.


----------



## Duped (28 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Hi Duped,
> 
> Well,  I'm just giving my opinion - I'm not skilled in tax - The best 'advice' I can give you is to ask your manager (as Danielle did, and hasn't got an answer), or phone the ATO help line.
> 
> ...




Thanks but I don't follow. I'll just try calling WC AND the ATO for an answer - AGAIN.


----------



## seamisty (28 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I was originally told by WC hotline staff (when I still had faith in WC) that we would receive regular quarterly PIF updates and any other general fund related news would be released intermittently to the NSX in between updates as part of Jenny Hutson's committment of honesty and transparency. Unfortunately I never received this in writing. Has any one else got a record of promised quarterly updates in writing? Also thanks to those of you who have provided/offered other PIF related info. Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (28 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Thanks but I don't follow. I'll just try calling WC AND the ATO for an answer - AGAIN.




Well, my meaning is:- 

(assuming the fund is damaged with severe losses which are never going to be recovered.)

I think that the proper meaning of the word 'distribution' is a 'distribution of profit' - each member receives, on a pro rata basis (according to his/her unit holding) a share of that profit.

Under normal circumstances, that is, in a liquid unlisted fund,  each member is entitled to redeem his/her capital directly from the fund - the reward for making the investment is being paid a distribution (or share of the profit).

So, if no profit is made, then no distribution is able to be made.   Actual losses and impairments must be taken into account when calculating profit.  So, if losses and impairments cannot be overcome, then no profit is realised, and therefore no distribution can be paid (there is no share of profit).

However, payments of redemptions can be made in the case of non-liquid unlisted fund but only to the extent of any surplus cash in the fund. There is no tax consideration - investors are merely getting some of their investment back.

In a  unlisted fund, if  a manager attempted to pay members capital as distributions (in the circumstances with such losses and impairment), then that manager would clearly  breach  the Tax Act.

So, no income, no profit, no distributions.

Now, if one consider the PIF as listed, then clearly one might assume the situation to be the same, that is, distributions would not be able to be paid because the fund's losses could not be overcome in order to make a profit - so, no profit, no distribution.

One might further assume that one is entitled to redemptions.


But the foregoing is not true of a listed fund,  members are no longer  entitled to be paid a share of profits (that is, no longer entitled to be paid distributions' in the ordinary sense of the word - a share of profits).

Your manager defines distributions (Page 74 of the memorandum) as:-

"... Calculation of Distribution Entitlement
Calculation of distributable amount
The ‘distributable amount’ for a distribution period is to be determined in accordance with the
following formula:
DA = I + C
Where:
DA is the amount of distributable amount;
*I is the income of the Fund for the distribution period *minus any amount of the income that is set aside during the distribution period as reserves or provisions under the Constitution; and
*C is any additional amount (including capital, previous reserves or previous provisions) that the responsible entity has determined during the distribution period is to be distributed.* ..."

Really, "I" more or less equals net profit - since the provisions will be the fund's ligitimate expenses.

*So, before in the unlisted environment where the Tax Act would prohibit capital being repaid as distributions, now that the fund is listed, capital is able to be paid as a 'distribution'.*

This means, an investors capital is able to paid (as a fund expense, that is, 'cost of capital') to investors as tax assessable income ("distributions").

I think it is misleading to use the word 'distribution' in circumstances whereby capital is being repaid to investors and those investors will be required to add any 'distribution' amount to any taxable income.  Many investors think that distributions and 'distributions' are the same, but they are not.

In fact, in the PIF, only capital is capable of  being repaid as 'distributions' because there is no income to generate profit (because of the huge losses and impairments). The formula for the PIF is in fact "D = 0 + C"  (since there is no income, I = 0).

If one wants to look to a specific example of the difference, then one has only to  look to "Calculation of Distribution Entitlement" (Page 74 Memorandum).

So, if we look to page 59 of the memorandum, the manager states:-

"... 6.4 Cash payments
The responsible entity intends to make cash payments to Unitholders totalling 3 cents per Unit with the first payment to be made in October 2008, the second in December 2008 and thereafter quarterly.
Due to the significant impairment recognised at 31 May 2008 it is anticipated that the cash distribution will be a capital repayment and tax deferred. See section 9 in relation to taxation issues. ..."

Given the state of the fund (that is, the massive losses and impairments), one would think that a capital payment (tax deferred) would be order, but that's not how it's panning out either:-

In a letter to a unit hoder, the manager stated (in part), "... at this time we have been provided with guidance in relation to whether the cash payment will be in the form of a capital return or distribution ..."

It seems that the waters are a lot muddier than one might think.  The manager now requires  'guidance' before any payment is to be made.  My guess is that the 'guidance' is coming from the ATO, and there are going be a heap of folk more than a little disappointed when they their first payments (if they in fact do receive a payment).

I should also point out at page 9 of the Memorandum:-

"... Tax Deferred that component of cash payments from the Fund that are not taxed. .."

My view is that this means capital payments made from the fund as NOT taxed by the fund, so investors will stand to deal with taxation on such payments on an individual basis.

Again, s. 601FC(1)(d) requires all unitholders to be treated equally - if some tax, and other don't, then are they being equally.  I really don't know the anwer to this one.

So, I hope that gives you an insight to my twisted mind.

Thanks.

...


----------



## seamisty (28 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I stuffed up here, we were meant to get quarterly updates which were changed to four monthly which are currently five monthly. I will correct my complaint and re submit it as below. 

COMPLAINT 2
I wish to make a formal complaint regarding the release of PIF four monthly investor updates.

PIF 17 Oct 2008 update was released on the NSX on the 22nd Oct 2008.
11 Dec 2008 update was released on the NSX on the 11th Dec 2008. =7 week interval
30 April 2009 update was released on the NSX on the 29th May 2009. =24week interval
31 Aug 2009 update was released on the NSX on the 1st Sept 2009. =14week interval
Dec update =21week+ interval


Considering we were initially told we would be provided with regular reports/quarterly updates, approx 5 months between investor updates can hardly be considered as being provided with 'regular' PIF information.  In view of the fact that we are now meant to be receiving four monthly PIF investor updates can PIF investors expect more of this type of erratic provision of information reporting or is it possible for WC to deliver fund updates at regular four monthly intervals as opposed to five monthly?::::::::::


If we are to receive an announcement on the NSX regarding the update in January and the mailout is meant to occur in Jan also then that means the written copies will have to be ready to go tomorrow as well. Having been given wrong information many times previously from WC staff I am reluctant to believe we will even see it tomorrow. If we do it will probablly be after close of WC office so they don't have to man the phones. Some are placing bets off the forum as to when and if it will arrive!!! Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (29 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> In a letter to a unitholder, the manager stated (in part), "... at this time we have *not  *been provided with guidance in relation to whether the cash payment will be in the form of a capital return or distribution ..."



 (correct typo in previous post)

Just a little bit more information from W.C.'s Q & A:-http://www.newpif.com.au/pifreports/InvestorUpdate_Q&A_July2008.pdf

"... 4.7  For the foreseeable future, *all cash payments will be in the form of capital payments to investors *..."   

Clearly this statement was made given the severe impairments and capital losses in the PIF.   Then one has to wonder why the statement to the unit holder, "... at this time we have *not  *been provided with guidance in relation to whether the cash payment will be in the form of a capital return or distribution ..."

From an ordinary accounting perspective with respect to a distribution derived from income, such an income could NEVER be on the horizon for the PIF because of the substanital losses and impairments, as W.C. says "for the foreseeable future" - perhaps W.C. should have said that there will never be real income flowing into the PIF again.

"... Investors will need to speak to their accountant or tax agents, *but for most investors*, a capital payment means there is no tax payable on the amount received.  ..." (emphasis added)

Clearly "most investors" does not include all investors, so W.C. anticipated some investors would have to pay tax on the return of what is left of their respective investments.

All the foregoing sits uncomfortably with the following excerpt from page 57 of the Memorandum:-

"... Cash Payments to Unitholders
*The amounts paid to Unitholders for accounting purposes are treated as a financing cost expense*. For taxation purposes, these payments continue to represent distributions under the Income Tax Assessment Act. ..." (emphasis added)

And sits uncomforably with this excerpt (Page 74 of the memorandum):-

"... Calculation of Distribution Entitlement
Calculation of distributable amount
The ‘distributable amount’ for a distribution period is to be determined in accordance with the
following formula:
DA = I + C
Where:
DA is the amount of distributable amount;
*I is the income of the Fund for the distribution period *minus any amount of the income that is set aside during the distribution period as reserves or provisions under the Constitution; and C is any additional amount (including capital, previous reserves or previous provisions) that the responsible entity has determined during the distribution period is to be distributed. ..." (emphasis added)

To me, it's a tad confusing, there are no more redemptions, but there are  - cash payments / distributions /  distributions being a mix of income and capital / distributions being assessable income / capital payments being tax deferred / distributions representing an expense to the fund (rather than a distribution of profits to investors in an unlisted fund).

I would have thought that 'guidance' would not be necessary because there is no income into the fund.  This is the nub of my interest in this matter, because W.C. seems to be contemplating that a distribution (not income, and not capital) might be made simply as a fund expense - after all, it's one of the two options on which guidence is sought.

I only raise the matter as  a point of discussion because it seems to me that in the double-entry accounting system, what is an expense to one party in a transaction must necessarily be income to the other party, otherwise there can be no tax deduction for the first-mentioned party.

If "distributions' are going to be an expense to the fund (whether they contain capital and/or income), then to my mind, such payments must necessarily be tax assessible income to members - but if such payments are not tax assessible for members, then if follows that such payments cannot be regarded as expenses in the fund.

All I say is that investors should follow W.C.'s advice and get professional help from a tax agent or accountant and post the results on the forum so everyone understands where they stand.

..


----------



## seamisty (29 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Both Michael Kings and Phil Adams websites are both inaccessible at the same time when they were both operational until recently. Coincidence or something fishy going on here? The plot thickens!! Seamisty ::

Temporarily Disabledwww.elysiumfields.net/ -


Agilis Global Global Investment Management. ... This webpage is currently under construction.  © 2010 Agilis Global.http://www.agilisglobal.com/WhoWeAre/MeetOurTeam/PhilAdams.html
http://www.agilisglobal.com/ContactUs/terms.html


----------



## Duped (29 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks mellifuous.  

I follow most of your postings but there's some statements that I'll have to take your word for.

Such as "However, payments of redemptions can be made in the case of non-liquid unlisted fund but *only *to the extent of any surplus cash in the fund."  and "In a unlisted fund, if a manager attempted to pay members capital as distributions (in the circumstances with such losses and impairment), then that manager *would clearly breach* the Tax Act"  and "But the foregoing is not true of a listed fund, members are no longer *entitled *to be paid a share of profits"

You're right about the conflicting messages WC are giving out about the form of any payments to unit holders.

And if you suspicion is correct, that the ATO is contradicting WC's statement that the fund can pay a return of capital then .... WC will have failed me again.

Thanks for the explanation of double-entry accounting.  Can you explain tax deferred?  What tax could there possibly be on capital that can be deferred?  I lent PIF some capital and PIF is giving it back to me.  There's not likely to be any capital gain to me. Any capital gains made by the fund are treated separately and dealt with in my tax return in accordance with the annual PIF tax statement.

The whole issue seems to be unfair trickery to try and screw more taxes and RE fees out of me.  Pure wealth destruction.  PIF is such a dog of an investment.

All - As for paying for advice from an accountant or tax agent.  That's just a standard disclaimer.  What's the point.  If WC don't tell us what form the payment is going to be, how on any planet is the adviser going to be able to provide any meaningful advice.  Any advice I pay for will be a waste of my savings.


----------



## mellifuous (29 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Thanks mellifuous.
> 
> I follow most of your postings but there's some statements that I'll have to take your word for.
> 
> ...




Hi Duped,

Don't take my word for "But the foregoing is not true of a listed fund, members are no longer *entitled *to be paid a share of profits" - it was an error I noted after the edit period had closed.  I don't correct it because it's not relevant anyway - no income, no share of profits.  If the fund was liquid fund, members would be entitled to a share as determined by the manager/PDS.

You acquired units in the fund, and you were entitled to redeem those units - however, the fund is now listed, and your rights to redeem as now extinguished.  What W.C. didn't mention in its Q & A under the heading "Redemptions" was that redemptions were not part of the scene anymore - I think that was an important omission - I'll bet that a lot of members still believe that they're entitled to redemptions from the listed fund.  I'd even bet that there are those who belive they're entitled to distributions from profit like the old days when the fund was liquid.

My guess there are quite a lot of investors who are in for a shock.

I have a law degree gained after retirement - I worked for short period as a junior barrister but got bored because I didn't need the money, so my experience is quite limited.  I have no experience with tax other that what I have to pay in my super fund, company, and personally.

As far as I understand it, 'tax deferred' means that the tax treatment has to be applied at a later time  - I'm sure there must be someone here who knows the correct description.

This is my guess, that W.C. didn't realise the distinction between the listed fund and the unlisted fund with respect to tax - I think also that many investors had no idea of the tax consequences (if any).

I think that if W.C.  makes a payment and an investor has to pay tax then that investor (if not forewarned) will go troppo.  It might be that the fund might have to pay the tax, and if it does, that each investor will be paying tax in the fund.

It's either going to be much adieu about nothing, or a really big deal.  I was even thinking that it might be the downfall of W.C. as manager.

Of course these are only my unskilled opinions, but I find the whole thing very interesting.

As I've mentioned before, W.C. only operates while investors have confidence, but once confidence is destroyed then so will W.C. be destroyed (as manager of the PIF).

.


----------



## simgrund (29 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Hi Duped,
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> You acquired units in the fund, and you were entitled to redeem those units - however, the fund is now listed, and your rights to redeem as now extinguished.
> What W.C. didn't mention in its Q & A under the heading "Redemptions" was that redemptions were not part of the scene anymore - I think that was an important omission - I'll bet that a lot of members still believe that they're entitled to redemptions from the listed fund.  I'd even bet that there are those who belive they're entitled to distributions from profit like the old days when the fund was liquid.
> .




Hi Mellifuous,
As to the "listing"; all of the unitholders present at forums and the printed glossaries which followed, will recall that the NSX listing measure was presented as "only to those who wished to cash out" for whatever reasons.
The rest were manipulated to believe JH promises in PIF $1 restoration when the "redemptions" would again be on the table. 
Shock indeed. However, PIF Constitution was changed before. 
Regards


----------



## mellifuous (29 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Hi Mellifuous,
> As to the "listing"; all of the unitholders present at forums and the printed glossaries which followed, will recall that the NSX listing measure was presented as "only to those who wished to cash out" for whatever reasons.
> The rest were manipulated to believe JH promises in PIF $1 restoration when the "redemptions" would again be on the table.
> Shock indeed. However, PIF Constitution was changed before.
> Regards




Hi Simgrund,

As I understand it, W.C. didn't want to run the fund unless it was listed.  It doesn't make sense that W.C. wanted to list the fund to give investors their money back by way of redemptions, in fact, it would seem it was exactly the opposite (apart for the promised $0.45c offer and 3c/unit payments (if any)).

Managers like to have unimpeded access to capital - many managers hate redemptions - confidence (and returns) drives investment in funds, and the last thing a badly performing manager wants is the ability of investors to flee the fund.  So, to avoid the ups and downs of the market (that is, redemptions), managers prefer a listed fund.

Of course, when a fund is listed, has no income and is badly damaged, then investors (not the manager) suffer the market - their units are worth very little to nothing.  I imagine its a helpless feeling to be in such a position - I know I feel helpless being an investor in the PFMF which a manager that doesn't disclose much.

The PIF's unit price will never increase much from where it is now because any payments to investors (if any) may serve only to negate any growth within the fund.  In fact, the PIF unit price is no more than guesswork, the real unit price is what is paid on the market for units from time to time.

While I can't say that I've looked at the memorandum and Q&A throughly, I would say that I'd be suprised if there is one word about the payment of redemptions - there is only mention of 'cash payments' and 'distributions'.

Yes,


----------



## selciper (29 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

As Ms Hutson apparently rates her YouTube appearance a success (it hasn't been pulled yet) she might consider using the video medium to communicate with all the investors who voted for her in 2008. Mr Robert Pitt should also appear. Easy to organise, even nine year olds upload to YouTube.

No sign of the "imminent" update on the NSX site.


----------



## Duped (29 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

mellifuous

Aaaaah.  I think I get it. 

Back to July-Sep 08.

I think all agreed that the redemption rules in the constitution *HAD *to be amended. The 360 day limit for the deferment of redemptions was fast approaching.

WC's proposed Resolution 1 "extinguishes the Unitholders' right to redemption"

JH sold the NSX Listing during the Roadshow to me as:- providing liquidity. (Arguably also in the Explanatory Memorandum. (EM))  I.e. that this was something on the side, something extra that WC was doing to help out. Those that really needed to get out, could get out.

But we're now saying that what was really happening was that by extinguishing the right to redemption, the fund *HAD *to list (or provide an alternative exit route for investors). HAD TO list because of some legislation somewhere. Is that what you're saying?  

And the extinguishing of redemption rights led unavoidably to changes in the way tax was treated in the fund? 

Not according to WC. First line of page 56 of the EM "there will be no material change in Australian income tax legislation or other legislation that may affect the Fund"

I'm not having a go at you mellifuous.  I'm just trying to know how much I don't know.  

It was a complete surprise to me to learn that on top of paying income tax on the 'distributions', I also had to pay tax on my share of any Capital Gains Tax the fund chooses to pass on to investors. Something that my half baked financial adviser didn't tell me.

Section 9.1 of the EM is frightening. My understanding is that Unitholders are still 'presently entitled to the income of the fund'. Right? If so then 9.1 says that I have to pay the fund's income tax even if WC decide to keep those $ in the fund.  I'm exposed to so much risk.  WC could hold all income in the fund, increasing the fund value to increase WC's profit and pay lawyers and Perpetual, and I'd have to pay more money out of my pocket to the tax office for the priveledge.  Is that correct?  Anyone?


----------



## mellifuous (29 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> mellifuous
> 
> Aaaaah.  I think I get it.
> 
> ...





Hi Duped,

No, the actions only HAD to be done if all the proposals were agreed to - all the actions were carried out simultanneously - the listing and the extinguishing of investors' rights to redemptions.  The effect of this was that (except for the promises made by W.C.) members were no longer entitled to any return of capital from the fund.  Members would have to  sell their respective units on the NSX to recover their capital.   It was all part of the one deal.

'no material change in Australian Income Tax Legislation or other legislation that may affect the fund' may very well be true, except that investors' tax obligations have been set out by the manager, and that prudent investors should have checked (as directed by W.C.) with their accountants and/or tax advisors.     Investors tax postion has certainly changed, even if the fund's hasn't.

Blind Freddy could see that if 'distributions' were fund expenses (as set out in the memorandum), and that 'distributions' could include capital (again in the memorandum), so then everyone must immediately see a profound change from a unlisted fund which would not be permitted to make a distribution from capital, especially when the fund has such losses and impairments with no income.  W.C. clearly set out that such 'distributions' were income as defined in ITAA.

With respect to 'income of the fund', there is NO INCOME, except to say that money will come into the fund from the sale of assets but these monies will a return of capital, and in any event there will be no profit to distribute.  The fund is in deep loss which will never be overcome - so, forget about income INTO the fund,  of profit in the fund, forget about the fund paying tax, but keep in mind what might happen when the fund pays investors - any entity, members or the fund, could end up paying tax on money paid from the fund to investors.

That's how I see it.

..


----------



## Sister Act (29 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I am new to this webite and these forums. I am interested in Rolf Koops relationship to Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF.  He is mentioned in several posts in relation to his having his passport confiscated over business dealings with another thread LKM Capital Debenture Holders.

Thanks!


----------



## seamisty (29 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

While waiting for the release of the 'imminent' update today I was thinking about the response I got from WC yesterday assuring me PIF investors would be receiving said update in Jan (cutting it a bit fine Jenny!) and thought the wording  was a bit odd.

'Investor updates are published every four months - April, August and December, and are published during the following month. The December update is due to be released in January, and will be released via the NSX'

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/published
pub·lish  (pblsh) 

v. pub·lished, pub·lish·ing, pub·lish·es 
v.tr. 
1. To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale.
2. To bring to the public attention; announce. See Synonyms at announce.
v.intr. 
1. To issue a publication.
2. To be the writer or author of published works or a work.

If the Dec update had already been 'published', what was the hold up?

A bit obscure in my opinion or just more BS for another stalling tactic. 

I beleive the Australian Shareholders Association is monitoring the progress of (or more specifically, lack of progress) the Dec release we were told in our last PIF update(released Sept 1 2009) was 'due to be released at the end of Dec 2009'!!! I know I am :horse: but failure to make continuous disclosure to investors can have serious consequences if any information which is considered 'price sensitive' has not been released to the NSX when it became available. I am not saying this is the case. Also, I know the NSX has had to contact WC previously to correct certain information regarding the Class Action.

I tried to call the WC hotline not long ago and got the message 'all our operators are currently busy', yeah right!! (licking stamps?)

Yes I know, I keep dragging this issue up but it is simply not GOOD ENOUGH and I will continue to make noise whether it achieves results or not!!! Five months without an investor update for those that are not computer savvy would be extremely stressfull to many. Gross incompetence is totally unacceptable from so called professionals!! Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (30 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

. Gross incompetence is totally unacceptable from so called professionals!! Seamisty[/QUOTE]

Hear bloody hear!!!!!


----------



## seamisty (30 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> . Gross incompetence is totally unacceptable from so called professionals!! Seamisty




Hear bloody hear!!!!![/QUOTE]It's very rare PIF investors have anything to laugh about regarding this fund JohnH, but I found your reason for having to edit your last post a total crack up!!!!!!! I wonder how many others feel as disgusted and let down as we do with the current apparent mismanagement? Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (30 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Hear bloody hear!!!!!



It's very rare PIF investors have anything to laugh about regarding this fund JohnH, but I found your reason for having to edit your last post a total crack up!!!!!!! I wonder how many others feel as disgusted and let down as we do with the current apparent mismanagement? Seamisty[/QUOTE]

....I must learn to spell as well!!!


----------



## charles36 (30 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

SISTER ACT  As far as I am aware Rolf Koops and LKM have no connection to MFS etc.  However, a post went on the ASF drawing attention to LKM debenture holder's plight and ASIC'S action.  If you are a debenture holder in LKM and desire any further information perhaps we can arrange to contact.  I am the Action Group leader.


----------



## charles36 (30 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

SEAMISTY AND OTHERS.  Perhaps the reason there is no update because there is no update//Nothing to tell us, the fund is doing nothing but bleeding and the manager of the RE is seeking other income from new ventures.  With a bit of luck the update maybe a "swansong.'


----------



## seamisty (30 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> SEAMISTY AND OTHERS.  Perhaps the reason there is no update because there is no update//Nothing to tell us, the fund is doing nothing but bleeding and the manager of the RE is seeking other income from new ventures.  With a bit of luck the update maybe a "swansong.'



 You could well be right Charles, but anyone with an ounce of business acumen would not employ staff that would deliberately mislead investors and media alike with providing false statements regarding  pending announcements and leave themselves open for further criticism by not honouring those statements would they? No Jenny Hutson of 'Wellington Capital merchant bank with four core areas of expertise all with a property focus' would surely value her previous reputation too much to do that, maybe the NSX had a glitch and will post the evasive little sucker today!!!! Seamisty



Business Acumen

Business acumen is one of the 5 Executive Core Qualifications (ECQs).

Business acumen is the ability to acquire and administer human, financial, material, and information resources in a manner that instills public trust and accomplishes the organization's mission, and the ability to use new technology to enhance decision making.


----------



## marcom (30 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

In todays AFR: Property

*ASIC under spotlight over trusts
*
Activist investors in the $60 billion unlisted property trust sector want the corporate regulator to impose greater transparency on the lending arrangements underpinning their investments....


----------



## seamisty (30 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> You could well be right Charles, but anyone with an ounce of business acumen would not employ staff that would deliberately mislead investors and media alike with providing false statements regarding  pending announcements and leave themselves open for further criticism by not honouring those statements would they? No Jenny Hutson of 'Wellington Capital merchant bank with four core areas of expertise all with a property focus' would surely value her previous reputation too much to do that, maybe the NSX had a glitch and will post the evasive little sucker today!!!! Seamisty
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Also I forgot to add, if there is nothing to report to or update members on after five months it certainly  accounts for the reason potential investors are staying away in droves from our severely impaired units wallowing on the NSX at 9 cents.


Another point of interest, try accessing the media archive section on our newpif website http://www.newpif.com.au/mediareleases.html 
INVESTOR AND
MEDIA UPDATES 

> 2008 News Archive

 All that you can access is NSX PIF announcements from Feb 2009. Another glitch or have all the glowing media accolades full of hope and promises  gone? (Said missing articles are still posted on the Wellcap site up to Sept 19th 2009 minus any mention of court appearances!! ) Too much of an embarrassment to be posted along side nothing but past and pending court appearances maybe or am I just having difficulty accessing all the original media articles section? Seamisty


----------



## selciper (30 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty - The PIF website is really uninviting to use.
. 
Is it any wonder that the PIF Helpline(?) is overloaded with anxious callers seeking information? Investors not linked to this forum are, sadly, left absolutely in the dark. If there is no update issued on Monday next, surely the authorities must step in.


----------



## Sister Act (30 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> SISTER ACT  As far as I am aware Rolf Koops and LKM have no connection to MFS etc.  However, a post went on the ASF drawing attention to LKM debenture holder's plight and ASIC'S action.  If you are a debenture holder in LKM and desire any further information perhaps we can arrange to contact.  I am the Action Group leader.




Thanks Charles.


----------



## Cookie1 (30 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Marcom,

I've scanned and attached the article entitled "ASIC under spotlight over trusts" from the Weekend AFR today. 

Cheers, Cookie1


----------



## Cookie1 (30 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

There's another article of interest in the Weekend Australian Financial Review today in the *Perspective* section entitled *"Where the Property Men Went"* by Lisa Allen. As it was a 2-page spread I've had to cut and paste on 3 pages. Included are Michael King, Phil Adams, Craig White, Jim Raptis, and Craig Gore (included for Mellifluous and those involved with City Pacific and Balmain Trilogy). I have not included the write-ups on Henry Kaye nor Robert Bassili but will do so if anyone wants them posted.

Thanks to Lisa Allen of the AFR for her article.

Cheers, Cookie1


----------



## seamisty (30 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Cookie1 said:


> There's another article of interest in the Weekend Australian Financial Review today in the *Perspective* section entitled *"Where the Property Men Went"* by Lisa Allen. As it was a 2-page spread I've had to cut and paste on 3 pages. Included are Michael King, Phil Adams, Craig White, Jim Raptis, and Craig Gore (included for Mellifluous and those involved with City Pacific and Balmain Trilogy). I have not included the write-ups on Henry Kaye nor Robert Bassili but will do so if anyone wants them posted.
> 
> Thanks to Lisa Allen of the AFR for her article.
> 
> Cheers, Cookie1



Thanks Cookie for posting that and thanks to the intrepid reporters that have provided PIF investors with a further 'update' as to the whereabouts and activities of those associated and possibly responsible to our current predicament. Wellington Capital Premium Income Fund Investors are basically left on their own when it comes to disclosing/revealing information relating to pIF activities. Thank goodness Wellington Capital do not have access to management fees or until the 3 cent repayment of capital to investors happens, which I imagine is higher on the agenda than a four monthly investor update which is looking more likely to be  a five monthly  plus . I would sincerely like nothing more than to be proved wrong regarding Wellington Capitals 'and Jenny Hutsons' proven/promised performance in relation to investor expectations. I will be the first to deliver an apology if it is ever warranted re information in relation to the current status of our fund. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (30 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

If any PIF investors are  becoming tired of my continuous 'negative Wellington Capital' posts and think it is becoming a detriment to this thread, please do not hesitate to voice your opinion on here.  I would hate to think my efforts are viewed as detrimental in our ongoing commitment to return PIF related information to unitholders because I even get tired of my same old ' negative rhetoric' and am strong enough( I think )to fight on off forum Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## communique (31 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> If any PIF investors are  becoming tired of my continuous 'negative Wellington Capital' posts and think it is becoming a detriment to this thread, please do not hesitate to voice your opinion on here.  I would hate to think my efforts are viewed as detrimental in our ongoing commitment to return PIF related information to unitholders because I even get tired of my same old ' negative rhetoric' and am strong enough( I think )to fight on off forum Thanks, Seamisty




The number of your posts is in proportion with how much you invested. You deserve to get it off your chest.  However, others prefer to work behind the scenes to see justice be done but don’t like to post too much.  It doesn’t mean we don’t follow your posts religiously.

Don’t despair Seamisty!  Eventually justice will be done.


----------



## mellifuous (31 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Cookie1 said:


> There's another article of interest in the Weekend Australian Financial Review today in the *Perspective* section entitled *"Where the Property Men Went"* by Lisa Allen. As it was a 2-page spread I've had to cut and paste on 3 pages. Included are Michael King, Phil Adams, Craig White, Jim Raptis, and Craig Gore (included for Mellifluous and those involved with City Pacific and Balmain Trilogy). I have not included the write-ups on Henry Kaye nor Robert Bassili but will do so if anyone wants them posted.
> 
> Thanks to Lisa Allen of the AFR for her article.
> 
> Cheers, Cookie1




Thanks Cookie1 - I've posted your posts on the Coffee Club forum at Yahoo groups.

"some of them were working on their new scheme before their old one scheme had collapsed"

Now, there's confidence for you.

The need for transparency has been paramount for at least two years now, but as investors, we have been denied the right to make informed decisions about our respective fund's futures.

I think the movement for legislative change is gathering momentum.

Again, thanks.

..


----------



## Cookie1 (31 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

You're most welcome, Mellifuous; sorry I spelled your name wrong.

Cookie


----------



## marcom (31 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Cookie1 thanks for posting the ARF articles - the one on "Where the Property Men Went" is particularly illuminating. In the Craig White piece there is a very important bit of information *"An insurer is funding him against ASIC's court action"*.

If he is found to have misappropriated PIF funds there would be no payout on any Directors and Officers insurance because such policies do not cover illegal activities. So why would an insurer fund his defence? Who is the insurer acting on behalf of - White personally? MFS? I doubt it since the likelihood of a payout under D&O insurance is remote. It may be that a negative result (White found guilty) may impact on other corporate insurance MFS maintained - possible. Or is it a cover? - as White clearly does not have the same financial resources as his fellow conspirators, is one or more of the other defendants funding the person who is the weakest link in the ASIC case?

The Brisbane Supreme Court site lists the following legal representation for the ASIC case:

ANDERSON  	 DAVID MARK  	  	 Respondent  	 DIBBSBARKER
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION 			Applicant 	Self Represented
HUTCHINGS 	GUY 		Respondent 	
KING 	MICHAEL CHRISTODOULOU 		Respondent 	Self Represented
MANAGED INVESTMENTS LIMITED 		101634146 	Respondent 	MCCULLOUGH ROBERTSON
OCTAVIAR ADMINISTRATION PTY LIMITED 		101069390 	Respondent 	
OCTAVIAR CASTLE PTY LTD 		124889381 	Respondent 	
WATTS 	MARILYN 		Respondent 	JAMES CONOMOS LAWYERS
WHITE 	CRAIG ROBERT 		Respondent 	BRIAN BARTLEY & ASSOCIATES

Guy Hutchins is not listed as having representation. As we know ex-criminal lawyer Michael King is representing himself. And our former RE is represented by the usual suspects.

Selciper, I think we need to look at the D&O insurance angle a lot more closely.


----------



## mellifuous (31 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Cookie1 said:


> You're most welcome, Mellifuous; sorry I spelled your name wrong.
> 
> Cookie




hahah.. it's an intentional mispelling on my part.

in the past when I've gone to get 'mellifluous', it was already taken, so I intentionally misspelt it.  Like I'd never get allan.. so I settle for allan161.

no big deal one way or the other.

Thanks.

..


----------



## selciper (31 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Marcom,
The MyLaw extract I recently posted re "directors' insurance and any associated criminal activity" was the best summary I could find.
Surely in any case proven criminal activity by defendant(s) would be to the financial advantage of the insurers.


----------



## mellifuous (31 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Marcom,
> The MyLaw extract I recently posted re "directors' insurance and any associated criminal activity" was the best summary I could find.
> Surely in any case proven criminal activity by defendant(s) would be to the financial advantage of the insurers.




Isn't it the case that ASIC is pursing the matter and if ASIC is successful then your class action is satisifed to the extent of ASIC's action?

Then, if ASIC is not successful then wouldn't your class action proceed for the full amount of the claim?

If this is correct, then the only difference is, that if ASIC wins, then the money goes to your fund, whereas if your class action is successful then the money is distributed to members of the action.


----------



## charles36 (31 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Can somebody please explain to me why there is no conflict of interest in McCullough Robertson representing  MFS in the matter mentioned in post 5041This firm has always represented the PIF and now they are representing the  "enemy" while still representing us in other litigations.  I know as you all do the connection with this firm of JH.  I am getting more confused every time I read something like this.   How can this firm divorce itself from the PIF one minute and then represent the people who have "misused" OUR hard earned money.  Somebody, to quote Pauline Hanson, 'PLEASE EXPLAIN.'


----------



## marcom (31 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Marcom,
> The MyLaw extract I recently posted re "directors' insurance and any associated criminal activity" was the best summary I could find.
> Surely in any case proven criminal activity by defendant(s) would be to the financial advantage of the insurers.




Yes and if the insurer wanted to ensure that White was found guilty they would simply leave him with no funding for his defence. An insurer could do this based on an assessment that the case probably involves illegal actions on White's part. White may then be forced to simply plead guilty to avoid the large court costs and relieve the insurer of any liability. Alternatively, faced with the potential of a custodial sentence and no funds White could apply for legal aid. At this stage the proceedings are a civil matter as opposed to criminal proceedings, so legal aid may be difficult to obtain.

The other thing that I found odd about the article is White's quote *" I have had nothing to do with the MFS executives. I have not been approached". * In all the things he could have mentioned why say that!

The other thing that stands out in the article is none of the MFS executives maintained their innocence or said that they would "strenuously defend ASIC's charges." One would presume that White as a professed "bush lawyer" would have made some claim of innocence - "I only did it for the good of the company, I received no gain at all." Pity that that is no defence against breaches of the Corporations Act.

King had a go early in the piece, but now it is just down to "*I am not going to be sitting around, spending my life being occupied by negative court cases."* No Michael you won't be spending your time just sitting around occupied by negative court case as you will be headed for prison son! And if you want to know exactly what life is like as a corporate criminal just contact Brad Cooper of HIH fame who is serving 5 years and is incarcerated at Kempsey Prison on the NSW north coast - yes that's the new prison that has a prison population of 95% aboriginal people. Brad's having a ripper of a time just sitting around.

Another thing that the MFS executive seem to share these days is the desire to reinvent themselves in PRIVATE COMPANIES - that's right away from the regulatory gaze.

Charles36  Yes this certainly does highlight the conflicted position of JH and our RE. Surely Brisbane is not so small a city that other law firms can't be found!


----------



## marcom (31 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> SEAMISTY AND OTHERS.... With a bit of luck the update maybe a "swansong.'




Remember it ain't over 'til THE FAT LADY SINGS...


----------



## JohnH (31 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Remember it ain't over 'til THE FAT LADY SINGS...




Well, she has got just 3 hours 50 minutes Queensland time until the Sh*t hits the fan IMO!!!

..................... do you reckon it will be a seranade or a dirge???


----------



## seamisty (31 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Remember it ain't over 'til THE FAT LADY SINGS...



Marcom, please check your private messages. Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (31 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Well, she has got just 3 hours 50 minutes Queensland time until the Sh*t hits the fan IMO!!!
> 
> ..................... do you reckon it will be a seranade or a dirge???



Regardless of whether we get the promised update or not or what the content will be I hope all investors voice their opinions/complaints to WC and ALL relevant regulatory authorities. This ongoing arrogant treatment is not acceptable. I have at least three pieces of evidence from WC stipulating the Dec update would be released on the NSX and mailed to PIF investors in Jan. We also have our last PIF August 2009 update  stating 'the next update is due to be released at the end of  Dec' (2009). With no apology or announcement to state differently and still being assured by Caroline Snow on the 28th Jan 2010 (and because I take this as a personal insult from WC ) I once again quote::::


"Investor updates are published every four months - April, August and December, and are published during the following month. The December update is due to be released in January, and will be released via the NSX". 


Jenny Hutson was not available for 2 weeks as at the 15th Jan which WC staff were well aware of. If this is the reason we did not receive the update which is A MONTH OVERDUE then we are all STUFFED!!!! I believe it should have been prepared before WC had two and a half weeks holiday over Xmas and new year. Most able bodied PIF investors who are fortunate to be healthy enough are back in the bloody work force and did not have the priveledge of being financially secure enough to shut office and down tools for this period of time!!! (fish don't have access to calendars!!!!)  Another blatant demonstration of WC incompetence and willingness to deceive PIF investors. Fortunately for us because of the well documented evidence of the lack of WC performance and the ongoing misleading communications being delivered from WC staff we have the growing sympathy of the regulators, it is not a waste of time reporting incompetence so keep those complaints rolling!!. So yes Communique, I do use this forum to vent and get my gripes off my chest, but I do so on behalf of others as well, some with more at stake than me and many with far less who have simply given up. I know of many working tirelessly behind the scenes and I commend you all. I was full of hope and optimism when I voted for Jenny Hutson and Wellington Capital, I just hope investors in the WC managed trusts::


Brisbane Industrial Property Trust
Rimcorp Property Trust No. 4

don't suffer the same fate as PIF investors if new tenants are not secured for the  industrial warehouses which have been vacant for some time at Eagle Farm owned by those trusts. Tomorrow is another day and will be a busy one regardless. Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (31 January 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Article in the Brisbane Times 31/01/10:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/sunkids-and-courtroom-shadows-20100131-n6j1.html

Sunkids and courtroom shadows
SCOTT ROCHFORT
January 31, 2010

The final piece of the carcass of the collapsed Octaviar Limited (aka MFS) will be offered to potential buyers today. The liquidator of the financial engineer is expected to put the Sunkids childcare business officially up for sale.

Bentleys Corporate Recovery is expected to open a ''dataroom'' for potential buyers of the business, which operates 20 centres and owns 36 other centres and development sites across Australia.

The Sunkids sale comes two years after the initial implosion of MFS. There have already been more than 200 expressions of interest.

However, the creditors and former shareholders of the fallen MFS and its satellites are probably more focused on the liquidator's public examination of several former high flyers in the company in April.

The former MFS chief executive, Michael King, has been summonsed to a NSW Supreme Court examination where he is expected to provide his first public explanation of the collapse of the company, which has more than $2 billion of liabilities.

Other ex-MFS staff summonsed to appear include another former chief executive, Craig White, and David Anderson, the ex-chief financial officer and a well-paid consultant to MFS's former liquidator, Deloitte.


----------



## seamisty (1 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

PIF Update just posted on NSX. I haven't read it yet so no comment. Seamisty http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722438.PDF


----------



## seamisty (1 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quote from http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722438.PDF

"It remains unlikely that the Fund will return to a situation where regular distributions are a feature of the Fund"


So there it is, we will get our one of 3 cent return of capital, JH will draw management fees for how ever long it takes to restore unit values? I don't think so!!!! Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (1 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Quote from http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722438.PDF
> 
> "It remains unlikely that the Fund will return to a situation where regular distributions are a feature of the Fund"
> 
> ...




http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722438.PDF

"... Report of meeting of committee members

The Investor Advisory Committee has met for its first meeting of members with the Fund's management team. It is noted that a large amount of correspondence from fellow Unitholders has been received by email and post, and that many Unitholders have expressed disappointment that they had not received prompt individual responses. This correspondence was tabled and discussed with the Fund's management team.

Much of the correspondence received by the Investor Advisory Committee seeks information that is not publicly available.  Whilst the committee is able to meet with the Fund's management team, they are unable to provide us with information that is not available to all Unitholders.

Of particular interest was the ASIC proceedings which were commenced in November 2009.  As a committtee we will be watching these proceedings with interest and we are sure all Unitholders will be.  We have been advised that the statement of claim sets out in detail the events that ASIC claims to have happened around the drawdown of the Royal Bank of Scotland loan in November 2007.

On a more positive note, the Wollongong project seems to progressing well, and the Fund's management team explained to us that completion and sale of the apartments in this complex will allow the promised 3 cent cash payment to be made to Unitholders - a payment we are sure will be welcomed.

We will continue to table your correspondence at our meetings with the Fund's management team and report back to you in investor updates.
..."

The two striking things about this 'Report' within the 'Update' (from an outsider's point of view) are:-

1.  That the Investor Advisory Committee adds absolutely nothing to the Update itself - readers will note that the 'Report' is no more than a 'duplication/recording' of part of the 'Update', and;

2.  The statement "... they are unable to provide us with information that is not available to all Unitholders. ..." shows the W.C. WOULD not disclose information that would not be shared with the remainder of the members of the fund in any event.

Seems to me that your IAC is just about the same waste of time that the ICC is to the PFMF.  Seems like your IAC is no more that something that generates 'a false sense of security' (so to speak) - a 'tape recording', or an 'echo' of what W.C. says.

Much ado about nothing.

Tell you nothing, take you nowhere.

..


----------



## Duped (1 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Cookie1 said:


> Marcom,
> 
> I've scanned and attached the article entitled "ASIC under spotlight over trusts" from the Weekend AFR today.
> 
> Cheers, Cookie1




Thanks cookie1.

I'm sure you all know this but ... just in case.

PIF is different from these trusts.  These trusts borrow money and hold (i.e. 'own') property. Leveraging the investors money with money borrowed from banks to buy and hold properties.  Whereas PIF is more like a bank, a lender. PIF holds mortgages over property bought by others. 

I doubt it but PIF might actually turn out to be a lender to some of these trusts.  

Furthermore, I speculate, the only power we (PIF) can assert over those properties (if PIF's RE can't reach an acceptable compromise to paying the outstanding debt with the borrower) is the Power of Sale.  My understanding is that (unless PIF comes to an agreement with the borrower) PIF CANNOT just take possesion of the land, boot the borrower out and then do whatever PIF wants with the property.  My experience is with domestic property whereas PIF's mortgages are commercial mortgages so I could be wrong.


----------



## mellifuous (1 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Thanks cookie1.
> 
> I'm sure you all know this but ... just in case.
> 
> ...




Hi Duped,

The PIF is like the PFMF, and they each functioned like a sloppily run bank. 

The term "trust/fund" is no more than part of the general description of the enterprise, it does not depict the true nature of the enterprise.

When a borrower defaults, the fund does step in and, either works with the borrower to improve the fund's chances of success, or alternatively appoints a receiver which takes control of the borrower to maximize the return for the mortgagee (the Fund).

A liquidator would wind up the borrower.

..


----------



## charles36 (1 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Am I wrong, Has the IAC members who maybe unit holders, received information that is not available to the public from the RE.  Firstly ar we not all unit holders and for all intents and purposes separate from members of the public, therefore how can it be that certain unit holders are privileged to this alleged information to the detriment of other unit holders.  Are we not all equal?  In any case I gave up on the IAC a long time ago as far as I am concerned they are a waste of space on any documentation coming from the RE.  If I had of been elected, I wasn't because I did not nominate, RESIGN.


----------



## selciper (1 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The (expensively printed) update should have contained a disclaimer saying “This document should be read only by the gullible.” 

Pages are filled with blandness that hardly meets head-on our increasing concerns.

The IAC section is, to put it kindly, pathetic. Why hasn’t the IAC signed off individually on its reported observations? Or have I missed something? And, of course, no long-awaited election result figures are offered.

Interesting to note that funeral black has replaced the shiny red jacket. What might this foreshadow? I hate to think about it.


----------



## Duped (1 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Cookie1 said:


> There's another article of interest in the Weekend Australian Financial Review today in the *Perspective* section entitled *"Where the Property Men Went"* by Lisa Allen.
> ...
> Thanks to Lisa Allen of the AFR for her article.
> Cheers, Cookie1




Thanks for the posting cookie1.

I can see now how King is playing this.  First his 'interview' with reporter Nick Nichols and now this.  In the Nichols article he sported at-peace-with-the-planet attire and blamed Short Sellers.  Painting himself as a victim, doing his best and fallible.

In this article he is quoted as saying "provided I do certain things it is settled and *life moves on*" and "I am not going to be sitting around, spending my life being occupied by *negative *court cases. ... I will be working to pay off my obligations ..."  The article paints him as taking it on the chin, i.e. honourable.  I know a lot of people who would read the article and view him as a true blue Aussie and his accusers as bureaucratic wowsers. 

Just like Swan painted us PIF investors as greedy (IMO) when confronted by the question from the floor from a PIF investor at his LSE talk last year.  Absolute rubbish. Swan has no idea how this 'investment' was sold to me.  I would have had to go AGAINST the recommendation of my AFS Licensed (a system sponsored by ASIC) advisor to avoid ending up in this thing.

We're being stabbed in the back here.


----------



## seamisty (1 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> Am I wrong, Has the IAC members who maybe unit holders, received information that is not available to the public from the RE.  Firstly ar we not all unit holders and for all intents and purposes separate from members of the public, therefore how can it be that certain unit holders are privileged to this alleged information to the detriment of other unit holders.  Are we not all equal?  In any case I gave up on the IAC a long time ago as far as I am concerned they are a waste of space on any documentation coming from the RE.  If I had of been elected, I wasn't because I did not nominate, RESIGN.



Well I did nominate Charles, and to be perfectly honest with you, I always suspected the IAC voting results had been manipulated in some way hence the reluctance of Wellington Capital to relaese the voting results. In saying that what a relief not to have my name associated with such an embarrassing report as to their roles and duties!!! I too would of had to resign, being part of another blatant waste of PIF investors funds involved in paying for this mockery of an Investor Advisory Committee would be nothing more than an insult to other investors!!!


I also dread to think where unit values will end once Jenny Hutson draws management fees if it declined in value of a minimum of six cents per unit while she was not collecting fees!! As one investor emailed to me this morning regarding his view of the update::"WHAT A TOTAL CROCK OF SH1TE!!!!" Seamisty


----------



## Duped (1 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Seamisty - The PIF website is really uninviting to use.
> .
> Is it any wonder that the PIF Helpline(?) is overloaded with anxious callers seeking information? Investors not linked to this forum are, sadly, left absolutely in the dark. If there is no update issued on Monday next, surely the authorities must step in.




Odd isn't it.  Why would you have a menu item for 'Premium Income Fund'  when the whole site is dedicated to the ... Premium Income Fund. 

Put together with the menu item 'Wellington Capital' it's not hard to get confused about what you're looking at: the newpif site or wellcap site.  I use my 80+ year old father as a benchmark and I can tell you it can be pretty low.  Not that WC seem to be acutely aware of what's going on in the world I live in.


----------



## marcom (1 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Just finished reading the absolutely pathetic excuse for transparency and disclosure called PIF Business Update. Well if you thought the update was a bit "cut and pasty" with all the hallmarks of something that was slabbed together at the last minute ...your right!

If you click on the properties tab in Acrobat reader look what you find - *Author: C Snow* (Yes if you have a look the boss doesn't write any of them!) With the boss reduced to nothing more than a photo (yes this years portrait features the refreshingly appropriate black attire) and a digital signature anything is possible!  But then look at the *Date created and Modified:* Caroline was in the office on *Sunday* slaving away, and just managed to get it on the NSX in time to stop the punters tearing down the front door looking for any morsel of hard information!


----------



## seamisty (1 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Just finished reading the absolutely pathetic excuse for transparency and disclosure called PIF Business Update. Well if you thought the update was a bit "cut and pasty" with all the hallmarks of something that was slabbed together at the last minute ...your right!
> 
> If you click on the properties tab in Acrobat reader look what you find - *Author: C Snow* (Yes if you have a look the boss doesn't write any of them!) With the boss reduced to nothing more than a photo (yes this years portrait features the refreshingly appropriate black attire) and a digital signature anything is possible!  But then look at the *Date created and Modified:* Caroline was in the office on *Sunday* slaving away, and just managed to get it on the NSX in time to stop the punters tearing down the front door looking for any morsel of hard information!



LOL Marcom, just because we are treated like idiots does not mean we are!!!! When I fowarded the update on to my regular AG members I have contact with my comment was::: ". I think the reason it took so long was because it appears most of the content has been cut and pasted from other articles!" More evidence of lax Wellington Capital management and disdain for  PIF investors! So much for it being mailed to investors in Jan!  Dare I actually say I was 'LIED' to? (again)Something else to add to my 'dossier'!!! Seamisty


----------



## Duped (1 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

RE Investor Update: 31 December 2009

*No show*: No mention of the Sheraton Mirage Gold Coast transactioon.

*Cash Payments*:No mention of the form of the 3c 'cash payment'.  Answer me this WC: how am I going to get tax advice as recommended by YOU in the Explanatory Memorandum?

*Reducing Costs/Expenses/Outgoings/Fees/etc/et/etc*: No mention about any efforts by WC to reduce the costs of operating the fund.  Big issue don't you all think.  I mean, the Annual Report listed expenses of around $3 Million to lawyers and $1 Million to Perpetual.  Am I the only one who thinks that's a HUGE expense.  Is WC comfortable with that? I think WC may need a (in management mumbo jumo speak) paradigm shift. 

Instead we get this one sentence under 'Asset realisations' on page 2 "These sales ... allowed the Fund to *implement its strategy* to *secure strong operational deals* which will *maximise the longer term value* of other parts of the Fund's portfolio."  I.e. the fund is cannibalising itself.  

*Business Plan*  Ahhh! There it is on page 2 under 'Cash Payments': "After that payment is made, the Fund will focus on the rebuilding of unit value.  This will be achieved by a combination of *further development of selected* existing assets, *selected realisations* and with *measured new investments aimed at rebalancing the asset class allocations* of the Fund."

First 2 sound like more of the same self cannibilising.  Where's the transparency on how well this is managed?  Or do we just have to *trust *WC?

As for the 3rd: rebalancing to what? To that on the webpage: http://www.newpif.com.au/pifoverview.html  Anyone know where that benchmark came from?  How old is it? WC have used every Investor Update  to remind us of the great changes that have occured through the GFC. So is that benchmark as out date as the net asset backing of 45c at the top of that webpage?  And who would decide on new benchmark?  We *entrust *it to WC.

Just a thought but wouldn't it be a great 'investment' for PIF to engage a measured buy back of its own units?  I mean, if the fund value really is above 30c per unit then isn't 9c a unit an absolute bargain?  Of the 4.75million units traded on the NSX so far more than 10% (510 thousand) have exchanged hands at or below 9c. More than 20% exchanged at or below 10c.  According to WC's last asset valuation of PIF, buyers face huge potential gains at those prices.  And that's without the potential cash flow into the fund from the ASIC action.  Or would a share buyback be morally wrong?  At those prices, why isn't the RE seriously considering it? Is there any downside to such a policy?

*"Rebuilding Unit Value" and "Regular Distributions":*  Who are WC rebuilding unit value for?  Us unit holders or to maximise the $ value of WC's 0.7% fee? 

What's that noise Skippy? Sounds like the screeming of a shot-up propellor plane heading straight for the dirt.  No, its our share price after the WC update that "It remains unlikely that the Fund will be able to return to a situation where regular distributions are a feature of the Fund". Another failed-to-deliver for WC.  Who's going to buy units in a fund that only benefits the RE?  There's no more commitment to distributions. And market confidence in the fund was already poor with the NSX trades at a small fraction of the net asset backing and never at a respectable volume. 

No returns, no way out and an RE that is inherently motivated to maximise their profit by increasing the 'value' of the fund as much as possible? You can check out at any time you like but you can never leave.  This is the investment equivalent of serfdom.  My capital can buy its freedom but at a very high cost.  In the meantime it's put to work indefinitely for the benefit of WC and it's house filled with lawyers, Perpetual etc; with no other rights to being freed.  All the power is with WC to free my capital whenever or if ever it chooses to.  Again, all we have is *trust *that WC will be a fair and true master.

Maybe I'm seeing this wrong.  With NSX trading at rock bottom WC have seen that it can't get any worse and chosen to use the opportunity to clear the decks of undeliverable commitments.  Either way, I'll be sure to pray for our capital with the rest my family tonight.  Pray that our capital's new master is a good master. For without it, certainty of a comfortable retirement is less certain.  Let's pray the crops don't fail, for such will bring on a vengeful master.


----------



## mellifuous (1 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> "It remains unlikely that the Fund will be able to return to a situation where regular distributions are a feature of the Fund". Another failed-to-deliver for WC.




So much for the formula D (distribution amount) = I (income - provisions for the operation of the fund) + C (capital) [W.C.'s "Q & A"]

It was always going to equal zero, so looks like the manager has backed away from D = zero + C, and so it should.

I still reckon the words should have been "the fund will never pay distributions".

It's not a "failed to deliver", it was a "never going to happen".  I just never understand how ASIC allows any manager of funds such as the PFMF and the PIF to even mention distributions, it's scandalous.  The thought of having to add a return of what is left of one's capital to one's assessible income is just madness.

Now, all that remains to be seen is what happens when capital is paid to members (if it is).

..


----------



## seamisty (1 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Overall the content of the PIF update reflected the usual lack of transparency and true state of our PIF and the time frame of which it was thrown together! Just where is our illustrious leader? Just as much disturbing was the obvious lack of knowledge by the IAC reps regarding the pathetic deal Jenny Hutson accepted regarding one of our potentially prize assets, the Wollongong Hotel Resort. It is quite obvious the IAC reps did not do their homework on this particular property or they would not consider that it is progressing well. They would have had a completely different opinion had they researched this particular asset with more thoroughness, all the relevant information having been posted on this thread. Please contact me for the full account if you are remotely interested in the details surrounding the auction etc. Yes a payment would be welcomed if it was to have been achieved when it was originally promised with quarterly distributions to follow, through good management and smart business decisions, not approx 18 months later from a return of capital after firesaling assets with WC absorbing most the proceeds along the way. The only ones prospering from our sad situation appears to be McCullough Robertsons lawyers. The current situation is totally unacceptable and nothing remotely like what we voted for, it just adds fuel to the fire. I hope ASIC is inundated with complaints as a result from this last insult. Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (1 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> Just finished reading the absolutely pathetic excuse for transparency and disclosure called PIF Business Update. Well if you thought the update was a bit "cut and pasty" with all the hallmarks of something that was slabbed together at the last minute ...your right!
> 
> If you click on the properties tab in Acrobat reader look what you find - *Author: C Snow* (Yes if you have a look the boss doesn't write any of them!) With the boss reduced to nothing more than a photo (yes this years portrait features the refreshingly appropriate black attire) and a digital signature anything is possible!  But then look at the *Date created and Modified:* Caroline was in the office on *Sunday* slaving away, and just managed to get it on the NSX in time to stop the punters tearing down the front door looking for any morsel of hard information!




Just a quick word of warning before drawing conclusions about the production time for this pathetic document - the time in "properties" would be when it was converted to a PDF rather than when it was created.


----------



## Duped (1 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Correction to my last post. #5064

The sentence "There's no more commitment to distributions" should have been "There's no more commitment to regular distributions".  The paragraph reads:

_What's that noise Skippy? Sounds like the screeming of a shot-up propellor plane heading straight for the dirt. No, its our share price after the WC update that "It remains unlikely that the Fund will be able to return to a situation where regular distributions are a feature of the Fund". Another failed-to-deliver for WC. Who's going to buy units in a fund that only benefits the RE? There's no more commitment to regular distributions. And market confidence in the fund was already poor with the NSX trades at a small fraction of the net asset backing and never at a respectable volume._

Yours in serfditude, Duped.  Let us pray.


----------



## seamisty (1 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> Just a quick word of warning before drawing conclusions about the production time for this pathetic document - the time in "properties" would be when it was converted to a PDF rather than when it was created.



Thanks JohnH, Regardless of when the update was created, I cannot for the life of me see any content/up to date earth shattering revelations that necessitated withholding it from investors until the absolute death knock apart from sheer inadequacy or spite??? If this is another example of Wellington Capital's business expertise and their own  extolled virtues then I would be surprised to see this merchant bank succeed long term, but, thats just my opinion,which I am entitled to. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (2 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I would not be opposed to the following article if PIF was to receive more than another bill for legal representation! Seamisty

Financiers in court war over sale of Sheraton
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  February 2nd, 2010


THE contract on the Sheraton Mirage has the wobbles, as Jenny Hutson's Premium Income Fund dukes it out in court with mortgagee St George Bank for a piece of the $60 million sale price.

The Premium Income Fund (PIF) and LJK Nominees -- second and third mortgagees to the Sheraton respectively -- have refused to relinquish their mortgages on the Sheraton Mirage as the sale to Indian property group Pearls Infrastructure Projects offers no return for either of them.

St George Bank agreed to the $60 million deal last November, after an earlier contract for about $70 million to Indonesia's Rajawali Group fell through.

LJK Nominees, a private company controlled by Sydney anaesthetist Joe Ross and the last in the queue for a return on the property, is understood to have opposed both deals.

Rajawali has since splashed out $75 million for the Surfers Paradise Marriott Resort.

However, this time both PIF and LJK Nominees have railed against the Pearls contract which leaves the two of them empty handed.

Both have been negotiating with St George to secure a partial payout from the deal on the table.

St George is owed $60 million plus costs on the Sheraton.

PIF is owed $20 million, while LJK's debt is unknown.

St George originally planned a Supreme Court challenge to PIF and LJK on January 15 seeking a court ruling to allow clear title for the Pearls contract to settle as early as last week.

That hearing was postponed and is scheduled for February 12.

Ms Hutson yesterday confirmed to The Gold Coast Bulletin that PIF did not support the Pearls deal.

"Our job is to look after the fund and, at the current price, there is no return to the Premium Income Fund," she said.

"The law, in my opinion, doesn't require us to release the charge.

"We haven't been able to reach an agreed outcome that sees a return to the Premium Income Fund, so the right thing in our opinion was not to consent."

Raptis Group, which paid $82 million for the 3.4ha beachfront hotel resort in 2005, lost control of the trophy property to receivers in March last year.

First mortgagee St George agreed to the Pearls contract after a fruitless eight-month campaign to find a buyer.

Apartment and shopping centre developer Pearls Infrastructure Projects emerged as the bank's white knight in November, marking the company's first foray outside of India.

It is understood the developer has laid plans for a $20 million refurbishment of the property which has effectively remained in a 'time warp' since it was completed in 1987 by disgraced property tycoon Christopher Skase.

Pearls could not be contacted for comment yesterday.


----------



## seamisty (2 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/02/02/184081_gold-coast-business.html




 Pay day coming for troubled funds
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  February 2nd, 2010


BOTH Premium Income Fund investors and Wellington Capital are closer to a pay day some time this year, but the exact date still remains in the air.

Wellington head Jenny Hutson, in her latest update to 11,000 fund investors, said the 3c payout promised for the end of 2008 will be paid in 2010 after apartments in a Wollongong development, City Beach, have been sold.

PIF secured a $38 million contract for the Wollongong project in November and, under that agreement, will be paid that amount from the first phase of construction of 75 apartments.

Ms Hutson yesterday said 55 of the 75 apartments had been pre-sold.

"We're excited about that," she said.

But she could not give a clearer indication of when the 3c payment will be made.

Once unitholders are paid, Wellington also will begin receiving an annual 0.7 per cent management fee from the fund.

Wellington has yet to be paid for running the fund since taking over from stricken financial services group MFS (now Octaviar) in 2008.

Ms Hutson said following the 3c capital payment, the fund would concentrate on 'rebuilding' value, which once stood at $755 million and is now internally valued at $295 million.

"It remains unlikely that the fund will be able to return to a situation where regular distributions are a feature of the fund," she said.


----------



## mellifuous (2 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> "We haven't been able to reach an agreed outcome that sees a return to the Premium Income Fund, so the right thing in our opinion was not to consent."




I would have thought that if the bank had complied with its obligations to get the best price in the circumstances, then the 'right' thing would have been for the PIF to accept the outcome.

As I understand it, the bank has no obligation to guarantee a return to the PIF (as second mortgage holder) providing it sells at a reasonable price in the circumstances.

Does W.C. mean "oppose" when it says "not to consent"?  It seems to me that W.C. is opposing the bank's application.

Could it be that good money is going after bad here?  It could be that W.C. is like a monkey trying to climb a greasy rope (so to speak) and the only way is down.


----------



## charles36 (2 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I like Nick Nichols quote, "pay day for troubled funds"  getting our own money back is hardly pay day.  The only one going to get a pay day out of our troubled fund will be the RE, .7%, something in the order of $2.3 million .  Not bad considering the fund has been docked for all expenses incurred and milions of dollars in legal expenses.  PPPPPPP  (p...poor preparation produces p...poor performance.


----------



## Cookie1 (2 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Wellington doesn't deserve to be paid for running the fund down! According to our very late investor update it is only once they start collecting management fees will they start trying to get value back in the fund via some unknown strategy (at least unknown to PIF unitholders)! I thought they were supposed to be working to increase the value of the fund from day 1 of the takeover???? Apparently not so!


----------



## seamisty (2 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Cookie1 said:


> Wellington doesn't deserve to be paid for running the fund down! According to our very late investor update it is only once they start collecting management fees will they start trying to get value back in the fund via some unknown strategy (at least unknown to PIF unitholders)! I thought they were supposed to be working to increase the value of the fund from day 1 of the takeover???? Apparently not so!



 Well the strategy was (as of April last year),Cookie    '' Wellington has undertaken an analysis of all assets with respect to identifying those that are suitable for immediate disposal, those that should be held as is pending market recovery, and those that can be developed and in time will deliver a premium to the fund."  "all decisions have been made with a frugal eye to preserving value in the fund.  There has been no fire sale and no asset has been sold for less than market value." 




Only problem is, what assets of any value are left to maximise? My complaint is already on its way to ASIC!! Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (2 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Well the strategy was (as of April last year),Cookie    '' Wellington has undertaken an analysis of all assets with respect to identifying those that are suitable for immediate disposal, those that should be held as is pending market recovery, and those that can be developed and in time will deliver a premium to the fund."  "all decisions have been made with a frugal eye to preserving value in the fund.  There has been no fire sale and no asset has been sold for less than market value."
> 
> Only problem is, what assets of any value are left to maximise? My complaint is already on its way to ASIC!! Seamisty




Seamisty,
As I recall, the last full listing of PIF assets and mortgages were on pages 22/23 of the Explanatory Memorandum of 18/09/08. 
Perhaps it may be possible to "deduct" known and pending sales to arrive at reasonable estimate. 
Alarmingly, already at that date (31 May 2008), realisable value  estimated by 333 Capital Pty Ltd; the WC's corporate and real estate team, dwindled all our assets to $413,747.


----------



## Cookie1 (2 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/...-business.html

Quote excerpt from the Gold Coast Bulletin today:

"Ms Hutson said following the 3c capital payment, the fund would concentrate on 'rebuilding' value, which once stood at $755 million and is now internally valued at $295 million."


According to Nick Nichols' article in the Gold Coast Bulletin the asset value (internal valuation) is only $295 million. Where has the money/value gone?


----------



## seamisty (2 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Seamisty,
> As I recall, the last full listing of PIF assets and mortgages were on pages 22/23 of the Explanatory Memorandum of 18/09/08.
> Perhaps it may be possible to "deduct" known and pending sales to arrive at reasonable estimate.
> Alarmingly, already at that date (31 May 2008), realisable value  estimated by 333 Capital Pty Ltd; the WC's corporate and real estate team, dwindled all our assets to $413,747.



There was another update in the Dec 2008 PIF investor update which listed current assets and said the net assets were $332.127 mill, then in the 2009 annual financial reportnet assets wer worth $296.351 mill.The fund was said to have been stabilised at June 2008 however it incurred impairment charges of $36.4M in the financial year 09.

In the Aug 2009 PIF update it said that the Chatswood asset (listed as owing us $4,608,231) had been sold and WC had entered into contracts to sell a Mackay construction site.The funds from these assets were used to meet the Funds expenses and to provide operating capital.


What have we got left? Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (2 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

As per usual we read about it in the paper before it is announced on the NSX!!! ( and the day after an overdue PIF update has just been released minus the same PIF related information!!)Seamisty

Raptis Group Loan http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722441.PDF
The Premium Income Fund holds a second ranking mortgage over the assets known as the Sheraton Mirage
located on the Gold Coast, Queensland.
In addition, the Premium Income Fund holds a second ranking fixed and floating charge over the assets of
the owner of the Sheraton Mirage, SP Hotels Pty Ltd. SP Hotels Pty Ltd is a member of the Raptis group of
companies.
St George Bank Limited holds a first ranking mortgage over the Sheraton Mirage and a first ranking fixed
and floating charge over the assets of SP Hotels Pty Ltd.
St George Bank Limited in its capacity as mortgagee in possession over the Sheraton Mirage has
commenced legal proceedings seeking orders which would enable St George Bank Limited to sell the
Sheraton Mirage on an unencumbered basis. The Premium Income Fund is defending these proceedings as is
the third mortgagee LJK Nominees Pty Ltd.
The matter is set down for hearing in the Supreme Court of Queensland on 12 February 2010.
Further updates will be provided as the matter progresses.


----------



## selciper (2 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Nick Nicholls might well have asked Hutson which Brisbane law firm was being employed by PIF for the Feb.12th hearing. Why didn't he do so? 
Surely he scans this Forum for necessary background research. Anyway, it's inevitable that in the coming months WC will attract the attention of heavy-hitting financial journalists. Hutson and the "talented team" - for their own sakes - had better be well prepared.


----------



## Cookie1 (2 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Release on the NSX today about the Raptis Group Loan and Sheraton Mirage

http://www.nsxa.com.au/announcements_list.asp?nsxcode=PIN

Text of NSX Release:

"Raptis Group Loan 

The Premium Income Fund holds a second ranking mortgage over the assets known as the Sheraton Mirage located on the Gold Coast, Queensland. 
In addition, the Premium Income Fund holds a second ranking fixed and floating charge over the assets of the owner of the Sheraton Mirage, SP Hotels Pty Ltd. SP Hotels Pty Ltd is a member of the Raptis group of companies. 

St George Bank Limited holds a first ranking mortgage over the Sheraton Mirage and a first ranking fixed and floating charge over the assets of SP Hotels Pty Ltd.  

St George Bank Limited in its capacity as mortgagee in possession over the Sheraton Mirage has commenced legal proceedings seeking orders which would enable St George Bank Limited to sell the Sheraton Mirage on an unencumbered basis. The Premium Income Fund is defending these proceedings as is the third mortgagee LJK Nominees Pty Ltd. 

The matter is set down for hearing in the Supreme Court of Queensland on 12 February 2010. 

Further updates will be provided as the matter progresses."

WC must be monitoring this thread as Duped and Seamisty pointed out there was nothing in the Investor Update about this very matter!


----------



## marcom (3 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



			
				WC must be monitoring this thread as Duped and Seamisty pointed out there was nothing in the Investor Update about this very matter![/QUOTE said:
			
		

> Well here's another one! Selective disclosure by media again - why not tell the investors that another valuable asset has been firesaled!!!!!
> 
> *Buyer ready to take on project*
> 
> ...


----------



## JohnH (3 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

...................  for your interest, I have a holding in APN International Property for Income Fund which announced yesterday that it is winding up.

Units are currently at 45.7 cents – I purchased at 1.32.  Redemptions are frozen so if I had sold I would have lost 66% of my investment.  They have said that 82% of investments will be realised and in my bank account by the end of this month, so it will be very interesting to see what is salvaged.  – Could create a benchmark for Wellington!
 ..............I'll keep you posted.


----------



## lawry1dog (3 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

We have been unit holders of PIF since January 2007, in which we deposited all our life savings.
When we put in our redemption on the 20 January 2008, the PIF was frozen a few days later.

Of course since then we have not received any money at all from the PIF. 
We did vote for Wellington to take over the fund, but not to go on the NSX.

The facts are the following:-
1. Wellington promised(or indicated) that we will get a 3c distribution by December 2008.
2. Wellington would then pay quarterly distributions.
3. Wellington proceeded with legal actions, to get owing funds from MFS(Octaviar) windup.
4. Public Trustee Queensland won their case, and Octaviar is to be liquidated.
5. Wellington did payoff the $100 million debt facility. With what did they pay this with?
6. Wellington now have the strategy of selling 11 properties and consolidating the other properties.
7. The unit value has gone from 45c down to around 10c, at this point in time.

The following is my conclusions:-
1. Wellington thought that Octaviar would not be completely liquidated, and thus receive around $22 million
from the Deeds of Agreement(which was squashed by the PTQ). This $22 million was going to pay the
3c distribution.
2. Wellington employed several legal firms on behalf of the PIF, but the PTQ(the government) won their
case, and so our PIF will receive an equal slice of the liquidated Octaviar, which will be a few million dollars,
but when. Our PIF has paid for all these legal actions.
3. Wellington is now back to square one, and our fund has no money to pay any 3c distribution or any other
payments. 
4. Wellington is paying staff, CEO and administration, from the PIF fund.

*Wellington Capital is now proceeding with another legal action about the Mirage Gold Coast sale to Pearl, and
of course another loss, will cause e few more million dollars coming out of our Fund.*

From the above facts and conclusions, Wellington Capital, should resign and voluntary hand the PIF to someone
else(Perpetual or a Bank), to manage.
To my way of thinking, Wellington has mis-mangaged our funds, and paid themselves along the way. Nothing given to us.

If Wellington had sent a letter or memo, explaining the situation, and how sorry that things have not panned out
as expected, and giving us some sort of distribution(eg 1cent distribution), then I would be happy and not embark
sending opinions on their questionable performance.

We all make mistakes.


----------



## mellifuous (3 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



lawry1dog said:


> We have been unit holders of PIF since January 2007, in which we deposited all our life savings.
> When we put in our redemption on the 20 January 2008, the PIF was frozen a few days later.
> 
> Of course since then we have not received any money at all from the PIF.
> ...




Hi Lawry1dog,

The manager said that members would be paid (1) by taxable distributions, or (2) by tax-deferred capital payments.

You seem disappointed about not getting distributions - why is that?  

There is no income, and so applying the formula from the Q & A [Distribution Amount (D) = Income (I ) - fund expenses + Capital (C)] would lead to only a capital payment anyway, and capital is your own money (or part of what is left of it)

I would have thought that you would be happy to note that your manager is not going to pay your capital back to you as taxable income.

..


----------



## selciper (3 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Lawrydog: "We all make mistakes." Hopefully our mistakes don't turn upside down the lives of mostly elderly people. Forgiveness is not the flavour of the month.


----------



## marcom (3 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

charles36 The published decision and orders in Federal Court matter Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Koops [2010] FCA 20 (25 January 2010) is available on http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/20.html

marcom


----------



## lawry1dog (3 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I seem to recall that Jenny Hutson at the Gold Coast meeting in 2008, said, that if she could not make a go of managing the Fund, she would resign and give it to someone else and not take any commissions, etc..

She will not pay any 3c distribution at any time, according to my sources.
And why would she, as she is surviving very nicely on the legal action's
income.

Why cannot a Bank bid for our Fund and pay WC, to put them out of their
misery?
We could then have the great Government deposit guarantee.


----------



## charles36 (3 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Marcom,  I have forwarded this information to my action group members.  I must say in this instance ASIC has been tremendous and I mean that.  They have acted swiftly when provided with certain information from the AG.  The receivers in this matter have acted in a very competent manner.  No fire sales etc, so refreshingly different to another fund which I have the unfortunate luck to be an investor.  The LKM fund debenture holders can expect something in the order of 60 cents.  As I posted once before, the fund had a block of town houses,(amongst other projects of course) 19 all told, not finished, money lent to an owner builder, no insurance, sloppy workmanship and all that goes with it, the receivers got stuck in finished the project off, lot of work needed finishing off and had them all sold within six months or so.  Why is it so hard for Wellington Capital to actually do something constructive instead of bleating about giving us 3 cents of our own money back.  If the RE was going to adopt that strategy why couldn't they be open and say so in the beginning, then we could have considered our vote more carefully.  I simply am at lost to understand what is happening to this fund.


----------



## selciper (3 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Charles 36,
Like you, I am baffled by the fund's situation. However, I do suggest - as I have done before - that anybody who hasn't viewed or listened carefully to the words on this YouTube offering should do so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H60lzsGvAWQ


----------



## charles36 (3 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thank you Selciper, I am now more motivated than ever, it was exhilarating. riveting and dynamic. 
Thank you for the information.  If ever I can return the  favour  will you let me know.  By the way my audience walked out.


----------



## selciper (3 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Charles36,
Delighted that the video has re-motivated you. The second time I ran the awful thing I listened in vain for words like "commitment", "credibility" and "qualifications", but then deafness may be setting in. I do agree with the motivator, however, that knowing important people is, well, important.


----------



## JohnH (3 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Charles36,
> Delighted that the video has re-motivated you. The second time I ran the awful thing I listened in vain for words like "commitment", "credibility" and "qualifications", but then deafness may be setting in.* I do agree with the motivator, however, that knowing important people is, well, important.*





Curious words indeed, when the lady in question does not communicate with the MOST important people - those that own the fund she is employed to manage!!!


----------



## seamisty (3 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Charles 36,
> Like you, I am baffled by the fund's situation. However, I do suggest - as I have done before - that anybody who hasn't viewed or listened carefully to the words on this YouTube offering should do so.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H60lzsGvAWQ






"It is the critic who counts: not the woman who points out how good a doer of deeds she is when those deeds could  have been better.
The credit belongs to the woman who is actually in the arena, whose face
is marred by tears of frustration, who strives valiantly to fight for what was so gallantly promised, who complains again and again, because without effort the 
errors or shortcomings will go unchallenged!! Not so much with great enthusiasm, but with great devotions, who spends herself for a worthy cause, who, at the best, 
knows in the end, the triumph of having tried and who, at the
worst, if she fails, at least she fails while daring greatly, so that her
place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who were not the doers of promised deeds"
Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (3 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The following was complaint no one I sent to WC::

  I would like to make a formal complaint regarding the late PIF  investor update which was due to be released at the end of Dec 2009 as promised by Wellington Capital. 

I would also like to know the voting results of the IAC and why approximately six months after the election there has been no report from the IAC committee to unitholders, or will the results and report be included in the overdue update? If not, then I would like this issue lodged as an official complaint also.

Was the 11% voting power of the PIF wholesale fund exercised by WC in the IAC election process? I was distinctly told by WC hotline staff that WC definitely would not be using these votes but would like this clarified by yourself regardless. Has any of the IAC elected representatives provided a contact email to communicate with other investors? If so please provide me with them.

The response I received was totally unsatisfactory and WC stated in all instances that 'no action on our Company's part is warranted' so I sent:::


Thank you for your response to my enquiries.

1. It is stated at the end of page 3 in the PIF Aug 2009 investor update:::The next Investor Update IS DUE TO BE RELEASED AT THE END OF DECEMBER 2009. I do not recall seeing this statement being corrected anywhere to all the other PIF investors who rely only on the three investor updates as their sole source of Fund related information. As such, they would have been anticipating an update to be released to the market at the end of Dec 2009 and subsequently mailed soon after. Are you not aware of  the content of your own updates? 


I conclude that investors were expecting WC to deliver that update at the end of Dec 2009 as stated in the previous update.


2. Everyone knew which unitholders participated in the voting process for the IAC. WC sent us a list of all the nominees. I did not ask that question. I did however ask if Jenny Hutson using the voting power of the Wholesale Premium Income Fund in relation to the election of the Investor Advisory Committee nominees. In fact I asked twice because I was assured it would not be used by Justine Buckley, a WC staff member. 

   The reason I made the enquiry initially was because I knew that if Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital used that voting power it would be a total waste of time nominating because that voting power represented approx 11% of total PIF votes.

Being an IAC nominee I fail to see why the voting results will not be made available if the election process was conducted in a fair and honest manner? Why the secrecy?

I conclude my question remains unanswered.


3. The NSX is not open for investors on Sundays so why would WC release a PIF investor Update that was promised in Dec 2009 to the NSX at 4.22pm Sunday 31st Jan 2010 knowing full well PIF investors would not receive it until the following day Feb 1st?

On the 26th Nov 2009 you wrote:::
Investor Updates are provided for the periods ended April, August and December, and are mailed to investors in the following month. The December update will be release to the market and mailed to investors in January 2010

On Thurs 28th Jan you wrote::
Investor updates are published every four months - April, August and December, and are published during the following month. The December update is due to be released in January, and will be released via the NSX. 

I conclude this issue has not been satisfactorily resolved and I accept the offer of periodic discussions between myself and the Companys Managing Director.


Today I received communication from WC which told me if I was not satisfied with the answer I received from WC complaints dept that 'I may refer a copy of my complaint and the supporting material to the Financial Ombudsman Service'

I guess if I had of gone to the Ombudsman first I would have been told to go through the WC complaints dept initially. Interestingly, WC have never once made reference to or answered my many questions regarding the use of the WC PIF wholesale voting power which represents approx 11% of PIF units. Why???? Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (3 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> Thank you Selciper, I am now more motivated than ever, it was exhilarating. riveting and dynamic.
> Thank you for the information.  If ever I can return the  favour  will you let me know.  By the way my audience walked out.




By the way, have you had a look at the video on that same web page of the "winners" of the debate and see JH prancing around? It is absolutely revolting!


----------



## mellifuous (3 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> I guess if I had of gone to the Ombudsman first I would have been told to go through the WC complaints dept initially. Interestingly, WC have never once made reference to or answered my many questions regarding the use of the WC PIF wholesale voting power which represents approx 11% of PIF units. Why???? Seamisty




Why? Because there is no point complaining to the very entity you complain about.

How about ASIC?

No harm in shooting off an ecomplaint in parallel to a complaint to the Ombudsman.

..


----------



## Cookie1 (3 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> "It is the critic who counts: not the woman who points out how good a doer of deeds she is when those deeds could  have been better.
> The credit belongs to the woman who is actually in the arena, whose face
> is marred by tears of frustration, who strives valiantly to fight for what was so gallantly promised, who complains again and again, because without effort the
> errors or shortcomings will go unchallenged!! Not so much with great enthusiasm, but with great devotions, who spends herself for a worthy cause, who, at the best,
> ...




Hear! Hear! and a great big thank you to the indomitable spirit of that woman! She has great support.


----------



## ian1328 (3 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Does anyone know how the 3c distribution is going to be paid,                    i.e. taxable/non taxable


----------



## seamisty (3 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Why? Because there is no point complaining to the very entity you complain about.
> 
> How about ASIC?
> 
> ...



Yes mellifuous, I will after all the effort that was put into it. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## lawry1dog (4 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Wellington Capital is now proceeding with another legal action about the Mirage Gold Coast sale to Pearl, and of course another loss, will cause e few more million dollars coming out of our Fund.

*She will NOT pay any 3c distribution at any time, according to my sources.*

And why would she, as she is surviving very nicely on the legal action's
income.

*Wellington must RESIGN and hand the Fund to someone else.*

Why cannot we convene a Unit Holders meeting and do this?


----------



## marcom (4 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Brett Heading is Chairman of Trinity Limited and Trinity Funds Management.

*Trinity investors in dark on $19.8m debt
*
    * Anthony Klan
    * From: The Australian
    * February 04, 2010 12:00AM

EMBATTLED Queensland property group Trinity has yet to materially claw back any of the $19.8 million owed by its "project partners", *despite protracted negotiations and legal actions.*

Six months since Trinity suffered a management spill amid a scandal over a $1m secret payment it made to lobbyist Ross Daley, *the group appears to have also made little headway on its promise to improve transparency.
*
In late December the listed Trinity settled a legal case brought by a company controlled by project partner Martin Spinks, but refused to cite the terms of the settlement.

According to the company's accounts, debts owed by several other project partners are included in the outstanding $19.8m.

With the exception of former Trinity director Don O'Rorke, whom Trinity has sued in a bid to recover about $3m, *investors do not know the state of those negotiations, how much those partners individually owe, or even who they are.*

Trinity's $1m payment to Mr Daley, supposedly for helping secure a $100m investment for the group from funds giant Sunsuper, was at the heart of the allegations of poor transparency levelled at the group.

Trinity said it would sue Mr Daley in a bid to recover the money.

On Christmas Eve, the group announced it had dropped the action and settled with Mr Daley, but would not provide details of the settlement amounts or terms citing "confidentiality".

Amid the scandal of the $1m fee, *Trinity engaged Deloitte* to conduct an investigation into the payment, but Trinity refused to release that report, on the grounds that it could hurt the group's legal case against Mr Daley.

The group has since declined to release the report, despite ending its case against Mr Daley, *meaning investors will most likely never know why the fee was paid.*

"Our position in respect of not releasing the report is unchanged," Trinity joint managing director Steve Leigh told The Australian yesterday.

Mr Leigh refused to comment on speculation that Mr Daley had kept between $500,000 and $600,000 of the payment and repaid the rest.

Mr Daley has repeatedly declined to comment.

*Keeping a close eye on Trinity is a group of institutional investors, including Sunsuper, known as the "investors representative committee".*

The group is expected to announce within days whether it will follow through with a move to put out to tender the management of Trinity's $800m of property trusts, after last year forecasting that it would probably come to a decision by the end of January.

Trinity declined to comment on the progress of discussions with the representative committee, but the committee is unlikely to remove Trinity as fund manager.


----------



## selciper (4 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Link to Financial Ombudsman site is:

http://fos.org.au/centric/home_page.jsp


----------



## mellifuous (4 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Link to Financial Ombudsman site is:
> 
> http://fos.org.au/centric/home_page.jsp




Why doesn't one of you go and get a new manager to take over the fund?

or alternatively, it only takes 100 member to force the manager to call a meeting - all you have to do is get a proposal together -

eg.  Proposal 1 --  delist the fund
      Proposal 2 --  disclosure
      Proposal 3 --  etc.. ect...

Trouble is that you need 75% to get the vote passed.

It seems to me to be the most practical way to get yourselves out of the position your're in.

Some of us in the PFMF are aready in contact with a prospective manager.  

We just can't sit by and complaint and see all this crap going on day after day without doing something constructive.

Complaints to ASIC (or anyone else for that matter) are proving useless.  Yes, we have to keep them up, but they're not proving of any value -  and in the end, we don't get feedback anyway - so, how could we possibly know if our complaints have been taken notice of?

It's all bs - no one cares - if investors do nothing, then no one else will.

..


----------



## mellifuous (4 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Of course, to get rid of the manager, and to ensure you don't have to pay $8m to her company as a 'termination fee', you'd have to have two meetings, each on different days (I would think), the first to amend the constitution to repeal the 'termination fee', and the next meeting to terminate the manager (if you have a replacement one).

Of course members could apply to the court and ask the court to appoint a manager to wind up the fund.

I would think that paying a professional for some advice about these issues would be money well spent.

..


----------



## marcom (5 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

In the Brisbane Supreme Court today:

RE: OCTAVIAR LIMITED (FORMERLY MFS LIMITED) Justice Philip McMurd
Court 15 Floor 3 	9:15 AM 
(Costs Judgment)


----------



## marcom (5 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

An interesting piece of research on class actions in Australia:

Business Spectator  5 February 2010
Ken Adams and Damian Grave

*Litigation funders or bounty hunters?
*
There is a lot of hysteria surrounding class actions in Australia and unfortunately for all parties involved it can lead to some serious misconceptions about what's happening in the local legal sector.

For example, following the settlement of the GIO class action a leading practitioner said he had been “…warning anyone who would listen about the danger of ‘Wild West bounty hunters’ turned class-action litigators”. Fear of a burgeoning US-like class action society can be detected in, and influences much of, the debate concerning class actions.

This type of misconception about class actions and litigation funding has been dispelled by a recently released empirical study by Monash University’s Professor Vince Morabito.

On some occasions the hyperbole is understandable and grossly inflated damages claims are frequently the subject of intense media interest. Telstra, a company with an outstanding reputation for market disclosure, was sued by 'angry investors' for at least $300 million. There was little media attention of the near total failure of the case when it settled for an ultimate payment of about $2.4 million as it was cheaper to do so than proceed to trial. 

Similarly, Esso defended the so-called $1 billion class action arising from the explosion at its Longford plant, which it ultimately settled for $32 million, or about 3 per cent of the amount claimed. Considerably less media attention is often given to the unspectacular results of many class actions than the more spectacular allegation.

But the findings of this new report and the ongoing study will enable us to determine whether the legislative objectives of class actions are met. The objectives are to provide an efficient and effective means of resolving multiple claims, and to provide access to justice. In providing better access to justice, there has been a concern expressed not to encourage abuse or the pursuit of the trivial.

Amongst all this noise, it is useful to have regard to the facts. Here are seven findings that are contrary to popular misconceptions about Australian class actions.

*Myth 1: There are vast numbers of class actions.*

There has been an average of 14 class actions a year since the introduction of the statutory class action procedure in 1992. There are many examples of multiple class actions concerning the same subject matter so that the number of disputes that is the subject of a class action is less than 14 per year. In the 17 years that Australia has had a class action procedure in the Federal Court, class actions represent less than 1 per cent of all cases in that Court in each of the 17 years.

*Myth 2: The number of class actions is exploding.
*
In the first quarter of the 17-year period (i.e. four years and three months) that Australia had a class action procedure, there were relatively few class actions. Numbers increased in the second quarter and have been in decline ever since. In the last three quarters of the 17-year period, class action numbers have declined from 92, to 63 and to 53 in the final quarter.

*Myth 3: Litigation funding is increasing the number of class actions.
*
Australia’s largest litigation funder listed on the ASX in 2001. Amongst the leanest years for class actions were 2004 and 2005 when just four and five class actions were commenced respectively.

The High Court’s decision in the Fostif case in August 2006 gave judicial approval for litigation funding, where previously there had been some doubt about its lawfulness. One might then have expected an increase in class actions post-Fostif. In the 2006-07 financial year in which Fostif was handed down there were 19 class actions. In the following two financial years there were 21 and 11. Although more time is required to draw definitive conclusions about the role of litigation funders on class actions, there is no immediately observable spike in the number of class actions post-Fostif.

*Myth 4: Class actions are usually successful.*

As often as not, class actions fail. Either the application is dismissed (21 per cent), the proceeding is discontinued (18 per cent) or the proceeding limps on, but not as a class action (12 per cent). In total, 51 per cent of the time the class action does not continue or does not continue as a class action.

*Myth 5: Class actions are the product of ambulance chasing.
*
Class actions are not only commenced by inappropriately described “ambulance-chasing” lawyers. The largest user in recent times has been ASIC, although it should be observed that each of the nine class actions it has recently commenced arise from the failure of Westpoint.

*Myth 6: Most class actions are shareholder class actions.
*
When reading the financial press one could easily assume that there was an avalanche of shareholder class actions. While rising in prominence, shareholder class actions in the past five years represent only 25 per cent of all class actions. Historically they have been a smaller portion of all class actions, representing only 10 per cent over the last 17 years.

*Myth 7: Class actions are taking longer and longer.*

Close to 70 per cent of all class actions were concluded within two years, and the average duration is declining.

The study is yet to resolve whether the class action procedure meets its statutory objectives of efficiency and effectiveness, and provides access to justice.

The further findings of this important study should enable a meaningful assessment to be made of whether class actions meet the statutory objectives of efficiency, efficacy and access to justice. In the meantime, the preliminary report recording facts including those outlined above will provide a foundation for a more informed debate about the risks posed by, and the utility of, class actions.

Ken Adams and Damian Grave are partners at Freehills.

Footnote: Freehills is a sponsor of the empirical study; and Freehills acted for Telstra and for the State of Victoria in two of the class actions mentioned in this article.


----------



## mellifuous (5 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> An interesting piece of research on class actions in Australia:
> 
> Business Spectator  5 February 2010
> Ken Adams and Damian Grave
> ...




Hi Marcom,

The research in your posting is precisely why I'm concerned for the outcome for members of the PIF.

If too much reliance is placed on the class action, and the class action is not successful, then the remaining options for members of the PIF are not good.

Depending on what 'deferred tax' means, and even if ASIC is successful (or not) in recovering the $150m or so, then that money would go back to the fund and could become a tax problem for members.

If the fund was unlisted, then there are absolutely no tax implications.

As far as I can see, the listing of the PIF does not offer members of the PIF one iota of a benefit, in fact, it is quite the contrary.

..


----------



## Blueboy1 (6 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Money Management.

IMF to pursue class actions, forced to wait on Great Southern

5 February 2010 | by Chris Kennedy
Print this article Comments Bookmark and Share

Litigation funding group IMF Australia has been successful in receiving an exemption from ASIC from having to register several class actions as managed investment schemes (MISs) but group actions including Great Southern were declined exemption, according to IMF.

The Centro, Westpoint and Premium Income Fund class actions were among those granted exemptions, but IMF said that it would have to wait until June 30 for a decision from ASIC about whether group actions including Great Southern and Australian Stockbroking and Advisory Services would be classed as MISs.

IMF was currently looking at several options, including registering the remaining group actions as MISs, a company spokesperson said. It was also possible that IMF would just act for sophisticates and not for retail clients, but any decision would be made after ASIC’s ruling on June 30, he said.

In October a Federal Court overturned an earlier decision stating that a funded class action did not fit the definition of an MIS. No court has yet declared that funded group actions are MISs, according to IMF.

That's a relief !
Blueboy1


----------



## samgribbles (6 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

was anybody short MFS with CMC markets when they went into suspension?

I am in a dispute with CMC over a position held in MFS when they went into suspension.

If you did hold a short position with CMC Markets back in early 2008 when they were suspended can you please advise if:

i. you short position was closed out at the last traded price; or
ii. was your short position held and honoured through to the delsiting and closed out at a price of $0.000?

Responses much appreciated.

Thanks.


----------



## mellifuous (6 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I think you've all been duped. (sorry 'duped', no pun intended)

IMO the very reason that so many of you voted was to avoid a fire sale of your assets, but the truth is that there was no need to have a fire sale.

Your manager stated (below, and among other things) "... The Fund will (subject to a different resolution in relation to the Constitution being proposed and passed in general meeting) continue to be obliged to redeem units in the Fund. This will need to occur by early 2009. It is the view of the board that the net cash available per unit would be 14 cents. ..."

Your manager has stated that because the 360 day 'freeze' on redemptions would have to be lifted and that redemptions would have to be paid, and that is simply not true.

The reality is that when a fund is 'non-liquid' (declared or otherwise) as your fund was, then the non-liquid provisions of the Corporations Act takes over, and the manager is simply allowed to return money to investors as assets are sold and monies are accumulated within the fund.

I'm afraid some of you (perhaps, many of you) voted to list your fund based on a false premise, that is, that if you didn't list, then the fund had to be fire saled.

Further, the $.45c buyback could have only come from your own money anywy, so it offered nothing more than you were entitled to in the first place.

That's my opinion -- you can value it equal to how much you paid for it if you like.

Get some professional advice - you might have a case here.

..





http://www.moneymagik.com/Wellington.pdf

Page 3

The net asset backing per Unit in the Fund, assuming it remains a going concern, is 45 cents per unit plus any amount recovered from MFS.
The net asset backing per Unit in the Fund assuming all assets are sold by 31 March 2009 is 14 cents per unit plus any amount recovered from MFS (see section 6.1 for details).

Page 19

"... The outcome for the Fund if no resolutions are passed is:
The Fund will (subject to a different resolution in relation to the Constitution being proposed and passed in general meeting) continue to be obliged to redeem units in the Fund. This will need to occur by early 2009. It is the view of the board that the net cash available per unit would be 14 cents.
No buy-back will occur.
Wellington Investment Management Limited will remain the responsible entity. ..."


----------



## k.smith (6 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> I think you've all been duped. (sorry 'duped', no pun intended)
> 
> IMO the very reason that so many of you voted was to avoid a fire sale of your assets, but the truth is that there was no need to have a fire sale.
> 
> ...




I  voted for JH because I feared the fund would be firesaled and that we would recover 14 cents per unit. I am immediately reminded of this article, which now that we understand more about the non-liquid provisions of the Corporations Act, makes complete sense... 
http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic-must-step-in-on-behalf-of-pif-investors-20080911-4e5o.html


".....ASIC must step in on behalf of PIF investors September 12, 2008 ...

Unless the Australian Securities & Investments Commission takes a stand on behalf of the beleaguered 10,000 unitholders in the old MFS Premium Income Fund (PIF), these investors will lose the bulk of their savings.

Many PIF investors believe the only options available to them are to either accept the offer by Wellington Capital to run their fund, or watch it liquidated at 14c a unit.

They have been led to believe a "no" vote means liquidation and therefore losses. This is wrong. ASIC needs to step in. Now that PIF's parent Octaviar (the old MFS) is bound for administration and PIF has $200 million in claims to pursue, the imperative for clear and independent instructions is even greater.

The best outcome for PIF would be the orderly work-out out of the fund's external investments and loan book and a return of capital to investors.

The best way for PIF investors to achieve this would be to vote "no" to the Wellington proposal and appoint their own manager to wind-up the fund and pursue any legal claims.

Wellington chief Jenny Hutson has been on a roadshow pitching for the vote from PIF unitholders to restructure and list their fund on the NSX (National Stock Exchange - formerly Newcastle).

Investors should ask themselves if they really want to be locked into a fund listed on an illiquid market paying large fees to a manager who is yet to make enough relevant disclosures.

Wellington had secured the management rights under questionable circumstances from Octaviar in the first place. Octaviar is now run by her former associate and client Chris Scott. For his part, Scott wants to get some money out of Octaviar since he vended his businesses S8 into the old MFS for scrip. That scrip now looks worthless.

For its part, Wellington wants to permanently capture PIF by making it a listed fund. This would appear to be the best outcome for Wellington - who captures millions in fees - but is it best for PIF?

PIF unitholders have a choice, says Hutson. They can vote "yes" to approve Wellington as manager and take stock worth 45c a unit listed on the NSX. She estimates the asset backing at 45c but given the state of the listed property market PIF would trade at a large discount to 45c - especially as Wellington would likely put the hand out for more capital at some stage.

Under the Wellington proposal there is a raft of fees, both cheeky and onerous. There is even a severance fee of 2% of gross assets so PIF would have to pay $8 million to Jenny just to see her off.

Wellington to gee up a 75% "yes" vote to get control. PIF investors need to know they have other choices. In fact they can dump Wellington altogether and appoint their own RE (Responsible Entity). The RE ought to be simply a manager the 10,000-odd unitholders in PIF can trust and who can preside over an orderly sale of their assets.

As PIF is not the only train wreck unfolding on the Gold Coast - there is City Pacific and others - the sooner they unwind the fund the better prices they will get for their assets...."


----------



## mellifuous (6 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I guess the questions are these:-

1.  Would you have listed the fund if you knew that the manager didn't have to wind the fund up if the fund remained unlisted?

2.  Would you have listed the fund if you knew that listing the fund would not give you even a single advantage? and,

3.  Would you have listed the fund if you knew that you would face tax complications with what is left of your investments in the fund as a consequence of the listing?


----------



## mellifuous (6 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Like I've stated before, the goal of the manager is to separate investors from their money - and listing a fund is the optimum way to do it.

As M.W. says, it's great for the manager, but what is best for investors?

"... For its part, Wellington wants to permanently capture PIF by making it a listed fund. This would appear to be the best outcome for Wellington - who captures millions in fees - but is it best for PIF?
..."

I think ASIC failed members of the PIF by not stepping in and making the manager clearly state there is no advantage to listing, and there is no disadvantage to not listing.  ASIC should have also made the manager make the tax implications clear to all members.

I think the statement made by W.C. about winding up the fund in the event of a 'no' vote for the three proposals is misleading - and even though ASIC didn't make W.C. correct the statement (or, at least to the best of my knowledge, they didn't), that does not make the statement legitimate.

M.W. says the statement was 'wrong' -  I agree.

So, what is it when a manager makes a 'wrong' statement and investors rely on that statement to their detriment?

Get the answer from a professional.

..


----------



## Duped (8 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> I  voted for JH because I feared the fund would be firesaled and that we would recover 14 cents per unit. I am immediately reminded of this article, which now that we understand more about the non-liquid provisions of the Corporations Act, makes complete sense...
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic-must-step-in-on-behalf-of-pif-investors-20080911-4e5o.html...




Thanks for posting that article k.smith. I remained mislead by WC until I read your posting. WC led me to believe that if we didn't remove the redemption provisions in the PIF constitution, then the fund would be wound-up and the best I could expect would be a return of about 14c.


----------



## Jadel (8 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Believe me Duped & Melifluous
some people did try everything possible at the time .





 For the urgent and immediate attention of;

ASIC Chairman

Tony D’ Aloisio



Complaint regarding Wellington Capital 



Wellington Investment Management responsible entity of the Premium Income fund intends to call a members meeting on the 18th September 2008 to:

1. Propose a special resolution to amend the constitution to remove the redemption clauses and replace it with the National Stock Exchange and other clauses.

2. On the basis that Wellington Investment Management does not receive in excess of 75 % of the vote required for the proposal, Wellington Investment Management will 
arbitrarily place the scheme in the hands of professional liquidators which will liquidate the scheme by the 31st March 2009 at an estimated  firesale valuation of 14 cents . 


Please find attached supporting documentation as presented by Wellington Investment Management at the recent member forum meeting in July.

Our complaints are;

1. We consider the responsible entity is not complying with Corporations Act 2001 Clause; 

“601FC  Duties of responsible entity
(1) In exercising its powers and carrying out its duties, the responsible entity of a registered scheme must:
(a) act honestly; and
(b) exercise the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person would exercise if they were in the responsible entity’s position; and
(c) act in the best interests of the members and, if there is a conflict between the members’ interests and its own interests, give priority to the members’ interests; and ………..”

We believe Wellington Investment Management is deliberately misleading unit holders of the Premium Income Fund and that they are not providing sufficient information for unit holders to make an informed decision when voting in September. 

Wellington Investment Management has given unit holders the impression it is not possible for the freeze on redemptions to be extended or for the scheme to be wound up over a number of years.  Questions were raised about both these issues at the Wellington Investment Management investor forums in July, and most investors that we have communicated with definitely got the impression from Jenny Huston (director of Wellington Investment Management) that it was not possible for the scheme to be wound up over a number of years or for the redemption period to be extended. Amendment of the Constitution was not offered as an option. 

Members of the Premium Income Fund action group have since called Wellington Investment Management  in  private telephone conversations asking why they won’t give us the option of a long wind up.  The response from Wellington Investment Management is that it is simply not interested in this option. 

We believe it is the unit holder’s right to be informed of the option of an orderly windup over a number of years and that it is the responsibility of the RE to inform us this is possible, providing estimated unit prices for this scenario.  The fact the RE is not personally interested in this option should not influence its behaviour when supposedly keeping unit holders fully informed, and when asking them to make decisions about the fund’s future. 

We would also like to your draw attention to  the fact that 95% of investors in the fund are retired pensioners over the age of 65 ,many remain entirely unaware that  any other alternative  legally exists  for them to access their investment money in a reasonable timeframe at fair asset values

.


The following screenshot is from Wellington Investment Management’s ‘Investor Update – Q&A – July 2008.pdf.’ document.  We consider this to be misleading in that it gives the average reader the impression the redemption period cannot be extended, and also that a long wind up of the scheme is not possible.







We believe that Wellington Capital tactics to gain control of the PIF is morally and ethically indefensible .

 Please, we have no one else to turn to in the present situation ,we are  therefore requesting  ASIC to urgently intercede to uphold the fundamental rights of  investors for  transparency and honesty in this matter , before unit holders vote on September 16.

Please help us , we have only 22 days to stop this injustice.

Yours Sincerely,


----------



## k.smith (8 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Jadel,

Now that I understand the provisions of the Corporations Act for non-liquid funds  I feel  that we have been mis-informed....and I do not understand why ASIC, who seemed so involved in WC presentation of the disclosures to unitholders within the Explanatory memorandum for the meeting regarding future 'payments", did not make WC tell us that....

1. The Corporations Act provides us with our rights to wind up our assets in the fund in an orderly fashion,

2. The tax implications of receiving payments that would in effect just be the return of our own capital that we had originally invested.

It seems grossly unfair, imo, that most unitholders were not, and/or are still not aware of these facts .


----------



## mellifuous (8 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Believe me Duped & Melifluous
> some people did try everything possible at the time .
> 
> 
> ...




Hi Jadel,

I can see from your posting that you were on the ball.

The problem (as I see it) is that ASIC doesn't take investors seriously.

I know that at the time of the proposal, if I was an investor in the PIF, then I would have felt it was 'wind up' or 'list' - at that time I knew nothing about the non-liquid provisions of the Corporations Act.

While you didn't spell out the provisions, I really don't think it would have mattered if you did - ASIC would still ignore you simply because you're an investor and you're not supposed to know the rights and wrongs of things.

I think that ASIC was intenesely focusing on the 'distributions' and would have been blind-sided to any other issue.  Even to this day, I'm stunned that ASIC even let W.C. speak about 'distributions' without mentioning any money paid as such would be no more than investors own money (since there was no income into the fund, and certainly no profit to pay proper distributions from).

The beat goes on with the PFMF too - bt gets away with mentioning 'distributions' as does at least one of bt's supporters.

I was also stunned why ASIC allowed W.C. to set out the formula D = I + C (where D = distribution amount, I = Income (less allocations to run the fund), and C = capital).  The very idea of one's investment capital being paid as taxable income is repugnant to common sense.

I really believe that both W.C. and ASIC have failed investors in the PIF very badly.   The listing was a very big mistake for investors in the PIF.

I would think that PIF members might have a good case to cause W.C. to de-list the fund at its sole expense - only my opinion of course.

..

..


----------



## selciper (8 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Slightly off topic. The so-called helpline is today no more than a blatant propaganda tool for WC to “sell” their great abilities. The trouble is that investors who are not readers of this thread might believe them.


----------



## seamisty (8 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> In the Brisbane Supreme Court today:
> 
> RE: OCTAVIAR LIMITED (FORMERLY MFS LIMITED) Justice Philip McMurd
> Court 15 Floor 3 	9:15 AM
> (Costs Judgment)



The outcome Marcom, Seamisty:::
http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2010/QSC10-017.pdf
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: In the Matter of Octaviar Limited (In Liquidation) (No. 11)
[2010] QSC 17
PARTIES: PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF QUEENSLAND
Applicant
v
OCTAVIAR LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
ACN 107 069 390
FILE NO/S: BS 5184 of 2008
DIVISION: Trial Division
PROCEEDING: Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 5 February 2010
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: Written submissions
JUDGE: McMurdo J
ORDER: The applications for costs by Wellington Capital Limited
and OPI Pacific Finance Limited are dismissed.
CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – COSTS – APPLICATION TO WIND UP
COMPANY – where creditors successfully supported
adjournment of application to permit voluntary administration
– whether their costs should be costs in the winding up
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 601FS(1)
Re Octaviar Limited (No. 1) [2008] QSC 216
Re Octaviar Limited (No. 9) [2009] QSC 273
SOLICITORS: McCullough Robertson on behalf of Wellington Capital
Limited
Russell and Company Solicitors for OPI Pacific Finance
Limited
[1] There are applications by Wellington Capital Limited and OPI Pacific Finance
Limited for certain orders for costs. Each seeks an order that its costs of and
incidental to the hearings of 24 July, 9, 10, 12 and 15 September and 10 October
2008 and otherwise in respect of the adjournment of the application for the winding
up of the company, be costs in the winding up of the company.
2
[2] Until 15 October 2008, the responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund was
Wellington Investment Management Ltd. On that date Wellington Capital Limited
became the responsible entity. It seeks provision for the costs of its predecessor
upon the basis that s 601FS(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that the
rights of the former responsible entity in relation to the fund became its rights. If an
order were to be made in favour of Wellington Capital, there would have to be some
further consideration of that submission. As it happens, I am not persuaded that
either of these applicants should have an order for costs.
[3] The first of those hearings was a routine directions hearing. At that stage the
attitude of the noteholders, represented by the Public Trustee, was not known. The
outcome of the hearing on 9 and 10 September 2008 was Re Octaviar Limited (No.
1).1 I was then persuaded to allow the company an opportunity to appoint
administrators and the winding up application was adjourned. The company’s
argument was supported by each of the present applicants. The hearings of 12 and
15 September and 10 October 2008 were concerned with whether further orders
should be made to permit a voluntary administration to be pursued. The outcome of
those hearings was supported by the present applicants.
[4] Each was a substantial creditor with a commensurate interest in whether the
company was wound up or was allowed to pursue some alternative arrangement.
But further, each company had another reason to oppose a winding up, which was
that it would be likely to be subject to a liquidator’s investigation. I made the same
observation when refusing Wellington Capital Limited its costs of the proceedings
to terminate the deeds of company arrangement.2 Further, the proper interests of
these applicants, as creditors of the company, did not require them to be participants
in the subject hearings in order to protect the interests of the company and creditors
generally. Their case for the adjournment of the winding up application was no
different from that argued for the company and subsequently its administrators.
[5] Mainly for the reason that each company had its own interest in resisting an order
for the winding up of the company, I am not persuaded to grant the order for costs
which is sought. Each application for costs is dismissed.
1 [2008] QSC 216.
2 Re Octaviar Limited (No. 9) [2009] QSC 273 at [7].


----------



## marcom (8 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> In the Brisbane Supreme Court today:
> 
> RE: OCTAVIAR LIMITED (FORMERLY MFS LIMITED) Justice Philip McMurd
> Court 15 Floor 3 	9:15 AM
> (Costs Judgment)




ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 5 February 2010
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: Written submissions
JUDGE: McMurdo J
ORDER: The applications for costs by Wellington Capital Limited
and OPI Pacific Finance Limited *are dismissed.*

And the reasons for dismissal:

"...[4] Each (WIM &OPI) was a substantial creditor with a commensurate interest in whether the
company (Octaviar) was wound up or was allowed to pursue some alternative arrangement.
But further, each company had another reason to oppose a winding up, which was
*that it would be likely to be subject to a liquidator’s investigation.* I made the same
observation when refusing Wellington Capital Limited its costs of the proceedings
to terminate the deeds of company arrangement.2 *Further, the proper interests of
these applicants, as creditors of the company, did not require them to be participants
in the subject hearings in order to protect the interests of the company and creditors
generally. *Their case for the adjournment of the winding up application was no
different from that argued for the company and subsequently its administrators.

[5] Mainly for the reason that each company had its own interest in resisting an order
for the winding up of the company, I am not persuaded to grant the order for costs
which is sought. Each application for costs is dismissed."

Justice McMurdo has stated this twice now - WC intervened in the Octaviar case at substantial legal cost to our fund to avoid a liquidators investigation and to protect the interests of Octaviar.

*Grounds for removal of the RE on the basis of acting contrary to the interests of unit holders in contravention of the Corporations Act?*


----------



## mellifuous (8 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> ORIGINATING
> COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
> DELIVERED ON: 5 February 2010
> DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
> ...




That is why I asked the basis of W.C.'s action as second mortgagee against the first mortgagee bank selling up that property.  W.C. says its taking the action because there is no money for the PIF in the sale - so what?

Isn't that just a big spend on legal fees too?

Isn't it just a slap in the face of investors to see Hutson's husband (or whatever he is) reaping in fees from your fund when there are hundreds of law firms that are totally at arm's length.

Hutson says she wasn't going to charge fees, but I guess she didn't say she wouldn't give hubbie a pile of work.  It'd be interesting to see the fee notes, billed by the micro-second?

This is what happens when there is no opposition - a fragmented unitholding in a frozen fund is doublessly a manager's delight.

..


----------



## seamisty (8 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quote mellifuous::"This is what happens when there is no opposition - a fragmented unitholding in a frozen fund is doublessly a manager's delight."


Mellifuous, PIF unitholders are far from fragmented and are constantly collating and using all available Fund related information as it becomes available. 
Forum support from the three duly elected IAC representatives would have been a great step forward  in knowing that all those who voted for them were guaranteed the best possible representation!! Where else is all PIF related issues discussed and all relevant court results (posted on here before the NSX!!!) and media articles made available apart from this thread?  


Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (8 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Quote mellifuous::"This is what happens when there is no opposition - a fragmented unitholding in a frozen fund is doublessly a manager's delight."
> 
> 
> Mellifuous, PIF unitholders are far from fragmented and are constantly collating and using all available Fund related information as it becomes available.
> ...





Well, I can only conclude that members (properly informed and up to date) concur with the use of Heading's company as the PIF's solicitors.  It would also seem that your leadership is also comfortable with Heading's firm being the fund's solicitors, otherwise there would be a concerted effort to force W.C. to engage another firm.

I'm also surprised that active members of this forum were not aware of the fact that the explanatory memorandum contained a misleading statement as to why it was necessary to wind the fund up in the event the three proposals were rejected.

It seems to me that members are not well informed, but that's only my opinion.

My aim is only to give some thoughts from 'outside the box'.

If you're comfortable that members are fully informed then all should be well.

Thanks.


----------



## seamisty (8 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Heading's company!! Does this mean that Brett Heading , Jenny Hutson's husband, owns Mc Cullough Robertsons Lawyers? I thought he was just a partner? Well, if that is the case then this will just enable us to push/ enforce our argument of 'related party transactions', 'pecuniary interests', 'non arms length tranactions' etc etc.  Please confirm that Mc Cullough Robertsons lawyers is owned by Brett Heading, especially since we do not appear to have benefitted in way from the copious quantity of legal representation to date from said firm!! ( which has been  extensively collated  and kept up to date for future/current reference) 
Also, how does 'one' force their RE to use another law firm mellifuous, apart from calling an extraordiary general meeting at investors expense, because I can assure there are many who are not comfortable with the current situation and are using the options open to them to report their concerns to appropriate authorities. Please do not undermine the efforts of some PIF investors that are extremely pro active in seeking solutions to our current predicament. Instead, if you are so concerned, please contact ASIC with your issues so that they may be recorded to help support the investors that have already made the same complaints which I hope are being acted on. Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (8 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Heading's company!! Does this mean that Brett Heading , Jenny Hutson's husband, owns Mc Cullough Robertsons Lawyers? I thought he was just a partner? Well, if that is the case then this will just enable us to push/ enforce our argument of 'related party transactions', 'pecuniary interests', 'non arms length tranactions' etc etc.  Please confirm that Mc Cullough Robertsons lawyers is owned by Brett Heading, especially since we do not appear to have benefitted in way from the copious quantity of legal representation to date from said firm!! ( which has been  extensively collated  and kept up to date for future/current reference)
> Also, how does 'one' force their RE to use another law firm mellifuous, apart from calling an extraordiary general meeting at investors expense, because I can assure there are many who are not comfortable with the current situation and are using the options open to them to report their concerns to appropriate authorities. Please do not undermine the efforts of some PIF investors that are extremely pro active in seeking solutions to our current predicament. Instead, if you are so concerned, please contact ASIC with your issues so that they may be recorded to help support the investors that have already made the same complaints which I hope are being acted on. Thanks, Seamisty




Why do you think that there is a difference between a 'partner' and an 'owner' when it comes to related party transactions?   Yes, of course, Mr Heading is a partner, but I was using the term 'his' in the ordinary sense, that is, 'the company in which he is an owner (as partner)'. 

I would have thought that when a manager says she wouldn't get a fee and then  goes and engages her husband's firm (opps, yes, the firm in which he is a partner and stands to gain financially), then that smacks of nepotism - you know, wife gives work to husband's company (in which he is a partner).

I didn't refer to a meeting of members, I refered to bring pressure onto the manager to change to another law firm.  I would have thought there might have been a general feeling of discontentment by members of this forum about the fund's legal representations and adventures.

One might put pressure on the manager by representations on behalf of a group of members, complaints to ASIC, letters to the media - after all, it seems a tad tacky that the husband of your manager stands to gain financially when the manager made representations that she would not take a fee - that is, not benefit financially.

To my mind, and really only to my mind, it seems that Ms. Hutson stands to gain through Mr. Heading's company (in which he is a partner) from business given by the fund's manager to his firm (in which is a partner).

I'd be happy to make a complaint to ASIC about the statement in the explanatory memorandum, and yes, I'm aware that others, in particular Jadel, have made complaints to ASIC - complaints which were either unheeded or ignored.

I also think that ASIC should bring pressure on your manager to engage another firm of solicitors.

I don't infer in any way that Mr. Headings firm is not a good firm of solicitors, I only infer that it seems (in my opinion) to not sit well with W.C.'s promise about no fees (that is, if such a statement should include other finanical benefits that might flow from the fund's business activities).

I do not infer anything with respect to what work  is done out of sight of members, nor do I infer that there is nothing being done - my only comment was directed to the fact that no one seemed happy with the fund's legal arrangements but nothing  seemed to be being done about it.

..


----------



## Duped (9 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Law firms aren't companies.  They dearly would love to be. So the partners can make loads more $$$$.  They keep pushing for it.  But fortunately for all of us decent Australians, that gate at the top of that steep and very slippery slope has held.  But for how long.

Do we really think we'll get a better deal with another firm?   Conflict-of-interest is a round-about way of getting JH to ditch MR. IMO the problem lies with JH herself. JH was a partner herself and hence should be well skilled in balancing costs and benefits.  (She certainly wasn't shy telling us at the forum that going after Hutchings & Co.s insurers wasn't worth it) JH is also the ONE who provides instructions.  MR may well just be acting as a 2nd opinion and back office.

Lets focus on the real issue: that we PIF keeps on losing.  We've come out of all these 'battles' with hardly a victory to praise. AND we keep on racking multiple MILLIONS of $$$$$$ in legal bills. From what I've read so far, JH's legal skill ain't impressing me.  The lawyers at PTQ have outplayed us.

Anyone have a list of all the decisions?  My list so far is:
QCA09-282
QSC08-243
QSC09-037
QSC09-202
QSC09-283
QSC10-017


----------



## selciper (9 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

How will WC announce this latest court defeat to PIF investors? And will the release be carefully edited to avoid any criticism of WC?


----------



## Duped (9 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Check out who made June.

http://www.vrl-financial-news.com/pdf/2009 Annual Review.pdf


----------



## lawry1dog (9 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

*Wellington Capital has lost yet another legal action on the 5th February.
More million dollars coming out of our Fund, to support JH family.*

*Why cannot WC inform us of the total of funds lost to all legal actions
thus far?*

Wellington must RESIGN and hand the Fund to someone else.


----------



## mellifuous (9 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Law firms aren't companies.  They dearly would love to be. So the partners can make loads more $$$$.  They keep pushing for it.  But fortunately for all of us decent Australians, that gate at the top of that steep and very slippery slope has held.  But for how long.
> 
> Do we really think we'll get a better deal with another firm?   Conflict-of-interest is a round-about way of getting JH to ditch MR. IMO the problem lies with JH herself. JH was a partner herself and hence should be well skilled in balancing costs and benefits.  (She certainly wasn't shy telling us at the forum that going after Hutchings & Co.s insurers wasn't worth it) JH is also the ONE who provides instructions.  MR may well just be acting as a 2nd opinion and back office.
> 
> ...




Thanks Duped - legal firms aren't companies, they are partnerships.

I'm always surprised how trivia raises its head and substantive issues are ignored.

Who is to say that another firm of solicitors would see good sense in the legal adventures undertaken to date?

Who among you have seen senior counsel's opinion as to the success or otherwise of such adventures?  Who gave your manager the advice to take the actions it took?

It's really nice to report all your fund's lost cases, a task which will doubtlessly keep you engaged for some time, but where will it get you?

'The lawyers at PTQ outplayed us"?   Is it too much to understand that your manager might has taken your money and wasted it on an adventure with little opportunity for success?

I know it's a really hard thing to come to grips with, but most legal cases are won or lost on facts - that's why I'm wondering why your fund is now  fighting the first mortgage holder on the sale of property on the basis that there's no money left over for the second mortgagee - wow! and the third mortgagee is in there too - things must really be desparate.

You can keep reporting the losses,  it's just not going to take you anywhere.

..


----------



## marcom (9 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Anyone have a list of all the decisions?  My list so far is:
> QCA09-282
> QSC08-243
> QSC09-037
> ...




Here is the list off the Supreme Court site  http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QSC/toc-O.html

# Octaviar Investment Notes Ltd, Re [2008] QSC 342 (18 December 2008)
# Octaviar Limited (Formerly MFS Limited), Re [2008] QSC 216 (12 September 2008)
# Octaviar Ltd & Ors v. Grieg & Anor [2008] QSC 335 (12 December 2008)
# Octaviar Ltd (Administrators appointed), Re [2008] QSC 272 (10 October 2008)
# Octaviar Ltd, Re (No 10) [2009] QSC 283 (9 September 2009)
# Octaviar Ltd, Re (No 8) [2009] QSC 202 (31 July 2009)
# Octaviar Ltd, Re (No 9) [2009] QSC 273 (21 August 2009)
# Octaviar Ltd, Re; Re Octaviar Administration P/L [2009] QSC 37 (6 March 2009)

Plus last weeks cost decision:  http://www.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/latest

In the Matter of Octaviar Limited (In Liquidation) (No. 11)  [2010] QSC 017 McMurdo J 5/02/2010


----------



## marcom (9 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

In the Sydney Federal Court Wed 10 February:

Justice Perram Court Room 18C

9:30 AM Directions

1 by Videoconference

(P)NSD1628/2008 BOND STREET CUSTODIANS LTD v WELLINGTON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LTD

By Video conference? - a cost cutting exercise???


----------



## breaker1 (9 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Check out who made June.
> 
> http://www.vrl-financial-news.com/pdf/2009 Annual Review.pdf




Good to see someone focusing on what is important - KPMG is where the money is!


----------



## breaker1 (10 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> I guess the questions are these:-
> 
> 1.  Would you have listed the fund if you knew that the manager didn't have to wind the fund up if the fund remained unlisted?




Hi Mel

On behalf of the AG I have previously advised ASIC of this bullying 14c firesale threat used by WC in the 2008 RE vote. It was a grossly unfair tactic!


----------



## mellifuous (10 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> Hi Mel
> 
> On behalf of the AG I have previously advised ASIC of this bullying 14c firesale threat used by WC in the 2008 RE vote. It was a grossly unfair tactic!




'bullying threat'?  I would thought it was misleading -  As I understand it, the manager is saying that because the maximum period redemptions are to be frozen (subject to the fund's constitution) then the only option left is to wind the fund up - that is, as Michael West said, "wrong".

The manager is not merely saying that it 'will' wind up the fund, it is saying that it 'has' to wind up the fund - which is not true.

It is clear that the effect of the statement was to give members the impression of an ultimatum, when such an impression was based on a false premise - I think the manager seemed to be stating the facts as the manager (mistakenly) believed.

ASIC should force the de-listing of the fund - at the manager's sole expense.

..


----------



## seamisty (10 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> In the Sydney Federal Court Wed 10 February:
> 
> Justice Perram Court Room 18C
> 
> ...



 Who knows Marcom, but JH will be very busy as usual accruing legal expenses on our behalf with no apparent results to date. Friday JH is back in court re the St George Bank sale of the Sheraton Mirage to Pearls. Thursday 18th Feb is the CA hearing where I see WC has finally filed their affidavit re being dropped as a named respondant in the CA. Would love to see what excuse it contains!!!


09-Feb-2010 Affidavit  Wellington Investment Management Ltd 

Is it any wonder PIF investors are bombarding ASIC with WC complaints!!!Seamisty


----------



## Duped (10 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Mellifuous.  Remind me where WC said that the fund 'has' to be wound up?  

I made an incorrect assumption based on the info that WC provided to me.  But was I mislead? Maybe, as other posters seem to be suggesting,  WC merely hustled me. But does that necessarily mean that WC fell into the definition of 'misleading and deceptive conduct'. I think I was mislead.  But isn't taking advantage of imbalances in the market (like information imbalances) called smart business practice? And both Labor & the Coalition promote a market economy.  At what point does WC's taking advantage of my lack of knowledge of the law surrounding the PIF Trust become illegal? (There's a huge chasm between being legal and being ethical.  Ethics is to many lawyers like alternative medicine was once to most of our suburban GPs. I.e. their livelihood depends on maintaining that ethics is irrelevant)

(There has to be a limit to the lack of knowledge and intelligence of the audience. How much should WC be expected to have to spell everything out. I think that level is too high.  See my posting #125 on your ‘Managed fund co-operation group’ thread. But the Fed and their spin off commissions like ASIC and ACCC can't be seen to admitting that they expect too much knowledge from their citizens because they risk becoming redundant or being seen to fail.)

Was I mislead or just hustled?  IMO it's dangerous for us to have WC do either. And it certainly feels that WC is just hustling me. Dressing it up as the virtues of strength and tenacity with all those quotes and putting everything possible behind the commercial-in-confidence wall.

Look at the decision from the action ASIC took against WC. Originating application was filed 11 September 2008.  See http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2008/QSC08-243.pdf. 

Neither ASIC nor McMurdo addressed this point. Both had the opportunity. 

ASIC’s  action and/or McMurdo’s consideration was incomplete.  It looked at questions of distributions, size of distributions, etc.  Meanwhile WC was selling an apocalyptical story to me.  Neither ASIC nor McMurdo seem to have explored the effect of this story telling. Not once does the decision look at this story telling from my perspective i.e. absolutely zero knowledge of the winding up procedures.  Look at these two excerpts from that decision:

Page 3 “In broad terms the comparison is between an estimated 14 cents per unit in the event of a redemption *in March *of next year and about 45 cents in the event that the fund continues to trade, is able to conduct an orderly realisation of assets and otherwise is able to conduct its affairs over the next three to five years.”

Page 17 “It seems to me to be likely that many unit holders would be affected in their consideration of the business proposed for tomorrow's meeting by what was proposed by way of interim payments. Of course that is not the only thing which is proposed and there are other financial considerations involved in a *choice *between effectively terminating the fund *early next year* and allowing it to trade on for three to five years, which perhaps have even more importance for investors than what they will receive by way of quarterly payments.”

Now I'm being told that there is vast number of alternatives in between these two “choices”.  Something that ASIC and McMurdo also failed to even hint at.  This implies to me that WC's story telling wasn't illegal.  

As for the disclaimer that I should seek professional advice before making a deision on which way to vote.  Both my AFS licensed (an ASIC system) financial advisor as well as Lonsec recommended a yes vote.

Looks like it was all a hustle by WC.  

Look at the spin JH put on the affair in the following AFR article; emphasis added. Contrary to what JH said, I now agree with ASIC taking it to court.  It’s not ASIC’s role to provide legal advice, to “respond positively to what was a practical solution”. ASIC is not there to provide free second opinions and propose amendments.   JH knows that. The article reads that according to JH, anything in the documentation and presentation that could mislead is ASIC’s fault because ASIC didn’t give WC the corrections. What a hustle. IMLO: WC had ASIC in a corner with no time left to throw any counter punches.  I hope ASIC has learnt a lesson from our experience but I doubt it. 

Australian Financial Review 15Sep2008
“ASIC fights Gold Coast meeting.
” The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has started proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland to stop Wellington Investment Management from holding a meeting involving Premium Income Fund unit holders on the Gold Coast this week.
The meeting was called to ask the fund's 10,300 unit holders to approve several proposals including its listing on the National Stock Exchange, which would allow some investors to start retrieving their funds. 
But ASIC has sought a restraining order stopping Wellington from holding the meeting claiming that unit holders require additional information in order to make informed decisions. The  proceeding will be heard on September 17 in Brisbane, while the meeting is set down for September 18 on the Gold Coast.
An *angered *Jenny Hutson, managing director of Wellington Investment Management, said she was *disappointed *that she had *offered ASIC a solution* to the issues *it had raised* and she would vigorously oppose the corporate watchdog's application.
"What is *disappointing *to me is on Friday *I offered ASIC a solution* to the issues they have raised," she said. 
"I indicated to ASIC in correspondence sent at 2pm as chairman of the meeting scheduled for next Thursday I was *more than prepared to advise* the meeting of any *issue of concern to ASIC* and *invite a meeting* to adjourn until such time they had had the *opportunity *to consider whatever ASIC thought was reasonable.
“*Instead of responding positively to what was a practical solution* to *a procedural difficulty* ASIC have now served *me *with documents seeking an injunction from the Supreme Court the day before the meeting is to be held.  I am currently anticipating that more than 1000 people will attend that meeting.
Ms Hutson said more than 5320 of the 10,387 investors in the fund had already lodged a proxy representing more than $400 million, or 53 per cent of the value of the fund. “On every resolution more than 95 per cent of the vote by value is in favour of what is proposed,” she said.
“ASIC asked me in July to ensure they had the opportunity to review all documents prior to it being printed.  ASIC was provided with the meeting material seven days before it was due to be finalised. I had three discussions with them in relation to issues.  It was *consultative*. *I made adjustments* to ensure everything *they raised* was fully addressed.
“This is a* last minute inappropriate reaction* to the voice of the *minority* who remain distressed and angry about their situation.”
Ms Hutson said it would cost , more than $100,000 to adjourn the meeting with some investors travelling from Tokyo and Auckland as well as from every Australian city.
Ms Hutson argued there were a lot of issues, such as the fund's $55 million exposure to the stricken Raptis Group, that had to be dealt with in the next month.
"We have got to move now because we have a lot of issues that have been waiting an outcome of this meeting. If we wait a month it could cost the PIF $20 million in lost opportunities," she said.
Meanwhile, ratings agency Lonsec, has supported and recommended to their clients they vote yes to all three resolutions Wellington had proposed for PIF investors at the meeting on Thursday.
". . . in the absence of any alternatives which potentially offer a better outcome than the 45c (plus any recovery from MFS) and taking a medium-term view as to the best total return outcome for investors, Lonsec recommends voting yes to all three proposals."
Lonsec also notes that while Wellington is a "relatively new investment banking and funds management boutique", the firms's extensive legal experience "is likely to be of significant assistance over the short to medium term".
"Despite limited direct funds management experience, Jenny Hutson and her team at Wellington have a strong motivation to make the PIF successful and are enthusiastic about tackling the challenges presented," Lonsec said."


Have we passed the “short to medium term” now?  Any of you Lonsec ‘clients’ still around? What’s Lonsec saying now? WC still a go-er?  How does Lonsec value WC’s “extensive legal experience” for the fund now?  Especially in the light of our multi million $$$ legal bills and the relative lack of success.


----------



## breaker1 (10 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> 'bullying threat'?  I would thought it was misleading -  As I understand it, the manager is saying that because the maximum period redemptions are to be frozen (subject to the fund's constitution) then the only option left is to wind the fund up - that is, as Michael West said, "wrong".
> ..




G'day Mel

The terms "misleading" and "bullying" are not mutually exclusive 

Have you passed your concerns on to ASIC and if so in what capacity - are you a PIF unit holder?


----------



## simgrund (10 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> G'day Mel
> 
> The terms "misleading" and "bullying" are not mutually exclusive
> Have you passed your concerns on to ASIC and if so in what capacity - are you a PIF unit holder?




And in line with the above; we think many of your comments Mellifluous, are superfluous.
We do not need to be badgered by an avalanche of your "YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS or YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT". 
We as a group have long ago matured into a sober and focused initiative; taking us towards an outcome in a Class Action. 
Till that outcome materializes, we will continue in any rational and productive discussions of WC and PIF interactions.
But we refuse to be needled by unnecessary and ill timed comments from you or elsewhere which may raise unhealthy reactions.
Rather than scorn us for our disorganization or disorientation, I suggest you go way back to the post No.1. of this thread. 
On the ball from the first stroke of pen, would you agree.
Then scroll down to #3826 and assume from that, that we regard this thread as a valuable tool of exchange of information. We like that to remain as such and not turn back the clock to the possibility of repeating events of #3826.
So please, good friend, show some consideration and join us as a positive contributor without antagonizing us with unproven "legalese" of your arguments.
Delivered in the goodest of spirits,
Regards,


----------



## marcom (11 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Directions from the Federal Court session yesterday re Bond Street Custodians:

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	No:  (P)NSD1628/2008

BOND STREET CUSTODIANS LTD ACN 008 607 065
Plaintiff

WELLINGTON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED ACN 101 634 146
Defendant

ORDER

JUDGE:
	Justice Perram
DATE OF ORDER:
	10 February 2010 
WHERE MADE:
	Sydney

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.	The Defendant file and serve any further lay evidence (including on the issue of causation) that it intends to rely on at trial by no later than 10 March 2010.
2.	The Plaintiff file and serve any expert evidence it intends to rely on at trial by no later than 5 May 2010.
3.	The Defendant file and serve any expert evidence it intends to rely on at trial by no later than 16 June 2010.
4.	The parties liaise with respect to finding appropriate hearing dates in the range July – October and to contact my associate to arrange for the filing of the matter for a hearing with an estimate of five days.
5.	The matter be stood over for further directions on 22 June 2010 for the purpose of pre-trial directions.
6.	Liberty to restore on 5 days’ notice.


----------



## JohnH (11 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

PIF December Update finally arrived in the post this morning.   This will be a bad day for those unit holders who do not have access to this site.

Incidently if they ever do pay the 3 cents, will their .7% be based on the NSX price, or a valuation of portfolio (by whom one wonders!).???


----------



## Duped (11 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From the Explanatory Memorandum: "0.7% per annum of the value of funds under management of the Fund. This fee will be calculated with reference to the value of funds under management at the end of the previous month."

The latest audited 'value' we've been given is 39.2c.  I understand the valuation will have been revisited for the 1/2 yearly financial report ending Dec 31. It'll be interesting to see if the $20m from the Sheraton Mirage sale is written off in the Dec 1/2 yearly.


----------



## seamisty (11 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> From the Explanatory Memorandum: "0.7% per annum of the value of funds under management of the Fund. This fee will be calculated with reference to the value of funds under management at the end of the previous month."
> 
> The latest audited 'value' we've been given is 39.2c.  I understand the valuation will have been revisited for the 1/2 yearly financial report ending Dec 31. It'll be interesting to see if the $20m from the Sheraton Mirage sale is written off in the Dec 1/2 yearly.



Maybe that is why JH is going through the expensive motions of not releasing the 2nd mortgage over the Mirage Duped? So she can keep the extra $20mill on the books indefinitely now she thinks the management fee is about to be triggered!! Still no mention of the other $30mill Raptis 1st mortgage. What deal did JH strike with her good friend Jim Raptis on behalf of PIF investors? So many PIF related questions continue to go unanswered. Seamisty


----------



## Duped (11 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Might be worth taking preemptive action by giving the auditor a heads up. Anyone know somebody at PWC?  

Had another look at the 2009 annual report.

PIF finished off the year with equity of $296.351M. 'Expenses' were reported to be $7.071M.

I.e. expenses were 2.33% of our final equity (before expenses).  WC better improve on that because when they add their 0.7% fee we'll be paying WC more than 3% to manage our funds.


----------



## simgrund (11 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> PIF December Update finally arrived in the post this morning.   This will be a bad day for those unit holders who do not have access to this site.
> Incidently if they ever do pay the 3 cents, will their .7% be based on the NSX price, or a valuation of portfolio (by whom one wonders!).???




JohnH,

I will stick my lacerated neck out to opt for the "valuation" method. 
I reason that they will go by the Auditor's valuations in Annual Report.
The NSX values, conveniently for WC, are not subject to any strict audits after all.  
Regards,

PS.  But at the same timeI think that Centrelink should be instructed to accept the NSX value for pension calculation purposes as NSX board is the only means to make this asset liquid.


----------



## seamisty (11 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

When I voted for Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital Merchant Bank to be our new RE and being entitled to a management fee, it was solely on the premise she offered!!!! That being:::

1.The Fund will remain a going concern and Units in the Fund will be
able to be traded on the NSX;
2.Up to 37.75 million units in the Fund will be redeemed by the Fund
at 45 cents per unit by 18 September 2009;
Wellington Capital Limited will be the new responsible entity of the
Fund; and
3.Cash payments totalling 3 cents per Unit will be made to
Unitholders by 24 December 2008 and quarterly thereafter, with the
first payment to be made in October 2008.
4.Unit value would be restored over 3-5 years.


I never for a moment anticipated that 17 months on we would have received not 1 cent return of any description, still being promised a one of 3cent return of capital with no assurance of any other regular distributions and a further erosion of unit value. Add to that the buyback scheme is highly unlikely to eventuate while units are valued at 9cents. That pathetic performance does not warrant a management fee!! Think yourself lucky to have access to our asset base to prop up your office and legal expenses Jenny because rest assured it is not only PIF unitholders that are suspicious and disgusted with what is unfolding !! I am suprised you are still going through the motions of someone who has actually achieved something for us while continuing to drag us down further. The total lack of performance can hardly been seen as a Wellington Capital success story and I will continue to make complaints regarding PIF investors rights. Seamisty


----------



## selciper (11 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

The plight of PIF investors who aren't able to participate on this internet forum is of real concern They have only the infrequent, banal mailed updates and the helpline to depend on for information. The helpline is of no use to anybody as it dodges meaningful questions as quickly as possible. I wish we could somehow assist these people who are not in the loop.


----------



## seamisty (11 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> The plight of PIF investors who aren't able to participate on this internet forum is of real concern They have only the infrequent, banal mailed updates and the helpline to depend on for information. The helpline is of no use to anybody as it dodges meaningful questions as quickly as possible. I wish we could somehow assist these people who are not in the loop.



Same here selciper! I have a few ph nos of WA investors who aren't even PIF Action Group members who contacted me through the ph book as a result of the WC IAC nomination correspondence sent out. I still have not received my Dec PIF investor update which I was told would be mailed to me in Jan 2010. (I have also not been told if Print Mail Logistics of which WC has an interest in  now is responsible for WC printed and mailout material) One of my last complaints to WC was::


I would like to lodge a formal complaint as to why Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital has not given PIF investors the option to be kept updated by email as opposed to the expensive alternative of a mail out?
Ms Hutson has been involved with the PIF in a managerial capacity for approx two years and has not made this option available which was ALREADY in place with Octaviar when she first became involved with the PIF.
In view of the fact that the PIF is severely impaired financially and appears to be getting more so, why is money being unnecessarily wasted in this manner?
It is my understanding that of the approx 5,000 investors who signed up with the IMF PIF Class Action, approx three quarters of those supplied an email contact which is being utilised by IMF rather than costly mail outs of which investors ultimately will have to cover the costs. Email is a far more efficient, less expensive option and I would consider any professional business would implement this cost saving strategy. I discussed it with Justine Buckley on the WC hotline well over a year ago and was told it was definitely an option and WC was collating a data base of PIF investor email addresses.
Does Print Mail Logistics provide the printing and mail out service for WC? If they have not in the past will they be in the future?


To date I have only received acknowledgment of the initial complaint with no answer, not that I expect from past performance to be provided with an appropriate response. And we are paying for this ineptitude?

The more I dwell on our circumstances, the more I wonder if PIF investors do not have grounds to launch another Class Action against WC! It is early days yet, a bit of patience may be needed to see what ASIC and the Public Trustee of Queensland and Bentleys deliver in regard to the initial WC aquisition of the RE rights to the PIF. Combine that with ineptitude, broken promises, misleading WC management and hotline responses and media articles, non performannce, possible related business interests, well it just goes on? I can say from my own personal experience, perseverance and persistance does appear to be achieving results so please do not give up!!( I also once again thank those who are continually supporting me and the AG by contributing at every opportunity,  your input is of huge significance to our continued efforts!!)Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## lawry1dog (12 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I agree with you seamisty all the way.

*By all means lets have a Class Action against WC, now.*

How can I lodge a complaint to the ASIC. Is there an Email I can use?

I will never give up either until we get our money back and someone has gone to jail.


----------



## Duped (12 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Simgrund.  That's what I meant in my post #5143.  I agree. (Must try to make my posts clear without writing an essay)

Seamisty.  I think the time frame for Resolution 2, the Buy Back, has expired.  Sorry. Page 15 of the EM "give Unitholders the opportunity to have their Units in the Fund bought back under certain arrangements *within 12 months of the listing* ... on the NSX."  

If anyone is thinking of accusing us posters as just being an irrational "minority who remain distressed and angry about their situation" then let me put it to you this way.  The 08/09 costs incurred by the fund under WC were at least 2.33%.   Say you invested $2M.  I.e. you hold 2M units.  Then you've just watched WC hustle members, fail to meet its promises/expectations, continue to write down the value of the fund, get a regular kicking in court and stuff up on a regular basis like having to send a corrected Tax Statement for 07/08.  All while spending over $18K of your money doing so.


From Wikidepia 
Hustle:
_"Hustle may mean: work a scam, intentionally "mis-direct" someone to achieve a personal gain from that person being mis-directed. The hustle, or scam, *is usually performed in a fast paced environment as does not allow time to reflect on all options available to the victim, and usually plays on the greed or kindness of people and has an element of chance, although tipped overly into the favor of the "hustler", which is in proportion to how the hustlee views his chances of success.*
...
Slang: 
Hustle, to use a gambling technique in which a player *hides his/her true skill* while betting on billiards games in order to *trick the opponent* into significantly raising the stakes, and *only then playing at full capability* (or in a broader usage, engaging in a similar strategy when betting on other activities)" _

Another quote from the EM.

Page 15: "_What happens if this resolution is not approved ... The current board is of the view that redemption requests would only be *able to be met* if the assets of the Fund were sold. It is expected that this would be  completed by early 2009 and Unitholders would receive approximately 14 cents per Unit._"

Yeah. My understanding NOW is that meeting all those redemption requests would have ONLY needed to occur *IF* unit members subsequently agreed that redemption requests should be met. I.e. a fire sale of assets in early 2009 is unlikely to have been necessary.

Hence I feel like I was hustled.


----------



## seamisty (12 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



lawry1dog said:


> I agree with you seamisty all the way.
> 
> *By all means lets have a Class Action against WC, now.*
> 
> ...



http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Contacting+us#complaint

You can lodge online. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (12 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi Duped and other thread followers.

Quote Duped::"Seamisty. I think the time frame for Resolution 2, the Buy Back, has expired. Sorry. Page 15 of the EM "give Unitholders the opportunity to have their Units in the Fund bought back under certain arrangements within 12 months of the listing ... on the NSX." 



I sent the following with some other enquiries to WC on the 22nd April 2009: 


"I would like to know where the Fund stands in regard to the proposed buyback scheme. In view of the fact that our units are trading at such a low price on the NSX and being deemed as being worth far less than 45cents (eg Centrelink) would this not further deplete the funds assets by having to find funds to finance this? I am totally at a loss as to how the PIF is ever going to generate stand alone income if the money garnered from every sale is used  for purposes other than reinvestment"


The response back on the same day included:


The buyback remains on the agenda as it was overwhelmingly support by unitholders.  


(the spelling error included!)
No mention of a time frame.
Like everything else, it'll probablly never happen IMO.
Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## Duped (12 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks Seamisty.

Anyone have a copy of yesterday's Fin Review.

"Row over Mirage sale
The Australian Financial Review --- Page: 53 : 11 February 2010
Original article by Lisa Allen

LexisNexis Summary
St George Bank is in the Queensland Supreme Court on 12 February 2010 over a dispute with investors in the Sheraton Mirage Report. The bank wants to sell the $A62.5 million property but the Premium Income Fund and Joe Ross do not. The resort requires $A25 million in refurbishments "


----------



## seamisty (12 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Thanks Seamisty.
> 
> Anyone have a copy of yesterday's Fin Review.
> 
> ...



 If Cookie1 is anywhere near a library I am sure she will oblige Duped. I have also sent her an email. Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (12 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Simgrund.  That's what I meant in my post #5143.  I agree. (Must try to make my posts clear without writing an essay)
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> From Wikidepia
> Hustle:
> ...



_

A "cash cow" perhaps could be could be more applicable to us. 
In a hustle at least you could "catch on" and perhaps "outhustle"; in our our current position, we caught on long ago, yet remain subservient to being milked for what its worth.
Class Action can not come soon enough for all._


----------



## selciper (12 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Seamisty wrote:"...a bit of patience may be needed to see what ASIC and the Public Trustee of Queensland and Bentleys deliver in regard to the initial WC aquisition of the RE rights to the PIF." 

There will be some explosive moments at the Bentleys public hearings, of that probability I'm confident. Yes, let's wait and see what happens at the hearings.


----------



## infinity (12 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Hi, 
This is my second effort at making a posting. My message last week did not get posted, must be my lack of fluency on this site.
I am an unitholder in PIf. 68,000units.
I voted "no" for Wellington/JH taking over our fund. I voted "no" to be listed on the stock market.
I have been following your postings on a regular basis. Thank you for all the great information. If not for you all, I would have no idea what is happening with PIF. 
It seems like the clear overall pattern is that nothing positif has happened with JH and her team. It does not seem like we can expect much positive outcome for us unitholders with their agenda in the mid term (even long term). Aren't they are serving their interests, not ours?
Some are mentioning a class action against Wellington...but what about having a general meeting and remove them? What good is their for us to keep them as our RE? I don't see what more time will bring us except more deceptions and more money lost. Is it time to be more pro-active yet? Is it time to take charge and find new management for PIF yet? Sure it could involve some expenses but our fund keeps on bleeding anyway. At least we might get some outcome with a different management.
And why are we still listed on the stock market? The purpose of it initially was for the unitholders in need  to get access to their money  asap.
I guess those unitholders would have done it by now and why keep us listed now?!
Sure, we might get something via class actions. I've personally been involved in class action in the USA and believe me, not much is left for the plaintiffs at the end of it all. We still have PIF and why not try to maximize on it instead of waiting for class action?! 
What is the next pro-active step?

Infinity


----------



## lawry1dog (12 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Thanks seamisty, I have already lodged a complaint.

*And I will continue to lodge complaints to ASIC, all next week.*

Is there any other ways to complain? Federal Government, etc..

I am thinking that if BOND legal case wins, that might trigger WC
to pay back our money they owe us. We were in the Fund only 12 months
from January 2007 and just missed out on our redemption, in 2008.

Some of you, did profit for many years in the MFS Fund, but we have not
got anything.
What sort of profits did you all earn the last 5-7 years in MFS, before January
2008.

Please can someone help us in getting our money back.

Regards
Lawrry1dog


----------



## Cookie1 (12 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> If Cookie1 is anywhere near a library I am sure she will oblige Duped. I have also sent her an email. Seamisty




Sorry, I was out all day until 5pm. Will try to get article Saturday morning from the library and post it here.

Cheers, Cookie


----------



## simgrund (12 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



lawry1dog said:


> Thanks seamisty, I have already lodged a complaint.
> 
> *And I will continue to lodge complaints to ASIC, all next week.*
> Is there any other ways to complain? Federal Government, etc..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> ...




LD, if its any consolation to you, many of us greedy longtimers have simply reinvested with the original Principal. 
The lot went in solidarity with your young investment.
Are you registered in a Class Action?


----------



## seamisty (13 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Once again, read about PIF related business here on the thread!! Seamisty


Business Gold Coast

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/02/13/188161_gold-coast-business.html



> *Sheraton sale hangs on judge's decision*
> 
> Nick Nichols, business editor   |  February 13th, 2010
> 
> ...


----------



## Cookie1 (13 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Have been trying to upload the article "Row over Mirage sale" from the Thursday 11/2/2010 AFR without success; will try later.

Cheers, Cookie


----------



## seamisty (13 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Once again, read about PIF related business here on the thread!! Seamisty
> 
> 
> Business Gold Coast
> ...



Yeh, so Nick Nichols, You appear fully informed of current Wellington Capital and Jenny Hutson news by reporting on some current Premium Income Fund Issues before relevant information is issued/revealed to the market via the NSX which Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital has previously  used as an excuse to withold  PIF related news. Whats the real story??? It appears that investors rights are being discarded/ignored  in favour of staying on side with so called QLD business gurus. Well I actually think the big story is with the little guy who got screwed  twice, once by MFS/OCV directors and some staff and now possibly by Wellington Capital. When the acctual documented evidence regarding the downfall of the PIF is legally revealed, rest assured anyone remotelly connected with our predicament will be held accountable. How many MPs etc fobbed our initial enquiries/complants off? I hope many others have kept documented evidence of the lack of response/evidence of those in a position to intervene on our behalf who chose to do nothing!! Sorry, I did have one resonse from Nick Sherry, what a joke!!! Another story, if there was an honest journalist not frightened of treading on toes this could be your big chance to make a name for yourself. Unfortunately for us little  investors, we are left to our own devices. Don't underestimate our ability. Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (14 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I'll try again to upload the AFR article from 11 Feb 2010. 

Cheers, Cookie


----------



## selciper (15 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A memorable Hutson one-liner from the Australian 16.10.08:
"We (PIF) were the first into this (financial) crisis, and we will be the first out of it," the former lawyer told the extraordinary general meeting of 410 unitholders at the Gold Coast Convention Centre.

"First in and never out of it", seems to be more like the reality.


----------



## Cookie1 (15 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

NSX Release 15 February 2010 by Wellington Capital http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722469.PDF

"Raptis Group Loan – Sheraton Mirage, Gold Coast 

In proceedings before Justice Margaret Wilson in the Supreme Court of Queensland on 12 February 2010, Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund defended an application commenced by St George Bank Limited over the Sheraton Mirage seeking orders which would enable St George Bank Limited to sell the Sheraton Mirage on an unencumbered basis.   

St George Bank Limited is acting in its capacity as mortgagee in possession of the Sheraton Mirage and holds a first ranking mortgage over the Sheraton Mirage and a first ranking fixed and floating charge over the assets of SP Hotels Pty Ltd, a member of the Raptis group of companies. 

The Premium Income Fund holds a second ranking mortgage over the Sheraton Mirage and a second ranking fixed and floating charge over the assets of the owner of the Sheraton Mirage, SP Hotels Pty Ltd. SP Hotels Pty Ltd is a member of the Raptis group of companies. 

A decision in this matter is expected to be handed down by the end of February 2010.  

Further updates will be provided as the matter progresses."


----------



## selciper (15 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

AWB class action update. SMH this afternoon.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/awb-settles-with-shareholders-20100215-o1ec.html


----------



## mellifuous (15 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Mellifuous.  Remind me where WC said that the fund 'has' to be wound up?




Hi Duped,

Well,

One has to read two paragraphs:-

1.  on page 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum
"... Net Asset Backing The net asset backing per Unit in the Fund, assuming it remains a going concern, is 45 cents per unit plus any amount recovered from MFS.
*The net asset backing per Unit in the Fund assuming all assets are sold by 31 March 2009 is 14 cents per unit *plus any amount recovered from MFS (see section 6.1 for details). ..."  and,  

2.  On page 19 of the Explanatory Memorandum:-
"... The outcome for the Fund if no resolutions are passed is:
*The Fund will (subject to a different resolution in relation to the Constitution being proposed and passed in general meeting) continue to be obliged to redeem units in the Fund. This will need to occur by early 2009. It is the view of the board that the net cash available per unit would be 14 cents.* ..."

It's clear, at least to me, that the manager is stating that because the maximum period the constitution allows for redemptions to be frozen would be past (or at least that is what is inferred), so then redemptions "WOULD NEED TO OCCUR BY EARLY 2009" and that would return $.14c/unit - ie, a fire sale wind up since all assets would be sold prior to 31 March 2009.

W.C. didn't state it outright, that is, "it all has to be firesaled", W.S. simply stated it in a little more of an obfuscated way - that all assets would have to be sold by 31 March 2009 to satisfy redemptions which would return $.14c/unit.

..


----------



## simgrund (15 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Hi Duped,
> 
> Well,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> ..




Dear mellifuous,

To contrast your own positions, I reprise this paragraph from your post #5136   "The manager is not merely saying that it 'will' wind up the fund, it is saying that it 'has' to wind up the fund - which is not true."

You then appear to change the certainty of the above with the following "W.C. didn't state it outright, that is, "it all has to be firesaled", W.S. simply stated it in a little more of an obfuscated way - that all assets would have to be sold by 31 March 2009 to satisfy,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,".

The contrasts between two passages speak for themselves.

Even the good doctorj, the hatchet moderator of your own thread "managed co-op group", commented in post #18:  ",,,,,,,,,,,Colour me sceptical. I know losing money is never much fun. Anyone who’s invested will have lost at some stage and I doubt any have enjoyed the experience. But come on! Drawing cartoons and claiming to champion the cause of the needy! I’m blown away. The sad reality is that investments don’t only go up. From time to time, they go down and people lose. All the complaints you’ve raised (e.g. loss of liquidity, valuation methodology, disclosure requirements, fund mandate and manager remuneration) were well documented right from the start and should have been part of your decision making process before paying in the money."

I again refer you to my post #5140 and an edit caption in post #5164

Please exercise more care for the reasons mentioned previously.
Or you can contact any of the moderators to provide you with the posting guidelines which are appropriate for this thread.

Regards


----------



## mellifuous (15 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Dear mellifuous,
> 
> To contrast your own positions, I reprise this paragraph from your post #5136   "The manager is not merely saying that it 'will' wind up the fund, it is saying that it 'has' to wind up the fund - which is not true."
> 
> ...




Hi Simgrund,

Well, with respect, you seem to read something into the paragraphs that I find myself unable to.  W.C. states that it has to sell all the assets by 31 March 2009 and that the unit price would be $.14c.    Perhaps you're struggling with the idea that 'wind up' and  'sell all the assets' are the same thing? Perhaps you can't see that in the circumstances, such actions would be firesales?

In fact, in its Q&A, W.C. stated in paragraphs headed 5.5 "Why can't we extend the redemption period?", and 5.6 "Can we extend the liquidation period so that we can liquidate the fund, but over a longer timeframe?"

W.C. completely ignores the fact that in the case of non-liquid funds, the Corporations Act overrides the fund's constitution.

In fact, there was never a need to wind up the fund and sell all the assets prior to 31 March 2009 in the event all the proposals were rejected.

In fact, several members of the PIF have written to me stating that they'd made complaints to ASIC which were ignored.

So, Simgrund, if you're still living in lala land and think that W.C. wasn't going to wind the fund up on a false premise then there is nothing I can do for you or the good DoctorJ (who has his own problems).

..


----------



## mellifuous (16 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



breaker1 said:


> G'day Mel
> 
> The terms "misleading" and "bullying" are not mutually exclusive
> 
> Have you passed your concerns on to ASIC and if so in what capacity - are you a PIF unit holder?




Hello Breaker,

I think 'misleading' is misleading, and 'bullying' is bullying ...   I think it's just a matter of opinion.  The effect of a misleading statement can be perceived as bullying.

No, I'm not a member of the PIF, a fact which I've stated before.

No, I haven't passed on my concerns at this stage, but I will - in fact I am writing a whole section on my site about the misleading issue - don't think for a moment that these things happen only in the PIF, we have our fair share in the PFMF.


----------



## mellifuous (16 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Simgrund,

I should point out that the post that you seem to have taken so personally was a post made in reply to Duped - he/she asked a question, and I responded.

Even if it was true that I appeared "...  to change the certainty of the above with the following ..." (in the context which you refer), which I deny,  there is no misleading because all the statements made by the manager were referenced and there to read - it is for the reader to make up his/her mind.

After all, everything I state is only my opinion, and I have gone to great lengths to state the limitations of statements I make.

While you were out there looking around for a posting to reference, you might have included those postings you made wherein you stated (with respect to my postings)  "so right", "well done". "that nails all", "this is very good work", and "this thread is a good deed, thanks for that".

You conveniently left out the first line of DoctorJ's posting, "... Don’t we already have a thread for this mellifluous? ..."   His/her posting was directed to the fact that the content of the Managed Fund thread should go to the FMF thread.

I have emphathy for members of the PIF because I'm likewise stuck in a fund which has lost a great deal of my investment -  I post because I believe what I post will be helpful to those who do not understand the position listing of the PIF has placed them.

I got involved in the PIF because of members of the PIF who are FMF investors and who have continually raised the PIF as an example of what not to do in the FMF.    

You may also be surprised that comment from non-members may be beneficial to members of PIF, especially when such non-members have studied the PIF's listing in some detail, as I have.

Finally, you didn't add that a posting in reply to DoctorJ's posting stated:-

"... I think this is a brilliant idea. I've been looking for a thread which actually has an amalgamation of all the affected funds.

MAKING Money may be fun if you're an individual investor who doesnt mind profiting from other peoples losses.
But, when you put all your savings and trust into researched "professional" and "respected" financial firms who blatantly do the wrong thing. There is absolutly No avenue both politically or legally to get any justice. 

Try looking... Its just not out there. ..."

I guess some people just don't get that it, maybe they REALLY need to lose everything before they can see any sense. ..."


----------



## Duped (16 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Hi Duped,
> 
> Well,




Thanks Mell.  I'd found it. See my subsequent post #5151 on page 258.  I quoted a different paragraph from the EM but my concluding paragraph applies equally. Technically, WC did 'need' to sell (or as you said: 'have') all the assets in a relatively very short timeframe to satisfy the terms of the constitution. But it appears that scenario would likely not have eventuated because there are (so I have been subsequently told) plenty of other alternatives.

BTW I sympathise with simgrund. There's something about your posts that gets me off side. I don't know what it is.  Don't take it as criticism. Just a bit of feedback.

Cheers.  

Duped.

PS for the record in case anyone gets the wrong impression: I'm not saying that WC ever *stated *that the "it all has to be firesaled".  If I have then I retract it. 

Having cleared that up: in my lay opinion (IMLO), selling $100s of millions of $$ of our assets in the 6 months between the Extraordinary Meeting and the end of March 09 would have constituted a fire sale.  Please correct me if I'm wrong. (I assume that 'meeting all redemptions' required that the whole fund would have had to be wound up.)


----------



## Duped (16 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Simgrund,
> ... I have emphathy for members of the PIF because I'm likewise stuck in a fund which has lost a great deal of my investment -  I post because I believe what I post will be helpful to those who do not understand the position listing of the PIF has placed them.
> 
> I got involved in the PIF because of members of the PIF who are FMF investors and who have continually raised the PIF as an example of what not to do in the FMF.   ...




Correct Mellifuous. How's this for a quote from a PIF investor for your FMF readers: It's a terrible business model for exercising any control over the RE. All that you're left with is hope that you can trust the RE to push against the inherent conflict of interest to act in a way that always gets the best outcome for the investor.  If you're not happy with the RE then all you've got is the very high cost of selling into a thin buyers market at around 25% of audited value,  taking legal action or removing the RE. And how sure are you that a new RE is going to be any better.  As an RE, this is the model I for one, would want. But for an investor it's foolish. And a fool and his money are soon parted. Ask yourself, how did I end up in this fund in the first place... be honest with yourselves. To make a mistake is forgivable, to not learn from that mistake is not. If you do choose to opt for hope and trust then remeber this: the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Having said that; there appears to be a benefit.  A low market price makes it easier for Centre link to put a low value on the asset.  But that is probably false economy.  Saving pennies and losing pounds.



mellifuous said:


> ... "... I guess some people just don't get that it, maybe they REALLY need to lose everything before they can see any sense. ..."




Maybe doctorj needs to read some of my posts.  It is very difficult to 'see any sense' with all those hustlers out there with their government blessed (such as the ASIC run AFS license system) shake down.  It takes a hell of a lot for someone to reverse a lifetime of belief and choose to take the red pill.    

And don't forget that it's not just people like us.  Did those NSW councils "see any sense" when they bought all those CDOs. Hustlers everywhere. That's greed off the leash for you.


----------



## mellifuous (16 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Thanks Mell.  I'd found it. See my subsequent post #5151 on page 258.  I quoted a different paragraph from the EM but my concluding paragraph applies equally. Technically, WC did 'need' to sell (or as you said: 'have') all the assets in a relatively very short timeframe to satisfy the terms of the constitution. But it appears that scenario would likely not have eventuated because there are (so I have been subsequently told) plenty of other alternatives.
> 
> BTW I sympathise with simgrund. There's something about your posts that gets me off side. I don't know what it is.  Don't take it as criticism. Just a bit of feedback.
> 
> ...




Hi Duped,

Realism sometimes does put others offside, I'm not bothered about that.  I like to try and deal with facts, others see facts as conflicting too much with their hopes and aspirations.  I guess many want to avoid negativity even when it's real.

Actually if you read paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6 of the Q&A and you'll note those paragraphs are about liquidation and in particular 5.6 which reasons that the 'liquidation period cannot be extended', so all this read with the paragraphs I quoted from the memorandum, speaks to the fact that liquidation would occur before 31 March 2009 and would result in a return of $.14c unit.
http://www.newpif.com.au/pifreports/InvestorUpdate_Q&A_July2008.pdf

I appreciate your comments, but if the only attacks against my postings are diercted to me personally, then that's a poor state of affairs.

I've received a few mails from other members of the PIF who find it difficult to get members of this forum to accept the facts they try to impart.
Thanks.


----------



## mellifuous (16 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> BTW I sympathise with simgrund. There's something about your posts that gets me off side. I don't know what it is.  Don't take it as criticism. Just a bit of feedback.




Duped, if you didn't want me to take it as a criticism then you shouldn't have written it.

Well, just for the record, there's something about stupidity and ignorance that I find repugnant and puts me off side too.  

I've really said all I wanted to say (in a helpful way) - if members here can't see that they've been diddled and in a terrible position then that is a matter purely for themselves.

I'm sure there are many who would prefer to live in fantasy land rather than face the truths of why the fund really became listed.

The outcome for your fund has no bearing on my fortunes in life. I didn't come here for conflict, but rather to be helpful.   Your PIF has given some members of the FMF (including myself) a lot of insight into what not to do.

Thanks.


----------



## Duped (16 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Regarding your quote 'liquidation period cannot be extended'.  There at least two ways to interpret that phrase.

A: liquidation period cannot be extended under any circumstances .... ever ... it's a done deal and not even, e.g. a full bench of the high court would help you.

B: liquidation period cannot be extended without voting to amend the  constitution to simply change the 360 day extension to say 3 years.

Do you think that interpretation A is so naiive that it can be readily dismissed?  Well I believe that you'd be wrong.  And I believe that ASIC and McMurdo also skipped over the likelihood of this interpretation and missed the conseqential  effect it had on the vote.


----------



## The Owls (16 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I been reading this thread even before it was delisted. With the many comments from more experienced people and the comments and actions from PIF I have revalued my holding to ZERO. Any improvement to $0.00 per unit will be an advantage. If I had run my business without a forward plan as PIF appear to be doing, I would not have made the money to be able to invest in a fund that has now lost my money. Please accept this post as a total loss of any hope of ever seeing one cent.


----------



## casey2708 (16 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



The Owls said:


> ....I have revalued my holding to ZERO.. .




So have I, quite a while ago. I don't expect a cent via WC management.

It was plain to me the spruik for WC was a proxy for one or two OCV/MFS directors  - and their interests (direct or by hidden beneficiary) would be the focus of WC activity.

Nothing has happened to change that opinion.

Casey


----------



## simgrund (16 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



#5177 by mellifuous said:


> Duped, if you didn't want me to take it as a criticism then you shouldn't have written it.
> Well, just for the record, there's something about stupidity and ignorance that I find repugnant and puts me off side too.
> I've really said all I wanted to say (in a helpful way) - if members here can't see that they've been diddled and in a terrible position then that is a matter purely for themselves.
> I'm sure there are many who would prefer to live in fantasy land rather than face the truths of why the fund really became listed.
> ...




Oh mellifuos, thoust scorn knowest no bounds.
But let me count the ways:

#5174 by duped 
[BTW I sympathise with simgrund. There's something about your posts that gets me off side. I don't know what it is. Don't take it as criticism. Just a bit of feedback.]
_comment: the above of above just about nails it_

#5171 by mellifuous
[So, Simgrund, if you're still living in lala land and think that W.C. wasn't going to wind the fund up on a false premise then there is nothing I can do for you or the good DoctorJ (who has his own problems).]
_comment: specifically; what problems the good doctorJ has?_

#5173 by mellifuous
[I have emphathy for members of the PIF because I'm likewise stuck in a fund which has lost a great deal of my investment - I post because I believe what I post will be helpful to those who do not understand the position listing of the PIF has placed them]
_comment: You might as well run seminars for those you wish to "help".
                  Make sure you have appropriate certification._

#5173 by mellifuous 
Finally, you didn't add that a posting in reply to DoctorJ's posting stated:-
"... I think this is a brilliant idea. I've been looking for a thread which actually has an amalgamation of all the affected funds.
comment: From Jan 9th to date of this posting Managed coop Group increased by I post exactly


----------



## simgrund (16 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

CONTINUED by simgrund:
              By way of a contrast, Oct/PIF thread during same time frame 
              increased by some 320 posts. Even allowing for your 
              superfluous inputs, the interest and sense of appreciation is 
              more than evident.[/I]

#5176 by mellifuous 
[I've received a few mails from other members of the PIF who find it difficult to get members of this forum to accept the facts they try to impart.]
_comment: Sounds a lot like force feeding the incalcitrants 
                  How exactly will it help us if we all wail in unison 
                  our acceptance of the "facts" as seen by you?_

I do not wish to waste this valuable  resource on the menial bickering you force us to indulge in. The purpose of this posting is to have other voices added to persuade you read our posts with respect and diligence they deserve.

REGARDS


----------



## k.smith (16 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

http://www.smh.com.au/business/colonial-to-shut-852m-mortgage-fund-20100216-o7me.html

".....Colonial First State has told investors it plans to shut down its $852 million mortgage fund after it was hit with rising lending losses.

The Commonwealth Bank-backed Colonial First State chief executive Brian Bissaker said terminating the Colonial First State Mortage Income Fund was in the best interests of investors as a whole. He said this would allow all investors to receive regular payments from the proceeds of the fund's assets....."

so Colonial First State is not listing their fund, nor is it adopting a Variable Unit Price...
their chief executive believes it is in ALL its investors best interests to  shut up shop after it was hit with "rising lending losses"...


----------



## seamisty (17 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/business/colonial-to-shut-852m-mortgage-fund-20100216-o7me.html
> 
> ".....Colonial First State has told investors it plans to shut down its $852 million mortgage fund after it was hit with rising lending losses.
> 
> ...



 The only difference being k.smith, they did not lend the money to themselves then alledgedly create false documents to cover those losses. The difference between honest and alledged dishonest management. We copped a double whammy which is starting to look like a triple hit!! Their losses/impairments are nothing compared to those of the PIF. PIF losses  cannot be compared to most other frozen funds as it is becoming blatantly obvious that had our Fund been as secure as we were led to believe and did not have to repay loans from existing assets to cover money alledgedly  illegally borrowed against it for other alledged related party Octaviar outstanding debts it would have still possibly been a going concern albeit at a lesser rate of return. We know we have been robbed, it is just the extent of the corruption surrounding our current situation which needs to be proved and I believe at long last the regulatory bodies and others are on the right track to expose those responsible. It is not a case of PIF investors not intervening or doing anything proactive, it is more a case of all the relevant complaints that have been lodged from everyone involved/connected being processed and acted on accordingly. And yes, I am as dissapointed as most that it has taken so long and no support was given from many in a position of power to intervene earlier when support was lobbied!! No one is more disgusted than me that after nearly two years of writing letters and lodging complaints our situation has worsened. Any positive results/outcomes for our fund will be as a direct result from complaints made from individual PIF investors initially , not from other bodies or parliamentary enquiries on our behalf. My own complaints, letters, emails, ph calls etc would be in excess of 1,000 and I probablly have only achieved the status of a serial pest in many circumstances. So what, I know there others (such as yourself that has worked just as hard) that have done the same and will continue to make noise. ( I was once an investor in Colonial first state and was not happy with the overall performance and net results so cashed out, shame I was not aware of the alledged fraud surrounding the PIF!!!) Sorry for the essay, cheers, Seamisty


----------



## charles36 (17 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Many users of this forum will remember that we were removed by the moderators of the ASF because of bickering and insulting behaviour.  This was a great disappointment to many unit holders of the PIF because little information flows from Wellington Capital.  I spent considerable time persuading the moderators to let the PIF unit holders back on the forum and indicated that the forum would be conducted in a true and friendly spirit.  I urge everyone to ensure that this is the way entries are placed on the ASF.  I feel sure if we are removed we will not be allowed back on.  Kind regards to all. CHARLES36 PIFAG ORGANISOR.


----------



## mellifuous (17 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> Many users of this forum will remember that we were removed by the moderators of the ASF because of bickering and insulting behaviour.  This was a great disappointment to many unit holders of the PIF because little information flows from Wellington Capital.  I spent considerable time persuading the moderators to let the PIF unit holders back on the forum and indicated that the forum would be conducted in a true and friendly spirit.  I urge everyone to ensure that this is the way entries are placed on the ASF.  I feel sure if we are removed we will not be allowed back on.  Kind regards to all. CHARLES36 PIFAG ORGANISOR.




It seems all was well until the mention of W.C.'s misleading of members about having to liquidate the PIF.

Clearly Simgrund doesn't want members to discuss the issues relating to the proposals, explanatory memorandum, and the questions and answers relating to them.

Clearly a raw nerve has been touched.

By the way, I went to make a complaint to ASIC this morning via their eComplaint link - the system is down.

Is the regulator overloaded and incapable to dealing with the entirety of the situation?

..


----------



## selciper (17 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> Many users of this forum will remember that we were removed by the moderators of the ASF because of bickering and insulting behaviour.  This was a great disappointment to many unit holders of the PIF because little information flows from Wellington Capital.  I spent considerable time persuading the moderators to let the PIF unit holders back on the forum and indicated that the forum would be conducted in a true and friendly spirit.  I urge everyone to ensure that this is the way entries are placed on the ASF.  I feel sure if we are removed we will not be allowed back on.  Kind regards to all. CHARLES36 PIFAG ORGANISOR.



Hear hear! This site is extremely valuable. And if extreme comments are made, a writer can be personally sued...


----------



## mellifuous (17 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Hear hear! This site is extremely valuable. And if extreme comments are made, a writer can be personally sued...




Good morning Selciper,

Do you think extreme comments have been made?  If so, what topic do they relate to?  

You are right that we have to be careful about what we say, but the law is not so narrow that we should fear comment on important issues.  

If this site to not used to discuss important issues, then what is the valuable purpose of the site?

By the way, ASIC's eComplaint is now back online - maybe it was down for maintenance.

Thanks.


----------



## Jadel (17 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

For any investor losing hope out there. I would like to say that all Action Groups are now engaged in constuctive discussions regarding our present circumstances and doing everything possible to right the past injustices, created entirely by WC  taking advantage of  desperate and distressed investors .These people had little choice at the time,( given their financial situation ) and had no option left to them ,other than to  place  their faith in Jenny H misleading and deceptive promises.I personally am more than happy for anybody who is willing to take the time and energy to add meaningfull and intelligent content to our forum .We should now look to what can be done in the future to improve our situation.


----------



## seamisty (17 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Good morning mellifuous, as you are aware PIF investors regard  this thread as an extremely important PIF related information source and do not wish to jeopardize its existance. As a possible solution to not risk losing it through complaints made to moderators (which has happened previously) perhaps you could use the Funds cooperation group thread to pursue your issues as it  does not have the following of this one and can afford the risk of being shut down. Apart from the fact the issues you keep raising are well known to PIF investors and have already been appropriately reported to all relevant authorities. We are starting to see results from those actions and with the growing discontent of PIF investors of the current Fund management we know we will need this thread for future solidarity. Please respect that concern. Thanks, Seamisty (PIF AG representative)


----------



## selciper (17 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Good morning Selciper,
> 
> Do you think extreme comments have been made?  If so, what topic do they relate to?
> 
> ...



Mel,
There are judicial proceedings taking place. So, any written comments about them need to be carefully weighed before pressing the "send" button..

It wouldn't be sensible to draw attention to any past posts that may have almost crossed the line.

Jadel - Derived some comfort from your latest post.


----------



## simgrund (17 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



charles36 said:


> Many users of this forum will remember that we were removed by the moderators of the ASF because of bickering and insulting behaviour.  This was a great disappointment to many unit holders of the PIF because little information flows from Wellington Capital.  I spent considerable time persuading the moderators to let the PIF unit holders back on the forum and indicated that the forum would be conducted in a true and friendly spirit.  I urge everyone to ensure that this is the way entries are placed on the ASF.  I feel sure if we are removed we will not be allowed back on.  Kind regards to all. CHARLES36 PIFAG ORGANISOR.




In absolute agreement with you and all contributors in our  efforts to preserve the core value of this thread.

Thanks for your combined optimism,


----------



## selciper (17 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

All about the defamation minefield.

http://users.senet.com.au/~gregogle/Risk_Minimisation.html


----------



## mellifuous (17 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> All about the defamation minefield.
> 
> http://users.senet.com.au/~gregogle/Risk_Minimisation.html




Yes, it's a minefield alright  --- but it's one that has been clearly marked.

truth and reasonable comments on beliefs honestly held are defences.

One can take it two ways - one can cower, or one can express your reasonable comments.

I can remember on this forum that a poster expressed a concern about posting a letter from your manager - now, that is cowering.

Heck, on the issue of W.C.'s misleading investors, Michael West has made a public statement, there is written legal opinion, and there is the Corporation Act which provides for funds which are non-liquid - it's not a big mystery.  W.C. didn't have to wind the fund up in liquidation by 31 March 2009, it could have been done over 5 years (or any reasonable number of years) - whatever is in members' best interests.

Think about how many investors voted to list the fund because they were fearful that the fund would be firesaled (liquidated/woundup by 31 March 2009) - and think just what a diffferent outcome would have occured if W.C. has not make the statement in Paragraph 5.6 of the Q&A - I'd guess the PIF would have remained an unlisted fund.

It's the same old story, so many fearful of nothing but fear itself.

..


----------



## mellifuous (17 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Good morning mellifuous, as you are aware PIF investors regard  this thread as an extremely important PIF related information source and do not wish to jeopardize its existance. As a possible solution to not risk losing it through complaints made to moderators (which has happened previously) perhaps you could use the Funds cooperation group thread to pursue your issues as it  does not have the following of this one and can afford the risk of being shut down. Apart from the fact the issues you keep raising are well known to PIF investors and have already been appropriately reported to all relevant authorities. We are starting to see results from those actions and with the growing discontent of PIF investors of the current Fund management we know we will need this thread for future solidarity. Please respect that concern. Thanks, Seamisty (PIF AG representative)




Just a couple of comments.

I seem to have been attacked when I replied to Duped - he actually asked me a question to which I replied.

Yes, it was appropriately reported to relevant authories, and nothing was done.  It's extremely interesting that some members of this very forum were not aware it - so, it is not true to say that raising it has been useless.

About the Managed Fund thread, a thread that you once had interest, that thread will die.

We all stand in glass houses when we throw stones - like just how wrong you were when you made this posting:-

"... Its a pity Michael West did not research his article a little better as he missed some key points. Resolution 3 which will activate the 2% severance fee of WC up to $8million is optional so if unitholders don't like the content they can simply vote NO.There was absolutely no mention that WC has made provision for an Investor Advisory Committee which will comprise three democratically elected Unitholders who will be able to meet directly with the RE. The 'large fees' that will be paid to the manager are less than a third of what Unitholders were paying their previous managers who are responsible for the current state of the PIF. The vote is trending for an overwhelming YES vote by 97%, indicating that the majority of investors are willing to give WC the opportunity to be responsible for their investment. Why would you 'dump' a RE and appoint another unknown RE without knowing what WC are capable of? ..."

Sad thing is that Michael West did research his article well, but very few would listen to him.

There has been no posting that has been made that would cause the thread to be closed, and in any event you could just start up in yahoo or elsewhere.  It's also worth nothing that  the moderators of this forum would delete any postings they don't like - that is their pejorative.


..


----------



## seamisty (17 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Quote mellifuous'There has been no posting that has been made that would cause the thread to be closed, and in any event you could just start up in yahoo or elsewhere. It's also worth nothing that the moderators of this forum would delete any postings they don't like - that is their pejorative.'


We don't want to start up elsewhere, we are quite happy here. Is it because you are not a unit holder and have nothing to lose that you don't care if we lose this thread? That is a very selfish attitude from someone who says they are only trying to help. You have two threads you started yourself, are they so boring that you have to constantly try and get a rise out of PIF unit holders? 

Unitholders know our current situation is not ideal or what we expected but that is not what we voted for. We also  have had the guts to admit that we have made an unintentional mistake and do not need to be told time and time again what could have or should have been done at a time when unsophisticated  investors supported what they considered to be the best option available to them at the time. That option did not eventuate but it IS NOT OUR FAULT!!  We are exploring all possible avenues to better our situation. We are now more aware of our rights through much research and professional advice. You are only aggravating a bad situation and causing unnecessary angst. Please leave us alone and put your efforts into your own fellow FMF unitholders, it may be more appreciated. Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (17 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Quote mellifuous'There has been no posting that has been made that would cause the thread to be closed, and in any event you could just start up in yahoo or elsewhere. It's also worth nothing that the moderators of this forum would delete any postings they don't like - that is their pejorative.'
> 
> 
> We don't want to start up elsewhere, we are quite happy here. Is it because you are not a unit holder and have nothing to lose that you don't care if we lose this thread? That is a very selfish attitude from someone who says they are only trying to help. You have two threads you started yourself, are they so boring that you have to constantly try and get a rise out of PIF unit holders?
> ...




Well, with respect, if the thread becomes more important than one's ability to freely express oneself, then the sitution has really become 'back to front'.

I'm cautiously aware of the law - and I'm careful to speak to the truth - and the facts, especially taken from W.C.'s own website are the basis of that truth.

Hey, it's not about fault - that's how you're perceiving it, but the sad reality is that a lot of people still do not understand what happened.

I understand that you're one of the larger unitholders in your fund and believe it or not, having the fund listed might prove to be more costly to you than other members of the fund, especially if the issue of payments from the fund become a tax problem.

Danielle's letter to W.C. about the issue of tax remains unanswered some two months later.

Angst?  angst rising from truth?  Well, why shouldn't people feel peeved about finding out they've been duped? (no pun intended Duped).   

It must be a pleasant world to live in where one is ignorant of the facts.   Members' ignorance is a manager's best advantage.

One day you'll come to understand that it is only when EVERYONE knows and understands the facts will EVERYONE be able to make an informed decision.

Oh. and on the threads, yes they are boring  -- so, we have our own coffee club which is purring along quite comfortably.

'get a rise'? --- I'll let this one pass.

I think you just want a placid news gathering forum while others 'work behind the scenes', but if nothing comes from all that work, what will you tell your fellow investors when they get nothing (or next to nothing)?

Will that be a "sorry"?   

When you stiffle debate, then you will find yourself with some responsibility for the outcome.  Just think how wrong you were about Michael West, and how you pressed against his counsel, what responsibility  do you take for that error? nothing?  

You will find comfort in the fact that this will be my last posting here - I've added everything I wanted to in order to be helpful.   

I wish you all good luck.

..


----------



## wally3218 (17 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

A big thank you to everyone that does post revant information for the unit holders.
l hope we dont go down the path of the last forum and and start bicuring like last time.
This is the only way to get recent information about the fund, I usually read it here before getting a letter or glossy mailout from WC two months later


----------



## seamisty (17 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Class Action Update

Tomorrow the hearing will continue at 10.15am as to whether the former PIF responsible entity Wellington Investment Management Ltd is to be removed as a named respondant in the IMF/Carney Class Action regarding access to PIF related information/documentation. I hope if the result can be seen as being 'price sensitive' information it is not released to the media before being posted on the NSX. IMHO  there has already been enough damage done to our unit value as a consequence of the previous and current management  of  our Fund, some good news would be a welcome change. Seamisty ::I am not a professional legal, financial or property adviser, any comments made above are only my personal investor opinion. Please seek professional advice if making any decisions regarding your PIF investment

Previously posted on the NSX
18-Feb-2010  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram Court Room 22B  
NSX announcement http://www.newpif.com.au/investor_updates/NSX Release - Class Action - 21 December 2009.pdf
Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v KPMG & Ors – Federal Court Proceedings NSD324/2009
(‘Class Action’)
A hearing of the class action took place on Wednesday 16 December 2009 and Friday 18 December 2009
before Justice Perram in the Federal Court in Sydney.
The Court was unable to deal with the Notice of Motion filed by the former responsible entity seeking to
have the former responsible entity (currently the Third Respondent) discontinued as a party to the class
action due to timing restrictions.
As the Federal Court year has now ended, the Notice of Motion will be heard on a date to be fixed in
February 2010.
Further updates will be provided as the matter progresses.
Premium Income Fund


----------



## simgrund (18 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



mellifuous said:


> Well, with ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> 
> I wish you all good luck.  ..




"I wish you all good luck". 
AS in TA TA, TOO ROO LOO,  FAREWELL FOREVER,
PARTING IS SUCH SWEET SORROW???

Is this the gist of your yet another denigrading posting?
It may just be the smoking gun Duped was groping for when he said 
"There's something about your posts that gets me off side. I don't know what it is."

After this cavalcade of posts, I am sure he (duped) remains in no doubt as to from which direction the unwelcome off-siding originates.
A propos your "I seem to have been attacked when I replied to Duped - he actually asked me a question to which I replied."; the elocution of Mellifuos started earlier with #4838. A friendly attempt at snipping the problem in the bud and  which you were magnanimous enough to acknowledge with an apology.
How times have changed.

I take you at your word in wishing us good luck and leaving us to our own devices.


----------



## Duped (18 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I was only trying to help.

In case I have unintentionally mislead: 

I'm not convinced that WC can't pay (is legally restricted from paying) the 3c as a return of capital. WC is telling me it will. But others are telling me it can't because e.g. of the way it treats our capital in the PIF accounts or something like that.  I guess time will tell. It would be great to know asap so I can do some tax planning. 

As for the business plan to grow the fund.  I forgot about the Benchmark Asset Allocation on http://newpif.com.au/pifoverview.html.  In the latest Update WC said the plan includes rebalancing the portfolio. Sounds reasonable.  Is the benchmark balance a good one for us investors? That's another debate and I wouldn't have a clue. Will it attract investors to push up the NSX price and volume? I hope so.


----------



## seamisty (18 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

quote Duped "In the latest Update WC said the plan includes rebalancing the portfolio":::

 Along with a slightly different wording it has been used numerous times Duped!!!::"rebalancing the asset class allocations of the Fund                    

Pif update 31 Dec 2009
"rebalancing the asset class allocations of the Fund" 



PIF update 31st Aug 2009
Wellington is working to rebalance the
portfolio in a systematic and progressive manner



Pif update 30 April 2009
Wellington is working to rebalance the
portfolio in a systematic and progressive manner.

RESTRUCTURE is another word that has been used since day one. I wonder how the court case is going? Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (18 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> I was only trying to help.
> 
> In case I have unintentionally mislead:
> I'm not convinced that WC can't pay (is legally restricted from paying) the 3c as a return of capital. WC is telling me it will. But others are telling me it can't because e.g. of the way it treats our capital in the PIF accounts or something like that.  I guess time will tell. It would be great to know asap so I can do some tax planning.
> As for the business plan to grow the fund.  I forgot about the Benchmark Asset Allocation on http://newpif.com.au/pifoverview.html.  In the latest Update WC said the plan includes rebalancing the portfolio. Sounds reasonable.  Is the benchmark balance a good one for us investors? That's another debate and I wouldn't have a clue. Will it attract investors to push up the NSX price and volume? I hope so.




Quite correct Duped, 3 cents and quarterlies of 1.5 thereafter were definitely by way of CAPITAL RETURN.
Page 8, section 4 of Investor Information Forums booklet (Q & A) gives specific definition of 3 c Distribution. 
To be recommenced October '08; not backdated; cash payment out of your holding; no longer a % calculation; etc etc. Back then they even provided for these cash payments to be re-invested, which amusingly meant, that you would be given opportunity to decline to receive a cash payment. That's foresight for you!!!
Regards,


----------



## seamisty (19 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

ELS fights back to post loss of just $146,000


EARLY Learning Services came close to bouncing into the black in 2009 as its underlying profitability appears to have stabilised.

The Bundall-based childcare operator, which is subject to a $40 million merger with Payce Childcare, delivered a $146,000 loss for the 12 months to the end of December, a marked improvement from the $12.3 million loss in 2008.

That result was hit by massive writedowns in the wake of the collapse of ABC Learning Centres. 

Normalised earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation in 2009 surged to $2.5 million from $72,000, mainly through efficiency gains.

Chairman Tony Hartnell, who will be replaced by Wellington Capital's Jenny Hutson once the merger is approved, yesterday declared the foundations for growth had been laid despite a turbulent 12 months.



Full article





http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/02/19/190261_gold-coast-business.html


----------



## marcom (19 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Direction from the Federal Court yesterday:

ORDER
JUDGE: Justice Perram
DATE OF ORDER: 18 February 2010 
WHERE MADE: Sydney

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The matter be stood over until 9:30 on Monday 22 February 2010 for judgement.


----------



## seamisty (19 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> AWB class action update. SMH this afternoon.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/awb-settles-with-shareholders-20100215-o1ec.html



Another update selciper::



Appeal court hands ASIC a major victory in AWB case 
John Durie From: The Australian February 19, 2010 11:15AM 
AUSTRALIA'S corporate cop will be able to pursue a second case against former AWB boss Andrew Lindberg after the Victorian Court of Appeal today reversed the original judgement denting the claim. 

The move is a major victory for the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC).

Full article::http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...tory-in-awb-case/story-e6frg9io-1225832120227
Still no news on yesterdays class action/Wellington court case.
Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## selciper (19 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Federal Court:

22-Feb-2010  9:30  Judgment  Justice Perram

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD324/2009/actions


----------



## seamisty (19 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Federal Court:
> 
> 22-Feb-2010  9:30  Judgment  Justice Perram
> 
> https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD324/2009/actions



THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.	The matter be stood over until 9:30 on Monday 22 February 2010 for judgment


Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## marcom (19 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

In the Brisbane Supreme Court - Full Bench Hearing:

RE: OCTAVIAR LIMITED
Justice Keane
Justice Muir
Justice Chesterman
Banco Court
Floor 2 	10:15 AM Monday 20/2 2010
(Hearing)


----------



## simgrund (19 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



k.smith said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/business/colonial-to-shut-852m-mortgage-fund-20100216-o7me.html
> 
> ".....Colonial First State has told ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> so Colonial First State is not listing their fund, nor is it adopting a Variable Unit Price...
> their chief executive believes it is in ALL its investors best interests to  shut up shop after it was hit with "rising lending losses"...




Hi k.smith,
Just to clarify mildly the above; it is the mortgage fund that is being wound up.
Other products by Colonial First State continue as before. Is this correct? 
Regards, simgrund


----------



## k.smith (20 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Hi k.smith,
> Just to clarify mildly the above; it is the mortgage fund that is being wound up.
> Other products by Colonial First State continue as before. Is this correct?
> Regards, simgrund




http://www.smh.com.au/business/colonial-to-shut-852m-mortgage-fund-20100216-o7me.html
".....Colonial First State has told investors it plans to shut down its $852 million mortgage fund after it was hit with rising lending losses......"


----------



## seamisty (20 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

An interesting read::::

http://www.smh.com.au/business/act-on-frozen-funds-or-taste-grapes-of-wrath-20100219-olrr.html


Extracted from article::::


"Investors in frozen funds have spent too long in limbo. Those fund managers that haven't yet done so need to bite the bullet. They need to determine whether the fund is viable, and if not what they plan to do about it. To be viable, funds will need to attract new investors to replace those who have lost patience and want out regardless. Higgins says some funds have managed this and present good opportunities for investors. But funds that merely maintain the status quo will wither on the vine"


----------



## Jadel (20 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Would you believe I am also heavily invested in this Mortgage fund in my SMSF.

 Thank God they are not going to list the assets 
.
In one fell swoop the Rudd government has with its ill-conceived   bank guarantee totally destroyed the mortgage fund industry

Who it their right mind is ever again going to invest in Mortgage funds , or property development funds for a supposed safe income stream .Even if these funds do decide  to pay some sort of dividend there will be few retiree’s who will ever be persuaded to invest into  these kind of  funds . 

The only investors willing to buy into these funds, will be the predatory vultures who can pick up shares for a pittance from distressed investors  in the hope of a quick  capital gain. 

Duped ,it does not make one scintilla of difference what announcement  WC makes or how they rebalance the portfolio.

The price on the NSX will never be equivalent to the value of the underlying assets in  my or your lifetime.


----------



## simgrund (20 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Jadel said:


> Would you believe I am also heavily invested in this Mortgage fund in my SMSF.
> Thank God they are not going to list the assets .
> In one fell swoop the Rudd government has with its ill-conceived   bank guarantee totally destroyed the mortgage fund industry
> Who it their right mind is ever again going to invest in Mortgage funds , or property development funds for a supposed safe income stream .Even if these funds do decide  to pay some sort of dividend there will be few retiree’s who will ever be persuaded to invest into  these kind of  funds .
> ...





Jadel,
How right you are! The only way Rudd government can redeem itself is to provide a realistic safe heaven for retirees savings, other than banks.
I switched to cash days before this announcement. 
But I would rather have it continue in the fund albeit at lower earnings but with government protection currently with bank deposits.
Perhaps Wayne Swan could start working on this as his swan song of the future. 
Good Luck, and thanks to k.smith for info


----------



## simgrund (21 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

http://www.smh.com.au/business/why-did-awb-shareholders-settle-for-so-little-20100219-olx0.html

This article could be of interest to some; definitely for Carneys/IMF 
Regards


----------



## seamisty (22 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

WC states on their website 'Wellington Capital has total assets under management of more than $1 billion in assets under management'. http://www.wellcap.com.au/profile.html                                                                     I just did a quick add up of Wellington Capitals Funds under management. 

1.Wellington Property Securities Fund comprises Wellington Property Trust and Wellington Property Fund Limited.  Units in the trust are stapled to shares in the company and are treated as a single security
The Wellington Property Securities Fund currently has $10 million in funds under management. (this could be less as of now as the $10mill was the original amount invested)


2.Rimcorp Property Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wellington.  Rimcorp was established in April 2002 and holds an Australian Financial Services Licence enabling it to be a responsible entity for direct property managed investment schemes.

Rimcorp is the responsible entity of four property trusts, which has $84 million in assets under management. (as at 30 October 2009 -
RG46 Disclosures http://www.wellcap.com.au/index.html I did a rough calculation and came up with the value at that time as approx $71mill)


3. Premium Income Fund value at June 2009 was approx $296mill


Total approx $377mill, a far cry from a billion or did I miss something? Has anyone else done the figures? If these figures are ( approxiamately) correct then WC has a possible impairment well in excess of $600million of the original 'more than $1 billion in assets under management'!!! (Or maybe my maths are really bad!!??) Seamisty


----------



## selciper (22 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

That $1b sum is mentioned in the JH March 09 video at the 3 mins 40 seconds mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H60lzsGvAW


----------



## marcom (22 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> WC states on their website 'Wellington Capital has total assets under management of more than $1 billion in assets under management'....Seamisty




From http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/815335

*What is misleading & deceptive conduct?*

There is a very broad provision in the Trade Practices Act that prohibits conduct by a corporation that is misleading or deceptive, or would be likely to mislead or deceive you.

To be misleading or deceptive the conduct must contain a misrepresentation capable of inducing the relevant class into error. Generally, misrepresentations will be false statements of fact.

It makes no difference whether the business intended to mislead or deceive you””it is how the conduct of the business affected your thoughts and beliefs that matters.

If the overall impression left by an advertisement, promotion, *quotation, statement or other representation* made by a business *creates a misleading impression in your mind*””such as to the price, value or the *quality of any* goods and *services*””then the conduct is likely to breach the law.

*I think I have been misled””what can I do?
*
Any claims or representations made by a business must be accurate and truthful. If you think a business has been dishonest, exaggerated the truth, or created a misleading impression, then you should report your concerns. You may not be the only consumer affected.

*I think I was misled about a financial service. Can the Australian Securities & Investment Commission help me?
*
The Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) is the consumer protection regulator for financial products and services. ASIC has powers to protect consumers against misleading or deceptive and unconscionable conduct affecting all financial products and services...

_Disobey my own decisions, I deserve all your suspicion
First it's yes and then it's no, I dilly dally down to duo
But I got no secrets that I babble in my sleep,
I won't make promises to you that I can't keep_
*Tim Finn, 'Stuff And Nonsense' (1979)*


----------



## seamisty (22 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722507.PDF



Litigation Update - Class Action
Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v KPMG & Ors – Federal Court Proceedings NSD324/2009
(‘Class Action’)
A hearing of the Notice of Motion brought by both the current and former responsible entities of the
Premium Income Fund was heard on 18 February 2010. The Notice of Motion sought to have the former
responsible entity (currently the Third Respondent in the class action) discontinued as a party to the court
proceeding pursuant to an agreement entered into between Wellington Capital Limited and the Applicants of
the class action.
Justice Perram today declined to grant approval of the discontinuance sought by the former responsible
entity. As a consequence:
the former responsible entity remains a Respondent in the class action; and
the agreement between Wellington Capital Limited and the Applicants of the class action is at an
end.
Further updates will be provided as the matter progresses.


----------



## Cookie1 (22 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

NSX Release today 22/2/10 by JH

"Premium Income Fund  
NSX Release: 22 February 2010 

Litigation Update - Class Action 
Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v KPMG & Ors – Federal Court Proceedings NSD324/2009  (‘Class Action’) 

A hearing of the Notice of Motion brought by both the current and former responsible entities of the Premium Income Fund was heard on 18 February 2010. The Notice of Motion sought to have the former responsible entity (currently the Third Respondent in the class action) discontinued as a party to the court proceeding pursuant to an agreement entered into between Wellington Capital Limited and the Applicants of the class action. 

Justice Perram today declined to grant approval of the discontinuance sought by the former responsible entity. As a consequence: 

* the former responsible entity remains a Respondent in the class action; and 

* the agreement between Wellington Capital Limited and the Applicants of the class action is at an end. 

Further updates will be provided as the matter progresses."

It's going to be interesting from here on. 

What are the implications to the Class Action now that JH is continuing to be named as a respondent? It's certainly not a good look for her.


----------



## Cookie1 (22 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Sorry for the duplicate posting; Seamisty and I were obviously both posting it about the same time - she was faster!


----------



## seamisty (23 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Well, My personal opinion is the right thing for WC to do is put their hand up and admit that not only can they not deliver on what was originally promised but it is quite obvious that in view of the fact that as the former RE, and the current RE, conflicting interests are not going to best represent unit holders long term. If a reputable judge such as Justice Perram can decline to grant approval of the discontinuance sought by the former responsible
entity which results in WC remaining  as a Respondent in the class action and the agreement between Wellington Capital Limited and the Applicants of the class action is at an
end, where does it leave PIF investors? The NSX announcement by WC leaves me a bit confused. I received the folowing from WC on the 19th June 2009:::
As responsible entity of the Fund, Wellington will respond to all queries in relation to a unitholder's
investment in the Fund.
Wellington will not however correspond with unitholders in relation to their individual queries in relation to
a curent legal proceeding which names Wellington as a respondent. All correspondence in relation to any
legal proceeding where there is legal representation will be conducted between the parties' legal
representatives only.
As disclosed in the Fund's investor update released 29 May 2009, anupdate will be provided to Unitholders
as to the impact of the class action on the Fund as soon as the Fund is in a position to do so.
Wellington is aware of its obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 and the Constitution of the Fund to
act in the best interests of unitholders and will continue to do so.:::



Can we expect an update from WC as to our current status?


I did send the following to WC tonight::

As a result of the NSX announcement today http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722507.PDF regarding Wellington Capital remaining a named respondant in our Class Action, I know the Premium Income Fund Action Group will be inundated with questions in relation to who is responsible for legal expenses incurred by WC in relation to court costs. As a Former RE of the PIF, is the current RE liable for legal costs (which is ultimately us investors) or is there a provision for expenses to be met from Octaviar Funds? 

I will post any response on the forum. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## lawry1dog (23 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

WC has lost yet another court proceeding and once again JH family has benefitted from this. Looks like the game is up for WC as the class action
will now and probably already has found mismanagement by WC.

*Wellington must RESIGN and hand the Fund to someone else.*

*I for one will not be happy until I get my money back and someone goes to jail.*


----------



## MichaelG (23 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premuim Income Fund PIF*



Javier said:


> I rang Guy again today..I spoke to someone else..again no-one can explain to me what the benefit of WC will be for our funds. I left a message for Jenny Hutson too. We are getting treated like mushrooms. This is OUR money. I agree we have to start to do something. I will call asic tomorrow. Breaker I have sent you an email with my details. We must form a committee now..these people don't give a f%$K about our money!!




thanks. i lost quite a bit of money too but have written it off. let me know what asic says.


----------



## MichaelG (23 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

are the people running octaviar the same bunch of crooks as MFS?
sorry ive lost touch for a while until i saw this name appear on ASF!
if octaviar is listed now u can reach the ceo collectively on www.dearceo.com.au


----------



## seamisty (23 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



MichaelG said:


> are the people running octaviar the same bunch of crooks as MFS?
> sorry ive lost touch for a while until i saw this name appear on ASF!
> if octaviar is listed now u can reach the ceo collectively on www.dearceo.com.au



Long story Michael, Octaviar is officially delisted and is the hands of administrators. This thread is more dedicated to the Premium Income Fund of which the management rights were 'aquired' by Wellington Capital. To get the full story you would have to do some research. Seamisty


----------



## The Owls (23 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Cookie1 said:


> NSX Release today 22/2/10 by JH
> 
> "
> What are the implications to the Class Action now that JH is continuing to be named as a respondent? It's certainly not a good look for her.




What exactly does this mean for me as a unit holder in PIF and what does it mean for JH.  Thank you in advance


----------



## selciper (23 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Happy landings! - I think not. The "talented team", busy with their road show spectaculars, obviously didn't envisage the truly disturbing chain of events following mid-2008. Somebody in the team has been too clever by half and is now confronted by a bizarre situation. Any attempt to charge us PIF investors for the legal fees involved in this fiasco must be challenged. (I think that the Class Action caught WC on the hop.)


----------



## seamisty (23 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



The Owls said:


> What exactly does this mean for me as a unit holder in PIF and what does it mean for JH.  Thank you in advance



Hi Owls and other PIF investors, I have submitted the following to WC and will post any relevant response if and when received.

Dear Caroline,

 As a result of the NSX announcement today http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722507.PDF regarding Wellington Capital remaining a named respondent in our Class Action, I know the Premium Income Fund Action Group will be inundated with questions in relation to who is responsible for legal expenses incurred by WC in relation to court costs. As a Former RE of the PIF, is the current RE liable for legal costs (which is ultimately us investors) or is there a provision for expenses to be met from Octaviar Funds? 

Can you please provide the PIF Action Group with a statement as to any possible implications for unitholders regarding a conflict of interests having the former PIF RE named as a respondent in the Class Action instigated by unitholders on behalf of unitholders while WC  is also our current RE? How can WC represent the best interests of unitholders while at the same time defending themselves in court proceedings relevant to the same Fund?

Why did WC not cooperate with Carney lawyers in providing relevant documentation as initially agreed to help PIF unitholders possibly regain compensation for lost funds? How can this be seen as representing the best interests of PIF unitholders?

In a separate issue, the following question remains unanswered.


              While there has been several updates provided to PIF unitholders regarding the $20 million Sheraton Mirage Raptis 2nd mortgage loan owing to us there has been no mention of the other two outstanding 1st mortgage raptis loans of approx $32million.

Where does the Fund stand in relation to these two 1st mortgage loans of which I understood the Fund is mortgagee in possession?

Regards,

XXXXXXXX (on behalf of the PIF Action Group members)


I originally asked the Raptis question on the 16th Feb but have not received a reply.
 Regards, Seamisty


----------



## Duped (23 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

From my very limited knowledge of law the 22Feb2010 judgement means:

The Class Action (CA) now falls back on normal legal process.  It doesn't get the benefits that the agreement between WC and the CA brought. That agreement supercharged the CA. The CA is back to regularly aspirated.

The CA now doesn't have access to look at ALL of MFSIM's files. The CA can only get access to info held by WC (who bought MFSIM,renamed as WIML) through the Document Discovery process.  This puts a limitation on what info the CA  can demand from WC.  Also, the CA can't browse through all the info and perhaps find unanticipated gems that could rocket power our case. A prosecutors dream.

It's probably not a huge set back if the case being mounted by the CA didn't rely on WC's cooperation. But without WC's open cooperatioon, the costs for the CA will likely be higher and delays longer.

Why did the agreement fall through? Someone knows. Ill play the Devil's Advocate: Maybe some of the other respondents threatened and had good grounds to sue WC?

Why did WC push for WCIM to be discontinued as respondant?  Can't blame them for trying.  Was it a waste of time and money?  I don't know - probably. Will it cost PIF $$$ directly?  Better not!!  But if not it still puts pressure on WC's finances and hence the need for WC to start getting its 0.7% from PIF.


----------



## The Owls (23 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

To Seamisty,Duped and others
Thank you for your reply. Without people such as yourselves PIF investors like me would be just swimming in circles until the whole situation goes down the sewer. Thank you again in your efforts to try and keep WC to do the best for us. The Owls.


----------



## simgrund (23 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Well, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Can we expect an update from WC as to our current status?
> I did send the following to WC tonight::
> As a result of the NSX announcement today http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722507.PDF regarding Wellington Capital remaining a named respondant in our Class Action, I know the Premium Income Fund Action Group will be inundated with questions in relation to who is responsible for legal expenses incurred by WC in relation to court costs. As a Former RE of the PIF, is the current RE liable for legal costs (which is ultimately us investors) or is there a provision for expenses to be met from Octaviar Funds?
> ...




Thanks for this, Seamisty. We will now simply wait.


----------



## seamisty (23 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



simgrund said:


> Thanks for this, Seamisty. We will now simply wait.



Make yourself comfortable Simgrund, WC are not renowned  for their snappy helpful responses! In fact they simply do not provide answers at all for some questions. A classic example is an email I sent to WC  Sept 9th last year re Justice McMurdos judgement. The response I received totally dodged the whole McMurdo question and remains unanswered.


'Hi Caroline,
               I have only just received a copy of McMurdo's judgement dated 17/09/2008 regarding ASIC's intervention in the meeting that was proposed for 18 Sept 2008.
It appears from reading the report McMurdo was under the distinct impression that PIF investors were voting for Ms Hutson to conduct an orderly realisation of assets as opposed to immediate liquidation. At NO TIME did investors consider liquidation in any form acceptable and that was why Ms Hutson received a majority vote. The majority of PIF unitholders were vehemently opposed to any form of liquidation and thought they were voting for 'a far better return through the continuation of the Fund'. Would McMurdo have made the same decision if he was aware of his complete mis interpretation of what PIF investors thought they were voting for and why wasn't he made aware of this fact by WC at the time?

He also appeared confused as to what investors thought they were getting re distributions. Was this ever clarified at the time?
Is it the intention of Ms Hutson to conduct an orderly realisation of assets and return the capital in dribs and drabs under the guise of distributions, collecting management fees for acting as a glorified and expensive real estate agent or can we expect to see the long term continuation and restoration of unit value as we were led to believe?'::::

I sent the following extracts from the McMurdo judgement with the above::::


Extract from file :





In broad terms what is proposed by this meeting is that the

constitution of the fund would be changed in several respects

with the objective of the fund continuing to trade as a going

concern for a period in the vicinity of three to five years.

The purpose of that is to return to unit holders far more than

they would be likely to receive on effectively a winding up of

the fund by the redemption of units in March next year. In

broad terms the comparison is between an estimated 14 cents

per unit in the event of a redemption in March of next year

and about 45 cents in the event that the fund continues to

trade, is able to conduct an orderly realisation of assets and

otherwise is able to conduct its affairs over the next three

to five years.



 and later:



In reaching that

conclusion, I have had regard also to the financial material

within this explanatory memorandum and to what is said about

the likely proceeds from the orderly realisation of assets

over a period of three to five years, because quarterly

payments of 3 cents per unit over three years, of course,

would be 36 cents per unit over three years and that has to be

read with what is said about the underlying value of the

units. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the documentation

could be reasonably understood in the way that I have

described, that is as providing for quarterly payments of 3

cents per unit.::::::



I wonder if Justice McMurdo has followed our plight?

Regards, Seamisty


----------



## zixo (23 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Theres something we all have to face. JH and Wellington will only ever resign the management of the fund when they have bled it dry and there is nothing left.
She has done more to support the Octaviar and MFS directors than any legal guru could ever do. She is not a friend nor manager to the PIF and never has been looking after the best interests of investors.
ASIC is sitting on their bums because we voted for JH and Wellington.
Asic know that any action they take will only ever come out of the PIF coffers, afterall what can they do when they know that they're slowly running the fund into the ground.
The way forward is for the fund to be liquidated, thats the only way the world will see just how honest Jenny Hutson actually is and has been to the investors of the PIF.


----------



## simgrund (23 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



lawry1dog said:


> WC has lost yet another court proceeding and once again JH family has benefitted from this. Looks like the game is up for WC as the class action will now and probably already has found mismanagement by WC.
> *Wellington must RESIGN and hand the Fund to someone else.*
> *I for one will not be happy until I get my money back and someone goes to jail.*




Good day lawry1dog,
Your anger is well, no, painfully well understood.
As I am going over and over again through Explanatory Memorandum,
I can see as clearly, as Judge McMurdo did at the time of his study of this document, that we were doomed from page 17 to page 19. 
These pages show different outcomes from various combinations of ticks and crosses.
Whether all were ticked (for approval), or all were crossed (for rejection);
the outcome for WIML/WCL would be the same ",,,,,will remain the responsible entity" or ",,,,will be the new responsible entity".

We need to look at bottom paragraph of page 14 dealing with revised quorum provisions for having unitholder's meetings.
The changes can then be submitted, adapted and RE replaced. 

As for "I wonder if Justice McMurdo has followed our plight?" by seamisty, I also wonder if he ever got to that part to make a comment or a direction.
So there you are. 
Any changes only through the meeting and then hope that somehow "removal fee" could be voted out. Or perhaps we could swallow that in return for reasonable substitute. None came forward so far.
Best regards,


----------



## seamisty (23 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

I have received a response from WC regarding the following complaint:::

 I would like to lodge a formal complaint as to why Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital has not given PIF investors the option to be kept updated by email as opposed to the expensive alternative of a mail out?
Ms Hutson has been involved with the PIF in a managerial capacity for approx two years and has not made this option available which was ALREADY in place with Octaviar when she first became involved with the PIF.
In view of the fact that the PIF is severely impaired financially and appears to be getting more so, why is money being unnecessarily wasted in this manner?
It is my understanding that of the approx 5,000 investors who signed up with the IMF PIF Class Action, approx three quarters of those supplied an email contact which is being utilised by IMF rather than costly mail outs of which investors ultimately will have to cover the costs. Email is a far more efficient, less expensive option and I would consider any professional business would implement this cost saving strategy. I discussed it with Justine Buckley on the WC hotline well over a year ago and was told it was definitely an option and WC was collating a data base of PIF investor email addresses.
Does Print Mail Logistics provide the printing and mail out service for WC? If they have not in the past will they be in the future?::



I cannot copy/paste the response but the general answer was WC do not have enough investor email adresses (after all this time? and not once have we been asked to supply one!!) and WC think it important that they mail at least 3 updates (regardless of expense) to all investors, the rest of the time its ok for us (the not significant number of unitholders with computer access)to use the internet to read announcements etc. So it is ok for those without a computer to miss out on the other 22 NSX announcements issued in 2009 but essential that everyone, even approx 76% of unitholders(pro rata from IMF data) who have computer access and have already read all PIF related announcements don't have a choice as to whether they require an expensive mailout received approx two weeks after already having read the update.


Doesn't make sense to me:dunno: 

The mail out is put to tender EVERY time!!! The Fund uses a variety of suppliers and Print Mail Logistics is one of the companies included in the panel of suppliers used for printing and mail services. The most appropriate quotation is selected.


I have sent back a response as follows for those who are interested;;

It is my understanding that approx 76% of PIF unitholders have an active email account or access to a computer. I don't recall investors ever having been asked by WC if they have access to a computer and would they prefer to be kept updated with PIF related information by computer or expensive mail outs. By what process did you ascertain that there was not a significant number of unitholders with a notified email adress? 

In view of the pathetic PIF unit value which continues to deteriorate with exorbitant legal expenses, high overheads and operating expenses and the inability to generate any stand alone income under WC control I would consider it prudent to have at least made enquiries regarding the option of email as opposed to hard copy in an existing earlier investor update. I was informed by WC hotline staff over 18 months ago that this was DEFINITELY an option and WC was in the process of compiling an email data base for this purpose. Was I given incorrect information by WC staff?

Bearing in mind JH/WC is a substantial shareholder in Print Mail logistics, holding  28.65%  voting power and JH is the nominated corporate advisor could WC dealing with this company not be seen as some sort of pecuniary interest hence the preference for mail outs when email could suffice at least until the PIF is profitable?

Regards, Seamisty


----------



## gardie (23 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Simgrund

I am not sure if your comment about no one else coming forward is correct.

I know of two other responsible entities that would take this on.

They are property work out specialists not traditional fund managers. In my view this is the type of experience needed.

I had a private message from a fellow poster when I raised this subject previously saying other parties are been talked to so did not push this barrow.

However nothing to date has eventuated I notice. If anyone wants an introduction send me a private message.

New RE would need some assets to work with so the longer this is left before investors moved for a completely independent RE the less there is to work with.


----------



## simgrund (23 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



gardie said:


> Simgrund
> I am not sure if your comment about no one else coming forward is correct.
> I know of two other responsible entities that would take this on.
> They are property work out specialists not traditional fund managers. In my view this is the type of experience needed.
> ...




Hello and Welcome,
We are aware of at least 5-6 other Applicants for the job, as admitted to by JH in her pre Explanatory Memorandum updates. 
The takeover was by way of a purchase by WCL of all shares in OIML. 
WIML eventually replaced by WC following the adoption of proposals contained in that EM. (p3 of Q & A Investor Information Forum booklet)
New Constitution allows for replacement of RE as I just posted above.
As pointed by you; no serious tendering eventuated by would be Saviours.
I and many others are delighted to hear your news.
This could be a kernel worth planting.
I am CERTAIN our PIF AG reps are alerted and will respond duly.
Best regards,


----------



## selciper (24 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

Perhaps it's there and I've missed it, but there appears to be no mention of the February 22 judgment on the WC PIF website. 

http://www.newpif.com.au/


----------



## marcom (24 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



selciper said:


> Perhaps it's there and I've missed it, but there appears to be no mention of the February 22 judgement on the WC PIF website.
> 
> http://www.newpif.com.au/




No there is no mention yet. I have been watching the Federal Court decisions site and the CA progress site and no decision posting by the Court. Not sure how WC found out about the decision - probably by badgering Justice Perram"s associate.


----------



## marcom (24 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*

selciper, just a thought - If doctors bury their mistakes... what do lawyers do???


----------



## seamisty (24 February 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



marcom said:


> selciper, just a thought - If doctors bury their mistakes... what do lawyers do???



Blame someone else then send them the bill!!!

A lawyer was driving his big BMW down the highway, singing to himself, “I love my BMW, I love my BMW.” Focusing on his car, not his driving, he smashed into a tree. He miraculously survived, but his car was totaled. “My BMW! My BMW!” he sobbed.

A good Samaritan drove by and cried out, “Sir, sir, you’re bleeding! And my god, your left arm is gone!”

The lawyer, horrified, screamed “My Rolex! My Rolex!”







 Seamisty


----------



## charles36 (25 February 2010)

Please note the title of the forum has now been altered to reflect the up to date name of the fund.  Interested people should be made aware of the present name of the PIF.  Kind regards to all Charles 36.


----------



## Mary Lynch (26 February 2010)

Just a note to any BTFMFers out there...I am not sure what website you are using at the mo, it has changed so many times, I can't find you.

However, I take it you all know that we are going to be offered two options soon.....to take 6 monthly installments (the % determined by how many want their money back I presume) with $ paid at the unit value at the time; or to leave our $$ with them, as the unit value is apparently rising. I presume that distributions will accompany the 2nd option....otherwise it wouldn't attract many; 

I heard this via a friend who has a friend who got it from Garry an Irishman who workes at BT   Garry said that there are 6 times as many people working on our fund than they had at City Pacific, and he is sincere about the fund going from  strength to strength now.

(I also saw an article in google news briefly referring to the above.


----------



## lightlystrung (26 February 2010)

Hi Mary,

Many FMF BT investors will be very happy to see that there is talk of some way forward.   I am one of those people and assume you are a unitholder too.   

Why don't you post this information in Aussie Stock Forums FMF Forum.   We really need to promote a wider use of this open forum.   

There are three other forums, but they are heavily moderated and we need somewhere for open and constructive discussion.

If there is really any hint of light at the end of this long tunnel, it is sad that the RE Balmain Trilogy have left us all in the dark for so long, as there is a huge surge of unrest amongst unit holders.

lightlystrung


----------



## Mary Lynch (26 February 2010)

Well, Lightly Strung, I did post last week on the FMF Forum, but no-one has responded. There has been no movewment on there for ages.....and it was mostly Mellifuous anyway.

Where are all these disgruntled people?

I received a very "together" update a month or so ago, quite clear that things were moving towards a way of getting our $$$ back to us, and now its going to happen.

Let's be positive; I think the BT team are good.


----------



## atlas1950 (2 March 2010)

Hi all,

Noticed in today's Gold Coast News Bulletin that the courts will allow the sale of the Sheraton Mirage to go thru. There goes another $20 million that PIF will not get.Why we even went to the courts to try to stop the sale is only something JH would know. Holding the second mortgage, I thought we would have no chance. But what do we know. It is easy for JH to play with OUR money.

Michael


----------



## Duped (2 March 2010)

Court approves sale of Sheraton

Nick Nichols, business editor   |  March 2nd, 2010

ST George Bank has been given the all-clear to sell the Sheraton Mirage resort on the Gold Coast after a Supreme Court of Queensland decision handed down yesterday afternoon.

The decision is a big win for the property finance sector, but a major loss for investors in the Premium Income Fund (PIF).

The fund and Joe Ross's LJK Nominees -- second and third mortgagees to the Sheraton respectively -- will get nothing from the $62.5 million sale to Indian developer Pearl Australasia.

PIF, headed by Wellington Capital's Jenny Hutson, and LJK took St George to court in January arguing that, while St George as first mortgagee had a right to sell Sheraton land and building, it did not have the right to sell the hotel business.

Both argued the agreed sale price was well below the current market.

A 'disappointed' Ms Hutson last night said she would consider appealing the decision, although she conceded she must act quickly.

The sale was to have settled yesterday but that deadline has been extended.

Peter Kennedy, a partner with law firm McCullough Robertson which is acting for St George, yesterday welcomed the decision.

He said had the court ruled in favour of PIF, it would have 'sent shockwaves through the banking community'.

"(This ruling) confirms what we have always believed to be the case," he said.

But Ms Hutson said if yesterday's decision stood it had the capacity to alter lending involving multiple financiers.


----------



## Duped (2 March 2010)

Thanks atlas1950

Could JH be serious about her comment "if yesterday's decision stood it had the capacity to alter lending involving multiple financiers". Or is this statement just propaganda or an adhoc remark to save face?  Or so WC can prop the PIF asset value up until WC gets paid?

Even I knew that second mortgages put a financier in a very weak position. After all, isn't that what PIF was sold on: first mortgages?  So important it seems to be that Citi Pacific put it in their fund's name: First Mortgage Fund. 

I know I'm repeating myself but: King and Co did that to us.  I vaguely recall that MFS Ltd bought the asset and then sold it to Raptis less than a year later and booked a fat profit.  I'm guessing that MFS Ltd  sweetened the deal Raptis by giving him this very attractive 2nd mortgage from PIF. If so, then what about that as a related party transaction. 

If PIF investors want to send a message then simply don't give Westpac/St George any of your business.  I won't.  Westpac/St George had a choice but it decided to leave the 10,000 potential Westpac/St George clients stuck in PIF with absolutely nothing.


----------



## selciper (2 March 2010)

"A 'disappointed' Ms Hutson last night said she would consider appealing the decision, although she conceded she must act quickly." (GGB)

Oh, so there's still a chance to spend more of our diminishing money on an appeal! Heaven help us. Will this horrendous legal merry-go-round ever stop? And will WC ever win even one cent for PIF? As they say, sound judgment is everything.


----------



## atlas1950 (2 March 2010)

Hi all, We can't blame Westpac. As holders of the first mortgage, they are at the head of the queue. WC had second mortgage, and as such if there is insufficient funds, PIF gets zero.

Let's not blame Westpac, but blame King for taking out a second mortgage. From my memory, MFS could only invest in first mortgage securities, so why were we exposed to a second mortgage in the first place.

Michael


----------



## Cookie1 (2 March 2010)

Was McCullough Robertson (JH's husband's/ partner's law firm) also representing the PIF, as usual?  If so, I would think it would be a major conflict of interest for McCullough Robertson. Just using them for PIF legal affairs is surely a conflict of interest for JH in any case.


----------



## Duped (2 March 2010)

Yes you are right atlas1950. I can't blame Westpac/St George for PIF being 2nd in line.  But. Westpac/St George had power over me. It had a choice and could have thrown some crumbs my way.  It chose not to. It chose to not share some of the pain of this arrangement. The only power I have over Westpac/St George is not to give it my business. So that's what I'm going to do.  I'm certainly not going to cut off my nose to spite my face. But when all four pillars stand before me substantially equal . I won't be engaging Westpac/St George.


----------



## infinity (2 March 2010)

Hi to all Pif unitholders:
When will enough be enough?
How can we get rid of JH/Wellington, at any cost?
How much more abuse do we have to take? 
Who has the power to do so? What about us???
Please,let's get the ball rolling and change management.

Infinity


----------



## lawry1dog (2 March 2010)

Wellington Capital has now lost another legal action about the Mirage Gold Coast sale to Pearl, and so more money coming out of our Fund.

Wellington must RESIGN and hand the Fund to someone else.

*Why cannot we convene a Unit Holders meeting and do this?*

Come on Breaker1 and Seamisty, lets book a venue and do this.
What about sending out a letter to Perpetual, who has by far the most Units
in the Fund, and get them to vote on changing management. 
We just need a majority.

Who knows the address of Perpetual? And will write to them.

At least this is start. I can then inform people on the forum of what happens.


----------



## Cookie1 (2 March 2010)

NSX Release 10 March 2010 confirms report in Gold Coast Bulletin; once again we learn the bad news in the media before appearing on the NSX. (Note the errors; must have been done in a hurry or they've lost their proofreader.)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/announcements_list.asp?nsxcode=PIN

Premium Income Fund  
NSX Release: 2 March 2010 

Raptis Group Loan – Sheraton Mirage, Gold Coast 

On 1 March 2010, Justice Margaret Wilson in the Supreme Court of Queensland handed down judgement in the proceedings heard on 12 February 2010 in relation to the Sheraton Mirage. The Premium Income Fund holds a second ranking mortgage over the Sheraton Mirage and a second ranking fixed and floating charge over the assets of the owner of the Sheraton Mirage, SP Hotels Pty Ltd. SP Hotels Pty Ltd is a member of the Raptis group of companies. 

Justice Wilson made orders enabling St George Bank Limited to sell the Sheraton Mirage on an unencumbered basis. 

The effect of this judgement is that if the contract entered into between by St George and Pearls Australasia for $62.5 million proceeds, St George, which is owed is owed in excess of this amount, will receive all of the proceeds and there will be no return to the Premium Income Fund.


----------



## marcom (2 March 2010)

lawry1dog, I think this is exactly what JH wants us to do so she can pick up the 2% exit fee and then retire from PIF RE before we sue her (expletives deleted) for damages. Remember that WIM is being sued by us in the CA, and we can also sue WC and their insurers for losses to the fund caused by the RE's actions.

Also something has happened in relation to the ASIC case - the Brisbane Supreme Court site http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...eNumber=12122/09&Court=Supreme&Location=BRISB
shows that the directions hearing date set for today has been removed and the documents tendered section says "25/02/2010  Consent Adjournment of Application lodged by the Applicant" (ASIC). I do not know what has led ASIC to agree to adjourn the proceedings - possibly it has some thing to do with the Liquidators investigations of the MFS Directors which is due to commence in April, or possibly the prospect of criminal proceedings may have arisen.


----------



## selciper (2 March 2010)

Marcom refers to the Liquidators' looming public hearings. While sharing a strong desire to see the back of WC, it can make a lot of sense to wait and see what might be exposed at the April hearings. For all we know, some of the hearing's ripples could help us steer a better-informed course in search of a brighter future. And I share  everybody's impatience at the moment.


----------



## charles36 (2 March 2010)

Did I read correctly that McCullough Robertson acted for the bank in the Sheraton fiasco, they no doubt acted for Wellington Capital.  Can anyone enlighten me please.  Kind regards Charles36.


----------



## Investor262 (2 March 2010)

Dear Seamisty and others
thanks so much for your active involvement and your realistic analysis of a terrible situation. Without you guys I would be alone in the dark. Many many thanks


----------



## seamisty (2 March 2010)

Investor262 said:


> Dear Seamisty and others
> thanks so much for your active involvement and your realistic analysis of a terrible situation. Without you guys I would be alone in the dark. Many many thanks



Thanks Investor 262, Sorry, I  had an expensive computer malfunction on Friday as well as a 'I have had enough, I am out of here, need a break and went fishing binge!!!!. Hopefully I have rectified all issues with sons help installing new modem and am back!!! Just catching up on news/emails etc. Thanks for the support, my batteries are charged, the computer is working, back to normal hopefully tomorrow. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## marcom (3 March 2010)

charles36 said:


> Did I read correctly that McCullough Robertson acted for the bank in the Sheraton fiasco, they no doubt acted for Wellington Capital.  Can anyone enlighten me please.  Kind regards Charles36.




charles36 The judgement on the Sheraton sale is now on http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2010/QSC10-057.pdf

Yes McR acted for the bank.

COUNSEL: D J S Jackson QC and J I Otto for the applicant
P L O’Shea SC and M G Lyons for the respondents
SOLICITORS: McCullough Robertson Lawyers for the applicant
Mary Ann Greaves for the respondents

And now for the damage:
Costs
[68] Having heard submissions on costs, I order that the respondents pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding to be assessed.


----------



## charles36 (3 March 2010)

Thanks Marcom, I wonder whether we have to pay twice, once for M/s Greaves appearance and then pay her wages whilst she attends the Court.  Kind regards Charles36.


----------



## marcom (3 March 2010)

charles36 said:


> Thanks Marcom, I wonder whether we have to pay twice, once for M/s Greaves appearance and then pay her wages whilst she attends the Court.  Kind regards Charles36.




Charles, that is a good point - is this the "in-house" legal support promised at the road shows? Or just another way of skinning the cat?

Just received the IMF CA update with the costs allocation details of WC application to be discontinued as a respondent to the CA - "...ordering WC and WIM to pay the applicant's costs of this application". We won one!


----------



## Investor262 (3 March 2010)

I have just received the email from IMF with the attached letter from Carney's, "Opportunity to avoid or rescind funding agreement" I am assuming the best thing is to stay part of this action or is there something I am missing?


----------



## seamisty (3 March 2010)

marcom said:


> Charles, that is a good point - is this the "in-house" legal support promised at the road shows? Or just another way of skinning the cat?
> 
> Just received the IMF CA update with the costs allocation details of WC application to be discontinued as a respondent to the CA - "...ordering WC and WIM to pay the applicant's costs of this application". We won one!



Rightfully so Marcom!! If ever there was any PIF investor who still had a glimmer of faith left in WC I would imagine that this clearly demonstrates that WC has/had no intention of placing investors best interests above their own:::::
http://www.findlaw.com.au/article/188.htm
The Law imposes extensive duties on the Responsible Entity and its officers. These include the duty to act honestly, exercise a reasonable degree of care and diligence, act in the best interest of members of a scheme and to treat scheme members equally. Breaches of the Law which relate to the scheme and which have or are likely to have a material adverse effect on the interests of members must be reported by the Responsible Entity to ASIC. Breach of a duty by a Responsible Entity attract civil penalties (up to $1 million for the Responsible Entity and up to $200,000 for its relevant officers) and in some cases criminal sanctions.



I would imagine a RE who refuses to cooperate with lawyers by not providing relevant documentation representing a class action on behalf of the Funds investors to try and recoup losses could  be seen as not acting in our best interests. I guess my next question to WC will have to be if they have or intend to notify ASIC of the latest development.

I am still waiting for answers from WC for a number of questions which I re sent this morning. One of them is:::"Why did WC not cooperate with Carney lawyers in providing relevant documentation as initially agreed to help PIF unitholders possibly regain compensation for lost funds? How can this be seen as representing the best interests of PIF unitholders?"


Seamisty


----------



## marcom (3 March 2010)

Investor262 said:


> I have just received the email from IMF with the attached letter from Carney's, "Opportunity to avoid or rescind funding agreement" I am assuming the best thing is to stay part of this action or is there something I am missing?




Just sit tight - what ever way the Multiplex case is resolved we will be covered by IMF/ASIC.  Lawyers do seem to have such an unfortunate manner of describing things that could be put much more simply - but I suppose that's the lawyers mystique.


----------



## charles36 (3 March 2010)

MARCOM  I would like to share your confidence that we won,  no doubt the fund have to pay the expenses to the class action, via IMF, but by the time book keeping etc to pay the costs we have really lost both ways. The class action has a little under 5000 members, the fund 10400 unit holders, to my way of thinking 5400 unit holders have lost out.  I have faith that there must be a day of reckoning for us if there is any justice in this world.    Kind regards Charles36.


----------



## seamisty (3 March 2010)

According to the PIF Constitution clause 10.5 under 'The rights and duties of the RE' states Confidentiality::: Except as otherwise required by any applicable law, the contents of all Scheme records, reports, accounts and other documents must be treated as confidential and the RE must take reasonable precautions to prevent the disclosure thereof to any person OTHER THAN ITS UNITHOLDERS, employees or advisors.

Why then were we subjected to a statement in the PIF Dec 2009 update that we received in Feb 2010 such as  " Much of the correspondence received by the IAC seeks information that is not publically available. Whilst the committee is able to meet with the Funds management team, they are unable to provide us with information that is not available to all Unitholders."



Am I having another dyslexic moment or are we not ALL entitled to Fund related information? (Bearing in mind we were promised transparency in all matters relating to the fund by WC as an 'election committment')



Surely  well informed IAC reps would have asked this same question on behalf of PIF investors without needing to be prompted so perhaps we can expect some more comprehensive IAC coverage in the next PIF investor update due at the end of April 2010?





Seamisty


----------



## k.smith (4 March 2010)

seamisty said:


> According to the PIF Constitution clause 10.5 under 'The rights and duties of the RE' states Confidentiality::: Except as otherwise required by any applicable law, the contents of all Scheme records, reports, accounts and other documents must be treated as confidential and the RE must take reasonable precautions to prevent the disclosure thereof to any person OTHER THAN ITS UNITHOLDERS, employees or advisors.
> 
> Why then were we subjected to a statement in the PIF Dec 2009 update that we received in Feb 2010 such as  " Much of the correspondence received by the IAC seeks information that is not publically available. Whilst the committee is able to meet with the Funds management team, they are unable to provide us with information that is not available to all Unitholders."
> 
> ...




Would it  be a reasonable step for the manager to disclose information to unitholders on its webpage, accessed by way of a password given to unitholders..??
Information would then be equally available to all unitholders .


----------



## seamisty (4 March 2010)

k.smith said:


> Would it  be a reasonable step for the manager to disclose information to unitholders on its webpage, accessed by way of a password given to unitholders..??
> Information would then be equally available to all unitholders .



Extremely reasonable k.smith but from WC past/present performance I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for anything resembling 'reasonable'. From my experience if WC do not want to answer a 'reasonable' question they either ignore it or evade the original question and replace it with something totally irrelevant!!!:bbat: Seamisty


----------



## Duped (4 March 2010)

ROFL.  This is too sweet not to share. The contrast. The coincidence.

Recognoise this Teddy Roosevelt quote:

_“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat"_

It's on our fund's homepage. Why? What relevance is it? Is it us PIF victims that WC wanted to push into the arena to get covered in mud and more blood?  

Or could WC possibly dare to be implying that WC is getting into the arena on behalf of us investors?

Contrast this to Peter Costello's use of the same quote on page 37 of "The  Costello Memoirs".  

Costello goes on to say "To Fred Stauder I said: 'You were the one marred with dust and sweat and blood.  You were the one in the arena.  *We were just the advisors. You had your whole life's savings on the line. * You had plenty of critics.  But you won a place in Australian industrial history.  This child of Austrian immigrants became a true Australian hero.' In an emmotional response Fred said, 'Tonight is the greatest night of my life.' He died a few months later.  I was privileged to deliver a eulogy at his funeral." [Costello represented Stauder in the Dollar Sweets dispute]

*"We were just the advisors. You had your whole life's savings on the line."*


----------



## selciper (4 March 2010)

After all this time, it's becoming clearer by the week that this leopard (the RE) cannot and will not change its spots. Nothing has changed for the better since our fund was frozen in early 08. This is despite all the time-consuming efforts and pleas made by the AG and contributors to this forum who all call for better managerial performance and communication. Both the helpline and the IAC look like no more than devices designed to project an image of openness. Could it be that we are facing another year trapped in the quicksands?

For what it's worth, a friend suggested to me that we should send a 100  signature petition to ASIC. I guess that this has already been thought of.


----------



## seamisty (4 March 2010)

selciper said:


> After all this time, it's becoming clearer by the week that this leopard (the RE) cannot and will not change its spots. Nothing has changed for the better since our fund was frozen in early 08. This is despite all the time-consuming efforts and pleas made by the AG and contributors to this forum who all call for better managerial performance and communication. Both the helpline and the IAC look like no more than devices designed to project an image of openness. Could it be that we are facing another year trapped in the quicksands?
> 
> For what it's worth, a friend suggested to me that we should send a 100  signature petition to ASIC. I guess that this has already been thought of.



selciper a lot of complaints/correspondence submitted to ASIC has been done on behalf of  PIFAG members which numbers far exceed 100 so they are kept well and truly informed of the situation. Its what they do eventually do with that information that interests me, not that I would ever deter individual investors from contacting them with their own concerns.

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (4 March 2010)

Seamisty -

Thanks for the info re. ASIC. Yes, the AG certainly represents many more than one hundred investors, so the weight is there for them to pay attention to our problems..


----------



## mellifuous (5 March 2010)

selciper said:


> After all this time, it's becoming clearer by the week that this leopard (the RE) cannot and will not change its spots. Nothing has changed for the better since our fund was frozen in early 08. This is despite all the time-consuming efforts and pleas made by the AG and contributors to this forum who all call for better managerial performance and communication. Both the helpline and the IAC look like no more than devices designed to project an image of openness. Could it be that we are facing another year trapped in the quicksands?
> 
> For what it's worth, a friend suggested to me that we should send a 100  signature petition to ASIC. I guess that this has already been thought of.




So, what's the answer? - day after day, month after month of the same, or what?  Surely lost legal adventures must be burning away at fund cash reserves. I note the contents of a letter from W.C. which discloses a hostile state now exists between W.C. (as manager of your fund) and the class action - that means your fund will be spending money to impede class action progress - after all, the manager of your fund possesses information critical to the success of your action -  now, just how such a stance is 'in the best interests of unitholders' is hard for me to understand, how about you?

You've got an IAC which seems to be no more than an echo chamber for the manager - you're got a manager which tells you next to nothing (as so many managers do) - your fund's future is uncertain.   Your IAC is an invention which has no real function - it seems no more than an adornment for your fund - an ornament.

So, what's the plan?  a new manager? go to the court and have a manager appointed? or more of the same?

Your manager could tell you more, but it doesn't want to - in fact, so many of these managers (bt included) given next to no information, because it suits them not to give information - uninformed investors are real delight for managers.

Investors in the PFMF and the PIF are like chooks running around with their heads cut off.

We all complain, but we get nowhere - so, what's the answer?

I understand that ASIC does not care about the prudential nature of your investment - you elected your manager, you have to accept your manager's actions - if you don't like what your manager is doing, then it's up to you to get rid of it.

ASIC worry about paperwork, they do not worry about whether a decision is, or is not, in unit holders' best interests, they don't have resourses, energy, or interest to think about such things  -  if you think ASIC concern themselves about the things you guys are concerning yourselves, then you haven't accepted reality.  Yes, we have to make complaints to ASIC, but we shouldn't accept too much.

100 signatures or 1 signature, it won't make a difference.

We're all neatly packed away in our respective little fund 'boxes' and there is not much we can do about it - only change managers, wind up, or hold a meeting to alter the constitution for one thing of the other (including de-list the fund) - but nothing more.

..


----------



## lawry1dog (5 March 2010)

*Looks like from my sources that everybody should be getting out of the
Carney's Class action, as this action will fail and so all Plaintiffs in this Class
action will have to pay court costs, etc..*

After years this forum has been going, nothing has ever come from it.
I certainly have not seen any money.
I think a lot of unit holders have resigned to not getting anything back
at all, now.


----------



## selciper (5 March 2010)

Lawrydog - Name your sources!


----------



## simgrund (5 March 2010)

lawry1dog said:


> *Looks like from my sources that everybody should be getting out of the
> Carney's Class action, as this action will fail and so all Plaintiffs in this Class
> action will have to pay court costs, etc..*
> 
> ...



Dear Lawry1dog,
Do not panic. IMF funding of our case comes with a caveat that in the event of losing the case, the funder covers the costs. 
Please read your agreement with IMF again for your peace of mind. 
IMF usually selects cases which bring them the bacon. 
Check this carefully before spreading the panic virus. Good luck.


----------



## erniel (5 March 2010)

Jenny Hutson,
What was all the spin you gave us about what a wonderful relationship you had with Raptis and you were confident all would be resolved to the satisfaction of the PIF.?How many more millions have we lost again ?
You misled us into voting for you and how dearly we are paying for our naivity.


I doubt we will be recieving any returns from the PIF under Hutson and believe our only hope is in the class action of the PIF  AG


----------



## seamisty (5 March 2010)

lawry1dog said:


> *Looks like from my sources that everybody should be getting out of the
> Carney's Class action, as this action will fail and so all Plaintiffs in this Class
> action will have to pay court costs, etc..*
> 
> ...



 Lawry1dog anyone who has already joined the class action has the choice to opt out but why on earth would they even consider it? It is in all probability the only real chance of recouping PIF losses no matter how little. I understand that the idea of paying IMF 20-30% of money recovered is because IMF take on board any risk and are liable for costs if no money is recovered. Do you have substantive information that backs up your post stating the opposite?


It is not the responsibility of this thread (which has been going for less than 2 years) or the forum to return money to you, this thread is a means of communication. If you consider it has achieved nothing, tough, there are plenty who do recognize its value. 

Have you contacted Carney lawyers to confirm your source of information before posting your alarming post?

Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (5 March 2010)

mellifuous;#5276   said:
			
		

> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,blah, blah, blah,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> ..





[You will find comfort in the fact that this will be my last posting here - I've added everything I wanted to in order to be helpful.

I wish you all good luck.]

*These are your words from #5197.
For once, be a man of your own word.*


----------



## mellifuous (5 March 2010)

simgrund said:


> [You will find comfort in the fact that this will be my last posting here - I've added everything I wanted to in order to be helpful.
> 
> I wish you all good luck.]
> 
> ...




Ah, 'simgrund', you pleasure at shooting the messenger, so what is it you find disturbing in the message?

Look 'simgrund', I'm sorry that I found something to add - yes, time changes everything.

'simgrund', just to balance up your nastiness - I'm acting as a proxy for an investor in your fund, and he wants me to add to this post the fact that he doesn't like you at all either.

He wants this forum to be helpful in achieving the best outcome for what remains of his investment in the PIF.

..


----------



## mellifuous (5 March 2010)

lawry1dog said:


> *Looks like from my sources that everybody should be getting out of the
> Carney's Class action, as this action will fail and so all Plaintiffs in this Class
> action will have to pay court costs, etc..*
> 
> ...




Just for information, and you'll have to verify it with your lawyers, but as I understand it, your class action is fully funded and each member in the class is indemnified against loss - that is, no cost on a loss.

There is no need to worry about being personally liable.  The better thing to do is to press your manager into cooperating with the class action (IMO), and if the manager won't cooperate, then at least press the manager to explain to all members why it won't cooperate.

..


----------



## selciper (5 March 2010)

Lawry1dog - Do you know this old saying? "Nothing travels faster than light except for unfounded rumours." 

Anyway, your facts regarding CA members' potential costs are plainly wrong. This error diminishes the plausibility of a reckless rumour.


----------



## charles36 (5 March 2010)

Thanks Lawrydog for you information.  Unfortunately, throughout my life I have never placed much faith in unsolicited advice and I am too old to change now,  Regards Charles36.


----------



## seamisty (5 March 2010)

Hi all, I just received a call from Carney Lawyers and my information is in actual fact the Class Action is still open at this point for those wishing to sign a funding agreement with IMF to participate if they have not already done so. The agreement does not mean investors will be accountable for any expenses/losses in the event no money is recovered.

The interesting thing is, all PIF unitholders who held/hold units prior to the PIF being frozen or have since sold on the NSX are included in the Class Action at this point . Investors who have bought since the PIF was frozen are excluded. This is because the court wants all investors to be as fully informed as possible  of the court actions, statement of claim etc to make their decision before the cut off point.( I imagine the initial sign on was to give IMF an indication of investor participation to consider if numbers warranted IMF involvement in view of the costs involved.) 
At some stage the judge or court will declare the Class Action closed and only those signed up will remain eligible to participate.

Also in the same token anyone who wishes to 'opt' out can still do so by contacting IMF until the CA is declared closed.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (5 March 2010)

Yesterday I passed on some correspondence to Carney lawyers that was between my self and WC after being told by WC to contact my lawyers if I required more information. Carney lawyers were kind enough to read it and contact me in relation to its content. I cannot post it all on here but I can post a response I sent back to WC after being told that the original agreement with Wellington Capital and Carneys regarding providing Carneys with relevant documentation which would help all the applicants in the Class Action is at an end as a result of the dispute.

In the same correspondence I received from WC it also stated that ' WC  as RE of the PIF has a duty to act in the best interests of all unit holders and is aware that not all unit holders are represented in the class of persons represented in the CA. '

Now bearing in mind that I posted earlier today stating that it is only new investors not represented at this time in the CA I sent another email to WC as follows::


Why did WC Ltd the current RE file the Notice of Motion in the courts when the issue could have been resolved without doing so?

WC states that not all PIF unitholders are participating in the Class Action. At this point the only unitholders not participating are new investors who have bought on the NSX and recognise the fact that they  invested in a severely impaired fund, reflected by the heavily discounted price they paid for their units, average 13cents, NOT the $1.00 per unit paid by the majority. The new investors have not lost money at this point and should not need to be represented to the same extent of long term holders at the expense of those who have been severely financially disadvantaged by current and prior management.

WC states it has to act in the best interests of all unitholders, how can this be done when there are now different catagories of investors?

Will WC be cooperating in the future with Carney Lawyers on behalf of the majority of PIF investors who remain in the Class Action by providing relevant PIF documentation necessary to best represent unitholders?:::



What I forgot to add and many of you may not be aware of, is that the Action Group and the original Class Action applicants had Carney lawyers approach Wellington Capital on investors behalf and asked for some financial assistance to help fund the claim before Carneys managed to get IMF on board. 


Would you have expected an RE who had promised us so much and had already demonstrated on numerous occasions that legal representation was a priority REFUSED TO HELP!!!!! Yes, REFUSED and then alledgedly reneged on an agreement to assist the lawyers!!

Are these the actions of an RE who has a duty to act in the best interests of all unitholders? I am totally appalled!!!

Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (5 March 2010)

seamisty said:


> Yesterday I passed on some correspondence to Carney lawyers ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> 
> WC states that not all PIF unitholders are participating in the Class Action. At this point the only unitholders not participating are new investors who have bought on the NSX and recognise the fact that they  invested in a severely impaired fund, reflected by the heavily discounted price they paid for their units, average 13cents, NOT the $1.00 per unit paid by the majority. The new investors have not lost money at this point and should not need to be represented to the same extent of long term holders at the expense of those who have been severely financially disadvantaged by current and prior management.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Seamisty




It would help to request from Carney Lawyers this very reasonable clarification about an "entitlement to be represented". 
Otherwise we may be faced with gross distortion by the time of hoped for distribution. 
How is it decided and by whom?
Seamisty; could we have some light shed on this, thanks.


----------



## seamisty (5 March 2010)

simgrund said:


> It would help to request from Carney Lawyers this very reasonable clarification about an "entitlement to be represented".
> Otherwise we may be faced with gross distortion by the time of hoped for distribution.
> How is it decided and by whom?
> Seamisty; could we have some light shed on this, thanks.



Simgrund not sure what you mean? Please expand, I can always contact Carneys or IMF with reasonable questions relating to the CA. Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (6 March 2010)

Just wondered if anybody can work out  what Jenny H is gouging out of our fund after reading the following article


How can a LABOR government in Australia NOT do something to prevent this type of ridiculous over-payment of executives in this country. $3,461 per hour (higher, actually, because they don’t work 52 weeks of the year) to manage other people’s money, at no personal financial risk whatsoever?



http://www.perfecteconomy.com/pg-probability-of-worldwide-economic-collapse.html



Very interesting material and suggestions in the above link.



Inequality and Absurbity!!!



Example (approximates)  CEO's of big 4 Banks Aust..receive $9 million Yr.

Equals 50 hrs weekly times 52 = 2,600 hrs times $3,461 per hour.



50% of world’s population exist on around $2 daily times 365 = $720 per year.

Therefore, what these poor individuals live on for approx 5 years, a CEO of an Australian Bank earns in ONE HOUR?????



Further, the 50% mostly produce real wealth (Goods or Food), while the CEOs

of banks mostly produce artificial DEBT , shuffle paper, produce little or no real 

goods or wealth, and probably do more harm than good by creating excess credit which 

DILUTES all existing savings, creating in effect ever rising prices of most things/services,

etc.


----------



## selciper (6 March 2010)

I found Seamisty’s #5288 made for an uncomfortable read. So now hairs are being split regarding classes of PIF investors! It seems untenable to me as an argument and I don’t swallow it. But I admit to being a simple soul - after all, I voted in 08 for WC to take charge...What on earth can be in those supposedly withheld documents? Surely we can’t be blamed for being just a little bit curious.


----------



## Mary Lynch (7 March 2010)

Just an "aside".... for clarity on this issue...Seamisty mentioned that the only unitholders not participating in the class action are those who have purchased them since they were converted to shares, and are obviously not entitled to gain from the CA. ('Spose there could be some who couldn't be bothered because they had too few).

Thus, unless you have an up-to-date register then the count (for instance) on how many CURRENT unitholders there are will be very inaccurate.

Before, we sold, for example,we had 3 separate acct numbers representing 3 separate holdings....but after they were sold  they would have become about 6 different acct nos, because they were sold in about 6 parcels; they must have got NEW nos., otherwise they would be mixed up with mine when it comes to taking home the LOOT from the CA!!!


----------



## seamisty (7 March 2010)

Mary Lynch said:


> Just an "aside".... for clarity on this issue...Seamisty mentioned that the only unitholders not participating in the class action are those who have purchased them since they were converted to shares, and are obviously not entitled to gain from the CA. ('Spose there could be some who couldn't be bothered because they had too few).
> 
> Thus, unless you have an up-to-date register then the count (for instance) on how many CURRENT unitholders there are will be very inaccurate.
> 
> Before, we sold, for example,we had 3 separate acct numbers representing 3 separate holdings....but after they were sold  they would have become about 6 different acct nos, because they were sold in about 6 parcels; they must have got NEW nos., otherwise they would be mixed up with mine when it comes to taking home the LOOT from the CA!!!



Mary once the CA is closed investors who have NOT signed the IMF fundung agreement will be excluded from the CA and yes you are probablly right, there would be some who have smaller holdings who probablly wouldn't bother registering. There will also be some who simply do not understand what a CA is and are reluctant to get involved.                                                                     


I am sure the lawyers would have the issue of eligiblity  well covered by use of the unitholder 
register pre the NSX listing and computershare data etc. The following info 
had to be supplied to IMF initially which I am sure would/will be verified. I can't imagine IMF making errors in relation to which units do or don't qualify. 



(A) ATTACH HOLDING STATEMENTS AND/OR CONTRACT NOTES IF AVAILABLE; and
(B) ATTACH TRADE INFORMATION IN EXCEL FORMAT, IF THE APPLICANT IS CLAIMING ON BEHALF OF
MULTIPLE FUNDS.
OPENING BALANCE: Number of units held on 1 January 2006
PURCHASES LIST PURCHASES FROM 1 JANUARY 2006 TO
29 JANUARY 2008 INCLUSIVE
TRADE DATE QUANTITY GROSS PRICE PAID (incl.
brokerage)
REDEMPTIONS LIST REDEMPTIONS FROM 1 JANUARY 2006 TO 29 JANUARY
2008 INCLUSIVE
TRADE DATE QUANTITY NET PRICE RECEIVED



I wonder who is responsible for CA unit representation of the Wholesale PIF. WC or the individual investors? WC hold the voting rights so do they have control as to whether those units participate or not? Can anyone or a WPIF investor answer this please?


Seamisty


----------



## charles36 (7 March 2010)

SEAMISTY, correct me if I am wrong (I know you will) but didn't we hear something about WCLtd. not exercising the vote of WPIF to enter the class action and stated that the WPIF would be looked after by WC Ltd.  
Somebody might be able to clarify this matter.  Kind regards to all Charles 36


----------



## Investor262 (7 March 2010)

seamisty said:


> Hi all, I just received a call from Carney Lawyers and my information is in actual fact the Class Action is still open at this point for those wishing to sign a funding agreement with IMF to participate if they have not already done so. The agreement does not mean investors will be accountable for any expenses/losses in the event no money is recovered.
> 
> The interesting thing is, all PIF unitholders who held/hold units prior to the PIF being frozen or have since sold on the NSX are included in the Class Action at this point . Investors who have bought since the PIF was frozen are excluded. This is because the court wants all investors to be as fully informed as possible  of the court actions, statement of claim etc to make their decision before the cut off point.( I imagine the initial sign on was to give IMF an indication of investor participation to consider if numbers warranted IMF involvement in view of the costs involved.)
> At some stage the judge or court will declare the Class Action closed and only those signed up will remain eligible to participate.
> ...




Dear Seamisty
Once again many many thanks for your efforts. I still have my fingers crossed for all of us (and everything else that I have two of). Cheers


----------



## seamisty (7 March 2010)

charles36 said:


> SEAMISTY, correct me if I am wrong (I know you will) but didn't we hear something about WCLtd. not exercising the vote of WPIF to enter the class action and stated that the WPIF would be looked after by WC Ltd.
> Somebody might be able to clarify this matter.  Kind regards to all Charles 36



 I did hear that Charles36 but just wondered if anyone could confirm it. This would add to my concerns of there being different classes of investors and I also wanted to know if WPIF investors were given the same choice to participate in the CA as individual unitholders.

Wellington Capital LTD our current RE has the same board of directors as MIL, the former RE. MIL remains a respondant in the Class Action even though WCL had the opportunity for them to be removed by assisting Carneys with access to PIF related documents. WC agreed to this then reneged and stated in correspondence to me that the original agreement with Carneys(regarding CA cooperation) is at an end due to a dispute between the former RE (MIL) and the applicants’ legal team. WC also state that there will be no further comment forthcoming either from the board of WCL or MIL (like there is two totally different boards of directors, talk about taxing ones mentality :bonk:!!!) whilst the matter continues to be in active litigation.

WC state that WCL and MIL are two separate entities and there is no conflict of interest.

It should be of no concern to WC if MIL is in a dispute with the applicants or if they are respondents to the class action if there was not conflict of interest.

So are PIF unit holders that will continue to  participate in the CA not going to have the support of their RE? Any necessary PIF documentation can be accessed by order of discovery through the court or by subpoena so why hinder the process?

Seamisty


----------



## breaker1 (7 March 2010)

Why was there a name change from WIML to MIL anyway?

Was it standard procedure to confuse investors and not leave any connection?

MFS > OCV > WIML > MIL > WCL


----------



## seamisty (8 March 2010)

breaker1 said:


> Why was there a name change from WIML to MIL anyway?
> 
> Was it standard procedure to confuse investors and not leave any connection?
> 
> MFS > OCV > WIML > MIL > WCL



 Of course Breaker, drop the WELLINGTON CAPITAL name!! Can't have detrimental/adverse related media correspondence linked to the iconic business women of the year can we??? Who payed for the change of name????? Not WC, us of course!! Hmnn, more to come I hope.There is approx 10,400 investors in the PIF, law of averages indicates we must have some highly qualified people in this fund and I appreciate the efforts of all involved to date. Keep up the good work. Seamisty


----------



## Dexter (8 March 2010)

Friends of mine who have a sizable amount in PIF called their Financial Advisor last Friday for an update.

They were told not to join C.A. as they may have to contribute to legal costs if the case was lost.  He also stated that their units were still valued at 44c, and they would appreciate to $1 over time.

They beleived him!


----------



## selciper (8 March 2010)

Seamisty poses a key question: “Any necessary PIF documentation can be accessed by order of discovery through the court or by subpoena so why hinder the process?”

Could it be that somebody is being too clever by half and heading for a humiliating tumble?


----------



## Duped (8 March 2010)

seamisty said:


> ... WC state that WCL and MIL are two separate entities and there is no conflict of interest.  ...




All: Yeah, maybe it is argueable there is no conflict of interest for the two LLC's per se but what about the individual directors? Directors can be personally liable for decisions they make.  Bottom line IMLO is the individual directors are conflicted.   

I've heard that individual directors often exclude themselves from board votes when they personally are conflicted. In our case that would mean NONE of the 3 directors of WCL could vote when WCL's (I.e. PIF's) interests conflict with those of WIML (MIL).  Hence, WCL are likely incapable of always acting in the best interests of PIF investors. 

Thanks for the excellent postings seamisty.

The question I asked myself some time ago is: if 'must act in the interests of ALL the investors' is such a rock solid arguement for not assisting the CA then why did WCL sign it in the first place and waste everyone's time and money.  What game is WCL playing at?  Or is it simply that WCL is not as good at this legal/business thing that it led me to believe in that it didn't anticipate the problem's the WCL-CA agreement would cause for PIF?

What is WC playing at? I suppose you don't need to take as much care when your spending OPM (other people's money).  I.e. OUR money.

Besides all that.  WCL can study the PIF unit register can't they? So it wouldn't take much for WCL to contact all post freeze purchasers of units and get consent to cooperate with the CA. (WCL wouldn't even have needed to get consent from investors who bought after the agreement between WCL and the CA went public) Even those that have opted out of the CA could give consent.  (And as seamisty reported, all pre freeze unit holders can still join the action.  Hence, it's in all pre freeze unit holders' interests for the CA to succeed) 

But WCL doesn't do what WCL doesn't want to do.  

Or maybe the WCL directors can't look at the PIF register because of the benefit it would give them as a WIML (MIL) director 

BTW.  Unit holders can and do merge holdings. Even easier to do under CHESS. And I know as a fact that some of the units sold on the NSX were bought by and remain with a pre freeze holder who has joined the CA and  would be only too happy for the WCL-CA agreement to stand.

Oh and  if 'must act in the interests of ALL the unit holders' is such a valid excuse -   Don't the interests of groups of investors conflict on the issue of tax treatment of cash payments?

Based on all this knowledge seamisty, the excuse not to cooperate, that the CA is not in the interest of ALL the investors, is insulting to me.


----------



## Duped (8 March 2010)

The nobel aims of Legal Discovery has been fiddled with by lawyers over the years.  

Basically it would be heaps easier for the CA just to be able to browse through the info held by our RE than rely on the process of Discovery.

See for example the paragraph under the heading 'Criticism of American discovery' at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)

"The use of discovery has been criticized as favoring the wealthier side, in that it enables parties to drain each other's financial resources in a war of attrition. For example, one can make information requests, which are expensive and time-consuming for the other side to fulfill; produce hundreds of thousands of documents of questionable relevance to the case; file requests for protective orders to prevent the deposition of key witnesses; and so on. In a scathing critique of the American legal profession, attorney and writer Cameron Stracher described a variety of unpleasant tactics common in the United States, and concluded:
“ 	With the noble sentiment of "levelling the playing field" so that no party has an undue information advantage, the writers of the discovery rules created a multilevel playing field where the information-rich can kick the information-poor in the head and escape unscathed. "Discovery" is anything but ... Hundreds of thousands of dollars to maintain the status quo, to preserve the information-rich at the expense of the information-poor. Thousands of lawyer hours to keep the discovery process as unrevealing as possible. The best minds of a generation thinking of new ways to manipulate, distort, and conceal.[4] 	”

Tort reform supporters argue that such tactics are often used by plaintiffs' lawyers to impose costs on defendants to force settlements in unmeritorious cases to avoid the cost of discovery. Victim's rights advocates, on the other hand, believe that the opposite is true: defendants typically have greater resources than plaintiffs and, accordingly, they impose costs on parties deserving compensation by dragging out the litigation process as opposed to offering a fair settlement."

All a disgraceful state of affairs really. One that many practitioners secrectly adore.

Lawyers cricticise judges for 'Legislating from the Bench' but then turn around and 'Campaign from Chambers.'  Using OPM (i.e. their clients money) to persue their own legal adventures.  Often to make a name for themselves


----------



## marcom (8 March 2010)

Information from the Bentley's Insolvency website regarding the Octaviar liquidation - http://www.bentleys.com.au/our_services/business___corporate_recovery_and_insolvency/creditor_inf

Key Milestones and Events

September 2009

    * Secure Group assets and books and records
    * Meet with key personnel within the Group, former liquidators, Deloitte, and other key parties

October 2009

    * Asset realisations total* $124.8M as at 16 October 2009*
    * Meeting of creditors held on 16 October 2009 and Committee of Inspection members elected
    * Proceedings commenced by ASIC , subject to the Court granting leave to proceed against Octaviar Limited (In Liquidation) and Octaviar Castle Pty Limited (In Liquidation)
    * Commenced investigations

November 2009

    * Commenced realisation of stapled securities held in GEO Property Group Limited

December 2010

    * Meeting of Committee of Inspection members held on 1 December 2009
    * Vacated Hicks Street, Southport office premises
    * Public examination summons issued to directors and officers of Octaviar Administration Pty Limited (In Liquidation)
    * Asset realisations total *$128.1M as at 1 December 2010*
    * By 31 December 2009, Kate Barnet and William Fletcher appointed as joint and several liquidators to a further 11 entities within the Octaviar Group

January 2010

    * Meeting of Committee of Inspection members held on 12 January 2010

February 2010

    * Marketing campaign commences for realisation of the Sunkids’ assets
    * *Production of documents in respect of Orders for Production*

This last point may explain why WC has been a tad touchy about providing information.


----------



## breaker1 (8 March 2010)

Dexter said:


> Friends of mine who have a sizable amount in PIF called their Financial Advisor last Friday for an update.
> 
> They were told not to join C.A. as they may have to contribute to legal costs if the case was lost.  He also stated that their units were still valued at 44c, and they would appreciate to $1 over time.
> 
> They beleived him!




Seriously Dex, if they don't even know that units are only worth 39c, they can't be believed in something as complex as the class action. I'd like to know the FA name?


----------



## breaker1 (8 March 2010)

lawry1dog said:


> *Looks like from my sources that everybody should be getting out of the
> Carney's Class action, as this action will fail and so all Plaintiffs in this Class
> action will have to pay court costs, etc..*




Hi Lawry

I am not aware of any significant problems with the class action and our reps are in regular contact with Carneys and IMF. With such dramatic statements one seriously needs to give specific proven detail. If there is anything you wish looked into, please email me on breaker7@optusnet.com.au or ring Carneys direct ?

Last time I spoke to Arthur Carney - he was very buoyant about how our case was going

*We have a class action that Tony Martin our advising barrister said has very good prospects of success
* We have KPMG in our sights for claim against their insurance
* We have former managers for claim against their insurance
* ASIC has listened to us and gone after 5 former MFS/PIF managers with another civil claim. They are still listening to us!
* When our CA amendments are given the go ahead via Justice Perram our lawyers can ask for certain PIF documents - no need for any exemption deals with WC here!
* We still have solid assets [if WC is correct] left in the fund worth 39% of our investment, say 35% to be conservative. 

Further, do you not think that IMF are experts in their field? Would they take on a case [one of the largest CA's in recent history] with the possibility of losing 10's of millions [of their own money!!!] in a loss if their legal experts did not think we had a good chance of winning? They are the largest litigation funder in Australia! Of course no guarantee of success, but what a great wrap for our CA. 

What is needed is a great deal of patience. These things take a lot of time to show fruit.

Anybody care to send this to Wellington as a singing email? LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k5ooaufrLM


----------



## breaker1 (8 March 2010)

Jadel said:


> http://www.perfecteconomy.com/pg-probability-of-worldwide-economic-collapse.html
> Very interesting material and suggestions in the above link.
> Therefore, what these poor individuals live on for approx 5 years, a CEO of an Australian Bank earns in ONE HOUR?????
> Further, the 50% mostly produce real wealth (Goods or Food), while the CEOs
> ...




Jadel - I particularily like President James Maddison's quote in your link above:

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance. The nation which reposes on the pillow of political confidence will sooner or later end its political existence in deadly lethargy. 

It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait until usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle." 

I've read it before - as soon as those charging usuary come into power one's nation tends to suffer.


----------



## marcom (8 March 2010)

In the SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
COURT OF APPEAL
RE: OCTAVIER LIMITED
Justice Keane
Appeal Court
Floor 5 	9:30AM 
(Delivery of Judgment)


----------



## seamisty (8 March 2010)

Hi all, Below is my latest complaint to WC. I hope you are not getting sick of reading them!!!! Cheers, Seamisty


Dear WC,
 I don't recall seeing a written correction concerning the original statement made by WC regarding distributions as opposed to cash payments, just the change of wording. Was it ever clarified to investors that WC still intended to collect mangement fees regardless of whether the 3 cent payment came from investors own capital or was in fact a genuine distribution as originally outlined? I do not need you to send me a copy of every time cash payment has been mentioned in WC correspondence, NSX announcements etc, that is not my question. My question is:::

Did WC EVER correct and clarify to PIF unitholders the future impact/consequences of the change of wording from 'distributions' to 'cash payments' ? Were PIF investors EVER clearly made aware that  WC would have access to management fees regardless of how that proposed payment was made? 


http://www.newpif.com.au/pifreports/InvestorInfoForumHandout.pdf


Distributions – 3 cents before Christmas

Following repayment of the current debt facility, Wellington

proposes to reintroduce unitholder distributions. The first

distribution is proposed for October 2008 and a further distribution

will be made in December 2008 and thereafter quarterly. The plan

is to distribute 3 cents per unit before Christmas.

Management fees

Wellington proposes to reintroduce management fees after the first

3 cents in distributions has been received by unitholders.

The proposed fee is 0.7% of the Funds under management.


If WC cannot answer that simple question please note this as an official complaint.


----------



## mellifuous (8 March 2010)

seamisty said:


> Hi all, Below is my latest complaint to WC. I hope you are not getting sick of reading them!!!! Cheers, Seamisty
> 
> 
> Dear WC,
> ...




Hi Seamisty,

An interesting thing happened when the PIF was listed, and that was that investors lost any direct access to their respective investments.

If you look at the definition (in the explanatory memordanum)  of 'distribution', it does include 'capital'.   W.C. further defined any distribution paid by the PIF to investors as a 'cost of capital', an expense to the PIF, but assessable income in the hands of investors.  

Distributions (or cash payments) could only have even been from your capital, and that is the point that I tried to convey several times before in my postings - there will never be net profit in the PIF from which a real distribution is able to be paid.

My guess is that W.C. would love to pay investors, because W.C. stands to start collecting fees, but W.C. isn't sure how to pay it.  I would guess that most investors will really be peeved when they finally face the tax reality.

Danielle's questions to W.C. about the impact (inside and outside) the fund of payments, either  as 'cash payments' or 'distribution', have remained unanswered for nearly 3 months.  

As I've stated before, any money any of you receive from the PIF will be no more than the return of some of your respective investments, and you'll all probably have some tax to consider on it some time or other - some will pay same, some will not.


Thanks.


----------



## simgrund (10 March 2010)

#0001   "I am hoping that this thread may lead to many responses from Octaviar PIF / WPIF / Cash Enhanced Fund / Dynamic Growth Equity investors. 
A forum has to be started somewhere for those investors feeling helpless and disenfranchised!! Lets hear from you!!"

The above quote is from breaker's first post.
Don't be intimidated by some interlopers; I am starved for news.


----------



## Cookie1 (10 March 2010)

marcom said:


> In the SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
> COURT OF APPEAL
> RE: OCTAVIER LIMITED
> Justice Keane
> ...




Here is the link to the Judgment in the case referred to above. Fortress's appeal was dismissed.

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2010/QCA10-045.pdf


----------



## simgrund (10 March 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> Here is the link to the Judgment in the case referred to above. Fortress's appeal was dismissed.
> 
> http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2010/QCA10-045.pdf




So in a nutshell, Cookie, are we still in line for $50 mil Octaviar owes PIF?
The same millions that JH pledged to recover for us.


----------



## mellifuous (10 March 2010)

simgrund said:


> So in a nutshell, Cookie, are we still in line for $50 mil Octaviar owes PIF?
> The same millions that JH pledged to recover for us.




Is that before or after tax Simgrund (in less than 2 words)?


----------



## seamisty (10 March 2010)

mellifuous said:


> Is that before or after tax Simgrund (in less than 2 words)?



I can think of several two word answers mellifuous but I value this thread too much to post any of them!! Will you please stop goading PIF investors? Never since the inception of this thread and my involvement with it have I had more investors contact me personally on issues than with your postings. Great Dame pales into insignificance! Please refrain from annoying the few investors who regularly post on here. k. smith is an intelligent and valued investor/contributor who appears quite capable of representing themself. Our Fund issues are complex and being dealt with to the best of participating PIF investor ability. We would not like to have to limit thread participation to only unit PIF holders. Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (10 March 2010)

seamisty said:


> I can think of several two word answers mellifuous but I value this thread too much to post any of them!! Will you please stop goading PIF investors? Never since the inception of this thread and my involvement with it have I had more investors contact me personally on issues than with your postings. Great Dame pales into insignificance! Please refrain from annoying the few investors who regularly post on here. k. smith is an intelligent and valued investor/contributor who appears quite capable of representing themself. Our Fund issues are complex and being dealt with to the best of participating PIF investor ability. We would not like to have to limit thread participation to only unit PIF holders. Thanks, Seamisty




Gee thanks for the insight Seamisty.

1.  I was goaded by your friend simgrund.
2.  The question asked of Cookie1 was more unrealistic than my question of simgrund could ever have been.
3.  I told you that I post here by proxy for two members who don't wish to post themselves and have asked me to do so.

Actually, I thought simgrund's question of cookie1 was quite over-the-top.

Cookie1 merely reported the link and nothing more.  I'm sure simgrund and yourself are well aware of the legal ramifications from Fortress' lost appeal, and there is no way that anything about any amount of $50m is able to be gleamed from the decision.

I get the impression that both  you and simgrund don't really want to discuss issues, and for some reason you seem to attack anyone who comes up and quesitons anything.

My postings are always respectful and directed to issues, but simgrund is just too pointed with his posts for my liking.  The issues I raise are issues that I've been asked to raise to present my perspective.

With respect, you struggle with ideas too, and the truth is, we all do.

So, that's it in a nutshell Seamisty.


----------



## seamisty (10 March 2010)

Quote mellifuous 'My postings are always respectful and directed to issues, but simgrund is just too pointed with his posts for my liking':

With all due respect mellifuous if it was only  'simgrund' who has a problem with your postings why are so many other  PIF UNITHOLDERS contacting me and other PIF AG reps with complaints as to your postings? Please show some respect to a thread which does not have a personal monopoly regarding moderation on the posts made. The PIF AG will continue to represent the majority of members concerns. Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (10 March 2010)

seamisty said:


> Quote mellifuous 'My postings are always respectful and directed to issues, but simgrund is just too pointed with his posts for my liking':
> 
> With all due respect mellifuous if it was only  'simgrund' who has a problem with your postings why are so many other  PIF UNITHOLDERS contacting me and other PIF AG reps with complaints as to your postings? Please show some respect to a thread which does not have a personal monopoly regarding moderation on the posts made. The PIF AG will continue to represent the majority of members concerns. Thanks, Seamisty




Ok, so complaints are made to you, because you're the leader, is that right?

And the complaints are about me raising the issues of tax? redemptions? distributions? listing? capital payments?   To my mind, and those I post for, these issues are legitimate issue that should be discussed.

I don't quite understand why you say 'the PIF AG will continue to ... members concerns' - actually I wouldn't have thought otherwise.

It seems that the real problem is  that no one is explaining issues to members - so, if you (and sigmgund) go ahead and give explanations about the issues of tax, capital, distributions, redemptions then there would be no need for my contributions.

Simgrund might start by explaining the recent court case re: Fortress' failed appeal.

I'd be suprised if very few actually understand those issues, but on the other hand, if you think it's better that people don't understand, then so be it.

I  look forward to some good reading.

Thanks.


----------



## Cookie1 (10 March 2010)

This article of interest about Class Actions appeared in The Australian today. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-retail-investor/story-e6frg8zx-1225838879023

"*When a MIS is as good as a mile for the retail investor*
Bryan Frith From:The Australian March 10, 2010 12:00AM

WHETHER or not the Full Federal Court was right in its recent controversial ruling that funded class actions constitute managed investment schemes (MIS) the consequences that flow from the decision cannot have been the intention of the legislature.

While the ruling is a setback for litigation funders, retail investors are the parties who stand to be most disadvantaged, yet they are the very people class actions are designed to protect.

Litigation funder IMF (Australia) this week announced that it proposed to fund a class action by current and former shareholders of Transpacific Industries (TPI). The claims relate to alleged misleading or deceptive conduct and breaches of TPI's continuous disclosure obligations over a 12-month period, between February 28, 2008 and February 16, 2009. However, as a direct result of the recent court ruling, IMF will only proceed with claims on behalf of sophisticated and professional investors. Retail investors will be excluded.

Typically, retail investors make up the bulk of the claimants but represent a small portion of the value of the claim. It is the existence of the institutional base of claimants which enable the litigation funders to include retail investors in a class action.

From a financial viewpoint the litigation funders would not be harmed by the exclusion of retail investors, and may even be disadvantaged because they would much lower administrative costs.

But the litigation funders from the outset have taken the pragmatic view that offering to fund all claimants, and not just the big end of town, would be better received by the courts, the public and the media. It's also the right thing to do.

Theoretically, retail investors who are excluded from funded multi-party actions (class actions) could initiate their own representative actions, but the escalating cost of litigation would put it beyond the reach of most, which is one of the reasons why class actions have been introduced.

The practical effect of excluding retail investors from class will be to deny them access to justice.

It need not have come to this as the corporate regulator, ASIC, has the power to exempt a class action from having to comply with the requirements for an MIS.

IMF sought an exemption for the TPI action but it was rejected by ASIC.

ASIC has granted exemptions for some class actions, including some by IMF, but they appear to be actions brought before November 4. Exemptions sought for cases initiated after that date have been rejected, although some are still pending.

The significance of November 4 last year appears to be that it was the date the Full Federal Court brought down its ruling on Brookfield Multiplex v International Litigation Funding Partners (ILF), which related to alleged failures of disclosure in relation to the redevelopment of London's Wembley Stadium.

ASIC's stance is curious, if not regrettable. IMF actually applied for an exemption for all of its class actions in late 2008 after Brookfield first contended that the funding arrangements constituted an MIS (a possibility not considered in the many earlier class actions).

ASIC declined, waiting to see the outcome of the court case but it approved IMF with a "no action" letter to enable it to continue running its class actions on the basis that they were not bound by the MIS requirements. Under a funded class action each claimant enters into a funding agreement under which the claimants are not out of pocket. Brookfield Multiplex contended the funding agreement constituted an MIS. The major features of an MIS are that people contribute money or "money's worth" to acquire an interest in benefits produced by the scheme, the contributions are pooled or used in a common enterprise to produce benefits and the members do not have day to day control over the operation of the scheme.

MIS's generally have to be registered. They must have an RE (responsible entity) that is authorised by an Australian Financial Services licence to operate an MIS. An MIS must also have a constitution and a compliance plan and parties must be given a PDS (product disclosure statement) before becoming a member of the MIS.

Moreover, the RE must prepare annual reports and hold annual meetings, though what purpose that would serve for class actions, often in limbo for several years waiting for the litigation to get underway, is difficult to fathom. However, an MIS does not have to be registered if the MIS is offered exclusively to wholesale clients (sophisticated and professional investors who do not need a PDS). IMF is now running its action against TPI as an unregistered MIS.

It is expected to allege that TPI breached its continuous disclosure requirements and/or engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to its 2008 and 2009 earnings forecasts..

Judge Ray Finkelstein ruled that a class action did not satisfy all of the features of an MIS and, therefore, was not an MIS.

Brookfield appealed to the Full Court which, by a 2-1 majority over-ruled Finkelstein and held that the funding arrangements for the class action constituted an MIS. Justices Alan Sundberg and John Dowsett considered that the definition of an MIS was deliberately wide and they should not read it down, particularly as several matters were specifically excluded, such as superannuation, and the legislation provided for further exclusions via the Corporations Act.

In addition, ASIC has the power to grant exemptions.

Justice Peter Jacobson agreed with Finkelstein that a class action was not an MIS.

That means two Federal Court judges have found class actions constitute an MIS and two have found that they don't.

But the majority decision prevails and is currently the law.

ILF has sought leave to appeal to the High Court and if it overturns the Full Federal Court decision that will determine the issue. But it could take several months to be decided, and unless the government amends the Corporations Act (by legislation or regulation) to stipulate that class actions are not MIS's, or ASIC reverses its current stance and provides an exemption for all class actions, then litigation funders will have little choice but to follow IMF's lead and exclude retail investors (the majority of claimants) from class actions.

The Law Council supports class actions as "an effective and efficient means of ensuring access to justice". It also believes that third-party litigation funding arrangements are important to ensure class actions are able to proceed. The government seems to recognise there is a problem as Treasury has formed a stake to examine the issue and to consider with parties, including litigation funders and plaintiff and defence lawyers. The Law Council is also working with Treasury and other stakeholders "to resolve the uncertainty around funded class actions". In the meantime, it is unfortunate ASIC did not see fit to provide some certainty (and effectively disenfranchised retail investors) until the matter is resolved.

bfrith@acenet.com.au"


----------



## Cookie1 (10 March 2010)

simgrund said:


> So in a nutshell, Cookie, are we still in line for $50 mil Octaviar owes PIF?
> The same millions that JH pledged to recover for us.




Hi Simgrund,

I don't know that it means very much for us, but it's got to be better for the PIF that the Fortress appeal was dismissed than if it had been upheld! At least there shouldn't be any legal costs to pay this time!

Cookie1


----------



## seamisty (10 March 2010)

No, I am not the leader, never have been and have no desire to be the leader. I am just an outspoken PIF investor, unlike yourself, who is struggling to hold those accountable for my current situation. I continue to  research all aspects of those that are or have been in control of my investment and consistently contribute to any findings relevant to the information I find.  

Tax implications, which have been mentioned before, will be adressed individually when investors are actually informed as to how any return of capital or distribution is paid. This is not an issue at the present time. 

PIF investors are just as concerned as many others in the same situation as other Funds and continue to fight for a better alternative.

PIF investors that follow this thread do so because 
A. they know that their support as individual unit holders is recognised and valued for ongoing committment to back up PIF AG Reps to represent their best interests.


B. PIF investors also know that PIF AG reps are actually no different than themselves and are committed to finding and resolving better outcomes that will benefit all PIF investors.

On behalf of all PIF investors that I have encouraged to not make any complaints regarding individual posters because we do not wish to draw attention to this thread, thanks. I am sure the moderators will take on board and respect all efforts made to divert **** stirrers who have had ample opportunity to refrain from upsetting the thread and respecting posters wishes. 


Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (11 March 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> Hi Simgrund,
> I don't know that it means very much for us, but it's got to be better for the PIF that the Fortress appeal was dismissed than if it had been upheld! At least there shouldn't be any legal costs to pay this time!
> Cookie1




Yes, Cookie1, you are right re costs. 
Fortress's interests were to the tune of some $250 mil. as I dimly recall.
Perhaps Marcom could research ( a request only), if this release from obligation puts Octaviar in better position regarding anticipated realisation of assets left in the kitty. 
And by implication, better prospects for PIF's $50m or part thereof?
Regards,


----------



## simgrund (11 March 2010)

seamisty said:


> I can think of several two word answers mellifuous but I value this thread too much,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Great Dame pales into insignificance! ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,




Hi seamisty,
You revived the memories of Great Dame; a truly historical name that had us all in hysterical stitches for so long.
No interloper, however malodorous, could ever scale those heights.
Let us retain our high standards and give our blessings to those sacred memories. 

Cheers, simgrund

P.S. I hope GD made it to IMF register.


----------



## lawry1dog (11 March 2010)

I* am still convinced that the Carney's Class action could fail, as why would they send out a letter giving us all the chance to pull out.*
*Unless another letter is sent out by Carney's, informing that all is OK with the Class Action, then all I can assume is that it will fail, like all the other court cases that have involved our fund.*
You can say all you like here on the forum, that all is OK, but it is not coming from the horses mouth.


----------



## Duped (11 March 2010)

Some people don't concede gracefully.  Don't take the bait they throw out to score points. 

The 9 March 2010 decision merely means there may be more money to divide between all the unsecured creditors.

Remember that an additional $38.5m was added to Fortress' security over OCV Ltd on 22 January 2008. 

This Fortress Appeal wasn't to reverse the decision on 31 July 2009 to cancel the DOCA or even the decision to sack Deloitte.

This Appeal was merely an argument about the date that administration began. PTQ said it was 4 June 2008. Fortress wanted it to be 9 September 2008.  Why is this important? 

My lay understanding is because any transaction in the 6 months before Adminstration began can be voided. So if Fortress won the appeal then the 22Jan08 transaction couldn't have been voided (under those provisions at least).

I recall from my previous calculations that Fortress may even have to pay $ back if the 22Jan08 transaction is voided. 

Or something like that.

Now we need that 22Jan08 transaction voided.


----------



## Duped (11 March 2010)

lawry1dog said:


> ... as why would they send out a letter giving us all the chance to pull out. ...




Perhaps because of the spotlight put on funded class actions by the Federal Court in Brookfield Multiplex Ltd v International Litigation Funding Partners Pte Ltd [2009] FCAFC 147.  

See http://www.watchdog.asic.gov.au/ASI... for funded class actions?OpenDocument&Click=

I asked myself the same question lawry1dog (Why send that letter?) but decided to stay in the CA. Perhaps Carneys is just being diligent and honest.  Behaviour I'm not used to anymore.

If you're right and I'm wrong.  Then I'll have to pay and you won't.


----------



## JohnH (11 March 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



JohnH said:


> ...................  for your interest, I have a holding in APN International Property for Income Fund which announced yesterday that it is winding up.
> 
> Units are currently at 45.7 cents – I purchased at 1.32.  Redemptions are frozen so if I had sold I would have lost 66% of my investment.  They have said that 82% of investments will be realised and in my bank account by the end of this month, so it will be very interesting to see what is salvaged.  – Could create a benchmark for Wellington!
> ..............I'll keep you posted.




10 days late, but the equivelant of 36.2 cents paid into my account today.  APN say that the sale represents 80.2% of assets, and the balance will be realised over the next 12 months.

At 80.2% that means I should receive a further 8.9 cents a share or a total of 45.1 cents.   This makes a loss since purchase of 86.9 cents or 65.8%!!!

............. something I am not very happy about,.:bad: but would be (reasonably) pleased at this stage, if PIF could produce the same.


----------



## simgrund (11 March 2010)

An interesting case to follow up. 
As reported by Danny John: SMH Business 9/3/10. Can't get the link. 

"Super investor sues S&P over credit ratings"

"The credibility of the ratings agency Standard and Poor has come under legal attack in a $40 million action by a local government superannuation investor over a triple-A rated debt investment that subsequently turned toxic in the global financial crisis. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"

Could be a trail blazer. The time to say "Sorry" may have arrived.

Regards,   Well done to John H, under the circumstances.


----------



## pixierich (11 March 2010)

So, Lawry1dog, pull out. No one is stopping you.


----------



## seamisty (12 March 2010)

Audit firms can't verify findings - ASIC 

ONE in five audits conducted by the nation's major accounting firms delivers an opinion that the auditor cannot verify, according to a review by the corporate regulator that calls for broad improvements in practices. 

An inspection of auditors by the Australian Securities & Investments Commission has detailed systemic problems within the sector, including a widespread failure of auditors to perform "mandatory" procedures, The Australian reports.


link to full article below. Seamisty
http://www.news.com.au/business/audit-firms-cant-verify-findings-asic/story-e6frfm1i-1225839868481


----------



## simgrund (12 March 2010)

seamisty said:


> Audit firms can't verify findings - ASIC
> ONE in five audits conducted by the nation's major accounting firms delivers an opinion that the auditor cannot verify, according to a review by the corporate regulator that calls for broad improvements in practices.
> An inspection of auditors by the Australian Securities & Investments Commission has detailed systemic problems within the sector, including a widespread failure of auditors to perform "mandatory" procedures, The Australian reports.
> link to full article below. Seamisty
> http://www.news.com.au/business/audit-firms-cant-verify-findings-asic/story-e6frfm1i-1225839868481




Thanks ASIC; this is a tremendous support for CA v KPMG!!!


----------



## marcom (12 March 2010)

QUOTE: simgrund  Perhaps Marcom could research ( a request only), if this release from obligation puts Octaviar in better position regarding anticipated realisation of assets left in the kitty. 

I have only had a cursory look at the judgement. Basically it confirms McMurdo's order in the previous case that the commencement date for considering insolvent  transactions etc is the date of the PTQ's  application for Octaviar to be wound up ie 4 June 2009 and not a later date if Octaviar had been wound up voluntarily by Octaviar ie 9 September 2009. Obviously timing is critical for the creditors including Wellington as it will determine which transactions are caught in the net.

This appeal decision helps strengthen the Liquidator's position on the commencement date for investigating Octaviar transactions. However the relation back date could be rendered irrelevant if the ASIC case finds that the RBS loan scandal is sufficient evidence of insolvency as early as 22 November 2007. This is why the ASIC case is so important. I don't know why ASIC has consented to adjourn the case and what happens next!


----------



## marcom (13 March 2010)

The Public Trustee of Queensland will continue to fight the overturning of Mc Murdo's decision re Fortress. This info was posted on the Malleson Stephens Jaques Lawyers website http://www.mallesons.com/publications/2009/Oct/10112207W.htm

*Octaviar, round 3 - the saga continues. What should we do now? - 19 October 2009*

As we reported on 16 October, in the ongoing Octaviar matter an application was lodged with the High Court on Thursday 15 October 2009 for special leave to appeal against the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal, which had overturned the unsettling first instance judgement.

The relief felt by the market at the Court of Appeal decision has been dented. While that decision was unanimous and, in our respectful view, correct, the market now has to live with an element of uncertainty which could conceivably run through much of 2010. In the normal course, the application is unlikely to be heard until the first quarter of next year. It is difficult to predict whether the High Court will grant the application and take up the appeal. If it does grant the application, the hearing of the appeal proper and the Court’s decision may take months.

Thus, parties need to settle their position on the issues now. In this Alert we discuss the implications and suggest ways forward pending the High Court decision. As with some of our previous communications on this matter, this Alert has been prepared jointly by us and Allens Arthur Robinson in consultation with John Sheahan SC.

The application for special leave to appeal

*On 15 October 2009 the Public Trustee of Queensland lodged an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court from the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in Public Trustee of Qld v Octaviar Ltd [2009] QCA 282.* You will recall from our previous Alerts that, in a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of McMurdo J at first instance in Re Octaviar Ltd; Re Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 37 (see our Alert of 21 September 2009).

The grounds of the application for special leave focus on the deed of 22 January 2008 by which the parties had brought additional obligations within the scope of an existing “Transaction Document” style charge by designating a new document to be secured. The grounds go to the very heart of the issues that caused such disruption following the first instance decision:

    * did the deed of 22 January 2008 constitute a variation to the terms of the charge having the effect of increasing the liabilities secured by that charge, within the meaning of s268(2) of the Corporations Act?

    * alternatively, did that deed constitute a new charge?

What does this mean for market practice?

In our Alert issued shortly after the Court of Appeal decision, we offered some interim recommendations pending news of any appeal. The lodging of the special leave application means that the key issues which arose out of the first instance decision remain “in play”. Although the Court of Appeal decision represents the current state of the law and in our respectful view, is correct and likely to be upheld, we cannot dismiss the possibility that the High Court might adopt some or all of McMurdo J's reasoning in the first instance decision, or even adopt a new course. So long as an appeal is pending, the law cannot be regarded as finally settled.

While the Court of Appeal decision did not quash or reverse every element of the reasoning at first instance, it at least meant that the position regarding transactions within the facts of the Octaviar case was restored to what the market understood it to be before the first instance decision. In other words, where a charge describes the secured liabilities, anything which has the effect of adding a liability which falls within that description (and does not alter that description or the remainder of the charge document) is not a registrable variation. If the charge provides a pre-agreed contractual mechanism for bringing liabilities within that description, an act (including an agreement) which is effected strictly in accordance with that mechanism and does not alter the terms of the charge document, will not constitute a registrable variation, even if it has the effect of increasing the amount secured. For example, on our current analysis of the Court of Appeal's decision, if a charge secures all amounts owed under a specified facility agreement, and the charge includes the usual interpretation clause which provides that references to a document includes that document as amended, it is strongly arguable that an amendment to the facility agreement to increase the facility limit should not be a registrable variation of the charge. Of course, that view must be subject to anything the High Court may have to say.


----------



## marcom (13 March 2010)

And now for the next step in this legal saga, again from MSJ Lawyers http://www.mallesons.com/publications/2010/Mar/10271502w.htm

*Octaviar - special leave granted by High Court*

"As we reported on 16 October, in the ongoing Octaviar matter an application was lodged with the High Court on Thursday 15 October 2009. The application was for special leave to appeal against the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal, which had overturned the unsettling first instance judgment.

That application was heard this morning, and was successful. This means that there will be a full appeal to the High Court, likely to be heard in June 2010."

If the PTQ wins this appeal Fortress Credit Corporation could be relegated to the status of an unsecured creditor just as PIF is and there may be more money to share when the Octaviar distribution finally occurs. Lets hope they win.


----------



## seamisty (13 March 2010)

Anyone want to be M Kings neighbour?

Boyland - For the Love of Horses!


 5 acres of rich fertile soil, ideal for livestock, in the heart of the fast growing equine area of Qld.  With Wadham Park and Widjara Park either side of this property and backing onto Elysium Polo Fields, this is prime real estate in the equine industry.

There is a 30 y.o. 2 bedroom rendered home which needs major renovating or it’s ideal to live in whilst building your dream home.

Features include a bore recently tested for drinking that supplies the house and property with unlimited water.

A 60m x 40m colourbond shed ideal to convert into stables and a large machinery/feed shed.

There is 3 phase power to the property and a dam.

The owner can no longer cope with the workload of acreage and says it’s time to move on….



Reduced:

$575,000

Seller Wants Out


http://www.aussieproperties.com.au/Sale_Houses/20091029_Pilgrim.htm


The new owner may be able to rent it to M King so he can move out of the shed he is alledgedly living in next door!!!!:arsch:

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (13 March 2010)

seamisty said:


> Anyone want to be M Kings neighbour?
> 
> Boyland - For the Love of Horses!
> 
> ...



 The new owner could buy these couple of nags if they are still for sale from Kings wife, Kellie Avison to keep the grass mowed!!

'Alimo' & "Animate' Youngstock


These beautifully bred stallions ( Animo/Lord) are already proving their worth in the showjumping and dressage arena with an 'Alimo' gelding winning the foxhunter series QLD and another placing top ten!Add to that Ben mahers jumping sensation 'Robin Hood W' ( by Animo who is rated 8th most influential jump sire worldwide) 'Alimona' chesnut flaxen mane and tail by 'Animate' 2yrs old Ready to start mature 16.1hh $5k firm.'Almost Eve' bay filly by 'Alimo'out of sensational Tristram tb mare 2yrs $6k firm.Chestnut 3yrs Gelding'Albuquerque' By 'Alimo' out of beautiful Argentinus mare professionally broken spelling $10k neg reasonably priced to sell. 


Price  POA 



Contact Details  

Name :  Kellie Avison 
Phone :  0408068812 Mobile:   
Email:  k_avison@hotmail.com 

Canungra,Queensland 
Australia 
http://www.globalentriesonline.com/equestrian_show_jumping/view_advertisement/?productId=1021


(I wonder if they should be included in the King asset pool?)


Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (13 March 2010)

seamisty said:


> The new owner could buy these,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> 
> (I wonder if they should be included in the King asset pool?)
> Seamisty




It is easy enough for ASIC to trace their "origins of acquisition".
And have them drug tested. 
We don't want any toxic assets; in case ASIC could pour them into PIF's recovery basket.


----------



## marcom (13 March 2010)

The Octaviar Liquidator gains court approval to market certain Octaviar assets in the Supreme Court of Victoria Commercial Court at http://www.commercialcourt.com.au/Lists/News/DispForm.aspx?ID=377
Title
	Octaviar Investment Holdings No. 2 Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) ACN 108 248 737 [2010] FCA 184 
Body

CORPORATIONS – powers of liquidator – entry into agreement pursuant to s 477 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Expires

Link to announcement
	Octaviar Investment Holdings No. 2 Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) ACN 108 248 737 [2010] FCA 184


----------



## seamisty (15 March 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/turf-wars-over-windsor-turf-farm-20100314-q64p.html
Turf wars over Windsor turf farm SCOTT ROCHFORT 
March 15, 2010


----------



## Cookie1 (15 March 2010)

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/...s-centres-attract-strong-interest-844847.html

Sunkids centres attract strong interest
Mar 14, 2010 (The Australian Financial Review - ABIX via COMTEX) --

There has been strong interest in the Sunkids child care centres held by failed financial group, Octaviar. The portfolio consists of 45 centres around Australia, either owned or leased, and 12 development sites. Real estate agent Jones Lang LaSalle received about 67 strong expressions of interest for the centres, with similar interest in the leased properties and the development sites.

Published Mar 15, 2010


----------



## selciper (15 March 2010)

Sydney Morning Herald article about aspects of ASIC. (Today.)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/time...to-the-world-of-the-living-20100314-q650.html


----------



## seamisty (16 March 2010)

ASIC frees up frozen funds

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...n-funds-pd20100316-3KPF3?OpenDocument&src=hp9


----------



## seamisty (16 March 2010)

I found the below an interesting read. Seamisty


http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=52044469-0f71-49a0-bf84-68aae650938e


From the article:
The REL case is unique in that it was brought by a company subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement. More importantly, the case:

shows that companies can make claims against former directors and seek monetary compensation for losses incurred during their directorships, if breaches of duties are established 
reinforces the fact that if breaches of duties are established against company directors, the Courts can and will impose orders requiring the directors to pay indemnities or contributions towards losses incurred by companies 
puts directors on notice that in addition to imposing civil penalties under the Act, the Courts can and will refer matters to ASIC and request that consideration be given to possible criminal proceedings against directors.


----------



## selciper (16 March 2010)

Scott Rochfort, SMH, fires another shot at ASIC.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic-action-better-late-than-never-20100315-q9ro.html


----------



## seamisty (16 March 2010)

Does this mean Phil Adams of Agilis Global Ltd in Dubai is no longer a registered business? 




Public Register - Firm 



Agilis Global Limited
Firm Details | Individuals


Legal Status: DIFC Company 
DFSA Reference Number: F000918  
Address: DIFC, Gate Village Building 1,Unit 3, Level 1, PO Box 506704, Dubai, UAE 
Telephone Number: 971 4 323 1377 
Fax Number: 971 4 323 1344  
Date of Licence: 24 July 2008 
Financial Services: Arranging Credit or Deals in Investments 
Investments: Credit Facilities, Shares, Debentures, Warrants, Certificates, Options, Units, Futures, Rights or Interests, Designated Investments 
Financial Services: Advising on Financial Products or Credit 
Investments: Credit Facilities, Shares, Debentures, Warrants, Certificates, Options, Units, Futures, Rights or Interests, Designated Investments 
Conditions: none  
Restrictions: none  
Islamic Financial Business Endorsement:   
Date of Withdrawal: 18 January 2010 




Perhaps Mr Adams is preparing to return to Australia for some forth coming court appearances?


Seamisty


----------



## Duped (16 March 2010)

seamisty said:


> Perhaps Mr Adams is preparing to return to Australia for some forth coming court appearances?




It could mean anything. According to the FCA decision this week the MFS/Octaviar group had in the order of 400 companies.

RE ASIC.  Feels like it acts a bit like a janitor.  Tidies up after everybody has picked up what they want/can and has gone home.  Australian Securities and Investment Cleaners

I shouldn't be too harsh.  ASIC are going up against the mighty army of corporate lawyers backed by the might of the Australian corporate sector. 1700 odd ASIC staff v tens (?) of thousands of corporate lawyers.


----------



## Blueboy1 (16 March 2010)

The truth about frozen funds

"Money Management"
15 March 2010 | by Dominic McCormick

Too Long to post, here's the link:-
http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/article/The-truth-about-frozen-funds

Regards,Blueboy1


----------



## Blueboy1 (16 March 2010)

Sorry!
The link did not transcribe properly here it is again:-
www.moneymanagement.com.au/article/The-truth-about-frozen-funds

Blueboy1


----------



## Blueboy1 (16 March 2010)

And again!
www.moneymanagement .com.au/article/The-truth-about-frozen-funds


----------



## marcom (16 March 2010)

Blueboy 1 here is a working link to this very interesting article :
http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/Article/The-truth-about-frozen-funds/513358.aspx

Some pertinent quotes:

"In the meantime, managers continue to collect full fees on these assets, in some cases on net asset valuations that are somewhat questionable. After all, if they were forced to provide immediate liquidity and sell assets, the valuations and fees are likely be lower. But even if this is not the case, there is a legitimate question as to whether investors should be paying the same level of fees they were when the fund had daily liquidity. While it is true that the small print always allowed the fund manager to suspend redemptions, most investors are today paying fees on something very different (and inferior) to what they thought (and were told) they were initially investing in...

Why has there been so little pressure for solutions for these ‘frozen funds’? Is it still the ongoing shock of the GFC that allowed fund managers to get away with actions not tolerated in ‘normal’ times? Is it just blind hope that things will return to ‘normal’ even though we now know things were anything but normal in 2006-07. *Once again, conflicts across our industry appear to be impeding greater scrutiny of this issue by the media, research houses, financial planners and even the industry bodies.*

*No wonder the reputation of this industry has been so badly hurt by the GFC.
*

It needs to be accepted that in many cases investor losses that have been or will be made on the current crop of ‘frozen funds’ will never be recouped. Coming up with liquidity solutions for investors will in most cases involve a loss of funds under management and fees for the industry. Some of these solutions will still take years. But investors need clarity about solutions, and this will go some way to addressing the level of distrust that this aspect of the GFC has generated. It is investors’ money. The past isn’t coming back. The industry has to find solutions now that work for investors, not themselves."


It is not surprising that this Financial Advisor focused article fails to mention the best way for investors to recoup losses is to sue the pants off Directors/Officers/AND Advisors! And as far as lost commissions go - keep on dreaming all you income starved advisors!


----------



## Duped (16 March 2010)

NSX Listing Rule 6.10 (http://www.nsxa.com.au/documents/listing_rules/NSXLR2004.pdf)

"CHAPTER 6: ISSUER’S CONTINUING OBLIGATIONS

INTERIM REPORTS AND PRELIMINARY ANNOUNCEMENTS

Six-monthly reports

6.10 *No later than 75 days after the end of the half year accounting period *the issuer must send an electronic copy of its six monthly accounts containing at least the information specified in Appendix 3 and any half yearly financial statements it is required to give to the ASIC under the Corporations Act or provide to the equivalent regulatory authority under the law of the place in which the issuer is incorporated, *and to the Exchange, for dissemination by the Exchange* as soon as these are available."

Today is day 75 by my calculations. Am I wrong? Why am I counting?  Am I a masochist?


----------



## Duped (16 March 2010)

marcom said:


> ... "*No wonder the reputation of this industry has been so badly hurt by the GFC.*" ...
> 
> It is not surprising that this Financial Advisor focused article fails to mention the best way for investors to recoup losses is to sue the pants off Directors/Officers/AND Advisors! And as far as lost commissions go - keep on dreaming all you income starved advisors!




Too true marcom. Using the expression "so badly hurt" seems to demonstrate the author's bias for the industry. Far too generous IMLO.

'When the tide goes out, we see who isn't wearing swimmers'.

The industry's reputation (as a whole) hasn't been hurt, it has (as a whole) been *exposed* for what it is.

Right along side used car sales and real estate sales.  Yes you get good ones but ...  

Maybe we'll see the days again of door to door sales of Kirby vacuum cleaners.


----------



## Cookie1 (16 March 2010)

PIF Half Yearly Report posted on the NSX

http://www.nsxa.com.au/announcements_list.asp?nsxcode=PIN

I haven't read through it yet; am looking for a new unit value but a cursory look didn't show it. Perhaps I just missed it; will print it out and have another look.


----------



## JohnH (16 March 2010)

I wouldn't read it if you want a decent nights sleep tonight!

Interesting that amongst Price Waterhouse disclaimers is included " Our review did not involve an analysis of the prudence of business decisions made by directors or management."


----------



## JohnH (16 March 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> PIF Half Yearly Report posted on the NSX
> 
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/announcements_list.asp?nsxcode=PIN
> 
> I haven't read through it yet; am looking for a new unit value but a cursory look didn't show it. Perhaps I just missed it; will print it out and have another look.




As far as I can make out Cookie it's 35.11 cents.  i.e. 270.145M/755.111M

However, I would assume that the assets include the Octavier stuff.


----------



## Cookie1 (16 March 2010)

JohnH said:


> I wouldn't read it if you want a decent nights sleep tonight!
> 
> Interesting that amongst Price Waterhouse disclaimers is included " Our review did not involve an analysis of the prudence of business decisions made by directors or management."




Don't worry, John; I'm not about to read it before going to bed tonight! I don't want another sleepless night!

Cheers, Cookie1


----------



## Cookie1 (16 March 2010)

JohnH said:


> As far as I can make out Cookie it's 35.11 cents.  i.e. 270.145M/755.111M
> 
> However, I would assume that the assets include the Octavier stuff.




Thanks, John.

Cheers, Cookie1


----------



## breaker1 (17 March 2010)

Yes! Your right!

WC has managed to oversee another $35M loss bringing our new net asset value to $265M [originally $755M]

Our unit value is now @ 35c  down approx 4.5c from 39c.....that is a total loss of 10c during Wellingtons management which initially claimed the fund value @ 45c in October 2008

I said in my post a couple of pages back that a conservative figure may be 
35c and not 39c. Who expected the bad news? I know I did!


----------



## Duped (17 March 2010)

My lay analysis.

Unit value is 35c.  See 20.1 'Net tangible asset backing per ordinary security' on page 15 of the PDF.  At 30 June 09 it was 39.2c. A drop of 4.2c.

Unit value change is given at 1.10 and 1.11.  A drop of 2.06 + 2.06 = 4.12 cents. Is that right? 

Calculated from the $35 mil loss for the 1/2 year. Shouldn't that be a drop of 4.6c (755.033 million units according to item 14.32) Doesn't really matter tho.

The $35 mil loss includes:

$3 mil in increased liabilities. See Item 3.8 'Trade and Other Payables'.  Most of it is GST. See Note 10 on page 33.  How is it that we've racked up a GST liability of $3.845mil?  I.e. $3.7 mil in the last 6 months.  Does that come off the sale price of OceanViewCityBeach Wollongong?

$18.7 mil losses on the Mortgage Loan (See page 33). I.e. despite all the massive impairments to date we still took a massive $18.7 mil hit when assets were realised.  Most of that loss, I'm guessing, is from the sale of OceanViewCityBeachWollongong.  Accounts say a lot without saying much.

$4.3 mil further write downs of the Mortgage Loans.  Which ones I wonder. 

$6.6 mil loss on 'Other Financial Assets'
plus
$6.3 mil further impairment of the 'Other Financial Assets' (Why is it $6.313m 'Impairment of *loans *and other financial assets' at 6.8 but it's $6.252m 'Impairment of other financial assets' at 7.1 and at page 25?)
Again, more losses despite all the massive writedowns to date.  Surely WCL hasn't kept any of the Octaviar related assets on our books?  Surely not.

How much further can we stretch these 'fair valuation' disclaimers? For how long too?  Far enough to still cover the Raptis loans including the $20 odd mil 2nd mortgage on the Sheraton.  Long enough until WCL starts getting paid?


----------



## breaker1 (17 March 2010)

Duped said:


> My lay analysis.
> 
> Calculated from the $35 mil loss for the 1/2 year. Shouldn't that be a drop of 4.6c (755.033 million units according to item 14.32) Doesn't really matter tho.




I see it as a 4.6c drop - if correct it might mean that that the previous value was a fraction of a cent higher than 39c and may now be a fraction of a cent lower than 35c rounded off to 35c? Just a guess!


----------



## breaker1 (17 March 2010)

At first reading it appears that PWC only conducted a "review" and not a proper "audit" - do you agree?

"A review is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards and consequently does not enable us to obtain assurance that we would become aware of all significant matters that might be identified in an audit. Accordingly, we do not express an audit opinion." PWC

If so, why did Wellington not request a proper audit by PWC, but only a "review", thus not allowing for any any assurance of internal controls or comment on the prudence of business decisions by PIF directors? In particular with a $35M loss thrown at our faces!


----------



## selciper (17 March 2010)

Thanks Duped for the breakdown of losses. It just seems grotesque after all those initial promises made by WC. At this rate there'll be nothing left in a few years time. I sense that the situation is becoming dire.


----------



## mellifuous (17 March 2010)

selciper said:


> Thanks Duped for the breakdown of losses. It just seems grotesque after all those initial promises made by WC. At this rate there'll be nothing left in a few years time. I sense that the situation is becoming dire.




Interesting that 'Trade & Other Payables" went from $2m (2008) to $5m (2009).  I guess that's legal fees and W.C.'s expenses going up by millions.

It might be worthwhile noting this statement on page 3:-

"...On 25 October 2008 unit holders resolved to modify the Constitution for listing on the National
Stock Exchange. Accordingly unit holders equity has been classified in the Balance Sheet as equity
rather than as a liability. This reclassification is in accordance with AACB 132: _Financial Instruments_
Disclosure and Presentation.  ..."

It might be worthwhile  someone explaining the difference 'equity' and 'liability'.

No need to feel alone, there is no good news around in these mongrul funds.


----------



## marcom (18 March 2010)

*NO NEWS IS …*

CBD Sydney Morning Herald
SCOTT ROCHFORT
March 18, 2010

It seems the managers of some mortgage funds are wary of burdening their unit holders with any bad news.

The firm that took control of MFS's former Premium Income Fund in 2008, the Jenny Hutson-headed Wellington Capital, has released the fund's latest set of accounts with little fanfare.

Just in case you missed the results, which were disclosed to the Newcastle Stock Exchange at *8.39pm on Tuesday night*: the fund reported a $35 million loss for the six months to December 31.

The fund has now written down its assets to about $270 million, compared with the almost $900 million it valued its assets before the implosion of its former manager, MFS.


----------



## Duped (18 March 2010)

mellifuous said:


> Interesting that 'Trade & Other Payables" went from $2m (2008) to $5m (2009).  I guess that's legal fees and W.C.'s expenses going up by millions. ...




Hi mellifuous. See my post #5359. $3.7 mil increase in GST liabilities in the last 6 months. (Note 10 on page 33.)  I.e. non GST payables went down.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that service providers haven't agreed to delay invoicing. Time will tell.

I subsequently rechecked the PIF 18Nov09 ann. Looks like it is GST from the Wollongong sale "$38 million (plus GST)".  Probably explains why '3.6 Other Assets' ('Inventory' on page 26. Explained at Note 3(g)) is $41.8 mil and not $38m.

Good to see the 'Custodian and registry fees' are down to $271k compared with $679 for the Jul-Dec 08 period.  I'll hold back any celebration until I see the full year cost.


----------



## selciper (18 March 2010)

marcom said:


> *NO NEWS IS …*
> 
> CBD Sydney Morning Herald
> SCOTT ROCHFORT
> ...




Good to see that finally we see a prominent SMH journalist taking an interest in PIF operations. My guess is that the OCV liquidators April public hearings might just prompt some other business journalists to start looking at PIF management. But we've still lost the money however many articles are written!


----------



## Duped (18 March 2010)

selciper said:


> Thanks Duped for the breakdown of losses. It just seems grotesque after all those initial promises made by WC. At this rate there'll be nothing left in a few years time. I sense that the situation is becoming dire.




Thanks selciper. My lay guess is I'll get something. Not 35c but way more than the 9c some are getting out at. 

Like - who's going to give us our $40m for the Kooralbyn Hotel Resort (850 acres) when the Gold Coast Sheraton sold for only $60m (Reported as needing $20m of renovations). Or give us our $40m for The Forest Resort (Novotel. Creswick VIC).  

I don't know about Creswick but land in the GC hinterland doesn't seem to be that expensive.  Realestate.com has a 50acre property in Kooralbyn for $750K (Property No. 7272029).  And the pics Jones Lang LaSalle have on the listing are hardly inspiring: the hotel is hidden behind trees and the grass looks dry. (http://www.latestproperty.com.au/ma...ue/archived/1/section/For Sale/page/5/id/107/)  Compare those pics to (http://www.kooralbyn.com/resort/resort.htm) I'm assuming there's only one 100 room hotel in Kooralbyn. 

I hope I'm wrong and just being a pessimist.  Maybe we're getting good returns again from those 'assets'.  I don't know. Either way, is this fund an efficient structure, once the whole mess is sorted out, for holding $100-$200m in assets for 10K investors?  I don't know. Anyone?


----------



## simgrund (18 March 2010)

Duped;   #5359     said:
			
		

> My lay analysis.
> Unit value is 35c.  See 20.1 'Net tangible asset backing per ordinary security' on page 15 of the PDF.  At 30 June 09 it was 39.2c. A drop of 4.2c.
> 
> Unit value change is given at 1.10 and 1.11.  A drop of 2.06 + 2.06 = 4.12 cents. Is that right?
> ...




Yes to all, however our lot needs to be measured against OTHER distressed funds; would you agree? 
If majority perform better, then WC failure will be seen in the more glaring light.

Could there be a chart of distressed funds tracing their progress? 
We know there are successful ones, despite GFC, outside this group.

I can't understand why Octaviar liabilities to PIF have to be written off; before realization of all assets? 
Were they "officially" disowned by WC PIF?

Regards,


----------



## Duped (18 March 2010)

simgrund.  

Yes to all, however our lot needs to be measured against OTHER distressed funds; would you agree? If majority perform better, then WC failure will be seen in the more glaring light. - I agree

Could there be a chart of distressed funds tracing their progress? 
We know there are successful ones, despite GFC, outside this group. - I don't know

I can't understand why Octaviar liabilities to PIF have to be be written off; before realization of all assets? Were they "officially" disowned by WC PIF? - I was careless with my terminology. Write downs should read 'impairments'.  The assets are on the books.  Minimising impairments doesn't seem to have helped the share price. The larger the impairments - the less WC gets paid. So at present it seems the bigger (read: more realistic) the impairments the better it is for us investors. IMLO

I'm guessing that realisation of losses of some of OCV liabilities to PIF is out of WC's  hands. It's in the hands of the Administrator (Deloitte) or Liquidator (Bentley).  Tho I expect WC should be seeking to influence those decisions on PIF's behalf and in PIF's favour.


----------



## simgrund (18 March 2010)

Duped said:


> simgrund.
> 
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> I can't understand why Octaviar liabilities to PIF have to be be written off; before realization of all assets? Were they "officially" disowned by WC PIF? -
> ...




Thanks Duped, 
Of course this makes sense. Let's hope for some breadcrumbs.
Cheers


----------



## lawry1dog (19 March 2010)

Please see below of summary of Audit Review.

Brief Dec 2009 Report details:
*
New unit value is 35c  - down from 39c 6 months ago, which was down from 45c Oct 2008.
New net asset value is $265M - down from $296M June 2009 [originally $755M] 
Consolidated Loss is $35M - compared to a loss of only $6.5M corresponding period Dec 2008.
Cash at end of period - $4.6M. 
Total expenses - $1.04M of which most is from "Consulting, compliance, accounting and legal fees" [$0.46M].*
*Wellington must RESIGN and hand the Fund to someone else.*

*I have heard that maybe Macquarie Bank are intererested.*


----------



## erniel (19 March 2010)

What ever wellington say is the unit value is irrelevant,the true unit unit value(which by the way is no longer a unit ,but a share value) is the price you can sell for on the nsx and currently it is approx 9 cents. That my friends is the true value.
I also call for wellington to resign, as in my opinion hutson and her team have proven to be most incompetent.


----------



## mellifuous (19 March 2010)

Duped said:


> Hi mellifuous. See my post #5359. $3.7 mil increase in GST liabilities in the last 6 months. (Note 10 on page 33.)  I.e. non GST payables went down.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that service providers haven't agreed to delay invoicing. Time will tell. QUOTE]
> 
> Thanks Duped.
> 
> ...


----------



## marcom (20 March 2010)

The costs fallout from the recent Fortress appeal to the Full Supreme Court was delivered yesterday http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2010/QCA10-057.pdf

The court ordered that "The costs of each of the respondents in this Court should be paid by the appellant (Fortress) on the standard basis".

Here is a little of the flavour of the full Courts opinion of the Fortress appeal - [7]
"Moreover, it lies ill in the mouth of Fortress to criticise the reasonableness of the conduct of the respondents in relation to the conduct of the appeal. The point agitated on the appeal by Fortress was only barely raised before the learned primary judge. Before his Honour, no mention was made of the arguments which were developed before this Court. If these arguments had been ventilated before the learned primary judge they could have been addressed by his Honour; if this course had been taken it may be that the absence of merit in the arguments agitated for the first time in this Court would have become apparent to all including to Fortress. Whether that would have been the case cannot be known, but it must be said that the course taken by the appellant in agitating these arguments for the first time on the appeal to this Court was distinctly unreasonable. It must also be said that, as is apparent from the reasons of this Court dismissing the appeal, there was little merit in the arguments advanced on the appellant's behalf."


----------



## simgrund (20 March 2010)

I would like to say, "Where the hell were you???", but am prepared to give credit where credit is due. Not a wasted million too soon. 

http://www.smh.com.au/business/not-so-super-20100319-qm4t.html


----------



## BootsnAll (20 March 2010)

This article appeared in Gold Coast local paper on 17/03/2010. So much for our investment.


----------



## marcom (20 March 2010)

*Maybe* some good news! From the Bentley's Insolvency site: 
http://www.bentleys.com.au/our_services/business___corporate_recovery_and_insolvency/creditor_info_

March 2010 activity re Octaviar Liquidation

    * Meeting of Committee of Inspection members held on 9 March 2010   
    * *Notice to priority creditors of intention to declare a dividend* was sent on 5 March 2010 and the distribution will be made on or before 14 May 2010
*

Not sure if PIF is a "priority creditor". The only secured creditor at present is Fortress Credit Corp, but that is under appeal to the High Court in June by the Public Trustee of Queensland.


----------



## selciper (20 March 2010)

Bootsnall's copy of the Gold Coast article about the decaying ex-Raptis eyesore may help us in that some other newspapers could ask Ms Hutman (sic) a few sharp questions. We'll see if the Gold Coast Bulletin touches it as a story. Good to read that Ms Hutman and her team, on our behalf, are busy with the paint brushes. We wouldn't expect anything less, would we?


----------



## wally3218 (20 March 2010)

Hi to everyone, keep up your posts as this is the only way to find out what is truely happening with our fund.
Can anyone tell me what the current unit value Centrelink uses is at the moment, has it gone lower since they lowered it. 
Centrelink is till working out the pension rate using there deeming tables, even tho were not getting any investment payments from the fund.


----------



## Cookie1 (21 March 2010)

Article entitled "Mortgage funds still doing it tough" in the Weekend Australian Financial Review March 20-21, 2010 with Jenny in the red leather jacket (looks like a file photo, but I was hoping that red leather jacket was gone!).

The last paragraph could have given an accurate description of the status of the PIF but  the journalist took the soft option, ie "The former MFS fund trades on the Newcastle Stock Exchange but exiting investors face *heavy losses*, with the stock trading at a *discount* to net asset backing." (Words in Bold my emphasis.) That doesn't tell half the story! See attached article.


----------



## seamisty (22 March 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> Article entitled "Mortgage funds still doing it tough" in the Weekend Australian Financial Review March 20-21, 2010 with Jenny in the red leather jacket (looks like a file photo, but I was hoping that red leather jacket was gone!).
> 
> The last paragraph could have given an accurate description of the status of the PIF but  the journalist took the soft option, ie "The former MFS fund trades on the Newcastle Stock Exchange but exiting investors face *heavy losses*, with the stock trading at a *discount* to net asset backing." (Words in Bold my emphasis.) That doesn't tell half the story! See attached article.



Hi Cookie and all, I have been away from computer access and am extremely disturbed to be confronted by the latest Wellington Capital pathetic efforts!! Add to that the lack of response to key questions asked which remain ignored/unacknowledged. It is obvious our current RE is not only grossly incompetent and are never going to live up to their previous promises but they also lack the backbone to actually 'get in the arena and admit defeat and declare the battle lost'. Your horse has bolted WC and the only thing left is a very deep feed trough which is being filled at the expense of thousands of investors that actually will never forgive WC for not only failing to deliver on previous promises but refuse to admit defeat and continue to milk the cash cow for every last cent they can get to prop up a failed RE.

I seriously question your ability to be in the capacity of a RE of any fund, you will not  answer fund related questions honestly, you do not deliver fund updates when promised and even when they are delivered, they are full of cut and pasted bullsh!t, often unrelated to our PIF issues. You spend millions of dollars of investors money on legal representation which delivers no real results, you fail to reveal the true state of the fund. Actually WC, you appear to be a liability to this fund and I cannot believe ASIC has not intervened on investors behalf in view of all the documented evidence produced by many in regard to Wellington Capital mismanagement of the Premium Income Fund.



Ok, so all, I have vented that lot  just to let you  know I am back in range and pissed off more than ever with WC and will foward another complaint to WC and ASIC. 

Is there any where we we can nominate the worst business person of the year on the failure to produce anything remotely like we were promised?

Also check out the pic of our illustrious leader in this link four years earlier as opposed to Cookies above link, where have the years gone Jenny? At this rate you should maybe bail now?
http://www.dailyexaminer.com.au/story/2006/05/05/apn-shes-still-jenny-from-the/

Seamisty


----------



## Duped (22 March 2010)

marcom said:


> *Maybe* some good news! From the Bentley's Insolvency site:
> http://www.bentleys.com.au/our_services/business___corporate_recovery_and_insolvency/creditor_info_
> 
> March 2010 activity re Octaviar Liquidation
> ...




See http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/Insolvency_glossary.pdf/$file/Insolvency_glossary.pdf

My guess: priority creditor dividends will go to Bentleys (to cover costs but maybe also to pay all of Bentley's fees) and maybe also to former OCV employees.  That's 2 very big maybe-s.


----------



## selciper (22 March 2010)

The fact that an AGM is not in the constitution means that we don't have a venue to meet annually with the RE. How about finally calling for an EGM?


----------



## marcom (22 March 2010)

An interesting development in the ASIC case against MFS Directors: http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...eNumber=12122/09&Court=Supreme&Location=BRISB

The last event was 25/02/2010 Consent Adjournment of Application Lodged by the Applicant (ASIC).  	

Now this latest event - 18/03/2010 Notice of Change of Solicitors 	OCTAVIAR 	Filed on behalf of the Respondent.

There had been no listing of solicitors for the Octaviar entities, now a change of Solicitors?


----------



## Duped (22 March 2010)

Thanks Marcom.  That QCA costs decision made for enjoyable reading. Still - what a waste of time and money.

The High Court (HC) decision to grant leave is at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2010/49.html

The Respondent's representative said: 
"MR JACKSON: ... What it also shows is that the decision of the primary judge went against *an* interpretation of the provisions of the Corporations Act which *had been adopted for quite a long time*, that there is a part of the material which is in those passages, some of it reasoned, regarded the primary judge’s decision as erroneous. None of the material, your Honours, actually supports the primary judge’s reasoning, although it recognised, of course, that it had to be respected, but the decision of the Court of Appeal was regarded as expeditiously and properly putting down the *heresy *created by the judgment at first instance. Your Honour, I do not want to provoke the Court by those words, but that is what I seek to note." [emphasis added]

He went on to quote their own submissions "Market upheaval followed the handing down of the first instance decision. Principles emerging from that decision brought into question decades of market practice"

The HC wasn't pursuaded. I can only guess as to why.  A commentator believes it's because of the inconsistency in the reasoning between the appeal judges. Hmmm. Perhaps that was a trigger but I'd like to think the Fortress submission stirred a Socratic spirit in the HC.

Looks like the industry is not happy about having to take a dose of HC judicial review.


----------



## mellifuous (22 March 2010)

Capital Gains

Just for information, I spoke to the ATO this morning about this fund and the PFMF in relation to CGT.  I didn't make a written request, so all I got was a verbal answer.

It seems that your fund was 'resettled' and as such, you all suffered a capital loss of ($($1.00 - NTA at the moment of listing) * number of units held).

So, if anyone wasn't aware of it, and you're paid some CGT between the date of listing the fund and now, then you're up for a refund.

I guess one way to minimize one's capital losses in the PIF is to go out and buy some real estate (if one is able to) - hopefully pay  incur a profit on which  you will be able to offset your loss.   Remember you have 5 years, and a couple of so years have already ticked by.

If it affects anyone, then those affected should contact their respective accountants  or the ATO for advice.


----------



## mellifuous (22 March 2010)

mellifuous said:


> Capital Gains
> 
> Just for information, I spoke to the ATO this morning about this fund and the PFMF in relation to CGT.  I didn't make a written request, so all I got was a verbal answer.
> 
> ...




The ATO officer said  a trust has been 'resettled' if the ABN is different after an 'event', your fund retains the same ABN, before and after the listing.

I'll leave the issue of CGT losses in your fund with anyone who has an interest about it.

Here are some helpful links:- 

http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?docid=TXR/TR20064/NAT/ATO/00001 

http://www.ato.gov.au/businesses/content.asp?doc=/content/14283.htm&page=5&H5

"... 4. General principles
In the ATO’s view both the stamp duty and estate duty cases indicate that a new trust arises when there is a fundamental change to the trust relationship. It is a change in the essential nature and character of the original trust relationship which creates a new trust. This may mean that the original trust ceases to exist, and a new trust arises. Alternatively, a new trust may arise which exists independently of the original trust.

Changes potentially leading to a new trust can arise by several means, including variations under a power in the deed and a variation by agreement among the beneficiaries. Listed below are some of the changes which raise the question of whether a new trust has been created. 

any change in beneficial interests in trust property; 
a new class of beneficial interest (whether introduced or altered); 
a possible redefinition of the beneficiary class; 
changes in the terms of the trust or the rights or obligations of the trustee; 
changes in the nature or features of trust property; 
additions of property which could amount to a new and separate settlement; 
depletion of the trust property; 
a change in the termination date of the trust; 
a change to the trust that is not contemplated by the terms of the original trust; 
a change in the essential nature and purpose of the trust; and/or 
a merger of two or more trusts or a splitting of a trust into two or more trusts.
Depending on their nature and extent, and their combination with other indicia, these changes may amount to a mere variation of a continuing trust, or alternatively to a fundamental change in the essential nature and character of the trust relationship. In this second case, the original trust is brought to an end and/or a new trust created.

Whether a new trust is created will depend, among other things, on the terms of the original trust, and on the powers of the trustee. The original intentions of the settlor must be considered in determining whether a new trust has been created. There may be different trigger points/tests for different types of trusts. 

The answer to whether alterations to trusts, taken together, result in terminations and creations of trust estates will generally flow from establishing whether the essential nature and character of the original trust relationship has fundamentally changed. Nothing that the High Court said in the Commercial Nominees of Australia Limited case is contrary to the principles stated here in relation to trusts generally. ..."


----------



## selciper (23 March 2010)

interesting article in today's Sydney Morning Herald. Discusses liquidators' public hearings, ASIC and also touches on auditors such as KPMG.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/a-wander-through-the-allco-maze-of-privilege-20100322-qr7d.html


----------



## Cookie1 (23 March 2010)

Here's another interesting article in the SMH re Allco's Rubicon deal ("Backlash over Rubicon deal") just before the collapse.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/backlash-over-rubicon-deal-20100322-qr71.html


----------



## simgrund (23 March 2010)

selciper said:


> interesting article in today's Sydney Morning Herald. Discusses liquidators' public hearings, ASIC and also touches on auditors such as KPMG.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/a-wander-through-the-allco-maze-of-privilege-20100322-qr7d.html




That's more than interesting, selciper.
The journalist really puts his finger on the pulse.
I am stumped by this passage:
"And those involved have been carefully schooled in how to ensure it stays that way. 
By preceding every sentence with ''privilege'', whatever is said under oath in court room 18D can never be used in evidence."
Hope Carney's are devising strategies to dis"privilege"  this loophole.
Regards,


----------



## simgrund (24 March 2010)

Not recommended;
In Germany, some very angry senior citizens kidnapped their financial adviser, a grievance for losses, and kept him hostage for ransom. 
He was allowed to email to bank for funds release, but instead he emailed for "Help!"
Some kidnappers got years in jail, their spouses got off with less.


----------



## JohnH (24 March 2010)

simgrund said:


> Not recommended;
> In Germany, some very angry senior citizens kidnapped their financial adviser, a grievance for losses, and kept him hostage for ransom.
> He was allowed to email to bank for funds release, but instead he emailed for "Help!"
> Some kidnappers got years in jail, their spouses got off with less.




........ Oh, does that mean I should let her go???


----------



## seamisty (24 March 2010)

JohnH said:


> ........ Oh, does that mean I should let her go???



  JohnH I heard a rumour that a PIF investor was so distraught when he found out that WC did not foward to them a distribution they were entitled to from a previous OCV entity that WC took control of, which left them  so financially and emotionally crippled they made a complaint to WC that resulted in a incarceration instigated by WC!! I sincerely hope this is just that, a rumour, because 10,000 plus investors in the Premium Income Fund are not happy!! Why would they be? Empty promises are not going to be pacified by a one of 3 cent return of capital (at least 17 months after we were promised much more which is the only reason we are stuck with WC as a RE) to PIF investors in the event it happens which will entitle WC to draw down management fees !! We will be well and truly stuffed if this happens, look where we are unit value wise 12 months after the Fund was meant to have  been stabilised.

I find it difficult to sleep of a night and I have a clear conscience.

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (25 March 2010)

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/03/25/201561_gold-coast-business.html
ELS-Payce union was child's play
Extracted from the above article

'His former S8 chairman, Ms Hutson, takes over from Tony Hartnell as ELS chairman, while another key S8 figure, Craig Chapman, will become chief executive.

Mr Chapman replaces youthful director Chris Sacre who will return to the role of chief financial officer.

"I'm really excited about being back in business with Chris Scott and I'm really excited about what this means for Queensland and the Gold Coast," said Ms Hutson.'


----------



## Duped (25 March 2010)

Add to that the appartently pathetic efforts by Hutson and Co. to market our properties.  See my post #5367 regarding the Kooralbyn Hotel Resort which owes us $40million.

If it is our investment, then that Jones Lang LaSalle online listing is so dismal I'm wondering if someone is deliberately trying to sabotage the sale.  For what reason - I don't know. A school kid year old could select and then take better quality and more inspiring photos than that.  Those photos are THE lowest possible quality.


----------



## selciper (25 March 2010)

"I'm really excited about being back in business with Chris Scott and I'm really excited about what this means for Queensland and the Gold Coast," said Ms Hutson.' (Gold Coast Bulletin 25/3) How many more facile statements such as this do we PIF investors have to endure? It's quite insulting to us considering our plight.


----------



## seamisty (26 March 2010)

Duped said:


> Add to that the appartently pathetic efforts by Hutson and Co. to market our properties.  See my post #5367 regarding the Kooralbyn Hotel Resort which owes us $40million.
> 
> If it is our investment, then that Jones Lang LaSalle online listing is so dismal I'm wondering if someone is deliberately trying to sabotage the sale.  For what reason - I don't know. A school kid year old could select and then take better quality and more inspiring photos than that.  Those photos are THE lowest possible quality.



 PRIVLEDGE!!!!Yes Duped, and is that why the PIF are paying Wellington Capital as our 'current Responsible Entity' ongoing expenses/costs? Isn't it their job to oversee the marketing of our assets? We have been told they will not be firesaled (cough cough, choke choke) we are still suffering severe asset impairments!! Err, one would have to ask just what WC are doing to justify those huge 'operating expenses', I mean, who is actually out there with those paint brushes (refer 'bootsnAall' post 5376) slapping away six or seven times in the past year  to eliminate grafitti??? Is this another example of our prime assets being held by WC to participate in the huge growth potential that is going to help return our unit value to $1.00 in the next, Oh My God, how time flies WC, the 3-5 year time frame is looming!!! Lots of ground to make up, the unit value  has deteriorated more than 10 cents under Wellington Capitals control!!



::Reputation

Wellington Capital has a reputation for high standards of client service, innovation and devising successful commercial solutions to complex issues.

Our growth has been fuelled by strong, long standing relationships which have been built on trust, a commitment to delivering commercial advice and focusing on helping clients achieve their long term corporate and growth aspirations. Wellington Capital has significant contacts within leading financial institutions and across the property and funds management sectors.::

Err, what growth can I ask? And, Trust?? That could well be a big issue with 10,000 plus PIF investors who took WC on their word and promises when they 
gave their support to elect them to take this Fund forward.


Where do we stand legally with 'breech of promise' in the business world? Is there such a thing?  Who is held accountable  when not only  pre election promises are not met but investors suffer financial detriment as well?? I am sure someone (or many?)must be held accountable for the current status of this Fund.

While this issue seems to be floating in limbo indefinitely and PIF unit holders are giving up and writing off their investment, there are still individuals that want answers AND WILL NOT REST UNTIL THEY GET THEM!!!


Do not forget that IMF have another current class action on behalf of OCV shareholders. I am sure that the Public trustee of Qld are not the only ones looking at the aquisition of the PIF by WC (who I have been told was acting
for Chris Scott)

Quote from one of the supposedly 25 interested groups::
"I am happy to provide any detail of our proposal.

I was actually sending copies of the proposals to Wellington Capital as well during the time they acted for Chris Scott.

I have emails from OCV and Jenny Hutson herself acknowledging receipt of proposal.

I was told by Louise Edwards of OCV that I was one of 25 parties who had expressed an interest. We couldnt even get in the door so know wonder no one got close to doing DD."


Well,what more can I say? The evidence is there, complaints have been made to everyone remotely connected and responsible for the Fund, it is all on record and is not going to go away.

A law degree, university education, or anything else is not going to indemnify anyone from the truth as to where this Fund is at and how it achieved its current status. Mismanagement comes in many forms and the information  provided from strong  investor support will highlight  the wrongs and bring   attention to  those that ignored those warnings and failed to act!! We must eventually be heard!!! 

On another subject, The Gold Coast Bulletin. Selective reporting at its best.

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/11/20/160381_gold-coast-business.html
Qoute
'The fund's units surged 21 per cent yesterday to close at 19.5c, after wallowing for the past year at just above 10c.'


Well hello!! The unit price on the NSX is wallowing around the 0.86 cents, and this is with the 'imminent prospect of a 3 cent cash payment'

Meanwhile the unit value quoted by WC in the last financial report is approx 35 cents. 10cents less from when they took control of the Fund!!

Conspicuous by your absence Mr Nichols in reporting Wellington Capitals failure to maintain unit value and possible unliklihood to restore it to promised initial investment in 3-5years!! PIF investors consider it in our interests for the GCB to impartially follow up on previous Fund related issues .I personally  find it insulting for your selective style of reporting, considering the information available to you to represent a considerable body or PIF unit holders.


What chance have we got relying on ASIC to intervene on our behalf when they get ticked of by a judge for tardinous?
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/banker-asic-cop-it-from-judge/story-e6frfh4f-1225845279763

Its nearly two years since PIF investors have provided ASIC with comprehensive relevant information to our Fund regarding the previous and current conduct of our directors and we still suffer financial losses. Thanks to all those that keep a record of complaints lodged and other Fund related information.
Seamisty


----------



## selciper (26 March 2010)

On this forum over the past year there have been occasional calls for an EGM to be convened. As communications with WC are at an all-time  low, an EGM would oblige the RE to stand on a platform and face a barrage of pertinent questions from investors. Without an EGM being called soon, we will continue to swap opinions and research material amongst ourselves for months to come. And we’ll carry on complaining to the ever-tardy ASIC. The CA will also be a slow process to reckon with. What is the argument against calling for an EGM?


----------



## marcom (27 March 2010)

*Auditor to be sued by OZ Minerals*
http://www.smh.com.au/business/auditor-to-be-sued-by-oz-minerals-20100326-r34e.html
ELISABETH SEXTON in SMH
March 27, 2010

*OZ Minerals will sue its auditor, KPMG, as part of its defence to a shareholder class action over how it disclosed its borrowings in 2008.
*
The company told the Federal Court yesterday it intended to file a cross-claim against the accounting firm so it could claim a contribution from KPMG if ordered to pay compensation to the investors. Justice Arthur Emmett set aside time on April 30 to hear argument on legal procedural issues relating to joining KPMG to the case.

The firm said yesterday: ''It is not appropriate for KPMG to provide commentary on matters … before the courts involving our client, OZ Minerals.''

No date has been set for the main hearing of the class action, which was launched in October by the law firm Maurice Blackburn *with funding from IMF (Australia).* Maurice Blackburn alleges OZ Minerals disclosed too late that two loan facilities under which it had drawn down $US560 million were due for imminent repayment.

The company requested a trading halt on November 28, 2008, saying it had ''undertaken to re-finance both facilities by November 30, 2008'' and was trying to renegotiate with its lenders.

The shareholders allege the market was misinformed about whether OZ Minerals' debts were current or non-current from the date its half-year report was released - August 21, 2008 - until the trading halt announcement. They claim the half-year report understated current liabilities - those due for repayment within a year - by $320 million.

The report was* reviewed but not audited by KPMG*, which said it gave a true and fair view of the group's financial position as at June 30, 2008.

OZ Minerals has repeatedly stated it ''absolutely refutes any assertion or allegation it has engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct or has in any other way acted other than in compliance with the Corporations Act, the ASX Listing Rules or other than in the best interests of its shareholders''.

As is common in class actions, Maurice Blackburn has not yet quantified the damages its clients are seeking. When it first agreed to provide funding in December 2008, IMF said the claim could be worth $50 million but might ''vary significantly from this amount''.

KPMG is the second large accounting firm to be drawn into a shareholder class action over the classification of debt during the global financial crisis.

Centro Properties and Centro Retail filed a cross-claim against PricewaterhouseCoopers in May over two class-action claims brought by Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon. PwC is defending the cross-claim.


----------



## infinity (27 March 2010)

Thank you Selciper, 
I am fully with you about the EGM: What is the argument against it? Can somebody answer this question??
It could be the only action that JH and her team might take seriously because they will see that we are determined to get some change happening.
What is stopping the inverstors from calling a meeting?

Infinity


----------



## simgrund (27 March 2010)

infinity said:


> Thank you Selciper,
> I am fully with you about the EGM: What is the argument against it? Can somebody answer this question??
> It could be the only action that JH and her team might take seriously because they will see that we are determined to get some change happening.
> What is stopping the inverstors from calling a meeting?
> ...




Good day infinity,

Explanatory Memorandum (WIML), dated 18/09/08, provides on  page 14 
the info regarding quorum provisions for holding EGM's and other meetings.
Provided for non-inflamatory purposes. 1st of April is looming!!!

Regards,


----------



## Duped (29 March 2010)

Could be an interesting read:

From Business Day 25 March - Mark Hawthorne

"Tales from the trough

YOU have to give business scribe Adam Schwab his due - he doesn't pick soft targets, and has ruffled some rather wealthy corporate feathers. Schwab's book, *Pigs at the Trough: Lessons from Australia's Decade of Corporate Greed*, was launched last night. It probes the millions of dollars made by Sol Trujillo, Eddy Groves, David Coe, Gordon Fell, Mark Rowsthorn and Village Roadshow's Kirby family. It details the collapses of Babcock & Brown, *MFS*, Allco and Timbercorp. A few legal types are running an eye over it. Let's hope, for Schwab's sake, it sells well." [emphasis added]


----------



## simgrund (29 March 2010)

Duped said:


> Could be an interesting read:
> From Business Day 25 March - Mark Hawthorne
> "Tales from the trough
> YOU have to give business scribe Adam Schwab his due - he doesn't pick soft targets, and has ruffled some rather wealthy corporate feathers. Schwab's book, *Pigs at the Trough: Lessons from Australia's Decade of Corporate Greed*, was launched last night. It probes the millions of dollars made by Sol Trujillo, Eddy Groves, David Coe, Gordon Fell, Mark Rowsthorn and Village Roadshow's Kirby family. It details the collapses of Babcock & Brown, *MFS*, Allco and Timbercorp. A few legal types are running an eye over it. Let's hope, for Schwab's sake, it sells well." [emphasis added]




Yes; reminds me so much of the "Among the Barbarians" by Paul Sheehan more than a decade ago.
That was a commentary on political frenzy around "political correctness" issues on multiculturalism and the like. 
While the corporate frenzy went on unabated till GFC brakes were applied.
Much too late for many. 
Mr.Schwabb's attention was needed before, not after.


----------



## simgrund (30 March 2010)

Another good article to digest. Interesting comments on ASIC.

http://www.investordaily.com/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/8842.htm?rdeCOQ=SID-0A3D9633-A43F9950

Regards,


----------



## seamisty (31 March 2010)

I see Octaviar on the commercial court list for today. Not sure what the 'application' is for. Cheers, Seamisty

SUPREME AND DISTRICT COURTS BRISBANE 

LAW LIST

Wednesday 31 March 2010 

OCTAVIAR LIMITED (FORMERLY MFS LIMITED)
 Justice Philip McMurdo
 Court 9
Floor 2 4.00PM   
(Application)


----------



## marcom (31 March 2010)

seamisty said:


> I see Octaviar on the commercial court list for today. Not sure what the 'application' is for. Cheers, Seamisty
> 
> SUPREME AND DISTRICT COURTS BRISBANE
> 
> ...




Seamisty, you beat me to this one. I'd say it is either Fortress trying to frustrate the inevitable handing back the money or it is the Liquidator seeking a court decision on some aspect of the process.


----------



## seamisty (31 March 2010)

All very quiet on the forum, not much to report and WC are conspicuous by their absence, along with any Wollongong or other asset sale updates in any way shape or form .

An extra snippet of info added to Bentleys http://www.bentleys.com.au/our_services/business___corporate_recovery_and_insolvency/creditor_info_

'April 2010

 The first tranche of public examinations for the liquidation of Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd will commence on 12 April 2010 at 11.00am in Sydney'


Maybe anyone remotely connected are busy packing their bags?

Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (1 April 2010)

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...-acquiring-10-more-centres-20100401-rg93.html

Early Learning acquiring 10 more centres April 1, 2010 - 11:54AM


----------



## selciper (2 April 2010)

This seems like an appropyiate time to contemplate a saying or two.

""A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold" (Proverbs 22:1)


----------



## marcom (6 April 2010)

Early Coast childcare adds to portfolio

Nick Nichols, business editor GC Bulletin
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





   |  April 1st, 2010

Early Learning Centres chairman Jenny Hutson

GOLD Coast-based childcare operator Early Learning Services has added to its portfolio, snaring 10 properties in four states for $8.1 million.

The acquisition is the first following ELS's $40 million merger with Payce Childcare last week and brings the total number of childcare centres under its control to 108.

The acquisition of these 10 centres would provide ELS the opportunity to increase the geographic diversity of the group and leverage the expertise of the head office team in a way that is earnings per share accretive,'' said new ELS chairman Jenny Hutson. 

`This acquisition is the first step in implementing a well planned expansion strategy.''

ELS has signed a binding heads of agreement to buy six centres in South Australia, two in Victoria and one each in NSW and Queensland.


----------



## simgrund (8 April 2010)

While in still waters, this revisiting of sister (closed) thread may still be of relevant read to us today.
Regards, 

18th-July-2008, 11:27 PM   	   #284
mfsperth

mfsperth's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 29

*Default Re: MFS - MFS PIF*
Some rights of members of the PIF:

1.
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 247A
Order for inspection of books of company or registered managed investment scheme

(1) On application by a member of a company or registered managed investment scheme, the Court may make an order:

(a) authorising the applicant to inspect books of the company or scheme; or

(b) authorising another person (whether a member or not) to inspect books of the company or scheme on the applicant's behalf.

The Court may only make the order if it is satisfied that the applicant is acting in good faith and that the inspection is to be made for a proper purpose.

(2) A person authorised to inspect books may make copies of the books unless the Court orders otherwise.

(3) A person who:

(a) is granted leave under section 237; or

(b) applies for leave under that section; or

(c) is eligible to apply for leave under that section;

may apply to the Court for an order under this section.

(4) On application, the Court may make an order authorising:

(a) the applicant to inspect books of the company; or

(b) another person to inspect books of the company on the applicant's behalf.

(5) The Court may make the order only if it is satisfied that:

(a) the applicant is acting in good faith; and

(b) the inspection is to be made for a purpose connected with:

(i) applying for leave under section 237; or

(ii) bringing or intervening in proceedings with leave under that section.

(6) A person authorised to inspect books may make copies of the books unless the Court orders otherwise.

2.
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601JD
Duties of members

(1) A member of a scheme's compliance committee must:

(a) act honestly; and

(b) exercise the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person would exercise if they were in the member's position; and

(c) not make use of information acquired through being a member of the committee in order to:

(i) gain an improper advantage for the member or another person; or

(ii) cause detriment to the members of the scheme; and

(d) not make improper use of their position as a member of the committee to gain, directly or indirectly, an advantage for themselves or for any other person or to cause detriment to the members of the scheme.

(2) A member of the compliance committee is to take all reasonable steps to assist ASIC in carrying out a check under subsection 601FF(1).

(3) A person who contravenes, or is involved in a contravention of, subsection (1) contravenes this subsection.

Note 1: Section 79 defines involved .

Note 2: Subsection (3) is a civil penalty provision (see section 1317E).

(4) A person must not intentionally or recklessly contravene, or be involved in a contravention of, subsection (1).

3.
Civil liability of responsible entity to members

(1) A member of a registered scheme who suffers loss or damage because of conduct of the scheme's responsible entity that contravenes a provision of this Chapter may recover the amount of the loss or damage by action against the responsible entity whether or not the responsible entity has been convicted of an offence, or has had a civil penalty order made against it, in respect of the contravention.

(2) An action under subsection (1) must be begun within 6 years after the cause of action arises.

(3) This section does not affect any liability that a person has under other provisions of this Act or under other laws.


----------



## Duped (8 April 2010)

Anyone here a BRW online subscriber? And care to transcribe? 

http://www.brw.com.au/p/sections/fyi/ceo_Zi6d9Ourjw7yUtN0g6gzzM


----------



## marcom (9 April 2010)

There has been some activity on the currently adjourned ASIC case against MFS Directors as reported on the Brisbane Supreme Court site - http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...eNumber=12122/09&Court=Supreme&Location=BRISB

30  	 18/03/2010  	 Notice of Change of Solicitors  	 OCTAVIAR  	 Respondent  	
31 	08/04/2010 	Further Particulars 		Applicant 	
32 	08/04/2010 	Further Particulars 		Applicant 	
33 	08/04/2010 	Further Particulars 		Applicant 	
34 	08/04/2010 	Further Particulars 		Applicant 

Not sure what these further particulars are - perhaps we will learn more from the Liquidators public examinations starting Monday in Sydney Supreme Court.


----------



## marcom (9 April 2010)

Monday 12 April 2010 Industrial Relation Commission, Sydney
Senior Deputy Registrar A Musgrave
Court 3.2 IRC Sydney 11:00 AM
Examination
1 In the matter of WILLIAM JOHN FLETCHER AS 
LIQUIDATOR OF OCTAVIAR ADMINISTRATION PTY
LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
2009/00291718


----------



## Cookie1 (9 April 2010)

Here's an old article I just came across from Crikey.com which made for very interesting reading about related party transactions and deals done. Hopefully some of this will come out in the "Inquisition"??

Monday, 19 May 2008
Plus ca change: Conflicts continue at Octaviar
by Adam Schwab
http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/05/19/plus-ca-change-conflicts-continue-at-octaviar/

Also 2 links to other articles:

MFS fighting a mutiny
Anthony Marx From: Herald Sun March 08, 2008 12:00AM
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/mfs-fighting-a-mutiny/story-e6frfh4f-1111115742954


Octaviar sells its stake in MFS offshoot
Ben Butler From: Herald Sun May 16, 2008 12:00AM
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/no-mates-rates-says-fund-buyer/story-e6frfh4f-1111116351614


----------



## selciper (10 April 2010)

Duped # 5412 mentioned a BRW article. For those who didn’t click on the link, the story headline provided reads “Jenny Hutson, founder and managing director, Wellington Capital talks about success, capitalism and philanthropy.”


----------



## Cookie1 (10 April 2010)

selciper said:


> Duped # 5412 mentioned a BRW article. For those who didn’t click on the link, the story headline provided reads “Jenny Hutson, founder and managing director, Wellington Capital talks about success, capitalism and philanthropy.”




I tried to find it at our local library but they don't have the magazine. The archive service they subscribe to hasn't posted it yet but it should be available in a couple of weeks or so. Perhaps a library in a larger city than Port Macquarie might have it???


----------



## seamisty (12 April 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/time-drags-on-a-renovators-delight-20100411-s0v3.html

PUBLIC GRILLING

 ABC Learning is not the only corporate collapse to go under the microscope today. A public grilling begins this morning into Octaviar, the corporate disaster better known as MFS.



But it is not clear whether the examination in the NSW Supreme Court will clear up what's behind the rather tricky relationship between the creditors of the failed financial engineer and Deloitte, the former corporate undertakers for both Octaviar Ltd and Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd.

The courts removed the liquidators, led by a Deloitte partner, John Greig, from their post in September due to a potential conflict of interest.

But in December the committee of inspection for the two companies voted against paying the liquidators from Deloitte $350,900 (plus GST) owed for the final five months of their appointment. Documents lodged with the corporate plod show six committee members voted against it and three abstained.

Deloitte would not comment, nor would Octaviar's current liquidators from Bentleys.

The same committee was, however, happy to approve payments of more than $910,000 for Bentleys' team - covering pay from their appointment last September until this coming June 30 - so it does not look like these creditors were counting their pennies too closely.

Meanwhile, those hoping to catch a glimpse this week of former Liberal leader Andrew Peacock are likely to be disappointed. The liquidators do not plan to call the ex-MFS chairman in for a public roasting.

Not so fortunate is his former Liberal Party colleague Larry Anthony, the ex-Howard government minister and ABC director who will be fronting the public examination this week.


----------



## seamisty (12 April 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/abc-...e-court-over-whos-to-blame-20100411-s0vc.html


Extracted from article:::::

'Octaviar's chief operating officer, David Kennedy, will kick off proceedings for Octaviar's public examinations today, followed by the former company secretary, Kim Kercher.

There will be a two-week break before the former chief executive Craig White is examined.'::::::


Thanks to the posters doing their best to keep PIF investors informed, we all appreciate that this forum is the most comprehensive source of Fund related news, even though there are times when information is hard to come by. Lets hope the furure court proceedings will provide us with answers to many questions and or comfirmation to much of our long drawn out speculations of which the proof can be used for further legal actions which should ultimately benefit  PIF investors.

Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (13 April 2010)

Reports from Bentleys the liquidator's examination of David Kennedy in the NSW Supreme Court yesterday. It's a sad case and this is only the beginning....

From the Australian: 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...staff-court-told/story-e6frg8zx-1225852944889

From the Sydney Morning Herald: 
http://www.smh.com.au/business/cour...executives-hostile-culture-20100412-s46a.html

From the Age:
http://www.theage.com.au/business/mfs-spending-out-of-control-20100412-s42x.html


----------



## seamisty (13 April 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> Reports from Bentleys the liquidator's examination of David Kennedy in the NSW Supreme Court yesterday. It's a sad case and this is only the beginning....
> 
> From the Australian:
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...staff-court-told/story-e6frg8zx-1225852944889
> ...




Thanks Cookie, At last we are on the way to finding out the truth which led to the collapse of MFS/OCV and hopefully the details of where the PIF Funds were alledgedly illegally redirected.

No thanks to ASIC to date who were alerted to possible fraud and misconduct within the ranks of MFS/OCV directors and some other employees by PIF investors OVER TWO YEARS AGO!!!!

Is ASIC waiting for others to do the work and have the evidence  handed to them on a plate? All will be revealed!! Seamisty (I hear the sale of brown undies have sky rocketed recently!!)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/rearguard-action-fails-for-big-jim-20100412-s469.html

ON THE RECORD

Octaviar's liquidators will be hoping the start of the hearing into the corporate disaster better known as MFS is not a harbinger of what is to come. Events got off to a slow start from the opening bell of the public grilling in the NSW Supreme Court yesterday.

Shortly after walking in, senior deputy registrar Andrew Musgrave mentioned that transcripts of the hearing should be available at the end of the day. But it was quickly pointed out to him that the courtroom did not have any microphones - needed to allow transcripts to be made - let alone a shorthand typist. Thus, the hearing had a late start of more than half an hour as those gathered waited for a typist to be quickly found.


----------



## marcom (13 April 2010)

From the article in the Australian today: "Mr Kennedy says he was effectively told to "back off"' by Mr King over his reservations about *sending funds to the company's Dubai operations.*

"He was pushing people for it to be done by yesterday," Mr Kennedy said. "He would push for things before the Is were dotted and the Ts were crossed."

At the Newcastle WC roadshow during question time an older man with an accent who was sitting near me asked JH if she knew that "the money" had been sent to Dubai - he repeated "that's where the money is!"

JH gave him an indignant look and basically went on to ignore the question/statement. Breaker, do you remember this? What did he know or suspect?


----------



## JohnH (13 April 2010)

........ Anyone care to forcast how long this case will last??

Thank Goodness we have moved on from the last page........... I am sure that I am not the only one who cringed each time one scrolled down!!!


----------



## selciper (13 April 2010)

"The case, which will run for several weeks, is looking at certain transactions within the group, including $1bn of intercompany loans, the sale of assets and the granting of securities." - the Australian. The sale of assets session may well be very interesting...


----------



## seamisty (13 April 2010)

http://www.etravelblackboard.com/showarticle.asp?id=103638&nav=130


MFS/Octaviar CFO dishes the dirt in court

'This week sees Octaviar, formally known as MFS Group, entering into the New South Wales Supreme Court as liquidators seek to determine who is responsible for the collapse, and when exactly the business became insolvent.


More than  two years' after the MFS/OCV collapse we may finally find out just when the company was INSOLVENT!!!!

Nick Nichols and his reporting skillls conspicuous by their absence?????

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (13 April 2010)

THE SAGA CONTINUES!!!!! Extracts from the link below. Seamisty

Octaviar exec 'refused to sign document' April 13, 2010 - 6:59PM

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...c-refused-to-sign-document-20100413-s7e8.html


A former senior executive at the failed Octaviar Ltd says he was asked to sign backdated documents about a board meeting he never attended, a court has heard.

Former Octaviar chief operating officer David Kennedy says he was asked in February 2008 to sign minutes of a board meeting supposedly held in some time in November 2007.

But he refused, telling the NSW Supreme Court on Tuesday that he had no knowledge of the meeting.

"They were backdated documents and I didn't recall having that meeting," Mr Kennedy told the court.

"I have never knowingly backdated any document.

"That's fraught with danger."

Mr Kennedy said that some time later he was shown the "exact same minutes that had me listed as an apology".


Mr Kennedy also unloaded on KordaMentha, which former MFS chief executive and deputy chief executive Craig White engaged in January after the corporate advisory firm indicated it had potential suitors willing to invest in the company.

Mr Kennedy criticised KordaMentha's "excessive fees" and said the nine or ten staff working in the MFS office was "more about giving comfort to the board" rather than doing something to help the company."

"I thought they were a waste of money," Mr Kennedy said.

He brought his concerns directly to KordaMentha partner Mark Korda in February 2008.

During a discussion Mr Korda said employees of the failed airline Ansett back got about 99 cents in the dollar.

Mr Kennedy told the court he responded: "To me that just means unsecured creditors got nothing".

After the discussion, Mr Kennedy told the court he was asked by Mr White to "back off".

The examination before senior deputy registrar Andrew Musgrave continues on Wednesday, with Mr Kennedy to face questions for a third day.


----------



## seamisty (14 April 2010)

Some more related media coverage, some with similar content. Seamisty


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-backdate-papers/story-e6frg8zx-1225853382381


http://www.smh.com.au/business/mfs-shifted-130-million-to-repay-loan-20100413-s7me.html


----------



## marcom (14 April 2010)

Further to my earlier post on the DUBAI CONNECTION:

When raising questions over a *$130 million transaction* to the company’s Dubai operations Mr Kennedy was warned off the issue by by co-founder and chief executive of the failed company, Michael King.

From Dynamic Business http://www.dynamicbusiness.com.au/articles/articles-news/mfs-octaviar-supreme-court-1340.html


----------



## seamisty (14 April 2010)

For PIF investors receiving centrelink payments please note that PIF units are being offered for sale on the NSX for a pitiful 8cents!!! Todays sales started at 0.085 and the last trade was 0.080. The current highest bid is for 100,000 units @ 0.071 followed by another bid of 100,000 @ 0.065.

Wellington Capital merchant Bank and their team of experts can take the credit for the abysmal NSX PIF unit price performance, the blame lies entirely with their lack of ability to take this Fund forward to date as originally promised. 

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (14 April 2010)

The latest PIF unit price is confirmation that the worst fears regularly expressed on this forum about WC's capabilities are well founded. I still believe that an EGM is required urgently, but that proposition doesn't appear to have much support. If it were a good tactic, I guess the AG would have planned for such a meeting.


----------



## marcom (14 April 2010)

selciper, in my view it is all a question of timing. Given what is coming out of the Liquidators examination, it is worth waiting to see how Bentleys and ASIC react. Just the little that has emerged (fabricating and back dating of Board Minutes etc) coupled with what is contained in the amended ASIC application before the Brisbane Supreme Court, it is starting to look like gaol time for some of the MFS pack.

And I think that the class action may need to include others - other MFS Directors who may not have advised ASIC about their concerns about the theft from PIF, Korda Mentha for not detecting the theft, RBS for lending money without any security details that were only fraudulently supplied nearly 2 months later, Fortress for taking the funds when they knew MFS did not have cash to meet the repayment deadline and Delloitts for not detecting the fraud, the CBA branch that advanced the PIF funds to Fortress after approval from Perpetual who did not adequately check whether the funds would be applied for proper purposes as per the PIF Constitution - and there will be more.

And then there is the future examination of JH and WC over possible unfair payments of $5M and $3M as directed by Justice McMurdo in his judgement, and how you can gain the RE of a fund for no real payment.

There is a long way to go on this one - and it won't do our case any harm to have the PIF losses maximised before we sue the pants off all those responsible. As a lawyer colleague of mine frequently used to say - Don't get angry, get litigious!


----------



## selciper (14 April 2010)

Marcom - I enjoyed reading your detailed list of possible positives that can develop over time in this three ring circus that we PIF investors now inhabit. Thanks. I'll do my best to keep patient.


----------



## seamisty (14 April 2010)

Yes Marcom, patience will be a key issue for future actions. I strongly suspect we are in for some interesting reading over the next few weeks! Failing memories and buck passing will no doubt be out in abundance. Seamisty 
     Extracted from the  below article::

Ex-Octaviar boss can't recall sign-offs JORDAN CHONG 
April 14, 2010 - 7:04PMEx-Octaviar boss can't recall sign-offs JORDAN CHONG 


A former senior executive at Octaviar Ltd says he does not recall signing documents certifying the accounts or approving certain transactions of various subsidiaries of the failed company, a court has heard.

Former Octaviar chief operating officer David Kennedy told the NSW Supreme Court on Wednesday that although he could not recall signing certain documents, he would have only done so based on the assurances of others.

"I relied upon representations made to me," Mr Kennedy told the court.

"I would have relied extremely heavily on David Anderson."

He described Mr Anderson, a fellow senior executive, as a man of "extreme integrity" and "beyond reproach".

"If a document came to me to sign and I wouldn't know about it, I wouldn't sign," Mr Kennedy said.


He was also questioned by lawyers for liquidators of Octaviar Investment Notes Ltd and Octaviar Investment Bonds Ltd - two subsidiaries of parent company Octaviar - who showed him a series of documents bearing his signature.

These included one showing he had signed off on a $17.5 million funds' transfer to MFS Pacific Finance Ltd, a New Zealand-registered company.

Another was the accounts of MFS Financial Services for the year ending June 2007, where the balance sheet had net assets of $138 million.

The accounts for the period ending June 2008 showed MFS Financial Services had zero net assets.

Asked if he knew why, Mr Kennedy responded: "Absolutely not".

Asked about a letter in January 2008 regarding a default on the loan with Fortress Credit, Mr Kennedy replied: "I certainly don't recall seeing it."::::


----------



## seamisty (15 April 2010)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...icer-in-the-dark/story-e6frg8zx-1225853817043

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mfs-queried-about-auditor-conflicts-20100414-se3a.html


----------



## lawry1dog (15 April 2010)

*It looks like WC is somehow maximising the fund's losses, as marcom has so brilliantly deduced.*

What about the PIF investors who have to sell and the ones part of  a PIF investor estate?
This does not seem fair and looks like the richer will just get richer.

As going by previous court proceedings involving our PIF and up and coming ones(ie class action, etc), all will fail  and nothing given back to any PIF investor. 
People may go to jail but it does not get my money back.
You all do not seem to realise that because Andrew Peacock was with MFS
and then Labor came to power, means they are still laughing at its
demise and will never help us. Better hope the Liberals get in.

*I still say thet WC must resign and give to someone else.*


----------



## marcom (15 April 2010)

On the trail of the missing millions and the Dubai connection -

"HUNDREDS of millions of dollars disappeared from MFS company accounts in a 12-month period, the NSW Supreme Court heard yesterday. 

Barrister Dominic O'Sullivan showed Mr Kennedy the accounts of various MFS companies, one of which had net assets of $138m at the end of 2007 but by June 2008 had zero assets.

"Do you have any information about why that might be the case?" Mr O'Sullivan said.

"Absolutely not," Mr Kennedy replied.

Another company had $139m cash in the bank in 2007, which later disappeared. Mr Kennedy said he did not know where the money went."

And just in time this article in today's SMH: *ATO turns focus on foreign accounts of at least 100,000 customers. * http://www.smh.com.au/business/ato-...-at-least-100000-customers-20100414-se36.html
PETER MARTIN ECONOMICS CORRESPONDENT
April 15, 2010

THE Tax Office has ramped up pressure on Australians with undeclared accounts in tax havens by gazetting orders allowing it to question 57 Australian institutions about the behaviour of at least 100,000 customers.

The orders allow the Tax Office to ask institutions including Westpac, Mastercard and Citibank Australia about customers who have merely made inquiries about setting up overseas accounts.

''Sometimes the bank will have an operation in a tax haven and put their customers in touch; other times they will refer their customers to foreign institutions with which they have arrangements,'' assistant commissioner Malcolm Allen told the Herald.

''We will ask for those records, approach the customers and say, 'at one stage you were interested in opening an account in this country, what did you end up doing?'''

Most of the institutions on the list have agreed to hand the information to the Tax Office rather than challenge the order. *The order also empowers the office to ask for details of a broader range of transfers than those routinely reported to Austrac, including transfers by credit card and cheques.*

''We have asked for this information in the past, but generally only in specific cases. This is a more strategic operation,'' Mr Allen said.

*''We will be seeking records about anyone who has ever made such inquiries between July 2005 and June 2009.''*

Among the 48 so-called secrecy jurisdictions and countries of interest covered by the order are Malta, Cyprus, *the Cayman Islands*, Britain and New Zealand, which are ''often used as conduits to offshore jurisdictions of interest to the Tax Office'', Mr Allen said.

The Tax Commissioner, Michael D'Ascenzo, stressed there was ''nothing wrong with holding an offshore account or investing overseas as long as you pay any Australian tax due''.

''Our aim is to identify people who may be deliberately trying to hide income or assets offshore. I urge them to come to us before we come to them.''

An amnesty-like arrangement announced in November gives Australians with undeclared overseas accounts until June 30 to come forward in return for reduced penalties and the chance of an assurance they will not face criminal investigation.

Mr Allen said: ''They come in on a no-names basis, and on the basis of the facts they have given us we will tell them whether or not we would be looking at initiating a criminal investigation.

''With that advice from us they can then come forward and make that disclosure in the knowledge that that is not going to happen.''

Since November about 150 taxpayers have come forward, declaring foreign accounts worth $18 million. ''But the experience with similar initiatives offshore is that most people make those disclosures towards the end of the period. It takes a while to think about what to do, get information together and talk to advisers; generally about 70 days,'' Mr Allen said.

''If people are going to take up the offer by June 30 they need to be thinking about it now,'' he said, stressing that the ''no-names'' offer of anonymous advice would end then too.


----------



## marcom (15 April 2010)

here is the batting order for the Bentley's examinations of MFS/Otaviar directors:

Public Examinations: commencing on 12 April 2010.

The first tranche of public examinations for the liquidation of Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd will commence on 12 April 2010 at 11.00am.

There has been a recent change of venue for the public examinations.  The public examinations will now be held at:

Court 3.2
Industrial Relations Commission
47 Bridge Street
Sydney  NSW  2000

The following key personnel will be examined in the first tranche:

    * David Kennedy
    * Kim Kercher
    * Craig White
    * David Anderson
    * Michael King

 If you have any questions please forward an email to Octaviar@bris.bentleys.com.au


----------



## lawry1dog (16 April 2010)

*There are rumours that Carney's and the others have got wind of that
WC is somehow maximising the fund's losses, so as a favourable outcome, comes out from the class action.*

If this is true then this is very unfair on PIF investors who have to sell and the ones part of a PIF investor estate.

As I have iterated many times:-

*WC must resign and hand the fund to someone else.*


----------



## seamisty (16 April 2010)

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7902c2da-a669-42ee-a5b9-7b64e6edbf32

Australia 
April 15 2010 
 In brief    

The first part of the Australian Consumer Law reforms is effective today. 
Businesses should ensure that they are familiar with the implications of the Australian Consumer Law and implement appropriate risk management procedures. 
The Australian Consumer Law Bill 2009 has received Royal Assent and the first part of the Australian Consumer Law reforms are effective today. The Australian Consumer Law amends the Trade Practices Act 1974 and Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001.

From today, 15 April 2010, the ACCC and ASIC can take actions seeking monetary penalties of up to $1.1 million against corporations and $220,000 against individuals that make false or misleading representations or engage in unconscionable conduct.

This change will have enormous ramifications. To date, monetary penalties have only been available in criminal prosecution, requiring proof "beyond reasonable doubt". A civil penalty regime requires a lower onus of proof (the "balance of probabilities").

There is likely to be a significant increase in actions being commenced by the ACCC (and ASIC) in respect of misleading or deceptive conduct.

In addition, from today the ACCC and ASIC have additional investigatory and enforcement powers to seek or issue:

disqualification orders; 
substantiation notices; 
orders to redress loss or damage suffered by non-party consumers; 
infringement notices; and 
public warning notices.   
Second part of the Australian Consumer Law reforms

The second part of the Australian Consumer Law reforms dealing with unfair contract terms will come into effect on 1 July 2010. Those reforms will void unfair terms in standard form business-consumer contracts. The ACCC announced today that it intends to provide public guidance to business and consumer organisations prior to the unfair contract terms regime coming into force.

Businesses should ensure that they are familiar with the implications of the Australian Consumer Law and implement appropriate risk management procedures. This should include reviewing any business-consumer standard form contracts and implementing comprehensive documentation policies to enable companies to quickly and effectively defend any queries by the regulators about marketing activities or other business conduct.


----------



## seamisty (17 April 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/business-welcomes-exec-pay-outcome-20100416-skie.html

'SHAREHOLDERS will be able to claw back bonuses paid to executives who benefited from muddied accounts, under a surprise proposal from the federal government announced yesterday.

Under the reform, some of Australia's highest-profile corporate casualties - Eddy Groves of ABC Learning, David Coe of Allco and Michael King of MFS - may have been liable to lose bonuses paid to them during the boom years that preceded global financial crisis.

The government yesterday released its response to a Productivity Commission inquiry into executive pay, agreeing with the rump of its proposals and adding on the clawback mechanism, which had not been suggested by the commission.

The Financial Services Minister, Chris Bowen, acknowledged recouping money from executives would be difficult. But he said there appeared to be an anomaly in the law that left shareholders with no capacity to recoup bonuses if they were paid because of errors in financial accounts.

''That hasn't been a big issue in Australia, I have to say in fairness, but it has been an issue … elsewhere around the world and I think it is prudent that we make sure the law is robust as possible,'' Mr Bowen told the ABC.'



I remember reading Michael King was paid a cash bonus of $1.6 million in 2007.

Seamisty


----------



## marcom (17 April 2010)

A very interesting article in to day's SMH about Harry Markopolos the mathematical genius who tried to warn the world about Bernie Madoff and the biggest fraud in history. http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-man-who-figured-it-out-20100416-skis.html

Based on Markopolos exploits exposing various fraud cases he says:

*''Usually the perpetrators of the frauds that I'm working on are typically in the CEO-level suite, it's the [chief executive officer], the [chief financial officer], the general counsel that are the ones that are corrupt. This is where fraud is part of a company's business model.''*

Sound familiar!!!!


----------



## seamisty (17 April 2010)

Just thought I would recap on a few early MFS media articles when Jenny Hutson was Chris Scotts advisor:::

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/busines.../story-e6frfh4f-1111115742954?from=public_rss

MFS fighting a mutiny 
Anthony Marx From: Herald Sun March 08, 2008 12:00AM 

Extracted from articles::::::

Ms Hutson accused MFS of lacking transparency by refusing to release the notice of meeting which has been sent out this week to about 18,500 shareholders.

Sources close to MFS have questioned whether Mr Scott controls 42 million shares as claimed but Ms Hutson said the holding was spread among extended family and so no substantial shareholder notice needed to be lodged.

She denied that any of the stock was subject to margin calls and hosed down speculation that she was angling to become MFS chief executive if Mr Scott succeeded in getting elected to the board.

Approx 4 weeks later:::

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2008/04/02/1206850948547.html

Margin call threat to MFS shares
Stuart Washington | April 2, 2008 - 7:33AM


SHAREHOLDERS in the beleaguered financial services firm MFS, now known as Octaviar, face the disruption of margin calls over up to 17 per cent of the company's shares when the entity finally resumes trading.

Yesterday Octaviar released details of margin loans over the holdings of a director who was appointed last week, Chris Scott, saying he had a loan over 17.2 million shares, or a 3.6 per cent stake in the company. Mr Scott holds another 5.2 million shares in Octaviar.




Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (17 April 2010)

marcom said:


> A very interesting article in to day's SMH about Harry Markopolos the mathematical genius who tried to warn the world about Bernie Madoff and the biggest fraud in history. http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-man-who-figured-it-out-20100416-skis.html
> 
> Based on Markopolos exploits exposing various fraud cases he says:
> 
> ...




It's not always fraud, in so many cases it's simply self-interest.

Here's my view on MIrvac Aqua's 'New Strategy' if anyone has any interest:-

http://www.moneymagik.com/hif_alternatives.php

This fund and the balmain (MMT) Mortgage Trust are of interest to me because of balmain's JV with trilogy as manager of the PFMF.

I just wonder how they do the things they do:-
http://www.moneymagik.com/balmain_experience.php

Seamisty, thanks for the update on ASIC's new powers - let's hope they use them.
..


----------



## selciper (17 April 2010)

The SMH article about Madoff and Markopolos reminds me of the unsatisfactory ABC TV interview ASIC's Tony D"Aloisio gave to a rather tame Alan Kohler last weekend. The ASIC chief looks like he could do with a lot of help from Mr Markopolos.


----------



## seamisty (17 April 2010)

A bit more recapping from former articles, this one a 7.30 report:::
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2186788.htm
JENNY HUTSON, WELLINGTON CAPITAL: It is about bringing the general on the field of battle, who in this instance, is Andrew Peacock to account. 


 The board, led by Andrew Peacock, has to take responsibility for that. The market was shocked. We've got a board that's appointed an administrator as its corporate adviser that's selling assets at significantly less than what they cost.

Andrew Peacock needs to be held accountable for the financial performance of MFS in these circumstances. And it is for that reason that Chris and other shareholders have requisitioned a meeting to put five new directors onto the MFS board.

Unfortunately, Andrew Peacock is not willing, ready and able to step aside as chair of MFS and that's the point of difference. We think that it is in the best interests of shareholders for him to step aside and let those who want to drive the company forward take control


 With people whose lives have truly been destroyed in a financial sense by the plight of MFS, is something that is just extraordinary. This is about ordinary Australians, who believed what they read, who put trust and faith in the board and there's an enormous human cost.

::::

Well those ordinary Australians who put their trust and faith in WELLINGTON CAPITAL LTD who believed not only what they read, but what they were told at investor forums by JH are actually worse off and it appears Andrew Peacock is not wholly to blame for the demise of MFS/OCV. Did he actually have any idea as to the extent of what was going on under his well paid nose or was he just another pawn used to lure unsuspecting investors? I wonder why JH isolated him as a scapegoat for the downfall of MFS? ::::::

The truth will  prevail, bring on the forensic accountants!!!

I can only hope that the ABC 7.30 report are willing to do a follow up after Bentley's have finished their public examinations. It appears some previous outspoken MFS/OCV media journalists are reluctant to follow up on the proceedings where current evidence is being revealed.

I also understand that ASIC and Carney lawyers are following the case closely as they should be IMO. The evidence coming to light can only strengthen our Class Action and contribute to ASIC's team data base working on our combined complaints.

Patience is the key (unfortunately not something we are all endowed with !!!)
Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## Duped (18 April 2010)

marcom said:


> A very interesting article in to day's SMH about Harry Markopolos the mathematical genius who tried to warn the world about Bernie Madoff and the biggest fraud in history. http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-man-who-figured-it-out-20100416-skis.html
> 
> Based on Markopolos exploits exposing various fraud cases he says:
> 
> ...




The fish rots from the head down.  

Seamisty, RE Peacock.  The following Mayne video about him said it all for me. See MFS Fiasco March 28 2008 at http://video.maynereport.com/ 

"If I ever wrote a book it would occupy a chapter" Good grief.


----------



## seamisty (19 April 2010)

Thanks Duped, I found this link a bit easier to use. Seamisty

http://www.maynereport.com/articles/2008/07/04-1136-6694.html
MFS Fiasco March 28 2008


----------



## selciper (19 April 2010)

Here's another article from 2008. It's from the Australian dated 5 September. It contains some memorable Hutson quotes.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-of-onerous-deal/story-e6frg8zx-1111117395793

PS Anybody know the actual date when the public examinations resume?


----------



## marcom (19 April 2010)

selciper, I saw a reference in one of the articles last week that the examinations resume on 27 April. I thought that Bentley's had the week booked with David Kennedy & Kim Kercher to be grilled - maybe Kennedy's evidence opened up more lines of inquiry so they finished early and put off Kercher until next week.

Just from the brief reports of what emerged was the prospect of an even earlier insolvency date of June 2007 when MFS did not have sufficient funds to pay a shareholder dividend, missing funds of $130M and $138M (I bet these went to Dubai), evidence that the Chairman played a closer role in MFS management than previously stated leading to greater exposure to regulatory action, Kercher effectively operated under duress in approving loans/transactions/payments, and evidence that proper and legal systems, procedures and chain of responsibility were recklessly abandoned in MFS's case. God only knows what else Kennedy said in evidence, but it was more than appears that it Bentley's had expected.


----------



## seamisty (19 April 2010)

selciper said:


> Here's another article from 2008. It's from the Australian dated 5 September. It contains some memorable Hutson quotes.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-of-onerous-deal/story-e6frg8zx-1111117395793
> 
> PS Anybody know the actual date when the public examinations resume?



 Thanks selciper, According to one media article I read they resume April 27th. Cheers, Seamisty

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...t-recall-sign-offs-4HCRG?opendocument&src=rss
'
The examination before senior deputy registrar Andrew Musgrave was due to resume on April 27.'


----------



## Duped (19 April 2010)

We have whistle blower legislation in this country don't we.  Kercher could have blown the whistle years ago and saved us unsecured creditors a lot of time and money.  There are times in your life when the action you take defines who you are. From this scant evidence it looks like Kercher failed us.


----------



## marcom (19 April 2010)

Duped, you are right. The fact that Kercher did not advise ASIC is a breach of the Corporations Act.

Why did the MFS staff buy shares when they knew the ship was sinking? Putting their savings, super and even homes at risk -we were lied to but what made them do it if they had inside knowledge?


----------



## seamisty (19 April 2010)

marcom said:


> Duped, you are right. The fact that Kercher did not advise ASIC is a breach of the Corporations Act.
> 
> Why did the MFS staff buy shares when they knew the ship was sinking? Putting their savings, super and even homes at risk -we were lied to but what made them do it if they had inside knowledge?



Maybe they thought the sale of the overpriced Stella would pull them out of the manure? 


Maybe it was only the 'heirachy' who alledgedley fiddled  with the books who were really in the know? It all happened so fast, I was tempted to buy MFS shares myself at the time after being reassured by MFS staff that all was still well!! A bit like the WC hotline staff, repeating what they are told by their superiors, not actually knowing if the information is correct or not, just doing their job.

I'm glad I didn't and had previously sold all my MFS shares. Shame some of the proceeds went into the PIF! I see todays one trade on the NSX of 72,490 units went through at 0.071 cents. Confidence in WC not exactly reflected in the price.
Seamisty


----------



## selciper (19 April 2010)

Seamisty and Marcom - Thanks for providing the date of the next hearing. There should be some interesting evidence to read about during that week.


----------



## Cookie1 (19 April 2010)

It really annoys me that neither the Gold Coast Bulletin (don't they like reporting bad things about Gold Coast companies?) nor the Australian Financial Review are reporting on Bentley's hearings. I went to the library today and looked through all AFR's from last week and there's lots of photos and articles about Eddie Groves and ABC Learning and not one word about MFS/Octaviar. I guess ABC Learning is a higher profile case in some eyes but certainly the damage to MFS/PIF investors and creditors is just as great and just as important and the hearings deserve to be covered.


----------



## Cookie1 (20 April 2010)

From the Herald Sun today:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/busines...-korda-called-up/story-e6frfh4f-1225855841806

Octaviar adviser Mark Korda called up

Ben Butler From: Herald Sun April 20, 2010 10:26AM

HIGH-PROFILE insolvency practitioner Mark Korda is to be grilled under oath about his activities as a consultant to property company Octaviar in lead-up to the company's collapse.

Mr Korda, who is a director of Collingwood Football Club, is among nine people summonsed by the NSW Supreme Court last week for examination over the failure of Octaviar, formerly known as MFS, which went into administration in September 2008 owing creditors $2.5 billion.

The move, revealed in a letter sent to Octaviar creditors on Friday by liquidators Bentleys Corporate Recovery, comes on top of the ongoing examinations of five company executives. But in a sign Bentleys is widening its investigation into Octaviar beyond company employees, it has now asked Mr Korda and two other advisers to the company to give evidence.

Also summonsed are Mitch Craig, an audit partner at Octaviar's accountants KPMG, and lawyer Philip Hoser, formerly with Octaviar's lawyers Freehills.

No allegations have been made against the advisers.

Mr Korda and Freehills declined to comment, while Mr Hoser and KPMG did not return calls.

Mr Korda's insolvency firm KordaMentha advised Octaviar in late 2007, as it struggled to survive.

Under examination in the NSW Supreme Court last week, former Octaviar chief operating officer David Kennedy said the company's chief executive, Craig White, told him a controversial $130 million loan from a related fund had been approved by Mr Korda.

Mr Kennedy also said he was not aware of any potential conflict of interest in having KPMG as auditor when chief financial officer David Anderson, company secretary Kim Kercher and internal auditor Nigel Fitzgerald had all worked for KPMG.

Mr White, Ms Kercher, Mr Andersen and founder Michael King have already been called to give evidence.

The new company directors called to give evidence in Friday's letter to creditors are former directors Barry Cronin, Rolf Krecklenberg, Paul Manka and Geoff Williams.

Also to be examined are Mr Fitzgerald, the internal audit manager, and Guy Hutchings, who was chief executive of subsidiary MFS Investment Management.

The latest set of examinations are set to take place in June.


----------



## marcom (20 April 2010)

Here is some background on internal auditor Nigel Fitzgerald:
*Octaviar staff seeks severance pay
*
    * Fiona Cameron
    * From: The Australian
    * *August 09, 2008* 12:00AM

  AN Octaviar executive sacked in June has filed a court action seeking $54,353 severance pay from the besieged funds manager.

Nigel Fitzgerald, an internal audit manager for Octaviar until he was retrenched, was kept on staff for nearly six months after the fortunes of the once high-flying tourism and property conglomerate hit the wall in January.

But Octaviar shortchanged him when it laid him off two months ago, according to the statement of claim Mr Fitzgerald has lodged in the District Court of Queensland, alleging breach of contract.

The claim joins a long list of court matters where creditors are seeking a combined total of hundreds of millions of dollars from Octaviar companies.

Mr Fitzgerald started work with Octaviar in August last year on a $260,442 package, made up of $247,313 base salary and $13,129 of superannuation.

He was made redundant on June 8, and filed his claim on July 31.

Octaviar, previously known as MFS Ltd, collapsed in January after it tried to stage a $550 million capital raising.

The company technically is still alive, but only with the support of its lenders. Since January, chairman Andrew Peacock and the majority of the board have resigned, as have most of the executive team.

Only a skeleton staff remains in the Gold Coast offices after the closure of the Melbourne and Sydney operations.

Mr Fitzgerald asserts in his statement of claim that on or around February 11, his employment contract was varied by verbal agreement, and a written variation signed by Octaviar on February 19.

Under the revised contract, Octaviar agreed to provide Mr Fitzgerald with six months' notice of termination or payment in lieu "at the defendant's discretion", according to the claim.

Octaviar gave Mr Fitzgerald two weeks' notice of his redundancy and the equivalent of 14 weeks' pay, "leaving a shortfall of 10 weeks' pay", the claim states.

In addition, according to the claim, Octaviar had miscalculated, setting the payments Mr Fitzgerald did receive on his base salary rather than on his total package.

Mr Fitzgerald said yesterday it was "a relatively straightforward issue".

"I'm obviously disappointed I've got to go through this to get them to pay me, but there's nothing I can do about it other than to proceed the way I am," he said.

Octaviar company secretary David Anderson last night said the matter would be decided by the court and he declined to comment further.

Octaviar's biggest creditor, the Public Trustee of Queensland, has a wind-up claim against the company listed for hearing in the Queensland Supreme Court next month. But the PTQ, representing noteholders owed $351 million, may not proceed with the action and is seeking a noteholders' vote on the issue.

Other Octaviar creditors include OPI Pacific Finance ($246 million), the Australian Taxation Office ($100 million) and Challenger Managed Investments ($100 million).


----------



## marcom (20 April 2010)

Just waiting for this examination:

*Public Trustee of Qld turns to Wellington Capital
*
    * Anthony Marx
    * From: The Courier-Mail
    * *May 11, 2009* 12:00AM

THE Brisbane merchant bank run by lawyer Jenny Hutson faces allegations it snared the valuable management rights to a $755 million fund for nothing.

The claim about Ms Hutson's firm Wellington Capital is included in Brisbane Supreme Court documents filed by the Public Trustee of Queensland, which is seeking the wind-up of two remaining entities in the failed Octaviar finance and tourism group.

*The Public Trustee claims only a liquidator can properly "investigate the disposal of the responsible entity for the (Octaviar) Premium Income Fund to Wellington Capital for no real consideration".
*
The document alleges Ms Hutson's close professional ties to former Octaviar executive director Chris Scott allowed them to work out a complicated payment scheme that effectively transferred ownership of PIF's oversight company to Wellington for free in June.

The document notes Wellington became the responsible entity for PIF two months ago.

Ms Hutson rejected the allegations, criticising them last week as "inaccurate and incomplete". "I take great offence at what the Public Trustee is doing," she said.

*Ms Hutson stressed Octaviar's administrators at accounting firm Deloitte had examined the sale of Octaviar Investment Management to Wellington and had concluded that the transaction was completed on "commercial terms".
*

(_*Comment: Yes that's the same Delloitte's who Justice McMurdo removed from the Octaviar administration for conflict of interest, and whose bill for the remainder of their work has been rejected by the Octaviar creditors committee which includes WC.*_)

Mr Scott lashed out at the Public Trustee, saying that Wellington's intervention had saved the fund from the appointment of bank receivers.

Ms Hutson has blamed the economic downturn for the scrapping of a 3 ¢ dividend promised late last year to the 10,387 investors in PIF, which trades on the National Stock Exchange.

She said $120 million worth of assets had already been sold and the upcoming auction of 10 properties could net $150 million, allowing her to start making distribution payments.

Ms Hutson said $100 million debt had already been paid off and efforts were under way in court to recover another $203 million from Octaviar entities.

Gold Coast-based Octaviar collapsed last year with debts of $1.9 billion.


----------



## marcom (20 April 2010)

Here is the Bentley's Notice to creditors regarding the additional examinees:


----------



## selciper (20 April 2010)

I find the latest news encouraging. There are going to be long-running revelations.

If we ever needed confirmation of the tremendous value this forum provides, today's collection of news is it! Where would we be without all of our monitors? Probably mostly in the dark, getting no information whatsoever from WC.


----------



## seamisty (20 April 2010)

I will also be particularly interested in what Guy Hutchings has to say for himself. In an MFS investor update I received dated 19th Feb, 2008 there was a couple of paragraphs of particular interest::

ASSETS HELD BY CUSTODIAN

MFSIM does not legally own the assets of the Fund, but holds the assets through its custodian, Perpetual Nominees Limited, on behalf of all its unit holders. In addition to these custody arrangements, MFSIM has other asset management procedures in place, aimed at ensuring the security of the assets of the Fund and your investment.

RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS LIMITATIONS AND NO INTERCOMPANY LOANS

The Fund does not have loans to MFS Limited. The Fund's Related Party Guidelines prohibit the Fund from making loans directly to MFS Limited, its wholly owned subsidiaries or its Directors.
Any Related Party transactions are published in the Fund's annual financial report.::::


Bearing in mind the alledged fraud involving forged documents and PIF illegal loan activities was meant to have taken place prior to this correspondence, if proven guilty does this investor update also become a misleading fraudulent report?

It also contained info in relation to Lloyds insurance stating 62% of the 40% PIF commercial loan portfolio was insured.

I could not find a copy of this update on the internet, did everyone else get a copy?

Seamisty


----------



## marcom (20 April 2010)

selciper, we would all look like this -


----------



## zixo (20 April 2010)

seamisty said:


> I will also be particularly interested in what Guy Hutchings has to say for himself. In an MFS investor update I received dated 19th Feb, 2008 there was a couple of paragraphs of particular interest::
> 
> ASSETS HELD BY CUSTODIAN
> 
> ...




Couldnt find anything which you were mentioning above
I was also told time and again that the PIF assets were safe as they were totally under control of the custodian - Perpetual. 
I was also assured by many employees of MFS that the PIF had insurance with LLoyds of London.
I'm positive most of the PIF investors were told that and if the need would arise would be willing to sign a formal stat dec petition

Cheers


----------



## seamisty (20 April 2010)

Not sure how often WC pass on investor emails to our duly elected Investor Advisory Committee Reps but I have not had a response from my email below.
Just in case it goes astray at WC I will post it on the forum!!!
Does anyone actually know any of the reps? Reps please feel free to contact me by private message on here if you would like to become members of the PIF Ag or just to liaise with the AG considering the hundreds of PIF investors who are members of which you were elected to represent.

Wellington Capital Ltd may not have informed us that they NEVER intended to reveal the voting results of the IAC prior to the vote, but I am sure they cannot stop any of you contacting us directly in your capacity as interested, experienced individuals concerned with all issues pertaining to the Fund. Thanks, Seamisty







Sent: Friday, 12 March 2010 2:30:01 PM 
To:  iac@newpif.com.au 

Dear IAC Reps,

                    I do not know if you are aware that there is a PIF Action Group which represents a substantial number of unitholders. The PIF AG invite you to correspond with us independently of Wellington Capital to discuss relevant Fund issues and concerns on behalf of our strong membership base.

Alternatively you may like to participate on Aussie Stock Forums where we have our own thread titled Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF   https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10937&highlight=ocv

I can be contacted by email at ............. for further discussion in relation to the above request or by ph on ................


----------



## seamisty (20 April 2010)

zixo said:


> Couldnt find anything which you were mentioning above
> I was also told time and again that the PIF assets were safe as they were totally under control of the custodian - Perpetual.
> I was also assured by many employees of MFS that the PIF had insurance with LLoyds of London.
> I'm positive most of the PIF investors were told that and if the need would arise would be willing to sign a formal stat dec petition
> ...



Thanks zixo, I am trying to determine if only a select few received it. This being the case it may not be available or known to those conducting legal enquiries and could be useful/important. Would others please let me know if they DID receive a copy please? Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (20 April 2010)

seamisty said:


> I will also be particularly interested in what Guy Hutchings has to say for himself. In an MFS investor update I received dated 19th Feb, 2008 there was a couple of paragraphs of particular interest::
> 
> ASSETS HELD BY CUSTODIAN
> 
> ...




Hi Seamisty,

I've located my copy and will email you a copy privately since our names are at the top of the letter.

Cheers, Cookie


----------



## seamisty (20 April 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> Hi Seamisty,
> 
> I've located my copy and will email you a copy privately since our names are at the top of the letter.
> 
> Cheers, Cookie



Thanks Cookie! I highlighted parts of mine ages ago and it won't fax properly and I don't have a scanner. I will see that it gets fowarded to possible interested parties.Seamisty


Just received it, yours is dated 22nd Feb 2008, so others would have got it also. Don't know why there would be different dates? thanks


----------



## Towbar (20 April 2010)

hELLO Seamisty,i received a letter dated 19th Feb 2008 from Guy Hutchings stating that Lloyds underwriters covers losses of up to 75%of each loan,& the number of loans insured was around  62% of the fund. TOWBAR


----------



## seamisty (21 April 2010)

Towbar said:


> hELLO Seamisty,i received a letter dated 19th Feb 2008 from Guy Hutchings stating that Lloyds underwriters covers losses of up to 75%of each loan,& the number of loans insured was around  62% of the fund. TOWBAR



Thanks Towbar, I am sure this letter/update is of relevance, some investors  received it
on the 22nd Feb, not sure why the difference in date as I (WA investors) were usually the last to receive notification of any description. I was eventually put on a MFS email database to receive PIF Notifications online which was way more efficient.


On many occasions I have asked Wellington Capital Ltd as to why they do not offer an email contact alternative rather than use the expensive mailout option. I have many lame/pathetic answers/excuses, my personal opinion is that Wellington Capital has never asked investors to provide email details.(Bearing in mind WC has a vested interest in Print Mail Logistics that provide services to WC if they are competitive price wise) My answer was:::
Unitholders have been given an opportunity to provide an email address to the Fund's registry,
Computershare Investor Services, since l1 August 2008::::::Email communication was the subject of your complaint received 28 January 2010 at 1 1 .46am and
the subject of a complaint investigation which was communicated to you on 22 February 2010 and
4 March 2010.
This information can be provided through the online service offered by Computershare or through
the updating of details using a change of details form. This information was provided in
correspondence accompanying each holding statement to unitholders.



Well I rest my case!! Computershare never sent me IAC nomination form, even after I contacted them twice. WC has never asked investors personally to provide email details in the 'must have printed communications'

While I am on a roll here I think I will start a new post !!! Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (21 April 2010)

SUPREME AND DISTRICT COURTS BRISBANE 

LAW LIST

Wednesday 21 April 2010 

COMMERCIAL LIST

RE: OCTAVIAR LIMITED (FORMERLY MFS LIMITED) 
 Justice Philip McMurdo
 Court 16
Floor 3 2.00PM   
(Application)


----------



## marcom (21 April 2010)

seamisty, we also received the Hutchings letter dated 22 February 2008.


----------



## marcom (21 April 2010)

David Kennedy is in the news again:

No saddling up for Al's polo farm
MATT O'SULLIVAN SMH CBD
April 21, 2010

Paul Keating's former piggery business partner, Al Constantinidis, will not be a happy camper. Constantinidis's plans to make a quick buck by redeveloping an old dairy farm at Windsor into polo fields and an equestrian centre for cashed-up horse lovers now seems to be further away than ever.

His Achilles heel appears to be an estimated $22 million in loans Constantinidis took out from the Mark McIvor-headed Gold Coast finance firm Equititrust.

Constantinidis has failed in his attempts to remove a receiver, David Clout, who was appointed to three of Big Al's companies by Equititrust in March after he defaulted on loans. *MFS's former chief operating officer, David Kennedy, is now in the same role at Equititrust* and is taking a personal interest in the matter.

Keen-eyed readers will remember that Kennedy allegedly had a heated discussion with Constantinidis and his staff at Windsor Turf in March, leading to a four-hour stand-off that ended when police intervened.

In the latest courtroom tussle, Constantinidis tried unsuccessfully to overturn the receiver's appointment by relying on a rarely used part of mortgage law which protects farmers. But Justice Reg Barrett ruled that he just wasn't enough of a farmer to qualify because the loans he took out were to redevelop the land.

The plan, had it taken off, could have been lucrative, given that the dairy farm is close to polo properties owned by the gambling mogul James Packer and property developer Andrew Roberts.


----------



## seamisty (21 April 2010)

Just how much of the alledged PIF fraud did Jenny Hutson know about before aquiring the management rights to our fund?

It will be interesting to hear what Mark Korda has to say. The article below puts Chris Scott and his advisor Jenny Hutson in the picture as far back as Jan 2008 when the proposed MFS capital raising was first muted (and ultimately led to the demise of MFS)

In my opinion any money left in the Octaviar coffers should be returned to where it was alledgedly stolen from, the investors of the Premium Income Fund who are still waiting for their $50million Support Facility!!! Seamisty


http://archive.traveldaily.com.au/2008/Feb08/td150208.pdf
Fri 15 Feb 08
Stella sale to be stymied
UNCERTAINTY about the future
of Stella Travel looks set to
continue, with action by former
S8 chief Chris Scott to throw a
spanner in the works of the
planned sale of the company.
Scott, who sold S8 to MFS for a
personal stake worth about
$300m in MFS shares, has seen his
wealth shattered by the
plummeting MFS financial position.
He’s claiming the sale of Stella
is the ‘scandal of the year’, with
the Financial Review saying he
plans to call an Extraordinary
General Meeting of MFS next
month to put a stop to the deal.
“Jenny Hutson is acting as my
adviser,” he said, claiming to
have identified individuals and
institutions who together control
52% of the company to back the
move to block the sale.
Scott says that on 26 Jan he
held talks with insolvency expert
Mark Korda and MFS ceo Craig
White about rising capital to save
the firm, and “the next thing we
know they have sold Stella.
“We are hopping mad about
this,” he said


----------



## selciper (21 April 2010)

Re Hutching's letter. I for one did not receive any letter from PIF around 22 February 08. My contact with PIF was, apart from the standard internet newsletters, by phone. My queries were always met with the assurance that we had a custodian in Perpetual, that PIF was "stand alone" and that PIF had lent no money to MFS itself. Most of the phone "consultants" sounded like amateurs reading from scripts and only managed to make me more suspicious than ever about our position. The only comfort I derived was from that much-used name "Perpetual"! In the end, they proved to have been of no assistance whatsoever.


----------



## simgrund (21 April 2010)

seamisty said:


> Thanks zixo, I am trying to determine if only a select few received it. This being the case it may not be available or known to those conducting legal enquiries and could be useful/important. Would others please let me know if they DID receive a copy please? Thanks, Seamisty




Good day Seamisty,
Yes, I wasn't forgotten in this mail out either. 
GH signature reprinted, otherwise it would qualify for an Ebay auction as an original by a celebrity.
Wasn't our protection by Lloyds insurances replaced by "support facility" (read: coerced into) adapted by us at an Extraordinary meeting back in 2006? 
The mail out figures could be somewhere in the records being examined now in Supreme Court. 

Regards, simgrund


----------



## Duped (21 April 2010)

simgrund said:


> Good day Seamisty,
> Yes, I wasn't forgotten in this mail out either.
> GH signature reprinted, otherwise it would qualify for an Ebay auction as an original by a celebrity.
> Wasn't our protection by Lloyds insurances replaced by "support facility" (read: coerced into) adapted by us at an Extraordinary meeting back in 2006?
> ...




My recollection: the Support Facility was introduced in exchange for changing MFSIM's fee formula that ended up greatly increasing MFSIM's cut. Oh! and the 06 vote also introduced the 180/360 day suspension periods.


----------



## simgrund (21 April 2010)

Duped said:


> My recollection: the Support Facility was introduced in exchange for changing MFSIM's fee formula that ended up greatly increasing MFSIM's cut. Oh! and the 06 vote also introduced the 180/360 day suspension periods.




Good day Duped,
I stand corrected. Checked the Explanatory Memorandum of the Special General (not Exrdnry) meeting of 23/8/06 and all 3 resolutions. On first reading, res.1 appears to be a noble foregoing by RE of fees untill "the Fund has paid all Unit Holders' distributions, outstanding valid redemptions and expenses associated with operating the Fund." 
I now go back for some more pain to the 3 resolutions from Expl. Mem. of 18/9/08 meeting. 

Thanks


----------



## Duped (22 April 2010)

Remotely relevant sobering read from Business Spectator's Stephen Bartholomeusz.  Emphasis added.



19/4/2010
*ASIC comes too late*

"Long after the horses have bolted the Australian Securities and Investments Commission has* issued a consultation paper on improving disclosure for retail investors on infrastructure entities.
*
"Having regard to recent developments in this sector," ASIC says in the paper, "we believe it is an appropriate time for initiatives to improve disclosure relating top infrastructure entities to enhance investor confidence and understanding."

Appropriate time? Recent developments?

The externally managed, listed satellite funds model for infrastructure investments was demolished by the financial crisis. Babcock and Allco have gone and Macquarie has distanced itself from management of the funds that once bore its brand. *There are less than a handful of those vehicles left and it is improbable that anyone would try to replicate that particular model any time soon.*

ASIC is, it appears, motivated not just by what has transpired but what might occur in future. It points to expectations that $700 billion of infrastructure investment will be made in Australia over the next decade, with more than half of it likely to be raised from the private sector and the paper is presumably motivated by the fear that history might repeat itself.

*The paper focuses on disclosure benchmarks to address to issues of complex financial engineering, the opacity of the models used to attract investment, management fee structure that result in inflated fees and asset prices and provide incentives for related party deals as well as entrenchment of managers.* ASIC does say that if a disclosure regime – it uses an "if not, why not" approach – proved ineffective, it could use its powers to prohibit arrangements and direct entities.

The paper clearly comes too late to discipline the first flood of the infrastructure fund model pioneered by Macquarie and "refined" by Babcock and Allco and others.

Most of those entities have either disappeared or, like Transurban, have *evolved into a new model of more conservatively financed, internally-managed vehicles that live within their cash flows and aren’t reliant on borrowing against revaluations to expand and generate rising fee income for their sponsors and investors.*

Macquarie and others are still very active in the unlisted funds space, but that’s a territory populated by big and sophisticated investors who shouldn’t need regulatory protection.

For the generation of institutions and other investors who lived through the crisis and the collapse of the now discredited model of externally-managed infrastructure funds, the paper has come several years too late.

One shouldn’t, however, underestimate the ingenuity of financial markets to find new variations on a theme and the prospective flood of new infrastructure offerings does, given recent experience, require regulators who will be more vigilant and proactive in future than they were in the past.

The starting point for regulating any complex corporate structure, but particularly one that involves related parties, is disclosure. *The experience of the crisis also argues against arrangements that entrench managers or that create poison pills that make them difficult to remove.*

*Disclosure by itself probably won’t be sufficient: ASIC and ASX may need to be prepared to prohibit particular structures and agreements that make it impossible or overly costly in practice to discipline or remove poorly-performed managers* if another boom in collective investments in infrastructure does develop."


----------



## simgrund (22 April 2010)

This bororwed from Storm thread, #4806

I am certain we qualify for the same consideration; 
could our PIF IAC barrack ASIC for spreading the good work, please!

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...website-pd20100414-4H8UL?OpenDocument&src=hp7

https://storm.asic.gov.au.


----------



## seamisty (22 April 2010)

simgrund said:


> This bororwed from Storm thread, #4806
> 
> I am certain we qualify for the same consideration;
> could our PIF IAC barrack ASIC for spreading the good work, please!
> ...



Simgrund if ASIC (or for that matter WC) had treated PIF investors with the same amount of intervention having been notified of our situation early in 2008 by many concerned unitholders it would not have been left to individuals to commence the Class Action.

It was only a matter of months after details of the CA were reported in the media that ASIC announced their court action against Octaviar. Coincednce? Or were they frightened of being seen as not taking action when they had been approached much earlier with the same evidence?

I was initially told by ASIC that it was not their policy to intervene on behalf of publically listed companies.Ii thought this was a total load of crap at the time because the alledged crimes/fraud took place well before PIF was listed on the NSX!

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (22 April 2010)

Another aspect of this debarcle which I hope will come out in the public examinations is at what particular time did it become apparent that the $147mill worth of dud assets were non existant and the money had gone elsewhere?

According to the media article below, Chris Scott met with Mark Korda and MFS CEO Craig White as early as 26th Jan 2008. His adviser was Jenny Hutso.This was well before Chris Scott was appointed to the board. It also demonstrates that Jenny Hutson was possibly involved or privvy to  discussions regarding MFS from when the **** first hit the fan at MFS in Jan 2008. Seamisty

http://archive.traveldaily.com.au/2008/Feb08/td150208.pdf

Fri 15 Feb 08 Page 2

Stella sale to be stymied

UNCERTAINTY about the future

of Stella Travel looks set to

continue, with action by former

S8 chief Chris Scott to throw a

spanner in the works of the

planned sale of the company.

Scott, who sold S8 to MFS for a

personal stake worth about

$300m in MFS shares, has seen his

wealth shattered by the

plummeting MFS financial position.

He’s claiming the sale of Stella

is the ‘scandal of the year’, with

the Financial Review saying he

plans to call an Extraordinary

General Meeting of MFS next

month to put a stop to the deal.

“Jenny Hutson is acting as my

adviser,” he said, claiming to

have identified individuals and

institutions who together control

52% of the company to back the

move to block the sale.

Scott says that on 26 Jan he

held talks with insolvency expert

Mark Korda and MFS ceo Craig

White about rising capital to save

the firm, and “the next thing we

know they have sold Stella.

“We are hopping mad about

this,” he said.


----------



## seamisty (23 April 2010)

NSX ANNOUNCEMENT

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722703.PDF

Notification of Change of Registry
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund is responsible for registry
services. These services have been previously provided on a subcontracting basis by Computershare Investor
Services Pty Limited. The subcontracted provider of registry services will now be:
Armstrong Registry Services Limited
Level 22, 307 Queen Street
BRISBANE QLD 4000
GPO Box 897
BRISBANE QLD 4001
Telephone: (07) 3231 0050
Facsimile: (07) 3231 0099
Email: registry@armstrongregistries.com.au
Web: www.armstrongregistries.com.au
Computershare will cease to be the registry services provider at close of business on Friday 23 April 2010
and Armstrong Registry Services Limited will be the registry services provider commencing Tuesday
27 April 2010.
Unitholders with queries in relation to the investment in the Premium Income Fund should continue to
contact the Wellington Hotline on 1300 854 885 or by email investorrelations@newpif.com.au.

I posted this on the forum earlier::Jennifer Joan Hutson is a director of Armstrong Registry Services. A bit too cosy for my liking!!!!!!

Armstrong Registry Services Limited.
Armstrong Registry Services Limited provides tailored registry services solutions to listed and
unlisted companies and funds. With talented staff and first class technology, Armstrong Registry
Services Limited is equipped with the resources and skills to appropriately communicate with their
clients' key stakeholders in a personalised and timely fashion.

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (23 April 2010)

http://www.armstrongregistries.com.au/services.shtml

Armstrong provides a complete range of registry services including:

registry management including payment of dividends, annual general meeting services, reporting, shareholder enquiry management; 
capital raising and other corporate actions such as buy backs, share sale facilities, share purchase plans, takeovers and rights issues; 
specialist services such as unlisted trust registry management. 
Armstrong Registry Services takes a partnership approach to working with our clients and developing and understanding of our clients’ unique needs. We pride ourselves on developing products and services to the highest quality that offer the greatest value for our clients


----------



## Cookie1 (23 April 2010)

More on Armstrong Registry Services from their website:


"A *new* provider of registry services in Australia which draws its roots from business acumen and attention to detail.

Armstrong Registry Services is a boutique registry service provider for listed and unlisted companies and trusts throughout Australia. We pride ourselves on innovation, exceptional service and the ability to provide a flexible approach in order to meet our clients’ needs."

Just how new are they? There's not even a capability for clients to log on to look at their own records. It says "client logon - coming soon" so they must be *very* new. I couldn't find anything about the company itself other than what they purport to do - nothing about when it started, who the directors are. Seamisty, you're amazing at being able to ferret out information!  JH iooks to be trying to get her hands on every cent possible out of the PIF. It's too cosy for me, too. _*There's certainly a conflict of interest here!*_

I'd like to hear *her* explanation of why she's dumped Computershare! It's obvious why she did it but I'm sure her explanation would be something else!


----------



## seamisty (23 April 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> More on Armstrong Registry Services from their website:
> 
> 
> "A *new* provider of registry services in Australia which draws its roots from business acumen and attention to detail.
> ...



BUT WAIT COOKIE, THERES MORE!!!


Print Mail Logistics Limited Market Release
25 November 2009
Subscription for Minority Interest in Armstrong Registry Services Limited
Print Mail Logistics Limited has subscribed for a minority interest in Queensland based registry
services provider, Armstrong Registry Services Limited.
Armstrong Registry Services Limited provides tailored registry services solutions to listed and
unlisted companies and funds. With talented staff and first class technology, Armstrong Registry
Services Limited is equipped with the resources and skills to appropriately communicate with their
clients' key stakeholders in a personalised and timely fashion.
Managing Director, Nigel Elias said, 'both Print Mail Logistics Limited and Armstrong Registry
Services Limited are in the business of eff,rcient, effective and precise communication. There is a
positive synergy existing between the work undertaken by Armstrong Registry Services Limited
and Print Mail Logistics Limited. This synergy has the potential to create additional income for
Print Mail Logistics Limited'.
For further information please contact:
Nigel Elias
Print Mail Logistics Limited
ACN 103 116 856
Phone: 03 62208444
Email: nelias@pml.com.au


The plot thickens!! Seamisty


----------



## gardie (23 April 2010)

Hi all

Just read the report delivered by Balmain Triology on the old City Pacific Fund and while there has been some complaints about their lack of communication they provided significant detail including 
- detail report from CEO incuding three examples of how they have worked through problem developments and achieved outcome better than what was provided for in accounts.
Update on CBA position
Financial statements
Investment committee reports (first and second meeting)

They seem to have rolled up their sleeves and got on with the job. 

No stupid listing 

Listened to what investors want and it also appears that they are trying to structure a process to meet the needs of people who just want funds out and those who will wait for funds and rebuild value.

Now WC someone is in the market place showing how it should be done. No silly battlefield quotes and while they have a long way to go it shows that there are alternatives out there


----------



## seamisty (23 April 2010)

Thanks to the PIF investors providing me with more detail on Armstrong Registry Services.  Seamisty


WC used to be called ARMSTRONG CAPITAL LIMITED.  See ASIC info on former name for WC below.  Also, ARMSTRONG REGISTRY SERVICES LIMITED registered as a company on 24 August 2009.




 Extracted from ASIC's database at AEST 18:36:35 on 23/04/2010 
Name WELLINGTON CAPITAL LIMITED 
ACN 114 248 458 

ABN 45 114 248 458 

Type Australian Public Company, Limited By Shares 
Registration Date 12/05/2005 
Next Review Date 12/05/2010 
Status Registered 
Locality of Registered Office Brisbane QLD 4000 
Jurisdiction Australian Securities & Investments Commission 

Former Name(s) ARMSTRONG CAPITAL LIMITED 









 Name ARMSTRONG REGISTRY SERVICES LIMITED 
ACN 139 056 643 

ABN 26 139 056 643 

Type Australian Public Company, Limited By Shares 
Registration Date 24/08/2009 
Next Review Date 24/08/2010 
Status Registered 
Locality of Registered Office Brisbane QLD 4000 
Jurisdiction Australian Securities & Investments Commission


----------



## seamisty (23 April 2010)

http://www.carneys.com.au/news/australian-financial-review/5

Another re cap from the AFR  9th july 2009


"Wellington have negotiated with the proponents that it be discontinued," Wellington Investment Management boss Jenny Hutson said yesterday. "The actual action is proceeding but not against Wellington. The action is against the PIF fund, it doesn't make sense in effect for unit holders to be suing themselves."

Yeh, thats right Jenny, so where do we stand now as a result of Wellington Capital Ltd not cooperating with our lawyers as was originally agreed to by yourself? WC was given the opportunity to provide Carneys with access to relevant PIF documentation that would assist in PIF investors to reveal the truth as to how our fund was alledgedly plundered with the possibility of making restitution to investors. We are not suing ourselves, we are suing our former responsible entity who by all accounts will be held responsible if wrong doing is proved by legal action taken on investors behalf. Assuming all was above board and complied within the correct guidelines why would there be any problems?

Early days and optimism is gradually returning to investors, a shame it is not from a management perspective but as a result of legal exposures that could well lead to  possible compensation.

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (24 April 2010)

"Armstrong Registry Services Limited provides tailored registry services solutions to listed and
unlisted companies and funds. With talented staff and first class technology, Armstrong Registry
Services Limited is equipped with the resources and skills to appropriately communicate with their
clients' key stakeholders in a personalised and timely fashion..."

Delighted to read that we have yet more TALENTED
staff looking after our interests. The above guff is very similar in its presentation to the WC mission statement. PIF investors aren't all that stupid!


----------



## marcom (24 April 2010)

On Friday 23 April ASIC filed an amended statement of claim in the Brisbane Supreme Court in relation to 12122/09 AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION -V- MANAGED INVESTMENTS LIMITED & others - http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...eNumber=12122/09&Court=Supreme&Location=BRISB

35  	 23/04/2010  	 Amended Statement of Claim  	  	 Applicant

Looks like more evidence or more MFS people to be added???. David Kennedy must have really spilled the beans at the Liquidators Examination.


----------



## seamisty (24 April 2010)

marcom said:


> On Friday 23 April ASIC filed an amended statement of claim in the Brisbane Supreme Court in relation to 12122/09 AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION -V- MANAGED INVESTMENTS LIMITED & others - http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...eNumber=12122/09&Court=Supreme&Location=BRISB
> 
> 35  	 23/04/2010  	 Amended Statement of Claim  	  	 Applicant
> 
> Looks like more evidence or more MFS people to be added???. David Kennedy must have really spilled the beans at the Liquidators Examination.



'Mr King has denied any wrongdoing and to this day stands behind former MFS staff members and directors, whom he described as loyal and hardworking.'

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/01/16/179455_news.html


I think the time has come to see just how 'loyal' former MFS/OCV staff members and directors are Marcom. Not much point in denying tabled evidence I wouldn't think.


Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (24 April 2010)

seamisty said:


> I posted this on the forum earlier::Jennifer Joan Hutson is a director of Armstrong Registry Services. A bit too cosy for my liking!!!!!!
> 
> Seamisty




"... Perpetual’s role as Custodian is limited to holding assets of the Premium Income Fund *as agent of the responsible entity*. ..."  [see Section 5.8, page 53 Explanatory Memorandum.] (emphasis added)

Yes, she just can't help herself .. anything to rake more and more of investors' money in her direction.  I'll bet those legal actions the fund has been (or is) engaged in are  a real blessing for her.

She's not getting any management fees, but that doesn't mean she's not  making good money out of the fund.  

I'd guess most investors wouldn't know how to make an ASIC free company search http://www.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/gns030c?acn=114_248_458&juris=9&hdtext=ACN&srchsrc=1

I'd reckon no one but members of your forum know that Jenny's setting up another stream of income from the fund for herself.

I wonder if what she is doing is ethical, or whether it would pass muster with ASIC?

Not a good look with Jenny having one foot in the fund, and the other in the custodian. (no pun intended, but it does make for an interesting graphic)

..


----------



## seamisty (25 April 2010)

Business as usual at Elysium Fields!!! Shame life does not go on as normal for thousands of PIF investors that contributed financially to this world class polo complex. Er, how much was Mr King paid for doing such a great job of leaving many investors financially ruined? Still living in a shed Michael? I hope it rains all weekend and your weekend sucks!!! Seamisty


THE ELYSIAN TOURNAMENTS
http://www.queenslandpolo.com.au/?PageID=79&wp=36
The Elysian Tournament on the 3/4th April has been cancelled, however the series of 2 goal tournaments at Elysian Fields will commence the weekend AFTER Easter 2010.

At this stage a number of teams are already confirmed so it will be a great and busy start to the Qld season.

The first weekend (10th April 2010 weekend) will be one tournament . 

The second  and third weekends (17th and 24th April 2010 weekends) will be one tournament but held over two weekends.

These tournaments will give a good lead into the 4  goals  in May


----------



## selciper (25 April 2010)

As far as I can see, the Armstrong registry contact phone number is  (07) 3231 0050. Is there a 1300 or 1800 number for interstate callers?


----------



## seamisty (26 April 2010)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/26/2882479.htm

Financial advisers to lose commissions
By Samantha Hawley

New laws will soon come into force which ban financial planners from receiving commissions and benefits which may cause a conflict of interest. 

The Corporations Act will also be amended so financial advisers are required by law to put the interests of their clients first. 

Financial Services Minister Chris Bowen says he is not attacking the financial services industry, he is just making it more professional. 

"Thousands of Australians have their life savings wiped out by inappropriate financial advice," he said.

"They have a right to be angry and we have an obligation to act."

The announcement is the Government's response to a parliamentary inquiry into the financial products and services sector, which began after the collapse of Storm Financial and Opes Prime.

Labor backbencher Bernie Ripoll delivered his report last year.

Mr Bowen will announce the changes today, including a legislated ban on financial advisers receiving commissions - a much tougher measure than the Ripoll report recommended.

"By installing a legislative ban, we ensure that no operator in the future can get around conflicts of interest," he said.

"It's important that we have a very clear set of rules and those rules are that it is illegal for a financial adviser to pay commissions to recommend their products.

"Customers and clients when they're seeing a financial planner deserve to know that a financial planner is acting in their best interest and when you have commissions that is simply impossible."

Mr Bowen says a substantial proportion of financial planners' income comes from commissions, but they will adjust.

"The legislation will take a significant amount of drafting," he said.

"We will endeavour to get the legislation through the parliament this year but of course there'll be an election later in the year, but certainly the first of July 2012 is the start date for the new regime."

The Federal Opposition's spokesman, Luke Hartsuyker, says the proposed changes could disadvantage low income earners because it would mean higher upfront fees for financial advice.

"All commissions should be properly disclosed to that client. The opposition has no problem with that," he said.

"But the key issue here is if an individual wants to purchase advice and pay for that advice via commissions, rather than having to pay substantial upfront fees, they are prevented from doing so."

The Government will also give the Australian Securities and Investments Commission more power to act against unscrupulous operators.

Mr Bowen says he is also trying to expand the availability of low cost financial advice so more Australians have access to it.

He will not say whether it will be tax deductable as recommended by the committee.

"That will be considered in light of the Ken Henry review, and of course that's being released next Sunday," he said.

"I've made it very clear to the financial planning industry that it would be very expensive and therefore difficult to justify."

Mr Bowen would not guarantee that no taxpayer would be worse off following the release of the Henry tax review, but said there would be a substantial government response when it was released.


----------



## Mary Lynch (26 April 2010)

Gotta wonder how much of our money was used to pay ongoing kickbacks.  The mind boggles!     
If a fund has to pay for financial advisers to back them when they are already loudly advertising 9% interest, there has to be something wrong. One would think that any donkey would smell a rat!

Do such outgoings get mentioned in tax returns or ASX updates?    I am sure that the payments wouldn't have come out of directors' pockets...haha....


----------



## seamisty (26 April 2010)

selciper said:


> "Armstrong Registry Services Limited provides tailored registry services solutions to listed and
> unlisted companies and funds. With talented staff and first class technology, Armstrong Registry
> Services Limited is equipped with the resources and skills to appropriately communicate with their
> clients' key stakeholders in a personalised and timely fashion..."
> ...



Also noticibly missing from a new website launching its debut is names of the talented staff employed by this 'boutique registry service provider, priding them selves on innovation, exceptional service and the ability to provide a flexible approach in order to meet clients’ needs'

 No glowing accolades of highly qualified individuals,  armed with bachelor of this or member of such and such, or current director of at least 6 other companies, accompanied with a string  of former positions held in high profile companies etc. No, nothing. ZIP!!!

I see you can 'Click to get in touch instantly' though where you are redirected to a mailing address ARMSTRONG REGISTRY SERVICES LIMITED
GPO Box 987
Brisbane Qld 4001


Or you can contact The Privacy Officer
Armstrong Registry Services Limited
GPO Box 897
BRISBANE QLD 4001

OOPS!!! Different PO Box No. :dunno: Typo??
Bit sus?


More ferreting needed. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (26 April 2010)

seamisty said:


> Also noticibly missing from a new website launching its debut is names of the talented staff employed by this 'boutique registry service provider, priding them selves on innovation, exceptional service and the ability to provide a flexible approach in order to meet clients’ needs'
> 
> No glowing accolades of highly qualified individuals,  armed with bachelor of this or member of such and such, or current director of at least 6 other companies, accompanied with a string  of former positions held in high profile companies etc. No, nothing. ZIP!!!
> 
> ...



http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...CwrGRE&sig=AHIEtbQ8obbNO0ZcwCLo_HVKTANcRj5EIw

The above link has Armstrong Registry Services address listed as PO box 897 along with shareholder details. So not sure how instantly you will be contacted if you mail to PO Box 987.

Seamisty (the ferret)


----------



## seamisty (26 April 2010)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722200.PDF (Take note of the header at the top right of the page ARMSTRONG
REGISTRY SERVICES LIMITED )

Note Mr Nigel Benjamin Elias, managing director and shareholder at Print Mail Logistics is also a director and shareholder of Armstrong registry Services. He was previously a director of Lewis Securities Ltd (http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/ASIC_B11_04.pdf/$file/ASIC_B11_04.pdf) now in liquidation. (Lewis Securities Ltd is an interesting story for another day!) Still digging, Seamisty



PRINT MAIL LOGISTICS LIMITED
Top 20 Holdings as at 2 November 2009
Security Classes Selected for this Report: ordinary fully paid shares

1. Landav Pty Ltd 
2. Mr Jeremy Capo-Bianco and Mrs Suzanne Capo-Bianco
NSS Trustees Limited <The Capo Bianco Retirement A"/C> 
3. Armstrong Registry Services Limited 
4. Jeremy Capo-Bianco and Suzanne Capo-Bianco NSS Trustees Ltd
5. Pumbaa Investments Pty Ltd <Penrose Family Trust>
6. Mr Nigel Benjamin Elias
7. Mr Nigel Benjamin Elias
8. Dermos Pty Ltd <RV Jordan Settlement No 2 A/C>
9. Landav Pty Ltd <Jennifer Ann Campbell A/C>
10. Mr Nigel Benjamin Elias
11. Mr Robert Craig Cameron
12. Wellington Capital Limited
13. Ms Jane Anne George
14. Estival Holdings Pty Ltd
15. Hobart Properties & Securities Pty Limited
16. Lewis Securities Ltd (in liquidation)
17. Dermos Pty Ltd
18. Inveham Pty Ltd
19. Mr Nigel Benjamin Elias
20. Ms Maree Ellis


----------



## simgrund (26 April 2010)

seamisty said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722200.PDF (Take note of the header at the top right of the page ARMSTRONG
> REGISTRY SERVICES LIMITED )
> 
> Note Mr Nigel Benjamin Elias, managing director and shareholder at Print Mail Logistics is also a director and shareholder of Armstrong registry




Wonders of transparency!!!
Still at a loss to be pro or anti.
A simple note from WC giving us comparative rates from Computershare and Armstrong registries would avoid all this bile and angst. May be there are substantial savings in this family arrangement.
Is it ASIC'S concern to intervene in this related party maze?


----------



## jim Byrnes (26 April 2010)

I am attempting to get access to the PIF action group data base .
i want to be able to send emails to all parties.
I want to be able contact by email all or as many as possible unit holders as possible.
Lets start by saying all will be revelled shortly .
But here is a little gossip to get those who are angry , white HOT .
McCraken Country Club is for sale by the receiver , we may think this is yet another dud loan made by MFS . The borrower thinks otherwise , he was drawn to 38m of a 50m facility when they ran out of money , he is bringing a large claim against PIF . He made it through discovery and is claim is still on foot .
jenny H and Wellington in legal documents in this case have said that they are indemnified out of the fund for any costs, damages and losses. Well the plaintiff claims that Jenny H has been very negligent yet she expects to use your money to solve a problem . owe and the best for last ....he has a $160,000,000 damages claim against PIF ...the generous chap has said he will settle for about 80m .
Unit holders must get out of wellington and fast , that's one of four claims from lenders 
there is a solution , i need all email addresses 
thanks


----------



## jim Byrnes (26 April 2010)

by the way , a claim ...any claim that may effect the fund should have been announced on the NSX .....go check .....not a word ...that is a big mistake .
it is an obligation for wellington to keep the market properly informed


----------



## seamisty (26 April 2010)

jim Byrnes said:


> by the way , a claim ...any claim that may effect the fund should have been announced on the NSX .....go check .....not a word ...that is a big mistake .
> it is an obligation for wellington to keep the market properly informed




Hi Jim Byrnes, I have sent you a private message. These are serious allegations and need to be verified. The only fast way out of Wellington Capital is via the NSX for less than 7 cents per unit so that option is unacceptable to most. Contact to Action Group members can be done re the AG themselves if it is neccesary so will need more details/evidence.  Regards, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (26 April 2010)

jim Byrnes said:


> I am attempting to get access to the PIF action group data base .
> i want to be able to send emails to all parties.
> I want to be able contact by email all or as many as possible unit holders as possible.
> Lets start by saying all will be revelled shortly .
> ...



http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...ale-at-a-cool-8m/story-e6frea83-1225843996398

VICTOR Harbor's golf course and 62-room hotel complex, the McCracken Country Club, is on the market for $8 million. 

Country Club Hotels & Resorts chief executive Andrew Bullock said investors were moving on to new projects after building up the site over the past 10 years.

"Now is the right time. We think the signs of recovery in the hotel sector have been pretty sizeable . . . (and) South Australian tourism has been fairly resilient," he said.

"The property is fairly unique, though.

" We think the buyers will be out there regardless of the environment.

"But there is an enormous flow-on to the community, not only through salaries and wages but through purchasing and local distributors of fruit and vegetables.

"Whoever buys the property will still require (our) 70 staff and they will still need goods and services."

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
The sale includes the par-72 golf course and 62-room hotel complex, with convention centre built in 2005, and 14 lakes. Victor Harbor chief executive Graeme Maxwell said the sale was significant as the resort was not only one of the area's biggest employers but was also a big supporter of the community.

He believed it had been performing well "so an incoming operator is likely to want that to continue.


Guess I could always ph Andrew Bullock? Seamisty


----------



## jim Byrnes (26 April 2010)

i think that there is an offer in the wind for PIF investors .
i think its a substantial increase on the current level 
they want to get rid of PIF and finish all the projects not sell them for fire sale prices .
that Woollongong deal slaughtered 30m in upside


----------



## seamisty (27 April 2010)

Court freezes MFS payment KATE LAHEY 
April 27, 2010
A COURT has frozen a controversial $20 million payment made by the former liquidator of collapsed investment group MFS to Fortress Credit Corporation.

Deloitte - which was later removed from its role as liquidator - made the payment more than a year ago. The Queensland Supreme Court has now ruled the payment should be frozen until after a High Court decision on related issues.

Examinations into MFS's collapse resume in the New South Wales Supreme Court today. Lawyers for liquidator Kate Barnet, of Bentleys Corporate Recovery, which took over from Deloitte in September 2009, will be looking for more evidence of when MFS (later known as Octaviar) became insolvent



Article continues
http://www.smh.com.au/business/court-freezes-mfs-payment-20100426-tnd4.html


----------



## seamisty (27 April 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/court-freezes-20m-payment-by-former-mfs-liquidator-20100426-tn9e.html

Extracted from above Article:

The liquidator also plans to examine external advisers to MFS: Mark Korda of KordaMentha, a KPMG partner, Mitch Craig, and Philip Hoser, a former partner at Freehills.

Earlier this month the court heard that in early 2008 KordaMentha assured MFS executives the group was solvent. Mr Craig signed the MFS 2007 annual report.

In the Queensland Supreme Court on Thursday, Justice Philip McMurdo ordered that $20 million paid to Fortress Credit Corporation be frozen until the High Court rules on a matter between Fortress and the Public Trustee of Queensland.


----------



## seamisty (27 April 2010)

jim Byrnes said:


> I am attempting to get access to the PIF action group data base .
> i want to be able to send emails to all parties.
> I want to be able contact by email all or as many as possible unit holders as possible.
> Lets start by saying all will be revelled shortly .
> ...



I think you may be referring to this resort JByrnes?::

The Resort opened in March 2008 and has
operated successfully during its first year of
business. The Resort was the winner of the
2008 Victorian Tourism Awards for the Best
New Tourism Development.
The Fund intends to continue to operate this
business in order to build upon the ultimate
asset value of the Resort.
The security property also encompasses a residential
development surrounding the golf course.
The Fund will facilitate completion of this development and
realise the resultant lots as soon as possible in order to maximise
the Fund’s return from this loan.:::

However yes, if there is a claim against the PIF I agree we should have been notified re the NSX. 

Seamisty


----------



## jim Byrnes (27 April 2010)

my details on the property are limited as i have not taken a great interest in the actual property. Its the mechanics of the transaction that have had my interest.
As for the 20m freeze , great , i wonder how much finally makes its way to the PIF investors 
is the liquidator funded 
by who 
whats the funding agreement 
whats the liquidator got on the clock 
if the return is more that 5 million out of 20m i would be surprised .

its time to stop the feeding frenzy 
no one is adding value , just ripping funds out 

but hope is on the way !!


----------



## seamisty (27 April 2010)

jim Byrnes said:


> my details on the property are limited as i have not taken a great interest in the actual property. Its the mechanics of the transaction that have had my interest.
> As for the 20m freeze , great , i wonder how much finally makes its way to the PIF investors
> is the liquidator funded
> by who
> ...



Not sure if you are aware JByrnes but PIF investors already have a class action underway with Carney Lawyers and IMF litigation Funders.

Seamisty


----------



## jim Byrnes (27 April 2010)

i know all about class actions and litigation funding .
i am part of the ALF Group Pty ltd 
that in turn owns Australian Litigation Funders , ALF General Liquidator Funding co and Australian Corporate restructuring services to name a few .
Check again the IMF funded action is in infant stages and there is no real claim yet


----------



## seamisty (27 April 2010)

jim Byrnes said:


> i know all about class actions and litigation funding .
> i am part of the ALF Group Pty ltd
> that in turn owns Australian Litigation Funders , ALF General Liquidator Funding co and Australian Corporate restructuring services to name a few .
> Check again the IMF funded action is in infant stages and there is no real claim yet



I'm confused This company?
Executive Summary: Tuesday 13 April, 2010
By Matt O'Sullivan | smh.com.au | 13 April 



Big Jim Byrnes sure has a way with words. When his company, Australian Litigation Funders Pty Ltd, became a corporate casualty last year, the colourful Bellevue Hill businessman didn't want its ''good name'' sullied by corporate failure.

So what should the bankrupt and banned company director do? Well Big Jim changed the company's name to include that of his nemesis, Ian Lazar (formerly known as Ian Rogut).

So now when the company appears in lists of corporate carcasses, it comes up as ''Lazar Bummer Finance Pty Ltd'' (even though Lazar has nothing to do with the company).

Big Jim wouldn't explain to CBD yesterday why the company's name had been changed. But he could have been a tad miffed at Lazar, who came out on top in a court case early last year when they came head-to-head over the winding up of Big Jim's litigation funding company.

Numerous colourful emails surfaced in the Federal Court case, including one in which Big Jim demanded a portion of loans be repaid to a client. ''Do it or watch how I huff and puff and blow your house down,'' he wrote in one email.

In another he wrote: ''I don't like bullies … there is only one way to deal with them and that's to let them no [sic] were [sic] they stand and deal them numerous decisive blows up front.''

But the bottom line was that the case ended up becoming a bit of a bummer for Big Jim.


----------



## Duped (27 April 2010)

seamisty said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722200.PDF (Take note of the header at the top right of the page ARMSTRONG
> REGISTRY SERVICES LIMITED )
> 
> Note Mr Nigel Benjamin Elias, managing director and shareholder at Print Mail Logistics is also a director and shareholder of Armstrong registry Services. He was previously a director of Lewis Securities Ltd (http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/ASIC_B11_04.pdf/$file/ASIC_B11_04.pdf) now in liquidation. (Lewis Securities Ltd is an interesting story for another day!) Still digging, Seamisty
> ...




Chortle chortle.  Mr Nigel Benjamin Elias has 4 of the top 20 holdings.  Why???? Why not amalgamate? All those extra copies of docs that need to be produced and mailed.  What a waste.  Or  ... hmmm ... how is Armstrong Registry Services remunerated?  Flat fee or does the number of holdeings come into the calculation?  My confidence in the integrity of the entire finance industry couldn't be lower. (Down along side our unit price. 6.9c to buy. How depressing.) Am I unfairly sceptical?


----------



## selciper (27 April 2010)

Duped - I share your feelings, but I sense that sometime in the future somebody will come an almighty cropper as a result of having being too clever by half.


----------



## Duped (27 April 2010)

Aaaah.  That's moving in the right direction. Bid just went up for 250,000 at 9c.


----------



## selciper (27 April 2010)

Typo in my last, sorry. "Having been too clever by half..."


----------



## seamisty (27 April 2010)

seamisty said:


> Also noticibly missing from a new website launching its debut is names of the talented staff employed by this 'boutique registry service provider, priding them selves on innovation, exceptional service and the ability to provide a flexible approach in order to meet clients’ needs'
> 
> No glowing accolades of highly qualified individuals,  armed with bachelor of this or member of such and such, or current director of at least 6 other companies, accompanied with a string  of former positions held in high profile companies etc. No, nothing. ZIP!!!
> 
> ...



 I see the PO Box no discrepancy has been rectified and there is now just one PO Box, 897. I bet WC are SOOOOO GLAD they DO MONITOR this thread, once you sift through the same old regurgitated rhetoric, there is some VERY interesting snippets posted from time to time. Perhaps don't be in such a rush to post things at weeks end WC?:dance:Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (27 April 2010)

Duped said:


> Aaaah.  That's moving in the right direction. Bid just went up for 250,000 at 9c.




WOW - that's nearly as much as JH's promised 3 cents!!!!


----------



## jim Byrnes (27 April 2010)

i am confussed by your response .
please tell me your not one of the mindless people who accept without question what a gossip coloum writes . If so i am clearly talking to the wrong person .

Australian litigation funding pty ltd  Extracted from ASIC's database at AEST 16:10:14 on 27/04/2010 
Name AUSTRALIAN LITIGATION FUNDERS PTY LTD 
ACN 137 007 553 

ABN 80 137 007 553 

Type Australian Proprietary Company, Limited By Shares 
Registration Date 08/05/2009 
Next Review Date 08/05/2010 
Status Registered 
Locality of Registered Office Sydney NSW 2000 
Jurisdiction Australian Securities & Investments Commission 

this company is a wholly owned subsiduary of the ALF group pty ltd who in turn are owned by ALF Group Singapore Pte Ltd who are half owned by a swiss public company listed on the Franfurt stock exchange , 35% owned by a Hong Kong finance company and 15% owned by my family company.

we had an old company years ago that ceased trading in 08 after a guy didnt pay 500k , we changed it to his name and liquidated it out of spite , and the federal court matter ....on appeal it was settled and they paid us 25% of what was owed (4m) so we got 1m after spliting the funds paying lawyers , nothing that great .....dont be fooled


----------



## zixo (27 April 2010)

jim Byrnes said:


> i am confussed by your response .
> please tell me your not one of the mindless people who accept without question what a gossip coloum writes . If so i am clearly talking to the wrong person .
> 
> Australian litigation funding pty ltd  Extracted from ASIC's database at AEST 16:10:14 on 27/04/2010
> ...





Ahh.... now I get it 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...-threat-to-kill/2006/09/24/1159036415551.html


----------



## breaker1 (27 April 2010)

zixo said:


> Ahh.... now I get it
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...-threat-to-kill/2006/09/24/1159036415551.html




I've got it!

Come up the Windsor Road and let me do a deal for yoooou!

the article says:
Jim Byrnes ... jailed for the deemed supply of heroin, convicted for assaulting a bikie, banned by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, and labelled a habitual offender by the Roads and Traffic Authority.
Kate McClymont
September 25, 2006
SMH

Off course just a gossip column


----------



## seamisty (27 April 2010)

http://www.tradingroom.com.au/apps/...ished/2010/4/117/catf_100427_183000_0140.html



> SYDNEY, April 27 AAP
> April 27 2010, 6:30PM
> 
> The former company secretary of the failed Octaviar Ltd could not explain why the minutes of a board meeting held in August 2007 were only signed in February the following year, a court has heard.
> ...


----------



## seamisty (27 April 2010)

I heard today that Anthony Stanton, the general manager of Wellington Capital Funds management resigned 3-4 weeks ago. 
I also was told that someone who looked suspiciously like Jenny Hutson was seen at Forest Resort in Creswick today. Maybe if it was, she is trying to round up some good news for investors to include in our next PIF investor update, due at the end of April.


Gosh, how time flies, thats this Friday!!!

Seamisty


----------



## flatback (27 April 2010)

seamisty said:


> http://www.tradingroom.com.au/apps/...ished/2010/4/117/catf_100427_183000_0140.html
> SYDNEY, April 27 AAP
> April 27 2010, 6:30PM
> The former company secretary of the failed Octaviar Ltd could not explain why the minutes of a board meeting held in August 2007 were only signed in February the following year, a court has heard.
> ...




seamisty i am quite amazed at your ability to dig up so much information,which in most cases hits the nail on the head,i havent been able to react to the constant collusion from these crooks, which is so obvious from reading your threads in the past months with the excerpts from various papers and court proceedings, seamisty you only know me as flatback, but please accept my admiration and support for the wonderful job you are doing in keeping all of us up to date with the ongoing court proceedings, you and another one or three members have remained constant in your reporting of these goings on, again, thank you for helping to keep us in the loop


----------



## jim Byrnes (27 April 2010)

breaker1 said:


> I've got it!
> 
> Come up the Windsor Road and let me do a deal for yoooou!
> 
> ...






are you for real , talk about stupid , some of you people deserve getting ripped of with your absolout disengenous rude comments .

You have no idea about the cases that could render PIF valueless 
you have no idea that Jenny Hudson has confirmed that as RE  is entitled to be indemnified out of the fund for any costs and expenses and or damages .

you clearly have no understanding about the rules for continous disclosure .

i know that there is a bid in the wings from a company that has had a lot to do with a number of the borrowers .

they can settle most of the claims at a failry good result , that result does not reduce the writtern down asset values 

i know because they engaged me to try and negotiate most of the deals 

also to get the action group united and understand the offer thats comming .

to understand all of the important parts of what will be on offer 

to understand that if you continue the way things are going that this fund will be a very quickly diminishing asset

so please mind your manners ,


----------



## jim Byrnes (27 April 2010)

There is nothing to be gained by being rude to someone who comes to provide you with valuable information.
  people who simply use Google news to drag up what is often incorect or exagerated facts that the press may have published at some time or another is simply unhelpfull and niave .
it would seem that some 10500 odd investors have outlayed over 774m dollars .
today at best these assets are now written down to around 230m .
most if not all are property projects that the funder has attempted to sell and failed .
by not finishing the projects the manager ( RE ) fails to unlock the asset value .
the RE is a fund manager , not a developer , not a work out specialist . 
They have simply lawyered up every time and spent the funds money ....millions and millions OF YOUR INVESTMENT.
i acted for two borrowers who borrowed over 80million .
this was part funded by OPI .
there is a 70m rip up of your funds .
lets examine Woollongong 
i met Anthony Stanton and the builder in Woollongong with a marketer , myself and another guy ..,We had a very wealthy investor interested in buying .
now the site was worth 35m for a cash purchase.
my group offered to lend PIF 20m at 10% non recourse to finish the project sell the units and then pay PIF further funds to take ownership of the Hotel .
the result would have netted PIF 45m
they could not make a decision , did not engage us in sensible discussion , failed to properly achieve the best result for investors .

this is not a fund that requires simple asset managment , it requires a company to take control , get rid of all the claims and secure the properties in such a manner that removes the risk for investors .
not give away all the profit but actuall finish the jobs and then take the finished product to market .
provide some absoloute certainty for investors .

but if some do gooders would prefer to end with nothing and relish in mindless unhelpfull bantor .... then they are not the people who should be relying on


----------



## Joe Blow (27 April 2010)

This thread is closed for a day or two while we review the content.


----------



## Joe Blow (29 April 2010)

This thread has now been re-opened.

However, I would like to remind all thread participants about expectations of behaviour. The deliberate bullying, provoking or insulting of other thread participants is prohibited and will not be tolerated. 

Also, the ASF Code of Conduct states, "You are forbidden to use Aussie Stock Forums for commercial activity of any kind without receiving prior permission from the administrator." This thread is for general discussion only and anyone with a commercial agenda should leave it at the door.

Also, please do not reproduce entire articles from other websites as to do so is in violation of copyright law. Reproduce a couple of paragraphs only and always include a link to the original source material.

Now, with that said, please carry on.


----------



## seamisty (29 April 2010)

Thanks Moderators.

Thanks very much to reporter Kate Lahey for doing such a brilliant job of keeping the public up to date on the Bentleys MFS/OCV public examination outcomes.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/i-didnt-know-about-the-money-kercher-20100428-tsfr.html

I didn't know about the money: Kercher 
KATE LAHEY 
April 29, 2010

Extracted from above article
'Ms Kercher said Guy Hutchings - the chief executive of MFS Investment Management, responsible for the group's Premium Income Fund - seemed stressed in January 2008 and mentioned he was unsure what had happened to loans in the group.

She said only then did she suspect approval processes may not have been followed. She said Craig White, who became chief executive that month, assured her everything was fine.

The court heard evidence of loans being used to help pay the 2007 dividend to shareholders.

It also heard that about November 30, 2007, the day MFS was due to repay a $100 million loan to Fortress Credit Corporation, money moved into the Premium Income Fund from the Royal Bank of Scotland, under a facility that required that money only be used for the fund's purpose.'

Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## targav 8 (29 April 2010)

Joe Blow said:


> This thread has now been re-opened.
> 
> However, I would like to remind all thread participants about expectations of behaviour. The deliberate bullying, provoking or insulting of other thread participants is prohibited and will not be tolerated.
> 
> ...



 Thank you  mr moderator,   In future  instead  of shutting down this site,why not close people who are rude and make false statements


----------



## Duped (29 April 2010)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.  

Bond Uni, founded by and named after Alan Bond, "sentenced to 7 years in prison after pleading guilty to using his controlling interest in Bell Resources to deceptively siphon off AUD$1.2 Billion into the coffers of Bond Corporation" has a lecturer who was in charge of corporate governance at OCV/MFS Ltd/Admin who looks like having performed a similar stunt as Bondie. 

She shed tears; but so did Jenny Hutson didn't she?  Has Kercher been sitting on this info for the last 2 years while our suffering continued?  Does her course include a section on whistle blowing?

From Scott Rochford

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/kellys-bank-just-keeps-on-giving-20100428-tsff.html

"AFTER THE FALL

The former company secretary of MFS, Kim Kercher, seems to have landed on her feet, two years since the collapse of the Gold Coast financial house. Kercher told a NSW Supreme Court examination by the group's liquidator that she now lectures in accounting and auditing at Bond University. In February 2008, just as MFS was starting to keel over, Kercher was a finalist in the Governance Professional of the Year Awards hosted by Chartered Secretaries Australia."


----------



## seamisty (29 April 2010)

Duped said:


> I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
> 
> Bond Uni, founded by and named after Alan Bond, "sentenced to 7 years in prison after pleading guilty to using his controlling interest in Bell Resources to deceptively siphon off AUD$1.2 Billion into the coffers of Bond Corporation" has a lecturer who was in charge of corporate governance at OCV/MFS Ltd/Admin who looks like having performed a similar stunt as Bondie.
> 
> ...



 The same kim Kercher who wrote the following ::

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=cgej


Corporate Social Responsibility: Impact
of globalisation and international
business
Kim Kercher Date of publication: 11 December 2006
Abstract
Extracts from article::
'access to information and media enables the public to be more informed and to easily monitor
corporate activities;
 consumers and investors are demonstrating increased interest in supporting responsible business
practices and are demanding more information as to how companies address risks and
opportunities relating to social and environmental issues;
 recent high profile corporate collapses have contributed to public mistrust and the demand for
improved corporate governance, accountability and transparency'


The above document was compiled while Ms Kercher was employed at MFS


From The MFS Executive Team - Microsoft PowerPoint - 070821 - The MFS ...

Company Secretary and Chief Governance Officer (Based on Gold Coast)Kim is responsible for the corporate secretarial function of MFS Limited. Kim is also responsible for overseeing all aspects of thegovernance framework and related policies and monitoring compliance with regulatory requirements by MFS Limited and itssubsidiary entities.Prior to joining MFS in 2001, Kim was a manager with KPMG specialising in assurance and advisory services and has more than 15years experience in accounting, compliance, regulatory and financial reporting. Whilst at KPMG Kim performed statutory audit work on a range of different businesses including several listed companies.Kim is a Chartered Accountant and also holds a Bachelor of Business (Accounting major), a Graduate Diploma in Applied CorporateGovernance and a Master of Business Law (Corporate and Commercial


Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (29 April 2010)

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgej/4

..........Don't choke on your shiraz over this one duped!!


........... uh huh ........  Seamisty got there first!!!


----------



## seamisty (29 April 2010)

JohnH said:


> http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgej/4
> 
> ..........Don't choke on your shiraz over this one duped!!
> 
> ...



LOL JohnH, If yer gonna be a ferret, yer gotta be quick!!!:grinsking Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (29 April 2010)

seamisty said:


> LOL JohnH, If yer gonna be a ferret, yer gotta be quick!!!:grinsking Seamisty




lol!............ this link might be useful to anybody who would like to put a face to a name!!

http://media.wotnews.com.au/asxann/00750313.pdf


----------



## Duped (29 April 2010)

JohnH said:


> lol!............ this link might be useful to anybody who would like to put a face to a name!!
> 
> http://media.wotnews.com.au/asxann/00750313.pdf




I'm wondering if any of those faces end up as a hall-of-famer under fraudsters at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_criminals . $147Million is a fairly sizeable wad.  

I'm a beer drinker.


----------



## selciper (29 April 2010)

seamisty said:


> I heard today that Anthony Stanton, the general manager of Wellington Capital Funds management resigned 3-4 weeks ago.
> I also was told that someone who looked suspiciously like Jenny Hutson was seen at Forest Resort in Creswick today. Maybe if it was, she is trying to round up some good news for investors to include in our next PIF investor update, due at the end of April.
> 
> 
> Gosh, how time flies, thats this Friday!!!




Seamisty, If indeed the GM of Wellington has departed, perhaps this signals internal tensions. To lose a GM is usually a major event in any orrganisation. Let's watch out for an ad calling for a talented Jack of all trades to take charge. Perhaps somebody from the AG should apply.


----------



## breaker1 (29 April 2010)

Not a good sign selciper !


----------



## seamisty (29 April 2010)

In my ongoing quest of researching I occasionally trip over snippets of interest like the following from this link::http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/australia/austchron2.htm

The recent crisis at Gold Coast diversified financial and property group MFS trashed the business reputation of Andrew Peacock, who joined in March 2007 as chairman. 
   He has also been Australia's ambassador to the US. 
   Before that he spent 29 years in the federal Parliament, including a spell as leader of the Opposition and shadow treasurer. 
   Another bigwig is Barry Cronin, a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland and the High Court of Australia. 
   Did Peacock and Cronin realise, as The Australian revealed this week, that MFS was created out of a Gold Coast law firm embroiled in the nationwide solicitors mortgage broking scandal of the late 1990s? 
   MFS senior executives include Taso Corolis, the chief risk and compliance officer, who joined six months ago after spending 10 years at the financial regulator APRA; Graeme Fowler, the chief financial officer, who spent 15 years at BT Financial Group; and Bill Grounds, the chief executive of property and finance, who was a fomer senior executive at the highly successful Investa Group. 
Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (30 April 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mfs-board-not-told-about-problems-court-hears-20100429-twjv.html
Extracted from link above::
MFS board not told about problems, court hears KATE LAHEY 
April 30, 2010

BEFORE the board of MFS Investment Management met in January 2008, its chief executive, Guy Hutchings, was troubled that $147 million had mysteriously vanished from the company's Premium Income Fund.

It also appeared a $200 million loan from the Royal Bank of Scotland had been misused and there was doubt the fund could meet its redemptions, the NSW Supreme Court heard yesterday.

But instead of telling the board any of this, Mr Hutchings and his colleagues told directors the company ''has met all its obligations as a responsible entity during the period''.


----------



## Duped (30 April 2010)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...d-property-group/story-e6frg8zx-1225859649354

Extracted from link above.  Emphasis added.
Octaviar deals queried: property group
April 29, 2010

"Former company secretary Kim Kercher told the court *she discovered there may have* been some issues with the related-party deals, which all took place in late November 2007, during a conversation with former chief executive Guy Hutchings.

"I can't recall verbatim, but it was to do with, concerning, loans that *he wasn't sure where they ended up*," Ms Kercher told the court. "From that discussion *I thought it could have been* a related-party matter."

...

The court took a five-minute break during the afternoon session after Ms Kercher started crying while she recalled discussions with senior MFS executives about the related-party transactions. She said she raised her concerns about whether the company had followed proper procedures in certain transactions with former chief operating officer David Kennedy and former deputy chief executive Craig White. "I was primarily concerned that transactions had occurred that did not have related-party approval," she said. "I was seeking documentation to find out if that was correct or not."

*Ms Kercher said Mr White had assured her the transactions were "all fine and above board"*."

And that's OK then is it KK?  What's the point of having processes if select deals can just bypass it? The process just become a decoy and then administrators of that process are enablers. Is that what they teach at Bond Uni?  

Looks like the Bully Lawyers are going to put Kercher on the hook for this.  That's forgivable but did you sit on this testimony for 2 years Kercher?  While another of the MFS/OCV lawyers continued with the serfdom of our capital?


----------



## seamisty (30 April 2010)

ASIC deals out Hunter fines
Posted April 30, 2010 07:46:00 

ASIC says most of the prosecutions were for failure to provide assistance to liquidators and administrators and failing to provide access to company books.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/30/2886518.htm?site=newcastle&section=news


:ald: Interesting, Seamisty


----------



## Duped (30 April 2010)

Hmmm. But I can't see a $400 fine being much of a deterent. Very much the path of least resistance.  The lesser of two evils.  Especially when you're covereing your back over $100M+.

More ASIC, look at me, fluff. Insipid laws and enforcement. Unless of course there's more of a penalty than just the fine.  Like e.g. criminal conviction or a restriction on future employment.  Maybe the fine for KK and Co would be proportionally higher.


----------



## breaker1 (30 April 2010)

"On the first day of a liquidator's examination into MFS, later known as Octaviar, which collapsed in 2008 owing more than $2 billion, David John Kennedy described uncontrolled spending by MFS executives, ''Mickey Mouse'' approval processes and a hostile culture in which the company's chairman, Andrew Peacock, screamed at staff.

Mr Kennedy told the NSW Supreme Court he started working for MFS in May 2007 as chief operating officer - *a role no one ever lasted long in at MFS*.

Advertisement: Story continues belowOn February 25, 2008, he said he tried to raise his concerns about the company. ''I sent an email to the then chief executive, Craig White, about some concerns I had about the way some of the directors were doing their job, doing their duties,'' Mr Kennedy said. ''I was considering whether I should be bringing any action against them.''

The next morning, ''Craig called me and told me that I should go home'', he said. Several weeks later he left the job.

Mr Kennedy said before he was suspended he had approved an internal investigation into a transaction worth $130 million that another colleague had raised doubts about. *That colleague also left before the audit was completed*.
Above only in part see full story: http://www.smh.com.au/business/cour...executives-hostile-culture-20100412-s46a.html

Ex Staff are starting to fess up - hope it continues!


----------



## seamisty (30 April 2010)

Special sales of 2009
Author: with ALEX ARNOLD
Date: 09/01/2010 

6. Fire sale in paradise

A fire sale of apartments within the stalled Ocean View City Beach project in Harbour St in October sparked a buyer frenzy.

In just four days more than $28 million worth of property was snapped up with 47 of the 67 discounted apartments selling, including the building's five penthouse apartments which were priced from $981,000.

The top price achieved was $1.05 million. A week later all but a handful of apartments had been sold.

The units are being sold by a number of agents as "a 14-day pre-completion clearance" on the basis of a "buy now and settle in March 2010" when the project is expected to be completed.

A number of agents were appointed to sell the units including Simon Kersten of Colliers International and Michael Sullivan from CB Richard Ellis.

Mr Kersten described the response as "staggering" but said the units were sold at well below market value.

Mr Sullivan said two-bedroom units that had previously sold off the plan for above $700,000 before developer Jempac's collapse were sold in the low $500,000s.

In November the project changed hands with Premium Income Fund, the financial backers of the project, to receive $38 million from the new owner Harbour Street Developments.

Harbour Street Developments is controlled by Queensland developer George Callianiotis, with the backing of Rockhampton retailer Solly Stanton. 


With an investor update pending I assume it will contain our 3cent  return of capital payment details etc??


Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (1 May 2010)

Structure too complicated for CFO KATE LAHEY 
May 1, 2010

THE former chief financial officer of the failed MFS investment group looked yesterday at a diagram of the companies he helped establish before they collapsed, then let out a long, slow whistle.

David Anderson was handed the A3 chart in the witness box of the NSW Supreme Court, and told by Adam Bell, SC, representing liquidators from Bentleys Corporate Recovery, to study it.

''I'm not sure the study's going to be a help,'' Mr Anderson said.

Article continues::http://www.smh.com.au/business/structure-too-complicated-for-cfo-20100430-tz9t.html

Examinations by liquidators are due to resume May 10.


Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (1 May 2010)

Lucky for Michael King theres a break in the public examinations this week. He could well be busy with important polo committments!! Seamisty

http://www.clubsonline.com.au/clubc...ailTemplateID=8540&OrgID=3876&PageID=87&wp=36


----------



## selciper (1 May 2010)

One of Korda Mentha's web pages.

http://www.kordamentha.com/main/legal.aspx


----------



## seamisty (1 May 2010)

selciper said:


> One of Korda Mentha's web pages.
> 
> http://www.kordamentha.com/main/legal.aspx



Brisbane office staff http://www.kordamentha.com/main/ourpeople.aspx



 Robert Hutson 
Partner 

Any Relation? Seamisty


----------



## k.smith (3 May 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/telonaut-pill-has-saved-year-already-20100502-u1lk.html

".... COSTS CLAIM
The public examination of the multibillion-dollar collapse of MFS Limited hit a momentary roadblock in Sydney on Friday on the thorny issue of costs.
Before making his debut in the witness box in the NSW Supreme Court to be examined by the MFS liquidator, the former chief financial officer David Anderson told the registrar he wanted to make an application.
Anderson is seeking costs for his appearances, expected to run for several days. He has already claimed $99.64 for taxis on the first day alone.
In the lead-up to Friday's appearance, Anderson had been corresponding with the liquidator Bentleys Corporate Recovery for a month on the issue of costs, the court was told.
The senior deputy registrar, Andrew Musgrave, said it was not an unreasonable request.
Lawyers for the liquidator said Anderson should hold on to his receipts so they can sort his costs after they have finished grilling him.
It is unclear if the examination will scrutinise the $940,000 in consultancy fees Anderson's private firm, Business Puzzle Solutions, was paid by the initial administrator and liquidator of MFS, Deloittes, in less than a year....."

I am puzzling this one...


----------



## seamisty (4 May 2010)

Trio Capital class action on cards 
Directors, trustees and RE targeted

http://www.investordaily.com.au/9123.htm

Seagrim also expressed frustration with the Minister for Financial Services Chris Bowen, ASIC and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA).

"He [Bowen] is not really in touch ... they all say they're working towards a common goal and they're not. There's all this red tape that's preventing them from proceeding," he said.

"This whole debacle has nothing to do with the elusive money trail. It has everything to do with ASIC and their inadequate, irresponsible laws that do not provide the investors with the ability to access their money."




Sound familiar? Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (5 May 2010)

New regulation to reverse class action ruling





“Following consultation with a range of key stakeholders, such as legal practitioners, litigation funders, consumer representatives, regulators and other departments, we have decided that imposing this heavy compliance burden on class actions would be unjustified,” Bowen said.

The Federal Government will draft regulations clarifying that funded class actions are not managed investment schemes, which is due to be released before the expiry of ASIC’s temporary exemption. 

The Government felt the area was already well regulated and that any further regulation would create further burden that was not justified.


http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/article/New-regulation-to-reverse-class-action-ruling/516483.aspx

Full article in above link. Good sense finally prevails!! Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (5 May 2010)

A win for the good guys for a change! Thanks for the info, Seamisty.

Cookie


----------



## seamisty (5 May 2010)

Hi ALL, I am needing assistance in locating an email or ph no contact for::

Kourosh Jafari (FAARS PTY LTD) ::::                                                        who was possibly the developer of one of the PIF Melbourne properties sold by WC.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2009/255.html 


 I am also trying to contact::

Ray Schofield (possibly NZ)and Ron Lane, the former owners of Kooralbyn Hotel resort.


Any help will be greatly appreciated.


Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (5 May 2010)

Remember this company? The one who paid the OZ MFS an undisclosed sum for the rights to the name MFS and our MFS became Octaviar?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a1M0LqbHdOic&refer=canada-redirectoldpage

MFS to Pay $50 Million to Settle SEC Sales Allegation (Update3) 

By Otis Bilodeau

March 31 (Bloomberg) -- MFS Investment Management, which last month agreed to $351 million of sanctions for allowing improper mutual fund trading, will pay $50 million to settle regulators' allegations that it made hidden payments to brokers who promoted its funds. 

MFS, based in Boston, paid the brokers out of fund assets, hurting investors, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said in a statement. The enforcement action is the first against a fund company for participating in marketing programs by brokerage firms such as Morgan Stanley that regulators have said were marred by conflicts of interest. 


:holysheep: I hope their regulators are not as pathetic as ours!! Does any one have connections or contacts to reporters/journos that want some interesting info regarding the PIF?  Please contact me via email or private message if you do. Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (5 May 2010)

seamisty said:


> Hi ALL, I am needing assistance in locating an email or ph no contact for::
> 
> Kourosh Jafari (FAARS PTY LTD) ::::                                                        who was possibly the developer of one of the PIF Melbourne properties sold by WC.
> 
> ...



Also any Aussie PIF investor with NZ contacts please? Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## Duped (6 May 2010)

Gold.

And what has the venerbale rag Australian Financial Review reported on these revelations .... zip?  

http://complispace.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/australian-corporate-governance-wrap-april-2010/

"Governance Free Zones Exposed in Corporate Autopsies

We’ll leave the James Hardie appeal off to one side because the finger pointing blame game, “it wasn’t my fault” line got a bit boring after day one http://ow.ly/1AsWB.

Even the admission by ABC Learning’s Chairman, David Ryan, that he had not read a Goldman Sachs report, presented to ABC’s board in April 2008, that forecasted it would run out of cash by June 30, 2008, doesn’t get the prize.

The prize for “governance free zone of the month” has to go to the former MFS/Octaviar management team.  CFO, and former KPMG partner, David Anderson admitted that he didn’t understand the very structure he set up http://ht.ly/1FvMH. The Company Secretary and “Chief Governance Officer” Kim Kercher, told a court she could not recall meetings she attended and did not fully understand the functions of companies within the group http://ht.ly/1DTQk …Go team!

These guys would all do well to read the “20 Steps to Better Corporate Governance” research report released by Chartered Secretaries Australia http://ht.ly/1DA21 on 22 April 2010."


----------



## Duped (6 May 2010)

JH and crew may run into the same trademark slug fest as MFS did.   

Nothing live for 'Wellington Capital' on the Australian's Trade Mark Office online database ...

and it appears that somebody else is making a name for themselves around the world with the brand.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b6981bf2-56ca-11df-aa89-00144feab49a.html
http://iesingapore.eventshub.sg/Default.aspx?CalID=1&EventID=135

Someone better get their own house in order.

Meanwhile the best bid for our units is 6.9c.


----------



## selciper (6 May 2010)

One odd-ball effect of searching for "Wellington Capital" via Google (some time ago) was to be directed to "the capital of NZ." Now you'd think that anybody with imagination would have thought of this quirky outcome before baptism. Anyway, the Duke of Wellington must be spinning in his grave.


----------



## lawry1dog (7 May 2010)

With the Unit price at around 7c, is a big embarrassment for WC and even
if it is staged that way, means only one thing JH can do.

*RESIGN and give the Fund to someone else and do not collect any loot.*

I also hope the great Class Action is not waiting for the big ASIC court case
to finish, before something happens. Come one there a unit holders in a bad
way out there.

Of course our Fund will never eventuate to anything, while there is no deposits coming from the general population. It is dependent upon only the
assets it has now.


----------



## Duped (7 May 2010)

Any bets on how long it'll be before we see our next Investor Update?

I'm not sure I ever want to see one again  

Share price hasn't lifted above 9.1c since WC's last collection of revelations.  Average price since has been 8.5c.

And the average share price since listing has dipped below the 12c mark for the first time


----------



## seamisty (7 May 2010)

Duped said:


> Any bets on how long it'll be before we see our next Investor Update?
> 
> I'm not sure I ever want to see one again
> 
> ...



I guess thats why no one can be bothered hassling WC over it Duped. Most have come to expect nothing but more bad news and further losses!! WC continue to demonstrate their arrogance and ineptitude as fund managers, but rather than step aside and admit their apparent failure, they  just add insult to injury by making investors wait until the death knock for updates. One investor who did contact them was told it will be delivered when it suits WC. What else is new??? I hope to have time to chase up this constant pathetic behaviour with the Australian Shareholders association next week, they are well aware of investor concerns relating to not only our treatment but the discontent with the overall LACK OF PERFORMANCE of WELLINGTON CAPITAL our current RE.



I did manage to get acknowledgement from ASIC in relation to some new concerns (I am not at all excited!!) not sure if it was because I sent the same concerns to Chris Bowen complaining about ASIC as well!!

I also received the following from another PIF investor in relation to the sale of the Harbour Street Hotel and Apartments.

'A banner went up on the building advertising 24 units for sale about 5 or 6 weeks ago. Daniel Lambert of Colliers International who are the sole agents told me that after two weeks on sale only one unit had been sold. 2 Bedroom units start at $550k and the banner is still there. A Certificate of Occupancy had not been granted but was expected by the construction company in May. The Wollongong property market for units above $500k is still very slow with banners on a number of buildings around the city centre advertising units for sale. One banner has been there for over two years with units still vacant. As the settlement of the sale is not due until the last unit has been sold I am sure we won't see any 3 cent disbursement any time soon.'


Thanks to those who continue to keep others updated and thanks to those who contact me off forum with fund related matters and offers of help.

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (7 May 2010)

Hi all, I have been given a couple of extra media contacts but I would really like an email address or ph no  of local/relevant  newspapers/journalists or TV reporters from as many PIF investors that are willing to provide it. I beleive I have information that could make very interesting reading involving the PIF.  
 I have come to the conclusion that we cannot rely on the tax payer funded regulatory bodies that have been provided with all relevant documentation  to act on our behalf in a timely frame. I conservatively put our PIF losses at a further $150 million under the management of Wellington Capital since ASIC was first notified of MFS/OCTAVIAR alleged misappropiation of investors money. Someone needs to be held accountable!!! 



Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (7 May 2010)

Seamisty and others.................... save me going through the Prospectus.  Is the RE obliged to hold an AGM??


----------



## seamisty (7 May 2010)

I forgot to mention that there is a very disturbing pattern emerging in relation to the handling of the disposal of PIF distressed assets by Wellington Capital under advice from 33 Capital and Korda Mentha. I have been asked to investigate if there has been possible  irresponsible advice given to our RE, WELLINGTON CAPITAL, ultimately resulting to our financial detriment of which I am doing more research. It is possible that in all the current legal proceedings surrounding our Fund that more information may be revealed as to whether we will have grounds for further legal action. If WC can demonstrate that the best possible financial outcomes were achieved from their actions in relation to the disposal of our assets then there won't be a problem and I will have wasted my time.

:grenade: Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (7 May 2010)

JohnH said:


> Seamisty and others.................... save me going through the Prospectus.  Is the RE obliged to hold an AGM??



John H , I asked ages ago when the AGM was and was told that WC were not having an AGM.
 In all honesty why would they if it was not compulsory and they had FA to report? What were they going to tell each other? It was easier to avoid having to report a negative outcome ( not exactly a well kept secret) than to have to report on a meeting that highlighted a negative outcome???
 I wonder why Anthony Stanton bailed if my information is correct. I have heard he was often not in agreeance to the actions of WC (and others)

Was he concerned about possible ramifications to his reputation regarding future employment  with all the immenant legal proceedings? We have many unanswered  questions, most which could be answered by the very people we elected to manage our Fund on the promise that they would be open and transparent but are proving to be just the opposite!! Not exactly what we voted for.

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (8 May 2010)

This highly unsatisfactory matter whereby AGMs don't exist could  continue for years to come. It's a very frightening prospect. It means that the RE does not have to face investors at a meeting to answer questions. It strikes me as a shocking state of affairs. In effect, we have no voice - unless an EGM is called. If we investors can't meet with the RE face to face, I fear that we are doomed to suffer endlessly. We are now over two years into the MFS tragedy and (apart from the legal actions) see no sign of hope. Our savings are going down a black hole. The WC board should, like good generals, at least face members of the AG Committee at an immediate meeting.


----------



## simgrund (8 May 2010)

selciper said:


> This highly unsatisfactory matter whereby AGMs don't exist could  continue for years to come. It's a very frightening prospect. It means that the RE does not have to face investors at a meeting to answer questions. It strikes me as a shocking state of affairs. In effect, we have no voice - unless an EGM is called. If we investors can't meet with the RE face to face, I fear that we are doomed to suffer endlessly. We are now over two years into the MFS tragedy and (apart from the legal actions) see no sign of hope. Our savings are going down a black hole. The WC board should, like good generals, at least face members of the AG Committee at an immediate meeting.




Selciper,
Myself as many others will enjoin you in these concerns.
Explanatory Memorandum (WIML), dated 18/09/08, provides on page 14 the info regarding quorum provisions for holding EGM's and other meetings. It is explained that a range of resolutions may be adopted at such meetings.
Do I understand these provisions correctly and they *DO* extend to us these rights?
Regards,


----------



## selciper (8 May 2010)

Simgrund,

Thanks. We are a patient lot, but patience should now be applied only to  legal matters - that's an inevitability. However, in matters pertaining to communications with and from WC we can only lose more and more by not acting according to our rights. Clearly we are being left in the dark.. An EGM would certainly draw the media attention we so much desire. Does anybody think that such a  gathering would be welcomed by WC?

I'm respectful of opinions put forward that we should wait for the Liquidators hearing to end before considering action for a meeting. But it's worth considering that such a meeting would require quite a lead time anyway.


----------



## seamisty (9 May 2010)

selciper said:


> Simgrund,
> 
> Thanks. We are a patient lot, but patience should now be applied only to  legal matters - that's an inevitability. However, in matters pertaining to communications with and from WC we can only lose more and more by not acting according to our rights. Clearly we are being left in the dark.. An EGM would certainly draw the media attention we so much desire. Does anybody think that such a  gathering would be welcomed by WC?
> 
> I'm respectful of opinions put forward that we should wait for the Liquidators hearing to end before considering action for a meeting. But it's worth considering that such a meeting would require quite a lead time anyway.



 If it is concluded from the Bentley public examinations that the PIF was aquired by Wellington Capital as an inhouse deal between WC and Octaviar for no real consideration when there was meant to have been other interested parties (of which jenny Hutson was the go between )what regulatory proceedures are in place to protect investors? Don't forget the PIF was considered an Octaviar asset and the Public Trustee of Queensland are looking for answers as well regarding WC PIF aquisition. Can a judge recommend WC to be removed and if so where will it leave the PIF? Do they appoint a new RE?  Do investors have a say?

Wellington Capital will not answer any questions they do not want to, that has been obvious from day one. Investors may well have to take the measures of calling an EGM but I am optimistic that in the event that WC are included in the Bentley examinations there could be more valuable information recovered. Bentleys have already demonstrated that they are thorough and are interested in uncovering the truth. 

If WC agreed to talk to the AG it would be a useless exercise. I have lodged numerous questions in the form of a complaint. My experience is it is a complete waste of time. My last complaint which I include under was sent to the IAC as well. Will it be passed on? Well if our IAC reps follow this thread, which they should do, one is an accountant, one promised to bring years of successful business experience to the IAC and the other has strong interests in ethics in business, they will know that I have sent this question to WC.


  I would like to lodge the following complaint.

I would like to bring to the attention of WC that the Premium Income Fund lost over $267 million due to unapproved MFS related party loans.  I would like to ask why no apparent action has been taken by the current RE of the PIF fund for the majority of this loss and why WC have said the financial market is to blame for the majority of the loss when this was not the case. It is alleged  Wellington Capital as our current RE of the PIF has only lodged a claim for $147.5 million against MFS and  have not pursued it - no defence has been filed with the court.  

Please confirm if this information is correct  and acknowledge  that this complaint has been received both to yourself and the IAC. This complaint will also be forwarded to ASIC and the Australian shareholders Association.


The complaint has been acknowleded as received by WC.

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (9 May 2010)

Seamisty, your scenarios predicating an EGM are much appreciated. But the thought of the PIF one day being orphaned adds an extra wrinkle to my brow. That eventuality would be a real legal tangle. Nothing is simple when it comes to WC! I fear that one day we may find that we've simply been waiting for Godot.


----------



## Jadel (10 May 2010)

I think a few people on this site will probably recall that sometime ago I put in an appeal to ASIC asking them to investigate the 200 million RBOS loan  based on the hypothesis that the money taken was used to unlawfully prop up Living and Leisure 

This submission was signed by many members of ASF and  subsequently sent in to ASIC. I thik the  submission had over 100 signatures

 The living and leisure loan was Guaranteed by OCV .And in the event the company defaulted OCV would have had to pay NAB a sum of something like $20 million or more immediately (I can not remember the exact sum off hand)

The payments made to prevent LLA from becoming insolvent were the only reasonable theory we had at that time. To support the immediate and unprecedented draw down of the 200 million RBOS loan  .

Of course we knew nothing about the Fortress loan at this time. We now know that this loan was kept highly secretive by all a sundry in the top echelons of the OCV hierarchy, even though they were well aware it must have been fraudulent. It will be interesting to see how David Anderson, the chief Financial Officer attempts to deny any involvement today. 

In any event, the LLA loan and other very substantial related party losses were unsecured and also clearly contravened the PIF Constitution and therefore should have been considered illegal by any competent RE.

One would therefore have to ask the question,  ‘why in the world,’ would anybody who purportedly has the best interests of PIF Investors as their primary objective, close their eyes to these enormous losses incurred by our Fund.


----------



## seamisty (10 May 2010)

Jadel the NAB loan was for $40mill.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...spite-arctic-bid/story-e6frg9gx-1111116470893

'National Australia Bank demanded payment by 5pm yesterday of an Octaviar-guaranteed $40 million facility held by Living and Leisure Australia.'


Octaviar company secretary David Anderson, when asked whether NAB's repayment deadline last night would be met, said: "You'll have to ask LLA. They have the loan. We don't."



Are the best interests of PIF investors a priority to Wellington Capital? Actions speak louder than words (or lack of them!!!!)

Because the current board of directors are the same as the previous board I would imagine there is a good chance that WC will have to front up and answer some questions at the Bentleys public examinations also.  I am still of the opinion that WC cannot serve the best interests of  PIF unit holders while this conflict of interests remains but WC assures me this is not the case. Does anyone still believe anything they are told by Wellington Capital?

ASIC has been made aware (long ago) of this potential conflict of interest along with a whole lot of other PIF issues in  relation to our current RE. Waiting for them to act is like waiting for our distribution/return of capital!!!

Lets hope more concrete evidence comes to light sooner rather than later.
Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (10 May 2010)

Octaviar exec says intended use of loan may have changed, court May 10 2010, 6:30PM

The examination before senior deputy registrar Andrew Musgrave continues on Tuesday, with Mr Anderson to be questioned further.

Former directors Craig White and Michael King are due to give evidence later this week.


Full article in link below::


http://www.tradingroom.com.au/apps/...ished/2010/5/130/catf_100510_183000_1964.html


----------



## simgrund (10 May 2010)

seamisty said:


> Octaviar exec says intended use of loan may have changed, court May 10 2010, 6:30PM
> The examination before senior deputy registrar Andrew Musgrave continues on Tuesday, with Mr Anderson to be questioned further.
> Former directors Craig White and Michael King are due to give evidence later this week.
> Full article in link below::
> http://www.tradingroom.com.au/apps/...ished/2010/5/130/catf_100510_183000_1964.html




Seamisty
Thanks for that. 
The article reminds us of the ASIC recovery action of 147.5 m taken against some MFS directors.
Assuming some or all funds are recovered, would it be possible for ASIC to provide vital information as to where these funds would be deposited? 

1. Would they be handed to WC and converted to units for merging on NSX board? 
To be avoided at all costs. Who decides?

2. Could they be deposited into a Trust for PIF members for eventual cash distribution?

Has ASIC a protocol to follow?
Can these questions be canvassed now?

Regards,


----------



## seamisty (10 May 2010)

simgrund said:


> Seamisty
> Thanks for that.
> The article reminds us of the ASIC recovery action of 147.5 m taken against some MFS directors.
> Assuming some or all funds are recovered, would it be possible for ASIC to provide vital information as to where these funds would be deposited?
> ...



 Simgrund I sent the following to ASIC on the 12 Nov 2009 and to this day have not received an answer or acknowledgement of the enquiry. It was sent to a key person at ASIC working on MFS/OCV/WC::::::

 I have been contacted recently by numerous Premium Income Fund investors asking me questions related to the legal claim ASIC has lodged against former MFS employees which I am unable to answer. Would you or one of your colleagues please clarify these issues?

           In the event that ASIC is successful in recovering monetary compensation on behalf of Premium Income Investors behalf where will that money be channelled?

            1. will it be paid to Wellington Capital as the current Responsible Entity of PIF 

    2. held by the Court in escrow for determination
    3. ordered by the Court for prorata distribution to members

            Apart from the concerns as to the increasing lack of confidence in our current RE to do anything other than sell PIF assets and absorb the proceeds in operating expenses, there are many who have been forced to sell their units for far less than the original cost.
There is concern that if any compensation is directed back to the current RE to be reinvested in the PIF that those investors who have had to sell will be financially penalised and the benefit will be given to those who bought units at a heavily discounted price.

And ASIC wonder why they receive so many complaints, maybe something to do with them not answering them?
Perhaps it is time I re sent the original enquiry accompanied with a complaint.


Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (11 May 2010)

'Flexibility' in MFS borrowing KATE LAHEY 
May 11, 2010

Mr Anderson claimed yesterday he was only in charge of the ''boring bits'' in MFS's borrowing and did not deal with the key terms of a loan.

But the court heard he signed for the Fortress loan on behalf of the MFS borrowing company and its MFS guarantors and emailed others advising, ''I have organised a $250 million bridging facility''.

The court has previously heard MFS was struggling to repay the Fortress loan and may have used money from Royal Bank of Scotland - lent strictly to the group's Premium Income Fund - to repay the first $100 million.

Full article:::http://www.smh.com.au/business/flexibility-in-mfs-borrowing-20100510-uouz.html


----------



## Duped (11 May 2010)

Australian Financial Review
'Octaviar admits problems'
11 May 2010

"The former chief financial officer of the failed investment group Octaviar has acknowledged that hundreds of millions of dollars in loans may not have been used as told to lenders."

http://www.afr.com/p/national/octaviar_admits_problems_cwnePSPkkM1aXZUaraAuiN


----------



## Duped (11 May 2010)

AAP

'Exec says loan intent might have changed'
JORDAN CHONG
May 10, 2010 - 6:59PM

"A former senior executive of the failed Octaviar Ltd has told a court that how a $250 million loan facility was intended to be used might have changed between the time it was sought and when it was drawn down. 
...
Mr Anderson said there was a degree of flexibility as to how the money was supposed to be used.

"It wouldn't surprise me if there was a variation between what the expectation was and what happened," Mr Anderson told the court. 
...
Mr Anderson said he invested $500,000 in MFS Alternative Asset Ltd (AAL), an unlisted public company MFS formed in May 2006.

MFS invested one dollar for every two dollars raised in the initial public offer, ensuring it held a 33 per cent stake in the company.

AAL was managed by MFS Investment Management Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of MFS. ..."

http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-57...odC1oYXZlLWNoYW5nZWQtMjAxMDA1MTAtdW9qbS5odG1s


----------



## Duped (11 May 2010)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...erms-court-hears/story-e6frg8zx-1225864764674

"NAB 'reneged' on terms, court hears"

    * Susannah Moran
    * From: The Australian
    * May 11, 2010 12:00AM

"Former chief financial officer David Anderson continued ... saying NAB was "promising" to give them a facility and would agree not to aggregate loans made to various MFS companies.

He said he understood NAB had "reneged" on the issue of the aggregated loans.

"Mr King wasn't happy?"the liquidator's barrister, Adam Bell SC, asked. "He wasn't happy," Mr Anderson replied."


"Mr Anderson also told the court that a $250 million facility from Fortress Credit may not have been used for the purpose he outlined in an email to Fortress executives in May 2007, but this had not affected the loan agreement and MFS had given a charge to Fortress over various MFS companies.

Asked what the money was spent on, Mr Anderson replied in part: "To answer that question . . . that tracing exercise, *you really need to have a look at the accounting systems*."

Seems like some expert dodging of the key question there.


----------



## selciper (11 May 2010)

"Mr Anderson said there was a degree of flexibility as to how the money was supposed to be used." (AAP) "Flexibility" may become the buzz word in the coming months and years.


----------



## simgrund (11 May 2010)

seamisty said:


> #5576                 Simgrund I sent the following to ASIC on the 12 Nov 2009 .....................................
> ..............And ASIC wonder why they receive so many complaints, maybe something to do with them not answering them? Perhaps it is time I re sent the original enquiry accompanied with a complaint.
> Seamisty




Thanks, seamisty.
At least some comfort that question was raised by PIF AG.
Good work.


----------



## seamisty (11 May 2010)

simgrund said:


> Thanks, seamisty.
> At least some comfort that question was raised by PIF AG.
> Good work.



Hi Simgrund, I spoke with a person with ASIC just now , have re-submitted my original email and have received acknowledgement. Hopefully I will get a response (containing answers!!!) Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (11 May 2010)

seamisty said:


> Hi Simgrund, I spoke with a person with ASIC just now , have re-submitted my original email and have received acknowledgement. Hopefully I will get a response (containing answers!!!) Cheers, Seamisty




Great to hear. Another salute to PIF AG.
Please PIF IAC, let's hear from you as well.
All combined efforts are to the good of ALL unit holders. 
Regards,


----------



## seamisty (12 May 2010)

MFS exec questioned on pre-crash payout 
Susannah Moran From: The Australian May 12, 2010 12:00AM 

Yesterday, the court was told of email correspondence between Mr Anderson and chief executive Michael King in the early hours of May 29, 2007. "I would love to go for as much as possible, in case you hadn't noticed," Mr King said of a proposed dividend, with a smiley emoticon at the end of the email



Full story http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...pre-crash-payout/story-e6frg8zx-1225865202120



MFS scheme for dividend KATE LAHEY 
May 12, 2010


IN THE middle of the night, over email, as the financial year neared its end, the men who ran the investment group MFS engineered a plan to deliver a healthy dividend for shareholders out of profits they did not have, the New South Wales Supreme Court has heard.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mfs-scheme-for-dividend-20100511-uuy9.html


----------



## Jadel (12 May 2010)

MFS could have paid its dividend from a $100 million placement the group might have received, Mr Anderson said. MFS collapsed in 2008 owing $2.5 billion. The examination continues today.


This is beginning to look like a gigantic Ponzi sheme from early 2007.

I wonder if Andrew Peacock has once cast his eyes over a balance sheet or set of accounts with any business he has ever  been associated with as a Company Director

Simgrund, I can assure you that all action groups are working together and doing everything in their power to redress the appalling state of affairs


----------



## Duped (12 May 2010)

My favourite bits in the latest Kate Lahey article:

"Mr Anderson replied at 4.46am that to do that, at a cost of $94 million, they would need a pre-tax *profit *of $230 million, or after-tax profit of $160 million."

it goes on to say:

"''There was no other available source of cash to pay the dividend,'' Mr Bell said.

Mr Anderson said that claim was ''rubbish'' and MFS had ''significant *equity*'' at the time. ''There is no evidence these were the only funds available,'' he said."

Full version of the article is at http://www.watoday.com.au/business/dividend-out-of-thin-air-at-mfs-20100511-uupt.html

So when did profit and equity become the same thing?

What a joke our financial regulations are.  Jadel, this suggests to lay me that Ponzi schemes are completely legal in Australia in practice.

*WC MUST RESIGN*


----------



## selciper (12 May 2010)

Except for an earlier reference to Korda Mentha, there appears to be no substantial mention yet of any auditors. The same goes for the former chairman. The thought that PIF investors were possibly assisting in the paying of dividends to MFS shareholders is sickening.


----------



## mellifuous (12 May 2010)

seamisty said:


> MFS scheme for dividend KATE LAHEY
> May 12, 2010
> 
> 
> ...




Seems like the tax office might have to repay any tax paid by the company and by investors on this one.

That would mean that any tax repaid paid to MFS should be claimable by the PIF.

That's give the fund back 30% of the total.


----------



## simgrund (12 May 2010)

Jadel said:


> #5586 ---------------------Simgrund, I can assure you that all action groups are working together and doing everything in their power to redress the appalling state of affairs




Thanks Jadel,
I speak of the elected representatives and of our desire to hear them involved in a visible way. 
It would lift so many unitholders' spirits to have this support known.
Thank you again, 
Regards


----------



## selciper (12 May 2010)

This article from Time Magazine in December 08 describes the role of auditors in the Bernie Madoff scandal.

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1867092,00.html


----------



## seamisty (12 May 2010)

mellifuous said:


> Seems like the tax office might have to repay any tax paid by the company and by investors on this one.
> 
> That would mean that any tax repaid paid to MFS should be claimable by the PIF.
> 
> That's give the fund back 30% of the total.



According to a media report posted on bentleys website::
Bentleys have Corresponded with the Australian Taxation Office in relation to a freezing
order which it has served on OA, preventing creditors from accessing
approximately $60 million.

http://www.bentleys.com.au/files/do...essionid=7f247d51-01eb-4292-8a4d-a88e31656a63

King and Whites turn next, I wonder if the Wellington Capital terms of PIF aquisition will be discussed this week? 

Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (12 May 2010)

Duped said:


> My favourite bits in the latest Kate Lahey article:
> 
> "Mr Anderson replied at 4.46am that to do that, at a cost of $94 million, they would need a pre-tax *profit *of $230 million, or after-tax profit of $160 million."
> 
> ...




Yes, it's also a joke about these funds being based on valuations of real property, valuations managers have discretion to alter for 1001 reasons.

Perhaps there's a lot of jokes - but it's a truism that they're all capable of becoming scams.
..


----------



## seamisty (12 May 2010)

Octaviar executive denied colleague access to documents: court

The court heard some documents containing credit analysis and briefing notes evaluating a proposed transaction involving one of MFS's funds in October 2007 may have been backdated.

Asked if he was aware of documents being backdated, Mr Anderson said "no", before asking for the question to be re-asked.

His more expansive reply was: "I wasn't aware with any certainty of any documents being backdated.

"I don't recall ever being aware of any documents being backdated or allegations of documents being backdated before 2008."

Full article

http://www.tradingroom.com.au/apps/...ished/2010/5/132/catf_100512_183300_9516.html


----------



## seamisty (13 May 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mult...ns-powers-of-concentration-20100512-uy37.html

Talk about 'snouts in the trough'!!!! Was Anderson helping Deloittes 'pick through the wreckage' or was he 'picking up assets from the wreckage' while being paid handsomely for the privledge? What on earth was Deloittes doing? Oh boy, getting really interesting now!!

And another one:http://www.smh.com.au/business/form...s-has-stake-in-new-company-20100512-uy35.html

'Yesterday in court, Mr Anderson defended his role in an alleged raid of the MFS Premium Income Fund to pay a $100 million loan to Fortress Credit on November 30, 2007, saying he did not consider at the time where the money was from.'

When colleagues later asked him for details of loans involving the Premium Income Fund, he refused to tell them because, he told the court, it was none of their business and they didn't know what they were talking about.




 Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (13 May 2010)

Class Action movement::

14-May-2010  10:15 Judgment Justice Perram Court Room 22A  

Possibly to do with the Statement of Claim???

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (13 May 2010)

Great to see movement tomorrow on the CA front. Also, the fact that the veteran SMH business journalist, Scott Rochfort, reported today on the OCV liquidator's hearing could well mean increased coverage by that paper of the examinations. If so, it will lead to increasing exposure for some people.


----------



## seamisty (13 May 2010)

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...iar-exec-opens-up-in-court-20100513-v1j6.html
Thanks Jason Chong::
Starting to get warmer!!! Do I detect some contradictions?

Former Octaviar exec opens up in court JORDAN CHONG 
May 13, 2010 - 7:34PM

The information Mr Anderson provided in his email response, the court heard, related to the source of funds for the company's October dividend payout.

Mr Anderson said he was "confused" about the two separate matters and responded to the question in error.

"I acknowledge that email is not the correct answer to the question that was asked and I can only put that down to my being confused by two sets of transactions," Mr Anderson said.

He said he was "not in any way" trying to give false information.

"Are you suggesting that it is inconceivable that I would ever make an error?" Mr Anderson said
:bs: At the rate Anderson charges I would expect no room for errors!!! We are not :sheep:


Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (13 May 2010)

What really concerns me is that  ordinary people who invested in so called 'safe' funds after being advised and relied on  so called reputable investment rating agencies and financial advisers etc have been left to fend for themselves and basically ignored by tax payer funded regulatory bodies, media , mps  and even their own RE's etc when it has been made public they were rorted, robbed and deceived!!! (and possibly still in the same leaky boat)

And the perpetrators are still out there pleading their innocence and still in business!! We were not 'greedy' as has been indicated, the greedy ones are still at large!!! Trying to justify their well paid for actions. No wonder the majority of PIF investors are so apathetic, how long can one  for without sustaining permanent injury?
 Pretty sad really, I can only hope that if there was/is employees at MFS/OCV/WC that knew/know the truth that they have had the guts and the honesty to do the right thing because I don't think this issue will be resolved in the short term. 
Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (14 May 2010)

MFS boss needed 'creative brain' to help with list KATE LAHEY 
May 14, 2010  http://www.smh.com.au/business/mfs-boss-needed-creative-brain-to-help-with-list-20100513-v1r3.html

A grovel before investors glove up SCOTT ROCHFORT 
May 14, 2010 http://www.smh.com.au/business/a-grovel-before-investors-glove-up-20100513-v1qs.html

The former MFS Limited chief financial officer David Anderson was keen to clear up any confusion yesterday over his interest in a remnant of the fallen Gold Coast financial group, MFS Alternative Asset Limited - the same entity that has Anderson as its sole director and is about to resurface as a key shareholder in the upcoming listing of the Sydney asset manager Aurora Limited.

Offering details on his interest in MFS Alternative Asset Limited, which is expected to emerge with a $1.3 million, or 6 per cent, stake in Aurora, Anderson referred to evidence he provided to public examinations this week when he said he originally invested $500,000 in AAL.

He declined to comment further yesterday on suggestions he had since upped his stake. It is believed he purchased MFS's 33 per cent stake in AAL (originally worth $3 million) for $1 in July 2008.

The outfit has managed to settle all of its debts with its former lenders Suncorp, Lift Capital and

St George. The only question mark is whether the $20-odd million debt to its former parent remains forgiven


----------



## seamisty (14 May 2010)

An interesting read here though slightly off topic. I have passed comment on more than one occasion that had ASIC intervened on PIF investors behalf and investigated the very same matters currently coming to light from the Bentleys public examinations, our Fund WOULD NOT BE IN THE DIRE FINANCIAL SITUATION it currently stands at!!!!!! It has lost further hundreds of millions of $$$$ since the collapse of MFS/OCV and ASIC was made aware of the problem well over two years ago!!

ASIC blocked litigation ADELE FERGUSON AND ERIC JOHNSTON 
May 14, 2010 http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic-blocked-litigation-20100513-v1qp.html


'THE corporate watchdog blocked efforts by a litigation fund to mount a landmark class action aimed at seeking the return of up to $5 billion in penalty and late fees from banks'

'Weeks earlier it refused to order five banks, including each of the big four, to hand over product disclosure statements necessary for the case relating to credit cards and savings accounts, despite allegations this might have breached the Corporations Act.'




Another example of poor regulatory governance?


Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (14 May 2010)

And yet further  evidence of Wellington Capitals business expertise. This is nothing short of disgusting WC!! Will this media article be posted on the newpif website and included in our once again overdue investor update??

Glamour Kooralbyn Valley resort 'left to rot' 
Sarah Vogler From: The Courier-Mail May 14, 2010 12:01AM http://www.couriermail.com.au/prope...sort-left-to-rot/story-e6frequ6-1225866307228

'IN its heyday it was a five-star resort where families holidayed alongside the wealthy. 

Now the Kooralbyn Hotel Resort, in the Gold Coast Hinterland, is semi-deserted, patrolled by security guards and surrounded by high fencing warning the public to "keep out" .

Kooralbyn Valley residents claim the buildings are falling apart and the 1500m air strip is now used by locals to walk their pets.

They say squatters have been seen making use of the crumbling facilities and that one building, near the tennis courts, was set alight and burnt out.'

'The hotel is in the hands of liquidators PA Lucas and Co and Brisbane-based Wellington Capital is first mortgagee. Both groups could not be contacted yesterday'


Left to ROT!!! And if this isn't bad enough, I was recently told that the overseer/manager of Kooralbyn resort is none other than Phillip Wibaux. That would be the same Phillip Wibaux, external compliance committee member of the PIF.

You think thats not bad enough?? What possible explanation could Wellington Capital come up with to justify  the presence at the same resort of an $80,000 luxury four wheel drive courtesy vehicle, removed months ago, under instruction of WC from another of our PIF assets in Victoria???? I think we need another public examination into what happened to the PIF assets after the MFS meltdown. Why did Anthony Stanton resign??? Hmmnnn.


Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (14 May 2010)

AMONG the emails the MFS chief financial officer David Anderson received in January 2008 was a request to help his colleagues justify what had happened to $147.5 million from the Premium Income Fund the year before. It said: ''Need your creative brain.''


These Directors must believe they were playing  an evening game of Monopoly with our money.

They seem to have completely fotgotten this was real money and peoples lives they have totally desroyed  when they lose.

 I think this fellow may just landed  himself on the, ‘Go to Jail  Square


----------



## selciper (14 May 2010)

"The hotel (Kooralbyn) is in the hands of liquidators PA Lucas and Co and Brisbane-based Wellington Capital is first mortgagee. Both groups could not be contacted yesterday." (Courier Mail.)

Surely WC can't keep up this policy of apparent public indifference for much longer. Do they have a duty of care where PIF assets are concerned? What does the IAC have to say about this latest failure?


----------



## seamisty (14 May 2010)

selciper said:


> "The hotel (Kooralbyn) is in the hands of liquidators PA Lucas and Co and Brisbane-based Wellington Capital is first mortgagee. Both groups could not be contacted yesterday." (Courier Mail.)
> 
> Surely WC can't keep up this policy of apparent public indifference for much longer. Do they have a duty of care where PIF assets are concerned? What does the IAC have to say about this latest failure?



Kooralbyn is not exactly a good advertisement of glowing achievement for the WC subsidiary offering financial advisory services to the real estate sector. It appears WC  cannot even manage their own backyard. Seamisty

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=58191580

Wellington Capital Limited, Advisory Arm
Company Overview
Wellington Capital Limited, Advisory Arm provides financial advisory services to the real estate sector. It offers growth strategy, capital raisings, restructuring, and mergers and acquisitions advisory services. The firm is headquartered in Brisbane, Australia with an additional office Sydney, Australia. Wellington Capital Limited, Advisory Arm operates as a subsidiary of Wellington Capital Limited.

Wellington Capital Limited Advisory Arm does not have any Key Executives recorded.


----------



## selciper (14 May 2010)

According to Bloomberg Businessweek, as dug up by Seamisty: "Wellington Capital Limited, Advisory Arm does not have any Key Executives recorded." 

A talented team surely deserve to have their names recorded.


----------



## seamisty (14 May 2010)

Class Action news::20-May-2010  9:30 Directions Justice Perram Court Room 21A


----------



## JohnH (14 May 2010)

http://www.couriermail.com.au/prope...t-left-to-rot/comments-e6frequ6-1225866307228

some very interesting comments from locals (and others) about the Courier Mail article on Kooralbyn.


----------



## seamisty (14 May 2010)

JohnH said:


> http://www.couriermail.com.au/prope...t-left-to-rot/comments-e6frequ6-1225866307228
> 
> some very interesting comments from locals (and others) about the Courier Mail article on Kooralbyn.



I just typed out a very comprehensive  copy of my comment which was the first one posted and rejected this morning  JohnH and the bloody power went out (for the 8th time tonight!!) and I lost it!! So basically it was something to do with this was once a valuable PIF asset before Wellington Capital stepped in with their expertise and something about the 'triumph of high achievement from the person in the arena'. 

Nothing but the truth. I have often wondered why the Brisbane Courier Mail is light on in the news dept regarding anything MFS/OCV/WC related. I have also noticed that the corporate business reporter is named James McCullough, prob just a coincidence? Any way thanks Sarah Vogler for the update!!

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (15 May 2010)

MFS chief quizzed on US loans KATE LAHEY 
May 15, 2010

The court also heard yesterday that after Mr King quit, Craig White had been the chief executive for about six hours when he realised there was no cash and believed Fortress was the only likely source of more.

He had emailed Mr Anderson asking: ''What you got in tin, how much we owe margins?''

Mr Anderson replied: ''Forget it, only $3.5 million at most in total.''

Mr White replied: ''I got to [get] cash from somewhere and fast. Fortress is my only solution.''

Meanwhile, Korda Mentha was called in to advise the MFS board. Mr Anderson told the court yesterday it declared MFS solvent, and no one at that stage considered calling in administrators



Full Story

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mfs-chief-quizzed-on-us-loans-20100514-v4g2.html


----------



## selciper (15 May 2010)

SERIES of questionable transactions undermined Gold Coast finance and tourism group Octaviar in the months leading up to its 2008 collapse, a Sydney court heard this week.

Courier Mail


http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...nked-to-collapse/story-e6freqmx-1225866973552


----------



## seamisty (15 May 2010)

Hi All, Sorry to keep :horse: but can any PIF investors actually confirm the existance of Alana Woodford and if they voted for her? My investigations are coming up as 'non existant' which I know has to be incorrect so would appreciate some input here. I am also conducting further investigations into the voting strength by PIF investors of the IAC nominees. I have a rough count for most but am still at a loss regarding actual figures for the elected reps as to how they aquired the majority vote, UNLESS Wellington Capital used the voting power of the PIF wholesale Fund of which WC continue to decline revealing that specific information. 
The reason I keep pursuing this is because I am compiling a data base of WC issues that could well end up resulting in the need for a thorough investigation into the current management of the PIF.

I have been assured by Bentleys that the transaction  details  agreed upon by MFS/OCV of  the Wellington Capital aquisition of the PIF is on the agenda in the public examinations. All those who signed off on the deal ::1) Freehills2) Korda Mentha3) Minter Ellison4) McCullough Robertson5) Jenny Hutson (all lawyers apart from Korda Mentha)

Not forgetting the 6 OCV directors at that time who also signed off on the deal. Who were they now?? Chris Scott, David Burke, Craig Chapman, Hiscock, Manka and White?? I could be mistaken (privledge!!)Hmnnn, Jenny Hutson was also  advisor to Chris Scott during this period, yep thats right, taking all calls and acting as go between for all interested parties doing due dilligence on the PIF and others wishing to communicate with Chris Scott. The internet is not only a valuable source of information, but also a bloody fantastic source of back up evidence!! 

Its a shame Wellington Capital do not monitor this thread (sic) because if they did they would be a tad  more concerned or are they? David Burke?? Whats he got to do with WC?? Is he on the WC payroll or another good 'mate'? If so, in what capacity? My data base is very broad and expanding daily. I also detect a growing increase of interested parties nibbling at opportunities to take advantage of possible investor discontent to offer their services to replace Wellington Capital as a alternative Responsible Entity. I thank you for your interest but PIF investors are no longer the complacent bunch of trusting individuals ready to put trust into other offers after having been  proved wrong in supporting other  promises which never eventuated. Vultures and 'carpetbaggers' not willing to put their  'money where  their mouth is' will be treated the same as those that put their 'mouth there without the money'. With contempt !!!( privledge)This story is just beginning to unfold, it could well be the base of another Erin Brockovich type saga. 
 More to come and I am concerned at the lack of forum support while at the same time I can appreciate PIF apathy because some investigations have to remain confidentail. Please rest assured that I know it appears nothing is being done but there are still a few diehards that will continue to push this to the max!! (if there is anywhere I can submit my hourly rate please let me know??!!!?)
If no satisfactory outcome is achieved at least  I will know it was not for lack of trying.

Seamisty


----------



## Duped (16 May 2010)

Duped said:


> Thanks selciper. My lay guess is I'll get something. Not 35c but way more than the 9c some are getting out at.
> 
> Like - who's going to give us our $40m for the Kooralbyn Hotel Resort (850 acres) when the Gold Coast Sheraton sold for only $60m (Reported as needing $20m of renovations). Or give us our $40m for The Forest Resort (Novotel. Creswick VIC).
> 
> ...




See my posting #5367 above

Any chance we can get Jones Lang Lasalle on the hook for loss of value of our Kooralbyn investment?

http://www.latestproperty.com.au/ma...ue/archived/1/section/For Sale/page/5/id/107/


----------



## selciper (16 May 2010)

Seamisty, 

Heartening to read your latest post. The fact that the IAC voting figures have never been announced is simply amazing. Thanks for maintaining a watching brief on the subject.

The news that Bentleys will include the Wellington acquisition of PIF in their public examinations should be music to our ears. There no doubt be indignant responses when the questioning gets tough. 

With the Bentleys hearings, the CA and the ASIC action, we are surely (slowly but surely)  approaching a point where we'll be seeing answers to the many questions contributors to this forum have been asking.

"PIF" is now a misnomer. It certainly isn't 
"premium" nor does it distribute any income. If it weren't for all the good work done by the AG and yourself, we'd have no sense of future possibilities.


----------



## seamisty (16 May 2010)

I recently made an enquiry to the Dubai Financial Services Authority re Agilis Global (Phil Adams) and was informed 'Agilis Global Holdings (Dubai) Limited is no longer registered as operating within the DIFC.' Date of Withdrawal: 18 January 2010    Seamisty


----------



## Duped (17 May 2010)

Australian Financial Review
13 May 2010

'CFO clueless on $100m repayment'

"[David Anderson] said MFS director Craig White told him the $100 million would be coming from MFS's *New Zealand based Premium Income Fund* (PIF)"

Well what does that say about the quality of AFR reporting?

Who's clueless then:  Anderson or the AFR?  Sloppy work. 

"When shown a copy of an email which contained a draft document dated January 2008, and then a signed copy of the document dated October 1, 2007, and asked if he was aware of documents being backdated at MFS, Mr Anderson replied: "No."

He paused and then asked to hear the question again.

Adam Bell, SC, repeated: "Were you aware while you were employed at MFS of documents being backdated some time in 2008."

Mr Anderson replied: "I don't recall being aware of documents being backdated, but I recall allegations of documents being backdated some time in 2008.""

ROFL!!!!!!  Am I reading this correctly. "*I don't recall being aware* ..."  That's just one step away from saying the laughable 'I don't recall recalling ...'

Oh and how hard can it be for Anderson to "recall allegations of documents being backdated some time in 2008" considering that's what ASIC *is *alleging in the statement of claim for the legal action ASIC started against Anderson and others in late 2009. Duh! 

This standard response of saying 'I don't recall' is getting tedious and totally incredulous.


----------



## simgrund (17 May 2010)

Duped said:


> Australian Financial Review
> 13 May 2010
> 
> 'CFO clueless on $100m repayment'----------------
> ...




Well embedded by Allan Bond as I recall; and this one is back in business somewhere.
Hopefully ASIC will employ newly acquired robust powers
to overcome these "bumps" in its recovery actions on behalf of PIF.


----------



## Jadel (17 May 2010)

Duped

I think it’s a ,'No-Brainer' that the, “ Very Creative Brain” of  the Chief financial Officer Is working overtime to explain  how he was totally unaware the  unprecedented draw down  of 200 million RBOS  loan from PIF a purportedly.’low risk income Fund’ can be lawfully  transmogrified  overnight to  pay out Fortress and other expenses.


----------



## seamisty (17 May 2010)

PIN is in a Trading halt  and There has just been a Takeover bid announced by AHP  Australian Premier Finance Holdings Limited FPO  I have never heard of them off to do some research!!
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722759.PDF

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722760.PDF
Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (17 May 2010)

http://www.alfpif.com.au/alf-pif.html

About Us 
ALF PIF FINANCE LIMITED (ALF) is a special purpose company established for the purpose of making this bid for the units in the Premium Income Fund

ALF has a broad and diverse range of existing shareholders, including distressed asset managers, restructuring advisors and ALF Group Holdings AG, a company listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. 
ALF Directors have a broad and diverse range of business experiences including project management of large scale building projects and the financing, procurement and management of large-scale development projects. Combined,the Board of Directors has over 100 years of business and corporate experience. 
ALF has a team of experienced project managers and licensed builders ready to be engaged to complete projects. That is, it is our intention to actively work towards completing current projects in order to maximise the value of existing PIF investments. 
ALF believes that the current asset values, and accordingly the net tangible assets of PIF Units, is based on the sale of projects ‘as is’ ie in the currently distressed state, as a half finished building is not as valuable as a completed one. ALF has the team to complete the projects and maximise the value of the projects by completing and selling them down in a non-distressed manner, thus maximising the value for shareholders of ALF. 
Directors
Mr Michael Pakula
Michael has over 25 years experience as an entrepreneur and business manager overseeing the development and growth of innovative emerging companies. Michael has previously sold a majority stake in a privately owned retail company to the Private Equity Division of Macquarie Bank Ltd and continued as its Managing Director for a number of years. Michael has and continues to work on a consultancy basis with several companies covering risk management and supply chain management in China and Africa.

Mr Pakula is a Director of ALF Group Holdings AG (ISIN CH0044678180) of Blesgistrasse 25, 6340 Baar, Switzerland which has an interest in 16,000,000 shares in the Bidder.

Mr Pascal P. Niedermann
Born in Switzerland, Pascal is a founding partner of The Maestro Group, a New York-based strategic management advisory firm. He has 20years of international expertise in the Financial Services, Investment and Strategic Policy making industry and has specialized in developing and implementing effective solutions for companies in need of strategic positioning and capital funding in order to grow in international markets. Before co-founding The Maestro Group in 2005, Pascal was a member of the international trade team of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee as a European policy advisor. Prior to that, Pascal worked for 13 years for UBS Financial Services in Zurich and New York. He specialised in marketing and business development in the high net worth division of UBS Wealth Management in Europe, North and Latin America for the world’s biggest asset manager.

Mr Niedermann is a Director of ALF Group Holdings AG (ISIN CH0044678180) which has an interest in 16,000,000 shares in the Bidder.

Mr Wayne Wheeler
Mr Wheeler possesses an unparalleled level of experience in all aspects of the property and construction field. Beginning as a carpenter and licensed builder, Mr Wheeler has since Managed and Supervised construction and property projects.

Mr Wheeler has a prior relationship as a full time consultant with directors of ALF Group Holdings AG. Mr Wheeler was engaged to oversee and complete 6 partially complete projects after an existing builder went into liquidation , with a combined value of in excess of $40m dollars . Mr Wheeler completed all projects within time and within budget.

As a member of both the Master Builders Association (MBA) and the Association of Building Sustainability Assessors (ABSA), Mr Wheeler is a highly respected associate of the construction profession. Mr Wheeler has spent a considerable amount of time lecturing in construction at TAFE as well as carrying out his responsibilities as a Seminar convenor for the Building Services Information Centre.

More recently, Mr Wheeler has extended his reach into the Computer Software industry, specifically that of programming and management/support. Mr Wheeler is currently completing a Bachelor of Technology at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.

Mr Wheeler has no interest in the Bidder’s securities.


----------



## seamisty (17 May 2010)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722761.PDF

ALF PIF Finance Ltd Bidder's Statement
 Haven't read it yet, Seamisty

Ps. I tried to call WC hotline but was asked to leave a message!!!!


----------



## zixo (17 May 2010)

The phone number that ALF PIN quoted on their Bid submission does NOT exist.

I tried the advisory service phone number quoted in their OFFICIAL statement 6 times and kept getting Link Market services saying the number is no longer in service.

I had no luck if anyone else wants to try the number I got was; 1300660106.

Hmmm . I wonder if they are tied in with JH and her mob of thieving gutter rats.


----------



## seamisty (17 May 2010)

zixo said:


> The phone number that ALF PIN quoted on their Bid submission does NOT exist.
> 
> I tried the advisory service phone number quoted in their OFFICIAL statement 6 times and kept getting Link Market services saying the number is no longer in service.
> 
> ...



Hi Zixo, I have been ferreting also!! Read the whole links, quite interesting!! Seamisty

http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=127787&catid=590

Can Can Lingerie Holding AG: Can Can Lingerie Holding AG - Alf Transaction Unanimously Approved At AGM 
Published on April 12, 2010


VIENNA, AUSTRIA



Can Can Lingerie Holding AG (ISIN: CH0044678180 / symbol: CCH) wishes to advise that at the Annual General Meeting of the Company held today at 10:45 a.m. in Zurich, Switzerland, the company’s shareholders unanimously approved all proposals put forward by the Board of Directors.


Mr Michael Pakula and Pascal P. Niedermann were re-elected to the Board. Further, Cathrine Byrnes Director of ALF Group, was elected as new member of the Board.

More here::
http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=127787&catid=590


We learnt that Mr Pakula was the major shareholder in a small cap company listed on the Open Market on the Deutsche Boerse (CCH) and that he was looking for a viable profitable business to enter into an arrangement for a reverse takeover or investment.

Our preliminary investigation discovered that the company had little in the way of realizable assets but correspondingly it had what we understood to be little in the way of debt and or losses.

Negotiations between ALF and CCH resulted in both companies entering into a non binding heads of agreement on 21st December 2009. The parties had an opportunity to conduct a due diligence on each other and thereafter entered into a share sale agreement on 3rd February 2010, which had conditions precedent to the agreement becoming final and binding.

Although the company had issues to be resolved, these have been resolved to our satisfaction and we wish to thank Mr Pakula and his advisors for the goodwill and effort extended in ensuring a timely and accurate final outcome.


----------



## seamisty (17 May 2010)

PREMIUM INCOME FUND (NSXIN) - REQUEST FOR TRADING HALT http://www.nsxa.com.au/announcements_list.asp
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund requests a trading halt on the
trading of units in Premium Income Fund. The reasons for the requested trading halt are to ensure that there
is an informed market in the trading of units in Premium Income Fund.
The Fund considers that the trading halt would last for 48 hours or until the making of an announcement by
the Fund, whichever occurs f,rst.
Wellington Capital Limited is not aware of any reason why the trading halt should not be granted.
Yours sincerely
Jenny Hutson.

I called WC secretary about half an hour ago and asked if PIF investors could expect a NSX announcement re the takeover, I don't think WC had a clue it had even happened!! Seamisty


----------



## Duped (17 May 2010)

Everyone please be very very careful about what you post to avoid having this thread shut down again.  

Clause 2.5.1 Responsible Entity’s remuneration

The bidder seems to be saying that WC's "fees have been accruing" since 15 October 2008!!!

Is this correct WC?


----------



## seamisty (17 May 2010)

Duped said:


> Clause 2.5.1 Responsible Entity’s remuneration
> 
> The bidder seems to be saying that WC's "fees have been accruing" since 15 October 2008!!!
> 
> Is this correct WC?



Duped!! Just spotted your avatar!!!ROFL!!! I was told that management fees were not accruing but that doesn't mean they aren't!!
Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (17 May 2010)

seamisty said:


> http://www.alfpif.com.au/alf-pif.html
> 
> About Us
> ALF PIF FINANCE LIMITED (ALF) is a special purpose company established for the purpose of making this bid for the units in the Premium Income Fund-----




What a phenominal bolt from the blue, if swallowed without a safe gulp of scepticism.
Mr. Michael Pakula sounds faintly familiar. Perhaps further "ferretting" will out this one as well.
No doubt we will continue with the CA. Would that be considered  "double dipping" should lingerie purveyors prove more than an illusion on the horizon.
This leaves me in an anxious jaw drop,
Regards


----------



## Duped (17 May 2010)

seamisty said:


> Duped!! Just spotted your avatar!!!ROFL!!! I was told that management fees were not accruing but that doesn't mean they aren't!!
> Seamisty




Thanks.   (From last week's Courier Mail article)  Next time I'm at the Gold Coast I'm going to take a pic of 3496-3498 Main Beach Parade.

Am I deluded thinking that the Jones Lang Lasalle online listing is, for the want of better words, lame. Is that what the industry calls a 'marketing campaign'?  Is it listed with any other agents?  Was there a bidding process for the work?

Without drawing any causal link, check out who has joined Chris Scott, and Jenny Hutson on the board of Early Learning Services Ltd (possibly soon to be G8 Education Ltd), Craig Chapman who "has held senior finance and operational roles with Seaworld, Seaworld Nara Resort, Ramada Hotels and Resorts, Hayman Island, Stamford Hotels and Resorts, Islands Hotels and Resorts, *Jones Lang LaSalle*, Travel Online, *S8 Limited*, Greencross Limited, *Sunkids *and Ramsay Bourne."

http://www.openbriefing.com/AsxDownload.aspx?pdfUrl=Report%2FComNews%2F20100423%2F01057325.pdf

Let me remind casual readers that many of MFS's big guns were ex-KPMG.

I don't like it!


----------



## selciper (17 May 2010)

Hopefully there will be plenty of analysis and projections on this forum to assist everyone face yet another new chapter in this deplorable saga.


----------



## breaker1 (17 May 2010)

*RE: ALF PIF Finance Limited offer*:

To make it clear - the PIF Action Group [PIF AG] are *NOT* in any way associated with this takeover offer from ALF PIF Finance. 

The PIF AG will continue to investigate this matter and keep our members informed. 

We recommend that our AG members be on their guard and exercise great caution with this offer

PIF investors would be wise to investigate the asset backing of ALF PIF Finance, any possible parent company involved and what individuals they are connected with.

Seamisty - thanks for your great research on this matter!

Cover Note: PIF AG representatives, are not financial advisors -  PIF investors should seek excellent financial advise in this matter from reputable, independent, financial advisors


----------



## seamisty (17 May 2010)

Duped said:


> Thanks.   (From last week's Courier Mail article)  Next time I'm at the Gold Coast I'm going to take a pic of 3496-3498 Main Beach Parade.
> 
> Am I deluded thinking that the Jones Lang Lasalle online listing is, for the want of better words, lame. Is that what the industry calls a 'marketing campaign'?  Is it listed with any other agents?  Was there a bidding process for the work?
> 
> ...



No Mention of his stint at Octaviar working along side David Anderson on his resume?? (He maybe can't recall it!!)

http://www.theage.com.au/business/mfs-executive-nets-nearly-1m-20091011-gsfe.html
About five Octaviar staff, including Mr Anderson, continue to work with Bentleys. It is believed one staff member who stayed on is Craig Chapman.

Mr Chapman was installed as chief executive of Octaviar last year, after his business associate, the Singapore-based business identity Chris Scott, led a spill of the company's board.

It all gets a bit overwhelming at times!! Maybe now we will get a glowing overdue PIF investor update with all the reasons to stick with WC. They sure got the Trading Halt organised in a hurry when they realised the :fan   Seamisty


----------



## flatback (18 May 2010)

Duped said:


> Thanks.   (From last week's Courier Mail article)  Next time I'm at the Gold Coast I'm going to take a pic of 3496-3498 Main Beach Parade.
> 
> Am I deluded thinking that the Jones Lang Lasalle online listing is, for the want of better words, lame. Is that what the industry calls a 'marketing campaign'?  Is it listed with any other agents?  Was there a bidding process for the work?
> 
> ...



Duped it really makes you wonder, these people have no heart, to them it is all monopoly money, pushing money around in such a manner nobody can keep a check on it, how can our legal system allow these grubs to keep creating company after company when they are being investigated for indiscretions in companies they have brought to there knee's, have no thought for the number of people who will never recover, lost houses, businesses, broken families up, put many to the wall, i really dont know what the answer is, it is frightening to the average person to read about the corruption in our legal system and regulators of the business world.flatback


----------



## selciper (18 May 2010)

Could someone with knowledge about takeover bids briefly set out the stages that are normally gone though in such matters?


----------



## seamisty (18 May 2010)

YEEEHAAA!! Action Stations Alive in the Wellington Capital Bunker!!!
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722766.PDF

REJECT TAKEOVER OFFER
FOR PREMIUM INCOME FUND UNITS MADE BY ALF PIF FINANCE LIMITED
A takeover offer seeking to purchase all of the units in the Premium Income Fund was received on
17 May 2010. The Wellington Capital board unanimously recommends that you REJECT this
offer as
 The proposal shifts over $120 million of the current value in the Premium
Income Fund to the current Bidder’s shareholders and away from you.
 The Bidder is currently valued at only $1,600, was incorporated on 5 May 2010
and has no track record.
 80% of the ordinary shares will be owned by the Bidder’s current shareholders
not by you, the Premium Income Fund unitholders.
 The Bidder’s future proposal for your Fund involves debt again.
Bidder
 Your investment will be illiquid again.
Unitholders should take no action
The Wellington Capital board unanimously recommends that you reject the unsolicited and highly
conditional scrip bid by the Bidder as it is not in the best interests of unitholders.
The takeover bid offers 0.1 share and 0.5 redeemable preference shares in the Bidder for each unit
in the Premium Income Fund in a company with no trading history and less than $2,000 in assets.
The Board of Wellington Capital recommend that all
Premium Income Fund unitholders REJECT the Bidder’s offer.
Managing Director, Jenny Hutson, said
‘The offer is grossly inadequate. The proposal seeks to shift over $120 million in unitholders’
current value to the Bidder’s current shareholders. The Wellington Capital board believes that the
approach by the Bidder is opportunistic and is at a price that does not reflect in any way the current
value of Premium Income Fund units.’
Unitholders should not act on any communications from the Bidder

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722767.PDF
Removal of trading halt! I bet WC are busy getting that OVERDUE INVESTOR UPDATE drafted and off to Print Mail Logistics!! Must keep the rest of the mushrooms informed and warned of the imminent danger!!! Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (18 May 2010)

I'm sure we have all noticed that the "ALF Group" is the one that Jim Byrnes is associated with  (see 5511 and other threads)


----------



## Duped (18 May 2010)

"Managing Director, Jenny Hutson, said
‘The offer is grossly inadequate. The proposal seeks to shift over $120  million in unitholders’ current value to the Bidder’s current shareholders. The  Wellington  Capital board believes that the approach by the Bidder is opportunistic and is at a price that does not  reflect in any way the current value of Premium Income Fund units.’"

Of course it's opportunistic.  That's one of the main mechanisms that makes the free market function isn't it?  Called price discovery isn't it?

"Your investment will be illiquid again."

So what liquidity have we got now? In the full 19 months since listing only 7 1/4 million units sold.  That's LESS THAN 1%.  How far down would the share price have gone if us unit holders had competed with each other to sell say 10% (75 million units) during that period? 

What do stocks normally turn over? There's a list of ASX A-REITs at http://asx.com.au/products/managed_funds/tools/research.htm#PropertyTrusts

According to CommSec data:
CFS Retail Property Trust (ASX code CFX) (i.e. Colonial First State which I believe is owned by CBA) had 2,464 million shares at Jun09.  
Average turnover for the last 6 months was 8.14 million a day. I.e. a third of one percent every single day. 
Turnover for the last 6 months was 1001 million.  I.e. more than 40%!!!  Am I wrong?

What's WC's definition of liquidity?

Let's all keep it real.


----------



## selciper (18 May 2010)

Thanks, John H -
Post #5511 is essential reading,


----------



## gardie (18 May 2010)

On first read of the offer document I cannot see any timeframe for repayment of the redeemable preference shares.

They say best effort to repay within 2 years but not what the life of these shares are.

A redeemable preference share is actually a debt instrument not equity.

Under corps law it can be only be redeemed through
- winding up the company
- out of profits
- through a new issue of securities

So within two years either they need to raise capital or make a huge profit to redeem the shares.

Also talks about not paying fee's until these shares are redeemed but then they hold 80% ? and will be able to do what they like in terms of fee's and charges.

Fundamentally a good idea to roll into a unlisted company and get rid of RE and custodian but why doesnt PIF unitholders make the offer themselves and own 100% of everything and control it 100%.


----------



## seamisty (18 May 2010)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722768.PDF

REJECT TAKEOVER OFFER
FOR PREMIUM INCOME FUND UNITS MADE BY ALF PIF FINANCE LIMITED
Clarification of management fees payable to Wellington Capital Limited
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund has received a large
number of queries in relation to the Bidder’s Statement lodged on 17 May 2010.
A complete review of the Bidder’s Statement will be undertaken and all unitholders will have the
benefit of Bidder’s Statement and a formal Target’s Statement from Wellington Capital Limited as
responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund.
In relation to the reference to management fees which appears on page 36 of the Bidder’s
Statement, Wellington Capital Limited categorically denies the statement made by the Bidder that
‘fees have accrued from the first date of management and will be come payable after any
distribution totalling $0.03 is paid to Unitholders’.
Jenny Hutson, Managing Director of Wellington Capital advises as follows:
“No funds management fees have been paid to or accrued by Wellington Capital Limited as
responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund.
An undertaking was provided to the Supreme Court of Queensland and the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission in September 2008 that the responsible entity will
only charge a funds management fee of 0.7% per annum on funds under management after
Unitholders are in receipt of the cash payments totalling 3 cents per unit.
There is no liability for management fees accruing by the Premium Income Fund to
Wellington Capital Limited. This statement in the Bidder’s Statement is incorrect.”
The Board of Wellington Capital recommend that all
Premium Income Fund unitholders REJECT the Bidder’s offer.
Unitholders should not act on any communications from the Bidder


----------



## seamisty (18 May 2010)

WELL WELL WELL!! LOOKKEE HERE, OUR INVESTOR UPDATE!!!!

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722769.PDF


----------



## JohnH (18 May 2010)

seamisty said:


> WELL WELL WELL!! LOOKKEE HERE, OUR INVESTOR UPDATE!!!!
> 
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722769.PDF




Where's the Kleenex............. what a pathetic response from the "advisory committee"!

Surely the members of this Group who stood for election must in law be entitile to be made aware of the results.  -  Can one of our more learned contributors confirm this?


----------



## seamisty (18 May 2010)

JohnH said:


> Where's the Kleenex............. what a pathetic response from the "advisory committee"!
> 
> Surely the members of this Group who stood for election must in law be entitile to be made aware of the results.  -  Can one of our more learned contributors confirm this?



Yes JohnH,  the IAC report must have taxed a few investors mentality because I had several calls in relation to 'the complete waste of time and expense' that went into the IAC ELECTION CAMPAIGN. Some PIF unit holders have  questioned if the votes were considered at all and if Wellington Capital did not in fact select their own reps!!!! I sincerely hope that PIF investors are not picking up the tab to fly B Andrejic down from Cairns to inform us that they 'have been watching with interest the media reports
surrounding the public examinations of the MFS
employees in Sydney during the past weeks, especially
in relation to the PIF loan facility'. 
Also I have specifically requested (more than once) that the IAC reps interact with the AG. In view of the fact that our membership represents approx 10% of PIF investors and it was their desire to represent us to the best of their ability, I find it rather staggering and dissapointing  that they continue to decline to make contact with the AG.
If the IAC continues to be unable to provide unitholders with any assistance I seriously question the whole concept of having a IAC


Well we know how to get the old elusive overdue updates to make a snappy appearance, trot out another interested party, and they are out there, just not prepared to put their hands in their pockets!!

One decent/fair offer and I'm outa here!!!  

Seamisty


----------



## jim Byrnes (18 May 2010)

Good Evening , I have taken the time to read all the blog listings . There are a lot of people who are unit holders and have sought information about the bid . Ok first an offer document having been prepared by specialist lawyers and accountants is given to the exchange (NSX) the RE and ASIC.
ASIC as I understand it act as corporate regulator and will seek amendments and clarifications to the bid . Only AFTER an offer is approved for release by ASIC does it become a live bid .
JH will then have to put on a competent statement as to why the bid should either be rejected or accepted .
I rang JH today and got through in under 1 minute . She was cordial and polite . She would not be drawn into conversations about current court cases that the RE is running and the massive damages claims by aggrieved borrowers .
JH was advised that Mr Pakula , his team of lawyers and myself would be more than happy to track our way to her door step for a discussion.
That is an open offer and I understand the bidder is more than happy to clarify all questions the market , the unit holders , ASIC and Mrs Jenny H may have .
I understand there was an issue with the phone number , it’s now resolved .
What is requested is that people who are genuinely interested leave there details via the web site so they can be sent weekly updates.

Finally I don’t want to see the thread shut down , but I will try to answer sensible questions so long as in doing so I will not be drawn into controversy. ...( well any more than usual)


----------



## seamisty (18 May 2010)

Well while posters on the forum remain an endangered species it is good to see that interest to PIF issues are still being closely monitored. In excess of 1,000 hits to this thread in approx 12 hours is very 'encouraging'.
 I am hoping the takeover bid might stir up some PIF media coverage. There are certain issues which remain ignored from an investors point of view. In some cases the developers themselves have news worthy information that would make interesting reading.

Seamisty


----------



## jim Byrnes (18 May 2010)

lol , you’re not wrong , the Financial review , The herald , the Australian , several investment newsletters so far have contacted me ....... i am waiting to see what JH does .
Look i would love to hear what investors are most upset with . 
look i am not JH , i am happy to spend time talking to people .
i understand that once ASIC go through the bid , ALF PIF has suggested running a road show to investors , explaining why they feel the bid is in investors best interest . Let’s be clear , investors should consider their options and get advice . only problem is look if it were BHP or CBA you could get good advice , why not get an independent analyst to go through the company and see if JH is getting the best results or if a better solutions is the bid


----------



## jim Byrnes (18 May 2010)

please pass on to interested parties that Aussie Stock Forums is the only blog i will be on .


----------



## seamisty (18 May 2010)

jim Byrnes said:


> lol , you’re not wrong , the Financial review , The herald , the Australian , several investment newsletters so far have contacted me ....... i am waiting to see what JH does .
> Look i would love to hear what investors are most upset with .
> look i am not JH , i am happy to spend time talking to people .
> i understand that once ASIC go through the bid , ALF PIF has suggested running a road show to investors , explaining why they feel the bid is in investors best interest . Let’s be clear , investors should consider their options and get advice . only problem is look if it were BHP or CBA you could get good advice , why not get an independent analyst to go through the company and see if JH is getting the best results or if a better solutions is the bid



Hi Jim, I for one will never vote for an alternative RE that proposes to take the majority of voting power from the unit holders!!  ALF want to give PIF unit holders an ALF share which has a maximum value of .15 cents to be paid at their discretion, if at all.  Voting rights would be diminished as the entire PIF unit holders would only represent 19% of ordinary ALF shares.

Also Variation of Rights - Subject to the Corp Act and the Listing Rules, all or any of the rights and privileges attached to the ALF Redeemable Preference Shares Units may be varied or cancelled by  a special resolution passed at a meeting of the holders of the ALF Shareholders.”  (Special resolution is 75%)  ALF Founding shareholders will represent 80.91% of shares on issue which leaves investors with no say.
 Just because PIF investors appear to have been 'shafted twice' does not mean we are a bunch of desperate old farts willing to line up for a 'trifecta'! In fact we are so conscious and suspicious now of anyone remotely involved with the management of our dwindling assets that I truly believe this current bid will not be accepted by the majority of unit holders desperate as they are for a better offer/solution to our current predicament and dissatisfaction with our current RE. 

I do respect your honesty in posting under your own name.

Seamisty


----------



## jim Byrnes (18 May 2010)

seamisty said:


> Hi Jim, I for one will never vote for an alternative RE that proposes to take the majority of voting power from the unit holders!!  ALF want to give PIF unit holders an ALF share which has a maximum value of .15 cents to be paid at their discretion, if at all.  Voting rights would be diminished as the entire PIF unit holders would only represent 19% of ordinary ALF shares.
> 
> Also Variation of Rights - Subject to the Corp Act and the Listing Rules, all or any of the rights and privileges attached to the ALF Redeemable Preference Shares Units may be varied or cancelled by  a special resolution passed at a meeting of the holders of the ALF Shareholders.”  (Special resolution is 75%)  ALF Founding shareholders will represent 80.91% of shares on issue which leaves investors with no say.
> Just because PIF investors appear to have been 'shafted twice' does not mean we are a bunch of desperate old farts willing to line up for a 'trifecta'! In fact we are so conscious and suspicious now of anyone remotely involved with the management of our dwindling assets that I truly believe this current bid will not be accepted by the majority of unit holders desperate as they are for a better offer/solution to our current predicament and dissatisfaction with our current RE.
> ...




Thank You ; Please let me address issues that i am able to . Please note for legal reasons i may have to differ on some hot topics for a period .

The Voting rights issue is a very valid point , the pref share has a value of an amount equal to -15c , that is  double the current price . ALF Pif ordinary shareholders can’t get a  cent until current pif shareholders who accept get 15c , double the market price . 
The issue is that pref Shares have a voting right until fully redeemed .

As to the variation of redeemable shareholders rights , i accept your concern , that is something that i am sure ALF PIF will clarify and ASIC will want and get agreements with the three main ALF PIF shareholders .

Let me make it perfectly clear , what ALF PIF want to do is equal the playing field and restore some value ,,,for which they will make money as well.

I understand that ALF PIF would welcome as a condition of acceptance 3 more independent directors , from the existing shareholders pool . Clearly they will need some proper understanding of directors role and responsibility .

Look as i see it , PIF has a rubbery figure of 260m in assets , but they are all very distressed assets , there are numerous court cases and millions may be being spent on lawyers rather than on builders finishing the unfinished properties. 
Example , Wollongong , PIF sing the praises of their deal . well here is news , i attended a meeting with the builder who i know well ( Tony Touma Parkview) Anthony Stanton and a couple of investors i brought to buy the building outright ....cash 30 days .
The offer accepted took 1 plus years longer , it cost hundreds of thousands in external cost more ,it results in 3million more .
The project should deliver the JV partner tens of millions in profit ......why didn’t wellington borrow against the property the 15m to finish 1 year ago , they would have achieved 15m-20m better bottom line.
ALF PIF want to settle all the claims and stop paying lawyers with your money , they want to systematically work through the projects and finish them and maximise the return .


----------



## seamisty (18 May 2010)

Myself personally Jim cannot see how ALF, an alleged $1600 company propose to find the millions of $ needed to finish projects and restore PIF asset value at this point considering WC have already seemingly sacrificed any PIF commercial  projects which could have generated growth for example Wollongong Hotel Harbour St which you are familiar with. This project is a well known example of Wellington Capital  failure to deliver a best investor out come. I personally have a copy of the bidders statement of the auction. WC tried to inform PIF investors differently of the outcome, another reason investors have no faith in the current RE. $42+million accepted at the auction would have seen PIF investors being paid their 3 cent return of capital after the auction. I have often wondered if WC did not accept this offer because it may have settled in the time frame that WC had agreed to pay for the RE rights to the PIF?

The Forest Resort Hotel  VIC is another blatant example of WC waste of PIF investor funds!! Why on earth were labourers flown from QLD to complete work at the Forest Resort when local employees were more than qualified for the necessary work? Not sure if this is meant to be a well kept WC secret, but after having been flown to VIC from QLD, the said employees organised by WC were then delivered on site  by a bloody limousine!!! Sorry fellow investors I was keeping this snippet for future ammo, BUT if we do at last have interest from the media, bring it on!! Plenty more of interest I am sure!! So Jim, there is a far bigger picture here than has been previously revealed and hopefully you will recognise why PIF investors are distrustfull and extremely wary of offers. Add to this we know we have already been robbed and will not expose ourselves to any situation which may prove  further anguish and depletion of the remaining pittance of our original investment.
Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (18 May 2010)

Better the devil one knows ?????  than:-

http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.ns...ey+man+James+'Jim'+Byrnes+banned?openDocument   ???

..................... yes, and I also have (grudgingly) respect that he posts under his own name!


----------



## jim Byrnes (18 May 2010)

seamisty said:


> Myself personally Jim cannot see how ALF, an alleged $1600 company propose to find the millions of $ needed to finish projects and restore PIF asset value at this point considering WC have already seemingly sacrificed any PIF commercial  projects which could have generated growth for example Wollongong Hotel Harbour St which you are familiar with. This project is a well known example of Wellington Capital  failure to deliver a best investor out come. I personally have a copy of the bidders statement of the auction. WC tried to inform PIF investors differently of the outcome, another reason investors have no faith in the current RE. $42+million accepted at the auction would have seen PIF investors being paid their 3 cent return of capital after the auction. I have often wondered if WC did not accept this offer because it may have settled in the time frame that WC had agreed to pay for the RE rights to the PIF?
> 
> The Forest Resort Hotel  VIC is another blatant example of WC waste of PIF investor funds!! Why on earth were labourers flown from QLD to complete work at the Forest Resort when local employees were more than qualified for the necessary work? Not sure if this is meant to be a well kept WC secret, but after having been flown to VIC from QLD, the said employees organised by WC were then delivered on site  by a bloody limousine!!! Sorry fellow investors I was keeping this snippet for future ammo, BUT if we do at last have interest from the media, bring it on!! Plenty more of interest I am sure!! So Jim, there is a far bigger picture here than has been previously revealed and hopefully you will recognise why PIF investors are distrustfull and extremely wary of offers. Add to this we know we have already been robbed and will not expose ourselves to any situation which may prove  further anguish and depletion of the remaining pittance of our original investment.
> Seamisty





ALF group Pty ltd , which owns 80% of ALF PIF generated over 8 million EBIT in the last six months , the audited figures were announced on the ALF Group Holdings Frankfurt announcements in April . The forecast EBIT for a full 12 months is 14m EBIT ( i think it will be a good bit higher)
ALF Group Pty Ltd has an undrawn $20m facility and could assist . But what is underway , ALF Group Holdings AG the  Publicly listed company got approval to do a capital raising in the interim ( about 10-15m AUD ) and has an EGM next month and will get approval to issue shares to undertake a 50m Euro capital raising in Germany , that’s about $70mAUD  . i can tell you that part of these funds are earmarked for the benefit of lending ALF PIF funds as may be required to complete properties that are ready to get finished . In my view it’s a three year cycle . Some property is really out there and needs to be held until the next boom , that’s just the way it is . Selling it now would be a mistake . but finished stock is always a long way ahead of unfinished projects.
On Wollongong, the end value on completion even in a distressed market was around 100m....needed 20m to finish apartments and hotel


----------



## seamisty (18 May 2010)

Forgot to add Jim, your statement 'ALF PIF would welcome as a condition of acceptance 3 more independent directors , from the existing shareholders pool . Clearly they will need some proper understanding of directors role and responsibility .'


Directors credentials in my past experience are as much use as t1ts on a boar pig no matter what their previous experience is and how many letters they can notch up against their names if they are not prepared to act honestly and represent  investors best interests!! Classic example now being exposed in the Bentley public examinations . These so called highly qualified individuals have alegedly robbed us blind!! Did it matter to them what their responsibilities to investors were? It is quite obvious that who paid the piper called the tune!! Sorry, who gives a rats bum how highly qualified someone is meant to be if that individual acts in a dishonest manner. I honestly believe that the majority of  individual investors in this fund have no faith in current management or any similar offers. These type of investment products are so badly tainted no one who is remotely informed will invest in them and those who are currently invested can't wait to exit them. at a reasonible price or knowing that they will be adequately compensated from moneys recovered on their behalf. 

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (18 May 2010)

jim Byrnes said:


> lol , you’re not wrong , the Financial review , The herald , the Australian , several investment newsletters so far have contacted me ....... i am waiting to see what JH does .
> Look i would love to hear what investors are most upset with .
> look i am not JH , i am happy to spend time talking to people .
> i understand that once ASIC go through the bid , ALF PIF has suggested running a road show to investors , explaining why they feel the bid is in investors best interest . Let’s be clear , investors should consider their options and get advice . only problem is look if it were BHP or CBA you could get good advice , why not get an independent analyst to go through the company and see if JH is getting the best results or if a better solutions is the bid



Also Jim, sorry to cash in on your headlines, but I would really appreciate it if you would inform any of the interested journos that I am more than happy to comment on this offer as well as discuss concerns PIF investors have with the curent Responsible Entity, Wellington Capital. I can be contacted on this thread openly or by private message. Thankyou. Seamisty


----------



## jim Byrnes (18 May 2010)

seamisty said:


> Forgot to add Jim, your statement 'ALF PIF would welcome as a condition of acceptance 3 more independent directors , from the existing shareholders pool . Clearly they will need some proper understanding of directors role and responsibility .'
> 
> 
> Directors credentials in my past experience are as much use as t1ts on a boar pig no matter what their previous experience is and how many letters they can notch up against their names if they are not prepared to act honestly and represent  investors best interests!! Classic example now being exposed in the Bentley public examinations . These so called highly qualified individuals have alegedly robbed us blind!! Did it matter to them what their responsibilities to investors were? It is quite obvious that who paid the piper called the tune!! Sorry, who gives a rats bum how highly qualified someone is meant to be if that individual acts in a dishonest manner. I honestly believe that the majority of  individual investors in this fund have no faith in current management or any similar offers. These type of investment products are so badly tainted no one who is remotely informed will invest in them and those who are currently invested can't wait to exit them. at a reasonible price or knowing that they will be adequately compensated from moneys recovered on their behalf.
> ...





I could not agree more .
i did chuckle when i read JH response .
ALF PIF would be an illiquid stock ...oh please . PIF NTA ??? they say 260m ....market cap 50 odd mil 
its turn over for good knows how long is 1.6m 
if every shareholder wanted to sell 10% of the units on current turnover it would take 5years .
its a dog fund 
its a work out 
not a managed fund 
a work out fund 
i may be a tough businessman , but i will be working hard on every deal to maximise return .
remember if the deal proceeds we are all in the same boat

she says ALF PIF are opertunistic ....what the hell is she ...its not like she paid 10m for the loan book ....Jenny People in Glass houses shouldnt throw stones .
ALF PIF founding shareholders dont get a bean until over $100,000,000 is paid out to pref shareholders .....thats twice current market cap .

Next laugh 
Jenny says ALF PIF walk away with 100m day one .
you can buy the whole thing based on current market cap for a little over 50m


----------



## jim Byrnes (18 May 2010)

i am happy to talk to all investors 
my email is j.byrnes@alfpl.com
i am happy to give my mobile to serous people who email me .
please remeber i cant talk to 10,000 but i will be at the roadshows and will get a chance to address the crowd


----------



## seamisty (18 May 2010)

jim Byrnes said:


> i am happy to talk to all investors
> my email is j.byrnes@alfpl.com
> i am happy to give my mobile to serous people who email me .
> please remeber i cant talk to 10,000 but i will be at the roadshows and will get a chance to address the crowd



Roadshows Jim? Don't waste your money.  A substantial amount of PIF investors have been there and done that and rue the day they were sucked in by Jenny Hutson and her broken promises (and tears). Please do not waste time, money and effort on a replica of a sideshow that many are regretting the outcome of. Most of us look forward to the day that legal intervention (ASIC is not high on the agenda) will deliver compensation and justice. We are not prepared to prolong this nightmare and take further risks. 

Seamisty


----------



## BootsnAll (19 May 2010)

Thanks John H. for the ASIC link. 
Seamisty once again thank you for your dedication.


----------



## seamisty (19 May 2010)

Byrnes-related bid for PIF COLIN KRUGER 
May 19, 2010

Aside from the promised payout to PIF investors, which will be made via the redemption of the preference stock they are to receive, they will be issued 19 per cent of ALF PIF's ordinary shares.

This means 81 per cent of any further return for the fund will be delivered to ALF PIF's current shareholders.

ALF PIF's largest current shareholder, with 80 per cent of its issued stock, is ALF Group Pty Ltd.

It lists Jim Byrnes as the contact person for documents lodged in January this year.

The documents announced the appointment of Mr Byrnes's wife, Catherine, as a director.

Mr Byrnes, whose career has included stints as a second-hand car salesman and debt collector, was jailed for supplying drugs and is currently banned from acting as a company director.

Wellington Capital wooed PIF unitholders away from MFS/Octaviar to become the fund's responsible entity, and told investors to reject the offer it described as ''grossly inadequate'' and ''opportunistic''


Full article here:http://www.smh.com.au/business/byrnesrelated-bid-for-pif-20100518-vc8a.html


----------



## seamisty (19 May 2010)

Big Jim's new venture is more alluring SCOTT ROCHFORT 
May 19, 2010

http://www.smh.com.au/business/big-jims-new-venture-is-more-alluring-20100518-vc5z.html
The banned company director Jim Byrnes appears to have moved on from his brief flirtation with the toll road sector.

In a sign Big Jim has bounced back from last year's failed class action against the Macquarie-listed BrisConnections, he is now working behind the scenes with the shell of a former lingerie company in its takeover bid for the former MFS satellite and Newcastle Stock Exchange-listed Premium Income Fund.

The German-listed company ALF Group, formerly known as Can Can Lingerie, is the 80 per cent shareholder in the company behind the bid, ALF PIF Pty Ltd.

Among the bidder's directors are the former owner of Can Can, the Sydney businessman and rag trader Michael Pakula, who retains a stake in the listed entity.

The lingerie company has a 50 per cent stake in a Singaporean company that owns a range of Australian businesses, including Big Jim's Australian Litigation Funders and a carbon trading business.

Yesterday the income fund, now managed by Brisbane businesswoman Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital, urged the fund's long-suffering unitholders to reject the bid. ''The offer is grossly inadequate,'' said Hutson in a statement. The fund reported a $35 million loss for the six months to December 31 and has now written down its assets to about $270 million.

This compares with its almost $900 million valuation on assets before the implosion of its former manager, MFS


----------



## Cookie1 (19 May 2010)

Link to article from The Age entitled "Byrnes-related bid for PIF" by COLIN KRUGER on May 19, 2010

http://www.smh.com.au/business/byrnesrelated-bid-for-pif-20100518-vc8a.html

Excerpts from article (my emphasis in bold):

"A COMPANY associated with controversial business identity Jim Byrnes has announced an all-scrip takeover bid for the Newcastle Stock Exchange-listed Premium Income Fund."

"Its suitor, *ALF PIF Finance, was incorporated weeks ago and currently has assets totalling $1600*."

"The takeover vehicle is proposing to issue PIF unitholders with ordinary shares and preference shares, with the promise that it will use its ''best endeavours'' to pay them the equivalent of 15 ¢ for each security they currently hold within two years.

*ALF PIF will effectively make the payment out of the assets PIF investors will bring to the merged entity*, but said that it would bring an experienced management team to revive the PIF investment projects that stalled after the collapse of MFS/Octaviar."

"ALF PIF's largest current shareholder, with 80 per cent of its issued stock, is ALF Group Pty Ltd.

It lists *Jim Byrnes as the contact person* for documents lodged in *January* this year.

The *documents announced the appointment of Mr Byrnes's wife, Catherine, as a director*.

*Mr Byrnes, whose career has included stints as a second-hand car salesman and debt collector, was jailed for supplying drugs and is currently banned from acting as a company director.* 

Wellington Capital wooed PIF unitholders away from MFS/Octaviar to become the fund's responsible entity, and told investors to reject the offer it described as ''grossly inadequate'' and ''opportunistic''."


----------



## seamisty (19 May 2010)

Coast fund wary of takeover
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  May 19th, 2010

AN associate of slain Sydney businessman Michael McGurk has been linked a brazen takeover bid for the Premium Income Fund, along with the frozen fortunes of thousands of retired investors.

'Big' Jim Byrnes, the man who alleged McGurk was in possession of politically explosive telephone recordings before his death last year, is understood to be a consultant for Frankfurt-based Can Can Lingerie, the holding company that has backed the $113 million-plus bid.

Mr Byrnes' wife, Catherine, controls a significant stake in Can Can Lingerie following Can Can's 50 per cent buyout of the Byrnes family business, Australian Litigation Funders, earlier this month.

The move will see Can Can Lingerie Holding renamed ALF Group Holdings in a major restructuring of the business.
Full article http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/05/19/219135_gold-coast-business.html


----------



## Duped (19 May 2010)

jim Byrnes said:


> lol , you’re not wrong , the Financial review , The herald , the Australian , several investment newsletters so far have contacted me ....... i am waiting to see what JH does .
> Look i would love to hear what investors are most upset with .
> look i am not JH , i am happy to spend time talking to people .
> i understand that once ASIC go through the bid , ALF PIF has suggested running a road show to investors , explaining why they feel the bid is in investors best interest . Let’s be clear , investors should consider their options and get advice . only problem is look if it were BHP or CBA you could get good advice , why not get an independent analyst to go through the company and see if JH is getting the best results or if a better solutions is the bid





Is that the same AFR whose Marsha Jacobs reported that PIF is "New Zealand based"? (13 May 2010)

Or the same Australian whose Anthony Klan reported that the 900 unit trade at 45c was "a parcel of $35,000 worth of shares"? (23 October 2008)


----------



## seamisty (19 May 2010)

Looks like we are not the only investors frustrated and disillusioned with the lack of action by our regulatory watchdog, ASIC. Only difference is we have been on the case for a lot longer then Storm victims and there were more than 10,000 investors severely affected by a Fund which was meant to be a much safer investment model. Seamisty

http://www.smh.com.au/business/keeping-storms-victims-in-mind-20100518-vc6e.html

Extract from article 'However, the watchdog is perpetually constipated when it comes to explaining what it is actually doing in live investigations, fobbing off media and investor inquiries with various excuses and downplaying any emerging reportage.

(When its investigation into Storm raised media reports that ASIC chairman Tony D'Aloisio may be taking a personal interest in the matter, D'Aloisio promptly hosed the report down. You have got to wonder about how ASIC plays the public relations game when the boss uses the media to say he is not taking an unusual interest in a case that affected the livelihoods of 3000 Australians.)

ASIC is due to release a statement about its Storm investigation this month and it is to be hoped its work results in a better outcome than the comfortless position statements delivered so far


----------



## Cookie1 (19 May 2010)

Article from Businessday.com.au conveniently left out the "jail" part.

http://www.businessday.com.au/business/byrnes-back-with-bid-for-mfs-offshoot-20100518-vc65.html


----------



## Duped (19 May 2010)

jim Byrnes said:


> ...She would not be drawn into conversations about current court cases that the RE is running and the massive damages claims by aggrieved borrowers ....




What courts and what case/file numbers?


----------



## jim Byrnes (19 May 2010)

So many questions and half correct statements were do I start?

I spoke with Two of the directors early this morning, under no circumstance do they seek to have the ability to change or amend the pref share arrangement and are prepared to have this made an iron clad term and as an ASIC undertaking.

While some may think that calling informal public meetings a waste of time , many we have spoken with want to eye ball the directors and the management at a meeting and be able to ask questions and get straight answers.

While it is true the company was incorporated with 1600 dollars of shareholders funds , ALF Group and its directors have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars so far on lawyers , forensic accountants , investigations . The company is also supported by ALF Group Pty Ltd , that company generated over $8m profit before tax for the first 6 months and estimated it would generate $14m EBIT , these are audited accounts so we are not talking about a parent without funds . ALF Group Pty Ltd has an undrawn $20m facility . ALF Group Holdings AG the listed company has shareholders approval to raise $10m plus now and seeks shareholders approval next month to undertake a 50million ( $70m AUD ) institutional placement. So it’s a bit unfair to say the company is only a 1600 dollar company.

Out of interest , just to print the bid and post it costs close to $50,000.  

As for court cases .

Please all write to Wellington Capital Limited GPO Box 694 Brisbane Qld 4001 or investorrelations@newpif.com.au or  ... jhutson@wellcap.com.au

Ask the following .  

Dear Ms Hutson 
We have been made aware that Wellington capital as responsible entity for the premium income fund is a party to a number of legal proceedings .
We understand that borrowers who entered into funding contracts with MFS on behalf of PIF and were unable to complete the various construction projects when MFS /PIF defaulted on the loans . A number of these borrowers have sought compensation via damages claims in the federal and Supreme court . We further understand that one claimant in Victoria has made a substantial claim for damages and seeks an amount more than the current market cap of PIF units .  
Why have we not been informed of all claims against the RE and the fund ?
Is it not an obligation of continual disclosure for you to keep unit holders properly informed ?
Is it correct that you maintain that you are entitled to be indemnified out of the fund’s assets for any fees costs damages that Wellington incurs arising out of these court cases? 
In the event that you do seek to seek an indemnity against the PIf Fund would you be so kind as to detail by way of announcement details of the following 
•	all claims against the RE  by borrowers 
•	all claims against the RE  by investors and
•	all claims against the RE  by others, 
 Additionally Please detail how much you have spent on each matter to date .
 Please detail the estimate of future legal costs for each ongoing matters.
 Please provide details of were in the accounts you have allowed for any potential damages claims.


----------



## jim Byrnes (19 May 2010)

Now many are very upset and with good reason . Now here is a turn for the books . Jenny Hutson is a lawyer . Let’s face it  she is one smart tough business woman . She has built up Wellington into a business worth a lot of money . she she she ...it’s all her , she is smart . She is resilient.

This fund should not be viewed as a mortgage investment fund to be managed , it’s a fund that contains borrowers or their liquidators who all have claims against the fund , all of which need to be resolved , it contains 74.50% ( see JH latest update ) of defaulting loans , these are all projects that need to be worked through and finished and sold to maximise value . We do not accept that accepting a joint venture , giving away all the upside is a smart way forward .

Look she is a good fund manager , when she jumped on board I believe she had the absolute best intentions of turning things around and re investing the funds money to but good assets .  
You all fell in without asking some key questions at the time . 
Now I am sure jenny Hutson was appalled when she found out what a dog PIF was and still is . everything was in a terrible state of affairs .
So to her credit she has acted like a smart lawyer and defended every action to preserve the assets. 

In my personal view , many of these matters may have been better resolved by some old fashion talking , negotiating , Most of the borrowers knew all about the projects and would have worked with PIF to finish the projects . Why alienate the people who know the most about the security . 
But hind sight ....
Next . your units are not redeemable .
Jenny only needs to build up a blocking stake and unit holders really have a problem .( how many does Armstrong capital own) You see there is no obligation to distribute the funds , the funds can be used to buy new assets which in turn will allow dividends to flow and after the fund has paid 3c she gets her fees and has a tidy fund with properties she can manage ....well that was probably her idea ....maybe it still is .

The investor update confirms the fact that there are court cases , it however does not go close to providing a proper and detailed informative update to unit holders .


----------



## Duped (19 May 2010)

jim Byrnes said:


> ...As for court cases .
> 
> Please all write to Wellington Capital Limited GPO Box 694 Brisbane Qld 4001 or investorrelations@newpif.com.au or  ... jhutson@wellcap.com.au
> 
> Ask the following .  ...




WC have been asked and/or know their obligations to disclose and still haven't announced the details which is why I asked you.  Never mind.  I'll have to do the leg work myself.


----------



## seamisty (19 May 2010)

Hi All, Just so you know I  sent the following to Ian Craig at the NSX on the 3rd May 2010:: 


It has come to my attention that there has been an alleged  serious breach of the Corporation Act in respect to non-disclosure by Wellington Capital of a current legal action against the PIF while units are actively trading on the NSX? In the event this legal action is successful it will have a huge detrimental impact on our Fund. 

The details of the action in the Supreme Court Of Victoria at Melbourne Commercial  & Equity Division is Claim No XXXXX of 2009. Claim dated XXXXXXXX 2009.


When I did not hear back from Mr Craig I called him and asked why PIF investors should not be notified by Wellington Capital of this pending claim.

His response was of the effect that did I expect WC to divulge every legal case in relation to the PIF? My response was to the effect that when the claim was serious enough to have reached the Supreme Court and WC had refused to provide discovery that yes I considered it to be serious enough to be disclosed to PIF investors. Mr Craig responded that it did not neccesarily mean the case had merit, just that the person lodging it must have plenty of money!!!!!!!

I was so disgusted with this apathetic attitude I proceeded to lodge an official complaint to Misconduct & Breach Reporting
Stakeholder Services at ASIC which has been acknowledged as being received. 
I also contacted the Australian Shareholders Association and asked them to investigate the matter.

I did NOT bother contacting WELLINGTON CAPITAL knowing full well that from past performance the issue would either becompletely ignored or I would be told WC did not have to provide this information.


ASIC may well be sick of receiving Wellington Capital PIF related complaints but until investors see some sort of intervention by ASIC as a result of what I consider inappropriate PIF management, I will darn well keep sending them!!

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (19 May 2010)

In the midst of this frenzy, a point about the update. One paragraph states, “Public examinations of the officers of Octaviar Limited (In  Liquidation) and Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd (In  Liquidation) by the Liquidators have commenced.  The Fund is not involved in the public examinations.” 

Does that mean that Wellington are not being called to give evidence?


----------



## seamisty (19 May 2010)

selciper said:


> In the midst of this frenzy, a point about the update. One paragraph states, “Public examinations of the officers of Octaviar Limited (In  Liquidation) and Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd (In  Liquidation) by the Liquidators have commenced.  The Fund is not involved in the public examinations.”
> 
> Does that mean that Wellington are not being called to give evidence?



selciper I spoke to Katherine Barnet at Bentleys and was told that WC would not be called but details in relation to the PIF aquisition by WC will be investigated during the public examinations. I was told that this information would be sought from/provided by MFS/OCV directors being examined.

It is my understanding that the PTQ are very interested in this information also.


Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (19 May 2010)

jim Byrnes said:


> So many questions and half correct statements were do I start?
> As for court cases .
> Please all write to Wellington Capital Limited GPO Box 694 Brisbane Qld 4001 or -----------------------
> Additionally Please --------------
> ...




All of the above and since posts of 17/5/10 is *very alarming!!!* And similar to precedents which led to most recent suspension.

This is an APPEAL to the MODERATOR to either issue a WARNING that these posts may be in breach of FORUM GUIDELINES or ASSURANCES that these posts DO NOT breach those guidelines.
We as PIF Unitholders are naturally concerned and need your guidances. 
Regards

PS. Should it bother PIF unitholders that this thread became a "Jim to Jim" correspondence exchange?


----------



## selciper (19 May 2010)

Seamisty, thanks for the Public Examinations info. Good to read it. 

Simgrund, I share your apprehensions regarding some of the recent posts. Moderator, help!


----------



## jim Byrnes (19 May 2010)

Now here is an alarming snipet 
i recieve an email from PIF Initiave  from a Chris Robinson 
i respond , my emails have a delivery reciept which tells me who recieves the email and when . the email is recieved my Kready@wellcap.com.au

So it seems that the so called investor group is a scam


----------



## DoraNBoots (19 May 2010)

jim Byrnes said:


> Now here is an alarming snipet
> i recieve an email from PIF Initiave  from a Chris Robinson
> i respond , my emails have a delivery reciept which tells me who recieves the email and when . the email is recieved my Kready@wellcap.com.au
> 
> So it seems that the so called investor group is a scam




Hi All,
Just want to reassure you PIF Initiative is a genuine investor group.  It appears the mailbox has been compromised.  We have changed the password and will investigate.
Regards,
Dora.


----------



## jim Byrnes (19 May 2010)

do the PIF Initaive people want me to now respond to the emails via the PIF email address


----------



## seamisty (19 May 2010)

jim Byrnes said:


> Now here is an alarming snipet
> i recieve an email from PIF Initiave  from a Chris Robinson
> i respond , my emails have a delivery reciept which tells me who recieves the email and when . the email is recieved my Kready@wellcap.com.au
> 
> So it seems that the so called investor group is a scam



 I have just received an email from Chris Robinson who assures me quote 'Chris Robinson is not and has never been and has no intention of ever seeking employment
  from WC .' 

He has asked me to post this on his behalf to clarify any confusion relating to this matter.

Seamisty


----------



## jim Byrnes (19 May 2010)

let me also make this clear , i have not suggested this either .


----------



## JohnH (19 May 2010)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13547&page=94

post 1875 on this forum makes interesting reading


----------



## simgrund (19 May 2010)

jim Byrnes said:


> Now here is an alarming snipet
> i recieve an email from PIF Initiave  from a Chris Robinson
> i respond , my emails have a delivery reciept which tells me who recieves the email and when . the email is recieved my Kready@wellcap.com.au
> 
> So it seems that the so called investor group is a scam




What was that battle cry from Bingle:  "W.........the.............hell are you"?
I recall times when moderators on this thread used to intervene for grammar infringements, let alone for name calling.
Here we have a blatant smirch, discrediting one of our hard working support groups as "scam", and no reaction whatsoever. 
There needs to be in the interests of Public Health, when one considers all the heart pulses raised in these past 3 days.

Regards


----------



## selciper (19 May 2010)

The usually dormant Wellington PIF website has today been jolted back to life.

http://www.newpif.com.au/


----------



## jim Byrnes (19 May 2010)

So as not to give anybody a heart attack, The PIF pro action group 'PIF Initiative' is a responsible bunch of people looking after the interest of their holdings and watching over the welfare of others. Somehow, it seems that the email, chain mail was compromised. I understand that they have plugged the leak.
I have spoken with several members and they are all looking at ways to get the best for unit holders  

    James W Byrnes


----------



## jim Byrnes (19 May 2010)

The rumour mill is not in overdrive, it’s in Hyper drive.
I have been advised by unit holders and forum contributors that they have very great concerns about JH.
I want to hear all unit holders concerns; I want to know every issue that investors think has happened 
More importantly, if you have some proof or substance I would appreciate the info.
Several people have said they made complaints to the NSX and ASIC and others. Complaints must be backed with supporting evidence....
Don’t blog it...we will be shut down my email is j.byrnes@alfpl.com 
Alternatively, go to www.alfpf.com.au, sign up log on,


----------



## jim Byrnes (19 May 2010)

from the companies constitution

Preference shares
(a) The Company may issue preference shares including preference shares that are, or at the
option of the Company are, liable to be redeemed.
(b) Holders of a preference share have the right to vote at any general meeting of the
Company in each of the following circumstances and in no others:
(i) during a period during which a dividend (or part of a dividend) in respect of the
share is in arrears;
(ii) on a proposal to reduce the Company’s share capital;
(iii) on a resolution to approve the terms of a buy back agreement;
(iv) on a proposal that affects rights attached to the share;
(v) on a proposal to wind up the Company;
(vi) on a proposal for the disposal of the whole of the Company’s property, business
and undertaking;
(vii) during the winding up of the Company; and
(viii) subject to the Listing Rules, in any additional circumstances specified in the
terms of issue of such preference shares by the Company relating to the share on
its allotment and issue.
(c) Holders of a preference share will be entitled to:
(i) a dividend in preference to holders of ordinary shares; and
(ii) a return of capital in preference to holders of ordinary shares when the Company
is wound up.
(d) Holders of preference shares have the same rights as holders of ordinary shares in
relation to receiving notices, reports and audited accounts, and attending general
meetings of the Company.
Whittens Lawyers and Consultants | Constitution of ALF PIF Finance Limited 14
2.4 Variation or cancellation of rights
(a) Subject to the Listing Rules, if at any time the share capital of the Company is divided
into different classes of shares, the rights attached to shares in any class of shares (unless
otherwise provided by the terms of issue of the shares of that class) may, whether or not
the Company is being wound up, be varied or cancelled by special resolution of the
Company and:
(i) by special resolution passed at a meeting of the class of Members holding shares
in that class; or
(ii) with the written consent of Members with at least 75% of the votes in the class.(b) The provisions of this Constitution relating to general meetings apply, with necessary
amendments, to each separate meeting of members holding a class of shares, except that:
(i) a quorum is constituted by at least two (2) persons holding or representing by
proxy not less than one third of the issued shares of that class or, if there is only
one (1) holder of shares of that class, that person; and
(ii) any holder of shares of that class present in person or by proxy may demand a
poll.
(c) The Company must give written notice of the variation or cancellation to the Members
of the class within seven (7) days after the variation or cancellation is made.
(d) The rights conferred on the holders of shares in any class are not altered or abrogated by
the creation or issue of further shares of the same class ranking equally with or in
priority to the shares already issued, unless expressly provided in the terms of issue of
the shares issued.


----------



## jim Byrnes (19 May 2010)

jim Byrnes said:


> from the companies constitution
> 
> Preference shares
> (a) The Company may issue preference shares including preference shares that are, or at the
> ...




Unit holders were concerned that ALF PIF major ordinary unit holders could somehow amend the pref share entitlements.
Well as the three founding shareholders have no pref shares then they cannot amend the pref share entitlements.
Additionally there is a deed of agreement executed between the three founding shareholders that is mentioned in the offer. 
ASIC would strip the founding shareholders of their interest ( and so they should) if they obtained the company by misleading unit holders


----------



## JohnH (19 May 2010)

jim Byrnes said:


> The rumour mill is not in overdrive, it’s in Hyper drive.
> I have been advised by unit holders and forum contributors that they have very great concerns about JH.
> I want to hear all unit holders concerns; I want to know every issue that investors think has happened
> More importantly, if you have some proof or substance I would appreciate the info.
> ...



Returned from |Telstra Bigpond when I tried to log on to this page:-  


_What is this page?    
Sorry! We could not find www.alfpf.com.au 

It may be unavailable or may not exist. Try using the suggestions or related links below, or search again using our web search._
Recent deja vu???


----------



## seamisty (19 May 2010)

JohnH said:


> Returned from |Telstra Bigpond when I tried to log on to this page:-
> 
> 
> _What is this page?
> ...



 Try www.alfpif.com.au
JohnH.


----------



## jim Byrnes (19 May 2010)

JohnH said:


> Returned from |Telstra Bigpond when I tried to log on to this page:-
> 
> 
> _What is this page?
> ...




http://www.alfpif.com.au/customer/account/login


----------



## jim Byrnes (19 May 2010)

seamisty said:


> Try www.alfpif.com.au
> JohnH.




http://www.alfpif.com.au/customer/account/login


----------



## simgrund (19 May 2010)

seamisty said:


> Try www.alfpif.com.au
> JohnH.




I also tried Armstrong Registry and checked out my holding there. Seems all in order and hope it stays that way till trustworthy resolution comes along.

Thanks Mr. Byrnes for quelling our heart rates with #5685.
Regards


----------



## jim Byrnes (19 May 2010)

simgrund said:


> I also tried Armstrong Registry and checked out my holding there. Seems all in order and hope it stays that way till trustworthy resolution comes along.
> 
> Thanks Mr. Byrnes for quelling our heart rates with #5685.
> Regards




your welcome .


----------



## Duped (20 May 2010)

jim Byrnes said:


> Unit holders were concerned that ALF PIF major ordinary unit holders could somehow amend the pref share entitlements.
> Well as the three founding shareholders have no pref shares then they cannot amend the pref share entitlements.
> Additionally there is a deed of agreement executed between the three founding shareholders that is mentioned in the offer.
> ASIC would strip the founding shareholders of their interest ( and so they should) if they obtained the company by misleading unit holders




IMLO: I would rephrase that as ASIC *could *strip the founding shareholders of their interest. Based on ASIC's willingness to go in to bat for us unit holders so far I have strong doubts that ASIC *would *lift a finger to help us.  

Let me remind everybody that the ASIC action against the former RE is crawling along. Those public investigations in the Federal Court are being paid for out of what $ are left in OCV. That is reducing the $ available to be divided amongst the creditors like us. And the only reason the investigation is proceeding is because of the PTQ's persistance.  I've seen nothing that indicates ASIC is doing any of the heavy lifting. I.e. ASIC is getting a free ride at our expense.   Bunch of lightweights. Easily put off in any fight.

From my perspective the Federal Govt and ASIC themselves have WAY oversold ASIC's capabilities and capacity.  Anthony Albanese said on NewsRadio yesterday (something along the lines of): we've been open when we haven't been able to meet our comitments. Says it all really: over promise, under deliver and then apologise.  I'm soooooooooooooo over that.

"Preference shares
(a) The Company may issue preference shares including preference shares  that are, or at the option of the Company are, liable to be redeemed."

What's stopping the company issuing billions of new preference shares before we get our 15c?  Thanks.


----------



## Cookie1 (20 May 2010)

Article entitled "Jim Byrnes connected to PIF takeover offer" from The Australian Financial Review Wednesday 19 May 2010 attached.

Sorry for the quality of the scanned document; it was emailed to me and I've tried to make it more legible.

Cookie


----------



## seamisty (20 May 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> Article entitled "Jim Byrnes connected to PIF takeover offer" from The Australian Financial Review Wednesday 19 May 2010 attached.
> 
> Sorry for the quality of the scanned document; it was emailed to me and I've tried to make it more legible.
> 
> Cookie



Thanks Cookie. Ms Hutson mentioned 'long suffering unit holders'. No mention that the looooooong suffering is as a direct result of Wellington Capitals inability to deliver on one solitary promised committment as proposed by MS Hutson personally!!! OOPS:bonk: I forgot, we did get an IAC appointed.

Four of the five unfinished projects are now completed after two years. Whoopee, the money should be gushing into the PIF at a great rate of knots (er maybe NOTS!) as a result of this great achievement by our dedicated team of highly skilled professionals

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (21 May 2010)

Is anybody else having trouble getting on to the NSX site today? I'm being asked for a user name and the rest of the page is nlank..


----------



## selciper (21 May 2010)

That should have read blank! It's now come good anyway.
8.5c latest.


----------



## flatback (22 May 2010)

jim Byrnes said:


> Unit holders were concerned that ALF PIF major ordinary unit holders could somehow amend the pref share entitlements.
> Well as the three founding shareholders have no pref shares then they cannot amend the pref share entitlements.
> Additionally there is a deed of agreement executed between the three founding shareholders that is mentioned in the offer.
> ASIC would strip the founding shareholders of their interest ( and so they should) if they obtained the company by misleading unit holders



mate i have been burnt twice, the first time by MFS,the second time by WC, on both of those occasions was led up the garden path by a very cunning group of people, it will snow in hell before i am caught again, by trusting my money with another shonky offering,sorry my trust will rest with IMF.
(you can fool some of the people some of the time but you cant fool all of the people all of the time).


----------



## seamisty (22 May 2010)

Hi All, I have been busy with off forum business etc, but it appears there has been some thread intervention by mods as some posts with personal information/data have been removed.
I think WC are obliged to further respond to PIF investors regarding the proposed takeover bid.

While the current ALF bid/offer does not look at all tempting this does not mean that the majority of PIF investors are  content with the current resposible entity, Wellington Capital in any context. Don't kid yourself WC, your performance to date is remotely far from promises touted by yourself as being 'acheivable'. Quite the contrary in fact and several issues will continue to be actively pursued, hopefully returning a better alternative. 
The ALF offer just draws further attention to us and the abysmal financial state of the PIF directly attributed to current management.
What I do regard as a positive is that some PIF investors are far more dilligent and will never be so easily brainwashed again.

I am sure that in time there will be many more individuals remotely or closely connected to MFS/OCV/WC called to answer questions  over PIF related issues. 

It is not too late for some to come forward http://www.shoalcoast.org.au/faq/whistle.html) and expose the truth surrounding this sad story, although I personally have little faith in the integrity of past and present fund related employees to do anything but cover their own well paid bums.

Pretty sad really, that humble, hardworking people from all wakes of life, previously considered 'valued investors', showered with attention and promises of accountability, stability and free caps were abandoned so easily by those who appear to have only been interested in the financial rewards associated with 'baby sitting'  and exploiting their recruits. 
Seamisty

  When good people in any country cease their vigilance and struggle, then evil men prevail. 
Pearl S. Buck


----------



## charles36 (23 May 2010)

I have been trying for some months now to get a specific answer from WC regarding the election of the IAC.  At the outset let me say the performance of the IAC has been somewhat less than spectacular, both updates unsigned and nothing of any consequence posted.  I endeavoured to ascertain how the votes were compiled and counted.  One email I received informed me that the vote was handled in the same manner as for the election of the RE and change of Constituion etc.  To my mind , if that was the case we, that is, unit holders should have been informed by way of a press release prior to the result being officially announced and a memorandum announcing the exact voting results.  You will recall the press release attributed to M/S J Hutson some days prior to the meeting of the 18 October, 2008 that the RE received 90% of the votes etc.  I questioned this information and was informed that all information relating to the vote for the IAC has been released to unit holders.  I again questioned this statement and was "fobbed off" and virtually told to make a complaint elsewhere.  I really never felt the IAC were really going to be helpful as there is a shroud of secrecy that prevails, I guess for various reasons but to let interested unit holders who took the time to nominate and vote, at the funds expense of course, should have at least been afforded the courtesy of knowing the actual result of the polling.  Where is the secrecy in that, I did not nominate but if I had I would not mind anybody knowing how I polled.  The candidates that I have spoken to have certainly not asked for secrecy or privacy in this regard.  Perhaps the IAC could turn their mind to ascertaining the results for the unit holders.  Now that would be a good exercise for them.  I persisted with my inquiries because I believe there is a serious principle of transparency not being applied as promised in the 'EXPENSIVE CARAVAN TOUR' during May, 2008 by M/S Hutson and her team.  Any support for this unsatisfactory state of affairs would be much appreciated.  CHARLES 36 ORGANISER PIFAG


----------



## JohnH (23 May 2010)

charles36 said:


> I have been trying for some months now to get a specific answer from WC regarding the election of the IAC.  At the outset let me say the performance of the IAC has been somewhat less than spectacular, both updates unsigned and nothing of any consequence posted.  I endeavoured to ascertain how the votes were compiled and counted.  One email I received informed me that the vote was handled in the same manner as for the election of the RE and change of Constituion etc.  To my mind , if that was the case we, that is, unit holders should have been informed by way of a press release prior to the result being officially announced and a memorandum announcing the exact voting results.  You will recall the press release attributed to M/S J Hutson some days prior to the meeting of the 18 October, 2008 that the RE received 90% of the votes etc.  I questioned this information and was informed that all information relating to the vote for the IAC has been released to unit holders.  I again questioned this statement and was "fobbed off" and virtually told to make a complaint elsewhere.  I really never felt the IAC were really going to be helpful as there is a shroud of secrecy that prevails, I guess for various reasons but to let interested unit holders who took the time to nominate and vote, at the funds expense of course, should have at least been afforded the courtesy of knowing the actual result of the polling.  Where is the secrecy in that, I did not nominate but if I had I would not mind anybody knowing how I polled.  The candidates that I have spoken to have certainly not asked for secrecy or privacy in this regard.  Perhaps the IAC could turn their mind to ascertaining the results for the unit holders.  Now that would be a good exercise for them.  I persisted with my inquiries because I believe there is a serious principle of transparency not being applied as promised in the 'EXPENSIVE CARAVAN TOUR' during May, 2008 by M/S Hutson and her team.  Any support for this unsatisfactory state of affairs would be much appreciated.  CHARLES 36 ORGANISER PIFAG




Totally with you on this one Charles.   Can't think of any other time (other than a dictatorship) when an election has been held and the voters (let alone the candidates) have not had access to the results.  

..................... on second thoughts, maybe we are all victims of a dictatorship!!!


----------



## seamisty (23 May 2010)

charles36 said:


> I have been trying for some months now to get a specific answer from WC regarding the election of the IAC.  At the outset let me say the performance of the IAC has been somewhat less than spectacular, both updates unsigned and nothing of any consequence posted.  I endeavoured to ascertain how the votes were compiled and counted.  One email I received informed me that the vote was handled in the same manner as for the election of the RE and change of Constituion etc.  To my mind , if that was the case we, that is, unit holders should have been informed by way of a press release prior to the result being officially announced and a memorandum announcing the exact voting results.  You will recall the press release attributed to M/S J Hutson some days prior to the meeting of the 18 October, 2008 that the RE received 90% of the votes etc.  I questioned this information and was informed that all information relating to the vote for the IAC has been released to unit holders.  I again questioned this statement and was "fobbed off" and virtually told to make a complaint elsewhere.  I really never felt the IAC were really going to be helpful as there is a shroud of secrecy that prevails, I guess for various reasons but to let interested unit holders who took the time to nominate and vote, at the funds expense of course, should have at least been afforded the courtesy of knowing the actual result of the polling.  Where is the secrecy in that, I did not nominate but if I had I would not mind anybody knowing how I polled.  The candidates that I have spoken to have certainly not asked for secrecy or privacy in this regard.  Perhaps the IAC could turn their mind to ascertaining the results for the unit holders.  Now that would be a good exercise for them.  I persisted with my inquiries because I believe there is a serious principle of transparency not being applied as promised in the 'EXPENSIVE CARAVAN TOUR' during May, 2008 by M/S Hutson and her team.  Any support for this unsatisfactory state of affairs would be much appreciated.  CHARLES 36 ORGANISER PIFAG



 I have tried numerous times also charles36 and was also told to complain elsewhere which I have done.

The question I ask myself is "Was consideration EVER given to the actual IAC votes received by Wellington Capital or can I assume that WC handpicked and appointed the three candidates themselves?"

If this assupmption appears to be an accusation against WC regarding incorrect procedure in relation to the IAC vote what other possible conclusion can be made when:

1. Wellington Capital REFUSE to disclose vote results.

2. Wellington Capital REFUSE to provide minutes/details in relation to the vote.

3. Wellington Capital REFUSE to reveal if WC used the WPIF 11% voting power.

4. The IAC representatives themselves REFUSE to communicate with other PIF investors.

5. Not one single question/issue that has been raised with IAC reps has been answered to date.


I have asked WC many times WHY THE SECRECY if the whole process, paid for by OUR Fund was operated in a fair and correct manner continues to remain a closely guarded secret?

I also conclude that the whole pathetic IAC token gesture was only ever implemented as it WAS THE ONLY COMMITTMENT WELLINGTON CAPITAL was capable of honoring!!!

Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (23 May 2010)

seamisty said:


> I also conclude that the whole pathetic IAC token gesture was only ever implemented as it *WAS THE ONLY COMMITTMENT WELLINGTON CAPITAL was capable of honoring!!!*Seamisty




But they haven't honoured it Seamisty!!!  There has been absolutely no two way exchange as far as I know with any unit holders and the IAC


----------



## seamisty (23 May 2010)

JohnH said:


> But they haven't honoured it Seamisty!!!  There has been absolutely no two way exchange as far as I know with any unit holders and the IAC




Exactly JohnH, WC have proven they never intended direct contact between IAC and Reps, hence using WC as a go between/censor and demonstrate they cannot even conduct a simple vote proceedure with openess and transparency. And yes some are still actively pushing for other alternatives, I can only assume these efforts will expediate when more evidence is obtained through legal channels. If anyone thinks they can offer a better alternative or is prepared to cough up in excess of $100,000 to call a EGM, then find the ongoing financial committment to follow through, I am all ears/eyes. Don't forget that WC have to account for every $ spent of our money and I am sure that this issue will be addressed eventually.

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (23 May 2010)

Recent;y, a friend kindly agreed to view the 08 WC Roadshow DVD with me. Half an hour into the spectacle, he said that he would have voted “yes” at the time because the announced projections sounded solid enough and enticing. However, I didn’t hear the word  “promise” used during the address, but the DVD may, in the future, explain to other parties the reason for the reported large “yes” vote having been so strong.

That the latest IAC ultra-flimsy “report” should be expected to appease or assist is treating all informed PIF investors like numbskulls.

As for the IAC voting results remaining locked up, we must wonder how this is allowed to happen. I suppose that the idea is so preposterous in a democracy that lawmakers haven’t given the possibility a thought. And PIF paid for this unlikely procedure! When I complained about this to a (less gushing) hotline rep, I was pretty well fobbed off with a couple of unhelpful sentences which offered nothing useful to an inquirer.

Charles36 -  It’s a shame that FOI laws apparently don’t apply to private businesses. We can hope that as media coverage of our general plight increases, the unique IAC process will be raised and questioned. WC will then have it confirmed that the issue is very much alive - despite the passing of time.


----------



## charles36 (24 May 2010)

The election of the IAC is shrouded in mystery and secrecy.  Why?  All candidates offered their services and had their alleged expertise published and forwarded to each unit holder.  There is no secrecy there, if they were prepared to nominate when there definitely was no guarantee by the RE that voting results would be kept SECRET from unit holders then it necessarily follows that each candidate expected the results to be revealed.  If a candidate received a poor response so what.  My emails which went back and forth like yo yo's trying to understand the refusal by the RE to indicate voting results left me somewhat dismayed.  The answer was  "the RE never indicated the voting results would be published."   Well as far as I am concerned the RE did not say they wouldn't.  Are we to assume that democracy went out the window when we elected the RE who of course used the democratic principle to publish voting numbers when it suited the cause of the RE.  Of course the Corporations Act (Cth) specifies how voting  must be conducted.  You will recall I have been told by the RE that voting for the IAC was the same as for the election of the RE.  Confused, you bet I am. There is an old adage "You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time"  I have great confidence in justice and I feel that justice will be served to the unit holders in due time.


----------



## mellifuous (24 May 2010)

The IAC (PIF), ICC (PFMF).

I think the creation of a committee, be it the iac or icc, puts that group aside from investors.  I think the committees align themselves with the managers because the managers have more to offer, and then once information is gained, there is  hope for more - I think self-interest takes over, because once information is gained, they feel they will be able to look after their own interests better - after all, they have no obligation to consider the interests of other investors.

The members of a committee will probably feel they are smarter than normal investors, and that is vindiated in their own minds by the fact they have been selected to be members of a committee.

http://www.simplyquality.org/Imran-QMS-Behavior.pdf


----------



## Julia (24 May 2010)

Would anyone be kind enough to give me a brief synopsis of what has happened with this organisation?  I was only vaguely aware of it until someone I was talking to yesterday said he had lost $400,000.
Sorry to intrude on your discussion.


----------



## seamisty (24 May 2010)

Julia said:


> Would anyone be kind enough to give me a brief synopsis of what has happened with this organisation?  I was only vaguely aware of it until someone I was talking to yesterday said he had lost $400,000.
> Sorry to intrude on your discussion.



Unfortunately Julia there is nothing brief regarding this saga and some investors have lost millions, a direct result of alleged missapropiation of PIF money by previous MFS/OCV directors/wmployees and what some PIF investors consider further avoidable losses under current management, Wellington Capital. There is a timeline of events, I will see if a link can be posted. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (24 May 2010)

Anyone else feel like an ant? (I like the last bit!!) Seamisty


THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER

The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. 

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. 

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving. 

Channels 7, 9 and 10,the ABC and SBS show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. 

Australia is stunned by the sharp contrast. 

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? 

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green .' 

Acorn stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.' Cardinal George Pell then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's  sake. 

Prime Minister Rudd condemns the ant and blames John Howard, Robert Menzies, Capt James Cook, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.

Bob Brown exclaims in an interview on Today Tonight that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share. 

Finally, Labor in conjunction with the Greens draft the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer. 

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government and given to the grasshopper. 

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it. 

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again. 

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful, neighborhood.


----------



## simgrund (24 May 2010)

Julia said:


> Would anyone be kind enough to give me a brief synopsis of what has happened with this organisation?  I was only vaguely aware of it until someone I was talking to yesterday said he had lost $400,000.
> Sorry to intrude on your discussion.




Good day Julia,
Yours is a welcome intrusion, I have no doubt.
We had some totally unwelcome interlopers on this thread. And occasionally this led to its suspension.
But I hope along with many PIFers that this exchange may lead to some positive additions to our collective experiences. 
Hats off to stormers for establishing ASIC page.
It would be too long a story to relate on this page all of PIF debacles. 
Suffice to say, that our hopes are tied up to a Class Action currently underway.
Good luck to all of us, best wishes,


----------



## Duped (24 May 2010)

Julia said:


> Would anyone be kind enough to give me a brief synopsis of what has happened with this organisation?  I was only vaguely aware of it until someone I was talking to yesterday said he had lost $400,000.
> Sorry to intrude on your discussion.




Basically it was a poor regulatory environment combined with ASIC's active promotion of the Financial Advisor industry culminating in a perfect storm. High commissions inducing Financial Advisors to redirect trusting clients' savings into the fund.  These are the financial advisors who we have subsequently learned have NO fiduciary duty of care to put their client's interests in front of their own. What!!!! I.e. there was less than minimal check or balance in place to protect novice investors like me who put their faith in the ASIC run AFS Licence system. (Don't start me on Lonsec or the Ratings Agency industry in general.)

Promoted to me as a fund with first registered mortagages, insured by Lloyds and having a custodian in Perpetual.  In reality, a substantial volume of the fund's asset were with related party entities and the insurance was little applied and highly conditional.  Example, a related party bought the Gold Coast Sheraton and within a year sold the asset to the Raptis Group and booked a 'profit'.  The day (?) after the deal between Raptis and the MFS owner, PIF made an UNSECURED loan ($20M?) against the property. Bit of a sweetener for  Raptis wouldn't you say? End result to PIF = TOTAL WRITE DOWN!!!

Perpetual's role was really just to do whatever an irresponsible responsible entity told them to do. Perpetual: 'The RE didn't follow internal procedures? Not my problem. That's what YOU signed up for.' (Thanks Tanya Lacy.  YOU ROCK! Good to have you back on TV.)

A classic hustle. Hustle husle hustle.

Seamisty has provided an excellent summary since late 2007.  

But also have a very close look at the changes to the consitution in 2006.  The $50m facility is still owed to PIF. 

Also have a look at the chart provided in the Investor Update for June 2007. Why did the fund flatline from January 2007?  Perhaps there was a cut to the commissions? And what about that spike in Jun07 that coincides with MFS Management LTD's very brief $60m 'investment' in PIF? What did that brief flirtation do to the liquidity of the fund. Do as I say not do as I do eh! Long term investments for the mugs, short term for me and my mates at Avenue.  

Have a look at Crikey's article 'Avenue's conflicted connection to troubled MFS' regarding the Bond Street Custodians Ltd action against the fund mentioned in seamisty's list.http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/04/01/avenues-conflicted-connection-to-troubled-mfs/

Then of course there is the secured loan of $250M? from Fortress Capital to MFS. Taken out in May/June 2007. Have a look at what the MFS Ltd  interim financial report for 31Dec07 has to say about that loan? Now have a look at what the Queensland Supreme Court has to say about that loan 'facility'. (Take a pick of the which decision you'd like to read. Want a list?) Bit different eh!  So much for keeping the market informed.  The High Court will also have a crack at hearing all about Octaviar and Fortress Capital soon. Poor old commercial lawyers have all gone and got themselves a bit worked up about the saga too. Even coined a new phrase" 'Octaviar Proof' your funding facility. http://www.thenewlawyer.com.au/article/law-firms-grapple-with-new-octaviar-decision/499562.aspx 

Have a look at the WC roadshow DVD? Jenny Hutson turned up telling us something along the lines of there being five creditors and each are equally ranked.  (Don't quote me) Come come, that's not true is it Jenny?  'Cos Fortress has security and PIF doesn't. Right?  Am I wrong?  Ironically, WC are (reportedly) at odds with fellow creditor PTQ whose actions (to prevent the whole sorry story being swept under the carpet) might actually succeed in downgrading Fortress to unsecured status (but not if the commercial law fraternity can stop it) and give some truth to Hutson's statement. I'll keep YA posted.

Oh and you'll notice from seamisty's list that Deloitte went and got itself all conflicted too and got sacked by McMurdo J. Conflicted, according to McMurdo, to the tune of $20m I recall?

To quote our prime minister K Dudd:  it's a '**** storm'.  With ASIC keeping its 'oversell and under deliver capabilities' sorry head down.  Have a look at ASIC's website.  End advice is still (at least the last time i checked): seek advice from a financial advisor.  What!!!! That's what got me into this mess in the first place. 

CTRL + ALT + DELETE. CTRL + ALT + DELETE. CTRL + ALT + DELETE. ....  EH! How do I exit this SIM FINANCE/ECONOMY game?


----------



## seamisty (24 May 2010)

I requested the previous link to be removed as I have received a far more comprehensive outline of detailed events. Thanks to the PIF investor who has put the time and research into this document. Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (24 May 2010)

Duped said:


> Basically it was a poor regulatory environment combined with ASIC's active promotion of the Financial Advisor industry culminating in a perfect storm. -----------




And to complement this, Duped, here is post #283 from a thread dedicated to MFS Ltd.  
Post #284 adds salt to this wound. Both posts are PIF history which hopefully will be part of current examinations.



			
				mfsperth said:
			
		

> !.
> Presumably legal oversight and advice to the MFS PIF came from its legal advisers Mallesons Stephen Jaques in Brisbane. This would include one imagines what the controlling entity could and couldn’t do.
> 
> 2.
> ...


----------



## Duped (24 May 2010)

seamisty said:


> Anyone else feel like an ant? (I like the last bit!!) Seamisty
> 
> 
> THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER....




I fear that the MFS crew have only heard the version by Sam the Eagle from on Muppet show.  The moralistic punch line being replaced by 'come winter the Grasshopper jumped in his Jag and headed to Miami'. Or something along those lines. 

Life imitating art or a premonition. More likely a thinly veiled warning. Sufficiently countered by ASIC.

Get out of the way ASIC.


----------



## breaker1 (24 May 2010)

seamisty said:


> I requested the previous link to be removed as I have received a far more comprehensive outline of detailed events. Thanks to the PIF investor who has put the time and research into this document. Seamisty




 Re post 5712 
Excellent piece of work on the "Timeline" Seamisty - many thanks to you and the "PIF Investor". A great investor instrument when trying to come to grips with and get your bearings on this unravelling & somewhat approaching a conspiratorial saga.


----------



## seamisty (24 May 2010)

I have just learned that a very special lady, a fellow PIF investor 'Sundale' has lost her battle with cancer earlier this month.
Like many PIF investors looking for answers and solutions, after attending  one of the WC travelling road shows starring Jenny Hutson pledging a return of full unit value and imminent distributions, she took her by her word and offered full support. Also like many of us, she soon realised the solutions offered by Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital were not forthcoming. Many, many times her medication and treatment was compromised through lack of funds. I remember how happy she was when she received an extra $20 a fortnight from Centrelink because it helped to pay to feed her little dog.

I am truly saddened and offer her son and family my sincere condolences. I have a plant she sent me and will treasure it always. Her passing renews and strengthens  my resolve to bring the greedy 'bottom feeders' to account for their despicable actions of putting themselves before the very people who funded their well paid for egos, material possesions and affluent lifestyles. Especially when no apologies or remorse has been offered, just the eternal merry go round of buck shifting, memory loss, and even worse, silence. For all those responsible, hang your heads in shame, and next time you quaff that glass of wine, think of those that continue to suffer and those that lost their battle without seeing justice done.

If justice does not prevail in this bloody fiasco, then it is a sad, sad country we live in. 

Seamisty


----------



## Julia (24 May 2010)

seamisty said:


> Unfortunately Julia there is nothing brief regarding this saga and some investors have lost millions, a direct result of alleged missapropiation of PIF money by previous MFS/OCV directors/wmployees and what some PIF investors consider further avoidable losses under current management, Wellington Capital. There is a timeline of events, I will see if a link can be posted. Seamisty



Many thanks to those of you who responded to my question.
What a truly horrible saga.  I'm really sorry for all the stress you must all be enduring.
Sad, especially, about the lady who died recently.   
My best wishes to all of you for an eventual outcome which affords you some justice.


----------



## seamisty (24 May 2010)

Julia said:


> Many thanks to those of you who responded to my question.
> What a truly horrible saga.  I'm really sorry for all the stress you must all be enduring.
> Sad, especially, about the lady who died recently.
> My best wishes to all of you for an eventual outcome which affords you some justice.



Thanks Julia, PIF investors welcome genuine support and continually hope that eventually someone in a responsible position with the means to make a difference will take the opportunity to put PIF investors story out there and get some much needed recognition for us. Unfortunately,  when the word 'lawyer' is mentioned, it appears a code of silence is triggered because I can assure you it is not for lack of trying to get some media coverage. Maybe we should be approaching film producers instead of media journalists???? All suggestions welcomed. 


Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (24 May 2010)

seamisty said:


> I have just learned that a very special lady, a fellow PIF investor 'Sundale' has lost her battle with cancer earlier this month.
> Like many PIF investors looking for answers and solutions, after attending  one of the WC travelling road shows starring Jenny Hutson pledging a return of full unit value and imminent distributions, she took her by her word and offered full support. Also like many of us, she soon realised the solutions offered by Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital were not forthcoming. Many, many times her medication and treatment was compromised through lack of funds. I remember how happy she was when she received an extra $20 a fortnight from Centrelink because it helped to pay to feed her little dog.
> 
> I am truly saddened and offer her son and family my sincere condolences. I have a plant she sent me and will treasure it always. Her passing renews and strengthens  my resolve to bring the greedy 'bottom feeders' to account for their despicable actions of putting themselves before the very people who funded their well paid for egos, material possesions and affluent lifestyles. Especially when no apologies or remorse has been offered, just the eternal merry go round of buck shifting, memory loss, and even worse, silence. For all those responsible, hang your heads in shame, and next time you quaff that glass of wine, think of those that continue to suffer and those that lost their battle without seeing justice done.
> ...




I suggest that everyone should copy this and email it to Wellington.-----------   I just have!!!!!

If you don't have an email address handy, use Caroline Snow [csnow@wellcap.com.au]


----------



## seamisty (24 May 2010)

JohnH said:


> I suggest that everyone should copy this and email it to Wellington.-----------   I just have!!!!!
> 
> If you don't have an email address handy, use Caroline Snow [csnow@wellcap.com.au]



 Thanks JohnH. I am so upset and disgusted with every one remotely connected with this fund I can only say "You are all a bunch of gutless cowards until proven otherwise". If there is one single solitary person involved with the PIF that has a conscience, here is your opportunity to right the wrong you were a party to, inadvertantly or otherwise. I have tried on several occassions to personally contact  individuals previously connected to this fund. I can only conclude that by their reluctance to return calls, demonstrates a guilty conscience or total lack of empathy from  the likes of certain individuals who targeted 'personal high net wealth investors' and who were guaranteed personal  'healthy individual bonuses' by convincing certain individuals  that MFS/OCV was 'powering ahead'. Yeah, right, why should you all be able to function normally, sleep at night and live a 'normal life' when there are thousands or innocent victims who (most) continue to suffer as a direct consequence to the individual actions of many? You have had ample opportunity to right those wrongs, if you haven't, then face the consequences. I am so angry with your complacency I will never give up until all my questions are answered.

Seamisty


----------



## Blueboy1 (25 May 2010)

JohnH said:


> I suggest that everyone should copy this and email it to Wellington.-----------   I just have!!!!!
> 
> If you don't have an email address handy, use Caroline Snow [csnow@wellcap.com.au]




This is heart rending
I agree John H........I just have too


----------



## charles36 (25 May 2010)

SEAMISTY, I admire your tenacity and dedication.  I wish you all the best when trying to extract answers to your latest communication with WC.  I have tried to elicit sensible replies on many occasions, I even reduced my questions to one line, with tick the box yes/no but have not had any success.  I often wonder about the fund and how it reached such a parlous state but when I read the answers to the my questions I completely understand. CHARLES36 PIFAG ORGANISER.


----------



## selciper (25 May 2010)

JohnH said:


> I suggest that everyone should copy this and email it to Wellington.-----------   I just have!!!!!
> 
> If you don't have an email address handy, use Caroline Snow [csnow@wellcap.com.au]




A very good idea, JohnH.  We are all being swept towards the rocks. All that appears left to do is to put to WC our feelings in writing about their "performance." The trouble is that our predicaments don't count, so the chances of our emails being swiftly deleted is considerable. But let's all do it!


----------



## JohnH (25 May 2010)

selciper said:


> A very good idea, JohnH.  We are all being swept towards the rocks. All that appears left to do is to put to WC our feelings in writing about their "performance." The trouble is that our predicaments don't count, so the chances of our emails being swiftly deleted is considerable. But let's all do it!




From: csnow@wellcap.com.au [mailto:csnow@wellcap.com.au] 
Sent: 25 May 2010 7:52 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Delivery/Disposition Notification
Importance: High


"Your message

	To: csnow@wellcap.com.au

was read on 05/25/10 at 07:52"

_*There is somebody there!!!!*_


----------



## Duped (25 May 2010)

CA update from Carney's just out.

We *all *MUST observe the confidential nature of these communications. DON'T PUBLISH IT HERE! Or anywhere for that matter.


----------



## Duped (25 May 2010)

Isn't our Yepoon asset in this category? Middle of a mining region isn't it?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-of-developments/story-e6frg9gx-1225865720750

Maybe someone like Mantra would be interested buying us out. Most of PIF's assets are hotels/resorts or property in holiday destinations like Mackay, Maroochydore and the Gold Coast.


----------



## Duped (25 May 2010)

I think this may also apply to the ASIC action against MFS IM on behalf of PIF investors:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/westpoint-case-tests-watchdogs-authority-20100519-vfae.html

Wow, a constitutional challenge.  Same grounds as in the The Castle isn't it? I can hear Charles 'Bud' Tingwell quoting S50(xxxi):

" The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make  laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with  respect to the acquisition of property *on just terms* ..."


----------



## selciper (25 May 2010)

The excellent Time Line is a must-read for those wishing to be well informed on PIF matters.

Out of interest, I Googled “PIF board.”
I thought that it had recently been expanded, but judging by this site it still numbers only three decision makers.

http://www.newpif.com.au/directors.html


----------



## seamisty (27 May 2010)

I thought the following results from a survey  conducted in relation to the current bank class action quite apt. Seamisty

http://www.smh.com.au/business/inve...d-settle-actions-over-fees-20100526-we96.html

Extracted from article::A stunning 90 per cent of investors thought ASIC should be doing more to help customers and retail shareholders.

Another 83 per cent thought the class actions were the result of the regulator not doing its job properly in regulating companies.

Seventy-three per cent condemned ASIC's attempt to block some of the class actions and an even higher proportion agreed that class actions are the only way retail investors can seek justice.

Given that three-quarters of investors also thought that such class actions were likely to spread to other industries, such as telecommunications and utilities, it seems likely that we have not seen the last of them.


----------



## JohnH (28 May 2010)

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/05/28/222015_gold-coast-business.html

........ burnt my tongue on my breakfast coffee!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## selciper (28 May 2010)

SMH (today) story about ASIC and Storm.
Extract:

“Liquidators have dispatched a 77-page report to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission under a requirement to report any person who ''may have been guilty of any negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust in relation to the company''.

But the regulator has been sitting on the confidential report since early last December, with little public sign its 17-month investigation into the collapse of the financial planner is making progress.”

http://www.smh.com.au/business/founder-may-face-criminal-charges-20100527-whtl.html?autostart=1


----------



## seamisty (28 May 2010)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722786.PDF


----------



## seamisty (28 May 2010)

JohnH said:


> http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/05/28/222015_gold-coast-business.html
> 
> ........ burnt my tongue on my breakfast coffee!!!!!!!!!!



I see the red coat is back in commission JohnH.
http://www.earlylearningservices.co...001/2010_05_27 New Dividend Policy_lodged.pdf
27 May 2010
New Dividend Policy
Early Learning Services Limited (ASX:ELY) has today announced its new dividend policy.
Dividends are expected to be payable to shareholders quarterly. Whilst the actual level of dividends paid is
at the discretion of the Board, it is the Directors’ current intention that Early Learning Services Limited will
pay dividends equivalent to 50% of the Company’s net profit after tax. Dividends will be franked where
possible.
Chairperson Jenny Hutson said ‘the Company is performing well. Early Learning Services Limited has free
cashflow that will enable a dividend return to shareholders to be paid from the business cashflow. The
proposal is to pay 50% of net profit after tax per annum in dividends. Dividends will be paid quarterly, and
are anticipated to commence in the second half of this calendar year.’ENDS
Jenny Hutson
Chairperson


I hope ELY investors fare better here than we did and history doesn't repeat itself!! Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (28 May 2010)

seamisty said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722786.PDF



Hi All. It is my understanding that now ALF PIF Finance Ltd have lodged the required documentation with ASIC regarding the proposed PIF takeover, the next procedure requires WC to respond outlining why the takeover should NOT proceed.

I would imagine WC will be hard pressed trying to establish strong reasons to substantiate why PIF investors would be better off under current management.

This document has to be submitted to ASIC who are in possession of all PIF related documentation due to current legal actions being undertaken in the Supreme Court, including numerous PIF related complaints submitted from individual investors, building/property developers, action groups, PTQ etc since WC have been in control of the Fund.

While I personally find the takeover offer severely lacking, I look forward to what WC has to say in their defence. This is ASIC they are dealing with, maybe we will get some of the long awaited for honesty and transparency as to just how this Fund intends to achieve their original projections. Who will WC blame as to their total lack of performance to date? After all, due diligence was conducted prior to the PIF acquisition, well before the Explanatory Memorandum was compiled, offering imminent ongoing distributions commencing in Oct 2009, buybacks, return to full unit value in 3-5 years etc. 

Seamisty


----------



## charles36 (28 May 2010)

I agree Seamisty, I cannot wait to read the response, not that I would support the takeover offer anyway but it will test our RE.  We may get an insight into the future of our fund, if there is one.  I will be looking particularly for  the Wollongong Hotel deal and how that will unfold as well as other matters.  Not long to wait.


----------



## selciper (28 May 2010)

I found this SMH Nov. 2009 CBD article interesting in light of the recent Timeline post. Worth rereading.

http://www.businessday.com.au/business/how-michael-kings-dream-turned-to-dust-20091106-i2b9.html


----------



## Duped (31 May 2010)

Was this partly how PIF paid off RBOS:

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/05/26/221455_gold-coast-business.html

If so then I'd be sated to know that RBOS took a big haircut. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Never forget what St George/Westpac did to us on the GC Sheraton.


----------



## atlas1950 (31 May 2010)

I, like many others have been caught up with this awful mess.

But can we really blame Westpac for looking after there interests.

Please remember they held first mortgage on the Sheraton Mirage property.

We only held a second mortgage.

As sad as I am to say, they had every right, as holders of the first mortgage,to get all of the money.

We can't blame them, but we should be jumping up and down on the MFS board who allowed us to be holders of a second mortgage.

I was always told that they could only lend our money on first mortgage security, so please tell me why we were there on a second mortgage basis.

Good luck to us all, and am looking forward to the next six months and the progression of our class action.

Michael


----------



## Dexter (31 May 2010)

Can someone "please explain" how we can expect a worthwhile settlement from our Class Action when, as quoted recently in the Financial Review, any claims against "auditors and other professionals" are capped at $75m?

This case was also against KPMG.  

Regards, Dexter.


----------



## selciper (31 May 2010)

Dexter, interesting point you raise. This recent article is about the Westpoint case.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/bu...says-asics-westpoint-action-unconstitutional/


----------



## gardie (1 June 2010)

Duped 

The article you quoted about RBOS raises some interesting questions.

RBOS advances money to PIF

PIF buys or loans money left, right and centre to prop up MFS and its subsidiaries including Geo and Living and Leisure

A whole lot of PIF assets sold quickly including interests in Geo and LLA so that RBOS got its money back or else they supposedly would have  foreclosed.

Included in what sold down was a debt owed to PIF which was acquired by a subsidiary of RBOS who I assume provided debt and equity to Geo.

At what price did the PIF debt get sold ?

Would this have not been an asset that should have been JV'd ? Its land and doesnt need huge amounts of extra capital to develop unlike say a highrise.

What knowledge did RBOS have of the use of the funds advanced ?

Until you know at what price the debt was sold we wouldnt know if RBOS took a haircut or was this just another way of others getting to keep PIF funds.


----------



## Duped (1 June 2010)

Dexter said:


> Can someone "please explain" how we can expect a worthwhile settlement from our Class Action when, as quoted recently in the Financial Review, any claims against "auditors and other professionals" are capped at $75m?
> 
> This case was also against KPMG.
> 
> Regards, Dexter.




The same AFR that stated PIF was New Zealand based. 
Did the article offer any reasoning? Legislated? The extent of their insurance? Common law?


----------



## seamisty (1 June 2010)

gardie said:


> Duped
> 
> The article you quoted about RBOS raises some interesting questions.
> 
> ...



More interesting Gardie is how the same names keep emerging, link after link. Craig Wallace(ex KPMG), Andrew Kemp(ex KPMG), Chris Scott, Jenny Hutson


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/no-mates-rates-says-fund-buyer/story-e6frfh4f-1111116351614

Octaviar sells its stake in MFS offshoot 
Ben Butler From: Herald Sun May 16, 2008 12:00AM 
A FUND formerly controlled by debt-laden financier MFS - now known as Octaviar - has sold its stake in an MFS offshoot for a bargain price. 

Business associates of new Octaviar executive director Chris Scott feature on both sides of the deal.

The Premium Income Fund yesterday sold its 9.4 per cent of Geo Property Group, the former MFS Diversified, to listed investment company Trojan Equity for $10.22 million.

At 25.5 a share, this represents a significant discount to Geo's closing price yesterday of 39 cents.

Octaviar sold management rights to the troubled fund to Wellington Capital, a company headed by Jenny Hutson, last month.

Buyer Trojan Capital is chaired by Andrew Kemp.

Both sat on the board of Chris Scott's S8 group before it was sold to MFS.

Trojan Equity managing director Troy Harry said the company had done "a pretty good deal" but denied getting mates' rates.






http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/s8-gets-a-turbo-charger/story-e6freqmx-1111112392092

S8 chair Jenny Hutson, who will join the board of MFS if the proposed merger proceeds, was bullish about the deal.

"Chris Scott and Michael King have put a lot of energy into briefing the market about the upside of the deal and now the share prices have rallied," Ms Hutson said.

Shareholders re-elected Andrew Kemp, Robert Steel and Peter Lacaze as directors.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Sunnycove Management PTY LTD::irectors and Executives:
   Mr Andrew Kemp (Chairman)
   Mr Mark Roberts (Managing Director)
   Mr Matthew Madsen (Director)
   Mr Craig Wallace (Director)

S8 Limited:irectors and Executives:
   Ms Jennifer Joan Hutson (Chairman)
   Mr Chris John Scott (Managing Director)
   Mr Craig Graeme Chapman (CFO)
   Mr Gary Smith (Director)
   Mr Andrew Kemp (Director)
   Mr Bob Steel (Non Exec. Director)

S8 Property Trust Compliance committee:

  Peter Fahey, Craig Wallace and Robert Pitt


Octaviar Investment Managegement Ltd (2 May 2008) Directors
  Jenny Hutson;
  Robert Pitt; and
  Craig Wallace.
Wellington Capital Pty Lt:irectors and Executives: (May 2008)
  Ms Jenny Hutson (Chairman)
  Mr Robert Pitt (Managing Director)
  Mr Christopher Scott (Director)
  Mr David Burke (Director)
  Mr Peter Fahey (Director)

Chris Scott was a director and shareholder of Wellington Capital. Wellington Capital was Responsible Entity for S8 Property Trust. As to the best of my research, McCullough Robertsons were named as Legal Advisor to all of the above, and so it goes on.


Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (2 June 2010)

An interesting little snippet managed to find its way into my email inbox this morning re Wellington Capital.

http://www.gazettes.gov.ky/pls/portal30/docs/Folder/SITE83/GAZETTES/GA2010/GA112010.PDF
Struck-off List
THE COMPANIES LAW
(2009 Revision)
TAKE NOTICE THAT the Registrar of Companies, having reasonable cause to believe that the
undermentioned companies incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands are no longer carrying on
business or are not in compliance with Section 170, intends to strike the said companies from the Register as
of the 30th June 2010, in accordance with the provisions of Section 156 of the Companies Law.

WELLINGTON CAPITAL LIMITED


Amazing where the name Wellington Capital Ltd turns up!!! Wasn't Agilis Global, formerly MFS International Investments Limited  registered there as well?

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (2 June 2010)

seamisty said:


> An interesting little snippet managed to find its way into my email inbox this morning re Wellington Capital.
> 
> http://www.gazettes.gov.ky/pls/portal30/docs/Folder/SITE83/GAZETTES/GA2010/GA112010.PDF
> Struck-off List
> ...



The following is from a website offering their services re registering business offshore. 

http://www.offshore-professional.com/?gclid=CIXpi4mwgKICFQcupAodW23tEA
Going offshore nowadays is the most popular way of starting or managing your business. Offshore companies do not only offer tax exemption. That's surely what made them famous and popular. More important however is the freedom of operations, confidentiality and ease of running your business. There will be no paperwork, no hassle with filings and audtings.

Incorporate your new company today! Go offshore now, no visit required.

Quick, easy, affordable. 
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 Perhaps the allure of offshore company registrations have lost their usefullness since 'The Governments of Australia and The Cayman Islands have signed an Agreement for the Exchange of Information Relating to Taxes. The Agreement provides for exchange of information on request in both criminal and civil tax matters' (Thursday, 1 April 2010)
http://www.treasury.gov.au/contentitem.asp?NavId=007&ContentID=1776


Seamisty


----------



## breaker1 (2 June 2010)

Dexter said:


> Can someone "please explain" how we can expect a worthwhile settlement from our Class Action when, as quoted recently in the Financial Review, any claims against "auditors and other professionals" are capped at $75m?
> 
> This case was also against KPMG.
> 
> Regards, Dexter.




Dexter

Would you be kind enough to forward the link to this Financial Review article to my email: pifactiongroup@gmail.com 

Thanks


----------



## breaker1 (2 June 2010)

Thanks for contacting me Dexter and all the best with the move!


----------



## selciper (3 June 2010)

Duped said:


> The same AFR that stated PIF was New Zealand based.
> Did the AFR article offer any reasoning? Legislated? The extent of their insurance? Common law?



If the AFR report that claims against auditors are capped at $75m. is correct, we must surely have an extra worry. However, ASIC not long ago chased KPMG for $200m. on behalf of Westpoint investors and won. (There's an appeal.) Hopefully someone can shed light on the discrepancy. $200m. is well beyond $75m!


----------



## Duped (3 June 2010)

atlas1950 said:


> I, like many others have been caught up with this awful mess.
> 
> But can we really blame Westpac for looking after there interests.
> 
> ...




I hear what you are saying but disagree. This get-out-of-jail-free-card excuse of "only obliged to get the best possible outcome for shareholders" is losing its potency.  Arguably it was never a valid claim anyway.  In contrast to Westpac's apparently cold surgical treatment of us, have a read of 'The Buffet Way' about Warren Buffet. Buffet ALWAYS examines how management balance the competing interests of the 3 key groups in any enterprise: employees, clients and investors. Westpac/St George has just hurt ten thousand potential clients. The Westpac/St George secured loan came after the PIF unsecured mortgage didn't it? If so then Westpac/St George is complicit in the destruction of our wealth because it knew about our subordinate mortgage BEFORE it lent money to Rap[a]ti[ou]s. But did it care? Are you all going to sit there and turn the other cheek.  If yes then we all deserve what we get.  Westpac had and still have a choice to do good business with PIF.

Of course Westpac/St George could always have or still save us from the hustling and equity serfditude imposed on us by MFS/Octaviar and its progeny WC and become a model RE for us but .........noooooo.  Nowhere to be seen. Gone missing. MIA. We're on our own to fend for ourselves and hence should be throwing punched (metaphorical) where ever and when ever we can. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.  The class action is one big long loud squeak but not the only one in our capacity. C'mon Westpac/St George, lets do business, lets make money together, where is your bid to rival ALF PIF? ..... silence. C'mon, prove me wrong. I welcome it.

In the meantime the only power I have against Westpac is the choice not to give them my business.  And I'm going to use it.   Already have.  My partner used to be with St George. Not any more.


----------



## Duped (3 June 2010)

breaker1 said:


> Thanks for contacting me Dexter and all the best with the move!




Thanks Dexter. All AFR articles are behind its pay wall and searching 'KPMG' returns many irrelevant hits. (The newspapers are busy writing about KPMG's duplicity on the RSPT and KPMG's involvement with Securency. Our ivory tower residents are copping it.  Recall Deloitte getting sacked by McMurdo for getting itself conflicted during their administration of Octaviar.) Do you remember the approximate date or e.g. if the article was about Westpoint? 

Anyone a member of AFR Online?


----------



## Jadel (3 June 2010)

Hi Duped

I recall reading the article also a few weeks back on my Internet 

Server news page( Big Pond)

If correct and we are restricted  to 75 million ,the quantum of our claim could   depend on whether or not our class action  has legally gone through before this legislation  has been introduced .And  also if the reported legislation has been backdated .


----------



## seamisty (3 June 2010)

Jadel said:


> Hi Duped
> 
> I recall reading the article also a few weeks back on my Internet
> 
> ...



I asked John Walker at IMF if he would comment on the issue and received the following::"I don’t know what the reporter is talking about. KPMG’s liability for causes of action arising after 1 February 2008 may be limited, but by then almost all, if not all, the damage had been done."

He doesn't appear to be concerned so I presume it does not affect our CA statement of claim re compensation from KPMG. 

From memory I think I recall that directors had a PI cap of $5mill each??

Seamisty


----------



## Mary Lynch (3 June 2010)

I thought we had 1 billion insurance with KPMG. How much were we insured for if it wasn't $1B?...Surely it is to do with what OUR insurance was and how much WE were paying for OUR coverage, rather than a "cap"!


----------



## breaker1 (3 June 2010)

Just double checked:

IMF have* no *knowledge of any cap on claims


----------



## seamisty (4 June 2010)

seamisty said:


> Hi All, Just so you know I  sent the following to Ian Craig at the NSX on the 3rd May 2010::
> 
> 
> It has come to my attention that there has been an alleged  serious breach of the Corporation Act in respect to non-disclosure by Wellington Capital of a current legal action against the PIF while units are actively trading on the NSX? In the event this legal action is successful it will have a huge detrimental impact on our Fund.
> ...



I guess I am not the only one with a gripe against the NSX management!!  Seamisty

http://www.smh.com.au/business/form...irm-a-bloody-nose-in-court-20100529-wmip.html

THE listed NSX Ltd has suffered a costly courtroom defeat at the hands of the company's former managing director, Robert Bladier.


----------



## atlas1950 (7 June 2010)

Does anybody know when Bentleys investigations starts up again in court???

Should be interesting with the next group of people under examinations.

It has been quiet on the thread for the past few days, so let's hope things sre moving in a positive direction.

Michael


----------



## Cookie1 (7 June 2010)

Hi Atlas1950,

A 15 April letter on the Bentleys website shows 10-14 May (already past), 19-23 July 2010, 2-6 August and 16-20 August as weeks set aside for examinations.

I wish it were happening faster but I guess patience is a virtue, at least in our case.

Cookie1


----------



## seamisty (7 June 2010)

I heard Wellington Capital is looking to call an EGM to vote that the MYF (Maximum Yield Fund)not be wound up for another 2 years due to current litigation consequences??? Not sure why these proceedings would have a detrimental impact on the legitimate MYF investors and ponder what benefit WC would receive (from current experience) by prolonging the winding up of this Fund? Please enlighten me? Any legitimate MYF current debenture holders care to comment? I believe there is only approx 9 original investors holding less than 2 million legitimate MYF units outside of the 85 million bogus units that WC continue to manage?? I heard WC even distributed MYF income\distributions to the nonexistent 85 million Class A bogus MYF units to the detriment of the original  unit/debenture holders? I am still waiting for a response from WELLINGTON CAPITAL to clarify some issues previously raised by myself and the PIF Action Group on behalf of one of the legitimate MYF investors. I did also send it to our duly elected IAC reps thinking they may like to initiate some of their promised broad range of business expertise to take the issue on board and seek some answers on PIF investors  behalf.(this particular investor has all his funds tied up in OCV related Funds including the PIF). It would be VERY encouraging to see at least one intelligent IAC response on the next WC PIF update as I consider that the Wollongong fiasco/result not yet delivered by WC less than 'encouraging' (and an issue I feel needs further investigating) and the fact that IAC reps are 'watching the Bentley Public examinations closely' nothing short of pathetic!! I seriously would like to know what it cost US, the PIF unitholders in actual $$$$ to be insulted by this whole mentally taxing IAC exercise of which our Responsible Entity, WELLINGTON CAPITAL  refuses to divulge the voting results of!! PIF investors are forever trying to protect themselves from scheming, manipulating attempts to withhold correct PIF information being returned to unit holders? Eventually, perhaps some of the many attemps made by PIF investors to unravel this mess and make us feel more secure and financially repatriated will come to fruition.


 I am still waiting for WC to confirm a time with me for my 'periodic discussions' with the managing director of Wellington Capital offered to me previously by WC on the 2nd Feb 2010 for June, October and February each year.

Atlas1950 I think the Bentley public examinations are due to resume in August but not certain so will try and verify.  I find the Bentley website not very up to date?
Seamisty


----------



## Duped (8 June 2010)

The last posting from greatdame was in December 08. Anyone recall/know if he returned under another name?


----------



## selciper (8 June 2010)

I'm just testinh my computer/


----------



## seamisty (8 June 2010)

selciper said:


> I'm just testinh my computer/



 Welcome back selciper!! Duped I don't think Great Dane posted under another name, I was told that he was not well and sold all his units a long time ago. I think Jadel was in contact with him? I bet if he checks this forum at all he will be saying "I told you so!!!!!" Seamisty


----------



## selciper (8 June 2010)

Sorry aboiut that. My connection to the Forum went down for a while and has been erratic for a couuple of days. I was unable to post. Not a nice feeling to lose contact!


----------



## Jadel (8 June 2010)

Hi Duped 

       Great Dame came along to the PIFI AGM recently . He is battling the dreaded big C  but is doing quite well at the moment . Informed me he sold his shares on the NSX  for between 18 & 20 cents quite some time ago reinvested the money at the market bottom and is now up 50%.


----------



## Jadel (8 June 2010)

Hi Duped 

       Great Dame came along to the PIFI AGM recently . He is battling the dreaded big C  but is doing quite well at the moment . Informed me he sold his shares on the NSX  for between 18 & 20 cents quite some time ago reinvested the money at the market bottom and is now up 50%.


----------



## selciper (8 June 2010)

Great Dame and other Cassandras were right in 2008. A majority of us chose to accept the undertakings made at “tears of joy” roadshows. After all, it seemed inconceivable at the time that not one cent would have come our way by mid-2010. You wonder whether words like credibility and respect have any value nowadays.


----------



## Duped (8 June 2010)

selciper said:


> Great Dame and other Cassandras were right in 2008. A majority of us chose to accept the undertakings made at “tears of joy” roadshows. After all, it seemed inconceivable at the time that not one cent would have come our way by mid-2010. You wonder whether words like credibility and respect have any value nowadays.




Duped again.  Doh!


----------



## simgrund (8 June 2010)

Duped said:


> Duped again.  Doh!




I note that Great Dane came through in his posts as a seasoned, multiple investor. So his PIF venture may have been one of many where averages probably went his way.
I suspect that most PIFers were in it for the first time, with adviser's blessings and with the sole purpose of nurturing the deposits already in retirement or till retirement. And for many that date must have been so close.
Good luck and best of health to GD, but let's not venerate those times when NOT ONE SOUL on this thread offered a viable alternative to his constant carping.
You are not alone Duped,


----------



## selciper (8 June 2010)

Duoed -
Never again! We must all be on guard to prevent things getting even worse. I notice that our share price has now returned to 8 cents after recently hitting the dizzying heights of 9.2. We seem to be marooned on a skipperless ship without power or maps, floating slowly to nowhere. We have to wait until various hearings resume. In the meantime, none of us is getting younger; I fear that legal fine points might be argued fpr years to come before we see any payments. And we'll wait and wait. It's hard not to be gloomy, but I suppose that there could be unexpected twists that might one day change the outlook to "fairly positive." We certainly deserve a favourable twist or two.


----------



## Duped (9 June 2010)

selciper said:


> Duoed -
> Never again! We must all be on guard to prevent things getting even worse. I notice that our share price has now returned to 8 cents after recently hitting the dizzying heights of 9.2. We seem to be marooned on a skipperless ship without power or maps, floating slowly to nowhere. We have to wait until various hearings resume. In the meantime, none of us is getting younger; I fear that legal fine points might be argued fpr years to come before we see any payments. And we'll wait and wait. It's hard not to be gloomy, but I suppose that there could be unexpected twists that might one day change the outlook to "fairly positive." We certainly deserve a favourable twist or two.




Yeah. The RE asked us to vote to amend the constitution in 2006 and then in 2008.  Around 18 months after both, our prospects were greatly diminished.  Based on this track record, whatever further amendments WC propose can't be good for us investors. Does the Maximum Yield Fund hold PIF units (directly or indirectly)?

On a separate matter. The Wholesale Premium Income Fund held over 11% of PIF at 14Aug09. If this is still the case and votes as a block against ALF PIF then the current takeover will fail to reach its 90%. ALF PIF should know this. If so then they'll either need to prevent such a large block voting against the takeover or ALF PIF doesn't care and will be happy to gain control of a much smaller percentage of PIF.


----------



## Duped (9 June 2010)

seamisty said:


> I heard Wellington Capital is looking to call an EGM to vote that the MYF (Maximum Yield Fund)not be wound up for another 2 years due to current litigation consequences??? Not sure why these proceedings would have a detrimental impact on the legitimate MYF investors and ponder what benefit WC would receive (from current experience) by prolonging the winding up of this Fund? Please enlighten me? Any legitimate MYF current debenture holders care to comment? I believe there is only approx 9 original investors holding less than 2 million legitimate MYF units outside of the 85 million bogus units that WC continue to manage?? I heard WC even distributed MYF income\distributions to the nonexistent 85 million Class A bogus MYF units to the detriment of the original  unit/debenture holders? ...




Why would WC call an EGM?  The RE hasn't sought our vote for any of the other decision it has made regarding PIF assets.  Maybe WC just wants to put us in the firing line of potential lawsuits from MYF investors or clients. 

If WC does call an EGM, can we get motions added to the agenda.  I'm sure WC will time everything to make it very difficult.


----------



## seamisty (10 June 2010)

Duped said:


> Why would WC call an EGM?  The RE hasn't sought our vote for any of the other decision it has made regarding PIF assets.  Maybe WC just wants to put us in the firing line of potential lawsuits from MYF investors or clients.
> 
> If WC does call an EGM, can we get motions added to the agenda.  I'm sure WC will time everything to make it very difficult.



I imagine the EGM is only for MYF investors or their proxies? My guess is that WC doesn't want to lose the gravy train of MYF management fees, so by getting the majority vote to change the constitution  by special resolution (again) to extend the end date of the MYF trust for another two years the 'snouts will be able to stay in the trough'!!! I wonder if Wellington Capital is drawing management fees for the non existant 85 million units and still using the voting power associated with them? PIF could well be dragged into this saga as well!!

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (10 June 2010)

Seamisty provided, on May19, this link to the GCB story related to the ALF bid. The always helpful Nick Nicholls broached another subject or two with Hutson. As there was such a kerfuffle at the time over ALF, I found a second reading of this piece interesting enough.

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/11/21/160905_gold-coast-business.html


----------



## seamisty (10 June 2010)

selciper said:


> Seamisty provided, on May19, this link to the GCB story related to the ALF bid. The always helpful Nick Nicholls broached another subject or two with Hutson. As there was such a kerfuffle at the time over ALF, I found a second reading of this piece interesting enough.
> 
> http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/11/21/160905_gold-coast-business.html



Bearing in mind selciper, that article in the Gold Coast Bulletin by Nick Nichols on the 21st Nov 2009 followed this one published on the 20th Nov 2009 http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/11/20/160381_gold-coast-business.html Nick Nicholls was contacted and provided with information relating to the auction otherwise  PIF investors would never have known that Wellington Capital had previously rejected an offer of $40.5 million AT AUCTION, not AFTER AUCTION as quoted  in defense on the 21st Nov. "Although the City Beach hotel-apartment project had found a $40.5 million buyer after auction earlier this year" "This ($38 million deal) represents the best value we can find in the market"

The rejected offer of $40.5 million, AT AUCTION  was made on the 7th May 2009, MORE THAN SIX MONTHS PRIOR to the eventual pathetic deal!! Nick Nichols would have had to have kept file notes on those reports. Did Jenny Hutson Of Wellington Capital deliberately mislead Nick Nichols in the article on the 2st Nov??? Wellington Capital NEVER intended for PIF investors to even know about the previous better offer rejected on our behalf. I have posted many times on here in relation to this and well documented  evidence has been kept on this particular issue for future reference!!!

Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (12 June 2010)

MFS mentioned in today's SMH
http://www.smh.com.au/business/where-are-they-now-20100611-y3j3.html
Regards,


----------



## selciper (13 June 2010)

Another interesting story.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/elderslie-liquidator-targets-hewson-20100611-y3i7.html


----------



## seamisty (15 June 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mfs-founder-faces-grilling-by-liquidators-20100614-ya80.html

Mr Adams moved to Dubai in mid-2007 to expand the investment group overseas and still lives there. He has not spoken publicly about the collapse of MFS, in 2008, and has since promoted his professional record as one of solid success





http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/philip-adams-to-face-court/story-e6frg8zx-1225879632504

PUBLIC inquiries will continue this week into the collapse of Gold Coast financial company Octaviar, previously known as MFS. Co-founder Phillip Adams will face a court about financial dealings of the company.


----------



## seamisty (15 June 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/where-are-they-now-part-iii-20100614-yabk.html


MFS Michael King 
TWO years after the collapse of his Gold Coast investment group, Michael King says he has cleared his personal debts and realised some truths.

''I've got negative plans,'' he says. ''I'm never going to be involved in a public company again, never going to be CEO of a big organisation again, and never going to be in financial services again.''

It may be small comfort to the MFS creditors who are owed close to $2.5 billion.

King, 45, says he is living at his Elysian Fields polo estate, which remains for sale. Under a personal insolvency agreement he has struck, whatever the bank doesn't take is to go to creditors.

King and his colleague Phil Adams were lawyers at a Gold Coast law firm in 1999, when they set up MFS as McLaughlin Financial Services. It later became Octaviar.

By May 2007, their combined personal wealth was $370 million, according to BRW.

Within a year, King and Adams had both dropped off the rich list and owed $127 million on margin loans.

MFS was once worth $3.2 billion, but its collapse revealed intercompany loans totalled $1 billion.

King is yet to face examinations into MFS, but says he is looking forward to it.

He is also facing charges in the Queensland Supreme Court, brought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, relating to a loan from Royal Bank of Scotland. The loan was meant for the Premium Income Fund, but was allegedly used to repay $100 million to US lender Fortress Credit.

''It's tragic that people lost money,'' King says. ''Some of my best mates lost fortunes, so if you don't think that affects you, you're kidding yourself.''

King says he has ceased all involvement with MFS entities and is now consulting. ''Just general business stuff, nothing to do with financial services or anything like that. It keeps me busy, trying to make a buck.''


----------



## Jadel (15 June 2010)

''I've got negative plans,'' he says. ''I'm never going to be involved in a public company again, never going to be CEO of a big organisation again, and never going to be in financial services again.''

 I do not see any sign of personal responsibility or remorse over the destruction of thousands of peoples lives in the PIF in the above statement.

  Yes Michael ,hopefully it will be difficult to be the CEO of a " big organisation" looking through the bars of a jail cell.


----------



## Duped (15 June 2010)

Seems that King is still going to try and cast himself as the underdog - 'just trying to do business etc etc'. My guess is still he'll simply blame banks, short sellers and vulture funds who will all in turn just say they were doing what everyone knows what they do. (Aesop's 'Scorpion and the Frog': "I'm a scorpion; it's my nature.")

Anyone here an artist? Can you draw a cartoon of a pile of cash with Peacock, King, Adams, Anderson, Krecklenberg, Hutchings etc painting a giant target on it?

With ASIC holding their bucket of red paint.


----------



## seamisty (15 June 2010)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722821.PDF

ALF PIF FAILS TO DESPATCH OFFER DOCUMENTS
The Bidder’s Statement and Takeover Offer served on Wellington Capital Limited in its capacity as
Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund on 17 May 2010 has not been despatched by the Bidder to
all unitholders in the Premium Income Fund as is required by Section 633 of the Corporations Act.
The Corporations Act requires that a Bidder’s Statement and Takeover Offer be despatched within 28 days
of it having been served on the Target. By not despatching its Offer, ALF PIF Finance Limited is in breach
of Section 633 of the Corporations Act, a section which requires strict compliance.
Managing Director, Jenny Hutson said:
‘The Bidder has failed to comply with its obligations under the Corporations Act. The Bidder’s Statement
and Takeover Offer which we received on 17 May 2010 is now unable to be despatched to unitholders in
accordance with the law as the Bidder has failed to comply with the timetable in Chapter 6 of the
Corporations Act.
Unitholders should not act on any communications received from the Bidder’ she said.


----------



## JohnH (15 June 2010)

ALF PIF FAILS TO DESPATCH OFFER DOCUMENTS



Reminds me of the Michael Caine movie  ------  "what's it all about ALFie???"


----------



## seamisty (15 June 2010)

Bentley's Public examinations which resumed today will continue all this week with former MFS directors being examined. Nothing next week, will be a break, resuming the following week with David Anderson. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## selciper (15 June 2010)

The daily quantity of news for PIF investors is unpredictable. Today, after a dearth of reported events, the whirligig starts up again. King speaks to the press, (surprisingly) Mr Adams of Dubai is to appear here this week and ALF apparently doesn’t meet a critical deadline. An interesting enough Tuesday. Let's have more of them.


----------



## seamisty (16 June 2010)

MFS directors were still making deals through the investment group's companies over a year after it collapsed, Fairfax media reports. 

The New South Wales Supreme Court was told that at one stage, a third of a company was given to one of the directors for free, Fairfax reports. 

Full article
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...apse-re-pd20100616-6FQGQ?opendocument&src=rss


----------



## seamisty (16 June 2010)

Deals made after collapse, court told KATE LAHEY 
June 16, 2010



As examinations by the liquidator Kate Barnet resumed in the NSW Supreme Court yesterday, two former directors, Paul Manka and Christopher Eldridge, were questioned about the sale of MFS Alternative Asset Limited last year.

In June the former MFS chief financial officer, David Anderson, asked Mr Manka and Mr Eldridge, directors of McLaughlin Financial Services, an original MFS entity, to sell its 33 per cent stake in AAL to Mr Anderson's company, Management Finance, for $1. His company would then bill AAL a $1 administration fee, the court heard.

Full story::http://www.smh.com.au/business/deals-made-after-collapse-court-told-20100615-yde0.html


----------



## charles36 (16 June 2010)

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.

"Oh it is a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive" Have faith justice will be done.


----------



## seamisty (16 June 2010)

charles36 said:


> TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.
> 
> "Oh it is a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive" Have faith justice will be done.



 It appears that entangled web of deceit is being carefully unravelled charles36!!

Paul Manka doing deals with Anderson 12 months on after the MFS collapse?
I am sure more than one intricate deal will be revealed in due course.

The trough is all but empty, pigs squeal louder than ever when they think they are deserving of another feed.
A bit hard to distance oneself from that once full trough when the fat bellies are still evident I would think?:headshake Bring it on!!

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (16 June 2010)

I don't know if any other PIF investors have followed the Reef Cove Resort fiasco in Cairns?

MFS defaulted on providing ongoing financial support when the :fan .I never quite got to the bottom  if it was a PIF asset or had some link to OPI or just what the connection was but here is an interesting development!!! Maybe Mr Byrnes associates could see better value here than the poor depleted PIF? This particular development has had huge problems with environmental groups, I think even Garrett poked his nose in at one stage. I also note that MFS blamed the Global Financial Crisis for not being able to provide the extra funding in 'late 2007'. WELL, we all know that is not quite correct!!! 

Seamisty



ALF Group Holdings AG – Major Distressed Property Acquisition and Profit Upgrade

Sydney, Australia 14th June 2010 - ALF Group Holdings AG (ISIN: CH0044678180 / symbol: AG1) is pleased to confirm the following:

1. Major Distressed Property Acquisition

a wholly owned subsidiary, ALF Property 1 Pty Ltd, has agreed to resolve the matter by the acquisition of the underlying assets at a 95% discount to the current debt. A purchase contract with the receiver for Reef Cove Resort Pty Ltd has now been accepted and executed.

In 2006, Cairns City Council consented to give Reef Cove Resort a development approval for a subdivision of 102 residential lots, 20 supa lots which are each individual large development sites in themselves, including areas for a resort hotel, townhouses, and resort village infrastructure on False Cape, which marks the eastern boundary of Cairns Harbour. On completion it is expected that there will be accommodation for over 1,500 people.

The claim originated when a funder advanced over AUD$ 60 million (inclusive of fees and interest) to a property developer, to fund a beachside development (Reef Cove Resort) with an end value of approximately AUD$ 120 million. Upon request for a further agreed drawdown, the funder (MFS) defaulted in late 2007 as it was unable to provide the balance of the funds that it had previously agreed to provide under the terms of the loan agreement due to the Global Financial Crisis. In 2009, both the funder and the borrower were placed into liquidation. 
The matter has now been resolved by ALF Property 1 Pty Ltd entering into a contract to purchase the land (including existing improvements) for a total price of AUD$ 3million.


Article continues:::http://www.irw-press.com/en/news_9464.html


----------



## seamisty (16 June 2010)

OOPS!!Spoke too soon!! Still interest from ALF PIF!! Seamisty


http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722823.PDF


----------



## JohnH (16 June 2010)

JohnH said:


> ALF PIF FAILS TO DESPATCH OFFER DOCUMENTS
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of the Michael Caine movie  ------  "what's it all about ALFie???"




Didn't realise until I looked up the words, how appropriate they were!!!

What's it all about, Alfie?
Is it just for the moment we live?
What's it all about when you sort it out, Alfie?
Are we meant to take more than we give
Or are we meant to be kind?
And if only fools are kind, Alfie,
Then I guess it's wise to be cruel.
And if life belongs only to the strong, Alfie,
What will you lend on an old golden rule?
As sure as I believe there's a heaven above, Alfie,
I know there's something much more,
Something even non-believers can believe in.
I believe in love, Alfie.
Without true love we just exist, Alfie.
Until you find the love you've missed you're nothing, Alfie.
When you walk let your heart lead the way
And you'll find love any day, Alfie, Alfie
would you tell me what's it all about?
what's it all about? Alfie, Alfie, Alfie.
What's it all about? Whats this all about?
what's it all about Alfie? tell me
what's it all about Alfie? what's it all about Alfie?
just tell me yeah. what's it all about?
what's it all about?


----------



## seamisty (17 June 2010)

Good morning all. Not surprisingly we have the following article in todays Gold Coast Bulletin in relation to the ALF PIF take over bid. I nearly did a JohnH and choked on my cup of tea when I read "This is unfair, unreasonable and not in any way in the interests of PIF unitholders," said Ms Hutson.

She said unitholders who had contacted her office were 'distressed' that such a bid could be made and 'they don't propose to accept it'.

Ms Hutson said the original bidder's statement contained 'significant omissions and inaccurate statements'.
Full article in the link below:
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/06/17/228951_gold-coast-business.html

How many existing Wellington Capital Premium Income Fund unit holders feel the same way under current management would you think Ms Hutson?

How many original statements contained in the Wellington Explanatory Mamorandum and verbally diarrheared oops, I mean delivered at the travelling road shows  in person by WC were never forthcoming and were grossly inaccurate? Not to mention transparency etc. I can't imagine the ALF PIF offer will be accepted by PIF investors because it is a crap offer in my opinion but also why would PIF investors jump out of the fire into the frying pan? Every dog has their day and I think I can hear some faint barking in the background.

Shame on the Qld papers/journalists for not covering the current Bentleys public examinations where the real news is which may well deliver some positive results /news for PIF investors, but it is blatantly obvious our plight and personal concerns are of no particular concern. 
Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (17 June 2010)

There doesn't appear much in the media today in relation to yesterdays public examinations.

According to this report Phil Adams will be questioned on Friday. Seamisty
http://topnews.co.uk/26793-mfs-founder-ready-be-grilled-liquidator

The liquidator, Kate Barnet, from Bentleys Corporate Recovery, is all geared up to grill Mr Adams in the New South Wales Supreme Court on coming Friday, although he was not entailed in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission case, which was against the former MFS director and the executives in the Queensland Supreme Court. Such cases, involves MFS co-founder Michael King, centre of the loan transfers.


----------



## seamisty (17 June 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/in-a-constant-state-of-excitement-20100616-ygeg.html


'Jenny Hutson, was more than happy to add more details left out of the original bid.

Enclosed with her rejection letter, were two press releases from the Australian Securities & Investments Commission dating back to 1999 and 2006'.


----------



## seamisty (17 June 2010)

I can hardly contain my excitement (NOT!!) over this article::
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/2908...ndustry-to-provide-credentials-to-clients.htm


'According to the Financial Services Institute of Australia (Finsia), the Financial Services Professional credentials (FSP) will modify performances, professionalism, and standards of conduct in the sector.'


'What this credential is going to do is drive very powerful social norms, and will bring forward a credential that mum and dad investors and employers and regulators can have confidence in,” Dr. Fahy told AAP'


Confidence. HMMMNN, I think that means something to do with 'faith' and 'trust'.

I think it will be a long time before thousands will ever regain any 'confidence' in financial services and products no matter how much training is provided.

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (17 June 2010)

I wonder how much this ALF bid will coat us in expenses such as mailouts, colour printing, legals etc. That aside, the bid at least stirs WC into some action and probably lots of deep thinking. As for the Gold Coast Bulletin report about “distressed” PIF investors phoning in about the bid...WC shouldn’t read into such communications any sign of mass support for their inglorious performance since taking charge of PIF .


----------



## seamisty (17 June 2010)

selciper said:


> I wonder how much this ALF bid will coat us in expenses such as mailouts, colour printing, legals etc. That aside, the bid at least stirs WC into some action and probably lots of deep thinking. As for the Gold Coast Bulletin report about “distressed” PIF investors phoning in about the bid...WC shouldn’t read into such communications any sign of mass support for their inglorious performance since taking charge of PIF .




selciper I bet the number of 'distressed' PIF investors in relation to the ALF PIF bid pale into insignificance to the amount of investors calling Wellington Capital Limited, not only 'distressed' but totally 'devastated' asking where their distribution is, who now know they have been well and truly 'duped' by our current manager!!! As for the Gold Coast Bulletin, do they  give a rats rs to what PIF investors think?? Did thay even actually contact one single PIF investor and ask an opinion? Maybe Mr Nicholls sent an email to the PIF IAC for a report on current investor sentiment since they are our contact point?

The whole PIF is nothing short of a fiasco, more so now when there is no explanation apart from current management for its non performance and falling unit/asset value. How much has Wellington Capital Ltd cost us? Approx $150million plus what wasn't generated to pay the 'distribution'?

I imagine James Byrnes would not be happy with WC either!!!:bbat:

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (17 June 2010)

seamisty said:


> selciper I bet the number of 'distressed' PIF investors in relation to the ALF PIF bid pale into insignificance to the amount of investors calling Wellington Capital Limited, not only 'distressed' but totally 'devastated' asking where their distribution is, who now know they have been well and truly 'duped' by our current manager!!! As for the Gold Coast Bulletin, do they  give a rats rs to what PIF investors think?? Did thay even actually contact one single PIF investor and ask an opinion? Maybe Mr Nicholls sent an email to the PIF IAC for a report on current investor sentiment since they are our contact point?
> 
> The whole PIF is nothing short of a fiasco, more so now when there is no explanation apart from current management for its non performance and falling unit/asset value. How much has Wellington Capital Ltd cost us? Approx $150million plus what wasn't generated to pay the 'distribution'?
> 
> ...



It would be difficult to argue against your summary. One benefit we are deriving from the present whirlpool of events is the increasing appearance of the acronym “PIF” in broadsheets. This may mot be so welcome in certain quarters.


----------



## seamisty (17 June 2010)

selciper said:


> It would be difficult to argue against your summary. One benefit we are deriving from the present whirlpool of events is the increasing appearance of the acronym “PIF” in broadsheets. This may mot be so welcome in certain quarters.



Especially when it is accompanied with the rest of its management team selciper, WELLINGTON CAPITAL LTD. The current RE can change the Fund name as often as it likes, but hit, **** or bust, the former and current RE performance will always be on record for its achievements (or lack of). The best thing about the internet is the ability to research info and record data !!! The down side is that anyone can pump up their credentials and post incorrect info. 

At the end of the day, its transparency, performance and honesty that counts, online or off. Wellington Capital Ltd are obviously in denial if they even remotely think they still have a dedicated following of loyal subjects. Just because there remains a few persistant diehards regurgitating the same old rhetoric on here does not necessarily mean that it is a minority of PIF investors who remain dissatisfied with the current RE, far from it.
Actually, I don't think it is normal dogs I can faintly hear barking in the distance, (even above the pigs squealing), no, I think it is bloodhounds, hopefully they are getting closer!!

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (18 June 2010)

The saga continues. Who does David Anderson think he is!! I pity his new employer, people have LONGGGGGGGG memories and mud sticks!! Seamisty

DAVID ANDERSON, the former chief financial officer of the collapsed investment group MFS, has refused to provide a statutory declaration of his personal finances to liquidators, declaring he does not want the ''homework'' it would involve.

Full Article::

http://www.smh.com.au/business/director-offers-guesses-20100617-yjuq.html


----------



## seamisty (18 June 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/valad-shareholders-left-in-the-dark-20100617-yjuu.html

EARNING A CRUST

The former MFS chief financial officer, David Anderson, has played down any notion he was well paid when his firm Business Puzzle Solutions Pty Ltd helped the former liquidators and administrators sift through the Gold Coast corporate wreck, Deloitte.



Asked by Adam Bell SC, for the current liquidators Bentleys Corporate Recovery, what Business Puzzle Solutions was, Anderson explained to yesterday's public examination into the MFS collapse: ''As your clients are well aware, it provided services to them and to their predecessors Deloittes.''

Asked if he had received any income from it in the past three years he said: ''It may have paid some costs on my behalf, I haven't received a salary.'' Business Puzzle, which is solely owned by Anderson, was paid more than $900,000 in consulting fees in less than a year when Deloitte was overseeing things.


----------



## Mary Lynch (18 June 2010)

Interesting isn't it that my partner (who has never supported me, as we have only been together 11 years), who is a 71 year old retired architect now on the pension, has to declare to Centrelink every cent I earn, as it is deducted from his pension at the rate of 50c per dollar (after a small allowance).     If he was to dupe Centrelink he would risk losing his pension altogether.

Here we are with this noose around our neck as our financial circumstances in 2008 were particularly frightfully affected being between homes...and David Anderson gets to say that he chooses not to disclose his financial details as it would be too much homework to do!!! Well, if he's worth so little surely it won't take him long.

Seamisty, how is he allowed to just refuse like that?


----------



## seamisty (18 June 2010)

Mary Lynch said:


> Interesting isn't it that my partner (who has never supported me, as we have only been together 11 years), who is a 71 year old retired architect now on the pension, has to declare to Centrelink every cent I earn, as it is deducted from his pension at the rate of 50c per dollar (after a small allowance).     If he was to dupe Centrelink he would risk losing his pension altogether.
> 
> Here we are with this noose around our neck as our financial circumstances in 2008 were particularly frightfully affected being between homes...and David Anderson gets to say that he chooses not to disclose his financial details as it would be too much homework to do!!! Well, if he's worth so little surely it won't take him long.
> 
> Seamisty, how is he allowed to just refuse like that?



 I imagine Anderson is only hoping to delay the inevitable Mary but hindering proceedings will not go well in his favour!! Any wonder we are in such a predicament with people like this allowed to hold positions of responsibility and trust? I've come across some low life bottom feeding scumbags in my time Mary, but this lot sure take the cake! (and eat it too?)

I am wondering if there aren't a few gaps in what is being revealed to the media at present from the current examinations? All will be revealed. 

Seamisty


----------



## Duped (18 June 2010)

Mary Lynch said:


> ... Seamisty, how is he allowed to just refuse like that?





Sorry to hear about your continuing difficulties ML. I hope this post  helps in some small way. 

My guess: it's only a public hearing.  If it were a trial, a judge could order him to. I don't see how such a Stat Dec would help us anyway. The main issue is to determine the date MFS/Octaviar became insolvent and chase any remaining assets. Perhaps Bentley's were hoping to find a shortcut. If so, then good on em for trying.

This conduct by the likes of Mr Anderson's doesn't upset me anymore.  Looks like he's  pretty much well continuing to treat us investors as he always has. I worry for the Equititrust fund investors. I for one would never go near Equititrust. Check out their site http://www.equititrust.com.au/about-us

Look at the similarities to PIF. Not much older and born out of a law firm. Gold Coast based. Now look at the disclaimers.  E.g.

 "In Equititrust's history, no investor has ever failed to receive an  income payment." - same happened with PIF .... until it imploded after which we can only get out at about 90% loss.

"Equititrust holds a $40m investment in the Fund, which is subordinated  to the interests of investors." - for now, but how quickly and easily can this change, and what does 'subordinated' really mean.   PIF  had something along those lines too didn't it  , the so called $50m support facility; look what happened to that.  And who's $40m is it anyway? Some other investors/note holder/shareholder/creditor like our OCV's: NAB, Challenger, Note Holders (PTQ), OPI Pacific etc?

And now they've got Anderson too.


----------



## seamisty (18 June 2010)

WOOOOHOOOOO!! Do my eyes deceive me?? The Brisbane Courier Mail has surfaced!!!

MFS co-founder Michael King `often left finer details to support staff' to work out 
James McCullough From: The Courier-Mail June 18, 2010 1:53PM 

MICHAEL King, the businessman that ran the now-collapsed MFS group, was a "big picture'' executive who left the finer details or a deal to his support staff to work out, according to the co-founder of the group Phil Adams. 

Speaking publicly for the first time since the $2.4 billion collapse of MFS in late 2008, Mr Adams said the polo-playing king was entrepreneurial in organising big deals but seldom got involved in the detail.

Full article: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...taff-to-work-out/story-e6freon6-1225881397316


----------



## seamisty (18 June 2010)

Interesting from the above article "The company collapsed in September 2007 "
How long has it taken for anyone to admit that? If this was the case MFS certainly was operating while insovent!!!??? Well before the $200million RBOS loan was secured. If this is correct you better pack them bags guys!!! And where does that leave all those responsible for making PIF investors pay back a loan which should never have been secured in the first place?

I sent WC a list of questions as follows yesterday of which they have declind to answer due to the fact that they are 'either the  subject of current or pending litigation'.


Dear Caroline,
I would appreciate answers to the following questions.

At what time did any members of the current team become aware that former MFS directors had used monies borrowed from the RBOS on behalf of the PIF for purposes other than for the benefit of the PIF? Was this never detected when the current RE conducted due dilligence on the PIF? 
On June 25th, 2008 Jenny Hutson was quoted in the media as saying the loans to PIf were inappropriate with zero value and the Fund had retained a top Sydney barrister on behalf of PIF investors. Did this top Sydney barrister and WC not discover the alleged fraud in relation to these loans even though the drawdown of this money did not meet the PIF's guidelines? I understand WC filed a statement of Claim against Octaviar in June 2008 indicating that WC knew the money was used fraudulently but allowed the  PIF to continue to repay an alleged fraudulent loan resulting in irrepairable damage to the Fund.  Prior to this, 333 Capital, Deloittes, Freehills, possibly McCullough Robertsons and Mintor Ellisons, Mike Korda had all been engaged at some time to examine and advise on the future of MFS/Octaviar and the PIF.
The PIF deal was signed off on by six OCV directors and
Freehills
Korda Mentha
Minter Ellison
McCullough Robertson
Jenny Hutson

Were none of these individuals and legal companies aware of the alleged fraud at this time?

Considering the former RE of the PIF authorised the draw down of the RBOS loan, why has our current RE not taken legal action against the former RE?

Was the handover to WC of the PIF ever considered a preference deal or uncommercial 
transaction?
In view of the  pending claim from XXXXXXX Pty Ltd against WC as RE of the PIF, is the PIF indemnified from possible compensation if WC is proved responsible for financial recompense to XXXXXXX?

Now that WC has provided directions will the NSX be notified of this pending XXXXXX claim if legal proceedings continue?


Starting to hot up now. I imagine these revelations will be crucial in our Class Action and ASIC's action. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (18 June 2010)

Octaviar founder sells cars to pay rent
SYDNEY, June 18 AAP
June 18 2010, 6:41PM
One of the founders of the failed Octaviar Ltd says he has sold his collection of cars to meet the rent and cover living expenses, a court has heard.

Octaviar is the Gold Coast-based property group previously known as MFS that collapsed in 2008 and owes about $2 billion to creditors.

It was founded by Phil Adams and Michael King. 

Mr Adams, who now calls Dubai home, faced questions in the NSW Supreme Court on Friday from lawyers for liquidator Kate Barnet from Bentleys Corporate Recovery, which is trying to determine when Octaviar became insolvent.

Full article:: http://www.tradingroom.com.au/apps/...ished/2010/6/169/catf_100618_184100_6773.html


----------



## seamisty (19 June 2010)

MFS founder 'had no inkling' of woes COURTS KATE LAHEY 
June 19, 2010

In the fallout in early 2008, Mr Adams offered to buy the Dubai business for $1 on the condition it carried no debt. The chief financial officer, David Anderson, had agreed to reassign the debt so it was owed to Mr Adams instead, the court heard.

Mr Adams had then forgiven the debt he was suddenly owed and had used a Cayman Islands registered business, Agilis, owned by him and the MFS Dubai chief executive, Stuart Price, to hold the Dubai shares.

Full Story:http://www.theage.com.au/business/mfs-founder-had-no-inkling-of-woes-20100618-ymrz.html


----------



## mellifuous (19 June 2010)

seamisty said:


> Interesting from the above article "The company collapsed in September 2007 "
> How long has it taken for anyone to admit that? If this was the case MFS certainly was operating while insovent!!!??? Well before the $200million RBOS loan was secured. If this is correct you better pack them bags guys!!! And where does that leave all those responsible for making PIF investors pay back a loan which should never have been secured in the first place?
> ...




It's interesting Seamisty, that citypac extended the FMF's loan facility with the cba on 1 September 2007 and deconsolidated the fund on 1 December 2007 ...  I reckon the FMF was no more than a ponzi scheme back in late 2007 too.

All the scammers were  jumping in lifeboats in late 2007 - the whole bloody lot of them.


----------



## seamisty (19 June 2010)

mellifuous said:


> It's interesting Seamisty, that citypac extended the FMF's loan facility with the cba on 1 September 2007 and deconsolidated the fund on 1 December 2007 ...  I reckon the FMF was no more than a ponzi scheme back in late 2007 too.
> 
> All the scammers were  jumping in lifeboats in late 2007 - the whole bloody lot of them.



The sad truth is though that it was the investors and shareholders that went down with the ship.

It appears David Anderson was pretty good an handing out the assets for one dollar and forgiving debt. I wonder if Wellington Capital even paid that for the PIF at the end of the day? No one forgot or forgave the $200million PIF debt which shoudn't have been secured to start with.  

Now we have to wait for the next installment.

Seamisty


----------



## Duped (21 June 2010)

IMLO the most worrying part of the ALF PIF offer is the 90% threshold.  It has no chance of getting that.  They should know that.  So what is ALF PIF really up to?  Aiming for a 30% holding? (Contrary to amendment 6.4 - how could anyone be confident they could prove in court that ALF PIF had a plan to waive the 90% condition) And what if ALF PIF gets 30% Jenny? Your WC helped our PIF to become such an attractive target.  Should we wrap the fund up now?

Gold Coast Bulletin 18 Jun 2010

"Big Jim's colourful history gets airing

IF there was ever a good reason to think twice about a takeover  offer, here is a line that should send warning bells.ALF PIF  Finance, an obscure company controlled by Michael Pakula that uses  former bankrupt Jim Byrnes as a consultant, has had to tone down the  wording in its bidder's statement for Wellington Capital's Premium  Income Fund.
"The combination will create a stronger merged  entity, with greater scope to enhance shareholder value," touted the  original statement to PIF's 11,000 unitholders. 
The corporate  watchdog has forced ALF PIF Finance to delete that statement in the  amended copy, particularly in light of the obvious, that unitholders  would be about $100 million worse off after the takeover bid. The most  curious aspect of the amended documents was the space devoted to  revealing the colourful past of 'Big Jim' Byrnes whose family stands to  gain around 10 per cent of the $100 million windfall. ..."


----------



## Duped (21 June 2010)

High Court sitting in Brisbane today will hear the PTQ v Fortress appeal.

For a page and a half of details see http://www.hcourt.gov.au/registry/matters/21-06-10SP.pdf

It's sadly comforting that the Short Particulars quotes the phrase I've posted about: "Her Honour observed that when notice of the original charge was lodged, the definition of “secured money” *would alert any prospective investor or creditor to the need for further inquiry *as to what might be comprised by those liabilities."

Probably best that the Courier Mail stays away.  We don't need more misinformation spread around.

According to Courier Mail last Friday "The company collapsed in September 2007 and  *accounting firm  Deloitte appointed administrator *[emphasis added] Kate Barnet of Bentley’s Corporate   Receivers." 

Ummm.  Mr James McCullough! That's wrong wrong wrong.  You couldn't have been more wrong.  McMurdo effectively SACKED Deloitte.  It was PTQ pushing for the removal of Deloitte and pushing for Bentley's to be appointed.

Perhaps I shouldn't be so harsh.  After all according to the Fin Review PIF is "New Zealand based" and The Australian reported that 2000 PIF units selling at 45c was worth $35,000.

With such false reporting in the Press, it's little wonder that some might think that us PIF victims are just wingers.


----------



## seamisty (21 June 2010)

'With such false reporting in the Press, it's little wonder that some might think that us PIF victims are just wingers.'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe thats all part of the plan Duped? On several occasions some of the journalists were given the opportunity to write a correction when it became obvious some aspects of their reporting was incorrect but they chose not to.
Also the media has had ample opportunity to follow up certain other aspects relating to newsworthy PIF investor related incidents but have chosen to ignore issues that could be seen as remotely casting shadows of doubt related to current management. Its almost like a silent code of conduct (not ethics), if you shut up we will put up, give you the next scoop etc. Cynical? You bet!!

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (21 June 2010)

Duped wrote in #5810 "Your WC helped our PIF to become such an attractive target." Exactly. It's another example of brash actions that have served us so badly.


----------



## flatback (21 June 2010)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



Duped said:


> Seamisty.  Perhaps this explains everything.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z86V_ICUCD4




Duped please dont do that again as they had to get the doctor to me,i was in a straight jacket for a short time (brilliant my friend)i hope others saw the funny side.cheers flatback


----------



## simgrund (21 June 2010)

In today's SMH, p2, an article on John DAVID, Chairman and CEO of "Emergent Capital; Dubai.
Detained May 13 this year for yet to be specified foul deeds objected to by United Emirates regulators.
Isn't one or some of ex MFS directors on the payroll of "Emergent Capital"? 
Not a safe haven by way of a refuge.
Regards,


----------



## seamisty (21 June 2010)

SUPREME AND DISTRICT COURTS BRISBANE 

LAW LIST

Monday 21 June 2010 


COMMERCIAL LIST 

OCTAVIAR LIMITED
 Justice Philip McMurdo
 Court 16
Floor 3 10:00 AM   
(Review) 
OCTAVIAR ADMINISTRATION PTY LTD
 Justice Philip McMurdo
 Court 16
Floor 3 10:00 AM   
(Review)


----------



## kostag (21 June 2010)

*EQUITITRUST - another MFS ? looking like it*

has anyone noticed these similiarities:-

1. same auditors as MFS had
2. David Kennedy ex CEO of MFS is now COO at Equititrust
3. David Anderson ex MFS CFO is now some strategic executive at Equititrust
4. Bank of Scotland was a big lender at MFS and ended up yielding the big stick - they are also a big Lender to Equititrust and market information is that they wnat to be paid back and have given extensions to Equititrust to do that - 

are we facing a repeat of the MFS wipeout ???


----------



## seamisty (21 June 2010)

*Re: EQUITITRUST - another MFS ? looking like it*



kostag said:


> has anyone noticed these similiarities:-
> 
> 1. same auditors as MFS had
> 2. David Kennedy ex CEO of MFS is now COO at Equititrust
> ...



kostag I have not had the time to research Equititrust but  this thread is a valuable tool which can be used to link names to other companies, etc. It comprehensibly covers people  remotely and or directly connected to Wellington Capital Ltd, Octaviar,  MFS and anything remotely  involved with all three!! Please feel free to post any info which may help others to be aware and fully informed  of past/present performance of links to names which should be monitored in relation to current or potential investors. Information is a powerfull tool if used honestly and correctly to expose wrong doing.

Seamisty


----------



## lawry1dog (22 June 2010)

Please note, that the new Fund's Registry (*Armstrong Registry Services*),
does not allow you to check your Unit Balance online, as you could with
the previous Registry. This is not good enough!!

Also it is a conflict of interest that Wellington Capital is using this new Fund Registry, which has some affiliation with it. As the former name of our fund was called Armstrong Capital Limited.


----------



## seamisty (22 June 2010)

lawry1dog said:


> Please note, that the new Fund's Registry (*Armstrong Registry Services*),
> does not allow you to check your Unit Balance online, as you could with
> the previous Registry. This is not good enough!!
> 
> Also it is a conflict of interest that Wellington Capital is using this new Fund Registry, which has some affiliation with it. As the former name of our fund was called Armstrong Capital Limited.



I have posted this on here previously, it appears Jenny Hutson/WC is the major shareholder of Armstrong Registry Services (of which there is no named key personel)::


http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722325.PDF

Lawry1dog, I would not be at all surprised if Wellington Capital Ltd does not fade into the background and be completely reinvented as Armstrong Capital Ltd once again (or something similar). Wellington Capital Ltd does not appear as succesfull as some would like and is getting smellier by the day.
Seamisty


----------



## selciper (22 June 2010)

If reports that the WC general manager has recently departed from the outfit are correct, I wonder if the empty position has since been filled. If not, WC must be running pretty thin on the ground organisationally when it comes to tackling the mounting PIF problems.Will WC tell us if they have appointed a new GM? It's none of our business of course.


----------



## Duped (22 June 2010)

Kostag: are you an Equititrust investor? If so, I can't and won't suggest what you should do.  But I can tell you what I have learned.  Take what you will from it.

I assumed ASIC could protect me.  I was wrong.

I assumed my Financial Advisor was duty bound to put my financial interests ahead of his.  I was wrong.

I was concerned when I read about Westpoint and contacted my FA. He responded that PIF was different because it didn't use mezzanine financing.  I believed him, that PIF was different, and assumed that *it couldn't happen to me*.  I was wrong.

My instincts suggested the extra risk wasn't worth the few extra after-tax $ above my ING savings account.  I raised this with my FA. He did not agree.  I didn't follow my instincts and family's wisdom. I was wrong.

I believed the politicians when they said they cared and took their responsibilities seriously.  I was wrong. (Instead they seem to imply we were greedy. Contrast this with them constantly telling us we must all take responsibility for our superannuation funds.  Go figure.) Wayne Swan said it himself at the London School of Economics on 13/3/09. Full text of the Q&A is below. 

According to Wayne Swan we [emphasis added]: "  [FONT=&quot]made an investment in a market linked investment proposal which didn't have the security that an investment in a APRA regulated institution would have *BECAUSE THEY WERE LOOKING FOR HIGHER RETURNS *and sadly the worst has happened. … *BUT THERE IS NOTHING THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT CAN DO FOR THOSE PEOPLE *who unfortunately lost their money in those market linked schemes ...[/FONT]" (I'd like to see Swan back away from that without doing a 7.30 Report Abbott.)

Lastly have a read of this http://www.vov.co.nz/it-was-blindingly-obvious-to-some (Vestar was (partly?) owned by MFS and OPI Pacific is an Octaviar creditor)  

I was duped. I was hustled. 



Extract from LSE lecture (reported on the ABC) with emphasis added:
Question asked from the floor re Octaviar is at 36m33s.  She is a unit  trust investor, so probably a PIF investor. "... That sounds great for  the toxic assets of banks.  I'm glad that you - I'm an Australian  citizen and an Australian tax payer - I'm glad that you said we're all  in this together because I'm I've lost all of my money for the rest of  my life in the failed Queensland unit trust MFS, that's your State, that  was from January 08. And it was a result of the failure of the  oversight authority ASIC and you take government, you take  responsibility and I'd like to know what you're going to do about that.   *A forward looking Senate inquiry looking at future regulation is no  good for people like me. I'm asking on behalf of ten thousand people,  what are you going to do about it?*"

Wayne Swan: "Well  I think the people who invested in those schemes are right to be  disillusioned and angry with what has happened to their money. They made  an investment in a market linked investment proposal which *didn't have  the security that an investment in a APRA regulated institution would  have because they were looking for higher returns* and sadly the worst  has happened. Naturally I think there will be implications that need to  be studied for what this means in terms of organisations such as ASIC  and the government is very accutely aware of that and we have recently  as you have indicated, announced an inquiry principally into the events  surrounding Storm but I think it goes to core of your question: How  could the regulatory system allow or tolerate these sorts of activities  by a number of people in market linked investment schemes?  And I don't  pretend to have the answer to that, that's what the inquiries will show  us.  *But there is nothing the Australian Government can do for those  people who unfortunately lost their money in those market linked schemes*  other than to try and learn the lessons of that experience and fix the  regulatory system."


----------



## k.smith (22 June 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/critical-time-for-asic-under-siege-20100621-ysc9.html

".....The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has requested an adjournment of the application by Westpoint founder Norm Carey, but if the court decides to order the release of the documents that could lead to some interesting questions over the regulator's handling of the Westpoint collapse in 2006. The hearing is set for July 7....."

I think a lot of investors will be interested ...


----------



## Jadel (22 June 2010)

Duped 

If it is of any consolation ,I can tell you that part of my investment in the PIF was some of my wife super following her retirement

The day I made out the cheque  at the bank to send to MFS PIF, Mrs Jadel  asked me if the investment was in safe hands.

I stated that Andrew Peacock was the CEO,  and would never be involved in anything dishonest. Can you imagine what happens now when we have a domestic spat .???

 Of course the colt from Kooyong has bolted from the paddock 
 faster than Pharlap and has done a Houdini disappearing  act

 I have no doubt that he will never  be seen or heard from again in connection with this swindle.


----------



## seamisty (23 June 2010)

Octaviar subsidiary wind-up stalls 
Liquidators forced to wait for court ruling 

By Kate Kachor
Wed 23 Jun 2010 
Liquidators have been forced to seek court assistance in the winding up of a former subsidiary of the Octaviar Group. 

'the creditors' wind-up orders were stalled after liquidators received a complaint from David Anderson'

Full article:http://www.investordaily.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/9455.htm?rdeCOQ=SID-0A3D9633-F5EECFB3


----------



## Duped (23 June 2010)

seamisty said:


> Octaviar subsidiary wind-up stalls
> Liquidators forced to wait for court ruling
> 
> By Kate Kachor
> ...




"... The Federal Court is yet to hand down its verdict. ..." 

Is this it: NSD699/2010?

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD699/2010/actions

If so then Bentleys were granted leave to discontinue the proceedings. Which doesn't really tell us who backed down.  But there'll be no verdict.


----------



## Cookie1 (23 June 2010)

"How to be negatively rich
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  June 23rd, 2010

POLITE conversation never touches on certain subjects and money is probably close to the top of the taboo list.

Never ask how much someone earns and never ask them about their financial situation.

So, when MFS co-founder Phil Adams took the stand in Sydney last week during the public examination of the 2008 collapse of the former funds management company he built with Michael King, it was little wonder there were some uncomfortable moments for him.

After taking the liberty, as journalists do, to ask Mr Adams before his afternoon appearance how he was coping financially, the answer was to be expected.

"That's a private matter," he said." 

For full article 
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/06/23/231111_nick-nichols-opinion.html

I'm surprised to see an article by Nick as he's been missing in action on most of the proceedings of the MFS liquidation and anything negative to do with the PIF and WC. Perhaps it's because Phil Adams lives sooooo far away...or, perhaps I'm just being cynical....

Why no article about David Anderson's refusal to reveal _his_ financial position?

Cookie1


----------



## seamisty (28 June 2010)

Hi All, Just want to touch base and respond to all those that have contacted me re no PIF info recently. Sorry I have been away on other business and am disgusted at the continuing lack of support from ASIC and other regulatory bodies, not to mention our own Responsible Entity, Wellington Capital LTD. 
 Wayne Swan who to this day has not bothered to apologise for his negative comments at the London G8 summit last year regarding the plight of PIF investors who quote was stated as saying "made an investment in a market linked investment proposal which didn't have the security that an investment in a APRA regulated institution would have BECAUSE THEY WERE LOOKING FOR HIGHER RETURNS and sadly the worst has happened. … BUT THERE IS NOTHING THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT CAN DO FOR THOSE PEOPLE who unfortunately lost their money in those market linked schemes "

Well Wayne, quote you again "But there is nothing the Australian Government can do for those people who unfortunately lost their money in those market linked schemes other than to try and learn the lessons of that experience and fix the regulatory system"

Thats not good enough Wayne, it wasn't the investors who failed, it was the well paid idiots who were supposedly in a tax payer funded position to represent those who were considerd to be not so clever as yourself who were meant to monitor and  be represented by people such as yourself. Did you ever consider it your duty to further investigate our fund? Apparently not, along with many others. 

Here is an old email for Swan ;;; Wayne.Swan.MP@aph.gov.au


and Gillard::  Julia.Gillard.MP@aph.gov.au 


Like with my opinion of Asic, I won't hold my breathe waiting for any of you to intervene and do anything worthy of respect or even a vote. The least I can say for K Rudd (even though I did not support him but gave recognition where it was deserved )I believe it was  as a direct result of his referral that we are where we  are at with Carneys and IMF and the Class Action. Too many promising to little and lacking the guts to follow through on any action at all. Draw your wages at our expense you parasites, you are mostly too stupid stroking your own egos to recognise where the real support lies, which, ultimately is in a vote. 
Seamisty


----------



## Duped (28 June 2010)

IMLO the widespread incompetance of the legislative protections put in place and policed by mediocre (or conceited?) public officials is akin to the "free selection before survey" of crown land under land legislation  introduced in the 1860s.

The Federal Govt and commissions like ASIC and ACCC and the overselling of their capabilities does more damage than good.  All they seem to achieve is to legitimise misleading and deceptive conduct. A super naiive (conceited?) attempt at drawing a line in the sand between acceptable and non-acceptable behaviour. (Public officials who KNOW how inaccessible the legal system is.  Always has been always will.) And in the process subverting some of our common law rights as well as our ability to engage in a free market.

Regulators conceding ground all over the place to interest groups (http://www.investordaily.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/9509.htm?rdeCOQ=SID-0A3D9632-4E2575C9) and an army of lawyers to effectively LOWER the general standard. (And damaging competition) Disarming us punters with poor legislation and their reckless confidence and then throwing us to their pet AFS licenced sharks or worse ....  When things go wrong it's all our fault for being greedy. (I would never ever ever ever have come into contact with PIF if it wasn't for my ASIC promoted and branded (i.e. AFS licenced) financial advisor.) 

The $1trillion plus of super (compulsorily taken from us at a minimum of 9%) is vulnerable to this ramshackle system. Private interest sharks will always out smart the itinerant legislators/regulators. Isn't that why we're supposed to let the market decide?

The land laws were supposed to transfer squatter land to competant selectors. It backfired severly.   Poor implementation and policing just promoted corruption, bribery and blackmail which spread, according to my historian, to other aspects of life in the colony and endured into the 20th century. According to wikipedia (confirmed by one historian I'm reading), in NSW alone, "By 1890, 37,000,000 acres (150,000 km²) had been transferred  by selection, but over half of it was owned by 677 people. Although a  major purpose of the legislation was to encourage cropping, only  330,000 acres (1,300 km²) was being used for wheat-growing in  1890". EPIC FAIL.

Sound familiar doesn't it? That lesson has been forgotten.  Legislation that was supposed to protect those of us who wish to self fund our retirement is doing the opposite.  I.e. helping those already there (in the finance sector) increase their wealth and the legitimancy of their wealth. Encouraging and rewarding the sharks and hustlers financially.

Seems to me we're at the same point in history.  Here we go again.

One trillion $ + of super funds and Swan and his predecessors put us in the tank and then sell the bait and tackle. All the time actually believing they're shifting responsibility to us.  Wrong. 

Read this: http://www.contractworld.com.au/campaigns/ica-smsf-worries-over-superannuation-disclosure.php. Or read the extract appended below. 

CTRL+ALT+DEL. 
CTRL+ALT+DEL.
CTRL+ALT+DEL.
How do I exit this system??????? 

Appendix:

"Industry funds were looked at more closely. This is because they  receive privileged financial advantage through the industrial relations  system where they dominate (84%) the 'default' arrangements under the  modern award system. That is, if a worker does not nominate a super fund  to which their money goes, the award requires the money to go to an  industry fund in 84% of cases. 

 The report investigated the structure and controlling systems in the  industry fund sector and found a complex web of intertwined corporate  and trust structures. They discovered a 'round-robin' of control where  one outsourced fund company exercises control over huge amounts of  industry super funds. Some industry funds have purchased shares in these  outsourced fund management companies, but many of these assets pay no  dividends and their return potential is difficult to assess (because of  poor disclosure). 

      This has previously not been fully mapped or understood. Further, *the  report identifies the twelve most powerful people in superannuation  today, who between them have effective control of $188 billion of  industry (workers') retirement money. *

*This is a massive concentration of financial power in the hands of a  small number of people and businesses, making them some of the most  powerful people and corporates in Australia.* "


----------



## seamisty (28 June 2010)

I agree Duped, but who regulates the regulators? Do ASIC know/think they are a law unto themselves? Is this why I consider that the treatment I personally have received in my dealings with ASIC since around May 2008 has been nothing short of negligent?  Because they::                                    a. don't give a ****
b. lack the capabilities/experience needed
c. think they are superior beings simply biding their time until a better offer comes up

Some of the employees I have dealt with at ASIC concerning the PIF have given me incorrect advice, fobbed me off, don't return calls and have even been quite rude.

They are continually being shifted around and no one appears fully informed of our circumstances. At times I have received a written communication from ASIC (if I am very lucky and often six months later after having to call and make a complaint) and the contact person one week later is no longer available and I am redirected to someone else who has NFI what I am talking about!!!

I have also been told not to bother sending in any more complaints or information as ASIC are already dealing with it!!! Excuse me, thats your job and you could hardly blame someone for thinking very little has actually been achieved to date!!

On another note, the Bentley's Public examinations will be resuming on the 19th of July with David Anderson being the first questioned.

Seamisty


----------



## Duped (28 June 2010)

Thanks Seamisty.  I'm happy to add negligent to the list: mediocre, incompetent, naiive and conceited.  Can't believe I hadn't included self serving.  Funny how the publicly minded, who campaign so openly against self serving interests can oft be so ... self serving.


----------



## k.smith (29 June 2010)

In the news today...

http://www.smh.com.au/business/photon-boss-saw-the-light-and-departed-20100628-zf66.html

"....Meanwhile, Hutson's Wellington Capital is locked in battle to fend off a takeover bid for the former MFS Premium Income Fund, which she now manages, from a shell of a former lingerie company that is being advised by the banned company director Jim Byrnes....."


----------



## seamisty (29 June 2010)

k.smith said:


> In the news today...
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/photon-boss-saw-the-light-and-departed-20100628-zf66.html
> 
> "....Meanwhile, Hutson's Wellington Capital is locked in battle to fend off a takeover bid for the former MFS Premium Income Fund, which she now manages, from a shell of a former lingerie company that is being advised by the banned company director Jim Byrnes....."



'Locked in battle' what a joke!!! Our illustrious leader is off overseas somewhere, on one of her PR jaunts maybe???? Seamisty


----------



## selciper (29 June 2010)

Well, at least it's comforting to note that widely read Scott Rochfort has kept his MFS radar switches on.


----------



## seamisty (29 June 2010)

seamisty said:


> 'Locked in battle' what a joke!!! Our illustrious leader is off overseas somewhere, on one of her PR jaunts maybe???? Seamisty



 I am very interested at the outcome of tomorrows Maximum Yield Fund meeting and if JH will be present!

The MYF meeting is scheduled for 10.00am of which Ms Jennifer Hutson/Wellington Capital is also the Responsible Entity for. There is only 9? I think original members who originally invested between them just under $2million dollars. The rest of the $85million allegedly bogus units inherited from MFS/OCV are held by JH who has previously used the voting power of these non existant units to prolong the life of the Fund as she is drawing management fees on behalf of Wellington Capital. She is proposing to vote in favour of amending the constitution to extend the end date of the MYF for a further 2 years due to current litigation of which I understand will have no financial impact on the fund if it is wound up.


The original unitholders have already had problems with distributions being withheld, one investor even being arrested and handcuffed as a result of JH's intervention when confronted  with the non payment of distribution!! ( I have also heard  that JH can swear better than me!!) Is it legal to continue using this voting power now that it is recognised that these units are non existant?? An interesting scenario, especially since ASIC has been well informed of the situation for at least 2 years. 

All will be revealed!! 

I see our Class Action has a hearing scheduled for 01-Jul-2010  9:30 Directions Justice Perram Court Room 21A  

Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (30 June 2010)

I don't know about any one else but being the cynic I am I find the likes of this article insulting after having complained to ASIC on so many issues previously, including the 25% rate of interest negotiated by Wellington Capital on our behalf in relation to borrowing money with not even a response from ASIC. It was bad enough having to repay a loan to RBOS that was not to our benefit, thus sacrificing nearly everything of value in our portfolio. 
Seamisty


http://www.smh.com.au/business/lend...-for-national-registration-20100629-zjb5.html
'ASIC is taking over regulation of all consumer lending, including credit cards, store cards and mortgages tomorrow, replacing a former state-based system.

''We regret these loans were made and had we received or been aware of the true position of the borrowers then each loan would not have been approved,'' he said.

He said the business had stopped dealing with the brokers and it had reviewed lending processes


----------



## Duped (30 June 2010)

Hopefully not just another look-at-what-I-can-do-Mum play by ASIC. ASIC also recently took over supervision of financial markets from the ASX. ASX may have been conflicted but perhaps that's the price we had to pay for a practical system.

Like with the PIF PDS - Does ASIC understand what its signing itself up for? I suppose if you just stick your fingers in your ears and say La La La La La, it doesn't seem all so bad.  Then again, they can always just blame us punters for being greedy.  Or just use the stock standard response - there are always exceptional circumstances.

God help us.

They can all link arms together at Canberraland Sky Fire and sing It's A Small World After All.


----------



## seamisty (30 June 2010)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722925.PDF
Notice of change
Form 604
Corporations Act 2001
Sect ¡on 6718
of interests of substantial holder


----------



## seamisty (30 June 2010)

I sincerely hope that Print Mail Logistics of which Wellington Capital has an interest in was not paid by the PIF to print a hard copy of this document to be sent to every PIF unit holder. I have only read the 1st few pages of which appears to be extremely repetitive and probablly didn't need all the pictures and large print!!
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722931.PDF

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (30 June 2010)

Class Action directions hearing tomorrow::

01-Jul-2010  9:30 Directions Justice Perram Court Room 18C


----------



## Duped (2 July 2010)

LOL! ... and then - Oh dear, more potentially misleading information. Scott Rochfort in today's SMH

http://www.smh.com.au/business/board-overboard-for-us-masters-cleanout-20100701-zqo2.html







"*BYRNE NOTICE
...

*To drive home the point, Hutson included another reason for unit holders  to think twice before accepting any takeover bid. Hutson's Wellington  Capital is entitled to a ''removal fee'' of 2 per cent of the gross  value of the fund. Based on current valuations, Wellington would be  entitled to a $5.3 million payout. *Unit holders approved the inclusion  of the removal fee* in the fund's constitution when Wellington became the  responsible entity in 2008."

Makes us look like we need to be taught a lesson doesn't it. Rochfort (or the SMH editor) recklessly fails to include that Hutson slipped the "removal fee" into the package of amendments that she sold to us under the premise of saving the fund from immediate liquidation at 14c per unit.

"*STILL TWITCHING*              Hutson has also continued to keep another of the nearly  burnt-out former MFS funds she runs alive, to the chagrin of some  investors.
              Wellington managed to pass a resolution at a unit holder  meeting on Wednesday to extend the life of the former MFS-run Premium  Yield Fund for another two years.
              This is despite the Premium Yield Fund - which continues  to provide a small amount of fees to Wellington - being valued at a  measly $448,935, according to its most recent accounts. Wellington has  argued that there is a chance the fund could get some cash flows from  the litigation the fund manager has afoot. ..."


----------



## seamisty (2 July 2010)

Premium Income Fund
NSX Release: 2 July 2010
REJECT TAKEOVER OFFER
FOR PREMIUM INCOME FUND UNITS MADE BY ALF PIF FINANCE LIMITED
Despatch of Target’s Statement
On 15 June 2010 ALF PIF Finance Limited lodged a replacement Bidder’s Statement in relation to its
takeover offer for all of the units in the Premium Income Fund.
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund confirms that the Target’s
Statement was sent to all Premium Income Fund unitholders by post today in accordance with section 633(1)
of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
The Target’s Statement outlines the reasons for the Directors’ recommendation that the takeover offer be
rejected.
The Wellington Capital Board unanimously recommends that Unitholders reject this offer by simply
ignoring all communications received from the Bidder.


What a total waste of our money again!! Seamisty


----------



## selciper (2 July 2010)

My fashion advice to Hutson following Rochfort's tongue-in-cheek description of her trademark outfit is "dump that infuriating KMart red jacket!" The media are going to have fun with it.


----------



## ACB (2 July 2010)

*first timer with a few questions*

Hello everyone. I have been following his board for short while and some people seem to have a pretty good knowledge - or am I still that gullable person that thought PIF was a good investment? LOL.

I have joined the class action and one question I have is this: If by some amazing feat the price of the PIF rose to the magical 45cent mark as we were promised it would, and I decided that was good enough for me and sold my lot; would that effectively cancel any ability to recoup my 55 cent loss through the class action? In short, do you have to stay in the fund in order to get paid out if the class action were to be successful?

Thanks.


----------



## seamisty (2 July 2010)

*Re: first timer with a few questions*



ACB said:


> Hello everyone. I have been following his board for short while and some people seem to have a pretty good knowledge - or am I still that gullable person that thought PIF was a good investment? LOL.
> 
> I have joined the class action and one question I have is this: If by some amazing feat the price of the PIF rose to the magical 45cent mark as we were promised it would, and I decided that was good enough for me and sold my lot; would that effectively cancel any ability to recoup my 55 cent loss through the class action? In short, do you have to stay in the fund in order to get paid out if the class action were to be successful?
> 
> ...


----------



## seamisty (2 July 2010)

Its 'encouraging' to see more victims of failed financial schemes taking legal action against those responsible for losses, bad management etc.

Investors burned by the collapse of Melbourne-based brokerage Sonray Capital Markets have approached law firm Slater and Gordon to consider possible legal action and today law firm Levitt Robinson filed a Statement of Claim in the Federal Court in Sydney, commencing a class action against the Commonwealth Bank on behalf of Storm Financial investors.


It sends a clear message to all those responsible for investors funds, if you don't do the right thing, you will be held accountable and thoroughly investigated!! Those proved to have been negligent or dishonest etc will be exposed and held accountable. (eventually!!!)

BRING IT ON!!!! Seamisty


----------



## Blueboy1 (3 July 2010)

Please refer to this link:- http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=170801

 Irw-Press: Alf Group Holdings Ag: Alf Group Holdings Ag – Another Major Distressed Property Acquisition And Successful Capital Raising
Published on July 02, 2010

by Press Office

(IRW-Press and OfficialWire)

VIENNA, AUSTRIA

	Re-Tweet this article

Alf Group Holdings Ag – Another Major Distressed Property Acquisition and Successful Capital Raising
Sydney, Australia 28th June 2010 - Alf Group Holdings Ag (AG1) is pleased to confirm the following company update:
Major Distressed Property Acquisition
On Friday 25 June, a wholly owned subsidiary of AG1, ALF Property 2 Pty Ltd, finalized the exchange of signed sales contracts for the acquisition of a major home unit development site and marina on Queensland’s Hope Island. The property was acquired after the owner defaulted on a mortgage held on the property.
The Property has a right under the existing government legislation to submit and obtain approval for the development of 143 x 2 bedroom apartments and 43 Marina berths.
The existing owner failed to meet the financial obligations to the existing architects regarding the payment of outstanding fees of approximately $100,000 AUD. ALF Property 2 Pty Ltd will, after due consideration and review, pay these fees and lodge the relevant development application.
The value of the approved site is determined by the apartment yield and the marina berth yield. AG1 believes that the post approval (pre construction) value of the land is over $12m AUD. ALF Property 2 Pty Ltd has entered into the contract to purchase at a price of $4.5m AUD.
The Directors believe that on completion and sale this project will yield a total EBIT of $27M AUD which is expected to be achieved in 2011.
Planned Expansion
During July 2010, AG1 are meeting with German law firms to discuss the establishment of a German subsidiary to:
- undertake litigation funding opportunities in Germany and
- to investigate opportunities and if appropriate to acquire distressed property assets in Germany.
In addition to the above, AG1 wish to advise that the company is reviewing a number of opportunities regarding the potential acquisition of distressed mortgages and distressed large residential apartment complexes in the USA that are currently over indebted.
ALF PIF Finance Limited Takeover Bid
The ALF PIF Finance Limited offer to acquire all the units in the distressed mortgage fund, the Premium Income Fund, which AG1 announced on the 17th May 2010 is now ready to print and despatch to all of the current 10,744 investors. The board of directors are expecting the documents to be posted on 7 July 2010.
Successful Capital Raising
In the last 2 weeks, AG1 has placed a total of 26m shares to high net worth individuals and institutional investors.
About Alf Group Holdings Ag
Alf Group Holdings Ag (AG1) currently owns 50% of one of Australia’s largest litigation funders which also provides corporate restructuring services, funding and debt and equity solutions. It is also an acquirer of distressed assets.
The Directors of AG1 have announced their intention to exercise the option to acquire the remaining 50% of ALF that it does not own. This is expected to be completed before the EGM, details of which will be announced at the appropriate time.
For further information please contact:
Alf Group Holdings Ag
Level 29, Chifley Tower
2 Chifley Square
Sydney, NSW 2000
Australia
Telephone +61-2-9293-2500
Fax +61-2-9293-2930
Website: www.cancanholdings.com
eMail: info@publiceye-consulting.com

Regards,
Blueboy1


----------



## JohnH (4 July 2010)

The biggest worry as I see it, is that although ALF's "prospectus" is somewhat naive, so are many of our shareholders.  The danger is that they may accept it as a way out!!!


----------



## seamisty (4 July 2010)

JohnH said:


> The biggest worry as I see it, is that although ALF's "prospectus" is somewhat naive, so are many of our shareholders.  The danger is that they may accept it as a way out!!!



Exactly JohnH, and 32 pages at our expense of 'reject all offers' which could have been condensed to 5 pages hardly inspires the thousands of already totally pissed off and over Wellington Capital  management PIF investors suffering a further 10cent unit value loss credited to Wellington Capital and no sign of the 2008 promised 3 cent payment to offer any future commitment to Jenny Hutson and her staff. Does our fund radiate a signal to all potential/current parasites 'to pick me' because someone thinks we are an easy target?  You bet it does, ALF PIF would not be the only ones circling the carcass. What is holding them back? Maybe they are smarter than ALF PIF and know that PIF investors have genuine complex legal grounds which extend beyond Wellington Capital and could well include Wellington Capitals aquisition of the RE rights to the fund as has been indicated by PTQ and pending litigation from PIF asset developers. There is also the question of the dispersal of some of the PIF assets by WC which needs to be dealt with.
 Any wonder PIF investors have lost faith in ASIC and other regulatory bodies? Thay have demonstrated they are next to useless to date and have cost us millions by procrastinating and not intervening on our behalf sooner. I feel confident that we will see justice eventually but at what cost? I do not blame those who have written this fund off and given up. I like many others hold our current RE, Wellington Capital along with past managment, responsible for our current predicament.

Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (5 July 2010)

ACB

     You do not have to stay in the fund to be included in the Class Action , provided you were an original investor.

     We have about as much chance of our units reaching 45cents on the NSX as the Dinosaurs had when the an Asteroid hit  the earth 60 million yeas ago . 

So I do not think you should worry about that eventuality 

There is a far greater possibility( as Seamisty has pointed out) of the potential legal ramifications to individual investors  in the event a particular Class Action is successful by a Developer against Wellington Capital.


----------



## selciper (5 July 2010)

Wellington Capital's acquisition of the RE rights may well be a smoking gun...anyrhing to do with WC appears to be horribly complex and expensive. And it's doubtful that the PTQ would be inclined to waste their time if they thought their arguments were unsound.


----------



## communique (5 July 2010)

Jadel said:


> ACB
> 
> 
> There is a far greater possibility( as Seamisty has pointed out) of the potential legal ramifications to individual investors  in the event a particular Class Action is successful by a Developer against Wellington Capital.




Would you please clarify what you mean as the PIF constitution says otherwise.



Part 27.


----------



## Jadel (6 July 2010)

Sarah Davies of McMahon Clarke lawyers says:
“If a managed investment scheme is wound up because it is insolvent, then it is likely the
members of the scheme will be called on by the liquidator to make a contribution towards
the debts owing to creditors. Disgruntled members may then seek to recover their losses
from the Responsible Entity (RE), particularly if there are circumstances that suggest the
RE could have prevented the insolvency from arising. An RE has duties imposed on it by
the Corporations Act (the Act) and by the general law. Those duties are wide enough to
expose an RE to potential liability if a scheme becomes insolvent.”


----------



## selciper (6 July 2010)

CA:

03-Aug-2010
10:15
Notice of Motion
Justice Perram


----------



## Duped (6 July 2010)

Here's another example of how little YOUR government cares about YOU (and me) as PIF investors.

Ask yourself: would you have invested in PIF without all the Federal Government branding (AFS licences, PDS) and perceived 'protections' (Corporations Act, ASIC)?

So why is it that we've been denied effective Federal Government action.  With the top level of feedback so far, from the treasurer himself, being "[FONT=&quot] ... didn't have the security that an investment in a  APRA regulated institution would have *BECAUSE THEY WERE LOOKING FOR  HIGHER RETURNS *and sadly the worst has happened. … *BUT THERE IS  NOTHING THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT CAN DO FOR THOSE PEOPLE *who  unfortunately lost their money ...[/FONT]". I.e. we were greedy.  Really, then what  about the Macquarie group?

Read this Age article remembering that MFS was touted as a Macquarie wannabe. Both paid dividends from borrowed money.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/revealed-macbanks-code-red-to-the-government-20100516-v6cp.html

and this

http://www.theage.com.au/business/the-brains-behind-macbanks-bonanza-20100530-wnka.html "HIS name is Ben Brazil and he is the banker using your AAA-taxpayer  credit rating to make millions for Macquarie Group and fuel the bonuses  of its bankers."  (Hmmm, are the last 4 letters of that html link deliberate?)

Why is the Federal Government helping Macquarie while sitting on it's hands as all 10 thousand of us suffer? Flapping around desparately in the bottom of that tinny of an exchange, NSX, at 25% of a PwC audited value. Left vulnerable, by WC, to be skewered and gutted by the likes of ALF PIF. (How much is this ALF PIF takeover push costing us?)

Are we just grist for the 'big end of town tax revenue generating' mill? PIF  effectively just being a Federal government promoted pump and dump. Or perhaps this a NSW over QLD thing?


----------



## Duped (7 July 2010)

Further to my point in post #5855 that OUR Commomwealth Government (including their commissions) is deeply involved and complicit in the PUMP & DUMP of PIF.

Have a look at the new FIDO (ASIC) page about Unlisted Investments:
http://www.fido.gov.au/fido/fido.nsf/byHeadline/Unlisted%20investments

After years of pumping up the value of its AFS licencing regime, the Commonwealth Government (through its commission ASIC) is simultaneously, quietly on the back pages, trying to back away from it.  Here it is, published in black and white.

"Do you need advice?
Take your time and think things over before  you invest. Get professional advice from a licenced financial adviser  if you’re not sure what to do.

If your financial adviser recommends that  you invest in an unlisted investment, make sure you ask questions about  this recommendation.
How does this product fit into your  overall financial plan and how will it help you achieve what you want?
Do you understand the risks  associated with this type of investment?
Do you know exactly what the  investment product will do with your money?
Could you explain the business  model of the mortgage fund to a friend or colleague?"
WHAT!!!!!!! 

That's the ONLY REASON we go to financial planners AT ALL.THEY'RE THE EXACT QUESTIONS A FINANCIAL PLANNER IS SUPPOSED TO ANSWER.

EPIC FAIL

FAIL

FAIL

FAIL

When we go to a GP with a chest cold and get handed a prescription for an antibiotic we fill the prescription and follow the doctors instructions.  It's the doctors responsibility to make sure its not viral or worse, cancer. That's exactly what the service the doctor is paid to provide.

When we pay an electrician to put in a new power point we don't grill them on whether it's on the right circuit, if they tightened the screws, if its earthed etc. It's the electrician's responsibility. That's exactly what the service the electrician is paid to provide.

Do I need more examples? I've heaps.


----------



## selciper (7 July 2010)

If anybody didn’t reach page 24 of the PIF June 30 “Investor Update” because of its size, they should do so. The ensuing Page 25 is not inspirational either. I read the material on the PIF website, PDF format.


----------



## Cookie1 (8 July 2010)

'Notorious' Byrnes foiled by eagle-eye judge
ELISABETH SEXTON
July 8, 2010
A NSW Supreme Court judge has uncovered a scheme by the ''notorious'' Sydney businessman Jim Byrnes to deprive a collapsed company's creditors of $500,000 in car-servicing assets.

Full article: http://www.smh.com.au/business/notorious-byrnes-foiled-by-eagleeye-judge-20100707-100nm.html


----------



## Cookie1 (8 July 2010)

SMH Article 8/7/10 as above with photos.


----------



## Cookie1 (8 July 2010)

"ALF Group buys Gold Coast site" article from Fin Review 06/07/10.

See attached.

The 2 articles (see previous post as well) were sent to me by another PIF AG member but unfortunately are a bit fuzzy; I hope you can make them out.

Cookie1


----------



## Duped (8 July 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> 'Notorious' Byrnes foiled by eagle-eye judge
> ELISABETH SEXTON
> July 8, 2010
> A NSW Supreme Court judge has uncovered a scheme by the ''notorious'' Sydney businessman Jim Byrnes to deprive a collapsed company's creditors of $500,000 in car-servicing assets.
> ...




"An ASIC barrister, Doran Cook, cross-examined a Modena director, Peter  Trad, who gave evidence about valuable assets which Justice Palmer said  appeared to be unknown to the liquidator, Greg Hall of   PricewaterhouseCoopers."

Is that the same PWC that audited PIF's 35c valuation? 

Or .... what's the deal with corporate recovery in Australia?

:iamwithst      :1zhelp:       :nuts:        :shake:      :screwy:      :bonk:


----------



## seamisty (9 July 2010)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722957.PDF

The ALF PIF bidder's statement has been dispatched.


----------



## lawry1dog (9 July 2010)

We have over 500,000 units in the PIF and wondering what I should now,
since reading what has transpired lately. 

Senario 1:-   If the Fund is going to be taken over by someone else.
                  (like ALF)

Sell all our units now, which are at 8c and lose thousands of dollars.


Senario 2:-  If the Fund is raided by PTQ or other developers, etc., via legal  
                 cases.

Sell all our units now, which are at 8c and lose thousands of dollars.


So, you see I want to know, do we sell now?
Is the Fund a sitting duck, that can be raided? And no money left in the fund?

Is WC under pressure now, to do something, like pay some money back?

*We are totally confused now on what we should do. Do we keep waiting or
sell?*

Please Seamisty or Breaker1, can you help urgently.


----------



## Jadel (9 July 2010)

Lawry

I sympathize with your predicament. As you will no doubt be aware a great  many investors  are in the same situation .

 However,  it is not possible ,or even fair to expect any  one individual to give financial advice  to  another investor, on  what to do with their investment  in the current circumstances . 

That is why we have paid Financial Advisors ( ask Duped)

Perhaps you should contact ASIC to find out if the people behind this offer are trustworthy.


----------



## JohnH (9 July 2010)

Jadel said:


> Lawry
> 
> I sympathize with your predicament. As you will no doubt be aware a great  many investors  are in the same situation .
> 
> ...




Good advice Jadel.  It is indeed fortunate that the tongue is the fastest bodily organ to heal!!!!


----------



## kostag (10 July 2010)

*PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF and now Equititrust*

MFS and Equititrust link:

just saw this in the paper about David ANDERSON an ex MFS exec who with David Kennedy - also an ex MFS exec - now run Equititrust Ltd - a holder of $300million of public funds, in a similiar structure to what MFS was..... is this someone we want minding our money - we might get offerred a dollar as well:- 

MFS directors made 'dollar deals' KATE LAHEY 
June 16, 2010
.MORE than a year after investment group MFS collapsed with $1 billion in inter-company loans and owing creditors $2.5 billion, directors were still making deals through its entities, in one case giving away a third of a company to one of the men for nothing, a court has heard.

As examinations by liquidator Kate Barnet resumed in the New South Wales Supreme Court yesterday, two former directors were questioned about the sale of one particular company, MFS Alternative Asset Ltd (AAL) last year.

BusinessDay has previously revealed that AAL now has a stake in a company, Aurora, which is preparing to float. The sole director and a shareholder of AAL today is former MFS chief financial officer David Anderson.

In June last year, Mr Anderson asked two directors of McLaughlin Financial Services (an original MFS entity) to sell its 33 per cent stake in AAL to Mr Anderson's own company, Management Finance Pty Ltd, for $1. His company would then bill AAL a $1 administration fee, the court heard.


----------



## lawry1dog (11 July 2010)

I have analysed the ALF takeover offer bid.
Essentially the main points of interest are:-

1.  *ALF PIF Fund(the one taking over) will be an Unlisted company on the ASX. *
2.  *You will get 2 types of ALF shares. Preference shares and Ordinary shares.*

      2.1.  *You will receive 0.1 Preference unit shares for eack PIF unit.* (eg if you have 100,000 PIF units, then you get 10,000 Preference ALF Shares)
               2.1.1  ALF PIF will then buy these Preference shares back from you at $1.50 a Preference share (eg on 10,000 Preference ALF Shares, you get $15,000 cash)
               2.1.2  But the catch is that ALF PIF will have 2 years to pay up.

      2.2   *You will receive 0.05 Ordinary unit shares for each PIF unit* (eg if you have 100,000 PIF units, then you get 5,000 Ordinary ALF Shares)

3.  So in summary, from the 100,000 current PIF units, you will maybe get $15,000 cash within 2 years, and 5,000 Ordinary ALF Shares(which will be under $1.00 value).
     That adds up to approximately $18,000, if you are lucky.

4.  The only saviour with this offer, is that you will be within the ASX confines(not NSX as is now). ALF reckon they will list on the ASX eventually?
      I personally think the ASX is more viable than the NSX, as the NSX has far less interest, and so hard to sell units quickly.


The final thing unit holders have to way up, is whether to stay with Wellington PIF, and receive nothing for the next few years, unless you sell on the NSX(at a unit value of 8cents).

If you sell on the NSX 100,000 units at 8cents, you get $8,000 cash. Cannot see the 3cent distribution happenning, unless the ALF offer sparks WC into action. But they will probably borrow money from somewhere to do it, and thus the PIF is more debt.

Not sure whether the ASIC or Class Action will give back any money at all. If so, not much? Can someone enlighten me, on the what 100,000 PIF units(original from 2008), will get back from the ASIC or Class Action? 

Surely someone should give us answers to this basic question. 

We need a ball park figure at least.


----------



## Cookie1 (11 July 2010)

Article on July 9 2010 from NZ
http://www.economicmanagementexperts.com/archives/876

Excerpts from article; see full article in the link above.

"The Fall of MFS
July 9th, 2010
Amongst the numerous investment funds and financial institutions falling victim to the global credit crunch, one that surely need not and should not have succumbed was New Zealand-based MFS Pacific Finance Limited."

"Lessons

Unfortunately MFS Pacific Finance is beyond rescue as an operating unit in its original form and its passing is a genuine loss to the New Zealand finance company sector. In addition to offering investors currency diversification, MFS Pacific carried the potential to set a new benchmark of financial support for finance company borrowings through the “Put Option”. To date no other parent/subsidiary relationship of companies listed on the New Zealand Debentures Exchange has instigated a similar enforceable guarantee. Perhaps the new “Global Credit Crunch” reality will empower investors to demand just that.

In addition, as more intricate trading mechanisms such as margin trading, stock borrowing and short selling evolve, it becomes clear that disclosure of such potentially dangerous practices must become a mandatory requirement imposed by stock exchanges or legislation if markets are to be open and informed. Private investors have quite enough risks to contend with, without the secret avarice of their own company’s directors and executives exposing them to even more.

But while the mandatory objective may prove an optimistic goal in the short term, ordinary shareholders and fixed interest investors alike can take their own action immediately, wasting no time in sending the “totally unacceptable” message loud and clear to directors and executives where margin trading is concerned."


----------



## breaker1 (11 July 2010)

Has anybody NOT received Wellington Capitals "Target's Statement" yet in the mail (with the red/balck cover page & 31 pages long)?

Has anybody received the ALF Offer Statement yet in the mail?

thanks


----------



## Mary Lynch (12 July 2010)

There's quite a juicy article  by Dean Paatch in The Age, page 7 this am.  Too big to transfer here.... but a good read.


----------



## Mary Lynch (12 July 2010)

Sorry...it's on holding company directors and investment professionals accountable.


----------



## Investor262 (12 July 2010)

Breaker, I have not received the ALF offer in the mail yet, but have received the emial from PIF action Group.
Seamisty, where are you, what are we going to do?


----------



## Investor262 (12 July 2010)

Lawry1dog, thanks for your analysis. I agree with you, surely someone should be able to give us some advice!!!!!


----------



## JohnH (12 July 2010)

Investor262 said:


> Lawry1dog, thanks for your analysis. I agree with you, surely someone should be able to give us some advice!!!!!




I think Jadel's advice - "Perhaps you should contact ASIC to find out if the people behind this offer are trustworthy."  is very relevant.

Better the devil we know..................   etc., etc.,


----------



## seamisty (12 July 2010)

Investor262 said:


> Breaker, I have not received the ALF offer in the mail yet, but have received the emial from PIF action Group.
> Seamisty, where are you, what are we going to do?



I'm still here!!! I personally will not be taking up the ALF PIF offer, talk about 'out of the frying pan into the fire'!!!! 

I called ASIC on Friday as I am frustrated at their apparent lack of response to several PIF related issues I have raised with them and was assured that they (ASIC) are not 'sitting idly by', in fact I just now received another call from ASIC while typing this, they apologise for not responding earlier, but they are closely monitoring all aspects/issues I have previously raised and they will hopefully respond/answer soon. (I won't get too excited, I hope it is not an intended fob me off, shut me up and hope I go away tactic!)

Some of the issues are::

(sent to ASIC 12/11/2009)
 In the event that ASIC is successful in recovering monetary compensation on behalf of Premium Income Investors behalf where will that money be channelled?

            1. will it be paid to Wellington Capital as the current Responsible Entity of PIF 

    2. held by the Court in escrow for determination
    3. ordered by the Court for prorata distribution to members

            Apart from the concerns as to the increasing lack of confidence in our current RE to do anything other than sell PIF assets and absorb the proceeds in operating expenses, there are many who have been forced to sell their units for far less than the original cost.
There is concern that if any compensation is directed back to the current RE to be reinvested in the PIF that those investors who have had to sell will be financially penalised and the benefit will be given to those who bought units at a heavily discounted price.


I have raised many other issues, including pending litigation not being disclosed etc, and was assured on the 11/5/2010 that ASIC would 'respond shortly'.

Is it any wonder ASIC has such a poor reputation and not highly regarded? 


While I recognise that our situation is extremely complex and that outcomes from current proceedings may need to be concluded before some decisions are made, it does not alter the fact that ASIC could have offered/answered some of my issues I raised. I was also told on Friday that every PIF investor had the right to 'contact ASIC' in relation to Fund related queries. ( after previously being discouraged from sending in any more complaints )WE KNOW THAT!!! It's answers we need!!
So please, if you have questions for ASIC, contact them, as regulators it is their role to offer advice and I would hate them to think all PIF investors are satisfied with:

1. Current management
2. Proposed takeover bid 
3. ASIC's role to date


Thanks Breaker for an excellent Action Group update, apparently there may be a problem with links not opening, hopefully this will be rectified?

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (12 July 2010)

f the ALF offer is rejected, WC would be very silly to interpret such a result as a vote of confidence in WC! Personally, I am fed up with WC's handling of our multifarious problems. A reading of Breaker's latest newsletter demonstrates just how obscure WC's replies to important investor questions can be - that is, if they deign to reply. Anyway, it was good to read that the CA is moving ahead.

And thanks, Seamisty for your great efforts.


----------



## seamisty (12 July 2010)

An interesting read, I am sure there are many in need of a refresher course!!

http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/article/The-financial-services-commandments/520145.aspx

'If you are a trustee and responsible entity of a registered managed investment scheme, you probably don’t doubt that you should (among other things) act honestly, exercise the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person would exercise if they were in your position, and act in the best interests of the members above your own interests. These obligations are enshrined in section 601FC of the Act'

'Below is an amalgam of some of the obligations set out in sections 912A and 47 that licensees must adhere to. It would pay to ask yourself, on an ongoing basis, whether your business:

Is providing its financial services honestly and fairly? 
Has adequate resources to provide its services?
Is maintaining the competence of its responsible managers, as well as its other representatives, to provide its services? Is everyone adequately trained to provide these services?
Is well placed to deal with unsatisfied clients? And, given a worst-case scenario, does it have the resources and arrangements in place to compensate consumers found to have been negatively impacted by its operations?
Has arrangements to identify and manage conflicts of interest? Are these arrangements adequate?
Has systems for managing risk? Are they adequate?
Complies with the conditions of its AFSL and the financial services legislation that impacts it? Does it take reasonable steps to ensure that its representatives do the same?'


----------



## Duped (12 July 2010)

selciper said:


> f the ALF offer is rejected, WC would be very silly to interpret such a result as a vote of confidence in WC! Personally, I am fed up with WC's handling of our multifarious problems. A reading of Breaker's latest newsletter demonstrates just how obscure WC's replies to important investor questions can be - that is, if they deign to reply. Anyway, it was good to read that the CA is moving ahead.
> 
> And thanks, Seamisty for your great efforts.




I agree selciper.  I suspect WC won't interpet the results as such.  But a separate question is: will WC use it as spin?


----------



## breaker1 (12 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> RE latest "...Action Group update, apparently there may be a problem with links not opening, hopefully this will be rectified?"
> 
> Seamisty




Will fix - thanks


----------



## Investor262 (12 July 2010)

Many many thanks Seamisty, what a champion you are!!!!


----------



## simgrund (12 July 2010)

JohnH said:


> I think Jadel's advice - "Perhaps you should contact ASIC to find out if the people behind this offer are trustworthy."  is very relevant.
> 
> Better the devil we know..................   etc., etc.,




Re ASIC; aren't they still "loking into" this offer or should we regard the fact of mailing out as an affirmation of an offer having passed ASIC's bastions of scrutineers?
I would appreciate from ASIC the same "REJECT" screamer of a message we are getting from Wellington.
October 29 can't come fast enough to bury this unsolicited saviour.
Regards,


----------



## simgrund (12 July 2010)

breaker1 said:


> Has anybody NOT received Wellington Capitals "Target's Statement" yet in the mail (with the red/balck cover page & 31 pages long)?
> 
> Has anybody received the ALF Offer Statement yet in the mail?
> thanks




Hi breaker,
Yes I received mine yesterday (ALF offer). 
I will be happy to pass it on to whoever needs it urgently for just one tenth of their fully paid ordinary share. 
You can name your own implied value.
Cheers,


----------



## seamisty (13 July 2010)

I wonder if this mob know that such a capital raising would not get off the ground in Australia, hence the offshore (Vienna) connection/listing. Seamisty


Irw-Press: Alf Group Holdings Ag: Alf Group Holdings Ag – Extraordinary General Meeting And New Class Of Shares

Alf Group Holdings Ag (AG1) wholly owns ALF Group Pty Ltd and its subsidiaries, which includes one of Australia’s largest litigation funders, and a corporate restructuring services company which also provides funding and debt and equity solutions. It is also an acquirer of distressed assets.
For further information please contact:

Full article
http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=179698&catid=590


----------



## Cookie1 (13 July 2010)

I finally found time to go through our Weekend Financial Review 11-12 July 2010 and found the attached article entitled *"Friends with fast cars, but not in high places"* with a photo of the man behind the hostile takeover of the PIF. It makes my blood run cold to think this person of "notorious reputation" might be able to get his hands on our hard earned money...what is left of it.

A quote from the article:

Quote: "That was until an uncharitable *Justice George Palmer* vetoed the scheme, taking an unhappy view of Our Jim: "Mr Byrnes has a notorious reputation as a standover man and associate of major criminals. In an inquest in 2008 into the murder of one *Max Gibson*, the coroner described Mr Byrnes, a named 'person of interest' in the inquest, as 'untruthful' and 'manipulative', who had been 'caught lying to the court on more than one occasion'." End Quote


----------



## seamisty (13 July 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> I finally found time to go through our Weekend Financial Review 11-12 July 2010 and found the attached article entitled *"Friends with fast cars, but not in high places"* with a photo of the man behind the hostile takeover of the PIF. It makes my blood run cold to think this person of "notorious reputation" might be able to get his hands on our hard earned money...what is left of it.
> 
> A quote from the article:
> 
> Quote: "That was until an uncharitable *Justice George Palmer* vetoed the scheme, taking an unhappy view of Our Jim: "Mr Byrnes has a notorious reputation as a standover man and associate of major criminals. In an inquest in 2008 into the murder of one *Max Gibson*, the coroner described Mr Byrnes, a named 'person of interest' in the inquest, as 'untruthful' and 'manipulative', who had been 'caught lying to the court on more than one occasion'." End Quote



 Exactly Cookie, and all those ALF Group Holding overseas investors will be ignorant of the James Warren  Herbert Byrnes/ Catherine Gina Byrnes, connection and associated antics. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/cathy-fails-to-rsvp-to-asic/story-e6frezb0-1111118197634 

Our Mr Byrnes sure has held some interesting directorships in his time!! Did you know he was a director :bunny: of Sydney’s biggest illegal brothel, Xanadu, before it was shut down? http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/01/found-sydney’s-biggest-illegal-brothel/

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (13 July 2010)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722965.PDF

Form 603
Corporations Act 2001
Section 671B
Notice of initial substantial holder

At Present ALF PIF Finance Limited
does not have a relevant interest
in any units in the Premium Income
Fund. ALF PIF Finance Limited is
required to give this notice
pursuant to s671B(1)(c) of the
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
because it has made a takeover bid
for all of the units in the Premium
Income Fund.


----------



## infinitysmart (13 July 2010)

Does anyone know if Anthony Stanton has actually resigned and why??? Or what he is doing now??


----------



## k.smith (13 July 2010)

In the news today...
" nasty memories??"... We unitholders are living this nightmare day to day...

http://www.smh.com.au/business/all-doubts-are-banished-20100712-107yb.html

"...SIGNATURES

While some HFA shareholders may hope the rebranding will erase the nasty memories from its past association with its former shareholder MFS Limited, one former listed HFA satellite still has some clear links with the collapsed Gold Coast financial services firm.

HFA Accelerator Plus, which recently changed its name to Signature Capital Investments, is chaired by John Morrison. He helped advise MFS in his role as a consultant at Grant Samuel. By sheer coincidence, Morrison indirectly owns a stake in another corporate advisory firm, Kaleb Partners, founded in 2008 by the former MFS legal counsel Louise Edwards. By another remarkable coincidence, Edwards is the company secretary of the now named Signature.

The former MFS director Paul Manka also remains a director at Signature. But there is another coincidence: some of Edwards's private business ventures at one point shared the same office space as some of the private ventures of the former MFS chief executive and founder, Michael King.

King, who entered into a personal insolvency agreement last year to appease margin lenders owed $127 million, recently told the Herald: ''I'm never going to be involved in a public company again, never going to be CEO of a big organisation again, and never going to be in financial services again.''....."


----------



## Jadel (13 July 2010)

K Smith

     At least Balmain Trilogy are offering the actual value of the underlying assets to their investors .They have not listed to vultures on the NSX who are preying on the sick and desperate . Additionally we now have to contend with shonky takeover offers from predators who are trying to get the remaining assets for a song.




   It is now more than a year since the Rodger Bacon-headed Trilogy Funds Management and its partner, Balmain NB, were voted in as the joint responsible entities of the frozen City Pacific First Mortgage Fund, after vowing to ''stop the rot''.

Stopping ''the rot'' was taken by many of the thousands of investors with $900 million of deposits trapped in the fund as a signal that Balmain Trilogy might try to unfreeze the fund as soon as possible. Or at least try to make a partial capital return.

Yesterday Balmain Trilogy announced plans to hold a unit holder meeting next month ''to vote on a new strategy for the fund''.

It is believed the meeting will ask unit holders to vote on a resolution for a hardship program to help desperate unit holders and a plan to introduce a variable unit price.

This means that instead of each of their units being valued at $1 each, they will be valued to reflect the asset value of the sinking mortgage fund. At last count, 47 ¢ each. Balmain Trilogy has argued that by doing this, unit holders will be able to get some of their money back as soon as possible.


----------



## seamisty (13 July 2010)

infinitysmart said:


> Does anyone know if Anthony Stanton has actually resigned and why??? Or what he is doing now??



infinity I was told earlier this year that Anthony Stanton from WC had resigned. Perhaps he thought he would get out with his business reputation still intact!!! I do not know what he is doing now but Linkedin has listed a ::Anthony Stanton 
Title 
Independent Investment Management Professional 
Demographic info 
South Brisbane Area, Australia 
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Tony/Stanton/au-4909-South-Brisbane-Area,-Australia I don't know if it is one and the same. Seamisty


----------



## Duped (13 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722965.PDF
> 
> Form 603
> Corporations Act 2001
> ...




Thanks seamisty.
s671B(1)(c) A person must give the information referred to in  subsection (3) to a listed  company, or the responsible entity for a listed  registered managed investment  scheme, if the person makes a takeover bid for securities of the company or scheme.

s671B(3) The information to be given is:
 ... and
 (c)  details of any *relevant agreement  *through which they would have a *relevant interest in*:
        (i)  voting shares in the  company; or
        (ii)  *interests *in the  scheme; and
 (d)  the name of each *associate *who has  a relevant interest in voting shares in the company or interests in the scheme,  together with details of:
       (i)  the nature of their  association with the associate; and
       (ii)  the relevant interest  of the associate; and
       (iii)  any relevant agreement  through which the associate has the relevant interest; and
 ...
(g)  any other particulars that are * prescribed*.

What's the scope of 'relevant agreement' and 'associate'? And how hard would it be to prove that ALF PIF Finance Ltd had a verbal 'relevant agreement' with an 'associate' who is say ... um ... let me see .... one of the borrowers.

Anyone?

And who would put their hand up for taking action against a breach of s671B(3)?  ASIC? Bwahahaha. ROFL! :bonk:

Anyone?

Two and a half years after MFS/OCV raided PIF and we STILL don't know when MSF/OCV became insolvent.  I have no confidence in any protection alluded to by this legislation.  

Anyway, hands up anyone who thinks ALF PIF has any chance of getting 90%?  

If not then, what's *plan B.* 

Um ... let me see ... the AFR reported "Mr Byrnes, who bills himself as a *disputes resolution specialist*, has been attempting to obtain the PIF action group database since April" and then quoted Jim Byrnes saying "I acted originally for a couple of *borrowers *who were *borrowers *from MFS who had very large damages claims."  

Say I owed PIF $40m. First I'd hire a tough negotiator like lets say, Jim Byrnes, to see if he could get Hutson's WC to ... negotiate.  If that doesn't get me a better deal than what better way to get Hutson off your back than to buy the bank, i.e. PIF, turf Hutson's WC out and replace management with individuals with less to gain from ... let's say ... such high valuations? PIF's 'assets' could get more readily written down. 

Trading at 8.5c on the NSX I could buy the whole bank (PIF) for $68m. And pick up all the other 'assets' too. Problem of course is that as soon as I start buying in bulk the price will go up.  And I'll be named as soon as I hit the top ten shareholders or 5%. Oh and I dont have $70m odd.  

1 + 1 = takeover bid. 

If I get 51% then I'm only 3 (out of many thousands of a disgruntled) investors away from calling a meeting and voting out WC's 2% golden handshake (i.e. PIF constitution clause 23.3 and/or 23.4) and then turfing WC out completely.  Right?  Am I wrong? 

I wouldn't even need to remove the golden handshake clauses completely.   I'd just need to amend the constitution and devalue the 'assets' so I  only have to pay WC a few million under clause 23.4.1 to go away.

Oh and I'd get $38m odd coming to me almost immediately from the Wollongong deal.  

Probably a flight of fancy. But some red flags have popped up. Like the said negotiator apparently briefly turning up on this forum.  But more importantly see paragraph 3.4 of the Bidder's Statement.

"This section sets out ALF’s intentions if the Offer closes and ALF does not acquire 90% of the issued capital of PIF. A number of possibilities are open to ALF including the following:
• allowing the Offer to lapse;
• waiving its 90% minimum acceptance condition; and
• acquiring additional PIF Units to the extent permitted by law;
• *requisitioning a meeting of Unitholders to change the current responsible entity*."

So when it comes to the ALF PIF offer.  It's very very simple for me: no cash up front,  no vote.  Serious bidders only need apply. 

SHOW ME THE MONEY.


----------



## JohnH (13 July 2010)

Very, VERY well said Duped!!!


----------



## seamisty (14 July 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/beating-gridlock-the-westfield-way-20100713-109g1.html

SLOW STARTERS

The Jim Byrnes-mentored subsidiary of the former lingerie firm Can Can Holdings (now called ALF) has had a encouraging start in its planned $270 million scrip takeover of the ex-MFS managed Premium Income Fund.

Five days after opening its offer to unit holders of the Newcastle Stock Exchange-listed PIF, the Michael Pakula-chaired ALF disclosed yesterday it held no units in the fund, which was once worth $1 billion.

It is unclear if PIF shareholders are holding out for ALF to raise its scrip offer.

Perhaps they are just concerned about the new details ALF had to provide in its second Bidder's Statement relating to Byrnes's track record as a former bankrupt and banned company director.

Or their reticence may relate to ALF's resubmitted Bidder's Statement noting that PIF unitholder's would only ''share in approximately 20 per cent of the upside'' if they backed the offer.

Maybe they're just reluctant to see the fund's responsible entity - Wellington Capital's Jenny Hutson - get paid the $5.3 million she is due if she is removed as PIF's manager.


----------



## Investor262 (14 July 2010)

Seamisty, It seems to me once we pay out Jenny Hutson there will be nothing left! What are you doing up so early posting messages????


----------



## seamisty (14 July 2010)

Investor262 said:


> Seamisty, It seems to me once we pay out Jenny Hutson there will be nothing left! What are you doing up so early posting messages????



Didn't Jenny Hutson say at one of the 'travelling roadshows' something to the effect that if she did not perform she would not endorse the exit fee or is that just wishfull thinking? I have suggested she resign due to total lack of performance on several occassions but I am still waiting for an answer. Perhaps she will tell me in person in one of 'my periodic discussions' (June, Oct, Feb) with the managing director offered to me by WC on the 2nd Feb 2010 which I accepted. Oh dear dear!!! Another deadline missed by WC, or another broken committment?

Up early? 3.30 am is a sleep in for me!!! 

Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (14 July 2010)

Received Jim's, or is it Alfie's offer in the post today, together with the latest Gold Coast rates demand.............

......................... not sure which is the most depressing!!!


----------



## simgrund (14 July 2010)

JohnH said:


> Received Jim's, or is it Alfie's offer in the post today, together with the latest Gold Coast rates demand.............
> 
> ......................... not sure which is the most depressing!!!




I am still holding onto a faint hope that our IAC will offer some reassuring direction to disperse these confusions.
A great shame that the offer got past ASIC's gates. Not in keeping with their mission statement of "protection" and "in best interests of...".
Thanks seamisty and all AG for continuing information vigilance. Priceless!!!
PS.
Any news on the $20 mil. Fortress judgement frozen by the court.


----------



## seamisty (14 July 2010)

simgrund said:


> I am still holding onto a faint hope that our IAC will offer some reassuring direction to disperse these confusions.
> A great shame that the offer got past ASIC's gates. Not in keeping with their mission statement of "protection" and "in best interests of...".
> Thanks seamisty and all AG for continuing information vigilance. Priceless!!!
> PS.
> Any news on the $20 mil. Fortress judgement frozen by the court.



'Faint hope' simgrund? I don't know about hope but I would probablly ':22_yikes:FAINT' with shock if we even heard anything other than 'regurgitated Wellington Capital rhetoric' from just one of them!! There are also many others concerned as to the effectiveness of our duly 'appointed' IAC representatives and I was asked on behalf of some AG members to contact WC which I did earlier today as follows::


Dear duly appointed IAC reps,

I have not yet received a response from any of you to acknowledge that you have received my previous e mail. Does that mean that PIF investor correspondence is only being tabled three times a year when you meet with WC prior to Investor updates being released? 
I  have had no response from any of you in relation to previous requests made to have direct contact with Premium Income Fund Action Group representatives. Due to this lack of acknowledgement I am concerned you are not receiving any of my emails. 


On behalf of the Premium Income Fund Action Group, with in excess of over 900 current members, I would like the following questions/concerns answered as to the viability of the PIF continuing to fund an IAC committee. 

1. Do you as our duly appointed IAC Representatives consider the position you hold
   important and beneficial to all PIF investors, considering your continued reluctance 
   to correspond or have contact with PIF Action Group Representatives?

2. Since you are able to meet with the Fund’s management team, but do not have access 
    to any information which is not already available to all Unitholders and appear unable to 
    provide Unitholders with any assistance, do you consider the ongoing role of the IAC as 
    having ANY future benefit to PIF investors?

3. Do you consider 'tabling correspondence', that is, concerns raised by PIF investors 
   which has been previously received and scrutinised by Wellington Capital a fair and  
   honest way to represent investors best interests and for a committee to be conducted?

4. As duly appointed IAC representatives do you consider it transparent and honest that 
   the voting results of the IAC were withheld from not only those who voted, but also 
   the other participating IAC nominees?  

I would appreciate a response from at least one of you.:::


I would assume that at least one of them would be interested enough to take a peek at our Wellington Capital Premium Income Fund dedicated thread?

How do we even know if our correspondence is passed on?

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (14 July 2010)

I think that the next IAC “report” will read something like “ your committee is reading the newspapers which are reporting news about the hostile bid. We agree that it’s an interesting situation and look forward to a positive outcome. Our next report to investors will be forthcoming at a date yet to be determined.”


----------



## seamisty (14 July 2010)

selciper said:


> I think that the next IAC “report” will read something like “ your committee is reading the newspapers which are reporting news about the hostile bid. We agree that it’s an interesting situation and look forward to a positive outcome. Our next report to investors will be forthcoming at a date yet to be determined.”



Even better selciper, WC can just cut and paste it for future inclusion in the next PIF update from here tomorrow when they check in to monitor 'investor sentiment' re the takeover offer!!  'stupid and stupider', an RE's toss up to who deserves which title, and yes, I am referring to management, not to investors.


I think the public examinations resume Monday 19th July with one dollar david, David Anderson. :nosympath

Seamisty


----------



## BootsnAll (14 July 2010)

This is one of the properties owned by the Premium Income Fund.
This article was in the Gold Coast Sun today. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






View attachment 37900


----------



## charles36 (15 July 2010)

SEAMISTY.   I note you have stated that the IAC was DULY elected.  Have you information on the voting results that justifies this assumption.  I have been trying for many, many months and countless emails to get information re the voting for the election of the IAC but alas to no avail.  It is a NO GO zone like a lot of other questions which remain unanswered by WC.  Cheers to all.


----------



## seamisty (15 July 2010)

charles36 said:


> SEAMISTY.   I note you have stated that the IAC was DULY elected.  Have you information on the voting results that justifies this assumption.  I have been trying for many, many months and countless emails to get information re the voting for the election of the IAC but alas to no avail.  It is a NO GO zone like a lot of other questions which remain unanswered by WC.  Cheers to all.



 That was 'DULY APPOINTED' Charles36, as opposed to 'DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED' as promised by WELLINGTON CAPITAL, because like you, I have continually asked WELLINGTON CAPITAL for the election results of which they flatly REFUSE to disclose!! Therefore, until evidence is provided to the contrary, I conclude that due to the continued absence of any voting results, the IAC reps were 'appointed' as opposed to 'elected'. Until evidence is provided to the contrary, my suspicions as to the secrecy surrounding the whole pathetic issue will remain. The reluctance of the IAC reps to come foward and liaise with the PIF AG so that they can demonstrate they are at least real people simply implies that if they do actually exist (and I am sure they must) then they also are lacking the committment we expected from them.:sheep:



Seamisty


----------



## Duped (15 July 2010)

BootsnAll said:


> This is one of the properties owned by the Premium Income Fund.
> This article was in the Gold Coast Sun today.
> 
> 
> ...





This isn't directed at you Boots.  (Thanks for posting the article)

I question the article's intention. This is the property about 6 weeks ago. (If this is the property)

View attachment 37905


Yes it's certainly unsightly in my opinion. But more unsightly than many of the Gold Coast sites like ? The building itself probably never had any value to us IMLO. (Would repair and maintenance be covered by any rent we would get?) I don't recall if there was grafitti on the rear or south walls.  The only grafitti I saw was on the top left window and on internal walls.

Doesn't it owe us $14m?  If so then I expect we'll take a haircut. I concede this is not really WC's fault. It's Raptis fault.  Just like it was Raptis' fault we lost $20m on the Gold Coast Sheraton Mirage. Raptis took on too much debt. And MFSIM gave it to them.

But it is WC's responsibility to make sure we don't get sued. Or that we have adequate insurance. 

Do we want Hutson's WC to write down, i.e. 'impair', this 'asset' now? (If it hasn't already) Yes WC will get less profit but our audited 'value' will be less.  What's best for us?  You much would we get if we sold now?


----------



## Duped (15 July 2010)

JohnH said:


> Very, VERY well said Duped!!!



Thanks JohnH.  I sometimes wonder if anyone reads my posts. 

It'll be interesting to see how WC plays it.  The 29 October closing date was a surprise to me. That's a long time away. Unusual? I'm guessing this is deliberately set in good time after the Annual Report is due.  Will the 2010 annual report 'impair', i.e. write off, the $20m from the Gold Coast Sheraton? That would be more ammunition for ALF's main weapon for attacking WC. Did we ever really stand a chance of getting a cent of our money back from the Sheraton? Hardly WC's fault. That one was courtesy of MFS/OCV Ltd owned MFSIM.  I guess such an impairment is already factored into the share price.

Could WC issue the annual report late? Can ASIC or the NSX force WC to release it?  :sleeping: Or WC could issue the annual report early. Giving it time to campaign.


----------



## seamisty (15 July 2010)

Duped said:


> Thanks JohnH.  I sometimes wonder if anyone reads my posts.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see how WC plays it.  The 29 October closing date was a surprise to me. That's a long time away. Unusual? I'm guessing this is deliberately set in good time after the Annual Report is due.  Will the 2010 annual report 'impair', i.e. write off, the $20m from the Gold Coast Sheraton? That would be more ammunition for ALF's main weapon for attacking WC. Did we ever really stand a chance of getting a cent of our money back from the Sheraton? Hardly WC's fault. That one was courtesy of MFS/OCV Ltd owned MFSIM.  I guess such an impairment is already factored into the share price.
> 
> Could WC issue the annual report late? Can ASIC or the NSX force WC to release it?  :sleeping: Or WC could issue the annual report early. Giving it time to campaign.



Duped I read every post on here and value the time and effort you and many others take to keep any one interested as informed as we can. The only way WC would release anything informative early would be if it was advantageous to WC!! Remember the last investor update due at the end of April? Whipped out quick smart on the 18th May the DAY AFTER ALF PIF announced the takeover!! They were obviously sitting on it.

Anyone keeping an eye on our unit value? What a legend you are Wellington Capital (NOT!!!) Your pathetic performance now sees our units trading at 0.071 cents. Remarkable how little you have to say these days WC, a far cry from the boasting/bragging and promises in 2008 that sucked most of us in.

Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (15 July 2010)

Duped said:


> Thanks JohnH.  I sometimes wonder if anyone reads my posts.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see how WC plays it.  The 29 October closing date was a surprise to me. That's a long time away. Unusual?......................




Duped,
Thank you manyfold for your additions to this thread.
And thanks to everyone for keeping our eyes open.
I also wonder at the length of the offer duration, on top of which, it can apparently be extended as per page 30, Annexure 1, clause 3(of the offer). 
Thanks ASIC for allowing this flexibility during your minute examination of the offer. 
What's another twirl on the barbeque scewer?
Regards


----------



## seamisty (16 July 2010)

Notice of change of interests of substantial holder

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722972.PDF


14/07/10
ALF PIF
Finance
Limited
Acquisition of relevant
interest in Units in the
Premium Income Fund as a
result of acceptances by
various persons of the
takeover offer made by
ALF PIF Finance Limited
pursuant to its Bidder’s
Statement dated 8th July
2010 (offer), subject to
the terms of the Offer.
Determined
in
accordance
with the
terms of the
offer.
399,928
Units
399,928


----------



## Duped (16 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> Notice of change of interests of substantial holder
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722972.PDF
> 14/07/10
> ALF PIF Finance Limited
> ...




Yep, seamisty, all that self promotion by WC and were are we? Languishing at 8c and the subject of an ALL SCRIP takeover.  Very disappointing.  But it'll all be the GFC's fault of course - these very tough market conditions. Conditions that didn't seem to anywhere in sight during the 2008 road show.

That's 400,000 odd votes that ALF will or already have. Anyone know when these powers (i.e. like a power of attorney) will come into effect?

Page 86 
7.1 Effect of acceptance
7.1 (e) is effectively a *power of attorney*.  

"with effect from the latter of ... becomes, or is declared, free from its conditions, ..." 

What exactly are all the "*conditions*"? Anyone?  ALF can "waiv[e] its 90% minimum acceptance condition" under 3.4 on page 46.

And the power that comes with this 'power of attorney' are on page 87  including:
(i) to attend and vote in respect of your PIF Units at any meeting of PIF;
(ii) to appoint a proxy or proxies to attend and vote on your behalf in respect of your PIF Units at any meeting of PIF;
(iii) to *requisition or join with other holders of PIF Units in requisitioning or convening a meeting of PIF*;
(iv) to demand a poll for any vote to be taken at any meeting of PIF;
(v) *to propose or second any resolution to be considered at any meeting of PIF*;


In addition to what I wrote earlier this week about PLAN B if ALF DOESN'T get 90%.  See paragraph 3.4 on page 46: "*It may be in ALF’s interest to hold the PIF Units as a portfolio investment.*"


----------



## seamisty (16 July 2010)

I notice McLean legal pty Ltd is named as legal adviser to WELLINGTON CAPITAL in the WC Target Statement. I see Rachel Weeks is a partner of McLean Legal (. That would be the same  Rachel Claire Weeks, Director of  Queen Street Nominees Pty Ltd, (DLGL Account), a substantial shareholder in G8 Education Limited which I believe is Chris scott's and Jenny Hutson's next empire building exercise.
 Lets not forget David Burke (Jenny's VERY close friend I am told?) in the equation. David burke  established the Brisbane Enneagram project in 1994, in Brisbane, to study personality in the Australian context. He is the founding director of the Australian Institute for Enneagram Studies. (AIES)Mr David Burke, M.Ed, B.Ec, Grad.Dip.R.EFounder of the Australian Enneagram Oral Tradition, David Burke is the leading researcher, teacher and writer of the Enneagram in Australia today. He established the Brisbane Enneagram project in 1994, in Brisbane, to study personality in the Australian context. He is the founding director of the Australian Institute for Enneagram Studies.
David Burke was invited to join the board of the International Enneagram Association oin 2007.
Mar 18 2008 saw David Burke elected to the MFS board with Chris Scott.
David Burke, Jenny Hutson and Chris Scott were all Directors of S8 Property Trust
David Burke has undertaken large scale assessments of personality type at McCullough Robertson Lawyers. 
David Burke has consulted in respect of organisational change and management in S8 Limited and University of Queensland’s MBA program
Rachel Weeks is also an enneagram teacher at the same faculty(http://www.enneagram.com.au/pages/teachers.htm#)  RACHEL WEEKS was previously also a senior associate with McCullough Robertson, Brisbane. 



It gets really interesting from here on. I have done extensive research on the Enneagram and have compiled a heap of info in relation to it and the Wellington Capital/David Burke connection.
It is quite complex and I will just post this link for now for those interested in  following up on this very interesting not for profit personality profiling organization   /http://www.skepdic.com/enneagr.html 

Plenty more to come and trust me, I will reveal it!! 

Seamisty


----------



## flatback (17 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> I notice McLean legal pty Ltd is named as legal adviser to WELLINGTON CAPITAL in the WC Target Statement. I see Rachel Weeks is a partner of McLean Legal (. That would be the same  Rachel Claire Weeks, Director of  Queen Street Nominees Pty Ltd, (DLGL Account), a substantial shareholder in G8 Education Limited which I believe is Chris scott's and Jenny Hutson's next empire building exercise.
> Lets not forget David Burke (Jenny's VERY close friend I am told?) in the equation. David burke  established the Brisbane Enneagram project in 1994, in Brisbane, to study personality in the Australian context. He is the founding director of the Australian Institute for Enneagram Studies. (AIES)Mr David Burke, M.Ed, B.Ec, Grad.Dip.R.EFounder of the Australian Enneagram Oral Tradition, David Burke is the leading researcher, teacher and writer of the Enneagram in Australia today. He established the Brisbane Enneagram project in 1994, in Brisbane, to study personality in the Australian context. He is the founding director of the Australian Institute for Enneagram Studies.
> David Burke was invited to join the board of the International Enneagram Association oin 2007.
> Mar 18 2008 saw David Burke elected to the MFS board with Chris Scott.
> ...



it seems to me to be a very obscure science,wereby you can change the numbers to suit your own percieved interpretation of yourself, in effect a (narcistic) interpretation would you agree???, i suppose the next thing they will be teaching in universitys is the belief that unicorns and leprecorns are true and never were the figment of somebodys very fertile mind, there is as we all know a great connection to all things via the science of numbers, but this is the first time i have heard of somebody using it to enhance in their own mind,how (not ) important they are .PLEASE.


----------



## simgrund (17 July 2010)

flatback said:


> it seems to me to be a very obscure science,wereby you can change the numbers to suit your own percieved interpretation of yourself, in effect a (narcistic) interpretation would you agree???, i suppose the next thing they will be teaching in universitys is the belief that unicorns and leprecorns are true and never were the figment of somebodys very fertile mind, there is as we all know a great connection to all things via the science of numbers, but this is the first time i have heard of somebody using it to enhance in their own mind,how (not ) important they are .PLEASE.




*Well pinpointed flatback. And the following is from 2009 Conference Program on Enneogrammy science held in Los Angeles. It appears that his credentials in this field can be substantiated.
Regards*

"ENDNOTE ADDRESS
David Burke
The Mystical Journey of the
Enneagram
“Be vulnerable and find strength;
Fall in love, and the world is yours.”
”” Chapter 67 Tao Te Ching, trans. David Burke
David Burke is the founder
of the Australian Institute
for Enneagram Studies,
the Australian Enneagram
Community, and the Brisbane
Enneagram Project. He has
also played an important role
in the International Enneagram
Association, with a particular
focus on international outreach.
David will draw from his experience as a worldclass
facilitator and his in-depth knowledge of the
Enneagram to synthesize the key messages articulated
throughout the conference. He will focus on the way
in which the Enneagram promotes inclusiveness,
community, compassion and understanding.
Using the inspired works of mystics such as Dionysius
the Areopagite and Jalal al-din Rumi, David will
provide a cohesive conclusion to the Conference, and
empower Conference delegates on their journey for a
greater understanding of the universe, and their own
place in it.
David Burke lives in Australia, and works nationally
and internationally with organisations in change
management interventions and the provision
of strategic advice. He has written two books,
Transforming Organisations and An Introduction
to the Enneagram, and has published a popular
translation of the Tao Te Ching.
David is currently completing his doctoral work,
examining the underlying philosophical and
theological themes shared by mystical Islam and
Christianity, and focussing on the works of Dionysius
the Areopagite and Jalal al-din Rumi. IEA Accredited
Teacher.
www.enneagram.com.au"


----------



## seamisty (17 July 2010)

Well I see I have the attention of at least two others so here is some more on "THE ENNEAGRAM FACTOR!!!"

Phillip Wibaux is an external member on the PIF compliance committee and a board member with David Burke at AIES (Australian Institute for Enneagram Studies)
Phillip Wibaux received a $10,000 scholarship in 2007 to study Enneagram for 12 months as an Australian intern. Phillip Wibaux attended the 2007 conference of the International Enneagram Association in San Francisco, USA with David Burke who was a key speaker.
Phillip Wibaux was Operations manager at McCullough Robertson Lawyers in 2006.
Phillip Wibaux is/was a site manager/overseer at Kooralbyn Hotel Golf Resort which is unoperational at present and is a mortgagee in possession commercial property in the PIF loan portfolio. The luxury four wheel drive vehicle removed by David Burke (under the instructions of Jenny Hutson, Wellington Capital) from another of our PIF assets, The Forest Resort Hotel Cresswick was reportedly seen parked at Kooralbyn Resort. (I understand the vehicle expenses are being met by the PIF, I wonder what other property has been removed and what has happened to it?) I have an unsubstantiated report the same vehicle has been seen at Andelaine, an Enneagram retreat I think owned by David Burke?http://www.enneagram.com.au/pages/andelaine.htm 

Now as if the enneagram connection with David Burke and the PIF's external compliance officer, Phillip Wibaux  is not enough to get ones radar going, the pair set a company together on the 18/12/2008 called KOORALBYN ASSET MANAGEMENT PTY LTD!!!   I understand the PIF was already mortgagee in possession of Kooralbyn resort at that time.                                    

Read some of the $6.00 company details:: 

Organisation Details
Organisation Name KOORALBYN ASSET MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
Australian Company Number 134672110
State of Incorporation Queensland
Registration Date 18/12/2008
Organisation Number Heading ACN (Australian Company Number)
Australian Business Number 42134672110
Review Date 18/12/2010
Document Number 5E2027797
Details Type(current/ceased) Current
Details Start Date 18/12/2008
Organisation Name KOORALBYN ASSET MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
Company Address
Document Number 5E2027797
Details Type(current/ceased/future) Current
Address Type Registered Office
Address Start Date 18/12/2008
Address LEVEL 2 500 QUEEN STREET BRISBANE QLD 4000
Document Number 5E2027797
Details Type(current/ceased/future) Current
Address Type Principal Place of Business
Address Start Date 18/12/2008
Address LEVEL 2 500 QUEEN STREET BRISBANE QLD 4000

Company Office Holders

Document Number 5E2027797
Details Type(current/former) Current
Role Director
Appointment Date 18/12/2008
Full Name BURKE DAVID JUSTIN
Birth Details 25/09/1958 LATROBE TAS
Address 3233 NERANG−MURWILLUMBAH ROAD NATURAL BRIDGE QLD 4211
Document Number 5E2027797
Details Type(current/former) Current
Role Director
Appointment Date 18/12/2008
Full Name WIBAUX PHILIP JACQUES
Birth Details 10/05/1966 BRISBANE QLD
Address 18 VENTNOR STREET TOOWONG QLD 4066

Share Structure − Issued and Paid Capital
Document Number 5E2027797
Details Type(current/ceased) Current
Share Class Code ORD
Share Class Title ORDINARY SHARES
Number of Shares Issued 6
Total Paid on Shares Issues $ 6.00


Hmnn, I wonder if there is not some hidden agenda by running the Kooralbyn resort into the ground?? 

Plenty more if anyone is interested???? At least it is a diversion from 'the same old rhetoric'!!!

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (19 July 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/atlas-wants-to-splash-it-around-20100718-10g12.html

IN THE BOX

David Anderson, the former chief financial officer of MFS Limited (aka Octaviar), is set for another marathon session in the witness box.

Having spent a week already taking questions during the public examination into the collapse of MFS by its liquidator Bentley's, Anderson has been booked for another five days, starting this morning in the NSW Supreme Court's Darlinghurst courthouse.

Bentley's will handle the first half of the week. The Public Trustee of Queensland, which represents 560 noteholders owed $359 million by MFS, is booked in for an examination of Anderson from late Wednesday to Friday.

One wonders if the trustee will ask any questions related to Deloitte's time as administrator and liquidator of MFS. Deloitte was replaced as liquidator by the Supreme Court of Queensland last year after the trustee launched legal action in which it questioned the validity of a payment made to one creditor.

The trustee also may be curious about other payments made when Deloitte was in charge, such as the estimated $940,000 in consulting fees paid (from the wreckage of MFS) to Anderson's Business Puzzle Solutions Pty Ltd.


----------



## Blueboy1 (19 July 2010)

http://www.theage.com.au/business/atlas-wants-to-splash-it-around-20100718-10g12.html

IN THE BOX

David Anderson, the former chief financial officer of MFS Limited (aka Octaviar), is set for another marathon session in the witness box.

Having spent a week already taking questions during the public examination into the collapse of MFS by its liquidator Bentley's, Anderson has been booked for another five days, starting this morning in the NSW Supreme Court's Darlinghurst courthouse.

Bentley's will handle the first half of the week. The Public Trustee of Queensland, which represents 560 noteholders owed $359 million by MFS, is booked in for an examination of Anderson from late Wednesday to Friday.

One wonders if the trustee will ask any questions related to Deloitte's time as administrator and liquidator of MFS. Deloitte was replaced as liquidator by the Supreme Court of Queensland last year after the trustee launched legal action in which it questioned the validity of a payment made to one creditor.

The trustee also may be curious about other payments made when Deloitte was in charge, such as the estimated $940,000 in consulting fees paid (from the wreckage of MFS) to Anderson's Business Puzzle Solutions Pty Ltd

Regards,
Blueboy1


----------



## Duped (19 July 2010)

Wow seamisty.  Amazing research.  That would explain two things for me.  I always felt that WC was unnecessarily secretive and had a somewhat unusual lack of regard for the share price. In my lay opinion (IMLO) anyway.


----------



## seamisty (19 July 2010)

Duped said:


> Wow seamisty.  Amazing research.  That would explain two things for me.  I always felt that WC was unnecessarily secretive and had a somewhat unusual lack of regard for the share price. In my lay opinion (IMLO) anyway.



 Perhaps WC sees itself is a 'benevolent society' by providing extra income for her good friend David Burkes not for profit enneagram teachers?









http://www.enneagram.com.au/pages/teachers.htm
Enneagram teacher::
Ms Katrina Stevens, M.Ed, Grad.Dip.Arts (L’ship), Dip.Fin.Planning Dip.Teach
Katrina Stevens is an experienced educator, presenter and facilitator of learning with 10 years experience in a variety of educational settings - half of those as a senior administrator in Queensland schools.
She holds a Masters Degree in Educational Leadership and Management, and is a qualified Financial Planner.
Katrina has combined these interests in a diverse range of projects: from the professional development of educators and curriculum design and development in Queensland schools, to instructional design and delivery in the Financial Services Industry and the provision of strategic communication advice utilising the Enneagram framework.
Katrina has been an accredited Enneagram teacher since 2003.

Katrina Stevens is employed by WC in PIF Investor communications.



Enneagram teacher:: 
Ms Jane Buxton
Jane is a coach, facilitator, and communications consultant to organisations and businesses throughout Australia. She also works with teams in strategic and human resource planning.
Jane has had a long association with the Australian Enneagram Community. She attended her first panel series in 1994 (Series 2), and commenced her formal studies of the Enneagram in 1999. Jane is a member of the faculty of the AIES and on the board of the AEC. She has been an accredited Enneagram teacher since 2007.
Jane has a Bachelor Degree in Psychology and certifications in Coaching, Neuro-Linguistic Programming, and Eriksonian Hypnosis. 

Jane Buxton is employed by WC in PIF Investor communications.

Maryanne Stewart is noted as 'a keeper of the technologies' in this Qld Enneagram newsletter, page 5. http://www.enneagram.com.au/newsletter/insight0207v4.pdf

Maryanne Stewart is employed by WC in PIF Investor communications.

Stay tuned, still more to come!!!

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (19 July 2010)

I see ALF PIF have aquired another 128,716
Units http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722983.PDF

Very very discouraging to see some PIF investors consider such a lousy offer such as the one from ALF PIF as a better option than staying put for a bit longer until all the information from the Public Examinations and ASIC's civil proceedings especially investigations into the former PIF responsible Entity, Management Investments Ltd (formerly known as MFSIM and Octaviar Investment Management Ltd), where  ASIC is seeking orders for declarations of contraventions, pecuniary penalties, compensation and disqualifications from managing corporations.

It's hardly a vote of confidence in our current Responsible Entity, Wellington Capital who appear to not give a stuff either way. Whats that old saying, 'every dog has its day':::Meaning: 1) Even the lowest of us at some time has a chance to get revenge on an oppressor, no matter how powerful that oppressor may be. 2) We will all have good luck or success at some point in our lives.


I'm prepared to wait a little longer.

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (19 July 2010)

Some of you may Remember this? :::The Challenges and Opportunities of Islam in the
West: The Case of Australia
3 - 5 March, 2008
Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre
Queensland, Australia

Both David Burke and Jenny Hutson were key speakers/gave presentations. I hadn't made the Enneagram/Hutson connection when I first uncovered the info and didn't realise Burke was also involved.

'As Theologians Separate so the Mystics Unite
Mr David Burke, Founding Director, the Australian Institute for Enneagram Studies, the Australian Enneagram Community, and the Brisbane Enneagram Project'
'Islamic Investment - The Opportunities in Australia
Ms Jenny Hutson, Managing Director and Founder of Wellington Capital Limited, a Merchant and Investment bank; Queensland Business Woman of the Year 2007.'
'

It was here that Jenny Hutson presented ::   http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/58310/Hutson.pdf                                                                                 Islamic Investment –
The Opportunities in Australia
Jenny Hutson, Managing Director
Wellington Capital Limited
5 March 2008

I guess it is a lot clearer now that I know Traditional Islamic Sufi teachings are strongly connected with the Enneagram!!

No wonder you always felt that WC was unnecessarily secretive Duped!!

Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (19 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> Some of you may Remember this? :::The Challenges and Opportunities of Islam in the
> West: The Case of Australia
> 3 - 5 March, 2008
> Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre
> ...




I could, after all these exposures, make some s******ing remarks about being "enneagrammed" into an involuntary "Eriksonian Hypnosis" leading me along with thousands into the quagmire we find ourselves in today.
But voicing the rage would not hit the target. In fact, I am very sad that "impartiality" and "commitment" have been compromised by bias towards "like mindedness" in staff selection.
I would, as you would seamisty, wait for real actions on the ground to bring us justice. 
We hope that people fronting our CA are furthest removed from "enneagrammology" in any form, shape or scent.
And seamisty; there are more than 2 following your and others' inputs.
With thanks,
PS. an auto censor is in place as it does not allow "s******ing" from verb "s.n.i.g.g.e.r."


----------



## Cookie1 (19 July 2010)

Seamisty, thank you so very much for all the time and hard work you're putting in to shed some light on our very sad situation. I, for one, read every entry on the PIF blog and am absolutely fascinated at what your research is uncovering.  (I never even heard of Enneagram...and there appears to be a whole Enneagram community of them). 

Where is this all taking us? and how can we disentangle ourselves from the very obscure web we've been lured into? What kind of people are in charge of our fund? and no wonder we're going no where but downhill. _(Rhetorical questions.) _

Keep up the good work! I'm in it for the long haul. It does worry me that ALF is buying up units and voting rights...vultures of the worst kind after the pickings.


----------



## seamisty (19 July 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> Seamisty, thank you so very much for all the time and hard work you're putting in to shed some light on our very sad situation. I, for one, read every entry on the PIF blog and am absolutely fascinated at what your research is uncovering.  (I never even heard of Enneagram...and there appears to be a whole Enneagram community of them).
> 
> Where is this all taking us? and how can we disentangle ourselves from the very obscure web we've been lured into? What kind of people are in charge of our fund? and no wonder we're going no where but downhill. _(Rhetorical questions.) _
> 
> Keep up the good work! I'm in it for the long haul. It does worry me that ALF is buying up units and voting rights...vultures of the worst kind after the pickings.



 Its all about researching, collating and compiling Cookie!!! Information and evidence already on hand should the need arise to hand it all over to someone for future reference. It is also about exposing any deceit and informing other unsuspecting investors to be fully aware of the kind of people they are dealing with. People who lack the ability to exercise even just ONE promise successfully and with no transparency. People who go into virtual lock down when the going gets tough.

In relation to those selling out to ALF PIF I hope they are seeking professional advice as to what they will not be getting, ie the full upside of any money if ASIC is successfull in repatriating funds from Octaviar back to the PIF. I sincerely hope that Wellington Capital also do not participate in any upside as well, they certainly do not deserve it. Quite the contrary in my opinion, as I feel they owe us!!!!

Iv'e still got more to come on the enenama, OOPS, I mean enneagram (funny how similar those two words are, the only thing missing from enenama is a G and a R!) but I don't want to bog you all down with it. 
Lets see what 'one dollar David' has to say this week in the public examinations!!

Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (19 July 2010)

Remember this article?

Hutson defends PIF Gong sale
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  November 21st, 2009

Related Links
How the Holiday Inn stacks up against the Sheraton
JENNY Hutson has hosed down Premium Income Fund unitholders' criticism of a $38 million property sale in Wollongong this week.

Although the City Beach hotel-apartment project had found a $40.5 million buyer after auction earlier this year, that deal fell through after a 'very short' due diligence, said Ms Hutson who controls the fund through Wellington Capital.

"This ($38 million deal) represents the best value we can find in the market, having been in discussions up to and beyond the auction date," said Ms Hutson of the sale to Harbour Street Developments. 

Ms Hutson also said the deal had been struck at book value, dismissing concerns by some unitholders that the sale would diminish their already-eroded investment in the fund.

"We're not selling anything less than book value. That's been our philosophy."

City Beach is at least five months from completion.

The first phase of construction will deliver 75 apartments, with Ms Hutson hopeful the settlement of those sales will bring the $38 million cash from the sale into the fund.

Well by my calculations 5 months was up up in April this year and the fact hasn't changed that the $40.5 million buyer was at auction not after as was wrongly reported by Nick Nichols in this article who was supplied with  evidence of the auction results and has failed to follow up on this.

So here it is, 8 months after Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital sold this prime PIF asset, forfeiting any possible future growth and relinquishing our right to 1st mortgage status and we still have not seen a cent!! This is another classic example of poor business acumen demonstrated by our responsible entity. To add insult to injury have a look at the cost of staying at this hotel which I think could have been completed for approx $16million. No joint venture, no capital raising, nothing that remotely resembled any type of business expertise we were promised, the complete opposite actually.

Deluxe Room  $350 per night

Executive Balcony Room  $375 night

Executive Suite  $425 night

Chifley Suite $700 night

I must check with another of our assets which was generating a healthy income prior to  Wellington Capital have taken control. I did hear that after Wellington Capital sacked existing qualified staff and replaced them with lesser qualified displaced Kooralbyn employees, the income deteriorated dramatically. I will definitely follow up on that, all extra evidence to add to the data base of compelling evidence of an incompetent Responsible Entity.


Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (20 July 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mfs-out-by-65m-on-profit-20100719-10hxl.html

MFS out by $65m on profit COLIN KRUGER 
July 20, 2010
FAILED Gold Coast financier MFS overstated its pre-tax profit for the 2007 financial year by $65 million, according to the company's liquidators.

A public examination into the collapse of MFS, which is now known as Octaviar, was told the treatment of MFS's investment in hedge fund investor HFA Holdings lead to the overstatement.

According to counsel acting for the liquidators, Adam Bell, the stake in HFA was classified as ''held for trading'', meaning unrealised gains could be recognised in earnings

But the stock was actually held in escrow, so MFS was prevented from selling the stake.

The HFA stake was sold to margin lenders in 2008.

Former MFS chief financial officer David Anderson, who is the sole subject of the public examination this week, told the court he was not sure where the liquidators got the $65 million figure from.

In a previous session, the New South Wales Supreme Court heard how in May 2007, MFS executives engineered a $94 million dividend out of phantom profits.

In the early hours of May 29, 2007, MFS chief executive Michael King emailed his deputy, Craig White, and Mr Anderson saying he wanted to offer investors a 20 ¢-a-share dividend. Mr Anderson replied within hours saying it would require a pre-tax profit of $230 million.

Mr Anderson, who owned 2 million MFS shares at the time, angrily denied he had used loans to pay a dividend the company could not afford.

Mr Anderson denied the proposition from Mr Bell that the company was using short-term financing, like a three-month debt facility from Fortress, to fund long-term commitments.

Source: The Age


----------



## seamisty (20 July 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/escort-payments-caught-in-asic-net-20100719-10hwk.html 
PROJECTIONS

Meanwhile, the ongoing public examination into the collapse of MFS Limited has shed light on some of the nicknames given to deals worked on by the Gold Coast Macquarie wannabe.

The legal representative from Bentleys, the liquidator of MFS (aka Octaviar), quizzed the group's former chief financial officer, David Anderson, on several schemes thought up by the company before its demise. They included Project Polly, Project Luxor, Project Nirvana and Project Utopia.

Sadly, Anderson was unable to recall any of the minute details of the deals. ''I'm amazed at what I see as the inefficiency of the process,'' said Anderson, expressing puzzlement about the questions posed by Adam Bell, SC


----------



## Blueboy1 (20 July 2010)

http://www.9types.com/descr/?type=8
The Asserter (the Eight)

Asserters are direct, self-reliant, self-confident, and protective.

How to Get Along with Me

    * Stand up for yourself... and me.
    * Be confident, strong, and direct.
    * Don't gossip about me or betray my trust.
    * Be vulnerable and share your feelings. See and acknowledge my tender, vulnerable side.
    * Give me space to be alone.
    * Acknowledge the contributions I make, but don't flatter me.
    * I often speak in an assertive way. Don't automatically assume it's a personal attack.
    * When I scream, curse, and stomp around, try to remember that's just the way I am.

What I Like About Being a Eight

    * being independent and self-reliant
    * being able to take charge and meet challenges head on
    * being courageous, straightforward, and honest
    * getting all the enjoyment I can out of life
    * supporting, empowering, and protecting those close to me
    * upholding just causes

What's Hard About Being a Eight

    * overwhelming people with my bluntness; scaring them away when I don't intend to
    * being restless and impatient with others' incompetence
    * sticking my neck out for people and receiving no appreciation for it
    * never forgetting injuries or injustices
    * putting too much pressure on myself
    * getting high blood pressure when people don't obey the rules or when things don't go right

Eights as Children Often

    * are independent; have an inner strength and a fighting spirit
    * are sometimes loners
    * seize control so they won't be controlled
    * figure out others' weaknesses
    * attack verbally or physically when provoked
    * take charge in the family because they perceive themselves as the strongest, or grow up in difficult or abusive surroundings

Eights as Parents

    * are often loyal, caring, involved, and devoted
    * are sometimes overprotective
    * can be demanding, controlling, and rigid

Seamisty, there seems to be no mention of red jackets anywhere,do you think they may be missing something?

Cheers,
Blueboy1


----------



## seamisty (20 July 2010)

HMNN, This is off David Burkes AIES website::Type Eight: Lust
Focus of attention: controlling others and their resources through the use of power and aggression; my strengths and my enemies’ weaknesses; right and wrong; injustice; vengeance; controlling others’ behaviour; authoritative; directive; action rather than strategy.

Language: right/wrong; power; strong/weak; justice; remember; control; strengths/weaknesses; my way or the highway; boss; in charge; chain of command; ground zero; rally the troops.

Somatic characteristics: physical characteristics associated with heavy drinking, eating, fighting, working or sex; heavy gait.

http://www.enneagram.com.au/pages/enneagram_passions.htm

The mind boggles Blueboy!!

Seamisty


----------



## Blueboy1 (20 July 2010)

The humour eases the pain!
Blueboy1


----------



## seamisty (20 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> I notice McLean legal pty Ltd is named as legal adviser to WELLINGTON CAPITAL in the WC Target Statement. I see Rachel Weeks is a partner of McLean Legal (. That would be the same  Rachel Claire Weeks, Director of  Queen Street Nominees Pty Ltd, (DLGL Account), a substantial shareholder in G8 Education Limited which I believe is Chris scott's and Jenny Hutson's next empire building exercise.
> Lets not forget David Burke (Jenny's VERY close friend I am told?) in the equation. David burke  established the Brisbane Enneagram project in 1994, in Brisbane, to study personality in the Australian context. He is the founding director of the Australian Institute for Enneagram Studies. (AIES)Mr David Burke, M.Ed, B.Ec, Grad.Dip.R.EFounder of the Australian Enneagram Oral Tradition, David Burke is the leading researcher, teacher and writer of the Enneagram in Australia today. He established the Brisbane Enneagram project in 1994, in Brisbane, to study personality in the Australian context. He is the founding director of the Australian Institute for Enneagram Studies.
> David Burke was invited to join the board of the International Enneagram Association oin 2007.
> Mar 18 2008 saw David Burke elected to the MFS board with Chris Scott.
> ...



 So it appears David Burke will be slumming it here http://www.internationalenneagram.o..._location_and_transportation_information.html next week for the International Enneagram conference where he will be speaking. If you want to attend you can contact Rachel Weeks at rweeks@mcleanlegal.com.au
(Take your credit it card, these not for profit conferences aren't cheap!!)

http://www.enneagram.com/teaching_schedule.html

I assume that would be the same Rachel Weeks who appears to be WC's new legal adviser??? (not to mention recent substantial shareholder at G8 education??)

Be interesting to see if any of David Burkes very close friends/benefactors from Wellington Capital are missing in action from Australia during the conference.

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (21 July 2010)

MFS chief retreats on dates COLIN KRUGER 
July 21, 2010

FORMER MFS chief financial officer David Anderson had to back-pedal yesterday on emphatic denials he backdated documents in early 2008 before the Gold Coast financier's collapse.

Full Article http://www.smh.com.au/business/mfs-chief-retreats-on-dates-20100720-10jld.html


----------



## seamisty (21 July 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/perhaps-swift-was-getting-the-cows-in-20100720-10jhd.html
ESCAPE PLANS

More details have emerged on the nicknames given to various schemes devised by the collapsed Gold Coast financial firm MFS Limited. In his latest appearance at the public examination hosted by the liquidator Bentley's, the former chief financial officer of MFS, David Anderson, was quizzed about ''Project Stove''. Anderson told the examination he did not come up with the name of the project, which had been planned to internalise MFS's $1 billion Premium Income Fund into the group.

But he said the name was inspired by the movie The Great Escape, where a stove was used to hide the entrance of one of three escape tunnels from a German prisoner-of-war camp.

Sadly, like many other business schemes involving MFS, it seems no one thought this particular deal through. The tunnel covered by the stove, in the 1963 film, was the first to be discovered by the Germans. The Great Escape also ultimately failed to live up to its name. Only three of the 76 escapees made it to freedom.


----------



## Duped (21 July 2010)

brisbanebusinessnews.com

http://www.brisbanebusinessnews.com.au/article869/OCTAVIAR%20INVESTORS%20STILL%20UP%20THE%20CREEK.html

"OCTAVIAR INVESTORS STILL UP THE CREEEK
by Matthew Ogg


INVESTORS in Wellington Capital’s Premium  Income Fund are unlikely to receive *any *of the $202 million owed to them  by failed Gold Coast financier MFS, says Wellington managing director  Jenny Hutson (pictured).


 Hutson, whose investment firm bought MFS (now Octaviar) after it went  under in 2008, is disappointed’ by reports yesterday that MFS  overstated its FY07 pre-tax profit by $65 million.

...
 “Their (MFS) pre-tax profit in 2007 included things that weren’t  really profit, but were future transactions that had not yet taken place  – these uncertain transactions were then booked in the account early to  make the company look better,” says Hutson.


 “They did it because they wanted and needed it to raise more capital  and needed the share price to be higher when they were doing that.


 “Wellington took over one of the funds after that collapse in a bid  to save it – now I’ve got 10,000 investors who were attracted by what  they thought was the success of MFS and with these statements *there’s  $202 million that probably won’t* be distributed to us.”
...' [emphasis added]


 I think this quote "there's $202 million that probably won't be distributed to us." gets my vote as the most useless statement of the 21st century.   

We all know that we won't get *all *of it. Which of course is what technically Hutson is quoted as saying.  The word 'any' isn't in the Huston quote.

Confused Matthew Ogg though didn't it.  So how much of that $202 million DOES she think we could get?


----------



## seamisty (21 July 2010)

Duped said:


> brisbanebusinessnews.com
> 
> http://www.brisbanebusinessnews.com.au/article869/OCTAVIAR%20INVESTORS%20STILL%20UP%20THE%20CREEK.html
> 
> ...



Whats an overstated pre tax statement got to do with the fact that PIF was robbed by $147.5 million by previous directors, who were in charge of a company that still owes PIF an additional $50 million from a supposed Support Facility?
'Wellington Capital’s Premium  Income Fund are unlikely to receive *any *of the $202 million owed to them  by failed Gold Coast financier MFS, says Wellington managing director  Jenny Hutson '

 What sort of a brain dead negative statement is that!!!!! What sort of intelligent logic is that? No wonder this fund is going down the gurgler with that callibre of management. So why aren't you out there chasing those responsible to the 'end of the world' Jenny? Are you using this opportunity as some sort of pathetic excuse to divert the blame away from WELLINGTON CAPITAL's lack of expertise and ability to deliver just one prior committment YOU made to those same 10,000 plus investors who were attracted to WC and Jenny Hutson on a ream of advantages that you said you could deliver which would result in a better outcome than liquidation??? Buck passing is not going to work anymore. Wellington Capital bought the PIF did it Jenny? Just how much did WC actually pay for it?  Given up have you? Well by all means feel free to resign. 

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (21 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> Whats an overstated pre tax statement got to do with the fact that PIF was robbed by $147.5 million by previous directors, who were in charge of a company that still owes PIF an additional $50 million from a supposed Support Facility?
> 'Wellington Capital’s Premium  Income Fund are unlikely to receive *any *of the $202 million owed to them  by failed Gold Coast financier MFS, says Wellington managing director  Jenny Hutson '
> 
> What sort of a brain dead negative statement is that!!!!! What sort of intelligent logic is that? No wonder this fund is going down the gurgler with that callibre of management. So why aren't you out there chasing those responsible to the 'end of the world' Jenny? Are you using this opportunity as some sort of pathetic excuse to divert the blame away from WELLINGTON CAPITAL's lack of expertise and ability to deliver just one prior committment YOU made to those same 10,000 plus investors who were attracted to WC and Jenny Hutson on a ream of advantages that you said you could deliver which would result in a better outcome than liquidation??? Buck passing is not going to work anymore. Wellington Capital bought the PIF did it Jenny? Just how much did WC actually pay for it?  Given up have you? Well by all means feel free to resign.
> ...



If the reportor mis interpreted the content supplied by WC a retraction or a correction should be made but in all likelihood won't because its contains more than one error in my opinion and I doubt WC would want all the facts out there!!


Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (21 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> If the reportor mis interpreted the content supplied by WC a retraction or a correction should be made but in all likelihood won't because its contains more than one error in my opinion and I doubt WC would want all the facts out there!!
> 
> 
> Seamisty




I don't understand why JH would say the PIF will likely not get anything; it doesn't make sense. 

If the PIF is an equal creditor with the other unsecured creditors, then the PIF should get an equal share of whatever is left when the liquidation is finalised...assuming there *is* anything left after legal fees etc.

Cookie1


----------



## selciper (21 July 2010)

If Ms Hutson has bad news to deliver, how about telling PIF investors first? Frankly, I am learning to wait patiently for court decisions to be eventually handed down. WC are certainly not reliable prophets.


----------



## Cookie1 (21 July 2010)

selciper said:


> If Ms Hutson has bad news to deliver, how about telling PIF investors first? Frankly, I am learning to wait patiently for court decisions to be eventually handed down. WC are certainly not reliable prophets.




If there is bad news re the PIF, the NSX needs to be informed certainly before the press is told about it! 

Cookie1


----------



## seamisty (21 July 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> If there is bad news re the PIF, the NSX needs to be informed certainly before the press is told about it!
> 
> Cookie1



CookieI think Duped is right and the journalist stuffed up by misconstrung what Hutson said. I think she meant we would not recoup the whole amount owing to us but the whole article is very grey and misleading.
I sent the following to WC but have not received answers to my last 3 or 4 communications. Regardless, they should clarify the article. Seamisty

Dear Ms Hutson and Ms Snow, 

After reading the following media articlehttp://www.brisbanebusinessnews.com.au/article869/OCTAVIAR%20INVESTORS%20STILL%20UP%20THE%20CREEK.html[/URL I would like to ask you if Wellington Capital has information in relation to the proposed outcome of the current Octaviar/Mfs public examinations regarding the distribution of remaining Octaviar Funds to creditors?

If you do have access to this extremely important information and are not pre empting the liquidators decision of the current public examination being conducted by Bentley's liquidators, should it not be disclosed to the NSX?
Potential PIF investors and sellers may be influenced by their investment decisions in relation to this Fund if they were aware that they are unlikely to see any Octaviar funds repatriated back to the PIF.

Also would you please explain what possible relevance/bearing does an overstated MFS pre-tax profit statement have in relation to the $147.5million that was misappropriated from the PIF by MFS which was used for unrelated PIF business and an outstanding $50 million Support facility?


----------



## wally3218 (21 July 2010)

Duped said:


> brisbanebusinessnews.com
> 
> INVESTORS in Wellington Capital’s Premium  Income Fund are unlikely to receive *any *of the $202 million owed to them  by failed Gold Coast financier MFS, says Wellington managing director  Jenny Hutson (pictured).




Well thats my Christmas in July present, I do hope JH sends me a signed photo for Christmas in December then I can throw darts at that and all the other rubbish she sends out.


----------



## seamisty (21 July 2010)

This article is worth a read::http://www.smh.com.au/business/mult...estors-after-class-action-20100721-10kyn.html

''It represents a great outcome for investors generally because it sends a message to corporate boardrooms throughout the country that people who do not comply with their continuous disclosure obligations will pay, and they'll pay big time,'' he told reporters.

Mr Watson said the settlement also represented a victory because the compensation achieved was 20 times greater than what participants in the class action would have obtained had they accepted a settlement offer made by Multiplex under an Australian and Securities Investment Commission (ASIC) enforceable undertaking in 2007.
Mr Watson said the case established three important principles - that class actions work, litigation funding provides access to justice, and the ASIC settlement was inadequate.


----------



## seamisty (22 July 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mfs-assured-it-was-solvent-before-collapse-20100721-10l8x.html

MFS assured it was solvent before collapse


----------



## seamisty (22 July 2010)

Tinkler buys part of King polo field
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  July 22nd, 2010

NATHAN Tinkler has bought a major slice of Michael King's lush polo property Elysian Fields as the media-shy mining magnate continues to beef up his horseracing operations in the Gold Coast Hinterland.

The purchase comes a month after Mr Tinkler's Patinack Farm bought the adjacent Wadham Park, the thoroughbred racing complex that has battled to find a buyer for the past three years.

The deal for the 57ha Elysian Fields site, representing more than a third of Mr King's polo complex, remains under wraps and has yet to settle.

 Full story::http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/07/22/240891_gold-coast-business.html


----------



## selciper (22 July 2010)

A suitable slogan for those in charge? 

"Three in one - Credibility, Certainty, Courtesy."


----------



## Duped (22 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/business/mfs-assured-it-was-solvent-before-collapse-20100721-10l8x.html
> 
> MFS assured it was solvent before collapse




"...
Gavin Thompson, SC, then continued the examination on behalf of  Octaviar Investment Noteholders and Octaviar Investment Bondholders, who  are represented by the Public Trustee of Queensland.

One focus of his inquiry was *a letter presented to the  MFS board by the law firm Freehills on March 16, 2008, which said there  was ''reasonable grounds'' to believe a crucial standstill agreement  could be reached with its five main creditors*. ...

The corporate regulator considers this debt payment test an important indicator of solvency.

             The court heard the letter said MFS management and Korda  Mentha's 333 Capital *considered there to be ''reasonable grounds'' that  five large creditors of MFS would agree to the proposed standstill.*

             The court was told that Korda Mentha was appointed on  January 18 to address solvency issues and that the board had charged  them with dealing with the five creditors on the standstill agreement."

This is Children's Drama isn't? You know, where the looming clash or disaster is made so obvious that children can shout out: watch out Mr ..." We can see where this is going can't we?  

Watch out Mr Anderson!!!! You'll fall on your backside when Korda Mentha pull away that chair you believe is still behind you!!! (All Korda Mentha need to do is say their advice wass based on the information provided to them.  You know, and that info didn't include the PIF shennigans.) 

Unless of course Korda Mentha knew about the alleged back dated documents.   Or worse, instructed their creation.  

Could PIF be Korda Mentha's undoing? There's well over $100m in the OCV kitty to go to court to find out. My vote: fight fiight fight fight. GO PTQ.  GO YOU GOOD THING.


----------



## seamisty (22 July 2010)

'The court was told that Korda Mentha was appointed on January 18 to address solvency issues and that the board had charged them with dealing with the five creditors on the standstill agreement'

The moment of truth Duped!!(hopefully) Mike Korda then met with Chris Scott and his advisor Jenny Hutson eight days later. A magic wand is waved, VOILA!! Chris Scott is subsequently appointed to the board and his 'advisor' Jenny Hutson is handed the PIF on a plate to save it from imminent collapse along with several millions of $$ for immediate operating expenses. 

(once pristine white undies could well now be looking a tad stained)Seamisty

http://archive.traveldaily.com.au/2008/Feb08/td150208.pdf

Fri 15 Feb 08 Page 2

Stella sale to be stymied

UNCERTAINTY about the future

of Stella Travel looks set to

continue, with action by former

S8 chief Chris Scott to throw a

spanner in the works of the

planned sale of the company.

Scott, who sold S8 to MFS for a

personal stake worth about

$300m in MFS shares, has seen his

wealth shattered by the

plummeting MFS financial position.

He’s claiming the sale of Stella

is the ‘scandal of the year’, with

the Financial Review saying he

plans to call an Extraordinary

General Meeting of MFS next

month to put a stop to the deal.

“Jenny Hutson is acting as my

adviser,” he said, claiming to

have identified individuals and

institutions who together control

52% of the company to back the

move to block the sale.

Scott says that on 26 Jan he

held talks with insolvency expert

Mark Korda and MFS ceo Craig

White about rising capital to save

the firm, and “the next thing we

know they have sold Stella.

“We are hopping mad about

this,” he said.


----------



## selciper (22 July 2010)

Agree with you Duped. I think that we are at last approaching a period of very interesting statements being made by various parties. If only these could lead to our receiving some money back!


----------



## Michael Pakula (22 July 2010)

Hi Unitholders and other interested parties.My name is Michael Pakula and I am the Chairman of ALF PIF Finance Limited.
I feel that it is time for those interested parties to hear from someone who is actually involved in the bid, rather than rely on speculation and innuendo.
We are very committed to making both the bid work and the investment work.
As a sign of that commitment and what we feel is the need for some clarity and certainty for unitholders, we have released the below media announcement, which we hope is self explanatory.
My contact details are below and I am making myself available to answer questions and hopefully tell you we are real people with a real intention. 

You can also see a 'pretty version' of the announcement on our website alfpif.com.au

MEDIA RELEASE 

20th July 2010 

Re: ALF PIF FINANCE LIMITED’s Takeover for all the Units in the Premium 
Income Fund dated 8th July 2010 (the offer). 

ALF’s Intention to Distribute all Net Funds Received From $38M Wollongong Sale 

ALF PIF Finance Limited (ALF) refers to the announcement of Wellington Capital 
Limited on 18th November 2009 in relation to the sale of the property at 60 -62 Harbour Street, Wollongong (“the Wollongong property”) for $38million. 

Furthermore, ALF refers to the announcement of Wellington Capital on 18th May 2010,which refers to the completion of the Icon Port project in Port Macquarie. (“the Port Macquarie property”). 

ALF wishes to provide certainty to current Premium Income Fund (PIF) Unitholders regarding the use of the net funds received from the sale of PIF’s interest in the Wollongong Property and the Port Macquarie Property (“the properties”). 

ALF is pleased to announce that if it achieves compulsory acquisition pursuant to the Corporations Act (Cth) 2001 and accordingly can access the proceeds of sale of the properties, and subject to the sale of properties completing, then ALF WILL distribute the entire net proceeds of the sale of the properties to Unitholders, by way of redemption of the redeemable preference shares issued pursuant to the offer.  

This redemption will provide Unitholders with at least 50 cents per redeemable preference share, which equates to at least 5 cents per existing PIF unit. 

Mr Michael Pakula, Chairman of ALF, commented as follows:  

“The clear and stated intention of ALF is to redeem the preference shares issued pursuant to the offer as soon as possible. To this effect ALF will pay out the entire net proceeds of the sale of the properties, if the sales of the properties complete and compulsory acquisition occurs. 
This decision by the Board of ALF is consistent with ALF’s desire to pay out the Unitholders $0.15 per existing PIF unit (by way of redemption) as soon as possible without holding back funds from Unitholders.  
Unitholders should support the offer and return their acceptance forms without delay”. 

For more information Contact: 

ALF OFFER INFORMATION LINE:  1300 660 106 

Mr Michael Pakula (Chairman) : 0425-284-546  or 
email:michael@alfpif.com.au


----------



## seamisty (22 July 2010)

Well Mr Pakula, that announcement should put the cat amongst the pigeons. I bet now the next PIF investor update will be on time when it is due for a change. I was predicting it would contain some reference to the nearly 2 years behind scheduled 3 cent PIF promised distribution being payable sometime after the ALF PIF bidders statement acceptance due date had expired, hoping to keep PIF investors in the WELLINGTON CAPITAL stable which contains a near empty trough and a extremely large pile of horse/cow ****!!!

Interesting but unfortunately costly times for PIF investors.

Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (22 July 2010)

"ALF is pleased to announce that if it achieves compulsory acquisition pursuant to the Corporations Act (Cth) 2001 and accordingly can access the proceeds of sale of the properties, and subject to the sale of properties completing, then ALF WILL distribute the entire net proceeds of the sale of the properties to Unitholders, by way of redemption of the redeemable preference shares issued pursuant to the offer. 

This redemption will provide Unitholders with at least 50 cents per redeemable preference share, which equates to at least 5 cents per existing PIF unit. "

Doesn't that mean that they are offering us our own money for something that is currently worthless?

I didn't realise that "Hey Hey it's Saturday" was on two nights running!


----------



## seamisty (22 July 2010)

JohnH said:


> "ALF is pleased to announce that if it achieves compulsory acquisition pursuant to the Corporations Act (Cth) 2001 and accordingly can access the proceeds of sale of the properties, and subject to the sale of properties completing, then ALF WILL distribute the entire net proceeds of the sale of the properties to Unitholders, by way of redemption of the redeemable preference shares issued pursuant to the offer.
> 
> This redemption will provide Unitholders with at least 50 cents per redeemable preference share, which equates to at least 5 cents per existing PIF unit. "
> 
> ...



Does this demonstarte JohnH that ALF PIF is cash strapped?? Offering us our own money to take control of our own assets? I would think that if ALF PIF was any sort of a going concern with money behind them that they would be buying anything under 15 cents on offer on the NSX?

Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (22 July 2010)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722990.PDF

They now have 0.16% of the units Seamisty!!!  They probably have got that from their offer as it would have cost them at least $80k if they had been buying on the NSX - and that's a lot of pairs of french knickers!!!


----------



## seamisty (22 July 2010)

JohnH said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722990.PDF
> 
> They now have 0.16% of the units Seamisty!!!



Chickenfeed JohnH and would be an interesting hypothetical scenario if ALF PIF aquire a few million PIF units and some other possible suitor comes on the scene with a better offer, what will ALF PIF do vote wise? Will they renege on those who take up the offer and bow out or still hold an interest in the PIF?

Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (22 July 2010)

It seems that the 2nd wave of invaders has infiltrated; first it was Big Jim who has either gone to ground or been banned and now it's his offsider!

How gullible do they think we are? We've already been sucked in twice (once by MFS and once by WC) ...but no more! I'll await outcomes of the court actions, thank you very much.

Cookie1


----------



## Cookie1 (22 July 2010)

The prices on the Icon Apartments in Port Macquarie were $650,000 to $1.2 million originally. For the last few weeks prices have been advertised from $595,000 to $1.2 million, a reduction of $55,000 on the lower end (which would be the 2 x townhouses).  Obviously the penthouses at $1.2m haven't been reduced; perhaps I'll go along to the Open for Inspection on Saturday and check on progress of sales.

It would be nice to know what kind of a deal JH did with the contractor that finished the development....


----------



## seamisty (22 July 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> It seems that the 2nd wave of invaders has infiltrated; first it was Big Jim who has either gone to ground or been banned and now it's his offsider!
> 
> How gullible do they think we are? We've already been sucked in twice (once by MFS and once by WC) ...but no more! I'll await outcomes of the court actions, thank you very much.
> 
> Cookie1



 Unfortunately Cookie its not the reformed gullible being targeted here, its the vunerable who are so totally demoralised and financially crippled that they simply cannot survive any longer on the empty promises from Jenny Hutson and Wellington Capital. They are looking at the 0.067 offered on the NSX we had to have, thanks to Jenny Hutson and her wisdom of offering this only exit strategy since her promised  buy back scheme of 45 cents was another crock of **** as opposed to a possible 15 cents per unit from ALF PIF. 31 pages from Wellington Capital target statement saying litttle apart from REJECT REJECT REJECT with no apparent reason as to why WC was a better alternative just proves who the real idiots are, so WC staff, if the discoloured undies are in your size, us gullibles will probablly have enough intellect to match them to a holes that they fit!!.

Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (23 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> Chickenfeed JohnH and would be an interesting hypothetical scenario if ALF PIF aquire a few million PIF units and some other possible suitor comes on the scene with a better offer, what will ALF PIF do vote wise? Will they renege on those who take up the offer and bow out or still hold an interest in the PIF?
> 
> Seamisty




That was my point Seamisty...........  we have members of this group who have individual holdings twice the size of Alfie's achievement!!


----------



## seamisty (23 July 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mfs-adviser-had-benefit-of-inside-knowledge-20100722-10n2x.html
MFS adviser had benefit of inside knowledge


----------



## selciper (23 July 2010)

Today's SMH headline "MFS adviser had benefit of inside knowledge" is certainly a sign that many questions we have been asking for ages will soon be heard on a public scale.


----------



## Duped (23 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/business/mfs-adviser-had-benefit-of-inside-knowledge-20100722-10n2x.html
> MFS adviser had benefit of inside knowledge




From that article:" ... Mr Thompson said Ms Hutson also knew that Mallesons were insisting upon a change of responsible entity of PIF and were threatening to appoint a receiver if that did not occur. He asked Mr Anderson if Wellington Capital's move would have been informed by that.''Yes, I'm sure she had the benefit of that knowledge,'' Mr Anderson said."

Well I wonder if the integrity sensitive ASIC will now turn up on the scene of the WC acquisition of PIF and that EGM hustle in 2008.

Using last time as a bench mark it'll be early next year. I.e. ASIC moved in late October 2009 despite the Class Action being filed in May 09 and McMurdo's decision of 31Jul09 at [141] noting "In particular there is the case pleaded by Wellington Investment Management Ltd (“WIM”) arising out of what it says was the misappropriation of funds of $130 million in November 2007."

ASIC hasn't moved on the WC acquisition of PIF despite McMurdo noting in that same decision at [152] "At present the argument goes no higher than a suggestion that a liquidator would wish to investigate such a case. I accept that a liquidator would wish to do so. On the present evidence the merits of that case cannot be reliably assessed."

I'm beginning to seriously ask myself the question about Wellington Capital: Front or Flop?

This Jones Lang Lasalle listing is still all I have been able to find re the marketing of the Kooralbyn Resort which I understand owes us $40m. Anyone else find anything yet?

http://www.latestproperty.com.au/magazine/Hotels-and-Leisure/search/true/archived/1/section/For%20Sale/page/5/id/107/

I mean really, is that the best you can do Jones Lang Lasalle? Are you satisfied with this WC? You did state on 11 December 2008 "Marketing campaign commenced with 3 agents". Is this what you call a 'campaign'.

YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THE BUILDING in the photos. Why?

  Then there's this http://rammedearth.davis.net.au/kooralbyn.htm. Seems someone else thinks Kooralbyn's merits have been played down.

and don't forget this in the Courier Mail

http://www.couriermail.com.au/prope...sort-left-to-rot/story-e6frequ6-1225866307228

  I can’t even find the Kooralbyn resort through JLL’s own website.  WC told us on 30April 2009 that “[FONT=&quot]A sales campaign commenced on 4 April 2009 and has seen 11 of the security properties in the Fund’s possession taken to market by nationally recognised agents Jones Lang LaSalle, Ray White, and Colliers International.[/FONT]” 

  I can’t find Kooralbyn through either Ray White or Colliers International’s websites either. Has WC given up trying to sell Kooralbyn?  Why?  Ray White even say they have the adjoining property listed,  all 1000+ hectares of it.

As for the Main Beach Parade property 'Midwaters'. THERE WASN'T EVEN A FOR SALE SIGN ON SITE 6 weeks ago. Isn't that odd?


----------



## seamisty (23 July 2010)

selciper said:


> Today's SMH headline "MFS adviser had benefit of inside knowledge" is certainly a sign that many questions we have been asking for ages will soon be heard on a public scale.



What happened to the supposedly 25 other interested parties who got nowhere close to doing due dilligence? Not forgetting some of those intereted parties were dealing with MS Hutson in her capacity as advisor to Chris Scott. Ms Hutson could well find herself in a spot of bother here!!.

Remember this article::

http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/05/19/plus-ca-change-conflicts-continue-at-octaviar/
Hutson also told the AFR that “no one got anywhere near doing due diligence [and that] the majority of the [Octaviar] board at the time this decision was made has the benefit of considering each of the alternatives that were put forward.” The fact that no other parties completed due diligence doesn’t exactly shore up the governance aspect. Octaviar shareholders may legitimately question why no other parties conducted due diligence: Was it because Octaviar’s fund managements business is such a mess that no one else would touch it, or did no one else get a look in?

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (23 July 2010)

'Front or Flop?' Or both Duped? Front for the enneagram? Is that why 
KOORALBYN ASSET MANAGEMENT PTY LTD was formed by David Burke and our external compliance officer Phillip Wibaux? Is Kooralbyn earmarked for another enneagram retreat? Is a previous closely connected enneagram benefactor deliberately letting Kooralbyn Resort be run down, barely advertise it so it creates little interest then Kooralbyn Asset management aquire it from the PIF for a pittance? 

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (23 July 2010)

I wonder what todays public examination outcome was with PTQ and David Anderson? Examinations will resume on the 3rd of August and continue through until October with the focus on Barry Cronin,Guy Hutchings, Nigel Fitzgerald,Greg White, Michael King, Rolf Klecklenburg and Paul Manka. 
 Depending on the outcomes from the hearings there will be approx an extra 10-15 people called to be examined in Dec.

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (23 July 2010)

Seamisty, It will be interesting to see who will be among those called to the hearing in December. 

YouTube has videos about enneagram - the philosophical group being discussed.
(We are told in one that the shown esoteric circle represents zero. I guess PIF investors know a good deal about zeros.)


----------



## seamisty (23 July 2010)

selciper said:


> Seamisty, It will be interesting to see who will be among those called to the hearing in December.
> 
> YouTube has videos about enneagram - the philosophical group being discussed.
> (We are told in one that the shown esoteric circle represents zero. I guess PIF investors know a good deal about zeros.)



I have researched the whole enneagram crap until the cows come home selciper. It's a crock of **** and in my opinion has alarming  parallels with scientology. Sure didn't do WELLINGTON CAPITAL much good with all that personality profiling expertise on tap, especially with so many staff connected to same. Not exactly a success story in this instance, is that why the connection has been so cleverly concealed? I have been told previously that JH does not respond to negative publicity. Well not much positive to brag about these days either, in fact one wonders just how successful the new empire, G8 education will fare once all the MFS/OCV/wc/PIF details are in the public arena. As Duped indicated previously, bring it on PTQ!! Maybe I can provide them with some extra ammo/info?

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (24 July 2010)

It’s fair to say that disciples of cults or certain philosophical systems are unfortunately disposed to seeing themselves in a superior light compared to (ignorant) non- adherents. As a rule, if things go wrong, they consider it the fault of others and not of anybody within their trusted circle.


----------



## seamisty (24 July 2010)

selciper said:


> It’s fair to say that disciples of cults or certain philosophical systems are unfortunately disposed to seeing themselves in a superior light compared to (ignorant) non- adherents. As a rule, if things go wrong, they consider it the fault of others and not of anybody within their trusted circle.



selciper I wonder if we were the only ones who were previously oblivious to the Wellington Capital/Jenny Hutson/David Burke /enneagram connection? Lets not forget that David Burke (very close friend of jenny hutson, Wellington Capital) was also part of the Octaviar board coup along with Chris Scott and Craig Chapman. Everyone was focussed on the Chris Scott/JH connection. All part of the plan maybe???Were we part of of a cleverly pre arranged Snow job?? Certainly looking that way. 



Wellington Capital's managing director, Jenny Hutson, who joined the Octaviar board last week as part of Mr Scott's coup, said she expected the final purchase price - judging by the current performance of the business - to be "north of $20 million".http://www.smh.com.au/business/scot...ith-new-chief-and-new-deal-20080508-2cb7.html

I imagine the PTQ are very interested in the reference by Deloittes to possible preference payments made by Octaviar and what exactly north (or south ) of $20million WC did or did not pay for 'saving the PIF from imminent liquidation'!!!
I notice there was nothing reported in the media on yesterdays PTQ findings.

Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (25 July 2010)

I went along to the Icon Apartments Open for Inspection in Port Macquarie on Saturday to see how sales are progressing. (This time I could use the lift whereas in past visits I had to climb the stairs.) There are 24 apartments and 2 x townhouses in the complex. Ten apartments & 1 x townhouse have been sold and the other townhouse is under contract.  Included in that 11 x apartments/townhouse sold is one of the penthouses that the developer "bought" for himself which would have been at a verrrrrrryyyyyyy good price, I would think. 

Still to be sold is 1 x terrace apt @ $595,000; 1 x apt @ $695,000; 2 x apts @ $725,000; 5 x apts @ $825,000; and 5 x penthouses @ $1.2M. The 14 still to be sold plus the townhouse under contract total $13,265,000 (asking price).

The apartments sold (assuming sold for asking price, which isn't realistic) is a total of $7,790,000. (I have no idea what kind of prices they are actually getting for those sold.) 

I wonder what kind of deal JHutson did with the developer? Does any money come in to the fund as apartments are sold...or when *all* are sold as with the Wollongong Hotel? We'll probably never know.... Of course, ALF PIF is promising to use the proceeds from the Wollongong Hotel and the Icon Apartments to pay towards the preference shares unit holder receive when they get sucked in by  ALF PIF. It could be a very long time before proceeds from those sales come in and some waiting to get their 15 cents per preference share may not live long enough to receive their money...a tragic situation.

Cookie1


----------



## seamisty (25 July 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> I went along to the Icon Apartments Open for Inspection in Port Macquarie on Saturday to see how sales are progressing. (This time I could use the lift whereas in past visits I had to climb the stairs.) There are 24 apartments and 2 x townhouses in the complex. Ten apartments & 1 x townhouse have been sold and the other townhouse is under contract.  Included in that 11 x apartments/townhouse sold is one of the penthouses that the developer "bought" for himself which would have been at a verrrrrrryyyyyyy good price, I would think.
> 
> Still to be sold is 1 x terrace apt @ $595,000; 1 x apt @ $695,000; 2 x apts @ $725,000; 5 x apts @ $825,000; and 5 x penthouses @ $1.2M. The 14 still to be sold plus the townhouse under contract total $13,265,000 (asking price).
> 
> ...



Thanks Cookie. The business expertise/performance demonstrated to date from Wellington Capital (ie what was promised and never delivered) could well mean that even if there has been income from Icon sales filtering into the PIF it has probablly been used to prop up the remaining assets and of course cover Wellington Capital operating expenses. 

One such resort property, I believe which previously was operating at a profit prior to WC taking charge and is due for mediation with WC has gone so far backwards under WC it is now costing us money to keep it operating as a going concern!! Any wonder when even the same resorts  luxury courtesy vehicle is removed by David Burke under instruction from WC and relocated to Qld and as I understand, the PIF is footing the bill for related expenses. Not to mention that staff from the same resort, greens keepers, were asked to go and fix 'skylights' at another Vic property!!!! (Does the PIF have any other assets in Vic??) This is from the same property David Burke (PIF) flew trades people to Victoria from Qld  to complete work AND delivered them on site in a LIMOSINE!!(I understand he was also distributing printed  'enneagram' related material' at the same resort!!! ( I wonder if Print Mail Logistics are provide the printing service??)Apart from being a very close friend of Jenny Hutson  I still do not know exactly in what capacity David Burke is involved officially in OUR Fund?? I do however believe that WC is a 'generous benefactor' to David Burke's enneagram group/factor. 

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (26 July 2010)

A bit more reading for those following 'THE ENNEAGRAM FACTOR' :band

http://www.enneagram.com.au/newsletter/Insight0207v4.pdf
(editor Rachel Weeks)

Of particular interest is that cute little church at Andelaine (David Burkes enneagram retreat) on page 1. Also the close associations of our external compliance officer Phillip Wibaux, Rachel Weeks (previously at McCullough Robertsons) who appears to be our new legal advisor and a substantial shareholder in G8 education and David Burke. Rachel Weeks is also the 2010 international enneagram conference chair where David Burke will be speaking and has co written/recorded enneagram related articles/cd's etc with David Burke(eg Transforming Organizations Using the Enneagram: A Law Firm Case Study). Rachel weeks also co wrote ‘Listed property trusts and management
entrenchment: is takeover regulation
alone the answer?’ Australian Journal of
Corporate Law, LexisNexisButterworths,
Sydney, 16:1, 1-37, 2003 with Jenny Hutson (and Paul von Nesson)

All very cosy.

Seamisty


----------



## Duped (26 July 2010)

Wasn't there another post from Michael Pakula? Where did it go? Or am I dreaming? 

I recall the post mentioned something about PIF being a mortgage fund and not a property fund.  My response: we know.  But for many many compaines most of the value of their assets are the contracts they hold. (Like Banks.  Brand gets clients in the door.  Contracts keep the money flowing in.  Most real estate property isn't freehold anyway. The land most people think they own is really just a lease  between themselves and the crown or the state legislature. (I.e. a contract.  That people 'trust' will be renewed. If not then how are you going to take that brick veneer home with you.) And even freehold is subject to compulsory acquisition isn't it? It's use is certainly restricted by Council zoning laws, thereby reducing its value. Am I wrong?) 

Anyway, if the borrowers could have got out of the contracts with PIF so easily, wouldn't they have done so by now? Courts respect contracts. So the powers within those contracts are not easy to lose. Look at what's happening with the PTQ v Fortress stoush that's now in the High Court.  IMLO the Court Of Appeal gave the contract (Fortress' registered security) preference over the legislative intent.

As for due diligence of PIF's contracts? I.e. what are the strengths and weaknesses of the PIF's contracts? Well, that's the next question.

I also recalled the post mentioned it being unlikely a white knight will turn up with a bagful of cash.  I don't know about anyone else here but I never expected any such thing.  But lets get things straight.

WE, the PIF investors, put our bagfuls of cash into the pot, i.e. at risk.  

But WC and ALF have put NO, ZERO, ZIP, NADA, NICHTS, NYET of their own cash in the pot.

Not even, say, 5% of the value of the fund. Not even 1% (i.e. $2.64m)

Well, at least ALF is chucking in $1600.  What did WC stump up? From memory WC didn't need to put its hand in its own pocket at all because MFS/OCV under Scott chucked a fat wad of cash WC's way.  And the PTQ isn't too happy about that transaction.

I'm not expecting bagfuls of cash.  But ZERO cash. 

Well, that's something different entirely.

And we're supposed to be grateful about a 3c or 5c per unit return of OUR OWN cash.

Please. Lets keep it real.  Are we going to do some business or what?  Where's the cash for finishing/managing these 'assets' going to come from. Share dilution? Bank loans? Or will ALF do what WC did and borrow from secret lenders at 20%/25% rates?  I don't recall seeing anything in the bid document about this.  Anyone?  Has a bank underwritten the offer? Has any one?
*
SHOW ME THE MONEY*


----------



## Duped (26 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> ... in my opinion has alarming  parallels with scientology. ...  I have been told previously that JH does not respond to negative publicity.




Yep. Attack the attacker. Typical behaviour from aggressive expansionist 'faiths'.  

I will NEVER forget Nick Xenophon's courage last year when he called Scientology into question. All such upstanding independents will get my senate vote in three weeks.


----------



## selciper (26 July 2010)

Another day. Nothing ever seems to get better where the PIF is concerned. My feeling is that nothing can change unless the small PIF board has to front up to some very tough questions at an EGM. The small bunker-minded board have been allowed to remain remote from investors for far too long. The board must appear in an auditorium asap. But beware! The chosen EGM venue could be a remote, refurbished Gothic Church...


----------



## seamisty (26 July 2010)

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
LAW LIST

Tuesday 27 July 2010 


APPLICATIONS TO COURT 

10:0AM– The list of applications will be called over in COURT 5 FLOOR 1 for allocation to a Judge and an order of hearing will be indicated for contested matters. Practitioners should be prepared to deal with adjournment and consent orders immediately before the callover of contested matters.


OPI PACIFIC FINANCE LIMITED -V- WELLINGTON CAPITAL LIMITED

  10:00 AM   

It's actually listed twice. seamisty


----------



## seamisty (26 July 2010)

Its actually got me stuffed how these not for profit enneagramians can be so involved in so many different enterprises and operate efficiently or are they simply tentacles from the same core body?


 About us
Ingenius Communications Pty Ltd is a management consultancy firm specialising in individual and organisational development.

Based in Brisbane, Ingenius provides leading edge analysis, advice and intervention for individual and organisational transformation.

Specialising in the clinical assessment of Personality Type, our consultants use this key piece of information to inform tailored human resource interventions and business strategies that will transform individuals, teams, businesses and large organisations alike.

Our insights and advice are based on propriety research and development tools that have been developed, tested and successfully applied by our expert consultants for over two decades.



Ingenius Communications

• Clinically assesses Personality Type

• Measures individual and group performance

• Conducts tailored cultural reviews for teams and organisations

• Provides recruitment, retention and restructuring advice

• Devises and manages organisational change strategies

• Conducts team building, self awareness and communications workshops

• Develops political and media strategies

• Coaches staff in personal and professional development

• Provides counselling services

• Provides executive coaching, advice and support

• Provides conflict management and mediation services



Ingenius Communications has 20 years experience in working with

individuals, teams and businesses of all sizes, including Australia’s leading

ASX 200, legal, banking and government organisations.

About us
Ingenius Communications Pty Ltd is a management consultancy firm specialising in individual and organisational development.

Based in Brisbane, Ingenius provides leading edge analysis, advice and intervention for individual and organisational transformation.

Specialising in the clinical assessment of Personality Type, our consultants use this key piece of information to inform tailored human resource interventions and business strategies that will transform individuals, teams, businesses and large organisations alike.

Our insights and advice are based on propriety research and development tools that have been developed, tested and successfully applied by our expert consultants for over two decades.



Ingenius Communications

• Clinically assesses Personality Type

• Measures individual and group performance

• Conducts tailored cultural reviews for teams and organisations

• Provides recruitment, retention and restructuring advice

• Devises and manages organisational change strategies

• Conducts team building, self awareness and communications workshops

• Develops political and media strategies

• Coaches staff in personal and professional development

• Provides counselling services

• Provides executive coaching, advice and support

• Provides conflict management and mediation services



Ingenius Communications has 20 years experience in working with

individuals, teams and businesses of all sizes, including Australia’s leading

ASX 200, legal, banking and government organisations.

http://t16.twg.com.au/index.php?page=testimonials

Our Team
David Burke M.Ed., B. Econ.
David Burke is the founder and Executive Director of Ingenius Communications Pty Ltd and has changed the way personality analysis is used to drive performance, retention and team building in Australian business.
Over the last twenty years, David has supervised and led a number of large-scale, high-level cultural reviews of significant commercial operations, resulting in the production of substantial reports with wide-ranging human resource and organisational development interventions.
David is a well-respected international expert on the Enneagram personality system and lectures on the topic throughout Australia, the USA and Europe. He has written two books, An Introduction to the Enneagram and Transforming Organisations.

Katrina Stevens M.Ed., Dip Fin. Planning.
Katrina Stevens brings to Ingenius Communications two decades of leading edge research about personality type and its impact on individual performance and in organisations. Katrina lectures on the Enneagram personality system throughout Australia and internationally and is the Director Studies at the Australian Institute for Enneagram Studies where she supervises its teacher training program.

Her focus upon individual coaching and executive support has its foundation in extensive experience in finance, education and training.

Jane Buxton B. Psych.
Jane Buxton is a Communications Consultant with Ingenius Communications Pty Ltd. She is a coach and facilitator to organisations and businesses throughout Australia. She also works with teams in strategic and human resource planning.
Jane has a Bachelor Degree in Psychology and certifications in Coaching, Neuro-Linguistic Programming and Eriksonian Hypnosis. She is accredited with the International Enneagram Association as an Enneagram teacher and is a member of the faculty of the Australian Institute for Enneagram Studies.


A few names easily recognisable there?

All connected to WC???

Do these people actully have time to work at WC?  selciper, hopefully some one will appoint a forensic accountant at some point in time. (maybe the PTQ? ASIC? well I am sure someone will eventually!!)
Also the ph no is relevant::0732187304

For all of those who have contacted me who feel out of your depth commenting on the jenneagram oops, I mean enneagram connection, thanks for your off forum support. I will be posting more regarding jennerous, oops, generous enneagram jennefactors, sorry, benefactors. Well, seems my keyboard is on auto pilot and has a will of its own!! More to come!! (don't give up and any further info greatly appreciated!!)

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (26 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> Its actually got me stuffed how these not for profit enneagramians can be so involved in so many different enterprises and operate efficiently or are they simply tentacles from the same core body?
> 
> 
> About us
> ...



 I forgot to add that with connections like that, (is there any connection to the WC staff 'bonding sessions'? Tax deductions?) how come Wellington Capital's performance is so pathetically inadequate?? Hardly a recommendation, the opposite I am sure?

Stay tuned, Seamisty


----------



## Duped (27 July 2010)

From Wikipedia:

"Gurdjieff claimed that people cannot perceive reality in their current state because they do not possess consciousness but rather live in a state of a hypnotic "*waking sleep*"." - Waking sleep eh! Pretty accurate description of PIF under WC 

"A primary criticism of Gurdjieff's work points out that it attaches no value to almost everything that comprises the life of an average man." - Ahhhh. So that explains why our share price is where it is  Seriously though, wouldn't this then automatically disqualify any followers of Gurdijeff from acting in our interests? I.e. we investors are 'average man'. So how could you be a follower if you're acting in the interests of an average man?

"Gurdjieff has been interpreted by some, Ouspensky among others, to have had a *total disregard for* the value of mainstream religion, philanthropic work and *the value of doing right or wrong in general*." - Again, automatic disqualification?


----------



## seamisty (27 July 2010)

For those interested the following article titled 'THE ENNEAGRAM A WARNING' is worth a read.http://www.catholicassociates.com/Enneagram warning.pdf


----------



## simgrund (27 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> For those interested the following article titled 'THE ENNEAGRAM A WARNING' is worth a read.http://www.catholicassociates.com/Enneagram warning.pdf




And to counter all these grimmologies; next Wednesday Carneys are filing amended Satement of Claim.
I was reassured on the phone today that the case is "very strong". So keep up the spirits!
Regards,


----------



## pixierich (27 July 2010)

Thanks, Seamisty and other regulars for your dedicated research.

SO, the Enneagram cult appears to be deeply involved in our crumbling PIF, no doubt with their own best interests at heart.
In Seamisty's posting "The Enneagram - a Warning", the following seems very significant: " It is claimed that the Enneagram gives a new understanding of one's self and one's relationship with others - all on the basis of feelings and emotions - whilst avoiding the examination of conscience and any acknowledgement of sin or personal guilt."

Who do we know who appears to adopt these "teachings"???

One imagines a typical conversation:

"C'mon, Enneagrammers, gather round. It's feeding time."
"Er - what about the ten thousand?"
"The who?"
"You know. The investors."
"Oh, them. Don't worry about them. I've got a special relationship with them!"

Or maybe:

"How do you plead?"
"Not guilty m'lud. I've committed no sin, and as far as I know my conscience is clear."

A matter of some concern, I feel. Regards to all.


----------



## flatback (27 July 2010)

simgrund said:


> And to counter all these grimmologies; next Wednesday Carneys are filing amended Satement of Claim.
> I was reassured on the phone today that the case is "very strong". So keep up the spirits!
> Regards,



It appears as though this very fuzzy science(Enneagramm) has got a real hold on the thoughts of many in our group at the moment,quite unnecessarily i feel, from what i can gather this group will really have no bearing upon the outcome of our case against these criminals,we must put our faith with Carneys and trust that we will survive with a few bob in our pockets at the end of all of this.


----------



## seamisty (27 July 2010)

flatback said:


> It appears as though this very fuzzy science(Enneagramm) has got a real hold on the thoughts of many in our group at the moment,quite unnecessarily i feel, from what i can gather this group will really have no bearing upon the outcome of our case against these criminals,we must put our faith with Carneys and trust that we will survive with a few bob in our pockets at the end of all of this.



 Fair comment flatback but I have been personally misled by many Wellington Capital staff on numerous occassions previously so I am ensuring I am as fully informed as is absolutely possible in that I know exactly just who is in control of our fund, what type of people are involved and their accompanying backgrounds and qualifications. Especially in view of the fact that we have been seriously duped by these people with possible future costly legal ramifications as a result of current management. Also as in the case of previous MFS/OCV staff I am sure there will be thousands of PIF investors who will NEVER EVER touch a business or company that has any future association/connection with people involved in our current situation. From past personal experience I have found that people who have more regard for their own image and ego than they have for transparency and truth are VERY dangerous indeed!

I am sure everyone is fully focussed on the pending legal outcomes, meanwhile researching all things PIF related is making interesting reading and I wish I had been far more aware of WC past/present associations prior to being sucked in by WC.

Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (27 July 2010)

I see that Alfie has picked up another 60,311 units!
......... the sad thing is that that is $60,311 of somebody's savings that (at Best) they *might* get $3000 or so dollars for!!


----------



## seamisty (27 July 2010)

JohnH said:


> I see that Alfie has picked up another 60,311 units!
> ......... the sad thing is that that is $60,311 of somebody's savings that (at Best) they *might* get $3000 or so dollars for!!



I wonder if traders are buying on market/NSX at less than 7 cents then signing them over to ALF PIF hoping to make 15 cents JohnH? If thats the case then they could come a cropper! Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (27 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> I wonder if traders are buying on market/NSX at less than 7 cents then signing them over to ALF PIF hoping to make 15 cents JohnH? If thats the case then they could come a cropper! Seamisty



Also JohnH, does this mean every time ALF PIF aquires a few shares they report it on the NSX? Are they obliged to? We have a current RE that can't even get an Investor update out on time, refuses to answer PIF related issues and appears to be a total flop to a WANNABE RE thats reporting every possible aquisition? There's eventually got to be a good story here I would imagine? The enneagram connection is just the 'sauce on the sausage'.

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (27 July 2010)

flatback said:


> It appears as though this very fuzzy science(Enneagramm) has got a real hold on the thoughts of many in our group at the moment,quite unnecessarily i feel, from what i can gather this group will really have no bearing upon the outcome of our case against these criminals,we must put our faith with Carneys and trust that we will survive with a few bob in our pockets at the end of all of this.




Flatback - Reading about the power of cults or psycho systems over their dedicated disciples is always worrying. The followers' thinking processes and their decision-making are more often than not dictated by the "system" which has moulded them. Contrary opinions to theirs are dismissed as always being wrong. A group might have scuttled a ship themselves but others will be held responsible for the sinking of it.


----------



## JohnH (27 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> Also JohnH, does this mean every time ALF PIF aquires a few shares they report it on the NSX? Are they obliged to? We have a current RE that can't even get an Investor update out on time, refuses to answer PIF related issues and appears to be a total flop to a WANNABE RE thats reporting every possible aquisition? There's eventually got to be a good story here I would imagine? The enneagram connection is just the 'sauce on the sausage'.
> 
> Seamisty




Don't know Seamisty.  I suspect it's a PR thing - after all we have members on here with much larger holdings, who have not had to declare themselves as "substantial shareholders".


----------



## seamisty (27 July 2010)

JohnH said:


> Don't know Seamisty.  I suspect it's a PR thing - after all we have members on here with much larger holdings, who have not had to declare themselves as "substantial shareholders".



No we can thank WC for splatting that around!! Well I take my disclosure of all things PIF related very seriously, and I consider what interests me is relevant. If my research offends some then I am sorry, I just wish I was more informed when I initally backed Wellington Capital http://www.wellcap.com.au/ and their empty commitments, false tears and possibly (privledge) inside knowledge. Red Jacket = red carpet NOT!! More like RED ALERT!!!

Seamisty


----------



## DepressedDad (27 July 2010)

I personally think it is of utmost importance and interest that we NOW learn (thanks to the tireless and amazing Seamisty!)  that so many of these so called 'professionals' of many professions all are intertwined &  involved in this same load of codswallop.  (Not-for-profit-yeah right). 

If it was a tiddlywinks club then OK, of no relevance or interest,  but if we (or better still the courts) eventually uncover there have been concessions, loans, purchases, giveaway sales, jobs with huge salaries all arranged & concocted incestuously with OUR money, then how can that NOT be a HUGE revelation, and more disturbingly a huge concern and something that needs now to be urgently investigated, (with forensic accountants) before all OUR money is further shared between them.


----------



## JohnH (27 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> No we can thank WC for splatting that around!! Well I take my disclosure of all things PIF related very seriously, and I consider what interests me is relevant. If my research offends some then I am sorry,* I just wish I was more informed when I initally backed Wellington Capital *http://www.wellcap.com.au/ and their empty commitments, false tears and possibly (privledge) inside knowledge. Red Jacket = red carpet NOT!! More like RED ALERT!!!
> 
> Seamisty




There's quite a few of us like that Seamisty......... if you think back to how hard we defended the Lady in red!!!! Our naivity knew no bounds.:headshake


----------



## JohnH (27 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> No we can thank WC for splatting that around!! Well I take my disclosure of all things PIF related very seriously, and I consider what interests me is relevant. If my research offends some then I am sorry, I just wish I was more informed when I initally backed Wellington Capital [B]http://www.wellcap.com.au/ [/B]and their empty commitments, false tears and possibly (privledge) inside knowledge. Red Jacket = red carpet NOT!! More like RED ALERT!!!
> 
> Seamisty




Had a relook at the link Seamisty, and it is worth re-capping on the IDR Program and ASIC's definition of a Complaint:-   

WHAT IS A COMPLAINT?
The IDR Program adopts ASIC’s definition of a Complaint, which, under RG 165, means an
‘expression of dissatisfaction made to an organisation, related to its products, or the
complaints-handling process itself, where a response or resolution is explicitly or implicitly
expected’. ASIC has taken its definition from Australian Standard AS ISO 20002-2006 –
Consumer Satisfaction – Guidelines for complaints handling in organisations.
Therefore, the Company will consider any expression of dissatisfaction expressed to it as a
Complaint. Examples of Complaints that may be received can include:
(a) an investor not being satisfied with the level of their investment’s performance;
(b) not receiving a distribution cheque on time;
(c) not having the change of contact details recorded correctly;
(d) a person continuing to receive marketing material when a request was made to not receive
such material in the future, or for the details to be removed from any such mailing list;
and
(e) an investor not being satisfied with the way their personal information is being handled
by the Company."

..............  I'ts enough to take one's mind off the Election.......... although, I suppose they are all blo##dy lawyers!!!


----------



## seamisty (27 July 2010)

DepressedDad said:


> I personally think it is of utmost importance and interest that we NOW learn (thanks to the tireless and amazing Seamisty!)  that so many of these so called 'professionals' of many professions all are intertwined &  involved in this same load of codswallop.  (Not-for-profit-yeah right).
> 
> If it was a tiddlywinks club then OK, of no relevance or interest,  but if we (or better still the courts) eventually uncover there have been concessions, loans, purchases, giveaway sales, jobs with huge salaries all arranged & concocted incestuously with OUR money, then how can that NOT be a HUGE revelation, and more disturbingly a huge concern and something that needs now to be urgently investigated, (with forensic accountants) before all OUR money is further shared between them.



Thanks for the support DepressedDad, my 'dad' would have been depressed as well if he had of left his lifetime savings in this 'piggy bank' of a fund. Thankfully he bailed out. Unfortunately for WC there are /is approx  10,400 innocent and trusting investors who appear to have been totally left at the mercy of Wellington Capital  and their empty promises with reason to investigate and hold them accountable for trusting the trumpted up credentials from someone who could not deliver. If all you previous/current so called professionals/advisors still sleep at night, I envy you. Consience is obviously not high on your agenda.
Seamisty


----------



## lawry1dog (28 July 2010)

I agree with DepressedDad, Seamisty has been a God send and we must all
send complaint after complaint to ASIC, about the performance of WC.
Which we are all entitled to do.

The link is:- *http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Contacting+us#complaint*

Please do it today!
Maybe the politicians will listen now, as well, during this election period!!

Have not heard from Breaker1 for a while.


Cheers
Lawr1dog


----------



## lawry1dog (28 July 2010)

Please can everyone send a complaint to ASIC today and also to any
politician you can.

You can use the reason/s for the complaint.
   1. an investor not being satisfied with the level of their investment’s performance;
   2. not receiving a distribution cheque on time;

The link to use is:-
*http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf...g+us#complaint*

Cheers.
Lawry1dog


----------



## BootsnAll (28 July 2010)

*FROM GOLD COAST BULLETIN*
*G8 buys two more childcare centres*

  Nick Nichols, business editor   |  July 28th, 2010

     GOLD Coast-based childcare centre operator G8 Education has snared two more childcare centres, this time in Sydney.
The  company, headed by former S8 team Chris Scott and Jenny Hutson, has  signed a heads of agreement to proceed with the scripand-cash deal  valued at up to $2.8 million.
Neither the centres nor its owner have been disclosed and a contract remains subject to due diligence.
The  centres, which will boost G8's childcare places by 180 to almost 6400,  are forecast to deliver earnings before interest and tax of $701,303  this financial year.
The purchase will be funded through the issue  of 2.8 million G8 shares at 60c each, plus a cash payment of up to  $1.12 million if performance targets are met by the centres this  financial year.
Ms Hutson, G8's chairman, said the deal added to the 'geographic diversity' of the group.
"The acquisition is a further step in G8 Education's well-planned expansion strategy," she said.
The latest deal brings the number of childcare centres acquired by G8 in the past three months to 22.
The most recent purchases were in NSW, South Australia, Queensland and Victoria.
G8's shares last traded at 60.5c.


So much for looking after the PIF.


----------



## Jadel (28 July 2010)

Well Boots

I guess Chris Scott  had to receive his payday  sometime for delivering the PIF to Jenny Hutson for zilch. This should have been expected, afterall Scott had to overlook 25 or so other expressions of interest in the PIF from Fund Managers far better qualified , than an unknown ,unproven WC to perform that trick .


----------



## Blueboy1 (28 July 2010)

Extracted from the following link http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=189624
 Irw-Press: Alf Group Holdings Ag: Alf Group Holdings Ag – Plan For Early Redemption
Published on July 27, 2010

by Press Office

(IRW-Press and OfficialWire)

VIENNA, AUSTRIA

	Re-Tweet this article

Alf Group Holdings Ag – Plan for Early Redemption
Sydney, Australia 27th July 2010 - Alf Group Holdings Ag (AG1) the 100% owner of the ALF Group Pty Ltd and all its subsidiaries, would like to clarify its intentions regarding the current capital raising.
Among other things it is planned to give an interest free loan to ALF Group Pty Ltd of AUD $15 Million, to allow the company to on lend the funds to its 90% subsidiary ALF PIF Finance Limited (ALF PIF). Then upon compulsory acquisition of the takeover target, the Premium Income Fund, ALF PIF will make funds available to accelerate the redemption of ALF PIF preference shares utilized to acquire the Premium Income Fund.
The Premium Income Fund is currently managed by Wellington Capital Limited. ALF PIF refers to the announcement of Wellington Capital Limited on 18th November 2009 in relation to the sale of the property at 60-62 Harbour Street, Wollongong for 38 million AUD. Furthermore, ALF PIF refers to the announcement of Wellington Capital on 18th May 2010, which refers to the completion of the Icon Port project in Port Macquarie.
ALF PIF would utilize the full net proceeds from the above mentioned sale of the Wollongong project plus the full net proceeds from the sale of apartments in the Port Macquarie apartment project to redeem that amount of ALF PIF preference shares. Added to those combined proceeds would be a portion of the interest free loan, which means that redemptions of ALF PIF preference shares in excess of $50 million are expected to be made in 2010.
Mr Michael Pakula, Director of AG1, said, "we are striving to redeem almost 50% of the redeemable ALF PIF preference shares in 2010 that would be issued to unit holders of the Premium Income Fund in the event of a successful takeover being completed.”
About Alf Group Holdings Ag
Alf Group Holdings Ag (AG1) wholly owns ALF Group Pty Ltd and its subsidiaries, which includes one of Australia’s largest litigation funders, and a corporate restructuring services company which also provides funding and debt and equity solutions. It is also an acquirer of distressed assets.
For further information please contact:
Alf Group Holdings Ag
Level 29, Chifley Tower
2 Chifley Square
Sydney, NSW 2000
Australia
Telephone +61-2-9293-2500
Fax +61-2-9293-2930
Website: www.cancanholdings.com
eMail: info@publiceye-consulting.com
It would be quite a coincidence if this mob were also involved in the enema...gram cult..or something similar..Imagine Jim in a Red Jacket!
Blueboy1


----------



## gardie (28 July 2010)

Section 254K of the corporations act states that redeemable preference shares can only be redeemed out by
- winding up the company
- out of profits
- through a new issue of shares

So if they are planning to return the money from the sale of property this will not be profits but capital so do they plan to break the law to return investors own money.

Not a fan of WC but this seems like out of the frypan into the furnace


----------



## seamisty (28 July 2010)

lawry1dog said:


> Please can everyone send a complaint to ASIC today and also to any
> politician you can.
> 
> You can use the reason/s for the complaint.
> ...



On the 17th July I sent the same email to Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard requesting some intervention on our current PIF situation. I received an auto response from both acknowledging receival of the email.

On the 21st July I received the following from Tony Abbotts office::

Thank you for your recent email to the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott. 

As you may be aware, the Prime Minister has called a federal election.

Unfortunately, from Opposition, we do not have the resources to respond to your email in detail during the campaign period, but your concerns will be brought to Tony’s attention and that of the Coalition Team.

From Julia Gillards office? Nothing!!


On the 19th July I sent an email to Kevin Rudd along the same lines and have received 2 emails from Katrina Hicks, Constituent Officer requesting some additional information and was 'assured that upon receipt of this information I will refer your comments to the relevant staffer for consideration.'

Julia Gillards office staff must be too busy trying to plug leaks!

Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (28 July 2010)

Blueboy1 said:


> Extracted from the following link http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=189624
> Irw-Press: Alf Group Holdings Ag: Alf Group Holdings Ag – Plan For Early Redemption
> Published on July 27, 2010..................................
> ..................................................
> ...




Apart from being alarmed, I would like to know what are immediate options available to PIF to:

a)           prevent any "compulsory acquisition"
b)           acquire any meaningful protection from any 
              Statutory Body with a clout

Surely, we can obtain urgent advice now that there are accelerated hostilities afoot. I hope there are actions behind the scenes to fill these voids.
Regards,


----------



## simgrund (28 July 2010)

This is a truly uplifting story to share around.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/stun...geing-thalidomide-victims-20100728-10vus.html

Of special note is the fact that the payment negotiated was voluntary; to show a "goodwill gesture".

PIF needs plenty of this from the controlling entities.
We will be ever so grateful.

Regards,


----------



## seamisty (28 July 2010)

gardie said:


> Section 254K of the corporations act states that redeemable preference shares can only be redeemed out by
> - winding up the company
> - out of profits
> - through a new issue of shares
> ...



Hi Gardie, hope you are well. I believe ASIC are well informed of this along with many other PIF related issues. I just hope they give it the attention it deserves sooner rather than later!! Great to see you still have interest in PIF related issues and appreciate your input. Plus it demonstrates there are not just unit holders following and supporting this thread.  Former 'interested parties' are more than welcome to contribute!!! If Wellington Capital were to follow this thread (we might have voted for them but we aint all together braindead!!)they would  
not be happy to see that we are all alive and well and united in our efforts to work towards a better outcome for what remains of our WC managed assets(WC stands for WELL CHEWED) Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (28 July 2010)

flatback said:


> It appears as though this very fuzzy science(Enneagramm) has got a real hold on the thoughts of many in our group at the moment,quite unnecessarily i feel, from what i can gather this group will really have no bearing upon the outcome of our case against these criminals,we must put our faith with Carneys and trust that we will survive with a few bob in our pockets at the end of all of this.



Where do we draw the line flatback? Are you happy to see Caroline Snow, Associate Director of WELLINGTON CAPITAL(please check out her credentials http://www.wellcap.com.au/personnel/carolinesnow.htm)l ::negotiating the purchase of a redundant church on behalf of 'the enneagram factor' at the expense of WELLINGTON CAPITAL for the direct benefit of David Burke not detrimental or something that PIF investors should not  be made aware of??? Do you not feel that this is relevant information to PIF investors?

Seamisty


----------



## lawry1dog (29 July 2010)

Please can everyone send a complaint to ASIC today and also to any
politician you can.

You can use the reason/s for the complaint.
1. an investor not being satisfied with the level of their investment’s performance;
2. not receiving a distribution cheque on time;

The link to use is:-
*http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf...g+us#complaint*

I know I have sent this before. I need some outlet to my 2 years of frustration.
*Maybe if there is an avalanche of complaints, then ASIC might do something.*


Cheers.
Lawry1dog


----------



## seamisty (29 July 2010)

BARELY THERE

The subsidiary of the shell of the former lingerie company advised by the banned company director Jim Byrnes has reported a surge of acceptances for its scrip takeover bid for the former MFS-managed Premium Income Fund.

ALF Group (aka Can Can Lingerie) revealed on Tuesday that its subsidiary ALF PIF Finance Limited had snared another 0.01 per cent of the Newcastle Stock Exchange-listed mortgage fund.

The group now holds a 0.17 per cent stake. At this rate, ALF PIF should be able to reach its required 90 per cent of acceptances by early 2038.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/alesco-has-a-lend-of-its-former-boss-20100728-10w4r.html


----------



## seamisty (29 July 2010)

Nigel Benjamin Elias and Jenny Hutson are both substantial shareholders and directors of Armstrong Registry Services

Nigel Benjamin Elias and Armstrong Registry Services Limited are both substantial shareholders in Print Mail Logistics.

Jenny Hutson is corporate adviser to Print Mail Logistics Limited.


Nigel Benjamin Elias is Managing Director Print Mail Logistics
Anthony Richard Lewis was a former director of Print Mail Logistics and was removed at a general meeting of shareholders on November
28, 2008 

Nigel Benjamin Elias and Anthony Richard Lewis were both directors of Lewis Securities involved in the Orion takeover bid involving unacceptable circumstances (another longwinded saga).
It appears Nigel Elias forgot to mention this prior directorship in his Print Mail Logistics Directors Declaration in Nov 2009 and finally disclosed it in an announcement to the NSX on 28th June 2010. (I wonder if his corporate advisor picked up the omission?)


Anyway, I tripped over this interesting article today, while it is not directly PIF related it just further demonstrates the callibre of unethical people lurking in the shadows!! Cheers Seamisty

http://www.smh.com.au/national/nephew-accused-of-theft-from-estate-20100719-10hzk.html


----------



## selciper (29 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> BARELY THERE
> 
> The subsidiary of the shell of the former lingerie company advised by the banned company director Jim Byrnes has reported a surge of acceptances for its scrip takeover bid for the former MFS-managed Premium Income Fund.
> 
> ...




Yes, and it will be 2038 before there is any PIF distribution by WC. It is absolutely essential that WC be held to account for non-performance before we enter another nightmare of a year.


----------



## Dexter (29 July 2010)

We have lodge yet another complaint to ASIC against W.C.

I suggest if we do not receive a worthwhile response from ASIC, we should muster support for a compensation claim against ASIC for their dereliction of duty.

We do not require a bevy of expensive lawyers and barristors.  

THE PEOPLE V's ASIC.!  We have ample evidence to state our case before a judge.

The threat of such a public hearing might be sufficient to stir them into action.

Your thoughts?

Dexter


----------



## DepressedDad (29 July 2010)

The revelation of the 'lining each others pockets' scenario is sickeningly making a lot of sense as I have always wondered how a self respecting top dog - 'business woman of the year'  no less, and her supposedly well respected professionals could not have done ONE action in all these years where the Unit holders have said 'well done, what a great job you did with that one, good result, wow what a win'. NOT ONE.  We've all shared that same frustration! We should have got up from the first blow not just be struck again.

I kept wondering where is their self respect not to achieve some great results here & be seen to be working incredibly hard!  Don't we all want to succeed to the BEST of our abilities given a task, especially a really challenging one?  Obviously not, if they've got alteria motives driven by greed, & the arrogance to dismiss the dumb old Unit holders who won't put 2 plus 2 together.

This very minute red coat is no doubt working incredibly hard to ching ching cash from the child care centres and doing NO WORK ever for 'us'.  It's becoming increasingly obvious by the day, thanks to sherlock seamisty that the 'us' she's been scheming, I mean working for,  ISN'T the Unit holders. 

Worse than neglect, it's  now appearing that that 'us' has worked extremely hard to make sure we all end up with nothing.  Imagine where we'd be now if we'd been put in the hands of one honest unencumbered cult-free no-mates professional who REALLY did work hard to save & grow the funds assets & rebuild.

Yep, your findings are making a whole lot of sense to me sea misty. How else could any professionals perform so badly, so consistently, for so long?  There's simply no other explanation...That was always perplexing and now sadly, the real truth of the dishonesty and deception is emerging.


----------



## seamisty (29 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> Nigel Benjamin Elias and Jenny Hutson are both substantial shareholders and directors of Armstrong Registry Services
> 
> Nigel Benjamin Elias and Armstrong Registry Services Limited are both substantial shareholders in Print Mail Logistics.
> 
> ...



A bit more on Print Mail Logistics and the nominated adviser::
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722201.PDF
l, Jennifer Joan Hutson, being a responsible officer of the above Nominated Adviser, hereby
confirm;
a) that, in relation to the application for admission:
i) the directors of the issuer have received advice and guidance (from this firm or otherappropriate professional advisers) as to the nature of their responsibilities and obligations to ensure compliance by the issuer with the Rules of the National StockExchange of Australia Limited as amended from time to time.
ii) To the best of my knowledge and belief, all relevant requirements of the National Stock Exchange of Australia Listing Rules have been complied with; and
b) While this firm is engaged as the Nominated Adviser of the issuer it will be available during business hours to advise and guide the directors of the issuer as to their responsibilities and obligations to ensure compliance by the issuer on an ongoing basis with theExchange's Rules;
c) That this firm will comply with the Exchange's Rules applicable to it in its role as nominated
adviser;and
d) That this firm will confirm to the Exchange in writing when it ceases to be the issuer's
nominated adviser.
Responsible Officer, for and on behalf of Name of nominated adviser:Signed J Hutson Wellington Capital Limited ACN 1 14248 458


So who is responsible for Nigel Elias failing to declare a prior directorship in another company, Lewis Securities that had been placed into liquidation after revealing debts of $31.3 million? Mr Elias resigned the directorship 31st January 2008

The company (Lewis Securities)entered into administration in October 2008 
http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/article/Lewis-Securities-in-liquidation/468314.aspx

This NSX announcement issued on 19th Nov 2009, signed by Nigel Benjamin Elias on the 13th August 2008:;http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722204.PDF

No corporation has been put into compulsory liquidation or had an administrator or receiver appointed during the period when I was (or within the preceding twelve months had been) one of its directors, alternate directors or compliance committee members. Nor has any partnership been put into compulsory liquidation or been sequestrated during the period when I was (or within the preceding twelve months had been) one of its partners.

Umnn, have I got this wrong or does that come into the 12 month time frame?

This is the same Nigel Benjamin Elias who is a director of Armstrong Registry Services that is handling all of PIF registry details!!

MARCOM WHERE ARE YOU????

Just as a point of interest Print Mail Logistics listed on the NSX has had just 6 trades in 8 months.

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (29 July 2010)

I see Bentleys have finally updated their website:
http://www.bentleys.com.au/creditor...essionid=43c73e0d-8278-4e88-ad5e-b22115ff2d38


----------



## flatback (29 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> Where do we draw the line flatback? Are you happy to see Caroline Snow, Associate Director of WELLINGTON CAPITAL(please check out her credentials http://www.wellcap.com.au/personnel/carolinesnow.htm)l ::negotiating the purchase of a redundant church on behalf of 'the enneagram factor' at the expense of WELLINGTON CAPITAL for the direct benefit of David Burke not detrimental or something that PIF investors should not  be made aware of??? Do you not feel that this is relevant information to PIF investors?
> 
> Seamisty



Seamisty! i am very happy to debate on a level playing field with you, but this can not be so, when it is obvious that you need to have the last word on every discussion you have with people on this forum, I was simply trying to get my point across that the courts wont give a rats ---- about who is buying and selling churches and who is attached to an Enneagramm organisation or not , the courts will only debate the issues of the PAST in regard to the criminal activities of these people, shorely you also have proven with your ongoing research, that these leeches have moved on from their initial indiscretions, their lawyers and barristers are being paid to worry about the problems and legal matters related to their MFS and Oct incompetance ,and are now applying their dirty skills in other directions, Seamisty these people are leopards they dont change their spots, you can dig up all of the dirt on these people you like , but i can assure you it will have NO bearing upon our case (our justic system can only work with indiscretions of the past) you may be able to gather this information for a civil action later but not much of it in my view will cast to many aspertions upon the leeches, as it is not relevent, looking forward to hearing more about the case actually.


----------



## Cookie1 (29 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> A bit more on Print Mail Logistics and the nominated adviser::
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722201.PDF
> 
> "This NSX announcement issued on 19th Nov 2009, signed by Nigel Benjamin Elias on the 13th August 2008:;http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722204.PDF
> ...




Seamisty,

Great sleuth work from you!

I think the Nov 2009 date is just a few days outside the 12 month period of the October 2008 date; very clever that they waited until the 12 months was just past. What else would we expect from this mob? It makes me sick to my stomach.

Cookie1


----------



## selciper (29 July 2010)

Flatback -

I guess you know this Chinese proverb: “Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories.”


----------



## seamisty (29 July 2010)

flatback said:


> Seamisty! i am very happy to debate on a level playing field with you, but this can not be so, when it is obvious that you need to have the last word on every discussion you have with people on this forum, I was simply trying to get my point across that the courts wont give a rats ---- about who is buying and selling churches and who is attached to an Enneagramm organisation or not , the courts will only debate the issues of the PAST in regard to the criminal activities of these people, shorely you also have proven with your ongoing research, that these leeches have moved on from their initial indiscretions, their lawyers and barristers are being paid to worry about the problems and legal matters related to their MFS and Oct incompetance ,and are now applying their dirty skills in other directions, Seamisty these people are leopards they dont change their spots, you can dig up all of the dirt on these people you like , but i can assure you it will have NO bearing upon our case (our justic system can only work with indiscretions of the past) you may be able to gather this information for a civil action later but not much of it in my view will cast to many aspertions upon the leeches, as it is not relevent, looking forward to hearing more about the case actually.



flatback at the risk of being accused of having the last word again,(have you been talking to my husband?) there are many PIF investors who are extremely interested in all things PIF related/connected. The courts may not give a rats about issues/information posted on here but fortunately this forum/thread was never intended for the purpose of posting only selected items of interest to suit individual preferences. I quite often make posts merely to keep the thread from dying of boredom because it is extremely important to not only keep PIF investors interested, but to support Aussie stock forums whose existance relies on sponsers. Apart from that I take my research very seriously and make the information available to the lawyers on request and anyone else interested. Straight and narrow posts may suit some but there are others the same as me who like to be part of the bigger picture. You may be interested to know that the Commonwealth courts portal has been updated in relation to the CA.
 Seamisty


----------



## flatback (30 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> flatback at the risk of being accused of having the last word again,(have you been talking to my husband?) there are many PIF investors who are extremely interested in all things PIF related/connected. The courts may not give a rats about issues/information posted on here but fortunately this forum/thread was never intended for the purpose of posting only selected items of interest to suit individual preferences. I quite often make posts merely to keep the thread from dying of boredom because it is extremely important to not only keep PIF investors interested, but to support Aussie stock forums whose existance relies on sponsers. Apart from that I take my research very seriously and make the information available to the lawyers on request and anyone else interested. Straight and narrow posts may suit some but there are others the same as me who like to be part of the bigger picture. You may be interested to know that the Commonwealth courts portal has been updated in relation to the CA.
> Seamisty



this is a double bunger reply so here goes, Sel i also know the Chinese have been over run by most nations over many centurys which if you think about it doesnt make them the smartest country in the world (proverbs are after all just that proverbs) seamisty i have as you know and you have responded in kind, via a post to me, appreciate the dilligent research that you do which is in the main related to our problem, so ,to all who may read this, i am not attacking seamisty for some of the good work she is doing, but find it very difficult to understand why she has so many negative thoughts, maybe i shall impose on her the enneagramm number of eight , please accept this in the tone it is intended , i close my case


----------



## seamisty (30 July 2010)

http://www.mondaq.com/australia/article.asp?articleid=106692

In early January 2010, ASIC arrested and charged three directors of Opes Prime Stockbroking Limited (OPSL) and Opes Prime Group Limited (OPGL) over their roles in the collapse of the failed stockbroking group.

The group was placed into receivership in March 2008 with over 650 clients and creditors owed approximately $630 million. A Scheme of Arrangement has been approved for creditors.

The three directors are Laurie Emini, Julian Smith and Anthony Blumberg. Each has been charged with offences for breaches of their duties as directors of both OPSL and OPGL. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is prosecuting the directors on behalf of ASIC.

ASIC alleges that shortly before the collapse of the group the directors signed financial documents with financiers to obtain a loan for OPSL and OPGL and pledged the companies' assets as security to meet the obligations of a third group company and in doing so they:

were intentionally dishonest and failed to exercise their powers and discharge their duties in good faith and in the best interests of the companies, and 
used their positions with the intention of gaining an advantage for themselves or someone else. 
Each offence at (1) and (2) above carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.

The directors appeared in Melbourne Magistrates Court on 28 May 2010 and are scheduled to appear again on 28 February 2011 for a pre-trial committal hearing. It is estimated that the hearing may take three to four weeks.


----------



## flatback (30 July 2010)

seamisty said:


> http://www.mondaq.com/australia/article.asp?articleid=106692
> 
> In early January 2010, ASIC arrested and charged three directors of Opes Prime Stockbroking Limited (OPSL) and Opes Prime Group Limited (OPGL) over their roles in the collapse of the failed stockbroking group.
> 
> ...



now this is very good research, the likeness to our issue is uncanny


----------



## DepressedDad (30 July 2010)

No doubt like so many others, I don't like to post on here because I do not understand a lot of the gobbledygook & feel as if I have nothing to contribute compared to the wisdom of others.

But I must say here that I REALLY APPRECIATE all others who do keep information flowing and of course the main researcher & information sharer is sea misty. And I enjoy ALL her posts, related to our specific case or not.  And I disagree with you flatback that information such as that pertaining to 'improper acquaintances employing each other'  isn't relevant to our case as I believe it is, plus hopefully these weasels will one day face criminal charges and all information against them will be relevant to that ends, whether or not it is related to our case. 

As for saying it's not a level playing field, with someone getting 'a last word', how does anyone get a 'last word' on a forum where anybody & everybody can say whatever they like, when ever they like? In fact responding to posts is what it's all about.  I said 'ouch' out loud when I read that accusation as not only is it silly & untrue but the thought of anyone writing such a personal criticism against our brave & tireless & knowledgable researcher just because she shares a lot had me pretty irritated.  We have real enemies out there who are spending/hiding/shuffling/& writing off our money as we speak so please can we see no bickering between ourselves.

And sea misty please don't think for a nanosecond, others aren't interested in all your thoughts & post post post away. I, for one, love to read all the information you dig up on everything & everybody.  And the humour filtering in through what would otherwise be very sobering reading always brings a smile to my face!  Keep it coming!!


----------



## flatback (30 July 2010)

DepressedDad said:


> No doubt like so many others, I don't like to post on here because I do not understand a lot of the gobbledygook & feel as if I have nothing to contribute compared to the wisdom of others.
> 
> But I must say here that I REALLY APPRECIATE all others who do keep information flowing and of course the main researcher & information sharer is sea misty. And I enjoy ALL her posts, related to our specific case or not.  And I disagree with you flatback that information such as that pertaining to 'improper acquaintances employing each other'  isn't relevant to our case as I believe it is, plus hopefully these weasels will one day face criminal charges and all information against them will be relevant to that ends, whether or not it is related to our case.
> 
> ...



it seams to me that you may very well be her dad with your withering and fawning comments about me , you obviously didnt read my post very well,and grasp the content or the substance of the writings, for somebody who has just joined the group please dont cast aspertions about me without reading all of my posts,i HAVE never as your wonderful seamisty has, ever agreed to the removal of clauses from our constitution, this is fact, look at all previous posts, i never wanted JH as our RE at all, i had tried to get enough people to understand that we could have stood alone hiring our own RE because at the time we were still very liquid ,as i said in the previous post i am not i repeat not attacking anybody via this forum, but if you think i am going to sit and take such non constructive ramblings from somebody who obviously hasnt done their home work and is not able to simply understand the gravity of our situation, my answer to you is get a life.


----------



## DepressedDad (31 July 2010)

flatback said:


> it seams to me that you may very well be her dad with your withering and fawning comments about me , you obviously didnt read my post very well,and grasp the content or the substance of the writings, for somebody who has just joined the group please dont cast aspertions about me without reading all of my posts,i HAVE never as your wonderful seamisty has, ever agreed to the removal of clauses from our constitution, this is fact, look at all previous posts, i never wanted JH as our RE at all, i had tried to get enough people to understand that we could have stood alone hiring our own RE because at the time we were still very liquid ,as i said in the previous post i am not i repeat not attacking anybody via this forum, but if you think i am going to sit and take such non constructive ramblings from somebody who obviously hasnt done their home work and is not able to simply understand the gravity of our situation, my answer to you is get a life.




You say in your post you are not attacking anyone in this forum, and then you repeat it, assuming us all to be stupid, in a post which is SOLELY a personal attack. Or is 'insult' a work you understand better. You insult selciper by belittling the Chinese, you insult sea misty by ridiculously suggesting she always has to have the last word,  and now rude unfounded accusations about me. Reads like an attack to me!  What else is in the post except a personal attack & a helping of 'I told you so'? I have read all the posts, yours included & I DO grasp the content & substance of your writings. (Not rocket science)  I 'joined' this group back years ago.  I only got a log in name in Dec 09 to be able to post because there was a request to stand up & be counted.  I am not NEW to this group and I certainly DO understand the gravity of the situation.  I have a challenge for you. Since you've been in the group soooo  looong & you're sooo knowledgeable let's see if your posts can from now on include just your wisdom & research & no insults.


----------



## simgrund (31 July 2010)

To Mary Lynch; 
Please check your message box; an innocent enquiry.

And to Flatback and Depressed Dad with posts  #6019    #6020 respectively. 
Please stay the course towards Class Action. We believe unanimously that these are our posts where the final goals will be kicked in our favour.
The amended Statement of Claim is due for filing this coming week.
This forum is the only means to provide an almost complete picture of ALL developments, however unpalatable some may be.
Please bear in mind 2 previous occasions where this thread was suspended. 
Dare I say, that this may be the last word spoken in anger?
With warmest regards,


----------



## flatback (31 July 2010)

simgrund said:


> To Mary Lynch;
> Please check your message box; an innocent enquiry.
> 
> And to Flatback and Depressed Dad with posts  #6019    #6020 respectively.
> ...



Sorry Simgrund, i should have been more specific, my responce to Sel was an opinion, and i would never try to shoot down Seamisty as she is far more dilligent and gives good inteligent research reports, which in general are well accepted from all, as for other less informed posters which have just appeared i will say bye for now as my opinion is in your veiw of no value, thats fine, the sky wont fall down, and if a few more of us decide to stop posting because of this kind of responce there is a good chance there will only be six or so of you talking to each other, see you and i hope we are sucessfull with our case.


----------



## Blueboy1 (2 August 2010)

From the following link:http://www.theage.com.au/business/examination-switches-to-former-mfs-director-20100801-111im.html 

Examination switches to former MFS director
COLIN KRUGER
August 2, 2010

THE public examination of the collapse of the Gold Coast financier MFS continues this morning. A former non-executive director, Barry Cronin, is due to appear before the Supreme Court to help explain what went wrong at the company which collapsed in September 2008 with external debts totalling $2.5 billion.

Counsel acting for MFS liquidators, led by Kate Barnett from Bentleys Corporate Recovery, have said the company, now known as Octaviar, may have been insolvent well before its collapse.

To date, the examination has heard how documents were backdated, hundreds of millions of dollars moved between different companies in the group, and how dividends were paid out of non-existent profits.
Advertisement: Story continues below

But these were not the only issues to raise eyebrows.

Last month the court was told how in March 2008, Louise Edwards, the head of corporate advisory at MFS, recommended that the board pay Grant Samuel $9.5 million rather than the $5.2 million it was contractually obliged to pay.

The corporate adviser had been involved in the sale of a majority stake in the MFS travel business Stella - a role that it was meant to share with another firm - and the board ultimately recommended the $9.5 million payment at a board meeting in March 2008.

The MFS chief financial officer, David Anderson, was asked at the examination if Ms Edwards established a business relationship later that year with the Grant Samuel advisers involved in the sale.

''I understand that Louise was, or is now, involved in … an advisory business. And I have understood that Grant Samuel may play some role in it itself,'' he told the court.

When asked if this had been disclosed when the increased fee was discussed, Mr Anderson said he understood the business relationship was entered into after she left MFS.

Unlike the previous leg of the examination, which focused exclusively on Mr Anderson, Mr Cronin will be joined this week by MFS's internal auditor, Nigel Fitzgerald, and the former chief of MFS Investment Management, Guy Hutchings.

MFS Investment Management was the subsidiary which acted as responsible entity for the $780 million Premium Income Fund. The fund was allegedly milked to shore up MFS in the period before its collapse.

It was sold to Wellington Capital - the income fund's current responsible entity - not long after Wellington Capital was appointed to act as an adviser to the MFS board.

Blueboy1


----------



## seamisty (2 August 2010)

Blueboy1 said:


> From the following link:http://www.theage.com.au/business/examination-switches-to-former-mfs-director-20100801-111im.html
> 
> Examination switches to former MFS director
> COLIN KRUGER
> ...



Its all coming together!!! I think this previous article is extremely relevant to the last post::

All doubts are banished SCOTT ROCHFORT 
July 13, 2010
SIGNATURES

While some HFA shareholders may hope the rebranding will erase the nasty memories from its past association with its former shareholder MFS Limited, one former listed HFA satellite still has some clear links with the collapsed Gold Coast financial services firm.

HFA Accelerator Plus, which recently changed its name to Signature Capital Investments, is chaired by John Morrison. He helped advise MFS in his role as a consultant at Grant Samuel. By sheer coincidence, Morrison indirectly owns a stake in another corporate advisory firm, Kaleb Partners, founded in 2008 by the former MFS legal counsel Louise Edwards. By another remarkable coincidence, Edwards is the company secretary of the now named Signature.

The former MFS director Paul Manka also remains a director at Signature. But there is another coincidence: some of Edwards's private business ventures at one point shared the same office space as some of the private ventures of the former MFS chief executive and founder, Michael King.:::http://www.theage.com.au/business/all-dou
bts-are-banished-20100712-107yb.html


Extra info:
HFA Accelerator Plus Ltd was headed by founder and Managing Director
Spencer Young.(July 2004 to February 2007) HFA was wholly owned by MFS before it was floated and spun off in 2006. (http://www.theage.com.au/news/fulld...ork-for-66m-man/2006/04/17/1145126052240.html )
Spencer Young was a non executive director of:MFS LIMITED,  
 MFS DIVERSIFIED TRUST and  MFS DIVERSIFIED GROUP

Louise Edwards and Jenny Hutson were both dealing with parties interested in the Premium Income Fund management rights. One prospective entity was told by Louise Edwards his group was 'one of 25 interested parties' who also was dealing with Jenny Hutson in her capacity as advisor to Chris Scott/OCV.

 From a previous MFS power point presentation (http://media.wotnews.com.au/asxann/00750313.pdf) it states Louise edwards is also a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland and the High
Court of Australia.


Seamisty


----------



## Blueboy1 (2 August 2010)

seamisty said:


> Its all coming together!!! I think this previous article is extremely relevant to the last post::
> 
> All doubts are banished SCOTT ROCHFORT
> July 13, 2010
> ...




 "Inc...stuous".....(the game the whole family can play) comes to mind
Blueboy1


----------



## selciper (2 August 2010)

A presidential thought for the days to come:

"When written in Chinese, the word "crisis" is composed of two characters. One represents danger and the other represents opportunity." 
John F. Kennedy


----------



## seamisty (3 August 2010)

I hope you all chewed your breakfast well because I imagine the following article will make every existing investor in the PIF that was misled by Jenny Hutson want to  http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/08/03/244345_gold-coast-business.html
Seamisty


----------



## gardie (3 August 2010)

Good morning

What happened to the interest in Sunkids child care centres MFS acquired.

Was this sold or is this something waiting to be snapped up by guess who ?


----------



## seamisty (3 August 2010)

gardie said:


> Good morning
> 
> What happened to the interest in Sunkids child care centres MFS acquired.
> 
> Was this sold or is this something waiting to be snapped up by guess who ?



 Hello Gardie, you read my mind!! Surely Bently's would be very astute in any further dealings relating to the realisation of the remaining Octaviar assets in view of past performances from others. 

According to Bentleys website they have: 'Protected and proceeded to realise the “Sunkids” group of child care centres and related property interests;' 

Can't see any more 'one dollar David deals' passing scrutiny too easily!!

Seamisty


----------



## Duped (3 August 2010)

seamisty said:


> I hope you all chewed your breakfast well because I imagine the following article will make every existing investor in the PIF that was misled by Jenny Hutson want to  http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/08/03/244345_gold-coast-business.html
> Seamisty




"A hustle here and a hustle there."

As Kristy Fraser-Kirk said yesterday: "I just wanted to be treated with respect." I hear ya.

But that certainly doesn't fit in with G I Gurdjieff's philosophy, the man who introduced enneagram, according to wikipedia: "A primary criticism of Gurdjieff's work points out that it attaches no  value to almost everything that comprises the life of an average man."

Nor with ASIC's inactivity. We have to police the legislation for them while corporate Australia runs wild.  What an ethics backwater we live in. Enough to drive Kim Kercher to tears?


----------



## Blueboy1 (4 August 2010)

In  part from the following link:http://www.theage.com.au/business/you-just-gotta-have-a-way-with-words-20100803-115em.html
You just gotta have a way with words
SCOTT ROCHFORT
August 4, 2010

Fire engine, meet bus ... Jim Byrnes isn’t happy with Jenny Hutson’s jacket. I

FASHION ADVICE

The subsidiary of the shell of the former lingerie company bidding for the former MFS-managed Premium Income Fund is looking to give its stalled takeover offer fresh momentum. The ALF Group (aka Can Can Lingerie) subsidiary ALF PIF is preparing a mailout to Premium Income Fund unit holders later this week, where it is expected to highlight the shortfalls of the fund's current manager, Jenny Hutson, of Wellington Capital.

''She has more broken promises than any politician I have ever heard of,'' explained an adviser to the ALF subsidiary, the banned company director Jim Byrnes.

Byrnes has claimed Hutson has been too conflicted in her position at the fund. Aside from criticising Hutson for highlighting his colourful past rather than the bid itself, Byrnes also offered some advice to his rival. ''I'm a big bloke but I wear dark suits,'' he said, saying the red leather jacket often worn by Hutson was not a good look.

''I don't want to look like I'm the size of a bus,'' he explained. ''She looks like a fire engine. I certainly think she is going to gobble up all the unit holder funds.''

A BAD REP

While acting as an adviser on the scrip takeover bid, Byrnes told CBD he now spends half his time overseas as the Europe and American chief executive of ALF Group.

''I virtually have nothing to do with Australia at the moment,'' explained Byrnes, who said he was due to jet out of the country for two months today.

Byrnes also said he was appealing a recent decision made against him in the NSW Supreme Court. The judge said a proposed deed of company arrangement over a collapsed car-importing firm that favoured Byrnes was an ''affront to commercial morality''.

Justice George Palmer in his judgment last month said the company behind the proposed deed was a front for Byrnes who, he said, ''has a notorious reputation as a standover man and associate of major criminals''.

''I do not have to determine whether or not Mr Byrnes's reputation is deserved. I merely state the fact that Mr Byrnes has a reputation of which no judge in this state could be unaware,'' Justice Palmer said.

Yesterday Byrnes told CBD that he was not only appealing the decision but had also made a judicial complaint against Justice Palmer.

''Just because he's a judge, it doesn't mean he cannot be made accountable for making ridiculous comments,'' Byrnes said.

Blueboy1


----------



## seamisty (4 August 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/you-just-gotta-have-a-way-with-words-20100803-115em.html

FASHION ADVICE

The subsidiary of the shell of the former lingerie company bidding for the former MFS-managed Premium Income Fund is looking to give its stalled takeover offer fresh momentum. The ALF Group (aka Can Can Lingerie) subsidiary ALF PIF is preparing a mailout to Premium Income Fund unit holders later this week, where it is expected to highlight the shortfalls of the fund's current manager, Jenny Hutson, of Wellington Capital.

''She has more broken promises than any politician I have ever heard of,'' explained an adviser to the ALF subsidiary, the banned company director Jim Byrnes.

Byrnes has claimed Hutson has been too conflicted in her position at the fund. Aside from criticising Hutson for highlighting his colourful past rather than the bid itself, Byrnes also offered some advice to his rival. ''I'm a big bloke but I wear dark suits,'' he said, saying the red leather jacket often worn by Hutson was not a good look.

''I don't want to look like I'm the size of a bus,'' he explained. ''She looks like a fire engine. I certainly think she is going to gobble up all the unit holder funds.''

A BAD REP

While acting as an adviser on the scrip takeover bid, Byrnes told CBD he now spends half his time overseas as the Europe and American chief executive of ALF Group.

''I virtually have nothing to do with Australia at the moment,'' explained Byrnes, who said he was due to jet out of the country for two months today.

Byrnes also said he was appealing a recent decision made against him in the NSW Supreme Court. The judge said a proposed deed of company arrangement over a collapsed car-importing firm that favoured Byrnes was an ''affront to commercial morality''.

Justice George Palmer in his judgment last month said the company behind the proposed deed was a front for Byrnes who, he said, ''has a notorious reputation as a standover man and associate of major criminals''.

''I do not have to determine whether or not Mr Byrnes's reputation is deserved. I merely state the fact that Mr Byrnes has a reputation of which no judge in this state could be unaware,'' Justice Palmer said.

Yesterday Byrnes told CBD that he was not only appealing the decision but had also made a judicial complaint against Justice Palmer.

''Just because he's a judge, it doesn't mean he cannot be made accountable for making ridiculous comments,'' Byrnes said.


----------



## seamisty (4 August 2010)

Sorry about the dual post!! I can't find anything in the media about the public examinations so far this week. Are there any Sydney PIF investors attending at all?Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## selciper (4 August 2010)

At least Scott Rochfort is providing a little light relief during serious times. And I doubt that his sharp reporting skill is providing any comfort to WC - unlike the Gold Coast Bulletin's genial style.


----------



## seamisty (4 August 2010)

The ALF Group (aka Can Can Lingerie) subsidiary ALF PIF is preparing a mailout to Premium Income Fund unit holders later this week, where it is expected to highlight the shortfalls of the fund's current manager, Jenny Hutson, of Wellington Capital.

''She has more broken promises than any politician I have ever heard of,'' explained an adviser to the ALF subsidiary, the banned company director Jim Byrnes.

Byrnes has claimed Hutson has been too conflicted in her position at the fund. Aside from criticising Hutson for highlighting his colourful past rather than the bid itself, Byrnes also offered some advice to his rival. ''I'm a big bloke but I wear dark suits,'' he said, saying the red leather jacket often worn by Hutson was not a good look.

''I don't want to look like I'm the size of a bus,'' he explained. ''She looks like a fire engine. I certainly think she is going to gobble up all the unit holder funds.''http://www.smh.com.au/business/you-just-gotta-have-a-way-with-words-20100803-115em.html

Well Mr Byrnes, I don't think you will get many PIF investors who will disagree with your sentiment regarding Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital (and also associated with G8 education GEM, Armstrong Registry Services and Print Mail Logistics). In the eyes of many PIF holders Jenny Hutson of WC is an absolute failure who has the  audacity to parade herself out there promoting G8 education while she all but ignores the fact that she personally committed an undertaking to approx 10,400 investors in the Wellington Capital Premium Income Fund of an ongoing distribution and the rebuilding of unit value etc etc in exchange for their vote as opposed to liquidation which in hindsight would have delivered more than twice the value of PIF units currently trading on the NSX.  If nothing else ALF PIF will do many PIF holders a big favour by highlighting the shortfalls of WELLINGTON CAPITAL and JENNY HUTSON while we all live in hope of a genuine offer of a alternative responsible entity. At least this way we may get a mention in the media because we could do with all the help we can get to highlight our predicament.  Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (5 August 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mfs-...l-signing-money-transfers-20100804-11flt.html


----------



## Jadel (5 August 2010)

This is unbelievable, PIF investors capital misappropriated ,in addition to the 200 million taken out illegally to repay RBOS

 How on Earth would WC as RE not be aware that these funds had been illegally withdrawn from our fund to pay our the OCV dividend.???


----------



## Duped (5 August 2010)

Jadel said:


> This is unbelievable, PIF investors capital misappropriated ,in addition to the 200 million taken out illegally to repay RBOS
> 
> How on Earth would WC as RE not be aware that these funds had been illegally withdrawn from our fund to pay our the OCV dividend.???




I'm pretty sure the misappropriated capital is from the 200m borrowed from RBOS.  The cash went from RBOS to PIF to MFS and then most went to Fortress.  But 10s of millions of our cash from RBOS also went to the other victims of King/Peacock and Co. over in NZ: the mum & dad investors in OPI Pacific Finance.

As for WC not being aware?  How do we know that Dwellington Captial  weren't aware?  Cheers Jadel.


----------



## Jadel (5 August 2010)

Hi Duped

      Perhaps the journalist is confused . This does not appear to me to be money from the RBOS loan if it was paid to OCV in October 2007.


28 Nov 2007 - The RE drew down $150 million from the RBoS facility.
30 Nov 2007 - Perpetual electronically transferred $130 million from the PIF's Commonwealth Operating Account to MFS Admins Commonwealth bank account at the written directions of Howard and Corolis.
30 Nov 2007 - MFS Admin paid $103 million from its Bank account to Fortress.  The funds were transferred by electronic funds transfer by MFS Administration Pty Ltd to Fortress account with the NAB.  It was later authorised by Anderson.
13 Dec 2007 - The RE of the PIF drew down $15 million from the RBoS facility.
18 Dec 2007 - The RE of the PIF drew down $25 million from the RBoS facility.
21 Dec 2007 - The RE of the PIF drew down $10 million from the RBoS facility.
27 Dec 2007 - Perpetual electronically transferred $17.5 million from the PIF's Commonwealth Operating Account to Pacific Finance's bank account at the written direction of Hutchings and Kennedy dated 27 Dec 2007.  ASIC allege this payment was used to make an OPI Debenture and Notes payment due at 11am on 28 Dec 2007


----------



## Duped (5 August 2010)

Jadel said:


> Hi Duped
> 
> Perhaps the journalist is confused . This does not appear to me to be money from the RBOS loan if it was paid to OCV in October 2007....




Yeah. I would love to be able to sit in.
Final dividend of 20.5c worth a total $96m was declared on 21 August payable on October 2 to shareholders on record on September 18 according to the press:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/mfs-readies-for-spending-spree/story-e6frfh4f-1111114236329

http://www.investordaily.com/2833.htm 

Or Lahey's own "Dividend out of thin air at MFS" http://www.watoday.com.au/action/printArticle?id=1439489

"... On September 16, two weeks before the dividend payment was due, he [Mr Anderson] emailed Mr White with a subject heading of ''two weeks tomorrow'' and said he was not confident that the assignment of the four loans would happen in time.
''Without intervention from you or MCK [Mr King] I can't see that we will be in a position to pay the dividend,'' he wrote.
But Mr Anderson, who said he held 2 million MFS shares at the time, angrily *denied he had used loans* to pay a dividend the group could not truly afford.
Adam Bell, SC, for the liquidator, said Mr Anderson needed the money urgently and did not care that proper related party approvals were being bypassed as money moved through the Premium Income Fund to pay the dividend.
''There was no other available source of cash to pay the dividend,'' Mr Bell said. 
Mr Anderson said that claim was ''rubbish'' and MFS had ''significant *equity*'' at the time. ''There is no evidence these were the only funds available,'' he said. 
MFS could have paid its dividend from a $100 million *placement *the group *might *have received, Mr Anderson said. ..."

Loans ... Placement ... Equity .... what's the diff? Dodgy bros. None of them are any thing like profit.  

I'm guessing that some of the $96m dividend was paid using the $60m that MFS Admin parked in PIF itself for a few months from the last days of June 07 on.  Where did that $60m come from?  From Fortress?


----------



## erniel (5 August 2010)

seamisty said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/business/mfs-...l-signing-money-transfers-20100804-11flt.html




I am amazed that Asic have not started criminal proceedings against those mentioned in this article and what the liquidators have uncovered to date.


----------



## Duped (6 August 2010)

erniel said:


> I am amazed that Asic have not started criminal proceedings against those mentioned in this article and what the liquidators have uncovered to date.





My guess Ernial, is that ASIC is way out of their depth and they know it but their top brass and Ministers can't concede that this commission's lofty aims can never be achieved.  

It probably could in a more dictatorial or totalitarian state; which Australia will never be. But away from the rarified air in Canberralia, in the real Australia, whose social fabric is held together by things like ethics and common law with torts and principles like caveat emptor, (not the Federal Triangle's whims) ASIC is a dangerous experiment whose pied pipers have led many of those that has led many of those that it was supposed to protect to be scalded. False prophets like the AFS licence scheme run by ASIC. It's very presence unpicking the warp and weft that is caveat emptor: carefully laid down by great minds over many centuries. I now know what beware false prophets  really means.

But like many _____ists from bygone social experimental fleeting eras, they can't concede. Too many 'jobs' at stake. Much like all those finance 'jobs' supported by the $46m a day the sector takes from our super savings in their zero net sum games.

Selectors in the 19th century.  Superannuants in the 21st. Here we go again. Being mislead by false prophets.

Sorry for taking up so much of all of your time again.  Maybe this would have sufficed: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/bus...prepare-to-sit-in-judgment-20100621-ysf0.html

"Meanwhile, the final report into liquidators may give it a headache.  The inquiry, instigated by Senator John Williams, finishes tomorrow  night with an appearance by D'Aloisio and the lobby group the Insolvency  Practitioners Association of Australia.              The report is expected to be published before the  election and the talk is that it will recommend stripping ASIC of its  powers to regulate liquidators on the grounds that the Insolvency and  Trustee Service Australia, which regulates bankruptcies, would do a  better job.
              There is a lot of frustration at ASIC's approach when dealing with complaints, and the time liquidators take to get results."


----------



## seamisty (6 August 2010)

Thanks for the article re ASIC Duped. After my dealings with ASIC late this afternoon  I can truly relate to your comment 'Being mislead by false prophets'!! I haven't got the energy or inclination to comment further at this point apart from I feel that after in excess of two and a half years of being told 'they are not sitting idly by', 'a dedicated team is working on all available material', 'We are nearing a concluded view' BLAH BLAH BLAH. I am of the opinion they are a total waste of tax payer funds and could well be answerable for negligence from several different directions themselves. A bit sad when you make a follow up enquiry on a date as requested by ASIC, don't hear back, then after you follow it up again yourself, are informed that your 'enquiry' has automatically been lodged as a complaint!! Another fob off. 

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (6 August 2010)

I think that ASIC are simply travelling for free in the slipstream of the liquidators hearings. The listless "guardian" can, at a later date, do a lot of huffing and puffing, but if they leave it too late they may well look ridiculously flat-footed in the eyes of their many critics. Anxious investors seek fair justice..


----------



## Jadel (7 August 2010)

Duped said:


> My guess Ernial, is that ASIC is way out of their depth and they know it but their top brass and Ministers can't concede that this commission's lofty aims can never be achieved.
> 
> It probably could in a more dictatorial or totalitarian state; which Australia will never be. But away from the rarified air in Canberralia, in the real Australia, whose social fabric is held together by things like ethics and common law with torts and principles like caveat emptor, (not the Federal Triangle's whims) ASIC is a dangerous experiment whose pied pipers have led many of those that has led many of those that it was supposed to protect to be scalded. False prophets like the AFS licence scheme run by ASIC. It's very presence unpicking the warp and weft that is caveat emptor: carefully laid down by great minds over many centuries. I now know what beware false prophets  really means.
> 
> ...




Hi Duped 

As I understand the situation ,Guy Hutchins is alleging that somebody fraudulently used his electronic signature to remove a hundred millions  dollars or so, out of the PIF and into OCV to pay out a artificial dividend for that Company . The documentary evidence to support these allegations have been revealed at Bently Enquiry. If it is beyond ASICs capabilities to run a criminal case on that sort of evidence , God help us .

 As you have stated we would all be better off following  the 
Roman buisness idealogy  thousand of yeas ago ,‘Caveat Emptor’. Its absolutely fail safe ,how many tens of thousands of lives have been destoyed because investors logically thought that ASIC was a corporate  police force created specifically to uphold the Corporations Act.

What ASIC actualy have is a mandate to only act as a last resort and for what they perceive to be in their ‘Solomons wisdom’  the greater public interest . As long as big business can operate unhindered what does it matter to them if people lose their life savings  ,after all ,they can always go to Center Link .


----------



## ACB (7 August 2010)

Hello. I have read many posts here and there are many knowledgeable people holding onto slender hope. I feel that the only possible positive outcome will be through the class action. I have not heard much about it recently, does anybody know how that is tracking? That class action really is the last thread of hope for me.


----------



## seamisty (7 August 2010)

ACB said:


> Hello. I have read many posts here and there are many knowledgeable people holding onto slender hope. I feel that the only possible positive outcome will be through the class action. I have not heard much about it recently, does anybody know how that is tracking? That class action really is the last thread of hope for me.



ABC I agree, court/legal action will possiblyly be the only way PIF investors have a chance of recouping some of their stolen/mismanaged funds. ASIC unfortunately appear to be about as effective as our current RE at present, useless!

Re the class action, I did read an interesting snippet on the CCP::

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.          Pursuant to s 50 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the exhibit marked “Confidential AAC-1” referred to in the affidavit of Arthur Anthony Carney dated 19 July 2010 be sealed on the Court file and not be published or disclosed to any person without order of the Court.

Apart from that I believe the lawyers are satisfied with the progress to date. Time will tell!! Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (7 August 2010)

ACB said:


> Hello. I have read many posts here and there are many knowledgeable people holding onto slender hope. I feel that the only possible positive outcome will be through the class action. I have not heard much about it recently, does anybody know how that is tracking? That class action really is the last thread of hope for me.




Good day ACB,
This site will get you onto the CA action. Bookmark it together with this forum site for easy access.
It is expected to shift into higher gear once the amended Statement of Claim is filed by Carney's. Perhaps it has been. 
Regards, 

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD324/2009/actions


----------



## ACB (8 August 2010)

Great stuff. Thank you people.


----------



## selciper (9 August 2010)

This is a late November 07 video featuring ASIC's Tony D'Aloisio.
It takes a while to load, but it's worth fiddling a little to get it going.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=600532207


----------



## Duped (9 August 2010)

An insipid ASIC is worse than no ASIC at all. It puts a thin, flimsy, pretty screen just in front of the cliff edge that is civil and criminal lawsuits. It emboldens bad behaviour. Emboldens bad businesses.  Making it more difficult for good businesses to survive. Causing downward pressure; lowering benchmarks of behaviour.  How fast would you drive along that alpine road if you knew the guard rail was only designed to occasionally stop cars going over the edge, i.e. to create a perception of safety.

What a bunch of stimulants. Public servants that are there just to simulate order and safety with their lobby approved laws and weak policing and stimulate us into parting with our savings with their AFS licence system.


----------



## seamisty (11 August 2010)

I was sent the following link by a fellow PIF investor who also has units in the former City Pacific-managed First Mortgage Fund .

http://www.smh.com.au/business/singo-backs-big-brown-for-trifecta-20100809-11u0p.html?skin=text-only

The responsible entity of the former City Pacific-managed First Mortgage Fund has waved a desiccated carrot at unitholders in the fund by promising them a return of 4 ¢ in the dollar ($35 million) just in time for Christmas.

All unitholders have to do is vote for several resolutions put by Balmain Trilogy 14 months after the investment manager was voted in to replace City Pacific after promising to ''stop the rot''.

''We are thrilled that the first payments to unitholders will soon be made and that we can restore some financial health to our unitholders,'' blurted Trilogy's Rodger Bacon in a press release.

Unitholders are being asked to vote for a ''new redemption program'' that will return $295 million of capital to them by October 2012. That will be a return of about 30 ¢ in the dollar, more than four years since the fund was frozen.

For every redemption made over $415 million (still less than 50 ¢ in the dollar originally invested), Balmain Trilogy is proposing to pay itself a 20 per cent performance fee. In response to calls from unitholders seeking a cut in its fees, Trilogy has promised to cut its management fee from 1.75 per cent of gross assets (not net) to 1 per cent. As anticipated, the manager has also proposed introducing a current value unit price, meaning each $1 unit will now be revalued on the value of the assets in the fund.

HAUNTED BY PAST

Balmain Trilogy has also been forced to include a resolution for the September 1 meeting under which its management fees will be cut to 1.25 per cent of net assets, not gross assets.

The resolution comes amid an unflattering internet campaign being undertaken by one unhappy investor. The disgruntled unitholder, Allan Garnham, who runs the moneymagik.com website, has been keen to dredge up details about Trilogy Fund Management's past.

For one, he has found details of another fund managed by Trilogy that collapsed last year, about the time it was trying to be voted in as the manager of the City Pacific fund.

Included on the moneymagik website is a letter from Trilogy in relation to the Principal Mortgages Mezzanine Finance Fund. ''The fund ceased operations on 25 May 2009 and all units were redeemed at nil value,'' it said. This was the month before Trilogy and Balmain were voted in as the new managers of the City Pacific fund.

''They didn't tell us about this one at the meeting - not a murmur in the media - why not?,'' Garnham asks. He also includes information linking the fund to the controversial property spruiker Henry Kaye.




Deja vu??? Sound familiar? Perhaps Balmain think it worked for the WC team of  stooges so maybe they would use a similar approach? If the investors in this fund even get a nibble at the promised 'desictaed carrot' it will be more than PIF investors got!

STOOGE::A stooge is a person who will try and take every dollar you have, and then save those dollars for any cause that doesnt involve giving it to friends, or family. These stooges are often in 'stooge denial'. You can spot a stooge, at events where free food is served. Stooges often attempt to think up of scams for scoring free money through friends and family. They travel in groups hoping to stooge more money, and can often be found in Mitsubishi Pajero's which run on Oil rather than petrol. They enjoy the taste of Bundaberg Rum and should be avoided where possible, unless prepared to give them money. Warning: some stooges walk among us everyday and have been trained in the art of stooging very well, so pay attention to all signs.

Seamisty


----------



## mellifuous (11 August 2010)

A letter to investors in the PFMF:-

http://www.moneymagik.com/mail_letter.pdf


----------



## Duped (12 August 2010)

Unlike some of you.  I don't blame myself for ending up in PIF. 

And  I DO NOT ACCEPT Wayne *Swann*'s intimation that we deserve what we got because we were going for higher returns.  I.e. we were greedy. (As for ex Liberal leader and MFS chairman Andrew *Peacock *- the less said the better)

It was a hustle by unscrupulous operators that the Commonwealth government and its instutions/commissions aided and abetted.  Just like the States did with whole Selector mess from the 19th century (I.e. Dad and Dave) which (through poor enforcement) stimulated enormous fraud and corruption and caused great suffering to individuals. All in the name of advancing the productivity of the State.

This is the same Commonwealth that taxes the bejeezes out of us, taking away our the financial power to look after ourselves.  The same Commonwealth that continues to take all the power from the States. Then what ..... it sets up a piecemeal regulatory system (still unfinished), sets up a  couple of Commissions (ACCC and ASIC - both a relatively recent little experiment) to create the perception of governance knowing well that there is no way it can actually do anything itself to protect its citizen's assets, promotes financial advisors as professionals who sit far below the professionalism of industries like lawyers and doctors, and then what ..... sits back as we get mauled saying: hmmmm we must fix up this bit of the sytem over here and tweak it a bit over there for the next batch of 'clients'.

Antony Green has a list of the most marginal electorates.  Click on the Sates tab to see if you're in one. 

*http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/guide/preview.htm*

If you're in a marginal electorate it's imperitive you immediately contact or write to all the candidates in your electorate and tell them about our story. 

FOR THE SAKE OF ALL UNITHOLDERS IN SAFE SEATS, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.  

We didn't make anywhere near enough submissions to the *Ripoll *inquiry and barely got a mention in the final report.

THIS IS THE ONLY TIME YOU WILL BE HEARD Even better, give your candidates an ultimatum. 

A VOTE FOR INDEPENDENTS OR A NON LABOR/COALITION PARTY IS YOUR ONLY WAY OF VOTING FOR STATE POWER OVER COMMONWEALTH POWER.

The Commonwealth takes the powers away from the  States.  But who is doing the heavy lifting in getting the truth about what MFS did to OUR FUND. Who had the guts to do the  right thing by its clients UP FRONT. The Public Trustee of Queensland, not ASIC.

I'm not the only one who thinks that the Commonwealth's self congratulations about the management of Australians' superannuation savings is totally out of perspective. See: 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/05/2974671.htm


----------



## Duped (16 August 2010)

MFS/Octaviar public examinations continue this week.  Can anyone make it there?


----------



## mellifuous (16 August 2010)

Well, we're in the same sort of struggle you guys were with W.C.

Here is a letter I'll be sending to ASIC today.  I encourage members of the PFMF who oppose the manager's proposals to consider sending this letter to ASIC (under their own name).

Thanks.

http://www.moneymagik.com/asic_request.pdf


----------



## seamisty (16 August 2010)

Duped said:


> MFS/Octaviar public examinations continue this week.  Can anyone make it there?



 I was hoping some of the PIF Sydney unitholders would attend Duped as it appears the media has lost interest??
They are held at::
Court 3 
Darlinghurst Court House 
Taylor Square 
Corner of Forbes Street and Oxford Street 
Darlinghurst NSW

The examinations are continuing until mid Oct then resuming in Nov. 

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (16 August 2010)

mellifuous said:


> Well, we're in the same sort of struggle you guys were with W.C.
> 
> Here is a letter I'll be sending to ASIC today.  I encourage members of the PFMF who oppose the manager's proposals to consider sending this letter to ASIC (under their own name).
> 
> ...



 I will be very interested to see what the response from ASIC will be mellifuous.

Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (16 August 2010)

seamisty said:


> I was hoping some of the PIF Sydney unitholders would attend Duped as it appears the media has lost interest??
> They are held at::
> Court 3
> Darlinghurst Court House
> ...




Perhaps all the journalists are covering the election campaigns and will get back to important news reporting next week, such as Bentleys court examinations. There seems to be a small army of journalists on the campaign trail. I'm sure I'm not the only one feeling very in the dark as to what information is coming out of the hearings. Hopefully, someone from the PIF or perhaps Carneys can enlighten us? 

Does anyone know when transcripts of the hearings become available to the public?

Cookie1


----------



## atlas1950 (17 August 2010)

Hi All,

Can someone approach Carneys and ask them if, after all these investigations, could they have a public meeting with us , and for them to update us with all relevant facts re class action. The last meeting we had with them was about 2 years ago, so it may be time for us to have a face to face meeting with them.

It would be a great  exercise for us long suffering PIF investors.

Michael


----------



## atlas1950 (17 August 2010)

In the Australian financial section today,very interesting article, in relation to court proceedings in the Supreme Court. Makes you quite ill reading about the mis-management of OUR money. Just hope this gives  more ammunition to IMF and Carneys in our upcoming class action.

Michael


----------



## seamisty (17 August 2010)

Fund used to cover MFS shortfall, NSW Supreme Court told 
Bridget Carter From: The Australian August 17, 2010 12:00AM 

THE failed MFS Group used money from its Premium Income Fund to plug a hole in a capital raising shortfall, a court heard yesterday. 

This was after directors of MFS, now known as Octaviar, promised to cover any shortfall in the $175 million equity raising, the NSW Supreme Court was told. 

The raising was held to fund ski-field businesses and aquarium acquisitions by MFS Living and Leisure off parent company MFS Group during 2006.

But the transaction, which involved the MFS PIF acquiring nearly $8m worth of shares in the MFS Living and Leisure Fund, happened "urgently", according to documents produced in the NSW Supreme Court yesterday and before any compliance committee approval was sought.

The units purchased by PIF were held by Management Finance, which was PIF's trustee and of which the group's chief financial officer, David Anderson was the sole director in 2006. Former MFS executive director and deputy chief executive officer Craig White was on the stand yesterday as part of a public examination conducted by liquidator Bentleys Corporate Recovery, to find out when the company became insolvent.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
MFS listed in 2005 and collapsed in January 2008, owing creditors $2.5 billion.

Under questioning, Mr White was unable to recall or did not know many details about transactions and emails in 2006, including why the PIF, which MFS managed, would buy the units.

An email was sent by MFS co-founder and former chief executive Michael King to Mr White saying: "We need to remit this from PIF to Shaws in the morning", referring to shortfall that needed to be paid to the broker Shaw Stockbroking, which undertook the raising for the MFS Living and Leisure fund.

An email was then sent by Mr White to former director of MFS Investment Management, Steve Kyling, saying: "Steve, can you please do urgently as immediate/real time transfer?"

Mr White was asked if he was aware that Management Finance had set up a margin loan facility using as security units in the PIF. Mr White agreed that "on the face of it" this would breach PIF's compliance plan, which required transactions to be in the best interest of security holders.

When asked if PIF unitholders would receive a benefit from this, Mr White said "no". MFS also needed $100m to honour a promise to shareholders to provide a 20c per share dividend by October 2007, when the company had cashflow challenges.

MFS sold loans to PIF to secure cash, and Mr White said "on the face of it", it appeared proper process had not been followed.

The examination continues today.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...tfall-court-told/story-e6frg8zx-1225906069116


----------



## Duped (17 August 2010)

atlas1950 said:


> In the Australian financial section today,very interesting article, in relation to court proceedings in the Supreme Court. Makes you quite ill reading about the mis-management of OUR money. Just hope this gives  more ammunition to IMF and Carneys in our upcoming class action.
> 
> Michael




Wow.  Great stuff.  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...tfall-court-told/story-e6frg8zx-1225906069116

Seems that White is dropping Anderson and Kyling in it. 

Kyling resigned from the MFSIM board on 17 September 2007. Why then?


----------



## Duped (17 August 2010)

The Australian is trying some more serious reporting on MFS today.  Meanwhile, for some light news, over at the Gold Coast Bulletin:

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/08/17/247785_gold-coast-business.html

The GC Bully really seems to just be a local bulletin.


----------



## JohnH (17 August 2010)

........... and on the same page, this link:-

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/08/17/247725_gold-coast-business.html

quote  ""I think this a big step in the right direction," said Ms Hutson who conceded the profit had taken her by surprise.


----------



## Jadel (17 August 2010)

I think our so called  fund should act as a case study into exactly all that is flawed with the  the Corporations Act and why ASIC is treated with utter contempt by a great many in the business community . It is patently obvious  that these, so called Corporate ‘LAWS?’ are’ regarded as no more than a  Brownies Girl Guides code or a Mission Statement 

The extent and depth of the abuse and exploitation of the PIF over many years without the slightest  censure  by so called  Compliance Committees and Auditors ,demonstrates unequivocally  that these people have absolutely no fear of the  Corporations Act   .And why should they? a few 9 to 5 bureaucrats  acting as buffer and shield for  a small ,second rate legal team .

Look what happened when John Elliott ( former chairman of the liberal party) was taken to court many years ago . He decimated a buisness and ruined tens of thousands many tears ago in similar circumstances. Nevertheless a team of expensive high flying lawyers got him off . Yesterday he was giving commentary on the election without a care in the world . Just recently, Jody Rich , One Tel , got off with the presiding  Judge singing his praises as an exemplary human being , and damning ASIC  for incompetence.

 Duped ,if we were in China this lot would be in front of a firing squad in short order , In  Iran they would  probabably be stoned to death . Sometimes you just gotta wonder.


----------



## gardie (17 August 2010)

I have never understood the Living and Leisure deal that Wellington did with Artic Capital.

Even after the collapse of MFS more funds were flowing I believe to LLA from PIF but then a deal was done to sell the debt and shares at a discount and pay a fee to Artic for being so kind as to buy the PIF debt out at a discount.

If Wellington was such a great merchant bank why did they not take control of LLA instead of Artic as these were cash generating assets and PIF was the major creditor behind only the bank.

Wouldnt these be the type of assets to be retained and value be rebuilt for the benefit of unitholders. 

I also question the selling off of the shares in what is now GEO who I think time will tell like LLA will go on and kick quite a few goals once unshackled from the taint of MFS.

Wellington will point the finger at the share prices as say that they were vindicated but I think these companies are undervalued and still suffer from where they came from.

It was all a rush to pay of RBOS but did anyone ever stop and ask the question of how much did RBOS know when the line of credit was taken and the monies drawndown of where it was going ?

Did they turn a blind eye also to what was going on.


----------



## seamisty (17 August 2010)

gardie said:


> I have never understood the Living and Leisure deal that Wellington did with Artic Capital.
> 
> Even after the collapse of MFS more funds were flowing I believe to LLA from PIF but then a deal was done to sell the debt and shares at a discount and pay a fee to Artic for being so kind as to buy the PIF debt out at a discount.
> 
> ...



Well Gardie its not exactly a well kept secret that approx 10400 investors would seriously have been questioning for quite some time  the following as quoted from http://www.wellcap.com.au/profile.html  'Wellington Capital is differentiated by its innovative style and access to capital, which enables it to be faster and more creative in designing suitable solutions. Wellington Capital's experienced team focuses exclusively on finance and property based transactions, and offers clients proven expertise in de-risking opportunities and innovatively structuring transactions.'

'Wellington Capital is active in a broad and varied range of transactions ranging in size and across all property sectors. These property based projects are diverse and range from fund raisings associated with the acquisition and further development of CBD offices, residential towers, commercial and industrial facilities, and large scale subdivisions.'

Glaring ommissions from the wellcap website include no mention of the negotiating expertise by the experienced team to secure finance for the Wellington Capitals Premium Income Fund at a staggering 25%!!!  A legendary status such as that when interest rates were at an all time low should go down in history me thinks!!

I hope potential investors in G8 education, trading as GEM are keeping a close eye on management because  statements from the chairperson, Jenny Hutson, such as 'operationally our team is delivering for all stakeholders' make a totally mockery of the Premium Income Fund investors who were promised far more by the same person over two years ago!

Heres a question for you Gardie, are investors who were encouraged to invest in the PIF and had their money accepted or rolled over after OCV became insolvent, elligible to become creditors of OCV separate from  the PIF being a creditor for missapropriated funds?

Seamisty


----------



## Duped (17 August 2010)

Jadel said:


> ...
> 
> Duped ,if we were in China this lot would be in front of a firing squad in short order , In  Iran they would  probabably be stoned to death . Sometimes you just gotta wonder.




Or even the US for that matter. Compared to the heavy hitters the US system has sent to jail, our system looks more like a uni moot. See Stephen's criticism of and list of ASIC's incarcerations at maynereport.com.au. ASIC is more facade than wall. Or maybe just transitory, like the removable barriers put in place each year for the F1 or the Indi Cars.

But then again, as I'm learning from my current readings, Australia seems to have always been a bit like that. More like a civilised mob rule. Democracy Lite.  Or a freeware version of Democracy.  If you want the full version with all its extra features you have to pay.  Tempting but will it crash or slow down my other software? Or will it even work with my version of the OS - Free Market 2.0. Or my security suite - State & Federal Judiciary. Or just make the whole lot run slow. All questions for the next republic debate.

So how do we make this Commonwealth's system work for us?


----------



## selciper (17 August 2010)

The idiosyncratic American trends forecaster, Gerald Celente, has a very good way of describing the American fraudsters and swindlers of the moment. They are, he says, impervious to the damage they do to orhers because they are addicts - addicts to money. It seems that this addiction to wealth is so strong that nothing can stand in their way. The innocent are trampled over as these expensively dressed hyenas always protect one another. Appropriately, Celente labels these inter-related bunch of miscreants as “money junkies.”


----------



## simgrund (17 August 2010)

While in the Carney's office today, an associate gave me a pointer to our progress being jump-started in 2 weeks time. 
The sealed orders were, it seems, in relation to some minor amendments which are being ironed out right now.
So in some 2 weeks we can expect some sort of "moving forward". Keep faith.
Regards,


----------



## seamisty (17 August 2010)

simgrund said:


> While in the Carney's office today, an associate gave me a pointer to our progress being jump-started in 2 weeks time.
> The sealed orders were, it seems, in relation to some minor amendments which are being ironed out right now.
> So in some 2 weeks we can expect some sort of "moving forward". Keep faith.
> Regards,



Thanks for that simgrund. We are all patiently (or impatiently) waiting for some legal action of some description by someone remotely competant to demonstrate that mismanagement and misappropriation of other peoples money is totally unacceptable. 

Senator Nick Sherry (Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) stated that the PIF was a risk based investment and the Govt would not extend guarantees to protect investors against losses in these type of funds as it would be seen as rewarding them for taking risks!! He also said that 'protecting investors against losses on such investments does not appaer to be an appropriate role for govt as it is likely to significantly distort the allocation of risk and return which is essential to the proper functioning of investment markets'!!  

 Wayne Swan  (Deputy Prime Minister and  Treasurer of the Australian Labor 
Party)  stated that PIF investors were 'greedy' for going after higher returns. And as for ASIC, what are they waiting for? The election? The PTQ and Bentleys to do their work for them?
Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (17 August 2010)

By off forum popular demand I am posting a recent picture of the 'relocated church' to Andelaine from Binjour in Qld to David Burkes enneagram retreat  http://www.enneagram.com.au/pages/andelaine.htm#re an attatchment. The fees associated with these 'not for profit' organisations and their informative 'once in a lifetime workshop opportunity' would be interesting to certain people I am sure.
 The ph contact no for the workshop was 07 3218 7304http://www.naturaltherapypages.com.au/therapist/28284
That would be the same Jane Buxton who is employed by both WC and David Burkes Ingenius Communications Pty ...Sorry, Just checked and the picture is not coming through!! Shame, I am sure it would have been a great place to hold a 'not for profit EGM'!!

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (18 August 2010)

Court told that MFS documents were 'backdated' 
Teresa Ooi From: The Australian August 18, 2010 12:00AM 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...s-were-backdated/story-e6frg8zx-1225906567969

A FORMER deputy chief executive of the failed MFS Group signed documents that were later backdated by a year, a court heard yesterday. 

Craig White told the NSW Supreme Court he had signed documents in 2008 that were later backdated to 2007, and that minutes of a MFS management meeting held in 2008 were dated November 21, 2007.

Asked by Adam Bell SC on behalf of the liquidator, Bentleys Corporate Recovery, whether the minutes of a MFS management committee meeting held on November 21, 2007 were an accurate record, Mr Craig said: "I think the minutes were prepared sometime in 2008."

When Mr Bell questioned him whether it was "misleading" for the date to be backdated, Mr Craig did not comment.

Mr Craig took the stand yesterday as part of a public examination by the liquidator to ascertain when MFS, now known as Octaviar, became insolvent. MFS listed in 2005 and collapsed in September 2008, owing creditors $2.5 billion.

Mr Craig said he did not recall receiving a statement of accounts every month.

He denied the cash situation at MFS was very tight by mid-November 2007, despite receiving emails from chief financial officer David Anderson saying the company was facing "serious cashflow problems".

"I was aware there were cashflow challenges, but I did not think they were unmanageable," Mr Craig said.

But Mr Bell said Mr Anderson's email had conveyed that something had to be done urgently to address the company's cashflow problems.

Mr Craig was also questioned as to why $147.5 million had disappeared from the company's Premium Income Fund without proper documentation, which was a breach of compliance.


----------



## seamisty (18 August 2010)

MFS chief breached disclosure rules Kate Lahey 
August 18, 2010

CASH was so tight at the financial services group MFS in late 2007 that aside from using borrowed funds to pay its dividend, senior executives worried about how to pay an employee's entitlements, the NSW Supreme Court has heard.

Despite this, it took the deputy chief executive, Craig White, just a few days to find the $100 million MFS urgently needed to repay a loan from US lenders Fortress Credit.

Once he had secured the cash, he emailed the chief financial officer, David Anderson, saying: ''Come on mate, you know I wouldn't let you down. Told you I had the cash and do'', and ended his message with a smiley face

Full article::http://www.smh.com.au/business/mfs-chief-breached-disclosure-rules-20100817-128hm.html


----------



## zixo (18 August 2010)

The thing I find incredible is that during all this time ASIC and nearly every politician on both sides of federal politics knew we were pleading for help and some shady deals were being done under everyones noses. 

A lot of people need to be thrown in jail for this and ASIC needs to be held to account for its role in our loss.


----------



## Dexter (18 August 2010)

Who's in favour of a Class Action against ASIC?  Enough is enough!  At least they would have the money to pay us.


----------



## gardie (18 August 2010)

Hi Seamisty

Going back to the question you asked about investors who invested after potential insolvency and if they could claim as general creditors of OCV.

While not a lawyer I am guessing that it may come down to who was inducing you to invest. Was it OCV or the RE of the fund.

Having said that a investor in this boat could put a proof of debt into the liquidator of OCV to test the water as the liquidator would need to make a determination of status.

In relation to ASIC I am guessing they are waiting for liquidators report to see what breaches of law there are.

In another fine example called Westpoint this company used to put out these nice reports called Onpoint News which featured these collumn charts.

These showed how much total sales of the project would be, how much was debt to bank, how much owed to the promissory note investors, how much still owed on construction.

The top part showed a nice cushion of profit.

Problem was they repeatedly understated the amount they had actuallly raised from investors. One of these I recall said they owed 30 million when it was actually over 70 million meaning they could never pay back what they owed. 

Project after project was the same.

Now to me this must be fraud or misrepresentation or some crime asinvestors were sent these as part of roll overs and new cap raising material.

To date no action against the two main people in this and in fact Norm Carey in court trying to argue that Westpoint was solvent when shut down by ASIC.

I know this is off topic but it shows how crazy this all is when you can rip  people off and even with public documents showing the lies nothing happened


----------



## Jadel (18 August 2010)

With $147.5 million missing from the Premium Income Fund, Mr White compiled a list of ''investments'' made the previous year to account for the figure.

At the same time, Mark Korda, from Korda Mentha, was appointed to advise the board, and the court has heard he advised it the group was solvent. Mr White told the court yesterday he did not think it was relevant to let Mr Korda know about the retrospective accounting.

''At that point in time I didn't see how that pertained to the solvency of the group, going forward,'' Mr White said.

Mr White has told the court he now works as a consultant. His examination continues today.

 I would like to know who is employing this fellow as a consultant ??????????

  Perhaps  somebody wants to defraud a Major Bank and was looking for somebody with prior experience.


----------



## erniel (18 August 2010)

seamisty said:


> MFS chief breached disclosure rules Kate Lahey
> August 18, 2010
> 
> CASH Full article::http://www.smh.com.au/business/mfs-chief-breached-disclosure-rules-20100817-128hm.html





Can Anyone shed some light on who (in my opinion this dispicable character )Craig White is cnsulting for.We need to warn people who and what white is all about.


----------



## simgrund (18 August 2010)

Dexter said:


> Who's in favour of a Class Action against ASIC?  Enough is enough!  At least they would have the money to pay us.




But not before they secure for PIF a recovery of $147.5 mil in their ongoing action against MFS directors.
Any progress news on that front???
Regards,


----------



## erniel (18 August 2010)

simgrund said:


> But not before they secure for PIF a recovery of $147.5 mil in their ongoing action against MFS directors.
> Any progress news on that front???
> Regards,





m c king,is next I believe to be interrogated by the liquidators. Lets wait to here what the leader of the pack has to say re all the fraudulent transactions that have taken place within MFS and the PIF.

Surely all this evidence that is now being exposed is assisting our C A and Carneys.

I must admit that I am shattered to think that the board members of mfs were party to all this fraud and the auditors did not once express an opinion on these matters.One begs the answer what did the auditors get paid for.


----------



## seamisty (18 August 2010)

Thanks Gardie for your previous response.

What a joke this from the MFS PIF Product Disclosure Statement 2007:

WHY DOES THE FUND HAVE A COMPLIANCE PLAN?
The Compliance Plan sets out the processes we apply to ensure that the
operations of the Fund are conducted in accordance with our AFSL, the
Constitution, the Corporations Act and other applicable legislation. The
Compliance Plan is independently audited.
The Compliance Plan and the documents controlled through it establishes
practices that help us manage risk management, record keeping,
accounting and audit functions, lending policies, complaints handling and
other aspects of the operation of the Fund.
Copies of the Compliance Plan have been lodged with ASIC and are available
for inspection at any MFSIM offi ce during business hours.::

At least Craig White appears to have a better recollection of events in relation to the 'swindle' than David Anderson!!! It would be interesting to know just who of Michael Kings loyal staff members were privvy to the swindle/theft/missapropriation/fraud or whatever you like to call it.(All of which were not listed as key risk factors in the PDS!!) Since when did this type of behaviour become an acceptable accreditation on a resume to become a 'consultant'?

Seamisty


----------



## erniel (18 August 2010)

erniel said:


> m c king,is next I believe to be interrogated by the liquidators. Lets wait to here what the leader of the pack has to say re all the fraudulent transactions that have taken place within MFS and the PIF.
> 
> Surely all this evidence that is now being exposed is assisting our C A and Carneys.
> 
> I must admit that I am shattered to think that the board members of mfs were party to all this fraud and the auditors did not once express an opinion on these matters.One begs the answer what did the auditors get paid for.




I refer to the the auditors Price Waterhouse Coopers ,Independence decleration to the financials review of the PIF dated 31 December 2007. and I quote

" I declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief there have been

B) no contraventions of any applicable code of professional Conduct in relation to the review.

Signed by a Mr.Timothy J Allman
Partner
Price Waterhouse Coopers.


----------



## selciper (18 August 2010)

This dismal affair could well spill over towards some unexpected territory. Mr Craig (as the Australian refers to White) making statements must have some notable Queensland persons increasingly worried about their futures.


----------



## JohnH (18 August 2010)

Bit of a worry, I see that in today's notice of substantial shareholding change, Alfie obtained another 33852 shares ($2,268 worth).
If my calculations are correct, that means that if they continue at this rate, in the year 2051 they will have achieved their 90% acceptance.

.............................much as I am against their bid, I would love to live long enough to see them achieve it!!! -


----------



## seamisty (18 August 2010)

Not sure if this is another Jenny Hutson cut and paste job but I bet this ASX announcement will make all WELLINGTON CAPITAL PIF holders furious!! 

Dividend ::
G8 Education announced its dividend policy on 27 May 2010. Dividends are expected to be payable toshareholders quarterly.
Whilst the actual level of dividends paid is at the discretion of the Board, it is the Directors’ current intention that G8 Education Limited will be paid quarterly. Dividend payments are anticipated to commence in the second half of this 2010 calendar year. Dividends will be franked where possible.
Chairperson Jenny Hutson said ‘Our team delivered a result 42.8% ahead of the forecast EBIT for the 6 months ended 30 June 2010. An additional 51 centres will soon be part of our portfolio. As demonstrated by our guidance, the 2011 year is set to deliver an exceptional outcome for all stakeholders.’
ENDS
Jenny Hutson
Chairperson
P: 07 3009 9800
E: jhutson@wellcap.
Beware G8(GEM)education shareholders!!! Premium Income Fund unit holders were promised a quarterly distribution nearly 2 years ago by the same person and still have not received a brass razoo and the value of our Fund has been decimated by approx $150million under the management of Jenny Hutson and her experienced team!!

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (19 August 2010)

MFS considered early liquidation, court told 
Teresa Ooi From: The Australian August 19, 2010 12:00AM
THE former deputy-CEO of the failed MFS Group said board advisers had raised the option of placing the company into voluntary liquidation. 

The advice was given seven months before it collapsed in September 2008 with debts of $2.5 billion, the NSW Supreme Court heard yesterday.

When asked by Adam Bell SC on behalf of MFS liquidator Bentleys Corporate Recovery whether advisers Korda Mentha and 333 Capital raised the option of placing MFS into voluntary adminstration, Craig White said: "Voluntary administration was considered at meetings discussing insolvency."


Full Article:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ation-court-told/story-e6frg8zx-1225907023187


----------



## seamisty (19 August 2010)

Sound familiar?? 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/19/2987689.htm?section=business

Storm Financial report has stalled: economist
By Penny Timms


 A north Queensland economist says a report into the failed Storm Financial still has not been released, six months after the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) was to complete it.

Formerly Townsville-based Storm Financial collapsed last year, owing millions of dollars to investors. 

Economist Carey Ramm has been working with former Storm clients and says the report appears to have stalled. 

"If you take a look at what's occurred in the US, basically, a lot of the people that were involved in the Global Financial Crisis in the US, they're in jail, they've already been sentenced and they're actually doing their time," he said.

"The way ASIC is going, we might see Bernie Madoff and those sorts of people being released before ASIC releases this report."

ASIC says it is committed to the investigation and recovering compensation for investors.


----------



## seamisty (20 August 2010)

ASIC is letting us down 


A very interesting read.
http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2010/08/19/164091_opinion.html


----------



## Jadel (21 August 2010)

I think this article below  may go some way to explainig the mindset of *D' Aloisio the previos Chairman of the ASX* when it comes to transparent  investigations.
IF Storm victims can not get any jusice , what chance do we have?




What seems to have slipped under the proverbial radar here is this:

*The son of the ASX Chairman, Maurice newman *obtained a Financial Services Licence. But this particular licence " ... included a nominee company called Green Frog Nominees. By having its own nominee company, Nexus was in a position to hold its own clients' securities and to run its lending practices away from the gaze of the ASX."

Did you get that ..."A-W-A-Y from the gaze of the ASX"

Why?

Why would a respectable entity need to conceal anything at all from the ASX?

Because even if there was something sinister about it, it remains doubtful, history has shown, whether the ASX would want to disturb the status quo which allows it to be the regulator and at the same time, P-R-O-F-I-T from the activities of those whom it is charged to R-E-G-U-L-A-T-E.

Did you understand that? The regulator is also involved in profiting from the activities, but to this day, D-E-N-I-E-S and conflict of interest.

Am I stupid, blind, or what?

Did I misunderstand that you can be both Judge AND defendant?

Last law book I read said there needs to be uninvolved parties before an impartial judgement can be passed down by any regulator ... but hey! What the fique would I know?

So here is a little family secret ... Dad arranges for Son to obtain Licence, which is held for a little while as a 50% partner ... then quietly on-sold to form a company which would NEVER otherwise have gotten through the regulator.

And here it is, operating under the nose of ASIC, with the full blessing of none other than the Chairman of the ASX, no less, who vicariously needs to be held accountable because this arrangement has come about with not only his full knowledge, but quite possibly his active participation in the application for the Licence in the first instance.

Was the licence obtained for a mate with the intention of later selling the half-share to allow the formation of Opes Prime?

Unless I am getting too old to read the public domain reports on this, it seems so to me.

But then, I am from Frog's Hollow, and what the fique would I know - we are all too naive over there, and far too trusting.

Now the innocent investors with Opes are going down with the guilty, and that is N-O-T freaking F-A-I-R. (We do not use expletives in Froggy)

Would someone please tell me where one can still invest safely in this country, and have that fact overseen by a RESPONSIBLE, IMPARTIAL and HONEST entity?

I would say more, but the legal implications involved in calling the contemptible to account are far too big for Froggy people, and the management of T$ would also prefer NOT to have a libel suit to wear


----------



## simgrund (21 August 2010)

Jadel said:


> I think this article below  may go some way to explainig the mindset of *D' Aloisio the previos Chairman of the ASX* when it comes to transparent  investigations.
> IF Storm victims can not get any jusice , what chance do we have?--------------------------------------
> What seems to have slipped under the proverbial radar here is this:
> *The son of the ASX Chairman, Maurice newman *obtained a Financial Services Licence. But this particular licence " ... included a nominee company called Green Frog Nominees. By having its own nominee company, Nexus was in a position to hold its own clients' securities and to run its lending practices away from the gaze of the ASX." ---------------------------------------
> ...




Good day Jadel,
We hear, we hear!!
As the name of Maurice Newman is resurrected in my memory; I go back some 2.5 years ago when in my initial stupor and frustration I lashed out at the Office of this "paragon" of public leadership to vent my already formed damnation of the MFS clique for their ruining of many.
And the "paragon" replied without missing a beat with a long, formulated proforma letter that, in condensing, would translate to "them are the breaks". Nick Sherry style.
He did not proffer, by way of a meaningful sympathy, the sort of a break his son got from the inside. Perhaps an invite to join ranks, an apprenticeship at the trough?
That is reserved for the deserving cadres of the Aussie aristo-elite with Feigan's pedigrees.
In solidarity, regards


----------



## Jadel (23 August 2010)

simgrund said:


> Good day Jadel,
> We hear, we hear!!
> As the name of Maurice Newman is resurrected in my memory; I go back some 2.5 years ago when in my initial stupor and frustration I lashed out at the Office of this "paragon" of public leadership to vent my already formed damnation of the MFS clique for their ruining of many.
> And the "paragon" replied without missing a beat with a long, formulated proforma letter that, in condensing, would translate to "them are the breaks". Nick Sherry style.
> ...




Indeed Simgrund


You were lucky to get a reply from Nick Sherry my letter never even got through the backroom staffers.

 The  paragon of non virtue that we both refer to is a creature permeated with the  greed and avarice of the financial system his is supposed to IMPARTALLY REGULATE .  It would appear that certain  corporate transgressions are regarded as no more than   an acceptable family social pastime. However Simgrund ,I must admit to being  more worried about  Nepotism than Feiganism  per se ,when it comes to people who hold high government office

 Recently I heard the paragon give an interview in his current role as Chairman of the ASIC. You would think he would be referring to initiatives that ASIC have taken to improve the Regulatory system. and protect investors who have had their lives devastated by dishonest director’s after the recent turmoil in the markets..Instead he was full of the fact that the ASX gone from 10.000 trades a day to 40.000 trades a day as a measure of financial health.

We can only imagine the tensions in ASIC whereby a senior Barrister is prepared to immediately resign when a carefully prepared brief is totally ignored on behalf of desperate. Investors (many elderly pensioners) who were conned into putting their very houses as equity now face eviction and ruin

In our case the unlawful activities perpetuated against the PIF  were so obvious that ASIC were forced to take action. And even with these blatant abuse   ASIC had to be hand fed data concerning these fraudulent activities with constant requests for some justice. over many years. I can still vividly recall a personnel appointment wit an ASIC analyst 2.1/2 years ago where I was informed that was mistaken in my belief that the 200 million was illegally talent out of our fund ,and that something was terribly wrong. I was informed instead,that this money was simply a loan to the GEO property trust. The fact of the matter it took took almost the complete destruction of our assets before ASIC were prepared to act.

 I find it difficult to imagine ASIC ever interceding on our behalf in our current deplorable situation.





O





.


----------



## Jadel (23 August 2010)

simgrund said:


> Good day Jadel,
> We hear, we hear!!
> As the name of Maurice Newman is resurrected in my memory; I go back some 2.5 years ago when in my initial stupor and frustration I lashed out at the Office of this "paragon" of public leadership to vent my already formed damnation of the MFS clique for their ruining of many.
> And the "paragon" replied without missing a beat with a long, formulated proforma letter that, in condensing, would translate to "them are the breaks". Nick Sherry style.
> ...




Indeed Simgrund


You were lucky to get a reply from Nick Sherry my letter never even got through the backroom staffers.

 The  paragon of non virtue that we both refer to is a creature permeated with the  greed and avarice of the financial system he is supposed to IMPARTALLY REGULATE .  It would appear that certain  corporate transgressions are regarded as no more than   an acceptable family social pastime. However Simgrund ,I must admit to being  more worried about  Nepotism than Feiganism  per se ,when it comes to people who hold high government office

 Recently, I heard the paragon give an interview in his current role as Chairman of the ASIC. You would think he would be referring to initiatives that ASIC have taken to improve the Regulatory system. and protect investors who have had their lives devastated by dishonest director’s after the recent turmoil in the markets..Instead he was full of the fact that the ASX gone from 10.000 trades a day to 40.000 trades a day as a measure of financial health.

We can only imagine the tensions in ASIC whereby a senior Barrister is prepared to immediately resign when a carefully prepared brief is totally ignored on behalf of desperate investors, (many elderly pensioners) who were conned into putting their very houses as equity and who now face eviction and ruin.

In our case the unlawful activities perpetuated against the PIF  were so obvious that ASIC were forced to take action. And even with these blatant abuse   ASIC had to be hand fed data concerning these fraudulent activities with constant requests for some justice. over many years. I can still vividly recall a personnel appointment with an ASIC analyst 2.1/2 years ago where I was informed that I was mistaken in my belief that the 200 million was illegally talent out of our fund ,and that something was terribly wrong. I was informed instead,that this money was simply a loan to the GEO property trust. The fact of the matter is that it took took almost the complete destruction of our assets before ASIC were prepared to act.

 I find it difficult to imagine ASIC ever interceding on our behalf in our current deplorable situation.





O





.


----------



## seamisty (23 August 2010)

Jadel said:


> Indeed Simgrund
> 
> 
> You were lucky to get a reply from Nick Sherry my letter never even got through the backroom staffers.
> ...



Just to add insult to injury on the failure of ASIC to intervene to date on the behalf of long suffering PIF investors ::http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic-to-support-probe-into-alleged-allco-breaches-20100822-13asf.html


----------



## zixo (23 August 2010)

seamisty said:


> Just to add insult to injury on the failure of ASIC to intervene to date on the behalf of long suffering PIF investors ::http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic-to-support-probe-into-alleged-allco-breaches-20100822-13asf.html






what a pity we didn't amalgamate with all the other people who have had money misappropriated like we have to formed some kind of political splinter group targeting politicians. 
who knows with a hung parliament maybe someone from both sides would of been willing to actually get off their fat behinds and act on our behalf when its glaringly obvious how totally incompetent and arrogant asic is.


----------



## simgrund (23 August 2010)

Jadel said:


> Indeed Simgrund
> 
> You were lucky to get a reply from Nick Sherry my letter never even got through the backroom staffers.
> 
> The  paragon of non virtue that we both -------------




Greetings Jadel,
Slight correction. The reply was from the "paragon"; the virtuous Maurice Newman did the replying. 
Nick Sherry followed some time later with well publicised "caveat emptor" flippancy in the public pages.
Neither you, Zixo nor any of us need to despair about non-amalgamation. 
Come the time of CA, and the reply from Maurice Newman and many other damning pieces out there will find their way into the hands of the lawyers this side of Justice.
And isn't ASIC already interceding by having started the $147.5 mil. recovery action on our behalf?
There should be an update on this somewhere?
Regards,


----------



## seamisty (24 August 2010)

zixo said:


> what a pity we didn't amalgamate with all the other people who have had money misappropriated like we have to formed some kind of political splinter group targeting politicians.
> who knows with a hung parliament maybe someone from both sides would of been willing to actually get off their fat behinds and act on our behalf when its glaringly obvious how totally incompetent and arrogant asic is.




zixo  Depending on what ASIC does or does NOT do relating to PIF legal intervention, repatriation of misappropriated funds, current RE issues re conflict of interest and poor performance etc. etc. after the hundreds, more likely to be in the thousands of complaints it has received from unithloders well in excess of two years, I think the following article could well set a precedent for future actions.

Seamisty
                                                                                                   Ariff shows ASIC's ineptitude August 24, 2010::
'THE arrest of banned liquidator Stuart Ariff on 19 fraud-related criminal charges three years after his outlandish conduct was first raised in the media is a sad indictment on our regulatory system.
While Ariff's arrest has been welcomed by the many victims who lost money, there is a bitterness and frustration that won't go away. It is bitterness born out of the knowledge that if the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the insolvency lobby group, the Insolvency Practitioners Association, had listened to their complaints earlier and acted sooner, they might have got back some of the millions of dollars they are owed.

Instead, ASIC acted when it was all too late. Documents have gone missing, Ariff is bankrupt and there is no money left to investigate whether they can retrieve any of the millions of dollars that have disappeared.'

'It showed letters it had sent to ASIC in 2005, with receipts and invoices to support its allegations that Ariff had kept the once-listed CarLovers in administration for three times longer than necessary.

ASIC fobbed it off with a standard letter.'

'Not surprisingly, many of Ariff's victims, including Bill Doherty, Robbie Fong and Martha Tsamis, are investigating launching a class action against ASIC.'

Full article:http://www.smh.com.au/business/ariff-shows-asics-ineptitude-20100823-13ipa.html


----------



## Jadel (24 August 2010)

simgrund said:


> Greetings Jadel,
> Slight correction. The reply was from the "paragon"; the virtuous Maurice Newman did the replying.
> Nick Sherry followed some time later with well publicised "caveat emptor" flippancy in the public pages.
> Neither you, Zixo nor any of us need to despair about non-amalgamation.
> ...




You mean there  are two paragons in the family?

Yes Sigmund ,ASIC is taking action to recover 147.5 million dollars. However our assets should never have been firesaled in the first instance.

ASIC were able to discover that the transaction was backdated and   fraudulent, therefore it is reasonable to assume that a competent RE ,with all the documents at their fingertips should have been able able to uncover this fraud and fight a legal action against RBOS to prevent the firesale of our assets .

One would think that you would be able to mount a legal case against WC for negligence on this issue alone.

Also ,it appears, with the recent revelations from Bentleys ,that the fraudulent activity extends well beyond the sum of 147.5 million

 Further to this,  remaining assets have been sold off, and continue to be sold, to fund the very existence of WC as RE. 

As has been previously pointed out our Fund is not a liquid entity under the definition of the Corporations ACT

Every promise made to investors by WC has been shamelessly broken.

We were informed the NSX listing was introduced for liquidity 

When in fact it is a place where desperate people who have lost all hope are forced to sell at a pittance

We can only assume that we are dealing with a incompetent RE that lacks any form of conscience

You could almost class what has happened to our fund as a crime against humanity.

That is why I think  the current situation is deplorable .


----------



## selciper (24 August 2010)

True to form, ASIC top brass will peruse the Adele Ferguson SMH article with disdain and commit the piece to the waste paper basket. And all ASIC officers will be reminded that "no comment" is to be observed as the only two words ever to be spoken to the media and investors.


----------



## JohnH (25 August 2010)

_Todays GC Bulletin-_

US funds manager Morgan Stanley has set its sights on the remnants of City Pacific's crumbled empire with a cash offer to unitholders in the mortgage fund once controlled by the failed financier.

The 26c-a-unit offer for up to 49 per cent of the frozen Pacific First Mortgage Fund is seen as an opportunistic raid on assets that have more upside potential than down, and well below the most recent valuation of 47c a unit.

The fund's current manager, Balmain Trilogy (BT), has neither recommended nor rejected the offer, emphasising it was well under current asset valuations.

But BT's joint chief executive Andrew Griffin conceded the latest offer gave another exit option to unitholders who had been unable to redeem their investment for more than two years.

_Full article at_ http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/08/25/250155_gold-coast-business.html


----------



## simgrund (25 August 2010)

JohnH said:


> _Todays GC Bulletin-_
> 
> US funds manager Morgan Stanley has set its sights on the remnants of City Pacific's crumbled empire with a cash offer to unitholders in the mortgage fund once controlled by the failed financier.
> 
> ...




And one particular paragraph of that report we must heed atmost attention to is: 

"Those who accept the Morgan Stanley offer also will give up their rights to any legal recoveries by BT from parties involved in the collapse of City Pacific, which some have suggested could be as high as 10c a unit."

Regards,


----------



## mellifuous (25 August 2010)

A VERY MERRY (EARLY) CHRISTMAS FOR MEMBERS OF THE PFMF

http://moneymagik.com/


----------



## seamisty (25 August 2010)

Some interesting trivia which keeps the wheels on the bus going round and round!!
This is an old media article I uncovered from September 30, 1992 while doing some research.

The untouchables: corporate criminals http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/2964
A quote from Anthony G Hartnell, (A FORMER chairman of the Australian Securities Commission who I just happened to be researching jumped out at me): 'ASC's Hartnell takes comfort in his philosophy that "regulatory laws are not written primarily with a view to their being enforced; their prime objectives are as political statements." '!!!



 Anthony G Hartnell is ex Chairman of G8 Education (along with former Queensland Premier Rob Borbidge), a role now filled by Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital.

Anthony Hartnell is the founding partner of Atanaskovic Hartnell Lawyers who has recently been joined by BARRISTER Tim Castle, the former head of ASIC’s 18-month investigation into the $3 billion collapse of Storm Financial.
 Atanaskovic Hartnell has elevated James Wheeldon to be an M&A and commercial partner at the law firm. James Wheeldon was formerly Australian Securities & Investments Commission policy adviser.   James is the son of the Whitlam government minister John Wheeldon.

Anthony Hartnell  was a non-executive director of Trinity property group.  

The departure of Hartnell, who has been on the board since 2006, comes as Brisbane lawyer Chris Morton becomes managing director and McCullough Robertson partner, Brett Heading, chairman of the board. (http://www.thenewlawyer.com.au/article/Hartnells-top-man-steps-down-from-property-board/495574.aspx)



http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/hartnell-tries-to-cut-tax-deal-20090405-9tb5.html
April 6, 2009 
A FORMER chairman of the Australian Securities Commission, Tony Hartnell, has extended an olive branch to the Tax Office, a move that could lead to an out-of court settlement for his long-running stoush over a $772,466 tax deduction.
The gesture comes at the eleventh hour as the Tax Office puts together evidence to support a stronger case against him, in which it will allege his horse-breeding ventures were a sham.

 Anthony Hartnell was once a character witness for jailed businessman Rodney Adler.


Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (25 August 2010)

A question for all interested PIF investors:: If one of the PIF assets is sold to a 'not for profit' registered entity, is the RE of PIF entitled to include GST over and above the purchase price?

Surely we have someone qualified to answer this question amongst PIF investors?
Thanks, Seamisty.


----------



## JohnH (25 August 2010)

seamisty said:


> A question for all interested PIF investors:: If one of the PIF assets is sold to a 'not for profit' registered entity, is the RE of PIF entitled to include GST over and above the purchase price?
> 
> Surely we have someone qualified to answer this question amongst PIF investors?
> Thanks, Seamisty.




Don't take it as Gospel Seamisty, but I believe that GST if applicable would be charged, and the onus would be on the registered entity to reclaim the GST on their BAS.


----------



## mellifuous (26 August 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/pricing-for-primary-bond-looks-stingy-20100825-13s9c.html

"FEE ALTERNATIVE"


----------



## Duped (26 August 2010)

seamisty said:


> Some interesting trivia which keeps the wheels on the bus going round and round!!
> This is an old media article I uncovered from September 30, 1992 while doing some research.
> 
> The untouchables: corporate criminals http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/2964
> A quote from Anthony G Hartnell, (A FORMER chairman of the Australian Securities Commission who I just happened to be researching jumped out at me): 'ASC's Hartnell takes comfort in his philosophy that "regulatory laws are not written primarily with a view to their being enforced; their prime objectives are as political statements." '!!! ...




Sounds about right to me. Perhaps the policy statement was: creating the Financial Advisor industry is primary; the financial interests of their clients is secondary.  Which I guess is why ASIC/Cth didn't put a fiduciary duty into place.  Duh.

And the cost (from ASIC 's fancy lookin' 08-09 annual report): $295m spread over 1700 staff.

http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/ASIC_Annual_Report_08-09_full.pdf/$file/ASIC_Annual_Report_08-09_full.pdf

I guess I can take heart knowing how many jobs (from my taxes and losses) I've personally created. Round and round, round and round.


----------



## selciper (26 August 2010)

UK writer writer, Harold S Geneen, wrote “In business, words are words; explanations are explanations, promises are promises, but only performance is reality.” Long suffering PIF investors know all about the stark reality of WC’s 2008 promises. We remember the now revealed hollowness of those words - all delivered at the time with so much conviction.


----------



## mellifuous (27 August 2010)

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/ms_fury-of-investors-in-a-frozen-fund-1135352.html

http://www.businessday.com.au/business/fury-of-investors-in-a-frozen-fund-20100826-13u81.html

http://moneymagik.com/


----------



## Duped (27 August 2010)

http://www.get2press.com/default.asp?show=showpm&pmid=3755


----------



## simgrund (27 August 2010)

Duped said:


> http://www.get2press.com/default.asp?show=showpm&pmid=3755




An excerpt from this article that ASIC  should read with magnified diligence: 
 "-------------He continued 'I expect that the level of home repossessions will increase over the next 24 months. We have many young homeowners out there who used the First Home Owners Grant to purchase on record low interest rates at maximum LVRs. I would be surprised if many of them are not having trouble servicing their mortgages.'"

Yet another vulture without a shred of compassion.
Regards,


----------



## seamisty (27 August 2010)

Duped said:


> http://www.get2press.com/default.asp?show=showpm&pmid=3755



Duped that article is of extreme interest!!! :::Mortgagee Services Company sold to Queensland Investor  
Tagma Property Consultants, Australia’s longest running fixed fee property presentation company, has been sold to Queensland entrepreneur George Callianiotis.  

Mr Callianiotis recently gained prominence within the mortgagee and insolvency space by completing and selling over $100 million worth of projects for the former MFS/Octaviar Premium Income Fund. Anthony Stanton, former General Manager of the Premium Income Fund has been appointed to manage Tagma.

Tagma is a strategic investment for Mr Callianiotis. The company assists mortgagees to sell security properties, managing the process from repossession through to settlement for a fixed fee.

He continued 'I expect that the level of home repossessions will increase over the next 24 months. We have many young homeowners out there who used the First Home Owners Grant to purchase on record low interest rates at maximum LVRs. I would be surprised if many of them are not having trouble servicing their mortgages.'

:::

We never did find out if Solly Stanton was related to Anthony Stanton did we? That would be the same Stanton and Callianiotis who Wellington Capital firesaled one of our most valuable assets, Wollongong Hotel, where PIF investors are still waiting for the $38million which was ' REAPED' by Jenny Hutson!!!  



  PIF Reaps $38 Million From City Beach Property Development, Wollongong ::

THE Premium Income Fund has reaped $38 million from the sale of a partially completed hotel property and apartment complex south of Sydney.

Harbour Street Property Developments, controlled by Queensland developer George Callianiotis and Rockhampton retailer Solly Stanton, have reportedly agreed to purchase the City Beach property, south of Wollongong, which includes 168 hotel rooms, 75 apartments and 10 penthouses.

Other PIF properties include the Koralbyn Resort and Hotel in Queeensland, and a 144-room resort in Creswick near Ballarat in Victoria, according to the AFR.

It also owns a prominent property on Main Beach in the Gold Coast once controlled by developer Jim Raptis.

PIF spokeswoman Jenny Hutson said “there is nothing in the portfolio that we are not happy to sell at the right price.”


This will need some further investigating!! Seamisty


----------



## selciper (28 August 2010)

Whatever happened to ALF? Wasn’t there supposed to be a list of WC broken promises to be posted out? Regarding broken promises, I still wonder why the notion of calling for an EGM is so lacking in support. There are probably very good reasons which have escaped me, so perhaps someone could point them out. Perhaps it’s part of a strategy not to call one. In my view,*until Hutson is called upon to face an auditorium filled with PIF investors we will continue to await meaningful information until the cows come home. Surely we have a list of powerful questions a mile long to ask at an EGM. What are the arguments against such a meeting?


----------



## Cookie1 (29 August 2010)

By the way, aren't we due an update from WC in August? The month is almost gone and no sign of any year-end numbers or platitudes of why things are going so badly.

Surely there is a requirement by the NSX for listed entities to provide year-end financial reports?

Selciper, I don't know of any reason for not calling an EGM except for perhaps cost...how much would it cost? who pays? location - where would it be held? We would want the maximum number of unit holders possible in attendance.

Cookie1


----------



## simgrund (29 August 2010)

selciper said:


> Whatever happened to ALF? ---------




Last week I received their Offer; second time.
Seems the same as the first mailing as the $1,600 "working capital" hasn't changed.
Have others received second helpings?
Regards, .


----------



## selciper (29 August 2010)

Cookie 1,

Of course the points you raise regarding an EGM are important. As for the costs involved - well, millions of ours have been tossed overboard anyway, so by my reckoning the sum involved in holding a meeting would be small by comparison. The conclusions drawn at such a gathering might put a stop to the recklessness.

Naturally, we would all like such a meeting to be conveniently situated close to our own residences. I imagine Brisbane would finish up being selected as the venue.

Unless WC are challenged by a few hundred investors to their faces, this tragic saga may well continue for years to come. In my opinion we are letting WC off the hook by not calling for a meeting.

The problem with update releases is symptomatic of the prevailing malaise. 

Nothing can beat eyeball to eyeball exchanges.

Simgrund -

Thanks for the latest on ALF. Certainly nothing from them in my letter box.


----------



## Cookie1 (29 August 2010)

From "thebull.com.au"

http://www.thebull.com.au/articles/a/13847-octaviar's-king-to-face-liquidator.html

"OCTAVIAR'S KING TO FACE LIQUIDATOR

29.08.2010 05:52 PM

The co-founder of failed property group Octaviar Ltd is listed to appear in the NSW Supreme Court this week as the liquidator continues her examination into the collapse of the Gold Coast-based company.

Michael King is listed to be examined in the NSW Supreme Court on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday this week, while former director Rolf Krecklenberg is scheduled to appear on Thursday and Friday.

Octaviar, which was previously known as MFS, collapsed in 2008 and owes about $2 billion to creditors.

It was founded by Mr King and Phil Adams.

Liquidator Kate Barnet from Bentleys Corporate Recovery is trying to determine when the company became insolvent, with the focus on about $1 billion in inter-company transactions.

So far in the public examination, the court has heard allegations of documents being backdated, of borrowed funds being used to pay dividends, and of transactions involving millions of dollars being made without proper processes being followed.

Mr Adams, who in 2007 was in Dubai setting up MFS's operations in the United Arab Emirates, appeared before the court in June. His evidence was his first public comment since the company went under.

He said he received no indication while in Dubai from co-founder Mr King that MFS in Australia was starting to suffer financial problems.

Mr King still lives in Dubai.

Bentleys has recovered about $145 million since being appointed liquidator in September 2009.

In November 2009, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission started civil proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland against four former officers and one manager of MSF Investment Management Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of MFS.

The charges relate to alleged breaches of the Corporations Act concerning $147.5 million, including the creation and use of false documents."

At last Michael King will have his day in court that he was so looking forward to...as are the rest of us investors.


----------



## Duped (30 August 2010)

selciper said:


> ...Nothing can beat eyeball to eyeball exchanges. ...




I agree selciper. I've thought about it.  But what will it likely achieve. WC is fearless and clever. What did all those promises at the last EGM get us?  I expect the same will happen again. WC could just blame the GFC and make a batch of new promises which they can then delay and gradually diminish. 

I'm guessing there are loads of investors who believe WC are doing a great job. What a perfect opportunity an EGM would be for WC to play us off against each other? What's stopping WC from saying to the faithful that the negativity of the (traitorist separatist) unit holders is not helping the low share price? WC could even further entrench its position with the faithful.

In my lay opinion I expect the only benefit we'll ever get from an EGM: if it is called to vote to remove WC and/or wrap the fund up. But I suspect that it's more difficult to wrap up a mortgage fund than a property fund?


----------



## Jadel (30 August 2010)

I'm guessing there are loads of investors who believe WC are doing a great job.

  Lets put that theory to the test Duped

  If there is anyboby out there who thinks the WC is even doing a reasonable job ,speak up now or forever hold your peace.


----------



## simgrund (30 August 2010)

Some more on ALF......

Just recently, while cruising in Kensington, I spotted "Can Can Lingerie" sign on semingly disused premises; same side of Anzac Parade as pink emporium of Peter's of Kensington.
No bras dangling out of window sills. I wonder...


----------



## selciper (30 August 2010)

Duped --Your devil’s advocacy makes for intreating reading. No doubt WC would try to blame the convenors of an EGM for causing “unnecessary disruption to their magnificent plans’, but I’m not so sure that many PIF investors would swallow the argument nowadays. The dynamics have changed greatly since those unctuous 2008 road shows. Investors are undoubtedly suffering considerable hardship. Every meeting carries risks, but without facing facts head-on nothing can ever be resolved. It’s worth reminding ourselves that 5000 PIF members have signed up for the CA...surely they aren’t happy with our RE.

By the way, Gurdgieff adherents would categorise us as “sleep walkers” mechanically following mundane daily routines without any intellectual acuity.

An EGM would also attract concomitant media activity.


----------



## Duped (30 August 2010)

I'm all for WC having to explain their performance. But all the evidence I've seen to date suggests to me that an EGM as such wouldn't achieve much. (Having said that, given the $ I've lost already, the extra $100K cost to the fund will be worth it for the satisfaction of watching WC trying to explain itself.)

I can't see why joining the CA necessarily means that a unit holder is  dissatisfied with WC.

As for this forum. When we had a show of hands on this thread we totalled under 2% of the fund. Nearly a  third of the posts are from just selciper, seamisty and myself. And the 505,199 views til now, equates to less than a thousand people clicking to read every one of the 6121 posts. (Not a reliable measure I concede, but I'm sure that many thousands of the views are from me) The few of us here on this thread aren't the ones that need convincing.

On top of that, we haven't even had a single fellow investor go to a single day of the public hearings and report back to this thread.


----------



## Cookie1 (30 August 2010)

From The Age:

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-...f-backdated-octaviar-docs-20100830-1473o.html

Court hears of backdated Octaviar docs
Jordan Chong
August 30, 2010 - 5:59PM
AAP

Octaviar Ltd had no culture of backdating documents, the co-founder of the failed Gold Coast-based company has told the NSW Supreme Court.

The Sydney court on Monday heard that shareholders' agreements relating to the selldown of an Octaviar subsidiary in New Zealand were supposedly signed on June 29, 2006.

But a copy of an email sent from chief financial officer David Anderson to co-founder Michael King on July 24, 2006, and read out in court, suggested the shareholders' agreements had yet to be signed.

Mr King told the court it was not the practice of the company to backdate documents.

"As far as I am aware, there was no process or culture of backdating documents," Mr King said in response to a question from barrister Adam Bell, SC, acting for the liquidator.

Mr King was appearing in court at the liquidator's examination of Octaviar, which was previously known as MFS and collapsed in 2008 owing about $2 billion to creditors.

The company was founded by Mr King and Phil Adams.

The selldown related to New Zealand-based MFS Pacific Finance, with MFS to sell 60 per cent of the company to so-called "friends and family", but retain management rights.

Liquidator Kate Barnet from Bentleys Corporate Recovery is trying to determine when the company became insolvent, with the focus on about $1 billion in inter-company transactions.

The court also heard that one MFS venture - Young Village Estates - was sold after facing negative publicity on television current affairs programs regarding the removal of elderly residents from existing aged care facilities.

Mr King said former MFS director and chief executive Craig White spent "a bit of time on A Current Affair getting bashed" and, as a result, it was decided not to proceed with the venture.

"We were better off selling this asset," Mr King said.

Bentleys has recovered about $145 million since being appointed liquidator in September 2009.

The examination before senior deputy registrar Andrew Musgrave continues on Tuesday, with Mr King to be questioned further.

Former director Rolf Krecklenberg is scheduled to appear on Thursday and Friday.


----------



## seamisty (31 August 2010)

Fallen King 'very sorry' for investors hurt in $2.5b MFS collapse 
Anthony Marx From: The Courier-Mail August 31, 2010 12:01AM 

FALLEN Gold Coast businessman Michael King has apologised to investors stung by the $2.5 billion collapse of his Octaviar finance and tourism group two years ago. 

"I'm very, very sorry they lost money," King said before entering the NSW Supreme Court in Sydney yesterday for the first day of a public examination by the liquidator of his failed company, formerly known as MFS.

Asked inside the courtroom to described his occupation, he said simply: "Insolvent, under administration, adviser."

Full story::http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...25b-mfs-collapse/story-e6freqmx-1225912078438


----------



## Cookie1 (31 August 2010)

Road to MFS investor hell was paved with good intentions
Kate Lahey
August 31, 2010

EXECUTIVES at the failed financial services group MFS thought they were doing a noble and potentially profitable thing in trying to convert ''dowdy retirement villages'' into nursing homes for disabled young people, the NSW Supreme Court has heard.

But the good deed hit a snag when current affairs programs ran stories about the company trying to kick old people out of their beds, and the finance group abandoned its plan.

Under examination by liquidators yesterday, the former chief executive and co-founder of MFS, Michael King, pictured, was asked about an MFS subsidiary, Young Village Estates, and its investments in 2007.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/r...aved-with-good-intentions-20100830-147bc.html


----------



## Mary Lynch (31 August 2010)

When they say "Bentleys has recovered $145M, who is getting that, and when?


----------



## seamisty (31 August 2010)

No PIF update = nothing postive to report? Amazing how quickly the last update hit the NSX when ALF PIF launched their takeover. Oh well, Wellington Capital running consistant to previous form.

The public exanmination media reporting appears to have stepped up its performance now King is in the docks!! 

Lets not forget M King was in England not on business but playing polo while his empire in Australia was unravelling!!!

07/11/2007 Warwickshire Cup
Cirencester Park Polo Club, England
WPT Cup Elysian Fields 
Michael King
James Beim
Jose Donoso
Marcos di Paola  


Seamisty

Octaviar founder 'ballistic' at CVC head Jordan Chong 
August 31, 2010 - 6:19PM

The co-founder of the failed Octaviar Ltd, Michael King, went "ballistic" at the Australian head of private equity firm CVC Asia Pacific after the proposed sale of tourism business Stella hit difficulties, a court has heard.

Mr King was appearing in court on Tuesday at the liquidator's examination of Octaviar.


Full story:: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...der-ballistic-at-cvc-head-20100831-14fcr.html


----------



## seamisty (31 August 2010)

Listing for Brisbane Supreme Court tomorrow::
COMMERCIAL LIST
GREIG & another -V- OCTAVIAR LIMITED (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) & another
 Justice Philip McMurdo
 Court 16
Floor 3 11.15 AM   
(Application)

OCTAVIAR LIMITED & others
 Justice Philip McMurdo
 Court 16
Floor 3 11.15 AM   
(Application)


----------



## seamisty (1 September 2010)

MFS looked to buy as it struggled with cashflow 
Teresa Ooi From: The Australian September 01, 2010 12:00AM 

MFS pushed ahead with plans to buy a British financial company, despite knowing MFS was struggling with cashflow. 

Former chief executive and co-founder of the failed property group Michael King told the NSW Supreme Court yesterday that he had conducted due diligence on the financial services company when he "knew MFS did not have the funds to buy the asset", but the deal fell through.

Under cross examination by Adam Bell SC on behalf of MFS liquidator Bentleys Corporate Recovery, Mr King said he could not recall when he became aware that MFS could not access revenue from the group's Stella travel business because of a cash lock-up.

"I do not recall getting legal advice from MFS on Stella's cash lock-up," Mr King said.

"At different points of time, the cash can be used in a certain way. I concede that the ability to use the cash from Stella was restricted."

Full Story:::http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ed-with-cashflow/story-e6frg8zx-1225912532967


----------



## seamisty (1 September 2010)

The banquet at MFS is over Scott Rochfort 
September 1, 2010


The last drumstick appears to have been served from the consulting-fee feast enjoyed by the former MFS chief financial officer, David Anderson, from the carcass of the collapsed Gold Coast financial firm.

Anderson's private outfit, Business Puzzle Solutions Pty Ltd, pocketed about $1 million in consulting fees by helping the former administrator and liquidator of MFS, Deloitte, untangle the collapsed MFS puzzle.

The fees from that avenue dried up late last year after the new liquidator, Bentleys Corporate Recovery, took charge.

Now it appears another source of fees has finally run dry for Anderson.

On Monday McGrathNicol was appointed the new administrator of the investment vehicle owned in large part by several former MFS executives (MFS Alternative Asset), which in turn, owned a slice of the newly listed Aurora Funds.

MFS Alternative Asset still managed to rake in the fees until very recently. It held a 40 per cent stake in the fund manager Fortitude Capital, which was merged with Aurora.

Fortitude disclosed yesterday it paid $24,000 in consulting fees to Anderson's firm last financial year. It also paid out $858,000 in dividends in the period, of which 40 per cent or $343,200 would have been diverted to MFS Alternative Asset.

One wonders if any of this trickled down to Anderson, who purchased a 33 per cent stake in MFS Alternative Asset for an estimated $1. He quit as a director of Fortitude in July.

TWO CREDITORS

McGrathNicol was appointed administrator of MFS Alternative Asset following objections by the largest creditor, the former financing vehicle MFS Castle, which is now under the control of Bentleys.

Castle is owed $50 million from MFS Alternative Asset (as part of an old inter-company loan), despite rumours of an email being sent by MFS management forgiving the loan in the dying days of the Gold Coast firm.

Bentleys raised the perceived conflict of interest with Anderson, who is a director of MFS Alternative Asset, and appointed KordaMentha as the voluntary administrator a fortnight ago. This is because the only other creditor aside from Castle is Anderson, who is owed $2000.


----------



## seamisty (1 September 2010)

Quote from http://money.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7953971
'I remember standing on a street corner in England going ballistic at Ben Keeble on the phone," Mr King told the court.

He said news the sale process was under way was delivered to the market via a "deliberate leak" to the Australian Financial Review newspaper from UBS, which was Octaviar's provider of the financing package for the deal.

While financing arrangements had been settled, Mr King said former director and chief executive Craig White tried to extract a better deal by suggesting "another girlfriend" was in the picture and MFS could go to another bank.'


Well I assume the other "girlfriend" was RBOS!!! So while MFS was more than likely insolvent, Michael King was swanning around the world playing polo while all his loyal subjects were dilligently calling PIF investors encouraging them to reinvest in MFS PIF because the company was 'strong' and 'moving forward'!!! This was the same year Michael King awarded himself a $1.6million bonus for doing such a great job? Great job at manipulating figures and robbing our fund you *#@#hole! And as for all your loyal subjects, I hope they are not duplicating their prior MFS/Octaviar skills in new jobs on another raft of unsuspecting victims.

Are you actually sorry for your victims or for yourself Michael? If you were at all repentant I would have thought telling the truth would have been a good place to start, not now because you are forced to because the evidence prevents you from further coverups, but well over two and a half years ago when you could have made a difference to PIF investors at the very least!!

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (1 September 2010)

It's interesting to note that last night's ABC six o'clock radio news didn't mention King's appearance at all. However, they found time to read an item about a man who had allegedly organised a 5 million dollar investment scam. For some odd reason the MFS scandal really doesn't get the media attention it warrants.


----------



## Duped (1 September 2010)

Mary Lynch said:


> When they say "Bentleys has recovered $145M, who is getting that, and when?




IMLO. After paying for costs like Bentleys it'll be apportioned between the creditors. The MFS/Octaviar share holders will get nothing. (Although some share holders have an IMF funded class action afoot just like us)

How much each creditor will get will depend on when MFS/Octaviar became insolvent. If it's before ? January 2008 then Fortress has to pay some $ back and that $145m should go up by ... $55m? I recall. Fortress will then join us in the hand out queue. If it's later than ? January 2008 and Fortress wins the High Court case the $145m will reduce but Fortress will have been paid out.

My ignorant and really rough guess is we'll get about $20m. But we could get $30m.  That sort of cash injection should put a rocket under the share price.

If MFS/Octaviar became insolvent before ? April/May 2007 then ... ????

How long?  There are many parties with a lot at stake. Fortress will fight very hard and have many 10s of millions of $ at stake.  I expect it'll be years still. And I'm guessing this won't exactly motivate any RE of PIF to wrap the fund up, i.e. all its open positions, promptly.  (I.e. without new investors and/or profits, none of us are going anywhere except out through the NSX door or a final wrap party. And WC don't seem to have a very good track record at either attracting investors or making profits. IMLO)

This collapse of MFS/Octaviar is huge. It seems to have do not touch written all over it.  I.e. if you pull at this little thread too hard then you don't know what fabric will come undone. Confidence in the Australian financial regulatory system could take a dangerous blow.  And this confidence is what underpins the Commonwealth's 9% funded superannuation system as well as foreign investment.  That's my gut feeling anyway.


----------



## Duped (1 September 2010)

I posted too soon Mary

"This morning, the High Court unanimously rejected the appeal from the  decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal and thus quashed the first  instance decision in _Octaviar_ which had thrown long-accepted  practices into doubt. On a first reading, affected parties can now  relax. Partners Diccon Loxton (view CV) and Andrew Boxall (view CV) and Lawyer Michael Wells report."

http://www.aar.com.au/pubs/baf/cubafsep10.htm?twitter=true

Whether Fortress cleans up is now down to the date of insolvency.


----------



## selciper (1 September 2010)

A little off topic, but interesting: "The role of a company chairman."

https://wiki.qut.edu.au/display/CPNS/Role+description+for+Chair+of+the+Board


----------



## seamisty (1 September 2010)

MFS King labels JPMorgan 'pretenders' Jordan Chong 
September 1, 2010 - 6:14PM

'The co-founder and former chief executive of the failed Octaviar Ltd, Michael King, described JP Morgan as "pretenders" and "weak as piss" after the investment bank dithered over a potential capital raising, a court has heard.'

Full story::http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...abels-jpmorgan-pretenders-20100901-14nbo.html


----------



## mellifuous (1 September 2010)

http://www.oneinvestment.com.au/news/pacific-first-mortgage-fund/


----------



## seamisty (2 September 2010)

King tells of rock before MFS rolled 
Anthony Marx From: Herald Sun September 02, 2010 12:01AM

Asked for the first time why MFS failed, Mr King said the company reversed course after he resigned in January 2008 and sold 65 per cent of its $2 billion Stella tourism assets at a firesale price to private equity group CVC.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
He said MFS should have kept Stella, gone ahead with a capital raising and cut its debt to Fortress Credit and UBS.

"What killed it was the adoption of a strategy that didn't work," Mr King said.

With short-sellers driving down the stock price, MFS shares collapsed and were frozen at 99 on January 18, 2008, after the market savaged Mr King's proposal for a $550 million capital raising.

Mr King revealed yesterday in court that he had been given advice just three days earlier from UBS to seek $750 million from the market.

Earlier, lawyer Adam Bell, on behalf of the liquidator, told the court that MFS had sought to pay off the $100 million debt by raiding one of its related entities, the Premium Income Fund (PIF), without board meetings, proper documentation and other required steps.

PIF had to secure a $150 million loan from the Royal Bank of Scotland to make the payment to Fortress, which had lent a total of $250 million. PIF also was raided for $17.5 million to pay money owed to investors in MFS Pacific Finance, the court heard.
Full Story:http://www.heraldsun.com.au/busines...efore-mfs-rolled/story-e6frfh4f-1225913017263

Similar articles:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/livi...e-in-the-wind-20100901-14nob.html?from=smh_sb

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/busines...efore-mfs-rolled/story-e6frfh4f-1225913017263









http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...rom-stella-group/story-e6frg8zx-1225913007646


----------



## seamisty (2 September 2010)

I try to follow the Pacific First Mortgage Fund as I know that there are many PIF investors with units in this fund also. I found the following article interesting::Fund chiefs chase former directors
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/09/02/252291_gold-coast-business.html

I was talking to one of our PIF AG members this morning who attended two days this week at Darlinghurst Court House public examinations while Michael King was questioned. He was surprised there were no other PIF investors present but commented on the numerous reporters present. He said it was extremely interesting and easy to attend. The proceedings were well covered by the media this week so could not add further info. He also said it would be a perfect opportunity to talk to the press re our current situation but didn't feel confident enough himself to make a statement so for any of the PIF Sydney investors who would like some media coverage this could possibly be a good opportunity.
Great to see at least one out of 10,400 attend!!
Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (3 September 2010)

MFS director could not remember how $250m was spent, court told 
Teresa Ooi From: The Australian September 03, 2010 12:00AM

A FORMER director of failed MFS group signed for a $250 million loan but could not recall what the money was used for. 

Rolf Krecklenberg, a former director of the failed property group signed for the loan from US lender Fortress Credit, a court heard yesterday.

"From time to time I would be called to act as signatory to documents as MFS was always acquiring assets -- that's the nature of its business," Mr Krecklenberg told the NSW Supreme Court. "However, I do not specifically remember what the Fortress loan was about."

MFS chief financial officer David Anderson was the other signatory to the $250m Fortress loan facility, the court heard.

Full story:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...spent-court-told/story-e6frg8zx-1225913531596


----------



## Blueboy1 (3 September 2010)

The Jim Byrnes-advised subsidiary of a shell of the former lingerie company bidding for the MFS-founded Premium Income Fund has had another surge in acceptances from unit holder.

ALF PIF Finance disclosed yesterday that it had lifted its stake from 0.25 per cent to 0.26 per cent. At this rate, the subsidiary of ALF (aka Can Can Lingerie) is expected to gain ownership of the fund by the year 2067.

Link http://www.theage.com.au/business/up-the-hit-parade-with-a-bullet-20100902-14rs5.html


----------



## Duped (3 September 2010)

Hmm in it's rush to get a decision out (to as Freehills cry: put the genie back in the bottle or as Allens Arthur Robinson claim: the issues appearing "dead, buried and cremated") the High Court seems to have either not tied up all the loose ends or left a door open.

Shall try and formulate my reasoning for a later post.

The stampede to get the Client Updates out is .... [you fill in the blank].  The law firms certainly seem to be jumping for joy that the High Court has validated them and their advice to their clients - to the detriment of PIF. Not very nice of them.

http://www.aar.com.au/pubs/baf/cubafsep10.htm
http://www.blakedawson.com/Templates/Publications/x_publication_content_page.aspx?id=59827
http://www.dibbsbarker.com/publication/High_Court_Settles_Octaviar_Saga.aspx
http://www.freehills.com.au/private/6615.aspx


----------



## seamisty (3 September 2010)

Duped said:


> Hmm in it's rush to get a decision out (to as Freehills cry: put the genie back in the bottle or as Allens Arthur Robinson claim: the issues appearing "dead, buried and crenated") the High Court seems to have either not tied up all the loose ends or left a door open.
> 
> Shall try and formulate my reasoning for a later post.
> 
> ...



Clear as mud to most of us Duped! Look forward to the 'later post'. 

I see the WPIF has sold another 1,620,893 units in an off market transfer. The voting power of the WPIF is now reduced to 6.231%.


http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723140.PDF

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (4 September 2010)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...stment-group-mfs/story-e6frg8zx-1225914001515

AS Michael King cursed, joked and threw about slang before court this week, he looked every bit the small-time Gold Coast solicitor. 

His hair long, and donning an open-necked shirt and necklace, in contrast to the corporate image he cultivated while pulling a $3 million salary as head of MFS, Mr King was questioned in a bid to find just when the group became insolvent.

But for many, when the investment giant he created collapsed owing $2.5 billion after a share price crash in January 2008 (after which executives renamed the group Octaviar in a futile attempt at brand-cleansing), the question wasn't why the juggernaut had failed, or precisely when, but how it had survived for so long.

MFS was created out of a Gold Coast law firm embroiled in the nationwide solicitors' mortgage broking crisis of the late 1990s.

Mr King and MFS chief executive Phil Adams were partners of Southport-based McLaughlins Solicitors until 2000, when they formed MFS from the finance arm of that firm after an industry-wide crackdown by the corporate regulator.

Law firms had traditionally invested relatively small sums of money for clients as part of a trustee role, but that practice rocketed in the 90s.

Firms were attracting investments in a bid to turn a dollar by on-lending those funds at a higher rate, most often to property developers seeking cheap debt.

The practice ultimately cost thousands of elderly Australian's much of their life savings as many of those loans soured.

Reacting to the failures and subsequent media scrutiny, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission ruled in 1999 that solicitors must form "managed investment schemes" if they were investing money on behalf of clients.

McLaughlins Financial Services became the managed investment scheme run from suburban premises at Southport that Mr King and Mr Adams steered to a $5bn-plus empire.

Much of that growth was on the back of unsophisticated investors directly targeted by the company, first in Queensland and then nationwide.

That growth was based on the aggressive pursuit of funds under management, or "FUM", as Mr Adams affectionately called the capital raised.

Speaking to The Australian in those Southport offices in early 2004, a tanned Mr Adams said the group's FUM had grown "from zero to $1.2bn" in less than 3 1/2 years.

"The products we offer appeal to the mum and dad investors. They understand the opportunities they get from our investment products and they understand what the risks are," Mr Adams said at the time.

"They're not overcomplicated investors and the fact that we have interaction daily with them gives us more opportunity to deliver investment that suits their needs."

But by 2008 it was painfully clear most investors had no idea of the risks they were exposed to.

For MFS, more funds under management meant more fees to the group, in which Mr Adams and Mr King had massive stakes, and higher executive salaries, control and power.

By September 2007, four months before the share price collapse that would ultimately seal the company's fate, MFS declared it had "at least $5.4bn" of assets under management. Further: "MFS confirms previous guidance of a target of at least $10bn of fee-paying assets under management by June 30, 2008."

The NSW Supreme Court heard on Wednesday that MFS was facing serious cashflow problems by November 2007, when Mr King met private equity firm CVC Asia Pacific in a bid to sell for $2bn MFS's recently acquired and disparate hospitality arm Stella.

According to details read out to the court, when the Stella deal fell through, Mr King proposed a $300m capital raising.

Although in the early days MFS's pursuit of funds under management was a grab for fee revenues, towards the end of its life it appears the scramble for size became a short-sighted band-aid strategy to cover growing operating shortfalls.

In its pursuit of FUM, MFS was snapping up everything from the Mount Hotham and Falls Creeks snowfields in Victoria to a travel agency franchise and a string of aquariums in Melbourne, Thailand and Korea, often paying well over the odds.

Underbidders on many of those assets were confounded as to how MFS could make the prices it was paying "stack up".

Many expressed concerns the group was far more concerned with growing the scale of the business than buying assets delivering suitable returns.

That, they warned, would lead the group to failure because it would be unable to continue making dividend payments required by investors.

Leading into the share price collapse, MFS had spent about $2.3bn buying the string of assets in the Stella group, including the Harvey World Travel franchise, the Outrigger resorts brand and the management rights to thousands of coastal holiday apartments through mergers with Gold Coast companies Breakfree and S8.

Three weeks after MFS shares collapsed from $3.19 to 99c in January 2008, down from $5 a month earlier, the group announced it had sold 65 per cent of Stella to private equity firm CVC Asia Pacific in a deal that delivered MFS $409m in cash and valued the company at just $1.53bn.

Under the deal, CVC Asia Pacific would assume $905m of debt, which was to be repaid to investment bank UBS.

But even at that heavily discounted price, CVC and UBS had apparently hugely overestimated the true value of Stella and were badly burned.

In 2008-09 the group delivered its owners a $667.1m loss.

UBS wrote off, or converted to shares, about $575m in loans to the company.

But overwhelmingly it was retail investors who were hardest hit by the collapse of MFS, and its arms and subsidiaries.

At the time of the share price collapse, the MFS Premium Income Fund froze the funds of 10,000 investors, worth a combined $770m.

Almost all of that money has been lost.


----------



## Duped (6 September 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/bank-role-in-mfs-problems-20100903-14uk6.html

*                     Bank role in MFS problems                 *

*                 Michael Evans             *

     September 4, 2010

"THE liquidator investigating the collapse of the Gold Coast investment  firm MFS has highlighted the role of investment bank UBS in the cash  crisis that crippled the travel operator and financier in 2007.

...

The Swiss bank's tentacles on the deal went deeper, with UBS banker Ben  Keeble quitting to join CVC, where he would be instrumental in  negotiating the Stella transaction.

...

With the Stella money blocked by UBS, questions emerged about the  solvency of MFS in late 2007. Mr Krecklenberg was asked if around  October 2007 the critical nature of MFS's cash flow was brought to his  attention. He said it was not.
             He was presented with internal emails showing concerns  about a $345 million cash shortfall. Mr Krecklenberg said MFS was a  ''highly acquisitive business'' that ''always had facilities'' and he  was confident if funding was required, Mr King and the team ''would find  it''.
             After hoping to sell Stella to CVC for more than $2  billion, MFS sold it for it for $400 million. UBS was involved, managing  about $800 million in Stella's debt before converting it into an equity  stake. MFS became Octaviar then collapsed in 2008."


----------



## seamisty (6 September 2010)

I wonder how much this little video promotion cost WC in 2007? http://www.graetzmedia.com/09/CORPclients_11.htm


----------



## JohnH (7 September 2010)

seamisty said:


> I wonder how much this little video promotion cost WC in 2007? http://www.graetzmedia.com/09/CORPclients_11.htm




Appropriately I see that Graetzmedia are also responsible for the movie "Blood Money"!!!!


----------



## seamisty (7 September 2010)

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/storm-settlements-being-finalised-20100907-14z1e.html

from above article "We also look forward to ASIC taking action against the founders of Storm Financial who must take responsibility for this disaster," he said."


Don't hold your breathe people, get in the queue!!

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (8 September 2010)

It seems to be difficult to maintain a spirited discourse on this forum with such a dearth of news. Reading about King and Co. is rear-vision stuff. There appears to be no new development with the CA. ASIC fudges (probably waiting on the liquidator's findings - whenever that might be) while WC keeps to its usual standards of communication.

It's two years since the "65c 45c 14c" now discredited sales pitch was pushed at us at a vulnerable moment. Except for the CA, there has been little to give us any comfort. We need some positive activity to rekindle our fighting spirits.


----------



## simgrund (8 September 2010)

selciper said:


> It seems to be difficult to maintain a spirited discourse on this forum with such a dearth of news. Reading about King and Co. is rear-vision stuff. There appears to be no new development with the CA. ASIC fudges (probably waiting on the liquidator's findings - whenever that might be) while WC keeps to its usual standards of communication.
> 
> It's two years since the "65c 45c 14c" now discredited sales pitch was pushed at us at a vulnerable moment. Except for the CA, there has been little to give us any comfort. We need some positive activity to rekindle our fighting spirits.




How about instructing our CA liaison Committee obtain an update to be posted here.
The amended Statement of Claim was supposed to be out some weeks ago. And while in their offices, I was told by an Associate that new action was imminent.
Regards,


----------



## selciper (8 September 2010)

Simgrund -

If the CA Committee doesn't want any report to be public, an idea of what progress has recently been made could be released via an AG newsletter. Let's not forget that in the end, if we succeed with the CA, we have to fork out at least 30 per cent (most probably more). We who signed up are, after all, clients.


----------



## Cookie1 (9 September 2010)

*Shopping centre bargains shine on the tarnished Gold Coast*
Bridget Carter From: The Australian September 09, 2010 12:00AM

CIRCLE on Cavill, the Gold Coast shopping and office complex owned by the former high-flying MFS, has been put on the market.

The owner has price expectations of under $50 million, less than half its boom-time price.

Another Gold Coast shopping centre, Centro Surfers Paradise, has been withdrawn from sale after negotiations between Centro and retail billionaire John Van Lieshout to buy the property for $180m collapsed, according to market sources.

The sales campaign for Circle on Cavill -- in the hands of Ernst & Young partner Justin Walsh -- will start next week. Octaviar, which was formerly known as MFS, is currently in liquidation. It is the second former MFS-owned shopping centre on the Gold Coast to go up for sale this year.

The nearby Christopher Skase-developed Marina Mirage that MFS once held was on offer in April, but was later withdrawn from the market and placed in receivership by St George Bank when its current owners were unable to secure a buyer for about $90m. MFS purchased the Circle on Cavill asset in 2006 as part of its Sunleisure Property Holdings acquisition from Sunland for more than $100m.

The complex includes A-grade office space and 12,300sq m of retail anchored by an IGA supermarket and includes a Strike Bowling alley. It includes open-air restaurants and cafes.

McVay Real Estate and CB Richard Ellis will be marketing the property. The restaurant Pearl had left the complex and there was office space vacant.

Sam McVay of McVay Real Estate said deals were being finalised to improve occupancy. "I think people have realised that the Gold Coast has been hit harder than most markets in Australia and definitely bottomed out," Mr McVay said. Yesterday, Centro would not comment on speculation investors in Centro Surfers Paradise shopping centre had retained the asset because it had not attracted a high enough offer.

The Gold Coast's Marina Mirage is in the hands of the receivers David Winterbottom and Martin Madden of KordaMentha.

The centre was purchased by the MFS Diversified Trust for $28.4m in 2005. It sold in the same year to Fenix, then known as Ticor Developments, for $40m. Fenix is run by Steve Moss.

Built in 1988, the Marina Mirage has 11,942sq m of floor space over four levels on a 1.88ha site on the Southport Spit.

Being 3.5km from Surfers Paradise, it adjoins the Palazzo Versace Resort and is opposite the Sheraton Mirage. The centre ran into financial difficulty after renovations over the past two years, which were believed to have cost about $30m.

Also on the Gold Coast, Homeworld Helensvale, and its surrounding development land, was placed on the market with price expectations of more than $80m. The property was not distressed and is understood to have received strong interest


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ished-gold-coast/story-e6frg9gx-1225916079298


----------



## seamisty (9 September 2010)

*SO WHERES OUR MONEY JENNY?????*Doors now open at Chifley Wollongong
Thursday, 2 September 2010 

General Manager Chifley 
Wollongong, Adrian Teh 

Constellation Hotels has set a new benchmark for hotel accommodation and conferencing on the NSW South Coast, opening the new Chifley Wollongong today.

Located on Wollongong's foreshore and adjacent to WIN Sports and Entertainment Centre, Chifley Wollongong boasts 168 guest rooms and executive suites, 140 seat restaurant with alfresco dining, lobby bar, mezzanine business lounge, heated lap pool, gymnasium, and 9 conference and function rooms catering for up to 500 people theatre style.

Chifley Wollongong offers business and leisure travellers visiting the region a newly built, superior quality hotel that is just minutes walk from City Beach, Wollongong Golf Course and CBD, while enjoying the hotel's stylish accommodation and conference facilities and state-of-the-art communication technologies.

Constellation Group General Manager Jonathan Wooller said Chifley's newest hotel would quickly establish itself as an integral part of the Wollongong business community.

"As well as delivering a new, high-quality hotel that corporate travelers are looking for, Chifley Wollongong will provide a fresh option for leisure travellers and MICE delegates attracted to one of the state's most popular short break and residential conference destination," Wooller said.

"At the same time, the hotel will meet the needs of surrounding businesses by offering a modern and relaxing restaurant and bar for social occasions, and an extensive function centre that caters for everything from conferences and meetings, to weddings and up-market special events for up to 500 people."

Chifley Wollongong's rooms and suites feature high-speed broadband internet, entertainment system, in-room safe, 40 inch flat screen TV with remote audio, free to air digital TV, and high definition movies, sport and news.

Executive rooms also offer a private balcony or terrace with view over the city.

A dedicated business lounge is located on the lobby's mezzanine level offering complimentary wireless internet access.


----------



## seamisty (11 September 2010)

Below article is VERY interesting. Another senate enquiry?? I am sure there will be many more considering legal action against ASIC for lack of early intervention!! Seamisty


ASIC's powers under threat Adele Ferguson 
September 11, 2010
http://www.theage.com.au/national/asics-powers-under-threat-20100910-15510.html

AUSTRALIA'S corporate watchdog ASIC is set to lose its powers to regulate the insolvency industry after a Senate inquiry raised concerns about its competency and effectiveness.

A report, to be released on Tuesday, is expected to recommend that a new industry-specific regulator be set up to handle personal bankruptcies and corporate insolvencies.

The report, which follows a Senate inquiry into the insolvency industry, is also expected to recommend a flying squad with powers to investigate complaints against liquidators.

After collapses including ABC Learning, Opes Prime, Fincorp, Storm Financial and Sonray, an examination of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission during the inquiry showed it had been too slow to act on complaints.

In the case of disgraced liquidator Stuart Ariff, it took ASIC two years to ban him as a liquidator and three years to charge him with fraud after his conduct was first raised in the media. Victims had lodged complaints with ASIC dating back to 2005.

Many of Ariff's victims are considering a class action against ASIC for failing to act quickly, which they say cost them millions of dollars.

Other recommendations are expected to include opening the industry to competition so that lawyers will also be able to handle liquidations. But liquidators will have to be licensed.

The new regulator would be given greater clout, with powers to audit liquidators annually and suspend them with a phone call until an investigation proves them innocent.

The recommendations, if passed into legislation, would have a profound impact on the industry and its regulation.

Government sources said that, under the current federal government, any sensible recommendations would be readily introduced and passed into legislation. The independent MPs have indicated they want to fight corruption and improve transparency.

Nationals senator John Williams, who initiated the inquiry, refused to comment on the report. He said he had called for the inquiry because of concerns about corruption in the industry. Senator Williams said there should be a royal commission on white-collar crime in Australia.

''When I am told about wrongdoings by banks, liquidators, solicitors and auditors, it makes me more convinced that we should have a royal commission into white-collar crime,'' he said. ''I have been told of many actions of wrongdoings. If white-collar crime is systemic in Australia then it should be brought to an immediate halt, and a royal commission with wide-ranging terms of reference would be the best way to do this.''

The Senate inquiry is also expected to address the fees that liquidators charge for liquidations, receiverships and administrations. There have been complaints about the size of the fees and the time it takes liquidators to complete jobs. For instance, Ansett and HIH Insurance Group, which collapsed almost a decade ago, are still in liquidation, with liquidators making tens of millions of dollars in fees.

In Australia, company insolvencies fall under the Corporations Act and are monitored by ASIC; personal bankruptcies have a dedicated Bankruptcy Act and a separate regulator, the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia; and failed co-operatives fall under the Department of Fair Trading and a separate piece of legislation.

A major benefit of having one piece of legislation and a dedicated regulator monitoring all types of insolvencies would be that such a body would better understand the industry because that is all it would do.

ASIC declined to comment until after the report is released on Tuesday. However, ASIC chairman Tony D'Aloisio told the inquiry the powers should stay with the commission.

''We think that the way it is structured, with the Corporations Law aspects and the liquidators and insolvency practitioners we are talking about, it does logically fit within ASIC's role,'' he said.

''ASIC is the oversight body for a whole range of gatekeepers - auditors, accountants, boards, CEOs, financial officers and so on - from the birth to death of corporations … I do not think that by separating in that way you will get improved results, because improved results are going to go with the expertise that is needed to handle complex groups and investigations.''


----------



## seamisty (11 September 2010)

A bit more interesting reading::
Jim Byrnes Adele Ferguson 
September 11, 2010 http://www.theage.com.au/national/jim-byrnes-20100910-1551c.html


BIG Jim Byrnes  has been bankrupt, served time in prison for the deemed supply of heroin, been banned by ASIC from running companies and had a judge accuse him of having a notorious reputation as a standover man and associate of major criminals.

He is also a former financial adviser to Alan Bond, and a business associate of liquidator Andrew Wily. Wily introduced Byrnes to work on the BACF group and recommended he sit on the committee of inspection, even though Byrnes was not a creditor.

It was around this time Byrnes got into trouble with the law when he went to the offices of Ian Lazar's lawyer Hector Ekes and put a baseball bat through the window. Ekes's office adjoined Wily's, with a door connecting them. Byrnes was sentenced to jail for four months over this matter but had the term reduced to a good behaviour bond.
BANNED lawyer Leon Nikolaidis, who was sentenced to jail in 2007 for falsifying documents, was the solicitor of choice in many of liquidator Andrew Wily's cases.

Nikolaidis's reputation for overcharging was first raised in NSW Parliament in 2001 by MP Peter Breen, who referred to him as someone who had been investigated for at least eight years and ''anyone who asks Leon Nikolaidis to undertake legal work does so at his or her peril''.

The biggest show of loyalty was Wily's appointment of Nikolaidis as his solicitor for the BACF group of companies when Nikolaidis was on bail awaiting a retrial. Wily paid him $2.6 million for his work on BACF and related entities.

After four retrials, Nikolaidis was found guilty. In March this year he was struck off as a lawyer in the NSW Court of Appeal on the grounds he was not a fit and proper person.



Also related to above article:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/too-big-for-the-police-to-handle-20100910-15532.html


----------



## simgrund (11 September 2010)

seamisty said:


> A bit more interesting reading::
> Jim Byrnes Adele Ferguson
> September 11, 2010 http://www.theage.com.au/national/jim-byrnes-20100910-1551c.html
> 
> ...




And it may be highlighted from the same article, that Byrnes' Australian Litigation Funding company recently changed its name to Lazar Bummer (fair dinkum; at the bottom).
Ian Lazar is a former Ian Rogut with a "bankrupt" history under previous name.
Regards,


----------



## selciper (11 September 2010)

This video by American lecturer Paul Leighton concerns the the lack of stiff sentences for white collar crime. It's not irrelevant to think of the PIF's history as he talks. This is the final clip of six parts made in 2008.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0-lvlAsbaM&feature=related


----------



## simgrund (13 September 2010)

We seem to have a really dedicated reporter who is consistent in driving ours and many like us plights to public attention. 

"It's another glaring example of how the Australian Securities and Investments Commission cannot be relied upon to protect investors, despite complaints."

http://www.smh.com.au/business/once...me-asic-must-take-account-20100912-1573c.html

Thank you Adele, 
Regards,


----------



## Duped (13 September 2010)

simgrund said:


> We seem to have a really dedicated reporter who is consistent in driving ours and many like us plights to public attention.
> 
> "It's another glaring example of how the Australian Securities and Investments Commission cannot be relied upon to protect investors, despite complaints."
> 
> ...



I googled the name mentioned in Adele Ferguson's article.  Someone doesn't seem to like Denise Brailey: http://www.consumer-warning.com/denise_brailey.htm Attack the attacker. No one putting their name to that website though. Maybe Denise is on to something to attract this sort of counter spin. Who to trust?  What a mess.  And our representatives in Canberra have allowed itself to be dragged into this all by allowing the finance sector to put the Commonwealth brand all over it. Gold anyone? 

ASIC knocked back Brailey's application for a job. I wonder if PIF was in her 'dirty dozen' list.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...istleblowers-bid/story-e6frg916-1111117482835


----------



## selciper (13 September 2010)

This is a 2007 ABC interview with Denise Brailey - video start is situated in right hand margin. It sure makes you wonder about ASIC.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/200703/s1882142.htm


----------



## Duped (13 September 2010)

The funny thing about our 'friends' at the ABC and ASIC is they're public servants and hence very likely to have their superannuation in ComSuper's PSS/CSS or equivalent. These are substantially DEFINED BENEFIT superannuation schemes. 

I.e. the superannuation interests of the public servants aren't exactly aligned with the interests of self funded retirees.

Maybe it's time to remove that sticky piece of moral hazard and toss Canberra's servants into the very system which they themselves design and police.

I wonder if Transparency International take this into account when it gives, and similar organisations give, Australia such glowing reports.


----------



## simgrund (13 September 2010)

Duped said:


> I googled the name mentioned in Adele Ferguson's article.  Someone doesn't seem to like Denise Brailey: http://www.consumer-warning.com/denise_brailey.htm Attack the attacker. No one putting their name to that website though. Maybe Denise is on to something to attract this sort of counter spin. Who to trust?  What a mess.  And our representatives in Canberra have allowed itself to be dragged into this all by allowing the finance sector to put the Commonwealth brand all over it. Gold anyone?
> 
> ASIC knocked back Brailey's application for a job. I wonder if PIF was in her 'dirty dozen' list.
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...istleblowers-bid/story-e6frg916-1111117482835




Duped; the knockback by ASIC is least surprising as they would need to provide personal security for the true public fighters.
But there is definitely a hugely increased scrutiny of ASIC that is bound to bear good results in the near future.
Regards,


----------



## breaker1 (13 September 2010)

"I googled the name mentioned in Adele Ferguson's article. Someone doesn't seem to like Denise Brailey: http://www.consumer-warning.com/denise_brailey.htm Attack the attacker. No one putting their name to that website though. Maybe Denise is on to something to attract this sort of counter spin. Who to trust? What a mess. And our representatives in Canberra have allowed itself to be dragged into this all by allowing the finance sector to put the Commonwealth brand all over it. Gold anyone? 

ASIC knocked back Brailey's application for a job. I wonder if PIF was in her 'dirty dozen' list."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1111117482835 

Thanks Simgrund & Duped for you contributions to ASF

Yours truly and another AG organiser met with Denise Brailey quite some time ago. It was an eye opening experience! She knows a lot about many people and is well connected. Intelligent, articulate and capable, she filled us in on some information relevant to the PIF, but mostly how the over-all financial system works. Her information has helped the AG for the better. Our meeting with her and an associate was in-depth. 

The AG thanks Denise for her kind assistance - she is a genuine decent Australian


----------



## Cookie1 (13 September 2010)

Unfortunately to get the full article you must be a paid subscriber to the AFR; if I have a chance to get in to the library, I'll try to get a copy. Have there been any other articles on this?

http://afr.com/p/business/property/octaviar_sunkids_centres_sold_fFsZ4coDssPRTMUd6fflVL

20 Octaviar Sunkids centres sold
PUBLISHED : 13 SEP 2010 12:09:53 | UPDATED: 13 SEP 2010 04:00:25

Liquidators Bentley Corporate Recovery has completed the sale of 20 Sunkids Children Centres in Queensland and Victoria for more than $32 million, signalling that the last asset left in the Octaviar Group is finally being whittled down.

Cookie1


----------



## Cookie1 (13 September 2010)

Article on Sunkids sale http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/br...ator-sells-sunkids-assets-20100913-1592v.html

Octaviar liquidator sells Sunkids assets
September 13, 2010 - 6:19PM
AAP

The liquidator of the failed Octaviar Ltd says it has sold 20 childcare centres in Queensland and Victoria for $32 million.

The 14 Sunkids Children Centres in south-east Queensland were sold to a private consortium based in the state and the six centres in Melbourne were bought by a Canberra-based private investor, liquidator Bentleys Corporate Recovery said on Monday.

"Both purchasers are retaining the Sunkids brand and staff," Bentleys said in a statement on Monday, adding that the centres had continued to operate profitably since it was appointed liquidator in September 2009.

Other assets in the portfolio being sold included 24 freehold leased childcare centres and 12 development sites.

A Bentleys spokesman said the Sunkids sale, along with the remainder of the portfolio, "would result in a significant return to creditors".

Prior to Monday's announcement, Bentley's had recovered about $145 million.

Octaviar is the Gold Coast-based property group previously known as MFS that collapsed in 2008, owing about $2 billion to creditors.

It is facing a liquidators examination in the NSW Supreme Court, with liquidator Kate Barnet from Bentleys trying to determine when the company became insolvent.

The examination continues on Tuesday, when Mark Korda from corporate recovery and restructuring firm KordaMentha is due to appear.


----------



## Cookie1 (14 September 2010)

Article from Business Day

*Investors tried to redeem fund*s
Kate Lahey
September 14, 2010

THOUSANDS of investors in the Premium Income Fund have been unable to redeem their cash since MFS, the failed group that once managed it, suspended redemptions in January 2008.

But the clients of the advisory firm Avenue Capital, where an MFS director worked, tried to get out of it days before the fund was frozen, the NSW Supreme Court heard yesterday.

Full story: http://www.businessday.com.au/business/investors-tried-to-redeem-funds-20100913-159bp.html


----------



## Duped (14 September 2010)

Thanks breaker1. Much appreciated. 

Got my PIF tax statement yesterday.

What's the AG's take on WC?  It makes me very nervous to have WC in charge of our fund.  After all, PIF is not like a limited liability company. We're not shareholders. We're unitholders. And each and every one of us is personally liable for the actions of WC. This was another fact hidden from me by my AFS licensed financial advisor (if he had a clue) and WC haven't been particularly forthcoming in revealing these details about PIF.


----------



## Duped (14 September 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> Article from Business Day
> 
> *Investors tried to redeem fund*s
> Kate Lahey
> ...




What Lahey's article didn't mention is that Avenue Capital clients had the priviledged position that their funds were at call. Correct me if I'm wrong.  Whereas the rest of us were locked in for 6, 9, 12 and 24 months.

"Mr Manka told the court *he* had *nothing to do with* Avenue's *decision *to advise clients to redeem their funds then" Lahey's words but does he mean 'nothing to do with the formal process of making the decision'? What about other lines of communication between MFSIM and Avenue that didn't involve Manka?

""I was overseas at the time ..."" So what.  That's been totally irrelevant for the last 100 years. Every heard of a telephone, the internet, email, sms, Skype, or video conferencing. A red herring comment.

"" ... I *think *it was a decision made by the Avenue Capital board, as a result of the collapse of the MFS share price,'' Mr Manka said." The phrase 'I think' says it all really.  Oh and 'as a result' is not an exclusive statement.   So ...what other reasons were there?

"He said he did not *participate *in the board decision ..." Lahey's words but again, what is he really saying? That 'he did not particpate in any way' or 'he did not particpate in the formal process'?

"*He *... did not *own *any units in the fund" Again, another decoy. (Lahey's words). A bid for credibility from the uninformed. If he did try and pull out his own units then, then Bell's line of questioning would have been very different. Anyway, he didn't say that his friends or family didn't own units in the fund. And he didn't say that he didn't have any rights over units owned by others.

Lahey's article didn't report any line of questioning by Bell to discover if Avenue took steps to  exclude Manka from this particular decision making process.

Ironically the page for Lahey's article has a link to an SMH article "Management Line: How to spot a liar". How many boxes does Manka tick? http://www.smh.com.au/executive-sty...t-line/how-to-spot-a-liar/20100905-14vot.html


----------



## Jadel (14 September 2010)

So you get some shonky valuer on the payroll to continually revalue the assets in order to make an entirely fictitious profit  

Then you borrow billions from Banks to pay off debts and make dividends even though the company is fundamentally operating at a loss. 

It is quite obvious that that this whole rotten setup was essentially a Ponzi scheme at its core.

Madoff got 150 years, these guys are still walking around unscathed.

 It will be interesting to here how  Korda Mentha and his team of gun forensic accountants  could come to the conclusion  that  this company was solvent .

 Tens of millions  of dollars in fees “He who pays the piper “
Now that little matter would not have affected their professinal opinion, would it ? 

Of course there also the small matter that Mr. Kordas  ,son or brother   just happened to work for  OCV .


----------



## Duped (14 September 2010)

GC Bully's Nick Nichols puts his usual tone to the Sunkids Sale.  Anyone reading his articles could be excused for thinking we're a bunch of whingers. A la 'stashed more cash in the kitty'. http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/09/14/255271_gold-coast-business.html

The Australian reports with a little bit more of a a healthy cynicism http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus.../story-e6frg8zx-1225921456637?from=public_rss



Jadel said:


> ... Madoff got 150 years, these guys are still walking around unscathed. ...




I hear ya Jadel. But T.I.A. ... This is Australia.  

Hmmm, land of the Rogue Hero eh?


----------



## selciper (14 September 2010)

Jadel wrote: "It will be interesting to here how Korda Mentha and his team of gun forensic accountants could come to the conclusion that this company was solvent." The time must be approaching when the spotlight falls on auditors. Well, let's hope so.


----------



## JohnH (14 September 2010)

Failure to release yearly financials.

Trading in Premium Income Fund suspended!!

........What the hell is happening to Wellington?????


----------



## Cookie1 (14 September 2010)

NSX Trading Halt 14 Sept 2010

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723194.PDF

Also we haven't received the August Investor Update promised by Wellington.


----------



## breaker1 (14 September 2010)

What's holding it back then?
Will follow up?


----------



## k.smith (15 September 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/korda-defends-mfs-solvency-call-20100914-15avt.html
''....The Supreme Court heard that the $50 million tax bill for the 2007 financial year was due on December 1, 2007. It was never paid.

Mr Korda could not recall when he thought the payment was due, but said: ''As with many tax debts you can enter into arrangements on when the tax is due and payable.''

MFS had not entered discussions with the Tax Office at that point but Mr Korda said there were ''reasonable prospects'' that it would agree to reschedule the debt.....''


----------



## Jadel (15 September 2010)

k.smith said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/business/korda-defends-mfs-solvency-call-20100914-15avt.html
> ''....The Supreme Court heard that the $50 million tax bill for the 2007 financial year was due on December 1, 2007. It was never paid.
> 
> Mr Korda could not recall when he thought the payment was due, but said: ''As with many tax debts you can enter into arrangements on when the tax is due and payable.''
> ...




Mein Gott

Now I have heard it all !

Under that interpretation every single company in dire financial difficulties  operating at a loss and fiddling the books ,could be deemed to be solvent 

Of course it only takes the long suffering creditors of that company to put up their hands 

and say, don’t worry we will forget about our losses and all the other misleading and dishonest behaviour.

If that is the case ,why would you even bother ro call in an insolvency specialist .

This whole saga becomes more farcical every day


----------



## Cookie1 (15 September 2010)

NSX Release 15 September 2010 Wollongong Transaction

Full copy of release:

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723199.PDF

JH has negotiated a "better" outcome for the PIF but money coming in over a longer period of time!

PIN still in trading halt, obviously. Where are the annual financial figures, Jenny? Afraid to tell us how bad it is?


----------



## JohnH (15 September 2010)

There's a lot happening on the NSX announcements at the moment


............... 4 more entries including "CASH PAYMENT"!!!!

Unfortunately can't access them at the moment - probably crashed with so many PIF investors not believing their eyes!!!


----------



## selciper (15 September 2010)

I'm getting a 404 Error Message every time I try the NSX PIN announcements. As they say, nothing is ever easy when it comes to WC operations.


----------



## JohnH (15 September 2010)

Wow!!!  We're going to get 1 cent per unit!!!!

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723203.PDF


----------



## breaker1 (15 September 2010)

*Annual Finanacial report 30 June released also*

apparently PIF fund assets remain unchanged since Dec 2009 report

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723201.PDF

also investor update

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723202.PDF


----------



## breaker1 (15 September 2010)

JohnH said:


> Wow!!!  We're going to get 1 cent per unit!!!!
> 
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723203.PDF




1] WC promised 3c

This would mean that WC can't receive fees yet till the 3c fully paid 

I note that the monies for the 1c payment also comes in part from the Port MacQuarie units sale

2] and what sort of convoluted restructure has happen with the Wollongong Hotel / Appartment deal ? http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723199.PDF

As part of these new arrangements, Harbour Street Development Pty Ltd has entered into an agreement with a new company operated by the developer, Harbour Street Development Operations Pty Ltd to run the hotel.
Constellation Group have entered into an agreement to manage the hotel for a period of 5 years, with a 5 year option. The hotel is now leased by Harbour Street Development Pty Ltd for $1.2 million per year plus outgoings.

Did Harbour Street have trouble finding the money to pay the PIF?


----------



## breaker1 (15 September 2010)

ALF PIF now has 2,052,721 fully paid units and accordingly votes
WOW! 0.27% control, after all that huffing and puffing from Big Jim

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723161.PDF


----------



## breaker1 (15 September 2010)

*1]* Did you note the interesting "Supplementary" addition to the Financial Report:
 The Top Ten PIF Investor List:

1. Perpetual Nominees Ltd <Wholesale Premium Income Fund> 41,114,196 5.02

2. IOOF Investment Management Ltd <IOOF Portfolio Service> 16,902,638 2.24

3. Equity Trustees Ltd <Accumulation Account> 4,000,000 0.53

4. Equity Trustees Ltd <Allocated Pension Account> 4,000,000 0.53

5. Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd >  3,631,444 0.48

6. ANZ Nominees Limited > 2,949,934 0.39

7. Max Investments (Aust) Pty Ltd > 2,591,872 0.34

8. Gross S & T Pty Ltd <S & T Gross Superannuation Fund> 2,500,000 0.33

9. Mansted Enterprises Pty Ltd <Mansted Enterprises S/F A/C> 2,180,000 0.29

10. Labation Pty Ltd  > 2,078,488

It is comforting to note that some of the above investors are loyal members of our PIF Action Group - the AG thanks you for your ongoing support!

*2]* *Any other PIF investors** wishing to join the PIF Action Group please contact us on our email:** pifactiongroup@gmail.com *
We currently have over 900 PIF investors as members

*3]* This, of course, would mean that none of the top 10 investors took up the ALF PIF offer in full


----------



## JohnH (15 September 2010)

breaker1 said:


> ALF PIF now has 2,052,721 fully paid units and accordingly votes
> WOW! 0.27% control, after all that huffing and puffing from Big Jim
> 
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723161.PDF




Although Breaker, remember ALF obtained these for nothing and a speculative promise, and will now pick up over $20k's worth of 1 cents!!

Does that mean the $1600 company is now worth $21,600???


----------



## breaker1 (15 September 2010)

JohnH said:


> Although Breaker, remember ALF obtained these for nothing and a speculative promise, and will now pick up over $20k's worth of 1 cents!!
> 
> Does that mean the $1600 company is now worth $21,600???




If that was the real plan, then the dissapointing 0.27% Offer result won't even get anywhere near paying ALF's costs to run the Offer


----------



## Cookie1 (15 September 2010)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...cial-to-mfs-debt/story-e6frg8zx-1225922940444

MARK Korda of KordaMentha said his main concern in MFS's financial problems was to ensure the sale of the Stella tourism group went through.

He said yesterday that if MFS went into voluntary administration before selling Stella then the value of Stella would be zero.

"If MFS was put into voluntary administration, then Stella would collapse within a day or two," Mr Korda said.

Corporate recovery adviser KordaMentha was appointed by the MFS board in January 2008 to deal with MFS's solvency issues.

The firm had consistently maintained that MFS was solvent because it had sufficient assets to pay off its liabilities.

Mr Korda said MFS remained solvent as long as it could pay its debts when they were due or when a standstill of loan repayments could be renegotiated with major creditors.

This included the payment of a $50 million tax bill that he said could be paid at a later date by negotiating with tax authorities.

Mr Korda was under examination by Adam Bell SC, on behalf of MFS liquidator Bentleys Corporate Recovery, to determine when MFS, now known as Octaviar, became insolvent owing creditors $2.5 billion.

He said he was not too concerned about certain irregular transactions involving MFS and Premium Income Fund that might have been in breach of disclosure rules. "You have to draw a line in the sand against these transactions," he said. "The past is the past and would need to be investigated and put on the back burner, while we had to deal with the real issues of the Stella sale."

He said the main motivation of the Stella deal was to get the buyer CVC over the line. This would help MFS repay its debt of $250m with US lender Fortress Credit.

The hearing continues.


----------



## seamisty (15 September 2010)

Hi All, I haven't abandoned you but have limited computer access for a short time and haven't had time to reply to all your emails so am using the forum to let you all know I will be fulling functional again next week hopefully. Lots happenning, no surprises from the latest round of WC NSX releases, no amount of WC bullsh1t spin will alter the fact that they have demonstrated ongoing incompetence.From my own personal dealings with senior WC management, I have been lied to and misled on more than one occassion!! Periodic Discussions??? I am still waiting from the start of the year when they were offered and can't even get a response from WC in relation to the offer, any wonder most investors think so little of our RE, not to mention ASIC etc. Anyway thanks to all for contributing and keeping the forum updated. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## Duped (15 September 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...cial-to-mfs-debt/story-e6frg8zx-1225922940444
> 
> ... Mr Korda ... said he was not too concerned about certain irregular transactions involving MFS and Premium Income Fund that might have been in breach of disclosure rules. "You have to draw a line in the sand against these transactions," he said. "The past is the past and would need to be investigated and put on the back burner, while we had to deal with the real issues of the Stella sale." ...




Hmmm.  So what Mark Korda seems to be saying is that when making solvency calculations you can just ignore potential lawsuits from laws that you have broken or contracts you have breached. Really? I'd like to see Freehills advice on that. Look on the bright side.  At least he's admitting he knew of these irregular transactions.  He can't use the 'I can't recall knowing at the time' defense now.

Colin Kruger in his article http://www.businessday.com.au/business/korda-defends-mfs-solvency-call-20100914-15avt.html

"MFS's claim to solvency was at that point based on the expectation that  it would get *agreement *from five major creditors on a debt standstill  *and debt forgiveness*."

Hmmm.  Isn't that the purpose of Administration and a DOCA? If Kruger's reporting is accurate then it seems to me that Freehills and Mark Korda are pushing the laws so far that they overlap somewhat.


----------



## Jadel (15 September 2010)

Agree  Duped  


That  is one of the  most reprehensible statements I have ever heard in this whole disgraceful affair .

This creature ( Korda)is beyond contempt, it appears  he is actually stating that he knew about the pilfering of 147.5 million dollars  from the Premium income fund to unlawfully pay out the  dividends and debts of Octavier and considered it irrelevant to the issue of solvency of the parent company .

Since when is a company solvent if it has to resort
to common theft ?. Why was  ASIC not  informed?

Well Korda Mentha rely on the hypothetical,  ‘a la Jeffrey Robertson’  The forgivness of debt , the  sale of distressed assets and the hope that a crime will nor be exposed.

As long as something may happen, its perfectly ok
In this guys warped brain.

  Well Mr Korda, why don’t you try to ask one of the members of the Premium Income Fund (95% who are over the age of 65)and  who have lost  their life savings wether or not that is acceptable.

Duped if you paid a solicitor enough you could get some sort of  legal opinion that the Earth is flat  .

BTW , Freehills   just happen to be one of the direct recipients of many millions of dollars paid directly to them from the monies unlawfully  stolen from our  fund .


----------



## simgrund (15 September 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...cial-to-mfs-debt/story-e6frg8zx-1225922940444
> 
> MARK Korda of KordaMentha said ...........................
> ..........................."The past is the past and would need to be investigated and put on the back burner, while we had to deal with the real issues of the Stella sale."
> ...




So back to Stella sale, I heard Rolf Krecklenberg mention a number of issues during his examination stint on 2 September in Darlinghurst Courts.
The examination chapter was open on a buyer (Global Voyager P/L) vendor (MFS) page.
He stated that the only way stability could be had, was by sale of Stella business. When asked "Could you consider other solutions such as putting MFS into voluntary administration?" he said he abstained from decision which, as per minutes of 1 Feb 2008, the Board went ahead with.
Reason for abstention: - "Declaration of Interest" 
Having resigned from MD position with MFS sometime on 23 February '08, becomes Director, Global Voyager P/L. on 2 May 08. 
Convenient transition and with clean conscience, as had been virtuous by declaring his interest. 
Mind you, unitholders had not a whiff of it.
Resigns that one 23 December 08 by virtue of "contract termination". Said "No" to question if there were any disputes to cause this "termination".
Then these interesting guts of the sale:
GV P/L to get 100% shares + adjustments = $615 mil
$400 mil in cash, the rest by issuing shares to itself.

As we now know; this fell through, GV eventually brought proceedings against Octaviar for their MFS claims, etc, etc,

Yes, it is all surfacing now. With Managing Directors like these getting  past ASIC's guard coops, we and our children may continue to bleed for a long time yet.


----------



## gardie (15 September 2010)

I just about choked when I read the Korda comment about drawing a line in the sand.

The money was pulled out of PIF to pay for worthless assets. Something that looks like, smells like, tastes like dog p--p is dog p--p and along the same lines this smells, looks etc so much like fraud then surely to sign off that a company is solvent while ignoring the activities relating to PIF and their legality is absurb to say the least.

As to the accounts what is the amount payable of close to $6 million. These accounts I am sure meets account standards but a lot of detail is missing.

Sitting on 12 million in cash as at 30 June 2010.


----------



## mellifuous (16 September 2010)

From outside the box:

I still think you'd all be better off having a meeting to take the $8m "getting the boot bonus" out of the constitution and consider getting a new manager after that.

No manager will give a hoot unless it comes under investor pressure.

Investors have to act.


..


----------



## Duped (16 September 2010)

Yep.  These faceless men in the corporate professions wield much power. Casting the shape of the laws set by our democratically elected legislature in a from that suits their paying clients.  Criticising the judiciary for legislating from the bench while campaiging for behind closed chambers' doors. And now we have a law firm listed on the ASX.  I fear things are going to become a lot worse before they get better.


----------



## selciper (16 September 2010)

Sydney Morning Herald today. CBD section.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/fund-unit-holders-finally-see-cents-20100915-15cob.html


----------



## Cookie1 (16 September 2010)

*MFS inquiry hears evidence of implosion
*Colin Kruger
September 16, 2010

THE insolvency specialist Mark Korda told a public examination of the collapse of MFS yesterday that the decision to appoint Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital as the manager of the Premium Income Fund was the ''lesser of all the evils we could have done''.

Ms Hutson was acting as an adviser to the MFS board at that time, raising doubts it was an arms-length transaction.

''At the time of the transaction I don't think they were independent,'' Mr Korda said yesterday.

Full story in The Age: http://www.theage.com.au/business/mfs-inquiry-hears-evidence-of-implosion-20100915-15con.html

If JH was the "lesser of all the evils", I wonder what the other evils were? You couldn't get much more evil than the situation we find ourselves in today.


----------



## Duped (16 September 2010)

Have had a look through WC's surge of announcements.  Blah blah blah .... all very nice sounding. 'Marketing campaign', 'working on all properties all the time' and 'asset valuations' are all good things to report but ... where are the sales.

High valuations = No sales = Higher fee for WC.

And with an NSX price around 7c.  We're all locked in.

In today's Nick Nichols contribution Hutson is quoted as saying "Our accounts today show our net assets have remained constant since December 31, which we're very pleased about," 

I BET SHE IS.

High valuations = No sales = Higher fee for WC.

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/09/16/255845_gold-coast-business.html

But what about some sales so we can get our money back.  

I'm watching for the rush of sales in a couple of years once WC gets a couple of those ~$2m pa fees in the bag.  WC's words like GFC and tough environment will change to 'new normal' or 'new paradigm' along with some big writedowns.  Meanwhile Hutson is off doing other stuff like G* Eduction. What dya reckon? 

An NSX broker said to me that WC will do good but will expect to be paid accordingly. I'd say the court is still hearing evidence on that.


----------



## Cookie1 (16 September 2010)

Article in The Australian today http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ds-mfs-decisions/story-e6frg8zx-1225924282890

Mark Korda defends MFS decisions
Teresa Ooi From: The Australian September 16, 2010 12:00AM

CORPORATE recovery adviser KordaMentha has continued to advise MFS directors that the company was solvent.

This, despite MFS facing demands for $673.5 million worth of loan repayments from five major creditors.

Between March and June 2008, MFS faced statutory demands to pay up loans including $56m from the Australian Taxation Office, $330m from MFS Pacific Finance, $40m from National Australia Bank, $100m from Challenger and $147.5m from Wellington Investment Management.

But co-founder of KordaMentha, Mark Korda said he had a "reasonable prospect of reaching an accommodation with creditors" to delay the loan payments.

"At the end of the day, you had to negotiate a standstill arrangement on the loan repayments with the major five creditors and we did," Mr Korda told the NSW Supreme Court yesterday.

Mr Korda spent the second day on the stand under a public examination by Adam Bell, SC, on behalf of MFS liquidator Kate Barnet of Bentleys Corporate Recovery to determine when MFS, now known as Octaviar, became insolvent owing creditors $2.5bn.

When Mr Bell asked Mr Korda why he did not take a more prudent approach when MFS faced the prospect of repaying such hefty loans, Mr Korda replied: "A number of creditors wanted the option of MFS not going into liquidation because they could get a better return from their loans in the long run."

Mr Bell alleged that, leading up to the collapse of MFS, senior management was "involved in misappropriation of funds and unlawful conduct".

But Mr Korda responded: "You have to draw a line in the sand to sort out these issues. We are where we are, and it was just one issue."

Mr Korda will continue his testimony today.


----------



## gardie (16 September 2010)

If Mr Korda was acting in an official capacity as administrator or liquidator he would have a statutory obligation to review the PIF transactions and report to ASIC.

He puts on another hat and then can turn a blind eye to them.

I wonder how much he got paid and if one of the driving forces was to make sure the company survived 6 months so it was not a preferential payment and be clawed back.


----------



## Duped (16 September 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> Article in The Australian today http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ds-mfs-decisions/story-e6frg8zx-1225924282890
> 
> Mark Korda defends MFS decisions
> Teresa Ooi From: The Australian September 16, 2010 12:00AM
> ...




Um ... errr ... isn't that what appointing an Administrators achieves. 



Cookie1 said:


> ....When Mr Bell asked Mr Korda why he did not take a more prudent approach when MFS faced the prospect of repaying such hefty loans, Mr Korda replied: "A *number *of creditors wanted the option of MFS not going into liquidation because they could get a better return from their loans in the long run." ....




Um ... hello ... Mr Korda what about that thing before liquidation ... called Administration isn't it?  Oh and the number one is a number.  So was that one creditor by any chance Fortress.  You know, that same Fortress that gained many tens of millions from the 11th hour securitisation of the YVE guarantee. Or perhaps it was two creditors including our Fund managed by the OCV subsidiary that had the sort of "issues" that you had to draw a "line in the sand" for.  Ever heard of conflict of interest?


----------



## Duped (16 September 2010)

From the limited info I've got thanks to AAP:

The PTQ and Fortress ended up going all the way to the High Court over the securitisation of the YVE guarantee.  Hmmm ..... maybe that suggests that Freehills and/or Korda's assessment that there was a "*reasonable prospect* of reaching an accommodation with creditors" ... ummm .... like ... ummm .... fell well short of reality.  

And given that we even had a Supreme Court Judge, rightly or wrongly, rule that Fortress' security was invalid, suggests that the prospective process was not as certain as Freehills and/or Korda imagined them to be.

It seems to lay me from this info, that Freehills and/or Korda greatly underestimated the impact that the hidden transactions and the scale of the collapse of OCV would have on the "*reasonable prospect* of reaching an accomodation with creditors"

And I say that the Fortress securitization of the YVE guarantee was hidden because the OCV Interim Financial Report of 28 April 2008 stated that on "29 February 2008, ..., the Group repaid in full the loan facility to Fortress". That was never true was it given that facility covered the YVE loan from 22 January 2008?

Are the corporate professional types telling us that the PTQ actions in the interests of the note holders aren't "reasonable"?   What say thee to that PTQ? Is it that such mischievous behaviour such as the above mentioned Financial Report and the PIF "issues" doesn't cause alarm for such professional types anymore (enough alarm to call in administrators) because it's common place in their world? Are the likes of Freehills and/or Korda facilitating us all in a race to the bottom?

It seems to lay me based on the limited info that, in the future, the likes of Korda/Freehills should perhaps know their place and leave such deliberations to the DOCA phase.

Or maybe the Sydney and Melbourne corporate professionals should get out and learn about the rest of Australia rather than just trying to mould us into their image from their grand Capitals.


----------



## selciper (16 September 2010)

The Age writes: THE insolvency specialist Mark Korda told a public examination of the collapse of MFS yesterday that the decision to appoint Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital as the manager of the Premium Income Fund was the ''lesser of all the evils we could have done''.

Im sure that those curious words weren't welcomed in a certain bunker. Makes me want to bang on about the need for an EGM.


----------



## gardie (16 September 2010)

Selciper

You need to have a plan and reason for calling the EGM including resolutions.

The lady in the red coat will merely stonewall you at a meeting just to ask questions. Everything will be hidden behind commercial confidentiality.

As someone else said get a EGM to get rid of the replacement fee and get the action group to go out and actively pursue an RE prepared to be transparent and act without conflict and work with your lawyers on the  class action.

There are good quality managers out there who are work out specialists.


----------



## selciper (16 September 2010)

gardie -

I’m in no way suggesting that an EGM be called without thorough planning and tactical design. Obviously, it would take some time to organise. WC would obfuscate at such an event - of that there is no doubt. But it is essential that a fresh means for PIF investors to voice their deep concerns be developed.

I’m not so sure that recent press reporting is proving to be favourable to WC’s image. A good debater or chess player seizes the opportunuty when he sees a growing weakness in his opponent.


----------



## Cookie1 (16 September 2010)

From the "Trading Room" Fairfax Digital

http://www.tradingroom.com.au/apps/...ished/2010/9/259/catf_100916_184000_3445.html

*Documents showed MFS was in cash deficit
*
SYDNEY, Sept 16 AAP
September 16 2010, 6:40PM

Financial documents prepared by corporate advisers to the failed Octaviar Ltd showed the company may have been in a net deficit during February 2008, a court has heard.

The liquidator's examination into the Gold Coast-based property group, which collapsed in September 2008 owing about $2 billion to creditors, heard that cash-flow documents indicated the company did not have enough assets to pay its creditors.

The documents were prepared by corporate recovery specialists KordaMentha, which advised the board that MFS remained solvent.
KordaMentha co-founder Mark Korda told the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday that the cash flow waterfall documents, of which several versions were prepared based on the information available, were never intended to be used to assess the solvency of the group.

"That's not the purpose of this report," Mr Korda told the court.

"It was to give a snapshot of the group as it was being turned into cash."

Mr Korda was examined by barrister Dominic O'Sullivan, SC, representing the liquidators of Octaviar Investment Notes and Octaviar Investment Bonds.

Octaviar was the Gold Coast-based property group previously known as MFS that collapsed in 2008 owing about $2 billion to creditors.

In the afternoon session, Mr Korda expanded on his answer regarding the use of cash flow waterfall documents as an indicator of solvency.

"You could use the cash flow waterfall as one piece of information when determining if the company is solvent or not solvent," Mr Korda said.

Mr Korda reiterated that the purpose of the cash flow waterfall was not to determine solvency.

The court also heard the different versions of the cashflow waterfall document had valuations for MFS' remaining 35 per cent stake in the Stella business ranging from zero to $780 million.

MFS sold 65 per cent of the Stella travel business for about $400 million in February 2008 to private equity firm CVC Asia Pacific.

Mr Korda said he became aware after the transaction settled that CVC had complained about the state of the Stella accounts.

The examination before senior deputy registrar Andrew Musgrave continues.

By Jordan Chong


----------



## Duped (17 September 2010)

[FONT=&quot]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mfs-creditor-challenger-was-ready-to-defer-loan/story-e6frg8zx-1225925056946[/FONT]
*[FONT=&quot]MFS creditor Challenger was ready to defer loan [/FONT]*
[FONT=&quot]Teresa Ooi [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]From: [/FONT]_[FONT=&quot]The Australian[/FONT]_
[FONT=&quot]September 17, 2010 12:00AM[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"... But not all creditors were prepared to delay loan repayments, the NSW Supreme Court heard. According to counsel Dominic O'Sullivan, representing the liquidators of Octaviar Investment Bonds and Octaviar Investment Notes, the Public Trustee of Queensland had no intention to enter a standstill arrangement with MFS and had recommended that MFS be wound up as insolvent.
"Was that a shock to you," Mr O'Sullivan asked Mr Korda, who replied: *"No, it was not a shock because the Public Trustee had no economic interest in the notes.* ..."[/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]WOW!!!!  Is Korda saying that the PTQ doesn't have a duty and/or responsibility to get the best possible commercial outcome for the noteholders?  Or is Korda accusing the PTQ of not performing its duty/responsibility to act in the best *commercial *interests of the noteholders? 

From what the PTQ has previously reportedly said, it sounds like the latter - whereby Korda is having a shot at PTQ's standard of care not being tied to its own financial gain.  E.g. the acting Public Trustee of Queensland, Patrick Wedge, said in a statement: "As trustee for the note-holders, this office is acting consistent with our duties under the trust deed. This office will take all necessary steps to protect the interests of the note-holders." BrisbaneTimes.com.au 28 May 2008 Scott Rochfort.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Don't forget that Korda was effectively already liquidating assets by selling 65% of Stella. Add this to [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the 11th hour securitization in favour of Fortress and the apparent attempt by OCV to conceal this transaction in the ASX announcement of 28 April 2008, it's not surprising that trust was lost and that the PTQ believed the interests of its noteholders would be better served by court appointed administration. 
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It seemes that it wasn't much of a shock to Korda either. So why then did he find that there were "reasonable prospects"?[/FONT]


----------



## Jadel (17 September 2010)

It seemes that it wasn't much of a shock to Korda either. So why then did he find that there were "reasonable prospects"? 

Mr Korda,  is a philanthropist Duped


----------



## Duped (17 September 2010)

Hmmm ... perhaps MFS/Octaviar was better suited for a 90s experience than Mark Korda anticipated. After all there was scoundrel type behaviour, the creditors weren't banks and King failed to get his windfall capital raise.

Sounds to lay ignorant me that Mr Korda had a fixed mindset and wasn't as flexible in his approach for handling MFS/Octaviar as he needed to be.

From his BusinessSpectator interview of 9 October 2009

_AK=Alan Kohler
SB=__Stephen Bartholomeusz_

"*MK: *A lot of people  ask me what’s the difference from the last crash and I think we’ve had a  couple where it’s the early ‘90s and then there were some of the icons  in the 2001, but overseas is completely different from the early ‘90s. 

For a start, remember that in the early 90s, interest  rates were 22 per cent. Property yields at best seven or eight. So  you’re always going to have a cash flow problem. Interest rates went up  yesterday, but it's completely different. I think you’ve seen the  economy is not as bad. There are a number of reasons for that, but  obviously the stimulus package has helped that, but the unemployment and  consumer confidence is a lot better. In the 90s, we deregulated the  financial markets in the mid-80s, so there were lots of people lending  in lots of different ways and the State Bank of Victoria ended up in  Commonwealth Bank and there was Tricom and all those. There are some  non-bank financial institutions around that, there have been collapses,  but not like the ‘90s. I think interest rates are probably the  fundamental difference and this recession the world is having is  actually because the global financial system collapsed. This is  staggering, but it has been propped up by the governments.

*AK: *Staggering that it wasn’t worse than it was?

*MK: *The 1990  situation was about good, old-fashioned economics and things were not  working, people were being fired and all this. This thing is about the  global banking system collapsing. You’ve got the investment banks that  were geared at 35, 40, 50 to one and all of a sudden everything just  sort of stopped. So, I think it’s very different this time around.

*AK: *Yet a year ago  you must have been gearing up for a big increase in business. Obviously  you’re not looking forward to the misfortunes of others, but certainly  getting ready for a big increase. *But it seems to have completely  changed and is now different from what you might have expected. Is that  the case?* _[emphasis added]_

*MK: *A very good  example is that we have a large real estate and consulting practice. *In  the last quarter of December 2007, it was probably the slowest, quietest  time we’ve had. By the first quarter of 2008,* the tipping point was  probably Centro in Australia. That went and got into difficulty in  December and *then by January we were working on MFS and Allco and a few  others, all within a week.* It’s been busy since then, but *we were always  careful not to put too many people on* – steady as you go. We do a lot  of property work. We have about 25 real estate professionals that work  for us and that’s keeping us very busy at the moment. _[emphasis added]_

*SB: *Is the nature  of the work different? Less of the formal insolvency type work and far  more of a consulting behind the scenes and advisory-type work?

*MK: *Yeah. Or when  developers or builders have been into trouble we’ve gone in and finished  the buildings. We’re just standing in and finishing things off, rather  than closing down the site and auctioning them off, so it’s probably a  difference from last time as well.

*SB: *One of the key  differences is the banks. They’re in better shape this time round and  they’ve behaved differently. Is there an explanation for why they  haven’t just gone in and put people like you in charge of some of these  companies?

*MK: *Well, the  hardest thing is when you run out of cash, like Timbercorp. Interest  rates have come down so much that the cash flow drain is not as much as  it was last time. With 22 per cent interest rates, you can’t pay any of  your interest. At, say, 4 per cent plus the margins, you’re in the game,  so the interest rates falling has probably been the key determinate.

*AK: *And this time  around there seems to be a lot less 'lock-changing;, where you just go  in and shut the place down or change the locks. *It’s more a voluntary  administration and more cooperative situations. *_[emphasis added]_

*MK: *The banks have  got very skilled people. Many of the bankers I deal with have been doing  this since 1992 – *been there, done that, know the consequences*. Again,  the banks have also had very good credit risk rating systems that have  been brought in since the 90s, so they know their clients better and  they had a handle on them, with a depth of experience. *There will always  be the scoundrels out there and you have to deal with them, but  generally I think that experience has been good.* _[emphasis added] [Poster's note: How does one deal with them?  Draw a line in the sand behind "issues"?]_

*AK: *There’s  obviously a chance now that interest rates are going to keep going up,  four per cent next year, possibly five per cent. Is there a layer of  companies that you think will actually tip over if there’s two per cent  on interest rates?

*MK: *Yeah. I think  there’s been quite a bit of debt rescheduling in highly-leveraged  companies that I think may need to be sorted out, probably in the second  half of 2010, 2011 and there’ll always be companies that just get into  trouble and run out of cash like a Timbercorp. But we can’t see interest  rates in the ten or fifteen per cent-range at the moment, can we?

*SB: *The equity markets seem to have become the lender of last resorts to companies that are experiencing pressure. 

*MK: *Yeah. There  would be quite a few companies that we would say are in distress that  have had rescue capital applied now, at obviously very deep discounts to  the existing shareholders and it’s caused a lot of angst. But for many  banks and for many people around the world, they would be very happy  with the rescue capital that’s come through.

*AK: *Well, in fact, in previous times, that capital probably wouldn’t have arrived at all, at any discount.

*MK: *So, that’s  another significant change to say the ‘90s or the recession in the early  2000s. *It’s just staggering how much money became available and so  quickly*. _[emphasis added] [poster's note: not in MFS' case]_

*SB: *Is there  a sense that the banks and their advisors, people like you and perhaps  maybe the shareholders, the institutions as well, have looked at last  time round and said well let’s not start the dominos flowing this time,  let’s make sure that we don’t start that vicious spiral?

*MK: *The cash flow’s  held up, you can sort of service your debt, so that’s good. You can  service your debt and lower-priced rescue capital around. I don’t think  there are any new ways of going broke. Although the one significant  thing this time around is complexity. *It is staggering the complexity of  say an Allco or a Babcock & Brown or a Timbercorp.* But I think the  world will demand, and get, much less complexity. _[emphasis added]
_ 
*AK: *They were much more complex, were they, than I don’t know say Qintex or Adelaide Steamship, Bond Corporation? 

*MK: *I think they were complex, but not even Bond Corporation had 750 companies. 

*SB: *A brewery is a bit different from some of the securitised assets that were inside those groups.

*MK: *Yeah, you  actually owned an asset and you could go and see the beer being brewed  rather than sort of I’ve got a share in this company that’s got a share  in this company that has a share in this company that has a share in  this company. That complexity I think will be unwound, but then no doubt  it might come back again."


----------



## selciper (18 September 2010)

I notice that no investor update has been posted on the PIF website since 02.07.10.


----------



## Cookie1 (19 September 2010)

*Court grilling reveals MFS' overdue tax
*By ROB STOCK and businessday.com.au - Sunday Star Times 
Last updated 05:00 19/09/2010

Even as the New Zealand investors in OPI Pacific Finance – owed $302 million last August – were being assured in January 2008 that the finance company's Australian parent was on a strong financial footing, the Aussie firm was already two months late in paying a $A50m tax bill, and had called in a corporate insolvency specialist for advice.

The revelations came in court grillings in Australia this past week, in which liquidator Bentleys questioned insolvency specialist Mark Korda, of Korda Mentha, on exactly when Octaviar, which changed its name from MFS prior to being put into liquidation, actually became insolvent.

At the time the tax debt was two months overdue, the directors of MFS Pacific Finance, as OPI Pacific was then known, had just issued a prospectus extension assuring investors here that their money was safe, and that MFS had undertaken to provide emergency liquidity should there be a run on funds.

The directors also spoke of MFS Pacific's "prudent lending and investing practices", claiming it had net assets of $20.8m. Three months later it revealed a shortfall of some $334.8m in assets needed to pay back all its creditors – including mum and dad debenture holders – making it one of the worst finance company collapses behind the likes of Bridgecorp, Hanover, South Canterbury and Strategic Finance.

Full story: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/4143681/Court-grilling-reveals-MFS-overdue-tax


----------



## simgrund (19 September 2010)

selciper said:


> I notice that no investor update has been posted on the PIF website since 02.07.10.




Selciper, could NSX Release of 15 September 10 fill the gap?
And perhaps it could just stop my confidence slide for now, having been in free fall these past 2 years.
Regards,


----------



## selciper (19 September 2010)

simgrund -

WC are probably under no obligation to put up the recent avalanche of announcements on their PIF website. In my book, such information should be circulated fast and as widely as possible. The recent PDFs will probably amble in on the ageing site in a day or two.


----------



## simgrund (20 September 2010)

selciper said:


> simgrund -
> 
> WC are probably under no obligation to put up the recent avalanche of announcements on their PIF website. In my book, such information should be circulated fast and as widely as possible. The recent PDFs will probably amble in on the ageing site in a day or two.




Agreed; "should be circulated".

Without offending anyone, I would pluck that particular PDF out from impending obscurity and keep it afloat as the first example of POSITIVITY in our PIF saga; however miniscule. 
And within the first 3 years of promised "revival".
Our brethren in City Pacific are mentioned in today's SMH Business. Sobering reading.
Regards,


----------



## seamisty (21 September 2010)

I couldn't help but notice Wellington Capital Ltd led by founder and managing director Jenny Hutson fails to mention her role of Responsible Entity for the Premium Income Fund in her list of achievements in the latest G8 presentation posted on the ASX yesterday? Is Jenny Hutson ashamed of her association with our fund because of the inability of Wellington Capital and cohorts to deliver and our fund appears to be spiralling backwards under WC management? 'Moving forward' with G8 will not alter the fact that there are over 10,000 investors in the PIF who would have to be feeling extremely concerned at WC's ability (more like inability?) to turn the PIF around, recommence distributions and restore unit value in 3-5 years. Waiting, waiting Jenny. Or maybe you are busy elsewhere? I hope potential and existing G8 investors do their research into the pathetic performance we have been subjected to for over two years since the current G8 chairperson has been at the helm. Seamisty
(Also no mention of her prior involvement with MFS!)


'Jenny Hutson, Chairperson
B.Com, LLB, FAIMM, MAICD
Jenny is an investment banker and
fund manager. She is an experienced
corporate adviser and company director.
Jenny has a keen interest in the welfare
and education of children. In addition to
chairing G8 Education, Jenny is a director
of the Royal Childrens Hospital Foundation in Brisbane.
Jenny was previously a partner of a major law firm. She has over
20 years experience in board issues involving listed companies
including as chair of S8 Limited. Jenny was previously named
Queensland Businesswoman of the Year and Australian Institute of
Management Owner/Manager of the Year'::


----------



## Duped (21 September 2010)

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2010/QSC10-347.pdf

Greig & Anor v Octaviar Limited (Receivers and Managers
Appointed) (In liquidation) & Anor [2010] QSC 347

Basically the court's ordered that Deloitte (i.e. Greig & Harwood) get some more money out of Octaviar for work done up to when AND AFTER McMurdo gave them the flick. More $ in the bag for Deloitte. This time it's $123,797 + $94,892 + $238,024 +$112,876 + $48,212 = $617,801 and then some

(Oh and it appears to me that Deloitte don't even have to wait for Bentley to hand over some of that cash. Deloitte can now just keep $ they still hadn't passed to Bentley's control.)

Let's all not forget that Octaviar under Chris Scott shoved Deloitte in as Voluntary Administrators just before PTQ could get their own administrators through the door.

That's worked out well for us fellow creditors, the PIF investors, hasn't it? NOT.  Thanks for that move Chris Scott.

How many more people are going to underestimate the PTQ's determination not to roll over?  PTQ have made their position very clear. 

More money that us PIF investors lose to corporate professionals digging their heals to avoid being dragged out into the Public Trustee's QLD sunlight.

Yet we still have false prophets promising us that we're better off  fighting.  Well at some point you've just got to avoid the shallows and tack rather than run aground. 

But then again, if you're making money  from the battles, you've kinda got a big disincentive to encourage the parties to shake hands and hand the process back to them. Much like Korda was disincentivised to hand his charge over to the Adminsitrators in the first place; as senior counsel noted last week. A financial market sticky with moral hazards.

What did Michael King call JP Morgan?  Pretenders?

How much longer will they send more of our $ to climb over the top to pointless deaths just to move the remote and battle-philic Field Marshal's drinks cabinet 5 inches closer to Berlin.

Know yourself and know your opponent. I can't find any quotes along those lines on the WC website. Maybe Hutson should read some Sun Tzu. Probably essential reading for all those aspiring leaders who's careers were born on the battle ground of law.


----------



## charles36 (21 September 2010)

DUPED, why are you complaining, Chris Scott was advised no doubt by our illustrious leader, two hats, probably, ours didn't fit.  By the way, the 1 cent so called CASH PAYMENT is a return of our own money, it is not from profit and my opinion, for whatever that is worth, it should not be counted towards the promised 3 cents which will then attract a penalty of fees forever.  Cash payment  is not a distribution and I hope this assertion is supported by the unit holders.  Keep up the good work Duped.  Regards to all, Charles36.


----------



## Duped (22 September 2010)

Thanks Charles. It's a given so I left JH out of the text. Trying to reduce length of my posts. Please read JH along with all the other corporate professional rent seekers.


----------



## seamisty (22 September 2010)

If anyone has the time or inclination here is an opportunity to express your satisfaction or lack of with ASIC's performance by completing this survey. It may help make a difference. Cheers, Seamisty


We'd like your input


ASIC wants to hear your views. We are keen to know: 
what you think about ASIC's performance 
what you see as the key issues for ASIC to focus on over the next 3 - 5 years.

It will take about 15 minutes to complete the survey.
You will not be required to provide your name or contact details.

Click on the link below then click on 'take survey now'

http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byHeadline/Your say: ASIC survey 2010?opendocument


----------



## marcom (24 September 2010)

Hi all, just got back. Plenty of reading to do to catch up on the forum.

Today in the Federal Court Sydney re Bond Street Custodians Ltd v Wellington Investment Management Ltd:

24-Sept-2010  9:30  Directions  	Justice Perram  	Court Room 18A

And previously: 	  	

14-Sept-2010 9:30  Directions 	Justice Perram 	Court Room 22B 	Adjourned - Pre-Hearing 
Orders:
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.    The matter be stood over for further directions on 24 September 2010.
2.    The defendant serve any written response to the proposed amendments contained in the letter dated 10 September 2010 by 1 pm Friday 17 September 2010.

And in relation to the cross claim - CROSS CLAIM filed by WELLINGTON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED ACN 101 634 146(X) on 27-FEB-2009

24-Sept-2010  	Affidavit  	McCullough Robertson

Hearing dates for both matters are set for:
17-Dec-2010  	10:15  	Part Heard  	Justice Perram  	  	  	
16-Dec-2010 	10:15 	Part Heard 	        Justice Perram 			
15-Dec-2010 	10:15 	Part Heard 	        Justice Perram 			
14-Dec-2010 	10:15 	Part Heard 	        Justice Perram 			
13-Dec-2010 	10:15 	Hearing 	        Justice Perram

Marcom


----------



## BABIHUTAN (24 September 2010)

seamisty said:


> If anyone has the time or inclination here is an opportunity to express your satisfaction or lack of with ASIC's performance by completing this survey. It may help make a difference. Cheers, Seamisty
> 
> 
> I have submitted my survey - not too difficult - in my view most responses will likely have bullets to left of centre, a few don't knows [neutral] in the centre and somewhat less to the right.
> Go to it fellow investors, we need to take this opportunity to reinforce the sentiments of those that feel ASIC has let us down.  Not from poor investment descisions, that is our own responsibilty, but from shonky operators that abound & seem to be able to conduct their business with impunity.


----------



## selciper (24 September 2010)

The final paragraph on WC's recent 1c Cash Payment pdf announcement  includes these words: "Our continuing focus is on the rebuilding of unit 
value." Well,well. Isn't this a case of people NOT believing what is said irrespective of how often it is repeated? The propaganda machine is creaking.


----------



## Cookie1 (24 September 2010)

seamisty said:


> If anyone has the time or inclination here is an opportunity to express your satisfaction or lack of with ASIC's performance by completing this survey. It may help make a difference. Cheers, Seamisty
> 
> 
> We'd like your input
> ...




Perhaps Breaker could send this out to all PIF Action Group members so they can individually comment to ASIC on performance as perceived by AG members. Just a suggestion....

I've already completed the survey and added plenty of extra comment at the end where space is provided.

Cookie1


----------



## marcom (25 September 2010)

Orders by J Perram yesterday in the Federal Court re Bond Street Custodians Ltd v Wellington Investment Management Ltd:

ORDER
JUDGE:
	Justice Perram
DATE OF ORDER:
	24 September 2010 
WHERE MADE:
	Sydney

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.	The plaintiff have leave to amend the originating application by substituting the name “Management Investments Pty Ltd” for “Wellington   Investment Management Limited”.
2.	The plaintiff have leave to file an amended statement of claim in terms accordant with the draft attached to the notice of motion filed on 20 September 2010.
3.	Costs occasioned by the amendment and the notice of motion filed on 20 September 2010 be reserved until the trial.
4.	Order 3 of the Orders made on 22 June 2010 be vacated.
5.	The defendant file and serve before 8 October 2010 an amended defence.
6.	The plaintiff file and serve before 15 October 2010 a reply, if any, to the amended defence.
7.	The defendant file and serve any further lay evidence upon which it intends to rely at the hearing before 29 October 2010.
8.	The defendant file and serve any expert evidence upon which it intends to rely by 12 November 2010.
9.	The parties to exchange on or before 1 December 2010 lists specifying which of the opposing parties they intend to cross-examine.
10.	The parties file and serve before 3 December 2010 a schedule of objections to the lay and expert evidence of the other party identifying the paragraph number or document objected to and the basis of the objection.
11.	The parties to prepare and exchange and deliver to the Associate to his Honour Justice Perram two working days prior to the commencement of the hearing a summary outline of the factual and legal propositions relied upon and the parties may also provide a chronology of events as they consider appropriate.
12.	The plaintiff to have available at the hearing for his Honour Justice Perram a working copy of the latest pleading.
Liberty to restore on two days prior written notice.

*Any one who had a PIF redemption request mature in December 2007 which was subsequently frozen in January 2008 before payment should watch this case very carefully.*


----------



## zixo (25 September 2010)

seamisty said:


> If anyone has the time or inclination here is an opportunity to express your satisfaction or lack of with ASIC's performance by completing this survey. It may help make a difference. Cheers, Seamisty
> 
> 
> We'd like your input
> ...




I dont think There are adequate words for how best to describe ASIC and the way it has handled PIF Investor pleading and warnings.
Utterly Useless and Totally pathetic just doesn't seem to work.


----------



## marcom (26 September 2010)

An interesting article present state of funds at http://www.smh.com.au/business/beware-of-funds-with-few-redeeming-features-20100924-15qjc.html

*Beware of funds with few redeeming features*
ANNETTE SAMPSON
September 25, 2010 Sydney Morning Herald

"One of the big cons of the boom before the global financial crisis was the liquidity lie - the promise that you could invest in illiquid assets such as property and infrastructure with the same ease that applied to shares...

The truth is that the promise of easy liquidity with property and mortgage investments has been exposed for the lie it was. Both direct property and mortgages have a role in bringing certainty and income to investment portfolios. But to fulfil that role, *funds need to reinvent themselves and offer a more realistic proposition to investors.* *Merely hoping things will return to ''normal'' is an insult to long-suffering investors.*"(emphasis added)

Marcom


----------



## LTD (26 September 2010)

Hello PIF investors,
       I have been following this thread and although not directly involved in PIF continue to be interested.

I am finding it difficult to post links here...
so any tips would be appreciated..
OHHH just got the message re "not enough posts to post a link"
This is my first post on Aussie.

I wonder if you have read Adele Furgusons article dated 13th September?
If you are interested in the article...just google news search "Jim Byrnes"
and read the article titled...
"Once again the liquidators get all the spoils, but this time ASIC must take account "

For anyone who wishes to read about 'some' dealings in the development industry ...
get Richard Vereker and Mark Abernethy's novel
"The fast Life and sudden death of Michael McGurk"
The book starts in Wollongong.

Its a very sad topic but it's an interesting and educatational read.

I think that ASIC need more funds, unbiased advisors, and more powers.
Political persuasions and networks seem to influence things and from my observations we are not protecting our countrys wealth adequately.

The GFC has united people to seek out answers and correct the flaws in our economic system...this thread seeks to do that and I applaud your efforts. 
Journalists have generally done a mighty good job too. 

Good Luck,
LTD.


----------



## LTD (27 September 2010)

I need to post a few more times.
or the links feature will not be available.

Remember early posts saying there were a number of interested parties in
becoming the RE of the PIF?
and the parallels and bids from City Pacific just after the SP crash?

How posters lamented that those bids werent taken seriously.
Page 209 of the book mentioned, says
He (Michael M) made a failed bid for City Pacific, which had recently lost control of its $650 mil First Morgage Fund ...cont.
If correct.
Thats one bid many would be relieved....failed.

I cant endorse the info in the book, of course, but it is enlightening just reading about the way some business operates.
I read it as 'one perspective' and its a bold and apparently open perspective.  Without such writers... one player can manipulate another, the general public can be hoodwinked and politics can be weakened.

 Millions of superanuation investors, here and in NZ deserve transparency and greater protection but is there a political will that cant be stood over and without skelatons?

Scarey isnt it?


----------



## Mutchy (28 September 2010)

charles36 said:


> By the way, the 1 cent so called CASH PAYMENT is a return of our own money, it is not from profit and my opinion, for whatever that is worth, it should not be counted towards the promised 3 cents which will then attract a penalty of fees forever.  Cash payment  is not a distribution and I hope this assertion is supported by the unit holders.  Keep up the good work Duped.  Regards to all, Charles36.




Hello All
Talking about our 3 cents distribution, I drove past the Wollongong PIF Investment property a couple of weeks ago, the one sold by JH for $38 million having passed the block in at auction for $42 million earlier last year. (It's a very difficult area in which to park with WIN Stadium and the Steelers Club close by, and council parking meters recently installed creating an even more unfriendly precinct ) The hotel portion which opened over a month ago and is called The Chifley Hotel appears to be operating OK with some people habiting the foyer area, clerks at the desk and a concierge at the door. The shops facing Beach Street are as yet unoccupied except for the Colliers sales office which was closed anyway. 
The sign on the window of the office said that there were eight apartments still for sale; down from 22 as at last April. This means that The Beach Street Trust (see last years annual report) will not be paid the $38 Million for the sale of the property for some time yet. As I understand how trusts work, after the Trust pays all the expenses (legal costs, sales costs, administration costs, etc) then disbursements will be made to PIF. WC will be paid out of the trust funds ie the 37 Million, before disbursement is made to PIF. This avoids  the order placed by Justice McMurdo that WC receive no fees until the 3 cent distribution is paid to PIF members.
It will be some time yet before the last unit is sold, triggering the payment of the $38 Million. The market in Wollongong is still slow with units in the over $500,000 price range being in oversupply - those under being snapped up by buyers eligible for government handout. There are six or seven high rise blocks within half a kilometre with units for sale in the same price range.

It will be some time yet before we see any possibility of a 3 cent distribution.

I still can not believe the naivety of WC in making the settlement subject to the last unit being sold. The developer has finished the hotel and the units, sold 67 units ranging from $450,000 up to $1 million each (the four penthouses), is generating a cash flow now and still does not have to settle on the purchase from WC!

Commiserations
Steve


----------



## lawry1dog (29 September 2010)

Yes, I agree, that WC does not have the money to pay a 1c distribution in
October.

*WC should resign and give it to someone else, or sell all assets and give us
our money back.*

Hope we get the balance owing from the Class Action in 18 months.

Hey, how long can we *WAIT*. How long is a piece of string?


Cheers
Your Lawry1Dog


----------



## selciper (29 September 2010)

lawry1dog writes: "Yes, I agree, that WC does not have the money to pay a 1c distribution in October." If that is the case, could we find eventually that the millions required for the 1c cash payment were being funded by a loan?


----------



## lawry1dog (30 September 2010)

selciper, writes, that the 1c distribution could be funded by loan, makes sense to me.

Anyway, how else can WC pay the millions out, when they have Bond Street hanging over
their heads, where they could be paying out over 20 million.
*
I still contend that WC should resign and give it to someone else, or sell all assets and give usour money back.*

I still hope we get the balance owing from the Class Action in 18 months.



Cheers
Your Lawry1Dog


----------



## seamisty (30 September 2010)

Nigel Benjamin Elias of Print Mail Logistics has resigned as a director of Armstrong Registry Services http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723264.PDF


HMMMNNNN, Hard to distinguish rats from sinking ships these days. Seamisty


----------



## Blueboy1 (30 September 2010)

seamisty said:


> Nigel Benjamin Elias of Print Mail Logistics has resigned as a director of Armstrong Registry Services http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723264.PDF
> 
> 
> HMMMNNNN, Hard to distinguish rats from sinking ships these days. Seamisty




Beautifully put Seamisty,I am in complete agreement with you.
Blueboy1


----------



## Cookie1 (30 September 2010)

Seamisty, It's good to see you back on line; we missed you.

When I was at the Icon apartments late July, 11 apartments had been sold, 1 was under contract and 14 remained to be sold. The complex had not been completely finished with some work remaining to be done.

I recall seeing in the Port Macquarie Domain in the last few weeks that half (12 of 24) of the Icon apartments have now been sold, although it doesn't say that in the current ad. (Ray White & LJ Hooker have a joint listing for sale of the apartments.)

Does anyone know what kind of deal JH did with the developer/contractor who is finishing the apartments? Was it the same deal as done with Wollongong Hotel or is money coming into the fund as apartments are sold? Total asking price of all apartments is $21,055,000 (and we know they wouldn't have sold for the asking price). I understand the developer has one of the penthouses which had an asking price of $1.2 million.

Cookie1


----------



## seamisty (30 September 2010)

My two bobs worth on the pending PIF 1 cent distribution due to be paid on the 29th october 2010. Interestingly the 1 cent cash payment it is described as 'final dividend' on the NSX http://www.nsxa.com.au/security_dividends.asp?nsxcode=PIN&coname=Premium Income Fund

'Jenny Hutson of G8 education has also pledged a maiden dividend of 1 cent  for G8 shareholders the September 2010 quarter.
Ms Hutson said that she hoped G8, whose financial year ends on December 31, would be in a position announce its planned dividend 'soon'. 'http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/08/17/247725_gold-coast-business.html

G8 1 cent dividend is due to be paid on 7th Oct 2010. My guess is that Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital Ltd, Qld business woman of the year in 2007 does not want the media coming out and drawing attention to the fact that shareholders of her new baby, G8 education will receive a dividend BEFORE Premium Income Investors who have waited for 2 years for a promised dividend and if they a VERY VERY lucky may get a 1 Cent return of their own CAPITAL in the same month. WOOP WOOP, TOOT TOOT we can hardly wait, that is of course if it does in fact eventuate this time!!! 

Seamisty


----------



## Duped (30 September 2010)

Hi Cookie1. IMO if Wollongong delivers enough $ to deliver the 3c payment then there's little incentive for WC to get the rest of the sales completed. WC will start collecting fees based on total assets.

High valuations = No sales = Higher fee for WC.

And we're all locked in forever. JH can keep this going for years until she decides she's done with us or we kick WC out.  

JH did say PIF was a great fund.  For investors? Or for the RE?

Anyone know if Bond Street can apply to the court for an injunction to lock the Wollongong $ up?  I mean after all, WC have been telling the market they've embarked on a marketing campaign. For the last 15 months.  With little or no sales. How do we think a judge would view our capacity to pay in the light of WC's performance over the last 15 months? I'd say ... not very well.

How else are we going to pay if Bond Street wins?  Fire sale?  Loan?

What was the word that MIchael King used .... Pretenders?


----------



## seamisty (30 September 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> Seamisty, It's good to see you back on line; we missed you.
> 
> When I was at the Icon apartments late July, 11 apartments had been sold, 1 was under contract and 14 remained to be sold. The complex had not been completely finished with some work remaining to be done.
> 
> ...



Hi Cookie, It was Geocal Constructions that did the Joint venture with WC to complete Icon (previously known as  Aston Hills Apartments.)
George Callianiotis = Geocal Construction:::    Anthony Stanton =  Current Business Manager at The Geocal Group
(Venture Capital & Private Equity industry)

So I imagine that money from the sale of those apartments will be used to pay the 1 cent. The rest has probablly been goobbled up by WC in operating and legal expenses. Funds would be needed to prop up once profitable assets that have languished under Wellington Capital management. Removing graffitti, running a luxury 4 wheel drive vehicle (removed from a repossessed resort) flying tradies interstate and providing limos to pick them up from the airport etc etc.

Interesting to see the new better $43 million Wollongong deal negotiated by Hutson. Coincidently better than the $40.5 offer rejected by Wellington Capital at auction 7/05/09 as it 'was not acceptable to the Vendors' (WC)

Now if WC had of accepted that deal of $40.5million nearly 18 months ago it would still have been a far better outcome than the new renegotiated deal(not sure how the corporate mafia wangled that one!!) Is WC trying to deflect another missile here? They know we have the bidding results of the auction.

Welcome back Marcom and good to see a few 'diehards' still waving the red flag and keeping us all informed!!

Seamisty


----------



## breaker1 (1 October 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> Perhaps Breaker could send this out to all PIF Action Group members so they can individually comment to ASIC on performance as perceived by AG members. Just a suggestion....
> 
> I've already completed the survey and added plenty of extra comment at the end where space is provided.
> 
> Cookie1




I have advised most of our members about the ASIC Survey - another group gmail email to go tomorrow.

Any PIF Investors not already in the PIF Action Group and interested in enquiring about membership - please email me on:
pifactiongroup@gmail.com


----------



## seamisty (1 October 2010)

breaker1 said:


> I have advised most of our members about the ASIC Survey - another group gmail email to go tomorrow.
> 
> Any PIF Investors not already in the PIF Action Group and interested in enquiring about membership - please email me on:
> pifactiongroup@gmail.com



Thanks for your efforts in collating the latest  PIF AG update Breaker I hope PIF investors take the time to do the ASIC survey. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (1 October 2010)

Bond Street Custodians Limited – Federal Court Proceedings
Bond Street Custodians Limited has filed an amended Statement of Claim in these proceedings.
The original Statement of Claim filed on 21 October 2008 sought compensation exceeding $16.254 million
in relation to a redemption request for 16.254 million units in the Wholesale Premium Income Fund which
was lodged on 21 January 2008, shortly prior to the suspension of redemptions.
The amended Statement of Claim reduces the compensation sought to approximately $465,000 plus interest.
This matter continues to be set down for hearing commencing 13 December 2010.
Further updates will be provided as the matter progresses.


http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723277.PDF


----------



## Duped (1 October 2010)

seamisty said:


> ...The amended Statement of Claim reduces the compensation sought to approximately $465,000 plus interest. ....
> 
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723277.PDF




That's excellent news.


----------



## selciper (1 October 2010)

Great to read in Breaker's latest report to AG members that committees are working hard on many fronts on behalf of us. They certainly deserve our gratitude for all their voluntary efforts.


----------



## BABIHUTAN (1 October 2010)

seamisty said:


> My two bobs worth on the pending PIF 1 cent distribution due to be paid on the 29th october 2010. Interestingly the 1 cent cash payment it is described as 'final dividend' on the NSX http://www.nsxa.com.au/security_dividends.asp?nsxcode=PIN&coname=Premium Income Fund
> 
> Seamisty




Hmph - what does this mean? - if payment actually eventuates 29/10, the narration 'dividend' conjours up thoughts tt ATO will take some of it from those of us tt are taxpayers.
For four years before the meltdown we rolled our distributions [power of compounding!!!!] paying tax on monies we never saw, and are unlikely to ever see again.


----------



## Cookie1 (1 October 2010)

NSX Release: 1 October 2010 

http://www.nsxa.com.au/announcements_list.asp?nsxcode=PIN

"*Bond Street Custodians Limited – Federal Court Proceedings* 

Bond Street Custodians Limited has filed an amended Statement of Claim in these proceedings.

The original Statement of Claim filed on 21 October 2008 sought compensation exceeding $16.254 million in relation to a redemption request for 16.254 million units in the Wholesale Premium Income Fund which was lodged on 21 January 2008, shortly prior to the suspension of redemptions. 

The amended Statement of Claim reduces the compensation sought to approximately $465,000 plus interest. 

This matter continues to be set down for hearing commencing 13 December 2010. 

Further updates will be provided as the matter progresses."

Some good news for PIF Unitholders...depending on what the interest is based on...$16.254 million for almost 3 years??? or what???

Cookie1


----------



## Duped (1 October 2010)

BABIHUTAN said:


> Hmph - what does this mean? - if payment actually eventuates 29/10, the narration 'dividend' conjours up thoughts tt ATO will take some of it from those of us tt are taxpayers.
> For four years before the meltdown we rolled our distributions [power of compounding!!!!] paying tax on monies we never saw, and are unlikely to ever see again.




Hi. I'm still trying to understand the annual report.  I thought I was getting on top of the lingo.  But the 'final dividend' is listed as 100% Franked.  I don't know how this works for trusts.  Anyone?  

Is PIF a 'Question 13' trust or a 'Question 11' trust?  See
http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/00216570.htm
and 
http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/00217540.htm

My understanding of imputation for company dividends is that the company has already paid 30% tax. If your marginal rate is 0% or 15% you'll get a credit from the ATO.  If your  marginal rate is 37% or 45% you'll pay 7% or 15%, respectively, of the 1c to the tax office. 

But the ATO's explanation takes some trawling to understand.  E.g. for a Q13 trust "You cannot claim a share of a franking credit through a trust .... the trust has an overall loss for the income year"  That will likely be us.


----------



## Cookie1 (1 October 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> NSX Release: 1 October 2010
> 
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/announcements_list.asp?nsxcode=PIN
> 
> ...




Sorry everyone; I don't know how I missed Seamisty's posting of the NSX Release...just did!

Cookie1


----------



## breaker1 (1 October 2010)

seamisty said:


> .Interesting to see the new better $43 million Wollongong deal negotiated by Hutson. Coincidently better than the $40.5 offer rejected by Wellington Capital at auction 7/05/09 as it 'was not acceptable to the Vendors' (WC)
> 
> Now if WC had of accepted that deal of $40.5million nearly 18 months ago it would still have been a far better outcome than the new renegotiated deal(not sure how the corporate mafia wangled that one!!) Is WC trying to deflect another missile here? They know we have the bidding results of the auction.
> 
> .Seamisty




My concern seamisty is if something has gone wrong with a clean $38M payment by "Harbour" to WC/PIF will they be able to pay the $43? Is the $43 amount just to make it sound good?


----------



## breaker1 (1 October 2010)

seamisty said:


> Thanks for your efforts in collating the latest  PIF AG update Breaker I hope PIF investors take the time to do the ASIC survey. Seamisty





Thanks - i've noted a few errors in it - carrying that virus going around and not picking up details too well - brother tells me the virus lasts about 3 weeks 

Good to have you back on deck Seamisty!


----------



## breaker1 (1 October 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> NSX Release: 1 October 2010
> 
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/announcements_list.asp?nsxcode=PIN
> 
> ...




Oh yeah Cookie that IS VERY* good news *- we have been quiet about it pending the courts acceptance of the case, but seriously very concerned.


----------



## seamisty (2 October 2010)

'Mr Tinkler's purchase of failed MFS boss Michael King's Elysian fields property settled yesterday.

Tinkler will own 56 hectares, or one third, of the Canungra property.'

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/10/02/260131_gold-coast-600.html

I wonder which two thirds M King retained? The shed he is meant to be living in on the property, or has his other creditors got that? Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (2 October 2010)

Seamisty 

  Hopefull Mt King and others in MFS, will eventually be  comfortably ensconced with others of their  kind  In one of the, ‘Big Houses’ , we have here in Brisbane .


----------



## simgrund (2 October 2010)

Big thanks again to breaker1 and the team for this welcome update. 
We expect 1c payment on 29th October and Alf's PIF offer expires a day before that, though it may be extended. 
I wonder if there is a relationship in the proximity of these 2 dates,
Regards,


----------



## marcom (3 October 2010)

You can file this under the heading *TOO LITTLE TOO LATE!*

*ASIC sharpens focus on REs
*
    * By Mike Taylor on  1 October 2010 Money Management
http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/news/asic-sharpens-focus-on-res

"The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has proposed tightening up on the responsible entity (RE) arrangements around managed investment schemes (MIS).

The regulator has issued a consultation paper in which it sought industry feedback on restricting guarantees and indemnities granted to responsible entities, requiring the REs to create rolling 12-month cash flow projections, increasing the net tangible asset capital requirements for the REs and specifying the net tangible asset liquidity requirements for REs.

Development of the ASIC consultation paper comes in the wake of the collapse of a number of agricultural investment schemes and recent judicial decisions, which have suggested inherent conflicts of interests with respect to the control of the schemes and the control of the ME...."

There are a couple of interesting comments at the end of the article.

MARCOM


----------



## seamisty (4 October 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/to-tick-or-tick-off-that-is-the-question-20101003-162t8.html

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission would like more feedback on its corporate grime-fighting skills.

In a recent survey on itself, the corporate regulator, which stepped in for a period to ban the short selling of financial stocks such as Macquarie Group, asked whether it "did a good job of responding to the global financial crisis".

The general formula was for people to agree or disagree on certain statements. "ASIC has enforced timely and accurate market disclosure by listed entities," was one of those statements, which left it up to the Australian Securities Exchange last week to issue itself a de facto speeding ticket on its share price fluctuations.

"ASIC concentrates too much on high-profile cases," was another of the statements: the regulator lost several high-profile cases during the year.

And then there was: "ASIC staff have been knowledgeable and professional."

ASIC then asks what it should have a greater focus on. Some of the novel ideas included "assisting retail investors and consumers" and "protecting retail investors and consumers".

MULTIPLE CHOICE

There are rumours that ASIC, which has already carried out a crackdown on ill-founded rumours in financial markets, is planning to release a second survey.

This time round there will be multiple choice questions, which are rumoured to include:

Which film star does the chairman of ASIC, Tony D'Aloisio, most resemble? (A) Denzel Washington; (B) Danny DeVito; (C) Jason "George" Alexander; (D) Joe Pesci.

What do the initials ASIC stand for? (A) Air and Space Inter-operability Council; (B) Australian Securities and Investments Commission; (C) Australian Seafood Industry Council; (D) Australian Society of Incense and Candlemakers.

What tools could ASIC make use of to improve its abilities? (A) a clairvoyant; (B) a calculator; (C) an extra Tony D'Aloisio; (D) a new corporate logo.

What tune could ASIC use as its new theme song? (A) Inner Circle's Bad Boys; (B) Glenn Frey's The Heat Is On; (C) Bon Jovi's Living On A Prayer; (D) U2's I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For.


----------



## JohnH (4 October 2010)

ROFL ... bloody LOL  Seamisty!!!!!!!


----------



## seamisty (4 October 2010)

JohnH said:


> ROFL ... bloody LOL  Seamisty!!!!!!!



A journo with a warped sense of humour to match my own JohnH!! This would be referring to the same ASIC survey/link  in the last PIF AG update  http://www.fido.gov.au/fido/fido.nsf/byHeadline/Your say: ASIC survey 2010?opendocument

Seamisty


----------



## Duped (4 October 2010)

marcom said:


> You can file this under the heading *TOO LITTLE TOO LATE!*




LOL! Looks like ASIC are breaking out the paintbrushes to start the whitewash.

Meanwhile their website continues to promote financial advisors.  And  the ASIC staff have their nest eggs safely tucked away in their defined  benefit superannuation. 		



marcom said:


> *ASIC sharpens focus on REs
> *
> * By Mike Taylor on  1 October 2010 Money Management
> http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/news/asic-sharpens-focus-on-res
> ...




More watered down piecemeal regulation for the smart money to use as a facade to trick us?  Creating the 'perception' of a safe finance market.  And guess who will send their lobbyists deep into battle during the consultation process?


----------



## gardie (4 October 2010)

Why would ASIC need any law in relation to MFS when its clear the RE and the RE's owner put their hand in your cookie jar for about $140 million plus.

It seems like they are waiting for the undertakers to finish examing the body and report back while ignoring or not moving on these transactions. 

There is a place for certain types of funds but mortgage funds lending for development has no place here as an investment for mums and dads investors looking for a safe investment.

Good developers get money from banks and second tier developers use funds like PIF ususally adding in some mezzanine funding as they have no equity and banks wont touch them.

When you are funding developments which by there nature need ongoing drawdowns how do you supply the money. From more and more investors, from loan repayments (to bad if project doesnt run on time) or borrowing from a bank like an overdraft (we saw want RBOS did to PIF).

These type of mortgage funds are doomed to fail when ever the market turns down and investors want their money back or money stops flowing in. ASIC need to look at this type of product. 

WC talk about rebuilding value but also moving back to investment ratio's or lending money on about 40% of the funds (down from current 60%)

How do you rebuild value lending money out and earning interest but no capital growth ?

What is most scary is WC wanting to move back into the lending market again once current loans are repaid or assets realised. It will be back to the same type of borrowers. Remember what JH said about Raptis being a great bloke. May be nice as hell but still cost PIF money.

Better to give the money back and let investors make their own choices as to if this is approriate or too high risk.


----------



## LTD (4 October 2010)

I have been following the NZ experience of GFC and their response to similar Funds destruction and I think that PIF investors might like to read this article.

Sorry I cant post the link...too few posts on my behalf but if you 
News google search Bridgecorp theres a very good article Titled
"Cleaning Up the Markets" on NZ Herald site written by Karyn Scherer 
Mon October 4th.



to quote it
""We're regulating financial advisers for the first time - in 2010. Where have we been for the last 20 years?"cont..........and

"Former British Labour MP Bryan Gould, a Kiwi who also returned home, to head Waikato University, got it right when he suggested that the real key to politics was economics, he says.'cont.........and

"With financial regulation, it's important to understand that markets act as an organism, not as a machine, he believes. Therefore, it's a waste of time taking a piecemeal approach to fixing them. For that reason, he would also like to see a licensing regime for fund managers, especially as we are trying to persuade more people to save." cont..................

RBOS mentioned in this impressive article which tackles many issues that face ASIC today and that you are now discussing.

 Sorry that I cant post links here.
Perhaps some-one else could help me out.
Cheers.


----------



## marcom (4 October 2010)

LTD here is the link http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10677347


----------



## LTD (4 October 2010)

Thanks Marcom.

Only a few more posts and I can post links for myself.

That article indicates to me, that countries are attempting to improve the flawed systems that so many have suffered from.
The courts and lawyers are into it, the journos are all over it, the street smart guys are checking it out and the population are investigating on every level with a thirst for transparency and a fair go...
The internet has given us the tools to talk, compare and learn.

I agree that politics has a lot, lot,lot... to do with economics but has that ever been appreciated?.....will we ever get politians that are adequately street wise?
They certainly have an enormous team on the internet,working for a better financial system..


----------



## Jadel (5 October 2010)

Recently I attended  the City Pacific EGM as an interested observer .They have a similar situation to ours in that the remaining assets require development in order  realise their value .It should be acknowledged  that    BalmainTrilogy  were prepared to give an honest assessment . They stated  that the could no longer act as a Fund Manager after they had fully examined  the Fund . This had been their orignal intention  , but they now considered  the only sensible course of action was to develop  some of the properties , where possible,  or maximize the  asset value and sell to a developer. In other other words an orderly wind up , with the the interntion of  obtaining  the best possible  return available  over a period of approx 5 years  .They cited the  Martha Cove asset as an example of how difficult it would be for a Fund Manager to develop and sell the assets  .This particular asset has  huge potential ,but selling  the residential lots on an individual basis , once fully developed ,could take a great  many years   .

I think everybody is now agreed ,that the above, orderly  wind up scenario ,is the only sane course of action for our Fund., Mutchies has pointed how naÃ¯ve ( or perhaps cunning) WC has been to make an agreement whereby the Wooloogong   cash  is only released when the last unit has been sold    , As Duped has stated ,WC  could keep this type of situation  going for years with our other properties ,without ever formerly acknowledging that our  Fund  is a non liquid entity , slowly feeding of our remaining assets like a bloodsucking leech,  with legal  and other expenses.

The longer this travesty goes on the harder it will be to dislodge JH prom her perch.


----------



## selciper (5 October 2010)

This is another example of other countries acting against white collar criminals faster than Australia. Note the dates of French rogue trader Jerome Kerviel’s actions. 

Associated Press  5.10.10: “Kerviel was found guilty on charges of forgery, breach of trust and unauthorised computer use over claims that he covered up bets worth nearly 50 billion euros between late 2007 and early 2008.”

Wake up, ASIC!


----------



## k.smith (6 October 2010)

In the news today..

http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/news/fund-manager-conflicts-left-untouched
''....The corporate regulator’s moves to tighten the rules for responsible entities of managed investment schemes are positive, but don’t go close to addressing the conflicts of interest inherent in the current structure, according to Equity Trustee’s head of funds management, Harvey Kalman...''

''....Kalman said recent investment collapses, and the decision from Justice J Judd, had highlighted the need for a “broad review of licensing criteria for responsible entities”, with the current approach “clearly failing many investors”.

''.....Kalman said while the financial strength of a responsible entity and the strength of those running the fund are important, “there are other areas requiring examination that are just as critical”.

In particular, there is a need for “a greater degree of separation between a fund manager and the responsible entity”.

He pointed to the role of the responsible entity in funds such as the Astarra Growth Fund and MFS Premium Income Fund as examples of the failure of the model.

“The common denominator in these cases is an internal responsible entity which, as Justice Judd said, can be severely conflicted.”

also...
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.ns...ment scheme responsible entities?opendocument

This could be an avenue to raise our concerns....


----------



## seamisty (6 October 2010)

k.smith said:


> In the news today..
> 
> http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/news/fund-manager-conflicts-left-untouched
> ''....The corporate regulator’s moves to tighten the rules for responsible entities of managed investment schemes are positive, but don’t go close to addressing the conflicts of interest inherent in the current structure, according to Equity Trustee’s head of funds management, Harvey Kalman...''
> ...



 It is my understanding that Anthony Stanton successor is Mr Mark Halle who is the  fund manager for a number of funds managed by Wellington Capital Limited. I am also of the understanding that KordaMentha are no longer involved in the management of a particular substantial PIF asset of which WC are 'mortgagee in possession' as Wellington Capital is now controlling these entities as “(Controllers Appointed)”. I also understand that the particular substanial property referred to has gone backwards financially in relation to previous projected income streams with serious staffing and management issues while under Wellington Capital control as RE. Wellington Capital will have to be under close scrutiny I would hope' 
So...... draw your own conclusions. 

Seamisty


----------



## marcom (6 October 2010)

Re K Smith's post above: A brief coverage of Justice Judd's decision on 6 September 2010 in the case Lachlan Reit Limited v Garnaut & Ors [2010] VSC 399

Supreme Court warns on conflicts of interest
By Lucinda Beaman on  24 September 2010 Money Management

http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/news/supreme-court-warns-on-conflicts-of-interest

..."Justice Judd’s statement referred to a case brought by a property fund manager against Melbourne adviser Chris Garnaut, director of Garnaut Private Client Advisers, and Century Funds Management and its advisers, Castle Partners.

The case was brought by Lachlan Reit, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Becton Property Group, following Garnaut’s efforts to hold a meeting of investors to propose replacing Lachlan Reit with Century Funds Management as the RE of two unlisted property trusts.

Garnaut and his clients ”” who held a considerable proportion of the funds ”” were concerned that Lachlan Reit’s ability to function as manager was potentially compromised by its “inseparable relationship” with the Becton Group, which was under significant financial duress.

As acknowledged in Justice Judd’s decision, were the Becton Group to slip into insolvency or an administrator appointed Lachlan Reit would be regarded as an asset of the group, even though the assets under its management were not.

Lachlan Reit tried to restrain Garnaut from convening the meeting on the basis that he, Century and Castle Partners were circulating misleading or deceptive information that would influence investors’ votes, among other concerns.

Justice Judd said Becton was “quick to respond” to that perceived threat by preparing contradictory material. In disseminating that information, both Lachlan Reit and Becton strongly advocated a vote against the resolution to remove Lachlan Reit as RE.

Justice Judd said investors were entitled to meet to consider the resolution, and that “the conflict of duty and interest, evident in the position of the plaintiff, should cause it to maintain a neutral position in the meeting process”.

However, he found that as Lachlan Reit and the Becton Group were fighting for Lachlan’s survival as the manager of funds, they were not in a neutral position. *Justice Judd found that the plaintiff’s attempts to block the meeting came from a place of “profound, irreconcilable conflict, between its duty to investors and its self interest”.*

Justice Judd said where the distribution of information to investors was concerned, the fact that Lachlan Reit had “chosen to engage in a debate advocating for its own survival” caused him to conclude that a “clean process” for the delivery of the corrct information was “illusory”...."

Marcom


----------



## seamisty (7 October 2010)

ASIC responds to collapses Colin Kruger 
October 7, 2010

MORE than two years after $21 billion worth of unlisted mortgage schemes began imploding under the weight of the global financial crisis - and in some cases, with allegations of mismanagement and fraud - the corporate watchdog has finally acted.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission published a consultation paper yesterday outlining proposals to ''further improve disclosure for retail investors considering investing in unlisted mortgage schemes'' and ''address certain risks associated with mortgage schemes''.

Changes to disclosure are unlikely to prevent a repeat of the debacle surrounding the collapse of City Pacific and MFS.

Advertisement: Story continues below More than $1 billion has been lost by 20,000 investors in mortgage schemes connected with the Gold Coast property groups - the MFS Premium Income Fund (PIF) and City Pacific's First Mortgage Fund (FMF).

ASIC has taken legal action to claw back up to $147.5 million from MFS executives. The money was allegedly siphoned from the Premium Income Fund to bail out an MFS group.

ASIC claims that the executives later fabricated and backdated documents to try to legitimise the transactions.

Full Article: http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic-responds-to-collapses-20101006-167wu.html


----------



## marcom (7 October 2010)

seamisty said:


> ASIC responds to collapses Colin Kruger
> October 7, 2010
> 
> As I said in an earlier post on this subject, you can file this under the heading *TOO LITTLE TOO LATE!*


----------



## Jadel (7 October 2010)

Last month, the new managers of the First Mortgage Fund said that some of City Pacific's distribution practices fitted the definition of a ''Ponzi, or pyramid, scheme''. 


I have absolutely no doubt that we would find a similar situation
in the PIF , If our class action solicitors and IMF were allowed to examine the books, as had been promised by WC.


----------



## marcom (7 October 2010)

ASIC finally moves on mortgage funds
Scott Rochfort Business Day Sydney Morning Herald
October 7, 2010
http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic-finally-moves-on-mortgage-funds-20101006-167wv.html

"The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has again displayed its lightning-fast reflexes by releasing a consultation paper on the unlisted mortgage fund sector.

More than two years since tens of thousands of investors in various funds, such as the City Pacific First Mortgage Fund and MFS Premium Income Fund, were blocked from redeeming their savings, the Tony D'Aloisio-led ASIC has finally cottoned on to something.

The corporate grime fighter noted in the paper yesterday that it ''found there was a high level of inconsistent disclosure'' in the withdrawal arrangements from mortgage funds, in which a total $21 billion was frozen in 2008.
Advertisement: Story continues below

''The responsible entities adopted different interpretations of what constitutes a 'right to withdraw', particularly in relation to frozen schemes and contributory mortgage schemes,'' the commission said.

The many investors who still have their life savings trapped and rapidly eroding in various mortgage funds will no doubt be heartened at the fast progress the corporate grime fighter is making.

ASIC in the consultation paper noted how it engaged with the managers of unlisted mortgage funds between October and November 2008 to ''assist them to implement the benchmark disclosure in line with ASIC's implementation timetable''.

The regulator then reviewed early last year the product disclosure statements in the mortgage fund sector ''to check that disclosure against the benchmarks was adequately made to retail investors''.

Now 21 months later, the commission has recommended tougher disclosure benchmarks to ''improve the consistency and quality of disclosure by responsible entities of unlisted mortgage schemes and to enhance investor confidence''.

The regulator is seeking feedback and hopes to release a ''regulatory guide'' on March 31 next year, more than three years after the unlisted mortgage sector started to implode.

In a press release the ASIC commissioner, Greg Medcraft, remarked: ''Changes in market conditions have led to a reassessment of the risks and business practices in this sector.''....

TOO LITTLE VERY VERY LATE!


----------



## Duped (7 October 2010)

Jadel said:


> Last month, the new managers of the First Mortgage Fund said that some of City Pacific's distribution practices fitted the definition of a ''Ponzi, or pyramid, scheme''.
> 
> I have absolutely no doubt that we would find a similar situation
> in the PIF , If our class action solicitors and IMF were allowed to examine the books, as had been promised by WC.




Not directed at you Jadel but I vaguely recall reading re the Madoff scheme that, in the US, money can be recovered from investors. I.e. us. I'm not sure about Oz.  If so, then what about the tax paid on the 'income'. 

Link for the ASIC page is http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byHeadline/10-209AD%20ASIC%20releases%20proposals%20to%20strengthen%20disclosure%20by%20unlisted%20mortgage%20schemes?opendocument

What's the point of their proposal when the next batch of retail investors cross paths with the Commonwealth branded 'AFS licenced' pushers who will talk down all the risks and warnings. ASIC will merely perpetuate it's failure to protect investors.

Just like the registration of the Fortress charge failed us. So what if there was a charge. MFS was out there telling the world that the YVE loan wasn't covered by the charge. Until it changed its mind at the 11th hour. Apparently that's OK. Epic legislative failure.

How about some big fines for a few  directors/execs of the RE AND financial advisors AND then bunging them in jail.  That'll "improve the consistency and quality of disclosure by responsible  entities of unlisted mortgage schemes and to enhance investor confidence" pretty fast.

Give em an inch and they'll take the whole rope.  What a farce. A superficial patch and a thick coating of 'consultation' whitewash. We'll still be here arguing over the interpretation of terms like 'right to withdraw' in the next millenium.

Where's the legislation for financial advisors 'duty to put clients financial interests before their own' up to? It's nearly a year since Ripoll's recommendation.  I can't believe the legislation that gave birth to PIF was unleashed before such a duty was in place. 

We pay our taxes so you lot can try and protect us from 'misleading and deceptive' conduct.  So get into the ring and start stinging some of them and locking them up. If not then pack your bags, find another job and stop taxing us so much.  We can look after ourselves better if not carrying  monkeys on our backs. The French and Americans have already locked a few up. Why are our financiers so precious. Like sacred cows. Like wayward footy players. Revered like Ned Kelly and Melbourne's Underbelly. Or are you hiding something?

Take ASIC's proposed benchmark 5: asset Valuation:

- a valuer to be a member of an appropriate professional body in the jurisdiction in which the relevant property is located; [And who's looking after the conflict of interests of the professional body?]
- a valuer to be independent; [Is there a bench mark for the term 'independent'? Or is ASIC leaving that for improvement after the next disaster?]
- procedures to be followed for dealing with any conflict of interest;[What? Like PIF's compliance committee?]
- rotation and diversity of valuers [Is there a bench mark for the terms 'rotation' and 'diversity'? or are you leaving that for improvement after the next disaster?];
- in relation to security property for a loan, an independent valuation to be obtained:[Is there a bench mark for the term 'independent'? Or are you leaving that for improvement after the next disaster?]
− prior to the issue of a loan:
--for development property, on both an ‘as is’ and ‘as if complete’ basis; and [Good.  But what about the RE shopping around for the most favourable valuers. All formal and informal valuations given should be disclosed. Recall that CBA was busted recently for using one advisor for Oz home  affordability and another for the foreign home affordability figures.  There's your financial leaders for you.]
--for all other property, on an ‘as is’ basis [see above]; and
− within a month after there is a decrease in the value of the security property, if the decrease is likely to have caused a breach of loan covenant [When do they have to disclose it?  Do they need to disclose the ID of the property?].

Insipid. And what's the point of all this when you can't get out of the fund without taking a massive loss? 

How about estoppel?  That'll slam the doors quickly on the fingers of the hustlers.  Where was estoppel in the Octaviar decision?


----------



## Duped (7 October 2010)

Well well well. The High Court's Octaviar decision isn't as universally celebrated by the law fraternity as my google searches to date have suggested.

http://lawmanship.blogspot.com/2010_10_01_archive.html

I'm not on my own.


----------



## selciper (7 October 2010)

There should be powers available to jail any RE guilty of making exaggerated verbal forecasts if they knew at the time that those claims were actually fantasy..


----------



## seamisty (7 October 2010)

selciper said:


> There should be powers available to jail any RE guilty of making exaggerated verbal forecasts if they knew at the time that those claims were actually fantasy..



SHEE ITE selciper!! The building industry would well and truly be stimulated if that was the case. The existing infrastucture would never be able to house the influx of those found guilty!!
Seamisty


----------



## marcom (7 October 2010)

Duped, here are a couple of quotes from an old Crikey article I'm sure you will appreciate:

*ASIC caught waving horses through gate*
Friday, 12 September 2008 Crikey
Michael Pascoe writes:

"A penny please for every story about the Australian Securities and Investments Commission shutting the gate after ponies decamp – but they’re wrong: ASIC has been caught removing the hinges and waving the nags through.... 

*Yet this appalling story of gross stupidity is only a symptom of a deeper malaise  ”” an apparent lack of any willingness by ASIC to be anything more than a dung beetle, carting away some of the mess long after the event and doing nothing to prevent it...
*
What the Asset Life story and Michael West’s plea for ASIC help for investors in the MFS graveyard and the reports that cricketer Craig McDermott may have “misrepresented his assets” to Bridgecorp and the story about ASIC being warned about ABC Learning’s dodgy accounting and ASIC being warned about the whole Firepower racket and a dozen similar yarns ”” what they all do is underline the pathetic and not-even-reactive nature of ASIC.

Where’s the urge to get on the front foot, kick down doors, drag scumbags in for questioning, utilise the media the way Al Fels used to at the ACCC, name-and-shame-and-throw-the-legal-book-at-them?

We could do with an Elliot Ness who’s not afraid of making enemies, instead of an overly cautious, legalistic bunch of procedure-followers happily sitting back and making a profit for the federal government out of fees and charges levied on legitimate businesses.

Parking police do more."

*This article was published 2 years ago AND STILL NOTHING HAS HAPPENED!
*
http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/09/12/asic-caught-waving-horses-through-gate/

MARCOM


----------



## marcom (7 October 2010)

seamisty said:


> ...I am also of the understanding that KordaMentha are no longer involved in the management of *a particular substantial PIF asset* of which WC are 'mortgagee in possession' as Wellington Capital is now controlling these entities as “(Controllers Appointed)”. I also understand that the particular *substanial property *referred to has gone backwards financially in relation to previous projected income streams with serious staffing and management issues while under Wellington Capital control as RE...
> Seamisty




I was trawling about in some old Crikey articles on MFS and found this quote in an article  "Time to put MFS out of its misery" by
Stephen Mayne Friday, 8 February 2008 Crikey:

"...Take the suspended $770 million MFS Premium Income Fund. CEO Guy Hutchings came out with all sorts of platitudes in Crikey  on January 31, but the fact remains that this vehicle has been lending to various risky developments across the country, many of which have a connection to the MFS group.

There is now a mad scramble over this cash with investors wanting out and sub-contractors of developers wanting payment. *The very colourful Jim Byrnes is even in there negotiating with Korda Mentha on behalf of various aggrieved subbies..."*

Seamisty, Is this the same Jim Byrnes and the same substantial property?


----------



## marcom (7 October 2010)

More trawling in the Crikey archives:


MFS flogs control of Stella to CVC
By Stephen Mayne, Monday, 4 February 2008 Crikey
http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/02/04/mfs-flogs-control-of-stella-to-cvc/

"...All this cash (ie Stella 65% sale) will go to repay short term debt, but the problems go a lot deeper because the *MFS board* basically used the suspended $770 million MFS Premium Income Fund as a private bank to fund development projects all over the place, including many with links to the broader MFS empire.

*Word is starting to circulate that MFS was lending the funds and then recovering some of them in advanced profit sharing fees before the profits had actually been made...*"

Now add the recent evidence of Craig White in the Octaviar  liquidators examinations as reported in *Fund used to cover MFS shortfall, NSW Supreme Court told*  Bridget Carter The Australian August 17, 2010
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...tfall-court-told/story-e6frg8zx-1225906069116 

"...Mr White was asked if he was aware that Management Finance had set up a margin loan facility using as security units in the PIF. Mr White agreed that "on the face of it" this would breach PIF's compliance plan, which required transactions to be in the best interest of security holders.

*When asked if PIF unitholders would receive a benefit from this, Mr White said "no"..." *

Stephen Mayne reported this two and a half years ago! The evidence or at least some of it is now a matter of court record - WTF is ASIC????

MARCOM


----------



## seamisty (7 October 2010)

marcom said:


> There is now a mad scramble over this cash with investors wanting out and sub-contractors of developers wanting payment. *The very colourful Jim Byrnes is even in there negotiating with Korda Mentha on behalf of various aggrieved subbies..."*
> 
> Seamisty, Is this the same Jim Byrnes and the same substantial property?



 It would more than likely be the same Jim Byrnes and the same property but my understanding is Mr Byrnes has had no connection to this property for quite some time although I think he may have been trying to re kindle some contact with the original developer prior to the ALF PIF takeover offer in the hope to garner some leverage/support for the ALF bid. My understanding is Mr Byrnes may have been over stating his involvement. He definitely has no current connection to the property. (Wellington Capital has managed well enough on their own to stuff this one up!) Seamisty


----------



## Duped (7 October 2010)

ASIC certainly seems to be a front to soften us up to make us open our wallets. 

But this unlisted mortgage/property fund (i.e. PIF) debacle is nothing compared to the collosal WTF that Aussies are going to spit when the behemoth of a financial product experiment that the Commonwealth is peddling - compulsory superannuation - vapourises into a spray of broken promises.

We've learnt nothing from the squatter and selector debacle.

The Commonwealth of Australia's governing structure looks on paper like a copy of the UK.  And it is.  A copy. Not like the original.

There may still be the odd lawyer that understands what I'm talking about but for the most of them, their heads are down, busily billing away in 6 minute chunks.

Go the State of Queensland and its representative the PTQ. Go you good thing.


----------



## k.smith (7 October 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/asic-finally-moves-on-mortgage-funds-20101006-167w\
v.html

''...ASIC in the consultation paper noted how it engaged with the managers of
unlisted mortgage funds between October and November 2008 to ''assist them to implement the benchmark disclosure in line with ASIC's implementation
timetable''.....''


Below are some details of the level of participation in ASICs consultation paper
back then...

http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/REP_138.pdf/$file/REP_138.pdf


"...as part of our feedback, we wrote to 107 responsible entities......

"....we received 30 written responses......"

"....number of responsible entities visited 14
.....percentage of total responsible entity population 13%
.....number of mortgage schemes those responsible entities represent...59%
.....Percentage of total number of schemes 31%
.....Assets managed by responsible entities visited.....$29billion
.....Percentage of total assets under management of all responsible entities of
mortgage schemes 74%
.....Written submissions from various sources........30......"


''..30 written submissions.."???  Wonder if any of them were from investors, or were they all from "..the industry.."?? While being totally disillusioned by ASIC inaction over so many issues raised in both the PIF and the PFMF funds, I intend making a  written submission, and elaborating on every single grievance I can think of. I do not know whether the world will change by my actions, but I know that doing nothing will achieve nothing.

http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/news/fund-manager-conflicts-left-untouched

''....Kalman said weaknesses in the model had been exposed during the financial crisis, and that issues surrounding the structure must be examined now “before the next boom starts and the before the current problems are forgotten....''


----------



## k.smith (7 October 2010)

sorry,

having trouble posting the link to my last post..should be...

http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/REP_138.pdf/$file/REP_138.pdf  

for some reason, it doesn't seem to work..


----------



## zixo (8 October 2010)

I was wondering if anyone can tell me how JH's progress is going in regards to whats happening with Wellington and the PIF stolen funds..what with "chasing it down to the ends of the earth for the long suffering investors" blurb that we all swallowed.

has she let it all go?


----------



## seamisty (8 October 2010)

I wonder why Wellington Capital have decided to 'disable' the 6 part video/youtube link of Jenny Hutson recording the performance/act of her life at the Melbourne PIF investor information forum?



http://www.newpif.com.au/investorupdates.html
'A recording of the Melbourne forum held on 8 July 2008 has been uploaded to YouTube. The forum recording is split into 6 sections. Please use the links below to view each section.'

Part 1 of 6.
Part 2 of 6.
Part 3 of 6.
Part 4 of 6.
Part 5 of 6.
Part 6 of 6.

The explanation I received was that all the relevant information was reproduced on the Questions and Answers update July 2008, posted on the newpif site Aug 1, 2008. When I asked why the above information was still on the newpif website I was told by a WC employee that he assumed that WC were in the process of removing that as well. Doesn't make sense to me unless Ms Hutson is reluctant for all and sundry to be able to view her pledging PIF investors cash payments of 3 cents commencing in October 2008 in exchange for their sopport/vote. Still waiting, waiting waiting for the 3 cents Jenny. Or is there something else on that DVD that Ms Hutson would prefer not to be viewed by others. Any clues? I can't find my copy at present.

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (8 October 2010)

As a YouTube subscriber, I find the placing of the Melbourne Wellington roadshow video an improbable inclusion within the site's vast library. Why on earth did Wellington put it up on YouTube? Anyway, seamisty, I hope you find your copy - it may one day be a valuable collector's item!


----------



## simgrund (8 October 2010)

selciper said:


> As a YouTube subscriber, I find the placing of the Melbourne Wellington roadshow video an improbable inclusion within the site's vast library. Why on earth did Wellington put it up on YouTube? Anyway, seamisty, I hope you find your copy - it may one day be a valuable collector's item!




You made my day, selciper.
I still have in my possesion a "platinum member card' from MFS, a women's golf tournament invitation paraphernalia (Sydney Rose Bay links?) and some other sentimentalia that I would be prepared to part with for the right offer. 
Not interested in a swap for this U tube Red Blur.
Regards,


----------



## simgrund (8 October 2010)

Seamisty, though the 8/7/08 forum DVD may have been removed, "THE HOT GIRLS IN PRISON! episode 1" DVD is still running.  
Regards,


----------



## selciper (8 October 2010)

simgrund - Good luck with your sales. You know, if we are to be deprived of sixty minutes of JH's video-taped 08 promises via YouTube, you can still find another Jennifer, surname spelt "Hudson", who provides some splendid compensation for any disappointed searcher.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw50xPhFtd4


----------



## seamisty (8 October 2010)

simgrund said:


> Seamisty, though the 8/7/08 forum DVD may have been removed, "THE HOT GIRLS IN PRISON! episode 1" DVD is still running.
> Regards,



HAHA!! LOL!! ROFL!!! Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (9 October 2010)

Mortgage fund closing the gap October 9th, 2010

WPS Capital's frozen flagship fund has just outstripped its larger Gold Coast rivals by making a 25 per cent capital repayment to investors.

In a sign that the mortgage investment market may be thawing, WPS also has launched a new vehicle that it said addressed the crippling problems faced by the sector in the past two years.

The Wright Patton Shakespeare No. 2 Mortgage Fund, which once had more than $49 million under management, has made a $6.185 million capital repayment to its 800 unitholders.

It now has just $17.6 million to pay unitholders through the settlement of house and land subdivision in Ipswich and Sydney and expects a near 100c in the dollar payout by May next year.
Full story::http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/10/09/261865_gold-coast-business.html

Darned if I don't recall the 2007 business woman of the year Jenny Hutson, our PIF fund manager making the statement "We were the first into this (financial) crisis, and we will be the first out of it"

Looks like you missed the boat Jenny!! (or should that be sinking ship?)

Seamisty


----------



## wally3218 (9 October 2010)

The Good Old Days
Presentation video from MFS outlining the future prosperity of MFS. This video was presented to a Christmas party of invited investors and prospective clients into the MFS group of companies and funds on 27 November 2007. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb55gEY8RAE

The Woman in Red
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H60lzsGvAWQ


----------



## marcom (9 October 2010)

Anyone interested in red leather jackets? I have located a reliable supplier and can take orders. Imagine if we ever get an EGM, we could all show up wearing bright new red jackets - what a hoot!


----------



## seamisty (9 October 2010)

This is worth following::

Great Southern investors launch class action
Posted Sat Oct 9, 2010 7:44am AEDT 

Investors in the failed agricultural investment scheme manager, Great Southern Group, have launched a class action against the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank which lent them money.

The bank took up the loans which were initially taken out with the Great Southern Group before it was placed in receivership in May 2009.

The 280 investors involved owe a total of around $14 million.

Law firm DC Legal has launched the class action in the Federal Court.

Solicitor Bruce Dennis says it wants all of these loans wiped off the books.

"The bank bought the loans from the Great Southern Group and our contention is that they bought the loans with all the problems inherent with the loans," he said.

Mr Dennis says the investors would not have taken out the loans if they had been provided with more information.

"The investors were misled as to the returns that they could expect," he said.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/09/3033785.htm?section=justin


----------



## LTD (9 October 2010)

selciper said:


> simgrund - Good luck with your sales. ....cont.
> 
> I will post a link re Hotel sales anticipated by a NZ finance Company in my next response because this is only my 4th post..
> Standby please.


----------



## LTD (9 October 2010)

simgrund - Good luck with your sales. ....cont.

I will post a link re Hotel sales anticipated by a NZ finance Company in my next response because this is only my 4th post..
Standby please.[/QUOTE]

Here it is 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/markets/news/article.cfm?c_id=62&objectid=10678420


----------



## selciper (10 October 2010)

The (US) Stanford Encyclopedia includes this definition of the verb to lie:

To lie: to make an assertion that is believed to be false to some audience with the intention to deceive the audience about the content of that assertion.


----------



## Duped (11 October 2010)

Almost cried laughing when I read this by the RBA's Adam Cagliarini, Christopher Kent and Glenn Stevens (Yep. The Governor of our Reserve Bank.) in 

"50 years of monetary policy: what have we learned?"
"3.5 Financial stability is difficult to maintain – the 1980s, 1990s
and 2000s
...
... The attempt to control financial systems through extensive regulation had its own problems. Apart from potential dead-weight losses associated with regulation, *there was the associated decline in financial dynamism in the regulated sector [like Banks] and a consequent incentive for growth of the unregulated sector [like MFS/Octaviar]. Domestically, non-bank financial institutions [like MFS/Octaviar] tended to become bigger; *internationally, the euro markets became larger. The unregulated sector, in some cases, became large enough to pose *significant risks to the total system*, and in any event *the regulated sector **[like Banks] ** could not easily sit by and see growth opportunities go to unregulated competitors **[like MFS/Octaviar]**. *That is why, in Australia at least, banks were one of the very few industries to *volunteer for deregulation*; in contrast, in most industries, regulation (at least of that era) typically favoured the incumbents and regulatory reform had to be achieved against their wishes." [emphasis added]

http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/confs/2010/cagliarini-kent-stevens.pdf

So like our PIF's cash was USED to bid up prices of all that commercial property, your precious APRA institutions, deregulated, will follow their lead and use RBA cash, depositors cash and all those default super funds' cash to bid up .... house prices.

Looks like Wayne Swan's favoured APRA regulated Bank depositors and creditors could be just as bad as us greedy PIF investors.  How's that head lock Wayne Swan? Banks won't ease up?  Beginning to hurt?

The little experimenting with financial products like our PIF by your Commonwealth along with the POOR POLICING has emboldened them and their hired gun lawyers, 'insolvency experts' etc. 

You still have time to send them a message before they overun you?

Or is smashing people like us greedy PIF investors going to be the only part of your policy response?


----------



## charles36 (12 October 2010)

SEAMISTY posted 6293 re the Bendigo Bank and the Adelaide Bank.  It is noted that the Bank has issued a media release dated 8.10.10 "Nothing new in DC Legal's Great Southern statement of claim."

"The bank today said there was "nothing" new in a statement of claim it lodged in the Federal Court by Sydney law firm DC Legal on behalf of investors in the Great Southern managed investment schemes (MIS).

The claim document itself is hopelessly inadequate, but to the extent that we can make any sense of it at all, it covers the same ground as a separate class action filed in the Victorian Supreme Court by another law firm, the bank's managing director, Mike Hirst, said.

Mr. Hirst said Bendigo and Adelaide Bank had always acted within the letter of the law relating to loans it provided to investors in Great Southern MIS.

He said the bank's share price and credit rating had been negatively affected by allegations relating to the portfolio of loans to Great Southern investors and, as a result, the bank is determined to ensure its rights are protected.

We now look forward to demonstrating through the courts what we have always argued - specifically that these loans are legitimate and are required to be re-paid by these investors, Mr. Hirst said.

The bank has applied to have the claim struck out and is awaiting imminent judgment on the matter.

"As we have in that case, we will vigorously defend this action filed by DC Legal and will also seek to have it struck out at the earliest opportunity."

Mr Hirst described a DC Legal media release announcing the legal action as "nothing more than an attempt to attract more plaintiffs to its class action."

The bank would write to DC Legal asking it to correct misleading statements made in its media release.

"The firm claims to be acting on behalf of 2000 investors when in fact there are just 230 of its clients that have Great Southern loans with the bank.

"And contrary to DC Legal's claims, most of the managed investment schemes are ongoing under new management with the prospect of producing returns for grower investors."

"Bendigo and Adelaide Bank continues to work with all relevant parties to protect grower investor interests in the schemes."

Investors in Great Southern MIS are typically high net worth individuals who have been advised by their accountant or financial planner to invest in the schemes, and have received significant tax benefits already from their investment."

Just to let fellow Posters know, I have no investment with the Bendigo or Adelaide Bank but I came across this article and I thought I should post the Bank's point of view for anybody that is following the developments as suggested by SEAMISTY.   

Cheers to all, Charles36.


----------



## Duped (12 October 2010)

charles36 said:


> ....
> Investors in Great Southern MIS are typically high net worth individuals who have been advised by their accountant or *financial planner *to invest in the schemes, and have received significant tax benefits already from their investment."...



 [emphasis added]

And there they are again.  ASIC's pushers.


----------



## selciper (12 October 2010)

Just a thought for the day (while waiting for Godot)..

"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud."

Sophocles


----------



## evelyn (12 October 2010)

marcom said:


> Anyone interested in red leather jackets? I have located a reliable supplier and can take orders. Imagine if we ever get an EGM, we could all show up wearing bright new red jackets - what a hoot!




assuming any of us can afford "new" red jackets. see you at the op shop?


----------



## mallymcl (12 October 2010)

Excuse me, what on earth is this thread about with 6300 replies?


----------



## marcom (13 October 2010)

*ASIC under fire over 'excesssive' investigations: report
*
Published 8:31 AM, 13 Oct 2010 Business Spectator

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...estigations-rep-pd20101013-A6SJX?OpenDocument

"The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has come under scrutiny after it was revealed the corporate watchdog used its coercive powers 18,625 times during investigations over the past three years, The Australian Financial Review reports.

Liberal senator David Bushby said the figures, which he asked ASIC to provide during a Senate hearing in June and were released yesterday, raised questions about the commission's use of coercive investigative powers, such as forcing companies and individuals to produce information, answer all questions and "give all reasonable assistance", the newspaper said.

Failure to comply with ASIC's investigations is a criminal offence..."

And what is there to show for the use of these powers - where are the timely prosecutions and efforts to recover investors money!!!

Marcom


----------



## selciper (14 October 2010)

I had to call on my ISP for assistance recently when my email system developed a fault. It was a serious glitch and took a full day to rectify. After it was fixed, I received a questionnaire asking me to respond. There were half a dozen questions asking me to rate the ISP’s service. I gave the company a full 10. A similar request from WC would elicit, from me, a maximum of 1.

Is that too generous?.


----------



## JohnH (14 October 2010)

You're a real softy Selciper.........  shouldn't you move the decimal point to the other side?


----------



## Cookie1 (16 October 2010)

Liquidator hearings to begin again on Monday; see SMH Business Calendar below; I've only shown Monday's schedule. Click on http://www.smh.com.au/business/business-calendar-oct1822-20101015-16n69.html?skin=text-only for the full week's schedule. David Anderson to be re-examined first up; should be interesting.... Hearings are scheduled for each day of the week.

SMH | Text-only index]   

Business calendar Oct.18-22

Date: October 15 2010

MONDAY, October 18
Sydney - Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) sales of new motor vehicles for September
*Sydney - Public Examination into the collapse of MFS/Octaviar resumes until  Friday October 22. Adam Bell, SC, acting for Octaviar liquidator Kate Barnet of Bentleys Corporate Recovery, will re-examine former Octaviar/MFS Director David Anderson on Monday and Tuesday.*
Sydney - Biotech Capital Ltd extraordinary general meeting
Sydney - Hydromet Corporation Ltd annual general meeting
Sydney - Launch of Deloitte Quarterly CFO survey
Adelaide - Djerriwarrh Investments Ltd annual general meeting
Perth - Golden State Resources Ltd general meeting
Melbourne -  India Equities Fund Ltd extraordinary general meeting
Melbourne - Wentworth Holdings Ltd annual general meeting


----------



## Blueboy1 (18 October 2010)

http://www.couriermail.com.au/money...premium-income-fund/story-e6freqox-1225939828

Wellington Capital to fend off hostile takeover by Premium Income Fund 

Good to see Anthony Marx is on the case
Blueboy1


----------



## seamisty (18 October 2010)

Blueboy1 said:


> http://www.couriermail.com.au/money...premium-income-fund/story-e6freqox-1225939828
> 
> Wellington Capital to fend off hostile takeover by Premium Income Fund
> 
> ...



http://www.couriermail.com.au/money...mium-income-fund/story-e6freqox-1225939828971

Wellington Capital to fend off hostile takeover by Premium Income Fund 
by Anthony Marx From: The Courier-Mail October 18, 2010 12:00AM 

BRISBANE merchant bank Wellington Capital appears certain to fend off a hostile takeover bid for control of its deeply troubled Premium Income Fund. 

The bidders, whose low-ball offer to investors closes at the end of this month, did themselves no favours by freely acknowledging their consultancy relationship with businessman Jim Byrnes.

A former bankrupt associate of disgraced executive Alan Bond, Byrnes is now banned from serving as a company director because of his ties to four failed entities which crashed with $6 million in debts.

Yet, however ham-fisted the overture from ALF PIF Finance, it highlighted legitimate criticisms of Wellington's two-year oversight of the fund, originally operated by now-failed Gold Coast tourism and finance group MFS (Octaviar).

Full article link above


----------



## selciper (18 October 2010)

Blueboy1 said:


> http://www.couriermail.com.au/money...premium-income-fund/story-e6freqox-1225939828
> 
> Wellington Capital to fend off hostile takeover by Premium Income Fund
> 
> ...




At last! A comprehensive coverage of our plight. And who says this forum - which is mentioned - is not useful. The chatter around WC's water cooler this morning must be strangely muted. Especially because of observations such as "Hutson has also rejected allegations that Wellington took control of the Premium Income Fund for no real consideration from MFS/Octaviar, a matter now under scrutiny by liquidators." And the public hearing resumes today.


----------



## LTD (18 October 2010)

I am not a PIN holder or qualified in financial or legal fields...

It appears that many perticipants at many levels have been adversley impacted... I am disappointed that the building Industry and many excellent projects with good long term prospects ...are at the centre of everyones loss.

ie excellent buildings, in a great country with a great future and no-one can solve the frozen funds ,repayment of borrowings,completeion of projects or find a way forward to keep the fund alive... which seems the only way you avoid painful litigation and slow liquidation of your good assets.
Thankgod we are not in a war zone...or are we?

I read this article and thought it might have some similar problems and show some avenues being taken by others..

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10680818

Your fund and situation is unique and you have unique participants...

to say the least but some-one must appreciate the value of your holdings, if only they were not under so many clouds?

Cheers


----------



## seamisty (18 October 2010)

Lawyer questions ASIC role in Storm collapse
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/18/3040948.htm

More than 150 people have attended a public meeting in Townsville in north Queensland to discuss the collapse of the former investment firm, Storm Financial, in 2008.

Sydney law firm Levitt Robinson conducted yesterday's meeting.

The company filed a class action in July against the Commonwealth Bank on behalf of Storm Financial investors, many of whom lost their life savings when Storm collapsed almost two years ago.

Solicitor Stewart Levitt says the meeting focused on compensation and the role of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

"A lot of the mischief that occurred to investors was disclosed in the prospectus that was issued by Storm but that prospectus was cleared with ASIC," he said.

"ASIC has a responsibility to look at its own processes. The real question is who's investigating the investigator?ASIC would not comment on the allegation but next month will consider starting legal action if an acceptable compensation package for Storm investors has not been reached.




 A question I have pondered and commented on many times, just WHO IS RESPONSIBLE for ASIC's lack of or tardy intervention where failure to act results in further financial impairment to investors? 
Seamisty


----------



## LTD (18 October 2010)

Good points Seamisty,
    But I imagine a picture of very connected players/problems..
that relied on each other to keep going.
Matters apparently unrelated get sorted and that shines light on others, perhaps? 
I think that asic collects the data to sort ... but cant judge it, the courts do that...and while they do their sorting...you have to do your own sorting...even bad practice and unusual bids must reveal something and help sort out what was happening and if thats the way to keep doing things,imo.

Off subject.....
What did Storm specificly invest in? 
Was there a problem with their holdings of shares or whatever....
 that they wouldnt or couldnt, calculate? or communicate margin calls? I might be on the wrong path asking this, but it might be of some consequence and no-one is considering it...

If strange or bad  things happen with your investment why not ask about the 'investment'  itself ?....
not just the 'process'...ie stormification and margin lending...? which of course held major potential for loss, too.


----------



## Duped (18 October 2010)

Blueboy1 said:


> http://www.couriermail.com.au/money...premium-income-fund/story-e6freqox-1225939828
> 
> Wellington Capital to fend off hostile takeover by Premium Income Fund
> 
> ...





From the article:
" "Unhappy borrowers don't want to pay their debts when they are due. It's sadly that simple," she said."

For all you new readers directed to this forum from the Courier Mail article:

Higher valuations = less sales = more fees to Wellington.

It's sadly that simple.

From the article:
"When that happens, Wellington is likely to earn over $1.6  million a year.Hutson said it was costing Wellington about $1.5 million a year to operate as the fund's responsible entity."

What does "costing Wellington" really mean?  Out of pocket?  Or loss of profit due to Hutson being distracted by trying to meet her commitments to us? 

Anyone reading that article is in danger of immediately assuming it's the prior.  Making Hutson look like a saint. It's sadly, NOT that simple.


----------



## selciper (18 October 2010)

It looks like the Courier Mail article might have been taken down. 
If so, I wonder why.


----------



## selciper (18 October 2010)

The Courier Mail article is back on line.


----------



## Jadel (19 October 2010)

This is worth a read , you can make up your own minds.



http://www.oftwominds.com/blogoct10/fraud-anger10-10.html


----------



## LTD (19 October 2010)

"6. The net result of this expansion of credit is asset bubbles. When the asset bubbles pop, the debts remain, impoverishing the over-indebted holders of the busted assets. "

Hi Jadel,
      I have just skimmed your link...and picked up on the above point.
It should be read in a carbon trading context....then the public might understand why so many dont want to create this as  the next bubble... a big one.
The GFC has exposed so much....and a carbon price has been sponsored by the financial elite....etc etc.

I will read the complete link when I have more time.
The GFC made it possible to see whats wrong with our systems..


The French and others are protesting in the streets ...
I bet there are a few aussies that would like to do the same...

No good winging..
What should we do?
Keep chatting and learning?


----------



## gardie (19 October 2010)

How can this be costing Wellington anything when every expense of the fund including staff costs is recoverable and is recovered.

Surely this is a misquote because Jennifer would not be moaning about her missed profits or telling porkies here would she ?

Also article refers to ongoing law suits from borrowers which was alluded to by big Jim. Where is the disclosure to NSX on this matter as they sound like large numbers being claimed in damages. 

I am aware of other mortgage funds who have done deals with borrowers to work through project as the developer threatened action as they suffered losses as the fund is the one who went broke and could not continue drawdowns. Not the borrowers fault by the implosion of the fund.


----------



## Duped (19 October 2010)

gardie said:


> How can this be costing Wellington anything when every expense of the fund including staff costs is recoverable and is recovered.
> 
> Surely this is a misquote because Jennifer would not be moaning about her missed profits or telling porkies here would she ? ...




Hi gardie. Costs paid by our fund could be on top of that. About $4 million for 2009/2010 financial year. 

Or come to think of it now, alternatively, Wellington is invoicing the Fund.  Whereby the $1.5m is part of that $4mil. Remember that the Fund itself doesn't employ any staff.


----------



## seamisty (19 October 2010)

gardie said:


> How can this be costing Wellington anything when every expense of the fund including staff costs is recoverable and is recovered.
> 
> Surely this is a misquote because Jennifer would not be moaning about her missed profits or telling porkies here would she ?
> 
> ...



Hi Gardi, I contacted Mr Ian Craig at the NSX by email relating to the nondisclosure re lawsuits on the 3/5/2010 as follows::

 It has come to my attention that there has been an alleged  serious breach of the Corporation Act in respect to non-disclosure by Wellington Capital of a current legal action against the PIF while units are actively trading on the NSX? In the event this legal action is successful it will have a huge detrimental impact on our Fund. 

The details of the action in the Supreme Court Of Victoria at Melbourne Commercial  & Equity Division is Claim No XXXX of 2009. Claim dated XXX August 2009.


Mr Craig ignored the email so I called him and was told by him that Wellington Capital was not obliged to disclose every potential legal claim against the fund. When I queried him about the seriousness of the claim which had been lodged in the Supreme Court he told me that it did not necessarily indicate it was an important claim, that it just meant the developer had ' plenty of money to throw about' or something similar.

I then complained to WC who responded with:
'All relevant information in relation to the Fund has been provided in accordance with the Fund's continuous
disclosure obligations.'

I then complained to the Australian Shareholders Association and heard nothing back. I also complained to ASIC who have done their usual jack ****!!!
This serious complaint is still ongoing and I believe WC have hindered and delayed every process of the claim to date.

So while ASIC keep implementing new stricter controls and disclosure reforms etc and 'released discussion papers on related-party transactions and on independent experts' reports,' investor complaints appear to continue to be ignored and fund managers keep stuffing themselves from the biscuit barrel.

And as for Ms Hutson saying a developer had "run out of puff", I believe it was more a case of running out of funds which does not neccesarily mean the case is over.
I was also told by another developer that he believed Ms Hutson uses the tactics of delaying and hindering specifically for that reason, hoping the complainants cannot afford to continue expensive legal claims  while she keeps her snout permanently in the PIF trough!!!

One thing for sure, Wellington Capital may not be entitled to management fees but it does not take a uni graduate to work out that one of the reasons the 3 cent payment has not been made is because the 'snouts' are being  adequately sated regardless!! Out of pocket? Not likely!!!:fu:
 Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (19 October 2010)

Internal emails show early cash crisis at MFS October 19, 2010 - 3:28PM

Ads by Google
Fast approval 48 hourswww.keyfactors.com.au

Business Finance get up to 80% on company's oustanding invoices

Internal emails and financial documents prepared for failed property developer Octaviar show the company may have been in a ‘‘cash crisis’’ as early as November 2007, a court has been told.

Octaviar was the Gold Coast-based property group previously known as MFS that collapsed in September 2008 owing about $2 billion to creditors.

The public examination into the group was told today that MFS did not have sufficient cashflow to make a $60 million income tax payment it owed at December 1, 2007.

Advertisement: Story continues below Liquidator Kate Barnet from Bentleys Corporate Recovery is trying to determine when the company became insolvent, with the focus on about $1 billion in inter-company transactions.

Former MFS director David Anderson was re-examined by barrister Adam Bell SC, on behalf of the liquidator, in the NSW Supreme Court in Sydney today.

Mr Anderson said, claiming privilege, that he drew down $2.2 million from a premium income fund under his control for use by MFS prior to November 2007, but denied this was to address a ‘‘cash flow crisis’’ within MFS.

‘‘It has always been a group seeking to grow at the fastest rate and funding future expenditure was always an ongoing matter to be dealt with,’’ Mr Anderson said.

Mr Bell said the transaction showed ‘‘MFS was struggling with cashflow problems by the end of 2007,’’ and that ‘‘there was a cash crisis at MFS and no other ready source of funds’’.

Mr Bell asked Mr Anderson whether he was aware that using the premium income fund assets to secure a loan to MFS in this way put the beneficiaries’ assets at risk.

Mr Anderson agreed on balance that appeared to be true.Using internal accounts prepared for MFS’s finance and investment committee, Mr Bell further argued that the Stella travel business was the only profitable MFS business in 2007.

‘‘If you exclude the profit from Stella, on the basis of these figures there was no net profit for the rest of the MFS businesses,’’ he said.

MFS sold 65 per cent of the Stella travel business for about $400 million in February 2008 to private equity firm CVC Asia Pacific.

Bentleys has recovered about $145 million since being appointed liquidator in September 2009.

The case continues tomorrow, when the Public Trustee of Queensland will re-examine Mr Anderson.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/internal-emails-show-early-cash-crisis-at-mfs-20101019-16s3d.html


----------



## selciper (19 October 2010)

In #6320 Seamisty describes the response to her complaint to the NSX management.

Thanks for the dogged pursuit, Seamisty, but I am aghast. Is there anybody in authority in this country who will listen and act on our legitimate complaints? It seems that ASIC supervises the NSX operation. All roads seem to lead towards the vast ASIC quicksands.


----------



## Cookie1 (20 October 2010)

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/br...s-spent-investor-millions-20101020-16u23.html

MFS 'spent' investor millions
Nicole Stevens
October 20, 2010 - 5:44PM
AAP

The former chief financial officer of collapsed property group Octaviar Ltd can't recall taking any steps to ensure that more than $256 million of investor funds raised in 2007 were used for their intended purpose.

Financial accounts show the company channelled funds from equity raisings in early 2007 into a series of intercompany loans and debt payments, a public examination in the NSW Supreme Court heard on Wednesday.

The Gold Coast-based property group, previously known as MFS, failed in 2008 owing about $2 billion to creditors.

Advertisement: Story continues below
MFS told investors the equity raising was to fund previously announced acquisitions of Sunkids and Sunleisure businesses, barrister Dominic O'Sullivan told the court.

But according to the company's general ledger and operating accounts, those payments were never made, Mr O'Sullivan said.

Former chief financial officer David Anderson said he could not recall any payments being made to Sunkids or Sunleisure.

"I can't see in the documents you have shown me of any payments made to Sunleisure or Sunkids," Mr Anderson said.

Mr Anderson was re-examined by Mr O'Sullivan on behalf of the liquidator for Octaviar Investments Notes Ltd and Octaviar Investments Bonds Ltd, Will Colwell of Ferrier Hodgson.

"Sitting here now ... would you regard it as part of your responsibility to ensure the money was used appropriately, in accordance with the prospectus?" Mr O'Sullivan asked.

"There were special teams set up... This was not my project," Mr Anderson replied.

Mr O'Sullivan asked the former MFS director whether he had "any recollection of a proposition where funds from capital raising would be applied to margin loans?"

"No. I don't know if I was in the country or if I was part of the discussion about this or if I have forgotten," Mr Anderson replied.

Mr O'Sullivan asked Mr Anderson whether the board of MFS expected the funds to be distributed in accordance with the prospectus.

"I don't recall that I held any view about what the board expected," Mr Anderson replied.

"The board would have assumed that things were done as was appropriate."

Mr O'Sullivan said investor funds were paid out in a series of intercompany margin loans, including payments to the Premium Income Fund operating account, Opus Prime, Tricom and Ridgebell.

Investor funds were also used to pay professional fees to Macquarie Bank, KPMG, Freehills and to pay a tax debt, Mr O'Sullivan told the court.

"If the arithmetic is done, it is apparent that the proceeds ... had been spent by the 19th of March," Mr O'Sullivan said.

Liquidator Kate Barnet from Bentleys Corporate Recovery is trying to determine when the company became insolvent, with the focus on about $1 billion in inter-company transactions.

The case continues on Thursday with the examination of former MFS auditor Mitch Craig.


----------



## marcom (21 October 2010)

Some info on Mitch Craig who is being examined today:

KPMG: the common link in Allco and MFS fiascos
Adam Schwab writes: Crikey 4 February 2008

http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/02/04/kpmg-the-common-link-in-allco-and-mfs-fiascos/

"Of all the similarities between struggling financial companies Allco and MFS, one obvious link has so far escaped media attention: the role of auditor KPMG in the twin fiascos....

Both of MFS’s company secretaries were previously employed by KPMG; David Anderson, chief financial officer of MFS, was previously a partner at KPMG in the finance area while Kim Kercher, MFS’s chief “governance” officer was previously a manager at KPMG.

The auditor signing off on MFS reports (which in light of recent announcements, don’t seem to be entirely accurate) was *Mitch Craig (who is KPMG’s National Partner in Charge of Risk Advisory Services)... *

KPMG signed off on MFS’s financials on *20 August 2007*. MFS shareholders paid KPMG handsomely to ensure that the financial information provided was true and fair. Based on recent announcements, and the sudden departure of executive Michael King, it seems that MFS shareholders didn’t get great value for money..."

This will be interesting in the light of our class action.

Marcom


----------



## seamisty (21 October 2010)

Interesting reading, just need a regulatory body with the guts to enforce the rules and implemant the punishment!! 

http://www.smh.com.au/small-busines...ties-how-to-fail-properly-20101020-16tos.html


----------



## LTD (21 October 2010)

I didnt realise that WC was the  RE of the S8 property trust ...
did you?


----------



## seamisty (21 October 2010)

LTD said:


> I didnt realise that WC was the  RE of the S8 property trust ...
> did you?



Yes LTD, here is a link to more info re S8 property trust:http://www.delisted.com.au/Company/9353/S8 PROPERTY TRUST


----------



## selciper (21 October 2010)

I think that like King Canute, some people can now feel the water touching their toes.


----------



## marcom (22 October 2010)

Seamisty, that was an interesting report. Given the revelations about PIF being used as an MFS slush fund and note holders funds being applied to everything but the purposes specified in the prospectus, I am sure that some Directors will meet the fate below:


----------



## seamisty (22 October 2010)

marcom said:


> Seamisty, that was an interesting report. Given the revelations about PIF being used as an MFS slush fund and note holders funds being applied to everything but the purposes specified in the prospectus, I am sure that some Directors will meet the fate below:



Laugh out loud at the pic Marcom!! I can hear them them singing already::

"I'm on the inside looking out.
 I can't reach the trough with my short snout.
 Oh please, please set me free.
 You've got it wrong,we're not the crooks,
 We just helped a few others cook the books!
 I don't know what all the fuss is about'
 I promise I will be good if you just let me out.
 Oh please, please set me free, I swear it wasn't me!!"

Seamisty


----------



## Duped (22 October 2010)

Sorry to say this but I have no expectation of anyone being jailed over the breaches of PIF's PDF.  Best to say this now to minimise your disappointment. Have a look at the maynereport.com.au page and list of ASIC's jailings. Nothing but small fry.

Just watch the banks bully the Federal Government. Minining companies' open threatening. Law firms haranguing judges like McMurdo.

The neutralisation of ASIC by the finance sector is a walk in the park. 

The finance sector has used our federal institutions as a good cop in their  good cop/bad cop routine to, against our natural 'caveat emptor' suspicion, prise our wallets open.


----------



## seamisty (22 October 2010)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723352.PDF

Alfpif requesting an extension of time for takeover offer to 28th Feb 2011


----------



## selciper (22 October 2010)

This is a 2008 video from NZ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUv2_f5Zjfc


----------



## seamisty (22 October 2010)

Duped said:


> Sorry to say this but I have no expectation of anyone being jailed over the breaches of PIF's PDF.  Best to say this now to minimise your disappointment. Have a look at the maynereport.com.au page and list of ASIC's jailings. Nothing but small fry.
> 
> Just watch the banks bully the Federal Government. Minining companies' open threatening. Law firms haranguing judges like McMurdo.
> 
> ...



 Duped I so hope you are wrong! Sooner rather than later someone will be made a scapegoat to justify taxpayer funded regulators who fail time after time, seemingly only to deliver token punishment if at all and well after the crime has been committed, detected and reported!! The very least I hope is that the crooks are stripped of their assets (no matter how cleverly concealed) and they are pubically named and recognised in any future business connections, along with any other associates remotely related! As for McMurdo, if the cap fits, wear it. He was obviously also conned by WC, the difference being he is in a position where he could still make amends. Any wonder individuals have no faith in the legal system along with the regulatory bodies. 

Seamisty


----------



## LTD (25 October 2010)

You might find this article of interest.


Titled "Mortgage Trusts seek new blood"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...s-seek-new-blood/story-e6frg9gx-1225941416718


----------



## selciper (25 October 2010)

If and when I receive my first miserly "distribution", I'll certainly not be raising a glass in the direction of WC. Instead, I'll be totting up those many broken promises of 2008.


----------



## Duped (25 October 2010)

seamisty said:


> Duped I so hope you are wrong!...




So do I but ... 

Ltd's most recent post links to a page that links to http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...argin-gains-over/story-e6frg9if-1225942441984

"The ACCC, Treasury, the RBA and APRA all approved Westpac and CBA's  recent acquisitions, yet now say the big banks have too much power.

They should ask themselves who is to blame."


Compared to the smart money, our Federal institutions seem to be a gormless rabble with an incoherent message.  An easy barrier to get through or worse, manipulate, to get to our wallets. With the judiciary, rightly or wrongly, not stepping in to pick up the slack.

Like in the Octaviar decision by the High Court.
   The Corp Act (created and policed by our Commonwealth institutions) creates a right of priority in exchange for lodging a notice with, among other info, “a short description of the liability (whether present or prospective) secured by the charge” and “a short description of the property charged”.  So that, more or less in the High Court's words, “a person  minded to search the register would be informed … of the need to look elsewhere to ascertain the precise nature and details of the liability or liabilities secured”.

  But Octaviar was out there telling the world that the YVE loan WASN'T covered by the charge.  And I haven't seen any evidence of Fortress correcting erroneous public assertions made by Octaviar.



So how exactly, pray tell, was a creditor like me, supposed "to ascertain the precise nature and details of the liability or liabilities secured"? Anyone?



Somehow, our legal system, including the High Court, simply ignored this inconvenient reality. 


Was the High Court's only option to throw this faulty law back, to its designers, the legislature, to fix. Could the High Court have done something about it? 

Why wasn't *estoppel *a feature of the Octaviar decision? After all, we are talking about contracts between parties.



  Sounds like a pretty clear application for estoppel to silly lay me. The transaction document could have been estopped in order to preserve a purposive construction of the Corp Act. 

  What makes the whole situation worse is the High Court even appears to have opened the door for estoppel at para 27: "and any terms which may be *implied in fact*".  The facts are that Octaviar was telling the world that the YVE WASN'T covered by the charge.  And where is it that Fortress  publicly corrected this?



So why did the HC open the door AFTER the PTQ and Fortress have presented their cases? So the next combatants can run the argument? Why can't the PTQ in this case? What sort of judical process is that?


----------



## LTD (25 October 2010)

Hello Duped,
          I wish I could follow this as well as you appear to but unfortunately I am an even greater layman than you .. you have helped us follow this.

Heres a recent article with familiar names...getting close to politics,imo.
I dont know if the particular development was in the MFS portfolio?

http://www.cairns.com.au/article/2010/10/20/131355_local-news.html


----------



## seamisty (25 October 2010)

REJECT EXTENDED TAKEOVER OFFER
FOR PREMIUM INCOME FUND UNITS MADE BY ALF PIF FINANCE LIMITED
ALF PIF Finance Limited has lodged a Notice of Variation of Extension of its takeover offer, extending the
period of its bid from 29 October 2010 to 28 February 2011 (unless further extended).
Managing Director Jenny Hutson said ‘The offer continues to be 0.1 redeemable preference shares and 0.05
ordinary shares in the Bidder for each unit in the Premium Income Fund. The shares will be issued in a
Company with no trading history and less than $2000 in assets.
The offer is grossly inadequate. The proposal seeks to shift over $120 million in unitholders’ current value
to the Bidder’s current shareholders. The Wellington Capital board believes that the approach by the Bidder
is opportunistic and is at a price that does not reflect in any way the current value of Premium Income Fund
units.’
The Board of Wellington Capital recommend that all
Premium Income Fund unitholders REJECT the Bidder’s offer.
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723362.PDF


----------



## LTD (25 October 2010)

Here's an older article re this development...

http://www.cairns.com.au/article/2010/03/11/98581_local-news.html

and according to 'comments' which I cant vouch for...OCV was the financer?

 Anyone know more about the situation and how this might pressure present progress?

I have got some ideas but just obtuse links.


----------



## LTD (25 October 2010)

Cant vouch for the info but this opinion?link expanded on earlier comments re the development featured in news articles lately... so it doesnt seem to be PIFs but ALF group are reported to be interested in it now?

http://www.cairnsblog.net/2009/08/garrett-told-to-refuse-further-approval.html

according to the link at that time...
"The False Cape property has two mortgages over it with Perpetual Nominees and MFS Pacific Finance. Additionally, there are three caveats lodged over the land, in favour of two other parties, namely Prestige Resort Developments and Fortress Credit Corp.
"From a legal point of view, the property title at this stage is messy," Steven Nowakowski says.
"It has been mortgaged twice, and the three parties holding the caveats, are claiming a legal interest in the property....cont
"We therefore urge [the Minister] to fully revoke your Federal Approval for this development so another suitable use for the site can be investigated," Nowakowski says.
There is a push for a government buy‐back of the False Cape site....cont."

Comments anyone?


----------



## seamisty (25 October 2010)

LTD said:


> Cant vouch for the info but this opinion?link expanded on earlier comments re the development featured in news articles lately... so it doesnt seem to be PIFs but ALF group are reported to be interested in it now?
> 
> http://www.cairnsblog.net/2009/08/garrett-told-to-refuse-further-approval.html
> 
> ...



 LTD That property is now owned by ALF Property 1 Pty Ltd, closely associated to ALF PIF who is currently trying to aquire PIF units with a takeover in mind.


http://www.alfgroupag.com/projects/australia/alf-property-1-pty-ltd.html

Cheers Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (25 October 2010)

I have heard a rumour that Kooralbyn Resort may have either been sold or has an interested party looking at it, can anyone verify please? Seamisty


----------



## LTD (25 October 2010)

Thanks Seamisty.

Marketing is a wonderful thing.

Thanks for the update...


----------



## Duped (26 October 2010)

Thanks Ltd.  From that article: "the Australian Securities and Investment Commission describing [Byrnes] management of four failed companies as displaying "incompetence (and) a  lack of commercial morality"."

Well, to lay silly me "lack of commercial morality" is pretty much well how I would describe the quiet, 11th hour securitisation of the YVE loan after nearly a year of telling the world that the YVE was NOT secured by the charge. But that's OK according to our High Court.

Fair enough. Our courts are entitled to take more of a 'more fool you' and 'stay out of the kitchen if you don't want to get burnt' hardline approach. I.e. the bad cop.  

But meanwhile ASIC, the good cop, is luring us to drop our guard and herding us to its AFSL pushers.

It reminds me of that scene in The Dish were Kevin Harrington's character is talking to Sam Neill's character:_
You remember that night at my place, 
trying to sort out the contract with that fella from NASA? 
"What about this? What about that?" 
Two hours, and you finally speak. 
"Gentlemen, this should be the contract. 
"We agree to support the 'Apollo 1 1 ' mission." 
That was it - one sentence. They couldn't believe it. 
It was a wonderful moment. _

 Seems that ASIC's mindset is sentimentally stuck in this fanciful, more gentlemanly bygone era.  A time when contract clauses were mythically subordinated to 'commercial morality'. 

A very interesting read about Equity in Australian courts and Equitable Estoppel is at http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/Supreme_Court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_brereton160307

First line of the Honourable Justice P L G Brereton RFD conclusion is "So long as there is scope  for the strict application of rules of law to work injustice, there  will be a need for a system of rules to moderate their rigours."

How true that is. Where was the 'rules to moderate' in the High Court on the day it heard about Octaviar? Well Whitelocke K.C. AO has called the decision: 'lamentable'.


----------



## Duped (26 October 2010)

Oops.  I meant Roy Billing not Kevin Harrington.  And that for my 500th post.


----------



## targav 8 (26 October 2010)

:confused :HI  regarding friday the 29th 1 cent payment, what time can i pick it up? morning or afternoon.i just came out of hospital due to a heart  blockage,can i spend it on KFC , MACKDONALD, that way i don't have to wait for the next payment,saving pif some money, lol....


----------



## simgrund (26 October 2010)

targav 8 said:


> :confused :HI  regarding friday the 29th 1 cent payment, what time can i pick it up? morning or afternoon.i just came out of hospital due to a heart  blockage,can i spend it on KFC , MACKDONALD, that way i don't have to wait for the next payment,saving pif some money, lol....




C'mon targav 8, hang in there for the class action.
Hope you gave Armstrong Registry "pay into" details for the coming few cents. 
I hear WC is negotiating with KFC special deals for PIF mob to spend their largesse there.
Cheers,


----------



## atlas1950 (27 October 2010)

Hi all,

If in the unlikely event that WC will pay us the 1 cent distribution on Friday,do they just mail out the cheque, or what mechanism is there in place for us to be payed????? Does anybody know.

Michael


----------



## marcom (27 October 2010)

After no action since 23 April 2010 on the ASIC case in the Brisbane Supreme Court against MFS directors there is an interesting development:

*36   21/10/2010   Notice   OF APPOINTMENT OF SOLICITOR   Applicant* 

The applicant in this case is ASIC who previously was self represented by in house legal staff.

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...eNumber=12122/09&Court=Supreme&Location=BRISB


----------



## simgrund (27 October 2010)

atlas1950 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> If in the unlikely event that WC will pay us the 1 cent distribution on Friday,do they just mail out the cheque, or what mechanism is there in place for us to be payed????? Does anybody know.
> 
> Michael




Hi Michael,
It is MORE likely than NOT the 1 cent will be paid, imho.
They apparently have the little bundle of joy all spruced up for public outing.
It will go into your nominated account which Armstrong Registry asked you to provide. Check out with them.
Regards,
Ps, keep a lookout in your message box


----------



## seamisty (27 October 2010)

atlas1950 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> If in the unlikely event that WC will pay us the 1 cent distribution on Friday,do they just mail out the cheque, or what mechanism is there in place for us to be payed????? Does anybody know.
> 
> Michael



Hi Michael and all. Considering Computershare  ceased to be the registry services provider at close of business on Friday 23 April 2010
and Armstrong Registry Services Limited was appointed the registry services provider commencing Tuesday 27 April 2010 one would think the 'client login' section would have arrived by now on the Armstrong website, but no, its like our distribution, still coming. Mind you, up to par with the usual standard of imcompetence we have come to expect from anything to do with Wellington Capital!! Bearing in mind Wellington Capital staff were still assuring me PIF investors could still expect some sort of payment prior to Xmas 2008, is it any wonder everyone is so sceptical about getting their first payment of a miserly 1 cent two years after it was originally pledged. In actual fact, if Jenny Hutson had  delivered what investors were duped into believing what was promised we should have received around 7.5 cents to date, comprising of part capital, part PIF income! Wellington Capital is sure not high on the list for the 'Best performing Fund of the year award'!! (I also notice Wellington Capital boutique merchant bank hasn't had anything noteworthy to spruick about on their website since they were appointed responsible entity of Premium Income Fund over 2 years ago either!! Doesn't exactly appear a thriving concern either!)
Anyway, unitholders with queries in relation to the investment in the Premium Income Fund can contact the Wellington Hotline on 1300 854 885 or by email investorrelations@newpif.com.au. 

Seamisty


----------



## atlas1950 (27 October 2010)

Hi All,

How do we check out Armstrong Registry and to make sure they have our banking details.
Does anybody have a telephone number, so that we poor suffering investors can ensure we receive payment, if it comes on Friday.

Please advise.

Michael


----------



## seamisty (27 October 2010)

atlas1950 said:


> Hi All,
> 
> How do we check out Armstrong Registry and to make sure they have our banking details.
> Does anybody have a telephone number, so that we poor suffering investors can ensure we receive payment, if it comes on Friday.
> ...



General security holder enquiries

For all general securityholder enquiries:

p: 07 3231 0050
f: 07 3231 0099
e: registry@armstrongregistries.com.au


----------



## atlas1950 (27 October 2010)

Seamisty,

Thank you so much for passing on this info. I have just rang Armstrong Registry's and they were adamant that distributions will be paid on Friday.

I also updated my banking details with them to make sure that I receive my distribution on that day.

Can I suggest to everybody to make sure that Armstrong's have all your  banking details so that they can pay the monies into your current bank accounts.

When I checked mine, they had my old information, so thank you Seamisty for passing on the relevant telephone numbers so that it could be up dated.


Michael


----------



## selciper (27 October 2010)

Re the Armstrong registry. Having recently phoned them to check payment details. I found the person dealing with me to be efficient and polite. That person was not of the usual slick WC mould. Of course, as WC haven't allocated a 1300 number to the registry, you are up for the cost of an interstate call if living outside Brisbane.


----------



## marcom (28 October 2010)

The Bentleys site has been updated regarding examinations:

# Paul Manka - examined
# Mark Korda - examined
# David Anderson (return) - examined
# Mitch Craig - examined (*to return in December 2010*)

Mitch Craig is the auditor from KPMG who signed off on MFS accounts.


----------



## marcom (28 October 2010)

In todays Sydney Morning Herald right at the bottom of the main page -
http://www.smh.com.au/- How do they get away with this?

Managed Funds

InvestSMART double your money
How to double your money!!


----------



## seamisty (28 October 2010)

marcom said:


> In todays Sydney Morning Herald right at the bottom of the main page -
> http://www.smh.com.au/- How do they get away with this?
> 
> Managed Funds
> ...



And the following was on the page that opened in your link Marcom!! I guess advertising pays better!! Seamisty:::


SMH ETHICS CODE
The values set out in the Herald's first editorial, have guided the paper for more than 170 years. Our most valuable asset is our integrity, and it is this that the code is designed to protect.


----------



## Duped (28 October 2010)

marcom said:


> ...Mitch Craig is the auditor from KPMG who signed off on MFS accounts.




Ah yes the public examination of Mitch Craig which none of our media reported on. And why is that? Indifference to the collapse of a multi billion $ ASX listed company? To protect our class action?  Or to protect KPMG?

Seamisty & Marcom: check out Corruption *Perceptions *Index on wikipedia. We rate ourselves above France, Germany, Japan , USA and UK. Yeah right.  Whatever.

It seems clear to me that Australia is more comfortable with dodgy dealings than these other countries.  Much of corporate Australia probably don't even truly understand what ethics is. It's all about doin' tha deal. And again, even our legal fraternity don't appear to be that keen on considering equitable conduct. (see my lawlink.nsw.gov.au below)

And ASIC have the guile to rule on 'commercial morality'.  What fantasy land do they live in.


----------



## Duped (29 October 2010)

LOL!!  

" Chief Justice French acknowledged there are aspects of litigation  that are inescapably labour intensive, but said *time-costing for lawyers*  has gone far beyond the status of a management tool. 

He said it is seen in some quarters as "an encumbrance on  professionalism, placing a *premium on inefficiency*" and welcomed debate  to look at alternatives."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/29/3051492.htm

Wow. For a Chief Justice to publicly voice such an opinion?  How bad are Australia's corporate professionals?

Just imagine how much this has cost our fund. And as I wrote yesterday: much of corporate Australia probably don't even truly understand what ethics is.


----------



## marcom (29 October 2010)

In the AFR today: (sorry I don't have a subscription for this one)  http://www.afr.com/p/national/tide_begins_to_turn_for_asic_MwNxAQMjESUhNfz5ipFXHI

Tide begins to turn for ASIC

Dealbook | The corporate regulator’s push to stamp out insider trading and market manipulation resulted in *just three convictions in its last financial year.*

Well that's effective market regulation for you!!!!!


----------



## seamisty (29 October 2010)

Every corporate watchdog has its day Scott Rochfort 
October 29, 2010



Hollow triumph ... Tony D’Aloisio celebrates ‘‘a year of achievement’’. Photo: John Shakespeare
The corporate regulator has again displayed its lightning-fast reflexes by being the first to recognise something that appears to have been missed by the general market.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission yesterday trumpeted on the front cover of its annual report that 2009-10 was: ''A year of achievement''.

In a huge comfort to the thousands of investors who lost their money in the collapses of Allco Finance, Babcock & Brown, Trio Capital, City Pacific, MFS, Sonray and Storm Financial, ASIC's head corporate grime fighter, Tony D'Aloisio, declared: ''In this fragile environment, ASIC worked hard to assist and protect retail investors by promoting financial literacy, improving the quality of information given to investors and vigorously enforcing the law.''
 Among the many achievements listed in the annual report was ASIC's distribution of 37,000 brochures that advised people on ''Investing between the flags''.

''ASIC looked across the entire financial industry in order to bring about improvements in behaviour,'' the corporate puppy dog said of another of its achievements.

The year of achievement included 12 white-collar criminals being sent to jail, down from the 27 five years earlier. Beware corporate wrongdoers, an ASIC brochure with some flags is coming your way.


What a joke you are ASIC!! 37,000 brochures advising people on safe investing? How many HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS REMAIN FINANCIALLY RUINED and you ASIC, the so called regulators are still twiddling your thumbs and scratching your bums while you wait for others to do your work for you!!

I for one have NEVER EVER been given ONE single piece of usefull advice from the many taxpayer funded employees at ASIC or received any satisfactory answers or results to date to the many issues and concerns raised with them re PIF over 2 and a half years. I long ago realised all I was ensuring was that there will be a traceable record of events and the subsequent inactivity by ASIC which ultimately has resulted in further losses to PIF investors! Surely if no satisfactory action is forthcoming after the Public Examinations are completed someone somewhere is going to sit up and finally take notice!!!???
Seamisty


----------



## Duped (29 October 2010)

seamisty said:


> ...''ASIC looked across the entire financial industry in order to bring about improvements in behaviour,'' the corporate puppy dog said of another of its achievements. ....




Meanwhile Treasury, DoF and ASIC employees who design and police this system have their superannuation safely tucked away in a defined benefit scheme: the CSS/PSS. Retiring/departing on up to 7 times final average salary. 

Oh and I guess that also includes the likes of Kerry O'Brien. 

Moral hazard no matter the path.

ASIC is a failed project/program. Or worse, has become a shop-front distraction for the hustlers to use in their slight-of-hand.

Our system is failing us. We need to fix the framework. Starting by bringing our legal system more into line with our common law equivalents: the UK and US. 

Step one: bill of rights and/or equitable relief.  These are genuine protections.  Not the corruptible artifical substitutes like the self acclaimed 'fair and balanced' media and the legislature and its spin-off projects/programs: ASIC, APRA, ACCC, etc.

Until we get such protection - hold on to your wallets.


----------



## selciper (29 October 2010)

A comprehensive, personal overview of the law, this link is useful. It leads to the thoughts of respected journalist Evan Whitton. No punches are pulled.

http://netk.net.au/WhittonCartel.asp


----------



## Duped (29 October 2010)

selciper said:


> A comprehensive, personal overview of the law, this link is useful. It leads to the thoughts of respected journalist Evan Whitton. No punches are pulled.
> 
> http://netk.net.au/WhittonCartel.asp




Excellent link selciper.  I don't feel like such a wacko. 

It's good to see that anything that comes down on the side of Octaviar against us 'commercially moral' investors continues to be soiled by Octaviar's dirt.


----------



## BootsnAll (29 October 2010)

Has anyone received their 1 cent payment yet?


----------



## charles36 (30 October 2010)

CHARLES 36.    Boot's n all, I have.  Has there been any indication from WC as to how this return of our own money is to be treated.  I know it cannot be income, I know it cannot be profit, what is liquidation of assets called?  Please somebody enlighten me.  Charles.


----------



## JohnH (30 October 2010)

BootsnAll said:


> Has anyone received their 1 cent payment yet?




On my statement this morning!  Made me reflect that this is only slightly more than we used to get from PIF each month!!!!


----------



## Jadel (30 October 2010)

charles36 said:


> CHARLES 36.    Boot's n all, I have.  Has there been any indication from WC as to how this return of our own money is to be treated.  I know it cannot be income, I know it cannot be profit, what is liquidation of assets called?  Please somebody enlighten me.  Charles.




In this instance Charles, ‘legal larceny by default’.


----------



## selciper (30 October 2010)

Payment received - without thanks.


----------



## seamisty (30 October 2010)

Unfortunately the harsh reality is that it is highly probable that under Wellington Capitals control it has cost us somewhere in the vicinity of 12 cents per unit (which we are unlikely to ever see again!) to return us 1 cent per unit of our own capital 2 years late!!! Anyone spied a media report or two with the red jacket bragging of her glowing achievements? Where's Nick Nichols who is always at the ready with his JH good news banner? OH YES!! Thats right, to mention the payment would perhaps have to go into more detail which is a :nono: if those details appear remotely detrimental it seems, or am I missing something here? Isn't this ground breaking news? How many Premium Income Fund Investors have DIED waiting for this payment WELLINGTON CAPITAL PTY LTD? Surely that aspect alone would make a human interest newsworthy report?? Don't you just hate SELECTIVE REPORTING? Lift your game Gold Coast Bulletin!!!!!:whip
 Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (30 October 2010)

charles36 said:


> CHARLES 36.    Boot's n all, I have.  Has there been any indication from WC as to how this return of our own money is to be treated.  I know it cannot be income, I know it cannot be profit, what is liquidation of assets called?  Please somebody enlighten me.  Charles.



I too have received, tallies to the last cent.
Will treat it as returned capital. Or perhaps money lent and now returned, as the goal of original investment purpose was not fulfilled. 
Hope the remainder or part thereof will soon follow.
I can't open WC update of 25 October. Other then "rejection" message, what does it say? Please inform.
Regards,


----------



## simgrund (30 October 2010)

seamisty said:


> Unfortunately the harsh reality is that it is highly probable that under Wellington Capitals control it has cost us somewhere in the vicinity of 12 cents per unit (which we are unlikely to ever see again!) to return us 1 cent per unit of our own capital 2 years late!!! Anyone spied a media report or two with the red jacket bragging of her glowing achievements? Where's Nick Nichols who is always at the ready with his JH good news banner? OH YES!! Thats right, to mention the payment would perhaps have to go into more detail which is a :nono: if those details appear remotely detrimental it seems, or am I missing something here? Isn't this ground breaking news? How many Premium Income Fund Investors have DIED waiting for this payment WELLINGTON CAPITAL PTY LTD? Surely that aspect alone would make a human interest newsworthy report?? Don't you just hate SELECTIVE REPORTING? Lift your game Gold Coast Bulletin!!!!!:whip
> Seamisty




Seamisty, this one (of many other thousands on google site) from "Financial Times Lexicon":

*breach of fiduciary duty*

*When a person or company who has responsibility for managing other people's money fails to protect the interests of the people whose money they are managing. [1] *

And another thought; can our combined indignation be harnessed as an alternative energy source to reduce our electricity bills?
In Sympathy,


----------



## simgrund (31 October 2010)

This article may be of interest and help to some of us.

http://www.smh.com.au/money/on-the-money/good-financial-advice-is-hard-to-find-20101022-16wio.html

Regards


----------



## Duped (1 November 2010)

simgrund said:


> This article may be of interest and help to some of us.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/money/on-the-money/good-financial-advice-is-hard-to-find-20101022-16wio.html
> 
> Regards




ROFL!!!  From that article: "Not unexpectedly many financial planners came out against the measure.  One of the main reasons given for retaining commissions was that a  fee-for-service model would mean low income earners could not afford to  get advice."

So interest free repayment plans like Harvey Norman etc offer isn't good enough for Financial Advisors? Sound too much like hard work?  Would rather the product providers do all the hard work for them? What a bunch of bludgers.  How about doing some work and studying accountancy? Rather than taking the easy path to easy money.  Boo Hoo.

I'm looking forward to the changes accountants have made to their profession leading to Financial Planners being abruptly run out of business.  I just feel sorry for the suckers who believe in ASIC's 'Commercial Morality' that they manage to bleed dry on their way out.


----------



## simgrund (1 November 2010)

Duped said:


> ROFL!!!  From that article: "Not unexpectedly many financial planners came out against the measure.  One of the main reasons given for retaining commissions was that a  fee-for-service model would mean low income earners could not afford to  get advice."
> 
> So interest free repayment plans like Harvey Norman etc offer isn't good enough for Financial Advisors? Sound too much like hard work?  Would rather the product providers do all the hard work for them? What a bunch of bludgers.  How about doing some work and studying accountancy? Rather than taking the easy path to easy money.  Boo Hoo.
> 
> Looking forward to the changes accountants have made to their profession leading to Financial Planners being abruptly run out of business.  I just feel sorry for the suckers who believe in ASIC's 'Commercial Morality' that they manage to bleed dry on their way out.




Sorry Duped, did not mean to raise your heart palpitations with that one.
You are spot on; these hyenas will be clutching  onto this blood money well into the demise of this system.
By then it just might be criminalised to the point of being poison to touch.
Regards,


----------



## Duped (1 November 2010)

Following is an article by Nick Samios published by Business Spectator.  This could explain how the ATO leapfrogged us unsecured creditors despite Hutson's claims during the roadshow that the ATO was ranked equally. I remember reading about a garnishee notice in Fortress defence in one of the QLD Supreme Court decisions.  Does anyone know if DPNs were issued to the MFS/OCV directors?

"Ringing in SME tax debts"

"... Prior to the 1993 changes to the law, the ATO ranked  ahead of unsecured creditors in an insolvency. These days it ranks  equally, but has this power to attach debts to the directors personally –  an avenue only otherwise available to creditors who take director's  personal guarantees.

...during and in the aftermath of the GFC, the ATO  was more *lenient *on late taxpayers with *flexible *payment agreements and  tax ‘*holidays*’ for struggling businesses. However, he adds that “since  around March this year, ATO winding-up applications have risen  noticeably and we’ve seen an increase in clients seeking advice about  Director Penalty Notices and garnishee notices.”

 The big change in the law is that *until  recently*, a director could avoid personal liability after they receive a  DPN by taking one of four steps: pay the tax debt; appoint a voluntary  administrator; appoint a liquidator to wind up the company; or enter  into a written arrangement with the ATO to bring the debt up to date  over a period of time. I have seen arrangements for anything up to 24  months, though shorter periods (three to six months) were more common.

The fourth option is *now off the table* once  the DPN is in play – obtaining a payment arrangement (the fourth option  above) *no longer *constitutes compliance with the DPN – and directors  believing it does (*as it used to*) are living in a fools paradise. 
Olde says that increasingly, he is seeing the  ATO use garnishee notices aggressively against small business rather  than the big corporates which has been typical in the past." [emphasis added]


Combine that with Mark Korda's definition of insolvency and the question of solvency becomes rather elastic doesn't it?  Including the assessment of risk. Nothing is fixed.  Everything is always moving. Clear as mud. How does that help transparency for potential investors in Australian companies? And all the protagnists are out there basing their opposition of the Singapore takeover of the ASX on 'lack of transparency'. What a load of B(usiness)S(pectator).


----------



## communique (2 November 2010)

Gold coast Bulletin this morning
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/11/02/267765_gold-coast-business.html


----------



## seamisty (2 November 2010)

Ex-MFS exec Adams files bankruptcy
 FORMER high-flying Gold Coast executive Phil Adams has finally thrown in the towel and filed for bankruptcy with debts of about $120 million.

The decision is believed to have been accelerated by the MFS co-founder's recent return to Australia from Dubai, where he had been based for more than three years.

Mr Adams is now living in Sydney and it is unclear what his immediate plans are.

Full story:http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/11/02/267765_gold-coast-business.html


----------



## Duped (2 November 2010)

Looks like the ACCC, like ASIC, believes in the 'commercial morality' fairytale as well.  Samuel tried sprinkling some fairy dust on Macquarie to get them to 'be reasonable'.  And of course it didn't work. They really do seem to live in a bygone era.

There is an alternative ACCC and ASIC.  Put your weight behind equity.  If you don't wake up you might open your eyes one day to find that Australians are pushing for other alternatives, like Sharia law.  A Muslim Arbitration Tribunal is already operating in the UK.

http://money.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8116282


----------



## Duped (2 November 2010)

Duped said:


> Looks like the ACCC, like ASIC, believes in the 'commercial morality' fairytale as well.  Samuel tried sprinkling some fairy dust on Macquarie to get them to 'be reasonable'.  And of course it didn't work. They really do seem to live in a bygone era.
> 
> There is an alternative ACCC and ASIC.  Put your weight behind equity.  If you don't wake up you might open your eyes one day to find that Australians are pushing for other alternatives, like Sharia law.  A Muslim Arbitration Tribunal is already operating in the UK.
> 
> http://money.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8116282




Here I go again - quoting myself.

I should have added after 'live in a bygone era': Or are in wilful denial about our legal system's more ruthless, dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest and more-fool-you base and origins.


----------



## selciper (3 November 2010)

We seem to be in the middle of a period when there’s little or no news about the PIF (not even the CA). Four Corners this week covered a communications scam which is worth viewing. As usual, the Gold Coast is mentioned. The program is available on the web via iview. Enter Four Corners into their search engine.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/watchnow/


----------



## Duped (3 November 2010)

selciper said:


> We seem to be in the middle of a period when there’s little or no news about the PIF (not even the CA). Four Corners this week covered a communications scam which is worth viewing. As usual, the Gold Coast is mentioned. The program is available on the web via iview. Enter Four Corners into their search engine.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/tv/watchnow/




Maybe ASIC needs to set up a main office on the Gold Coast to better sprinkle its 'commercial morality' fairy dust where it's needed most.  ASIC is absolutely clueless to Australia's true nature and through its AFSL Pushers funneled our funds straight to inevitable destruction.  Just like all those feeder funds funneled victims to Madoff in the US.  Unfortunately ASIC doesn't have the 'commercial morality', unlike some of the Madoff pushers, to now make up for their mistake and go into bat for us victims.

ASIC's concern for us is as fake as Swan's sympathy for victims of interest rate rises.  Swan knows very well that rate rises are explicitly designed to cause financial pain. By making debt more painful. By taking money away from spenders and giving it to savers.  What a fake, a fraud and a fabrication Swan's performance is.  His true belief was revealed when he was sprung with the PIF question at the London School of Economics.


----------



## marcom (3 November 2010)

Another small movement on the ASIC case in the Brisbane Supreme Court:
http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...eNumber=12122/09&Court=Supreme&Location=BRISB

29/10/2010 	Mentions 	Mention   Judge P.Lyons J 	
25/03/2011 	Mentions 	Supervised case Review   P.Lyons J


----------



## seamisty (3 November 2010)

So here is an interesting scenario which presents itself after reading the following article::CBA unit to compensate clients for advice http://www.businessspectator.com.au...advice-pd20101103-AU4WS?OpenDocument&src=hp11



A Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd subsidiary will start a major client compensation program after an investigation found a former employee had provided inappropriate financial advice. 

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) said that the Commonwealth Financial Planning Ltd (CFP) employee, who left the company in July 2009, had potentially breached parts of the Corporations Act. 

"CFP is reviewing relevant client files to identify individuals who have been adversely affected," ASIC said in a statement. "In cases where inappropriate advice was given by the former CFP representative, CFP will calculate the investment positions those clients would have held had they received the appropriate advice and compensate accordingly.":::

I know that many individual PIF unitholders were offered advice from McLaughlins Financial Services employees passing themselves off as 'Senior Investment Advisers'. 

So if these former MFS 'Senior Investment Advisers' do not have specific credentials/qualifications to back up their offered representation, does this mean that individual PIF investors who were influenced by so called MFS professionals offering  inappropriate advice who lost money should not be offered some sort of compensation?

In hindsight I was offered advice from a MFS employee for approx 10 years ( who touted to be a MFS 'Senior Investment Adviser') who personally encouraged me to contribute a substantial investment in the PIF even after MFS/Octaviar appears to have been possibly operating as 'insolvent'.  
Where do we stand legally if those responsible have not been held accountable by ASIC and have slipped under the radar of other regulatory bodies (er what regulatory bodies one could well ask?) 
Food for thought re future legal actions.
Seamisty


----------



## Duped (4 November 2010)

Yes Seamisty.  Sharing info so we can take legal action against financial advisors is something this forum still needs to do.  Or the Action Group for that matter.

A while back I asked if anyone had taken legal action but got no response.  If we get enough precedence going then it could make it a lot easier for us to get many quick settlements through. Is that a fair assumption?  Hey, we might even get a bulk discount from a law firm.

I recall Slater & Gordon telling me they're not interested if recovering is likely less than about $200K.

First port of call for me would be the Dispute Resolution Service run by Financial Ombudsman Service http://fos.org.au/centric/home_page.jsp. FOS has Fact Sheets on Timbercorp and Great Southern.  Why not us?

The Commonwealth government (and ASIC) stupidly didn't put a fiduciary duty in place. But there might be other bits of legislation we could base legal action on. 

There's always Section 52 of the Trades Practices Act "A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive".  But I'm not sure if this applies or how successful it would be.

PIF as an asset would be classed as mostly commercial property.  While it may have been sold as fixed interest, the financial instruments that formed the assets were mortgages over commercial property. Correct?  

According to my research recently, commercial property is classed as  bordering on High Risk.  See http://www.colonialfirststate.com.au/producteducation/managedfunds/assclassmf.aspx?menutabtype=pe

So.  Was this asset class 'appropriate' or 'suitable'?

I couldn't find any useful info on the ASIC websites for identifying grounds for legal action against ASF licensees.  Surprised?

But this page gave me some good pointers: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/report/c02.htm

Particularly paragraphs 2.20 and 2.21 which point to S945A of the Corporations Act (and accompanying ASIC Regulatory Guide 175)

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Leg...tattachments/B88495DFB6D26FD4CA257770001F817B
http://asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/rg175.pdf/$file/rg175.pdf

S945A (1) (c) requires that "the advice is *appropriate *to the client, having regard to that consideration and  investigation" and "Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1))."


That's as far as I've got for now.


----------



## Duped (4 November 2010)

http://www.townsendslaw.com.au/article.php?id=205

FOS BEATS RIPOLL IN RAISING THE STANDARD

"I love the FOS  Determination 18959 also known as the Basis Capital Case. Determination  18959 came as somewhat of a shock to the industry in the way that it  outlined a higher standard of care required of financial planners than  many thought was the case.  It did so six months before the Ripoll Inquiry purported to do so.  
...

So why did it provoke claims that civilization as we know it was coming to an end as a result of the decision?  When you think you’re doing a good job and someone points out that actually you are not, it can be a bit of a shock.
...
We cannot review here every finding of FOS's 49 page decision but we can summarise some of the more interesting.  
·                    *Advisers cannot abdicate their responsibility* for assessing products to research houses or their licensees.  The adviser must get a real personal understanding of the products they recommend.

·                    *Advisers  cannot comply with s.945A by simply outsourcing the risk profiling *of  their clients to a third party. The consideration of the risk profiler’s  report is just one more piece of the investigation that the adviser  needs to conduct if it is to ‘know the client’ to the necessary level.

·                    *Advisers  must exercise their own judgement in discerning good products from bad  *and cannot transfer that obligation to their licensee.  In  particular the fact that the product is on the licensee’s approved  product list does not relieve the adviser from any responsibility to  investigate the product thoroughly.

·                    Advisers  should not state that they are “monitoring” investments unless they are  in fact doing considerably more than conducting regular reviews. There  is no point in an adviser saying that they have met the required  standard of care by following industry practice of reviewing portfolios  six monthly if they have promised the client something more – that they  will ‘monitor’ the product.

·                    Advisers need to read third party reports carefully and be sure they understand them properly and implement them effectively.  The Planner organised  *the wrong risk profile *(namely of the individual rather than the client  in their capacity as trustee of the SMSF), did not fully understand the  report and applied and implemented an incorrect risk profile.  *He also did not understand the research* and was not able to advise the client effectively as a result.

·                     Advisers must explain products to their clients clearly so that the client can provide informed consent.  The adviser cannot rely on the fact that all the relevant information may be contained in the product’s PDS.  It  is well known that clients are not able to effectively read and  understand a standard PDS and the adviser’s role is to assist the client  in that task by understanding it themselves and fully explaining the  issues to the client (including both the product’s risks and whether the  product is therefore within the client’s risk profile).  To the extent that the adviser fails to properly advise and explain they remain liable to the client."


----------



## Duped (4 November 2010)

Surge of postings from me today. More gold from Crikey: http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/04...dollars-mean-free-millions-dating-disneyland/
...
"The sad reality is that after six years, this novel exercise in self-regulation has failed. Since the code took effect neither ASIC nor the Financial Services  Council (formerly known as the Investment and Financial Services  Association) have been monitoring the quality of disclosures made by  wealth management conglomerates such as BT and Colonial.
 But in only a few days of cross-checking these suspect registers, _Eureka Report_ has found a slew of inconsistencies in reporting, several of which appear to constitute clear breaches of the code.
 The code is a joke. But not a very funny one.
 The FSC admits it is not actively scrutinising the registers and ASIC has washed its hands of responsibility."

Then there's this article:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/04/sorry-but-there-are-bigger-issues-than-residential-mortgages/
"For all the tabloid fury, talkback anger and political vitriol  directed at the banks ... there are systemic issues that are at risk of being overlooked in  the emphasis on home mortgage rates and infuriating bank fees. One of them is that the collapse of non-bank competition has allowed  the banking cartel — strengthened by being allowed to gobble up Bankwest  and St George — to focus more on lower-risk residential mortgage  lending, *choking off higher-risk business lending.* Small business and  the construction industry — which saw some truly scary building approval figures yesterday  - continue to pay the price for this. And the cartel knows perfectly  well that it will attract far less outrage by punishing business  borrowers with higher rates than households that actually vote."


I.e. Less competition for PIF on our part finished projects.  So WC  ... what's going on?


----------



## simgrund (4 November 2010)

seamisty, 
Re your post above, the same is repeated by SMH Money. The heat really gets fanned now. 
http://www.smh.com.au/money/plannin...-millions-for-cba-clients-20101104-17fd1.html

Thanks Duped for all this info. Will find the right path soon, I am sure.

Best for weekend,


----------



## seamisty (4 November 2010)

simgrund said:


> seamisty,
> Re your post above, the same is repeated by SMH Money. The heat really gets fanned now.
> http://www.smh.com.au/money/plannin...-millions-for-cba-clients-20101104-17fd1.html
> 
> ...



Thanks simgrund and duped, unfortunately comments such  as from 'ASIC said' do not inspire me with confidence ;;: ''CFP has agreed to identify those affected and assess liability and appropriate compensation. To ensure that the client compensation program is fair, an independent expert will review the implementation of the program and compensation offers.

''ASIC will also meet with CFP representatives each month to monitor the progress and outcomes of the program.''

Its investigation into the former CFP representative is continuing.'::

I actually question on a daily basis the usefullness of ASIC at all? In fact apart from ASIC  'continuing to investigate' year after year with seemingly no positive results WTF do these people do to warrant $582 million in fees and charges of taxpayer dollars in the past 12 months? Especially since I was told for approx 12 months in no uncertain terms after Octaviar collapsed that ASIC were not interested, not accountable, not responsible and until HELLO!!! the evidence could no longer be avoided, and it was finally acknowleged there was an undeniable problem and the original bleaters actually had evidence and were not going to go away! So not much has changed, we still get fobbed off and I guess ASIC is still monitoring the situation and sitting on the sidelines waiting for others to do the dirty work which ASIC may or may not act upon. Cynical, you bet I am and with good reason.

Seamisty


----------



## marcom (5 November 2010)

From todays SMH Business Day: http://www.smh.com.au/business/oh-what-a-lovely-wal-says-leighton-20101104-17ftm.html

BALMAIN BOYS

The managers of the former City Pacific-run First Mortgage Fund, Balmain Trilogy, have released accounts that will be sure to irritate some of the 10,000 unit-holders with deposits still frozen in the fund.

 Aside from a $43.8 million full-year loss (largely due to asset write-downs), the accounts show the new managers were paid $7.7 million in management fees and had $727,889 in expenses reimbursed during the 12 months. Still, this is well down on the $30 million in base management fees the Phil Sullivan-founded City Pacific used to suck out of the fund.


----------



## LTD (5 November 2010)

Afternoon all,
    I read about this Refco case in todays AFR and found some links about it.

As you all know I have no legal expertise but do follow your plight...

This particular case is totally unrelated and probably has no comparisons but the recent decisions handed down in America ...surprised me and I thought that you might be interested in them too.
It appears to be more about a corporate shells ability to sue their outside advisors and other rulings re securities fraud.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/the-hurdles-to-suing-outside-advisers-for-fraud/

http://www.complianceweek.com/article/6227/court-ruling-exempts-third-party-fraud-liability

NB..These are not Australian cases ..


----------



## Cookie1 (5 November 2010)

An article of interest from NZ; I don't think there's anything new but it documents what happened and some lessons: 

The Fall of MFS
November 4, 2010 by admin   
Filed under Hot News

"Amongst the numerous investment funds and financial institutions falling victim to the global credit crunch, one that surely need not and should not have succumbed was New Zealand-based MFS Pacific Finance Limited. 

Starting life in New Zealand in 1999 as a subsidiary of ASX-listed MFS Limited (now known as Octaviar Limited), an early venture saw the Company take over the name and management of several underperforming Waltus property funds, ..."

"Lessons

Unfortunately MFS Pacific Finance is beyond rescue as an operating unit in its original form and its passing is a genuine loss to the New Zealand finance company sector. In addition to offering investors currency diversification, MFS Pacific carried the potential to set a new benchmark of financial support for finance company borrowings through the “Put Option”. To date no other parent/subsidiary relationship of companies listed on the New Zealand Debentures Exchange has instigated a similar enforceable guarantee. Perhaps the new “Global Credit Crunch” reality will empower investors to demand just that.

In addition, as more intricate trading mechanisms such as margin trading, stock borrowing and short selling evolve, it becomes clear that disclosure of such potentially dangerous practices must become a mandatory requirement imposed by stock exchanges or legislation if markets are to be open and informed. *Private investors have quite enough risks to contend with, without the secret avarice of their own company’s directors and executives exposing them to even more*. 

*But while the mandatory objective may prove an optimistic goal in the short term, ordinary shareholders and fixed interest investors alike can take their own action immediately, wasting no time in sending the “totally unacceptable” message loud and clear to directors and executives where margin trading is concerned.*" (emphasis added)

Full article: http://www.tennisguide.org/the-fall-of-mfs.html


----------



## LTD (5 November 2010)

Cookie,
        Margin loans certainly muddied the waters..of many Australian cos. at the time and its crazy that the numbers of Directors margined shares are not made public however share sales are....and I dont think we are even clear on who held ownership when shares were margined...ie voting rights over so many shares on the register?

Sorry about the second link I posted at 2.42pm...looks like its not coming up ..so I found a case decision 21 oct 2010 ...it isnt that negative about half way down the page..

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_07415.htm

even the different states in America appear to differ on this...I think?but I found it of interest anyway.


----------



## marcom (6 November 2010)

From todays SMH Private Sydney Andrew Hornery 
November 6, 2010

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/people/hellbent-on-making-a-marquee-mark-20101106-17hr1.html

COLT NO MORE

He may be a little greyer, but the Colt from Kooyong, the former Liberal Party leader Andrew Peacock, has finally bolted.

In Melbourne this week for the Spring Racing Carnival and to visit his daughter Ann, Peacock told PS his wife, Penne, the former United States ambassador to Mauritius,  had been busy packing up 220 boxes in preparation for vacating their Double Bay home, which they sold in July for more than $4.5million.

‘‘We spend most of our time now in the US and it made sense to base ourselves there permanently,’’ Peacock explained, adding that his wife’s Texas homeland had become his new base.
A keen racehorse owner and former paramour of the Hollywood icon and much-lived actor Shirley MacLaine, Peacock said he always enjoyed attending the big race meetings in Australia, but he was not as prominent in his support of the sport in the US.

‘‘They look at it differently over there. It doesn’t have the same prestige as it does in Australia and perhaps some of the people who are involved in the sport in the US are probably a little more ... well, colourful,’’ he explained.

‘‘Horse racing is not something I tell a lot of my associates about in the US,’’ he said, with a wry smile"...

Talk about the colt bolting before the liquidator moves in! 

From Bentleys web site section on key achievements:

"Commenced detailed investigations surrounding the demise of the group, the group’s solvency, and its operations in Cayman Islands, Dubai,* and the US; *


----------



## Jadel (6 November 2010)

marcom said:


> From todays SMH Private Sydney Andrew Hornery
> November 6, 2010
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/people/hellbent-on-making-a-marquee-mark-20101106-17hr1.html
> ...




I think Mr Peacock would fit in just fine with the, “ colorful” racing clique in the US . After all, as  the CEO of a Company that has stolen 200 million from what amounts to a Pension fund ,his credential would be impeccable.

I wonder if he mentions that little affair  to his American pals.

It is an absolute disgrace that he has been allowed to disown his involvement and role in MFS .

Many investors bought shares or decided to invest in the PIF bases purely on his reputation


----------



## seamisty (6 November 2010)

Jadel said:


> I think Mr Peacock would fit in just fine with the, “ colorful” racing clique in the US . After all, as  the CEO of a Company that has stolen 200 million from what amounts to a Pension fund ,his credential would be impeccable.
> 
> I wonder if he mentions that little affair  to his American pals.
> 
> ...



 I bet thats one happy old nag who can't believe the gate was left open. Even knackers yards have standards to maintain!!

On another note, I was thinking whatever happened to the proceeds from PIF's Mackay’s Latitude development? That property owed us approx $10mill and was due to be settled in early 2010.

Port Maquarie Icon apartments owed us approx $23mill and have been steadily selling for most of this year, where are the proceeds from that?

Wellington Capital took possesion of another PIF asset, the Forest Resort Hotel at Creswick  on April 1st 2009. This property was a profitable going concern at that time generating good income, what has happened to that income stream?

Anyone holding other investments with WC, ie Rimcorp Property Limited? 
The Rimcorp property portfolio consists of four industrial property trusts comprising seven properties
located in:
Queensland – Banyo, Eagle Farm and Salisbury;
Victoria – Derrimut and Thomastown
South Australia – Golden Grove

I notice Wellington Capital has not updated its website with the appropiate 2010 RG46 Disclosures for these properties. I am curious to see how these performed this year. Efficient (not) as ever! Wellington Capital Botoxique Investment Bank does not appear to be a very viable, professional operation!!

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (6 November 2010)

An old French proverb says, "The tulip is, among flowers, what the peacock is among birds. A tulip lacks scent, a peacock has an unpleasant voice. The one takes pride in its garb, the other in its tail."


----------



## simgrund (6 November 2010)

Jadel said:


> I think Mr Peacock would fit in just fine with the, “ colorful” racing clique in the US . After all, as  the CEO of a Company that has stolen 200 million from what amounts to a Pension fund ,his credential would be impeccable.
> 
> I wonder if he mentions that little affair  to his American pals.
> It is an absolute disgrace that he has been allowed to disown his involvement and role in MFS .
> Many investors bought shares or decided to invest in the PIF bases purely on his reputation




Here is an excerpt from SMH article by Paul McGeough. about "horse bolted" that would be good analogy with ASIC's lightning reflexes:

"Even before the September 11 attacks, Awlaqi was investigated by the FBI - but he came up clean. After the attacks, he was taken in for questioning four more times but in 2002 he left the US for Yemen. After months of pressure from authorities around the world, 
*it was only this week that YouTube agreed to remove some of Awlaqi's sermons from its content. * [bolding added]

AP off to USA and not a word to Darlinghurst examinations ??? 
Why, while on his watch as Chairman,  putrid third parties siphoned our funds? 
Hope this travesty will not be allowed to pass. 
What powers can be invoked to drag him back in not too distant future?
Regards


----------



## LTD (7 November 2010)

I have followed up on the Refco case in US and I am learning a little about the "round trip loans" used by them.
 I dont have the expertise or info to find comparisons..
 but it was worth reading paragraph 1 The Refco Fraud..to start to appreciate the accounting complexities,imo.because I certainly dont follow much of it...can you?

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1499141.html


I am also puzzled when I read an article like this one below.


http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-business/mfs-spent-investor-millions-20101020-16u23.html


"MFS told investors the equity raising was to fund previously announced acquisitions of Sunkids and Sunleisure businesses, barrister Dominic O'Sullivan told the court.

But according to the company's general ledger and operating accounts, those payments were never made, Mr O'Sullivan said.

Former chief financial officer David Anderson said he could not recall any payments being made to Sunkids or Sunleisure.

"I can't see in the documents you have shown me of any payments made to Sunleisure or Sunkids," Mr Anderson said."continues...

How can a layman like myself hope to understand all this accounting?
The examination was to continue with the Auditor..

Bentleys and others certainly have a huge task and I wish them well.


----------



## marcom (7 November 2010)

LTD, this is a simple case of raising funds with a false prospectus. An act  which should land all the Directors in gaol - as it did with Rodney "the Rocket" Adler.

It also demonstrates that MFS was insolvent as early as the beginning of 2007, and most of the transactions undertaken since then are voidable - including sale of the PIF RE to JH.


----------



## LTD (7 November 2010)

Thanks Marcom,
         It also shows me that those who have the expertise must know so much... like ...round trip loans..etc.etc. and the experts/professionals here are pushing on with the CA. 
  I think that public sentiment comes from loss but not neccessarily from great understanding and thats why I threw in a random case to look at. It just highlights the complexity,unexpected outcomes, a medias interpretation and a need to protect the innocent whatever side of the fence they are on.

I'll get off this unrelated case and stop sharing my lines of unskilled thoughts.


Thanks Marcom, you  keep everyone up to date with actual progress.


----------



## simgrund (7 November 2010)

LTD said:


> Thanks Marcom,
> It also shows me that those who have the expertise must know so much... like ...round trip loans..etc.etc. and the experts/professionals here are pushing on with the CA.
> I think that public sentiment comes from loss but not neccessarily from great understanding and thats why I threw in a random case to look at. It just highlights the complexity,unexpected outcomes, a medias interpretation and a need to protect the innocent whatever side of the fence they are on.
> I'll get off this unrelated case and stop sharing my lines of unskilled thoughts.
> Thanks Marcom, you  keep everyone up to date with actual progress.




lTD, this case is far from unrelated as it involves KPMG global, part of which is involved in our CA action here.
A pity that it is still a continuing case as it seems from your link. 
Hope Carneys will keep track of it to see if any KPMG perspiration could be useful here.
Breaker1, would it help to bring this case to Carneys attention via our liason team?
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1499141.html
Thanks and regards,


----------



## Duped (8 November 2010)

selciper said:


> An old French proverb says, "The tulip is, among flowers, what the peacock is among birds. A tulip lacks scent, a peacock has an unpleasant voice. The one takes pride in its garb, the other in its tail."




That's Gold selciper. 

Seamisty. "Wellington Capital Botoxique Investment Bank" Loving it.



marcom said:


> From todays SMH Private Sydney Andrew Hornery
> November 6, 2010
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/people/hellbent-on-making-a-marquee-mark-20101106-17hr1.html
> ...




That one quote speaks volumes doesn't it. Selective disclosure? And gambling compared to the US' self acclaimed strict moral codes? 

Anyone who hasn't seen it yet I strongly recommen you view Stephen Mayne's interview with Peacock.  A scary revelation of Peacock's ..... attitude? 'MFS Fiasco' March 28, 2008

http://video.maynereport.com/


----------



## selciper (8 November 2010)

KPMG reports "financial companies vulnerable to fraud."
(Money Management, today.)

http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/news/financial-companies-vulnerable-to-fraud


----------



## marcom (8 November 2010)

More on the KPMG fraud report from Smart Company: http://www.smartcompany.com.au/lega...es-take-more-than-a-year-to-detect-cases.html

And this juicy quote - "...So often KPMG's investigations expose simple methods used to fleece large amounts of money from organisations that could have been prevented or detected with the right controls."

Obviously doesn't apply to their audit services!


----------



## Duped (8 November 2010)

marcom said:


> ...Obviously doesn't apply to their audit services!





LOL! Sounds like ASICs MO. Go after the penny thieves while the pounds walk out the front door.


----------



## Cookie1 (8 November 2010)

I received confirmation in the post today from Wellington of the paltry sum paid into my bank account recently. It doesn't indicate that it's a return of capital or anything else about it other than the payment rate is 1 (cents per unit). Accompanying the confirmation notice is a glossy little flyer about the Chifley Wollongong City Beach hotel; I assume copies went out to all 10,000+ unit holders.  I thought it might have been for a discounted rate for PIF unit holders but, no, it's just offering the "Spoilt Bratz Package" or a Spoilt Rotten Package" until 18/12/10. 

I wonder who paid for the flyers??? It better not have been the PIF!


----------



## LTD (11 November 2010)

ASIC ....re - REs

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8047acbb-0bb5-4a96-838f-cbb379749314

They are inviting response and further input by NOV 15th if any-one is interested.


----------



## LTD (11 November 2010)

Sorry the link given above comes up as requiring you to login...which is not how I viewed it ....so I will post a link to the ASIC site called" Consultation Paper 140: Responsible entities: Financial requirements."    

 which the previous link relates to.

http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/cp140%20Sept%202010.pdf/$file/cp140%20Sept%202010.pdf


----------



## selciper (11 November 2010)

Today's edition of Crikey has a go at the Gold Coast Bulletin's editorial objectivity.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/11/media-briefs-my-bulletin-the-teles-spin-bitter-advertiser/


----------



## marcom (12 November 2010)

Some more movement on the ASIC case against MFS Directors in the Brisbane Supreme Court:
http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...eNumber=12122/09&Court=Supreme&Location=BRISB

37 	29/10/2010 	Application 	29/10/2010 	        Respondent 	
38 	29/10/2010 	Draft Order 	P LYONS J 29/10/2010   	Respondent 	
39 	11/11/2010 	Order 	P Lyons J 29/10/2010 	    Respondent


----------



## seamisty (13 November 2010)

This is an interesting read:ASIC guidance on related party transactions and independent expert reports
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f23f2412-cb2d-4aec-83c7-00deb9066a2b

I have never been comfortable with Wellington Capital  owning Armstrong registry services which replaced Chess and now handles all PIF registration work (with no consultation with unitholders) and Wellington Capital being a substantial holder in Print Mail Logistics which prints most of PIF related updates etc. It would be nice to know how much PIF is being billed by Wellington Capital for these services. Seamisty


----------



## LTD (13 November 2010)

Hi Seamisty,
     We must be tracking in the same direction as I found the related party link
also..and  found the asic consultation paper 142 here

http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/cp142.pdf/$file/cp142.pdf

They have been working on things...and ask for further input by Dec.
Re registery services...my personal view...
I wasnt real impressed with the tallys allowed re shareholdings considering the MFS share register must have been a real mess due to margin loans etc before important votes... so perhaps WC were looking for something better...not worse as you suggest? Just a thought.


----------



## LTD (13 November 2010)

Just re read your last post Seamisty...
Was it Chess or another?...that was replaced.


----------



## Cookie1 (13 November 2010)

LTD said:


> Just re read your last post Seamisty...
> Was it Chess or another?...that was replaced.




Have just checked: On 23 April 2010 Wellington announced a change of registry from Computershare to Armstrong Registry Services.


----------



## seamisty (14 November 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> Have just checked: On 23 April 2010 Wellington announced a change of registry from Computershare to Armstrong Registry Services.



Yeh thanks Cookie, Chess is the holding statement of shares issured by Computershare. Seamisty


----------



## selciper (14 November 2010)

Just some trivia. I read today that a A380 super-jumbo costs $330 million to purchase. In its day, MFS PIF was supposedly worth more than two of the aircraft.


----------



## marcom (15 November 2010)

*ASIC battles high-level departures*

AFR 15 Nov 2010 12:01:41 PRINT EDITION: 15 Nov 2010
http://www.afr.com/p/national/asic_battles_high_level_departures_c17IPQqBeOnMtvhcpwWnSI

"Two more senior executives are walking out on the Australian Securities and Investments Commission as the regulator continues to battle high levels departures and criticism over its enforcement record."

Rats leaving the sinking ship????


----------



## seamisty (15 November 2010)

marcom said:


> *ASIC battles high-level departures*
> 
> AFR 15 Nov 2010 12:01:41 PRINT EDITION: 15 Nov 2010
> http://www.afr.com/p/national/asic_battles_high_level_departures_c17IPQqBeOnMtvhcpwWnSI
> ...



Not surprising the 'rats' are scurrying Marcom with headlines such as ::'ASIC chair grilled over Storm '  http://www.investordaily.com.au/10522.htm::


I am sure there will be more 'grilling' to come' for ASIC as it becomes clearer and clearer that when it comes to anything remotely complex which requires dedication and committment to unravel, ASIC has failed big time and continues to rely on results achieved from unrelated sources (generally at someone elses expense) before they decide to act, if at all. Get off your lazy butts ASIC and do the job we pay you for! It appears on the rare occassion when someone with clout who actually has the guts to raise questions and point out your failings, the only thing working efficiently in your dept is the exit doors!!
Seamisty


----------



## Duped (16 November 2010)

seamisty said:


> Not surprising the 'rats' are scurrying Marcom with headlines such as ::'ASIC chair grilled over Storm '  http://www.investordaily.com.au/10522.htm::....




Or it could be that the more diligent public servants are leaving. Their attempts to do the right thing being squashed.  They don't want to have anything to do with ASIC any more.  They finally woke up to see that they too were being used by corporate Australia to get through our caveat emptor. That ASIC status as a Commission is bogus.  That it's just a political tool. With politicians, as always, stuggling against the might of an organised and coordinated corporate Australia and their new best friends: the legal fraternity.

The real shift in power has come from the legal fraternity shifting further away from altruism towards $ billed in 6 minute chunks.

And as Abbott proposed, a remedial action is to elected judges.  Sounds ok to me.  Our legal system is more like the US than the UK now anyway.


----------



## LTD (16 November 2010)

Hello Duped,
     Your comments promt me to post some info that I found of interest re insolvency issues being examined and tweeked by professionals here in AU.

This seminar link might interest:
"Corporations Law Nation-wide Seminar 2 April 2008"

http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/aboutct/nationwideseminar_paper1.html
mentions UK and US comparisons and MFS mentioned under the heading,
"2.  The position of Directors of Larger Corporations"

How politics has interacted and continues to tweek things ie Sons of Gwalia or  the "statutory business judgement rule" a US concept, are found here:

http://mfsscl.treasurer.gov.au/Disp...0/004.htm&pageID=003&min=ceba&Year=&DocType=0

from other links there are recent seminars involving professionals involved, focusing on these issues...which impact on the matter of insolvency...trading...responsibilities etc. and that led me to start looking at an overall picture.

An article re arbitration changes: on a great site...
http://www.thenewlawyer.com.au/article/New-arbitration-laws-a-coup-for-Australia-A-G/519042.aspx
 made me consider why AU might be aligning our practice with international practice and trecking towards this method of dispute resolution...an ASIC characteristic it appears to me. What do you think?

I think it is frustrating and complicated and it takes time for all the powers involved to have their influence on outcomes...you see this as a "struggle against the might of an organised and coordinated corporate Australia"....etc Duped..
I also see a sort of tug of war from many directions and even from overseas and unless you keep holding your line ...you wont influence the outcome.
I have learnt a lot and still dont understand a lot more.

Do you think our super is in safe hands? and will our courts be able to make judgements based on laws put in place by governments or will we have to bend over backwards to please big money? 
How well can we spin this?
Heres a politians quote that makes this point well ,imo re Sons of Gwalia case.
"'Any direct benefits to aggrieved shareholders arising from non-subordination are outweighed by the negative impacts on shareholders generally as a result of restrictions on access to, and increases in, the cost of debt financing for companies,'...
and lets presume that government borrows heavily too.

I am not impressed and disagree with such a short sighted stance.


----------



## LTD (16 November 2010)

I am also hoping that our Big 4 Banks can hold up interest rates high enough to attract overseas deposits and then replace the financers mentioned in this quote... 
"  "'Any direct benefits to aggrieved shareholders arising from non-subordination are outweighed by the negative impacts on shareholders generally as a result of restrictions on access to, and increases in, the cost of debt financing for companies,'"

Is that how it works or could work?
 I think AU would benefit longterm and Australian mortgage holders can accommodate it.
The strength of our economy and banks should be used right now and I think offering  high interest rates when everyone overseas cant is a good thing if our Big 4 then invest in Australia.


----------



## Duped (16 November 2010)

LTD said:


> ....an ASIC characteristic it appears to me. What do you think?




I hope not.  Arbitration is supposed to mean out of court settlements and unpublished decisions.  This seems inconsistent with ASIC's self proclaimed job of providing a deterent affect (presumably by initiating legal action to set examples).



LTD said:


> Do you think our super is in safe hands?



  Depends how old you are. The first who cash out should be fine. As for the rest of us?  Who knows?  The system doesn't seem to have an adequate wind down plan. (Ha ha. Like PIF eh!) With ageing populations in Europe, US and Japan - who's going to buy all those 'assets' when all these gargantuan schemes start to sell assets to pay for the entitlements. It'll be biggest buyers market in history. And that doesn't bode well for asset prices.  Or am I missing something.

I know I'm expecting to have to work til I drop. And I'm expecting this will be because of inter generational tensions. Labour will be king. Or democracy will look completely different.  See if you can watch Eric Kaufman's presentation at this year's Festival of Dangerous Ideas. It might be on ABC's iView.

Either way they are very sticky hands. The Cooper review didn't like the size of the cut the money men are skimming.


----------



## atlas1950 (16 November 2010)

If you are somebody with influence,  could you make contact with Carneys and ask them for an update as to the progress of our Class Action?

It must be about 18 months since we have heard anything from them. I know we must be patient, but to be given orderly updates would not be asking for too much.

Many thanks,

Michael


----------



## marcom (17 November 2010)

Accountant guilty of insider trading
AFR 17 Nov 2010 PRINT EDITION: 17 Nov 2010

http://www.afr.com/p/national/accountant_guilty_of_insider_trading_lyvuXzBWtv4EE4zBXmnKhM

"A former senior manager at accounting firm KPMG, Andrew Dalzell, has pleaded guilty to insider trading after the firm alerted the corporate regulator to his suspicious trading in 2006." 

Pity the Audit Division wasn't as alert to MFS's skulduggery.


----------



## selciper (17 November 2010)

Having read the front page of today's Australian, I come away from it wondering whether the moral framework of this country is falling apart.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/


----------



## Duped (17 November 2010)

selciper said:


> Having read the front page of today's Australian, I come away from it wondering whether the moral framework of this country is falling apart.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/




or ... is being revealed.


----------



## seamisty (18 November 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/some-safety-nets-look-like-hammocks-20101117-17xlr.html

UNSUITABLE

The minutes from last month's creditors meeting of the former MFS-managed investment vehicle MFS Alternative Asset Ltd show the valiant fight made by the Gold Coast group's former chief financial officer, David Anderson, to ward off the appointment of a certain liquidator.

Anderson, who has already got to know the team from Bentleys Corporate Recovery reasonably well from his cameo appearances at the public examination into the collapse of MFS, expressed his concerns about the Brisbane corporate undertaker being handed the reins of AAL.

Anderson noted that 11 of the 13 former MFS companies and subsidiaries to which Bentleys was appointed were a result of his ''positive assistance'' when he was acting as a consultant. But he told the McGrathNicol-hosted meeting that Bentleys was not suited as the liquidator of AAL.

''In his opinion, Bentleys are struggling to deal with the current issues of the MFS group efficiently, including the payment of priority employee claims,'' note the minutes from the meeting.

''The AAL liquidation, once combined with the larger group, would result in the liquidation not being prioritised appropriately,'' Anderson told the meeting.

Anderson, apart from being a creditor, was a director and 33 per cent shareholder of AAL.

OTHER CREDITORS

Anderson tipped AAL into administration in August based on a $2200 debt owed to his personal company. A tussle ensued: Bentleys objected to Anderson's appointment of KordaMentha as the administrator (Bentleys was winding up a MFS subsidiary owed $64.6 million by AAL).

Anderson relented, nominated four possible administrators, and rolled a dice to pick the replacement. The number ''four'' came up and McGrathNicol became administrator.

Anderson, whose company Business Puzzle Solutions Pty Ltd was paid about $1 million in consulting fees from MFS's former liquidator, Deloitte (who was replaced by Bentleys last year), argued: ''Bentleys are the liquidators of a creditor of AAL, which puts them in direct conflict with other creditors of AAL as to the calculation and admission of claims.''

Aside from Anderson and his $2200, the only other listed creditor is the Australian Securities & Investments Commission, which is owed $1556. These ''other creditors'' are owed 0.006 per cent of what the Bentley's liquidated MFS is owed.

AAL's assets include $5.1 million of cash in a bank account, a 40 per cent stake in Vantage Asset Management, and a 7 per cent stake in the recently listed Aurora Funds Management.

At the original creditors meeting, Anderson said a conflict of interest could arise over Bentley's appointment of liquidator, given ''the possible forgiveness of the now $64 million debt owing to Octaviar Castle Pty Ltd [aka MFS]'' could be compromised. Had the loan been forgiven by MFS, AAL would now be sitting on $7 million of net assets. That could have translated well for Anderson, who bought a 33 per cent stake for $1


----------



## seamisty (18 November 2010)

atlas1950 said:


> If you are somebody with influence,  could you make contact with Carneys and ask them for an update as to the progress of our Class Action?
> 
> It must be about 18 months since we have heard anything from them. I know we must be patient, but to be given orderly updates would not be asking for too much.
> 
> ...



Hi Michael and all. I also feel we are long overdue an update re the Class Action so contacted John Walker IMF (executive director) and received a prompt response as follows ::::
"I expect to be able to provide you with a substantive update within two weeks or so. Until then, we are simply waiting on the reserved judgment"::


Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## atlas1950 (18 November 2010)

Hi Seamisty,

I knew I could count on you. I just thought it's been such a long time, we were due to hear some news (good or bad) from somebody who is involved in the class action. We are all in the same boat and we all need to be together.

Thanks again to everyone for all there research and input into this wonderful Forum.

Michael


----------



## seamisty (18 November 2010)

BREAKING NEWS::


Premium Income Fund
NSX release 18 November 2010
Wellington Capital and Armstrong Registry – Client Services
Activation of disaster recovery plans
Wellington Capital Limited, the responsible entity for Premium Income Fund,
advises that there was a catastrophic event caused by an electrical fault in its
Brisbane premises last night. Wellington Capital’s disaster recovery plan has
been activated.
None of the assets of Premium Income Fund are affected.
Wellington Capital expects it will be unable to respond to telephone or email
enquiries from investors for 48 hours.
Armstrong Registry Services, the registry provider to Premium Income Fund is
located in the same building as Wellington Capital. Similarly, Armstrong Registry
Services’ disaster recover plan has been activated. Armstrong Registry Services
also expects it will be unable to attend to registry matters for 48 hours.
Further announcements will be made in due course.
Wellington Capital apologises for any inconvenience.



http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723475.PDF


----------



## JohnH (18 November 2010)

Glad they told us of the catastrophic event!!

.................. puzzled why it would be "price sensitive"!!!


----------



## seamisty (18 November 2010)

JohnH said:


> Glad they told us of the catastrophic event!!
> 
> .................. puzzled why it would be "price sensitive"!!!



Prediction JohnH, the next PIF catastrophic event is yet to be announced but will be something like this: 'Due to the unforeseen 'catastrophic event' which occured in the offices of Wellington Capital on the 18th Nov 2010 it is now unlikely that PIF investors will see any further payment as promised this  year from Wollongong or other PIF proceeds until such times as WC staff have had time to conduct an orderly examination of documents to determine the extent of PIF related data damage. Wellington Capital will continue to monitor the situation and keep PIF investors fully informed of the situation:::

I wonder what caused the 'electrical problem'? The shredder working overtime or the 'hotline' overheating perhaps. Great to hear that PIF assets are safe! Of course they are safe (as relocated churches?), anything of value has already been FIRESALED and the majority of what remains only does so because no one else wants it or WC has another agenda for it. Wonder if the media will pick up on this, so far nothing in the news to substantiate a 'catastrophic event' in Queen St last night!

 Seamisty


----------



## selciper (18 November 2010)

We must press for much more information about this so-called catastrophic event - its causes and its effects, as well as being given information about any fire services reports.


----------



## JohnH (18 November 2010)

You could well be right Seamisty,  I got this from the Insurance Council of Australia's site!

What are catastrophic events?
Catastrophe events are large natural or *man-made* disasters that cause a significant number of insurance claims in a region. The eight largest catastrophe events in Australia, in insurance terms are (in 2007 adjusted dollar amounts):

No 1 
28/12/89 
Newcastle Earthquake 
$4,300,000,000

No 2
24/12/1974
Cyclone Tracey - Darwin
$3,600,000,000

No 3
14/4/1999
Sydney Hailstorm
$3,300,000000

No 4
25/1/1974
Brisbane Floods
$2,100,000,000



No 5
18/1/1985
Brisbane Hailstorm
$1,700,000,000



No 6
9/6/2007
Newcastle Storms 
$1,500,000,000



No 7
16/2/1983
Victorian Bushfires
$1,300,000,000   



No 8
7/2/2009
Victorian Bushfires
$1,009,000,000 

Catastrophe events involving large numbers of claims, or complex issues, are coordinated through a general insurance industry taskforce that is established for each event and closed when the insured community recovery is completed.

Edited and emphasised by JH - better make that JohnH


----------



## marcom (19 November 2010)

From the SMH Scott Rochfort Business Day
November 19, 2010

http://www.smh.com.au/business/winwin-follows-lossloss-for-gore-20101118-17z9u.html

CATASTROPHE

Disaster has befallen the manager of the MFS-founded Premium Income Fund, which announced yesterday that its ''disaster recovery plan has been activated''.

The Jenny Hutson-headed Wellington Capital yesterday announced ''there was a catastrophic event caused by an electrical fault in its Brisbane premises''.


----------



## selciper (19 November 2010)

A dictionary definition of catastrophe (noun):

any great and sudden misfortune or calamity


----------



## simgrund (19 November 2010)

As catastrophes go, this may be another for ASIC.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/corporate-watchdogs-iron-resolve-remains-20101118-17za1.html

I only wish they started to pursue our case with this sort of doggedness.
Regards,


----------



## seamisty (19 November 2010)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723478.PDF
Premium Income Fund
NSX Release: 19 November 2010

Disaster Recovery Plan implementation complete
Following the announcement made to the market yesterday, Wellington Capital Limited advises that the
successful implementation of its disaster recovery plan has been completed.
Managing Director Jenny Hutson said ‘We would like to thank all stakeholders and investors for their
patience during this time. My team would particularly like to thank all of the emergency services personnel
and essential service providers who assisted in the making safe of our premises, and indeed many other
premises in our building during the hours which followed the electrical fault.
We have been advised by our registry services provider, who are located in the same building, that they have
also successfully implemented their disaster recovery plan and are fully operational.’


----------



## JohnH (19 November 2010)

That has to be the quickest reaction ever from WC.
Pity they are not so prompt in letting us know what they are doing with our money!!!


----------



## LTD (20 November 2010)

Quote:
Originally Posted by selciper  
Having read the front page of today's Australian, I come away from it wondering whether the moral framework of this country is falling apart.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/ 
 then Duped

or ... is being revealed.

Yes and also interesting to skim stories on the same page... I find connections sometimes...as if the writer is following or thinking on one underlying subject ... following a train of thought or just showing the area that they are into...I'll call it sidenews to the central story and theres plenty,imo. 
gives another meaning to "being on the same page" imo.

This opinion piece from Rob Stock NZ wont please many PIN holders.
Titled " 

" Does continuous disclosure work for everyone? "

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4358306/Does-continuous-disclosure-work-for-everyone


and this article re C+M developments...  MFS involved via Vestar ..demise November 2007  not very well disclosed in Australia,imo.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4321668/Capital-Merchant-directors-fail-in-annulment-bid


----------



## LTD (22 November 2010)

I am not comparing but this article reminded me that ASIC must encounter many frozen funds ..

http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic...t-scrutinises-redemptions-20101119-180y3.html


----------



## selciper (22 November 2010)

The fact that PIF isn't obliged to have an AGM was sheeted home again by the recent Telstra AGM. The various radio and TV excerpts showed at least some form of democratic process at work for investors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya4T7EkRrmE


----------



## seamisty (22 November 2010)

http://business.scoop.co.nz/2010/11/22/opi-pacific-debenture-holders-no-clearer-about-payment/

OPI Pacific debenture holders no clearer about payment
By Paul McBeth

Nov. 22 (BusinessDesk) – Debenture holders of OPI Pacific Finance Ltd. are no clearer about what they will recoup from the failed finance company after the third report from receiver Colin McLoy of PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The lender’s complexity made it “extremely difficult” to estimate a return to secured debenture holders owed $198.4 million. The receiver has a claim worth A$418 million in the liquidation of Australian parent Octaviar Ltd., which agreed to cover losses relating to OPI Pacific loans under a put option.

In total, some 10,800 investors are owed about $256 million, though unsecured creditors are unlikely to get anything. McCloy said the firm, known as MFS Pacific Finance, is also unlikely to claw back anything from its $33.3 million loan book, or $20.9 million owed to subsidiary Opi Pacific Investment Pte due to higher ranking creditors.

“Providing an estimated return to secured debenture holders may also jeopardise any actions currently being exercised by the receivers,” McCloy said in his report. “An estimate of future dividends or the timing of dividends to secured debenture holders cannot be provided at this time.”

OPI’s trustee, Perpetual Trust, called in the receiver in September last year after a Queensland Supreme Court ruling put the parent company into liquidation.

The New Zealand lender convinced investors to let it put off its repayments to investors in May 2008, and had repaid 22.17 cents in the dollar to secured debenture holders before it was placed in receivership.

McCloy said he has passed on the findings of his initial investigation into OPI to the Securities Commission, Serious Fraud Office and Ministry of Economic Development.


----------



## simgrund (22 November 2010)

And some movement in Storm saga:
SMH Business

Macquarie's close Storm links
Stuart Washington
November 22, 2010

A SECRET alliance was forged between Macquarie Bank and the doomed financial planner Storm Financial, explosive documents have revealed.

Revelations about the existence of Macquarie's formal ''alliance document'' with Storm raise fresh questions about the level of the bank's responsibility in the disaster that engulfed the financial planner.

The issue of bank responsibility in Storm's collapse will be aired on Wednesday, when the Australian Securities and Investments Commission makes a statement after almost two years of investigations into the collapse.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Storm, based in Townsville, collapsed in sharp market falls in 2008, with the loss of $3 billion in investments. Its business model was based on borrowing against investors' homes to use as margin loan investments in the stockmarket.

The December 2004 Macquarie document titled "Working in alliance" contrasts with statements made by the bank's chief executive, Richard Sheppard, that there was only an arm's length relationship between the companies.

The 13-page document spells out special conditions extended to Storm by Macquarie's margin lending division. These conditions included a commitment by Macquarie not to communicate with Storm clients unless mutually agreed, and generous margin loan concessions that made the loans more risky.

A spokeswoman for Macquarie said the document was never signed by the parties. She said the principal terms of the relationship had been aired in Macquarie's contributions to a parliamentary inquiry into Storm last year.

The existence of an "alliance document" was not revealed to the parliamentary inquiry. Many of the 1050 Storm investors in Macquarie margin loans have complained they never received a margin call when the market fell sharply in late 2008.

Mr Sheppard has denied there were any systemic issues in Macquarie's response to Storm Financial. The bank has refused to follow the path of other banks in adopting a Storm resolution scheme.

Asked in the inquiry last year whether the relationship with Storm was too close, Mr Sheppard said: ''No, not at all. It was an arm's length relationship. In fact, the primary relationship, of course, is between the client and the financial adviser.''

*A solicitor examining a class action against Macquarie in relation to Storm, Stewart Levitt, said his clients' argument was banks had worked with Storm against the customers' interests. ''There was a massive conflict of interest whereby margin lenders' primary alliance was with Storm, not with their customers.''* bolding added

Regards,


----------



## LTD (22 November 2010)

LTD said:


> Good points Seamisty,
> 
> Off subject.....
> What did Storm specificly invest in?
> ...




Simgrunds post mentions ---Close Links...were there any? Thats what I thought there must be.

Could the storm model been a 'collection method' for investing in select products/shares/? ie How random were the things Storm bought?
Compare the  storm chain concept to owning a chain of advisors
something like Vestar( a chain of financial advisors that act like a tool to funnel funds in a preselected direction) ?...
and in storms case why werent or couldnt the holdings be offloaded/margin called. promptly?  Were their investments ? perhaps shares.. halted? or funds frozen? because the stock market was experiencing quite a few prolonged halts to trading etc. that resulted in stock never being traded again.

At least an alliance document has surfaced which starts to make some sense when considering basic human behaviour,imo.ie why advance large margin loans in what seems willy nilly way, in the first place?
 To invest willy nilly or was investment directed specifically? ... The latter makes more sense to me.

 But
if their investments were totally random...then I am on the wrong track.


----------



## marcom (23 November 2010)

From todays Business Day SMH 23 November Scott Rochfort 

http://www.smh.com.au/business/nowhere-to-hide-from-the-taxman-20101122-1847j.html

OH … REALLY

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission's head corporate grime fighter, Tony D'Aloisio, appears to be on the lookout for an aircraft carrier where he will be able to unfurl a large banner highlighting his recent successes.

After already titling ASIC's 2010 annual report as ''A Year of Achievement'', Mr D is set to replay this message on the speaking circuit.

''Responding to the global financial crisis - the ASIC story'' will be the title of Mr D's speech next week to the Trans-Tasman Business Circle's Chairman's Boardroom Series. The event will be ''off-the-record'' and closed to the media.

LIKE MINDS

 Brazilians are not just good at football and putting on a scantily clad festival. The nation's corporate regulator has been given the Tony D'Aloisio gold stamp of approval.

ASIC, in a recent update on its decisions on relief applications, noted how it granted relief to a Brazilian-regulated foreign financial services provider from having to hold a local financial services licence.

''Relief was required for the Brazilian-regulated FFSP's proposed appointment as investment manager of a registered managed investment scheme focused on Latin American-listed securities,'' noted the ASIC report.

The regulator said it was ''satisfied that the Brazilian regulatory regime was sufficiently equivalent to regulation by ASIC''.


----------



## Jadel (23 November 2010)

marcom said:


> From todays Business Day SMH 23 November Scott Rochfort
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/nowh... over there , to start up another Opus Prime?


----------



## marcom (24 November 2010)

A class action win for IMF:

Pan legal action settled for $50m
Ellie Harvey SMH
November 24, 2010

A SETTLEMENT, believed to be more than $50 million, has been reached in the Pan Pharmaceuticals class action against the federal government.

The settlement, announced yesterday, brings to a close a string of legal suits since 2003, and is belated vindication for the company's founder, Jim Selim, who died earlier this year after a stroke and battle with leukaemia...


In 2008 Mr Selim received a $50 million settlement from the federal government.

About 165 of Pan's customers, creditors and sponsors joined a class action, led by PharmaCare, seeking their own payments from the government and the TGA, saying they were left $120 million out of pocket by the action taken by authorities. Three other companies ran their own cases alongside it.

*The litigation funder, IMF, said if the settlement was approved by the court they would receive $24 million which would generate a profit after overheads but before tax of $17 million*.

Litigation funders generally receive about one-third of proceeds of settlement, making the settlement in favour of the class action more than $50 million.

*''Any settlement is a compromise from all parties concerned,'' said the executive director of IMF, John Walker.*

''[In] this particular dispute, I think everybody involved ought to be happy with the outcome.''

Pan's associates had accused the authorities of negligence and misfeasance of public office and some are claiming for a loss of share value, which lawyers for the TGA said there was no legal authority for.

Mr Walker hoped an application for approval would be before the court before year's end."

http://www.smh.com.au/national/pan-legal-action-settled-for-50m-20101123-185qt.html


----------



## seamisty (25 November 2010)

OFF TOPIC but may interest some. More $1 deals??? Don O'Rorke was previously touted as a 'serious bidder' in the Raptis Sheraton mirage. Jenny Hutson was Chris Mortons lawyer in 2003 when he was managing director of Property Funds Australia (PFA). At some stage Hutson was appointed a non-executive director but retired along with Morton when Mirvac aquired 100% of PFA in Oct 2007. Seamisty





http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...t-against-ororke/story-e6frg8zx-1225958832914

QUEENSLAND developer Trinity has written off a $3 million legal suit against Don O'Rorke, saying it wants to focus on its future. 

Yesterday's settlement ends a long saga that started with O'Rorke's Consolidated Properties merging with the high-profile Cairns-based Trinity, in what appeared to be a significant development force in the fast-growing Queensland and NSW coastal areas. But the 2006 merger never quite worked, and after an acrimonious split O'Rorke left the board in November 2008. He bought back the original Consolidated Properties business name and started pursuing new projects.

Last year the remainder of the Trinity board split over a $1m "success fee" paid to lobbyist Ross Daley and the share price dived.

Brisbane property identities Brett Heading and Chris Morton now serve as chair and deputy chair.


Trinity had pursued legal action worth $19.8m against its former project partners.

But a statement filed yesterday to the ASX indicated that Trinity would cancel all its securities owned by Mr O'Rorke -- about 12 per cent of the company -- for $1, while Mr O'Rorke would acquire all TDG (formerly Consolidated Properties) for $1.

Mr Heading said the settlement meant "the board has taken the view that for Trinity to confidently move forward it must resolve all outstanding legacy matters so it can focus on its next phase rather than continually being drawn back to the distractions of the past".


----------



## seamisty (26 November 2010)

ASIC lagging as usual re the Storm saga::


Banks face Storm action Stuart Washington 
November 26, 2010


THE corporate regulator is expected to take legal action against some of Australia's largest banks over the collapse of Storm Financial, after a breakdown in compensation talks.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission chairman Tony D'Aloisio is due to announce in Melbourne today a hardline stance against banks involved in the disastrous Storm business model.

The regulator's targets could not be confirmed last night. Commonwealth Bank, Bank of Queensland and Macquarie Bank were the largest lenders to Storm investors.

Advertisement: Story continues below About 3000 investors, many of them elderly, lost about $3 billion when Storm's business model of borrowing against houses to invest in the sharemarket fell apart in sharp market falls late in 2008.

A parliamentary inquiry last year heard evidence of irregularities in banks' adherence to prudent banking practices, including in the case of a 30-year-old with a brain injury whose $120,000 in life savings were wiped out by a large margin loan. ASIC's tough stance would represent the first big court action launched by the regulator as a consequence of the 2008 financial crisis.

It would also pit ASIC, with a patchy track record on major litigation, against some of Australia's best-resourced companies and their large legal teams.

Sources said the regulator had opted for litigation after almost six months of commercial negotiations for compensation.

Macquarie Bank would not comment yesterday. Commonwealth Bank and Bank of Queensland said they had not been approached by the corporate regulator about the issue.

Alone among the three, Commonwealth Bank adopted a formal dispute resolution procedure to deal with systemic problems in the way it handled Storm clients.

But it is believed the resolution procedure, which has been much maligned by former Storm investors, was not enough for the bank to avoid ASIC's focus on litigation.

The decision to take court action comes two years after investors were left penniless in Storm's collapse, with ASIC originally due to outline its actions in August last year.

The decision also means the regulator's lengthy negotiations for compensation, launched in March, have been fruitless.

The move to take court action met a muted response from Storm investor Brian Taylor of Sydney, who had been hoping for some form of settlement.

''To hear it's going to litigation doesn't make me crack the champagne cork,'' Mr Taylor said.

''As soon as I hear litigation mentioned, I think, 'How much longer?' ''

http://www.smh.com.au/business/banks-face-storm-action-20101125-1897z.html


----------



## marcom (26 November 2010)

That new logo's an inspired plan
Scott Rochfort SMH CBD
November 26, 2010
http://www.smh.com.au/business/that-new-logos-an-inspired-plan-20101125-18932.html

Higher standards ... Julie Berry strikes a blow for financial planners. Illustration: John Shakespeare

 Investors who have been burnt - or have even lost their life savings - through the collapse of entities such as Westpoint, Storm Financial and Timbercorp can finally rest easy.

As part of its ''journey to inspire community trust and confidence'', the Financial Planning Association unveiled its new logo yesterday.

The rebranding was apparently part of the association's effort ''to signify the higher professional standards of FPA members and distinguish them from non-members''.

Its chairwoman, Julie Berry, also unveiled a new strategic plan at the association's national conference on the Gold Coast yesterday.

''The timing of this move is exactly right. There is a new energy in the air,'' she said, trying to make the event sound like the financial planning equivalent of the Soviets' Prague Spring.

''We urge members to get behind our determination to elevate our industry to a universally respected profession,'' she said in a press release.

There is no word yet if changing the FPA's logo could result in some name changes. For one, will commissions be rebranded as asset management enhancement stipends? Will trailing commissions be rebadged as reciprocal yields?


----------



## seamisty (26 November 2010)

Another one of M Kings cronies bites the dust with missing assets::



'He could charm a hungry dog off a meat truck': the fall of a flamboyant multimillionaire Mark Hawthorne 
November 26, 2010

http://www.theage.com.au/business/h...timillionaire-20101125-1895r.html?from=age_sb


Flamboyant multimillionaire Berrnard Roux. 
BERNARD Roux has lived a privileged life. His office is located at 101 Collins Street in Melbourne. His preferred mode of transport is a private helicopter, which he used to fly between his properties.

One of them, in Portsea, is next to the home of billionaire Lindsay Fox. The neighbours made such a racket with their helicopters that Portsea resident Kate Baillieu complained to the local council.

Over three weeks in January, 2002, Ms Baillieu counted more than 90 trips in and out of the Fox and Roux residences, including a 7am flight on a Sunday.

Advertisement: Story continues below Until his recent financial woes, Mr Roux owned a Queensland-based polo team Hyde Hill, named after the street in which he lives in Melbourne's outer south-east. Hyde Hill has competed against James Packer's Ellerston polo team over the years.

Damien Johnston, one of Australia's top-ranked polo players, was employed to run the multimillion-dollar stable with more than 100 ponies at Kooralbyn Valley. Hyde Hill is next to Elysian Fields, the multimillion-dollar polo facility once owned by Michael King, the founder of failed investment company MFS.

Mr King, who is burdened with debts of more than $120 million after the $2.5 billion collapse of MFS, is a close friend of Mr Roux.

Now creditors are trying to track down any remnants of that remarkable empire.

In the Federal Magistrates Court, disgruntled investor Marcus Noonan is winding up two of Mr Roux's companies, and has employed investigators to try to track down assets.

Mr Roux has since made his creditors an offer of just $100,000, with Andrew Yeo of Pitcher Partners appointed his official trustee. According to bankruptcy filings prepared by Pitcher Partners, all of that wealth has evaporated. Mr Roux lists his assets at $25 of cash in a bank account, a financed Mercedes-Benz car and a painting worth $15,000, on which he also owes money.

It's not the first time that Mr Roux has been through the process. In 1991 he went bankrupt after paying creditors a few cents in the dollar. He emerged from bankruptcy in 1994.

Records show the next year his brother Phillip Roux transferred the title of a property company called Stockwell Downs, owned by Bernard Roux. The stamp duty paid to the state revenue on that transfer was nil, as the consideration was listed as ''entitled to equity''.

Times are tough, once again, for Bernard Roux and his creditors, but at least this time Mr Roux knows knows exactly where his beloved helicopter is.

After Commonwealth Bank tried to take possession of the chopper, it's now registered to Global Pacific Aerospace, a company that is controlled by Bruce Warner, the project manager of the Hilton resort and the sole director of nearly all of Mr Roux's embattled companies


----------



## seamisty (26 November 2010)

CLASS ACTION NEWS::

IMF and the Class Action applicants have now appointed HWL Ebsworth Lawyers to instruct the barristers in relation to future legal proceedings regarding our case.  Carney Lawyers no longer act for the Class Action. PIF unitholders who are participating in the Class Action can expect an update from IMF in the coming weeks.

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (26 November 2010)

seamisty said:


> CLASS ACTION NEWS::
> 
> IMF and the Class Action applicants have now appointed HWL Ebsworth Lawyers to instruct the barristers in relation to future legal proceedings regarding our case.  Carney Lawyers no longer act for the Class Action. PIF unitholders who are participating in the Class Action can expect an update from IMF in the coming weeks.
> 
> Seamisty




I wonder what that means for us? The HWL Ebsworth profile:

http://www.hwlebsworth.com.au/default.asp?page=/about hwl ebsworth/our+profile


----------



## Blueboy1 (26 November 2010)

seamisty said:


> CLASS ACTION NEWS::
> 
> IMF and the Class Action applicants have now appointed HWL Ebsworth Lawyers to instruct the barristers in relation to future legal proceedings regarding our case.  Carney Lawyers no longer act for the Class Action. PIF unitholders who are participating in the Class Action can expect an update from IMF in the coming weeks.
> 
> Seamisty




Seamisty, Do you know why this change has been made,it appears strange that they would change horses in mid stream.
Blueboy1


----------



## Duped (26 November 2010)

seamisty said:


> Another one of M Kings cronies bites the dust with missing assets::
> 
> ... " ...After Commonwealth Bank tried to take possession of the chopper, it's now registered to Global Pacific Aerospace, a company that is controlled by Bruce Warner, the project manager of the Hilton resort and the sole director of nearly all of Mr Roux's embattled companies"




Oh those poor banker and their poor decisions. Well at least they can push the consequences on to their clients and not the poor bankers and their staff and shareholders.




seamisty said:


> ASIC lagging as usual re the Storm saga:: ...




Oh goodie.  Hope this goes all the way.  ASIC's AFS Licence experiment should go on trial.


----------



## seamisty (26 November 2010)

Blueboy1 said:


> Seamisty, Do you know why this change has been made,it appears strange that they would change horses in mid stream.
> Blueboy1



Hi Blueboy and all, the change from Carney's to Hwl Ebsworth Lawyers was made after careful consideration by all parties to be in the best interest of the class action and no other motive. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## LTD (26 November 2010)

I havent seen mellifuous posting here lately re FMF ... you would all be aware of  some similarities to PIF..
This article suggests that public examinations are going to take place to fill in the blanks.... 

http://www.smh.com.au/business/public-probe-to-soothe-hot-tempers-20101121-182l4.html


----------



## Dexter (26 November 2010)

Following are excerpts of a letter I received today from ASIC re complaints against W.C. on behalf of PIFI.




> ASIC is aware that many unit holders are concerned about the fall in the value of units in the Fund.  As the Fund is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange, it is the market that determines the value of units in the Fund.  Asic is unable to comment on the value of units in the Fund.
> 
> ASIC's powers primarily relate to ensuring that companies and managed investment schemes disclosure complies with the law.  ASIC is unable to intervene in the operations of companies or managed investment schemes simply because a company or scheme is not performing as expected.  Risk and its relationship to return is a matter for investors.
> 
> ...



[/

It is very obvious that ASIC are not taking our complaints seriously and had not investigated the more serious breaches reported to them.  W.C. may have written the above response!!

So it appears we are on our own.

Where to from here?


----------



## seamisty (26 November 2010)

Dexter said:


> Following are excerpts of a letter I received today from ASIC re complaints against W.C. on behalf of PIFI.
> 
> 
> [/
> ...



 Dexter I feel the same, ASIC have procrastinated with us for well over 2 years with no result, is it any wonder they are considered a waste of taxpayers money by so many?  A further example of ASICs ineptitude, offering too little too late. Seamisty

Listen to MP3 of this story ( minutes) 
Alternate WMA version | MP3 download 
MARK COLVIN: Former clients of the collapsed firm Storm Financial and some major banks have met plans by the corporate watchdog to launch legal action against the directors with scepticism.

About 3,000 Storm clients were left financially devastated when the stock market fell in 2008. Many were elderly and had borrowed against their homes to invest after banks allegedly over-estimated their incomes.

Today the Australian Securities and Investments Commission announced plans to pursue Storm's directors, and three banks, over allegations ranging from "unconscionable conduct" to the unregistered operation of a managed investment scheme.

Annie Guest reports from Brisbane.

ANNIE GUEST: Two years on, the emotion is still raw for former Storm Financial clients.

Jane Zinn was a self-funded retiree who is now on a pension.

JANE ZINN: Everytime you have to do something, whether it's Centrelink or what it has to be, it just, it's all open again.

ANNIE GUEST: She's one of about 3,000 people left in severe distress after investing through Storm Financial. Many have lost their homes. Others are preparing to face that upheaval.

This man didn't want to reveal his name for fear of jeopardising a Commonwealth Bank payout.

FORMER STORM INVESTOR: We still have our home but we will have to sell it because we still have outstanding debts.

ANNIE GUEST: What do you think about ASIC's plans to pursue the Cassimatis and the banks over Storm's collapse?

FORMER STORM INVESTOR: ASIC, I think, will prosecute a case but whether or not their successful, we only look at their history and the previous cases they've prosecuted and they haven't been successful.

ANNIE GUEST: ASIC announced plans today to bring civil penalty proceedings against Storm's directors and founders, Emmanuel and Julie Cassimatis, for failing to take into account the personal circumstances of investors.

Some clients' pension incomes were grossly overestimated when they borrowed against their homes to invest. Many remain furious they didn't receive margin calls.

The corporate watchdog says it's also planning to pursue damages and compensation from the Bank of Queensland, and the franchisee of its Townsville North Ward branch, and Macquarie Bank over unconscionable conduct and liability as linked credit providers of Storm.

As well, the Bank of Queensland and Macquarie Bank, along with the Commonwealth Bank are threatened with action over the unregistered operation of a managed investment scheme.

But ASIC made it clear it prefers a commercial settlement and will give the banks three weeks for further discussions.

However, that's the less likely path, according to Melbourne University corporate law expert Professor Ian Ramsay.

IAN RAMSAY: I think at this stage one might have thought that if there was going to be a commercial settlement we might have seen it by now.

ANNIE GUEST: And so fiercely contested litigation would appear more probable, but....

IAN RAMSAY: Even if one or more of the financial institutions lose they would appeal, there would be multiple avenues of appeal available. This could very readily take a number of years.

ANNIE GUEST: In statements to the stock exchange all three banks say they're disappointed by ASIC's decision. 

Macquarie Bank has vowed to strongly defend itself. The Commonwealth Bank says the move will only create further uncertainty for people. 

And there's another player affected by ASIC's announcement: a class action lawyer who today invited former Storm Financial clients to a luxury Brisbane hotel where they may once have afforded to stay.

Stewart Levitt warned them that the CBA is getting off lightly and ASIC had been lax in regulating Storm, and couldn't be trusted.

STEWART LEVITT: And that is why it is so important that we continue to take action against the banks ourselves and so that you have a second line of defence, so that ASIC can't get out there and collude and sell you out in circumstances where there is still another case running either in tandem or maybe even ahead of the ASIC case.

ANNIE GUEST: The Sydney-based lawyer launched a class action in July on behalf of 300 people with similar assertions made by ASIC today about the operation of an unregistered managed investment scheme.

Meanwhile, the corporate watchdog's move has been welcomed by the Labor Party's Bernie Ripoll, who chaired the parliamentary inquiry that examined Storm's collapse.

He described it as a watershed moment for the long suffering victims.

MARK COLVIN: Annie Guest.


----------



## LTD (27 November 2010)

NZ update re OPI Pacific... 


http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4376374/Outlook-grim-for-OPI-investors

"McCloy and Noone said they had finished investigating the activities of OPI, its directors and third parties before the receivership, and "due to the outcome of our investigation we have reported our findings to the following government authorities: the Securities Commission, the Serious Fraud Office and the Ministry of Economic Development.

They said no further details could be given of their findings because "doing so may prejudice any proceedings that may be taken by the receivers and/or any government authority in New Zealand and/or *Australia*.'' continues

I highlighted Australia..where they mention any government authority.. in?Australia.. a country might have more influence than unit holders?

Did PIF lend to OPI or was it the other way round ? Seamisty or others can you remember if there was any interaction? My recolection of news article is starting to fade after so long.


----------



## LTD (27 November 2010)

On a different topic.Seamisty you made Madoff comparisons way back and might be interested in this article...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/24/ubs-sued-bernie-madoff

Unfortunately I dont completely grasp the banks position "by serving as their sponsor, custodian and administrator."


I dont follow all the details but note the term "feeder funds" ?
which is how I saw storm and vestar...if investments were not random.

Sorry if its too unrelated and off  the PIF topic.


----------



## Jadel (28 November 2010)

LTD said:


> NZ update re OPI Pacific...
> 
> 
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4376374/Outlook-grim-for-OPI-investors
> ...




LTD thank you for your tireless efforts and assiduous research , it is greatly appreciated.  I know a person   who had  a considerable amount of money invested in OPI Pacific . This gentleman  approached ASIC and the serious crime squad in Australia  and was rebuffed.

PIF supposedly lent money from the RBOS loan tho OPI PAcific . We  know the this was a fraudulent transaction and the mnoney went instead to pay out the Fortress loan. AAIC was alerted to the misappopriation of these funds
two years ago.

From direct personal experience, ASIC would have the utmost difficulty monitoring the the droppings of a herd of wandering Brontosaurus with a microscope .


----------



## seamisty (28 November 2010)

LTD said:


> NZ update re OPI Pacific...
> 
> 
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4376374/Outlook-grim-for-OPI-investors
> ...



Hi LTD, The PIF is owed $17.5 million from OPI Pacific Finance. The money was transferred from the PIF in Dec 2007 by the former RE, MFS Investment Management Ltd and is included in the portfolio of PIF 'dud investments' (unsecured loans)which were allegedly accompanied by some 'creative back dated documents'.

http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.ns...nst+former+officers+of+MFS+Group?openDocument

Cheers Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (28 November 2010)

LTD said:


> NZ update re OPI Pacific...
> 
> 
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4376374/Outlook-grim-for-OPI-investors
> ...




LTD thank you for your tireless efforts and assiduous research , it is greatly appreciated.  I know a person   who had  a considerable amount of money invested in OPI Pacific . This gentleman  approached ASIC and the serious crime squad in Australia  and was rebuffed.

PIF supposedly lent money from the RBOS loan to OPI PAcific . We  know  this was a fraudulent transaction and the funds went instead to pay out the Fortress loan. ASIC was alerted to the misappopriation of these funds two years ago.

From direct personal experience, ASIC would have the utmost difficulty monitoring the  droppings of a herd of wandering Brontosaurus with a microscope .


----------



## selciper (28 November 2010)

I found this summary of the Aristocrat Leisure Class Action interesting, especially the time span from start to finish.

http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/.../aristocrat-leisure-limited-class-action.aspx


----------



## seamisty (29 November 2010)

Michael Pascoe appears rather scathing of ASIC's belated efforts re Storm Financial.  

http://www.smh.com.au/business/more-storm-financial-targets-asic-et-al-20101129-18cny.html

'And while it might be nice to see action commenced against Storm's founders, one might wonder what position ASIC has on the Cassimatis' many lieutenants – the advisors who sold the story, helped take the fat fees and who have now moved on to keep offering financial advice under other banners, all without personal cost. Wave 'em through without penalty'.


----------



## Mary Lynch (29 November 2010)

Hi all,    I have emailed Carneys and the IMF contact we were given some (considerable) time ago for up-to-date info on the CA and received no reply. Is that because there is no progress?  Is there a website where progress is posted? Has anyone received any updates in the last 9 months?
I would welcome any response here.


----------



## seamisty (29 November 2010)

Mary Lynch said:


> Hi all,    I have emailed Carneys and the IMF contact we were given some (considerable) time ago for up-to-date info on the CA and received no reply. Is that because there is no progress?  Is there a website where progress is posted? Has anyone received any updates in the last 9 months?
> I would welcome any response here.



Hi Mary, IMF and the Class Action applicants have now appointed HWL Ebsworth Lawyers to instruct the barristers in relation to future legal proceedings regarding our case. Carney Lawyers no longer act for the Class Action. PIF unitholders who are participating in the Class Action can expect an update from IMF in the coming weeks.

The change from Carney's to Hwl Ebsworth Lawyers was made after careful consideration by all parties to be in the best interest of the class action and no other motive.

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (29 November 2010)

An old movie had a line I'll always recall. A barrister is briefing a fearful client: "And remember, son, you're in a court of law, not a court of justice."


----------



## seamisty (30 November 2010)

Dexter said:


> Following are excerpts of a letter I received today from ASIC re complaints against W.C. on behalf of PIFI.
> 
> 
> [/
> ...



 I received a copy of that letter yesterday also Dexter. The following article in todays smh titled *'Welcome to Australia, land of bloated rogues'* sums up my sentimants exactly and is worthy of a read. The summnation of the article is::

'Try typing into Google the words ''ASIC and toothless''. There are hundreds of listings. Except that it isn't true. ASIC doesn't have a dental problem. It is missing a spine.'

The link to the article is  http://www.smh.com.au/business/welcome-to-australia-land-of-bloated-rogues-20101129-18dzf.html

Seamisty


----------



## marcom (30 November 2010)

The negative media comment about ASIC's ineptitude continues:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/welcome-to-australia-land-of-bloated-rogues-20101129-18dzf.html

Welcome to Australia, land of bloated rogues
November 30, 2010
SMH BusinessDay  » Ian Verrender 

Bernie Madoff, architect of the world's biggest Ponzi scheme, made a fundamental error in his grand plan to fleece American investors of $65 billion: he should have moved to Australia.

While the potential returns may not have been as large, he at least could have operated with impunity even after the whole thing blew up.

Rather than serving 150 years in jail (he will be 222 by the time he is released), Madoff could have spent his dotage living off his ill-gotten gains, smiling blithely from the pages of celebrity gossip mags and dreaming up an even bigger scheme had he shifted Down Under.
Advertisement: Story continues below

That seems to be the way we do things here these days.

Two years after some of the biggest corporate collapses in history, the nation's largest superannuation fraud, and the implosion of a string of high risk investment schemes, our courts remain a hive of inactivity when it comes to corporate crime.

Aside from the Opes Prime debacle, *not one criminal prosecution has been launched against anyone involved in the collapses of 2008*. *That's despite numerous calls for investigations from the liquidators of those failed corporations.*

There are two possible explanations. Either Australians finally have cast off their convict shackles and embarked on a life of virtue, occasionally beset by bouts of misfortune beyond their control, or someone isn't doing their job.

On Friday, the corporate regulator finally shifted into gear. It launched a $1 billion damages action against the financiers behind the Storm Financial debacle; the Commonwealth Bank, Macquarie and the Bank of Queensland.

Launch isn't exactly the correct word. It merely threatened to launch action if the banks didn't come to the party on a commercial settlement within three weeks. Given negotiations on a settlement have been under way for eight months, that seems unlikely.

Action should have been taken long ago. And the unfortunate message broadcast by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to the corporate world on Friday was this: ''We know you did the wrong thing, that you broke the law. But we'll forget all about it if you hand back some of the cash. Please?''

It's an odd philosophy for an organisation that, under its parliamentary charter, lists as a primary function ''enforcing the law''.

But it's a philosophy that has become entrenched within ASIC and one that pre-dates the chairman Tony D'Aloisio. The highlight of the previous incumbent Geoff Lucy's reign was the deal struck with the former Telstra director and alleged comedian Steve Vizard who admitted using confidential information in exchange for being pursued only through the civil courts.

*If there were any doubts ASIC had gone soft, the judge in that civil case, Justice Ray Finkelstein, took it upon himself to double the penalty recommended by the regulator.*

D'Aloisio has made no secret of the fact he would rather retrieve money for investors than fight legal battles against well resourced corporations. That's all well and good. But one of the essential elements in the administration of law is that justice not only should be done, it should be seen to be done.

Instead, the investigation of corporate collapses appears to have been outsourced to liquidators. In the cases of Babcock & Brown, ABC Learning and Allco Finance, liquidators have made a point of drawing ASIC's attention to issues they believe warrant urgent investigation. *What have we seen? Nothing.
*
B&B alone blew up more than $5 billion of creditors' and shareholders' funds. The well heeled principals of that firm all have moved on into new and ever more lucrative activities, some having hived off a chunk of the old empire.

Cast your mind back to the HIH collapse. That sparked a royal commission, the findings of which led to several high profile criminal prosecutions and a complete overhaul of the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority.

*And while ASIC professes to seek compensation solutions, that too largely has been left to investors who have bypassed the regulator and resorted to class actions.
*
As an organisation, it seems obsessed with performance statistics. Last year it raised $545 million for the government and cost just $274 million. So it's a profit centre. Terrific. It had a 91 per cent success rate in court, which suggests it only takes on the easy cases.

Every decade or so, each time there is a market collapse and debt-riddled high flyers come crashing to earth, irate investors call for better protection, new laws and a stronger regulatory regime. But Australia has a solid regulatory framework and a robust legal system, every bit as capable of administering corporate law as well as in the US.

So why doesn't it happen?

A good place to start is at the top. Those who have been appointed to run ASIC all have been either corporate lawyers or senior accountants. None have had any experience in law enforcement.

During the course of their careers, high-profile lawyers often shift between advocating for the prosecution, the defence or sitting in judgment on the bench.

But it is rare for any to end up running an enforcement agency. That's what ASIC is, an enforcement agency. That's what s1(2) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 obliges it to be. That's what it needs to become.

*Try typing into Google the words ''ASIC and toothless''. There are hundreds of listings. Except that it isn't true. ASIC doesn't have a dental problem. It is missing a spine.*

Emphasis added.


----------



## selciper (30 November 2010)

Whenever a large institution becomes inert, it must be the chairman and the board who shouldt take responsibility. The MFS experience tells us that a chairman nowadays plays a different role from the traditional model. Why doesn't MP Hockey turn his attention towards ASIC?


----------



## Jadel (30 November 2010)

10-11CA ASIC says beware of unsolicited offers for units in frozen funds

Tuesday 30 November 2010


ASIC today warned consumers about unsolicited offers to buy units in frozen funds.

ASIC has received complaints from investors who have received unexpected offers to buy their units in frozen funds, at prices less than the total amount that investors could expect to receive from their funds under a redemption facility or withdrawal offer.

A frozen fund is a registered managed investment scheme that was marketed on the basis that investors had an ongoing or periodic right to redeem their investments on request, but has since then suspended that right. 

Unsolicited offers for units in frozen funds will usually offer to buy the units for substantially less than the amount a member would expect to receive from the fund under a redemption facility. If you receive an unexpected offer, and you are thinking about accepting it, you should:

a) make sure you try to understand how much your investment is really worth, and how and when you will be able to access your funds – call the responsible entity of your fund to get information that will help with this
b) think carefully before you accept an unexpected offer: do you really need to sell?
c) talk to the responsible entity of your fund or get advice from a licensed financial planner, so you can make an informed choice.

A freeze on withdrawals does not necessarily mean that members will not receive their money back or that distributions will stop or not recommence. The length of time it will take for capital to be returned to members who want it back, and any losses on the fund assets, vary significantly from fund to fund. Many frozen funds are providing regular withdrawal offers, and many still pay distributions. 

Some frozen funds expect to be able to provide members with access to their full entitlements, paid in instalments over time. In these cases it may not be in the best interests of investors to accept a heavily discounted offer.

ASIC has worked closely with responsible entities of frozen funds to encourage and help them improve investors' access to their money. ASIC has modified the law to allow responsible entities to make periodic withdrawal offers and to return capital to members in exceptional circumstances of hardship. Hardship includes where members cannot meet reasonable and immediate family living expenses, have medical costs, funeral expenses, imminent foreclosure or are unemployed for at least 3 months without other means. 

Changes to the law that are expected to come into effect shortly will make it illegal for people to get copies of registers of unit holders if the purpose for obtaining the copy is improper. That means it will be more difficult for people to get contact details of unit holders and make these unexpected offers. 

Until then, if you receive an unexpected offer for your investment in a frozen fund ASIC strongly urges you to speak to the responsible entity of your fund or to get independent advice from a licensed financial planner before accepting.


----------



## Duped (30 November 2010)

Greig and Harwood were sacked from administering OCV weren't they? If so, this'll put a chill down your spines. 

According to BusinessSpectator: $210m was spent building Noosa Sanctuary and the RACV picked it up for $60m. Even the first mortgage holder, HBOS, took a 50% haircut.  HBOS might have benefitted from following the PTQ's lead.

http://preview.qbr.com.au/news/articleid/70664.aspx

RACV SNAPS UP NOOSA SANCTUARY RESORT

"*November 5, 2010*

The Victorian auto club RACV has added key Queensland property, Noosa Sanctuary, to its expanding resorts division.

Deloitte  partners John Greig, Chris Campbell and Nicholas Harwood have this week  announced the successful sale of the five-star resort and residential  complex.

The trio were appointed receivers and managers of Resort  Corp Noosa Sanctuary No. 1 on March 22, and were aiming for a sale  before November 30.

“When we were appointed back in March, the resort was newly completed and hadn’t commenced trading,” Greig explains.

“We  opened and launched the resort just before Easter with the appointment  of Mirvac Hotels as managers in order to enhance value and demonstrate  the appeal of the resort to interested parties throughout the marketing  process,” he says.

RACV purchased the Noosa complex after a  successful sales and marketing campaign by Damian Winterburn and James  Walsh of CapLand Real Estate Advisors and Rem Rafter and Rob Cross of CB  Richard Ellis (CBRE).

“There were more than 100 inquiries from  local, interstate and overseas groups for the resort. Considering the  quality of the resort and the opportunity to create further value, this  level of interest was not a surprise,” Winterburn says.

Noosa  Sanctuary is located close to Noosa’s Main Beach and Hastings Street,  comprises 149 apartments and villas and a central management and  amenities building, including a restaurant, bar, business centre, day  spa, tennis courts and pool. 

RACV already owns five resorts, including RACV Royal Pines Resort on the Gold Coast."


----------



## Duped (30 November 2010)

Jadel said:


> 10-11CA ASIC says beware of unsolicited offers for units in frozen funds
> 
> Tuesday 30 November 2010
> 
> ...




EH!!!!!!!! This is an unbelievably reckless announcement by ASIC.

PIF is still a frozen fund. ASIC is effectively warning people off buying PIF units on the NSX.  Even  at a MASSIVELY discounted 7.2c. 

Undoing any good work that WC has done to make PIF units attractive to buyers.

What have we done to ASIC to make them loath us like this? 

I wonder if WC are going to sit by and let us cop this government interference in the free market.


----------



## Duped (30 November 2010)

Ignore my last post.  I misread the ASIC announcement


----------



## JohnH (30 November 2010)

"10-11CA ASIC says beware of unsolicited offers for units in frozen funds

Tuesday 30 November 2010


ASIC today warned consumers about unsolicited offers to buy units in frozen funds."

A timely warning.  David Tweed is on the prowl again! see 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tweed

I doubt though that he will be making any offers for PIF.

Be wary of any correspondence from 
‡ Country Estate and Agency Company
‡ National Exchange Corporation
‡ Australian and New Zealand Exchange
‡ National Share Purchasing Corporation Pty Ltd (NSPC)
‡ Direct Share Purchasing Corporation Pty Ltd (DSPC)
‡ Australian Share Purchasing Company Pty Ltd (ASPC)
‡ Prudential Nominees
‡ Colonial Capital Corporation Limited (in New Zealand)
‡ Share Buying Group (SBG)	‡ Hassle Free Share Sales Pty Ltd (HFSS)
Stokes (Australasia) Ltd (SKS)


----------



## seamisty (30 November 2010)

JohnH said:


> "10-11CA ASIC says beware of unsolicited offers for units in frozen funds
> 
> Tuesday 30 November 2010
> 
> ...



Thanks for that JohnH, Poor old PIF looks like it has been cast aside by WELLINGTON CAPITAL PTY LTD. It appears now the illustrious PIF non leader Ms Hutson who promised so much and delivered so little  has forgotten us and  is occupied elsewhere now she has the previous S8 entrepreneur driving force back at the helm of her lastest foray , Chris Scott. Am I missing something or is Wellington Capital boutique investment merchant bank a failure? No website updates, no recent glowing accolades, stuff all, same as we have come to expect from  WC in their capacity of RE to the PIF? The saying ' no news is good news' does not seem to equate to the PIF.  No news appears to mean WC  has nothing to spruick about and is keeping a low profile. UMNN, where are you IAC appointed reps, not one single response or reply to my emails on behalf of Action group members?(who it appears did not appoint you).

 Seamisty


----------



## Duped (1 December 2010)

The thing is: who are we going to replace WC with? 

The way a numpty like me sees it, and you'll probably all have heard this before from me, is that this capital serfdom is wholly and solely the fault of the Federal Government and ASIC and their peddling in the market. They promised what they couldn't deliver. Why?  Because they are conceited and/or foolish. Or worse, preying on us.

The basics of our stock exchanges evolved over centuries in societies long before and far away from Australia.  (We imported someone else's expensive learning.) 

People are only human. There's information asymmetry, resource asymmetry and ethics asymmetry.  So to get money (capital) flowing, investing evolved over a long period of time into stock markets. And it has been a resounding success for humanity. No more pouches of gold (capital) stashed under floor boards. That capital was unleashed more safetly on the world by 100s of millions of citizens making decisions every day.  Decisions that were improving their wisdom. And the wisdom of the whole organism grew accordingly. 

In exchange for taking the type of risks like us PIF investors did, investors found that they had to demand immediate liquidity in stock markets and have the bid and ask prices made public for all to see. It's that way .... well ..... because .... it needs to be. Harsh but fair price discovery. Let the market decide.  Because if you give the company managers an inch, they'll take the whole rope. You can't stand over their shoulders all day. But ASIC cut that feedback loop for us PIF investors. ASIC took price discovery  away from us. MFSIM decided what the units are worth. And look where that lead us.  Many PIF investors were lucky to get out in time but the rest of us are the collateral damage.

The Federal Government and ASIC believed they were smarter than 100s of years of collective learning.  Of course they aren't and have, predictably,  failed us.  They haven't completely failed though, and I'm not convinced that it wasn't deliberate: they have succeeded in prising open our wallets and get our money flowing through the economy. Misallocated it away from where it would sensibly and more safetly go. (They probably have to pry our wallets open because our capital (savings) is already badly depleted by their taxes.)  But either way, it benefits the Government.  They may have failed us, but they haven't failed others.

You should all read up about the Velocity of Money.  Higher velocity means more taxes and more jobs. More GDP.  The cost: was a counter evolutionary increase of risk for us PIF investors. This isn't financial 'innovation', this is sending us back to the middle ages of finance. A time when life was more centrally controlled by elites. And the time of Guilds.

Look at how both sides of Federal Government are getting stuck into the Banks. Where do you think most of our capital (savings) would have gone if we hadn't invested in PIF? It would almost all have gone to the banks as deposits or for buying shares. Banks who have much tougher lending criteria. Banks who are being criticised for not lending more to businesses (ie loosening their lending standards). Banks who all federal political parties feel the need to contain. 

Or we would have invested in  companies like Westfield and Centro or into funds managed by trusted brands like AMP. Again, these are organisations that slow the velocity of money. We are ants trampled by the Federal Government and ASIC's game of push and shove with the free market in this 'mixed market'. Either that or ASIC are too stupid to realise they've been hustled.

There will be no knight in shining armour to save PIF.  Until WE change PIF's constitution, our fund will remain in a different market. Out in the shadows with the shadowy managers who haven't made it in the more brightly illuminated, main stage market. The honourable knights are on the main stage: in corporations on the ASX. They are holding up despite being measured by things like AGMs, ROI and a liquid market. And being rewarded well for it. Any other business structure means the managers have something to hide. As we have found out the hard way. Our fund has always been a second rate investment. 

Our only fault really was trusting the Government. Without the Government brand all over PIF (Constitutions, PDS, AFSL, Corporations Act, etc) many of us wouldn't have touched it with a barge pole. We should have trusted our instincts, the wisdom of our ancestors and the market. Not Commonwealth brands. 

We're in an abusive relationship with the Government and their Commissions. We turn to them for help because they tell us they can help us, while not realising that they themselves are the cause of our suffering.

Even this latest ASIC release is contrary to the free market principles ASIC pretends to promote. The market is currently valuing PIF units at around 20% of WC's valuation.  So what do ASIC think they are doing telling other frozen fund investors not to accept similar offers? I.e. offers down around 20% of the REs 'audited valuation'. The market has spoken re PIF. Who's to say all these other frozen funds aren't fairly valued at the same level? Risk and reward. The market has spoken and is saying that a fund like PIF is comparatively so risky (because of Cth rules and ASIC's policing) that you could expect to only pay 1/5 of the REs valuation. I disagree, but who's to say that this isn't an appropriate valuation of the risk? Who do ASIC think they are interfering with the market? Lords? Bishops?

ASIC shows itself as trying to distort the market. Why? The terrifying  consequence is that ASIC is removing some of the market's downward pressure on the asset 'valuations' done by the REs.  (How silly does WC's 35c valuation look compared to 7.2c by the market?) And the REs remuneration is based on these 'valuations'. By cutting the link with free market assessment of 'value', the REs just end up getting paid more than if it was left to the the market to decide.  It's all so distorted, artificial and devolutionary.  But ASIC keeps digging the hole deeper and deeper.  

It all looks to me like ASIC hates the free market and hates us. But loves their licenced financial advisors, licenced REs, licensed valuers, licenced auditors, licenced administrators and licenced liquidators.  They love anything they can licence. They want to be a master of Guilds. They don't want to be the police. And they're sacrificing us for their own benefit. They love their central control.  They've failed us. All that liquidity was from stock markets that didn't grow because of central controllers like ASIC, it grew in spite of them.  It grew from free cities like Bruges and Venice. And ASIC are peddling in the market and steering people like us away from the free market and into their own untested, Guild controlled schemes.

This ASIC announcment is just ASIC trying to hide the truth about ASIC's own schemes from the bright light of free market price discovery. And helping out ASICs RE Guild and AFSL Guild in the process.

As for the legal fraternity helping us?  Well, they seem to be more concerned with stuffing their own pockets. Racketeering on the steps of the courts.

Thanks for making it to the end of this essay.


----------



## LTD (1 December 2010)

Hello to Jadel and thanks for your words of encouragement...only wish I was more educated re these things.
Duped you have put a lot into that last post ...some of your sentiment I follow and cant help but wonder how far behind our culture is to those that invented investing, shares etc.How fast these things are changing and the "increased velocity" of investing seems incomprehensible when I think of algorithmic trading etc.
I think many people are disallusioned with the superannuation concept and governments like the shortterm benefits, cant predict the longterm and have to play catchup when nice ideas hide nasty traps.
I wish that all the brilliant numbers people were concertating on these issues instead of playing dodge the taxman under our present tax system.
If labor promise a decisive 2011 ..I hope that they start fighting for our country on a financial front...

What I cant understand is how you can morph units into shares without affecting some sort of legal ownership status and other attributes? What were you told before voting on this?
and if you do morph them surely you would have to value at time of change...incurr tax...and then start with a new investment? at that new value? with new status? Thats what I would ask ASIC when they say that your investment is listed and under a new regeim of market forces....etc.
I had trouble thinking these things are now shares ...and grasping their new status/ etc
when PIF changed and listed on the NSX as PIN.
I understand that you voted on this and it must have been in the constitution? and qualified people must be handling this process ...
I have no expertise to question the process...but ASICs reply posted earlier, made me think more about the change that occured to your holdings..
The low price of shares does not reflect values imo it reflects sentiment and with uncertainty ...you get marked down..imo.
To me thats why some make 'offers' and ASIC is trying to alert investors in frozen funds ,that this is going on 'at large' in more than just one case perhaps.  Thats how I see it anyway.
and frozen funds....are generally not listed with market forces in play.


----------



## selciper (1 December 2010)

An interesting piece, Duped. It hardly makes me want to break open a bottle of champagne. You are so right in saying that many of us who invested in PIF did so in the belief that government and other so-called protectors of our money were being vigilant. How I remember being told by the PIF hotline that Perpetual was our "guardian", so we should feel relaxed at a time of crisis. The financial media in this country is supine compared to its counterpart writers and broadcasters in the US. The common nickname used by writers over there for bankers is the insulting "banksters." The golden age of investigative reporting seems to have disappeared from these shores. Journalists have become self-styled infotainers - quips and laughter and self-preservation rule the day  Exceptions are few.  

Conscience nowadays is equated with stupidity.


----------



## simgrund (1 December 2010)

Another one bites the dust. It seems early to mid 2008 period of financial collapses in Australia coincided with GFC as a convenient scapegoat.
Regards, 

http://www.smh.com.au/business/chartwell-collapse-hoy-pleads-guilty-20101201-18fwd.html
Chartwell collapse: Hoy pleads guilty
December 1, 2010 - 10:56AM

Graeme Hoy, pictured leaving court in March. Photo: Paul Rovere

The director of an investment company that collapsed, owing $68 million to investors, will plead guilty to fraud-related charges.

Several investors lost millions when Chartwell Enterprises collapsed in April 2008.

The Victorian Supreme Court heard former company director Graeme Hoy will plead guilty to up to 47 charges.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Hoy had originally pleaded not guilty to 204 charges and was expected to face trial next year.

In August, Chartwell company secretary Ian Rau was jailed after pleading guilty to eight charges, including carrying on a financial services business without holding a licence, making a false document and obtaining property by deception.

He was sentenced to 18 months behind bars.

Hoy, who is on bail, did not comment outside court.

His pre-sentence hearing is expected to take place in Geelong at a date to be fixed.


----------



## Duped (1 December 2010)

Ltd, we still all own units in a unit trust.  They are listed on the NSX as units. They're not like shares in a company. Some of the disadvantages of a our unit trust compared to shares are scary. Like our liability. It's not limited like for a company.

If you need something to keep you awake but don't want to be frightened to death by our liabilities then read Clause 5.10 of the constitution. If the RE interprets 'value' as 35c per unit; then multiple that 1% by 5 if you sell at 7.2c.  Just a little bit concerning isn' it.  So why didn't WC propose to drop such clauses at the last EGM? Kinda suggests JH did everything she could to lock us in. Do you think Hutson might actually be mocking us with all those Roosvelt quote?  I.e. that we are her enemy?

So does ASIC truly and genuinely believe that a "heavily discounted offer" isn't a fair offer for such a risky investment?  Oops I forgot that ...well.... it's not a risky investment in fairyland ASIC where people obey the fairyland rules like 'commercial morality' even when they're not being held accountable by the free market's price discovery. Oh and ..... well..... of course  ... well... ASIC designed this system. 

How's greatdame look now that he got out at 20c?  I should have listened to him.


----------



## LTD (1 December 2010)

Oh...Thanks Duped for clearing that up..shows how little I know.

Units that are listed...I am used to shares.
Did that JB offer involve shares somehow?
Its pretty complicated for the average person to understand but if I get time
I will take another look at PIN anns.

Thanks for your patience.


----------



## Duped (2 December 2010)

LTD said:


> ... Did that JB offer involve shares somehow?....




From memory the up front offer was to exchange our units for shares in a company that would then own the units. We'd all only own 20% of the shares in that company. So the 80% shareholders would be pretty much well free to do what ever they want with the company.  Like pay themselves very well as directors and execs for a few years or sell assets in questionably arms length transactions and then collapse the whole thing long before we saw our 15c payouts or whatever the sum was.

Too risky for me. Show me the money.


----------



## Duped (2 December 2010)

Duped said:


> From memory the up front offer was to exchange our units for shares in a company that would then own the units. We'd all only own 20% of the shares in that company. So the 80% shareholders would be pretty much well free to do what ever they want with the company.  Like pay themselves very well as directors and execs for a few years or sell assets in questionably arms length transactions and then collapse the whole thing long before we saw our 15c payouts or whatever the sum was.
> 
> Too risky for me. Show me the money.




That's just my lay opinion anyway. But what would I know, I invested in PIF? So my creditability is blown.


----------



## selciper (2 December 2010)

An American description and derivation of the word "bankster," There are five paragraphs.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bankster


----------



## seamisty (2 December 2010)

I notice Wellington Capital Pty Ltd web site appears to be off the air http://www.wellcap.com.au/ Perhaps it is being updated? The boutique registry service, Armstrong Registry Services client login is still 'coming soon'.
Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (2 December 2010)

Seems I was right about there being a buyer for Kooralbyn! Nice to be kept informed (NOT) as usual by Wellington Capital.

Resort to be base for mine workers 

Anthony Marx From: The Courier-Mail November 11,

A CHINESE-owned coal company is understood to have acquired a now-closed Gold Coast hinterland resort as part of a plan to provide fly in/fly out services for its workers. 



Sources say Yancoal Australia and joint venture partners will settle their purchase of the old Kooralbyn Hotel Resort about 28km southwest of Beaudesert for more than $25 million in February and develop significant additional housing in the town.

It is believed the company hopes to use the 339ha property, complete with a 1500m airstrip, as a base to fly workers to and from mines in Queensland and NSW.

Last year Yancoal's parent company, Yanzhou Coal, paid $3.5 billion to acquire Brisbane-based Felix Resources, which operates four mines in Queensland's Bowen Basin and the Hunter Valley in NSW.

Yancoal director Murray Bailey and associate Ian Howard have held numerous meetings with stakeholders in the Scenic Rim Shire over the past six months as they carried out due diligence.


Mayor John Brent, who has met with the men, said the scheme could revitalise the small community, which has acutely felt the loss of the resort. It closed two years ago with debts of $60 million and has since fallen in to disrepair.

"We're just keen to see the heart of Kooralbyn reinvigorated and we'll work very positively with whoever it might be to improve the facilities and bring in new residents," Cr Brent said.

The resort includes a 100-room hotel, 36-room lodge, golf course and equestrian centre.

Watch out NorwayP34


http://www.golfindustrycentral.com....for-mine-workers/story-fn6ck51p-1225951928407


----------



## Cookie1 (3 December 2010)

*Life in Trinity yet as it considers its options
*
Andrew Fraser From: The Australian December 02, 2010 12:00AM


TRINITY has stabilised its debt, cleared its legal backlog and is considering three options for its future over the next few months.

The troubled property group's chairman Brett Heading, who took over Trinity last year after several board divisions, said reports that the company was in full wind-down mode were off the mark.

He told The Australian that while an "orderly redistribution" was a possibility, the company was also looking at possibly acquiring a funds management company or merging with another company.

"We are in the position now where we've resolved all the outstanding issues and we have time to decide the future," he said.

"One possibility is an orderly realisation -- but if it was, it would be very orderly, as now is not a great time to be selling property. We're certainly not looking at a fire-sale or anything like that."

Trinity still has five properties under its control, and Mr Heading said it was actively marketing two of them.

The first is a Brisbane office building at 308 Queen Street which has a historic National Australia Bank facade. Trinity purchased it for $8.8 million in November 2007 and it has since been refurbished into 12 office suites, half of which are occupied.

The other project Trinity is marketing is its Cumberland Resort at Lorne on Victoria's Great Ocean Road which it purchased in 2007 for about $55m through then development subsidiary Consolidated Properties.

Mr Heading said that the company wanted to capitalise on the Christmas holiday period at Lorne, but the 2007 purchase also points to Trinity's broader problems over the past few years, which left it with a trail of litigation after Consolidated Properties, headed by Don O'Rorke, joined Trinity in 2005.

Legal action from the separation of the two has occupied much of Mr Heading's time, as well as that of his deputy at Trinity, Chris Morton, but it was resolved last week, although the settlement still needs to be endorsed by Trinity's shareholders.

Trinity owns $116m worth of property in Australia and $22.7m of managed funds, as well as having a debt facility with the NAB of $129m.

Mr Heading said that the company no longer had financial pressure on it, as NAB had been supportive and the company's debt had dropped from $151.7m a year ago to $73.8m now.

"We still have debt, but it's down to a manageable level," he said. "And we have cash to keep us going for a while. We'd anticipate being able to be a bit more definite in the next few months."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ders-its-options/story-e6frg9gx-1225964137585


----------



## Duped (3 December 2010)

According to the WC's Investor update of 11 December 2008 a property in SE Qld Hinterland owed us over $41m @ 31 May 2008. Probably Kooralbyn.

Status was mortgagee in possesion. I doubt that WC would dare accumulate interest and add it to our 'asset value'. If we get the full $25m then it's not a bad result IMO. I couldn''t see how Kooralbyn was ever worth $40m; except to ticket clippers like MFSIM and KPMG of course. Probably why WC moth balled it whereby it "has since fallen in to disrepair".  Will have to get myself a new Avatar now.  Just need to dig up that piccy of our Main Beach property.

I wonder if the Chinese would also be interested in our property at Yeppoon. Yeppoon is even closer to the coalfields and the massive Gladstone coal port.

How long do we think WC will keep the $ on our books so it can skim fees? I just pray that it gets paid out to us because I have no confidence in WC. We get no payments and nothing but secrecy. WC can't have both.

When do we get our $ from LLC.  $10m isn't it?  That's well over 2 years ago and 2010 was a spectacular ski season.   Where's our money?


----------



## selciper (3 December 2010)

I've just checked the tired PIF website. It's up and running, but there's nothing new on it. Not even any seasonal greetings from the talented team!


----------



## JohnH (3 December 2010)

_Released just now on the NSX site.  I feel I ought to comment, but what does one say???!!!  JohnH_
Bond Street Custodians Limited – Federal Court Proceedings
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund is pleased to advise that a
commercial settlement has been reached in the proceedings commenced by Bond Street Custodians Limited.
On 16 October 2008, Bond Street Custodians Limited filed a claim against the responsible entity of the
Wholesale Premium Income Fund for $16.254 million in relation to a redemption request for 16.254 million
units in the Wholesale Premium Income Fund which was lodged on 21 January 2008. This was shortly prior
to the suspension of redemptions.
On 1 October 2010, Bond Street Custodians Limited has filed an amended Statement of Claim in these
proceedings reducing the compensation sought to approximately $465,000 plus interest.
This matter was set for trial in the week commencing 13 December 2010.
A settlement has been reached whereby Bond Street Custodians is paid the sum of $150,000 without any
admission of liability of either party.
Managing Director Jenny Hutson said, ‘This is a commercially satisfactory outcome in a matter which would
have incurred significant costs in the both the lead up to trial and the trial itself, regardless of the final
outcome, and in excess of the settlement amount. This is a sensible outcome in a matter which has been
before the courts for in excess of two years.


----------



## seamisty (3 December 2010)

selciper said:


> I've just checked the tired PIF website. It's up and running, but there's nothing new on it. Not even any seasonal greetings from the talented team!



 I was referring to the out dated, obsolete, redundant? Wellington Capital Botoxique Investment Bank website selciper, not the PIF and it is still not loading http://www.wellcap.com.au/ 

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (3 December 2010)

JohnH said:


> _Released just now on the NSX site.  I feel I ought to comment, but what does one say???!!!  JohnH_
> Bond Street Custodians Limited – Federal Court Proceedings
> Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund is pleased to advise that a
> commercial settlement has been reached in the proceedings commenced by Bond Street Custodians Limited.
> ...



 That was very Jennearous of Wellington Capital JohnH, no explanation as to if the gesture was justified. WC haven't shown the same concern at wasting PIF dwindling dollars fighting and delaying other very expensive court action which possibly could have been avoided.

Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (3 December 2010)

seamisty said:


> That was very Jennearous of Wellington Capital JohnH, no explanation as to if the gesture was justified. WC haven't shown the same concern at wasting PIF dwindling dollars fighting and delaying other very expensive court action which possibly could have been avoided.
> 
> Seamisty




..............ah but that's what happens with family business's Seamisty!!!


----------



## marcom (4 December 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> *Life in Trinity yet as it considers its options
> *
> Andrew Fraser From: The Australian December 02, 2010 12:00AM
> 
> ...




Bet I know the other funds management company he is talking about. Breaker, I raised this possibility with you last year. Just watch and see what unfolds.

Also in the Brisbane Supreme Court on Monday 6 December: Application to the court RE: OCTAVIAR LIMITED 10:00 AM. Looks like another application by the past or current liquidators.


----------



## seamisty (4 December 2010)

marcom said:


> Bet I know the other funds management company he is talking about. Breaker, I raised this possibility with you last year. Just watch and see what unfolds.
> 
> Also in the Brisbane Supreme Court on Monday 6 December: Application to the court RE: OCTAVIAR LIMITED 10:00 AM. Looks like another application by the past or current liquidators.



Marcom would I be right in assuming that WC would have to get unit holder approval in the event that WC ever tried to offload the PIF or 'merge' with another entity? Seamisty


----------



## marcom (4 December 2010)

Yes Seamisty, the same voting regime that elected the investor advisory committee. This would be a classic "pass the parcel" exercise to transfer responsibility before the liquidator strikes out the Octaviar "sale" of the PIF RE as a preferential deal made during insolvency.


----------



## seamisty (4 December 2010)

marcom said:


> Yes Seamisty, the same voting regime that elected the investor advisory committee. This would be a classic "pass the parcel" exercise to transfer responsibility before the liquidator strikes out the Octaviar "sale" of the PIF RE as a preferential deal made during insolvency.



AHH Yes Marcom!! Only I don't think PIF unitholders are as naive and trusting these days and won't be easily manipulated. Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## selciper (5 December 2010)

A moderately interesting 10 minute video about Class Actions in the USA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKqNBMhLlao


----------



## LTD (5 December 2010)

seamisty said:


> Hi Mary, IMF and the Class Action applicants have now appointed HWL Ebsworth Lawyers to instruct the barristers in relation to future legal proceedings regarding our case. Carney Lawyers no longer act for the Class Action. PIF unitholders who are participating in the Class Action can expect an update from IMF in the coming weeks.
> 
> The change from Carney's to Hwl Ebsworth Lawyers was made after careful consideration by all parties to be in the best interest of the class action and no other motive.
> 
> Seamisty




I thought that some of you might be interested in this article...re CENTRO class action..
quite different as it involves shareholders but some interesting points,imo.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/court-ruling-forces-switch-in-centro-case-20101201-18gol.html


----------



## marcom (6 December 2010)

This appeared a couple of days ago:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...rands-not-to-renew-BR6CA?opendocument&src=idp

GEO Property's MD and CEO Guy Farrands not to renew contract
Published 2:37 PM, 2 Dec 2010
Source: News Bites

GEO Property Group says that managing director and CEO Guy Farrands will not seek to renew his contract with the group when it expires on March 31, 2011 because he has to move to Sydney for personal reasons.

The board will immediately commence a search for a replacement for Mr Farrands, who has committed to remain with the group until a suitable replacement is found...

If MFS was insolvent as early as mid 2007, the Liquidator may find that the "sale" of MFS satellite assets were preferential transactions and may seek to recover losses to MFS. Good time to leave may be?


----------



## LTD (6 December 2010)

Hi Marcom,

  How can such things be undone IF preferential, and are there past examples?

and correct me if I'm wrong...please..
but wasnt it this fellow who just returned?a swag of MFS shares... I vaguely remember a news report which was so long ago and now stored in my memory amongst so much info...that I am not at all sure of the details.

I remember being curious and impressed.


----------



## seamisty (6 December 2010)

LTD said:


> Hi Marcom,
> 
> How can such things be undone IF preferential, and are there past examples?
> 
> ...



Maybe this link LTD::http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...to-start-trading/story-e6frg9gx-1111116340050


----------



## LTD (6 December 2010)

Thanks Seamisty,
    That article doesnt look the same as the one I am picturing but does have a lot of info...on the subject...my accounting skills are negligable and so the 68mil refinancing with non other than  "bank of scotland" ie RBOS? etc doesnt add up to the number i get for sales?... there must have been previous debt?
and the transfer of Ferrad shares may not be the same as returning/relinquishing as I interpreted it...just shows how the average person might misinterpret.

Another article also mentioned that a number of executives had been paid with shares instead of cash... 
but I cant find the link atm.
I dont mind making mistakes..if you dont mind correcting me.
Cheers.


----------



## marcom (6 December 2010)

LTD, the liquidator will be looking to see if such deals were done at arms length and are fair and reasonable, otherwise they are preferential and the liquidator can sue for compensation. In our case the Public Trustee has argued that the "sale" of the PIF RE to WC is preferential because JH had inside knowledge as an advisor to the Octaviar Board, paid no consideration for the share purchase and was given $8mill plus as part of the deal. The reason why nothing has been done about this to date is the liquidator is still finalising its report on Octaviar in which it will specify an insolvency date. After the report is delivered to the court and ASIC we may see some action - but this is likely to be into next year.


----------



## selciper (6 December 2010)

Marcom -In your post 6507 you wrote, "If MFS was insolvent as early as mid 2007, the Liquidator may find that the "sale" of MFS satellite assets were preferential transactions and may seek to recover losses to MFS. Good time to leave may be?" Somewhat worrying to read this, could you explain it a little more, please. Could it be that PIF shouldn't have been "sold" This forum is sometimes a bit jarring for the nerves...

"


----------



## seamisty (6 December 2010)

PATHETIC!!!! The punishment is hardly a deterent or an example to others to be more diligent!!
Allco auditor fined by ASICPublished 9:11 PM, 6 Dec 2010 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/ASICALLCO-story-pd20101206-BV7EC?OpenDocument

By a staff reporter 

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has accepted an enforceable undertaking from KPMG Sydney auditor Christopher Whittingham. 

The undertaking follows an investigation by ASIC into Mr Whittingham's conduct in his audit of Allco Financial Group Ltd.

ASIC said it was concerned Mr Whittingham failed to adequately perform his duties as an auditor after Allco’s financial report for the 2006/2007 financial year was found to contain a $1.8 billion misclassification of interest bearing loans as a non-current liability rather than a current liability. 

Mr Whittington must now pay $10,000 to ASIC to cover its costs, and has undertaken not to act as a registered auditor for a period of nine months. He must also undertake an additional ten hours of continuing professional education on audit related matters during his suspension period. 

ASIC said Mr Whittington acted swiftly to notify it after the error came to his attention.


----------



## marcom (7 December 2010)

Selciper, in the case of the PIF RE 'sale" any recovery would be made against WC and JH and other WC directors and not the fund - the Liquidator has no call over our funds.

If you look at what has come out in the public examinations: JH was an advisor to the MFS/Octaviar Board - Fom Mark Korda's evidence:

"...Ms Hutson was acting as an adviser to the MFS board at that time, raising doubts it was an arms-length transaction.

''At the time of the transaction I don't think they were independent,'' Mr Korda said yesterday."

JH has said that one of the entities she cleared the transaction with was Korda Mentha. Now Mark Korda says the transaction was not arms length.

For more try David Anderson's evidence: http://www.businessday.com.au/busin...nefit-of-inside-knowledge-20100722-10n2x.html

To date WC has not paid any consideration for the purchase of all the shares in the RE.

In the Supreme Court it surfaced that the PIF RE deal came with $5mill in the RE"s account (presumably this was the required liquidity for the Financial Services Licence - WC already had a licence so remove you own $5mill and it is a cunning transfer payment), that Octaviar provided a further $3mill to operate PIF in the short term (WC admitted this to McMurdo in evidence and the Public Trustee didn't seem to know about this) and I think there was another amount that may have been to cover employee entitlements.  All for no consideration! And they continue to assert that the transaction was arms length!

Where is the evidence that the Octaviar Board adequately considered other offers for the PIF RE?


----------



## selciper (7 December 2010)

Marcom - Many thanks for the analysis.


----------



## LTD (7 December 2010)

Hi Marcom,
     I found this old article dated 14th Feb 2008 , during the shakeout which covers the PIF situation and states that CIY were given 'exclusivity' and there being tyrekickers around etc...Note the value?

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...acific-goes-cherry-picking-BT4JW?OpenDocument

I suppose I cant
vouch for all media reports but some you pay more attention to.There must be many old reports about this.
Perhaps avoiding  CIY advances..and this wasnt the first, was on the boards mind or rather was 333 advising.

2.
I got sidetracked the other day and found myself reading a Deloittes creditors report which included an estimate of only $9 to 79mil ? being possibly recoverable if preferntials were found... but directors would be 
' OK 'as acting under advise.. That last point has been discovered in legal links about corporations, hasnt it?
I have taken this info out of context and it was written a while ago...excuse excuse...ie DYOR. and please dont rely on my ltd knowledge.


----------



## LTD (7 December 2010)

I just had another jump to a conclusion thought...

If MFS was ready to bid for Centro assets/debt? or whatevers? back in 2008...
not exactly sure of the timing but it surprised,imo....
Was there some sort of connection?...ie property development/ownership/debt
..personell/director/advisor  anything which gave them the confidence
or knowledge to think about that amazing bid/offer? 
I  am not familiar with Centros case at all ..

Marcom...I think that often there is a' human' connection...thats how/why they have confidence/knowledge/availablity etc to take on things others wouldnt look at,imo.
I do see this from a great distance and others might be closer?


----------



## Duped (7 December 2010)

marcom said:


> LTD, the liquidator will be looking to see if such deals were done at arms length and are fair and reasonable, otherwise they are preferential and the liquidator can sue for compensation. In our case the Public Trustee has argued that the "sale" of the PIF RE to WC is preferential because JH had inside knowledge as an advisor to the Octaviar Board, paid no consideration for the share purchase and was given $8mill plus as part of the deal. The reason why nothing has been done about this to date is the liquidator is still finalising its report on Octaviar in which it will specify an insolvency date. After the report is delivered to the court and ASIC we may see some action - but this is likely to be into next year.




And Ltd.  IMLO, the longer WC drag out paying itself, the stronger WC's argument that it hasn't benefited from the deal.  This would weaken PTQ's case that the deal was 'preferential'. How could it be so if there is little or no benefit? It could look more like WC was doing PIF a favour. This puts an incentive on WC to simply mothball PIF.  Whether WC has acted on these incentives is a different question.


----------



## Duped (7 December 2010)

seamisty said:


> PATHETIC!!!! The punishment is hardly a deterent or an example to others to be more diligent!!
> Allco auditor fined by ASICPublished 9:11 PM, 6 Dec 2010




Certainly is a deterent. Deters me from putting any real consideration on the value of auditing services. ASIC has spoken. There's little incentive for auditors to be accurate. In fact the incentive to rush through audits to get onto the next job outweighs the incentive to be accurate.


----------



## LTD (7 December 2010)

LTD said:


> Hi Marcom,
> 
> 2.
> I got sidetracked the other day and found myself reading a Deloittes creditors report which included an estimate of only $9 to 79mil ? being possibly recoverable if preferntials were found... but directors would be
> ...




Thanks Duped,
      I had better clarify that the above remarks made by me would relate to Octaviar and there are many types of OCV now....
That recoverable estimate probably has nothing to do with PIF..
I could find the link again if you need it?
I keep thinking as a shareholder, actually should be a creditholder and I'm talking to unit holders...Its taking years but slowly I am catching on.

I am coming from a shareholders perspective and if your reading as a unit holder ...it gets confusing. Sorry guys...I am interested in your situation but dont fully appreciate it.

Good Luck.


----------



## charles36 (7 December 2010)

CHARLES36.

Marcom, enjoy your posts.  I prefer to believe JH thought she could make a dollar out of the fund, because she hasn't received a fee she certainly has not starved.  Plenty of expenses.  Also "arms length deals"  it will be interesting to wait and see for the next episode in this long running saga.   Interesting times ahead for sure.  Marry Christmas to all. I have a funny feeling we will have a better Christmas next year.    Charles36.


----------



## selciper (7 December 2010)

It was pleasing to receive the latest AG update. It's always reassuring to know that the group is as active behind the scenes as ever and doing all they can to advance our interests. And membership numbers are still growing.


----------



## seamisty (8 December 2010)

ASIC copping more media bashing for being seen as next to useless. Whats the use of having 'power' if takes years to make a half aRssed attempt to deploy the so called 'power' if at all? No wonder few if any have a good word to say about them!! I am surprised they have not been referred to as a 'pawless pussy' rather than 'toothless tiger'!! Seamisty

http://www.smh.com.au/money/super-and-funds/power-to-act-20101207-18ngn.html

Power to act 

The chairman of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), Tony D'Aloisio, has come out in defence of the regulator for failing to move earlier against those who it believes have engaged in wrongdoing.

Addressing a meeting in Sydney last week, D'Aloisio said the ultimate risk for the success or failure of an investment was a matter for the market. He said it was up to investors to assess the risk being taken and the reward on offer and to diversify their investments.

''This system and approach was well understood by institutional investors but [less so] by retail investors,'' D'Aloisio was reported as saying. ''As a result, some retail investors have been disappointed at ASIC's performance.''

Advertisement: Story continues below D'Aloisio maintains that at the heart of such disappointment is ''an expectation gap in risk taking''.

ASIC has come in for criticism over its handling of the mess created by the collapse of Storm Financial, a financial planning firm, in late 2008.

The firm's strategy was to double gear its clients into the sharemarket - once, by advising the clients to borrow against their house and then again, by putting those borrowed funds into a margin loan. Though the advice was always very risky and goes against the most basic principles of sound financial advice, the clients loved it because they made loads of money when the sharemarket was booming.

D'Aloisio says that Storm investors would not have reacted well to ASIC trying to close down Storm at a time when they were making such good money. He also argues that ASIC did not have the power to close down Storm.

But ASIC has plenty of powers to deal with poor financial advice. Despite ample opportunities over the years, the regulator has never tried to test the extent of its powers when it comes to shoddy financial advice.

ASIC can act under Section 945A of the Corporations Act. That is the part of the law that requires a planner to have a ''reasonable basis'' for the advice but the Act does not say what constitutes ''a reasonable basis for advice''.

You would think that Storm Financial's model of recommending that retirees use their life savings to gear into the sharemarket with their houses on the line would fall well short of the mark.

But the regulator has never run a test case before the courts to flesh out what this really means. Maybe Storm did not need to be closed down but rather forced to reduce the risks that its clients were taking, perhaps with the threat of substantial financial penalties.

Rather than trying to clarify the law, the regulator's preferred tool is the ''enforceable undertaking''. This is a legally enforceable contract where the naughty firm admits to no wrongdoing and crosses its heart and promises to do the right thing in the future. This also usually involves immediate restitution of some of the financial losses suffered by consumers.

Until the regulator tests the extent of its powers in the courts and seeks substantial fines against wrongdoers, it is hard to see how the regulator can be taken seriously by those intent on doing the wrong thing.


----------



## seamisty (8 December 2010)

I just thought I would post this on the forum to expell any existing guilt to PIF unitholders who are still questioning why they voted for Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital investment management to be the Responsible Entity for our not so Premium Income Fund. We were expecting::

The responsible entity proposes three separate resolutions. Each resolution
is independent. If all three resolutions are approved:
The Fund will remain a going concern and Units in the Fund will be
able to be traded on the NSX;
Up to 37.75 million units in the Fund will be redeemed by the Fund
at 45 cents per unit by 18 September 2009;
Wellington Capital Limited will be the new responsible entity of the
Fund; and
Cash payments totalling 3 cents per Unit will be made to
Unitholders by 24 December 2008 and quarterly thereafter, with the
first payment to be made in October 2008.


HELLO JENNY!! WHERE ARE YOU???? It is Dec 2010 and we have not long received our first 1 cent return of capital and no quarterly payments EVER!!! No buyback and the NSX listing a pathetic failure!! Your proposed resolutions were a total non event and it is blatantly obvious Wellington Capital have FAILED miserably!! To add insult to the fact that the WC mouth was bigger than its anticipated capabilities (extremely well paid for in advance approved by previous associated business colleagues), we are deliberately being kept in the dark ( like dutiful mushrooms) while WC continue to rack up legal expenses (among other costs) to our detriment! Cough up or cop out!!  

Seamisty


----------



## marcom (9 December 2010)

City Pacific and Storm in the news:City Beat:

Phil lives the high life
* James McCullough From: The Courier-Mail December 08, 2010 11:00PM
http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin.../story-e6freqmx-1225967850763?from=public_rss

THE founder and former chief executive of failed Gold Coast financier City Pacific is doing quite nicely for himself, thank you.

Phil Sullivan, a former bankrupt, still has a waterfront mansion at Broadbeach Waters and two Mercedes- Benz cars parked in the garage. Records show he serves as a director of two new entities, DCG Development Capital and DCG Development Capital No. 2. Sullivan resigned as CEO of City Pacific in November 2008, eight months before the company collapsed.

Meanwhile, more than 10,000 mostly elderly investors in a $1 billion mortgage fund once run by City Pacific and now by Balmain Trilogy have seen it lose more than half its value. They have also had huge trouble accessing their money with the fund frozen since 2008...

*STORM FRONT 

IF anyone was under any illusion who the real winners from the Storm Financial debacle were, they could do worse than flick through the boxes of court documents working their way through the legal system.

As Storm moves into its third year, lawyers are coming up with more and more inventive ways to stall the process, including this little gem from Bank of Queensland's lawyers.

Responding to the seemingly innocuous claim that sharemarket values began to fall about mid-2007, the bank's lawyers refused to admit this was the case, because the defendants – of which one is a bank – "are uncertain as to its truth or falsity".

In the hope of expediting the legal case, City Beat has helpfully crunched the numbers: the All Ordinaries fell from 6456 points to 5670 points in July 2007. It then recovered before falling again in October to its nadir of 3111 points in March 2009.


----------



## LTD (9 December 2010)

Duped said:


> .................in part
> 
> But meanwhile ASIC, the good cop, is luring us to drop our guard and herding us to its AFSL pushers.
> 
> ...




Thanks Duped..
I liked your post above...
Are you sycic or am I having another jump to conclusion moment?

I read that Apollo was in the hunt for Golden Tulip but didnt make it.
This was of interest to me...but possibly not interesting for PIN.
Remember HFA was bourne? from MFS or at least MFS had a stake at one time...

http://www.finalternatives.com/node/14805

I think everything is worth following...not that I understand much about these fund of fund things..
PS.
I dont mind being wrong.


----------



## glendaw101 (9 December 2010)

Hi Seamisty

I like your attitude. Can I have yor permission to quote this in an email to Wellington. In fact if all unitholders bombarded Wellington with this sort of email Jenny may start to question her arrogance.

Cheers Glen


seamisty said:


> The responsible entity proposes three separate resolutions. Each resolution
> is independent. If all three resolutions are approved:
> The Fund will remain a going concern and Units in the Fund will be
> able to be traded on the NSX;
> ...


----------



## seamisty (9 December 2010)

glendaw101 said:


> Hi Seamisty
> 
> I like your attitude. Can I have yor permission to quote this in an email to Wellington. In fact if all unitholders bombarded Wellington with this sort of email Jenny may start to question her arrogance.
> 
> ...


----------



## Duped (9 December 2010)

I agree Seamisty.  WC should cough up or cop out.  Failed to deliver.

Ltd, I have many friends in the Cth public service in Canberra and many are out of touch with the real world. Some wilfully. The funniest thing is that many are leftists and ridiculed Howard's apparent affinity for a 50s style Australia.  Meanwhile they themselves subscribe, like ASIC, to 50s style notions of 'commercial morality'. They live in a fantasy world. They have coping issues.

As for D'Aloisio's latest remarks.  He and ASIC are in total denial about the impact that their decisions and activities have on disrupting the market.  Whether it's wilful denial or or a coping issue is open to debate.

I'm sure all those Cth public servants are excitedly investigating and debating about the moral hazard that the Cth deposit guarantee has had on banking in Australia. I'm sure they all agree that something must be done immediately to control bank behaviour. _Banks need to be reigned in!!!_ _Oh the moral hazard!!!_ _They should have been left to fail if the market so decided!!! Oh no, this is the end for Australiaaaaaaaaah!!_ _Bad banks! Bad banks. Sit. Good bank. Roll over._

But will they turn that magnifying glass on ASIC's Cth backing of the AFSL system and hence all those naughty financial planners? Not until they can find a scape goat IMO.

Although as you all know, I'm not entirely convinced that ASIC's dragging down the standards of licenced advice wasn't somewhat deliberate.  To prize our free market sensitive wallets open to get the $ flowing through the economy faster and faster and faster and faster.


----------



## LTD (9 December 2010)

Heres a link reporting mismanagement of City Pacific FMF that I havent noticed anyone post.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/city-pacific-could-face-100mplus-legal-claims-20101206-18mww.html

Re ASIC ...I try to understand them...not exactly given much to work with,imo. NZ seem to be doing more...but they have a reputation of standing up for things,imo.

The trouble is the bad guys are telling the good guys what to do imo. and  so the system is designed excluively for them whilst the little guys should just not trust anyone...Nothing has changed or looks like changing...unless theres folks like??
ie Wiki leaks


----------



## simgrund (9 December 2010)

PIF saga gets mentioned further afield:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/busin...reholder-protest/story-e6frede3-1225947442748
Last updated: December 09, 2010


PROFESSIONAL shareholders lodged a large protest against the re-election of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank's chairman Robert Johanson and director Terry O'Dwyer at the bank's annual meeting in Bendigo and Adelaide yesterday.

More than 30 per cent of shareholders voted against the re-election of Mr Johanson  32 million votes against and 102 votes for  after an institutional investor raised concerns that the chairman had been a director for too long to remain independent.

Mr Johanson has been a Bendigo and Adelaide Bank director for 23 years and independent chairman for four.

Fellow director Terry O'Dwyer also received a strong protest vote; 19.5 million against his re-election compared with 114 million votes for, for his role as chairman of struggling public company MetalStorm and his association with failed finance company MFS as its former chairman.

Shareholder activist Stephen Mayne described MFS as a $1 billion debacle, ``classic Gold Coast white shoe brigade stuff''.

"I think we should send a message to the board so that Mr O'Dwyer can manage a quiet exit from the board as soon as possible,'' Mr Mayne said.

*Mr Johanson said the bank traditionally had higher protest votes than other companies, a sign of an active and involved shareholder base.* [emphasis added]

The bank held the meeting from Bendigo and Adelaide via video link up yesterday.


----------



## Jadel (10 December 2010)

Duped said:


> I agree Seamisty.  WC should cough up or cop out.  Failed to deliver.
> 
> Ltd, I have many friends in the Cth public service in Canberra and many are out of touch with the real world. Some wilfully. The funniest thing is that many are leftists and ridiculed Howard's apparent affinity for a 50s style Australia.  Meanwhile they themselves subscribe, like ASIC, to 50s style notions of 'commercial morality'. They live in a fantasy world. They have coping issues.
> 
> ...




Duped, Aloisio and most of the other top honchos in ASIC all  come from the, Big End of town  they are , ‘ made men’ to use the mafia  vernacular  of the sysem.. Aloisio is  ex chairman of ASX his   own son initiated Opus Prime from a company called Green Frog nominees by cleverly bypassing  the  normal protocols .

How in  Gods name are you ever going to get a honest financial organization from individuals who are scions of  that system and have as its core belief a doctrine of ‘minimal intervention.


----------



## Jadel (10 December 2010)

Duped said:


> I agree Seamisty.  WC should cough up or cop out.  Failed to deliver.
> 
> Ltd, I have many friends in the Cth public service in Canberra and many are out of touch with the real world. Some wilfully. The funniest thing is that many are leftists and ridiculed Howard's apparent affinity for a 50s style Australia.  Meanwhile they themselves subscribe, like ASIC, to 50s style notions of 'commercial morality'. They live in a fantasy world. They have coping issues.
> 
> ...




Duped, Aloisio and most of the other top honchos in ASIC all  come from the Big End of town  they are , ‘ made men’ to use the mafia  vernacular  of the sysem.. Aloisio is  ex chairman of ASX his   own son initiated Opus Prime from a company called Green Frog nominees by cleverly bypassing  the  normal protocols .

How in  Gods name are you ever going to get a honest financial organization from individuals who are scions of  that system and have as its foundation a doctrine of ‘minimal intervention,  as its basic philosophy


----------



## Duped (10 December 2010)

LTD said:


> ...
> Re ASIC ...I try to understand them...not exactly given much to work with,imo. NZ seem to be doing more...but they have a reputation of standing up for things,imo ...




Maybe becasue NZ isn't a big enough market for the 'smart money' to bother with.  The 'smart money' being the ones who can fiddle with the law.

Jadel, well that little revelation just adds some weight of circumstantial evidence that wilful denial might be plausible.


----------



## seamisty (10 December 2010)

http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/news/retail-investors-unimpressed-by-asic
Retail investors unimpressed by ASIC 
By Mike Taylor on  10 December 2010 0 comments A survey commissioned by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has given it a pass mark on its handling on the global financial crisis (GFC), but a less glowing assessment for its protection of retail investors.

The survey, the results of which have been released today, said that many responses suggested that stakeholders did not view the regulator as having done as well in protecting retail investors over the last two years as it did in managing the GFC.

It said that survey respondents had provided “sub-neutral” scores in regard to ASIC assisting retail investors and consumers and in protecting retail investors and consumers.

The survey analysis noted that post-survey interviews had resulted in some consumer bodies suggesting that retail investors were more likely to have become pessimistic about ASIC’s performance over the past two years because they do not fully understand the risks associated with the products in which they invested.

The analysis also suggested that another factor had been an increase in high-profile cases that had resulted in high-profile failures “with ASIC being unable to successfully prosecute”.

The analysis surrounding follow-up interviews suggested that one of the problems for ASIC in dealing with retail investor perceptions was that enforcement action with respect to companies such as Westpoint and Opes Prime took so long.

“It was noted that this is not entirely ASIC’s fault, but processes to reach a finding in Australia seemed to be much longer than in other comparable jurisdictions and delays reduced the effectiveness of enforcement, particularly as a deterrent,” the analysis said.


----------



## ifracasb (10 December 2010)

Slight change of subject from a newie.
Anyone notice that Armstrong Registry is reported to be changing auditors.
Is this legit?
What was the bit reported on NSX re electrical fault last month?
Records lost?
PS Can't download the latest Financial Report on this company from ASIC - seems like it was lodged in a back-dated fashion or some other reason I don't understand, not being an ASIC system expert.


----------



## Duped (10 December 2010)

seamisty said:


> ...
> The survey analysis noted that post-survey interviews had resulted in some consumer bodies suggesting that retail investors  ... *do not fully understand the risks associated with the products in which they invested*. ....




Duh! And why? Because of ASIC's AFSL system. Financial advisor's carrying the Commonwealth tick of approval like doctors and lawyers.

Prior to the AFSL system, the free market system was far better at flushing out dodgy advisors and quickly putting them out of business. ASIC gives them a licence to continue practicing.


----------



## LTD (10 December 2010)

This is the crux of the matter re retail investors...
"do not fully understand the risks associated with the products in which they invested."

The products werent invented for investors benefit.Thats a problem.

Naturally the products were invented/produced by the experts for some-ones needs.PIF didnt need to invest in developments...they needed you and just had to entice you.
Thats why a storm model might benefit banks or advisors or the end place where funds get invested and overlook the retail investors RISK.
If you are the one inventing the products for your needs ie developers/financial middlemen/end point investments  etc those schemes will be focused on those needs.

Unless you share in all the outcomes...theres bound to be inequality or a lack of protection for all sides of the investments,imo.

Retail investors only have the government, laws or ASIC like entities to watch over them and must be disappointed if they are expected to carry a disproportionate burden of the risk.

NZ is an important place for investment...Dosnt it act as a entry point to disguise where things/investment/immigrants etc actually origionate from.
Very important little place I think.
Just my perception of this.


----------



## charles36 (10 December 2010)

I read with interest that investor's (I included myself) do not fully understand the risk of invesments etc.  My view is there is always risk but when managers obviously seek to borrow money improperly from a company/fund for their own purposes it is not a risk that has been factored into any PDS that I have ever read.  I also note that some CEO's are like butterflies, they flit from one defunct fund to another, no problems, apparently from the Regulatory authority.  Perhaps new guidelines could be made compulsory for the production of future PDS'S disclosing the additional risks that will most likely be encountered  by improper management by CEO'S judging by the massive workload of ASIC.


----------



## seamisty (10 December 2010)

I see a few extra names in the Public Examinations to be questioned::


Mitch Craig (return) – 15-16 December 2010 – Sydney 


Mark Kwei – 15-16 December 2010 – Brisbane (off Linkedin:: Director at Fortress Investment Group )


David Kelleher – 15-16 December 2010 – Brisbane (Chief Executive Officer
Fortress Investment Group not sure if he still holds this position))

Nick Slack – 15-16 December 2010 - Brisbane (??)


Seamisty


----------



## selciper (10 December 2010)

I wish the members of the PIF Investors Advisory Committee a restful Xmas break. After all, they must be exhausted after such a busy year working on behalf of us all.


----------



## simgrund (10 December 2010)

selciper said:


> I wish the members of the PIF Investors Advisory Committee a restful Xmas break. After all, they must be exhausted after such a busy year working on behalf of us all.




A good opportunity to chime in.

Wishing everyone a truly Merry Christmas and a progressive New Year! 
Be well dear Comrades.


----------



## seamisty (10 December 2010)

selciper said:


> I wish the members of the PIF Investors Advisory Committee a restful Xmas break. After all, they must be exhausted after such a busy year working on behalf of us all.



Ah yes selciper, IMO the IAC was obviously another elusive shut up committee appointed by Wellington Capital hoping to demonstrate that 1 committment had been honoured. Pathetic really. Bring on PIFleaks!! HA HA, now that could make interesting reading?? The scary thing for Wellington Capital is that I am told there is still a few unit holders that still have a bit of charge left in their gopher batteries!! 

Seamisty


----------



## LTD (11 December 2010)

http://business.scoop.co.nz/2010/12/09/sfo-charges-capital-merchant-founders-nicholls-douglas/

SFO arrests, charges Capital + Merchant founders Nicholls, Douglas
By Paul McBeth

Dec. 9 (BusinessDesk) – The Serious Fraud Office has arrested and charged the founders of Capital + Merchant Finance Ltd. alleging misuse of funds raised to develop property in Palmerston North.

In its second swoop today, the white collar crime investigator charged director Neal Nicholls and former director Wayne Douglas with misusing some $14.5 million of funds raised to convert two Palmerston North office blocks into student accommodation. The charges relate to one set of transactions, and the SFO is continuing to look at other deals done by the lender that once sponsored TV One news.

“While we have completed investigations into these matters, the SFO is continuing to investigate a number of other transactions that are of serious concern to us,” chief executive Adam Feeley said in a statement. “This investigation and the subsequent charges demonstrate the speed with which the SFO can act, even where the case is one of significant complexity and involves many millions of dollars.”

The SFO was called in to probe the lender’s books in March by first receiver Grant Thornton, which is acting for prior ranked creditor Fortress Credit. The Capital + Merchant group of companies called in the receivers in November 2007 owing some 7,000 investors about $167.1 million, and was put into liquidation in December last year.

Nicholls, along with other C+MF directors Owen Tallentire, Colin Ryan, and Robert Sutherland face criminal charges and civil proceedings from the Securities Commission over the way they promoted their debenture stock to investors. Douglas only faces criminal charges from the commission.

The SFO has laid criminal charges against people involved in a number of well-publicised finance company failures, including National Finance, Bridgecorp, Five Star Finance."
*************************
and more details here

http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/ce128521/capital-merchant-directors-face-sfo-charges.html
From my recollection...
C&M was put into administration after a court case in Nov 2007 by Fortress..
MFS NZ? owned Vestar which invested in C&M...


----------



## marcom (11 December 2010)

Octaviar scrutiny goes on and on
Nick Nichols, business editor  December 11th, 2010
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/12/11/276071_gold-coast-business.html

THE public examination into the collapse of Gold Coast financial services group Octaviar shows no sign of letting up with proceedings moving to Brisbane for the first time next week.

The probe by liquidator Kate Barnet, of Bentleys Corporate Recovery, has been conducted in Sydney over the past eight months.

The purpose of the investigation is to determine when Octaviar, formerly known as MFS, became insolvent.

Among the examinees to have already appeared this year are company founders Michael King and Phil Adams, although much of the investigation has centred on evidence from former company secretary David Anderson.

This time around, two existing and one former executives at Fortress Credit will be under the spotlight when the examination resumes in Brisbane for two days on Wednesday and Thursday.

Fortress Credit chief executive David Kelleher and fellow director Mark Kwei will take the stand, as well as former executive Nick Slack.

Former MFS auditor Mitch Craig of KPMG is being probed in a separate session in Sydney on the same days.

Fortress Credit was the major financier to MFS at the time of its collapse in 2008 and was owed about $150 million.

The US-based giant appointed receivers to the company in September 2008, just after it had been placed into voluntary administration.

It is likely some of the questioning will centre on the events leading up to Octaviar's repayment of about $100 million to Fortress in 2007.

It is unclear why proceedings have been moved to Brisbane and whether the proceedings will involve input from the Public Trustee of Queensland which succeeded last year in wiping Fortress Credit's status as a secured creditor to Octaviar.

The High Court reversed that decision in September and at the same time voided the original judgment that created uncertainty over lenders' rights to security of assets.

Octaviar, which has debts of more than $2.5 billion, still has a honey pot of about $140 million in cash.

Many argue it is this cash kitty that has extended the examination of the company's affairs beyond that of other corporate failures."

Who are the "MANY" - your white shoe brigade mates?


----------



## simgrund (11 December 2010)

Some more huffing and puffing from ASIC; but our gen unlikely to see "ONE STRIKE and you are out" reform.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/four...h-to-ban-serial-offenders-20101210-18ste.html

Four strikes and you're out: regulator in push to ban serial offenders
Adele Ferguson
December 11, 2010

THE corporate regulator is lobbying for law reform to give it powers to automatically disqualify directors who have been involved in four or more failed companies over a seven-year period.

If the law is changed it would increase the number of directors banned each year and reduce the amount of phoenix activity.

Under the current law, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission can seek to ban a director who has been on the board of two or more failed companies and a liquidator has lodged a report regarding the corporation's inability to pay its debts. A notice is served and the person then has the opportunity to demonstrate why they should not be disqualified.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Introducing automatic disqualification provisions to include directors involved in four or more company failures where a section 533(1) liquidator report has been lodged for each of those companies would remove those directors without having to go through the disqualification process.

Directors so disqualified would have a right to apply to the court if they sought to continue, or wished to commence managing a company during the disqualification period.

ASIC's senior executive leader of real economy, Kathrine Morgan-Wicks, told BusinessDay that the regulator was talking to Treasury about further law reform to enable it to automatically ban a director rather than wait to receive a report from a liquidator. It is then up to the government to act on it.

But it is a balancing act between banning directors that are serial offenders of failed companies and not deterring entrepreneurship.

Ms Morgan-Wicks said in the past 12 months ASIC had increased its focus on director disqualifications, including creating a new compliance and deterrence team of up to 35 people to focus on the small to medium-sized business sector, which is where most illegal phoenix activity occurs.

Phoenix activity is a practice where a business closes down one day and re-opens the next with a different name to avoid paying its obligations to unsecured creditors. "We are very serious about tackling phoenix activity," she said.

She said in 2009-10 ASIC banned 90 directors - an 80 per cent increase on the previous year when 49 directors were banned.

She said ASIC was determined to clamp down on phoenix activity but it would help if there was reform in taxation and corporation law.

"Using the existing mechanisms we are pushing them strongly, and have seen an increase in director disqualifications. That sends a strong message. People take it seriously," she said.

ASIC has a three-pronged approach to phoenix activity, including a liquidator assistance program, director disqualification and an investigations program.


----------



## seamisty (11 December 2010)

http://inaudit.com/audit/former-sec...dit-committees-role-after-allco-debacle-2736/

Former Securities Officer Calls for Revamp in Audit Committee’s Role After Allco Debacle
Lucas Gilmore, “Big 4″ observer December 08, 2010 / Alarmed by the recent failure of a KPMG auditor to properly report the accounts of Allco Finance Group, a former head of the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) called for a reform in the way audit committee does its job, including a more transparent reporting and an deeper assessment of a company’s business.

Lee White, Institute of Chartered Accountants (ICA) executive general manager and a former ASIC chief, said that although Australia has seen lesser fallouts of the global financial crisis, the issue on the role of the audit committee to forecast risks to the business model has become more crucial in a time when the audit profession needs enhancement and closer look.

White recommended inclusion of the business model in assessing a company’s account in addition to its financial statement, with view on how debt funding in particular may impact that model. In this case, White added, auditors’ activities within companies must be included in the annual reports to enable transparency in how they carry out their role, giving investors and analysts an overview of the audit committee’s function.

This recommendation, according to White, would also enable the audit committee to establish priorities on where it should devote much effort and time assessing a company’s financial statement. “They could answer the plain question: 'what did you use to understand the valuation?' “ he said.

The Treasury solicited in March recommendations on how to increase the profile of the audit committee through new legislations. In its consultation paper, the Treasury raised the point of stipulating in the Corporations Act the role of the audit committee as part of S&P/ASX All Ordinaries Index requirements for all companies.


----------



## simgrund (11 December 2010)

Some more of the "phoenix" mavericks whom ASIC wants to limit to 3 or less strikes: 

Relevant tidbit: 
_"...Concern mounted when it was revealed that the directors of Freshwater Village Developments, Joseph Nakat and Roberto Bucci, as well as four directors of its holding company, Spar Capital Nominees, were on the boards of some of Australia's biggest corporate collapses, including Allco Finance Group, Lift Capital and Basis Capital, whose combined losses total more than $1.1 billion."

_http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/it-takes-a-village-to-beat-a-developer-20101210-18swy.html


----------



## selciper (12 December 2010)

As is often observed, if American fraudster Bernie Madoff had operated out of Australia, he’d probably still be out and about denying any wrong-doings. One of today’s news items about him describes the possibility of an Austrian banker having been involved in the scam. She denies the innuendo.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/madoff-trustee-seeks-19-6-billion-from-austrian-banker/


----------



## simgrund (12 December 2010)

selciper said:


> As is often observed, if American fraudster Bernie Madoff had operated out of Australia, he’d probably still be out and about denying any wrong-doings. One of today’s news items about him describes the possibility of an Austrian banker having been involved in the scam. She denies the innuendo.
> 
> http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/madoff-trustee-seeks-19-6-billion-from-austrian-banker/



And his elder son would not have hanged himself this week. Poor lad, for father's sins.


----------



## selciper (12 December 2010)

Simgrund - the Madoffs of this world don’t give a wit about anybody. They ruin the lives of their own families, friends and others who put their trust in them. It’s an unstopable money addiction that drives them to this ruthlessness.


----------



## seamisty (13 December 2010)

Litigation shaping up to be an area of intense activity 
Angela Pearsall From: The Australian December 13, 2010 12:00AM 

extracts from article::
LOOKING into the crystal ball for 2011 and beyond shows litigation is shaping up to be an area of intense activity. 

 Some of the biggest corporate names will be in the spotlight as legal boundaries are tested by the many reforms and regulations introduced over the past year. The pressure is going to be on.


Australian corporations and directors should also brace for increased regulatory activity from both the corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission, and the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, because of the widening of their enforcement powers in the past 12 months.

ASIC, in response to widespread criticism, has announced that it will move with increased speed and efficiency in its management of major litigation and investigations, in order to achieve maximum deterrent impact.


While 2010 was the year of new reforms and regulation, 2011 will be the year of implementation, as regulators prepare to strike and courts define boundaries. In the meantime, the pressure is on companies and directors, not only in ensuring they comply with the new rules, but also in preparing themselves for the onslaught of investigations and litigation just around the corner.

Full Article:: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...intense-activity/story-e6frg9if-1225969801475


----------



## Duped (13 December 2010)

selciper said:


> Simgrund - the Madoffs of this world don’t give a wit about anybody. They ruin the lives of their own families, friends and others who put their trust in them. It’s an unstopable money addiction that drives them to this ruthlessness.




Doing God's work?

"I'm doing God's work" Loyd Blankfein, November 2009 as CEO and Chairman of Goldman Sachs



marcom said:


> Octaviar scrutiny goes on and on
> Nick Nichols, business editor  December 11th, 2010
> http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/12/11/276071_gold-coast-business.html
> 
> ...




"the major financier" That's quite a reckless statement Mr Nichols. What were you leading your readers to believe? Your paper is hardly the Financial Review or even The Australian so you have no basis to argue your readers know what 'major' and 'financier' mean to anyone above a novice  reader. Fortress ranked behind $ owed to PTQ's unit holders and PIF and barely in front of Challenger. (Probably even behind OPI Pacific too)

"Many argue ..." Who? The couple who runs the local fish & chip shop?  Anyway, what are you trying to lead your readers to believe?  Company failures almost never go court if there's no recoverable money left to fight over. (You can quote me on that.) So what's your point?


----------



## selciper (13 December 2010)

If anyone is interested in the Madoff story, this CBS 60 Minutes segment produced soon after his arrest is interesting - especially the many references to the regulator's role.

http://dailybail.com/home/bailout-the-sec-complete-interview-of-harry-markopolos-on-cb.html


----------



## marcom (13 December 2010)

Talking of Madoff, there seems to be an Australian recent case where ASIC actually did something!! This is from the Bronte Capital blog site. Follow some of the highlighted links for the full picture - you will need to go to the link to do this.

Bronte Capital

There is a big world out there

Wednesday, December 8, 2010
*Shawn Richard of Astarra enters a guilty plea
*
Just over a year ago I wrote a letter to regulators detailing a fraud at an Australian fund manager (Astarra/Trio Capital).  This was the Bernie Madoff of Australia.  (This required no special genius on my part.  I was tipped off by a blog reader.)

The regulator closed Astarra within a month.  I have no complaints.

I wrote up part of my thinking for this blog.

But until recently no charges were laid and I was getting increasingly frustrated.  I even wrote a (slightly) complaining letter to ASIC (the Australian regulator) only yesterday.

But the Australian regulator rocks!  Shawn Richard (the principal malefactor) was charged  - entered a guilty plea and will go to prison (probably for five years).

I want to acknowledge the press.  The Sydney Morning Herald has kept the story alive with accurate and hard-hitting reporting.  The (financial) decline of newspapers is not a good thing.

ASIC has set a standard for the SEC to emulate.

Prosecutions are important.  Many thousands of people have lost their life savings in this mess.  A strong regulatory response will reduce the chance of repeat problems.


John
Posted by John Hempton at 3:28 PM 11 comments


----------



## marcom (13 December 2010)

I forgot to post this apologist piece from Nick Nichols on the nasty media coverage given to the Gold Coast white shoe brigade. Particularly see the section from the highlighted line below:

Trite Gold Coast comments irksome

Nick Nichols, business editor   |  December 1st, 2010

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/12/01/274291_nick-nichols-opinion.html

I'M SICK of it, over it and done with it.

The media hacks who have no idea what they are talking about and do nothing but regurgitate old news and jaundiced views of the Gold Coast are getting away with murder.

The tourism strip and its colourful business profiles are the inevitable target of "tsk-tsk" commentary after three years of economic downturn that sees no sign of abating.

Cartoons depicting white shoes, gold teeth and Hawaiian shirts abound in this fantasy land created by journalists whose only interest in the Gold Coast is a holiday with the wife and kids or a booze-up and punt with the lads once in a while.

Even worse are the commentators who have not even been to the Coast, yet who still write about it as if they know it intimately.

Take the bright spark at The Australian a few years back who wrote a caption under a photo of the Surfers Paradise skyline looking east. The caption read: "The Gold Coast, with Brisbane in the background".

Aaarghhh!
Have your say on the feedback form below

This is the calibre of people telling the world what a bunch of duds we are on the Gold Coast, giving little thought to the fact that the Coast is no different to any other business environment -- except that it is possibly more challenging than most.

I switched on Sunrise the other morning to see Kochie and the editor of BRW having a go at Craig Gore and Matthew Perrin -- two guys who had a lot but lost it all through "irrational exuberance", to use the words of former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan.

Kochie called Gore a bankrupt, but that was way off the mark as he has just secured a deal with his creditors to avoid bankruptcy -- possibly the biggest Part X agreement in Australian history.
Your Say

"The coast is expensive yet very tired, Surfers is trashy and dirty, only has its name to live by. If we rely on tourism, entrepreneurs keep the place ticking over with new ideas and programs.Govt lack of spending on infrastructure is now coming to a head"
waddy

The BRW guy also described Perrin as founder of Billabong -- I'm sure Billabong and Gordon Merchant would have something to say about that.

Out of all Australians who have lost the lot over the past three years, this was the best they could do -- a couple of Gold Coasters.

Of course, they also took a swipe at Jodee Rich, declaring he was a target for action by the corporate watchdog. But they failed to mention that ASIC's case fell in a heap this year.

This is not about defending anyone in particular, but it is most definitely about defending the Gold Coast.

Trite commentary makes a mockery of how tough it is to do business on the Coast, often seen as a Nirvana of riches by southerners.

Not much press, for example, has been given to Mick Bezzina.

Who's that you ask?

That's precisely my argument.

He was the Sydney whiz-kid who came to the Coast to create one of the most luxurious apartment projects seen on the strip, the $100 million Jade development .

After it all went belly-up in 2008, Bezzina faded into obscurity in Sydney and has since structured a Part X agreement with his creditors to avoid bankruptcy.

Of course, he's from Sydney, so nobody cares.

*Online posters to this column please note.
*
This is not a defence of wayward business practices, just a defence of the Gold Coast and its reputation.

We should not take this easybeat target lying down.

If you think you have lost money to shysters, then you need to hear my story as well.

Yet I am still all for the entrepreneurs that keep this city alive and kicking.

The gleeful schadenfreude that goes with the reports on Gold Coast business failures is an insult.


----------



## Duped (13 December 2010)

That's gold marcom.  A News Ltd reporter having a go at other reporters.  The pen supplants and is mightier than the sword does then he who lives by the pen can die by the pen.


----------



## marcom (13 December 2010)

Duped, I posted a comment on thIs GC Buletin Opinion piece nearly two weeks ago and Nichols has not published it or any other critical comments either. For the record I posted "This type of opinion is nothing more than a self-serving apology for a bunch of crooks who have defrauded tens of thousands of investors of their life savings - that's why the Gold Coast has over many years earned a very low reputation for honesty! When you burn that many investors they don't come back, and this is the real reason why the Coast is viewed so poorly"


----------



## seamisty (13 December 2010)

marcom said:


> Duped, I posted a comment on thIs GC Buletin Opinion piece nearly two weeks ago and Nichols has not published it or any other critical comments either. For the record I posted "This type of opinion is nothing more than a self-serving apology for a bunch of crooks who have defrauded tens of thousands of investors of their life savings - that's why the Gold Coast has over many years earned a very low reputation for honesty! When you burn that many investors they don't come back, and this is the real reason why the Coast is viewed so poorly"



Marcom, Duped, I gave up leaving comments with the Gold Coast Bulletin ages ago!! Even though I considered them honest and justified, if they remotely looked like drawing attention to any of the alleged  MFS/Octaviar dishonest bunch of crooks they were NEVER published!! I would't mind a dollar (make up for losses incurred from Gold Coast crooks posing as fund managers!!) for every time someone has said to me they would't touch any investment with Gold Coast connections with a barge pole as the place is crawling with crooks. A reputation like that is earnt not invented!! Seamisty


----------



## marcom (13 December 2010)

Oops here is the link for the post from Bronte Capital site mentioned above -

http://brontecapital.blogspot.com/


----------



## marcom (14 December 2010)

WikiLeaks cables: RBS chairman said directors 'failed to live up to their duties'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/13/wikileaks-rbs-chairman-philip-hampton
 * Business
 * Royal Bank of Scotland

The US embassy cables
WikiLeaks cables: RBS chairman said directors 'failed to live up to their duties'
 * Jill Treanor and Larry Elliott
 * guardian.co.uk, Monday 13 December 2010 23.00 GMT 

Sir Philip Hampton's reported claim of breach in 'fiduciary responsibilities' will raise pressure on FSA over RBS inquiry.

Lord Turner, chairman of the Financial Services Authority, is likely to come under pressure to reopen the regulator's probe into Royal Bank of Scotland after leaked US cables show the bank's new chairman Sir Philip Hampton said the former bank directors had failed to live up to their duties.

The private remarks by Hampton that directors had breached their "fiduciary responsibilities" are disclosed barely a week after the City regulator controversially shut its investigation into what went wrong at RBS.

The FSA's decision, revealed by the Guardian, was greeted with astonishment in the financial community and means no action will be taken against the bank or any of its former directors, including former chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin.

The cables sent from the US embassy in London, report that Hampton told a visiting delegation of politicians that one of the biggest mistakes made by the bank was its takeover of Dutch bank ABN Amro just as the credit crunch began in the autumn of 2007. This acquisition left the bank with a wafer-thin capital cushion and ultimately led to the £45bn taxpayer bailout of the bank in October 2008.

Lawyers said Hampton's reported remarks could be crucial for any shareholders trying to bring legal action for the losses they sustained on their shares during the £12bn cash call made on shareholders in the spring of 2008 – and should be of interest to the FSA.

Asked about the importance of a fiduciary responsibility, Simon Morris of law firm CMS Cameron McKenna said: "A fiduciary duty is about honesty. Shareholders give directors the power to run a company and a breach of that fiduciary duty is a reflection of a lapse in that honesty. A breach is also likely to be of interest to the FSA if it is an FSA regulated firm."

On 2 December the FSA said it could not find any director who had behaved with "a lack of integrity", nor had it found "a failure of governance on the part of the board."

The cable reports Hampton as acknowledging that RBS had made "several enormous mistakes".

"Top among them was its heavy exposure in the US subprime market and the bank's purchase of ABN Amro, which occurred at the height of the market and without RBS doing proper due diligence prior to the purchase. The board of directors never questioned this purchase, which Hampton termed a failure of their fiduciary responsibilities," the cable said....


----------



## marcom (14 December 2010)

Anger grows over FSA investigation into Royal Bank of Scotland

• Regulator will not take action against Sir Fred Goodwin
• PwC inquiry into Royal Bank of Scotland will not be published
• 'This just won't wash,' says Lib Dem Treasury spokesman
• Unite calls lack of disciplinary action 'an outrage'
* Jill Treanor
* guardian.co.uk, Thursday 2 December 2010 16.35 GMT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/02/rbs-bad-decisions-fsa-investigation

The Financial Services Authority is facing criticism tonight for closing its investigation into what went wrong at Royal Bank of Scotland without taking disciplinary action against any of the individuals involved, including the former chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin.

Amid questions about why the regulator had appointed external advisers from PricewaterhouseCoopers to conduct the 17-month review, unions accused the City regulator of being unable to "hold the sector to account".

Lord Oakeshott, a Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, was also tabling a question to demand a copy of the PwC review be placed in the parliamentary library after the City regulator said rules prevented it from making the report public. "This just won't wash," Oakeshott said.

The FSA blamed "bad" decisions rather than dishonesty for the events that led to the £45bn taxpayer bailout of the bank. The review by PwC – whose role as an auditor to a number of banks is being investigated by various regulatory bodies – analysed the events that led to RBS's takeover of the Dutch bank ABN Amro as the credit crunch was beginning in late 2007. PwC also looked at rights issues conducted by the bank in 2008, which are the subject of legal action by some shareholders who are concerned they were misled by the bank.

Rob MacGregor, national officer at the Unite union, described the conclusions as an outrage. "By failing to bring any formal charges against the RBS executives they have allowed some of the biggest villains of the financial crisis to go on enjoying their millionaire lifestyles whilst taxpayers experience cuts and staff face an insecure future," MacGregor said.....


----------



## Cookie1 (15 December 2010)

Article in the Courier Mail today re Chris Scott:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/prope...holiday-rip-offs/story-e6frequ6-1225971130633

*High-flyer fined $130k for holiday rip-offs
*
by Greg Stolz From: The Courier-Mail December 15, 2010 12:00AM


FINED and banned ... Executive director of Octaviar Chris Scott arriving at Southport Magistrate's Court. Picture: Paul Riley Source: The Courier-Mail
A GOLD Coast high-flyer has been fined a record $130,000 and banned for life from operating as a holiday letting agent after admitting to ripping off unit owners in one of the Glitter Strip's top resorts.

Chris Scott and his former company Driftcove were this week hit with fines and costs and compensation orders totalling more than $436,000 after a seven-year investigation by the Office of Fair Trading.

But the Unit Owners Association of Queensland has slammed the penalties as a "slap on the wrist".

It says thousands of charges against Mr Scott and Driftcove were dropped in a plea deal and claims unit owners are still being dudded by holiday apartment management companies charging inflated secret commissions.

Mr Scott, an ex-director of failed tourism and financial services giant Octaviar (formerly MFS), previously headed Driftcove which operates The Phoenician apartments at Broadbeach.

Criminal charges against Mr Scott, who is now involved in the childcare industry, were dropped last year.

In the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal this week, he admitted to failing to ensure that Driftcove disclosed fees and charges to unit owners in the building on more than 2800 occasions.


----------



## seamisty (15 December 2010)

Cookie1 said:


> Article in the Courier Mail today re Chris Scott:
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/prope...holiday-rip-offs/story-e6frequ6-1225971130633
> 
> ...



Who was his adviser Cookie? Ms Jenny Hutson, chairwoman of S8? David Mark Anderson was a director. Here is an old related article from 2005::


http://archive.traveldaily.com.au/2006/May06/td250506.pdf
S8 under Qld investigation
S8 Limited is maintaining that
there is no substance in allegations
of excessive commissions being
charged to owners of a Gold Coast
apartment complex it manages.
Today’s Australian newspaper
quotes S8 chair Jenny Hutson
saying she wasn’t aware of a Qld
dept of fair trading probe into the
matter, but said she’s “more than
100% confident that there is
absolutely no issue.”
Owners of units in the Phoenician
resort at Broadbeach voted in Apr
to take legal action against S8 and a
subsidiary, claiming the firms took
30% commission through their
Gold Coast booking agency and a
further 12% via fully-owned
management firm Driftcove Pty Ltd.
Qld tourism minister Margaret
Keech has described the matter as
“very serious” in parliament butdidn’t comment further because it’s
still under investigation..
An earlier claim by unit owners to
Qld’s Body Corporate Commission
over the double-dipping allegations
has already been denied and S8
insisted it abides by all contractual
arrangements with unitholders.


----------



## selciper (15 December 2010)

Coolie's link to the Courier Mail story shows a large photo of Chris Scott.


----------



## seamisty (15 December 2010)

selciper said:


> Coolie's link to the Courier Mail story shows a large photo of Chris Scott.



Looks like he is poking his tongue out and his dyed hair looks ridiculous!!! I hope prospective and existing G8 Education shareholders take the time to research G8 directors and management. Might not be the end of it either if he is found to have cut a preferential deal re management rights for the PIF with his previous S8 and current G8 adviser and chairperson Jenny Hutson. Might be a bit harder to empire build with credentials that includes  'admitting to ripping off unit owners'!!! People with these type of scruples should be completely banned for life from any involvement with companies, shareholders, investors etc. They appear untrustworthy and dishonest. Gold Coast Bulletin should be all over this news since they previously reported 'JENNY Hutson and Chris Scott as the formidable duo that built tourism empire S8'!! 

Seamisty


----------



## marcom (15 December 2010)

I wonder how many secret commissions the liquidator will find in connection with Octaviar and PIF? BTW secret commissions are illegal under the Federal Trade Practices Act -Wonder why the criminal charges were droped? Plea bargaining only seems to benefit the guilty.


----------



## selciper (15 December 2010)

Gold Coast Bulletin re Chris Scott.

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/12/15/276795_gold-coast-business.html


----------



## marcom (15 December 2010)

selciper said:


> Gold Coast Bulletin re Chris Scott.
> 
> http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/12/15/276795_gold-coast-business.html




Nick Nichols states " Mr Scott declined to comment on the matter yesterday, *but it is believed the judgment will have no bearing on his current business interests".*

Who believes this Nick? Who can you atribute to these generalities? Just more apologetic sopping PR from this self serving "Business Editor". Face it Nick, another of your white shoe brigade mates has disgrased the good name of the Gold Coast!


----------



## seamisty (15 December 2010)

marcom said:


> Nick Nichols states " Mr Scott declined to comment on the matter yesterday, *but it is believed the judgment will have no bearing on his current business interests".*
> 
> Who believes this Nick? Who can you atribute to these generalities? Just more apologetic sopping PR from this self serving "Business Editor". Face it Nick, another of your white shoe brigade mates has disgrased the good name of the Gold Coast!



From http://www.earlylearningservices.co... 2010 _approved by ASIC 21 04 2010_.pdf'Chris is a ‘hands on’ manager. His operational, analytical and strategic skills were critical in the selection
of potential acquisitions which met the criteria to ensure the profitable expansion of the S8 Group.' HA HA At least we know what some of the 'hands on skills' entailed which contributed to to the profitable expansion of S8!! Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (15 December 2010)

http://money.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8183653

Octaviar due diligence 'ad hoc': analyst
15/12/2010 3:17:04 PM
 A finance analyst for a major creditor of collapsed Gold Coast property group Octaviar has revealed the "ad hoc" nature of due diligence on the account.

Fortress Credit's Mark Kwei on Wednesday told an inquiry into the collapse that he alone did the due diligence work on Octaviar's loans.

The investigation is trying to get to the bottom of when Octaviar, formerly known as MFS, became insolvent.

The group collapsed in 2008 after being placed into voluntary administration. It owed Fortress Credit about $150 million and about $2 billion in total.

Mr Kwei said he was given no specific training on due diligence when he joined Fortress in 2006.

"We apply our (professional) training to the circumstances," he told the inquiry in Brisbane.

"It wasn't prescriptive."

Mr Kwei said he received feedback on his work on an "ad hoc basis", and that when he first looked into Octaviar's finances in 2006 he determined it was "a strong company".

Mr Kwei said he didn't ask where Octaviar got the money to repay Fortress $100 million in 2007, but later found out it was from Challenger Financial Group.

Liquidator Kylie Downes asked Mr Kwei whether he raised concerns that Octaviar was unable to repay its debts with his superior, Fortress chief executive David Kelleher.

He said he was not "that definitive" about the company's potential insolvency when shareholders were alerted to problems in January 2008.

He agreed with Ms Downes that Octaviar Limited drew money held by a separate company, Octaviar Administrated, like it would from a bank, but wouldn't say whether this was an unusual practice.

Octaviar reportedly still has about $140 million in cash.

The inquiry is due to hear from Mr Kelleher on Wednesday afternoon.


----------



## JohnH (15 December 2010)

seamisty said:


> From http://www.earlylearningservices.co... 2010 _approved by ASIC 21 04 2010_.pdf'Chris is a ‘hands on’ manager. His operational, analytical and strategic skills were critical in the selection
> of potential acquisitions which met the criteria to ensure the profitable expansion of the S8 Group.' HA HA At least we know what some of the 'hands on skills' entailed which contributed to to the profitable expansion of S8!! Seamisty




Very interesting Seamisty............... if you click on your link it goes nowhere, and if you go to http://www.earlylearningservices.com.au/about_us/board_of_directors/

.............. not a mention now of Scott or Hutson.


----------



## seamisty (15 December 2010)

JohnH said:


> Very interesting Seamisty............... if you click on your link it goes nowhere, and if you go to http://www.earlylearningservices.com.au/about_us/board_of_directors/
> 
> .............. not a mention now of Scott or Hutson.





Try this JohnH, page 7, interesting about the $700,000 loan to Scott as well page 11
http://www.earlylearningservices.co...of AGM 2010 _approved by ASIC 21 04 2010_.pdf


----------



## LTD (15 December 2010)

Has this been missed because I didnt see it posted...but could be old news?

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/12/10/275891_gold-coast-business.html

"Iconic Surfers sale set to light a spark
Tracey McBean   |  December 10th, 2010

AN acquisitive Sydney funds manager is banking on gaining major upside in central Surfers Paradise after pouring more than $80 million into the precinct this year.

EG Funds Management yesterday confirmed it had outlaid about $40 million to buy the Circle on Cavill commercial complex.

The figure is well short of the $90 million that Octaviar, formerly MFS and now in liquidation, sought for the upmarket shopping and office precinct in 2008.

It is understood the 12,300sq m Circle precinct is about 75 per cent leased and pulls in an annual income of more than $3 million." continues...


----------



## seamisty (15 December 2010)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=293392


Octaviar financiers unworried before fall Gabrielle Dunlevy 
December 15, 2010 - 7:04PM

AAP 

Major financiers of a collapsed Gold Coast property and financial group were not concerned about their client's solvency, even when the share price plunged by two-thirds.

Octaviar, formerly known as MFS, collapsed in 2008 owing about $2 billion to creditors including Fortress Credit.

Liquidators are trying to determine exactly when the company became insolvent.

Advertisement: Story continues below In a hearing in Brisbane on Wednesday, Fortress Credit's Mark Kwei said he alone did the due diligence on Octaviar.

When he first looked into its financial health in 2006, he determined it to be a "strong company".

In December 2007, Mr Kwei raised with his boss, Fortress chief executive officer David Kelleher, problems with one part of the Octaviar group.

Young Villages Estate, a retirement project, was performing below standard, he said.

"The comfort level we had with the underlying security was not as good as we thought it was," Mr Kwei said.

But it was not until MFS founder Michael King alerted shareholders to problems with a capital-raising proposal in January 2008 that Mr Kwei sought short-term cash flow projections from Octaviar.

"It appeared there was only just sufficient cash for it to meet its obligations over the (two-month) forecast period," he said.

Mr Kwei said he listened to the January 18 phone call and was worried that Mr King had not properly explained the company's financial position.

"I was concerned that statements that he made had been misinterpreted," he told the court, agreeing with liquidator Kylie Downes that Mr King had "glossed over" the money owed to Fortress.

The proposal saw the company's share price fall from $3.18 to 99 cents, but Mr Kwei said he still wasn't worried about Octaviar's ability to repay the loans.

"I believed they could," he said, claiming he hadn't thought about what had caused Octaviar's cash flow problems.

Mr Kwei told the court that on joining Fortress in 2006, he was given no formal guidelines on due diligence.

Feedback from Mr Kelleher was given only on an "ad hoc" basis, he said.

Mr Kelleher later confirmed this, saying his guidance on due diligence was informal, "depending on the transaction".

Mr Kelleher said it was "some months thereafter" in December 2007 that he became worried about Octaviar's capacity to repay its debts.

He will continue giving evidence on Thursday.

Former KPMG auditor Mitch Craig was on Wednesday due before a hearing in Sydney


----------



## JohnH (15 December 2010)

seamisty said:


> Try this JohnH, page 7, interesting about the $700,000 loan to Scott as well page 11
> http://www.earlylearningservices.co...of AGM 2010 _approved by ASIC 21 04 2010_.pdf




Yes............ and also interesting that their site does not name the current board of Directors ............  mind you knowing how sluggish WC are in updating their own site I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.


----------



## seamisty (16 December 2010)

Auditor quizzed over MFS accounts 
Susannah Moran From: The Australian December 16, 2010 12:00AM 

A FORMER partner at consultancy KPMG was quizzed yesterday over the firm's audit of the collapsed Gold Coast property group MFS. 

Mitchell Craig, who no longer works at KPMG, was questioned about the 2006 and 2007 fiscal year accounts of Octaviar, the new name of MFS.

Liquidator Kate Bentley, of Bentleys Corporate Recovery, is trying to establish at what point Octaviar became insolvent. The group collapsed in early 2008, owing about $2.5 billion.

Mr Craig was questioned yesterday by Adam Bell SC over a share sale entered into on the last day of the 2007 financial year.

Mr Craig said he believed the purchaser of the shares was outside Octaviar.

Documents shown to Mr Craig revealed that the purchasers of the shares were either principals or entities associated with the MFS principals.

When asked if he was aware of this at the time of the 2007 audit, Mr Craig replied: "I don't know."

Mr Bell also asked Mr Craig about a number of loans and the property secured against those loans. Mr Bell outlined five loans that were all secured by the same property, but Mr Craig said he was not aware of this when auditing the 2007 accounts.

Public examinations were also held in Brisbane yesterday, where a finance analyst, Fortress Credit Corporation's Mark Kwei, gave evidence. Fortress was a major creditor of MFS and is owed about $150 million.

Mr Kwei said that he alone did the due diligence work on Octaviar's loans and was given no specific training on due diligence when he joined Fortress in 2006.

"We apply our (professional) training to the circumstances," he told the inquiry in Brisbane.

"It wasn't prescriptive."

Mr Kwei said he didn't ask where Octaviar got the money to repay Fortress $100m in 2007, but later found out it was from Challenger Financial Group.

Fortress chief executive David Kelleher will give evidence today.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ver-mfs-accounts/story-e6frg8zx-1225971745447


----------



## marcom (16 December 2010)

Here is the link to the G8 Education site where hottie and scottie are listed as directors complete with a separate section detailing the sucesses of those directors who were with S8 -  http://www.g8education.com/

G8 Education (ASX code GEM) has an obligation under the continuous disclosure rules to advise the market of anything that may effect the company's share price. I have checked the ASX site and G8 site for disclosure re Director Chris Scott's ban and fines - nothing yet.


----------



## selciper (16 December 2010)

Thanks for the link, Marcom. I was attracted to one of the points in the G8 mission statement."To nurture and develop children’s minds, social skills and confidence in a safe and stimulating environment."


----------



## marcom (16 December 2010)

Coverage of the second day of examinations by the liquidator:
SMH http://www.smh.com.au/business/gold...-had-faith-in-failed-firm-20101216-18z3f.html

*Gold Coast property chief had faith in failed firm*
December 16, 2010 - 3:19PM

The head of a major financier of collapsed Gold Coast property group Octaviar trusted the company could repay a major loan within a week, and didn't question the source of a $100 million repayment.

Fortress Credit Corporation chief David Kelleher on Thursday continued his evidence into the company's 2008 failure.

Previously known as MFS, it collapsed owing about $2 billion to creditors, including Fortress.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Lawyer for the liquidators Kylie Downes on Thursday used hearings in the Brisbane Magistrates Court to focus on a Fortress loan to one of the companies in the Octaviar group known as Castle.

It was extended twice before it was repaid in February 2008, from the proceeds of the sale of Octaviar's Stella travel business.

Fortress itself had previously considered buying Stella and analysed its value after debts, but did not proceed.

MFS sold 65 per cent of the business for about $400 million in February 2008 to private equity firm CVC Asia Pacific.

Mr Kelleher said he was not concerned when Octaviar decided to defer the sale of Stella - its first option to repay the Castle loan - until after December 2007.

He was aware Octaviar had "ongoing dialogue" about finance with bank lenders and believed assurances that it could raise the capital to meet its repayments within a week if pushed.

"They can access the capital markets in that sort of timeframe," he told the court in Brisbane.

"We knew they had done raising on the market earlier in the year so we knew they were capable of doing it."

In December 2007, Fortress decided not to extend the loan again, and sought a $100 million repayment instead.

"$25 million was not a significant enough payment in our minds," he said.

"We had underling facilities ourselves in our business that required repayment."

Mr Kelleher said he wasn't worried about the source of the funds at the time, and later found out they had come from Challenger Financial.

He was also questioned about another loan for Octaviar to acquire a retirement project known as Young Villages Estate.

The $53.5 million transaction was closely followed by the January 2008 capital raising plan by MFS founder Michael King that was poorly received by shareholders.

Shares plunged from above $3 to 99 cents in response.

Mr Kelleher said he did worry about that, but still had no concerns about Octaviar's ability to service its loans.

*The inquiry, aimed at finding out exactly when Octaviar became insolvent, is set to continue next year, with Fortress witnesses set to face more questions in February.*

AAP

Frankly this beggars belief - a major international financer lends $250mill and was confidant that Octaviar could repay the loan at short notice even after the share price dives to 99 cents! And this is after yesterdays admission that a junior staffer without formal training did the due dilligence on the loan. What a load of cods wallop!! Just a case of tying to frustrate the liquidators attempts to fix an insolvency date that might require Fortress to give back the $250 mill it is holding in escrow.


----------



## breaker1 (17 December 2010)

Seamisty > More on Mr Kwei > misplaced faith in these guys?

Via "Perth Now" 15 Dec

A FINANCE analyst has revealed the "ad hoc'' nature of due diligence done on collapsed Gold Coast property group Octaviar.

Fortress Credit's Mark Kwei on Wednesday told an inquiry into the collapse that he alone did the due diligence work on Octaviar's loans.

The investigation is trying to get to the bottom of when Octaviar, formerly known as MFS, became insolvent.

Mr Kwei said he received feedback on his work on an ``ad hoc basis'', and that when he first looked into Octaviar's finances in 2006 he determined it was ``a strong company''.

Mr Kwei said he didn't ask where Octaviar got the money to repay Fortress $100 million in 2007, but later found out it was from Challenger Financial Group.
Full story: http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/octaviar-due-diligence-ad-hoc/story-e6frg2ru-1225971662548


Courtesy of "John" (AG member)


----------



## Duped (17 December 2010)

marcom

The Smart Money. Very well resourced people who know the system better than the transient and overloaded politicians and compartmentalised and overloaded bureaucrats and judiciary. They are intimately familiar with the gulf between legislative ambition and commercial/judicial reality. Probably even nudging it wider whenever they can.

Baiting and shorting MFS/Octaviar would have been a walk in the park for anyone who could be bothered taking the risk. 

So marcom, while the comments by the individuals from Fortress cause you to beggar belief. For me they just cause me to sigh.  IMO it's highly possible that Fortress has done nothing illegal nor been incompetant.  Their comments point to the possibility that they just sailed through that gulf. Baiting MFS/Octaviar and then feasting off the carcass by short selling.  This is this principle behind short selling, culling poor Boards & Exec to reduce the further misallocation of resources so that good companies can grow sooner, in action.  They are the free market's hyenas: removing the weak to make room for the strong.

If so, then the end for MFS/Octaviar was in mid 2007 when under Peacock/King, it signed up with Fortress. If MFS/Octaviar was strong, they would have made it. But Fortress wouldn't have been concerned about MFS/OCVs strength because, I understand, it's perfectly legal for a creditor to short sell the company.  It's called hedging.  

If Fortress did short sell MFS/OCV, then all they did was hand Peacock/King the rope to hang the company.  Fortress didn't force Peacock/King to sign the loan facility agreement.

When will be I rid of conceited governments and bureaucrats that oversell their capabilities. I'm sick and tired of this democracy being used against me by the smart money.


----------



## marcom (17 December 2010)

Duped. you are spot on with your assessment of the tactics used by Fortressand others

The salient point you make is "If so, then the end for MFS/Octaviar was in mid 2007 when under Peacock/King, it signed up with Fortress." And this is why the liquidator will continue to grill Fortress into the new year. Looks like they have settled on a mid-2007 insolvency date as this significantly broadens the range of transactions that will fall into the liquidators web. The liquidator has all but defused any come back by KPMG based on Mitch Craig's evidence and the fact he no longer works for KPMG means he is less likely to be influenced by them.  And in relation to Fortress the liquidators starting point was in evidence from "Mr Kwei said that he alone did the due diligence work on Octaviar's loans and was given no specific training on due diligence when he joined Fortress in 2006". Fortress Director David Kelleher has tried to retrieve the situation but I am sure the liquidator will eventually wear him down to. The end result should be an insolvency date of mid-2007 with evidence from both Fortress and the auditor indicating they both missed the vital signs, and this hopefully should pave the way for liquidators court recovery actions relatively free of complicating litigation. 

And if a creditor or preferential transaction entity tries to frustrate such litigation they would best remember that the Liquidator has in excess of a $140m kitty to fight with and more importantly Bentleys has all the MFS/Octaviar records and this is a real advantage in litigation.


----------



## Duped (17 December 2010)

Marcom. Sorry but  I don't hold as much hope.  The High Court Octaviar made no mention of what to me was a clear case of estoppel. The High Court wouldn't make the step it could so easily and fairly have made.

There is a big difference between Fortress (A) not knowing if OVC could pay  and (B) Fortress knowing that OCV couldn't pay. We currently only have (A). My gut feeling is that the High Court would be even less likely to take the step of deciding that (A) justifies ruling (B).

And Korda's testimony suggests to me that the logic behind 'solvency' is a morass of logic that is far removed from what regular citizens like you and me would consider. It's hard to tell how much weight a court would give each bit of logic.  (Just the way the legal profession likes it.)

I see this testimony so far from Fortress as 'not bad news' rather than 'good news'.


----------



## charles36 (18 December 2010)

ADMINISTRATOR.    Well done with your new format.  Merry Christmas to you and your little helpers.  Kind regards Charles36.


----------



## seamisty (20 December 2010)

Well done Wellington Capital!! True to your usual style of sticking your head up your AXXX and trying to hide when you failed in your committment as usual you just post an announcement to say you are knocking off for Xmas. Well I hope you have a long hard think as to how many people hold you with growing contempt as you continue to demonstrate your incompetence and indifference to the thousands of peoples lives you continue to ruin because your ego cannot cope with the truth of your failure!!!

Business Update
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund advises that its offices,
including the Wellington Hotline, will close for the holiday season from 4.00pm (AEST) on Thursday
23 December 2010, until 9.30am (AEST) Monday 10 January 2011.
Any urgent queries in relation to the Premium Income Fund should be directed to
investorrelations@newpif.com.au.


I hope you choke on a turkey bone and a bon bon explodes in your face.

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (20 December 2010)

I would like to thank the many long suffering PIF investors who have followed and supported this thread throughout our ordeal. Your patience and contributions for so long is to be commended. I would like to thank the moderators and owners of aussie stock for making it possible for us all to have this important line of communication as I feel it will be a vital contact point for future PIF investors concerns and actions. 

I wish you all the best for the forth coming year. Merry Xmas, good health and hopefully a better outlook for our Fund.:xmastree:bier: Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## selciper (20 December 2010)

seamisty said:


> I would like to thank the many long suffering PIF investors who have followed and supported this thread throughout our ordeal. Your patience and contributions for so long is to be commended. I would like to thank the moderators and owners of aussie stock for making it possible for us all to have this important line of communication as I feel it will be a vital contact point for future PIF investors concerns and actions.
> 
> I wish you all the best for the forth coming year. Merry Xmas, good health and hopefully a better outlook for our Fund.:xmastree:bier: Cheers, Seamisty




Hear, hear! Thanks, Seamisty for always being on the ball. Your regular contributions help to keep us alert regarding PIF matters which might have been missed otherwise. Also, a vote of thanks to the committed AG. Let's all wish for a better year under the present RE.

Season's greetings to all fellow victims of circumstance!

selciper


----------



## wally3218 (21 December 2010)

Merry Christmas and Happy New year to all the contributors and readers of this forum.
Keep up the good work guys, reading this forum is the only way to find out what the hells going on with the fund.


----------



## DepressedDad (21 December 2010)

selciper said:


> Hear, hear! Thanks, Seamisty for always being on the ball. Your regular contributions help to keep us alert regarding PIF matters which might have been missed otherwise. Also, a vote of thanks to the committed AG. Let's all wish for a better year under the present RE.
> 
> Season's greetings to all fellow victims of circumstance!
> 
> selciper




Yes happy holidays to fellow victims of circumstance..  not to mention greed, dishonesty & cunning!  

And a  big thank you to all the posters who keep us informed with their research & scrutinising. 

Here's hoping next year will see some accountability for the now widespreadly known common thieves' shameless actions.  Shame on them! 

I'm with Seamisty on the turkey bone choke & the bonbon taking out an eye or two. 

And here's hoping, 2011 brings great things to the honest folk, with integrity, in this world, and a nice Xmas dinner behind bars for those who wear red coats & blatantly promise lies through their teeth to fellow human beings, already suffering, for personal gain. Can 2011 please bring some overdue karma!!!


----------



## marcom (22 December 2010)

Believe it or not ASIC MAY be about to take action against the banks involved in the Storm fiasco:

ASIC readies legal action over Storm: report 
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...-report-pd20101222-CCQZ5?OpenDocument&src=hp4

Published 7:32 AM, 22 Dec 2010 Business Spectator

The corporate watchdog is preparing to launch legal action against lenders Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd, Macquarie Group Ltd and Bank of Queensland Ltd after talks on a deal over the collapse of Storm Financial broke down, according to The Australian Financial Review newspaper.

According to the report, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) is expected to issue proceedings against the banks to recover penalties against Storm founders Emmanuel and Julie Cassimatis.

An ASIC deadline for the banks to settle up to $300 million in claims from Storm investors passed last week. According to the report, the regulator's action will claim the banks helped Storm run an unregistered investment scheme....


----------



## simgrund (22 December 2010)

With best season's wishes to all. 
Big thanks for this thread as the only information channel for us to follow.
Looking forward to 2011 as the start of better news for us.
Cheers,


----------



## seamisty (22 December 2010)

SUPREME AND DISTRICT COURTS BRISBANE 

LAW LIST

Thursday 23 December 2010 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPLICATIONS TO COURT 
RE: OCTAVIAR LIMITED


 10:00 AM


----------



## simgrund (23 December 2010)

seamisty said:


> SUPREME AND DISTRICT COURTS BRISBANE
> 
> LAW LIST
> 
> ...




Good day Seamisty,
Could these applications have anything to do with sealed court orders of 4 August this year? Regards,


----------



## seamisty (23 December 2010)

simgrund said:


> Good day Seamisty,
> Could these applications have anything to do with sealed court orders of 4 August this year? Regards,



Sorry simgrund, I have no idea what they relate to. Not surprised either that the media did not report more on the ongoing  OCV/MFS saga along with the Chris Scott, Jenny Hutson S8 travel rip off/fraud connection after Chris Scott 
admitted to failing to ensure that Driftcove disclosed fees and charges to unit owners in the building on more than 2800 occasions.The action against Driftcove was dropped after the company, now controlled by Mantra Group, paid compensation of more than $25,000 to 83 Phoenician apartment owners and a further $215,000 in costs to the OFT I suspect G8 Education will now be under intense scrutiny::

'Mr Scott, who is now forging a successful career in the childcare sector through the listed G8 Education, also has agreed to a life ban from obtaining a licence under Queensland's Property Agents & Motor Dealers Act or from becoming an executive of a company with such a licence.


Mr Scott declined to comment on the matter yesterday, but it is believed the judgment will have no bearing on his current business interests.'

I guess Mr Scott lives in hope that his past fraudulent activities will have no impact on his new empire G8 education building exercise along with his long time business partner Jenny Hutson. HMNN, birds of a feather? 


'There are three things in the world that deserve no mercy, hypocrisy, fraud, and tyranny. 
Frederick William Robertson '


Seamisty


----------



## marcom (24 December 2010)

Seamisty and simgrund, the Brisbane Supreme Court applications re Octaviar would be the Liquidator getting court approval to take certain actions in relation to Octaviar assets. The previous liquidators Delloits were also sucessful in getting court approval to be paid back fees. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QSC/2010/347.html There was one a few months ago in the Federal Court in Sydney that was to get approval for CB Ellis real estate to dispose of Octaviar assets ( I think this was Q Deck etc).


----------



## simgrund (24 December 2010)

marcom said:


> Seamisty and simgrund, the Brisbane Supreme Court applications re Octaviar would be the Liquidator getting court approval to take certain actions in relation to Octaviar assets. The previous liquidators Delloits were also sucessful in getting court approval to be paid back fees. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QSC/2010/347.html There was one a few months ago in the Federal Court in Sydney that was to get approval for CB Ellis real estate to dispose of Octaviar assets ( I think this was Q Deck etc).




Thanks marcom & seamisty,
I guess we will continue to sweat it out, though it would be a nice chrissie present to finally have an amended claim application out in the open.
Have a safe and happy time into next year.
Regards,


----------



## Cookie1 (24 December 2010)

I'll add my heartfelt thanks to all the contributors to this thread and to the great work done by the PIF Action Group. WC treats us like mushrooms; so it's wonderful to be able to log on to this thread and see that my husband and I are not alone...that others are constantly probing and researching to provide more information to all of us.

Merry Christmas to you all and best wishes for a very healthy (and prosperous) Happy New Year.

As Tiny Tim said in Charles Dickens' _A Christmas Carol_: "God bless us everyone!"

Cookie


----------



## marcom (29 December 2010)

Here is one survivor of the MFS wreck:

*Coast's Smith rides luxury wave
*
Nick Nichols, business editor GC Bulletin   |  December 29th, 2010

Former Gold Coast businessman Tony Smith. Pic: Wayne Jones

FORMER Gold Coast tourism and internet entrepreneur Tony Smith has taken on more than he expected in Bali but he is well prepared for the challenge.

Almost three years after losing $50 million from the collapse of financial services giant MFS, the BreakFree and Roamfree founder is on the verge of opening two luxury resorts in Bali, where he has been living since mid-2009.....

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/12/29/279151_gold-coast-business.html


----------



## selciper (29 December 2010)

I read where the ACC is prosecuting a Sydney company for unconscionable behaviour. Nice to see an apparently old-fashioned word like conscience come back to life.


----------



## marcom (30 December 2010)

Just typical of ASIC:

*ASIC closes mortgage investigation: report*

Published 3:34 AM, 30 Dec 2010 Last update 3:34 AM, 30 Dec 2010

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...-report-pd20101229-CLM64?OpenDocument&src=hp4

    The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) investigation into frozen mortgage funds has been put on hiatus due to a lack of funding, according to a report in The Australian.

    The ASIC began investigating some $25 billion in mortgage funds after several hundred thousand investors complained they had lost access to the funds during the global financial crisis. Despite industry estimates that suggest $9 billion in funds remain frozen, the corporate watchdog has reduced what once was a dedicated task force to a watching brief over the mortgage industry.

    The commission responded to a Senate question last week, saying the ASIC could escalate an investigation if need be but that there would be no active oversight of the funds, the report said.

    In 2008 many mortgage funds froze their assets to protect stability, but preventing investors from withdrawing funds. Despite the ASIC's investigation, many investors remain unable to access their funds, the report said.

Here is the link to the story in the Australian  http://www.businessspectator.com.au...-report-pd20101229-CLM64?OpenDocument&src=hp4


----------



## marcom (30 December 2010)

Sorry wrong link to last post - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ic-shuts-up-shop/story-e6frgac6-1225978287129


----------



## k.smith (30 December 2010)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ic-shuts-up-shop/story-e6frgac6-1225978287129

''.....''....It will continue to monitor the frozen funds situation and can escalate its involvement if appropriate, but it is otherwise in wind-down. The taskforce was not provided a separate budget," it said.....''

Looks like we are on our own....imo, we are the sacrifice. It seems that the survival of the industry as a whole is more important than the lives of the investors (and their families!!!) that have been so badly affected. We don't even warrant a task-force budget!!! 

from the article..
"...The wind-down of the taskforce comes despite investor advocates saying many people with money locked in mortgage funds faced financial difficulty....''

".....Late last year, ASIC put the scale of frozen funds at $17bn-$20bn. One year on, "most funds that froze during the global financial crisis are still frozen", the regulator said in its Senate committee response last week.
The internal ASIC taskforce, set up in August last year, was instrumental in framing the hardship provisions used to release capital to the most cash-strapped of fund investors. It also helped convince mortgage funds to make regular withdrawal offers and is finalising better disclosure standards for investors in mortgage and unlisted property schemes.....''

WOW...how much did the WCPIF pay out for hardship payments? (not much at all, from memory..) In other funds, liquidity "offers" were facilitated on the funds own website, at half the already heavily impaired unit value and foregoing any rights to  future recovery from any litigation.It wasn't until a month ago that we got the FIDO warning, officially....

http://www.fido.gov.au/fido/fido.ns...pected offers to buy your shares?opendocument

Perhaps better disclosure could direct that potential unitholders investing in mortgage trusts do a course in accounting...accounting for performance fees,management fees, severance fees,accrual accounting, accounting for contingent liabilities, accounting for disposal costs...etc, etc,  and perhaps a course in legal terminology would help too...the difference between market value, current value, true value...etc, etc, etc...
imo... the first and foremost disclosure unitholders must have are ALL the loan details and market valuations of EACH asset in the fund.

Top marks to Senator Eggleston for this remark...
"....."The government has a role to play, I would suggest, in saying to the funds concerned that it's time that these funds were made available to the investors to deal with as they choose," Senator Eggleston said....''

imo...It should be made mandatory that unitholders in funds, especially those as highly impaired as our fund, be given the option to vote for or against winding-up their fund.

2011? We'll be on our own...


----------



## marcom (31 December 2010)

Some more movement in the ASIC case against MFS/Octaviar Directors in the Brisbane Supreme Court:

40 	24/12/2010 	Notice 	PARTICULARS 	Applicant 

This means that ASIC has provided further particulars about the case - probably as a result of information gleened from the public examinations.

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...eNumber=12122/09&Court=Supreme&Location=BRISB


----------



## simgrund (4 January 2011)

So what's new in the New Year?

http://www.smh.com.au/business/super-swindle-linked-to-sex-clinic-20110103-19dwy.html

Super swindle linked to sex clinic
Kate McClymont and Michael West
January 4, 2011

THE alleged mastermind behind Australia's largest superannuation swindle, in which $118 million vanished into a Caribbean tax haven, was also a silent partner in the failed erectile dysfunction company Advanced Medical Institute.

On the eve of his company's dubious practices being exposed by the Herald last month, the controversial medical entrepreneur Jacov ''Jack'' Vaisman placed AMI into administration.

A Herald investigation of company documents, here and overseas, has revealed that while Mr Vaisman was making millions, in the shadows controlling a 50 per cent interest in AMI was a network of unscrupulous financial engineers responsible for Australia's largest superannuation theft.

The ultimate controller of the group is Jack Flader, 48, The American-born trader, who lives in Hong Kong, has been under investigation in Hong Kong by the Securities and Investments Commission.

Mr Flader is alleged to be behind the collapsed *Astarra Strategic Fund, part of the Trio Capital group based in the NSW town of Albury.*

Trio, through financial planning networks fed by kickbacks, encouraged Australians investors to put their savings in Astarra. The money was then funnelled through Hong Kong to a British Virgin Islands company associated with Mr Flader.

There the trail goes cold. For a year Australian investigators have been hunting for the missing $118 million without success.

Just before Christmas, Mr Flader's sidekick Shawn Richard, who had raked off $6.4 million in payments from the Trio Capital scam, pleaded guilty in the Downing Centre Local Court in Sydney to two charges of dishonest conduct. Mr Richard, 35, who is dubbed Shawny Cash on Facebook, faces 10 years in jail. In court, he gave evidence that he was merely the puppet for the alleged mastermind, Mr Flader.

In 2005, Mr Flader and Mr Vaisman's lawyer, Richard Doyle, concocted a plan to float AMI on the US stock exchange. They gained control of a company shell and bought two Australian companies they had also set up - one with intellectual property rights for the erectile disfunction spray in Australia and one housing international rights to the ''technology''.

Although these rights were based not on a patent but on an ''innovation patent'' - which was achieved by filling out a simple form at a cost of only $150 - the promoters sold them to the US company for $24 million. They repeated this deal for the international rights the next year, again for $24 million.

Investigations by the Herald also found that interests associated with Mr Flader and Mr Vaisman were active in trading the US stock AMI among themselves.

No one appears to have informed the US stock exchange of AMI's woes in Australia. The day after AMI went into voluntary administration, the US share price, which had been wallowing at 1 ¢, leapt to 8 ¢. It is back to 1 ¢.

The same day the administrators were appointed to AMI, Mr Vaisman, who calls himself ''Dr'' since earning a PhD from an American university, was informed by the consumer watchdog that it intended to prosecute him and two of his doctors for ''unconscionable conduct''.

Mr Flader's first run-in with regulators came to light when the Financial Services Authority in Britain exposed Pacific Continental Securities, to which he was closely linked, as a ''boiler room'' operation whose share dealers engaged in cold calling unsuspecting retail investors to sell overpriced and worthless company floats.

AMI, famous for its ubiquitous billboards and radio advertisements promoting ''longer lasting sex'', has for years been the subject of a barrage of complaints for unethical medical practices and predatory tactics where callers are pressured to sign up for premature sexual dysfunction treatments costing thousands of dollars when the same medication could be obtained for a fraction of the cost through a family GP.


----------



## seamisty (5 January 2011)

HMNN, Sorry regulars, I have been out of action lately but find this media article possibly of interest (or my suspicious radar antenae is in overdrive!!)

KKR Scraps Perpetual Bid, Sends Target Stock Tumbling



Dec. 20 (Bloomberg) -- KKR & Co. ended talks to buy Perpetual Ltd. for at least A$1.75 billion ($1.73 billion), triggering the biggest drop in the Australian fund manager’s shares in more than two years.

The parties couldn’t agree on acceptable terms, they said in separate statements today. KKR won’t carry out due diligence and Sydney-based Perpetual doesn’t expect further discussions with the New York-based buyout firm, Perpetual said.

full story: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-22/kkr-scraps-perpetual-bid-sends-target-stock-tumbling.htm

DÃ©jÃ  vu??? I have been told the the fat turkey (turnkey??)is on high alert!!

Similar story to our own PIF before the :fan??? Is there more bad news being stifled?

Bearing in mind that Wellington Capital as our current Responsible Entity is in legal negotiations with Perpetual as the representative in a potential costly claim against our PIF!! Yes Jenny, HELLO!!! oops, SORRY, I forgot, you and your team of highly qualified hand picked team of performing seals are on extended holiday break. Well, I for one am extremely interested in reading our Dec 2010 PIF update, especially your excuse as to why we did not receive our extra 2 cent return of capital as previously indicated from you in relation to the pathetic (updated) deal negotiated by yourself in the Wollongong Hotel deal. Not to mention the rest of the results from other firesale property deals. 

Seamisty (TDS)


----------



## simgrund (8 January 2011)

And the PIN on NSX is back to 0.066 from its dizzy heights of 0.075 late last year.


----------



## marcom (10 January 2011)

Can anyone tell me how to spell PONZZZI SCHEME?

From the SMH Business Day

Equititrust acknowledges potential conflict in funding roles
Colin Kruger
January 10, 2011

THE mortgage fund operator Equititrust faces a conflict of interest as it raises $50 million from new investors to aid a fund which has been frozen for more than two years with $240 million of investor money.

A portion of the fresh funds raised was expected to be used to pay distributions to the frozen Equititrust Income Fund and to redeem unit holder investments in that fund, the company said.

EIF was one of many unlisted investment vehicles that were forced to freeze redemptions in 2008 to prevent mass withdrawals when the government placed a guarantee on bank deposits.

In a product disclosure statement inviting investors to the $50 million Equititrust Priority Class Income Fund (EPCIF), the company admitted it ''will potentially be in a position of conflict'' in its roles as responsible entity for both the lender, EPCIF, and the borrower, the frozen EIF.

The statement said a conflict would arise if EIF was unable to pay back the money when required.

''If the EIF did default, then there may be good reasons for the lender to delay recovery, grant extensions or grant other concessions. However, because Equititrust is on both sides, there is a conflict and a perception that the matter could be dealt with in a manner preferable to the interests of 'Equititrust','' the company said.

BusinessDay revealed late last year Equititrust's plans to raise the money to replace a $26 million NAB loan to EIF which has to be paid back this year.

Once the bank debt is repaid, the remainder of the funds raised will be lent to EIF for future lending, paying distributions to EIF investors, and redeeming their investments in the fund, according to the statement.

It also said EIF had sufficient cash to ''meet its operational cash needs, including income distribution payments to investors for the next three months''.

Equititrust has met all distribution payments to the fund's investors to date but it may face challenges in the future. There was $77 million worth of EIF loans in default in November, representing 29 per cent of funds under management.

*Equititrust is pursuing the fund-raising as an alternative to a restructure of the business which would involve merging EIF and another major fund.* These were conditions demanded last year by one of the company's financiers, the Bank of Scotland (HBOS Australia), in return for an extension of its loan.

According to Equititrust's financial accounts for 2009-10, the remaining $20 million it owes HBOS would have become repayable by December 31 if the conditions were not met.

The chief executive of Equititrust,* David Kennedy*, told BusinessDay in November that ''all dealings with our banks are under control'' and an extension of the facility was being negotiated.

The bank debt is one of several issues which prompted Equititrust's auditor to state in the company's 2010 financial accounts that there was material uncertainty about its continuation as a going concern.


----------



## simgrund (10 January 2011)

marcom said:


> Can anyone tell me how to spell PONZZZI SCHEME?
> 
> Carlo Ponzi
> Fraud
> ...


----------



## Jadel (10 January 2011)

Pontius Pilate washed his hands . This guy( a member of the supreme court of QLD) looks the other way knowing full well that 130 million of investors money  is being   stolen without informing ASIC . And then conveniently receives a generous redundancy pay out. You would not write this in a movie script for fear of being to far fetched

A SENIOR MFS executive was asked to sign backdated documents that purported to approve a controversial $130 million loan, the NSW Supreme Court heard yesterday. 

It was also claimed that documents were backdated relating to MFS's $96m dividend payment in 2007.

Yesterday former chief operating officer David Kennedy continued giving evidence in the NSW Supreme Court, where lawyers for liquidator Bentleys Corporate Recovery are trying to uncover when the Gold Coast financial company became insolvent. MFS, later named Octaviar, owes creditors $2.5 billion.

The court heard yesterday that a $250m loan from Fortress Credit was due at the end of November 2007 and a series of transactions took place in the last few days of November. On the 27th, the MFS Premium Income Fund (PIF) borrowed $150m from Royal Bank of Scotland. Three days later, PIF transferred $130m to the MFS Administration account, which in turn made part payment of $103m to Fortress.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related Coverage
Court told of MFS debt paper trail Courier Mail, 16 Dec 2010
Financier gave MFS many chances Courier Mail, 16 Dec 2010
Auditor quizzed over MFS The Australian, 15 Dec 2010
Octaviar due diligence 'ad hoc' Perth Now, 15 Dec 2010
Octaviar chief sells cars 'to pay rent' The Australian, 18 Jun 2010
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
Mr Kennedy, who sat on the investment advisory committee for PIF, said he knew nothing about the RBOS loan at the time.

Mr Kennedy said it wasn't until the following February that he found out about the $130m transfer, when the "right-hand person" of chief executive Craig White asked him to sign some backdated minutes purporting to approve the $130m transfer.

"I wouldn't sign them," Mr Kennedy said yesterday. "They were backdated documents and I didn't recall having that meeting".

Mr Kennedy said that was the first time he had reason to doubt the integrity of anybody at MFS.

"I was very unhappy with the transaction itself," Mr Kennedy said. "It smelt to me."

Mr Kennedy said Mr White later told him Korda Mentha had reviewed the transaction and was satisfied it was appropriate.

The court also heard that Mr Kennedy was planning to sue the board after ploughing close to $750,000 into MFS shares just days before the company announced it needed to raise $550m. Mr Kennedy said the board was negligent in opening a trading window for staff in the week it announced the capital raising, as the board either knew it needed to raise $550m, in which case it was inappropriate for staff to be trading, or the board didn't know "they had a $550m hole", in which case it was negligent.

Mr Kennedy said he didn't sue because he later waived his legal rights against the company as part of his redundancy package.

The hearing continues.


----------



## marcom (10 January 2011)

Just looking back over some of the reports on the Liquidator's examinations that I missed and found this one:

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-business/mfs-spent-investor-millions-20101020-16u23.html

MFS 'spent' investor millions
Nicole Stevens
October 20, 2010

AAP

The former chief financial officer of collapsed property group Octaviar Ltd can't recall taking any steps to ensure that *more than $256 million of investor funds* raised in 2007 were used for their intended purpose.

Financial accounts show the company channelled funds from *equity raisings in early 2007* into a series of intercompany loans and debt payments, a public examination in the NSW Supreme Court heard on Wednesday....

MFS told investors the equity raising was to fund previously announced acquisitions of Sunkids and Sunleisure businesses, barrister Dominic O'Sullivan told the court.

But according to the company's general ledger and operating accounts, those payments were never made, Mr O'Sullivan said....

Mr Anderson was re-examined by Mr O'Sullivan on behalf of the liquidator for Octaviar Investments Notes Ltd and Octaviar Investments Bonds Ltd, Will Colwell of Ferrier Hodgson....

Mr O'Sullivan said investor funds were paid out in a series of intercompany margin loans,* including payments to the Premium Income Fund operating account*, Opus Prime, Tricom and Ridgebell.....

"If the arithmetic is done, it is apparent that the proceeds ... had been spent by the  *19th of March 2007*," Mr O'Sullivan said....

Does any one know what this is about - presumably if a repayment was made INTO our fund then FUNDS MUST HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT at an earlier date. Is this another case of unauthorised borrowing from the fund? Or is it evidence of a PONZI - paying investors distributions from equity raisings?


----------



## marcom (10 January 2011)

Additionally, as the equity funds raised were spent on "...a series of intercompany margin loans, including payments to the Premium Income Fund operating account, Opus Prime, Tricom and Ridgebell. Investor funds were also used to pay professional fees to Macquarie Bank, KPMG, Freehills and to pay a tax debt..." MFS evidently did not have sufficient cash to make these payments, then MFS must have been INSOLVENT from at least *19 March 2007*. This has huge ramifications for the various transactions made after this date.


----------



## seamisty (12 January 2011)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723622.PDF

Wellington Capital and Armstrong Registry – Client Services
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund advises that its offices,
including the Wellington Hotline, will be closed until Monday 17 January 2011 due to expected severe
flooding in the Brisbane CBD.
Armstrong Registry Services, the registry provider to Premium Income Fund is located in the same building
as Wellington Capital. Similarly, Armstrong Registry Services office will be closed until Monday 17
January 2011.
Further announcements will be made in due course.
Wellington Capital apologises for any inconvenience.


----------



## simgrund (13 January 2011)

seamisty said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723622.PDF
> 
> Wellington Capital and Armstrong Registry – Client Services
> Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund advises that its offices,
> ...




Thanks Seamisty for this post. 
I think our combined sentiments are with the victims and sufferers of these terrible events.
Regards,


----------



## seamisty (13 January 2011)

simgrund said:


> Thanks Seamisty for this post.
> I think our combined sentiments are with the victims and sufferers of these terrible events.
> Regards,



Yes simgrund, I sincerely hope that our fellow PIF holders and others are spared any further heartache and suffering from the floods. Its bad enough being subjected to despair and financial ruin/disadvantage from greedy individuals who have totally disregarded their obligations/commitments at the expense of others without having to cope with natural disasters out of their control as well. My heart goes out to all innocent victims and I hope this disaster is not used by others to justify their own imcompentence. Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (17 January 2011)

"Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund advises that its offices,  including the Wellington Hotline, are now fully operational.
We have been advised by our registry services provider, who are located in the same building, that they are also now fully operational."


----------



## selciper (17 January 2011)

Having taken a break from reading this forum for a couple of weeks, I can only say that catching up on contributions isn’t a joyful experience. As usual, I hope that in the coming months Hutson and her colleagues will have to account for the poor performance of the fund before a full house of PIF investors.


----------



## marcom (18 January 2011)

selciper said:


> Having taken a break from reading this forum for a couple of weeks, I can only say that catching up on contributions isn’t a joyful experience. As usual, I hope that in the coming months Hutson and her colleagues will have to account for the poor performance of the fund before a full house of PIF investors.




Selciper, hope you had a good break. I am hopeful that the Liquidator Bentleys will take action to recover the fund from WC on the basis of a preferential transaction during insolvency and then we might see an investors meeting. Bentleys primary motive though will be to recover the $8+mill in preferential payments that accompanied the  "sale" of the RE. But nothing will happen until Bentleys complete their report on insolvency. With further examinations foreshadowed for February it will be some time away yet.

Here is some news about the ownership of the NSX exchange from todays SMH:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/asx-in-the-spotlight-but-theres-plenty-on-at-nsx-20110117-19u3i.html

*ASX in the spotlight, but there's plenty on at NSX*
January 18, 2011

Cleaning up in the 'clean and green' markets.

FORGET about the ASX being swallowed by the Singapore Stock Exchange. The lively end of market activity here is in environmental and carbon-type trading and exchanges.

A substantial shareholding notice filed yesterday for NSX, otherwise known as the National Stock Exchange, revealed that custom-bottle designer Vitron Werkbund Sud Australasia* now owns 25 per cent* of the alternative capital market.

Vitron is really just another arm of irrepressible futures trader Brian Price's mini-empire, under the Iron Mountain Group banner. He has now assembled a fascinating grab-bag of market platforms, green brokers and acronyms while everyone else is watching the ASX-SGX, or even rival Chi-X, games.

Some will remember that Price and his Iron Mountain Entertainment were behind local film The Bank almost a decade ago. Back in those days, he even had some support from Rod Adler and FAI Insurances. These days it is Perth's Bennett family - descendants of Lang Hancock's former iron ore prospecting partner Peter Wright - who have thrown their hats and wallets into the pool.

Price also has Macquarie Group, former New South Wales premier Bob Carr and US-listed Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) among his team in the ''clean and green'' markets.

The question does arise, though, whether Vitron and co-shareholder Financial and Energy Exchange (FEX) are behaving in the spirit of the takeovers code now that they own one share in every four of NSX, without having made a bid, by using the ''creep'' provisions.

FEX is owned by Price and the Bennetts' AMB Holdings, and has a put/call option deal over NSX shares with Vitron. It is not clear whether Macquarie has a stake in FEX, although one of the investment bank's high-profile executives, former Victorian treasurer Alan Stockdale, was a director at one point - as was one-time Telstra wunderkind Ted Pretty.

While in the latest notice, it looks like Vitron/FEX exceeded the creeping takeover allowance of buying 3 per cent every six months, they in fact snuck in by a bit over a week. The big jump came when the group bought Guinness Peat Group's 2.5 million shares for 22 ¢ in an off-market deal last week.

Price, some will recall, combined with other investors to roll the previous board of NSX in 2009. NSX is itself the result of bringing together the Newcastle and Bendigo stock exchange licences, to come up with an offer of a sort of junior ASX.

NSX and FEX turned the Bendigo exchange licence into a joint venture, SIM Venture Securities Exchange, which aims to offer ''cleantech'' companies a listed venue. There are no companies listed, although several are believed to be considering it.

FEX itself is focused on futures and derivatives in the energy and environmental products markets. In particular, it is hoping to get into Asia via an alliance with CNBC. In turn, FEX, Macquarie and ICE own Climate Change Products (Macquarie appears to have 52 per cent according to Australian Securities and Investments Commission records).

Climate Change owns Envex, which has Bob Carr as chairman, and aims to ''foster Australian environmental markets that are deep, liquid, efficient and transparent'', according to its website. Envex bought 51 per cent of carbon markets broker Next Generation Energy Solutions late last year, and is in partnership with the listed Green Invest on that one.

Price clearly has a plan to be at the hub of whatever develops in environmentally friendly trading in the Asian sphere. It will be intriguing to see whether that includes backdoor-listing his vehicles via NSX...


----------



## selciper (18 January 2011)

Marcom, thanks. Your scenario seems quite sound. 

I came across this Spanish proverb while enjoying the break. It instantly rang a bell. “Tell with whom you keep company and I shall tell you who you are.”


----------



## seamisty (19 January 2011)

Here is our PIF Dec update. A boring cut and paste effort offering nothing new apart from  No further cash payments have been
scheduled at this time.   
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723633.PDF


----------



## marcom (20 January 2011)

Two interesting points contained in the PIF Dec update in relation to the Qld Supreme Court ASIC action against the former MFS Directors and others:

"ASIC has appointed Corrs Chambers Westgarth to act on their behalf in these proceedings. Each of the Respondents is required to file a Defence by 24 March 2011".

Until 21 October ASIC was represented by in-house legal staff. The appointment of CCW indicates they are bringing in the big guns. While the respondents are required to file a defence by 24 March, the court has scheduled a supervised case review on 25 March.

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...eNumber=12122/09&Court=Supreme&Location=BRISB


----------



## JohnH (20 January 2011)

:dunno:.......... Marcom,  I also found this statement quite curious :-
The Fund takes its obligation to act in the best interests of its 
Unitholders seriously and ensures that appropriate 
representations are made to the Court in each case where a 
borrower is attempting to hinder the Fund’s rights etc etc

Surely the RE does not have an option other than to act in our best interests - or am I being naive again?


----------



## marcom (20 January 2011)

JohnH said:


> :dunno:.......... Marcom,  I also found this statement quite curious :-
> The Fund takes its obligation to act in the best interests of its
> Unitholders seriously and ensures that appropriate
> representations are made to the Court in each case where a
> ...




The obligation to act in the best interests of Unitholders is enshrined in the Corporations Act as the central pillar of an RE's duty. So to say an RE takes this seriously is a nonsense as it is required by law and can not be applied in any other way! However in WC's case it is probably offered as a cover for bloated legal fees, and/or if the borrower has responded with a cross claim a rationale for further bloated legal fees and maybe potential loss to the Fund. I think Seamisty mentioned possible legal action against the fund by a disgruntled developer some time ago.


----------



## selciper (20 January 2011)

Re the Update: one matter you can safely rely on where Wellington is concerned is the way they continually underestimate the collective knowledge of PIF investors. One day they may come to regret this failing.


----------



## seamisty (20 January 2011)

marcom said:


> The obligation to act in the best interests of Unitholders is enshrined in the Corporations Act as the central pillar of an RE's duty. So to say an RE takes this seriously is a nonsense as it is required by law and can not be applied in any other way! However in WC's case it is probably offered as a cover for bloated legal fees, and/or if the borrower has responded with a cross claim a rationale for further bloated legal fees and maybe potential loss to the Fund. I think Seamisty mentioned possible legal action against the fund by a disgruntled developer some time ago.



Marcom that 'possible legal action' is a reality and is well and truly underway and has cost the PIF hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses already and is nowhere near being resolved!!! selciper you are correct in saying WC underestimate the collective knowledge of PIF investors, some contributed by other individuals willing to share valuable information also, much which cannot be posted in the public arena but gathered and documented for future reference.  Seamisty


----------



## marcom (22 January 2011)

Scotty and Hottie back in the news!

Numbers finally start to add up as operators go back to basics
Colin Kruger
January 22, 2011 SMH

http://www.smh.com.au/business/numb...erators-go-back-to-basics-20110121-19zy6.html

Two years after ABC Learning's collapse the jury is still out on whether profit and child care can mix, reports Colin Kruger.

WHEN ABC Learning began its meteoric rise nearly a decade ago the question raised by many community childcare operators struggling to break even was simple: how could this corporate leviathan make any money, let alone the fantastic figures it was reporting?

For hapless ABC Learning insiders, the question was: how could it not?

''This is a business subsidised by government - how can it be unprofitable?'' wailed ABC Learning's former chairwoman, Sallyanne Atkinson, soon after the collapse...

*In fact, there is already a new corporate player emulating ABC Learning's early years with a voracious appetite for other childcare operations and international expansion. *This was not part of the script when community non-profit operators lined up at the Senate inquiry...

THE ASX-listed G8 Education - the result of a merger last year between the publicly listed straggler Early Learning Services (ELS) and the privately owned Payce - has embarked on an acquisition spree reminiscent of ABC Learning in its formative years. In November G8 said it owned 119 centres in Australia and managed another 21. In Singapore it owns 18 and manages a further 48.

The company has forecast revenues of $115 million for the current year and earnings before interest and tax of $17 million, but the pace of growth means it is hard to track how much growth is being internally generated and how much is being acquired.

This was also a problem at ABC Learning.

But G8's chief executive, Craig Chapman, says the company has avoided ABC Learning's excesses such as overpaying for the centres it acquires and using its shares - not debt - to pay for them.

''We've bought on the right multiples,'' Chapman says. ''We had evidence ABC was paying up to 78 times EBIT [earnings before interest and tax].''

Chapman is not shy about naming some of the important factors which allow profit-driven centres to thrive. He says having well-maintained centres and a strong education curriculum are crucial.

''With these factors you can charge a higher price,'' he says.

And with occupancy such a crucial factor, advertising is also important to make sure the centres are kept full.

Another important difference is that profit-oriented operators like G8 choose their markets carefully.

''Location is critical and the demographics around that location are definitely important,'' he says.

The company has not been shy about offering detailed numbers on how its profit engine works.

A recent market update reports G8's occupancy levels average about 80 per cent in Australia and 90 per cent in Singapore.

Breaking down the numbers, G8 says that Australia's 80 per cent occupancy levels gives it an EBIT margin of 18 per cent. Revenues per centre average $1 million.

Employee costs account for 60 per cent of the centres' revenues, with rent using another 12 per cent.

By comparison, KU's annual report for the year ending December 31, 2009, showed more than 83 per cent of revenues were paid out in staff costs.

*While G8's ascendancy has not attracted any controversy to date the same cannot be said for all of its principals.

Its chairwoman, Jenny Hutson, and the managing director, Chris Scott, have a close relationship going back to the days of the travel group S8, which was acquired by MFS - the Gold Coast financier which subsequently imploded amid allegations of fraud.

In early 2008, Hutson had successfully lobbied for Scott and his associates to become directors of MFS and was later formally appointed as an adviser to the board.

One of those associates was G8's chief executive, Chapman.

The dealings of previous management meant the collapse of MFS was all but inevitable by the time the trio came on board, but controversial deals were still being done.

This includes Hutson's Wellington Capital being appointed the lucrative role of managing MFS's troubled Premium Income Fund - a position it holds to this day despite questions over whether the transaction was handled at arm's length given Hutson's closeness to the board.

In September last year, the insolvency specialist Mark Korda told a public examination of the collapse of MFS that the decision to appoint Wellington Capital as manager was the ''lesser of all the evils we could have done''.

''At the time of the transaction I don't think they were independent,'' Korda said at the examination.

Neither Hutson - who has publicly denied any conflict - nor Chapman and Scott have been accused of any wrongdoing in relation to the collapse.

Wall, who was previously involved with G8's earlier incarnation, ELS, sees nothing controversial in the trio's latest venture which, he says, is attempting to be an alternative to the ABC Learning model....*


Strange that there is no mention of Chris Scott's conviction for secret commissions!!! Does anyone have an email address for Colin Kruger at Fairfax newspapers so I can send him a link to the Courier Mail article "High-flyer fined $130k for holiday rip-offs" at http://www.couriermail.com.au/prope...holiday-rip-offs/story-e6frequ6-1225971130633


----------



## selciper (22 January 2011)

Marcom,  please check your private forum box for a message.


----------



## marcom (23 January 2011)

selciper said:


> Marcom,  please check your private forum box for a message.




Thanks


----------



## Duped (24 January 2011)

seamisty said:


> Here is our PIF Dec update. A boring cut and paste effort offering nothing new apart from  No further cash payments have been
> scheduled at this time.
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723633.PDF




" No further cash payments have been scheduled at this time."
Talk about throwing a bucket of cold water on the share price.

WC writes about rebalancing the asset class allocations. What does that mean? The NEWPIF.COM.AU website is no use. Being way out of date: 30 June 2008. (I can't see how presenting such out of date info can put anything but downward pressure on our share price IMLO) At least the NEWPIF.COM.AU lists the  target and benchmark asset ranges.  I've extracted the 30 June 2010 numbers from the annual report.

*Class* :  *Range*   : *Benchmark :* *30-Jun-10* 
Commercial loans : 20-75%   : 45%   : 70.1%                           
Fixed interest securities   : 0-30%   : 10%   : 1.7%                           
Property Backed Managed Investment Schemes   : 10-40%   : 25%   : 21.4%                            
Asset backed investment   : 5-40%   : 15%   : 5.4%                           
Cash and equivalents   : 5-30%   : 15%   : 1.4%   

The 2010 annual report goes on to state: "These asset allocations are  outside the target allocation guidelines contained in the Product  Disclosure Statement which was issued on 2 July 2007"

Firstly: why is WC labelling the asset classes differently than in the PDS?  Are they the same thing? If so then why use different words? 

Secondly:  stating that the allocations "are outside the target" isn't a very clear.  Only 1 out of the 5 classes was outside its range.

So what does "rebalancing" mean?

Next questions I have: are these ranges and benchmarks appropriate for the post GFC  economic conditions?

So what's WC's business plan for this Fund? Same as for the pre GFC investment environment?

Anyone?


----------



## seamisty (24 January 2011)

Hi Duped, You ask

'So what's WC's business plan for this Fund? Same as for the pre GFC investment environment?'

If Wellington Capital actually have any sort of a business plan/strategy in place for the PIF it is quite obvious it has been put together by individuals who are totally lacking expertise, proved by current management on many occasions. Whatever 'the plan' is, it's not working!! The NSX PIF unit price of 0.66 cents for all of the last 19 trades further reflect the growing sentiment that unitholders continue to have no confidence in the team at Wellington Capital. 

 Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (25 January 2011)

Hi Duped 

The PIF guidelines remain totally compromised from the 2007 model
by the rapid  sale of  good quality  liquid assets  to pay out the RBOS loan  . 

The integrity and composition of the fund has essentially been decimated. All we are now left with is a shell of assets  that are devalued  past the point of any rational guideline  parameters to reduce risk .

The, so called,rebalancing of the portfolio is simply word play, cut and paste drivel , As Seamisty has pointed out

Any competent Re, with the best interest of investors as its primary concern, would have vigourously contested the repayment of the RBOS loan .WC has all the documentation on hand to prove the thansaction was fraudulent ,and therefore voidable


----------



## Blueboy1 (25 January 2011)

seamisty said:


> Hi Duped, You ask
> 
> 'So what's WC's business plan for this Fund? Same as for the pre GFC investment environment?'
> 
> ...




Seamisty, please check your private messages,Blueboy1


----------



## Mary Lynch (25 January 2011)

Hi to anyone who may answer this question.  We have some frozen units with Wright Patton and Shakespeare.  They are in the process of paying us out, minus the 12% that they invested with City Pacific.  However they have made  profits in other areas of our investment; we don't seem to benefit from that though.  My question is "why?"


----------



## marcom (25 January 2011)

Jadel said:


> Hi Duped
> 
> Any competent Re, with the best interest of investors as its primary concern, would have vigourously contested the repayment of the RBOS loan .WC has all the documentation on hand to prove the thansaction was fraudulent ,and therefore voidable




This point should not be missed in our class action. When Wellinton Investment Management took over as RE they agreed to repay the RBS fraudulent loan when they had sufficient evidence of wrong doing. It seems clear now that the plan was to remove debt from Octaviar by transfering the RBS loan with PIF and get us mugs to pay for it!

WIM's action caused a significant loss to the fund and they should be sued as part of the CA, as should RBS for advancing loan funds without proper approvals or supporting documentation. This aspect is covered in the ASIC amended statement of claim with supporting evidence.


----------



## selciper (25 January 2011)

I certainly hope that a media outlet or two is taking an interest in our plght. We have been overlooked and deserve better. So long as Wellington can maintain the status quo (remain in the bunker) the longer we will suffer. Let’s not allow 2011 to resemble 2010!


----------



## selciper (28 January 2011)

Here's an item from today's Australian describing the latest regarding ABC Learning.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...earning-collapse/story-e6frg6nf-1225995778312


----------



## marcom (29 January 2011)

Things are really starting to hot up on ASIC's Supreme Court case against MFS directors and others as evidenced by this piece in the lively Lawyers Weekly newsletter:

http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/blogs/top_stories/archive/2011/01/26/hdy-to-open-in-brisbane.aspx

HDY to open in Brisbane

Posted Jan 26 2011, 08:53 PM by Lawyers Weekly

Henry Davis York has announced it will soon open a Brisbane office in a bid to consolidate its growing profile in the region.

The firm is currently acting as the key advisor on some of Australia's largest insolvencies on the ground in Brisbane, including ABC Learning Centres and *Octaviar.*

A spokesperson from the firm confirmed with Lawyers Weekly today that the firm has secured space in Brisbane and is expecting to officially open the new office in February.

Two partners, John Evans and Leonard McCarthy, will relocate from Sydney to establish the office. Both are currently advising the receivers of ABC Learning Centres and both have significant experience in restructuring and insolvency law.

"We are establishing our office in Brisbane in response to the needs and requests from our clients to provide on-the-ground advice in insolvency, banking disputes and restructuring work," said HDY managing partner Sharon Cook.

"The focus of our Brisbane office will be on these core service areas for which we have a strong market reputation."

Here are the relevant details from the court website re the case: 

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...eNumber=12122/09&Court=Supreme&Location=BRISB

30 	18/03/2010 	Notice of Change of Solicitors 	OCTAVIAR 	Respondent

OCTAVIAR ADMINISTRATION PTY LIMITED 101069390 Respondent HENRY DAVIS YORK LAWYERS

OCTAVIAR CASTLE PTY LTD 124889381 Respondent  HENRY DAVIS YORK LAWYERS


----------



## marcom (29 January 2011)

Here is another interesting piece from the dusty archives of the Lawyers Weekly regarding the sale of S8 to MFS. Isn't it good to see the same small group interacting in a profitable way.

http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/blo...7/mcculloughs-takes-a-bite-of-gobblefest.aspx

McCulloughs takes a bite of gobblefest

Posted Jan 17 2007, 12:00 AM by Lawyers Weekly

*MCCULLOUGH ROBERTSON* advised property management firm and tourism operator *S8 Limited* on its takeover by investment and financial services group* MFS Limited.*

The two firms announced plans for a merger via off-market takeover in September last year, and by 11 December last year MFS had achieved the necessary 90 per cent acceptance by S8 shareholders to compulsorily acquire the company.

“Despite the bid having the recommendation of the directors of S8, it was only in the last day of the bid that MFS shored up the necessary numbers to give it 90 per cent,” said McCulloughs’ partner Tony Stumm.

“Part of this is to be attributed to the fact that the acquisition strategy involved separate share offers, options offers as well as a separate offer for the convertible notes of S8 on issue and the majority noteholder held out for an increase in the offer consideration.”

Freehills partner Neil Pathak, and lawyers Robert Feiner and Robert Nicolson advised MFS.

Stumm said S8 itself had been “aggressively” making takeovers before the MFS bid, and had steadily increased its size with the addition of Harvey World Travel, Travel Scene, Transonic Travel and Gulliver’s Travel Group in New Zealand.

Soon after being bought by MFS, S8 (UK) completed another acquisition of UK travel specialist Travel 2 Travel 4.

Stumm said the merged firm was now an ASX150 company, and one of the big players in the Australian tourism industry, “notwithstanding its core business of funds management”. He said at the time of the merger, S8 had a capitalisation of approximately $700 million. The merged group has a capitalisation of around $1.7 billion.

MFS managing director Phil Adams said the acquisition would allow the “implementation of a wide-reaching plan to consolidate a range of leisure and accommodation businesses within one investment vehicle”.

*Other advisers on the deal included Jenny Hutson from Wellington Capital Limited for S8 *and Grant Samuel from Macquarie Bank for MFS.

Amazing how our Jenny managed to ocupy the role of Chairperson at S8 (and presumably a shareholder as well) and greatly assist the takeover by providing professional advice - presumably in an independent manner.


----------



## marcom (29 January 2011)

And to follow on from the last post I found this piece of history regarding the S8 takeover by MFS:

*S8 gets a turbo charger *
•	Melissa Maugeri 
•	From: The Courier-Mail 
•	October 21, 2006 12:00AM 

http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/s8-gets-a-turbo-charger/story-e6freqmx-1111112392092

CONFIDENT ... S8's chief Jenny Hutson. Picture: Adam Smith Source: The Courier-Mail 

A MOVE into the ASX200 by acquisitive MFS has boosted its share price as shareholder offers for the friendly takeover of travel company S8 are finalised. 
S8, which has been on a buying spree itself during the past 12 months, expects to double its after tax profit this financial year on the back of acquisitions including Harvey World Travel and Travelscene. 

The travel company recorded an underlying net profit of $20.9 million last financial year but expects to strike $44 million this financial year and more than $60 million in 2007-08.

S8 also has earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation of $85.98 million in 2006-07 and $123.03 million in 2007-08.

*S8 chair Jenny Hutson, who will join the board of MFS if the proposed merger proceeds, was bullish about the deal.*

"Chris Scott and Michael King have put a lot of energy into briefing the market about the upside of the deal and now the share prices have rallied," Ms Hutson said.
She said the ACCC had brought forward its deadline for reporting back on the proposed takeover to November 7.

"We remain very confident about the outcome," she said.

Ms Hutson described S8's past year's performance as an exceptional one, with the travel company delivering a net profit after tax of $20.9 million and basic earnings per share increase from 24.71 ¢ in 2005 to 27.36 ¢ in 2006.

Shareholders re-elected Andrew Kemp, Robert Steel and Peter Lacaze as directors.

Ms Hutson said a successful completion of the MFS deal would see investors who have put in $1 get a return of more than $10 in five years.
"The issue price was $1 but we split the shares – it's a 10-bagger which doesn't happen much.

*"If shareholders want to stay for the ride they can, and if they want to cash in their chips they've been on an extraordinary adventure," she said.* 

*(Yes and those who stayed for the ride were in for an even bigger adventure!)*

Under the deal, shareholders will be paid $4.25 a share, with the option to swap their shares for MFS stock. Ms Hutson said documentation for the takeover would be sent to shareholders within a week. S8 shares closed up 9 ¢ at $4.67.


----------



## charles36 (30 January 2011)

MARCOM   What is that they say ''THE REST IS HISTORY"  I say history is not finished yet, not by a long way.  Charles36, V/Pres. PIFAG, "WORKING TO PROTECT AND STABILISE YOUR INVESTMENT"


----------



## Duped (31 January 2011)

From Business Spectator's 29 January 2011

"Rich Pickings: The Art of Selling"
...
*Bargain hunting*
...
Gandel appears to be trying something similar.  According to his selling agent, Simon Rowley of Jones Lang LaSalle,  Gandel wants to switch out of physical property and into property  shares, as he thinks Australia’s real estate investment trusts still  represent good value. His timing looks good. 
..."

Really?

So what's Hutson's WC doing about not making my PIF investment an easy takeover target? 

Hutson's WC values PIF at 34.1c per unit (Jun 2010 valuation less 1c for the distribution late last year).

Yet under WC's watch the market currently values the units at 6.6c.  And this is against the reported tide of money heading our way. 

Is Hutson just too busy with G8 to bother with us?


----------



## selciper (31 January 2011)

Duped, as far as I'm concerned WC have been out to lunch for many, many months.

Have just scanned today's Crikey which contains an article by Adam Schwab about ASIC's handling of the ABC Learning matter.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/01/31/asic-narrows-the-focus-on-eddy-groves/


----------



## Cookie1 (1 February 2011)

Article in the AFR today starts with:

"Disclosures insufficient, says Octaviar auditor
PUBLISHED : 8 HOURS 18 MINUTES AGO

The external auditor of collapsed finance company Octaviar has admitted it was “more than likely” that related party transactions entered into by the failed Gold Coast company should have been publicly disclosed, but were not."

You need a paid subscription to view the article; does anyone have access to the Australian Financial Review? I'll be in town this afternoon and will try to get to the library for a copy unless another follower of this thread can post the article sooner.

Cookie1


----------



## Cookie1 (1 February 2011)

Here's a bit more from the AFR article:

http://news.tradingcharts.com/futures/6/8/152520586.html

Jan 31, 2011 (The Australian Financial Review - ABIX via COMTEX) -- The New South Wales Supreme Court was told on 31 January 2011 that Octaviar failed to properly disclose related-party transactions. Mitch Craig, who worked for KPMG when the accounting firm acted as the auditor of Octaviar, agreed with the barrister for the liquidator that related-party transactions should have been publicly disclosed. Octaviar collapsed in January 2008, with debts of $A2.5 billion.

Publication Date: 1 February 2011

OCTAVIAR LIMITED
KPMG AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES
BENTLEYS CORPORATE RECOVERY PTY LTD
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
JONES DAY
KORDA MENTHA AND COLLEAGUES PTY LTD


----------



## seamisty (1 February 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> Here's a bit more from the AFR article:
> 
> http://news.tradingcharts.com/futures/6/8/152520586.html
> 
> ...



 Thanks Cookie. Judgement day is looming!! This old 'Crikey' article is worth reading again::

http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/02/04/kpmg-the-common-link-in-allco-and-mfs-fiascos/

Both of MFS’s company secretaries were previously employed by KPMG; David Anderson, chief financial officer of MFS, was previously a partner at KPMG in the finance area while Kim Kercher, MFS’s chief “governance” officer was previously a manager at KPMG.

The auditor signing off on MFS reports (which in light of recent announcements, don’t seem to be entirely accurate) was Mitch Craig (who is KPMG’s National Partner in Charge of Risk Advisory Services). According to MFS’s 2007 Annual Report, KPMG were paid $483,600 for audit services. However, the audit fees pale in comparison to the non-audit related services performed by KPMG. The firm was paid $771,098 for assurance, taxation and diligence services in 2007. KPMG also provided $665,600 in non-audit services to MFS satellite, MFS Diversified (KMPG also audited MFS Diversified until last year). 

In the Sarbanes-Oxley era, this is a farcical situation, with KPMG collecting almost double as much from MFS for non-audit related services as they did for conducting the audit. As noted by The Guardian back in 2002: 

Regardless of the individual integrity of those involved, this situation [of auditors performing non-audit related services] raises a serious conflict of interest.

Where an auditor is providing other services to a company it is auditing, it can hardly be said to be independent and it is less likely to be critical or do anything that might embarrass management.

Companies may hire or fire an auditor. Consequently, with future career prospects and income hanging in the balance, there is little incentive for an auditor to publicly expose improper behaviour or “creative” bookkeeping being used by the company they are auditing.


----------



## Cookie1 (1 February 2011)

Attached is the full article from the AFR today in the form of a PDF file.


----------



## seamisty (1 February 2011)

Interesting!!http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3127207.htm

ASIC announces Westpoint settlement

Listen to MP3 of this story ( minutes) 
Alternate WMA version | MP3 download 
MARK COLVIN: The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has settled with directors of the failed property group Westpoint and its accountants KPMG. 

Westpoint collapsed in 2006, costing thousands of investors nearly $400 million. ASIC has announced a settlement of about $67 million. The commission says that when this is added to other amounts, the total return to investors will be up to $170 million. 

But it's too late for some, who have died since the saga began five years ago. Some, apparently, driven to suicide. 

David Weber reports.

DAVID WEBER: ASIC says the settlement means that compensation action in the Federal Court has come to an end. The president of the Westpoint Investors Group, Graham MaCaulay says the return is not enough.

GRAHAM MACAULAY: I want to know where the other $140 million is that ASIC said they were gonna get from KPMG, is my reaction. And the other thing is remember that out of that money that they got back, of course, there will be liquidator's fees and other fees to be drawn from it. 

DAVID WEBER: The terms of the settlement mean that none of the directors or KPMG has admitted liability. KPMG was accused of knowing of Westpoint's problems while signing off on its reports. In April, 2006, Westpoint's founder Norm Carey said investors would not have lost a cent if ASIC had not intervened.

But Graham MaCaulay says the commission should have intervened sooner.

GRAHAM MACAULAY: They didn't take any notice from day one when a Western Australian solicitor Doug Solomon advised Denise Brailey that the scheme was really a Ponzi; really it was a managed investment scheme and ASIC issued a no-action letter.

DAVID WEBER: What kinds of things have people had to put up with?

GRAHAM MACAULAY: Well it's been, I was actually the president of Westpoint Investors Group by chance not by choice and the things that have happened here I've spoken to people who have ultimately suicided, there's the people who have threatened to suicide, there is the, if you like the physical health dramas brought on by the changing fortunes; there's been all kinds of things come through down this telephone in that direction, but nobody seems to care. 

DAVID WEBER: Is this enough money to make people, you know even if it's not what they expected, it's certainly not what they were hoping to get back out of the company when they invested the money in the first place, but do you think it might help some people move on at least?

GRAHAM MACAULAY: Well five, six years is a long time, yep, and from that point of view most of them are now inured to whatever's going to happen to them put it that way. 

The current Labor Government said they would have an inquiry into ASIC if they came to power; they've done nothing about that. So they just know there's nothing they can do so what else do they have to do but survive in the best way they can. 

DAVID WEBER: ASIC says several regulatory matters and investigations are continuing.

MARK COLVIN: David Weber.


----------



## marcom (2 February 2011)

After reading the various reports on ASIC's settlement of the Westpoint claims I am reminded of that famous statement

I'M FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND I'M HERE TO HELP YOU.

Thank god we are conducting our own litigation against KPMG!

According to reports on Business Spectator:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...sation-pd20110201-DN3T7?OpenDocument&src=hp18
ASIC "...also sought $200 million dollars in damages from KPMG for alleged auditing negligence... The regulator said today's settlement could recover up to $67.45 million for Westpoint investors, although it's not yet clear how many investors stand to benefit from the deal." 

That's a third of the claim! No wonder "the president of the Westpoint Investors Group, Graham MaCaulay says the return is not enough." according to the ABC's PM report.

And look what KPMG secured in return for the settlement: In a statement after the decision, KPMG said the settlement *was not an admission of liability* but brings to an end High Court proceedings started last year.

"KPMG cooperated fully with ASIC during its investigation into the Westpoint collapse. We share ASIC’s view that the resolution of the proceedings has been achieved in a constructive manner," it added. And remember that the terms of the settlement are CONFIDENTIAL.

An admission of liability would have increased KPMG's insurance permium so the lowly 33% of the claim ($67.45Mil) probably represents a saving on an increased premium.

From memory there was a recent case where investors took action themselves and secured a result 10 times that which ASIC had recomended through mediation.


----------



## seamisty (2 February 2011)

marcom said:


> After reading the various reports on ASIC's settlement of the Westpoint claims I am reminded of that famous statement
> 
> I'M FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND I'M HERE TO HELP YOU.
> 
> ...




The competency of ASIC is seriously questionable Marcom!! It was reported ::http://www.businessspectator.com.au...T-DEALS-pd20110202-DNRDZ?opendocument&src=rss

'ASIC’s investigation has cost up to $100 million, while receivers and liquidators have pocketed close to $55 million in fees.'


$155million of taxpayers money to recover $67 mill gross????? And from the same article::

'the settlement fails to nail those directly responsible for the fiasco '



  'I'M FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND I'M HERE TO HELP YOU.'


That quote is as credible as 'I will chase that $147million to the end of the world. I will stay on the battlefield until I get it.'


Seamisty


----------



## selciper (2 February 2011)

More on the Westpoint saga from today's SMH.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/compensation-at-last-for-westpoint-investors-20110201-1ace0.html


----------



## marcom (2 February 2011)

Mitch Craig is currently (started 11am) being examined for the third time in the NSW Supreme Court today. Looking back over the reports of the last two examination sessions raises more qustions about what was going on at MFS. 

This is an extract from the Australian 16 December - the first time Mitch Craig was examined:

Auditor quizzed over MFS accounts
 * Susannah Moran 

"Mr Craig was questioned yesterday by Adam Bell SC over a share sale entered into on the last day of the 2007 financial year.

"...Mr Craig said he believed the purchaser of the shares was outside Octaviar.

Documents shown to Mr Craig revealed that the purchasers of the shares were either principals or entities associated with the MFS principals.

When asked if he was aware of this at the time of the 2007 audit, Mr Craig replied: "I don't know."

 Mr Bell also asked Mr Craig about a number of loans and the property secured against those loans. Mr Bell outlined five loans that were all secured by the same property, but Mr Craig said he was not aware of this when auditing the 2007 accounts..."

And from yesterdays AFR report on the continuing examination:

"...Mr Craig told the court the audit team had reviewed related party transactions "throughout the audit on a largely substantive basis because of the complexity of MFS.

"Parties make profits every day of the week by selling to related parties" he said and rebuked Mr Aspenall's suggestion the creditors rely on an auditors 'to stand in their shoes and protect their interests'.

He also said his 'level of concern wasn't higher in 2007'depite a profit increase as a result of selling to related parties.

*The related-party transactions Mr Craig was questioned about involved Mr King, 'other key management personel' and former Directors"...*

Does anyone know what this is about? Sounds like a case of siphoning off funds?


----------



## selciper (3 February 2011)

Filing away my latest PIF update, I noticed the miniscule photo of Ms Hutson. Despite its size, I guess it appears on the sheet as a symnol of reassurrance for devastated investors. For my part, the thumbnail image served only to remind me of the terrible share price - something that was never predicted at the 2008 roadshhows.


----------



## seamisty (4 February 2011)

A media article of interest. I wonder if Jenny Hutson is still the 'corporate adviser' to Print Mail Logistics? Armstrong Registry Services were/are? substantial shareholders in PML.


http://www.solomonstarnews.com/news/national/10039-si-printer-selling
SI Printer selling? Friday, 04 February 2011 03:57   
Talks of ICSI selling off SI printer


A SMALL company in Australia has been earmarked to purchase the run down Solomon Islands Printers Limited (SIPL), a source revealed.

It is Print Mail Logistics Limited (PML) which is based in Tasmania.

Our source said some members within the Government wanted to sell SIPL to PML despite it not having gone through the tender process.

"There is an under the table deal going on to sell SIPL," our source said.

"Government needs to put SIPL out for tender in accordance to the law."

However, Investment Cooperation of Solomon Islands (ICSI), which owns 100 percent of SIPL denied any knowledge of this shady deal.

"I am not aware of anything like this," one of the ICSI officers who refused to be named said.

"What I know is according to Government policy, it wants to put SIPL for liquidation because it can't meet its debt obligations.

"But whether to sell or put out for tender is something yet to be done," the officer said.

SIPL general manager, Steve Daniel Likaveke said it was wrong information that the Australian company would purchase SIPL.

"I have no further comments on this," he said.

"Only the Ministry of Finance and ICSI can release any information on the future of SIPL."

SIPL is one of the State Owned Enterprises.

It used to be called the Government Printers before being coporatised in 1994.



By EDDIE OSIFELO


----------



## marcom (4 February 2011)

Liquidator Kate Barnett back in Sydney Supreme Court for the third day this week.

KATHERINE ELIZABETH BARNET AS LIQUIDATOR OF OCTAVIAR ADMINISTRATION PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)	200900291718	Assistant Registrar Equity A Musgrave	Court 1 Darlinghurst	11:00 AM

They must really be giving Mitch Craig (ex KPMG) a grilling.


----------



## seamisty (5 February 2011)

Wellington Capital has finally updated their website. Some interesting figures re some of their trusts etc. Some appear to be struggling. According to WC figures PIF unitholder numbers have increased from 10,387 to 10,729 Unitholders. The http://www.newpif.com.au/ website is missing so maybe getting updated or has been totally incorporated in the new updated http://www.wellcap.com.au/ version.

Seamisty


----------



## marcom (5 February 2011)

ASIC on path of least resistance as it chases up cash for investors
IAN VERRENDER
February 5, 2011 SMH

"ASIC these days counts compensation actions as one of its primary weapons. But in doing so, there is a danger the corporate regulator has chosen the path of least resistance..."

Yet another story about about ASIC's ineptitude.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic...ses-up-cash-for-investors-20110204-1agsc.html


----------



## JohnH (5 February 2011)

seamisty said:


> Wellington Capital has finally updated their website. Some interesting figures re some of their trusts etc. Some appear to be struggling. According to WC figures PIF unitholder numbers have increased from 10,387 to 10,729 Unitholders. The http://www.newpif.com.au/ website is missing so maybe getting updated or has been totally incorporated in the new updated http://www.wellcap.com.au/ version.
> 
> Seamisty




Very interesting Seamisty........ Hudson's answer to BRW's Lisa Allen's question "what is the most important relationship you have in business"  -  Answer - "the relationship with the providers of capital _(ain't that us??)_ being both the equity and debt providers"


----------



## seamisty (5 February 2011)

JohnH said:


> Very interesting Seamisty........ Hudson's answer to BRW's Lisa Allen's question "what is the most important relationship you have in business"  -  Answer - "the relationship with the providers of capital _(ain't that us??)_ being both the equity and debt providers"



I like this bit JohnH::Wellington offers corporate
solutions beyond the conventional
to ensure our clients keep ahead
of an ever changing market:

 Rimcorp Property Trust No 4 offered clients an Estimated distribution yield of
8.45%*p.a. for 7 years

Last year the return was 6.15%, this financial year nil.

Some of the other trusts will not mature when expected but will have to be extended so it appears investors are locked in beyond the original term, some with no distributions it seems.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers have drawn attention to the Derrimut Industrial Property Trust to the fact that there is significant concern as to whether the trust will continue as a going concern.

No wonder  the race is on to empire build G8 education to try and emulate S8, but honestly, apart from MFS grossly overpaying for S8 and take away the duplication of booking commissions which must have bolstered figures no end, just how successful was S8? IT contributed largely to the demise of MFS/OCT in my opinion when it failed to realise its trumped up value.


Not exactly figures for nominations of any awards for delivering exceptional returns or.....anything really? 1 cent of our own capital returned after two years of and decimating the unit value rather than rebuilding it?


'Wellington Capital has a reputation for high standards of client service, innovation and devising successful commercial solutions to complex issues.

Our sucess has been fuelled by strong, longstanding relationships which have been built on trust, a commitment to delivering commercial advice and focussing on helping clients achieve their long term aspirations' 

Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (5 February 2011)

Maybe a lemon coloured leather jacket would be more appropriate!


----------



## seamisty (5 February 2011)

JohnH said:


> Maybe a lemon coloured leather jacket would be more appropriate![/QUOTE JohnH, what we got was a lemon alright!! How wrong some of us were (well the majority) In hind sight I can see a $5mill handout, possibly some previous business connections to assist and a bit of acting ability can put on a convincing show!!  My guess is the reason some so called gurus wear the colour red is because they have been doctrined to think that  in the enneagram cult RED= (Motive: POWER)””These are the power wielders. Power, the ability to move from point A to point B, and get things done is what motivates and drives these people. They bring great gifts of vision and leadership and generally are responsible, decisive, proactive and assertive.
> 
> LOL!! What some think and what their capabilities actually are don't reflect the numbers.
> Oh well, each to their own, unless it affects me that is.
> ...


----------



## seamisty (6 February 2011)

ALF Group Holdings AG:http://www.alfgroupag.com/media/documents/2011-01-25-IR_maxEM_E.pdf
- Investment in Investor Relations Activities
- Listing in a Higher Transparency Level Projected
Zurich – 25th January 2011 - ALF Group Holdings AG (ALF) has appointed Munich based max Equity
Marketing GmbH to take over the company’s investor relations and media relations activities.
max. Equity Marketing will undertake a review of the company’s business interest and attempt to
reposition the company in the minds of investors by competently releasing important relevant information
and by assisting the company with relevant marketing material. The intention is to assist shareholders and
potential investors as well as financial analysts with a clear understanding of ALF’s business.
James Byrnes, CEO of ALF Group Holdings AG: “We now have solved most of the issues which limited
our growth strategy in the past. ALF has concentrated on restructuring the company, acquiring good
assets at great prices, raising cash. The business is not very well understood in the market. It is now the
right timing to set up a new equity story and to position the company as an infant in the large investment
company’s sector but seeks to establish interest in a number of areas in three different continents.
Therefore we engaged an experienced Germany based IR firm. Additionally we recently decided to
upgrade the ALF stock listing to a higher transparency level at the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. To underline
this management decision we want to set a positive signal by investing in ALF's European IR activities
and by providing professional IR services to the financial market participants.”
About ALF Group Holdings AG
ALF Group Holdings AG (ALF) wholly owns ALF Group Pty Ltd and its subsidiaries, which includes one of
Australia’s largest litigation funders, and a corporate restructuring services company which also provides
funding and debt and equity solutions. It is also an acquirer and developer of distressed assets.


There is a separate thread on AussieStock titled James Byrnes aka "Big Jim", Sydney - ALF Group Holdings AG, Switzerland 

Link::https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21405&page=1


 The ALF PIF takeover offer for the PIF expires on the 22 Feb 2011. 

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (6 February 2011)

Listening to the BBC’s “Weekly Business” program (audio) I was amused by the second item. A University of California researcher explains the reasons why CEOs who win prestigious business awards usually under-perform afterwards, thus  letting down investors.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p002vsnf


----------



## Duped (8 February 2011)

seamisty said:


> ALF Group Holdings AG:http://www.alfgroupag.com/media/documents/2011-01-25-IR_maxEM_E.pdf
> - Investment in Investor Relations Activities
> - Listing in a Higher Transparency Level Projected
> Zurich – 25th January 2011 - ALF Group Holdings AG (ALF) has appointed Munich based max Equity Marketing GmbH to take over the company’s investor relations and media relations activities. ... “We now have *solved most of the issues which limited*
> our growth strategy in the past. ALF has concentrated on restructuring the company, acquiring good assets at great prices, raising cash. The business is *not very well understood in the market*. ...




"solved most of the issues which limited our growth strategy in the past."

"The business is not very well understood in the market."

LOL.  Two crafted statements cleverly laced with innuendo and implication that: it's not the manager's fault, it's the fault of the market or the investor.

I see through it and read: we didn't get it right in the first place because our earlier business strategy failed.  It failed because it was so 'innovative' that it have been lucky to succeed.

RE: "not very well understood in the market" I ask. And who's fault is that? Did you mislead the market to get your foot in the door and now need to back peddle over your promises?

And seamisty. I agree with you about the true performance of S8.  The price MFS pays for a business isn't exactly the gold standard for measureing value. S8 got lucky. Was King merely Scott's Alan Bond? But then again, high finance is a different world. To them, if you win, then you got it right.  They never ask you to 'justify the means'. They only care about the 'ends'. If you don't win then .... you're out.

All.  The increase in the number of unit holders is probably due to the 'breakup' of the Wholesale PIF. Recall that the number of unit's held by WPIF dropped from about 80million to around 40M. I understand that WPIF unit holders can only escape Wellington Capital's management by converting their WPIF units to the PIF units that can be sold on the NSX.


----------



## Duped (8 February 2011)

I don't know how similar their fund structure is but the following from Stephen Mayne's 'Mayne Report' (www.maynereport.com) is interesting


"*Say no to Challenger's Tweedesque credit proposal*
_An informed investor writes:_

The listed Challenger Financial Group has an underperforming credit fund and they're offering to buy out  the unit holders with 20% cash and 80% in a 3 year annuity issued by  their life company at BBSW – 50 bps which seems like a pretty bad deal  given the assets usually yield BBSW + ~ 200 bps. Credit is also looking  like one of the better performing asset classes over the next few years  so Challenger will pocket all the upside with essentially cheap funding  from the unit holders. It's not only David Tweed who is making lowball  offers to frozen or struggling credit funds."


----------



## seamisty (9 February 2011)

I see Wellington's wholesale PIF voting power is gradually dwindling away. It is now 5.1% with another off market buy back having transpired.

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723681.PDF


----------



## seamisty (9 February 2011)

It appears there is a big need for extra legal representation in Brisbane with two legal firms opening new offices!!

http://au.legalbusinessonline.com/n...g-up-with-two-new-players-in-two-months/81576


----------



## breaker1 (9 February 2011)

seamisty said:


> I see Wellington's wholesale PIF voting power is gradually dwindling away. It is now 5.1% with another off market buy back having transpired.
> 
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723681.PDF




Dropped 0.122% - but a big drop from the original Wellington WPIF holding


----------



## marcom (10 February 2011)

No doubt about ex MFS/Octaviar officers consistent performance!

http://www.smh.com.au/business/four...fault-at-equititrust-fund-20110209-1an0h.html

Four out of five loans in default at Equititrust fund
Colin Kruger
February 10, 2011 SMH

FOUR out of every five loans advanced by the Equititrust Income Fund may be in default by the end of the year, Equititrust reported, but its chief executive said there were ''zero'' implications for unitholders in the $240 million investment.

David Kennedy told BusinessDay that default ''doesn't mean we have a concern about the money being repaid'' to the fund (EIF).

EIF is one of $20 billion worth of investment schemes forced to freeze redemptions in 2008 after the government guaranteed bank deposits during the financial crisis.

Equititrust has also had to pull plans to raise $50 million via the Equititrust Priority Class Income Fund to refinance EIF's debt and fund distribution payments.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission took action last month after BusinessDay reported on Equititrust's potential conflict in trying to raise money from new investors to effectively bail out the EIF.

Mr Kennedy said it voluntarily withdrew the fund's product disclosure statement after meeting ASIC last week and being told it ''had concerns about the conflict''. 

A spokesman for ASIC refused to comment.

Equititrust is exploring the option of raising the $50 million with an external party, or from other investors -* including an unnamed investment bank*. *(DANGER, DANGER!!!)* Most of the $50 million was earmarked for bank debt which the company has had to pay down.

It is one of several issues which led Equititrust's auditor to state in the company's 2010 financial accounts that there was *uncertainty regarding the group's continuation as a going concern.*

Mr Kennedy said Equititrust planned to pay back its EIF loans with NAB by June. Another loan with HBOS has been extended to June 30.

An investor update this week reported that at the end of last year, more than one-third of EIF's loans were in default - borrowers were more than 90 days in arrears with interest payments.

Equitrust said that given the current economic climate it was possible that the value of loans in default would increase to about 50 per cent of total loans by March 31, and to about 80 per cent between April 30 and December 31.

Mr Kennedy said the defaults mainly reflected the fact that Equititrust had stopped capitalising interest payments and was taking direct control of these properties in default.

When asked about the implications for EIF's 1,500 investors, Mr Kennedy replied: ''I would say zero.''

He said the collapse of Gold Coast property developer Raptis Group left Equititrust with a $50 million exposure *which was repaid along with $2.5 million in interest.*

Remember JH's words "I'm a big fan of Jim Raptis" - yes good bloke, pays Equity Trust before us!!!

And from the SMH CBD column today:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/putting-profits-into-perspective-20110209-1an0e.html

SLIGHT HICCUP

The Gold Coast financial concern Equititrust Capital has hit a last-minute hurdle in its plans to raise $50 million to establish a fund aimed at rescuing another of its funds, which has been frozen for two years.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has forced the finance firm to withdraw a product disclosure statement for the Equititrust Priority Class Income Fund.

The hiccup comes just after Equititrust highlighted its financial robustness to budding investors. ''We consider our reputation for capital protection to be our single most important asset. We have come through the GFC.

''Your capital is intact,'' said a recent update from the managing director of Equititrust, Mark McIvor.

The money raised from the new fund was designed to repay a $26 million debt the Equititrust Income Fund has with National Australia Bank.

''The Priority Class Income Fund provides existing and new investors with a once-only, unique opportunity to take up the balance of the bank's first-ranking position in the Equititrust Income Fund,'' McIvor said in his update.

The $240 million EIF mortgage fund expects to have 80 per cent of its own loans in default by the end of this year. Equititrust drew $4.5 million in management fees last financial year.

Equititrust has also bolstered itself by using as its logo a Roman voussoir arch. ''The Roman voussoir arch was a breakthrough in structural stability,'' Equititrust notes on its website.

''Combined with pozzolan concrete, it was one of the sturdiest methods of construction the world had ever seen.''


----------



## seamisty (10 February 2011)

I have heard that the Kooralbyn resort will be reopened this month (after the $25mill+ has been paid to the PIF http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/resort-to-be-base-for-mine-workers/story-fn6ck51p-1225951928407). Possibly renamed 'Augustas Fairways'. Another ex PIF asset which had huge potential to ' maximise' value long term to the fund. 

Also of interest to some I see Print Mail Logistics was/is in technical breach of a loan covenant relevant to a finance facility as at Dec 2010.

'The Company will, in a timely manner issue a further market release to the National Stock Exchange
once the result of the lender’s review is received.'
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723678.PDF

What are the roles and responsibilities of Corporate Advisers? 


Seamisty


----------



## targav 8 (10 February 2011)

HI  i like to know where we are now, with the pif in plain english. how many years to wait, is there hope to salvage some of our investment.i know you been working hard at this and i thank you.


----------



## seamisty (10 February 2011)

targav 8 said:


> HI  i like to know where we are now, with the pif in plain english. how many years to wait, is there hope to salvage some of our investment.i know you been working hard at this and i thank you.



targav8, I dare say we are all confused!! Rest assured we are still working hard!!

Seamisty


----------



## atlas1950 (11 February 2011)

Could someone with contacts perhaps make contact with IMF, and ask them for an update as to the progress of our case. Just to be kept in the loop.

Keep up the wonderful work you guys are doing.

Michael


----------



## seamisty (11 February 2011)

atlas1950 said:


> Could someone with contacts perhaps make contact with IMF, and ask them for an update as to the progress of our case. Just to be kept in the loop.
> 
> Keep up the wonderful work you guys are doing.
> 
> Michael



 I contacted John Walker from IMF this morning Michael and received the following prompt response::'We continue to wait for the reserved decision of the Federal Court, but have reason to believe it will be handed down in late February, early March.'

Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## marcom (12 February 2011)

It is now obvious that the Fortress executives did not want to face further examinations by the Liquidators. 

Seamisty this is the case you saw in the Brisbane Supreme Court late last year.

No 12599 of 2010

RE: OCTAVIAR ADMINISTRATION PTY LTD

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QSC/2010/486.html

Brief summary from the Lawyers Weekly:  http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/blo...02/08/octaviar-administration-pty-ltd-re.aspx

Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd, Re

Posted Feb 08 2011, 11:00 PM by Latest Cases

Three applicants who had been summonsed to produce documents in relation to the Octaviar collapse have failed in their bid to set aside the summonses. Fryberg J found that the summonses were not predominantly issued for a collateral purpose.

Some juicey snippets from the judgement -

_...They (Fortress) point also to the evidence that it is intended to bring proceedings against Fortress in respect of money identified in *a draft statement of claim, which has been prepared on behalf of the respondents (the Liquidators)*. The applicants submit that the evident predominant purpose of the examination is to garner evidence for those proceedings, to cross-examine in relation to them or to destroy credibility and that this is not a permitted purpose within the meaning of the legislation...

There are a number of transactions specifically referred to in the evidence, which satisfy the requirements of the definition and in any event I see no reason to suppose that it is proposed to limit cross-examination to topics which can be inferred from the list of documents attached to the summons. I would be surprised if in fact it were intended so to limit the cross-examination, for in effect that would mean that the whole of the subject matter of the cross-examination was telegraphed to the applicants. That seems an unlikely thing for the respondents (Liquidators) to have done.

Nor do I think that the fact that the respondents contemplate bringing proceedings against Fortress supplies a reason for concluding that the predominant purpose which they have in carrying out the oral examination, is an unauthorised one. There mere fact that there will be collateral proceedings does not invalid the examination and I see no reason to draw a conclusion to the contrary. One of the liquidators has sworn that the examinations are not for the predominant purpose of conducting a dress rehearsal of cross-examination of the examinees, nor for the purpose of destroying their credibility.

There has been no attack by way of cross-examination of the liquidator on that testimony. The liquidator has further deposed that a purpose for the examinations is to establish the date of insolvency of Octavia Administration. That is, of course, a perfectly proper purpose and, indeed, I would have thought, an important one.

The applicants sought comfort from the fact that on Monday this week similar summons were issued to the same people in relation to the affairs of Octavia Limited and made returnable at the same time and place as those presently under challenge.

It is, I think, to be assumed that those summons were issued by way of insurance in case the summonses before me today were to be set aside. It does not seem to me that I could infer from the existence of those summonses that there is any defect in those before me today...

In those circumstances I do not think I ought to make an order for the disclosure of the affidavit upon which the summonses were obtained. The Act clearly has the purpose of preserving the affidavit from scrutiny, presumably, particularly, scrutiny by those to be examined.

The presumed intention is that they should not be warned in advance of the subject matter of the examination...

The applicants have not established that the summonses should be set aside and, in my judgment, it follows that they should not have access to the affidavits...
_
I haven't seen any recent press on the continued examination of Fortress executives so we will have to await that event. It is clear though from the judgement that Bentleys have already drafted a Statement of Claim against Fortress. And if Bentleys  have advanced that far how many of the other potential preferential transactors will receive a SoC - is this why JH drawing PIF in closer to WC?


----------



## selciper (12 February 2011)

A friend of mine aware of my PIF woes coined a new name for the fund: "the Pitiful Income Fund." I told him that it was worse than that.


----------



## ASICK (12 February 2011)

Sorry to hear about Fortress' win in the High Court, re: Judge McMurdo's decision.  I agree you're luckier to have let IMF take you to court rather than ASIC (re: Westpoint decision).  The best thing the government could do is appoint special forensic auditors to look over these funds in investors' best interests and have all the funds wound up ASAP.


----------



## seamisty (13 February 2011)

selciper said:


> A friend of mine aware of my PIF woes coined a new name for the fund: "the Pitiful Income Fund." I told him that it was worse than that.



 More like the 'Plundered Income Fund' Selciper!! 

Plunder= take illegally, steal goods, take as spoils, destroy and strip of its possession, despoiling, wrongfully emptied or stripped of anything of value, loot, rob etc, etc


I did like this article though which restored a little bit of faith in me with the Australian justice system::

Lawyer jailed for million-dollar con 

A FORMER partner in one of Queensland's oldest law firms has been jailed for 10 years for misappropriating up to $8 million over five years

Full story:http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/lawyer-jailed-for-million-dollar-con/story-fn6ck45n-1226003926390

Seamisty


----------



## Duped (14 February 2011)

ASICK said:


> Sorry to hear about Fortress' win in the High Court, re: Judge McMurdo's decision.  I agree you're luckier to have let IMF take you to court rather than ASIC (re: Westpoint decision).  The best thing the government could do is appoint special forensic auditors to look over these funds in investors' best interests and have all the funds wound up ASAP.




Funny thing is ASICK, anyone who comes down against us PIF investors is sullied by their involvment. They have to compromise their values.  Even the High Court.

By ignoring estoppel.  The High Court has demonstrated to me that it is not a court of equity.

The High Court made it's ruling on the words of the documents and ignored the actions of the parties. Fortress could have been estopped. Perhaps I can go so far as to say the High Court even seems to have ignored it's own law at paragraph 27: 

_"We agree with Muir JA that "terms of the charge" as used in s268(2), where the charge is created or evidenced by writing, could only be a reference to the terms contained in the written instrument *AND any terms which may be implied in fact*. Regardless of the means by which a registrable charge is created, it must have terms which can be identified, whether by oral agreement, *implication or otherwise*." _Emphasis added.

So what is "implication or otherwise" or "implied in fact" supposed to mean to OUR High Court? 

Fortress (and hence of course OCV) made it very clear to the market that the YVE guarantee was NOT covered by the secured loan. And then quietly changed this at the eleventh hour (22 January 2008). Even the subsequent OCV Ltd Interim Financial Report and Appendix 4D (Released 28 April 2008. Maybe not audited but still effectively an ASX market announcement IMLO.  See in particular Note 8(d) on page 27 and and Note 13(l) on page 37) and Jenny Hutson (during her mid 2008 road show) were leading the market to believe the Fortress secured debt had been paid off. That advice was false. 

I can find no evidence that Fortress corrected any market misconceptions.  

Wikipedia has an entry on what the US Supreme Court thinks of the term 'implied in fact' in respect of an 'implied in fact contract': 
_"founded upon a meeting of minds, which, although not embodied in an  express contract, is inferred, as a fact, from *conduct of the parties  showing*, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, their *tacit* *understanding*." _Emphasis added.
How can our High Court not see that the *conduct *of the parties (Fortress and OCV Ltd) represented an implied contract to the market that contradicted the High Court's interpretation in this decision. 

Our two branches of powers, Parliament and Judiciary, seem to me to be mere toys for the smart money and Hired Gun Lawyers INC.  But that's Australia for you.  Too wealthy from the spoils of this abundant land to have to bother with refining the governing mechanisms. There's so much wealth from the land that its relatively small population don't need to bother righting wrongs to maintain lifestyle. And without the pressure to right wrongs our adversarial system of law can be more readily highjacked.

Australia is a copy of the UK system.  And of course the thing about copy is: they're never as good as the original.

Add to that the lack of equity and a bill of rights.  Australia really is a sub standard knock off of the Common Law systems of the better resourced and served UK and US. Maybe it's time for Australia to change to Civil Law. It seems we can't afford to run or are not taking due care with this 'Rolls Royce' of legal systems. Hence Civil Law would probably be more suitable. Either the Judiciary steps up to solve the failings of parliament's statutes - or we find ourselves a judicial system better suited to Australia. Perhaps one which doesn't provide so much incentive for the legal fraternity to corporatise.

It's too easy for the smart money to use parliament to continuously spew out imperfect law and then routinely announce review and reform in one giant exercise of front running. Pretty much well exactly what's happend in the Fortress/OCV case.

Makes a mockery of the continuous disclosure laws too.

That's my lay casual observer opinion anyway.

Fire a canon ball at a castle and you'll quickly find out how strong it's walls are. Fortress canon ball revealed to me that our legal system is not made of such sturdy material. 

If you push anything hard enough it'll fall over. That's what our army of corporatised laywers is currently doing to our legal system.


----------



## Duped (14 February 2011)

seamisty said:


> ...
> 
> I did like this article though which restored a little bit of faith in me with the Australian justice system:: ...




Doesn't restore my faith at all Seamisty. I see it as a bad sign. Like a canary in a mine. It represent abundant foul air.


----------



## ASICK (14 February 2011)

Duped said:


> ...




HI Duped, 

I can't speak to the facts you make comment on.  

But looking to the decision in light of what you say, it seems to me to be akin to looking at an orange (external/exposed/public) on the one hand, and cutting open the orange to reveal the pith (internal/unexposed/private) on the other hand.   We trust that a bright orange skin will enclose an unblemished fruit, but it is not always the case.  The pith is the substance.

For example, if one misinforms/mispresents , then the truth remains the truth (as decided by a court), not the misinformation/misrepresentation.  The truth is always the the sought after substance.

A court will not knowingly make a decision on the side of misinformation/ misrepresentation. So if a mispresentation was made (and I can't speak to that) then it would not provide the material to construct a 'wall of evidence' to support a case.

If one thing is agreed to privately and another thing said publicly by the parties (or by one of them) then the private agreement will bind the parties.

If investors suffered loss by a public misstatement (again, I don't know about the facts in this case), then it's a matter of looking for a remedy subject to law (if that is possible), but that has nothing to do with the private arrangements made between the parties.


..


----------



## marcom (14 February 2011)

More negative press comment on ASIC's pathetic performance.

*ASIC fails to act as directors exploit loopholes*
February 14, 2011 SMH Business Day

http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic-fails-to-act-as-directors-exploit-loopholes-20110213-1as47.html

"...There is a general perception among liquidators that ASIC has very little interest in cases under $10 million, unless there are a lot of complaints and high-profile parties or publicity involved.

ASIC vehemently denies this. The evidence suggests otherwise.

The latest annual report by ASIC shows that of the more than 9074 statutory reports filed by liquidators in the past year, 5748 allege suspicious activity and of those reports 761 are asked for supplementary reports with supporting evidence. Of those, a third, or 254 cases, result in some action.

To put it into perspective, 2.8 per cent of the statutory reports are followed up with compliance, investigation or surveillance; the rest become cold cases.

And therein lies the problem. Behind the numbers there are numerous cases of fraud or breaches of director duties that never get investigated or prosecuted. They end up being "analysed, assessed and recorded", which, for the Foxdales of this world, is a polite way of saying buried.

In ASIC's world, it is less bleak. In a briefing note to me, it said that in the 2009-10 year ASIC "significantly" increased the number of supplementary reports (33 per cent compared with 24 per cent in 2008-09) referred for compliance, investigation or surveillance or to assist with an existing investigation or surveillance.

When compared with the total number of statutory reports, this is an increase from 1.6 per cent to 2.8 per cent.

But the stats raise questions about how many other Foxdales there are waiting to be exhumed. As one liquidator said last week: "I write lots of reports to ASIC and they just get shelved."

Meanwhile, loopholes continue to be exploited in the regulatory system."


----------



## Duped (14 February 2011)

ASICK said:


> If one thing is agreed to privately and another thing said publicly by the parties (or by one of them) then the private agreement will bind the parties. ...




The YVE gaurantee was entered into almost on the same day as the security.  It would be a brave justice to conclude that the two instruments were NOT considered together. Given that they are likely to be viewed by the market (the intended audience) as having been considered together then wouldn't you agree that this sends a clear signal to the market that the YVE is not intended to be secured? The opportunity to consider them together was certainly there. In fact, from my lay view, OCV and Fortress would have had to go out of their way to generate two instruments rather than just secure the YVE loan as well at the same time. 

OCV then went on to disclose the YVE loan as unsecured in e.g. it's 2007 annual report (Note 33). I recall there was another debt update in 2007 or very early in 2008.

I have already written this all on this forum before but am happy to rehash for you. The relevant section of the Corporations Act grants the priviledge of a right of priority creditor in exchange for information regarding the nature of the loan. So that, in the HC's words (para 32 HCA10-029) "a person minded to search the register would be informed, ..., of the need to look elsewhere to ascertain the precise nature and details of the liability or libilities secured." 

Well in this case, that research would have revealed that the YVE loan was not secured.

All Fortress then needed to do is apply the leverage of the secured loan to get its unsecured loans secured. Which is precisely what it ended up doing.

As I said, Fortress were front running this in-the-rough statute. Perfectly legal?  And the High Court has rewarded Fortress for doing so.  But in doing so the High Court has not applied tools available to it to come to an opposing conclusion. It has not served PIF investors well. 

Furthermore, as early as the first week, law students are taught about purposive construction. The High Court has told us what the purpose of this legislation is. So then how does the High Court's decision help us "ascertain the precise nature and details of the liability or libilities secured"?

It does precisely the opposite.  As an unsecured creditor you now (thanks to the HC decision) need to perform the very difficult task of ascertaining the relationship between the secured creditor and the other unsecured creditors. I.e. to determine how easy it is for your fellow unsecured creditors to jump up the priority list in front of you. Not so difficult in the present case but what if the YVE unsecured debtor's name didn't include the term 'Fortress' in it. The likely outcome is that unsecured creditors will now probably need to assume that  fellow unsecured are for all intents and purposes secured. I.e. an unsecured creditor's position is now LESS certain than before this Octaviar decision. This can hardly have been the intent of the legislation.  It is now more difficult to "ascertain the precise nature and details of the liability or libilities secured"

In fact, this new law should bring forth debt trading whereby a secured creditor can play unsecured debtors off against each other.  I.e. a secured creditor could start a bidding war between unsecured creditors.  The unsecured creditor that sells its debt to the secured creditor at the biggest discount doesn't get wiped out like the others. 

This decision has likely changed Australia's debt markets. Frightening really. It's a case of  trying to avoid legislating from the bench means that the court has possibly been tricked into legislated from the bench.  And us Mum and Dad investors get sacrificed in the perpetual authority push and shove  between the legislature and the judiciary. And the smart money plays off on this in its game of front running.  And us retail investors pay for this silly game.  Is that the role that the High Court sees itself as serving? Or does the High Court see this as the price we pay for the vote we cast? Or a necessary evil to keep us poor so we go to work everyday to make this country strong?

Anyway, that's my lay observer' view.


----------



## ASICK (14 February 2011)

Duped said:


> ... .




Thanks Duped.  I was clearly out of my depth with the facts, so I found a judgment summary here:
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2010/hca29-2010-09-01.pdf

Ok, I see what's happening.  As I understand it, just how big a security net a charge will cast is now not able to be determined if a future unlodged 'transaction document' is captured by a pre-existing charge lodged with ASIC.

The whole issue seems to hinge on the need to lodge a  'notice of a charge or its variation'  with ASIC (Corp. Act s. 266).  

It seems that the later charge (YVE) need not be considered as a charge at all, but rather as a 'transaction document' relating to a pre-existing charge which does not necessitate amending the terms of that pre-existing charge.

Here's an example  -  Loan 1: A lends to B secured by a charge which includes the following term: "all money, obligations and liabilities…owing or payable…under or in relation to a Transaction Document".   Loan 2: C lends to B secured by registered charge.  Loan 3: A then lends to B and each of them agree that the document is a 'transaction document' but the charge is not registered. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I see it,  Lender A/Loan 3 has a higher priority than Lender C:/Loan 2 even though the document ('charge') securing Loan 3 was not lodged with ASIC and the charge securing Loan 2 was lodged.

If I'm right, then the lender going in first sets the terms - any other lender has to look further than the notice - a new lender has to read the lodged security document word by word, otherwise the lodgement of a later security may offer no protection at all.

Unfortunately in the Ocv matter, the latter loan security was termed a  'transaction document' and therefore fell under the original charge lodged with ASIC.  Fortress was entitled to recover with first priority.


----------



## ASICK (14 February 2011)

ASICK said:


> ... .




I can't see the problem for unsecured lenders, but I can see the problem for lenders who thought they had priority when they otherwise might not have. 

Yes, you're right, it seems to have given rise to a great deal of uncertainly rather than settling anything at all.  

Clearly there's a need for legislative change.


----------



## Duped (15 February 2011)

ASICK.  From my reading of the court decisions it's common practice to use the 'transaction document' structure.  The court's even had a shot at this practice, calling it 

I don't know anything about priorities where there is multiple secured creditors. Truth be told, I'm also unaware of any rules around the priorities amongst unsecured creditors.  All I 'm going on is Jenny Hutson's presentation in mid 2008, whereby us unsecured creditors were all ranked equally (OPI, PTQ, PIF, Challenger and yes: the ATO).

OCV only had one secured creditor - Fortress. And the amount OCV owed to all those unsecured creditors was huge.

"I can't see the problem for unsecured lenders" - every lender needs to continually assess the borrower's financials to determine the riskiness of the lenders 'asset'. Right? A risk analysis would involving determining the likelihood of collapse AND determining how much would likely be recovered. Right? I.e. if there is a rush for the exits, how much would a lender expect to get back?  The High Court's decision in Octaviar IMLO has changed the second part of that risk assesment. This HC decision has made it easier for an equally ranked unsecured creditor to suddenly become a secured creditor IMLO.   In my lay casual observer view,  the High Court changed the market's understanding of the law.  And hence any legislative change needed would be for the purpose of rolling back the changes made to the practical application of the law when the High Court succumbed to Fortess' counsel's 'campaiging from chambers' and then, effectively, legislated from the bench.  

While I support the theory that law should be clear and it's interpretation not twisted back and forth by mob rule, this decision went too far. It's Fortress that appears to have twisted the law's interpretation and hence made it inconsistent with the fundamental rule of 'purposive construction'. And the degree to which the law/accounting firms rallied against McMurdo's decision suggests to me that the High Court did possibly bend to the demands of the mob of practitioners.  (Think about all that unbilled work the law/accounting firms would have had to do to unpick the incorrect advice they'd previously given). So who's in charge here, the legislature, the judiciary or .... the legal fraternity.  The latter is sneaking their way into power without having to carry the accompanying obligations of a duty to the public.  But I guess that's probably what happens when we let lawyers corporatise.

To lay me, this decision exposes failings in Australia's practical application of a Common Law system. 

"but I can see the problem  for lenders who thought they had priority when they otherwise might not  have." This applies to secured and unsecured lenders alike. As explained above, the problem is for an unsecured creditor who may have though they had equal priority with other unsecured creditors when they otherwise might not have.

Anyway, that's just my lay casual observer view of the circumstances surrounding this case.


----------



## ASICK (15 February 2011)

Duped said:


> ASICK.  From my reading of the court decisions it's common practice to use the 'transaction document' structure.  The court's even had a shot at this practice, calling it
> 
> I don't know anything about priorities where there is multiple secured creditors. Truth be told, I'm also unaware of any rules around the priorities amongst unsecured creditors.  All I 'm going on is Jenny Hutson's presentation in mid 2008, whereby us unsecured creditors were all ranked equally (OPI, PTQ, PIF, Challenger and yes: the ATO).
> 
> ...




Thanks again Duped.

You said, "... OCV only had one secured creditor - Fortress. And the amount OCV owed to all those unsecured creditors was huge. ..." and went on to decry my comment that I didn't see a problem with unsecured lenders. 

I understand the law is applied equally to secured and unsecured lenders, but to be honest, I wasn't thinking so much about 'lenders' but rather 'creditors' or those who transact on a regular basis and get caught out if an amount is owed when things go pear-shaped - I couldn't imagine where a lender would  loan large amounts of money without adequate security.  If we really sit down and think about it, the real problem is the jokers who run some of these managed funds.

To my mind, the PIF is where it is because of the directors of OCV, not the law _per se_.   How else could such an outcome be achieved, that is, a large unsecured loan in such circumstances?   Ocv always had control over events and it seems that it didn't figure the PIF's money as having any value.  Nothing could have been a surprise to the directors of Ocv, but there were big surprises for investors in  the PIF.

Which managing entity (arms-length or otherwise) would loan a large amount of money held on behalf of investors to another entity without adequate security?  I would say if there are  any such lenders around, then there'd be managers included within the large number of frozen managed funds languishing in limbo.

It is the behavior of the directors and managers that really is the problem, and it's a problem with comes about because of the incestuous corporate relations which allows directors/managers to move money about as if it was their own.

"... This HC decision has made it easier for an equally ranked unsecured creditor to suddenly become a secured creditor. ..." - The decision does not make an unsecured lender a secure lender with priority - the priority is either there or it is not.  

Whether or not the term 'transaction document' has been kicking around for some time, the case turned on the fact that the loan in question was a 'tranactional document' relative to a registered charge.

Whether the loan was termed  or publicized as 'unsecured' does  not change the loan's legal nature as a secured loan.  So, the loan didn't change from unsecured to secured, it was secured all the time.

Judge-made law is a fact of life - it comes about through judicial interpretion of legislation.  If the legislators don't like the judicial interpretation, then its up to them to make legislative changes.  Laws are enacted - judges interpret the laws - refinements may be made to the law: a cycle which might take some years.

"... As explained above, the problem is for an unsecured creditor who may have thought they had equal priority with other unsecured creditors when they otherwise might not have. ..."  - yes, I agree, it is the upshot - but I'll bet such unsecured loans aren't in the portfolio of well-managed companies/managed funds/trusts (or even reasonably-well managed ones).


----------



## Duped (15 February 2011)

Sorry ASICK.  I appreciate your participation but lost a large chunk of savings and am hence quite spirited. Quoting you and then countering your position is a practice I picked up from other posters.  Please don't take offence.

You're quite right about this case having little to do with the management of PIF. And yes, there are other actions afoot regarding those matters. 

But the consequences of this HC decision and the securitisation of the YVE loan on the 22 Jan 2008 means there's ~$54m less in the pot to be shared amongst the unsecured creditors. Unsecured creditors who would have made an assessment of the risk they were exposed to. The eleventh hour securitisation shifted this ~$54m to Fortress. And that affects how much we PIF investors get. (As well as how much the PTQ's note holders, OPI investors, Challenger's investors etc get.) Yes this particular case was brought by the Public Trustee of Queensland (PTQ) on behalf of the note holders (~$350m worth) but the outcome has affected all of OCV's unsecured creditors.

I agree with you that it is the behavior of the directors and managers that really is the problem. They did most of the damage. But that doesn't absolve the HC from it's responsibility to ensure that all purposive construction isn't interpreted out of a piece of legislation.

"the case turned on the fact that the loan in question was a 'tranactional document' relative to a registered charge"  True.  But it wasn't always a transactional document.  The YVE loan started it's life as an unsecured liability on OCV Ltd in ~June 2007. And OCV communicated this clearly to the market.  The liability was only made a 'transactional document' on  22 Jan 2008. The Corp Act even provides for variations so that the market can remain informed.  As we know, the HC decided that the change in OCV's debt position on 22 January 2008 didn't require notification of variation.  Hence by making the terminology of the registered document sufficiently broad and removing anything of substance, the value of the variations provisions is all but neutered if the debtor/creditor so choose. 

The only other alternative then is for the minded person to ask the debtor directly for an update . If so, then what's the point of having a register of charges that requires companies to disclose any of the terms of charge. Just have a Yes/No register.  Then anyone "minded to ... ascertain the precise nature and details of  the liability or libilities secured" can just ask the company straight up without having to bother with a register whose content is entirely at the discretion of borrowers and lenders.  

But hey, I'm open to the premise that the legislation (Part 2K?) only ever intended for the *optional *inclusion of any _meaningful detail _in the'terms of the charge'. In which case the HC probably hasn't changed the law at all. (I wonder if ASIC agrees) But if that's the case then why has the HC teased us with lobbing in ratio(?) like _*"AND any terms which may be implied in fact*."_  Note the 'AND'.

It seems the HC has given the written documents absolute supremecy over any 'terms which may be implied in fact' without giving us a reason.  (Is this a signal from the HC of where the PTQ's case was lacking?)

The ASIC webpage on Charges even indicates that it's parliament's intention that 'Charges created by other conduct' can be registered. I.e. this suggests that parliament gives similar weight to charges created by the conduct (actions) of the parties as to charges created by a written instrument.  You just need to register to get the right of priority. Yet the HC decided that the 'January 2008 Deed' didn't need to be registered to get those rights, despite the similarly valued '_conduct_' (i.e. actions) of the parties contradicting the January 2008 Deed. Why does the written instrument (i.e. the Deed) get supremecy over conduct when parliament seems to be giving similar value to either method of creating a charge.  The conflict between the unregistered Deed and the Conduct has never been addressed. This is despite the HC announcing that it gives weight to 'terms implied in fact'.

The extensive ASIC's info sheet 'Don't Get Burned' makes no specific mention of secured charges over companies. http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Don%27t+get+burned?opendocument.  

The ASIC page on Charges makes no mention that 'meaningful detail' in 'terms of charges' is optional. http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Charges?openDocument

I'd be very interested to see the Disclaimers/Published Info that gets sent to fee paying ASIC users of the National Names Index. My guess is that none of the ASIC published guidance warns consumers of the Register of Charges that 'meaningful detail' of terms of charges is optional


----------



## ASICK (15 February 2011)

Duped said:


> ...




Hi Duped.

No offence taken - my habit is to do likewise.  

I empathise with you in respect of your losses - I've suffered likewise but probably to a greater extent.

I've concluded that an investment in an encumbered fund (or one able to be encumbered) is no more secure than an investment in a mezzanine fund.  Holding first mortgages or even ownership in property is no guarantee of one's investment in circumstances where an external lender holds priority over that first mortgage or ownership.   

These funds are called 'schemes' and for very good reasons - a scheme by the  initiating manager entirely in the best interests of that manager.  The deck was stacked from the very start.   

It doesn't matter what happens now - the deed is done.

We've all learnt very expensive lessons - the trick now is to get as much as we can back and get on with our lives.

..


----------



## Cookie1 (16 February 2011)

I don't know if anyone else was wondering, but I was very surprised that there was no mention made in the December 31 2010  Investor Update from Wellington Capital about the Icon Apartments in Port Macquarie. My husband and I stopped in to see the two real estate agents handling sales yesterday and asked for an update on the status of sales; we thought we'd share what we learned with others on this forum.

Both agents were quite willing to talk about the apartments, although I'm sure they would have preferred that we were potential buyers! We told them of our connection with the funding of the development. 

Both agents said they were 50% sold, which is almost accurate. If two under contract settle in the next week or two as they expect, I guess that will be the 50%. The information we received was pretty much the same from both, but in comparing the Price Lists with apartments for sale/sold, there are some obvious discrepancies. 

The one thing we learned, and which surprised/shocked us, is that *5 unsold apartments on the 3rd level and 2 penthouse apartments are being rented* (6 & 12 month leases, most of which are 12-month). Those apartments are currently "unavailable" for sale. We were told that the QLD developer is "holding back some of the apartments and not releasing them to the market so the market doesn't get flooded and they can keep the prices up, rather than having to reduce prices. Apartments on Level 3 are renting for $550/week (RRP $825,000) and the penthouses  for $600/week (RRP $1.2million). There is still one apartment available on Level 3 for rent. LJ Hooker's price list shows 1 x penthouse (401) sold, 402 and 405 rented with the rest available for sale. Ray White's price list shows Apts 401, 403 and 405 unavailable and 402, 404 and 406 for sale at $1.2million. Ray White shows all of Level 3 unavailable for sale and LJ Hooker shows 5 rented.

The real estate agents are, of course, getting commissions for managing the rentals, and Body Corporate fees also come out of the rent. (I'm assuming the developer gets some money as well, although I didn't ask the question.) The LJ Hooker & Ray White agencies deal directly with the Qld developer JH brought in so I was unable to learn if any money actually goes back to JH for the PIF. The rented apartments won't be able to be sold as "new" now that they've been lived in.

I've included a synopsis of the two price lists as a PDF file attachment (I can't figure out how to embed files into the text.

Cookie1
View attachment 41404


----------



## breaker1 (17 February 2011)

another lot of messy sales!

good work Cookie

Yes, please do ring Wellington and find out if the rentals are coming back to the PIF


----------



## marcom (17 February 2011)

ASIC finally got one!

*Fincorp founder faces jail*
Leonie Lamont SMH
February 17, 2011

http://www.smh.com.au/business/fincorp-founder-faces-jail-20110216-1awla.html

WITHIN a year of establishing his glossy finance and property development company, Fincorp founder Eric Krecichwost was dishonestly using his position as a director to write cheques on the company accounts to benefit himself and family members.

Krecichwost faces a possible jail sentence, after a jury in the NSW District Court yesterday found him guilty of dishonestly using his position as a director to pay himself and his family millions in ''spotters fees''.

The decision was a much-needed win for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, which brought the criminal charges following its investigation into the collapse of Fincorp.

The jury dealt with three chequing transactions orchestrated by Krecichwost - the payment of ''spotters fees'' to himself and members of his family, on September 1 and October 27, 2003. One cheque was for $1.98 million, while the other involved transfers of $900,000 from Fincorp into a related company, and then $825,000 from that company to another entity. The jury found him guilty on all three charges. Each offence carries a maximum sentence of five years in jail, and or a $220,000 fine.

Peter Hastings, QC, prosecuting, told the jury Krechichwost used a ''back-door'' method to distribute money from the group, as dividends and distributions could not legally be made as the developments had not made a profit.

The jury was not told that Fincorp collapsed in early 2007, owing investors $200 million.

Krecichwost remains on bail.


----------



## selciper (17 February 2011)

Anybody following the Bernie Madoff (USA) story can catch up on the latest via this link.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41613193


----------



## Duped (17 February 2011)

marcom said:


> ASIC finally got one!
> 
> *Fincorp founder faces jail*
> Leonie Lamont SMH
> ...



 [emphasis added]

Effectively Fincorp tried to distribute money by disguising it as operating expenses.  I.e. calling it 'spotters fees'. Probably all signed off by the auditor.

Is this what's happending to PIF? Distributing our money via operating expenses through the likes of the Jenny Hutson run 'Armstrong Registry Services'? Who's auditing all of PIF's legal expenses? Where's our money really going?

Investing money in Australian financial products really is very very risky.  Perhaps it's a good thing for Singapore to get the ASX. PIF investors haven't been served very well by Australia's financial sector. Like the ASX allowed OCV Ltd to sell Stella without an EGM. 

Brilliant research Cookie1.  Thanks.


----------



## selciper (18 February 2011)

Cookies deft detective work again underlines the paucity of information to be garnered from Wellington. It’s time that Hutson submitted herself to a Q&A from the AG. She was very quick to criticise Peacock when MFS was imploding, wasn’t she?


----------



## marcom (19 February 2011)

*ASIC wins case on appeal against Fortescue*
18:10:00 18/02/2011 ABC AM

The full bench of the Federal Court has ruled that Fortescue Metals and its chief executive Andrew Forrest deceived investors in 2004. The corporate regulator argued that the company misled investors about agreements with Chinese investors to finance and build a port, mine and railway project in Western Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3142917.htm


----------



## selciper (20 February 2011)

Transcript excerpt 7.30 Report, three years ago, 11.03.08

JENNIFER  HUTSON, WELLINGTON CAPITAL: It is about bringing the general on the field of battle, who in this instance, is Andrew Peacock to account. 

When Andrew took over as chair, the company was worth in excess of $2 billion. It last traded at less than $500 million. So, less than 25 per cent of that value. And corporate Australia has always been about accountability, as has political Australia.

                         --------


----------



## seamisty (21 February 2011)

Looks like ALF PIF are still hoping to get enough suckers on board their takeover offer as it has been further extended to 14 June 2011. They now have an interest of 0.28% of PIF units.
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723706.PDF   That NSX announcement was quickly followed no less than 11 mins later with one from WC recommending ::

 REJECT FURTHER EXTENDED
TAKEOVER OFFER
FOR PREMIUM INCOME FUND UNITS MADE BY ALF PIF FINANCE LIMITED

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723707.PDF
ALF PIF Finance Limited has lodged a Notice of Variation of Extension of its takeover offer, extending the
period of its bid from 28 February 2011 to 14 June 2011.
Managing Director Jenny Hutson said ‘The offer continues to be 0.1 redeemable preference shares and 0.05
ordinary shares in the Bidder for each unit in the Premium Income Fund. The shares offered are in a
Company with no trading history and less than $2000 in assets.
The offer is grossly inadequate. The proposal seeks to shift over $120 million in unitholders’ current value
to the Bidder’s current shareholders. The Wellington Capital board believes that the approach by the Bidder
remains opportunistic and is at a price that does not reflect in any way the current value of Premium Income
Fund units.’
Ability to withdraw previous acceptance
Acceptances totalling 2,097,721units have been received by the Bidder, making its total holding 0.28% of
the issued capital.
Unitholders who have previously accepted this Offer may withdraw their acceptance by giving notice to the
Bidder within one month. Unitholders who require assistance in withdrawing their acceptance can contact
the Wellington Hotline on 1300 854 885 (+617 3231 0000).

Unusual for Wellington Capital to be so on the ball!!! Well at least unithloders can withdraw their acceptance if they change their mind.

Seamisty


----------



## k.smith (21 February 2011)

What a terrible scenario...

Units are trading at around 20% of their "net asset backing" while investors, who originally invested in this (and other) funds at an entry and redemption price of $1.00 are at the mercy of having their voting interests compromised by the very different interests of units/votes acquired by the opportunistic bidder.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/busines...n-on-hassle-free/story-e6frfh4f-1226007194816

''....THE corporate watchdog has managed to ban a company that deals with rookie investors from making unsolicited offers to shareholders of health insurer NIB Holdings....''

The ripple on effect of the "frozen fund" and the subsequent listing has not done us well... should we be further exposed to these "offers", which, imo, is detrimental to the interests of investors who remain in the fund ?


----------



## seamisty (21 February 2011)

k.smith said:


> What a terrible scenario...
> 
> Units are trading at around 20% of their "net asset backing" while investors, who originally invested in this (and other) funds at an entry and redemption price of $1.00 are at the mercy of having their voting interests compromised by the very different interests of units/votes acquired by the opportunistic bidder.
> 
> ...



KSmith I heard recently that some of the substantial PIF unitholders had calls made to them from a person associated with 'distressed funds' on behalf of an interested 'client'. The offer was 0.66cents. Anyway, as far as I know ASIC was made aware of the details and no one took up the offer. 

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (23 February 2011)

Kooralbyn Resort sale denied
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/02/23/293955_gold-coast-business.html


Capital's Premium Income Fund has denied a sale of the Kooralbyn Resort was imminent, despite a protracted due diligence still being conducted by at least one interested party.

The golfing resort, located on the outskirts of Beaudesert, has been closed for almost three years following the fallout from the collapse of Gold Coast funds manager Octaviar (then known as MFS) in 2008.

Wellington Capital chairman Jenny Hutson, who now controls the property through Wellington's takeover of the former MFS fund, quashed local media reports that a sale agreement had been reached.


''We've been in due diligence with a party for four months,'' Ms Hutson said.

''That remains the current position.''

The party was revealed last year to be a consortium headed by coal industry executive and Eestech Australia director Murray Bailey.

Ms Hutson said there were two other ''interested parties' in the frame.

''There has been good interest but not much more than that.''

Kooralbyn Resort was controlled by former New Zealand businessman Ray Schofield and Ron Lane through company Kooralbyn International Hotels, which was placed into liquidation in July 2008.

The property, which has fallen into disrepair, is understood to owe the Premium Income Fund, the sole secured creditor, about $60 million, with the Bailey-led offer said to be around $25 million

The resort has its own airstrip and comprises a 100-room hotel, 36-room golf lodge, golf course, tennis centre, polo fields and equestrian centre.

Meanwhile, a $113 million takeover bid for the Premium Income Fund has been extended until June 7.

The extension by ALF PIF Finance, a company backed by the family of banned company director Jim Byrnes, will stretch the opportunistic bid into a year-long affair - or 364 days, which is the maximum period at law for a takeover offer.

The bid continues to stir little interest from existing unitholders in the fund.

ALF PIF Finance has received acceptances for about 2.1 million units, or 0.28 per cent of the Premium Income Fund's 755 million units.

This has been virtually unchanged for the past few months.

Under the terms of the bid, ALF PIF Finance is offering PIF unitholders 0.1 redeemable preference shares in ALF PIF Finance and 20 per cent of its ordinary shares for each unit they own in the fund.

Ms Hutson this week stood by her rejection of the offer, saying unitholders effectively would give away 80 per cent of any upside in the fund's value above 15c a unit if they accepted the bid.

''The shares offered are in a company with no trading history and less than $2000 in assets,'' she said.

The most recent valuation for the Premium Income Fund is $265 million.

The fund's units, which trade on the National Stock Exchange, last sold for 6.7c giving the fund a market capitalisation of just over $50 million.


----------



## Duped (23 February 2011)

Thanks Seamisty.

"''The shares offered are in a company with no trading history and less than $2000 in assets,'' she said."

That bit always gets my back up. So ALF PIF is not that different from Wellington Capital then? How long had WC been trading when it took on PIF? 2 years? What property trades had it been involved in? 2 or 3? (Beenleigh and North Lakes) The bulk of the other properties managed by WC were traded by someone else and simply acquired by WC via the RimCorp and PIF transactions. Both being opportunistic transactions? WC's property trading history is rather thin.  And we haven't seen much return of capital from WC's trading of PIF properties that supposedly has or should have occured.


----------



## seamisty (23 February 2011)

ALF Group Holdings AG – To Raise CHF 25 Million in Professional Investor
Placements
Zurich – 15th February 2011 – The Directors of ALF Group Holdings AG (ALF) wish to
advise that the company proposes to raise capital to finalise the acquisition of several
high yield property investments and other strategic investments from banking in the USA
to mining in Australia.
The company will issue an Investment Information Memorandum and a Subscription
Agreement to qualifying/potential investors (see below).
The key points of the capital raising are:
- This capital raising is specifically targeted to professional investors, institutions
and family offices
- This raising excludes retail investors
- The minimum subscription is CHF 50,000
- Placement provides immediate return of in excess of 100%
- Offer closes 14th March 2011 (7pm Zurich time)
- The maximum amount required by ALF is CHF 25m
The deployment of the funds is as follows:
1. CHF 2m to settle the acquisition of a 9.9%equity stake in a profitable
US based retail trading bank.
2. CHF 3m to settle the purchase of a large US distressed multi family
home property. The balance of the project will be debt funded.
3. CHF 6m to be the equity contribution for a Euro 19.7m commercial
office property in Germany. It is leased substantially to the state on long term
leases and a return in excess 9% net per year.
4. CHF 12m to be the equity contribution for a Euro 32m property portfolio
in Germany. The portfolio consists of 24 individual properties and a return in
excess of 9% net per year.
5. CHF 2m to take up AUD$ 2m placement in the IPO of Zeus Uranium
Limited.
Professional investors who wish to receive a copy of the Investment Information
Memorandum and Subscription Agreement should send an email to:
info@alfgroupag.com requesting a copy of each and the relevant documents will be
emailed or posted.
Please Note:
- ALF has a pre commitment for 20% of our capital requirements prior to the
launch.
- ALF reserve the right to reject subscriptions once the required CHF 25m has
been raised.
About ALF Group Holdings AG
ALF Group Holdings AG (ALF) wholly owns ALF Group Pty Ltd and its subsidiaries, which
includes one of Australia’s largest litigation funders, and a corporate restructuring services
company which also provides funding and debt and equity solutions. It is also an acquirer and
developer of distressed assets.

http://www.alfgroupag.com/media/documents/2011-02-15-Capital Increase.pdf


----------



## JohnH (23 February 2011)

Can't see you rushing to take up this offer Seamisty!


----------



## selciper (23 February 2011)

Ms Hutson's reported comments re Kooralbyn Resort aren't exactly the words of a super property sales person. Nowhere are the property's virtues descriced.


----------



## Duped (23 February 2011)

Duped said:


> Thanks Seamisty.
> 
> "''The shares offered are in a company with no trading history and less than $2000 in assets,'' she said."
> 
> That bit always gets my back up. So ALF PIF is not that different from Wellington Capital then? How long had WC been trading when it took on PIF? 2 years? What property trades had it been involved in? 2 or 3? (Beenleigh and North Lakes) The bulk of the other properties managed by WC were traded by someone else and simply acquired by WC via the RimCorp and PIF transactions. Both being opportunistic transactions? WC's property trading history is rather thin.  And we haven't seen much return of capital from WC's trading of PIF properties that supposedly has or should have occured.




Oh and having "no trading history" didn't stop Hutson's WC exposing our assets to market forces and market opportunists by putting our units on the NSX?


----------



## seamisty (25 February 2011)

My warped sense of humour finds this article I translated amusing!! I imagine our illustrious leader will not find it at all funny!!!! Seamisty

http://translate.google.com.au/tran...q=alf+pif+group+holdings+2011&hl=en&prmd=ivns


ALF Group Holdings AG: Takeover Bid for Australian Fund Extended ALF Group Holdings AG: Takeover Bid for Australian Fund Extended 

Zurich - 24 February 2011 The Directors of ALF Group Holdings AG (ALF) wish to advise that ALFs 90% owned subsidiary ALF PIF Finance Limited, has informed the National Stock Exchange of Australia (NSX), Australias stock exchange for small cap companies, that it has extended its bid for the takeover offer for all the units in the Premium Income Fund (PIF) until 14 June 2011. 

The takeover bid now seems a more compelling offer for shareholders to consider, as when the offer was initially made the existing management made promises of large dividends and promises of signs of improvement in the funds financial position.  

Since our bid was announced in May 2010 the following has eventuated: 

- The existing manager, having been exposed in a public examination in relation to her involvement in a multi-billion company collapse, is now at best unreliable and appears to have lost the trust of most unit holders in relation to dividends that have failed to materialise when promised. 

- As at 30th of June 2010 the existing manager reported another significant loss for PIF, further reducing the net asset value of PIF to AUD 265m. - As at 30th of June 2010 the existing manager reported another significant loss for PIF, further reducing the net asset value of PIF to AUD 265m. 

ALF has been inundated with requests from unit holders to confirm if ALF PIF Finance Limited is still prepared to proceed with the offer and it appears that investor patience has worn thin. 

Further, to add to the prospects of the success of the bid, Australian Litigation Funders Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of ALF, has agreed to take over and fund all recovery action, all unit/ shareholder class action claims against the existing manager and all recovery action against third parties who may have a liability owing to PIF.  

The Australian Litigation Funders Pty Ltd offer provides existing unit holders of PIF with the comfort that the PIF capital will not be dissipated and that Australian Litigation Funders Pty Ltd will work on a no win/no fee basis and take a fixed percentage of 33% from all recoveries.  

ALF believes that there is potentially over AUD 140,000,000 in potential claims, suits and recoveries. 

This means that there is the potential to deliver fees of approximately AUD 46m to ALF.  


About ALF Group Holdings AG About ALF Group Holdings AG 
ALF Group Holdings AG (ALF) wholly owns ALF Group Pty Ltd and its subsidiaries, which includes one of Australias largest litigation funders, and a corporate restructuring services company which also provides funding and debt and equity solutions. ALF Group Holdings AG (ALF) wholly owns ALF Group Pty Ltd and its subsidiaries, one of Australia's largest Which includes litigation funders, and a corporate restructuring services company Which therefore provides funding and debt and equity solutions. It is also an acquirer and developer of distressed assets. It is therefore of acquirer and developer of distressed assets.


----------



## simgrund (25 February 2011)

seamisty said:


> My warped sense of humour finds this article I translated amusing!! I imagine our illustrious leader will not find it at all funny!!!! Seamisty
> 
> http://translate.google.com.au/tran...q=alf+pif+group+holdings+2011&hl=en&prmd=ivns
> 
> ...


----------



## seamisty (25 February 2011)

simgrund said:


> seamisty said:
> 
> 
> > My warped sense of humour finds this article I translated amusing!! I imagine our illustrious leader will not find it at all funny!!!! Seamisty
> ...


----------



## marcom (25 February 2011)

*Well done us, says ASIC boss*
Scott Rochfort SMH
February 25, 2011

http://www.smh.com.au/business/well-done-us-says-asic-boss-20110224-1b768.html

Tony D'Aloisio ... an opportunity to look back on just how good ASIC is. Illustration: John Shakespeare

The nation's head corporate grime fighter, Tony D'Aloisio, was in a triumphant mood yesterday when he appeared before a Senate estimates hearing in Canberra to explain how things had much improved since the bad old days of the 1980s.

Mr D noted how a ''summer school'' held by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission this week gave him some time to reflect on his many achievements.

''The summer school was actually also ASIC's 20th anniversary, and it was one of those situations where you could do a bit of reminiscing over the years and see what ASIC had contributed to the community,'' Mr D told a Senate estimates hearing yesterday.
Advertisement: Story continues below

''And we really drew a sharp contrast between where Australia was in the late '80s, with the collapses and so on, when we had a very embryonic NCSC [National Companies and Securities Commission], and where we are today with the financial crisis and the response of our regulators.''

At the opening of the summer school on Monday, Mr D crowed how the recent spate of corporate collapses was only slightly more damaging than the collapses after the 1987 sharemarket crash.

''These totalled [about] $66 billion [between 2007 and mid-2009], representing a slightly greater proportion of GDP than the $20 billion lost in the major collapses during the turmoil of the late 1980s,'' he said.

Thank heavens for inflation.

*Mr D also offered some comfort to the scores of retirees who had their savings wiped out by the recent collapses of City Pacific, Babcock & Brown, ABC Learning, Opes Prime, Allco Finance, MFS, Storm Financial and Timbercorp.

He said it was ''particularly encouraging to see that many retail investors had adopted strategies that helped them to minimise the impact of the GFC''.*

''There are many reasons why the Australian markets fared relatively well during the GFC, but I'm pleased to say ASIC's role and cumulative developments in regulation were important factors,'' he said. Phew.


----------



## marcom (25 February 2011)

You would never know that MR D of ASIC is seeking reappointment for another term!

But to more pressing news: Hearing today in the Brisbane Supreme Court -http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/practice/lawlist/Brisbane.htm

COMMERCIAL LIST
FORTRESS CREDIT CORPORATION (AUSTRALIA) II PTY LTD -V- OCTAVIAR ADMINISTRATION PTY LTD Justice Philip McMurdo Court 9
Floor 2 Not Before 11:00 AM Aplication

Fortress sure don't want to front the Liquidator!!!


----------



## selciper (25 February 2011)

Re ALF: They may play a useful role in getting the Wellington board out of their foxholes. Doubtless ALF will mail out a list of what they consider to be Wellington's failures. So, how will
Wellington respond to specific questions? Just saying "REJECT" a hundred more times won't be enough.


----------



## k.smith (25 February 2011)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/well-done-us-says-asic-boss-20110224-1b768.html
''....Mr D also offered some comfort to the scores of retirees who had their savings wiped out by the recent collapses of City Pacific, Babcock & Brown, ABC Learning, Opes Prime, Allco Finance, MFS, Storm Financial and Timbercorp.

He said it was ''particularly encouraging to see that many retail investors had adopted strategies that helped them to minimise the impact of the GFC''....''

Strategies????

We investors who are lucky enough to be below pension age, who have worked hard all our lives,  are back to working double shifts to try to replace a percentage of our losses while we are still "young enough". WE have adopted a new strategy... to put our second-time hard-earned in a safe ACCC bank, teach our children and grandchildren never to invest in mortgage funds unless they have a degree in accounting, law and literature, and never fall into the trap of believing that  the regulatory system for consumer protection  is watching all.
The older investors are either in nursing homes after their ride in the watchdogs ambulance service,(now we know they only pick up the bodies) or being nursed by their distressed families.


----------



## seamisty (25 February 2011)

k.smith said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/business/well-done-us-says-asic-boss-20110224-1b768.html
> ''....Mr D also offered some comfort to the scores of retirees who had their savings wiped out by the recent collapses of City Pacific, Babcock & Brown, ABC Learning, Opes Prime, Allco Finance, MFS, Storm Financial and Timbercorp.
> 
> He said it was ''particularly encouraging to see that many retail investors had adopted strategies that helped them to minimise the impact of the GFC''....''
> ...



k.smith even worse!! To my further dismay I have recently been told that there have been at least 3 Wellington Capital Premium Income Fund investors to have been known to have committed suicide due to financial circumstances involving the PIF, this is apart from others that I know have died from stress related illness exacerbated from their association with this pathetic excuse of a Fund!! So many had so much hope when they believed in the award winning act (well paid for in advance from possibly their own original PIF investment) performed by Wellington Capitals travelling circus. Mostly all we hear these days from Wellington Capital is 'REJECT REJECT!!' all offers with no real back up explanation as to why??? Well hullo, we are not as stupid as we were when we were conned into voting for WC with promises of 3 cent payments before Dec 2008 and ongoing quarterly distributions, hey WC were so convincing they even stooged justice McMurdo!!! 'REJECT REJECT' Hmnn.... Myself personally am a big fan of 'RECYCLING' and 'REJECTING'. I am a strong believer in 'Every dog has its day' and I feel the tails wagging!! Cheers all. 

Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (26 February 2011)

seamisty said:


> simgrund said:
> 
> 
> > Simgrund direct from the 'horses mouth' :: 'The extension by ALF PIF Finance, a company backed by the family of banned company director Jim Byrnes, will stretch the opportunistic bid into a year-long affair - or 364 days, which is the maximum period at law for a takeover offer' from this article::http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/02/23/293955_gold-coast-business.html
> ...


----------



## Mary Lynch (26 February 2011)

Quite a fluctuation on the NSX, when on one day there is a sale at 6.7c and another sale at 8c.  What causes that?   Is it just luck for someone?


----------



## selciper (26 February 2011)

I think that one day Wellington may come to regret having recorded the DVD of that Melbourne 08 roadshow. After all, there are ten thousand copies floating around the country..


----------



## seamisty (26 February 2011)

selciper said:


> I think that one day Wellington may come to regret having recorded the DVD of that Melbourne 08 roadshow. After all, there are ten thousand copies floating around the country..



HA HA selciper, simply removing it from the new updated Wellington Capital website and dumping the newpif website will not make that DVD go away!!!! Quite the contrary I hope.

Seamisty


----------



## marcom (26 February 2011)

Guess who's buying G8 shares?

G8 Education chairman buys on-market

Published 1:36 PM, 16 Nov 2010

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...an-buys-on-market-B95EE?OpenDocument&src=srch

G8 Education Ltd chairman *Jennifer Joan Hutson* *indirectly* bought 152,050 shares for $147,488 on-market* on November 15, 2010.
*
She *indirectly* holds 800,000 shares.

And wait for it -

G8 Education CEO transfers off-market

Published 1:36 PM, 16 Nov 2010

Source: News Bites  http://www.businessspectator.com.au...nsfers-off-market-B95DP?OpenDocument&src=srch

G8 Education Ltd CEO and executive director *Craig Chapman* directly transferred in 1,200,000 shares off-market* on November 15, 2010.
*
He directly holds 1,208,333 shares.


----------



## seamisty (27 February 2011)

Just for the record the following was sent to Nick Nichols, business editor of the Gold Coast Bulletin on the 27th Feb 2011.

Hi Nick, http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/02/26/295271_gold-coast-business.html  Ms Hutson said G8 expected to continue making quarterly payouts for the foreseeable future.
 Ms Hutson also promised investors in the Wellington Capital Premium Income Fund quarterly distributions.

'Cash payments totalling 3 cents per Unit will be made to

Unitholders by 24 December 2008 and quarterly thereafter, with the

first payment to be made in October 2008.'
http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/2008/Explanatory Memorandum.pdf

At the same time Investors were also promised 

Up to 37.75 million units in the Fund will be redeemed by the Fund

at 45 cents per unit by 18 September 2009;
Neither commitments EVER EVENTUATED!!!

At the time Wellington Capital took control of the Fund 

The net asset backing per Unit in the Fund, assuming it remains a going

concern, is 45 cents per unit plus any amount recovered from MFS.

The NTA of units are currently worth at least 10 cents less , possibly more and are trading at around 0.67 cents on the NSX.

Investors have only received a ONE OF cash payment of 1 cent per unit return of their own capital which was paid in Oct 2010. NO FURTHER PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN SCHEDULED!!!!

The supposedly 3 democratically elected Investor Advisory Group representatives (of which Wellington Capital refused to disclose voting results even to other nominees) do not respond to questions or communicate with other PIF investors including members of the PIF Action Group.
Remember this article you wrote Nick? http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/media/2008/GCB_030708.pdf Don't you think it is time to do a follow up on what was promised to the 10,400 + PIF investors who voted for MS Hutson on the strength of her commitments which NEVER came to fruition?? Surely the GCB would like to follow up on previous articles, especially when so many lives have been adversely affected? 


Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (28 February 2011)

An interesting article in the Courier Mail. I wonder if it was a case of Equtitrust CEO (previously MFS) David Kennedy not being able 'to recall' or simply 'relying too heavily' on David Anderson (previously MFS). Regardless, it apears Equititrust Fund has big problems of its own!!

http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/financier-in-strange-web-word-fight/story-fn6ck2gb-1226013110857

TROUBLED Gold Coast financier Equititrust says it is the victim of a cyber smear campaign and has gone to the extraordinary lengths of hiring a specialist private investigator. 

The company has been attacked through investor website Aussie Stock Forums in recent weeks after criticism over its frozen $240 million income fund was aired.

A spokesman for Equititrust said fake emails purporting to be from the company had been sent to borrowers, investors and other contacts, prompting it to take action.

"Earlier this week an electronic fraud detection consultant was engaged to investigate such matters," the spokesman said on Thursday.

In an attempt to address the "erroneous allegations" being made on Aussie Stock Forums, it was understood Equititrust staff began posting positive comments about the company on the website.

Chief executive David Kennedy was personally attributed as one account user.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
However, the website administrator suspended that account, called "Equititrust", along with two other accounts, for breaching the website's terms of use because they operated from the same computer terminal.

"Equititrust is aware that numerous staff have accessed the ASF (Aussie Stock Forums) website," a spokesman said.

"Several of these staff are also investors in Equititrust and, as long as no confidential information is disclosed, Equititrust has no objection to them participating in such sites."

Those accounts included the usernames Buffettman and Ozab.

In mid-February, Ozab posted: "Read the rubbish from some posts go Equititrust ignore them!!!!!!!".

Meanwhile, someone with the username Buffettman wrote: "Makes me think that Mr Kennedy is right when he suggested you are probably disgruntled borrowers rather than investors if you haven't called him.

"I think it's high time you guys either put up or shut up as your apparent malicious conduct has the potential to cause damage to us genuine investors."

An Equititrust spokesman said the company hoped to see "greater regulation and surveillance of sites like Aussie Stock Forums to avoid situations where companies and individuals are forced to take extreme measures to defend themselves".

It comes as the company acknowledged it had made large loans to a two-time former bankrupt on Gold Coast property deals.

Mr Kennedy was not employed by Equititrust when the deals were made.

The company was owed about $60-$70 million dollars from companies linked to Dudley Quinlivan after those companies Croftworth Property Holdings (No.1 and No.2) were placed in administration.

Despite those troubles, the company is understood to have reassured investors that it should return to liquid status this year.



Here is the link to the Equititrust thread on Aussie Stock for anyone interested.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/search.php?searchid=99721

Seamisty


----------



## Duped (28 February 2011)

k.smith said:


> ....  We investors who are lucky enough to be below pension age, who have worked hard all our lives,  are back to working double shifts ...




Yep: paying taxes, producing GDP and helping solve the problem of an ageing population.  Can't you all see how much ASIC is like a front to help the finance sector to prise open our wallets. All this blah blah about independent retirement: it's all pretend.

Just remember that all those Commonwealth Public Servants who come up with this superannuation fanancial regulation for us:  their money's not in it.  Their money is all safe in defined benefit schemes.

It always reminds me of a line in Black Adder The Third:

_Edmund_: [to the old man standing near them] Excuse me, could you move along please. Look, I'm waiting for my father in law. Last thing I want is some scruffy old beggar blocking the church door, smelling of cabbage.
_Father_: I am your father in law.
_Edmund_: Oh no... All right, how much you want to clear off?
_Kate_: Edmund, how could you? He's my father, my only living relative.
_Father_: Ten pounds should do the trick.
_Kate_: Father!
_Edmund_: All right, there we go.
_Kate_: Edmund, you mustn't!
_Edmund_: No, don't worry, *I'll get Baldrick to beat him up after the ceremony. We'll get the money back.
*


----------



## selciper (28 February 2011)

Seamisty, the letter to Nick Nicholls is first rate. (According to Crikey, the GCB isn't doing too well at present.)

I did a tour of the "new" Wellington website. The dedicated PIF page isn't very appealing. I did bump into smiling photos of Wellington board members Jennifer Hutson, Robert Pitt and Mary-Anne Greaves. Why were they smiling? I wonder.


----------



## Duped (28 February 2011)

Mary Lynch said:


> Quite a fluctuation on the NSX, when on one day there is a sale at 6.7c and another sale at 8c.  What causes that?   Is it just luck for someone?




Perhaps Mary. The pattern of trading suggests to me that the buyer made a mistake.  Either way, it's only a small volume. 
25 Feb: 19,882 units @ 8c
24 Feb: 19,882 units @ 6.7c
23 Feb: 19,882 units @ 6.7c
22 Feb: 20,882 units @ 6.7c
I speculate that we have had only one serious buyer for a long time. I.e. an opportunist buyer.
If so, then Hutson is warning us against selling to the opportunistic ALF while at the same time exposing us to an opportunist on the NSX. I'd love to know what's really going on.  

But hey, in the December Investor Update Hutson reported a High price of  7.5c.  Next Investor Update, she'll be able to report a high of 8c.  Did anyone notice the scale on the left side of the chart in the last  report.  Very "innovative".


----------



## selciper (28 February 2011)

This is a pretty interesting article about the thoughts of a major fraudster - Bernie Madoff. (Hot off the international press).

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local..._nightmare_calls_victims_greedy_i_am_a_g.html


----------



## Duped (28 February 2011)

selciper said:


> This is a pretty interesting article about the thoughts of a major fraudster - Bernie Madoff. (Hot off the international press).
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local..._nightmare_calls_victims_greedy_i_am_a_g.html




Wow.  Feels a bit like what Wayne Swan said about us PIF investors. Madoff calls his investors greedy. Whereas Swan said we "[FONT=&quot]made an investment in a market linked investment proposal which didn't have the security that an investment in a APRA regulated institution would have *because they were looking for higher returns *and sadly the worst has happened.[/FONT]".  Not that different really is it?

OK, so say Madoff's clients (namely the feeder funds) were complicit.  But what about *their *clients? I.e. the investors who put money into the feeder funds? Were they being sold a line? 

Drawing a comparison between Madoff and PIF would mean that in here inOz, Madoff's Clients were akin to  ...... ASIC's AFSL financial advisors. Wouldn't it?  Stripped to the basics, our commission remunerated financial advisors are like Madoff's feeder funds.  I.e. we paid them a % of our investment to do all the work for us so we can concentrate on being a better doctor, nurse, farmer, roofer, carpenter, scientist, statitician, actor, musician, etc.


----------



## marcom (1 March 2011)

In the Brisbane Supreme Court today:

FORTRESS CREDIT CORPORATION (AUSTRALIA) II PTY LTD -V- OCTAVIAR ADMINISTRATION PTY LTD
	Justice Philip McMurdo
	Court 9
Floor 2 	Not Before 11:00 AM 
(Application)

Looks like last weeks application rewriten and submitted again.


----------



## seamisty (1 March 2011)

marcom said:


> In the Brisbane Supreme Court today:
> 
> FORTRESS CREDIT CORPORATION (AUSTRALIA) II PTY LTD -V- OCTAVIAR ADMINISTRATION PTY LTD
> Justice Philip McMurdo
> ...



Stalling exercise Marcom?


----------



## marcom (1 March 2011)

seamisty said:


> Stalling exercise Marcom?




Yes I'd say so. They don't want any more examination exposure as it will weaken their defence against the Statement of Claim to be served on them by the Liquidator. A draft of the SoC was tendered in Court late last year when they sought to avoid more examination. Presumably the SoC seeks to have the funds paid to them returned to the Liquidator. This application is being heard by J McMurdo. Perhaps they think that he, as the principal trial judge on the MFS/Octaviar matter, may reach a different conclusion to J Fryberg.

Fortress may have won the High Court case which confirmed their secured status as a creditor, but if the Liquidator finds that MFS/Octaviar was trading as insolvent from as early as March 2007 that secured status may be in jeopardy.


----------



## Duped (1 March 2011)

Marcom.  Perhaps Fortress think they can use the HC decision and the Banking and Finance Industries' reaction to McMurdo's decision to humble McMurdo.

The bottom line in my lay observer opinion is that the HC has left the door open ("and any terms which may be implied in fact") and that the McMurdo decision was less objectionable to the policy of Ch 2k. 

Well may they say: this is the law now. I say: not necessarily.  The following line of argument  doesn't appear to have been presented to the HC. Hence, the HC's view  expressed in para 32 might be change: "[t]here is *nothing* *objectionable *to  the *policy *of Ch 2K that notice of the January 2008 Deed was not  required to be lodged where the particulars lodged for registration  *adverted to the possibility* of its existence".  

I ask: isn't it objectionable if the conduct of OCV and/or Fortress advertised to the market that it was unlikely that the January 2008 Deed existed? 

The legislation says, we'll give your debt seniority if it's registered with ASIC. You don't even need to have a written agreement between lender and borrower. Just tell us a little bit about it so that our register will warn everyone that they need to do some research AND where to start the research.  The government's ASIC is saying: whether it's a verbal agreement or a written agreement that you're informing the market about - WE DON'T CARE.  You just have to put some details on our searchable register. 

But the HC is effectively saying: this is not always the case. The HC says it DOES CARE about how the debt is created. I.e. if there's one of these 'all monies securities' in place, then the genesis of the agreement DOES MATTER. I.e. it doesn't matter if you have and continue to tell the market that a debt is unsecured, the HC is going to give preference to the written word in a secret document over your contradictory public CONDUCT in the market. A secret document is given preference to contradictory public CONDUCT. Well, I'm rather certain that ASIC will find that objectionable. Objectionable enough to change the legislation even? 

The government is saying that CONDUCT DOES matter. The government is saying, meh, same diff to us - conduct has equivalent footing as a written document. The important thing is an informed market. Just give us some details for our little register. And the HC did not explain why it gave preference to secret written words over public conduct. Despite ASIC indicating that conduct has equivalent footing to a written agreement. The right of seniority was created by parliament.  So parliament's objections count right. Including parliament's commissions.

IMO the HC's decision has resulted in an outcome contrary to what the legislation set out to achieve. I.e. that registration should create greater clarity.  The HC decision has stamped a smiley face on complexity that the legal fraternity created at their own peril. Objectionable?

The HC even openly criticised the drafting technique of shifting the meaning of a pivotal definition to another term not found in the charge. Remember that these 'all-monies' charges are a creation of the market, not the legislation. The HC says: tough.

Additional reasoning is in para 25: "This, as Muir JA noted, would be an unlikely and unattractive result."  Yes I agree, for an untainted 'increase in liabilities'.  Banks could continue on their merry way lending more money to their borrowers, providing for early redemption fees or automatically increasing interest rates without any Ch 2K registration requirements. So long as they haven't previously written, informed or 'implied in fact' to the market that such variations are unsecured. Neither of the examples given by Fortress' Counsel in para 25 would normally ever be adverted as being unsecured. How much a burden on business would it really be to inform the market, via s268(2) that a debt that previously adverted as being unsecured has now become secured. ASX listed companies have to do it anyway don't they (continuous disclosure)? Hence Muir's 'unlikely and unattractive result' can still be avoided in a ruling against Fortress.

Would this create an opportunity for mischief by borrowers? Well, like the details of the agreement, that's between the borrower and lender to arrange between themselves. A suitable defaulting clause should provide the requisit disincentives.

The HC still has room to move to distinguish itself from this decision.  Either that, or ASIC's website hasn't guided me very well.


----------



## seamisty (2 March 2011)

The Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au/money/super-and-funds/consumers-vulnerable-20110301-1bcbb.html

   Consumers vulnerable John Collett 
March 2, 2011



After its patchy record in protecting small investors, it is a fair question to ask whether it is time to reform the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

The regulator is supposed to protect investors while facilitating and promoting the financial services industry. These two functions are incompatible within the same organisation. It has led to a split personality and a clash of cultures within the regulator. The government keeps loading the regulator with more responsibilities, which is diluting its effectiveness in carrying out each of its functions.

In particular, it is time to ask whether the consumer protection function needs to be separated from the regulator's other functions. And whether such a body should be headed by someone with a record of success in enforcement.

Advertisement: Story continues below That's what is occurring in Britain with the Financial Services Authority, which will be disbanded. It will be replaced by a Financial Conduct Authority and another body that will monitor the banks and insurers. On the face of it, that does not look very different to what we already have in Australia with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority supervising the banks and insurers and other deposit-taking institutions. The big difference, however, is in the new powers the Financial Conduct Authority will have.

It will have the power to ban dangerous investment products and will be able to tell the public about pending enforcement actions against financial services organisations and individuals. These are powers that ASIC does not have. The move comes after the spectacular failure of ''light-touch'' regulation in Britain.

Politicians here see the move as too radical. There was much backslapping and self-congratulation among officialdom after it become apparent that Australia was to be spared the worst of the financial crisis. Our regulators were credited with doing a good job.

However, there were tens of thousands of victims, mostly retirees, of poor or dodgy investment schemes and financial advice extending further back than just the past few years. The apologists for the big end of town tend to apportion most of the blame to the victims - saying it's the investors' fault if they get caught out and should not expect regulators to come to the rescue. That's nonsense. The losses experienced by small investors have not come about just because of market crashes, or because they were ripped off by someone operating outside the law. The losses have come because of shonky operators who have been licensed by ASIC and have been operating right under the regulator's nose.

Australia remains the wild west of ''innovative'' financial products - fee-laden, opaque products that never should be allowed anywhere near small investors. There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone, for example, from gaining a financial services licence and then putting investors' money on the big wheel at Crown or Star City Casino.

In theory, how the money is being invested is supposed to be disclosed to investors but in practice the regulator only ever checks a tiny proportion of disclosure documents and then usually only when the money has already been lost.

Finance is a global business. Unsavory operators will gravitate to the international jurisdictions where the regulatory bars are set the lowest. The very significant increases in consumer protection that is occurring not only in Britain but also the US will only increase the attraction of Australia's small investors to the sharks of the global financial services industry.


----------



## lawry1dog (2 March 2011)

Looks like after all this time, the Class Action has probably finished now and it is sad to see nothing has come of it. 
*The instigators of this Class Action should now take some responsibility for this non event and giving us a false sense of hope.*

*WC should now liquidate the fund and give us some of our money back.* Would that be 8c in the dollar. I do not think WC should *NOT* be earning a living off our demise,
and she should have the fund finished up.


----------



## selciper (2 March 2011)

lawry1dog said:


> Looks like after all this time, the Class Action has probably finished now and it is sad to see nothing has come of it.
> *The instigators of this Class Action should now take some responsibility for this non event and giving us a false sense of hope.*
> 
> *WC should now liquidate the fund and give us some of our money back.* Would that be 8c in the dollar. I do not think WC should *NOT* be earning a living off our demise,
> and she should have the fund finished up.




Lawrydog, please back your claimed information with evidence. What you are saying is very serious.


----------



## charles36 (2 March 2011)

Lawry Dog, I am sorry you have not been able to get correct information before making your post.  As one of the original unit holders who put their name down as an applicant on behalf of all unit holders and in addition contributed to the initial expense I feel somewhat at a loss to understand your comment.   The class action is proceeding along very well, thank you.  The delay is caused not by the instigators but by legal argument that normally happens in such cases.  I have reason to believe a statement will be issued in the near future as to the developments in the case.  I would suggest with great respect, before making such a statement in future you contact the Litigation Funders who would be well known to you, for correct and up to date information.


----------



## marcom (2 March 2011)

Duped said:


> Marcom.  Perhaps Fortress think they can use the HC decision and the Banking and Finance Industries' reaction to McMurdo's decision to humble McMurdo.




Duped, I totally agree, but I'm not sure that will help them in the end though. If you read the RE: OCTAVIAR ADMINISTRATION PTY LTD [2010] QSC 486 decision you can see how desperate they are to avoid a looming legal stoush:

"They point also to the evidence that it is intended to bring proceedings against Fortress in respect of money identified in a draft statement of claim, which has been prepared on behalf of the respondents.  The applicants submit that the evident predominant purpose of the examination is to garner evidence for those proceedings, to cross-examine in relation to them or to destroy credibility and that this is not a permitted purpose within the meaning of the legislation."

The threadbare lines of defence they advanced to be spared the opressive inquisition by the dreaded LIquidator include these gems:

"They further submit that the matters to be the subject of cross-examination have already been the subject of cross-examination in other proceedings and that it is not functionally helpful for further cross-examination to be carried out and is oppressive to the applicants...

Finally they submit that oppression can also be inferred from the fact that the examination is to be conducted in Brisbane and the applicants will be required to travel to Brisbane from Sydney..."

Justice Fryberg did relieve Fortress of one part of the summons: "The summonses required the respondents *to produce documents in addition to attending for examination and required that to be done not less than five days prior to the examination.*  I have already made orders relieving the respondents of the obligation to comply with that part of the summonses.  It is, *I think clear, that s 596D(2) permits a summons to require production at the examination, not before it.*

Faced with a court decision copelling attendance for further examination, Fortress are probably seeking to be relieved of the obligation to produce the nominated documents - documents which could prove detrimental to their defence of the Sataement of Claim. This may be the basis of the current application.

As to the HC, it seems to be the modus operandi to find on narrow grounds (and narrow interpretation of legislation) to allow the courts enough "wriggle room" for future statutory interpretation. However, in the end it always seems that the big end of town benefits.


----------



## lawry1dog (2 March 2011)

selciper said:


> Lawrydog, please back your claimed information with evidence. What you are saying is very serious.




I did say *probably*.


----------



## lawry1dog (2 March 2011)

charles36 said:


> Lawry Dog, I am sorry you have not been able to get correct information before making your post.  As one of the original unit holders who put their name down as an applicant on behalf of all unit holders and in addition contributed to the initial expense I feel somewhat at a loss to understand your comment.   The class action is proceeding along very well, thank you.  The delay is caused not by the instigators but by legal argument that normally happens in such cases.  I have reason to believe a statement will be issued in the near future as to the developments in the case.  I would suggest with great respect, before making such a statement in future you contact the Litigation Funders who would be well known to you, for correct and up to date information.




I did say the class action has *probably* finished, and until I have hard evidence
I can only assume it is a non event.


----------



## simgrund (2 March 2011)

lawrydog said:


> I did say the class action has *probably* finished, and until I have hard evidence
> I can only assume it is a non event.




Hello Lawrydog,
 I think the holdup is with the PTQ examinations going on in various courts.
The main issue is to establish solvency or insolvency of Octaviar on dates it was making third party loans and perhaps other dealings. 
If insolvent and KPMG waived it through, the action will be easier.
CA action preparation needs conclusions from these examinations.
Currently, Fortress loan is in court's sights.
Conclusions are on their way to many parties, PIF among them.
So we need to wait. 
I think that's the simplest picture for now; I will stand corrected if there are add ons worth mentioning.
Hang in there pal and double check your registrations with Armstrong and IMF.
Cheers,


----------



## seamisty (3 March 2011)

lawry1dog said:


> I did say the class action has *probably* finished, and until I have hard evidence
> I can only assume it is a non event.



lawry1dog PIF investors have enough to deal with without scaremongering without backup please. Like Charels36, myself as an original applicant also in the Class Action, personally when ever I or other participents have concerns re the progress I contact IMF directectly of which I always get a prompt response and post it on the forum. My information is that the Class Action is still on track and anticipating 'going forward' this year. Please do not post possibly negative posts if you do not have data to back yourself up, it is difficult enough to keep PIF morale/sentiment positive without your negotive rhetoric. We can rely on Wellington Capital, our currrent responsible entity to push that barrow. Hmmnnn, actually in saying that, I seriously question if WC are pushing anything in PIF investor's favour. Probablly too busy promoting the g8 education barrow. I think the barrow has a flat tyre, its finding difficulting 'moving forward'!! 

Seamisty


----------



## lawry1dog (3 March 2011)

Seems it is all talk on this forum, with no real outcome from it at all. Can you tell me exactly what benefit this forum has done in getting any monetary cash back. After all
it has been over 3 years. You only say we should wait and be patient. 
I thought this forum was about giving people the ability to express their opinion and views.
It is easy to criticize me, but at least I am giving another point of view(even if it is perceived as negative)

My take(*opinion*) on the Class Action is as follows:-
   1.   The IMF will cease sponsoring the action in April or May this year.
   2.   After that the solicitors will then want to bill someone else(maybe us).
   3.   There is a real possibility that the Judge will pass a judgement that KMPG have to pay up.
   4.   KMPG will then Appeal the decision, and then it will maybe another 1-2 years wait, in which we will be paying(maybe).

Can someone verify that we will not be paying for the Class Action in the future?

It has been over 3 years of this tragedy, of MFS going bust, and the only thing we have received is a 1c payment and of course being on the NSX. The NSX is really a joke, in that who would buy any of our Unit shares, in a fund managed badly by WC. 
WC has never given us any hope in the Unit price going above 10c.

You have criticised WC for 3 years and of course nothing has happened, and I have
the feeling they laughing in our faces all the way to the bank.

After all I want my money back.


----------



## Duped (3 March 2011)

lawry1dog. 
Forums are here precisely for that: talk.  Actions have had there own channels for a long time. If talk opens those other channels up, then it's good.
"  KMPG will then Appeal the decision" And if we show a lack of determination to go the whole way - they certainly will.
"You have criticised WC for 3 years and of course nothing has happened" Perhaps because not enough people are here on ASF criticising, let alone reading?
"laughing in our faces"  And do you want KPMG to do so as well?
Unlike the NSX and WC's control, you're not being forced to participate in the CA. You have no control over the risk WC exposes you to.  Did you know that for a unit trust like PIF we are all personally responsible for the legal actions Hutson's WC takes on our behalf?  And Hutson still won't grace us with and EGM. PIF is NOT a limited liability company.  So if you want to eliminate all your personal liability then you'll need to get out of the CA AND PIF.


----------



## Duped (3 March 2011)

Thanks seamisty.  It's good to see the Pop Press doing some navel gazing about the financial industry that pays for the advertising.  But it ain't going deep enough. I disagree with Collett.

"The apologists for the big end of town tend to apportion most of the  blame to the victims - saying it's the investors' fault ...  That's nonsense." Wrong.  The big end of town is correct.  In a free market economy , it is the investors' fault. And in the absence of offence of a law or tort, the court is compelled to apply the free market 'caveat emptor' (buyer beware) and rule against investors.  But in a free market economy, investor's have 'caveat emptor'.  And ASIC took that away from us with its ham fisted meddling. 

"if they get  caught out and should not expect regulators to come to the rescue. That's nonsense." Correct.  This is ASIC's mess and ASIC should clean it up. By legal action. Likely to fail.  Hence preferrably by compensation out of a fund paid for by ALL  investors. Let the market competitors flush out the shonky operators. 

ASIC's problem is that it writes cheques that it can't cash. FTD Failed to deliver.  Time for ASIC to abandon their AFSL Australia Policy and say SORRY. Stop letting shonky operators operate under the Commonwealth Brand. Let the market decide. Poor regulation is worse than no regulation at all.


----------



## seamisty (3 March 2011)

Update from Bentleys re the Octaviar Public Examinations:

There are still two people left to be examined towards the end of April. 
One from Freehills and one from KPMG. Once the examinations are completed all the information recovered will then be regrouped to determine the most appropriate course of action and then commence litigation if necessary.

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (3 March 2011)

Lawrydog, can you draw up a lost of actions that this forum should have taken?


----------



## selciper (3 March 2011)

...that should read "list".


----------



## Duped (3 March 2011)

Thanks Marcom. Based on that line of argument of mine, it seems in this case that the legal fraternity has not served the court well. Some more rigor by the High Court to avoid this lamentable outcome could be argued to be warranted. This falls into the same chorus as Abbott's call for judges to perhaps be elected by the people (or their representatives), rather than being promoted from the ranks of the legal fraternity.  I.e. judges need to distance themselves from an increasingly corporatised fraternity.

My reading is that Fryberg only relieved Fortress because of the 5 day thing. And the new summonses probably is simply a replacement without that error in it. And Fortress' latest application is against the replacement summonses.  That's my guess anyway.


----------



## targav 8 (3 March 2011)

selciper said:


> ...that should read "list".




Lost, that was right selciper , a list of action of what we lost lol.


----------



## lawry1dog (3 March 2011)

Duped said:


> lawry1dog.
> Forums are here precisely for that: talk.  Actions have had there own channels for a long time. If talk opens those other channels up, then it's good.
> "  KMPG will then Appeal the decision" And if we show a lack of determination to go the whole way - they certainly will.
> "You have criticised WC for 3 years and of course nothing has happened" Perhaps because not enough people are here on ASF criticising, let alone reading?
> ...




I have been accused of doom and gloom, well you seem the most gloom and doom
participant on this forum. I assume you are now out of the CA and PIF.
And if so, why are you on this forum?

I just want some true answers to my questions about funding of the CA, and whether
there is a glimmer of hope left.
When I know there is no avenue left, to get my money back, then I will sell on the NSX.


----------



## marcom (4 March 2011)

LIKE A TROJAN
Scott Rochfort
March 4, 2011
The listed investment fund Trojan Equity has finally managed to offload the bulk of its 20 per cent stake in the former MFS satellite GEO Property, completing one of the more unTrojan-like sales processes in recent history.

It is around two years since Trojan proposed a capital return to its shareholders from the planned sale of all its investments to solve its ''discount to NTA problem''.

Trojan's managing director, Troy Harry, said he had managed to sell half his fund's stake yesterday and still had a few interested buyers sniffing after the close of trade.

''My sole focus is making sure we get the right result for Trojan shareholders, of which I'm the largest,'' he said, after announcing plans to hold a ''Dutch auction'' of the stake last month.

Harry said the shares had been sold for a ''modest profit''. The main buyer of Trojan's stake was believed to be the Alex Beard-headed listed investment company CVC.

Trojan was rumoured to have had Mirvac conducting some due diligence on its stake until the Greek debt crisis came along last year. AV Jennings was also believed to have shown an interest, to no avail.

Harry, who remains a director of the property company, said: ''I personally remain very confident in the future of GEO.'' He backed this up by buying 3 million of the company's shares yesterday for $585,000.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/he-wasnt-so-hard-to-find-after-all-20110303-1bgi8.html


----------



## lawry1dog (4 March 2011)

Please, can someone tell me the following information:-
* 1. The IMF will cease sponsoring the Class Action in April or May this year.
      2. After that, the solicitors will then want to bill someone else (us).
      3. Will it be possible that there will be an Appeal or some other reason, to prolong the Class Action after May.

      4. Are all legal cases actioned by Wellington Capital, costs billed to our Fund.*

Can someone verify that we will not be paying for the Class Action in the future?

Will the current ASIC case about MFS/Octaviar liquidation, benefit us by having money being paid back into the Fund?

I have been in contact with the Class Action solicitors and will let everybody know of
what they say.

Hoping Seamisty, Breaker or Duped can enlighten me on my questions, as they seem to be very productive on this forum.


----------



## seamisty (4 March 2011)

Lawry1dog will you please check your Private message inbox. Seamisty


----------



## Duped (4 March 2011)

lawry1dog said:


> ...  I assume you are now out of the CA and PIF....




I'm not because I'm prepared to take the risk. I publish my oinions in the hope that an informed market will force the managers of our risk exposure to lift their game. If we let the big law 'corporations' continue their practices without squeaking then we only have ourselves to blame.  Complacency breeds contempt. If you see that as doom and gloom then I'm sorry.  

Where did you get April/May from? The Nov 2009 IMF Annual Report gives an estimate for PIF v MFS & KPMG of June 2012. IMF's case list of 31/12/2011 list $300M of cases >$50M to complete in 2013. See http://asx.com.au/asx/statistics/announcements.do

We're not supposed to publish the contents of the FSGPDS and Agreement. Look at Clause 11, Clause 18 (a) and the definition of 'Proceedings' on page 4.  I understand that KPMG makes no payment if it appeals.  So why wouldn't IMF  fund an appeal? I expect IMF will have factored in an appeal to their risk analysis.  I doubt they would have expected KPMG to roll over on such a big payout.

As for your personal liability for costs, see e.g. clause 4.4 of the FSGPDS for the agreement we entered into. It's always been there. IMF have been upfront about it. We all agreed to it.  Just like we all chose to be in PIF that has exposed us to similar personal liability risks. Risks that WC exposes us to but keeps quite about. At least we have people like seamisty here finding out what's really going on so we can make our own assessments of those risks.  Whereas all Hutson has done is asked us to trust her. Remember the thrust of the 2008 roadshow?  Hutson putting her personal credentials forward to get us to trust her?  The outcome of that trust is a FTD (failed to deliver) on e.g. share buy back, a mere 1c capital return and a tanked unit price on the NSX.  Meanwhile Hutson appears to be distracted with G8. 

Thanks for raising the issue lawry1dog. It's prompted me to reassess my risk exposure.


----------



## BABIHUTAN (4 March 2011)

*The opinions expressed below are my interpretation of the questions that have been raised and are not intended as professional advice to anyone reading this post.* 
L1d
I just want some true answers to my questions about funding of the CA, and whether
there is a glimmer of hope left.
BH
_I believe IMF have taken on our Class Action [CA]in the belief that they have a very good chance of success in recovering substancial monies on behalf of those that signed up to the CA. Such actions are very costly and before taking on our CA, IMF would have done serious research into what they expect to recover and whether or not their costs make it worth their while.  Litigation funders work on a "no cure, no pay" basis - that is they fund the action and if they succeed they receive a pre-agreed  percentage of the funds recovered. If they do not succeed then they carry that loss and not CA members. Proponents of such litigation fight tooth & nail on behalf of their respective interests hence the time it takes to run its course thru the system. IMO there is a glimmer of hope_

 L1d
When I know there is no avenue left, to get my money back, then I will sell on the NSX.
BH
If I am not wrong investors that signed up to the CA are free to sell, if they so wish on the NSX at any time. IMO this does not preclude their receiving their share {on the basis of units held at time of signing up to the CA} of the proceeds of any funds secured by the CA. Should an Investor sell, then I would expect that party would be out of any benefit/losses that might subsequently accrue to holding Investors. Those of us that are hanging in there would be doing so on the expectation that their return from the PIF in time will top that currently showing on the NSX. Perhaps there will be icing on the CA cake.


----------



## selciper (4 March 2011)

Duoed write, "Remember the thrust of the 2008 roadshow? Hutson putting her personal credentials forward to get us to trust her? The outcome of that trust is a FTD (failed to deliver) on e.g. share buy back, a mere 1c capital return and a tanked unit price on the NSX. Meanwhile Hutson appears to be distracted with G8."

I recommend that at least 30 minutes of the 08 road show DVD be viewed again by forum followers.  See what you think of the words spoken from today's viewpoint.


----------



## marcom (4 March 2011)

The Bentley's site lists the dates for the remaining two examinations as:

# Philip Hoser - 21-22 March 2011 - Sydney (ex Freehills lawyers advisors to Octaviar now with international law firm Jones Day)
# Liz Ailwood  - 23-25 March 2011 - Sydney  (Senior Manager at KPMG. Brisbane Area)

Hopefully after that Bentley's will complete their report to J McMurdo (probably with a special sealed "adults-only" section for the boys and girls at ASIC to drool over) and then file numerous statements of claim aimed at financially shreding all those mongrels who stole or mismanaged our money (and OCV shareholders money). JH should be getting one for $8mil in preferential payments, and I pray another one that requires her to turn whats left of PIF over to Bentleys to liquidate the fund over a period that maximises whats left.


----------



## seamisty (4 March 2011)

marcom said:


> The Bentley's site lists the dates for the remaining two examinations as:
> 
> # Philip Hoser - 21-22 March 2011 - Sydney (ex Freehills lawyers advisors to Octaviar now with international law firm Jones Day)
> # Liz Ailwood  - 23-25 March 2011 - Sydney  (Senior Manager at KPMG. Brisbane Area)
> ...



Thanks for that Marcom, I just checked my notes and I was writing so fast when speaking to Bentleys I wrote end of month next! Yes, it will be interesting times ahead. Seamisty


----------



## marcom (7 March 2011)

ASIC extends class order clause

http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/blo...11/03/03/asic-extends-class-order-clause.aspx

Posted Mar 03 2011, 05:56 PM by Lawyers Weekly

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has announced that it intends to extend the interim class order granted to lawyers and litigation funders involved in legal proceedings.

The extension has been granted until 30 June 2011, which means litigation funders can continue to operate without compliance to the Corporations Act 2001. ASIC says this will allow additional time for the Federal Government to implement the reforms to litigation funding schemes, and to avoid any disruption that could adversely affect plaintiffs or interfere with the timely and efficient running of litigation.

"My expectation, in discussions with Treasury officials, is that we will see the Federal Government pass these regulations before 30 June," said John Walker, the executive director of litigation funders IMF Australia.

*Walker added his company already complies with the relevant areas of the Act.
*
ASIC's recent decision to extend the interim class order relief period is a direct result of the repercussions following a full-bench Federal Court  decision in October 2009 in the case of Brookfield Multiplex Limited v International Litigation Funding Partners Pte Ltd. The Full Federal Court found that private entities involved in litigation were participating in an unregistered managed investment scheme and were therefore in breach of the Corporations Act.

This ruling meant that litigation funders would be required to hold Australian Financial Services Licenses, threatening the conduct of current and future class actions.

Shortly afterwards, ASIC put in place transitional arrangements that guaranteed the litigation funding arrangements of class actions threatened by this Federal Court ruling. Chris Bowen, then the Minister for Corporate Law, bailed the litigation funders out by announcing that he would reverse the decision of the full bench of the Federal Court, carving out class actions and proof of debt arrangements from the definition of a managed investment scheme in the Corporations Act.


----------



## marcom (7 March 2011)

This interesting footnote to an article today in SMH Business Day:

"...Footnote two: On the subject of Trio Capital, the Assistant Treasurer, Bill Shorten, is still considering the Trio trustee's *application for compensation for super investors dudded in Trio.*

*The compensation is available, at Shorten's discretion, under fraud provisions of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act, with a potential payout of 90 ¢ in the dollar.*

Of course, Trio has turned out to be an impressively large fraud, with $120 million missing from a fund called Astarra Strategic and another $59 million or so missing from a fund called ARP Growth.

The application for super investors in Astarra Strategic was made to Shorten months ago.

When I inquired of his office in October an answer was expected in the delightfully imprecise "coming weeks".

On Friday the expectation of an answer, after Shorten's office had flicked it to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, was within four to six weeks.

How long does it take the government to call a spade a spade? Or, in this case, a fraud a fraud?"

http://www.smh.com.au/business/ombu...-list-a-bold-step-forward-20110306-1bjjx.html


----------



## seamisty (8 March 2011)

The PIF Half Yearly Report for period ended 31 December 2010 has finally been posted on the NSX. I have not read it as yet. Cheers, Seamisty

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723750.PDF


----------



## lawry1dog (8 March 2011)

seamisty said:


> The PIF Half Yearly Report for period ended 31 December 2010 has finally been posted on the NSX. I have not read it as yet. Cheers, Seamisty
> 
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723750.PDF




Had a look at the Report and nothing has changed, if anything the figures are worse than
last quarter. *She reckons it is the fault of borrowers obtaining refinance facilities and the inability to realise adequate asset values.*

I think it is the inability of WC to manage our fund, by their lack of transparency. If it so bad why did WC pay us 1c distribution. Of course the figures would look a lot better without paying it.
*Does she think we are stupid. *
*Please can she now resign forthwith.*


----------



## Mary Lynch (8 March 2011)

So if public examinations for the CA are completed at the end of March, how long does it take to get into the courtroom?     How long does litigation take? And do all the respondents have to be re-examined? 
Surely the IMF's job isn't over until the end of proceedings....that would make the whole thing completely futile!


----------



## ASICK (8 March 2011)

lawry1dog said:


> Had a look at the Report and nothing has changed, if anything the figures are worse than
> last quarter. *She reckons it is the fault of borrowers obtaining refinance facilities and the inability to realise adequate asset values.*
> 
> I think it is the inability of WC to manage our fund, by their lack of transparency. If it so bad why did WC pay us 1c distribution. Of course the figures would look a lot better without paying it.
> ...




Hi Lawry1dog, you're misquoted W.C.

It should be:
"... difficulties experienced by borrowers *in obtaining *refinance facilities ..."


----------



## seamisty (9 March 2011)

ASICK said:


> Hi Lawry1dog, you're misquoted W.C.
> 
> It should be:
> "... difficulties experienced by borrowers *in obtaining *refinance facilities ..."



Yeh well ASICK, I guess the majority of PIF investors spent time deliberating and considerating  after attending the Wellington Capital well paid for travelling circus spiel in 2008 when they were left with no other alternative, that by supporting a prospective RE with a well touted legal background and over exagerated botoxique banking status that they would be well represented legally and would be better off than if the fund had of bee liquidated. How wrong we were!! Seamisty


----------



## ASICK (9 March 2011)

seamisty said:


> Yeh well ASICK, I guess the majority of PIF investors spent time deliberating and considerating  after attending the Wellington Capital well paid for travelling circus spiel in 2008 when they were left with no other alternative, that by supporting a prospective RE with a well touted legal background and over exagerated botoxique banking status that they would be well represented legally and would be better off than if the fund had of bee liquidated. How wrong we were!! Seamisty




How would you know if winding up is better or worse than keeping the fund alive?

How would you know if  liquidators would gouge more or less than managers?

How do you know that you made the wrong decision?    Winding it up could have ended up worse! How would you know?  

Maybe you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. 

You probably decided the way you did because you tried to remain optimistic, a trait managers often rely on in order to get what THEY want.

You guys weren't the first (and won't be the last) to vote in fear of fire sales, but I guess you know that by now.


----------



## marcom (9 March 2011)

More on the likelyhood of ASIC's Chair staying on after his contract expires in May from the SMH Business Day Scott Rochfort March 9, 2011:

LEAVING DRINKS?

The wave of self-congratulatory tributes, meanwhile, have continued to flow for the nation's top corporate grime fighter Tony D'Aloisio.

The Australian Securities & Investments Commission has posted on its website a recent Q&A between its chairman and Company Director magazine, in a further hint Mr D could soon announce that he will not seek another five-year term.

Apparently a strategic review undertaken in late 2007 and early 2008 set ASIC ''up very well to be able to handle a lot of issues that came out of the GFC''.

''We were able to handle the issues that came out of the GFC quite well with the structures we put in place,'' said Mr D.

Mr D said his biggest achievements included increasing ''resources on improving confidence of the financial markets'', ''assisting and protecting retail consumers'', making ''timely and important judgments during the GFC'' and ''being more forward looking and trying to anticipate''.

The magazine interview came just after Mr D told the ASIC Summer School that the $66 billion of corporate collapses in the recent crisis was only ''a slightly greater proportion of GDP than the $20 billion lost in the major collapses during the turmoil of the late 1980s''.

Mr D also seems to have a very clinical approach to his key pastime outside ASIC. Speaking about the Oakridge Winery he owns with his wife Ilana in the Yarra Valley, Mr D said: ''It's a business, not a hobby, and a wonderful contrast to ASIC and keeps us in touch with the joys of owning a medium-sized business.'' The Oakridge winery was previously owned by the ill-fated winemaker Evans & Tate.

The magazine article noted how Mr D ''chose not to discuss'' whether he would renew his contract at ASIC which expires in May.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/sobering-advice-for-new-regulators-20110308-1bmfu.html


----------



## selciper (9 March 2011)

There’s a fellow PIF investor I encounter a few times a year at a bus stop. Elderly, he checks out this forum via his daughter’s laptop. Last week we had a chat. His mood has changed where the PIF is concerned. He cannot see any blue sky for the fund and is losing patience with the CA. He accepts that the process can take years to complete, but like others his age, wonders whether he will still be alive to see a resolution. His views may well reflect the feelings of many as we go through this threadbare period. Our short conversation was pretty depressing. Any chance that the next one will be happier?


----------



## seamisty (9 March 2011)

Interesting Figures:::ASIC prosecutes 19 Qld company officers

http://www.qbr.com.au/news/articleid/72622.aspx



March 9, 2011

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) is urging businesses to keep theirs books and records in order after 75 individuals were prosecuted late-last year for breaches of the Corporations Act 2001.

Among these were 19 company officers from Queensland who were put on trial between September and December 2010 for offences such as failing to assist external administrators.

ASIC says it took action following complaints from the public and insolvency practitioners. 

The 75 prosecutions reportedly resulted in fines totalling over $90,000. 

ASIC also referred three briefs to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) who successfully prosecuted directors for managing a company while disqualified.

Of the 75 directors prosecuted, 47 were from New South Wales, 19 were from Queensland, five were from Western Australia, three were from Victoria and one was from South Australia. 

ASIC Commissioner Dr Peter Boxall says without a Report as to Affairs and a company’s books and records, liquidators can not properly investigate the underlying causes of a company’s failure. 

“This may impact on a liquidator’s ability to establish the true financial position of a company and to realise assets to satisfy creditor demands and employee entitlements,” Boxall says. 

‘Our work in this area demonstrates our focus on small to medium enterprise companies (SMEs) who are most vulnerable to changing economic climates, and therefore at greatest risk of failure,” he says. 

When an SME fails, Boxall says it has a significant downstream impact on other SME creditors and employees. 

“We are committed to holding those individuals who fail to assist external administrators of distressed companies accountable so that an orderly wind-up can be conducted,” he says.


----------



## seamisty (10 March 2011)

Peppers resort latest casualty of downturn 
The Peppers Bale Resort in Port Douglas, where Desperate Housewives star Teri Hatcher is rumoured to have stayed, has closed its doors after being unable to pay its bills and may be placed in administration. 

In the boom, developers The Ray Group and failed company MFS (now Octaviar) promised that the $130 million resort would become the pride of Port Douglas, with guests paying a minimum of $1000 a night and investors securing returns of as much as 7 per cent.

But the 50-odd owners who bought into the development have instead seen room rates fall to as little as $200, which meant once bills were paid they were effectively paying guests to stay at the property.

Resort operator Mantra has distanced itself from the closure, which has come after the Port Douglas market crashed in the wake of the global financial crisis.

Mantra was renamed after it was separated out of the Stella Hospitality Group, which was once part of MFS.


Mantra said yesterday that it owned the Bale trademark but had no interest in the owner of the resort's management rights, Port Douglas Resorts Pty Ltd.

Guests staying at the resort were being relocated and others who had bookings at the property would be relocated and offered other options, Mantra said.

However, a spokeswoman for the body corporate said yesterday some of the villas that were not managed by Mantra were still operating.

Port Douglas Resorts director Alan Porteous confirmed that the resort was no longer viable, but said a restructure plan was being worked on where it could be reopened in a different form.

The majority of the villas are managed by Mantra, which is owned by the private equity investor CVC Asia Pacific.

Mantra chief executive Bob East has defended the company's position in the past, saying it was brought in as manager only in 2009, had not promised the high rates of return and the owners had asked Mantra to manage the resort on their behalf.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...alty-of-downturn/story-e6frg6nf-1226018670677


----------



## selciper (10 March 2011)

We can expect to see fuller reports soon on the result of this class action that took place in Melbourne and has just been settled. It was a long journey.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/10/3160187.htm.


----------



## selciper (10 March 2011)

SMH story on Amcor class action result.

ss/amcor-visy-settle-for-95-million-20110310-1bomq.html


----------



## seamisty (10 March 2011)

Hi Marcom, Would you please summorise this Qld judgement re Bentleys and Fortress? Thanks, Seamisty


Fletcher and Ors v Fortress Credit Corporation (Australia) II Pty Limited [2011] QSC 030 (10/3442) Brisb McMurdo J 8/03/2011 

WILLIAM JOHN FLETCHER AND KATHERINE ELIZABETH BARNET AS LIQUIDATORS OF OCTAVIAR LIMITED (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 107 863 436 (Second Applicants)
and
OCTAVIAR LIMITED (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 107 863 436 (Third Applicant)
v
FORTRESS CREDIT CORPORATION (AUSTRALIA) II PTY LIMITED
ACN 114 624 958 (Respondent)


http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2011/QSC11-030.pdf


----------



## BootsnAll (10 March 2011)

View attachment 41796
View attachment 41797


----------



## seamisty (11 March 2011)

BootsnAll said:


> View attachment 41796
> View attachment 41797



Thanks for that BootsnAll, I was playing with some Wellington Capital figures and will confess I am not qualified in any way but will put the figures out there for comment, disection or whatever!!


WC has had control of the fund for over two and a half years. In a PIF investor update July 2008 Ms Hutson said:

'Our aim is to drive a value recovery strategy that sees the full

capital value returned to unitholders over the next 3 to 5 years.'

The fund had debt of $20 million  at that time. '

Bank debt has been reduced from $70 million at 31 May 2008 to $20 million at 31 July

2008.
http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/2008/Explanatory Memorandum.pdf


The estimated realisable value of the total assets as at 31 May 2008 was $413.7

million http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/2008/Explanatory Memorandum.pdf

So  deduct $70 milion from $413.7 =  $343.7 million.
Our 1 cent return of capital             =        7.755 million 
Balance                                          =    $335.945million

Current PIF value of 770 million  units @34cents as indicated in the Half Yearly Report to 31 December 2010 = $261.8 million.

What happened to the missing $74.145 million? 

Not to mention any income stream from other PIF assets apart from any 'value adding, growth, etc?
Now the bit about the Wollongong Hotel Deal that fell through in 2009 for $38 million has really got my antennae twitching!!!

I have on my records directly from the Regional Director, Sales and Investments at JonesLangLasalle who was personally involved with the auction of Wollongong as saying::'The property was submitted for sale by Public Auction and as such the events of the auction are a matter of public record.

Several parties were bidding on the property with the last bid at $ 40.5 million.The Auctioneer at this stage asked for instructions from the Vendors and it was aprox 30 minutes later that he was instructed to pass the property in as $ 40.5 million was not acceptable to the Vendors.'

Wellington Capital could have accepted $40.5 million in may 2009 but declined. Has the reporter got this wrong or did WC stuff up again? 

Seamisty


----------



## lawry1dog (11 March 2011)

It is unbelievable that WC has the gall to say the quote below:-

*Hutson described the $3.6 million loss as a "solid outcome" for the fund, which has 10,700 unit holders.*

It is a *LOSS*, so please can she *RESIGN*.

How can she be allowed to get away with this?

Maybe another complaint to ASIC is in order again, along with the other many I have
sent.


----------



## selciper (11 March 2011)

Lawrrydog, you are right to point out that sentence. Where is the logic in such a proposition?. It reads as if the objective of the fund is to make losses. It's an example of contemporary management-speak at its most absurd.


----------



## ASICK (12 March 2011)

lawry1dog said:


> It is unbelievable that WC has the gall to say the quote below:-
> 
> *Hutson described the $3.6 million loss as a "solid outcome" for the fund, which has 10,700 unit holders.*
> 
> ...




Yes, and like all damaged managed funds not paying distributions, the loss is compounded by a loss of income as well:  inflation kills!


----------



## seamisty (12 March 2011)

Pressure mounts as fund declines http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/pressure-mounts-as-fund-declines/story-fn6ck2gb-1226020047216
Anthony Marx From: The Courier-Mail March 12, 2011 12:01AM   
'SOLID' PERFORMANCE: Wellington Capital's Jenny Hutson speaks at the Gold Coast Convention Centre. Picture: Adam Head Source: The Courier-Mail 

A BRISBANE merchant bank copping fierce criticism over its management of a long-struggling $253 million investment fund could face a challenge to its control this year. 

Wellington Capital released a report this week showing that its Premium Income Fund had lost a further $3.63 million in the six months to December. That followed a $35 million net loss in the same period of the previous year.

The half-year report also reveals that the fund, once valued at more than $750 million, suffered a further drop in its net asset value from $265 million to $253 million. At the same time, expenses surged from $1 million to $11 million.

Wellington head Jenny Hutson yesterday described it as "a solid half" and attributed the net loss to the accounting treatment of a $38 million hotel and unit project in NSW.

But many of the nearly 11,000, mostly elderly, investors complain they have received only a 1c a unit dividend in the nearly three years since Wellington took over the fund from now-defunct Octaviar, formerly known as MFS.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
They say many of Ms Hutson's promises to turn around the fund have failed to eventuate.

"I'm extremely unhappy with the way it's going because we think it's actually going backwards," one investor said.

A hostile takeover bid for control of the fund mounted by Sydney-based ALF PIF Finance has been extended to June 14.

The challenge has so far attracted the support of investors with fewer than three million of the 755 million units on issue.

But Jim Byrnes, a consultant with ALF, yesterday said he hoped to call an extraordinary general meeting to remove Wellington if he could secure acceptances from those controlling 5 per cent of the units. That would amount to almost 38 million units.

ALF has also committed to backing a class action against Wellington and other parties on a no win/no fee basis if it seizes control of the fund.

"There are a whole lot of questions that need to be asked," Mr Byrnes said.

Wellington has denounced the takeover offer as "opportunistic" and "grossly inadequate". It has also highlighted the background of Mr Byrnes, a former bankrupt now banned from being a company director.

Ms Hutson declined to say if the fund, which has made no profit since 2007, could return to the black this year. She also would not commit to another dividend payment.


----------



## selciper (12 March 2011)

"Ms Hutson declined to say if the fund, which has made no profit since 2007, could return to the black this year. She also would not commit to another dividend payment." - Courier Mail. Thanks, Anthony Marx, for asking that penetrating question which elicits no answer from one who made so many pomises..


----------



## Duped (14 March 2011)

ASICK said:


> Yes, and like all damaged managed funds not paying distributions, the loss is compounded by a loss of income as well:  inflation kills!




Spot on ASICK. Latest CPI is 174.0.  CPI when PIF listed on the NSX was 166.5.  So $1 back then is worth 95.7c now.  That puts the 1c distribution in perspective doesn't it everybody!! Add to that the debts that many of us PIF investors could have paid down but instead have been costing us interest. If WC focused strategy more on the NSX unit price it would probably get a better overall outcome for unit holders.  

But ASICK, what if NOW is the best time to sell PIF's assets. Hutson goes on about this 3-5 years horizon.  Isn't that based on the HUGE assumption that we're in a normal cycle.  But what if we aren't?????  What if property prices won't recover for 10+ years.  After all this is not a normal event.  As Hutson keeps reminding us: this is the GFC.  What if prices are actually being propped up by the resource boom?  In which case property prices WON'T recover in Hutson's time frame. So when you add inflation, then the time to sell is *now*.  

Is WC more interested in the bragging rights of the size of funds under management?

And you're right about 'damned if you do and damned if you don't'.  Which is likely exactly why Hutson sold the *trust *story to us? And we fell for it.  But Hutson has hardly distinguished herself from the pack.  That's the pack that we need immediate liquidity on a Stock Exchange to protect ourselves from. 

This makes ASIC head D'Aloisio's comment increasing ''resources on improving confidence of the financial markets'' so laughable. Does that make D'Aloisio a 'confidence man'?  Or a con-man for short?   So given PIF's destruction of our wealth and that we're 'damned if we do and damned if we don't';  remind me again why D'Aloisio is out there using tax payer's money to "improv[e retail investors'] confidence of the finanical markets"?  Like using the Commonwealth brand to help AFS Licensees to neutralise retail investors caveat emptor? That's a rhetorical question.

 While you're all thinking about that, here's another thought. The less capital you have: the more you need to work, the greater Australia's GDP and the greater the government tax take. On the other side of the equation, wealth destroying managed funds like PIF  are fantastic for Australia. Our capital pays management fees which creates employment and commercial tenants for shiny new office buildings. The management company, staff and commercial property then pay tax. Our capital is also put to work to build e.g. the Noosa Sanctuary  Resort (Cost $210M to build - bought by RACV at substantially less).  This of course creates jobs, generates tax and creates  attractions to bring in the tourists. But like Skase's Sheraton Mirage GC and the Cape Shank resort (built by Japanese investors - bought by RACV for substabtially less), these things always cost more to build than they can every possibly return to the investors. Enter 'the greater fool' theory.   

It's all about the GDP. You can do that by actually creating something new or ..... read up about 'velocity of money' on wikipedia. Simple maths. After the corporate-federal Australia partnership's success in burning Japanese property investors, the partnership turned its sights on its own people. The joke's on us. We're the samrt money's piggy bank. We're the fools. I don't have a problem with free markets, I have a problem with ASIC's reckless 'confidence man' involvment, paid for by our taxes.  But you appear to be OK with this.


----------



## Duped (14 March 2011)

seamisty said:


> Hi Marcom, Would you please summorise this Qld judgement re Bentleys and Fortress? Thanks, Seamisty
> 
> 
> Fletcher and Ors v Fortress Credit Corporation (Australia) II Pty Limited [2011] QSC 030 (10/3442) Brisb McMurdo J 8/03/2011
> ...




Marcom.  Para [46] worries me.  Does this mean that Fortress can run up debts against NAB and then NAB can just swipe the $40m that McMurdo has frozen for us unsecured creditors like PIF?  What's the likelihood of NAB cooperating with Fortress to enagage in such a scheme?


----------



## ASICK (14 March 2011)

Duped said:


> Marcom.  Para [46] worries me.  Does this mean that Fortress can run up debts against NAB and then NAB can just swipe the $40m that McMurdo has frozen for us unsecured creditors like PIF?  What's the likelihood of NAB cooperating with Fortress to enagage in such a scheme?




"... The usual order, again as found in the Practice Direction, expressly provides that the order does not prevent any bank from exercising any right of set off it has in respect of any facility which it gave the defendant before it was notified of the order. ..."

The short answer seems to be 'no'.


----------



## ASICK (14 March 2011)

Duped said:


> ... But ASICK, what if NOW is the best time to sell PIF's assets. Hutson goes on about this 3-5 years horizon.  Isn't that based on the HUGE assumption that we're in a normal cycle.  But what if we aren't?????  What if property prices won't recover for 10+ years.  After all this is not a normal event.  As Hutson keeps reminding us: this is the GFC.  What if prices are actually being propped up by the resource boom?  In which case property prices WON'T recover in Hutson's time frame. So when you add inflation, then the time to sell is *now*.  ...




Hi Duped.  I think Hutson's in as much of a quagmire as are investors.  She's probably damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't.  I guess the real question is, in the circumstances, "When is the best time to bite the bullet and accept losses, get the money invested elsewhere and hopefully earn some interest or profit with it?"  I'd reckon that now is as good a time as any - and of course, others would disagree .. who's right? only time will tell.


----------



## Duped (14 March 2011)

ASICK said:


> "... The usual order, again as found in the Practice Direction, expressly provides that the order does not prevent any bank from exercising any right of set off it has in respect of any facility which it gave the defendant before it was notified of the order. ..."
> 
> The short answer seems to be 'no'.




Didn't McMurdo say "does not prevent ... right of set off"?


----------



## ASICK (14 March 2011)

Duped said:


> Didn't McMurdo say "does not prevent ... right of set off"?




"... The usual order, again as found in the Practice Direction, expressly provides that the order does not prevent any bank from exercising any right of set off it has *in respect of any facility which it gave the defendant before it was notified of the order.* ..." (emphasis added)


----------



## seamisty (15 March 2011)

Raptis Group plans comeback
 March 15th, 2011


Company founder Jim Raptis has vowed to bring the Raptis development group back to life as soon as possible. 
RAPTIS Group has come out firing in its bid for a business comeback with plans to launch a $500 million lawsuit against Capital Finance, the lender that tipped the Gold Coast developer into receivership in 2008.

The legal action - to be funded by listed venture capitalist CVC - would be part of a three-pronged attack to deliver on Raptis Group's promised payment to creditors who voted two years ago to save the company from liquidation.

Company founder Jim Raptis yesterday vowed to bring the development group back to life as soon as possible, taking heart from a significant victory it has just secured over the Australian Taxation Office. 
He said the lessons of the past had been learned by ''everyone'' and he was ready to take advantage of emerging property opportunities on the Coast.

But he first must challenge Capital Finance to remove a crippling ''mortgage'' it has over the Raptis Group.

Lengthy negotiations to have the charge removed have since collapsed and Raptis Group has engaged lawyers to pursue the financier, a subsidiary of Britain's Lloyd's Banking Group.

The separate damages lawsuit, which is yet to be filed, would claim Raptis suffered between $450-$500 million in losses due to Capital Finance seizing control of Southport Central, its biggest project at the time.

''We are looking at it very seriously,'' Mr Raptis said.

Capital Finance, which has been struggling to sell apartments at Southport Central despite huge discounts, declined to comment on the matter last night.

Raptis Group's unsecured creditors have a lot riding on the Coast developer's recovery.

Two years ago they accepted an offer of up to 15c in the dollar for the $10 million they are owed.

Part of the payout included 40 million shares in Raptis Group, which remain suspended on the stock exchange.

The cash component of the payout has been held up by an ATO claim for $26.3 million against Raptis construction arm Rapcivic Contractors.

Raptis Group has managed to cut that claim to $11 million, and it said an appeal to the Federal Court is aiming to ''totally eliminate'' it.

But despite the hurdles, Mr Raptis yesterday was confident he could resuscitate the company and vowed it would be a ''different model'' to the old Raptis Group.

''We've been working very hard to get this happening,'' he said.

Mr Raptis conceded he had maintained a low profile over the past two years, but he said he had not been idle and had explored a range of opportunities for investors.

''Opportunities are always out there (and) we would look at all opportunities at the moment.''

Mr Raptis said this could include housing subdivisions, as well as small-scale, low-rise apartments and townhouses.

Raptis Group, which has traditionally focused on Gold Coast property, could even spread its wings into other markets.

''I think you've got to look elsewhere to expand the base, but initially we will be looking at the market we know best.''

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/03/15/299385_gold-coast-news.html


----------



## seamisty (16 March 2011)

A bit more on Raptis. I am not sure where PIF is in the pecking order as a creditor if at all. Perhaps our duly appointed IAC reps will ask what our current situation re Raptis at their next meeting with WC on behalf of unitholders???


Raptis in legal fight with Capital Finance Australia 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...inance-australia/story-e6frg8zx-1226021386231
WELL-KNOWN Gold Coast developer Jim Raptis is considering suing financier Capital Finance Australia for damages, in a bid to reactivate the suspended Raptis Group. 

Raptis Group and its construction arm Rapcivic collapsed owing almost $1 billion and an administrator, BRI Ferrier, was appointed in September 2008.

Yesterday, Mr Raptis said he had been working with some success over the past 18 months to two years to reinstate the group.

He said he had tried to "eliminate the ATO as a creditor", having successfully appealed to reduce the amount of tax owed from $29 million to $11m.

"We have appealed against the $11m and are now awaiting a decision from the Federal Court," Mr Raptis said.

If he succeeded, he said creditors would receive more cash distributions and shares in the company under a deed of company arrangement agreed to with its creditors in April 2009.


Raptis Group had initiated legal action against Capital Finance Australia to force it to release a charge over the group.

"We want them to lift the charge to give us a clean company to return to operational status," he said.

"Our commitment to our shareholders and creditors is resolute and we are prepared to fight through the courts."

In a separate action, Mr Raptis also planned to sue Capital Finance Australia for damages, totalling between $450m and $500m, suffered by the group.


----------



## selciper (16 March 2011)

Seamisty - The IAC!  Have they done one useful thing on behalf of PIF investors since their names were announced? If they have, let them tell us through this forum.


----------



## seamisty (17 March 2011)

selciper said:


> Seamisty - The IAC!  Have they done one useful thing on behalf of PIF investors since their names were announced? If they have, let them tell us through this forum.



selciper, personally from my own my experience, if the duly appointed Wellington Capital 3 stooges do actually exist and meet at PIF unit holder expense then what a total waste of money!! HELLO Chris Mangan, Alana Woodford and Bronwyn Andrejic!! Are you representing the majority of people in this fund who supposedly elected you? Or are you a trio of brown nosers nodding your heads like puppets on a string falling for the same old, same old Wellington Capital bull sh!te that all is good??? Wake up! Are you prepared to continue with this farce? Sorry, you have no credibility. 

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (17 March 2011)

Finally!!! Some movement re the Class Action Judgement!!

Court Events and Orders  
  Date             Time  Reason    Presiding Officer(s) Location Outcome Orders 
 18-Mar-2011  14:15 Judgment Justice Perram        Court Room 18D


----------



## selciper (17 March 2011)

Now we know that tomorrow will be an important day for the CA.
(Seamisty's monitoring is proving to be again effective.)


----------



## atlas1950 (18 March 2011)

Hi all,

I did attend the hearing from Justice Perram this afternoon. I feel so inadequate as I didn't understand his rulings. It was all over within 60 seconds and before I realized everyone had left the courtroom. I DO apologize, but I am sure we will get and understand his decision very shortly. 

Good luck to us all.

Michael


----------



## breaker1 (18 March 2011)

We are contacting our legals to see what Perram said


----------



## breaker1 (18 March 2011)

A judgement was handed down by Perram

Our legals will advise us when they have properly examined the determination


----------



## breaker1 (18 March 2011)

RE The Class Action and Perram

Basically the case proceeds

HWL Ebsworth our lawyers, via IMF our funders, would be sending out an Update to all CA participants briefly explaining Perrams latest findings

.....and you guessed it, more ammendments required


----------



## seamisty (19 March 2011)

breaker1 said:


> RE The Class Action and Perram
> 
> Basically the case proceeds
> 
> ...



Thanks Breaker, I don't think it is a well hidden secret that if our current Responsible Entity, Wellington Capital had of fully supported the Premium Income Fund unit holders who supported and elected them originally, by giving accesss to relevant documentation necessary to proceed with our claim/CA would now be held  with the obvious disdain and contempt that appears to be a growing consensus. Shame on you Wellington Capital Limited, it appears you have demonstrated that your only agenda is self preservation by taking as much as possible and giving nothing in return for the privledge of having your large snout guzzling in the trough along with equally qualified associates. I am prepared to discuss this issue further along with other concerns if you ever decide to honour your earlier committment to me regarding periodic discussions relating to  PIF related issues from Feb 2010 with the Companys Managing Director. That would be Jenny Hutson I presume? Well its just as well Wellington Capital monitor this thread, because with out it how would WC employees know what is the true situation with the PIF?? The WC hot line staff, if they are even on duty obviously have NFI as to the current status of the PIF as indicated by the responses received by PIF investors if and when they get a response to their enquiries. One thing PIF investors will be able to rely on is no constructive input from the IAC. Well, just 'another' rant from a disgruntled PIF investor who lives in hope of seeing some sort of alternative reconstruction of their fund that may see us rid of a fattening pork regime. Hmmnn


----------



## ASICK (19 March 2011)

Has anyone  thought about a constitutional amendment compelling the manager to comply with all reasonable requests  made by the CA lawyers (as worded by your lawyers)?   I'm sure you wouldn't have any  trouble getting the amendment passed.  If it's possible, your lawyers have the documents within a month or so. (IMO)


----------



## Janiss (19 March 2011)

I am absolutely disgusted and furious with Wellington Capital's failure to provide the necessary documentation to the CA lawyers which would allow us unit holders to have a fair and transparent legal chance to get some of our money back. The RE is by law supposed to be acting in the "best interests" of the unitholders they represent. How can witholding vital information be considered to be in our best interests.????????
The Bentley hearings into the solvency or otherwise of MFS has revealed the illegal activities which have take place including the illegal related party transactions and loans which have contributed massively to the situation we are now in. 
Why is Jenny Hutson trying to protect the former executives of PIF who have contributed to and been responsible for our loss????
Isn't there any legal way that the documents can be obtained? What about Freedom of Information? How do we go about changing the constitution, if that's another valid strategy?
I agree with everything Seamisty says - it appears the only reason Wellington Capital took on the task of running the PIF was for the benefit of themselves and NOT US!!
I was suspicious of JH from the very beginning and I DID NOT vote for WC to be the RE of the fund, but I can understand how other people were taken in by the crocodile tears, warnings and promises she gave at the meetings in 2008.
She needs to publically state NOW why she won't co-operate with the class action Lawyers. What has she got to lose?????? What has she got to hide??????


----------



## ASICK (19 March 2011)

Sorry to butt in again, but W.C. is obligated to act in the best interests of unitholders, not in the best interests of the persons holding the units in the fund going about other business (eg. CA).  In your respective roles as members of a CA, you are not  unitholders in the PIF.  You shouldn't draw the two roles into one.

You can talk about it all you like, and you can go crazy with legal actions, but you have the power to compel the manager do as you require,  and it's always been at your disposal - via the power of a meeting of members.

There must be ways to minimize the cost of a meeting, maybe even IMF might dig into its considerably deep pockets.

My guess is that W.C. wouldn't come out of it smelling like roses, in fact, far from it.


----------



## selciper (19 March 2011)

A famous quote by Benjamin Franklin: Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools that don’t have brains enough to be honest.


----------



## seamisty (19 March 2011)

Janiss said:


> I am absolutely disgusted and furious with Wellington Capital's failure to provide the necessary documentation to the CA lawyers which would allow us unit holders to have a fair and transparent legal chance to get some of our money back. The RE is by law supposed to be acting in the "best interests" of the unitholders they represent. How can witholding vital information be considered to be in our best interests.????????
> The Bentley hearings into the solvency or otherwise of MFS has revealed the illegal activities which have take place including the illegal related party transactions and loans which have contributed massively to the situation we are now in.
> Why is Jenny Hutson trying to protect the former executives of PIF who have contributed to and been responsible for our loss????
> Isn't there any legal way that the documents can be obtained? What about Freedom of Information? How do we go about changing the constitution, if that's another valid strategy?
> ...



Perhaps Janiss the real reason goes ALL THE WAY BACK to when the deal to take on the PIF was negotiated? Wasn't there something mentioned about a $5million preferential payment made to WC? Remember how WC was quick to accept the DOCA and forgo any further legal action against money owed to PIF and was adamant they did not want Deloittes removed and replaced with Bentleys? Didn't Deloittes employ David Anderson and paid him just under a million$ for consultancy work re Octaviar/MFS? The same David Anderson who is allegedly a 'prime suspect' in the case of millions of dollars which were misappropiated from the PIF and covered by false documents? ( No wonder EQUITITRUST investors are feeling a little rattled, David Kennedy AND David Anderson in charge of their investment!!) ALL way too cosy Janiss!


How Jenny Hutson placed the blame squarely on Andrew Peacock and I quote Jenny Hutson re the collapse of Octaviar  'The board, led by Andrew Peacock, has to take responsibility for that. The market was shocked. We've got a board that's appointed an administrator as its corporate adviser that's selling assets at significantly less than what they cost.'

Not forgetting this qoute from Jenny Hutson during the same interview 'With people whose lives have truly been destroyed in a financial sense by the plight of MFS, is something that is just extraordinary. This is about ordinary Australians, who believed what they read, who put trust and faith in the board and there's an enormous human cost.'

Well thats what the majority of PIF investors did when the elected Jenny Hutson, put their faith and trust in WC. How many would have voted for JH if they knew just how empty all the committments were AND that when it came time to 'holding those accountable' for the dire financial predicament PIF unit holders find themselves in, (not from any global financial crisis as WC would like us to believe) we find that Jenny Hutson as Responsible Entity chose not to support the very people who supported herself, but elected, or used as an excuse that Wellington Capital and I quote 'has a duty TO ACT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF ALL UNITHOLDERS, and is aware that not all unitholders are represented in the class of persons represented in the class action' end quote!!


The point is that ALL PIF unitholders who elected WC as RE were not new buyers of units on the NSX for a paltry amount, knowing full well that they were buying in to a severely compromised fund, NO JENNY, ALL who voted for you paid $1.00 for our units but you chose to put those who had nothing to do with you being our RE before the investors who suffered through being ripped off!!


Another Jenny Hutson quote of which she could well have a long hard think about 'Unfortunately, Andrew Peacock is not willing, ready and able to step aside as chair of MFS and that's the point of difference. We think that it is in the best interests of shareholders for him to step aside and let those who want to drive the company forward take control.'

Well, sorry about the rant, but I would expect that if there is a skerrick of support left for Jenny Hutson and her team at Wellington Capital they would have to be having second thoughts, especially if they are signed up for the Class Action. 


Seamisty


----------



## selciper (19 March 2011)

This sentence written by Asick caught my my eye: "You can talk about it all you like, and you can go crazy with legal actions, but you have the power to compel the manager do as you require, and it's always been at your disposal - via the power of a meeting of members."


----------



## Janiss (19 March 2011)

selciper said:


> This sentence written by Asick caught my my eye: "You can talk about it all you like, and you can go crazy with legal actions, but you have the power to compel the manager do as you require, and it's always been at your disposal - via the power of a meeting of members."




Yes, me too. Can you please be more precise ASICK - exactly how many members need to meet and vote on the proposal?


----------



## Cookie1 (19 March 2011)

seamisty said:


> Perhaps Janiss the real reason goes ALL THE WAY BACK to when the deal to take on the PIF was negotiated? Wasn't there something mentioned about a $5million preferential payment made to WC? Remember how WC was quick to accept the DOCA and forgo any further legal action against money owed to PIF and was adamant they did not want Deloittes removed and replaced with Bentleys? Didn't Deloittes employ David Anderson and paid him just under a million$ for consultancy work re Octaviar/MFS? The same David Anderson who is allegedly a 'prime suspect' in the case of millions of dollars which were misappropiated from the PIF and covered by false documents? ( No wonder EQUITITRUST investors are feeling a little rattled, David Kennedy AND David Anderson in charge of their investment!!) ALL way too cosy Janiss!
> 
> How Jenny Hutson placed the blame squarely on Andrew Peacock and I quote Jenny Hutson re the collapse of Octaviar  'The board, led by Andrew Peacock, has to take responsibility for that. The market was shocked. We've got a board that's appointed an administrator as its corporate adviser that's selling assets at significantly less than what they cost.'
> 
> ...




Thanks, Seamisty for reminding us all of Jenny Hutson's quotes; she apparently just wanted to be seen to be saying the right things to further dupe us poor unsuspecting unitholders. How gullible we were!

Cookie1


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 March 2011)

Crikey. Hard to believe so many still risk buying into these Premium Income Funds. Losing ones own hard earned is much more fun.


----------



## seamisty (20 March 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> Thanks, Seamisty for reminding us all of Jenny Hutson's quotes; she apparently just wanted to be seen to be saying the right things to further dupe us poor unsuspecting unitholders. How gullible we were!
> 
> Cookie1



Yes we were gullible Cookie because at that point in time we were also desperate!! And in hindsight I now believe we were targeted by  someone who 'cashed' in on that desperation. Someone who was smack bang in the centre of that 'battlefield' with first hand prior knowledge of the circumstances that resulted in our desperation. Someone that had access to all the PIF documentation and mingled with not only previous MFS/Octaviar employees, but also closely connected to Korda Mentha staff!!

Another  Jenny hutson quote referring to the MFS fiasco 'We've got a board that's appointed an administrator as its corporate adviser that's selling assets at significantly less than what they cost'



Excuse me, but if I am not mistaken, and I not infallible, but did Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital not also appoint Korda Mentha to step into at least one  of our supposedly distressed assets which is currently being contested in the supreme court? 

While I am on the subject of Korda Mentha I draw your attention once again to Robert Hutson, partner of the Gold Coast Korda mentha office, http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&source=www.google.com.au

Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital has a brother, Robert hutson, approx age 36/37, draw your own conclusions!!
seamisty


----------



## seamisty (20 March 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Crikey. Hard to believe so many still risk buying into these Premium Income Funds. Losing ones own hard earned is much more fun.



Not sure what you are saying Wysiwyg but every single investor who paid $1.00 per unit into the MFS Premium Income fund did so in the belief that it was a very secure investment and do not consider it 'FUN' to lose their hard earned. As for those investing in the PIF on the NSX at heavily discounted PIF unit value they knew the risk whereas the original purchasers did not expect to be blatantly robbed!!

I love quoting!::'The objective of the Fund is to provide investors with the opportunity to invest short to medium term in a range of income producing investments selected for their ability to provide both protection of capital and consistent returns.'

I would still like to know what happenned to the $50 million support facility which replaced the original PIF capital protection.


And another:http://investordaily.com.au/archive/3324.xml
Research house Lonsec has maintained its investment grade rating for the MFS Premium Income Fund (MFSIM) following a recent review.

MFSIM fund manager Marilyn Watts said the fund was unaffected by this year's financial market volatility and credit crunch.

The $796 million fund had been structured for income dependability for investors who wanted monthly distributions, Lonsec said. 

MFSIM invests in commercial loans, property-backed managed investment schemes, assets, cash and fixed interest securities.

Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (20 March 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Crikey. Hard to believe so many still risk buying into these Premium Income Funds. Losing ones own hard earned is much more fun.




A necessary correction, Wysiwig; those buying into PIF consider themselves riding the "Money for Jam" yeepee train. They can be content with 5 to 8 cent upward swings (from 6.5 presently) to make their day. 
Jim Byrnes; the conductor of that soiled sandshoe brigade.

Our lamentable regulators somehow failed to provide proportionate voting rights for those discounted units.
Resulting in $ 0.06.5 unit swiped from NSX, standing on par with $ 1.00 true grit original.
Please, we could do with super powers implied in your forum Avatar.
Regards


----------



## atlas1950 (20 March 2011)

Hi all,

Am I correct in my reading that the judgment handed down by Justice Perram allows us to 1) continue with our action against  the auditors via our Class Action, but 2) doesn't allow us to pursue the former directors of MFS for mismanagement.

If this is the case, atleast we can pursue the auditors who HAVE money and insurance, whereas the former directors are mostly broke.

Please correct me if I have missed something.

Michael


----------



## simgrund (20 March 2011)

atlas1950 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Am I correct in my reading that the judgment handed down by Justice Perram allows us to 1) continue with our action against  the auditors via our Class Action, but 2) doesn't allow us to pursue the former directors of MFS for mismanagement.
> 
> ...



Hello Michael,
Breaker's post #6793 gives answers to your Q's.
I posted the Judgement for discussion on the forum, however it appears the Moderator removed it. "Priveleged" clauses clipped those wings.
Be well,


----------



## atlas1950 (20 March 2011)

Hi Simon,

Yes, I did read Breaker1 posting, but in a nut shell, do you think my summary of Justice Perram ruling summarizes our situation. If we are allowed to proceed with our CA against the auditors, atleast, should we win and are awarded damages,  there will be money there. If we are successful against King and others,they probably don't have the money to pay us.

As usual it was lovely to chat with you again, 

Michael


----------



## NOR (20 March 2011)

atlas1950 said:


> Hi Simon,
> 
> Yes, I did read Breaker1 posting, but in a nut shell, do you think my summary of Justice Perram ruling summarizes our situation. If we are allowed to proceed with our CA against the auditors, atleast, should we win and are awarded damages,  there will be money there. If we are successful against King and others,they probably don't have the money to pay us.
> 
> ...




H I  IST TIMER SORRY... YES I WISH THERE IS A LOT MORE OF US IST TIMERS...COME ON U HAVE BEEN RIPED OFF HAVE YOUR SAY........MICHAEL..GOOD QUOTE   W,C GET..OFF OUR MONEY


----------



## Cookie1 (21 March 2011)

Sydney Morning Herald
Scott Rochfort
March 21, 2011

BACK IN COURT

The epic public examinations of MFS (aka Octaviar) will continue today, nearly one year since Bentleys Corporate Recovery kicked off its inquiry into the collapse of the Gold Coast financial house in the NSW Supreme Court.

The former legal adviser to MFS, Philip Hoser, will be examined today. The examinations started on April 12 last year.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/dday-for-dynasty-shareholders-20110320-1c25y.html


----------



## Duped (21 March 2011)

ASICK said:


> "... The usual order, again as found in the Practice Direction, expressly provides that the order does not prevent any bank from exercising any right of set off it has *in respect of any facility which it gave the defendant before it was notified of the order.* ..." (emphasis added)




Thanks ASICK.  But the ruling implied to me that a NAB facility was likely in place before the order.  I take it you're telling me that this is incorrect. I couldn't find anything in the ruling that says there *wasn't* a facility in place that predates the order.  In fact para [23] says "The respondent has only one substantial creditor, which is National Australia Bank (“NAB”)". What are the terms of Fortress facility agreement with NAB???? What if NAB had a facility in place which they can now draw to an amount of $40M.  Y'now just like PIF had with RBS that MFS/OCV Ltd tapped. Y'now like the facility the OCV Ltd had with Fortress that became a lever for flicking funds Fortress' way.

To me, the 'right to set off' appears to be an exemption to the order not to encumber the $40M.

The see order 6. "No bank need inquire as to the application or proposed application of any money withdrawn by the defendant if the withdrawal appears to be permitted by this order."

How's NAB to know what the net financial position of Fortress is?


----------



## Duped (21 March 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Crikey. Hard to believe so many still risk buying into these Premium Income Funds. ...




Too true Wysiwyg.  Capital is safer in the place with immediate liquidity: the market. Where effectively  investors delegate responsibility for the fund or company's constitution to management and can also vote on it everyday by buying and selling the shares.


----------



## Dexter (21 March 2011)

Is this good news or just wishful thinking?

[The federal government may release details of a national compensation scheme for failed investments as early as this week in a bid to protect people from losses suffered in the collapse of companies such as Westpoint and Storm Financial Group.

It found that in cases in which criminal, fraudulent or dishonest conduct had occurred, insurance was usually not paid out at all.  These were often the cases in which investors were most deserving of compensation.

The Financial Ombudsman is pushing the case for the national compensation scheme.]

"SCHEME AIMS TO COVER ADVISER COLLAPSES"
(Full article Page 3 in todays Australian Financial Review)

Dexter


----------



## seamisty (21 March 2011)

Remember this article?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business...-1111116351614

Octaviar sells its stake in MFS offshoot 
Ben Butler From: Herald Sun May 16, 2008 12:00AM 
A FUND formerly controlled by debt-laden financier MFS - now known as Octaviar - has sold its stake in an MFS offshoot for a bargain price. 

Business associates of new Octaviar executive director Chris Scott feature on both sides of the deal.

The Premium Income Fund yesterday sold its 9.4 per cent of Geo Property Group, the former MFS Diversified, to listed investment company Trojan Equity for $10.22 million.

At 25.5 a share, this represents a significant discount to Geo's closing price yesterday of 39 cents.

Octaviar sold management rights to the troubled fund to Wellington Capital, a company headed by Jenny Hutson, last month.

Buyer Trojan Capital is chaired by Andrew Kemp.

Both sat on the board of Chris Scott's S8 group before it was sold to MFS.

Trojan Equity managing director Troy Harry said the company had done "a pretty good deal" but denied getting mates' rates.


I draw your attention to  ANDREW KEMP (ex KPMG)

Kemp was also director of S8, well now Mr Andrew Kemp has joined the G8 Education board!!! Cosy huh?

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (21 March 2011)

Not sure what this means?http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...eNumber=12122/09&Court=Supreme&Location=BRISB
 17/03/2011  Notice of Discontinuance (Whole Proceeding)  Applicant Against 2nd & 3rd Res  Applicant   
  17/03/2011  Notice of Discontinuance (Whole Proceeding)  Applicant Against 2nd & 3rd Res  Applicant


----------



## simgrund (21 March 2011)

atlas1950 said:


> Hi Simon,
> 
> Yes, I did read Breaker1 posting, but in a nut shell, do you think my summary of Justice Perram ruling summarizes our situation. If we are allowed to proceed with our CA against the auditors, atleast, should we win and are awarded damages,  there will be money there. If we are successful against King and others,they probably don't have the money to pay us.
> 
> ...




Hi again Michael, 
I think we all agree that there is an IMF action against Compliance Plan Auditors and Directors and separate to that is an ASIC action against Directors.
It has been settled by this latest judgement that CA can go ahead against Compliance Plan Auditors, giving IMF and HWL Ebsworth green light to proceed.
So it is a progress. 
Now for the end of examinations. This, I understand, will provide a judgement whether Octaviar was solvent/insolvent at the time of their main criminal acts.
This too is vital to the CA action.
Please correct me if this simplification is out of focus.
Hope it helps 
Regards,


----------



## selciper (21 March 2011)

In my opinion, the PIF board must derive immense comfort from the apparent fact that no EGM is pending. After all, this allows them to remain in the seclusion of their remote sanctuary and not face a sea of PIF investor faces.


----------



## ASICK (21 March 2011)

Duped said:


> ... To me, the 'right to set off' appears to be an exemption to the order not to encumber the $40M.




We're probably speaking to the same thing.  As I see it, a  right of set-off has to exist BEFORE the order.  If there is such a right, then the order is not effective against it (to the extent of the amount of set-off).


----------



## Duped (21 March 2011)

ASICK said:


> We're probably speaking to the same thing.  As I see it, a  right of set-off has to exist BEFORE the order.  If there is such a right, then the order is not effective against it (to the extent of the amount of set-off).




NAB is a Fortress creditor.  But for what? That's the scary question.
PTQ sought to have the escrow account moved to another bank. McMurdo wouldn't issue such an order. 

Is the right of set-off limited to the amount owed under the NAB facility as at the date of the order? Or does the right of set-off extend to the full amount available under the facility whether or not some of that amount is drawn after the date of the order?


----------



## ASICK (21 March 2011)

Duped said:


> NAB is a Fortress creditor.  But for what? That's the scary question.
> PTQ sought to have the escrow account moved to another bank. McMurdo wouldn't issue such an order.
> 
> Is the right of set-off limited to the amount owed under the NAB facility as at the date of the order? Or does the right of set-off extend to the full amount available under the facility whether or not some of that amount is drawn after the date of the order?




I'm just opining - I have no idea of the law and the facts relating to the case.

For example, if assets are encumbered by way of fixed or floating charges for example, maybe the set-off would only be exercised if the security assets fell short of satisfying any part of the drawn down facility up to the date and  time of the order.

On the other hand it might be that the bank is able to simply apply a set-off without regard to the security assets.

If I had to guess, I'd guess the former of these two options.


----------



## seamisty (22 March 2011)

So Pif investors, it is over a year since I accepted the offer of periodic discussions offered between myself and the Companys Managing Director of WC. Wellington Capital still decline to honour that committment offered to me personally by Caroline Snow on behalf of Jennuy Hutson. WHY? And WC continue to ignore requests to folllow up on that offer. Why?? Did Wellington Capital think it was an offer which would flatter me because they thought it would shut me up re my continued enquiries re the IAC voting results? Or did they recognise the fact that refusing  to make public the IAC voting results it would draw adverse attention to the fact that it was strongly suspected that the whole IAC was possibly a sham?? Sham is right I strongly suspect, Rrght from day one and I sincerely apologise to those that I paid out on this forum who were way ahead of me in recognising that WC would never be able to 'put the money where their mouth was'.  I still hold the duly appointed IAC reps accountable for NOT representing the PIF unit holders who probablly did not elect them anyway. How would we ever know?? PS, I have had much support from other PIF investors thanking me for my efforts, can the duly appointed WC IAC reps say the same? Well I guess we will never know because not one of them has ever had the integrity to liaise or communicate with PIF investors in any way to my knowledge, not forgetting that PIF investors would be charged for their periodic WC gag fests!! Cynical, why wouldn't every PIF investor be?

Seamisty


----------



## lawry1dog (22 March 2011)

I agree with seamisty, *WC must now resign immediately*.

On an optimistic note, I think the following may happen (I hope)
  . *WC resign or liquidate and give us some of our money back.*
  . *The Class Action will then give us the balance back.*
  . *Plus I want all the interest I have missed out over the last 3 years (at 9%).*

Does anyone agree with this scenario?

I will never give up on getting my money back.


----------



## seamisty (22 March 2011)

ASIC's governance failure rolls on March 22, 2011 - 11:26AM


http://www.smh.com.au/business/asics-governance-failure-rolls-on-20110322-1c4ff.html


----------



## Janiss (22 March 2011)

seamisty said:


> So Pif investors, it is over a year since I accepted the offer of periodic discussions offered between myself and the Companys Managing Director of WC. Wellington Capital still decline to honour that committment offered to me personally by Caroline Snow on behalf of Jennuy Hutson. WHY? And WC continue to ignore requests to folllow up on that offer. Why?? Did Wellington Capital think it was an offer which would flatter me because they thought it would shut me up re my continued enquiries re the IAC voting results? Or did they recognise the fact that refusing  to make public the IAC voting results it would draw adverse attention to the fact that it was strongly suspected that the whole IAC was possibly a sham?? Sham is right I strongly suspect, Rrght from day one and I sincerely apologise to those that I paid out on this forum who were way ahead of me in recognising that WC would never be able to 'put the money where their mouth was'.  I still hold the duly appointed IAC reps accountable for NOT representing the PIF unit holders who probablly did not elect them anyway. How would we ever know?? PS, I have had much support from other PIF investors thanking me for my efforts, can the duly appointed WC IAC reps say the same? Well I guess we will never know because not one of them has ever had the integrity to liaise or communicate with PIF investors in any way to my knowledge, not forgetting that PIF investors would be charged for their periodic WC gag fests!! Cynical, why wouldn't every PIF investor be?
> 
> Seamisty




Do we know if the 3 elected representatives really exist or are they just fictitious names? Does anyone on this Forum know if they are actual unitholders?


----------



## seamisty (22 March 2011)

Janiss said:


> Do we know if the 3 elected representatives really exist or are they just fictitious names? Does anyone on this Forum know if they are actual unitholders?



Janiss I understand Andrejic is, not sure about Woodford or Mangan.

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (22 March 2011)

HMNN, Appears the voting power of WC in relation to the units in the Wholesale Premium Income  Fund continue to diminish while investors choose to sell on the NSX and possibly buy back in.

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723819.PDF

I am sure I would not like Wellington Capital  to continue to have control of my voting power after their pathetic performance!! We still do not know if WC used their approximate 11% voting power of the PIF units to duly appoint their preferred IAC reps because Wellington Capital refuse to divulge that information!! Not that anyone would be surprised considering the lack of transparencey we have all endured. 
Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (23 March 2011)

Another PIF investor has asked me to post the following article because it 'might give some people hope that people are being held accountable'


Fincorp deal done 

Ben Butler 

March 23, 2011 

LAWYERS for investors in property group Fincorp, which collapsed in 2007 owing noteholders about $200 million, have struck a settlement deal over its failure.

The deal between Slater & Gordon and Sandhurst Trustees, which was trustee for the noteholders, has to be approved by the Federal Court.

No dollar value was put on the settlement at a Federal Court hearing yesterday. Slater & Gordon had been seeking up to $100 million.



Under the proposed deal, which also requires investor approval, Slater & Gordon's legal costs are to be paid out of the settlement pool before the proceeds are distributed to investors.

Justice Michelle Gordon said yesterday she would review the proposed scheme with a view to making orders today.


----------



## seamisty (23 March 2011)

Geelong conman Hoy jailed 

Bring it on!! Plenty more deserve the same if not more time in jail for similar crimes. 


http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/geelong-conman-hoy-jailed-20110323-1c6sv.html


----------



## simgrund (24 March 2011)

seamisty said:


> Janiss I understand Andrejic is, not sure about Woodford or Mangan.
> 
> Seamisty




I feel so exposed and unprotected by this IAC anonymity.
Can we instigate a "Freedom of Information" request?
Regards,


----------



## Duped (24 March 2011)

This could explain why our Port Mac and Gong properties haven't been finalised and our nesteggs returned to us.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/executive-lifestyle/no-shore-thing/story-fn6njxlr-1226018349673

The Economist is bagging our property prices to the world. Lets wrap this thing up WC. Before we get hit again. We gave you a 5 year time frame.  Not a 10 to 20 year time frame. You're already 1/2 way to the 5 years.


----------



## Duped (24 March 2011)

simgrund said:


> I feel so exposed and unprotected by this IAC anonymity.
> Can we instigate a "Freedom of Information" request?
> Regards,




I'm pretty sure that FOI doesn't apply for us. I believe it's limited to info held by government and it's institutions. But I could be wrong.


----------



## selciper (24 March 2011)

seamisty said:


> Geelong conman Hoy jailed
> 
> Bring it on!! Plenty more deserve the same if not more time in jail for similar crimes.
> 
> ...




It is noticeable in the Hoy sentencing that the judge mentions the word "deception" several times.


----------



## selciper (24 March 2011)

simgrund said:


> I feel so exposed and unprotected by this IAC anonymity.
> Can we instigate a "Freedom of Information" request?
> Regards,




I think that FOI can be used only when seeking to obtain documents from government agencies.


----------



## ASICK (24 March 2011)

selciper said:


> I think that FOI can be used only when seeking to obtain documents from government agencies.




How about a mask, a pair of latex gloves, crowbar, some night vision glasses, and a camera? and, of course, nerves of steel.  but, if you were like me, after you went and acquired all those things, you'd probably want to take a rest! 

but other avenue do you have open?


----------



## seamisty (24 March 2011)

Well today was 'D' day for for each of the respondants in the ASIC v KING & others-Supreme Court Hearings to file a defence and tomorrow is listed for ' Supcase Review'   


http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...eNumber=12122/09&Court=Supreme&Location=BRISB

Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (25 March 2011)

selciper said:


> I think that FOI can be used only when seeking to obtain documents from government agencies.




I may have meant "FOI" type of request somewhere.
Thanks for showing me the depths of my desperation.
Have a good weekend all,


----------



## selciper (25 March 2011)

simgrund said:


> I may have meant "FOI" type of request somewhere.
> Thanks for showing me the depths of my desperation.
> Have a good weekend all,



One possibility of tackling the IAC election process would be to have a motion put at an EGM to the effect that all documentation regarding the matter be tabled and circulated.


----------



## BootsnAll (26 March 2011)

Any comments?
View attachment 42076


----------



## seamisty (26 March 2011)

Very interesting BootsnAll!! I tried unsuccesfully several times yesterday to contact WC hotline staff who did not return my call. Maybe they were otherwise occupied?? I would have thought this G8 drama would be deemed 'price sensitive' and should have been disclosed to the ASX??? Heres another related article::

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1118654/1/.html



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Cherie Hearts under receivership
By Hoe Yeen Nie | Posted: 25 March 2011 0008 hrs 





SINGAPORE : Singapore's largest private childcare provider, Cherie Hearts, has run into financial trouble.

However, parents need not worry because childcare operations are not affected.

Its main holding company, Cherie Hearts Group International, was put under receivership on Tuesday after defaulting on a loan from its parent company, G8 Education.

The Australian firm's managing director, Chris Scott, told Channel NewsAsia that the loan had grown over time, but declined to give numbers, saying the case could go to the courts.

Chua Sui Tong, a financial disputes expert at law firm WongPartnership, said receivership is an insolvency procedure, and is often a last resort to recover a debt.

He added that it was a "pretty drastic step" that suggests talks between the two parties had broken down.

Channel NewsAsia understands that there were some contractual obligations under the original acquisition contract, signed in October 2010, that Cherie Hearts could not meet.

When a company enters into receivership, typically senior management staff will have their duties suspended, and company accounts would be frozen.

But the appointed receivers, KordaMenthaNeo, would only say that Dr Sam Yap and Dr Gurchran Singh, founders of Cherie Hearts, were assisting them with examinations.

Cherie Hearts owns 18 centres in Singapore and has another 52 franchised outlets.

There are also 18 centres in China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia and South Korea, and earlier this year, Cherie Hearts had expressed intentions to double that number in a few years.

G8 Education said expansion plans in Singapore will go ahead and operations at the child care centres here will not be affected, to the relief of some parents.

One, who only wanted to be identified as "Jennifer", said she was not too worried about lost fees as she pays them on a monthly basis.

"My greatest concern is the welfare of the child, because if I have to find another childcare centre on a sudden, urgent basis, it would mean disrupting a schedule they're already used to," she said.


----------



## simgrund (26 March 2011)

selciper said:


> One possibility of tackling the IAC election process would be to have a motion put at an EGM to the effect that all documentation regarding the matter be tabled and circulated.




Good on you Selciper.
We've collected a decent response to a call to compile the "voting strengths" list 
by disclosing individual shareholdings. Zilch advance there. 
How about a shoulder to shoulder effort now to advance AGM. 
It's our right!!! 
IAC non-entities will have a spectacular opportunity to redeem themselves. 
Must start after 1 April to give it credence.
Regards,


----------



## selciper (26 March 2011)

simgrund said:


> Good on you Selciper.
> We've collected a decent response to a call to compile the "voting strengths" list
> by disclosing individual shareholdings. Zilch advance there.
> How about a shoulder to shoulder effort now to advance AGM.
> ...




As a regular reader and contributor to this forum, I read every post with interest and am grateful for the assiduous research we all benefit from. If I have one criticism of our present exchanges, it is that we may be dwelling too often on the past rather than considering ways and means of meeting with the present RE so that questions are asked and answerss given.


----------



## seamisty (28 March 2011)

ASIC jobs axed after budget cut Ben Butler 
March 28, 201

http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic-jobs-axed-after-budget-cut-20110327-1cbvd.html


----------



## seamisty (30 March 2011)

ALF Group Holdings AG: Roadshow in Germany and Switzerland started
Munich, March 28, 2011: The directors of ALF Group Holdings AG (ALF) are concerned with
the recent share price reduction. The directors believe that the company fundamentals have
not changed and the recent price pressure placed on the share price is not based on any
adverse company trading but simply on the lack of understanding of the ALF business. Our
advisors tell us that we have not done a good job explaining the ALF business model, its
assets, asset values, cash flow for the 2011 year and beyond. This all comes about at a time
the company is going to the market to raise 20m euro.
The directors have flown to Germany for the purpose of holding both private and public
investor meetings. The directors know before investors want to invest fresh capital they need
to properly understand ALF and have trust reinstated in the company.
The directors will be at the following cities on the following dates:
Munich: March 27 – March 28
Frankfurt: March 29 – March 30
Berlin: March 31 – April 1
Zurich, CH: April 4- April 5
The directors will present to investors the ALF Company; the directors will stand and answer
any and all questions regarding ALF.
Existing shareholders, new investors and media representatives who wish to attend either
group meetings or one on one meetings within the above dates should contact
m.fischer@max-em.de or call +49 89 13928890 and coordinate relevant times to attend.
James Byrnes, CEO of ALF, via his family office and Michael Pakula, Director of ALF, via his
family office are the company’s largest shareholders and will reconfirm their commitment to
build ALF into a worldclass investment company for the benefit of all shareholders.


http://www.alfgroupag.com/media/documents/2011-03-28_ALF_Roadshow_E.pdf


----------



## seamisty (30 March 2011)

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/citybeat-the-king-of-polo-reigns/story-e6freomx-1226029641844

SHAREHOLDERS in the $2.5 billion collapse of MFS group will be encouraged to know that the one-time boss Michael King still manages to mix it with the rich and famous. 

In fact, King enjoyed his favourite sport on the weekend, polo, with his team taking out arguably the most prestigious tournament on the Aussie calendar - the big polo final at James Packer's beautiful Elliston Polo field in NSW.

The competition was a Queensland final. Waste king Ron Wanless, who took on King's team, was narrowly defeated by a single goal.

Queenslander Ed Gould was named the most valuable player of the tournament.

The last time we came across King, who says he is effectively insolvent owing creditors more than $120 million, he did not really want to chat.

He basically said polo was the last thing left in his life. Well to play polo costs a bit of loot, but we can only imagine he has some wealthy sponsors


----------



## seamisty (30 March 2011)

It appears the Premium Income Fund is in a TRADING HALT on the NSX.

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723837.PDF


----------



## JohnH (30 March 2011)

There's a lot of new stuff from Wellington on the NSX Announcement page - Including another 1 cent distribution next month!!!!!   Doubtless we will all have comments when we have digested this plethora.


----------



## simgrund (30 March 2011)

seamisty said:


> It appears the Premium Income Fund is in a TRADING HALT on the NSX.
> 
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723837.PDF





And Wellington site lists these updates for 2011 and 2010
1 cent distribution mentioned in both????
Are there hallucinations appearing on PIF horizon????


PIF: Investor and Media Updates 2011
Investor Updates 2011

    * 30 March 2011 : NSX Release Fund to make $7.55 million cash payment
    * 30 March 2011 : NSX Release Fees payable for 2 years only
    * 30 March 2011 : NSX Release Sales Strategy
    * 30 March 2011 : NSX Release Review to identify all recovery options
    * 30 March 2011 : NSX Release Class Action
    * 8 March 2011 : NSX Release Half Yearly Report to 31 December 2010
    * 21 February 2011 : NSX Release Reject Further Extended Takeover Offer
    * 19 January 2011 : NSX Release Investor Update 31 December 2010
    * 17 January 2011 : NSX Release Client Services
    * 12 January 2011 : NSX Release Client Services

PIF: Investor and Media Updates 2010
Investor Updates 2010

    * 20 December 2010 : NSX Release Business Update
    * 3 December 2010 : NSX Release Litigation Update: Bond Street Custodians
    * 25 October 2010 : NSX Release Reject Extended Takeover Offer
    * 1 October 2010 : NSX Release Bond Street Custodians Limited – Federal Court Proceedings
    * 15 September 2010 : Investor Update Cash Payment : A 1 cent per unit cash payment will be made to all unitholders on 29 October 2010
    * 15 September 2010 : Investor Update August Investor Update
    * 15 September 2010 : NSX Update Annual Financial Report 30 June 2010


----------



## seamisty (30 March 2011)

JohnH said:


> There's a lot of new stuff from Wellington on the NSX Announcement page - Including another 1 cent distribution next month!!!!!   Doubtless we will all have comments when we have digested this plethora.[/QUOTEJohnH, After physically having tossed 5 ton of fish off my boat today I consider I smell like roses compared to our curent RE after reading the 5+ Wellington Capital reports posted on the NSX today. HELLO, what has triggered and inspired WC to release more PIF information in ONE DAY this year than the long suffering investors of this fund have previously had filtered to them? Like PIF investors are going to trust Wellington Capital at this time??




Suspicious? You bet. Wellington Capital, the gravy is not as thick as you would hope. Suck up the last dregs,  straws aren't what they used to be.
I hear the quicksand is on high alert and sucking up bull**** big time. 
Yeh, I hope I am not the only one prepared to comment on WC latest NSX road show of crap. Seamisty.


----------



## atlas1950 (31 March 2011)

Hi all,

Why would Jenny be happy to accept only two years commission (once we finally receive our 3 cents distribution) when,from my understanding,  she would have been entitled to it forever and a day. It just doesn't make sense.


----------



## Cookie1 (31 March 2011)

To me it appears our Fund is being liquidated. If there's enough cash on hand, we'll be thrown a crumb of our own capital (1 cent) from time to time - a far cry from promises made in 2008. Perhaps JH thinks she can finish the job within 2 years and there'll be nothing left for management fees??? We've not seen any strategies to grow the fund; wasn't the PIF *supposed* to be an "income fund"?

Cookie1


----------



## JohnH (31 March 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> To me it appears our Fund is being liquidated. If there's enough cash on hand, we'll be thrown a crumb of our own capital (1 cent) from time to time - a far cry from promises made in 2008. Perhaps JH thinks she can finish the job within 2 years and there'll be nothing left for management fees???* We've not seen any strategies to grow the fund; wasn't the PIF supposed to be an "income fund"?
> *
> Cookie1




Yes, and we all heard Jenny categorically state that "If she did not perform, WC would not draw a fee".  Perhaps she thinks we will forget that if she only draws a cool $7m or whatever.


----------



## seamisty (31 March 2011)

A management fee beckons Scott Rochfort 
March 31, 2011

http://www.smh.com.au/business/a-management-fee-beckons-20110330-1cgd7.html

The financial group that wrestled control of the flagship mortgage fund from the now collapsed MFS in 2008 is edging closer to collecting its first management fee.

The Jenny Hutson-headed Wellington Capital announced yesterday that it planned to return another 1 ¢ a unit (or $7.55 million) to the long-suffering investors in the Premium Income Fund on April Fools' Day.

It is the second 1 ¢ return unitholders have received since the fund was frozen more than three years ago. Wellington has now managed to return about $15 million to investors in the fund that was once worth about $1 billion.

Advertisement: Story continues below But with Wellington entitled to an annual 0.7 per cent management fee (based on the assets in the fund) once it returns 3 ¢ in the dollar to unitholders, Hutson has attempted to play down the windfall she could be up for. She said an amendment to the fund's constitution meant management fees would only cover a two-year period.

Based on the $250 million of assets in the fund, Wellington could expect to recoup $3.5 million in management fees. ''This change to the constitution ensures that there is alignment between the responsible entity's remuneration and the prompt return of money to unitholders of the fund,'' Hutson said in a statement yesterday.

Hutson will no doubt be keen to see off challenges to her management of the fund now her target is within sight. She has succeeded in repelling a takeover attempt by the shell of a former lingerie company advised by Alan Bond's former bankruptcy adviser and banned company director, Jim Byrnes.

Maybe Hutson would not mind being challenged in two years. Wellington is entitled to a removal fee of 2 per cent of the gross value of the fund, equating to $5 million.


----------



## seamisty (31 March 2011)

JohnH said:


> Yes, and we all heard Jenny categorically state that "If she did not perform, WC would not draw a fee".  Perhaps she thinks we will forget that if she only draws a cool $7m or whatever.



It is quite obvious by the following article that 'what you hear and what is delivered' is not always consistant JohnH!! I hope G8 investors are on high alert!!

http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC110331-0000067/Six-childcare-chain-staff-dismissed-by-SMS

04:46 AM Mar 31, 2011SINGAPORE - When mega childcare chain Cherie Hearts sold its local operations last year, the company that won an award last year for progressive and fair employment practices wanted all staff to be retained.

But similar to how it was hit by financial woes recently, fortunes have also changed for six employees. Not only are they now without a job, they were told of it via SMS.

Two earlier text messages, obtained by MediaCorp, first gave them a different impression. An SMS on March 6 read: "... due to furniture delay, please be informed to report for work on March 9". The next, on March 8, said: "The office is not quite ready and we don't have sufficient furniture for all ... take the next week off - you will be fully paid."

Finally, on March 11: "You need not report to our office ... Decision is final".

That decision came from Australian firm G8 Education, which bought Cherie Hearts' childcare business. Recently, the latter's main holding company, Cherie Hearts Group International, was put under receivership, which meant its accounts are frozen.

G8 has assured that childcare operations will not be affected. As it turned out, employees were the ones not spared.

One of the six affected staff, who declined to be named, said: "Those earlier messages indicated that I have a job ... It was a shock."

The 24-year-old former operations manager at Cherie Hearts, whose $2,300 monthly salary contributed the most to her family of eight, felt it was "unprofessional" to notify staff via SMS.

A G8 Education spokesperson told MediaCorp no formal agreement was made during the takeover and it had kept as many employees as possible. She said the earlier SMSes were sent when discussions on their employment were still underway. A text message was the quickest notification method, she added


----------



## marcom (31 March 2011)

Looks to me that JH is seeking to resist the possibility of a statement of claim (or maybe it has already arrived) from Bentley's Liquidators for $8mil and return of the fund RE as preferential transactions. 

The arguement she will use to counter the claim is that she has already hired a "nationally respected corporate recovery expert" (probably Robert William Hutson of KordaMentha Brisbane http://www.kordamentha.com/main/display-employee.aspx?id=112) and an independent law firm (most probably McCullough Robertson - her partners law firm). If these are truly independent parties why haven't they been named????

She will argue that it is better for investors that she control the liquidation than Bentley's. 

And on top she has reduced the term for fees (by yet another amendment to the Constitution without reference to us investors), miraculously discovered another 1 cent for distribution (amazing how joint ventures can be used as "hollow logs" in accounts!), now promises full cooperation with the class action (especially when the focus has shifted to KPMG), reminds us that the original action against MFS Directors commenced in 2008 is still current even though she has done nothing to advance that action in 3 years, and finally puts a gloss on her efforts to get any compensation as a result of the ASIC claims paid into the fund under her control instead of paid directly to us investors.

And all this happening at the time when Scotty has been ripped-off by his mates in Singapore! The end is near JH.


----------



## seamisty (31 March 2011)

marcom said:


> Looks to me that JH is seeking to resist the possibility of a statement of claim (or maybe it has already arrived) from Bentley's Liquidators for $8mil and return of the fund RE as preferential transactions.
> 
> The arguement she will use to counter the claim is that she has already hired a "nationally respected corporate recovery expert" (probably Robert William Hutson of KordaMentha Brisbane http://www.kordamentha.com/main/display-employee.aspx?id=112) and an independent law firm (most probably McCullough Robertson - her partners law firm). If these are truly independent parties why haven't they been named????
> 
> ...



HAHA Marcom!! I strongly suspect you are on the right track. We long suffering PIF investors have not seen Jennearous Jenny galvinised into so much reaction, OOPS, action since the well paid for travelling road show of verbal diarrhea. Interesting times me thinks! Seamisty


----------



## lawry1dog (31 March 2011)

seamisty said:


> HAHA Marcom!! I strongly suspect you are on the right track. We long suffering PIF investors have not seen Jennearous Jenny galvinised into so much reaction, OOPS, action since the well paid for travelling road show of verbal diarrhea. Interesting times me thinks! Seamisty




How come WC said there will no more distributions only a couple of weeks ago, and now giving us another 1c now.
What about the class action? Are we just going after KMPG, now? Is WC off the hook?
What about the thing that is occurring early next month? Is it going ahead?

What about some transparency!!


----------



## selciper (31 March 2011)

Am I being taken for a mug again? Hutson has once more taken the violin out of its case to play in the style of her roadshow performances. I recognise the tune only too well.


----------



## simgrund (31 March 2011)

seamisty said:


> HAHA Marcom!! I strongly suspect you are on the right track. We long suffering PIF investors have not seen Jennearous Jenny galvinised into so much reaction, OOPS, action since the well paid for travelling road show of verbal diarrhea. Interesting times me thinks! Seamisty



 Did you say action?

Take note Lawry1dog.

NSX Release Sales Strategy
www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723838.PDF

NSX Release Review to identify all recovery options
www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723840.PDF

NSX Release Class Action
www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723839.PDF

That's what's still to come. In summary, recovery of claims for $211m (proof of debt lodged with Liquidatos) and $147.5 ASIC initiative. 

Then CA. Statement of claim to be in by end of April 2011.
I am reducing my sedative doses.

Regards


----------



## atlas1950 (31 March 2011)

I know how tough it's  been for a lot of our PIF investors, but I agree with Simon that maybe, just maybe, we may be turning the corner and getting thru the past three very difficult years.

 Once we get our second one cent distribution, it will be to WC best interest to pay us the third one cent distribution, so that commissions for her will then kick in.

All of this, plus all other actions that are coming hopefully to fruition sooner or later, let us try to keep a positive and logical mind about all our issues.

Good on you Simon for trying to instill a positive spin on our situation. Whether it turns out this way, we can only hope. I know we have a lot of good people working on all our behalf, so let us keep the faith and hope for some positive news in the future.

Michael


----------



## simgrund (31 March 2011)

marcom said:


> Looks to me that JH is seeking to resist the possibility of a statement of claim (or maybe it has already arrived) from Bentley's Liquidators for $8mil and return of the fund RE as preferential transactions.
> 
> The arguement she will use to counter the claim is that she has already hired a "nationally respected corporate recovery expert" (probably Robert William Hutson of KordaMentha Brisbane http://www.kordamentha.com/main/display-employee.aspx?id=112) and an independent law firm (most probably McCullough Robertson - her partners law firm). If these are truly independent parties why haven't they been named????
> 
> ...




This is too disturbing to contemplate.
Can our genuine AG PIF request from new Solicitors a brief legal opinion whether that is possible without investor's voting rights being used to decide?
After all, there was such an explosion of decibels from WC control room to 
REJECT! REJECT! REJECT! 
So there is a precedent acknowlegement that certain decisions can be made only by Investors.

And I mentioned this a year or so ago.
Assurances must be sought and made now, that ANY recoveries for PIF be put by the adjudicating court into escrow for the direct distribution to investors.
I believe there would be many of us who would entrust WC to realise her promises of fund restoration from those funds left shrinking under JH control.
Any recoveries must not be placed into that shrinking pot. 
Roll on April the First!

Regards,


----------



## seamisty (31 March 2011)

Hi all, I have just viewed some spectacular aerial photo shots of Kooralbyn Golf resort on 7 news detailing how the resort was previously considered a serious option to be used as a detention centre to house asylum seekers!! Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (31 March 2011)

It appears the PIF 'sugar plum fairy' has more on her plate other than PIF issues. Is this why WC is trying to regain popularity amongst the disenchanted PIF investors who possibly foot the bill for WC office expenditure?

'Cherie Hearts International Pte Ltd has commenced legal proceedings in Singapore seeking to set aside the
receivership of its company and the exercise by G8 Education of its rights under security documentation. A
one day special hearing will occur on either the 14th or 15th of April 2011 to determine the outcome.'


----------



## seamisty (31 March 2011)

Five-star option for asylum seekers 

One of the five swimming pools at Kooralbyn Resort. Source: Supplied 

A RUN-down former five-star golf resort was considered to help cope with the asylum seeker accommodation crisis. 

Kooralbyn Hotel Resort, in the Gold Coast hinterland, was inspected by immigration officials last May after liquidators called the Federal Government.

Documents released to Seven News after a Freedom of Information court battle show the department said it "could easily be converted to dormitory accommodation and used for single men or unaccompanied minors".

The 100-room hotel has been mothballed since July 2008 but in the 1990s was a playground for the wealthy. It has a small airfield and could be made ready for asylum seekers within four weeks.

Seven News also revealed Puckapunyal army base in Victoria was the No.1 choice to house asylum seekers but the Department of Defence blocked the idea.


The Department of Immigration said 900 men could be put into barrack-style accommodation in 100 decommissioned three-bedroom houses on the base and it was "the most desirable location because it can accommodate large numbers of clients at short notice".

In light of the recent riots on Christmas Island, the documents show the department warned last May that because every bed was occupied it could not manage behaviour and other issues.

A spokesman for Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said the Government had been truthful about the pressure on detention accommodation and had opened and expanded other centres.

"As part of prudent contingency planning ... the options ... were considered and rejected by the Government for a variety of reasons," he said.


----------



## GumbyLearner (1 April 2011)

seamisty said:


> Five-star option for asylum seekers
> 
> One of the five swimming pools at Kooralbyn Resort. Source: Supplied
> 
> ...




A great RUN-down


----------



## seamisty (1 April 2011)

seamisty said:


> Five-star option for asylum seekers
> 
> One of the five swimming pools at Kooralbyn Resort. Source: Supplied
> 
> ...



Don't you all just love the Wellington Capital promised transparency??? Read all about it in the public domain!! Eyes are wide open WC. If you want respect I think it is too late. Another promised 1 cent of return of our own capital at this late stage after a further write down in unit value is hardly going to earn WC a vote of confidence. You have sponged off the PIF for too long in my opinion to think we are greatfull for the scraps tossed to us at our own expense. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (1 April 2011)

Childcare firm acts as deal goes sour 

http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/...s-deal-goes-sour/story-fn6ck2gb-1226031635727


CHILDCARE operator G8 is facing a legal challenge in Singapore after the souring of its first international deal. 

G8, chaired by Jenny Hutson, last week had receivers KordaMenthaNeo appointed to Cherie Hearts International, a holding company that had sold almost 70 Singapore centres to the Gold Coast-based childcare operator in a $16 million deal.

G8, which plans to run 200 centres, has said the dispute involved an inability of the sellers to satisfy certain conditions, such as transferring licences.

The sellers were then not in a position to repay roughly $2 million owed to G8, the company said.

Yesterday, G8 said Cherie Hearts International had launched proceedings for mid-April to set aside the receivership and G8's rights related to the sale, affecting ownership of 13 centres.

"G8 Education remains confident of its legal position and will continue operating its Cherie Hearts centres," G8 said yesterday.

Cherie Hearts International chairman Sam Yap confirmed the action to The Courier-Mail. In a statement, he argued the original terms included G8 providing a loan for Cherie Hearts to buy additional centres, to be offset against the final purchase price, and said: "G8's claims that we are in default to them are wrong."

Singapore media also reported six former staff of Cherie Hearts were sacked via text message. G8 said it had hired 22 staff, none of whom were dismissed.


----------



## atlas1950 (1 April 2011)

Hi all, 

Just noticed someone  bought 300,000 shares on the NSX at 0.11 each.

Also a new announcement on the NSX website.

Good luck to us all.

Michael


----------



## selciper (1 April 2011)

How come there was apparently a change to the constitution without a vote being taken?


----------



## breaker1 (1 April 2011)

selciper said:


> How come there was apparently a change to the constitution without a vote being taken?




It is apparently allowed without a vote [EGM] if the RE considers the change is in the best interests of investors


----------



## ASICK (1 April 2011)

breaker1 said:


> It is apparently allowed without a vote [EGM] if the RE considers the change is in the best interests of investors




http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s601gc.html

601GC (1) (b)  by the responsible entity if the responsible entity reasonably considers the change will not adversely affect members' rights.


----------



## selciper (1 April 2011)

Thanks Breaker and Seamisty for the info regarding the constitution: 601GC (1) (b) by the responsible entity if the responsible entity reasonably considers the change will not adversely affect members' rights.

I can't say I like that clause, especially as we seem to be seated at a modern version of the Mad Hatter's Tea Party.


----------



## seamisty (1 April 2011)

selciper said:


> Thanks Breaker and Seamisty for the info regarding the constitution: 601GC (1) (b) by the responsible entity if the responsible entity reasonably considers the change will not adversely affect members' rights.
> 
> I can't say I like that clause, especially as we seem to be seated at a modern version of the Mad Hatter's Tea Party.



HAHA selciper!! After the sudden influx of PIF NSX announcements and the total lack of positive posts in response to them would be a concern to Wellington Capital I would think??? PIF members rights? Oh, thats us? When exactly did WC contact HWL Ebsworth re the Class Action? 

Quote WC http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723839.PDF
'Documents that may be relevant are held by Bentleys Corporate Recovery, liquidators of the former MFS
companies.'

Well to the best of my knowledge, it was Deloittes who held the documents in question required to assist the applicants when WC was first approached for assistance to cooperate in the Class Action, not Bentleys. And correct me if I am wrong, but didn't WC oppose the appointment of Bentleys? Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (2 April 2011)

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/04/02/304631_gold-coast-business.html

Kooralbyn aims for tourists not refugees
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  April 2nd, 2011

HOLIDAYMAKERS, not asylum seekers, could soon be making their way back to the Kooralbyn Valley Resort as a Gold Coast businessman edges closer to securing the property from receivers.

A TV news report on Thursday revealing a Federal Government plan to establish a detention camp for refugees on the sprawling resort property has been labelled as "old news" by receiver Jenny Hutson, of Wellington Capital.

That proposal was dead in the water, rejected by the Government last year, she said.
The prospective purchaser, revealed by the Bulletin this week to be Murray Bailey, a low-profile businessman developing waste-to-energy power plants, has been undertaking extensive due diligence on Kooralbyn.

He plans to restore the property -- which many locals say has become a slum under three years of receivership -- to its former glory.

A spokesman for Mr Bailey yesterday said he was reluctant to trumpet the plans for Kooralbyn until a purchase deal was sealed.

"It's very much on track (and) we're confident," he said.

Scenic Rim Deputy Mayor Dave Cockburn yesterday confirmed the council was working closely with the prospective buyer and Wellington Capital to protect the interests of the Kooralbyn community.

Ms Hutson, who controls the property through former MFS investment vehicle the Premium Income Fund, said while her priority was to recover funds for investors in the fund, it was important to offer "optimal value for the valley".

"The party that we're talking to at the moment will deliver that," she said. "If the transaction we are looking at goes ahead, the plan is to turn it back into a five-star resort and to do the development around the golf course."


Kooralbyn has approval for 423 housing lots, including some that are medium density.

For more on this story, see Page 12 of today's Gold Coast Bulletin.


----------



## BootsnAll (2 April 2011)

Here is the article from the Bulletin

View attachment 42218


----------



## Cookie1 (2 April 2011)

Marcom or someone, what do you make of this from the Federal Court of Australia website (a Google alert I received today)? I don't understand all the legalese.

http://www.commercialcourt.com.au/Lists/News/DispForm.aspx?ID=1366

and the link within the article

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/294.html

Thanks, Cookie1


----------



## seamisty (2 April 2011)

Interesting to see Kooralbyn described as dilapitated, run down and a slum in the media when we have just this week had Wellington Capital announce on the NSX that WC has 
'has prepared the property for sale'!!! Is that why our assets have been so hard to move? Seamisty


----------



## ASICK (2 April 2011)

seamisty said:


> Interesting to see Kooralbyn described as dilapitated, run down and a slum in the media when we have just this week had Wellington Capital announce on the NSX that WC has
> 'has prepared the property for sale'!!! Is that why our assets have been so hard to move? Seamisty




Seamisty, seems you flushed J.H. out of hiding with your comment about migrants living it up in the Hinterland - good for you!


----------



## Cookie1 (3 April 2011)

I don't believe JH has mentioned anything about this law suit against the Premium Income Fund on the NSX nor in Investor Updates. In the NSX release about Sales Strategies the Forest Resort is mentioned but no mention of legal action of $168 million against the fund. There are certainly huge holes in information we unit holders are being drip fed by WC. What else haven't we been told?

"*Family in fight to save resort dream
*Nick McKenzie, Eric Johnston
April 2, 2011

Sticking together are, from left, Marcus Walsh, Rebecca Ebbels, Jim Walsh, Joan Walsh, Justin Walsh and Melissa Boak. The resort is in the background. Photo: Simon O'Dwyer

EACH day, Jim and Joan Walsh walk out their front door and see their biggest dream, their biggest failure - and the biggest fight of their lives.

The Walshes are not typical property developers. They sank all they had financially and emotionally into what they called ''their child'' - the Forest Resort development, boasting a 144-room hotel and an upmarket golf course surrounded by houses. Now, every time they go outside and look around, their resolve to fight hardens. Which is helpful, because the Walshes have picked one hell of a battle."

Click on link below for full story...and what a story!

http://www.watoday.com.au/victoria/family-in-fight-to-save-resort-dream-20110402-1cskj.html


----------



## seamisty (3 April 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> I don't believe JH has mentioned anything about this law suit against the Premium Income Fund on the NSX nor in Investor Updates. In the NSX release about Sales Strategies the Forest Resort is mentioned but no mention of legal action of $168 million against the fund. There are certainly huge holes in information we unit holders are being drip fed by WC. What else haven't we been told?
> 
> "*Family in fight to save resort dream
> *Nick McKenzie, Eric Johnston
> ...



Cookie, I have personally contacted Caroline Snow, complaints officer and systems manager of Wellington Capital Premium Income Fund, Jenny Hutson managing director of Wellington Capital, PIF investor relations staff at WC and the members of the duly appointed Wellington Capital PIF Investor Advisory Committee members on numerous occassions as far back as May 2010 regarding the Forest Resort pending legal claim and how it should be disclosed on the NSX.
 I notified the Misconduct & Breach Reporting
Stakeholder Services Australian Securities & Investments Commission in May 2010 on this matter and received the usual generic response.
I also sent the following to Ian Craig at the NSX on the 5th May 2010 who was not at all concerned.
'It has come to my attention that there has been an alleged serious breach of the Corporation Act in respect to non-disclosure by Wellington Capital of a current legal action against the PIF while units are actively trading on the NSX? In the event this legal action is successful it will have a huge detrimental impact on our Fund. '


I also contacted the  Australian Shareholders' Association with the same information. Nothing was ever done

I have kept a record of all correspondence because I think investors in the Wellington Capital Premium Income Fund have been seriously let down by the current PIF Responsible Entity and all the mentioned so called regulatory bodies by failing to follow up on this issue.

I also sent the following to the PIF IAC on the 3rd of Feb 2011 to this date have never once responded or acknowledged any of my communictions!!

To the PIF IAC,

You would most probably not be aware of the legal action involving the PIF asset Novatel Forest Resort in Creswick where the owners have instigated legal proceedings against Perpetual where it is alleged Korda Mentha were prematurely appointed as Receiver & Managers by our current RE.

I understand the costs involved are approx:  $284,845.00 in legal fees incurred to date (including drafting an amended reply). The form 524’s lodged with ASIC by Korda Mentha list payments to them for fees of $565,225 for the first 12 months as Receiver & Managers (Note: another 6 months fee paid to KM to be disclosed in next reporting period.)

This means $248,845.00 + $565,225.00 + $250,000.00 (Estimate KM 6 months)=$1,064,70.00 plus provision for legal fees to trial ($1,200,000.00).


Would it not be reasonable to assume the RE to have a statutory responsibility to its unit holders to disclose expenditure of $2.2 million + with the further risk exposure to Damages being awarded of possibly $155 million to the developer in compensation should it be proved Korda Mentha should not have been appointed? 

Slater and Gordon Group leader as an agent of the court swore an affidavit that this case has merit and was in the public interest to be heard. Where does the PIF stand legally if it is proved that this was not simply a case of a disgruntled defaulting borrower but rather a developer who did not receive the whole amount of his loan from Octaviar/MFS after it collapsed (Perpetual was noted in the loan agreements as Lender and Custodian)  

As these proceedings have never been disclosed to the NSX and any possible subsequent consequences to our Fund I would appreciate it if in your capacity as duly appointed PIF IAC reps you can discuss this issue with our current RE and comment on this issue in our next PIF investor update.


What does it take to get the message through?? Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (3 April 2011)

Company imploded after spending spree Eric Johnston 
April 3, 2011

FOUNDED in 1999 by two criminal lawyers, MFS ranks as one of the most spectacular of Australia's recent debt-funded corporate implosions.

Using the well-worn strategy of over-paying for assets on a debt-fuelled spending spree, Gold Coast-based MFS made countless acquisitions, including Harvey World Travel, Gullivers Travel Group and Let's Go Travel, and then extended into hotels. It also created a range of listed and unlisted property trusts and mortgage schemes.


Full article:
http://www.theage.com.au/business/company-imploded-after-spending-spree-20110402-1cskq.html


----------



## Cookie1 (3 April 2011)

Thanks, Seamisty, for informing us 'mushrooms' (definition: those kept in the dark and fed bull**** by WC) of your many attempts to elicit support from the various authorities that are supposed to be regulators and watch dogs on our behalf and your many efforts to communicate with WC and the IAC (which seems to exist in name only) about your concerns. Certainly legal action of this magnitude must be disclosed to the NSX and unit holders. 

If the developers of the Forest Resort are successful and are awarded damages of the magnitude indicated, where would that leave us? I assume the legal fees are currently coming out of the PIF???

Cookie1


----------



## marcom (3 April 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> Marcom or someone, what do you make of this from the Federal Court of Australia website (a Google alert I received today)? I don't understand all the legalese.
> 
> http://www.commercialcourt.com.au/Lists/News/DispForm.aspx?ID=1366
> 
> ...




Like the recent Fortress application, Liz Ailwood the Brisbane based KPMG representative selected to face a right grilling by by two sets of liquidators - Bentleys for Octaviar and Ferrier Hodgeson for Octaviar Investment Notes and Investment Bonds - applied to the Federal Court to have the summons terminated. It seems the Federal Court was selected because of the different (NSW and QLD) State Supreme Court jurisdictions in which the examinations have taken place. Most of Bentley's examinations have been in the NSW Supreme Court with the OIN legal team getting to mull over the examinees remains afterwards. The OIN liquidators have also grilled some examinees in the Brisbane Magistrates Court. In Liz Ailwoods case she was scheduled to face the OIN legal team in Brisbane on 16 & 17 March, then the Bentley's Legal team in Sydney at a later date. She thought this was "oppressive or an abuse of process". Justice Logan disagreed and dismissed the application with costs save for one minor provision of the summons in relation to producing certain documents. An issue also arose concerning the time it takes to produce a transcript of Ailwood's first examination before the later Sydney grilling - thats nice to have a transcript so the you don't give contradictory answers in the different examinations.

It seems that both the Fortress and KPMG reps tried every legal move to avoid being examined because at a liquidators examination the examinee is required by law and under oath to answer the liquidators questions.

I can understand Ailwood's reluctance to submit for examination. In the Octaviar Investment Notes and Bonds case the entire sum that was raised by prospectus was within a few weeks spent by MFS on everything but the stated investments in prospectus - and KPMG do not seem to have picked up the discrepancy in an audit.

I have not seen any reports on Liz Ailwood's examinations so I am not sure if they have already taken place.


----------



## seamisty (3 April 2011)

Thanks for the above post Marcom. Can anyone please tell me if the PIF assets are indemnified from successful litigation in the event it is proved incorrect decisions were made by a Responsible Entity, prior or existing and if the directors themselves are held responsible? Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (3 April 2011)

So, not really much reaction from PIF investors re the media article (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/f...-resort-dream-20110402-1cskj.html?from=age_sb) in relation to one of our major PIF assets? I refer to Wellington Capitals recent NSX announcement http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/2011/nsx release - sales strategy - 30 march 2011.pdf in relation to the Forest Resort, Creswick:

"The sale of this property will be actively pursued by the Fund’s appointed agents during 2011."

I do not profess to being any sort of a 'sophisticated investor', but surely if a property is subject to a substantial legal claim in the Supreme Court, would there not be some sort of Caveat over that property relating to a sales campaign while the actual ownership is in dispute? 

I wonder whatever happened to the luxuary 4 wheel drive vehicle which was removed from Forest Resort in 2009 which was used by the resort as a courtesy car and promotional vehicle and was taken under David Bourke’s instructions? The registration was under Victorian registration TFR-02 2007 Land Rover discovery DSE.
Last reported at Kooralbyn Resort approx Oct 2009 when a fire was reported at the Kooralbyn resort. Good to have all this information in my opinion while there appears to be some interest in the media re the Wellington Capital PIF.
Seamisty


----------



## kingcarmleo (3 April 2011)

What an absolute mess


----------



## selciper (4 April 2011)

kingcarmleo said:


> What an absolute mess




That reminds me of a Thomas Edison quote: "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."


----------



## marcom (4 April 2011)

According to the NSW Supreme Court lists Philip Hoser and Liz Ailwood were examined before Associate Registrar Equity Musgrove on Wednesday 30 and Thursday 31 March.


----------



## simgrund (4 April 2011)

Shaping up at last.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/quiet-push-for-asic-changes-20110404-1cw1g.html

Can anyone help me please with pointing me to the private message box in this rejigged site.
Thank you,


----------



## seamisty (4 April 2011)

simgrund said:


> Shaping up at last.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/quiet-push-for-asic-changes-20110404-1cw1g.html
> 
> ...



Click on 'notifications' at the top right of this page simgrund.


----------



## simgrund (5 April 2011)

seamisty said:


> Click on 'notifications' at the top right of this page simgrund.




Thank you Seamisty, I will gaze higher from now on.
Best to all


----------



## seamisty (5 April 2011)

http://digitalproducer.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=1429013-0
ALF GROUP HOLDINGS AG ALF Subsidiary Receives AUD $5M In Equity and Takeover Bid for Australian Premium Income Fund Update 
(April 04, 2011) ALF GROUP HOLDINGS AG ALF Subsidiary Receives AUD $5M In Equity and Takeover Bid for Australian Premium Income Fund Update

Zurich Monday 4 April 2011 The Directors of ALF Group Holdings AG (ALF) wish to advise that ALF Group Pty Ltd (100% owned by ALF), the Australian parent company, has drawn down AUD$5M under its facility with Kingsley Finance Co Limited (Kingsley), ALFs largest shareholder. 

The purpose of the drawdown is to enable ALF Group Pty Ltd to subscribe for 5m $1.00 shares in ALF PIF Finance Limited, which is currently 90% owned by ALF.

This equity investment further underlines ALFs commitment to the takeover bid and should add considerably to the prospects of success of the ALF PIF bid for the current takeover offer for all the units in the Premium Income Fund (PIF).


PIF is an Australian mortgage fund with stated net assets of AUD$265m that ALF PIF have an existing interest in and are seeking to take over the remaining units.

ALF PIF will now post to over 10,500 unitholders a new and revised document from the Board of ALF PIF explaining the benefits of the ALF PIF offer and point out the appalling track record and recent releases by the takeover targets board that amplify the claims we have made regarding their mismanagement and why the unit holders must act now and accept this offer.

We have privately recieved substantial support from many unit holders who have simply lost complete confidence in the existing management.

Further, to add to the prospects of the success of the bid, Australian Litigation Funders Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of ALF, has agreed to take over and fund all recovery action, all unit/ shareholder class action claims against the existing manager and all recovery action against third parties who may have a liability owing to PIF.

The offer from Australian Litigation Funders Pty Ltd provides existing unit holders of PIF with the comfort that the PIF capital will not be dissipated by expensive and time consuming litigation and that Australian Litigation Funders Pty Ltd will work on a no win/no fee basis and take a fixed percentage of 33% from all recoveries (plus legal costs).

ALF believes that there is potentially over AUD $140,000,000 in potential claims, suits and recoveries. This means that there is the potential to deliver fees of approximately AUD $46m to ALF from litigation recoveries alone.


----------



## seamisty (6 April 2011)

Another Gold Coast Fund bites the dust. I believe David Anderson(ex MFS) is CEO of Equititrust and David Kennedy(ex MFS and KPMG) is a director. Not that their previous association with MFS is mentioned on the Equititrust website.

   Property woes hit distributions plan
Tracey McBean   |  April 6th, 2011

GOLD Coast fund manager Equititrust Capital has suspended monthly distributions from two of its flagship investment funds blaming the city's lacklustre property market.

Equititrust Capital managing director Mark McIvor said the move was prompted by ongoing market uncertainty which had delayed settlement of the sale of several assets, totalling more than $15 million alone in the Equititrust Income Fund.
Full story::http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/04/06/305725_gold-coast-business.html


----------



## seamisty (6 April 2011)

BLAH BLAH BLAH, G8 spin doctor hard at it? http://www.brisbanebusinessnews.com...FIDENT OF MAJOR SINGAPOREAN ACQUISITION .html

'At today’s AGM, G8 chairperson Jenny Hutson (pictured) told shareholders the chances of Cherie Hearts winning the dispute were ‘beyond remote’


A bit similar to  “ Walshes’ case is baseless. We think there ‘s no substance at all that is and remains our position on it.” from this media article:http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/f...-resort-dream-20110402-1cskj.html?from=age_sb

Whats the William Shakespeare quote?       “Me thinks he doth protest too much.” 

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (6 April 2011)

http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/media/20070421_GCB_ChangingFocus.pdf I refer anyone who is interested to page 3, bottom right where JH admits to failing with S8 and her guru WC business partner, Chris Scott. Date April 2007.

I draw your attention also to::http://www.couriermail.com.au/prope...holiday-rip-offs/story-e6frequ6-1225971130633


----------



## seamisty (7 April 2011)

Wellington Capital has another generic cut and paste  PIN announcement in relation to Forest Resort.

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723881.PDF


----------



## selciper (7 April 2011)

Despite having been told in the past by a couple of Wellington work horses over the "help" line that this forum is no longer read by WC staff, I think that our words are being perused daily. Just a feeling...


----------



## NOR (7 April 2011)

selciper said:


> Despite having been told in the past by a couple of Wellington work horses over the "help" line that this forum is no longer read by WC staff, I think that our words are being perused daily. Just a feeling...




selciper your feeling could be right ha.just incase j.h sorrey to hear u have had hard times just like all us working hard bring up our kid  through  major sickness wifes & husbands near death[[[[  but we had no one to make glossy storeyso we got on with makeing our nestegg.....  binggo....MFS...P.I.F    WOW NOW WE CAN SIT BACK IN OUR NEW HOUSE GOOD INCOME GREAT  ....... O NO .NOW NO INCOME SELL HOUSE GO ON ROAD J H ..U HAVE STORY HA HA  BUT U DONT READ THIS DO U HA HA


----------



## seamisty (7 April 2011)

NOR said:


> selciper your feeling could be right ha.just incase j.h sorrey to hear u have had hard times just like all us working hard bring up our kid  through  major sickness wifes & husbands near death[[[[  but we had no one to make glossy storeyso we got on with makeing our nestegg.....  binggo....MFS...P.I.F    WOW NOW WE CAN SIT BACK IN OUR NEW HOUSE GOOD INCOME GREAT  ....... O NO .NOW NO INCOME SELL HOUSE GO ON ROAD J H ..U HAVE STORY HA HA  BUT U DONT READ THIS DO U HA HA



NOR thank you for making the effort to post on this thread. I was asked earlier today by another active fellow PIF investor to post some PIF info and I said NO because I felt I had bored/compromised and worn out  other PIF investors etc. Just for the PIF record, of which I take extremely serious about for keeping future reference, I was contacted by WC today regarding some of my previous enquiries/concerns on behalf of PIF investors in relation to the on going litigation between Forest Resort developers and the former RE of our Fund (which I understand are also the same directors as our current RE). While our current RE assures me that we do not have anything to worry about re this litigation as it is 'unsubstantive' I remain extremely concerned, because I understand that the RE is indemnified, former or current, from any legal claims against our Fund. Any successfull litigation/compensation ruled against the PIF IS PAID from our assets!!! 

Sorry if I continue to be a nuisance but I probablly will not go away!! Seamisty


----------



## DepressedDad (8 April 2011)

Eek.  Seamisty, please don't ever go away!  We just don't join in the discussion because we are lowly plebs with nothing to offer compared to your (and the others) brilliance.  I have nothing to report  but please don't confuse my silence with disinterest.  I think you & the other contributors are just amazing and are very grateful. I look every day for new posts and report back to my Dad who doesn't have the internet and just loves that so much is being done to flush out the baddies!  Please please post every snippet & opinion you think of.


----------



## NOR (8 April 2011)

SEAMISTY    I....WE NOT ONLY LOOK UP YOUR THREAD Ist WITH GREAT INTEREST EACH DAY .ILOOK UP TO YOU..... WE ..PIF..NEED U DONT THINK OF GOING AWAY


----------



## simgrund (8 April 2011)

DepressedDad said:


> Eek.  Seamisty, please don't ever go away!  We just don't join in the discussion because we are lowly plebs with nothing to offer compared to your (and the others) brilliance.  I have nothing to report  but please don't confuse my silence with disinterest.  I think you & the other contributors are just amazing and are very grateful. I look every day for new posts and report back to my Dad who doesn't have the internet and just loves that so much is being done to flush out the baddies!  Please please post every snippet & opinion you think of.




Good Day DD,
Myself and many will enjoin in a chorus of energetic appreciation for the input by seamisty and many others into this thread over this long waiting period.
May I  propose a monthly roll call by the "silent ones" to show our alertness to these inputs. 
Just a "hello, I am not dozing now" will do. Or a facsimile reflecting your personal sense of participation.

April 11 may provide the jolt with the second cent finding its way back to Daddy and Mummy. 

Regards,


----------



## seamisty (8 April 2011)

NOR said:


> SEAMISTY    I....WE NOT ONLY LOOK UP YOUR THREAD Ist WITH GREAT INTEREST EACH DAY .ILOOK UP TO YOU..... WE ..PIF..NEED U DONT THINK OF GOING AWAY



 Thanks DD and NOR, I'm not going anywhere soon, still much work to be done!! This cesspit is deeper than I ever imagined possible. Seamisty


----------



## DepressedDad (8 April 2011)

simgrund said:


> Good Day DD,
> Myself and many will enjoin in a chorus of energetic appreciation for the input by seamisty and many others into this thread over this long waiting period.
> May I  propose a monthly roll call by the "silent ones" to show our alertness to these inputs.
> Just a "hello, I am not dozing now" will do. Or a facsimile reflecting your personal sense of participation.
> ...




OK.  Good idea.   Once a month I'll pop my bob's worth in & I'm sure I'll represent many many others reading with great interest and hoping our tireless workers won't burn out  before justice is done. Yes, it has been a long road but I've always felt informed about every little thing that happens just because of this forum. (I know nothing significant will happen now without me knowing.) 

Without it we would have been discarded like dirty dishcloths as was intended.  My Mum has died but my Dad (86) will be very buoyed by the next miserly return of HIS money.  He sold a nice comfortable house for $400,000 (his hard life's worth) back a few years ago and bought a relocatable in a basic village for $300,000 just to free up $100,000 to invest, as he was impossible to feed himself and live on the pension.  Yep, you guessed it.  Jenny had other ideas for his entire life savings. Ideas that revolved around her & her friends getting rich with no regard or conscience for quality of life for the pensioners they targeted. But they (b)lunderestimated our sharp seamisty & co. and I'm counting on that being their downfall.

Also, to note, is that my Dad has cronies who also invested in this fund, so information I send along the village drums ripples out to many far & wide, and they have friends too.  So PLEASE feel the love Seamisty and team.  Not a day passes without these posts  brightening many people's lives.


----------



## seamisty (8 April 2011)

I am just trying to get my head around what official role David Burke has in the grand scheme of day to day operational activities related to our Fund.
8 May 2008
'Following this restructure of the Board, Craig Chapman has resigned as an executive director andbeen appointed the Company’s CEO. Chris Scott remains an executive director with David Burke and Barry Cronin remaining as non executive directors.'

From this previous media article::http://www.smh.com.au/business/mfs-adviser-had-benefit-of-inside-knowledge-20100722-10n2x.html
But in May the following year the rejuvenated MFS board was discussing a new PIF-related conflict of interest. It was with none other than the fund's current responsible entity - Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital.

The public examination into the collapse of MFS heard yesterday how concerns over Ms Hutson's various MFS-related roles came to a head when she was handed control of the depleted fund.

Advertisement: Story continues below Gavin Thompson, SC, acting on behalf of the liquidators of Octaviar Investment Noteholders and Octaviar Investment Bondholders, revealed that Ms Hutson had been formally appointed as an adviser to the MFS board soon after she had successfully lobbied for Chris Scott and his associates to become directors of the company. In this role she attended board meetings in April.

The former MFS chief financial officer David Anderson was asked if the board had been concerned about potential conflicts of interest over the fact that Ms Hutson, as an adviser to MFS, had been privy to information about the internal audit investigation of the company.

''I'm not sure that was the source of the conflict,'' Mr Anderson said.

He said he imagined the issue of conflict arose over the fact that she had lobbied on behalf of Mr Scott - who she had been involved with at travel firm S8 before it was acquired by MFS - and his associates. Then, after the three had been appointed as directors, the board was selling an asset of MFS to her ''when she had been an adviser to MFS''.

Mr Thompson said Ms Hutson also knew that Mallesons were insisting upon a change of responsible entity of PIF and were threatening to appoint a receiver if that did not occur. He asked Mr Anderson if Wellington Capital's move would have been informed by that.

''Yes, I'm sure she had the benefit of that knowledge,'' Mr Anderson said.

Ms Hutson's relationship with MFS turned around very quickly from a prickly start. In late February 2008 she launched a savage attack on the MFS chairman Andrew Peacock, saying he had failed in his duties in allowing a fire sale of company assets like Stella.

At the time she was acting as an adviser to Mr Scott, who became a significant shareholder in MFS after selling S8 to the company in 2006. Ms Hutson had been chairman of S8.

On March 18 Mr Scott joined the MFS board along with David Burke and Craig Chapman. Within two weeks Wellington Capital was signed on as an adviser to the board alongside the law firm Freehills and Korda Mentha's 333 Capital.

On May 2 Mr Scott and Mr Chapman were appointed executive directors of MFS after the resignation of chief executive Craig White.

A week later MFS, now known as Octaviar, granted Wellington Capital an option to buy Octaviar Investment Management - the responsible entity for PIF. This option was exercised the following month.::


Does anyone know exactly if David Burke is on the PIF payroll? No mention of him in the EM as being on the team? Probably my next question to Wellington Capital as I have failed to find any reason as to why David Burke continues to lurk around PIF owned assets on a regular basis at our expense while he is supposedly engaged with his not for profit enemagram activities. That relocated church at 'Andelaine' sure looks a picture!! Well worth the drive! Any PIF investors in the area should pop in and have a look 3233 NERANG-MURWILLUMBAH ROAD NATURAL BRIDGE QLD 4211.


Absolutely stunning location. Some nice upkeep equipment there also. 

Stay tuned, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (8 April 2011)

Thanks DD, sadly there are just too many in the same situation of having to compromise their lifestyles, myself included, as a result of past and present management of our Fund. And unfortunately that compromise extends outside of the peramiters of PIF investors, the flow on effect continues to garner contempt by ALL affected for those responsible for their current predicament. Seamisty


----------



## ACB (9 April 2011)

*Class action and ALF*

I contacted Wellington about a month ago and expressed that although I had initially supported Wellington in their acquisition of PIF I had become disconcerted and quite cynical that they appeared to spend more time on their web site encouraging people not to sell to ALF than to inform us of updates and strategies on the fund. I also expressed by dissatisfaction that Wellington appeared to be stonewalling the class action by not providing documents.
To my surprise I think they may have taken on board what I said and posted some comments on their website denying that they had anything against the class action and that they had not held back documents. People might be more up to the minute on this but I seem to recall Wellington specifically stating they would no longer assist in the class action and therefore would not assist in any requests for information by lawyers - or is that just my imagination???
I realise people like to complain with like minded people to gain sympathy (have a look at any office politics for that) so I don't intend for this to be a wellington bashing session but rather want to be straight with the facts.
From my reading is appears ALF seems to be more and more an attractive alternative to Wellington - or is it simply jumping from the fire pan into the fire (my trust is not what it used to be). I would to see some comments for the pro's and con's from people on this forum.


----------



## flatback (9 April 2011)

seamisty said:


> NOR thank you for making the effort to post on this thread. I was asked earlier today by another active fellow PIF investor to post some PIF info and I said NO because I felt I had bored/compromised and worn out  other PIF investors etc. Just for the PIF record, of which I take extremely serious about for keeping future reference, I was contacted by WC today regarding some of my previous enquiries/concerns on behalf of PIF investors in relation to the on going litigation between Forest Resort developers and the former RE of our Fund (which I understand are also the same directors as our current RE). While our current RE assures me that we do not have anything to worry about re this litigation as it is 'unsubstantive' I remain extremely concerned, because I understand that the RE is indemnified, former or current, from any legal claims against our Fund. Any successfull litigation/compensation ruled against the PIF IS PAID from our assets!!!
> 
> Sorry if I continue to be a nuisance but I probablly will not go away!! Seamisty



Hi Seamisty i'm not contributing i know, though i am watching whats going on, and you and duped are keeping us well informed keep up the good work the pair of you.flatback


----------



## simgrund (9 April 2011)

*Re: Class action and ALF*



ACB said:


> I contacted Wellington about a month ago and expressed that although I had initially supported Wellington in their acquisition of PIF I had become disconcerted and quite cynical that they appeared to spend more time on their web site encouraging people not to sell to ALF than to inform us of updates and strategies on the fund. I also expressed by dissatisfaction that Wellington appeared to be stonewalling the class action by not providing documents.
> To my surprise I think they may have taken on board what I said and posted some comments on their website denying that they had anything against the class action and that they had not held back documents. People might be more up to the minute on this but I seem to recall Wellington specifically stating they would no longer assist in the class action and therefore would not assist in any requests for information by lawyers - or is that just my imagination???
> I realise people like to complain with like minded people to gain sympathy (have a look at any office politics for that) so I don't intend for this to be a wellington bashing session but rather want to be straight with the facts.
> From my reading is appears ALF seems to be more and more an attractive alternative to Wellington - or is it simply jumping from the fire pan into the fire (my trust is not what it used to be). I would to see some comments for the pro's and con's from people on this forum.




Yes, yes ACB. Well done! There is a definite turnarout in WellC's support for CA and the document whitewash. Let's welcome these positive zigzags and extend our Facebook invitations to WC team.
But ALF??? How can you waver so far off course, ACB? Even with possibility of liquidation, PIF is well ahead of the grim fate with ALF once we are in their intractable, inflexible and irreversible grip. Less than 0.03 % of holding and salivating at 33% recovery fee from yet to be initiated actions? Will they be third, after ASIC and WC, to file claim for $147.5? 
I am signing up on REJECT, REJECT, REJECT billboard.

Cheers


----------



## seamisty (9 April 2011)

*Re: Class action and ALF*



ACB said:


> I contacted Wellington about a month ago and expressed that although I had initially supported Wellington in their acquisition of PIF I had become disconcerted and quite cynical that they appeared to spend more time on their web site encouraging people not to sell to ALF than to inform us of updates and strategies on the fund. I also expressed by dissatisfaction that Wellington appeared to be stonewalling the class action by not providing documents.
> To my surprise I think they may have taken on board what I said and posted some comments on their website denying that they had anything against the class action and that they had not held back documents. People might be more up to the minute on this but I seem to recall Wellington specifically stating they would no longer assist in the class action and therefore would not assist in any requests for information by lawyers - or is that just my imagination???
> I realise people like to complain with like minded people to gain sympathy (have a look at any office politics for that) so I don't intend for this to be a wellington bashing session but rather want to be straight with the facts.
> From my reading is appears ALF seems to be more and more an attractive alternative to Wellington - or is it simply jumping from the fire pan into the fire (my trust is not what it used to be). I would to see some comments for the pro's and con's from people on this forum.



It is my understanding that 'on June 24th 2009 WC agreed with the applicants to permit, facilitate and co-operate in good faith to make available for examination by nominated representatives of the applicants during normal business hours the books and the records of the Fund in the custody, possesion or control of Wellington evidencing or recording the related party transactions entered into by or on behalf of the Fund' 

I understand that in exchange for the full co-operation by WC as current RE of the PIF, WIM as previous RE of the PIF (later changed to MIL) would be dropped as a named respondant in the Class Action. As you can see below that there must have been a breakdown in that agreement between WC and the CA lawyers as Managed Investments Limited still remains a respondant.



18 Feb 2010 - Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v KPMG & Ors - Federal Court Proceedings NSD324/2009 ('Class Action'). WC and WIM filed a Notice of Motion seeking to have the former RE (WIM) discontinued as a respondent of the Class Action pursuant to an agreement entered into between Wellington Capital Ltd and the Applicants of the class action.  WC state in an NSX announcement released 22 Feb 2010 “Justice Perram declined the discontinuance and the former RE (WIM) remains a Respondent in the class action and the agreement between Wellington Capital Limited and the Applications of the class action is at an end.”  WC are saying that because WIM is a respondent in the Class action WC as RE of the PIF will not assist the class action even though WC deny there is any conflict of interest “The notice of motion filed by WC should be dismissed with costs.”

 WC as RE of the PIF further stated in correspondence to a unitholder dated 4 March 2010 they are not going to cooperate with the class action due to a dispute between the former RE (MIL) and the applicants’ legal team.  Extract from the letter:  "there was clearly a dispute between the former responsible entity and the legal representatives for the applications in the class action....The agreement between Wellington Capital Limited and the Applicants' legal representatives is at an end as a result of the dispute.” 


ACB, even if WC did not have the documents in their possesion as RE of the PIF one would assume that WC would have access to all PIF related documentation? In the latest PIF investor update WC state 'Wellington Capital Limited, as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund, does not have and has neverhad documents in its possession that are necessary for the lawyers to argue the case other than the five volumes of material provided in July 2009.
Documents that may be relevant are held by Bentleys Corporate Recovery, liquidators of the former MFS companies'

Well I find it a bit confusing. How can WC assist the lawyers now when WC maintains it couldn't previously


I personally do not regard the ALF PIF offer as even remotely tempting but perhaps WC realises that PIF investors are becoming even more disenchanted with their performance and that is why we received an investor update before it was due, another 1 cent of our capital returned, an approach to the lawyers offering assistance re the CA, a strategy, a total of two years of management fees (which indicates to me that the Fund may be all over by then???) Or has WC managed nicely enough with operating expenses and registry service fees?

Anyway, hope this helps and remember it is my interpretation which does not mean I am 100% correct. Seamisty


----------



## Towbar (9 April 2011)

Sincerely many thanks to you Seamisty,& the many other communicators on this thread,without you we would be completely in the dark. I log on to this website daily,& look forward to all your comments.


----------



## selciper (9 April 2011)

ACE - Our situation is complicated enough without adding an extra layer of complexity by voting for ALF. Better to stay where we are and keep our eyes open. However, Wellington would be deluding themselves if they considered a rejection of ALF as being a vote of confidence in their performance..


----------



## seamisty (9 April 2011)

Towbar said:


> Sincerely many thanks to you Seamisty,& the many other communicators on this thread,without you we would be completely in the dark. I log on to this website daily,& look forward to all your comments.



Thanks Towbar, Flatback and others. I sincerely was not looking for brownie points but am heartened to know there is appreciation out there, I know how time consuming it can be to research and post and appreciate efforts from Duped, Marcom and everyone else also. It is really important to keep this thread alive and I look forward to the possibility that one day we will get the opportunity to put faces to names in the event that we have something positive to celebrate. We sure deserve some good news and at the very least, future investors who do their research will be well informed of those responsible for our current situation. I do know from personal contact that it is not just PIF investors that follow this thread, but many others who have been affected in some way by past/present experiences with Wellington Capital and other related business associates. Quite mind boggling actually and would make a GREAT movie. I have also determined from all of this that being a lawyer does not mean that one is in any way held in higher regard or esteem and no matter how many letters of the alphabet can be acredited to ones name does not mean that they possess a superior intellect. No offense to other lawyers who are actually honest and I know you are out there, hey I even work with some!! Well, b dust aside, I feel PIF investors will eventually witness some form of justice as the crooks are on notice as far as I am concerned. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (9 April 2011)

selciper said:


> ACE - Our situation is complicated enough without adding an extra layer of complexity by voting for ALF. Better to stay where we are and keep our eyes open. However, Wellington would be deluding themselves if they considered a rejection of ALF as being a vote of confidence in their performance..



Could not have said it better selciper and I strongly suspect WC sense they are not the prefered flavour, hence the flurry of NSX announcements. Unfortunately, general concensus of opinion is suspicion rather than gratitude. Everyone who has contacted me has basically said, "Does WC think we are stupid"?  Having been ripped off by MFS/OCV and the majority now acknowledging they were conned by WC, PIF investors are extremely wary. Thats why WC religiously monitor this thread, despite what they would have PIF investors believe!! Another saying that has just been invented 'Knowledge is a very important tool, and can be used to the advantage of those who possess it, not to those who think they can opress it' !!!

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (10 April 2011)

Interesting to read that this criminal matter in the UK is being handled by the London Serious Fraud Office. Is ASIC our equivalent?

http://www.smh.com.au/world/exsydney-man-in-london-court-on--86m--fraud-charge-20110410-1d8vv.html


----------



## selciper (10 April 2011)

The UK"s Serious Fraud Squad has a website.

http://www.sfo.gov.uk/victims/indiv...-fraud-or-corruption-directly-to-the-sfo.aspx


----------



## zixo (10 April 2011)

I'm curious to know if there is anyone who reads this thread, given all the mounting facts and information which has been withheld through WC, which have a legal obligation to disclose information. Does anyone still think J.H and Wellington Capital have ever been working in the best interests of the unit holders?

Perhaps our WC endorsed "elected" representatives would like to comment?


----------



## seamisty (10 April 2011)

07.04.2011
http://www.irw-press.com/en/news_12104.html
ALF GROUP HOLDINGS AG: Investor meetings closed

Zurich, April 7, 2011: The Management of the ALF Group Holdings AG (ALF) recently finished their public and private investor meetings in Munich, Frankfurt, Berlin and Zurich (Switzerland). CEO James Byrnes and Director Michael Pakula talked about the ALF the ALF business model, the planned investments and answered any questions related to ALF. One of the discussed topics was the recent share price reduction. CEO James Byrnes: “Like almost every shareholder I am extremely disappointed with the company’s share performance. As my family, via Kingsley Finance Co Limited, are the largest shareholder I know only too well the level of discomfort shareholders are experiencing with the current share price.” Byrnes said that he believes as ALF settles the acquisitions they are currently planning, investor confidence will return and new buying will also help to return the share price to fair market values to the profit of all shareholders.

The management was impressed by the reasonable amount of constructive criticism and suggestions of the audience, which the management will adopt. “We establish new processes and ensure measures so that we don’t make the same mistakes twice”, Byrnes promised.

Self critical he commented on the communication and the slow process related to the bonus shares. Therefore a clarifying press release will follow soon.

8.04.2011

ALF GROUP HOLDINGS AG: Information on the Release of Bonus Shares to Shareholders
http://www.irw-press.com/en/news_12112.html


----------



## marcom (11 April 2011)

For those who also invested in the City Pacific First Mortgage Fund, now with Balmain Trilogy, some information about a rival suitor and the major investor:

Battle over First Mortgage Fund
Scott Rochfort
April 11, 2011

A fresh squabble has erupted over the carcass of the City Pacific-founded (and still frozen) First Mortgage Fund, with a rival fund management group beginning its offensive to dump Balmain Trilogy as the responsible entity of the stricken mortgage fund.

Sydney's One Investment Group, which has already picked up the management rights over several former Allco and Everest Babcock & Brown funds, was locked in an arm wrestle last week with Balmain Trilogy after it ordered the register of the unit holders in the fund.

After already talking to some disgruntled FMF unit holders for months, One Investment has said Balmain Trilogy breached Corporations Law by not handing over a ''delimited text file'' of the register that could easily be opened by a spreadsheet program.

The fund manager has said it was handed over an incomplete copy of the register after paying $550 to the responsible entity, Trilogy Funds Management.

The co-founder of One Investment, Frank Teale, said: ''It is my opinion that Trilogy are refusing to comply with the Corporations Act in order to protect their position as responsible entity of the Pacific First Mortgage Fund.''

Teale has also raised concerns that Balmain Trilogy has not been properly operating the register of the fund since winning control of the fund from City Pacific in 2009. ''They actually haven't been maintaining the register,'' he said.

As part of his bid to win over unit holders in the fund, whose value has more than halved to $413 million, One Investment is proposing to cut management fees from 1.5 per cent to 1 per cent of the gross assets of the fund. In an effort to temper unit holder unrest, Balmain Trilogy returned 4 ¢ in the dollar on the units, originally worth $1 each last October. It collected about $8 million in fees in its first year overseeing the FMF.

FORGIVING KIND

At least the investor to have suffered the largest loss from the First Mortgage Fund remains philosophical. The Churches of Christ in Queensland, which has 14 million units in the fund, has kept its cool even though it has lost more than $10 million.

''In common with other financial institutions, our investments have suffered as a result of the global financial crisis, and we need perceptive management to optimise future returns,'' the church group said in its 2010 annual report.

The church's investment fund, the Centenary Development Foundation, was forced to take write-downs on four different investments last year.

The church group said in its annual report: ''Some funds that CDF invested in were related to property development loans and mortgage-backed securities and were adversely affected by the global financial crisis. A small number of these funds have been frozen and have remained illiquid whilst proper assessment of underlying value has been made.''

Despite its ill-fated foray into the fund, the Churches of Christ in Queensland still has a solid balance sheet, with $160 million in net assets at the end of last financial year.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/battle-over-first-mortgage-fund-20110410-1d9g1.html


----------



## seamisty (11 April 2011)

Looks the CA lawyers have been granted an extension of time from 22 April until the 27th::

ORDER

JUDGE:
	Justice Perram
DATE OF ORDER:
	6 April 2011 
WHERE MADE:
	Sydney


THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.	The time for compliance with Orders 2, 3 and 4 of the Orders made on 18 March 2011 be extended to 27 April 2011.




Orders 2,3 and 4 are as follows:


2.	Direct any party wishing to file an application to dismiss the balance of proceedings summarily to do so by Friday 22 April 2011.
3.	Direct the applicants to file any application to amend the proceedings to pursue a claim in negligence against the first and second respondents by Friday 22 April 2011 in the form of a notice of motion supported by an affidavit.
4.	Direct the applicants to deliver only one version of the proposed pleading and not to deliver any further drafts of any proposed pleadings after Friday 22 April 2011 with the intent that the applicants are to deliver the final pleaded version of the case by Friday 22 April 2011 come what may.


----------



## Duped (11 April 2011)

*Re: Class action and ALF*



ACB said:


> .... From my reading is appears ALF seems to be more and more an attractive alternative to Wellington - or is it simply jumping from the fire pan into the fire (my trust is not what it used to be). I would to see some comments for the pro's and con's from people on this forum.




ACB, there's way too many conditions in the take over bid for my liking. 15c cash up front might be enough for me to start looking at the detail of the offer. Show me the money. I.e. 15c is about a 57% discount to 'total net assets at 30 June 2010' and they could pick up the whole fund for $113 mil.  If the Creswick owners are behind the ALF bid then they would have refinanced their $40mil and picked up all the other assets for $70 odd mil.  If the capital is being raised from sucker shareholders like us then it's a smart move. I.e. pitching shareholders against each other. But for me, ALF can only have my voting rights after the cash is in my bank account. Not before.

I should have listened to Great Dame and took my 20c in 2009 $.


----------



## Duped (11 April 2011)

Ha ha ha.  I notice that ASIC has ditched it's FIDO livery. 

I need to clarify something I previously mentioned on this forum regarding our (i.e. unit holders') personal liabilities. It's covered by clause 27 below. What does this clause mean in the real world? 
Firstly, can anyone take legal action against the fund itself (i.e. unit holders) or do they always have to take action against the RE? I suspect it's the latter because it's the RE's actions that cause the remediable acts.
Secondly, what's the likelihood of a 'provision deemed' or a 'rule of law' exists that contradicts the indemnity we have under 27.1?

27.1 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution or provision
deemed to be included herein or any rule of law to the contrary, *no Unit
Holder shall*, by reason thereof, or by reason of the relationship created with
the Responsible Entity, *be under any obligation personally to indemnify the
Responsible Entity or any creditor of the Responsible Entity *in the event of
there being any deficiency of the Scheme Property or the Scheme Fund as
compared with the Liabilities of the Responsible Entity. The only rights, if
any, of indemnity of the Responsible Entity or of such creditor shall be
limited to recourse to the Scheme Property of the Scheme Fund.

27.2 A Unit Holder shall not be liable for any loss or damage howsoever
incuned or suffered by the Responsible Entity in acting as manager of the
Scheme or otherwise in connection with the Scheme to the extent to which the
same exceeds so much of the consideration (if any) payable for the issue of
Units to the Unit Holder as maybe unpaid and outstanding.

27.3 The Responsible Entity expressly waives, releases, forfeits and
abandons all rights and remedies which it otherwise might have at law or in
equity to recover from a Unit Holder's monies by reason of any right of
indemnity or subrogation notwithstanding that any such right may not be able
to be satisfied or discharged in whole or in part out of the Scheme Property
comprising the Scheme Fund.


----------



## seamisty (11 April 2011)

I have received my second cent return of capital. Seamisty


----------



## marcom (12 April 2011)

Just got a phone call from an ALF Finance rep wanting a contact email so they can send an offer for my units.


----------



## selciper (12 April 2011)

I don't think that WC would be too happy to hear that ALF are ringing around. To collect email addresses is a fairly basic procedure nowadays, but WC doesn't seem to think that it's important..


----------



## NOR (12 April 2011)

marcom said:


> Just got a phone call from an ALF Finance rep wanting a contact email so they can send an offer for my units.




you can tell us .marcom..wc do not read this [[ what a choice we have  wc .or .alf....god help us all


----------



## marcom (13 April 2011)

NOR said:


> you can tell us .marcom..wc do not read this [[ what a choice we have  wc .or .alf....god help us all




Agree totally, NOR, but I won't be accepting their offer, just want to see the WC dirt file  they said they would be including in the offer document - should make for interesting reading.


----------



## marcom (13 April 2011)

Posted by Duped:

27.1 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution or provision deemed to be included herein or any rule of law to the contrary, no Unit
Holder shall, by reason thereof, or by reason of the relationship created with
the Responsible Entity, be under any obligation personally to indemnify the
Responsible Entity or any creditor of the Responsible Entity in the event of
there being any deficiency of the Scheme Property or the Scheme Fund as
compared with the Liabilities of the Responsible Entity. The only rights, if
any, of indemnity of the Responsible Entity or of such creditor shall be
limited to recourse to the Scheme Property of the Scheme Fund.

From a lay position this looks to limit our personal exposure beyond the fund property. But I'm no lawyer. Surely in the 10,500 investors in our fund we must have at least one lawyer! 

Which reminds me that in the 1970's the US government ran a number of studies to model what would happen to society after a major atomic war. Well the conclusion was that the remaining species would contain an over representation of cockroaches AND LAWYERS!


----------



## marcom (13 April 2011)

Remember David Anderson and David Kennedy from MFS who are now at Equity Trust:

From Business Day SMH 
Scott Rochfort
April 13, 2011
http://www.smh.com.au/business/atlas-road-fees-take-toll-on-shareholders-20110412-1dcn1.html 

...FUND'S FINESSE

The Gold Coast mortgage fund operator Equititrust should have plenty to share with investors at a briefing next Wednesday.

Less than a week has passed since income distributions were suspended on its two biggest funds, which are also expected to report investor losses some time soon.

*An investor class action is also on the cards.*

Our guess is the company founder, Mark McIvor, will not repeat a statement he made last year in another company update: ''Post the global financial crisis our record speaks for itself. In our 17-year history we've never had an investor loss. We're proud to adopt our new slogan, 'You've earned the equity; we've earned the trust'.''

But the website does feature something similar he may want to use: ''A company's response to the global financial crisis provides an enduring litmus test by which corporate character and philosophy are measurable. We are proud to say, 'We've earned the trust.'''

Other parts of the site remain unchanged.

''Since the establishment of the Equititrust Income Fund in 1999, all investors in the fund have received 100 per cent of their benchmark rate on their investments.''

Oops, we're sure this is due for a change soon.

At least investors can take solace in the fact that Equititrust is not entitled to its management fee until it hits the benchmark rate of return for investors, which is unlikely given the suspension of distributions.


----------



## marcom (13 April 2011)

If your investment in PIF was through a superannuation fund (not DIY) this article about government compensation may be of interest:

Fraud victims get $55m back, but some left empty-handed.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/frau...but-some-left-emptyhanded-20110412-1dcpn.html

And here is another article with more information:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/a-win-for-some-bad-luck-for-the-rest-20110412-1dcm3.html


----------



## seamisty (13 April 2011)

Its all very well ASIC seeking new proposals to better inform potential investors but will it improve their own sad regulatory performance?  




http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/news/asic-seeks-increased-disclosure-on-directors
ASIC seeks increased disclosure on directors 
By Caroline Munro on  13 April 2011  Increased disclosure around the history of company directors and key managers, including previous convictions or personal bankruptcies, is one of the proposals outlined by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) in its prospectus disclosure consultation paper.

ASIC stated that it sought to improve disclosure within company prospectuses used for initial public offerings or by those with listing intentions through various proposals set out in its recently released Prospectus disclosure: Improving disclosure for retail investors consultation paper. The improved disclosure requirements aim to improve the quality of information released on the proposed business model as well as the associated risks, making it easier for retail investors to use prospectuses to make an informed decision, ASIC stated.

In its consultation paper, ASIC highlighted a number of shortcomings in the current disclosure requirements, one of which was the absence of complete disclosure on directors and key managers that lead or manage companies. ASIC proposed that prospectuses should explain the relevant expertise and skill of directors and key managers, as well as any criminal convictions, personal bankruptcies, disqualifications or disciplinary action within Australia or other jurisdictions in the last 10 years. ASIC also proposed that an explanation be required if a manager or director was an officer of a company that went insolvent during or within 12 months after their term.

Another current shortcoming identified in current prospectus requirements was that risk disclosure was too general, ASIC stated. It proposed that all principal risks be highlighted, as a list of every conceivable risk may not necessarily help investors make an informed decision. ASIC noted that risk disclosure should be specific to that company, with an explanation of what is likely to happen if the risk actually occurs.

ASIC also noted that other shortcomings of prospectuses included fragmented information around risks, returns as well as the company’s business model, which ASIC proposed could be addressed with further detailed information.


----------



## selciper (13 April 2011)

Some history: this is how the Gold Coast Bulletin wrote up the ALF situation in June 2010.

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/06/17/228951_gold-coast-business.html


----------



## ACB (13 April 2011)

*Re: Class action and ALF*



simgrund said:


> Yes, yes ACB. Well done! There is a definite turnarout in WellC's support for CA and the document whitewash. Let's welcome these positive zigzags and extend our Facebook invitations to WC team.
> But ALF??? How can you waver so far off course, ACB? Even with possibility of liquidation, PIF is well ahead of the grim fate with ALF once we are in their intractable, inflexible and irreversible grip. Less than 0.03 % of holding and salivating at 33% recovery fee from yet to be initiated actions? Will they be third, after ASIC and WC, to file claim for $147.5?
> I am signing up on REJECT, REJECT, REJECT billboard.
> 
> Cheers



 Thanks for your response. I have very little information about ALF and whether or not it's a good thing or not so I need responses like these to be able to make an informaed choice outside of the marketing hype. You have certainly helped me in that.
Thanks.


----------



## ACB (13 April 2011)

*Re: Class action and ALF*



Duped said:


> ACB, there's way too many conditions in the take over bid for my liking. 15c cash up front might be enough for me to start looking at the detail of the offer. Show me the money. I.e. 15c is about a 57% discount to 'total net assets at 30 June 2010' and they could pick up the whole fund for $113 mil.  If the Creswick owners are behind the ALF bid then they would have refinanced their $40mil and picked up all the other assets for $70 odd mil.  If the capital is being raised from sucker shareholders like us then it's a smart move. I.e. pitching shareholders against each other. But for me, ALF can only have my voting rights after the cash is in my bank account. Not before.
> 
> I should have listened to Great Dame and took my 20c in 2009 $.




Thank you for your input. Yes I agree, 15c cash up front I would be looking seriously too because that is better than anything on the horizon at the moment.
I was unaware of the Creswick side of things and that is good to note if it is indeed true. I know incredibly little about this ALF crowd that anything would seemingly be possible.


----------



## ACB (13 April 2011)

*Re: Class action and ALF*



seamisty said:


> It is my understanding that 'on June 24th 2009 WC agreed with the applicants to permit, facilitate and co-operate in good faith to make available for examination by nominated representatives of the applicants during normal business hours the books and the records of the Fund in the custody, possesion or control of Wellington evidencing or recording the related party transactions entered into by or on behalf of the Fund'
> 
> I understand that in exchange for the full co-operation by WC as current RE of the PIF, WIM as previous RE of the PIF (later changed to MIL) would be dropped as a named respondant in the Class Action. As you can see below that there must have been a breakdown in that agreement between WC and the CA lawyers as Managed Investments Limited still remains a respondant.
> 
> ...




Yes this is the answer I was looking for. Now to my interpretation for Wellignton to say we have NEVER been of no assistance (excuse the double negative) to the class action lawyers, would have to be incorrect. They very much were not compliant due to a falling out with the previous lawyers. Now that the class action has been taken on by HWL Ebsworth we can expect full cooperation or some cooperation or non cooperation???
I feel quite dismayed that wellington would actually hurt the chance of share holders getting something back when the mandate from an emotional platform was to do everything to save the Mum and Dad investor who has been wronged. That mandate has morphed seriously. All bickering aside about ability of the fund to recuperate, the original manadate seems to have changed into offer another two rounds of 1c dividends so that director fees can be charged to the fund and the dead skeleton of PIF finally buried. I dont see that as being altruistic to the original philosophy at all. 
However no amount of complaining will bring the corpse back to life. I feel the only life support availble is through a corporate raider but not in the form of ALF as it would appear.


----------



## seamisty (13 April 2011)

*Re: Class action and ALF*



ACB said:


> Duped said:
> 
> 
> > ACB, there's way too many conditions in the take over bid for my liking. 15c cash up front might be enough for me to start looking at the detail of the offer. Show me the money. I.e. 15c is about a 57% discount to 'total net assets at 30 June 2010' and they could pick up the whole fund for $113 mil.  If the Creswick owners are behind the ALF bid then they would have refinanced their $40mil and picked up all the other assets for $70 odd mil.  If the capital is being raised from sucker shareholders like us then it's a smart move. I.e. pitching shareholders against each other. But for me, ALF can only have my voting rights after the cash is in my bank account. Not before.
> ...



ACB my understanding is that the original developers of Creswick Forest Resort are in no way involved with the PIF takeover offer from ALF PIF. Seamisty


----------



## Joe Blow (14 April 2011)

To all thread participants:

I have had to correct the 







> tags in some posts in this thread recently which leads me to believe that there are some who do not understand how they work and how using them incorrectly can lead to terrible confusion over who is quoting who and who said what.
> 
> If you do not understand how the
> 
> ...


----------



## Duped (14 April 2011)

*Re: Class action and ALF*



seamisty said:


> ACB my understanding is that the original developers of Creswick Forest Resort are in no way involved with the PIF takeover offer from ALF PIF. Seamisty




Thanks seamisty. I should have written my 'if' in capitals or added that it's: 'a big if'. 

My speculation is based on the admissions by a Jim Byrnes on this thread on 27 April 2010 9:42 pm "i acted for two borrowers who borrowed over 80million". On the day before at 8:40 pm Jim Byrnes wrote this https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10937&p=550867#post550867.  And on 19 May 2010 the Australian Financial Review quoted Byrnes as saying “I acted originally for a couple of borrowers who were borrowers from MFS who had very large damages claims." The Creswick borrower has a very large $160m claim against our assets doesn't it? Well Byrnes has volunteered intimate knowledge about the intentions of a borrower that has a $160m claim against PIF. This suggests to me that Byrnes may have acted for the Creswick borrower in the past.

If Byrnes' isn't in any way acting on behalf of the borrowers he'd previously represented, then I guess they'd be mighty peeved that he is now involved in a bid to become their bankers. Isn't there restrictions on using 'commercial in confidence' info?

As I've said, this is all speculation. But the risks?


----------



## seamisty (14 April 2011)

Duped, Rather than risk stuffing up my quotation marks again I will reply to you in a fresh window!! (No wonder so many are reluctant to post, many of us are self taught, advanced aged IT non experts!!)
As I understand, and only passing on snippets of info I greatfully receive but do not necessarily interpret correctly, Forest Resort had some sort of brief interlude with the J Byrnes related litigation funders initially before doing some research and consequently terminating any further discussion. Perhaps J Byrnes saw an opportunity to 'cash in' on that prior association to further advance the ALF PIF ridiculous offer. I think from memory J Byrnes did not even get the location right, said something about a PIF asset in SA? I stand corrected, but I do know for certain that there is no current connection with Forest Resort developers and ALF PIF. Seamisty


----------



## Duped (15 April 2011)

Thanks seamisty.  It's probably me that's the # tag culprit. I was editing them down to just the parts that I was addressing. I.e. to reduce the amount of scrolling required to navigate the page.


----------



## Bumblebee (15 April 2011)

Wanted to let you regular folk posting here know you are much appreciated. It is such a valuable resorce to keep us informed of PIF happenings. I check in pretty much everyday since 2008. 
Thanks for all your hard work.  Bumblebee


----------



## Geoffrey D (15 April 2011)

Thanks to all the PIF posters who keep us informed of the ongoing saga of the fund and associated personnel of the regulators.


----------



## seamisty (15 April 2011)

Thanks Bumblebee, Geoffrey D and others for your support. Information is an extremely valuable tool in my opinion. For example, we have PIF investors in total bewilderment asking themselves why, after in excess of 3 years of complaints to ASIC and other so called regulatory tax funded bodies meant to protect us, we still have some of the key personnel from MFS/Octaviar still involved in funds management ie Equititrust which appears to be struggling with similar financial circumstances which led to our downfall???
When are the so called regulatory 'idiots' paid for by us, the ripped off innocent individuals, going to hold accountable the unscrupulous, greedy, lying, thieving 'I'll scratch your back if you cover me and throw some business my way' fund managers and directors who continue to operate, going to actually act on our behalf!! Yes us, those tax payers paying your wages who are sick and tired of receiving generic reponses to well substantiated complaints which appear to be put in the 'too hard basket' and buried!! You, the so called regulatory bodies should be held accountable for ongoing losses incurred by investors by fund managers, directors and key personnel which occured after you failed to act on information and complaints concering those certain individuals!! 

Another Seamisty rant for those interested and by the way, G8 education is in a trading halt, I guess something to do with the latest legal saga involving the original cherie hearts holding company and the aquisition of Singapore childcare centres. 

S8 , G8, MFS/OCT, PIF, all involved in litigation. Key personnel, draw your own conclussions. Any film makers out there looking for the basis of a good aussie 'white shoe, black pant, red coat' block buster? All the info is on this thread and I sincerely hope that those looking to 'shine a light on the achievements of Queensland's leading business women' also do a follow up in relation to the thousands of ordinary people who valued and took on board that glowing achievement when they voted for Jenny Hutson to honour her committment. I just have to post this:: 
http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/2008/InvestorInfoForumHandout.pdf
The Premium Income Fund has been an industry leader for eight years. It was Standard & Poor’s Mortgage Fund of the Year in 2006. Our aim is to drive a value recovery strategy that sees the full capital value returned to unitholders over the next 3 to 5 years.Overview
My Board took responsibility for your Fund on 2 May 2008. The previous Board had determined that receivership was the only other alternative open.
Since then, the following positive steps have been taken:
Wellington negotiated with MFS to ensure the MFS Support Facility of $50 million
remained in place for the benefit of Premium Income Fund unitholders with Wellington as
the Manager; reduced debt of the Premium Income Fund from $100 million to $55 million through the
orderly realisation of assets at market value;
reviewed the Fund’s insurance arrangements;
reduced corporate overheads;
secured all IT and Fund records;reviewed the assets and liabilities and taken professional
advice on the strategies for each asset in the portfolio;
commenced legal action against MFS to recover $147.5
million on the basis that zero value was received by the
Premium Income Fund; and
established the new Wellington hotline 1300 854 885.
Distributions – 3 cents before Christmas
Following repayment of the current debt facility, Wellington
proposes to reintroduce unitholder distributions. The first
distribution is proposed for October 2008 and a further distribution
will be made in December 2008 and thereafter quarterly. The plan
is to distribute 3 cents per unit before Christmas.:::
You get the drift?? And I draw your attention to' 'secured all IT and Fund records;'::

That was dated July 2008!! What was the problem then with providing our Class Action with all relevant documentation neccesary for the lawyers to proceed?


----------



## Cookie1 (15 April 2011)

Thank you, Seamisty, for reminding us of all those promises given by JH to buy our votes.

Regarding the records: was the truth not being told in July 2008 or is it not being told now? It seems there is a huge conflict in information coming our way!

Cookie1


----------



## seamisty (16 April 2011)

HMNN Cookie, I am still concerned the  forum "quote police" are on my radar!! I am totally stuffed physically from tossing fish today but my brain is on high alert! I am not sure what the truth is re Wellington Capital or if we, the PIF nvestors have ever even been privvy to anything remotely honest re our current situation, I guess thats why so many PIF investors consider WC have failed?? Hi Jenny, its no credit to you that you can sleep of a night, but I do not need a so called personality profiling guru to slot me in anywhere on a 1-9 richter scale. Been golfing lately David or just propping up the bar??

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (16 April 2011)

Of further interest re Cherie Hearts legal dispute where Jenny Hutson the CEO of Cherie Hearts was quoted as saying at the recent AGM ::the chances of Cherie Hearts winning the dispute were ‘beyond remote’ (http://www.goldcoastbusinessnews.co...NFIDENT OF MAJOR SINGAPOREAN ACQUISITION.html)


Well 'beyond remote' or not the outcome will be interesting. I am sure Ms Hutson is hoping this 'case is baseless' also???

Cherie Hearts Group International Pte Ltd

15th April 2011
MEDIA RELEASE FROM CHERIE HEARTS GROUP INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD TO SINGAPORE
MEDIA
We are pleased to inform that the Singapore High Court on 14th April 2011, granted various interim
reliefs in our favour at today’s hearing on our application for various injunctive reliefs against G8
Education Ltd (“G8”). At the hearing, we were represented by our lawyers, Allen & Gledhill LLP.
Pending the determination of the substantive dispute between Cherie Hearts Group International Pte Ltd
(“Cherie Hearts”) and G8, the Court ordered the following injunctive reliefs:
• The appointment of KordaMentha Pte Ltd as receivers of Cherie Hearts is set aside.
• G8 is not to exercise its right to appoint further receiver(s) until trial or further order.
• The shares and directorship in the following subsidiaries of Cherie Hearts, which were previously
transferred to G8’s subsidiary, were reinstated to Cherie Hearts’ Founders, Dr Sam Yap and Dr
Gurchran Singh:
o Cherie Hearts Kids Cottage (TK);
o Cherie Hearts Edukidz Pte Ltd (JT);
o Cherie Hearts Discovery School Pte Ltd (TS 42);
o Cherie Hearts Preschool Pte Ltd (TP);
o Cherie Hearts Sunshine Kidz Pte Ltd (TS 34);
o Our Juniors’ Schoolhouse Pte Ltd;
o Cherie Hearts Childcare (Limbang) Pte Ltd (LD);
o Teeny Tiny Child Care & Development Centre Pte Ltd (TT);
o Loving Child Care Centre Pte Ltd (LLC);
o Loving Development Pte Ltd (LDC);
o Gloryland Learning Centre @ Toh Tuck Pte Ltd; and
o Gloryland Learning Centre Pte Ltd.
We take this opportunity to express our gratitude once again to our parents, financial institutions, banks
and government authorities for your support all these years, and also for the understanding shown over
the past few weeks. We look forward to having your continued support.
Yours Faithfully
Sam Yap Soon Guan (Dr.)
Group Executive Chairman
Cherie Hearts Group International


----------



## seamisty (16 April 2011)

A bit more on G8 as I know many PIF investors are following this:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1123079/1/.html
Cherie Hearts suing Australian firm for breach of contract

SINGAPORE : Childcare operator Cherie Hearts is suing Australian firm G8 Education for breach of contract.

It has also successfully applied for a court order overturning a receivership appointment by G8, which the operator said was unlawful.

The move by G8 had put Cherie Hearts under threat of liquidation.

But while the operator appears to be out of the woods for now, its sale agreement with G8 is up in the air, with possible implications on future expansion plans by Cherie Hearts.

Lawyers for Cherie Hearts declined comment on the deal pending the outcome of the trial.

Last October, G8 agreed to buy over Cherie Hearts' Singapore operations for S$24.6 million, as part of a move by the Australian-listed firm to expand its childcare business into Singapore.

An affidavit submitted by Cherie Hearts detailed how, as part of the business acquisition contract, G8 would extend a S$12 million loan to Cherie Hearts and assume part of its outstanding debts.

The loan was to have been offset against the purchase price, and Cherie Hearts would receive some S$9 million once the sale was completed.

But on March 22, with a few weeks to go, receivers were called into the operator's Cecil Street headquarters, with G8 alleging a loan default of S$5.5 million. 

This was disputed by Cherie Hearts, which said its loans had been effectively paid off as of March 1.

It later found out that G8 had also exercised its security over the alleged loan default, and, without its knowledge, assumed control of 12 of its subsidiary companies in Singapore.

Cherie Hearts has since assumed control of the 12 centres.

The case is now pending trial.


----------



## selciper (16 April 2011)

Thanks for the G8- Cherie Hearts updates, seamisty. All I can say about this developing drama is to mutter one word - crikey!


----------



## simgrund (17 April 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> Thank you, Seamisty, for reminding us of all those promises given by JH to buy our votes.
> 
> Regarding the records: was the truth not being told in July 2008 or is it not being told now? It seems there is a huge conflict in information coming our way!
> 
> Cookie1




Maybe Jenny is comparing her "promises" collapses with Japan Earthquake/Tsunami; where many promises were made before, but few will be kept after the event.
Can't enforce against departed or missing. And vice versa. Tragic injustice.
It is beyond doubt, that THE TRUTH was known to WC, as she had insiders embedded in MFS long before casting her snarenet.
What a sad world.

Regards,


----------



## selciper (17 April 2011)

A news item on the Singapore site "Today Online" regarding G8.

http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC110331-0000067/Six-childcare-chain-staff-dismissed-by-SMS


----------



## BABIHUTAN (18 April 2011)

selciper said:


> Thanks for the G8- Cherie Hearts updates, seamisty. All I can say about this developing drama is to mutter one word - crikey!






selciper said:


> A news item on the Singapore site "Today Online" regarding G8.
> 
> http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC110331-0000067/Six-childcare-chain-staff-dismissed-by-SMS




Thanks Selciper and Seamisty for your recent posts on the developing G8 drama. I too have been following reports in the Singapore media, and if in fact there is a smell of any wrong doing it will not be 'beyond remote'. Unlike here, Authorities can & do move fast to protect employees and other interests. Some actions taken by G8 have already been reversed pending court outcomes.


----------



## seamisty (18 April 2011)

BABIHUTAN said:


> Thanks Selciper and Seamisty for your recent posts on the developing G8 drama. I too have been following reports in the Singapore media, and if in fact there is a smell of any wrong doing it will not be 'beyond remote'. Unlike here, Authorities can & do move fast to protect employees and other interests. Some actions taken by G8 have already been reversed pending court outcomes.



Well it will be interesting to see what announcement is made to the ASX re G8 education and Cherie Hearts. I don't think it will be 'beyond remote' that the share price could be affected, not to mention future dividends no matter how confident G8 Education is of its legal position. I hope GEM shareholders are not too badly affected because apart from the Cherie Hearts drama unfolding, Australian parents of children attending daycare reportedly now have the Gillard government considering setting an income test for the 50 per cent childcare rebate!! Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (18 April 2011)

Hi All, I know this thread is dedicated to the PIF but I am absolutely amazed that 4 days on from a 'price sensitive' legal action involvolving Cherie Hearts and our very own WC PIF manager director, Ms Jennifer Joan Hutson re G8 Education (GEM) remains in a trading Halt with no announcement on the ASX?
Hello, its out there in the public domain!! See below!! I am sure G8 shareholders are starting to ponder if G8 management is not so Gr8 after all???(be warned, the cost of legal action soon mounts up, Wellington Capital Premium Income Investors will probablly never recover from legal liabilities wracked up by PIF management, unless who has 'the deepest pockets' is ultimately put to the test?) Well according to the ASX, tomorrow is 'D day' for G8 re an announcement for GEM. I hope they are not too L8 because Ms Hutson has certainly failed previously with ALL of her prior committments that were used to lure investors in the MFS /OCT PIF to support and vote for Wellington Capital  to take over the Fund as Responsible Entity. Nothing like making a bit of noise on a thread that just appears to being need to be kept alive. What I really like is that the information on this thread along with other forums pops up when individuals research the associated topic. I just love the liberty of research on the internet, especially when so many individuals can touch base and share information when they realise they have common ground with others. Whats even better is that there are far more ordinary people who do not think they are a inferior race of people just because they did not become a lawyer, a financial adviser, a consultant, a fund manager, a CEO or a director etc, they were just hard working individuals that RELIED on others to do their job, the same as they all did theirs. They were willing to pay those certain individuals to do their jobs, expecting them to be as efficient as they professed, trusting those individuals to deliver pro rata etc. What they did not expect was to be misled, blatently lied to, robbed and then continued to be deceived by those claiming to be working in the best interest of those filling the trough!! Well trust me, when that trough has stuff all left in it, the droppings left along side of the trough will be well analysed. At the end of the day, all **** does not smell the same in my experience. I am sure there must be what? A 1-9 **** recognition scale?? Who knows? We might be able to tie it in with other non for profit research activities??? Maybe run some courses to see who smells/performs best? Or many already have their eyes wide open and can now recognise the parasites for what they are? I'll go with the latter. Seamisty

Cherie Hearts Group International Pte Ltd

15th April 2011
MEDIA RELEASE FROM CHERIE HEARTS GROUP INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD TO SINGAPORE
MEDIA
We are pleased to inform that the Singapore High Court on 14th April 2011, granted various interim
reliefs in our favour at today’s hearing on our application for various injunctive reliefs against G8
Education Ltd (“G8”). At the hearing, we were represented by our lawyers, Allen & Gledhill LLP.
Pending the determination of the substantive dispute between Cherie Hearts Group International Pte Ltd
(“Cherie Hearts”) and G8, the Court ordered the following injunctive reliefs:
• The appointment of KordaMentha Pte Ltd as receivers of Cherie Hearts is set aside.
• G8 is not to exercise its right to appoint further receiver(s) until trial or further order.
• The shares and directorship in the following subsidiaries of Cherie Hearts, which were previously
transferred to G8’s subsidiary, were reinstated to Cherie Hearts’ Founders, Dr Sam Yap and Dr
Gurchran Singh:
o Cherie Hearts Kids Cottage (TK);
o Cherie Hearts Edukidz Pte Ltd (JT);
o Cherie Hearts Discovery School Pte Ltd (TS 42);
o Cherie Hearts Preschool Pte Ltd (TP);
o Cherie Hearts Sunshine Kidz Pte Ltd (TS 34);
o Our Juniors’ Schoolhouse Pte Ltd;
o Cherie Hearts Childcare (Limbang) Pte Ltd (LD);
o Teeny Tiny Child Care & Development Centre Pte Ltd (TT);
o Loving Child Care Centre Pte Ltd (LLC);
o Loving Development Pte Ltd (LDC);
o Gloryland Learning Centre @ Toh Tuck Pte Ltd; and
o Gloryland Learning Centre Pte Ltd.
We take this opportunity to express our gratitude once again to our parents, financial institutions, banks
and government authorities for your support all these years, and also for the understanding shown over
the past few weeks. We look forward to having your continued support.
Yours Faithfully
Sam Yap Soon Guan (Dr.)
Group Executive Chairman
Cherie Hearts Group International


----------



## seamisty (19 April 2011)

G8 upd8, Gem shareholders, welcome to Wellington Capital Premium Income Fund  investors life, one legal battle after another, in our case swallowing $millions of our money!!


ASX Announcement
G8 Education Limited
(ASX:GEM)
G8 Education Limited | ACN 123 828 553
A Suite 27 Pegasus Centre, 42 Bundall Road, Bundall QLD 4217 P PO Box 7092 Gold Coast MC QLD 9726
P 07 5581 5300 F 07 5581 5311 W www.g8education.com E reception@g8education.com
19 April 2011
Cherie Hearts
A special hearing occurred in Singapore on 14 April 2011 in relation to legal proceedings commenced by
Cherie Hearts International Pte Ltd. As set out in earlier announcements Cherie Hearts Group International
Pte Ltd is not directly involved in operating the Cherie Hearts childcare centres and primarily acts as a
holding company for the Vendor. It is and has been since this dispute arose business as usual at the centres.
The court in Singapore ordered that the status quo pre the commencement of the proceedings be
preserved pending a trial. The statement of claim in relation to the trial is to be filed by Cherie Hearts
Group International Pte Ltd by 27 April 2011.
The consequences of this for G8 Education Limited are that pursuant to the court order all revenue from 1
March 2011 will be received by G8 Education meaning that it will continue to derive the profits of the 13
childcare centres operated by the 12 holding companies. Its senior security position will be reinstated. The
receivership has been set aside pending the hearing.
The shares in the 12 companies which hold the 13 childcare centres will be held ie transferred to Cherie
Hearts Group International Pte Ltd pending the trial but are not able to be transferred without further
orders of the court.
At a practical level this means that the 13 childcare centres will contribute to G8 Education's profit as
anticipated from 1 March 2011 and that the legal proceedings to resolve the position will follow.
The five corporate centres in Singapore being acquired from third parties are not affected in any way. Nor
are the 52 Cherie Hearts franchised centres which have been operated by G8 Education Limited since 1
December 2010 affected by the proceedings in any way.
ENDS
Jenny Hutson
Chairperson
P: 07 3009 9888
E: jhutson@wellcap.com.au


----------



## selciper (19 April 2011)

I wonder when the G8 dispute will go to trial. Without knowing much about the Singapore judicial systen, I would say, however, that it seems to move quite fast.


----------



## selciper (20 April 2011)

For anybody following the G8-Cherie Hearts duel, this Channel news Asia story dated 20th April provides a neat summary of events so far.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1123079/1/.html


----------



## zixo (20 April 2011)

Correct me If I'm wrong, but, wasnt JH once Queenslands business woman of the year?
I wonder what the heck criteria they decide the winners by?


----------



## seamisty (20 April 2011)

zixo said:


> Correct me If I'm wrong, but, wasnt JH once Queenslands business woman of the year?
> I wonder what the heck criteria they decide the winners by?



Just checked out some of my earlier research zixo, as always, draw your own conclusions::Mirvac  introduced in 2006  and is the 'generous sponser' of the 'Top MBA Awards' of which JH got (business woman of the year and all that crap) in 2007. JH was a non executive director for Mirvac PFA in 2006/2007 ::Can we request a follow up??? It has been put to me in the past "What was the calibre of the other contestants"? My flippant response was 'it is not what your qualifications are, it is who you know and what the best benefits are that you may derive from promoting that person'. Well, considering Wellington Capital merchant bank has had absolutely nothing to claim fame to re its expertise and capabilities in the last few years (quite the contrary), if I was a contestant in the Queenslands business women of the year award in 2007 and missed out I certainly would be having the last laugh? (and questioning the decision???) Oh well. As my old nanna often said, 'It is honesty that prevails, the size of the stomach is only an indicative measure of the size of the mouth, not to be mistaken for prosperity, more to be defined as a result of glutiny feeding on opportunity'. I think you got it right nanna. Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (21 April 2011)

seamisty said:


> As my old nanna often said, 'It is honesty that prevails, the size of the stomach is only an indicative measure of the size of the mouth, not to be mistaken for prosperity, more to be defined as a result of glutiny feeding on opportunity'. I think you got it right nanna. Seamisty




That is very very naughty Seamisty, - but I reckon your Nanna knew a thing or two!!~


----------



## seamisty (21 April 2011)

Did the PIF ever get anything back from Raptis??    

  Hilton Surfers Paradise hotel up for sale
  |  April 21st, 2011
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/04/21/309735_gold-coast-business.html
WHILE developer Jim Raptis is being pursued for a $3.8 million unpaid loan, the trophy project he was forced to relinquish two years ago is on the market for more than $75 million.

Brookfield Multiplex is now selling the hotel component of the Hilton Surfers Paradise, which comprises the 169 suites on the first 15 floors of the Orchid Tower due for completion in August.

The sale also includes the management rights to the $700 million project.

Market sources say there has been considerable interest in the hotel component of the property around $60 million, but Brookfield Multiplex is confident it can achieve a price above $75 million.

The sale, through an expressions of interest campaign, comes as Gold Coast funds manager Equititrust steps up its recovery action against borrowers including Mr Raptis.

Equititrust is seeking to recover a $3.8 million debt held against a Mudgeeraba development site owned by a Raptis company and guaranteed by Mr Raptis personally.

Equititrust chief executive David Kennedy said yesterday that Mr Raptis had not adhered to a refinance proposal.

''We ran out of patience,'' he said. ''We're going after everything and anybody that owes us money.''

But Mr Raptis yesterday said the amount owed was in dispute and he would be defending his position. He was confident of an amicable settlement.


----------



## seamisty (21 April 2011)

An article on Equititrust::http://www.smh.com.au/business/investors-warned-of-20-losses-20110420-1dowv.html

THE frozen mortgage fund Equititrust has told furious investors in its income fund that they could lose up to 20 per cent of their investment because the value of property development sites has plunged.

The chief executive, David Kennedy, said he had told the group of mostly elderly investors that the ''worst case scenario'' for the $260 million fund was that it may only pay out 80 ¢ in the dollar when it is ''thawed'' later this year.

He offered cold comfort, telling BusinessDay that they would be better off than the tens of thousands of investors in the Gold Coast financial group MFS who received considerably less after it collapsed. Mr Kennedy is the former chief operating officer of MFS.
He said the investor equity in the fund had shrunk because of $35 million in newly discovered impairments on two of the fund's largest loans made to developers at the market peak.

The estimated $35 million black hole is spread between a loan secured by a resort development in South Australia and a residential development site west of Brisbane whose value appears to have been massively inflated. There could also be $27 million of impairments on other smaller loans to developers, he said.

Mr Kennedy addressed a two-hour meeting on the Gold Coast yesterday to explain to about 450 of the fund's 1600 investors why the company had decided to postpone distributions on April 4. The fund consists of $203 million in investor equity, $27 million in Equititrust equity and $25 million in bank debt.

He was concerned that a $40 million ''buffer'' of the fund's money would not cover the latest impairments, given that the fund had already suffered an impairment loss of $13 million in the six months to December.

Mr Kennedy said the fund had a $41 million loan secured by a resort development in South Australia, which was worth as little as $35 million, and a $48 million loan secured by a residential development worth just $25 million.

Mr Kennedy said that distributions would not resume until at least August


----------



## marcom (23 April 2011)

The latest on CP First Mortgage Fund managed by Balmain Trilogy:

CityPac postpones $35m payout
Colin Kruger
April 23, 2011
http://www.smh.com.au/business/citypac-postpones-35m-payout-20110422-1dram.html

THE continuing decline of Queensland's property market is extracting a toll on struggling property mortgage funds.

Managers of the City Pacific-founded First Mortgage Fund announced they will have to postpone most of an expected $35 million payout to investors due to worsening conditions.

''As previously stated, the property market in Queensland has continued to retract as demand for vacant land and completed residential dwellings has declined,'' said Balmain Trilogy, which has taken over as the manager of what is now known as the Pacific First Mortgage Fund.

''Depressed property values, combined with the effects of the flooding in Queensland, have caused the projected sales of assets to fall below our forecasts,'' it said in a statement.

Balmain Trilogy wrestled control of the fund - which has collapsed in value from $1 billion at its peak to little more than $400 million - from City Pacific, which is in liquidation.

The announcement, late on Thursday, followed on from another Gold Coast mortgage fund operator, Equititrust, finally admitting this week that investors in its flagship fund will face a significant loss on their investment. Just a week before, Equititrust cut income distributions to these same investors, whose investment has been frozen since 2008.

Balmain Trilogy said it still intended to return 1 ¢ per unit to PFMF investors, roughly $9 million, by the end of this month, with the remaining 3 ¢ return expected to be made in June.

It said the latter payment may be delayed further if market conditions continued to deteriorate.

''As we work to have properties realised in an orderly fashion, we remain conscious of the continued decline in the market and ask unitholders to understand that our commitment is to provide the optimal return of funds without resorting to fire sales,'' it said.

Balmain Trilogy also announced that it had been given leave by the securities regulator to conduct a public examination into the affairs of City Pacific before its collapse. The examinations are expected to be conducted in NSW Supreme Court in July.

''Subsequent to those examinations, legal advice will be sought to determine the best course of action to recover funds on behalf of Pacific First Mortgage Fund unitholders,'' it said.

Balmain Trilogy is expected to conduct civil action to recover more than $100 million for the fund's investors.

City Pacific executives are expected to be examined in court over their involvement in the fund's disastrous performance, together with executives from the fund's financier, the Commonwealth Bank, and *the accounting giant KPMG*, which acted as City Pacific's auditor.

Balmain Trilogy offered investors a scathing assessment of City Pacific's actions as the original manager of the fund, saying* ''it was never managed for the benefit of investors but rather as the preferred lender to City Pacific itself and its various joint ventures''.*

This all sounds very familiar.


----------



## k.smith (23 April 2011)

This is a very informative article for all investors in mortgage funds....

http://www.smh.com.au/business/frozen-funds-stranded-in-no-mans-land-20110422-1drcj.html


----------



## selciper (24 April 2011)

Enter GEM G8 into the Aussie Stocks search engine to reach the G8 forum. A couple of interesting posts to read.


----------



## simgrund (24 April 2011)

Long awaited delivery of the final pleaded version of the CA case is due on 27th April; 
"come what may" in Court's own words.
Hope we will soon be in the loop without the constraints of "confidential and privileged".
May Easter Bunny truly deliver.
Greetings to all,


----------



## marcom (26 April 2011)

An interesting piece in SMH CBD section on the imminent departure of ASIC Chairman, Tony D'Aloisio

GIFT TIME

Meanwhile, there were rumours that a collection plate being passed around the ASIC offices for Mr D's leaving present was suffering from a lack of contributions.

The only parting gift for him, according to some of the rumours, was from his key lieutenant Belinda Gibson, who delivered the redundancies of 54 deterrence heads. It is rumoured other staff at ASIC might be informed on May 9 whether they too might be shown the door, just before Mr D completes his four-year mission at the regulator.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/plane-jane-heads-for-the-exit-aisle-20110425-1dtzh.html#ixzz1Ka17zT7O


----------



## simgrund (26 April 2011)

marcom said:


> An interesting piece in SMH CBD section on the imminent departure of ASIC Chairman, Tony D'Aloisio
> 
> GIFT TIME
> 
> ...




I understand the Successor pool is quite limited. Ms Gibson is there along with an American expatriate as prospects. Hm, at $586kpa plus it should be attractive to local talents?

Regards


----------



## seamisty (27 April 2011)

simgrund said:


> Long awaited delivery of the final pleaded version of the CA case is due on 27th April;
> "come what may" in Court's own words.
> Hope we will soon be in the loop without the constraints of "confidential and privileged".
> May Easter Bunny truly deliver.
> Greetings to all,



 I hope everyone enjoyed their Easter break. I notice a flurry of recent activity in relation to the Class Action::

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD324/2009/actions
Documents Filed  
Date Filed Document Title Filed By  
27-Apr-2011 Affidavit  Janet Hodges   
27-Apr-2011 Notice of Motion  Janet Hodges   
27-Apr-2011 Notice of Motion  Guy Hutchings  
27-Apr-2011 Affidavit  Andrea Waters  
27-Apr-2011 Notice of Motion  John Whateley   
21-Apr-2011 Notice of Motion  Michael Hiscock   
21-Apr-2011 Notice of Motion  Andrea Waters  
20-Apr-2011 Affidavit  Michael Christodolou King  
20-Apr-2011 Notice of Motion  Michael Christodolou King  
19-Apr-2011 Notice of Motion  Craig White 

Heres hoping we will be 'moving forward' from now on!! Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (29 April 2011)

Holiday Inn name may go with sale  |  April 29th, 2011 http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/04/29/311365_gold-coast-business.html

RECEIVERS have finally taken Raptis Group's Holiday Inn to the market, but it remained unclear last night if the hotel brand would disappear from the Coast once a buyer was found.

A national advertising campaign is seeking a buyer for the management and letting rights to the five-star hotel, including about 6000sq m of property comprising the lobby, function rooms and commercial space.

But it also has been revealed a potential buyer could negotiate "full naming and badging rights" for the property, which implies that the Holiday Inn name could be removed from the property.

Neither the Holiday Inn Surfers Paradise nor its parent company, InterContinental Hotels Group, returned calls by the Bulletin yesterday.

The hotel's sale campaign has been ordered by receivers Justin Walsh and Shaun McKinnon, of Ernst & Young, who have been in charge of the Holiday Inn since early 2009.

The receivers could not be contacted for comment yesterday, but marketing agent Jake Clarke, of MR Sales, confirmed interest in the property had been strong.

The interest had come from hotel operators, management rights operators and investors, he said.

The property is owned by Raptis Group subsidiaries Colryan Pty Ltd and Seasilver Hotels Pty Ltd. Colryan owns the management rights to the hotel, while Seasilver Hotels owns the real estate, including any unsold strata-title hotel apartments within the property.

While Holiday Inn has naming rights to the hotel, Colryan owns the management rights.

"We're selling it on a walk-in, walk-out basis," Mr Clarke said.

The Coast-based management rights specialist previously sold the management rights to Chevron Renaissance for another distressed Raptis entity in 2009, and he is negotiating the sale of the Q1 rights for Mantra Group.

The hotel was refurbished by Raptis Group in 2006.

When receivers were appointed in 2009, the debts held against the 404-room hotel were understood to be more than $72 million.

The lenders included Wellington Capital's Premium Income Fund, LM Investments, Securecorp, Shakespeare Haney Securities and Resimac.
The receivers continue to seek buyers for the hotel suites around $250,000, but it is unclear how many remain in the receivers' hands.


----------



## selciper (29 April 2011)

This is a link to a Federal Court glossary of legal terms. It could come in handy in the future.

http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/litigants/general/legalterms.html


----------



## targav 8 (2 May 2011)

Hi when will our class action start,and for how long.ta


----------



## seamisty (2 May 2011)

targav 8 said:


> Hi when will our class action start,and for how long.ta



targav 8 I understand CA members will receive an update within the next few days. Seamisty


----------



## atlas1950 (3 May 2011)

On Tuesday 10th May at 10:30am, Justice Perram will issue directions from the bench.

Good luck to us all.

Michael


----------



## selciper (3 May 2011)

This afternoon's SMF report on the Centro matter being held in the Federal Court, Melbourne.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/i-did-not-look-at-all-papers-centro-man-20110502-1e562.html


----------



## seamisty (3 May 2011)

Hi all, I have just received my Class Action update. Please be reminded that the content is confidential thanks, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (4 May 2011)

It appears David Kennedy (former CEO of MFS/Octaviar) is in the headlines again. Also the name Ian Lazar jolted my memory. Jim Byrnes at some stage renamed his company, Australian Litigation Funders Pty Ltd to that of  ''Lazar Bummer Finance Pty Ltd'' after Ian Lazar came out on top in a court case in 2009 with they 'came head-to-head over the winding up of Big Jim's litigation funding company.' Hmnn, interesting all these connections. Seamisty

http://www.smh.com.au/business/wind...f-woes-facing-equititrust-20110503-1e6na.html

Wind up application adds to catalogue of woes facing Equititrust Colin Kruger 
May 4, 2011


A COURT application has been made to wind up the Gold Coast mortgage fund operator Equititrust, adding to a list of woes for the company that faces a potential class action by investors and is at the mercy of its banks.

Equititrust confirmed yesterday that the application was filed by Rural Security Holdings, a company associated with Ian Lazar.

''Equititrust is not indebted to RSH in any way,'' said the Equititrust chief executive, David Kennedy, by email yesterday evening.

Advertisement: Story continues below ''Their alleged debt is $200,000, which we can satisfy many times over from available cash but will not as there is no debt due.''

Mr Kennedy said Equititrust advised RSH's solicitors it would be making an application for an injunction to restrain them from advertising and notifying ASIC of the application, but RSH filed anyway. ''The case is a clear abuse of process and is simply commercial terrorism,'' he said.

Equititrust has other troubles to worry about.

The company has frozen investor redemptions and income distributions at its $260 million Equititrust Income Fund and recently confirmed that investors face large losses as well as a restructure.

Equititrust was forced to suspend payments and renegotiate terms with NAB on the loan earlier this year when EIF was almost out of cash.

NAB agreed to defer repayments for last December until February while it considered a new proposal that would match bank repayments with loan repayments by Equititrust clients.

EIF said that while the bank had not waived its rights under the facility, it had ''agreed to not take further action in relation to them''.

Last month Equititrust blamed delayed property sales settlements for the need to stop paying income distributions for the forseeable future and reported a $12.3 million loss for the half-year ending December 31.

Earlier this year Equititrust had to pull plans to raise $50 million via the Equititrust Priority Class Income Fund to refinance EIF's debt and fund distribution payments after ASIC expressed concerns about the proposal.


----------



## Dowdy (4 May 2011)

i got a letter from ALF PIF Finance Limited that has given me an offer consideration that if I sign it I will get back 0.1 per unit I held.

Should I accept it?

I hold about 16,000 units but I've always looked at this fund as a loss and declared the whole thing as a loss and never thought I'll see anything. 
So should I get a few bucks back and look at this as a lesson?


----------



## selciper (5 May 2011)

Just by way of anecdote - a neighbour told me recently how he was witness to a scruffy youth being hauled in for shoplifting at a supermarket. It was, he said, quite dramatic with burly security men and shop staff surrounding the scared culprit. He was quickly carted off. It seems that he had hidden a torch and batteries in his clothing. I think the young man has chosen the wrong path. It’s a lot safer to choose a career as a big fish crook rather than that of a hounded petty criminal.


----------



## selciper (5 May 2011)

New ASIC HEAD

http://www.financialstandard.com.au/news/view/8444638/


----------



## targav 8 (5 May 2011)

Dowdy said:


> i got a letter from ALF PIF Finance Limited that has given me an offer consideration that if I sign it I will get back 0.1 per unit I held.
> 
> Should I accept it?
> 
> ...




Same here, can i sell a block of land and claim capital loss on my wellington holdings?


----------



## Dexter (5 May 2011)

Can anyone update me on the statis of the sale of Living & Leisure?

How much does it owe us?

How much was it sold for?

What were the terms offered by JH and when can we expect settlement?

From memory, $57m was involved on only $10m deposit with very liberal interest payments.  It never seems to be mentioned as an asset along with the various properties on offer.

Am I missing something?

Dexter.


----------



## seamisty (6 May 2011)

Sorry all, I have been away and extremely busy. What is going on? PIN is in a trading halt and WC has issued the following NSX announcement::http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723982.PDF
Placement and Non-Renounceable Rights Issue
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund, is pleased to announce:
 a Placement of units at 10 cents per unit to raise $11.3 million, and
 a non-renounceable Rights Issue to eligible Unitholders on the basis of one new unit for every three units
held, at an issue price of 10 cents per unit to raise up to $22.6 million.
The Rights Issue will be available to all eligible Unitholders who hold units on 24 May 2011 (Record Date).
Units issued pursuant to both the Placement and the Rights Issue will rank equally with other units on issue.
The purpose of the Placement and the Rights Issue is to raise up to $33.9 million.
A proposed timetable for the Rights Issue is set out in the table below:
Date Event
6 May 2011 Announce Rights Issue
24 May 2011 Record Date
27 May 2011 Despatch of Information Booklet, and Entitlement & Acceptance Form
17 June 2011 Rights Issue closes (5.00pm)
20 June 2011 Premium Income Fund notifies NSX of subscriptions
22 June 2011 Allotment of new units
24 June 2011 Trading of new units expected to commence on NSX
24 June 2011 Despatch of holding statements in relation to new units
25 August 2011 Date by which shortfall of new units may be placed
All dates and times are indicative only and are subject to change. Wellington Capital Limited as responsible
entity of the Premium Income Fund reserves the right to vary these dates and times without prior notice,
including the right to close the offer early, withdraw the offer or accept late applications.
Capital structure
The capital structure of the Fund following the issue of new units, assuming the maximum number of units is
issued under the Placement and Rights Issue, will be as follows:
Units on issue as at 5 May 2011 755,032,768
Placement units 113,000,000
New units to be issued under Rights Issue 251,677,589
Total units on issue after Placement and Rights Issue 1,119,710,357

The new units will rank equally in all respects with the Fund’s existing units. If an eligible Unitholder’s entitlement results in a fraction of a new unit, the Unitholder’s entitlement will be rounded up to the nearest whole number.
There will be no deferred settlement trading in respect of the new units to be issued pursuant to the Rights Issue. Trading in the new units is expected to commence on 24 June 2011. An application for quotation of the new units will be lodged with the National Stock Exchange separately.
Jenny Hutson, Managing Director of Wellington Capital Limited, said,
‘My aim has been to ensure that the Fund can structure arrangements to maximise the value of its assets without the need for debt. A number of current assets require capital to optimise their net realisable value. There are three land based projects which will be prioritised. These are located in the Townsville, Hunter Valley and Gold Coast areas.
‘This capital raising ensures new equity of at least $11.3 million, with current Unitholders also having the opportunity to participate on the same terms as new external unitholders. The capital will enable a number of the Fund’s smaller assets to be finalised and sold. I am pleased to have new unitholder interest in the Fund. The new capital will enable the Fund to fast-track the next phase.
The strategy announced on 30 March 2011 of optimising the current assets, selling them and returning the net capital to Unitholders, remains unchanged. Over 50% of the assets of the Fund will be taken to the market this year.’

Whats the old nursery rhyme? This piggy went to market? HELLO? Why now? Nearly 3 years of snouts in the trough, and oh I get it, the troughs nearly empty!! When was the last time PIF units traded at 10 cents under Wellington Capital management?? Too little too late me thinks. Interestingly I note that Print Mail Logistics also spewed out a few more shares recently to raise capital for operating expenses. 
I look forward to having more time to dig a bit deeper. Any comments? Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (7 May 2011)

Dexter said:


> Can anyone update me on the statis of the sale of Living & Leisure?
> 
> How much does it owe us?
> 
> ...



Hi Dexter, You are right, there has been very little information re LLA.The following is a timeline of events compiled by another PIF investor in relation to Living and Leisure just for the record for those interested:

15 March 2007 – LLA state in their 30 June 2007 financial report that MFS Limited granted an unsecured facility up to $65mill to LLA.   LLA later (30 June 2008) report this as having been a PIF facility.
30 June 2007 – The PIF 30 June 2007 Financial Report says there were no loans to LLA as at the 30 June 2007.  The LLA financial reports show $50,178,000 was lent to LLA by the PIF as part of the facility granted on 15 March 2007.  The WC June 2008 financial report shows $8,348,000 lent to LLA as at 30 June 2007.
31 Dec 2007 - As at 31 Dec 2007 the PIF had lent $58 million to LLA which was due 31 March 2008.  The 31 Dec 07 report shows $10m was advanced to LLA during Jan 08 and 14 March 08.
21 Jan 2008 - Michael King resigns as director of LLA and there is a trading halt at request of LLA
08 Feb 2008 - Marshall Vann resigns as director of LLA.
14 March 2008 – The 31 Dec 07 report shows $10m was advanced to LLA during the period between Jan 08 and 14 March 08.  The half year report for 31 Dec 2007 dated 14 March states:  “During the period to 31 Dec 2007, unsecured loan facilities totally $67 m were in place with MFS LLA.  As at 31 Dec 2007, almost $58m (June 07: $Nil) of the facility was drawn down and were due for repayment on 31 March 2008.  As at the date of this report the full $67m of the loan facilities has been drawn down.   In Feb 2008, the maturity of the loan facilities was extended to 30 May 2008 while MFS LLA Group actively seek to see assets..”  The LLA financial report for 31 Dec 2007 states a related entity provided an unsecured loan facility on 15 March 2007 and shows $50,178,000 drawn at June 2007.  The MFS report says $Nil was drawn at June 2007.
31 March 2008 - MFS LLA name changed to LLA.  ASX code change from MPY to LLA.
31 March 2008 - LLA loans from PIF mature on 31 March 2008, MFSIM provided an extension of the loan maturity date by two months to 30 May 2008.
30 April 2008 – LLA states: LLA owes PIF $71 million (“total amount including interest and associated fees”).  Total drawn debt for LLA before recapitalisation $199.8 million  (after $132.3 million)
30 May 2008 - The LLA loans mature on 30 May 2008 and could not be repaid.  The LLA senior secured debt facility totalled $127 million with the NAB.  LLA 30 June 2008 annual report states PIF Debt at June 2008 is $71 mill.  The 31 Dec 07 and 30 June 08 PIF financial reports show $11M was advanced to LLA between 14 March 08 and 30 June 08.  The June 08 PIF financial report  shows $8 mill more than the LLA report, (probably new Mezz C $8mill the PIF provided LLA as part of the recapitalisation).  
16 June 2008 - WC made an agreement with Artic Capital to a replacement and reduction of debt owed by LLA to PIF.  The LLA 'Prospectus $100 million Underwritten Rights Offer' states: The PIF unsecured debt is $71 million and “PIF will grant an $8 million Series C cash advance facility to LLA.”
30 June 2008 – The 30 June 2008 PIF Financial report states LLA owes PIF $77.947M which is written down to $27M.  WC state in the report (dated Sept 2008) the fund received $10 million from LLA since 30 June 2008.
30 June 2008 – LLA reports state LLA owed PIF $71 mill (this is interest and capital) at the time of the recapitalisation and then WC agreed to give another $8 mill to LLA.  PIF would then get back: $10m up front and $18 million interest free for the first two years (with $10 million of this unsecured for the first year).
30 June 2008 The PIF fund  entered into a new finance facility with a non-bank financial institution.  The Terms of that facility are as follows:  Approved facility $20, Drawn $9.4 million, Interest rate 20%, Maturity Date 30 Nov 2008.  A fixed and floating charge over all of the assets of the Fund.”   During this period that the $9.4 facility was drawn at 20%, the PIF advanced funds of $10.5 million.  The LLA recapitalisation required WIM as RE of the PIF to grant LLA a further $8 million in August 2008 (the $8 million Mezzanine C loan was interest free for the first two years until August 2010.
7 July 2008 Jenny Huston said she negotiated the following deal with Packers’ boys (for LLA): $10mil in July, plus $35mil over time.  Some of this $35 mil will be generating interest immediately and some won’t generate interest for 1 year (but a higher rate of interest).
 06 Aug 2008 - The LLA recapitalisation completed.  As part of the recapitalisation WIM as RE of the PIF is to grant LLA an $8 million mezzanine loan (interest free for 2 years, thereafter BBSY plus 7.0% margin).  The PIF will receive $10 million upfront and then another $18 million over time (interest free for 2 years, thereafter BBSY plus 7.0% margin)
 26 Sept 2008 – “Arctic Capital Limited acquired the entire issued capital of the RE LLA from Octaviar Financial Services Pty Ltd."
30 Sept 2008 - between July 2008 and 30 Sept 2008 WC state the PIF received $10 million from LLA and valued the LLA debt at $18 million.  It is not mentioned that $8 million was advanced to LLA
30 June 2009 - LLA debt valued at $18M down from $27 million in the PIF Annual Report.  WC state they received $10 million from LLA between July 2008 and Sept 2008 (same time they were to provide an $8 million loan to LLA as part of the recapitalisation).

I have nothing since. Perhaps we will see some sort of compensation from the Class Action in relation to this considering the original loans granted from the PIF by previous MFS/OCV directors were 'related party transactions' and were not reported as such by the auditors or compliance committee. Seamisty


----------



## marcom (7 May 2011)

Her is my response to the offer Jenny:

NO!


----------



## Dexter (7 May 2011)

Thank you Seamisty for your excellent reply re L.L.A.

This is hardly the type of first mortgage investment we beleived "our hard earned" was buying into.

At a PIF investor luncheon on the Gold Coast late in 2007 I specifically asked the Compliance Manager, Mike Skepper (ex ASIC) if we had any involvement with related funds and was told "definately not".

I must have been a little suspicious at that time as they were desperately pushing unit holders to invest in L.L.A. and Diversified Property Trust.

Where are ASIC when you need them?

Bring on the Class Action!


----------



## BABIHUTAN (7 May 2011)

marcom said:


> Her is my response to the offer Jenny:
> 
> NO!




We too are not stupid - hang around years to receive 2% and then be expected to throw in another 10% hard earned.  NO WAY!!!


----------



## seamisty (7 May 2011)

Is it any surprise that investors are anything BUT excited about this Capital Raising exercise? Why? Because you would have to be suspicious, in my opinion especially with Wellington Capitals performance to date and all the pending legal drama associated with not only the PIF but with G8 education now as well.
My information is that Cherie Hearts has terminated their agreement with G8 and have taken back legal rights to all the centres due to G8 having breached a number of clauses in the contract.
Also there are CPIB, ACRA and several other police investigations going on in regards to this case and Chris Scott is presently undergoing questioning.

Wow, if this information is indeed correct, the ASX has not been notified and G8 continue to include potential revenue raised from these centres in their profit statements, while previously maintaining that this claim was 'beyond remote' in substance?

I am also of the understanding that several unhappy franchisees who have been novated over to G8 are acting/have acted to terminate their Franchise Agreements!!

All of this, plus the ongoing Forest Resort legal action which WC still maintain is not substantive and nothing more than 'baseless'?

As I have said on here before, I have been misinformed on several occasions previously by Wellington Capital staff and do not consider that they are to be trusted and strongly suspect that the 'Capital Raising' will in all probability be proved to be in the best interest of WC, NOT the investors!! I hope all will be revealed sooner rather than later!! Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (7 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Is it any surprise that investors are anything BUT excited about this Capital Raising exercise? Why? Because you would have to be suspicious, in my opinion especially with Wellington Capitals performance to date and all the pending legal drama associated with not only the PIF but with G8 education now as well.
> 
> As I have said on here before, I have been misinformed on several occasions previously by Wellington Capital staff and do not consider that they are to be trusted and strongly suspect that the 'Capital Raising' will in all probability be proved to be in the best interest of WC, NOT the investors!! I hope all will be revealed sooner rather than later!! Seamisty




Worries me as well Seamisty.  Maybe I'm being cynical but assuming that this offer was subscribed to by WC or their nominees, it would give them 33% voting power for 3% of what we paid for our units.   

If they are trying to raise just under $34m to "finish off" the developments, what happened  to the income (as you have already pointed out)  they have already received in repayments of loans, or interest?  

This really sounds as though we are about to be "stiffed" again!   JH


----------



## simgrund (8 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Sorry all, I have been away and extremely busy. What is going on? ......................................................................
> ...........................................................................................................
> The strategy announced on 30 March 2011 of optimising the current assets, selling them and returning the net capital to Unitholders, remains unchanged. Over 50% of the assets of the Fund will be taken to the market this year.’
> 
> ...




Thanks Seamisty, for this stunning post-April 1st joke on PIF'ers.
Your own comments sound very much like this lightning bolt 
should be graded as a "prop up the un-propable" exercise. 
At least the troughers are open about wanting to complete silver plating to their umbilical feed supply line.

So I think I will abstain from diminishing my holding.

Do you like my new avatar?

Regards


----------



## simgrund (8 May 2011)

JohnH said:


> Worries me as well Seamisty.  Maybe I'm being cynical but assuming that this offer was subscribed to by WC or their nominees, it would give them 33% voting power for 3% of what we paid for our units.
> 
> If they are trying to raise just under $34m to "finish off" the developments, what happened  to the income (as you have already pointed out)  they have already received in repayments of loans, or interest?
> 
> This really sounds as though we are about to be "stiffed" again!   JH





This is where I've hammered all along. 
ASIC must issue directive: limiting new unit issues to their value pegged proportionally to ORIGINAL issue value. 
How could it be possible to advance this must-proposition??? 
Any voting application can not allow mixing of the 2 values and therefore 
DISADVANTAGE the true-blues among us.
Tinker type raids must remain out there; in the mines.
ALFie boys should be careful not to rub their hands too gleefully, 
lest they scorch them before being able to count the profits.

No cheers, but warm regards as always


----------



## seamisty (8 May 2011)

No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expedience. 
Theodore Roosevelt 

EXPEDIENCE = convenient and practical although possibly improper or immoral


----------



## seamisty (8 May 2011)

I hope all mums out there put your worries behind you, enjoy your family and friends and have a wonderful day:70:

Seamisty


----------



## marcom (8 May 2011)

Singapore regulatory authorities:

The Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) is the national regulator of business entities and public accountants in Singapore. ACRA also plays the role of a facilitator for the development of business entities and the public accountancy profession.  http://www.acra.gov.sg/

The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) is an independent body which investigates and aims to prevent corruption in the public and private sectors in Singapore. Established in 1952, it derives its powers of investigation from the Prevention of Corruption Act (Chapter 241). The bureau is headed by a director who is directly responsible to the Prime Minister.  http://app.cpib.gov.sg/cpib_new/user/default.aspx?pgID=21


----------



## Bumblebee (8 May 2011)

The first thought that croosed my mind with regard to reading about this rights issue farce was here we go again with another exercise in trough feeding.
Mounting an exercise like this is very costly. There's legals (guess who might be awarded that). There's heaps of printing (we all know who will score that windfall) there's consulting and on and on, whatever JH can dream up.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to fathom who will pay for all this...the good ol' PIF... Us mugs again!
JH doesn't need to be drawing a percentage fee from our fund when she can keep skimming the cream for herself and her bedfellows as she has from day one.


----------



## selciper (8 May 2011)

The interests of the original PIF investors and the present RE have diverged so greatly that any optimism on our part in the circumstances would be futile.


----------



## JohnH (8 May 2011)

I wonder if in future you would mind referring to the RE as WC rather than JH.  -  It is giving me a bit of a complex, and, under the circumstances is probably more appropriate.    ..   JH


----------



## seamisty (9 May 2011)

Simgrund I love your new avatar! Bumblebee :JH doesn't need to be drawing a percentage fee from our fund when she can keep skimming the cream for herself and her bedfellows as she has from day one. 
My sentiments exactly, except that now the cream is gone, the milk is to thin to cover the skimming. Panic stations have been activated by WC!! The new income and associated voting power is not for our benefit is it Jenny? PIf investor knowledge, connections and transparency will be WC's downfall not to mention an army of people with prior JH grievances just waiting to provide evidence against WC. I think the latest :fan that hits the fan will be the straw that breaks the camels back. An RE that blatantly lies on several occasions to secure a vote and then proceeds to crucify the very vunerable investors who supported them has indicated their ignorance and negligence more than once. Wellington Capital, you not only failed PIF investors, you have cost us dearly, along with the other previous directors.  PIF investors will investigate all avenues to determine what recourse there is for compensation. Is there a QLD award for the biggest bull**** artist/crook of the year?? HA HA, there is not enough
people available to process the nominated crook candidates!! (or is there??)

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (9 May 2011)

Mixed bag for troubled funds Colin Kruger 
May 9, 2011

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mixed-bag-for-troubled-funds-20110508-1ee7r.html

But the news was more mixed for investors in the MFS-generated disaster, the $750 million Premium Income Fund, who were told a share placement had brought new investors on board for one-tenth of what unit holders originally paid.

For 10 ¢ a unit, new investors will get 15 per cent of the fund at a price far below the 34.5 ¢-a-unit asset backing claimed by the fund's manager, Wellington Capital.

Wellington's managing director Jenny Hutson said a balance had to be found between the fund's asset value and the low price at which it had traded over the past year.

The units last traded on the Newcastle Stock Exchange on Friday at 8.7 ¢.

For Ms Hutson, the $11.3 million raising will provide much-needed capital to accelerate the development of land that PIF now owns as mortgagee in possession.

''We've looked at a range of options; this is the most accretive for investors,'' she said.

The carrot she offered the original PIF investors is that half of the $256 million portfolio of assets in the fund are expected to be put up for sale this year, with 90 per cent of the money raised from the sales expected to be returned to investors.

Ms Hutson is confident the carrying values will be reflected in the final sales price for these properties saying ''realisations to date have been in line with carrying values''.

At present, unitholders have lost two out of every three dollars invested in the fund and received a meagre 2 ¢-a-unit payout since the fund was frozen three years ago.

They will have to decide whether the deal offered to new investors is a good one and opt to follow suit with the one-for-three rights issue offered to them at 10 ¢ a unit.

There is likely to be opportunity for the more rebellious to express any displeasure with the fund's current managers.

Wellington Capital has only recently repulsed an attempted buyout of PIF investors by a mysterious company advised by Alan Bond's former bankruptcy adviser and banned company director, Jim Byrnes.


----------



## seamisty (9 May 2011)

Hi all, There is a new PIN NSX announcement re the issue of units that I am having trouble opening. Can someone else please try in case it is just me? Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (9 May 2011)

I got it emailed to me::
Issue of Units 
Notice under Section 708A(5)(e) of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) 
!
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund refers to the placement of
113,000,000 fully paid ordinary units (Placement Units) at $0.10 per unit, raising $11.3 million. Allotment
of the units is anticipated to occur by 13 May 2011.
In making this placement, Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund
relies on section 708A(5) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) and gives notice under section
708A(5)(e) of the Act of the following details:
1. The Fund is issuing the Placement Units without disclosure to investors under Part 6D.2 of the Act;
2. As at the date of this notice, the Fund has complied with:
(a) The provisions of Chapter 2M of the Act as they apply to the Fund; and
(b) Section 674 of the Act; and
3. As at the date of this notice, there is no excluded information (as defined in section 708A(7) or
708A(8) of the Act) which is required to be disclosed by the Fund.


----------



## Duped (9 May 2011)

targav 8 said:


> Same here, can i sell a block of land and claim capital loss on my wellington holdings?




I pretty sure you can targav 8.  See http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.aspx?menuid=0&doc=/content/00208572.htm&page=10#P257_23599

I made a good capital gain in the 2006-2007 financial year.  If only I'd waited another week to sell that asset. The CG would have occured in the 2007-2008 financial year. I.e. the year that PIF's woes were revealed.  I might have been able to negate the CG be selling a handful of PIN units off market.    Whether I got 45c or 10c off market wouldn't have made a difference because I could have always bought back into PIF @ 10c. (Surely the ATO's 'wash transaction' laws don't mean I can never buy back into a company that had previously delivered me a Capital Loss.)


----------



## selciper (9 May 2011)

It just could be that the publication of a photo of JH in today's SMH story about the capital raising, may signal an increasing interest in our situation. Let's hope that they (the media) will also follow the G8 Singapore judicial fireworks to come.


----------



## seamisty (9 May 2011)

Hot of the press, the news we have all been waiting for!! (Castlereagh Capital Limited is a newly formed subsidiary fund management service of Bri Ferrier) Plenty more to come I am sure!! Seamisty



> Unitholders ask ASIC/NSX to ban cap raising
> Monday, 9 May 2011 1:00pm
> 
> By Elise Burgess  |  In Investment
> ...




Continued: http://www.financialstandard.com.au/news/view/8445443


----------



## selciper (9 May 2011)

Thank you, AG - on the ball as usual.


----------



## charles36 (9 May 2011)

Thank you Seamisty, please continue to keep your eye on the press. More to come.  Interesting times ahead.  Charles36


----------



## DepressedDad (9 May 2011)

Good work team!  Much appreciated!!!


----------



## marcom (9 May 2011)

charles36 & breaker, Thankyou. I know you have both put a lot of effort into getting a better outcome for all PIF investors. I can't wait to see the backside of that bitch and the witches coven (or what ever religious group they call themselves) that currently administers our fund.


----------



## k.smith (9 May 2011)

Thanks to all that have worked so hard on the AG..

I believe that any move by "new money" that dilutes the interests of investors that are victims of mortgage funds that have been used, abused, frozen, illiquid...etc...  is not in the best interests of all unitholders...


----------



## seamisty (9 May 2011)

k.smith said:


> Thanks to all that have worked so hard on the AG..
> 
> I believe that any move by "new money" that dilutes the interests of investors that are victims of mortgage funds that have been used, abused, frozen, illiquid...etc...  is not in the best interests of all unitholders...



k.smith the 'new money' was never about the best interests of unitholders, it was about the best interests of a panicked Responsible Entity knowing full well just how unpopular they are with the existing unit holders. It is all about the VOTING POWER!! WC know that without a certain amount of control over voting percentage they don't have a **** show in hell of staying on board as RE. This has nothing to do with value adding 3 vacant plots of ground, rather an admittance to the fact that Wellington Capital has not had the ability to generate ANY income from the existing assets! In the Dec 2008 PIF update it states that the PIF had $96,655,228million in Asset backed investments maturing between 2010 and 2012, this is apart from $305,994million worth of mortgage loans, the $15,417million of cash and cash equivalents, $5,599Million worth of units in managed investment schemes, $15,523million in Fixed interest securities and other assets worth$4,559 million!!! Yes, a total of $443,747million worth of assets!! What happened to all the non mortgage related assets?
I would be embarrassed if I was Wellington Capital, this is an admittance of their failure and ineptitude as Fund managers in my opinion, OR, another sweetheart deal in exchange for something else plus the added advantage of grabbing some votes. 
I ask, why now, after more than 2 1/2 years does WC see the need to raise capital to improve the 3 plots? Desperate measures by someone clutching at straws!! (One of which broke the camels back!!) Here is your story Gold Coast Bulletin, the fact that PIF investors have been deceived and robbed and have had an absolute guts full of the current Irresponsible Entity. A bunch of greedy, parasitic individuals feeding off others.

Wellington Capital in all probability are struggling financially and cannot do without our Fund to keep it operating.

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (9 May 2011)

And as usual, while Rome is burning, the 3 duly appointed Wellington Capital Investor Advisory Committee represenatives remain silent. Thanks for nothing IAC reps apart from being responsible for an expensive PIF exercise that achieved FA for PIF unitholders. Not one of you had the guts to actually do anything constructive on behalf of PIF investors.Your names will be remembered along with Wellington Capital staff that supported a Responsible Entity that will go down in Corporate history as a failure. One can only say you were all a complete waste of time and expense.  
Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (10 May 2011)

marcom said:


> charles36 & breaker, Thankyou. I know you have both put a lot of effort into getting a better outcome for all PIF investors. I can't wait to see the backside of that bitch and the witches coven (or what ever religious group they call themselves) that currently administers our fund.



Enneagram, Marcom is the name of the cult of which Wellington Capital was the jennorous benefactor who organisied the removal of the church to Andelaine on behalf of David Burke. That would be the same David Justin Burke who is often on site at Forest Resort Creswick, along with Jenny Hutson, probablly wondering why the resort is running at a loss? HELLO, how much does it cost us for you to stroll around our asset you took control of? Don't we already pay for an onsite manager? You, Wellington Capital are a complete waste of our money. Unfortunately for you WC, there are so many affected from your mismanagement that you probablly will be held accountable. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (10 May 2011)

Well I would have said an ARMY rather than REBEL group!!! Also the 1cent should have been 2cents.



> Numbers lining up against manager
> Anthony Marx
> From: The Courier-Mail
> May 10, 2011 12:00AM
> ...




Continued: http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/numbers-lining-up-against-manager/story-fn6ck2gb-1226052820694


----------



## seamisty (10 May 2011)

A bit more on PIF but also interesting that Equititrust is proposing to convert its two struggling funds to shares.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/equititrust-seeks-shareissue-solution-20110509-1efqs.html


----------



## JohnH (10 May 2011)

It may well be prudent  to prepare a list of investors who are prepared to sign an affidavit confirming the RE's statement that non performance would mean that no exit fee would be paid.  .................  You can count me in.  ..  John H


----------



## Jadel (10 May 2011)

A copy of a post made by myself in June 2008 on this Forum


Dear Fellow Investors

The more I think about this ultimatum 75% vote for JH or be liquidated at 14 cents the angrier I become

I do not know how other investors feel on this forum but personally I have an aversion to threats.
. 
As far as Wellington Capital is concerned; it’s either take what I give you, or off to the Knackery. 

Of course nobody wants liquidation it would be a disaster under the current downtrend in the property cycle and Jenny Hutson Knows that only to well.

That is why this ultimatum is morally and ethically wrong 

If Wellington Capital does not want the fund why do they not ask other mangers to step in and make an alternative offer? 

I think it is the same reason that they asked for 14000 dollars for a data base of investors that should cost only a few dollars to put on a hard disc 

And why they will not allow any other manager to look at the books.

Wellington Capital is hanging on to us for dear life like a flys trapped in a spiders web 


It is now patently obvious that the modus operandi of the previous mob , King ,Adams Etc changed the Constitution of the PIF on a yearly basis to suit themselves .

Want more money ,no worries we will just change a few things, like enabling us to borrow 200 million from the Royal bank of Scotland without telling investors, etc, etc .

Remember the very act of turning the fund from an unlisted to a listed entity changes the Constitution per se.

So I ask myself , is it that difficult to change the Constitution of a fund ,why are we being placed with a loaded pistol at are heads asked to make a life and death decision with no reasonable choice other than listing .

Are we also to believe that their are no other available option that would give investors some rational alternatives.

One of Jenny Hutson publicly avowed goals in life is to control a listed entity 


Therefore I think there is a very high probability that Wellington Capital intends to list us on the NXS as a precursor to a full listing on the AXS

I have refrained from posting this missive for some time, however some people have informed me that they do not understand the full potential ramifications as a listed Entity and have asked me to post.

Lets say WC want to raise some capital .

Well that is quite easy once you are listed you simply manufacture some more paper(shares) effectively diluting the capital value of the fund its called a, Placement , or a Non Renounceable Rights Issue .

The only problem is the existing shareholders will pay a heavy price .Our assets will be effectively devalued 

If you want an example have a look at the price Arctic Capital (Packer) is picking up shares in living and Leisure at the present time with a Rights Issue at Four cents 

Of course many of the investors who originally invested in Living and Leisure can not afford to take up the issue which means Packer will acquire the asset for a pittance. 

I am of the belief that the vast majority of investors who entered the PIF are conservative and not highly risk tolerant .

They invested in this Fund specifically because they did not wish to expose their capital to the perils of a trading market . 

Their primary requirement is a guaranteed exit at Net tangible asset value not a price dictated by market manipulators ,which will almost certainly be in the range of 10 to 20cents for many years to come as a listed entity 

If Jenny Hutson is prepared to negotiate some form of reasonable Redemption Policy that will allow the many pensioners and self funded retirees in the PIF to redeem their capital at NTA value (which I am certain was always the intention of every person who originally invested in the fund) I can assure you I will be the first in the queue to pay tribute to her virtues. 

Believe me I am praying hard that this will happen.   Reply


----------



## JohnH (10 May 2011)

JohnH said:


> It may well be prudent  to prepare a list of investors who are prepared to* sign* an affidavit confirming the RE's statement that non performance would mean that no exit fee would be paid.  .................  You can count me in.  ..  John H




That should of course, be "swear" an affidavit.............  JH


----------



## charles36 (10 May 2011)

Just to re-assure investors, I for one, am not a rebel and nor are any of the severely affected unit holders in this poor and distressed fund that we unfortunately hold units.  I note that some lucky unit holders have been able to contact M/S HUTSON with the false but exciting news to M/S HUTSON that ALF are part of Castlereagh and the PIFAG.  NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.  A simple phone call by M/S HUTSON to the PIFAG would have solved any anguish she may have been suffering after receiving such false information.  My congratulations to the lucky unit holders who were able to speak with M/S HUTSON, you have accomplished something that many have failed in their attempt OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS  Feel free to contact me, I would like to know the secret, and also who peddled the mischievous information to you.  Finally, I have the greatest confidence that in the final wash-up, "the truth will out"  Kind regards to all and keep an eye out for the postman, he has something you have been requesting for a very long time.  Charles 36.


----------



## Cookie1 (10 May 2011)

An article entitled "Ferrier backs PIF Rescue Bid" that appears in the Australian Financial Review today 10/5/11 is attached. Interesting reading.


----------



## wally3218 (10 May 2011)

Thanks again Seamisty  and the other AG members.
I hate to think of where we would be without your input and researching the info.
Just as we have nigntmares about JH im sure she has had some sleepless nights because of the AG. Then again maybe she has thick skin of a red coated bitch.


----------



## seamisty (10 May 2011)

There is an article in todays AFR by Ben Wilmot in relation to the PIF which I am unable to copy.

In the content of the article Jenny Hutson is quoted as saying "I have had investors speak to me today indicating that they've been contacted by ALF PIF recently and have been told that ALF PIF has arranged for Bri Ferrier to be licensed and that they're working together to take over the fund."

Who are these lucky investors that can speak directly with Ms Hutson? We are lucky to even get to speak personally with a hot line attendant!! Desperate measures Jenny but not surprising since your credibility is already tarnished.

Further on the article states 'Bri Ferrier, Castlereagh Capital and Pif Action Group stated that they "have no association with ALF and any assertion that the groups are working together is false and misleading" Mr Byrnes said "We are not working with them"

I see Cookie has posted the article. Thanks Cookie. 

Seamisty


----------



## Duped (10 May 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> An article entitled "Ferrier backs PIF Rescue Bid" that appears in the Australian Financial Review today 10/5/11 is attached. Interesting reading.




Cookie1. Can you access these AFR articles as well:

http://afr.com/p/business/property/wellington_capital_to_raise_to_finish_sIuN2iUGVoDQaJcoKB7mII

http://afr.com/p/business/property/three_hotels_on_market_O3FjPNzEXpqrEkJA7xiwhO


----------



## seamisty (10 May 2011)

Wellington no longer acting in our
interest
PropertyReview.com.au
10/05/2011 00:37:00
A LARGE group of disgruntled
unitholders has called on
regulators ASIC and the NSX to
stop a planned capital raising
by Jenny Hutson’s Wellington
Capital for the Premium
Income Fund.
Hutson took over control of PIF in
May 2008 from failed property
group Octaviar, formerly MFS,
despite concerns of a conflict of
interest due to the close relationship
between Hutson and Octaviar’s
executive Chris Scott, who was
reportedly running Octaviar and was part owner of Wellington Capital.
Hutson is Scott’s adviser, she was also chair of his company S8, and was his mouthpiece
during his war of words with Andrew Peacock. However she refuted all those conflict of
interests claims.
Wellington Capital is planning to issue 113 million units at 10 cents to raise $11.3 million,
which is equal to 14.97% of units currently on issue.
The PIF Action Group consists of around 27% of all unitholders in the fund. Vice president
Charles Hodges said investors are not being treated equally and has listed a number of
examples where they believe Wellington has breached its corporate and listing
PropertyReview.com.au - Australian Property Review full story here http://www.propertyreview.com.au/property-trusts/5319-Welli...


----------



## Cookie1 (10 May 2011)

Duped said:


> Cookie1. Can you access these AFR articles as well:
> 
> http://afr.com/p/business/property/wellington_capital_to_raise_to_finish_sIuN2iUGVoDQaJcoKB7mII
> 
> http://afr.com/p/business/property/three_hotels_on_market_O3FjPNzEXpqrEkJA7xiwhO




Sorry, Duped; I can't access the articles as I don't have a subscription but need to go into town and will try to get copies at the library, scan and post them later. The other article was emailed to me. I'll try that source as well.

Cookie1


----------



## selciper (10 May 2011)

Well, it looks like Ms Hutson will be having a busy day at the office.


----------



## Cookie1 (10 May 2011)

More Media Articles today from Sydney Morning Herald and Property Review as attached:

The SMH article is about the PIF but you have to get past the part on Equititrust.
"In a sign of the growing investor anger with struggling Queensland mortgage funds, Wellington Capital fces removal as manager of the MFS-founded Premium Income Fund (PIF) after it surprised investors on Friday with a capital raising priced at a vast discount to ts estimate of the fund's value...." 
See complete article attached.

Property Review:  
10/05/2011 00:37:00 
*Wellington no longer acting in our interest 
*PropertyReview.com.au  

A LARGE group of disgruntled unitholders has called on regulators ASIC and the NSX to stop a planned capital raising by Jenny Hutson’s Wellington Capital for the Premium 
Income Fund. 

See article in full as attached.


----------



## ASICK (10 May 2011)

Let's Limbo some more .. how low can you go?

Units on issue as at 5 May 2011 755,032,768 * $0.34/unit = $256.7m fund NTA before placement units.
Placement units 113,000,000 * $0.10 = $11.3m additional fund equity.
Total fund value after placement units = $256.7m + $11.3m = $268m / 868m = $0.309/unit
A reduction of $0.031 per unit for only $11.5m in equity is just madness (IMO).
I cannot see how the manger will be able to justify that the placement is in investors best interests.
If there ever has been a case for not listing  a fund, your fund is disclosing it in spades.


This information has been brought to my attention by a member of your fund:-

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s708a.html
''........5) The sale offer does not need disclosure to investors under this Part if: 
(a) the relevant securities are in a class of securities that were quoted securities at all times in the 3 months before the day on which the relevant securities were issued; and 

(b) trading in that class of securities on a prescribed financial market on which they were quoted was not suspended for more than a total of 5 days during the shorter of the period during which the class of securities were quoted, and the period of 12 months before the day on which the relevant securities were issued; and 

(c) no exemption under section 111AS or 111AT covered the body, or any person as director or auditor of the body, at any time during the relevant period referred to in paragraph (b); and 

(d) no order under section 340 or 341 covered the body, or any person as director or auditor of the body, at any time during the relevant period referred to in paragraph (b); and 

(e) either: 

(i) if this section applies because of subsection (1)--the body gives the relevant market operator for the body a notice that complies with subsection (6) before the sale offer is made; or 

(ii) if this section applies because of subsection (1A)--both the body, and the controller, give the relevant market operator for the body a notice that complies with subsection (6) before the sale offer is made. ......''


----------



## iamspeed (10 May 2011)

Can anyone tell me who Castlereagh Capital Limited is?  Google is not giving me anything.

Is it a company simply set up by BRI Ferrier to wind down PIF and distribute the proceeds to investors?


----------



## Duped (10 May 2011)

Another NSX announcement.

Here's the link to the Deed Poll: http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/2011/amendment%20to%20constitution_10%20may%202011.pdf

Prior to amendment the clause read:

3.2 The Issue Price of a Unit under the PDS shall be:
3.2.1 one dollar ($1.00) for the first Quarter of the Scheme;
3.2.2 thereafter, the Issue Price shall be one dollar ($1.00) per Unit unless
the Responsible Entity considers the total net value of all Scheme
Property, divided by the number of issued Units in the Scheme
('Variable Price') is less than one dollar and the Responsible Entity is
unable to access further funds under the MFS Support Mechanism to
increase the total net value of Scheme Property in which case the
Issue Price of the Unit shall be the Variable Price. 

To 

... and the Responsible Entity is unable to access further funds under the MFS Support Mechanism to increase the total net value of Scheme Property in which case the Issue Price of the Unit shall [sic] no less than the 90 day volume weighted average price on the National Stock Exchange.

I can't find a definition of 'Variable Price' in the constitution.


----------



## charles36 (10 May 2011)

iamspeed said:


> Can anyone tell me who Castlereagh Capital Limited is?  Google is not giving me anything.
> 
> Is it a company simply set up by BRI Ferrier to wind down PIF and distribute the proceeds to investors?




Castlereagh is a subsidiary of BriFerrier set up for sole purpose of acting as the RE of PIF if elected by members.  The management has been interviewed many times by the executive members of the PIFAG and believe they are the most appropriate people to become the RE of our fund.  Castlereagh Chairman, Mr. Ian Ferrier AO, has indicated that if appointed RE the team at Castlereagh would focus on reducing substantial discount to NTA (net tangible assets)of the fund and developing viable turnaround strategies for the assets with the fund.  A complete imformation package will be forwarded to all unit holders very shortly.  I recommmend the document be closely read by all.


----------



## Duped (10 May 2011)

ASICK.  I don't know how much you know about WC's management of PIF but up until Friday 6 May 2011 WC communicated its position that the NSX listing was just a convenient mechanism for Unit Holders to get out if they want to. So they could e.g. book a capital loss to offset against capital gains. It was WC's communicated position that voting for WC in 2008 was for the long hall. WC communicated comparatively nothing of its concern for the NSX price over the years.  That all changed on Friday 6 May 2011. 

And now WC has gone and added this backflip in its communicated position into the constitution. It shall be interesting to see what the watch puppy does. I expect little.  Especially since the High Court's decision in Octaviar which could easily have given the green light for  companies to hold contradictory positions between what they say in the market and what that write in documents registered with ASIC.

IMLO


----------



## Duped (10 May 2011)

And yes ASICK.  Governance' weak immunity to the pathogens in the market place is killing us. It's probaby better for us market participants if the alien government do gooders invading the market place pack up and go home. They are ill equiped to cope with the complexity of the market.


----------



## ASICK (10 May 2011)

Duped said:


> Another NSX announcement.
> 
> Here's the link to the Deed Poll: http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/2011/amendment%20to%20constitution_10%20may%202011.pdf
> 
> ...




The definition is in the amendment itself.

There is case law which  prohibits such amendments in relation to redemptions, but since redemptions are not permitted in your fund, then such law is probably not applicable.

The manager is only permitted to make such a unilateral amendment if the amendment is not detrimental to investors' interests.

I'm sure your prospective manager will be looking very closely into these maters.


----------



## selciper (10 May 2011)

Let's not forget that, according to the Financial Standard, "Greg Medcalfe will take over from Tony D'Aloisio, who became ASIC chair on 13 May 2007 for a four-year term, which finished in May."


----------



## ASICK (10 May 2011)

I think W.C. belately found out that the constitution needed to be amended in order to keep the fund raising effort on the rails.  I also think the amendment is detrimental to existing investors' best interests because the issuance of more units of equal standing to existing units at a lower price will reduce the future equity of those existing units without any  benefit to offset that reduction.  Further, any proceeds of litigation paid into the fund will be shared amongst a larger number of units, thereby reducing the benefit to existing units.

But who will take on the case? ASIC .. hoho .. maybe your prospective manager?


----------



## seamisty (10 May 2011)

Class Action update 10-May-2011  9:00 Directions Justice Perram Court Room 18A, Court No. 6, Level 6  Adjourned - Pre-Hearing


----------



## zixo (10 May 2011)

Wheres Nick Nichols from the Gold coast bulletin when we need a comment regarding the 10 cent unit rort from WC.
Maybe poor nick knows even his creative writing skill cant put a positive spin on 
Jenny Hutson who single handedly is putting a wrecking ball through the PIF with her latest farce.


----------



## Duped (10 May 2011)

ASICK said:


> The definition is in the amendment itself.
> 
> There is case law which  prohibits such amendments in relation to  redemptions, but since redemptions are not permitted in your fund, then  such law is probably not applicable.
> 
> ...




Let me rephrase: I can't find a definition of 'Variable Price' elsewhere in the constitution

"The manager is only permitted to make such a unilateral amendment if  the amendment is not detrimental to investors' interests."  But if the  manager does   ... who's going to do something about it? 

Whose to say that reducing the Issue Price is detrimental to  investors interests?  WC seems to have already put the arguments forth.  WC is  just blaming  the market.  I.e. the market has valued the units  at around 8c (largely I believe through WC's own conduct) and hence  dropping the Issue Price down to that level is, WC argues, not  detrimental  to unit holders. WC is saying that by doing so it can raise funds to sell assets to get a better outcome for unit holders.  Well if WC had been selling assets and returning funds like it said it would 2 years ago then the market likely wouldn't have slammed the unit price in the first place.  

Hutson was quoted in Gold Coast Bulletin on 17 March 2009 "She said PIF had begun a marketing campaign through agencies Jones Lang Lasalle, Ray White and Colliers to sell a number of properties over the next six weeks.
"Between them they're marketing 11 of the underlying security properties, which are in addition to those already in the market (such as) the Sheraton Mirage.
"Obviously we'd like to be realising assets quicker to make that distribution."
Wellington Capital is 'very motivated' on this score.

If you want to see the quality of the so called marketing campaign of 2009 then see my posts #5613, #5959 and #5367  on this thread. 

What a joke.  

Reality isn't what the law says, reality is what you can get away with.

Here are Hutson's words quoted in Kruger's article of 9 May 2011:  "Wellington's managing director Jenny Hutson said a balance had to be  found between the fund's asset value and the low price at which it had  traded over the past year." ... ''We've looked at a range of options;  this is the most accretive for investors,'' she said.  Hutson is using the poor NSX price as the reason for this latest move.

That's what used car yards do isn't it.  Talk down the market value of your asset before offering to do a deal?  How much has WC's conduct contributed to PIF's poor performance on the NSX?

What's Hutson been doing for the last 2 years to support a higher price? Has WC set PIF up to fail?


----------



## Duped (10 May 2011)

zixo said:


> Wheres Nick Nichols from the Gold coast bulletin when we need a comment regarding the 10 cent unit rort from WC.
> Maybe poor nick knows even his creative writing skill cant put a positive spin on
> Jenny Hutson who single handedly is putting a wrecking ball through the PIF with her latest farce.




Easy too Zixo.  Nichols can just  reference the AFR's Hutson quote "I have had investors speak with me today indicating they've been contacted by ALF PIF recently and been told that ALF PIF has arranged for BRI Ferriers to be licensed and that they're working together to take over the fund"  The AFR quoting Hutson quoting investors quoting Big Jim associated ALF PIF.  Pure gold. My brother's aunt's niece's sister said ...  

Yeah, perhaps Kylie Mole became a journo when she grew up.

Didn't we enact rumourtage laws in Australia?


----------



## iamspeed (10 May 2011)

charles36 said:


> Castlereagh is a subsidiary of BriFerrier set up for sole purpose of acting as the RE of PIF if elected by members.  The management has been interviewed many times by the executive members of the PIFAG and believe they are the most appropriate people to become the RE of our fund.  Castlereagh Chairman, Mr. Ian Ferrier AO, has indicated that if appointed RE the team at Castlereagh would focus on reducing substantial discount to NTA (net tangible assets)of the fund and developing viable turnaround strategies for the assets with the fund.  A complete imformation package will be forwarded to all unit holders very shortly.  I recommmend the document be closely read by all.




Thanks Charles36
Have they been briefed on our pain and suffering??  Gee they could buy themselves some brownie points if they jumped all over Jenny with regards to this placement and rights issue?  Surely they are regulars in the halls of ASIC and should be able to get this looked at seriuosly??  I am sick of ASIC turning up to solve the crime, instead of preventing the crime in the first place!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Cookie1 (10 May 2011)

I've been to the Library but unfortunately someone has "pilfered" the May 2nd AFR so I was only able to get a copy of the article from the May 9th AFR.

The May 2nd AFR article entitled "Three hotels on market" starts: "The Wellington Capital-managed Premium Income Fund is proceeding to sell three major hotels, with a total of more than 400 rooms, as part of its winding-up strategy."

It's odd that the investors haven't been told that Wellington Capital's strategy for our fund is to wind it up???? I thought it was to be returned to it's full value within 3-5 years of WC taking over management of the fund????

The May 9th article "Wellington Capital to raise $34m to finish projects" starts: "The Welllington Capital-managed Premium Income Fund is undertaking a placement and rights issue in a bid to raise nearly $34 million to fast-track some of the fund's smaller projects in NSW and Queensland." See full article attached.

Cookie1


----------



## k.smith (10 May 2011)

iamspeed said:


> Thanks Charles36
> Have they been briefed on our pain and suffering??  Gee they could buy themselves some brownie points if they jumped all over Jenny with regards to this placement and rights issue?  Surely they are regulars in the halls of ASIC and should be able to get this looked at seriuosly??  I am sick of ASIC turning up to solve the crime, instead of preventing the crime in the first place!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




 I think you can draw similarities between the effect of unsolicited "low-ball offers" and the effect of this placement and rights issue. ASIC DID SOMETHING about low ball offers.... belatedly, but they have put a stop to it.

http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/11-24AD+ASIC+acts+on+low-ball+NIB+offer?openDocument

Was there any mention in the Explanatory Memorandum that the RE would pursue this avenue??

http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/2008/Explanatory Memorandum.pdf 

The Corporations Act says..
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s601gc.html

''....(b)  by the responsible entity if the responsible entity reasonably considers the change will not adversely affect members' rights....''


''...."right" includes an interest or status. ...''

I feel that my " **,000 " interests ARE being ADVERSELY affected...I think a HELL OF A LOT OF US DO..! ! !
Members of this fund have held on to their units for YEARS guided by disclosures in the financial statements about the NTA value of their units, and so few have sold out. I think we deserve better.

And weren't we told to REJECT the ALF offer...oh, yes, and the reason??http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/20101025_NSXRelease_RejectExtendedTakeoverOffer.pdf

"...the approach by the Bidder is opportunistic and is at a price that does not reflect in any way the current value of Premium Income Fund units.'.....''


----------



## JohnH (10 May 2011)

Another announcement on the NSX  - looks like she wants to get it done before our meeting!!!!  _*How can we stop this feeding frenzy???*

Non-Renounceable Rights Issue – Revised Timetable
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund, is pleased to announce a 
revised timetable for the non-renounceable Rights Issue to eligible Unitholders on the basis of one new unit 
for every three units held, at an issue price of 10 cents per unit to raise up to $22.6 million.
The Rights Issue will be available to all eligible Unitholders who hold units on 18 May 2011 (Record Date). 
Units issued pursuant to the Rights Issue will rank equally with other units on issue. 
The purpose of the Rights Issue is to raise up to $22.6 million.
The revised timetable for the Rights Issue is set out in the table below:
Date Event
6 May 2011 Announce Rights Issue
18 May 2011 Record Date
19 May 2011 Despatch of Information Booklet, and Entitlement & Acceptance Form
*2 June 2011 Rights Issue closes (5.00pm)*
3 June 2011 Allotment of new units
6 June 2011 Trading of new units expected to commence on NSX
6 June 2011 Despatch of holding statements in relation to new units
12 August 2011 Date by which shortfall of new units may be placed
All dates and times are indicative only and are subject to change.  Wellington Capital Limited as responsible 
entity of the Premium Income Fund reserves the right to vary these dates and times without prior notice, 
including the right to close the offer early, withdraw the offer or accept late applic


----------



## ASICK (10 May 2011)

JohnH said:


> Another announcement on the NSX  - looks like she wants to get it done before our meeting!!!!  _*How can we stop this feeding frenzy???*
> ...




https://www.edge.asic.gov.au/008/complaintV005?get/complainant/t=593d335c14349882bf1cd9d6eb67c39facce4e

Each of you could make a complaint to ASIC on the grounds that the manager's constitutional amendment adversely affects your respective interests in the fund by (1) unfairly reducing the value of your respective interests, and (2) unfairly reducing your respective shares of any proceeds of litigation paid into the fund - that is, if you believe it to be case that both grounds are unfair.

It'd be worthwhile mentioning that, given each of you have already suffered substantial losses, that any further loss merely as  consequence of the constitutional amendment, is in itself, grossly unfair.

Your prospective manager might decide to seek an injunction and/or seek to cause the constitutional amendment to be struck out by a court.

Without the constitutional amendment, I think the rights issue could not proceed.


----------



## JohnH (10 May 2011)

Thanks Asick


----------



## iamspeed (10 May 2011)

ASICK said:


> https://www.edge.asic.gov.au/008/complaintV005?get/complainant/t=593d335c14349882bf1cd9d6eb67c39facce4e
> 
> Each of you could make a complaint to ASIC on the grounds that the manager's constitutional amendment adversely affects your respective interests in the fund by (1) unfairly reducing the value of your respective interests, and (2) unfairly reducing your respective shares of any proceeds of litigation paid into the fund - that is, if you believe it to be case that both grounds are unfair.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the ASIC link.  I just lodged a complaint.  At the end, it said it could take up to 28 days to be handled!!  Let's hope someone can move things a bit quicker??


----------



## zixo (11 May 2011)

Investors  can ask ASIC for their complaint to be marked URGENT with Priority.


Sending your complaint via mail, fax or email
You can also print our complaint form  and send your complaint to us.
Post your form to
ASIC Complaints
 Australian Securities and Investments Commission
 GPO Box 9827
 Your Capital City

Fax it to us

Visit the enquiry page at www.asic.gov.au/question.

Speaking to ASIC
 Phone 1300 300 630
 (international +61 3 5177 3777)

 If you need a translator, call the Telephone Interpreter Service on 131 450. They will call ASIC for you. 

Do you have a question?
If you need more information, you may want to ask us a question online or phone us on 1300 300 630.


----------



## charles36 (11 May 2011)

The PIFAG Executive are doing all in their power to prevent the latest "fiasco" created by Wellington Capital.  Our Lawyers have been briefed and they are doing their very best.  It is up to US unit holders who believe that what has happened is wrong should support the PIFAG as best they can.  One way is to enlist the support of any unit holders that they know to support us in the removal of Wellington Capital and the installation of Castlereagh Capital as RE.  To dilute the fund cannot be in our best interest.  If it is would Wellington please tell us.  One of our former Prime Ministers once said, 'MAINTAIN THE RAGE"   iT DIDN'T DO HIM MUCH GOOD BUT IT JUST MIGHT APPLY TO US.


----------



## selciper (11 May 2011)

SMH CBD column  today.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/all-in-the-cause-of-shareholder-interests-20110510-1eh6w.html


----------



## JohnH (11 May 2011)

selciper said:


> SMH CBD column  today.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/all-in-the-cause-of-shareholder-interests-20110510-1eh6w.html




_"The PIF Action Group, which opposes the raising, is seeking to replace Wellington as the manager of the fund that was once worth $1 billion.
If that happens, Wellington will be entitled to a removal fee of 2 per cent of the gross value of the fund, worth about $5 million."_   .....From the above url

................  as I mentioned yesterday, JH catagorically stated that she would not draw the 2% removal fee if she had not "performed"!!!!!  We have to fight this as well!!


----------



## seamisty (11 May 2011)

NSX announcement re ALF PIF http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723998.PDF

and another REJECT announcemnet from WC http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723999.PDF


----------



## seamisty (11 May 2011)

Orders from the last Class Action directions hearing:
JUDGE:
	Justice Perram
DATE OF ORDER:
	10 May 2011 
WHERE MADE:
	Sydney


THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.	The applicants to file any application to amend the proceedings against the respondents by 31 May 2011 in the form of a notice of motion supported by an affidavit (without prejudice to any parties’ procedural rights).
2.	Any respondent wishing to file evidence in relation to any application for pre-emptory dismissal do so by 17 May 2011.
3.	The applicants to serve any evidence in relation to the respondents’ motions by 8 June 2011.
4.	The respondents to serve any evidence in relation to the applicants’ motions by 22 June 2011.
5.	The hearing of the motions be fixed for a date to be arranged with my associate with an estimate of 2 days.
6.	The respondents file and serve any written submission (of no more than 10 pages) by 3 weeks before the hearing.
7.	The applicants file and serve any written submission in reply (of no more than 10 pages) by 1 week before the hearing.
8.	The eleventh respondent file any motion for dismissal by Friday 13 May 2011 together with any affidavit.


Date that entry is stamped:


----------



## Duped (11 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> NSX announcement re ALF PIF http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723998.PDF
> 
> and another REJECT announcemnet from WC http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723999.PDF





Hilarous: "The proposal shifts over $120 million of the current net tangible asset value in the Premium Income Fund away from you, the Unitholders, to the Bidders current shareholders."

What, and WC's rights issue doesn't "shift" millions of current net tangible asset value away from current unit holders to new unit holders?


----------



## k.smith (11 May 2011)

ASICK said:


> https://www.edge.asic.gov.au/008/complaintV005?get/complainant/t=593d335c14349882bf1cd9d6eb67c39facce4e
> 
> Each of you could make a complaint to ASIC on the grounds that the manager's constitutional amendment adversely affects your respective interests in the fund by (1) unfairly reducing the value of your respective interests, and (2) unfairly reducing your respective shares of any proceeds of litigation paid into the fund - that is, if you believe it to be case that both grounds are unfair.
> 
> ...




New investors would have very different investment goals to the majority of us who bought into a fund with a PDS where the entry and exit price was fixed at $1.00 per unit.

New investors will be sharing equal voting rights with existing unitholders having entered into the fund at a discount to the NTA backing the units of some 70%.

These same new investors could profit from any returns from litigation within the fund when the costs of these actions have been paid for by the existing unitholders....that would not be fair.  

I sent in my complaint to ASIC last night.


----------



## seamisty (11 May 2011)

k.smith said:


> New investors would have very different investment goals to the majority of us who bought into a fund with a PDS where the entry and exit price was fixed at $1.00 per unit.
> 
> New investors will be sharing equal voting rights with existing unitholders having entered into the fund at a discount to the NTA backing the units of some 70%.
> 
> ...



Exactly k.smith. I am compiling my complaint to ASIC right now. I also sent the following today to Ms Snow, Ms Hutson and the IAC reps:

I note in the NSX PIN announcement http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723999.PDF that Wellington Capital states:



"ALF proposes related party litigation funding which would see the Bidder and its associates

benefit from 33% of any proceeds, and you the Unitholders receiving 67% only. You have always

been and should continue to have the benefit of 100% of any proceeds"

Can I assume then that the external buyer of the 113,000,000 heavily discounted PIF shares will NOT benefit from any proceeds returned to the PIF and that only the existing unit holders will benefit 100%?

 This raises another question. If money is repatriated back to the PIF as a result of the Bentleys Public Examinations and ASIC's findings as compensation for fraud, misappropriation etc from activities performed by previous directors, shouldn't this money benefit the original PIF investors when the funds were misappropriated who paid full price for their investment and NOT new unitholders who bought a distressed asset at a heavily discounted price on the NSX?

I would also like to add that I am extremely concerned with the latest 'Capital Raising' exercise by Wellington Capital not being in the best interests of unitholders and I believe that the resulting dilution of unit holder value will be more detrimental than beneficial. To change our constitution to enable this to happen is not only unprofessional in my opinion, but totally unacceptable behaviour from a Responsible Entity entrusted to work in the best interests of unitholders. I see this purely as a vote grabbing exercise and I know many others are of the same opinion. I sincerely hope Wellington Capital will be removed before our Fund is totally destroyed.

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (11 May 2011)

It's absolutely necessary for every PIF reader and contributer to this forum to lodge a complaint with ASIC immediately. You'll feel better after having done it.


----------



## seamisty (12 May 2011)

Premium Income Fund – Panel Receives Application
The Panel has received an application from Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity for the Premium Income Fund (PIF) in relation to the affairs of PIF. PIF is the subject of a scrip takeover bid from ALF PIF Finance Limited (ALF Finance).

On 18 February 2011, ALF Finance lodged a notice of variation, extending the offer period to 14 June 2011. Wellington submits that the notice of variation was not sent to all PIF unitholders as required by the Corporations Act.

Link to Full article http://www.takeovers.gov.au/content/DisplayDoc.aspx?doc=media_releases/2011/034.htm


----------



## seamisty (12 May 2011)

A bit more PIF related. I thought the cartoon depicting Ms Hutson and Mr Byrne was rather flattering!
http://www.smh.com.au/business/virgin-boss-fuels-passenger-discord-20110511-1eipk.html


----------



## Duped (12 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Premium Income Fund – Panel Receives Application
> The Panel has received an application from Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity for the Premium Income Fund (PIF) in relation to the affairs of PIF. PIF is the subject of a scrip takeover bid from ALF PIF Finance Limited (ALF Finance).
> 
> On 18 February 2011, ALF Finance lodged a notice of variation, extending the offer period to 14 June 2011. Wellington submits that the notice of variation was not sent to all PIF unitholders as required by the Corporations Act.
> ...




LOL.  Lets see ASIC try and ignore that. 

Hmmm. Surely ASIC must be close to the point where not acting on PIF unit holders concerns is false economy.


----------



## Blueboy1 (12 May 2011)

ASICK said:


> https://www.edge.asic.gov.au/008/complaintV005?get/complainant/t=593d335c14349882bf1cd9d6eb67c39facce4e
> 
> Each of you could make a complaint to ASIC on the grounds that the manager's constitutional amendment adversely affects your respective interests in the fund by (1) unfairly reducing the value of your respective interests, and (2) unfairly reducing your respective shares of any proceeds of litigation paid into the fund - that is, if you believe it to be case that both grounds are unfair.
> 
> ...




Thanks Asick,
I have lodged a full complaint with ASIC today and I urge all fellow investors to do the same.
The constitutional amendment must be overturned if we are to have any hope of scuttling JC's plans to proceed further with her reckless savagery of the remnants of our fund.
This is a call for all readers of this forum to take a last ditch stand and post your complaint with ASIC NOW.
Please confirm that you have made your complaint to ASIC on this forum.
Blueboy1


----------



## seamisty (12 May 2011)

Blueboy1 said:


> Thanks Asick,
> I have lodged a full complaint with ASIC today and I urge all fellow investors to do the same.
> The constitutional amendment must be overturned if we are to have any hope of scuttling JC's plans to proceed further with her reckless savagery of the remnants of our fund.
> This is a call for all readers of this forum to take a last ditch stand and post your complaint with ASIC NOW.
> ...



Mine went yesterday Blueboy1, Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (12 May 2011)

PIn announcement http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724001.PDF
Mortgagee in Possession Contract –Dry Dock Road, Tweed Heads South
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund is pleased to announce that a
contract has been exchanged in relation to the property located at 136 Dry Dock Road, Tweed Heads South.
The property, known as Reef Cove, was taken to market in November 2010 by Colliers International where it
was passed in after it did not achieve the reserve price. It has now been sold via a local agent.
Reef Cove is security for one of the Fund’s mortgage loans.
The contract is subject to a 45 day finance condition, followed by a 60 day settlement and will contribute a
net $7 million to the Fund on settlement.
Managing Director, Jenny Hutson said ‘the exchange of contracts on the Reef Cove property is a pleasing
result. This is a positive outcome for the Fund’s Unitholders.’

Yes, very good WC, this should negate the need for the issue of new shares to capital raise? Or will it allow WC just enough to make the next 3 cent payment so WC can draw management fees? Mind you, if after all the sales at Port MacQuarie and Wollongong  didn't achieve that, I can't see $7mill going too far, what with all the pending court costs and not to mention those ASTRONOMICAL OPERATING EXPENSES!!
Seamisty


----------



## Bumblebee (12 May 2011)

Lodged my complaint with ASIC (QLD) on line last Tuesday.
I also phoned and was told I cold increase the 'priority' by going back on line and through their "ask a question" option. I would need to quote my original reference number and restate the urgency of the complaint. cheers everyone.


----------



## ASICK (12 May 2011)

I think it's clear that a constitutional amendment is necessary to permit issuance of further units (sub $1.00)  by the manager.  Clearly, the manger's constitutional amendment was intended to facilitate the issuance of such further units.

I think the manager has placed itself in a potentially very difficult situation, because there is no surety as to whether the issuance is in fact, legal.

The legality of the constitutional amendment could be tested at any time, now, or after, whether or not a new manager is appointed in the future.

Imagine a new manager is appointed, then that new manager would probably have the capacity to use the fund's money to challenge the validity of the amendment, and if successful, potentially seek damages against the present manager.

Suppose a prospective manager is not successful at a meeting, then that prospective manager could then challenge the validity of the amendment, and if successful, potentially cause a new meeting to be held, and potentially at the present manager's sole expense.

If the amendment is set aside, even some years in the future, there will be other expenese that the present manager may be potentially liable for.

I think the whole 'rights issue' issue could end up in one hell of a mess.

While members hope the amendment is able to be set aside, I'll bet the manager is hoping even stronger that the amendment, if tested, is legal.


----------



## selciper (12 May 2011)

Why is the Australian Shareholders Association (who were so vocal about PIF and WC in 2008) so silent now?


----------



## Duped (12 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> PIn announcement http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724001.PDF
> Mortgagee in Possession Contract –Dry Dock Road, Tweed Heads South
> Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund is pleased to announce that a
> contract has been exchanged in relation to the property located at 136 Dry Dock Road, Tweed Heads South.
> ...




Hear hear seamisty. I'll chear when the money's in unit holders hands.   Once bitten (Wollongong) twice shy. It's only a contract of sale so far. I.e. a legal document.  It's open to legal interpretation.  Y'now ... like the PIF   constitution.

P&I outstanding for that property @ 31 May 2008 according to WC was   $8,570,032. So we're looking at another possible write down of $1.57m.   Then there's inflation and lost earnings that have bitten into the   return to unit holders.
Hmmm.  Is WC preparing to cut and run?


----------



## Investor262 (12 May 2011)

Bumblebee said:


> Lodged my complaint with ASIC (QLD) on line last Tuesday.
> I also phoned and was told I cold increase the 'priority' by going back on line and through their "ask a question" option. I would need to quote my original reference number and restate the urgency of the complaint. cheers everyone.




I have just lodged my complaint. I am one of (I hope) many of the silent investors who have been sitting back and watching seamisty, Charles 76 and a host of others do a fantastic job of trying to get at least some of my money back. 
 I am in awe of your tenacity, intelligence and dedication. Many, many thanks!
NOW is the time for all of us who have been sitting back to get off our bums and lodge a complaint with ASIC!!!!


----------



## Cookie1 (12 May 2011)

I've been trying to submit an on-line complaint to ASIC without success. Could someone tell me what's the secret? I get so far and they tell me something about having the "wrong name"; I haven't been able to figure out where I've gone wrong! Help somebody, any body!!!

Thanks,
Cookie1


----------



## seamisty (12 May 2011)

OPI investors still waiting for money http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4994319/OPI-investors-still-waiting-for-money


----------



## BABIHUTAN (12 May 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> I've been trying to submit an on-line complaint to ASIC without success. Could someone tell me what's the secret? I get so far and they tell me something about having the "wrong name"; I haven't been able to figure out where I've gone wrong! Help somebody, any body!!!
> 
> Thanks,
> Cookie1




I too had tt problem - in the end I got thru by typing WELLINGTON CAPITAL LIMITED tt matches the ACN  114 248 458 and dropping ACN tt I first inserted along with numbers.
Good luck hope tt enables you to progress further into the form.


----------



## selciper (12 May 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> I've been trying to submit an on-line complaint to ASIC without success. Could someone tell me what's the secret? I get so far and they tell me something about having the "wrong name"; I haven't been able to figure out where I've gone wrong! Help somebody, any body!!!
> 
> Thanks,
> Cookie1




Cookie - I had computer glitch, too. So, I lodged my complaint by phone. The officer taking my call was most efficient and took down everything I dictated accurately. This was followed up by by an ASIC email containing a further contact phone number. Allow plenty of time for the process as they seem to have to call you back after the initial contact..


----------



## zixo (12 May 2011)

I implore all investors to Contact ASIC and raise an online complaint form, going through all the screens, make sure you get the reference number at the end of process.

Cookie... ASIC have told me they sometimes have this "Glitch" in their system. Please Keep trying until you get through all screens. and write down your complaint reference number. If all else fails try faxing the complaint form. 
After you've lodged the complaint online Phone ASIC with  your reference number and confirm they have received it. Ask for your complaint to be lodged as URGENT

cheers


----------



## Cookie1 (12 May 2011)

Thanks everybody for the advice on lodging a complaint with ASIC. I'll do it this evening.

Cookie1


----------



## seamisty (12 May 2011)

A PIF investor forwarded an email to me received from ALF PIF this afternoon. I feel I have to share a couple of quotes from the content:
"The Government watchdog, that have issued her a license, is sitting and watching."

(Yes ALF PIF, that is an understatement. They have been sitting and watching for OVER THREE YEARS!!! Whats another few years?)

"Byrnes is a consultant to the Directors. We listen to good advice from a number of sources and ignore advice deemed to be not relevant." 

"PIF is in poor shape." ( POOR'S RIGHT)

"Its interesting to note that I make myself available to discuss anything to do with PIF and our bid but not ONE unitholder has called or emailed me"
(UMNN, I thought they were inundated with PIF investors begging them to extend the offer?)

"We have been a thorn in the side of the pig at the trough"
( HAHA I love this one!!)

Seamisty


----------



## BABIHUTAN (12 May 2011)

As no doubt many posters have found out ASIC's website is not the friendliest.

I had the time [& persistence] to draft my complaint 3 times b4 it finally went through


----------



## seamisty (12 May 2011)

BABIHUTAN said:


> As no doubt many posters have found out ASIC's website is not the friendliest.
> 
> I had the time [& persistence] to draft my complaint 3 times b4 it finally went through



It's probablly a conspiracy BABIHUTAN!! A sneaky ASIC tactic to deter complaints!! Considering mine rarely get acknowledged (they could do it it bulk form if they were keen) maybe ASIC hope people will get tired of trying? Seamisty


----------



## Wayne Wheeler (12 May 2011)

Good evening forum members.

My name is Wayne Wheeler and I'm a director of ALF PIF Finance Ltd. I log in here from time to time to gauge the mood of the forum members and to try to assess the unitholders' understanding of the effect that the WC management has had (and continues to have) on their share/asset value during their tenure as the "responsible entity". Your anger and frustration is understandably palpable.

Our Chairman (Michael Pakula) has posted here briefly in the past to clarify some points in relation to our takeover bid/offer to all unitholders, and has committed to field all enquiries from unit holders seeking further information and/or clarification of our offer.

Given the current (and limited) extension of our bid, and just as importantly the recent  manoeuvrings of JH/WC, I advise that we are still prepared to personally discuss any and all issues in relation to this matter with unitholders. The terms of our offer are clear and unambiguous and we welcome your comments and feedback as to the perceived positive & negative elements of the takeover bid.

It's obviously in your own interests to carefully review the history of your unit value over the last few years and consider whether the future looks any brighter under the current regime.

Wayne Wheeler


----------



## JohnH (12 May 2011)

Wayne Wheeler said:


> Good evening forum members.
> 
> My name is Wayne Wheeler and I'm a director of ALF PIF Finance Ltd.* I log in here from time to time to gauge the mood of the forum members and to try to assess the unitholders' understanding of the effect that the WC management has had (and continues to have) on their share/asset value during their tenure as the "responsible entity". *
> Wayne Wheeler




Hello Wayne Wheeler.

As someone who "logs in here from time to time" it is indeed surprising that this is your first post, and that you joined this forum within the last few days.


----------



## Wayne Wheeler (12 May 2011)

JohnH said:


> Hello Wayne Wheeler.
> 
> As someone who "logs in here from time to time" it is indeed surprising that this is your first post, and that you joined this forum within the last few days.




Fair enough John. It's quite true that I only registered and "logged in" for the first time tonight, so perhaps I should have said that I visit here from time to time. No intention to mislead. OK?

I have no intention of being a regular responder to comments here, but the offer by ALF PIF directors to communicate directly and personally with concerned unitholders is genuine and ongoing.


----------



## seamisty (12 May 2011)

Wayne Wheeler said:


> Fair enough John. It's quite true that I only registered and "logged in" for the first time tonight, so perhaps I should have said that I visit here from time to time. No intention to mislead. OK?
> 
> I have no intention of being a regular responder to comments here, but the offer by ALF PIF directors to communicate directly and personally with concerned unitholders is genuine and ongoing.



Hi Wayne, The majority of investors in the PIF left with little choice when MFS/Octaviar collapsed were conned by Wellington Capital. We are still vunerable and further ripped off but no longer so easily conned. We are far less trusting and better informed. As the result of being left with little or no trust we do extensive research and try to stay as informed as possible. Anyone remotely involved or associated with less than impeccable credentials will not be considered as an alternative RE. We have done our homework and the lack of response to the offer put forward by ALF PIF speaks for itself. We may still be vulnerable and ripped off, but hopefully a lot better informed. I personally think you are wasting your time and money pursuing this takeover offer. In saying that, I also think that Jim Byrnes and Jenny Hutson have a lot in common.
  Seamisty


----------



## astevo (12 May 2011)

I'm another who feels rather inadequate to make regular contributions on the forum, but am a daily reader, constantly in awe of Seamisty's (and others') determination and energy, and do very much appreciate the contributions of her and those working behind the scenes on behalf of us all. I too have now submitted a complaint (online) to ASIC about WC's actions. 

cheers!

*- Alan.*


----------



## Cookie1 (12 May 2011)

I've _finally_ managed to submit my complaint to ASIC...what a drama! Perseverance has paid off!

Thanks to all who helped me through the exercise.

Good luck to us all in our efforts to dethrone Wellington Capital. United we can do it!

Cookie1


----------



## BABIHUTAN (13 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> It's probablly a conspiracy BABIHUTAN!! A sneaky ASIC tactic to deter complaints!! Considering mine rarely get acknowledged (they could do it it bulk form if they were keen) maybe ASIC hope people will get tired of trying? Seamisty




That too crossed my mind Seamisty, especially when the text of each of my draft complaints disappeared into cyberspace just as I completed them & I did not hit the "Back" button!


----------



## simgrund (13 May 2011)

*In all this broo-ha we blinked away another PIF Forum milestone; 7,000th post!
And the trophy goes to........ Seamisty, and the cast of thousands of dedicated, selfless, tireless supporting team. 
Car IAC; where aaaaare yooouuuuu?????????????
Thank you to the Team for these infusions and may we soon raise the curtain.

And to Mr W. Wheeler; tempt me with an offer above $1.00 a share and I will come over to the Dark Side in a jiffy. 
Money talks, weasling walks.

Once again with feeling,
Regards*


----------



## Wayne Wheeler (13 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Hi Wayne, The majority of investors in the PIF left with little choice when MFS/Octaviar collapsed were conned by Wellington Capital. We are still vunerable and further ripped off but no longer so easily conned. We are far less trusting and better informed. As the result of being left with little or no trust we do extensive research and try to stay as informed as possible. Anyone remotely involved or associated with less than impeccable credentials will not be considered as an alternative RE. We have done our homework and the lack of response to the offer put forward by ALF PIF speaks for itself. We may still be vulnerable and ripped off, but hopefully a lot better informed. I personally think you are wasting your time and money pursuing this takeover offer. In saying that, I also think that Jim Byrnes and Jenny Hutson have a lot in common.
> Seamisty




Morning Seamisty.

Nice to hear from you, and thanks for your observations and general summary of the current unitholder/forum member position. All understood and accepted.

It's quickly apparent that you are one of the more active forum members and a diligent researcher of the fund's sorry history & pathway to it's current state. You will of course accept that ALF PIF has played no part in your losses to date, but it's interesting to speculate as to whether your current position may be even worse if we hadn't played a part in keeping JH/WC on their toes of late. Hard to imagine your position could be much worse, I guess.

Anyway, as I've said I don't intend to be a regular contributor/responder here but I couldn't ignore your post. Allow me to offer a few brief observations before I head out this morning.

I don't know JH or WC. My view of their stewardship of the fund is therefore restricted to appraisal of their actions as RE and the resultant impact on unit value. Many of you are no doubt in the same position. More importantly, the general attitude of unitholders towards WC provides a clear indication of profound dissatisfaction, distress and distrust. A quick review of posts on this forum can be summarised as WC having an attitude of arrogance, non accountability and of providing little (no?) information to unitholders.

Further, the current capital raising measures implemented by WC would seem to indicate a breathtaking indifference to the impact on current long suffering unitholders and their share value. One can therefore only assume that there are other motives driving this initiative, and the forum seems to agree that your interests are not of primary importance in the strategy. You tell me if you understand or agree that this activity has been implemented properly and with your approval, and if you can foresee a perceived benefit (for you - not others) somewhere in the future.

Perhaps I'll address your comments re Jim Byrnes, impeccable credentials, success or otherwise of our bid etc a little later. Simgrund - I hear you. Interesting to note that in the whole cast of characters (MFS, PIF, WC, JH, ICAC and a cast of thousands more with snouts in the trough to date) who've been continually feeding off your investment up until now, that somehow we are considered the "Dark Side".

Hmmmm.


----------



## seamisty (13 May 2011)

Quote Wayne "Further, the current capital raising measures implemented by WC would seem to indicate a breathtaking indifference to the impact on current long suffering unitholders and their share value. One can therefore only assume that there are other motives driving this initiative, and the forum seems to agree that your interests are not of primary importance in the strategy. You tell me if you understand or agree that this activity has been implemented properly and with your approval, and if you can foresee a perceived benefit (for you - not others) somewhere in the future."

Hi Wayne, My personal opinion is that the motive driving the WC Capital Raising is because WC knows that the PIF Action Group is strongly supported by many other PIF unitholders in their proposed move to elect Castlereagh Capital (http://www.cascap.com.au./) as the preferred RE. I think Wellington Capital know that the PIF AG have a extremely strong chance of removing WC as the current RE, hence WC felt the need to secure a chunk of voting power they could control. They know full well they have no chance of remaing RE under their own merits. We have no doubt that the initial implementation was in breach of the original constitution and that is why Wellington Capital ammended it, to cover their actions. I understand ASIC is fully informed of the situation. The PIF Action Group had no problem with securing 5% of PIF unitholders support within days to call an EGM. Wellington Capital know that 5% of approx 755 million units is a far cry from 5% of 1,119,710,357 units. Its just another example of WC's scramble for survival, nothing to do with working in the best interests of unitholders. 

Seamisty


----------



## aroach (13 May 2011)

astevo said:


> I'm another who feels rather inadequate to make regular contributions on the forum, but am a daily reader, constantly in awe of Seamisty's (and others') determination and energy, and do very much appreciate the contributions of her and those working behind the scenes on behalf of us all. I too have now submitted a complaint (online) to ASIC about WC's actions.
> 
> cheers!
> 
> *- Alan.*




I've just submitted my complaint online to ASIC. I've also been an avid reader of this forum and really appreciate the amazing effort and tenaciousness of Seamisty, Charles36 and the many others who (thankfully!) will not give up. You've got my vote!

Ashley


----------



## selciper (13 May 2011)

If anyone is experiencing problems on line with ASIC complaints, as mentioned in a previous post, use the telephone service provided. Emphasise the urgency of the matter. 1300 300 630


----------



## Duped (13 May 2011)

Another Trading Halt Pending Announcement


----------



## zixo (13 May 2011)

Duped said:


> Another Trading Halt Pending Announcement




It should be called Jenny Hutsons NSX. She Just snaps her fingers and closes down our fund.... shuts it down and opens it up as she pleases - funny that.

Nothing she has ever done has been for the betterment of the PIF or the investors. Her (NSX) next statement will be a Doosey.


----------



## 2CentsWorth (13 May 2011)

Well, with some considerable effort, I managed to get my on-line complaint through to ASIC, intact! 

Charles 36: Tonight may well look like the "eve of destruction" for us, because the "Redcoats" are coming full charge!... However, never being one to run from a fight, myself and my brother in law, stand with Platignum's poised to sign the proxy form as soon as it arrives. No doubt Seamisty will run the davits to smoking hot, with her loadings of eager participants also. So be assured, that the Game is afoot!

Many thanks to all the regular posters who work hard, to make this load a little lighter for all of us, and I for one, will not let today's act of bastardry go unchallenged.

Good luck to us All.


----------



## rogerl (13 May 2011)

Hi all, I'm new to your blog but gobsmacked by your efforts.
How do I register with the AG?


----------



## Cookie1 (13 May 2011)

To join the Action Group email breaker at email: breaker7@optusnet.com.au

The more the merrier!

Cookie1


----------



## selciper (14 May 2011)

Google led me to this G8 website.

http://www.g8education.com/content.cfm/About_Us/5/


----------



## simgrund (14 May 2011)

zixo said:


> It should be called Jenny Hutsons NSX. She Just snaps her fingers and closes down our fund.... shuts it down and opens it up as she pleases - funny that.
> 
> Nothing she has ever done has been for the betterment of the PIF or the investors. Her (NSX) next statement will be a Doosey.




I disagree zixo,

With the first 1c repayment I finally paid off my cemetery plot; North side.
And the second is squirrelled away for ever-inflationary burial expenses.
With this, I feel complete and can depart in peace,

Warmest to all,


----------



## NOR (14 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> It's probablly a conspiracy BABIHUTAN!! A sneaky ASIC tactic to deter complaints!! Considering mine rarely get acknowledged (they could do it it bulk form if they were keen) maybe ASIC hope people will get tired of trying? Seamisty



 I TO HAD GREAT FUN GETING IN ....I FOUND  BUSNESS NUMBER ....DO NOT PUT ABN JUST PUT NUMBERS WITCH IS 114248458    DO NOT INCLUDE  .ACN  &NODOTS  COMERS OR FULL STOPS ...GOOD LUCK KEEP TRYING     GOT TO GO CAN SMELL SMOCK FROM    JENNEYS FIRE SALE...PEOPLE HO PLAY WITH FIRE GET BURNT FINGERS


----------



## Blueboy1 (15 May 2011)

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/05/15/315351_gold-coast-business.html
Article by Nick Nichols, business editor   |  May 15th, 2011 Gold Coast Business news

Blueboy1


----------



## targav 8 (15 May 2011)

simgrund said:


> I disagree zixo,
> 
> With the first 1c repayment I finally paid off my cemetery plot; North side.
> And the second is squirrelled away for ever-inflationary burial expenses.
> ...




I'VE paid mine off sixteen years ago , now just waiting. lol


----------



## atlas1950 (15 May 2011)

The last couple of posts have been really depressing. Come on people, we can do better than this. Surely we have all progressed down the path of justice, since we started all the way  back in 07. Lets remain positive. We still have our CA, we may be able to get rid of WC, dribbles of return of capital, and we have IMF backing our case. I strongly believe that they wouldn't be investing there money in our case if they didn't think we had a good chance of winning. IMF have an excellent track record of success, so please, let us remain positive.

I will be away till the end of July, so I will be logging in most days from NY, so please keep up the wonderful work that you are doing.

Michael


----------



## ASICK (15 May 2011)

atlas1950 said:


> The last couple of posts have been really depressing. Come on people, we can do better than this. Surely we have all progressed down the path of justice, since we started all the way  back in 07. Lets remain positive. We still have our CA, we may be able to get rid of WC, dribbles of return of capital, and we have IMF backing our case. I strongly believe that they wouldn't be investing there money in our case if they didn't think we had a good chance of winning. IMF have an excellent track record of success, so please, let us remain positive.
> 
> I will be away till the end of July, so I will be logging in most days from NY, so please keep up the wonderful work that you are doing.
> 
> Michael




Atlas, there is a lot of strength in what you say. (pun intended)


----------



## seamisty (15 May 2011)

Blueboy1 said:


> http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/05/15/315351_gold-coast-business.html
> Article by Nick Nichols, business editor   |  May 15th, 2011 Gold Coast Business news
> 
> Blueboy1



 Well at least Nicky babes from the GCB is consistant!

 Quote from the article "A meeting has been called next month seeking unitholders' approval to oust Wellington and install insolvency specialist BRI Ferrier's Castlereagh Capital as responsible entity of the former MFS-controlled fund."

BRI Ferrier may be an insolvency specialist but Castlereagh Capital, a subsiduary of BRI Ferrier offer several services including Investment Management and Financial Advisory  http://www.cascap.com.au./ ERR, what has Wellington Capital been doing apart from steadily liquidating our assets?

"Wellington has alleged a letter sent by the suitor to unitholders contained "misleading and deceptive"  UMNNN, excuse me, what would you call the Explanatory Memorandum sent to us by Wellington Capital in August 2008? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, WC is the MASTER of MISLEADING and DECEIVING!!!

Get a grip Nick, and as for "Wellington Capital this week sought interim orders from the Takeovers Panel to reject all acceptances to the bid received by ALF PIF after February 18.The Takeovers Panel has yet to rule on the application." did you not think it prudent to also mention that Brett Heading has been a member of the Takeovers Panel since 1997? 

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (15 May 2011)

Hi all, Attatched are two files relating to G8 Education, the first correspondence is from Cherie Hearts relating to 'misleading information to G8 stakeholders' to the ASX, the second is from the HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
SINGAPORE. Interesting reading. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (15 May 2011)

The above post should read 'Cherie Hearts Group International'


----------



## LTD (16 May 2011)

Hello,
 I just retrieved this bit of news from across the ditch...not directly related but perhaps 
it's of interest to those who follow these things a bit better than me.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/5001409/Markhams-audit-boss-banned-over-Boston-Finance

Good Luck.


----------



## simgrund (16 May 2011)

atlas1950 said:


> The last couple of posts have been really depressing. Come on people, we can do better than this. Surely we have all progressed down the path of justice, since we started all the way  back in 07. Lets remain positive. We still have our CA, we may be able to get rid of WC, dribbles of return of capital, and we have IMF backing our case. I strongly believe that they wouldn't be investing there money in our case if they didn't think we had a good chance of winning. IMF have an excellent track record of success, so please, let us remain positive.
> 
> I will be away till the end of July, so I will be logging in most days from NY, so please keep up the wonderful work that you are doing.
> 
> Michael




Quite the opposite Michael
I am very positive about WC "dribble" payments and have put them to the best possible use. 
Perhaps not exemplary, but what the heck! 
Splurge while you can with what you have.
Best to you in NY.  
Regards,


----------



## elizaman (16 May 2011)

Blueboy1 said:


> http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/05/15/315351_gold-coast-business.html
> Article by Nick Nichols, business editor   |  May 15th, 2011 Gold Coast Business news
> 
> Blueboy1




Hi I am an avid reader of all the posts on this subject but choose not to post as I don't have the time to research like some of you and therefore have nothing constructive to add. Certainly do appreciate the effort though. My question based on the attached article was the news of a unit holders meeting to oust WC. I have not received or heard of such a meeting as yet. Am I missing something here?? To all I have also sent in my complaint to ASIC. Not sure I did it right but fingers crossed it gets to the right channels.

Regards


----------



## Cookie1 (16 May 2011)

NSX announcement today: http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724012.PDF

It seems ALF PIF Finance now holds 0.93% of total units based on 755+million units. Some more poor souls have been conned into selling their units.


----------



## seamisty (16 May 2011)

I see PIN is still in a trading halt and that Alf Pif Finance ltd have now scraped together 0.28% of support from PIF unitholders after their latest tele marketing campaign and mailout. http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724012.PDF They now have a total of 7,032,554 units.


----------



## selciper (16 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Hi all, Attatched are two files relating to G8 Education, the first correspondence is from Cherie Hearts relating to 'misleading information to G8 stakeholders' to the ASX, the second is from the HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
> SINGAPORE. Interesting reading. Seamisty



Those attached Singapore files certainly make for an eye-brow raising read. Highly recommended.


----------



## seamisty (16 May 2011)

What a flurry of activity coming from Wellington Capital lately. Is JH determined that if WC lose control of the PIF as RE they will make sure there is slim pickings left for their successor? Another contract has miraculously appeared!! Seamisty
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724013.PDF


----------



## seamisty (16 May 2011)

HAHA, those announcements just keep acoming!! (and we are still in a trading halt!) Another one re Kooralbyn:

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724014.PDF


----------



## zixo (16 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> HAHA, those announcements just keep acoming!! (and we are still in a trading halt!) Another one re Kooralbyn:
> 
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724014.PDF





Not sure if there is any need to raise a complaint with ASIC regarding the disposal of one of our assets at kooralbyn yet, WC has proven they cant be trusted - it reminds me of another Wollongong.
Me thinks wellington is going full boar at trying to sell as many PIF assets as possible to ensure unitholders get the final 1 cent payment which was promised since 2008. I'm Not sure but doesnt that entitle her to get her 2.7 million in mismanagement fees from the unitholders?

I also wonder how much of a discount the current property will be passed in for.

On a positive note had written confirmation today that those sweet hearts at ASIC are reviewing the capital raising by WC. Just have to wait and see if they ever decide to actually do something about it.


----------



## BABIHUTAN (16 May 2011)

selciper said:


> Those attached Singapore files certainly make for an eye-brow raising read. Highly recommended.




I agree Selciper, Seamisty, both make highly recommended reads; this is the type of regulatory reaction that we have been clammouring for since 2008!
ASIC, what on earth have you been doing these last three years?
Nothing, it seems, that is apparent to any investor that I know. Instead all sorts of RE maneuvers have been allowed to take place. The net result is continued depletion what little is left of the funds assets mostly being disbursed for the benefit of the RE & their associated  entities. 
G 8 has only been on the Singapore scene +/- 6 months and something has in the meantime  come under the radar of a number of Singapore Authorities.
BANG....there is no pussy footing around - a court order is put in place pronto for the parties to revert to a status quo pending the outcome of investigations & a High Court action.
This order hurts neither party and protects both ensuring that if there has been any wrong doing the stable door remains bolted, and neither party can take advantage over the other until the legal system determines the facts and a resolution.

Come on ASIC, take a leaf out of the book of a fair and competent jurisdiction & be seen to be doing something to help the plight of many Mums and Dads that are seeing their lifesavings being whittled away. There is still time to close the door - an imminent & unconstitutional Rights issue being a good starting point.


----------



## purcellb (16 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> HAHA, those announcements just keep acoming!! (and we are still in a trading halt!) Another one re Kooralbyn:
> 
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724014.PDF




I have just registered my complaint with ASIC as I hold 630,ooo shares. Regards, Percy


----------



## NOR (16 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> What a flurry of activity coming from Wellington Capital lately. Is JH determined that if WC lose control of the PIF as RE they will make sure there is slim pickings left for their successor? Another contract has miraculously appeared!! Seamisty
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724013.PDF




  call  ooo the  smoke from jh fire sale is geting  thicker ...take over ..WHAT


----------



## gardie (16 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> What a flurry of activity coming from Wellington Capital lately. Is JH determined that if WC lose control of the PIF as RE they will make sure there is slim pickings left for their successor? Another contract has miraculously appeared!! Seamisty
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724013.PDF




THis is a continuation of the ongoing misleading information that NSX allow as adequate disclosure.

Tells you it above valuation and tells you its above carrying cost.

Doesnt tell what the original loan is.

What a great way to try convince people you are doing well.

Get loan greatly reduced and then achieve price just above this and say gee arent we doing a great job.

Come on NSX and ASIC eneough is enough make them tell investors what the overall shortfall is.


----------



## seamisty (16 May 2011)

Dry Dock Road, Tweed Heads South owed the PIF $8,570,032mill (principal and interest) as at 31 May 2008. Wellington Capital has secured a contract  subject to a 45 day finance condition, followed by a 60 day settlement and which will contribute a net $7 million to the Fund on settlement.
I think Kooralbyn owed the PIF approx $40mill.
48 – 52 Carlyle Street, Mackay owed the PIF $1,359,481mill(principal and interest) as at 31 May 2008. The contract for sale is subject to a 90 day finance condition, followed by a 14 day settlement and will
contribute a net $2 million to the Fund on settlement.

I do business a bit differently, I make sure that not only do I not get all interest owing on my loans to other parties, I get interest on the outstanding interest until such times as the debt has been repaid.

It is great to see some old contributors returning to the forum as well as some new ones. Hopefully there will be confirmation of the date etc of the proposed meeting shortly. 
Interesting to see what the reason for the Trading Halt is, maybe Wellington Capital are changing the constitution again? Seamisty


----------



## Towbar (16 May 2011)

More BS Arrived in post, on glossy paper with "Important Clarifying Info"JH must be getting worried. The sooner we remove WC the better for all of us


----------



## selciper (16 May 2011)

It's interesting to witness the powerful international financial wizard Strauss-Kahn's brilliant career probably smashed to pieces by a personal weakness. It just shows that money isn't everything, and that eventually the law catches up. It should set some Australian minds thinking.


----------



## seamisty (17 May 2011)

Latest NSX announcement https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10937&highlight=ocv


----------



## seamisty (17 May 2011)

In the latest PIn announcement:Investor Advisory Committee
Two members of the Investor Advisory Committee have indicated their intention to resign. Wellington
Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund has decided to hold elections early.
The purpose of the Investor Advisory Committee is to ensure investor input into the future decision making
process of the Premium Income Fund. The Investor Advisory Committee meets with Wellington Capital
Limited as responsible entity of the Fund through formal meetings by teleconference and other
communications and comprises three elected unitholders.
In order for all investors in the Premium Income Fund to make an informed decision as to the representatives
appointed to the Committee, following is a nomination form for completion and return to Wellington.
The current timetable for election to the Investor Advisory Committee is as follows:
2 July 2011 Nomination forms returned to Wellington
July 2011 Collation of nominations and preparation of investor mailout
August 2011 Postal ballot conducted – booklet of nominees details provided to each investor
together with voting form
The completed nomination form must be provided to Wellington by no later than 5.00pm 2 July 2011.

No mention who the remaining rep is and what a waste of time and expense going through the whole useless exercise again. Perhaps it would have been better to actually ask PIF investors if they wanted to continue the IAC farce than just assume that they would, considering that there is a strong chance WC could well not even be in control of the PIF (hopefully) in July.

Another nail in the coffin, now I shall continue reading the rest of the announcement http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724017.PDF Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (17 May 2011)

Lets compare original amounts owed and those realised on the properties featured in the latest PIN announcement:

                            Principal and
                            interest as at    Interest Rate    Original maturity      amount     
                            31 May 2008     per annum        date                     realised

Hastings Point NSW $14,392,282     11%                25 June 2008          $12.66mill

Sylvania NSW         $34,365,429     11%                29 August 2007        20.02mill

Creswick VIC            $2,952,680    11.5%              25 September 2008     2.43mill

Brooklyn West VIC     $846,655      11.25%             30 April 2008              0.5 mill

St Leonards NSW   $9,214,843       11.25%              9 January 2009          8.  mill

Blacktown NSW      $2,563,140      11.25%             29 December 2008      1.8  mill

Narrabeen NSW      $2,646,905      11.75%              6 October 2006         1.5mill

Seddon VIC           $9,012,542      11.25%             19 February 2008        8.5mill

Chatswood NSW     $4,608,231      11.75%              8 September 2007      1.8mill

Mackay QLD          $9,215,142      11%                   1 September 2008      5.5mill

Wollongong NSW   $57,993,841     10.75%              19 March 2007          15. mill 
                                                                                                    (to date)
Yeppoon QLD         $9,891,863     11.4%                 6 June 2007               4.mill

Pt Macquarie NSW $22,825,382     11.25%              18 July 2007               1.3mill
                                                                                                     (to date)

HMNN, no wonder the original amounts owing were not included!! Not exactly an outstanding achievement for nearly 3 years effort Wellington Capital, considering PIF investors have only received a return of two cents of their own capital and WC needs to raise money???? Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (17 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Lets compare original amounts owed and those realised on the properties featured in the latest PIN announcement:
> 
> Principal and
> interest as at    Interest Rate    Original maturity      amount
> ...



I did have all the figures in line but they seem to have moved from typing the post to actually posting it, hope you can read it!


----------



## 2CentsWorth (17 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> It is great to see some old contributors returning to the forum as well as some new ones. Hopefully there will be confirmation of the date etc of the proposed meeting shortly.
> Interesting to see what the reason for the Trading Halt is, maybe Wellington Capital are changing the constitution again? Seamisty




Hi Seamisty,
as far as I know, the Trading halt is in place to allow the 113million Unit  Placement that was carried out last Friday, the 13th.,to Sophisticated Investors. A day of infamy and barstardry for all PIF members!!
It would be absolutely wonderful if ASIC would take a leaf from the book of the Singapore watchdogs, and make her reverse the whole deal!!
Best wishes to all.


----------



## JohnH (17 May 2011)

So there it is!!! http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724019.PDF

Pay particular attention to Part 1 item 4  and also the Quotation agreement item 2

ASIC where are you????


----------



## DepressedDad (17 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> I did have all the figures in line but they seem to have moved from typing the post to actually posting it, hope you can read it!




Unfortunately we CAN read it seamisty


----------



## zixo (17 May 2011)

Seamisty, Interesting reading regarding the investor advisory committee
They have never presented a single piece of advice as far as I can recall.
I wonder if they will be more open for interviews now that they have been unshackled by JH in her dungeon of secrecy and deceit.

Actually, have they proven themselves to be so totally useless and ineffectual that Ive forgotten their names.


----------



## seamisty (17 May 2011)

I have had numerous calls and emails from PIF unitholders this afternoon re the two Wellington Capital duly appointed Investor Advisory Committee members resigning and other WC related issues.

Perhaps they were also totally disgusted at the blatant grab by WC to shore up some voting support at the expense of existing PIF investors by further diluting their holdings by a third?

Other investors were bewildered at the sudden attempt by Wellington Capital to be seen as proactive and transparent and could only conclude that it is because WC are seriously concerned as to the support the PIF Action Group has received from investors who cannot wait to see the END of the current RE!! 

Perhaps now the two IAC reps might contact the PIF AG? I would sincerely like to know if any of my emails directed to the IAC were ever tabled.

'What is the role of the Investor Advisory Committee? http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/20090311_NSXRelease_IAC.pdf
The purpose of the Investor Advisory Committee is to ensure investor input into the decision making process of the Fund into the future.
Members of the committee will have an opportunity to discuss current issues with the board and management team and the outcome of each committee meeting will be provided to all unitholders in the following Investor Update.'


I would like to know if the IAC reps were ever given the opportunity or had 'investor input' to discuss changing the constitution and issuing more shares? I would think not.

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (17 May 2011)

zixo said:


> Seamisty, Interesting reading regarding the investor advisory committee
> They have never presented a single piece of advice as far as I can recall.
> I wonder if they will be more open for interviews now that they have been unshackled by JH in her dungeon of secrecy and deceit.
> 
> Actually, have they proven themselves to be so totally useless and ineffectual that Ive forgotten their names.



 They were Chris Mangan, Alana Woodford and Bronwyn Andrejic Zixo. I always thought Ms Woodford was actually fictitious LOL!! Thats why it would be great to know who actually resigned. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (18 May 2011)

MOVING CLOSER

The manager of the Premium Income Fund has found an interesting way to generate value for the long-suffering unitholders in the MFS-founded mortgage scheme.

The Jenny Hutson-headed Wellington Capital yesterday announced it had raised $7.55 million from a highly dilutive 10 ¢-a-unit placement - which was priced at a 70 per cent discount to the fund's net tangible asset backing. Or a 90 per cent discount to the original value of its units.

The placement, which fell short of its original aim to raise $11.3 million, was made to a group of unnamed ''professional and sophisticated investors''.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/no-j...racy-theory-20110517-1erdt.html#ixzz1MdOlRSBy


----------



## simgrund (18 May 2011)

JohnH said:


> So there it is!!! http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724019.PDF
> 
> Pay particular attention to Part 1 item 4  and also the Quotation agreement item 2
> 
> ASIC where are you????




This is beyond the pale!!!!!
John, Marcom, Jadel, IAC; aren't there requirements to put such proposals to shareholders?
Not just A'SICk, but ACCC together with complete umbrella of regulatory bodies
must take immediate action.
Can a petition be started?

In utter indignation,
Regards,


----------



## Wayne Wheeler (18 May 2011)

Hello Seamisty (and others).

As usual your research and summary of all matters PIF/WC is excellent. In light of your review (above) of the WC performance in relation to realisation of profit/loss on the PIF property portfolio transactions to date (interesting reading... if you're a manic-depressive), I thought I would make a couple of passing observations on your recent comments re "*impeccable credentials*" etc. In the interests of brevity let's call them IC so that I can continue to confuse everyone with an ever increasing plethora of acronyms. 

Exactly who has IC (by your definition) in the current business environment for managing your fund's assets? Did the original MFS managers have IC when you guys bought in, or did WC/JH possess these impressive attributes when they assumed absolute control of your $$? Do you consider that the various individual managers, consultants, solicitors, advisors and other porcine proboscises along the way have had IC? Any of them? Do ASIC and it's various directors/managers/investigators qualify under your definition, or did you consider that they had IC prior to your pleas for intervention with PIF?

What do you think of the IC of the various players now?

My point is that things change, and they can change very quickly. It's absurdly easy for everyone to appear to be a financial genius when times are good - especially with your money. Property investors make a killing on every deal and are driving a Mercedes, stockbrokers are bullet-proof and driving a Ferrari..... and fund managers are raking in deposits from investors and are driving a Bentley.

The real test of a competent fund manager is how they perform when the substance hits the fan, and it's obvious that it's you guys who have now been well & truly splattered - not them. Exactly what pain have WC or others acknowledged or shared in the obliteration of your unit value? As you have noted, history seems to indicate a simple strategy of "take whatever you can get" for the assets without any consideration of alternatives. Of course, these are only the opinions of observers because one isn't given access or input to the machinations of the decision making process - is one?

Do WC have experience in property development/management, and more particularly, in maximisation of returns from "distressed" assets in difficult financial/property environments? Are they managing your fund to your approval and in the absolute interests of your investment growth? Do they have access to the necessary resources of experienced managers and further investors, or overseas funding where necessary. I don't know, but they obviously have access to enough resources to float another 10% (or thereabouts) of units which will further dilute your holding and (probably) provide them with a nice block of voting proxies. Or are we just being cynical? Seamisty, Simgrund et al... why aren't you all chaining yourselves to the ASIC/WC entry doors?

Anyway, we have a valid proposal and viable alternative on the table for consideration by all - which of course WC are now attempting to knock out via legal manouevrings. I'm sure that's something which they *are* good at. Whilst I understand the hopelessness and mistrust that you are feeling towards the world generally, I would hope that we are given a fair hearing and an opportunity to present our case & further explain our strategies. Unlike others we have used our own (considerable) money and resources in this venture to date.

We're happy to provide personal phone numbers and email adresses to all legitimate enquiries.


----------



## Wayne Wheeler (18 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> MOVING CLOSER
> 
> The placement, which fell short of its original aim to raise $11.3 million, was made to a group of unnamed ''professional and sophisticated investors''.




Professional and Sophisticated Investors! Really?? Well... I guess that's OK then! Pardon my cynicism.


----------



## Bumblebee (18 May 2011)

I find it somewhat unbelievable that WC have progressed this far with their blatant share issue grab into our fund.
 With WC's race towards liquidation (return of cash) and even a further one cent distribution this represents a monetary windfall in a return on 10 cents for the exclusively chosen few.
And what about the big power weilding stick of the new potential votes.
Are our legal eagles still pursuing JH to challenge this outragesness?
When is the proposed shareholders meeting in Sydney?
Or is it now  too late to get the numbers up against her ?

Feeling very screwed over . Bumblebee


----------



## simgrund (18 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> In the latest PIn announcement:Investor Advisory Committee
> Two members of the Investor Advisory Committee have indicated their intention to resign. ..............................................................................................................................
> No mention who the remaining rep is and what a waste of time and expense going through the whole useless exercise again. Perhaps it would have been better to actually ask PIF investors if they wanted to continue the IAC farce than just assume that they would, considering that there is a strong chance WC could well not even be in control of the PIF (hopefully) in July.
> 
> Another nail in the coffin, now I shall continue reading the rest of the announcement http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724017.PDF Seamisty




Bugger; Unmentioned, Undistinguished and certainly Unlamented of the 2 departees. 
I am excited to Unknow as to who the next Unappreciated, Unvisible ghosts of the IAC may be pushed forward by WC ???
Regards,


----------



## seamisty (18 May 2011)

New Pin Announcement re Kooralbyn http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724021.PDF


----------



## seamisty (18 May 2011)

Bumblebee said:


> I find it somewhat unbelievable that WC have progressed this far with their blatant share issue grab into our fund.
> With WC's race towards liquidation (return of cash) and even a further one cent distribution this represents a monetary windfall in a return on 10 cents for the exclusively chosen few.
> And what about the big power weilding stick of the new potential votes.
> Are our legal eagles still pursuing JH to challenge this outragesness?
> ...



We have the numbers to call an EGM Bumblebee, keep an eye on the forum. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (18 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> New Pin Announcement re Kooralbyn http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724021.PDF




Seamisty, did you see the clause :-  
 "At the request of the purchaser the contract contains a change in 
control clause, meaning that the purchaser can choose whether to 
proceed with the contract if Wellington Capital Limited is not the 
responsible entity of the Fund.  
The contract is subject to an 18 month deferred settlement etc....."

...........  I think we can draw our own conclusions


----------



## seamisty (18 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> New Pin Announcement re Kooralbyn http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724021.PDF



Pretty flexible contract Jen?? What difference does it make who the RE is. With all that potential growth its a shame the PIF investors may not be able to share in it once again.

'At the request of the purchaser the contract contains a change in
control clause, meaning that the purchaser can choose whether to
proceed with the contract if Wellington Capital Limited is not the
responsible entity of the Fund.
The contract is subject to an 18 month deferred settlement and is
conditional upon finance and finalisation of town planning
considerations by the Conditions Date which is eight months from
the contract date namely 16 January 2012. The purchaser plans to
undertake capital works following the conditions date.'

Looks a bit like a 'Claytons Contract' to me. Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (18 May 2011)

Here's an interesting question for those of you with the legal experience.
Could a majority of shareholders successfully vote that any dividends paid to unit holders would be in direct proportion to the original value of those units?  i.e.  if you paid $1.00 as most of us did, then you get a full share.  If you paid just 10 cents as some "Professional and Sophisticated Investors" did, then you get just 10%.


----------



## JohnH (18 May 2011)

Alf has just announced that they have acquired a further  1,466,82 units giving them 1.13% voting power.

I wonder if they are considered one of the "Professional and Sophisticated Investors"


----------



## bespoke (18 May 2011)

Hi All,
Like others, I have been following this thread for some time to get some idea
 of what is happening to my PIF investments. Had a phone call some time back from the Action Group re. an upcoming meeting with the aim of voting WC out and appointing another RE, but have heard no more.

I am not across the fine detail of what has been going on, but for what it is worth, here are are few thoughts.
1. WC has a very bad smell about it and I would be happy to see them go, BUT,

2. I would be wary of the 'out of the frying pan into the fire' scenario.

As I understand it the proposed RE is a receiver.. Having just endured a lengthy and painful operation on my wallet by Ferrier Hodgson, I don't want to go there again. Remember, even WC sounded OK at the time, but look at it now. That said, I would support any action that can be shown to improve our lot.

The recent share shuffle is clearly outrageous even if not illegal. The smell is getting to the level where ASIC should not be allowed to ignore it. They will though unless as a group we can raise the public profile of what is going on. Nothing like publicity to get people moving. Any suggestions?


----------



## seamisty (18 May 2011)

bespoke said:


> Hi All,
> Like others, I have been following this thread for some time to get some idea
> of what is happening to my PIF investments. Had a phone call some time back from the Action Group re. an upcoming meeting with the aim of voting WC out and appointing another RE, but have heard no more.
> 
> ...



Welcome to the forum bespoke.I would just like to clarify that the propsed RE, Castlereagh Capital is a subsiduary Fund Management company of BRI FERRIER,  NOT Ferrier Hodgson. Seamisty


----------



## ASICK (18 May 2011)

If drivers were afforded the same lattitude as fund managers, the dividing lines would have no meaning.


----------



## ASICK (18 May 2011)

If police were as ineffective as ASIC, there'd be anarchy in the streets.


----------



## seamisty (18 May 2011)

A bit of trivia: PIF saw 24 announcements from Wellington Capital from Jan1 2010 until Dec31 2010, 5 of which were 100% 'REJECT' ALF PIF offer related.

Jan1 2011 until 18 May 2011, 25 announcements, with no 'REJECTS' amongst them!!! See WC, you could do it all the time, keep us better informed that is!! Simply AMAZING!! Unfortunately Wellington Capital has become so transparent of late, we can see right through them. Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (18 May 2011)

.

Unfortunately Selciper , the only   way that this cynical pillage of our assets can be redressed is by legal action , possibly by our prospective Fund Manager

You would have more chance of getting assistance from  a Neanderthal
 with a dual frontal lobotomy  than receiving any help from ASIC.

 I can assure this observation is made from previous bitter and unpleasant experience.


----------



## selciper (18 May 2011)

Jadel said:


> .
> 
> Unfortunately Selciper , the only   way that this cynical pillage of our assets can be redressed is by legal action , possibly by our prospective Fund Manager
> 
> ...



It certainly is looking like we need outside help as the public servants - supposedly charged with protecting us - cannot raise their heads from that fluffy ASIC pillow.


----------



## seamisty (18 May 2011)

Investor revolt threatens 30 fund managers
Wednesday, 18 May 2011 12:25pm

By Alison Bevege  
An action group of disgruntled investors are trying to sack the 30-member management team of Wellington Premium Income Fund.

The unit-holder action group says it represents 27 per cent of the investors in PIF and has taken steps to convene a meeting to replace existing managers Wellington Capital Limited.

The angry investors have asked Castlereagh Capital Limited, a subsidiary of insolvency specialist firm BRI Ferrier, to take control of the Wellington Premium Income Fund (PIF), and eject Wellington Capital Limited as managers of the fund.

Castlereagh today confirmed that they would be happy to take on the project and said they had the expertise to provide a better outcome
Full article http://www.financialstandard.com.au/news/view/8447668/


----------



## breaker1 (18 May 2011)

*IMPORTANT* *UPDATE*

*EGM CALL*

An Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of all Premium Income Fund (PIF) investors is being called by the PIF Action Group on:

Time:   11.00 am (Eastern Standard Time) sign in commences at 10.00 am (arrive preferably at 10.00am)
Date:    16 June 2011
Place:  SMC Conference and Function Centre, 66 Goulburn Street, Sydney, NSW  ( Map: http://www.whereis.com/    )


*WHY CALL AN EGM - LATEST WELLINGTON BEHAVIOUR *

On 6 May 2011, Wellington Capital Limited (Wellington) the responsible entity (RE) of the Premium Income Fund ARSN 090 687 577; NSX Code 'PIN' (the Fund) announced a placement of 113 million units at 10 cents to raise $11.3 million equal to 14.97% of units currently on issue. The Fund has approximately 10,500 investors located throughout Australia. In our view, in completing this raising Wellington is no longer acting in the best interests of all Unitholders. 

We are concerned that:
* this behaviour by Wellington will have the effect of diluting the current value of investor units in the Fund even further. 
* recent changes to the constitution, have removed the protection Members had against the sale of more units in the Fund at less than the reported value of the Fund’s net assets; 
* Wellington propose to issue units at a discount of over 70% to reported net asset value
* it willl inevitably involve otherwise unnecessary costs of fundraising payable such as underwriting and legal fees
* Wellington does not now need to offer units pro rata to current Members, and has indicated nothing to them regarding the preservation of the extent of their collective current ownership of the Fund . 

*WHY CALL EGM - THE OBVIOUS*

In the opinion of many of your fellow  PIF Action Group members contacted and that of the PIF AG executive, Wellington Capital is considered NOT to be performing anywhere near as well as expected and promised. Over the last three years of Wellington management the fund continues to lose money and go backwards as follows:
* Losses of approx $34M 2009, $40M 2010 and $4M half year to Dec 2010 (not including April 1c payment) 
* Unit value down to from 45c to 33c in the $1 - a 25% loss since Wellington Capital took over the Fund 
* No 3c payment as promised by Dec 2008 - only a paltry 1c paid Oct 2010 and then April 2011 and two years too late 
* No quarterly distributions 
* Buyback Scheme of up to 37.75 million investor units at 45 cents per unit to occur by 18 September 2009 did not happen 
* Continued write downs of our PIF assets 
* Wellington appears to now be mortgagee in possession of most properties or having appointed Receivers & Managers, which indicates most properties are in loan default 
Lack of transparency (IAC vote count not given, $5M loan provider at 25% interest, legal actions against fund, etc) 
* NSX listing currently trading at around 8.8c poor value - indicating a trader perception of PIF fund value of only $66M 
* It appears that Wellington is liquidating the funds physical assets with little sign of the targeted restoration of fund in 3 to 5 years

In short, serious declining asset value with only 2% of our own money returned to investors over the entire time of Wellington management to date, when upward movement was expected. Simply put, we are not satisfied with Wellington's management. Nobody can accuse our Action Group of not giving Wellington a fair go. We feel they have had more than a fair go!

Our investments in the PIF must not be allowed to continue in it's documented downward spiral, accordingly, we are calling an EGM in an attempt to remove Wellington Capital as RE and replace them with a genuine alternative RE manager provided by the PIF AG 


*CASTLEREAGH CAPITAL LIMITED* *"THE GENUINE ALTERNATIVE FOUND"*
Over a period of time your AG Senior Executives have liaised with the management of an Australia wide company called BRI Ferrier Limited, with conferences, meetings, teleconference hook ups, phone calls, emails, power point presentations, etc. In addition AG executives and Castlereagh management met with or communicated with, our class action lawyer and barrister, substantial PIF unitholders (AG and non AG), IMF Aust., ASIC (within their advisory role), professional observers, etc. Most meetings were conducted at BRI Ferrier's Sydney office.

We feel that BRI Ferrier is a well-known, established, company that has been around for a long time and know what they are doing. We have got to know them and the way they do business and we feel comfortable with them. We observed them to be professional, successful, ethical and loyal. 

BRI Ferrier have a subsidiary fund management service called, Castlereagh Capital Limited, named after their address based at 1 Castlereagh Street Sydney. Castlereagh Capital Limited is a licensed Fund Manager, Responsible Entity (RE), ACN 140 979 273. 

Castlereagh Capital senior Executives and Board Members have significant experience in operating distressed and non-distressed mortgage and property portfolios. Castlereagh's parent, BRI Ferrier, has more than 125 employees Australia wide with over 40 years experience and offices located in Sydney, Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane and North Queensland. 

In addition to Castlereagh's Fund's Management service,  BRI's services also include:
Business reconstruction 
Bankruptcy 
Forensic accounting 
Corporate insolvency 
Property insolvency
and Castlereagh Capital has access to the same assets, wisdom, experience, knowledge, valuable business contacts and services spread out across the country where our PIF assets are located

Your AG Executives are concerned that after continual PIF losses and write downs, that assets in the fund are in a distressed state and that Castlereagh Capital being specialised in this area are better equipped to deal with this serious concern

Castlereagh Capital Web Site:  http://www.cascap.com.au/ 

(Castlereagh Parent) BRI Ferrier Web Site: http://www.briferrier.com.au/pages/welcome.php


*DO WE HAVE THE EGM NUMBERS*

Corporate law requires that holding an EGM requires 5% or more of the entire units of the fund. This would require the AG to have the support of at least 38 million units from PIF investors and the requirement of those unit to have returned their written "Authorizations for EGM Power of Attorney" back to us

It is greatly satisfying to advise members that your AG have achieved more than double the amount required above. A huge thank you and deep appreciation to all those PIF investors that we approached and who then gave their enthusiastic support with their signed, returned, written Authorisation for EGM



*CASTLEREAGH MEMORANDUM IN MAIL **THE GENUINE MAIL KIT*

Castlereagh Capital have sent an Explanatory Memorandum [EM] kit, which is now in the mail going out to all 10,700 PIF investors. We do not wish to replicate the Castlereagh Explanatory Memorandum package in this update, so we ask members to carefully read it when it arrives in the mail to you.

We strongly recommend you to vote "FOR" all the seven resolutions proposed in the Explanatory Memorandum after receiving and reading the document.

Over the next week please look out for the Castlereagh Memorandum Kit to come in the mail. The first item you should see when you open the Castlereagh Memorandum is a cover letter from the PIF AG. Some investors have been receiving letters from ALF PIF so please do not confuse it with this genuine Castlereagh Kit . 

There have been some scurrilous comments in the media that our PIF AG or Castlereagh may be aligned with ALF PIF. We state that both the PIF AG and Castlereagh have NO association with ALF PIF and any assertion that the groups are working together are completely FALSE.


----------



## zixo (18 May 2011)

To date I have had no written notification or confirmation from Wellington capital in regards to the splurge of changes and activity.

I haven't been informed of the changes to the amendment or the re-issuance of units 

 I'm wondering how the Jenny Hutson is going to word her latest spiel
 " I'm pleased to announce that wellington capital have sneakily amended the consititution and created 113 million discounted extra units at one tenth the original price to unknown persons who are favourable to wellingtons working. Oh it also further dilutes your investment. Your welcome! 


Surely they cant be allowed to get away with not notifying us and hacking into a fund to the detriment of us "long suffering investors" as we are now comically known as.


does anyone know if they Legally have any rights?


----------



## DoraNBoots (18 May 2011)

breaker1 said:


> *IMPORTANT* *UPDATE*
> 
> *EGM CALL*
> 
> ...




Thank you Breaker and all involved!  I look forward to the 16 June


----------



## seamisty (18 May 2011)

YEEHAAA Breaker!! I am sure many PIF much diluted and further depleted unit holders will be 'delighted' and 'encouraged' to know that the culmination of so much research and hard work over a long period of time will give them a choice of what many consider a better alternative, something which were not been offered apart from liquidation if we did not vote for Wellington Capital as RE when MFS/Octaviar collapsed. I have spoken to so many who are just so disgusted with the latest Wellington Capital self preserving antics they just want to sign on the dotted line and be rid of them!!!! Let the race begin!!! Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (18 May 2011)

breaker1 said:


> *IMPORTANT* *UPDATE*
> 
> *EGM CALL*
> 
> ...


----------



## NOR (18 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> YEEHAAA Breaker!! I am sure many PIF much diluted and further depleted unit holders will be 'delighted' and 'encouraged' to know that the culmination of so much research and hard work over a long period of time will give them a choice of what many consider a better alternative, something which were not been offered apart from liquidation if we did not vote for Wellington Capital as RE when MFS/Octaviar collapsed. I have spoken to so many who are just so disgusted with the latest Wellington Capital self preserving antics they just want to sign on the dotted line and be rid of them!!!! Let the race begin!!! Seamisty




HI ALL     LET IT BEGIN    NOR


----------



## ASICK (18 May 2011)

Good onyas ... I hope the $5m wasn't entrenched in the constitution & you're all able to effect a change in management for the better.   If the manager is changed, then I hope your new manager looks closely at getting the latest constitutional amendment set aside etc. etc.


----------



## Towbar (18 May 2011)

Thank you Breaker,we look forward to June 16th, wIth anticipation


----------



## Bumblebee (19 May 2011)

ONYA!!! Breaker and Co.
100% behind you. Bring it on. Let the games begin!
Am doing a bit of a ring around to other shareholders in Brisbane to help keep the momentum and the energy of this push to the max.
A big thankyou to all. I'm so excited! Bumblebee.


----------



## atlas1950 (19 May 2011)

Hi all,

Does anybody know what percentage we need at the EGM to sack WC and to appoint  a new entity???

Michael


----------



## breaker1 (19 May 2011)

In relation to my post 7149, page 358, above, entitled:
*IMPORTANT* *UPDATE*

*EGM CALL*

I make the following obligatory disclaimer and cover note - please read:

Disclaimer 
While the PIF Action Group Inc (PIFAG) has endeavoured to provide a full explanation regarding the motions, it has had to rely on publicly available information concerning the affairs of the Premium Income Fund and its existing Responsible Entity, Wellington Capital Limited (Wellington).

None of the requisitioning members, PIFAG or Castlereagh Capital Limited (Castlereagh), the nominated replacement Responsible Entity, warrants or guarantees the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this AG Update and to the extent permitted by law disclaims any liability for any loss, however arising, from reliance on it.  

To assist you in assessing the Motions, PIFAG and Castlereagh, through the Requisitioning Members, may ask the Responsible Entity to provide members with more information which may be relevant to the Motions before the Meeting.  Further information will be made available to members at the following website:  http://www.cascap.com.au/  Should more information be provided to you, please read it carefully together with the Memorandum Information Booklet.

Cover note
PIF AG Executives are not licensed financial advisors, lawyers or investment advisors. We are fellow PIF investors like yourself, who want to make a change for what we believe will be in our best interests. Any comments made by us are simply our personal opinions. This AG Update, in some parts, contains simply our interpretation of the actual Explanatory Memorandum Package coming to you in the mail. Our interpretation could be wrong. Please carefully read the Memorandum and form your own interpretation and understanding for any decisions regarding your PIF investment. If you are not sure what you should do you may like to ask appropriate professionals for advice.

Thanks for your patience

breaker


----------



## seamisty (19 May 2011)

ASIC declines to act so investors move to sack fund manager Colin Kruger 
May 19, 2011

DISGRUNTLED investors in the MFS-founded Premium Income Fund have formally taken steps to remove the manager controversially appointed to the billion-dollar fund just before the collapse of MFS.

The investors failed to get the securities regulator interested in allegations that the manager, Wellington Capital, may have breached the Corporations Act with the controversial share placement it engineered this month.

Yesterday the Australian Securities and Investments Commission informed the PIF Action Group that it would not take any action. 

However, the PIF Action Group may yet get the upper hand if it successfully removes Wellington Capital as responsible entity without the fund paying a $5 million removal fee to Wellington.

The group aims to do this with a resolution to change the constitution and remove the fee before removing Wellington Capital as responsible entity. The unit holder meeting is due to be held in Sydney on June 16.
Full article: http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic...move-to-sack-fund-manager-20110518-1et5c.html


----------



## seamisty (19 May 2011)

$25m offer puts Kooralbyn in play
THE dead heart of the Kooralbyn Resort could be resuscitated in weeks after a Gold Coast businessman yesterday secured the once popular playground for $25 million.

Murray Bailey, who heads a US-based renewable energy company, will not settle on the deal until 2012 at the earliest, but he yesterday said work would start soon on restoring parts of the dormant resort.

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/05/19/316401_gold-coast-business.html


----------



## charles36 (19 May 2011)

The quote "Let the games begin"  The games have been played with our money for a number of years and we all lost.  Now let us all rally and seek out our friends who are unit holders and gather their support for the EGM.  This "Game" is now being played on our home ground and we have the steely resolve to WIN.  All who can attend the meeting please do and show your support.  There will be no pantomone this time.   This is our chance to save the remnants of our hard earned savings.  Someone said, "Out of the fat and into the fire."  Well I say if you stay in the existing frying pan "you may well be cremated."  At least doing it the way PIFAG suggest we have a chance of some recovery.  Stay tuned, life is about to get interesting for us all.


----------



## seamisty (19 May 2011)

:bandThanks to all who have logged on and posted their support for the PIFAG re the proposed removal of Wellington Capital as Responsible Entity of our Fund. We encourage EVERY PIF unit holder to use this forum to continue to show support by posting here to demonstrate we are not a minority group of disgruntled investors. We are the UNITED MAJORITY, determined to claw back the remnants of OUR grossly mismanaged, strongly diluted PIF!! We are no longer naive and we know we were conned so please make the effort to register and post. It is time to speak up and I look forward to meeting you all in person at the EGM in Sydney on the 16th June!! Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (19 May 2011)

zixo said:


> To date I have had no written notification or confirmation from Wellington capital in regards to the splurge of changes and activity.
> 
> I haven't been informed of the changes to the amendment or the re-issuance of units
> 
> ...




I would call such person a FEM-RA-CUDA; 
fem for female ra for rapacious cuda for barracuda

And huge thanks to the TEAM for a truly momentous work done on our behalf.
I am a rejuvenated geriatric clicking my heels high in the air. 
Let's ensure that that maximum votes are gathered by all means available.
And let's look at the way how to exclude diluted units from entering the ballot.

Regards


----------



## Blueboy1 (19 May 2011)

Thank you Breaker,Seamisty and others for all your hard work and diligence,I am with you all the way and hope that we can find the numbers to rid ourselves of the scourge that has been sucking our fund dry whilst feathering the nest of the red coated vampire.
Well done Breaker,I am sure there will be more support behind you than was ever thought possible.
Blueboy1


----------



## atlas1950 (19 May 2011)

Well done to all of you who have brought us to this point.

For those of us who cannot attend the meeting on 16th June, can you tell us how we can participate  for the sacking of WC and the appointment of a new RE.

If I would have been in Sydney at the time, I would CERTAINLY have attended. I have been a PIF investor since 2006, and an avid reader of this forum ever since  Breaker1 put in his very first post on 15th May 2008.

Just my luck that I will miss the fireworks, but again, please advise for those who cannot attend the meeting on 16th June, what we should do.

Michael


----------



## BootsnAll (19 May 2011)

It's a disgrace that ASIC has done nothing to help our plight. Also Nick Nicholls seems to have only praise for the disgraceful performance of JH & WC. Thanks to all the hard work & time some of dedicated AG have put in we now have some hope. The EGM can't come soon enough.


----------



## seamisty (19 May 2011)

BootsnAll said:


> It's a disgrace that ASIC has done nothing to help our plight. Also Nick Nicholls seems to have only praise for the disgraceful performance of JH & WC. Thanks to all the hard work & time some of dedicated AG have put in we now have some hope. The EGM can't come soon enough.



ASIC have continually demonstrated they are not interested in our plight, their latest failure to intervene on Wellington Capitals determination to dilute our Fund by issuing more shares highlights JUST HOW BLOODY USELESS they are. Do not be discouraged by their inaction, its all part of the plan to deter individuals from lodging complaints! I sincerely hope  Financial Advisers etc have made representation on behalf of their clients by raising their concerns with ASIC on your behalf? 
BootsnAll, I once contacted Nick Nichols, Gold Coast Bulletin and voiced concern that many PIF unitholders perceived his reporting as biased and he responded with "In what way is the reporting perceived as biased?" HELLO!!! 

Seamisty


----------



## atlas1950 (19 May 2011)

Another trading halt just announced on the NSX.

I feel that our fearless leader will not give up without a fight. She has put in 3 years of her life and many millions of our hard earned dollars into this project, and as she doesn't wish to loose face in the business community, I think she will fight tooth and nail to maintain her position.

If we happen to dislodge WC as our RE, what legal side stepping can we expect.

Michael


----------



## ASICK (19 May 2011)

BootsnAll said:


> It's a disgrace that ASIC has done nothing to help our plight. Also Nick Nicholls seems to have only praise for the disgraceful performance of JH & WC. Thanks to all the hard work & time some of dedicated AG have put in we now have some hope. The EGM can't come soon enough.




ASIC is no more competent than the US SEC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw_Tgu0txS0

They're great at making sure the forms are filled in, but protection of investors is not within their respective capacities.


----------



## seamisty (19 May 2011)

In the accompanying attachment is an assortment of todays PIF related media articles. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## selciper (19 May 2011)

Do senior ASIC staff wear red leather jackets at the office?


----------



## k.smith (19 May 2011)

simgrund said:


> ...
> And let's look at the way how to exclude diluted units from entering the ballot.
> 
> Regards




I believe that the whole issue of responsible entities allowing new investment into highly impaired funds, how this falls under section 601 of the Corporations Act, and how this fits with acting in the best interests of unitholders, needs scutiny. I feel there just does not seem to be enough protection for unitholders that suffer such losses as what we have in this fund, the PFMF fund and others. The message will only ever be heard if the UNITHOLDERS keep complaining... 

My votes will go to Castlereagh....


----------



## marcom (19 May 2011)

"Yesterday the Australian Securities and Investments Commission informed the PIF Action Group that it would not take any action."

This proves THERE IS NO CORPORATE REGULATION IN AUSTRALIA!


----------



## ASICK (19 May 2011)

Is there a .pdf copy of each of the notice of meeting and explanatory memorandum? If so, would someone please direct me to it?


----------



## seamisty (19 May 2011)

PIF Action Group encourages all PIF unitholders to register your email adress on the Castlereagh Capital website to Join The Premium Income Fund Mailing List http://www.cascap.com.au./page.php?page=19 Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (19 May 2011)

ASICK said:


> Is there a .pdf copy of each of the notice of meeting and explanatory memorandum? If so, would someone please direct me to it?



ASICK below is the link to Electronic copies of the following documents :

Letter to Unit holders from PIF Action Group 
Letter to Unit holders from Castlereagh 
Notice of Meeting 
Notice of Meeting - Constitution Extracts 
Information Memorandum 
Annexure A - Information about Castlereagh Capital 
Annexure B - Letter from Class Action legal team 
Annexure C - Investor Advisory Interest Form 


http://www.cascap.com.au/page.php?page=32


----------



## coppo (19 May 2011)

Hi all,
I'd just like to thank Seamisty, Breaker etc et al for the hard yards they are putting in for us. You guys are doing a fantastic job. Hopefully we get some goods news soon.


----------



## ASICK (19 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> ASICK below is the link to Electronic copies of the following documents :
> 
> Letter to Unit holders from PIF Action Group
> Letter to Unit holders from Castlereagh
> ...




Thanks Seamisty, the docs weren't there earlier this morning - or maybe it was because the site had a lot of traffic, and the page didn't fully load.


----------



## Janiss (19 May 2011)

I have this site set as my home page so I can keep up with the latest happenings, so while I don't post often I am a regular user. I'm really looking forward to meeting everyone at the EGM, especially you, Seamisty. 
A million thanks to all involved in the PIFAG who have made this event possible and given us all hope that there's a bright light at the end of the long dark tunnel.


----------



## ASICK (19 May 2011)

http://castlereagh.rlbrandmgmt.com.au/include/tiny_mce/plugins/filemanager/files/Annexure_1_-_Extracts_for_Notice_of_Meeting.pdf

Your fund's constitution, Clause 23.3:
"... In the event that Wellington Capital Limited is appointed as Responsible Entity to the Scheme and is subsequently removed without its consent for any reason other than negligence or fraud, Wellington Capital Limited will be entitled to receive payment of removal fee of 2% of the gross value of the Scheme (as determined in the most recent audited accounts) which fee is payable immediately prior to replacement of Wellington Capital Limited as Responsible Entity of the Scheme. This fee will only be payable on removal of Wellington Capital Limited as Responsible Entity of the Scheme and may not otherwise be claimed by Wellington Capital Limited in any other circumstances. ..."

Also see Clauses 23.4.1 - 23.4.5

I hope you guys have got some really good legal advice.  As I understand it, the abovereferenced clause is entrenched, that is, it's payable immediately prior to the present manager being ousted - it's set there for a specific reason - to protect the fee.

There's no doubt it's a timing thing, but I somehow think that you can't negate the payment to Wellington Capital by the removal of those clauses on the same day as ousting the manager.

I would have thought that members should be given a legal opinion about this issue.

I also think if the issues (fee / ousting of manager) aren't separated in (legal) time, legal action by the present manager (if ousted) will follow as night follows day.

I would have thought you'd have to bring two meetings - the first to amend the constitution, and the next day, a meeting to remove the manager.  Maybe one in the morning, and another meeting in the afternoon?

Is there a reason to have a "$5m - better safe than sorry' extra meeting?


----------



## seamisty (19 May 2011)

New NSX announcement http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724028.PDF

Non-Renounceable Rights Issue – Section 1012DAA Notice
Wellington Capital Limited (Wellington) as Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund (Fund)
announced on 6 May 2011 and 10 May 2011 that it will undertake a non-renounceable rights issue to
Unitholders in the Fund (Offer) on the basis of an entitlement to subscribe for one New Unit for every three
existing units held at the record date being 7pm (AEST) on 18 May 2011. On 17 May 2011, Wellington
confirmed by way of announcement a revised issue price of $0.09 per New Unit. The rights issue will
therefore see up to 276,844,256 New Units being issued to raise up to $24.91 million.
The New Units will be issued without disclosure to investors under Section 1012DAA of the Corporations
Act 2001 (Corporations Act) as modified by ASIC Class Order 08/35.
Further details regarding the issue are set out in the Information Booklet following this Notice.
For the purposes of Section 1012DAA(7) of the Corporations Act, Wellington advises that:
(a) the New Units will be offered for issue without a Product Disclosure Statement;
(b) this Notice is given under Section 1012DAA(2)(f) of the Corporations Act;
(c) as a disclosing entity, the Fund is subject to regular updating and disclosure obligations;
(d) As at the date of this Notice Wellington Capital as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund
has complied with the provisions of:
(i) Chapter 2M of the Corporations Act as it applies to the Fund; and
(ii) Section 674 of the Corporations Act as it applies to the Fund;
(e) This Offer is not underwritten.
(f) As at the date of this Notice, there is no excluded information of the type referred to in Sections
1012DAA(8) and Section 1012DAA(9) of the Corporations Act;
(g) This issue of New Units pursuant to this Offer is not expected to have any material effect or
consequence on the control of the Fund, but it is dependent on a number of factors including investor
demand. However, to the extent that any Unitholders fail to take up their Entitlement under the
Offer, the percentage holdings of those Unitholders in the Fund will be diluted by those other
Unitholders who take up some, all or more than (i.e by subscribing for additional units under the Top
Up Facility) their Entitlement.


----------



## seamisty (19 May 2011)

And another re Rights Issue Information Booklet http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724029.PDF

I note PIN is still in a trading halt.


----------



## elizaman (19 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> :bandThanks to all who have logged on and posted their support for the PIFAG re the proposed removal of Wellington Capital as Responsible Entity of our Fund. We encourage EVERY PIF unit holder to use this forum to continue to show support by posting here to demonstrate we are not a minority group of disgruntled investors. We are the UNITED MAJORITY, determined to claw back the remnants of OUR grossly mismanaged, strongly diluted PIF!! We are no longer naive and we know we were conned so please make the effort to register and post. It is time to speak up and I look forward to meeting you all in person at the EGM in Sydney on the 16th June!! Seamisty




Thanks. Great effort by all members to get it this far. In line with bespokes comments though "out of the fire" I'm hoping that an actual plan or straegy is tabled prior to the meeting rather than the usual "Prepare separate workout strategies" and "Implement workout strategies in a cost-effective and efficient manner" along with pointing out Wellington's very poor form. This alone should seal the deal = however what sticks in my mind is will there be a stock forum 1 year from now doing something similar to Castlereagh?
Point that also comes to mind is politics where the newly elected party usually points the finger at it's predecessor for the first year or so for all the problems. 
In saying there will be no fire sales - this is an action I agree with however WC have said in there very few correspondances that they want to realize the full value of the properties and have passed in on some I believe. The market and available cash certainly has been strained worldwide in the last few years. What will Castlereagh do thats any different from this?? Send us a newsletter every month to tell us this?? WC probably made a mistake by trying to place terms or projected timelines on there strategy which has been proven to be insufficent. Will Castlereagh provide a similar list of their intentions and timelines if nothing more that a document that us uniformed investors can use as a guide or comparison? Will we also receive any documentation outlining potential costs for legal work, class actions etc, best and worst case scenarios if WC is fully paid in accordance with the constitution or chances on a percentage basis of WC being paid a portion of their fee as is the attempt?? Also a document/s outlining the the recent share placement at 10 cents on the dollar and the chance we might have to rescind it or have those shares valued in line with our shares which we all paid 1.00 for and therefore the newer shares ould only have a tenth of the voting right. What are the chances and the potential costs for righting this wrong which as you've mentioned our beloved public servants cannot do or don't think they can at least.
I'm assuming I'm not that popular right now so let me finish by saying that I fully support this action group and as there is no connection between Castlereagh and the PIF AG  I think it's only fair that Castlereagh be held to the same standards as WC by providing more detailed information. Lets not kid ourselves here - everyone wants there money back so - when do they think they can do it and how??
I also know that if it had not been for the PIF AG we would not be where we are today and we would not have WC actually sending out info and recent updates etc which appear somewhat positive albeit delayed. I also think that there is merit in another members comments involving WC's commitment over the last few years which I also don't believe will go away without some firm obstacles in place.

With respect


----------



## JohnH (19 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> And another re Rights Issue Information Booklet http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724029.PDF
> 
> I note PIN is still in a trading halt.




Seamisty, how can we stop this latest decimation of our fund?  This means that to maintain the voting power of our units we would have to chuck in a further 27% of our original investment!  We both know (and I'm sure that JH knows) that there are very few of our investors who would be in a position to pay out this amount even assuming they were prepared to.   

That aside, why does WC need the money?  If, as according to the prospectus they have realised  a net $82.5m  that still leaves $67.5m after our two paltry hand-outs. - or did that go towards paying off the RBS loan?

Even if we bought forward our meeting, they have put in a clause _"The Responsible Entity reserves the right to vary these dates and times without prior notice, including the right to close the Offer early, or to withdraw the Offer, or to accept late applications."_ There must be something we can do!!


----------



## seamisty (19 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> And another re Rights Issue Information Booklet http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724029.PDF
> 
> I note PIN is still in a trading halt.



Am I missing something here?:
'This Information Booklet is not a product disclosure statement and does not contain all of the information that an investor may require in order to make an informed investment decision': Why doesn't it contain ALL the information?

 'An investment in New Units under this Information Booklet should be
considered speculative.' And ASIC considers this move to be in the best interests of existing PIF unitholders

'By subscribing for their Entitlement, Eligible Unitholders avoid being diluted in their holding' 

And who will take up the shortfall if existing investors don't? O yes, the current RE will offer them to other interested parties at their discretion. Well sorry Wellington Capital, but this Fund is almost totally STUFFED as a result of your DISCRETION!!!

It appears WC couldn't even interest enough 'sophisticated' or 'professional' investors to take up the full original offfer of 113,000,000 units and fell short by 37.5 million units. Did those 'potential' investors see the writing on the wall that there will be a very strong chance that Wellington Capital could well be deposed in the not to distant future? And we have just witnessed how easy it is for an RE to 'change the constitution' at their whim!! Well if nothing else it appears current unit holders are champing at the bit to sign those papers!! Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (19 May 2011)

= however what sticks in my mind is will there be a stock forum 1 year from now doing something similar to Castlereagh?"

Some very valid points Elizamann.   However there is one huge difference between our original naive surrender to the (at best) over optimistic offerings of WC............ we have had the Action Group working diligently behind the scenes, researching and evaluating,  and (I hope) we are now a hell of a lot wiser.


----------



## ASICK (19 May 2011)

elizaman said:


> ... In saying there will be no fire sales - this is an action I agree with however WC have said in there very few correspondances that they want to realize the full value of the properties and have passed in on some I believe. ...




Just what is a fire sale? How long is a property to be held before being sold in order to avoid a 'FIRE SALE' tag?  

Is a sale at fair price in the prevailing market a fire sale?  I think not. So, why aren't assets disposed of more speedily?  How about loss of interest on capital retained in these funds?

Does the tag 'fire sale' continually prevent asset disposal and thereby prevent return of investor capital?

I think it does - I think investor fear of fire sales is a manager's best friend.


----------



## zixo (19 May 2011)

In My personal Opinion 
There are those of us who are having thoughts that Wellington capital have had the investors interests first and foremost as a priority and due to the distressed nature and world financial circumstances they have had little option but to take the course and actions they have. BULL!

Everyone has a choice

Just a few items that we, as original investors need to keep in mind.
During the dealings with IMF and the class action wellington has hindered investigations, stalled disclosure and blatantly sought to protect the crooks who raped the fund and put us in this situation in the first place. 

If any money is ever derived from a class action wellington will do everything in their power to get your compensation. Nothing is ever protected by law as we now well know with ASICs pathetic attitude. 

Hutson lied about return to fund in three years, She Lied about the 3 cents return of capital which was due 3 years ago. She lied about a fair and free election when the investor advisory committee was installed. She lied to the very investors she swore to work for. 

If you suspect Jenny Hutson and wellington Capital are going to miraculously change....think again

If its my choice of opting for the frying pan or fire. Its safer to jump into the fire and try and scramble out to save yourself  Than have a responsible entity like wellington Capital, chain you to a stake and torture you slowly.


----------



## elizaman (19 May 2011)

ASICK said:


> Just what is a fire sale? How long is a property to be held before being sold in order to avoid a 'FIRE SALE' tag?
> 
> Is a sale at fair price in the prevailing market a fire sale?  I think not. So, why aren't assets disposed of more speedily?  How about loss of interest on capital retained in these funds?
> 
> ...




This was my point. Who decides when a property should be sold or passed in. Telling me you'rre going to strategize and preparre plans etc etc is great but who and how makes the decision on what set of parameters. I know it's tough as some investors can hold on a while and have the time for the market to correct iself somewhat. Other investors want out now due to age/health etc possibly. So that being said , what would be the strategy under those circumstances?? Put it in writng. I think something like the advisory committee was a good idea as long as it was involved and kept well informed. I also think that it should be 7 members to broaden the persective from the fund. I'll assume that the committee we had could not all get togther at the same time sometimes and WC may have taken advantage of that or not. Was therre minutes recorded? Were they issued? Without these wee have no ideaa of there involvement one ay or the other. A new committee should actually pass comment on all potential sales/deals etc which the RE would utilixe in making the final decision.
I'm for the change but it has to be the right change for the right reason's

Regards


----------



## elizaman (19 May 2011)

JohnH said:


> = however what sticks in my mind is will there be a stock forum 1 year from now doing something similar to Castlereagh?"
> 
> Some very valid points Elizamann.   However there is one huge difference between our original naive surrender to the (at best) over optimistic offerings of WC............ we have had the Action Group working diligently behind the scenes, researching and evaluating,  and (I hope) we are now a hell of a lot wiser.




Thanks. And a great job at that for those of us that have not been able to keep up to date or even know where to look for that matter. Wiser is great also. Comes with making mistakes half the time and learning from them. Castlereagh needs to ouline their plan just a little more in detail though so we can all decide on either the devil we know or the devil we don't know. Based on the recent post from seamistry the change can't come fast enough , but also what would prevent Castlereagh from doing the same thing??. Would there be a new constitution written to avoid this blantant abuse of power with the share issue's and it's subsequent diltuion of our own units??


----------



## elizaman (19 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Am I missing something here?:
> 'This Information Booklet is not a product disclosure statement and does not contain all of the information that an investor may require in order to make an informed investment decision': Why doesn't it contain ALL the information?
> 
> 'An investment in New Units under this Information Booklet should be
> ...




Has it occured that this may be a plan to increase voting rights by someone else close to WC's mandate??  It says there is no minimum price required, based on the recent issue at 10cents  7.5 mil still sold. Now there at 09 cents this so called "sophisticated investor" could be looking to align there units with someone else. PIF AG says it has control of 27 % I think I read somewhere.??? That still leaves 73% out there somewhere and with dilution at this rate it doesn't take long to swallow up a majority of units for voting purposes possibly.  It's also happening very quickly and so soon after the 10 cent issue. seems odd.


----------



## waleroo (19 May 2011)

People we got it wrong installing Wellington let get it right this time WE CAN NOT BE ANY WORSE OF THAN WE ARE LETS GET RID OF WELLINGTON NOW IF WE HAVE TO PAY A PENALTY PAY BUT GET RID OF THEM


----------



## ASICK (19 May 2011)

elizaman said:


> Thanks. And a great job at that for those of us that have not been able to keep up to date or even know where to look for that matter. Wiser is great also. Comes with making mistakes half the time and learning from them. Castlereagh needs to ouline their plan just a little more in detail though so we can all decide on either the devil we know or the devil we don't know. Based on the recent post from seamistry the change can't come fast enough , but also what would prevent Castlereagh from doing the same thing??. Would there be a new constitution written to avoid this blantant abuse of power with the share issue's and it's subsequent diltuion of our own units??




When investors invite a new RE into the fund, there must be a clearly defined plan.  Although unenforceable, there must be also some sort of undertaking not to introduce new 'strategies'.

Would any of you voted for W.C. if you were told that new units would be issued at price derived from an unfavourable market? I'll bet you wouldn't have.

I'd guess that none of you would be surprised just what can be dreampt up by a manager which is able to fit under the "in investors' best interests' umbrella which ASIC is more than content to do nothing about.

Investors invite new managers into funds as one might invite a guest into one's home, but unless a guest, managers take over the fund and run it as their own.  

I've posted before on this forum about the dilemma managers have about the sale of assets - if they sell at current market value to speed up capital payments, then investors complain - if they hold on to improve asset prices but assets fail, then they're in trouble too.  Why is this? In my view it's because investors never have a say about what price they're prepared to accept for assets, and as a consequence, are in the box seat 'at the colloseum' (so to speak).

Without a clear plan which includes guidelines for the disposal of assets, and without specific undertakings not to introduce new 'strategies', you very much do risk jumping out of the frying pan and into another one, nevermind the fire (or fire sales).

In my view, an undertaking not to fire sale assets is a negative, not a positive - but, I'm sure, consistent with the abovementioned dilemma, many will not agree.


----------



## Investor262 (19 May 2011)

THANK YOU to seamisty, Charles, breaker and all the others for the massive effort. I am with you 1000% but am unable to get to the EGM. How do i organise a proxy vote?


----------



## reasonable (19 May 2011)

Hello everyone
I must thank Seamisty, Breaker and others for the hard work they have and are putting in for us.

I can’t make Sydney but would dearly like to but you have my full support.  Although I voted against Wellington I am surprised that it has taken so long to attempt their removal – but I guess it has taken time to gain the support and needed a tipping point which we now have.  For one I think the main priority is to get rid if JH even if it costs $5m (maybe this could be negotiated down - after all JH's so-called reputation would be irreparably  damaged after being thrown out as RE)  it is a small amount compared to what JH has already lost us.

Regards


----------



## seamisty (19 May 2011)

Investor262 said:


> THANK YOU to seamisty, Charles, breaker and all the others for the massive effort. I am with you 1000% but am unable to get to the EGM. How do i organise a proxy vote?



Investor262 if you are at your usual adress you will receive an information package in the next few days. You can then fill out
and return the enclosed Proxy Form to Computershare Investor Services
Pty Limited by no later than 4.00 pm on 13 June 2011 by any of the
following options:
 Post: Computershare Investor Services Pty Limited, GPO Box 2062,
Melbourne VIC 3001 (reply paid envelope provided)
 Facsimile: (03) 9473 2145
 Email: quorum@computershare.com.au

For those who are currently overseas, on holidays etc and will have no way of lodging their own vote, you can email the pifactiongroup@gmail.com with your name, the name the investment is in, the amount of units and a contact email and ph no, and an action group member will organise a proxy vote on your behalf. 

Seamisty


----------



## Bessie223 (19 May 2011)

Thanks to Seamisty, Breaker and all of the others who have worked so hard for all of us. You have my full support . I am unable to attend the meeting in Sydney but will  vote by mail if possible or can we allow the PIF AG to vote on our behalf? Once again thanks for all your effort.


----------



## Investor262 (19 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Investor262 if you are at your usual adress you will receive an information package in the next few days. You can then fill out
> and return the enclosed Proxy Form to Computershare Investor Services
> Pty Limited by no later than 4.00 pm on 13 June 2011 by any of the
> following options:
> ...




Thanks Seamisty, at last some light at the end of the tunnel. Just sorry I won't be able to meet up with all of you and put faces to name. Thanks again!!!!


----------



## marcom (19 May 2011)

"For one I think the main priority is to get rid if JH even if it costs $5m (maybe this could be negotiated down - after all JH's so-called reputation would be irreparably damaged after being thrown out as RE) it is a small amount compared to what JH has already lost us." reasonable

"People we got it wrong installing Wellington let get it right this time WE CAN NOT BE ANY WORSE OF THAN WE ARE LETS GET RID OF WELLINGTON NOW IF WE HAVE TO PAY A PENALTY PAY BUT GET RID OF THEM" Waterloo

IF we have to pay to get rid of WC, we can later sue them for damages for incompetence, fraud, misappropriation or what ever a forensic accounting examination of fund accounts may reveal. We stand to get a lot more than $5m back I bet!


----------



## simgrund (19 May 2011)

marcom said:


> "Yesterday the Australian Securities and Investments Commission informed the PIF Action Group that it would not take any action."
> 
> This proves THERE IS NO CORPORATE REGULATION IN AUSTRALIA!




But did A'SICk provide reasons for this exclusion of their protection?
Regards


----------



## seamisty (19 May 2011)

elizaman said:


> Thanks. And a great job at that for those of us that have not been able to keep up to date or even know where to look for that matter. Wiser is great also. Comes with making mistakes half the time and learning from them. Castlereagh needs to ouline their plan just a little more in detail though so we can all decide on either the devil we know or the devil we don't know. Based on the recent post from seamistry the change can't come fast enough , but also what would prevent Castlereagh from doing the same thing??. Would there be a new constitution written to avoid this blantant abuse of power with the share issue's and it's subsequent diltuion of our own units??



elizaman I believe CasCaP (CastlereaghCapital) intend to hold 4 information sessions prior to the EGM. Locations Melb, Syd, Pt Maquarie and Brisbane, dates and venues to be confirmed on the CasCap website soon. http://www.cascap.com.au./
  I strongly suspect the reason why WC did the capital raising exercise was to shore up some voting support for themselves, hence the 'fresh blood' from outside of the Fund from investors whose identity still remains a mystery. Also WC has some fiercely expensive operating costs which the PIF contributes heavily towards and there has been slim pickings of late. The whole sordid exercise has backfired on Wellington Capital. Seamisty


----------



## ASICK (19 May 2011)

Sorry, I thought the intention was to avoid paying the $5m.   Still, $5m is only about the same as a $0.01 per unit payment (maybe less now).

I don't think even a drunken stupor could cause me to even contemplate either that W.C. would negotiate something that's a sure thing anyway ($5m) or that members will  recover some sort of damages from W.C.

Why should W.C. care? $5m for not even one day's work.  Still, it might be a moot point with your guys having it all in hand.  Probably no more than food for thought.


----------



## simgrund (19 May 2011)

marcom said:


> "Yesterday the Australian Securities and Investments Commission informed the PIF Action Group that it would not take any action."
> 
> This proves THERE IS NO CORPORATE REGULATION IN AUSTRALIA!




But did A'SICk provide reasons for this exclusion of their protection?
Of course not, they would rather be involved in this nail on PIF cross:
*"The New Units will be issued without disclosure to investors under Section 1012DAA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Corporations Act) as modified by ASIC Class Order 08/35." *
as per seamisty post #7182.


Regards


----------



## selciper (19 May 2011)

marcom said:


> "For one I think the main priority is to get rid if JH even if it costs $5m (maybe this could be negotiated down - after all JH's so-called reputation would be irreparably damaged after being thrown out as RE) it is a small amount compared to what JH has already lost us." reasonable
> 
> "People we got it wrong installing Wellington let get it right this time WE CAN NOT BE ANY WORSE OF THAN WE ARE LETS GET RID OF WELLINGTON NOW IF WE HAVE TO PAY A PENALTY PAY BUT GET RID OF THEM" Waterloo
> 
> IF we have to pay to get rid of WC, we can later sue them for damages for incompetence, fraud, misappropriation or what ever a forensic accounting examination of fund accounts may reveal. We stand to get a lot more than $5m back I bet!



Marcom -

Your expressed feelings are spot on. A few million to get rid of WC would be worth it. Frankly, I can't imagine suffering another year of this charade.

I sent an angry letter to our "guardians" at ASIC this afternoon. What a pathetic organisation.


----------



## JohnH (19 May 2011)

selciper said:


> Marcom -
> 
> Your expressed feelings are spot on. A few million to get rid of WC would be worth it. Frankly, I can't imagine suffering another year of this charade.
> 
> I sent an angry letter to our "guardians" at ASIC this afternoon. What a pathetic organisation.




........... I've raised this before, but nobody seemed to pick it up.  The best part of a thousand of us on the Gold Coast heard JH state that if she had not performed, then she would not draw the 2%.  Has anybody got a recording/video of that statement??


----------



## seamisty (19 May 2011)

JohnH said:


> ........... I've raised this before, but nobody seemed to pick it up.  The best part of a thousand of us on the Gold Coast heard JH state that if she had not performed, then she would not draw the 2%.  Has anybody got a recording/video of that statement??



JohnH, I am sure that is on record somewhere, Wellington Capital will not only be fighting for control of the PIF, but their reputation as a 'boutique merchant bank and fund manager experienced in providing dynamic advice and services' is also  in tatters!! Jenny Hutson as CEO of G8 Education is fighting for their reputation re Cherie Hearts aquisition which is also in question and involved in a complex legal investigation!! The ****e has hit:fan. Let the games begin, an average unprivelledged person versus the the uni student who 'spent far too much time testing the boundaries of excess to excell academically, but did well enough to be offered a job at McCullough Robertsons'. HA HA, I excelled academically and left school at 14, not 22, tested the boundaries and retired at 38 on my own merit. MFS/OCV and Wellington Capital have a lot to answer for, don't even begin to think you can intimmidate me, you have much more important issues to deal with. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (20 May 2011)

Ferrier slams Hutson `handbag' attack
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  May 20th, 2011

INSOLVENCY veteran Ian Ferrier has accused Jenny Hutson of "swinging her handbag" following a personal attack on his credentials in the Gold Coast Bulletin yesterday.

Mr Ferrier, who co-founded BRI Ferrier, is among the key players in Castlereagh Capital's bid to oust Ms Hutson's Wellington Capital as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund.
link to full story:http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/05/20/316735_gold-coast-business.html


----------



## charles36 (20 May 2011)

elizaman said:


> Has it occured that this may be a plan to increase voting rights by someone else close to WC's mandate??  It says there is no minimum price required, based on the recent issue at 10cents  7.5 mil still sold. Now there at 09 cents this so called "sophisticated investor" could be looking to align there units with someone else. PIF AG says it has control of 27 % I think I read somewhere.??? That still leaves 73% out there somewhere and with dilution at this rate it doesn't take long to swallow up a majority of units for voting purposes possibly.  It's also happening very quickly and so soon after the 10 cent issue. seems odd.




I have read your posts with interest, there are no guarantees in life as you are well aware. The PIFAG have worked very hard to reach the stage that we are now at and it is up to those who support the change to help in anyway they can.  All constructive comments are welcome.  You have mentioned the figure 27% of votes. That is not correct.  The PIFAG membership represents approximately 27% of all unit holders and is rising every day.  The PIFAG is self funded and does not seek contributions.  It has been all voluntary.  The 27% of unit holders have control of at least 37% of units on issue.  It is also of interest Elizaman to note that a huge proportion of unit holders have joined the class action and as such they control an equally huge amount of units on issue.  I am sure each and every unit holder is aware that the PIFAG were instrumnental in the formation of the class action and all the necessary work required to get lawyers, litigation funding etc together.  It cannot be said that the PIFAG have not been patient with the present RE and the sudden spurt of inspiration by the management of the fund is not fooling anyone.  From the information I have received from countless unit holders are that they are waiting at the their post boxes with their pens poised to write.  WC can try all their tricks and dilute the fund but I can assure WC that unit holders have had enough and will be glad to see change.

Let me say this, it has been said that we are all wiser since we attended the pantomime shows in 2008.  Castlereagh Capital's performance will be closely monitored, this I believe.  There is one thing we can be sure, WC will try every known and unknown way to survive.  If unit holders think she should they will vote according to their wishes, on the other hand if they don't they will vote for change.  One thing for sure is every unit holder should vote.


----------



## loulou2 (20 May 2011)

GO Seamisty!! Also huge thanks to Breaker and all PIFAG for the huge amount of research you have done on behalf of all investors. Yes, this is a golden opportunity for positive change! Bring it on.


----------



## selciper (20 May 2011)

Quote of the day: "They have had to endure a lot."
(Hutson referring to PIF investors in today's Gold Coast Bulletin.)


----------



## elizaman (20 May 2011)

charles36 said:


> I have read your posts with interest, there are no guarantees in life as you are well aware. The PIFAG have worked very hard to reach the stage that we are now at and it is up to those who support the change to help in anyway they can.  All constructive comments are welcome.  You have mentioned the figure 27% of votes. That is not correct.  The PIFAG membership represents approximately 27% of all unit holders and is rising every day.  The PIFAG is self funded and does not seek contributions.  It has been all voluntary.  The 27% of unit holders have control of at least 37% of units on issue.  It is also of interest Elizaman to note that a huge proportion of unit holders have joined the class action and as such they control an equally huge amount of units on issue.  I am sure each and every unit holder is aware that the PIFAG were instrumnental in the formation of the class action and all the necessary work required to get lawyers, litigation funding etc together.  It cannot be said that the PIFAG have not been patient with the present RE and the sudden spurt of inspiration by the management of the fund is not fooling anyone.  From the information I have received from countless unit holders are that they are waiting at the their post boxes with their pens poised to write.  WC can try all their tricks and dilute the fund but I can assure WC that unit holders have had enough and will be glad to see change.
> 
> Let me say this, it has been said that we are all wiser since we attended the pantomime shows in 2008.  Castlereagh Capital's performance will be closely monitored, this I believe.  There is one thing we can be sure, WC will try every known and unknown way to survive.  If unit holders think she should they will vote according to their wishes, on the other hand if they don't they will vote for change.  One thing for sure is every unit holder should vote.




Thanks Charles36 for the correction on percentages and your viewpoint.
Some quick math on this subject as I see it 
PIF AG 37 % of units at 755,147,000 = 279,404,390
Remianing balance 63% = 475,742,610 ( possibly unknown) the small amount of 300,000 are mine at this point
As per latest right issue document submitted by JH there are currently 830,532,768 units with the intention of adding another 276,844,256 unit for a total of 1,107,377,024 units in the fund
Supposing that this all occurs and is fully placed this would place the percentage of units held by PIF AG at 25.24 % 
The quorum only requires a minimum of 4 people which won't be a problem of course however they have to hold units or have proxies totaling 51% of the fund which at present would be 415,266,384 units but could end up being worst case scenario 553,688,512 units 
Just based on this math the action will be between 17 to 25% short of achieving the result we probably all want. 
I would also point out that we are closely monitoring WC right now as well but with no apparent power to do anything about there actions at this time not too mention the lack of support from ASIC so my question is what power or controls will we have that differ from what we have now should Castlereagh be successful to avoid this misuse of our trust and money?
With respect


----------



## elizaman (20 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> elizaman I believe CasCaP (CastlereaghCapital) intend to hold 4 information sessions prior to the EGM. Locations Melb, Syd, Pt Maquarie and Brisbane, dates and venues to be confirmed on the CasCap website soon. http://www.cascap.com.au./
> I strongly suspect the reason why WC did the capital raising exercise was to shore up some voting support for themselves, hence the 'fresh blood' from outside of the Fund from investors whose identity still remains a mystery. Also WC has some fiercely expensive operating costs which the PIF contributes heavily towards and there has been slim pickings of late. The whole sordid exercise has backfired on Wellington Capital. Seamisty




Thanks. I will follow their website for the information sessions and attend. I'm not sure how it has backfired on WC as yet as they seem to be able to do anything they want right now. The new issue bothers me a bit from the point of shoring up not to mention who these new investors are and how many units they may control. Is the PIF AG in any position to garner help from within to purchase any of the new offerings?? 
With respect


----------



## JohnH (20 May 2011)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724031.PDF

trading ban now lifted and part of WC's statement

Jenny Hutson Managing Director said: 
‘The meeting material received does not in the opinion of our lawyers, satisfy the requirements of the 
Corporations Act and the constitution of the Fund. 
Separately, the resolutions proposing to appoint a replacement responsible entity that does not currently 
hold an Australian Financial Services Licence, of a kind, that would enable it to be the responsible entity, 
raises serious legal issues as to the validity of that proposed resolution. 
It also raises practical issues in that the resolution as proposed could result in the Premium Income Fund 
being wound up. 
In addition, the proposal consequently puts at risk the $31.25 million in contracts signed but not yet settled.’


----------



## marcom (20 May 2011)

I've got a new nickname for ASIC - MIRROR - that's right we'll look into it....

ASIC survey reveals the obvious: losing money hurts
Scott Rochfort
May 20, 2011

The ASIC chairman, Greg Medcraft ... mood cards a helpful tactic.

In a huge relief for the many thousands of investors left financially ruined by the collapse of numerous financial firms and schemes across the country, the corporate puppy dog has finally cottoned on to the idea that losing money can be rather upsetting to people.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission's new head corporate grime fighter Greg Medcraft hit the ground running yesterday, when the regulator released a groundbreaking study on the ''social impact of monetary loss''.

The report assessed the feelings of 29 people who had been issued margin calls or who had lost money in various mortgage or agribusiness schemes.
Advertisement: Story continues below

''The main finding of this study is that failure to fully compensate investors who lost money because of the conduct of their managed investment scheme or financial planner can cause the investor severe emotional and financial distress,'' concluded the report.

The study identified four degrees of ''suffering''. They were ''catastrophic; living frugally; financially settled but angry; and accepting''.

''All of these investors experienced different degrees of financial and emotional distress,'' said the study. While financial planners copped the brunt of the anger of the 29 investors interviewed, ASIC did not come off lightly either.

''Several investors told us that they contacted ASIC when they could see problems with their funds, or after the funds crashed, but ASIC was unable to help.''

One of the unnamed interviewees in the study said: ''The minute they stopped paying us and started borrowing money from the [bank] I contacted ASIC and they said, 'We are keeping a strict eye on it and we are looking at it' and that was the answer I kept getting all the time, 'we are looking into it' but they never did anything about it until it was far too late."

Seems the survey came a few years too late for ASIC.

ON THE CARDS

One wonders why ASIC bothered hiring someone to survey 29 people. Surely it would have had plenty of feedback on its own complaints line. One of the case studies in the report was a disability pensioner living in ''catastrophic hardship'' after losing her inheritance in a failed property investment scheme. ''She will have to move when the rent goes up. She is considering a granny flat in someone else's backyard or selling her car to buy a campervan,'' said the case study.

The woman told the study: ''Bury me in a cardboard box.''

The survey of the 29 investors in the ASIC study included cards to help people express how they thought. There were cards with the words: Ashamed, Embarrassed, Angry, Depressed, Cranky, Sad, Calm and Resigned. There were cards with mood diagrams.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/asic-...money-hurts-20110519-1ev15.html#ixzz1MqsapCcl


----------



## seamisty (20 May 2011)

JohnH said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724031.PDF
> 
> trading ban now lifted and part of WC's statement
> 
> ...



JohnH I was waiting for the froth that came with the announcement to dry before I posted it!! We expected WC to come out swinging (a handbag?)  I guess they have nothing left but to scaremonger, obviously their tactics to try and align the PIFAG with ALFPIF failed, yes thats right, Jenny Hutson was quoted as saying "I have had investors speak to me today indicating that they've been contacted by ALF PIF recently and have been told that ALF PIF has arranged for Bri Ferrier to be licensed and that they're working together to take over the fund."
My information is that WC hotline staff were also quoting the same BS to PIF investors until the PIFAG contacted WC and suggested the hotline staff were misinformed.

I have just received a copy of Castlereagh Capital's Australian Financial Services Licence issued by ASIC, looks like the real deal to me. Also there is a detailed explanation re the licence in the information memorandum page 21 http://castlereagh.rlbrandmgmt.com....ins/filemanager/files/Information_Booklet.pdf And as for "‘The meeting material received does not in the opinion of our lawyers, satisfy the requirements of the Corporations Act and the constitution of the Fund." Can't you just change it for us to fit if it isn't right Jen? 

Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (20 May 2011)

Charles, 

I think you should make it crystal clear, to all investors that there would be no Class Action without your personal involvement in this matter. Believe it or not, some people still actually believe that JH had some input into  the Class Action 

.And, I am of the belief that she will do everything in her power to muddy the water on this issue.

On the subject of commercial immorality levelled against Ferriers by JH

We should keep in mind that JH threatened ,intimidated and  frightened  PIF investors with a diabolical alternative  ,either vote for me , or I will be forced to  liquidate your  Fund at 14 cent, under the terms of the PIF Constitution . 

This claim was always a complete and utter falsification of the truth. .

 Belated Constitutional amendments have now been made, at will, to suit her needs. Of course, she was previously unable to amend the constitution, under any circumstances. 

So essentially, she was fully   prepared to destroy our fund and the lives of thousand of aged pensioner, if she could not become the RE 

Let not forget the 5 million loan made to a business associate of JH , at an interest rate of 25%, This loan was fully covered by the assets of our fund. JH could have easily raised this money by a Rights Issue at that time, or by  other means, if required  ,for the benefit of investors.

Obviously this squalid and tainted   Rights issue  , to,  ,”sophisticated investors” has only one purpose ,to  obtain a fixed proxy vote in her favour, , in a desperate and cynical  bid to retain control of our fund. 

I have no doubt these, so called,” sophisticated investors” will also,just by chance, turn out to be close business associates . who as Seamisty has pointed out ,have a financial interest in her survival, or are out to make a quick buck.

Evidence has also been submitted to ASIC and the police regarding a fraud committed against members of the Maximum Yield Fund also controlled by WC.  I can assure you that investigations are ongoing.

We are dealing with a person without one shred of commercial, ethics or morality .
,




 .


----------



## Bumblebee (20 May 2011)

I am very pleased to hear some comment on the most recent rights issue coming forward to the forum. I would like to hear a lot more about people's thoughts and feelings about this.
It's hard for me to fathom what WC's agenda may be here.
I am 1. Very reluctant to give WC any more money.
but   2. Concerned that If I dont my holding will be diluted.
and  3. JH or her cronies will snap up my uncliamed shares and she will get a GREAT boost in voting power and knock over the PIFAG's move to dump her.

Also I can't help but wonder if the small time frame.(She must have your monies etc by the 2 JUNE). Is not only to jump in with votes before PIFAG meeting.... but also one week hardly gives people time to receive her offer, digest  it, and send it all back to her.
Guess who will picking up all the  shares at 9 cents us investors haven't claimed. 
Yes ,  'the exclusive and sophisticared few'.. buddies of JH which I'll bet are all votes for WC.
Can people post more thoughts about this matter. Thanks all, Bumblebee


----------



## marcom (20 May 2011)

Quote from latest WC NSX release: "The meeting material received does not in the opinion of our lawyers, satisfy the requirements of the Corporations Act and the constitution of the Fund."

Jenny, why not tell PIF investors that the legal advice came from your husband/partners law firm! (And probably at our expense!) Keep pouring out the BS Jenny, noone believes you any more - you are just a conflicted ****.

In case you were wondering, according to ASIC's categories I am financially settled *but ( very very) angry*


----------



## seamisty (20 May 2011)

How dare Wellington Capital have the audacity to accuse the PIFAG of being involved with explanatory material that is misleading and ambiguous!! Wellington Capital is the queen of misleading and ambiguous behaviour. One example that comes to mind is the Wollongong Hotel which was taken to auction on the 9th May 2009. I received the following from an employee of Jones Lang Lasalle after the auction with the relevant bids.
'Several parties were bidding on the property with the last bid at $ 40.5 million.The Auctioneer at this stage asked for instructions from the Vendors and it was aprox 30 minutes later that he was instructed to pass the property in as $ 40.5 million was not acceptable to the Vendors.'

Jenny Hutson was quoted as saying  "the project had found a $40.5 million buyer after auction earlier this year, that deal fell through after a 'very short' due diligence" which was total crap! The $40.5mill offer was rejected (seen a word similar to that before) by WC at auction, not after. So, consequently, here we are more than two years later and the PIF has received a paltry $15mill from a project that was going to "reap the Fund $38mill in 2010" from a joint venture deal with an estimated revised gross total of $43.1. Had Wellington Capital accepted the original offer at auction of $40.5 mill in May 2009, we could have had our 3 cent return of capital and there would have been money left to finish other projects without having to capital raise over 2 years later by issuing another 300,000,000 million + shares which will do nothing but dilute our investment at the end of the day.
Incompetant? Deceptive? Misleading? Ambiguous? We've EXPERIENCED it all before, from previous and CURRENT management. I would have been the happiest person around had we received what WC promised, but it was less than 3 months into management I was being lied to by WC staff, still insisting we would receive a payment of sorts pre Xmas 2008. Well the rest is history, no transparency was forthcoming, no distributions, no positive outcomes from the highly qualified team of outstanding professionals at WC, stuff all. Periodic discussions offered never eventuated and we couldn't even get a simple vote result from the much touted IAC election. Don't even begin to think you can discredit all the hard work PIFAG executive committee members have done to get us to the stage where we have a chance to possibly make a difference WC. Your credibility rests amongst the piles of manure around the trough you have been feeding from for nearly 3 years. Seamisty


----------



## ASICK (20 May 2011)

Sorry to rehash an old point, after all, I am aware there's a lot of things going on, but I've just taken a look at Corporations Act, s. 601FM again, and in particular, "... Note: If the members vote to remove the responsible entity but do not, at the same meeting, choose a company to be the new responsible entity, or the company they choose does not consent to becoming the scheme's responsible entity, the scheme must be wound up (see section 601NE).  ..." http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s601fm.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=removal%20of%20responsible%20entity

I realise your EM has made it clear that if WC is voted out, and if a new manager isn't ready and willing to take over the fund, that the fund must be wound up, and it's that point that compels me to believe that many of your proposals are defective to extent of being effective before the ousting of WC takes effect (I guess in order to negate the 2% fee and perhaps other things): eg. "before Resolution 5 takes effect.”

I think the only possible reality is that once the votes for proposals 5 and 6 are made, and if carried, then WC is no longer the manager: Castlereagh would then be the manager.

I think the necessity to notify ASIC does not extend WC's management of the fund. The notification is not even manditory  for WC since the new manager is able to give that notification in the event WC fails to do so: a mere formality.

Resolutions 5 and  6 are conditional upon each other in order to prevent a windup because the meeting cannot change its mind in the event WC is voted out and your proposed manager is not supported.  

I think there's a strong argument to support the view resolution 5 will take effect at the same time as those relying on its effect to be delayed,  in which case the requirements of those resolutions that require WC to do certain acts 'before resolution 5 takes effect' even if passed at a meeting, may fail if challenged in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Now, some of you might feel that the $5m is neither here nor there, but consider those resolutions which rely on being effected 'before resolution 5 takes effect', and it all then becomes a different story.

I won't encroach on these grounds again - but I thought it worthwhile expressing my view.


----------



## selciper (21 May 2011)

Some observations about class actions (SMH today).

http://www.smh.com.au/business/fincorp-investors-get-29m-20110520-1ewtp.html


----------



## DoraNBoots (21 May 2011)

My review of Wellington Capitals conduct as Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund.


*Quarterly Payments*
WC told unit holders at meetings and in the Explanatory Memorandum dated 18 August 2008 the target rate of return for the fund was 1.5 cents per unit per quarter.  

Another document entitled Information Memorandum also dated 18 August 2008 said WC do not expect to make any cash payments to unit holders in the foreseeable future.  This IM was only released to the NSX and was not sent to unit holders.  

At this time ASIC took WC to court over these quarterly payment statements made in the Explanatory Memorandum and the judge concluded these statements were misleading.  At the hearing WC appeared to mislead the judge saying there would be some amount of quarterly payments but would not say how much.  WC continued to mislead investors at meetings and on the phone after this hearing saying the target rate of return per quarter was 1.5 cents per unit. 

*Comment*:
There have been no quarterly payments.


*Unit value*
WC said they would restore the PIF’s unit value to $1 in 3 to 5 years.  

*Comment*:
The NTA has gone from 45 cents to 32 cents in 2011 with the only way out of the fund being the NSX with buyers at only 8 cents.  The unit value will decline again due to the May 2011 capital raising.
WC knew (or ought to have known) $1 wouldn’t be achieved in 5 years because they knew how impaired the fund was and had already lodged the $147.5 million statement of claim against MFS.  WC failed to tell investors the extent of the MFS fraud before the Sept 2008 resolutions.


*Buy Back*
WC said in the Explanatory Memorandum dated 18 August 2008 and to investors _"Up to 37.75 million units in the Fund will be redeemed by the Fund at 45 cents per unit by 18 September 2009"_ 

*Comment*:
This buy back could not have been funded and did not eventuate.

WC stated the proposal “_would enable unit holders to accept for the first 10,000 units and then on a pro rata basis.”  _It was impossible for each unit holder to have had up to 10,000 bought back using only 37.75 million units.  This was bought to JH’s attention but she brushed it off saying some amazing computer program had worked it out and it must be right.

Also interesting to note JH saying “_resolution 2 is an ordinary resolution whereby the RE is seeking authority from Unit holders to approve it making a buy back though the Fund.”_ There was never a need for unit holders to approve this buy back.  The buy back was a gimmick with the sole purpose to entice unit holders to vote for them.  This buy back proposal was not legally binding and didn’t disadvantage unit holders, plus it didn’t determine if unit holders participated.
In May 2011 WC did not seek unit holder approval for the capital raising and the constitutional changes which DO negativity impact unit holders.


*3 cent payment by Dec 2008*
WC stated in investor updates, in the Explanatory Memorandum dated 18 August 2008 and verbally they would pay 3 cents per unit to investors by 24 Dec 2008.  WC threatened this would only take place if the Sept 2008 resolutions to change the constitution and list the fund are approved by unit holders.

*Comment:*
As at May 2011 1 cent is still outstanding.  The second cent paid in April 2011 was made after WC became aware of the July 2011 EGM and just weeks before announcing the need to raise capital via new units at 10 cents per unit (NTA was 33 cents).


*Threat of liquidation*
JH said the law prevents the RE from extending the 360 delay on redemptions and that liquidation is the only option if unit holders didn’t vote to list the fund in Sept 2008.

*Comment:*
This was not true.
Lonsec said in their report: _“the RE of the fund has the power to extend the 360 day redemption period under the existing constitution.  However WCIM has determined not to exercise its power under clause 4.11 of the constitution to extend the 360 day redemption period”_

Provisions existed in the Constitution where redemptions could be suspended whilst the Redemption Price was not able to be calculated or the redemptions would be to the detriment of the interests of unit holders. The option canvassed in the Explanatory Memorandum of having to liquidate the fund by March 2009 was deceptive.

WC are using these scare tactics again in 2011 telling unit holders in investor update and reported in the media that the July 2011 EMG could cause the fund to be wound up.  This is not true.


*Trading on the NSX*
WC said they would ensure there is a market on the NSX (buyers) for the PIN units if people need to exit the fund.  They said it was their job to promote PIN units.

*Comment:*
There has been no evidence of WC promoting PIN units which have traded well below the NTA and in small quantities.

However, WC had no problem finding a buyer for 75 million units at 10 cents in May 2011, while at the same time there is an existing unit holder on the NSX offering 100,000 units at 10 cents with no buyer.  WC have not disclosed who the professional investor is but it is suspected they are in the same business as WC when it comes to covering up PIF dealings.


*Capital Raising*
In May 2011 WC said they need to raise capital to finish projects.

*Comment:*
It is suspected the capital raising first announced on the 6 may 2011 was a last minute scramble to get votes at the up and coming July 2011 EGM where it is proposed unit holders replace WC as RE.  
1.	Unit holders were not informed of the strategy to raise capital in this manner; in fact WC had said they would not do this.  The investor update mailed to all investors dated 10 May 2011 did not notify investors of the capital raising.
2.	WC are not giving unit holders adequate time to receive their placement documentation and take up the offer due 2 July 2011.  It is likely that most investors will receive this information only one week before 2 July.
3.	It was a last minute strategy; there were two changes to the constitution made after the fact (section 3.1 and 3.2 relating to Issue Price).  Section 3.1 needed to be changed by WC twice to get it right after the placement was announced.
4.	WC made a distribution less than a month before this supposed need for capital.
5.	If WC were genuine about looking out for unit holder’s interest they would have made the offer available to existing unit holders first and not privately organise for some unknown entity to take a 10% stake in the fund at a discounted rate.
6.	WC did not allow unit holders to vote on the constitution changes or the capital raising both which disadvantage unit holders.
7.	WC were able to find a buy for 75 million new units at 10 cents despite there being unsold offers on the NSX (of existing units) also priced at 10 cents.  This makes me question the motives of the buyer of the 75 million units.​

*Acquisition of (the RE of) the PIF*
Jennifer Hutson told unit holders and the media WC would pay “_north of $20 million_” for Octaviar IM (the RE of the PIF)

*Comment:*
WC acquired Octaviar IM (The RE of the PIF) for effectively no real consideration which highlights the suggestion that this was not an arm’s length transaction.  This lack of money going into MFS disadvantages the PIF as PIF is a major creditor of MFS.  Also hard to imagine why MFS would be prepared to just give away its prized asset (PIF), I know MFS shareholders were not happy.



_Will continue in another post as there is a word limit..._


----------



## DoraNBoots (21 May 2011)

My review of Wellington Capitals conduct as Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund.       Continued...


*WC covers up for MFS.  *
After becoming RE of the PIF, WC said they were no longer associated with MFS or Chris Scott and that the acquisition of the PIF by WC was an arm’s length transaction.

*Comment:*
JH and Chris Scott continue to work together in other companies.  The following shows WC putting the interest of MFS before PIF unit holders:
1.	WC have not assisted the PIF class action, they have not provided necessary documents to the class action lawyers and have also tried to get the former RE removed as a respondent.  

2.	WC stated the illiquidity of the PIF in Feb 2008 was due to a rush on redemptions and did not mention the fact that $200 million was drawn on and used illegally.  

3.	WC said at the July 2008 investor’s updates and in documentation that the losses in the fund were due to the global financial crisis and glossed over the real reason which was the fraud by MFS.  

4.	WC have not taken any action against the former directors.  

5.	WC have not taken any action over the related party losses to LLA and continued to loan LLA money when they become RE.  

6.	WC went out of their way, spending PIF money to try to prevent an enquiry into MFS.  WC were at court at the expense of the PIF assisting MFS in 2008 defending against the PTQ.  The following judgements mention WC having motives other than that of looking out for the PIFs interests.
QSC10-017 2nd Feb 2010 states:
_"[4] Each was a substantial creditor with a commensurate interest in whether the company was wound up or was allowed to pursue some alternative arrangement.  But further, each company had another reason to oppose a winding up, which was that it would be likely to be subject to a liquidator's investigation.  I made the same observation when refusing Wellington Capital Limited its costs of the proceedings to terminate the deeds of company arrangement.  Further, the proper interests of these applications, as creditors of the company, did not require them to be participants in the subjects hearings in order to protect the interests of the company and creditors generally.  Their case for the adjournment of the winding up application was no different from that argued for the company subsequently its administrators_."
WC’s support of the Fortress DOCA was due to WC trying to avoid an inquiry into matters involving Octaviar and Wellington Capital . 
Justice McMurdo (31 July 2008) says:
_“[177] Secondly, it can be seen from the above discussion that most of the votes in support
of the DOCAs were by parties having an interest in avoiding an inquiry by a
liquidator: Fortress, Wellington Capital Ltd and PAC. That does not mean that
their views as creditors are to be disregarded. But it detracts from the arguments for
the DOCAs that a majority of creditors has made a commercial decision as to what
is in the interests of creditors as creditors.”_

8.	WC went out of its way in court using PIF money to support Deloitte to stay on as liquidator of Octaviar despite the conflicts of interest surrounding Deloittes.  At the QSC09-283 QLD Supreme Court hearing new Liquidators Bentleys were appointed as liquidators of Octaviar Admin Pty Ltd replacing Deloittes.  WC asked the court to keep Deloittes as liquidator despite Deloittes conflict of interests.    At the QSC09-202 QLD Supreme Court hearing, the judge decided Deloittes were to be provisional liquidator until another was appointed.  The judge did not accept a proposal by Delottes and Fortress which would see the $20 million paid to Fortress (on 23 Dec 2008 and 23 Feb 2009) put into an escrow account on the condition Deloittes would not to be investigated in the future for handing this money over while they were administrators of Octaviar.
McMurdo states in judgment QSC09-283: _"Counsel for WC and PAC each suggested that to meet this potential conflict, the court could leave Mr Greig and Mr Harwood as liquidators but appoint other persons as liquidators to consider the questions for which Mr Greig and Mr Harwood would have a conflict._"  The judge in the application for costs states how Wellington Capital and OPI Pacific Finance went out of their way to have Deloittes stay on as liquidators and later dismissed WC’s application for court costs because they were not there to protect unit holders but rather themselves _“the proper interests of these applications, as creditors of the company, did not require them to be participants in the subjects hearings in order to protect the interests of the company and creditors generally.” .. ."[5] Mainly for the reason that each company had its own interest in resisting an order for the winding up of the company, I am not persuaded to grant the order for costs which is sought.  Each application for costs is dismissed."_

9.	WC lodged a statement of claim against MFS but never pursued it.  The statement of claim contains what appears to be false information.  WC say in the SOC that $147.5 million of the PIFs funds went to the MYF ($85 million) and OPI Pacific Finance participation loans ($62.5 million) when in fact ASIC say it went to MFS Administration ($130 million, paid to Fortress and other MFS creditors.) and OPI Pacific Finance ($17.5 million).  WC are in a position to know the OPI Pacific loans are bogus and that $85 million never went into the MYF.

10.	JH was involved in setting up the PIF.  WC was an advisor to Chris Scott at the time MFS committed the fraud.  WC assisted to get Chris Scott on the board of MFS and then were handed the PIF for no consideration in the following days.​

*June 2011 EGM*
The following has taken place since WC became aware of the June 2011 EGM to replace them:
1.	WC made a one cent per unit cash payment to unit holders.
2.	WC organised contracts with buyers which WC say could fall through if they are no longer RE of the fund.
3.	WC have changed section 3.1 and 3.2 of the constitution and issued 75 million units to an unknown professional investors for only 10 cents per unit.​

*GEO*
Just days after acquiring the PIF in 2008, WC sold the PIF’s 9.4% stake in GEO to Trojan for $0.225 per unit when the market price was 39 cents.  

WC justified the low unit price by saying if Trojan sell any shares above 25.5 c the PIF will get 40% of the profit.  

*Comment:*
WC failed to mention this 40% upside deal was only valid until the end of 2008 and resulted in no upside for the PIF.
GEO was sold to Trojan whose director is former S8 director Andrew Kemp (other S8 directors were Jenny Hutson, David Burke and Chris Scott).


*LLA*
WC arranged for the LLA loan of $77 million to Arctic Capital to be written down to $20 million and also provided a further loan of  $8 million as part of a deal which benefitted Octavia as a condition of the Arctic capital re-capitalisation of Living and Leisure Australia (LLA).

*Comment:*
Some of this $77 million was lent to LLA while WC was RE of the PIF.  
There are discrepancies in the MFS, LLA and PIF financial reports when reporting on this loan.  The reports show this unsecured debt facility was originally provided by MFS to LLA but later said to be a PIF facility.
It is negligent of the RE of the PIF to have lent further money to LLA when it was in a position to know they could not repay the money and also inappropriate for WC not to have included this loss as part of the legal action against MFS.


*Withholding information*
WC have refused to provide unit holders information which the Corp Act states is to be provided at cost.

*Comment:*
WC asked unit holders to pay $14,000 for a copy of the PIF members register and $500 for the WIP register.  This WPIF was a one page excel spread sheet maintained by WC.  

WC also provided the false information to unit holders that WC were not required by law to supply these documents. It was only after ASIC intervened that these documents were provided by WC to unit holders.  


*RBOS loan*
WC continued to repay the RBOS loan when it knew the money had been drawn and used illegally.  

*Comment:*
WC were aware of the misappropriation of the $147.5m by 24 June when the Supreme Court action was commenced. At which time the loan balance stood at $45M. WC secured finance to repay the RBOS when it was clear the RBOS loan had been drawn illegally. This should not have occurred and repayment stopped because of the legal action against MFS.


_Will continue in another post as there is a word limit per post..._


----------



## DoraNBoots (21 May 2011)

My review of Wellington Capitals conduct as Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund.       Continued...


*The Maximum Yield Fund*
WC claim $85 million of the PIFs losses were due to the PIF putting $85 million into the MYF as class A units.  

*Comment:*
WC are in a position to know $85 million never went into the MYF but went instead to MFS Administration as stated in the ASIC statement of claim.

Despite being in a position to know this, WC have distributed money to these bogus Class A units in the MYF, and have also voted on behalf of these units at MYF unit holder meetings.  This denied the ‘real’ MYF unit holders any chance of having a say and reduced their return on investment.

*MYF Investments*
WC said the MYF had an investment in OPI Pacific Finance Notes and there was no prospect of return from this investment.

*Comment:*
It was only after a MYF unit holder investigated that he realised the MYF had an investment in OPI Pacific Finance Debentures and not Notes and that some return had in fact been received by WC from OPI.  After this was raised with WC a payment was made to the MFY investors.  WC also paid this return to the 85 million bogus Class A units which severely reduced the real MYF unit holder’s payment.

*Reporting*
1.	There has been a lack of reporting on operating costs incurred in financial reports allowing WC to hide the reasons why expenses can change from, for example, $1.32 million estimated at 18th August 2008 to $10.95 million at 10th December 2008
2.	The realised value of an asset is reported in comparison with the estimated realisable value. This is deceptive because the book value of the asset should be used for accurate comparison
3.	The principal and interest amounts outstanding on mortgage loans are reported as at dates up to seven months prior to the date of the update.
4.	WC gave a unit holder in the MYF a copy of the MYF’s Information Memorandum dated 23 November 2007 despite knowing this was a falsified document which had been back dated.​
*Wollongong*
WC passed in an offer at an auction in March 2009 ie payment immediately for the Beach Street Wollongong property for $40.5 million and then signed a deal a few months later for $38 million with payment to be made when the last unit sells.  At May 2011 the last few units are yet to be sold.

*Investor Advisory Committee*
The IAC did not provide any useful information to unit holders and proved to be a waste of unit holder money and I’d guess a waste of the time spent by the members of the IAC trying to get any useful information out of WC.  As at May 2011 two of the IAC have resigned.

*PIF Class Action *
WC entered into an agreement with class action lawyers to provide necessary documentation but reneged saying _“The agreement between Wellington Capital Limited and the Applications' legal representatives is at an end as a result of the dispute.”_

It is a conflict of interest to have WC as RE of the PIF while they are also respondents in the PIF Class Action as the former RE (MIL formerly Octaviar IM).  WC said they would only co-operate with the class action if the former RE (MIL) was dropped as a respondent of the class action. http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722507.PDF  WC state_:"The Notice of Motion sought to have the former RE (currently the Third Respondent in the class action) discontinued as a party to the court proceeding pursuant to an agreement entered into between Wellington Capital Limited and the Applicants of the class action."_

WC are clearly putting their own interest (that of MIL) before PIF unit holders.


*Disclaimer: * The above was compiled from financial reports and investor updates written by WC.  WC have been shown in a court of law to have mislead investors and to put their own interests ahead of unit holders including using unit holder money to preserve their own interest in court.  It is therefore highly likely that some of the above information is inaccurate.  

How an RE who has been shown to mislead investors and put their own interest ahead of investors is allowed to hold an Australian Financial Service licences is beyond me.

*ASIC *are aware of all of this information and have effectively done nothing.  At the time of the Sept 2008 resolutions it was ASIC’s view that unit holders should vote NO if they don’t like the resolutions.  ASIC turned a blind eye to the fact that unit holders were lied to in the following ways: investors were scared into approving the resolutions and also given unrealistic rates of return by WC.  I do not believe unit holders were able to make an informed decision at that time.  It was also suggested by ASIC back in 2008 that unit holders could take WC to court if we thought WC were acting illegally.  It is unfair to expect a group of mum and dad investors to take an RE to court as the RE hold all the cards and can use the funds money to fight the case.  If ASIC are not prepared to act then there is no protection for the average unit holder against a rogue RE.  I don’t think it is realistic for unit holders to take an RE to court over these kinds of matters and there is no money in it for a litigation funder to take up the matter.

It is my view that this information shows WC can not be trusted and are not fit to hold an Australian Financial Service licences.

The END


----------



## flyinghigh (21 May 2011)

Since the fund was frozen I have been interested in developments but in a defensive sense preferred not to dwell on an unjust, undeserved substantial loss apparently beyond my control. Images of the MFS chairman leaving ‘in the best interest of the company’, listening to Australia’s treasurer suggest PIF investors were speculators (motivated by greed), and revelations of the reallocation (theft) of PIF assets was enough to make me feel physically sick. 
The tenacious and inspirational efforts of contributors to this forum have demonstrated that not all circumstances of life are not beyond control. Thank you to all who have made so much happen for silent observers like myself. I look forward to June 16 and encourage others silently watching this thread to register in support of those who have turned our views toward the future.


----------



## seamisty (21 May 2011)

Thankyou DoraNBoots for that excellent summary of events relating to the PIF, justifing the reasons many of us feel the need to remove Wellington Capital Ltd as Responsible Entity. I am sure there will be many other detrimental activities conducted by WC that will be uncovered in due course. Your summary of the deceit and ineptitude relating to WC also leaves the door open for anther PIF investor Class Action in my opinion. Seamisty


----------



## charles36 (21 May 2011)

ASICK said:


> Sorry to rehash an old point, after all, I am aware there's a lot of things going on, but I've just taken a look at Corporations Act, s. 601FM again, and in particular, "... Note: If the members vote to remove the responsible entity but do not, at the same meeting, choose a company to be the new responsible entity, or the company they choose does not consent to becoming the scheme's responsible entity, the scheme must be wound up (see section 601NE).  ..." http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s601fm.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=removal%20of%20responsible%20entity
> 
> I realise your EM has made it clear that if WC is voted out, and if a new manager isn't ready and willing to take over the fund, that the fund must be wound up, and it's that point that compels me to believe that many of your proposals are defective to extent of being effective before the ousting of WC takes effect (I guess in order to negate the 2% fee and perhaps other things): eg. "before Resolution 5 takes effect.”
> 
> ...




Thanks you ASICK, I can assure you that the PIFAG have engaged the largest firm of lawyers to advise and prepare all appropriate documentation.  This of course has been at no cost to any unit holder.  I am confident we are on the right track and want unit holders to believe that PIFAG have always acted in their best interest and have not in any way acted as our own lawyers.


----------



## marcom (21 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Thankyou DoraNBoots for that excellent summary of events relating to the PIF, justifing the reasons many of us feel the need to remove Wellington Capital Ltd as Responsible Entity. I am sure there will be many other detrimental activities conducted by WC that will be uncovered in due course. Your summary of the deceit and ineptitude relating to WC also leaves the door open for anther PIF investor Class Action in my opinion. Seamisty




DoraNBoots - an excellent start for a Statement of Claim against WC and others. The infamous $5m loan at 25% should also be included.


----------



## zixo (21 May 2011)

Thanks for all the extremely hard work from the AG members and investors who are trying to seek justice even though we've been blockaded by Government ministers and Government regulatory bodies.

This is dumbfounding reading considering it had quotes from the masters of uselessness... ASIC.

BAD advice, fraud, misleading information and deceptive conduct are causing "catastrophic" losses for investors and their families, the government's investment watchdog has found. 

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission released research yesterday that the social impact of financial misconduct and bad advice also caused prolonged anger and depression in victims as well as long-term impacts caused by the underlying financial losses.

"This research highlights the very real social costs of investor losses following misconduct by financial advisers," ASIC Consumer Advisory Panel chair Jenni Mack said yesterday.

The main findings included most investors who lose money in managed investment schemes or through a financial planner's misconduct are never fully compensated.

These types of losses have a "corrosive effect on trust" for the wider Australian financial sector.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/mo...ce-for-investors/story-e6frezcr-1226059385832


----------



## ASICK (21 May 2011)

charles36 said:


> Thanks you ASICK, I can assure you that the PIFAG have engaged the largest firm of lawyers to advise and prepare all appropriate documentation.  This of course has been at no cost to any unit holder.  I am confident we are on the right track and want unit holders to believe that PIFAG have always acted in their best interest and have not in any way acted as our own lawyers.




good news.  I'm pleased I was wrong on that one.


----------



## simgrund (21 May 2011)

Big thanks to DoraNBots for this detailed expose of WC tresdmill of broken promises.
Allow me to point out small pedantics regarding your #7224 paragraph on "June 2011 EGM":
We received 1st payment in October last year. 
You probably meant the second payment made this year with the knowledge of impending AGM,
Thanks again,
Regards


----------



## seamisty (21 May 2011)

A big thankyou to all contributors, supporters and viewers of the thread. I am 'encouraged' to see that there has been 3,488 hits to this thread since 10.00 am yesterday. WC can no longer insinuate that the PIF investors who are 'disgruntled' at the performance of Wellington Capital's performance are a minority group. I am not a religous person but my mum was once a Sunday school teacher and I had to attend and I remember the saying "TREAT OTHERS AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED."

'This is not so that others, themselves, will "do unto you" what you have done unto them. It is because God, Himself, will "do unto you" what you have done unto others'

Not sure what the rules are in the  grand scheme of the Enneagram are apart from personality profiling and using a not for profit prototype to reap tax avoidance benefits, but from what I see as a bystander its seems to be okay to benefit financially from companies that can multitask. Without going into detail, I refer to KAM, ( Kooralbyn Asset Management) got your attention now Jen, and David Burke and our external compliance officer, Philip Wibaux? You dare to question the integrity of others? Your activities have not gone unnoticed, by the way, who is driving the luxuary 4 wheel drive vehicle removed under instruction by David Burke with your consent from Forest Resort Jen? Yeh, registration  TFR-02 2007 Land Rover discovery DSE. Yep, we the original PIF investors own that if it is proved that the Forest resort developers defaulted, not you or your new PIF diluted cohorts. I think your days are numbered WC. Seamisty


----------



## charles36 (22 May 2011)

Dear M/S Hutson, I note that you have espoused your economic credentials and have informed us that you have always had an economic outcome.  Please inform my untaught mind what does that really mean?  I believe all economic dealings have an outcome don't they?  Whilst on the subject of economics I have tried to make economic sense of the sale of the Wollongong Hotel which, of course, with what little information I have been able to obtain.  Now is your chance to please explain what skills were utilised to seal this deal  I recall that the unit holders were promised 3 cents upon the sale of this hotel in March, 2010.  A date that has long gone.  I have many more instances but perhaps in fairness to you we will deal with one failure at a time?  I will be waiting for the reply.


----------



## simgrund (22 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> A big thankyou to all contributors, supporters and viewers of the thread. I am 'encouraged' to see that there has been 3,488 hits to this thread since 10.00 am yesterday. WC can no longer insinuate that the PIF investors who are 'disgruntled' at the performance of Wellington Capital's performance are a minority group. I am not a religous person but my mum was once a Sunday school teacher and I had to attend and I remember the saying "TREAT OTHERS AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED."
> 
> 'This is not so that others, themselves, will "do unto you" what you have done unto them. It is because God, Himself, will "do unto you" what you have done unto others'
> 
> Not sure what the rules are in the  grand scheme of the Enneagram are apart from personality profiling and using a not for profit prototype to reap tax avoidance benefits, but from what I see as a bystander its seems to be okay to benefit financially from companies that can multitask. Without going into detail, I refer to KAM, ( Kooralbyn Asset Management) got your attention now Jen, and David Burke and our external compliance officer, Philip Wibaux? You dare to question the integrity of others? Your activities have not gone unnoticed, by the way, who is driving the luxuary 4 wheel drive vehicle removed under instruction by David Burke with your consent from Forest Resort Jen? Yeh, registration  TFR-02 2007 Land Rover discovery DSE. Yep, we the original PIF investors own that if it is proved that the Forest resort developers defaulted, not you or your new PIF diluted cohorts. I think your days are numbered WC. Seamisty




Mentioning Enneagram again on this thread; I hasten to inform all that after arduos and hazardous rummaging through Vinnies, Salvos  and other discarded bins, I am now in possession of a rare edition of the "The ENNEAGRAM" by the Illustrious Authority Don Richard Riso. 
Anyone wishing to update their "diccovering your personality type" skills may make a request to have passages of personal interest recited on this forum.
As a reminder, the 9 personalities exposed are: 1. The Reformer; 2. The Helper; 
3. The Status Seeker; 4. The Artist; 5. The Thinker; 6. The Loyalist; 7. The Generalist; 8. The Leader; 9. The Peace Maker  
Warmly,


----------



## seamisty (22 May 2011)

simgrund said:


> Mentioning Enneagram again on this thread; I hasten to inform all that after arduos and hazardous rummaging through Vinnies, Salvos  and other discarded bins, I am now in possession of a rare edition of the "The ENNEAGRAM" by the Illustrious Authority Don Richard Riso.
> Anyone wishing to update their "diccovering your personality type" skills may make a request to have passages of personal interest recited on this forum.
> As a reminder, the 9 personalities exposed are: 1. The Reformer; 2. The Helper;
> 3. The Status Seeker; 4. The Artist; 5. The Thinker; 6. The Loyalist; 7. The Generalist; 8. The Leader; 9. The Peace Maker
> Warmly,



For those interested there is a picture of Don Riso and David Burke on page 3 in this link http://www.enneagram.com.au/newsletter/insight0207v4.pdf There is also mentions of names closely associated with WC. Seamisty


----------



## selciper (22 May 2011)

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things: Of shoes - and ships - and sealing-wax - Of cabbages - and kings..." DoraNBoots' admirable summary will doubtless be useful to investigative journalists who may well finally spring into action after the EGM and write of many things..


----------



## DoraNBoots (22 May 2011)

Here’s an example of the way WC reported to unit holders the misappropriation of PIF money .

WC explains the loss of $85 million of PIF money in the follow manner: 
$85 million went from the PIF to the Maximum Yield Fund (MYF).  The MYF is another fund that was managed by MFS (and is now managed by Wellington Capital).  WC state the MYF made a series of loans totalling $85 million but which are valued at $0. 

Extract from the June 2008 PIF Annual financial report written by Wellington Capital states:
_“The Octaviar Maximum Yield Fund has only three investments which have been valued as follows:  
Q Deck (Qld) Pty Ltd:   $30 mill, Fair Value $0 
Octaviar Blue Sky Development Trust:   $45 mill, Fair Value $0
Octaviar Pacific Finance Limited participation loan:   $9.9 mill, Fair Value $0
Total $85,000 with a Fair Value of $0_”​
The 2008 MYF Annual financial report written by WC states this money was invested* in accordance with governing documents* but that money was lost due to the credit crisis and the collapse of Octaviar:  
_Extract from the June 2008 MYF financial report written by Wellington Captial:  
“the Fund invested unitholders’ fund’s in accordance with the governing documents of the Fund and the provisions of the Fund constitution.” …
“However, the turmoil in the financial markets and the impact on property valuations as a result of the world-wide credit crisis, together with the collapse of Octaviar Limited, has caused a substantial decline in the value of the Fund’s investment portfolio”…”The directors, with the assistance of external adviser, have endeavoured to assess the potential value of each of the Fund’s assets.  This process has resulted in a decline of approximately $85 million in the assessed fair value of the Fund’s loan and investment portfolio, in the opinion of the directors.”​_
These statements by Wellington Capital are outrageous when you consider what really happened to this $85 million of PIF money.

On 30th Nov 2007, the Royal Bank of Scotland paid $150 million into the PIF’s Operating Account.  This same day $130 million of PIF funds illegally went from PIF’s operating account to MFS Admin’s bank account.  To hide this misappropriation of PIF money, MFS are alleged to have fudged the books to make it look like the PIF bought 85 million units in the MYF.

The ASIC Affidavit_Forbes_Octaviar_Filed 20091029 alleges:
_“42. On 30 November 2007, MFSIM as Responsible Entity for PIF, paid $130 Million from PIF’s Operating Account to Commonwealth Bank account BSB xxx, number, which was held in the name of MFS Administration.  The funds were transferred by electronic funds transfer by Pertpetual, at the written direction of xx and xx on behalf of MFSIM as Responsible Entity for PIF.”_​
The ASIC Affidavit_Forbes_Octaviar_Filed 20091029 alleges:
_ “On 6 Feb 2008 by email sent xx and xx at 18:34 hours that day, xx approved for use as a record of MFSIM a document which on it’s face appeared to be an Information Memorandum dated 23 November 2007 offereing information to potential investors in respect of Class A units in MYF, which offer was expressed to close on 31 January 2008.” _(the False Documents)

The ASIC Affidavit_Forbes_Octaviar_Filed 20091029 alleges:
_On or about 18 Feb 2008, Michael Skepper of MFSIM’s internal compliance unit (Compliance) raised a concern that s1017E of the Act had been breached because, although the records of MFSIM as RE for PIF showed an investment of $85 million into MYF by MFSIM as RE for PIF, no corresponding funds were received into MYF application account (the anomaly_).​
The ASIC Affidavit_Forbes_Octaviar_Filed 20091029 alleges:
_The documents pleased at paragraphs 109 – 125 (the False Documents) were kept by MFSIM as RE for the PIF as though they were genuinely part of the financial books and records of MFSIM._​A false document (the back dated Information Memorandum) is still kept by WC and was offered to a MYF investor in response to his questions about the fund. 

The ASIC Affidavit_Forbes_Octaviar_Filed 20091029 states:
_“135. The Half Yearly Reports contained false information in that:
(a)	the accounts showed MFSIM as RE for PIF owned an asset comprising $85 million worth of Class A units in MYF, when it did not;_​WC continued this false information in PIF and MYF financial reports. 

Judge McMurdo states in his judgment on the 31July 2008: 
_“[142] It is further alleged that at the same time, those controlling the PIF purported to purchase units in another fund of which WIM was also the responsible entity. But no money was paid to that other fund, and the suggestion is that this was a guise to conceal the misappropriation of the $130 million paid to OA_.​
How WC can say the Fund invested unitholders’ fund’s in accordance with the governing documents of the Fund and the provisions of the Fund constitution is beyond belief.


----------



## DoraNBoots (22 May 2011)

DoraNBoots said:


> ...
> Judge McMurdo states in his judgment on the 31July 2008:
> _“[142] It is further alleged that at the same time, those controlling the PIF purported to purchase units in another fund of which WIM was also the responsible entity. But no money was paid to that other fund, and the suggestion is that this was a guise to conceal the misappropriation of the $130 million paid to OA_.[/INDENT]




Sorry this judgment is from 2009 not 2008.  
It's judgment Re Octaviar Ltd (No 8) [2009]QSC 202


----------



## JohnH (23 May 2011)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724035.PDF

Hutson's latest "update" now on NSX site


----------



## Duped (23 May 2011)

selciper said:


> Quote of the day: "They have had to endure a lot."
> (Hutson referring to PIF investors in today's Gold Coast Bulletin.)



Another brilliant quote from that article selciper: "She said the continued assault on the Premium Income Fund by predators  was creating a "very challenging and frightening time for our  unitholders"."

Hmmm and WC didn't realise that units trading on the NSX at around 25% of audited NTA would make PIF a target? Talk about red rag to a bull. Wouldn't even have to be a particularly motivated or predatory bull. Just an opportunistic bull. 

If WC didn't realise then  .... well... perhaps in my lay opinion WC is not competent to be our RE.

How much of our capital has WC then gone on to spend defending our capital against such opportunists?


----------



## seamisty (23 May 2011)

Hi all, I believe some investors have started to receive their document package from the PIFAG relating to the EGM on the 16th June. I also note a few more key dates have been lodged re the Class Action on the Commonwealth Courts Portal as follows:
Date             Time Reason               Presiding Officer(s) 
 19-Jul-2011  10:15 Notice of Motion Justice Perram    
 18-Jul-2011  10:15 Notice of Motion Justice Perram    
 25-May-2011  9:30 Return of Subpoena Registrar Hedge Court Room 18B  

A few more subpoenas, affidavits and notice of motions have been filed also:https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD324/2009/actions

Interesting times, Seamisty


----------



## selciper (23 May 2011)

The amount of material pouring out of the Hutson HQ is becoming stupefying. Heavens, there's even a new IAC election being organised! The back-room "team" must be reaching the critical point of being severely overworked. Gone are the endless months of stubborn WC silence. The "team's" days of weekend visits to NZ to participate in a Hutsonian selection of adventure sports may be all over.


----------



## seamisty (23 May 2011)

selciper said:


> The amount of material pouring out of the Hutson HQ is becoming stupefying. Heavens, there's even a new IAC election being organised! The back-room "team" must be reaching the critical point of being severely overworked. Gone are the endless months of stubborn WC silence. The "team's" days of weekend visits to NZ to participate in a Hutsonian selection of adventure sports may be all over.



 WC staff probablly spend their time reading the job opportunity columns these days selciper! Interesting how WC previously prided themselves on NOT RESPONDING to negative press etc, seems some things simply just cannot be ignored. Is there such a thing as a 'steel capped handbag'? Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (23 May 2011)

JohnH said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724035.PDF
> 
> *Hutson's latest "update" now on NSX site*



*

This WC update has Nomination Form for IAC.
Can we have a PIF AG team selections disclosed here so we can make a unified volume of nominations firmed? Or formed? 
Regards
*


----------



## JohnH (23 May 2011)

simgrund said:


> This WC update has Nomination Form for IAC.
> Can we have a PIF AG team selections disclosed here so we can make a unified volume of nominations firmed? Or formed?
> Regards
> [/B][/SIZE]




Hopefully this will not be necessary, as WC will be long gone when the election is due.
However, I believe that the new RE should ensure that IAC representatives are *contactable* by PIF unit holders, and encouraged to play an active part in monitoring the performance of our fund.


----------



## ASICK (23 May 2011)

ASIC rejection of complaints re: placement

It seems that ASIC feels that W.C.s placement is fair.

I think it's not fair, because pre-existing investors are not able to bargain/protect their interests on an equal footing to new institutional/sophisticated investors on the following bases:

(a) existing investors are unable to exit the fund if unhappy with the placement (unless they wish a real haircut on the NSX), 
(b) the demographics of pre-existing investors - a large number of the fund's investors are probably > 60 years old and are probably unwilling to take further risks,
(c) pre-existing investors are more likely to be unable to buy in on the unit offering because of a diminished income stream caused by the inability of the fund to pay income distributions, and;
(d) many investors have their life savings tied up in the fund and therefore lack the financial strength to buy more units.

Sure, if the fund wasn't frozen, then investors could vote with their feet and leave the fund: they can't do that.  Sure, if many were younger, they might take more risk: but they're not.  Sure, if the fund was paying distributions, they might be able to buy more units: but they probably can't. Sure, if they didn't invest so much of their wealth in the PIF they'd have cash to buy units: but they probably did.

Yes, many members will want to buy units in a desperate effort to maintain the balance of power investors feel they have to maintain, but I think only a small number of investors will have the capacity or the will to actually buy.


----------



## seamisty (23 May 2011)

JohnH said:


> Hopefully this will not be necessary, as WC will be long gone when the election is due.
> However, I believe that the new RE should ensure that IAC representatives are *contactable* by PIF unit holders, and encouraged to play an active part in monitoring the performance of our fund.



And also the voting results are disclosed and not kept a closely guarded secret that only reinforced the view of many that the whole IAC exercise was nothing short of a pathetic investor pacifying scam followed through by Wellington Capital Ltd as it was the only promise they attempted to keep from the many  being touted pre the big con. Wellington Capital couldn't even conduct a simple vote that was transparent. Once we are rid of Wellington Capital I would consider nominating, certainly not while ever they are at the helm as in my opinion nothing would change, WC would appoint whoever they thought could be easily manipulated not, who got the highest vote. Mind you I think finding 3 pro WC investors would becoming rather difficult these days.

Seamisty


----------



## marcom (23 May 2011)

Time for a little light relief:

MY APPLICATION FOR THE PIF INVESTOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE (in 100 words or less)

Jenifer Joan, darling, please accept my application for the surprise vacancies (hope there wasn’t too much bloodletting) on this vital administrative organ. As a just arrived 10 cent per share investor I pledge to throw all my weight (and I have accumulated quite a bit from 15 years with a corporate credit card) behind deflecting the interests of those much less fortunate $1 per share investors.

I too have had a rewarding career in Merchant Banking – but, that was until the GFC! I now have a lot more spare time to devote to deserving causes like PIF - that is in between attending to those meddlesome summonses and court appearances brought on by pesky former clients.

Yes I was also a woman revered in the profession. Every day I was out there on the battlefield, up to my bra straps in mergers and acquisitions, IPOs, flogging CDF’s and CDO’s like there was no tomorrow. Charging clients like a wounded rhinoceros, madly minimising tax like the best of them and inflating the ego with wads of cash. Yes, those were the days, but alas all good things had to come to an end.

I was driven with a passion to reach the corporate lofty heights – I trampled over the meek, the incompetent and the honest ones to achieve fame and fortune, without the slightest hint of remorse. I was a woman destined to be at the top and stay at the top no matter what. I am not sure where I gained such an unmitigated lust for power, but as a child, I will have to confess, I gained an extreme sense of pleasure from ripping the wings and legs from small insects.

As far as educational qualifications go, we both know that an MBA or a Doctorate won’t make you money. What really counts is pure cunning, and a thorough lack of morals – that’s the stuff of real business leaders! 

Jenny, I need a challenge and you have provided it with the PIF IAC. I will give my all to this task to dominate subordinate investors with my 10 fold voting power, and to shove it up that class action lawyer who referred to me in court last week as a MERCHANT WANKER!

PS Jenny I also want to embrace the religious movement that permeates your office. As a woman I too have one of those every two years at the local clinic – but to elevate that to the status of a religion is sheer genius!


----------



## JohnH (23 May 2011)

marcom said:


> Time for a little light relief:
> 
> MY APPLICATION FOR THE PIF INVESTOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE (in 100 words or less)
> 
> ...




Indeed, sheer genius Marcom.................  you have my vote!!!


----------



## seamisty (23 May 2011)

marcom said:


> Time for a little light relief:
> 
> MY APPLICATION FOR THE PIF INVESTOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE (in 100 words or less)
> 
> ...



HAHAHA Marcom, you make my  night posts look tame!! I love it, You have my IAC vote!!! I bet your post will be discussed over a cuppachino and cream cake or two at WC smoko tomorrow. Seamisty


----------



## ASICK (23 May 2011)

ASICK said:


> ASIC rejection of complaints re: placement
> 
> It seems that ASIC feels that W.C.s placement is fair.
> 
> ...




I refer in part to a letter received by an investor in your fund from ASIC.  ASIC responded because of a complaint made by the investor in relation to the placement, "... Section 601GC(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act) provides that a responsibile entity may alter a scheme's constitution if it reasonably considers the change will not adversely affect members' rights.  At law, the question is not a general question whether members would be 'worse off' if the change is made (for example, it is not a general question of prejudice or financial disadvantage). It is a specific question that goes to the narrow matter of the affect of the amendments on members' rights as set out in the constitution, for example, a member's right to vote or a member's right to withdraw from the fund. ..."

ASIC doesn't concede that the amendment cause members to be 'worse off' but then on the other hand, it doesn't state they are not 'worse off'.

The above excerpted paragraph  is then closed with, "... Of course, in making the amendment, the responsibile entity must act honestly and in the best interests of members in accordance with section 601FC of the Act. ..."

In my view, Section 601FC is shattered when a manager causes a diminution of members' interests in the fund by merely amending the constitution.

With regard to section 601FC,  'interests' is not narrowly defined, but rather broadly defined.  ASIC did not make a determination as to whether 601FC is breached by the amendments, and ASIC should have.

Astounding! On the one hand ASIC purports to restict the broad meaning of "interests' in  section 601FC by the narrow meaning of 'interests' in section 601GC(1)(b).

To my mind, ASIC should have also determined whether the manager complied with section 601FC which might have brought ASIC to an entirely different conclusion.


----------



## k.smith (23 May 2011)

ASICK said:


> I refer in part to a letter received by an investor in your fund from ASIC.  ASIC responded because of a complaint made by the investor in relation to the placement, "... Section 601GC(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act) provides that a responsibile entity may alter a scheme's constitution if it reasonably considers the change will not adversely affect members' rights.  At law, the question is not a general question whether members would be 'worse off' if the change is made (for example, it is not a general question of prejudice or financial disadvantage). It is a specific question that goes to the narrow matter of the affect of the amendments on members' rights as set out in the constitution, for example, a member's right to vote or a member's right to withdraw from the fund. ..."
> 
> ASIC doesn't concede that the amendment cause members to be 'worse off' but then on the other hand, it doesn't state they are not 'worse off'.
> 
> ...




 If "...it is not a general question of prejudice or financial disadvantage...." what would stop an issue of units for a "1000 for a penny"? Where are the boundaries?

What happened to the purpose of the act ?


----------



## seamisty (23 May 2011)

ASICK said:


> I refer in part to a letter received by an investor in your fund from ASIC.  ASIC responded because of a complaint made by the investor in relation to the placement, "... Section 601GC(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act) provides that a responsibile entity may alter a scheme's constitution if it reasonably considers the change will not adversely affect members' rights.  At law, the question is not a general question whether members would be 'worse off' if the change is made (for example, it is not a general question of prejudice or financial disadvantage). It is a specific question that goes to the narrow matter of the affect of the amendments on members' rights as set out in the constitution, for example, a member's right to vote or a member's right to withdraw from the fund. ..."
> 
> ASIC doesn't concede that the amendment cause members to be 'worse off' but then on the other hand, it doesn't state they are not 'worse off'.
> 
> ...



Just an observation ASICK, what is your interest in the PIF? I presume you are not an investor but curious as to your constant input on our thread and what you perceive your postings will achieve? I totally appreciate all input to this thread, but also like to know that if you are so concerned to our plight, are you also following up on your concerns personally to ASIC or just stirring a pot that is already boiling over? While the majority of us are not sophisticated investors, we certainly do the very best to follow up on our concerns. We know ASIC has failed us, quoting sections of acts does not alter our current predicament. If you feel so strongly about ASIC's failure to act on our behalf, please, by all means take your concerns to them and the reason you are so concerned on our behalf and let PIF investors know why you are so concerned? We appreciate all support. Seamisty


----------



## ASICK (24 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Just an observation ASICK, what is your interest in the PIF? I presume you are not an investor but curious as to your constant input on our thread and what you perceive your postings will achieve? I totally appreciate all input to this thread, but also like to know that if you are so concerned to our plight, are you also following up on your concerns personally to ASIC or just stirring a pot that is already boiling over? While the majority of us are not sophisticated investors, we certainly do the very best to follow up on our concerns. We know ASIC has failed us, quoting sections of acts does not alter our current predicament. If you feel so strongly about ASIC's failure to act on our behalf, please, by all means take your concerns to them and the reason you are so concerned on our behalf and let PIF investors know why you are so concerned? We appreciate all support. Seamisty




You will note that I posted in regard to a reply from ASIC, a reply which I understand a number of members have received.  ASIC is good at sending the same letter out to many complainants.   You will also note that ASIC raises the sections of the Act and I merely reply to them.   Every decision by ASIC is appealable to ASIC, and then to the Financial Ombudsman, but with the meeting drawing near,  an appeal to the Ombudsman is probably impracticable. 

I should add that trying to deal with the two issues of (1) the proposals put forward at the meeting, and (2) the constitutional amendments is not 'stirring a pot which is already boiling over'. The stirring of that boiling pot is done well enough by discontented fund members (including yourself) who are understandably upset by the fund's manager.   

My motivation is purely one of wishing to support both my friend who is caught up in your fund, as well as any other investor who might find even the smallest degree of discovery from my postings.

I'm a little surprised by your comment about the motivation for the postings, rather than any real comment about the content of same.  You, or any other member, might have found motivation or grounds to seek an appeal from a decision by ASIC on the matter.   There's certainly no harm in giving it a go. 

I'm assured that my friend will seek an appeal for ASIC to reconsider its decision.


----------



## seamisty (24 May 2011)

RE independence a must: Equity Trustees 
Investors at risk when REs, promoters too close 
By Victoria Tait 
Tue 24 May 2011 
The Premium Income Fund's management conflict is the latest example of investors having to fend for themselves. 
Full article:http://www.investordaily.com.au/11695.htm
Extract from article:'The group has called for Castlereagh Capital to manage PIF. The group would sidestep a $5 million removal fee payable to Wellington by convincing unit holders to change the fund's constitution at a meeting on 16 June.'


----------



## atlas1950 (24 May 2011)

Hi all,

I need some HELP and ADVISE. I am overseas at the moment and will be away till the end of July. I cannot get any mail from Sydney, but I do wish to vote for the dismissal of WC.

Can anybody tell us ( for those people who cannot be there to vote or register there proxy)  the phone numbers that we can ring, so that we can register our proxy vote, and to be part of the meeting that is been called for in June.

Please advise as soon as possible. I don't want to waste my vote.

Michael


----------



## charles36 (24 May 2011)

atlas1950 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I need some HELP and ADVISE. I am overseas at the moment and will be away till the end of July. I cannot get any mail from Sydney, but I do wish to vote for the dismissal of WC.
> 
> ...



Hi Michael, I have left phone messages for you but now I know why they remain unanswered.  If we have your email address on record I will ensure you get documents.  If not perhaps you could leave your email address by private message in the notification section.  This message can apply to any person in similar circumstances who may be reading this post.


----------



## atlas1950 (24 May 2011)

Hi Charles36,

Thankyou for trying to reach me by phone, but as you can now see, I am away till end of July. I REALLY need help to make sure that my vote counts. I just don't want to waste it. Ever vote counts as far as I am concerned.

Please send info into my email address. If you don't have it on record, it is as follows.
beaches@bigpond.net.au

Once I receive it, I will respond to let you know that I got it.

Keep up the wonderful work that you, Breaker1 and many others are doing.

Michael


----------



## JohnH (24 May 2011)

JohnH said:


> Seamisty, how can we stop this latest decimation of our fund?  This means that to maintain the voting power of our units we would have to chuck in a further 27% of our original investment! "
> 
> ........  just received the "offer" docs, and of course that should be 2.7% not 27%
> 
> ..................  Hope I didn't mislead anybody.


----------



## marcom (24 May 2011)

From the WC release on 17 May. Placement - $7.55 million raised
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund has finalised the placement of 75.5 million units raising $7.55 million at $0.10 per unit to professional and sophisticated investors.

Now I will need some help from those investors that are familiar with the share market.
If professional and sophisticated investors have purchased 75.5 million units raising $7.55 million at $0.10 per unit, when the constitution is amended to restore only $1 units does this mean that Castlereagh can issue them with a bill for 75.5million units @$0.90. If so they will be required to pay $67.95m into the fund. If they refuse to pay Castlereagh can confiscate their units and we still make $7.55m.

Now if a full 7% distribution (not return of capital) to all investors costs approx $830.5 million @ 7% is only $58.135m - this is the ultimate ponzi scheme!

Equally any current investors (or new investors if no one takes up the offer) who subscribe at $0.09 per unit, they will be issued with a bill for the balance at $0.91, allowing for further distributions.

Under this senario the professional and sophisticated investors do not look too professional and sophisticated, and I doubt whether WC will have much of a chance to sell any more units.


----------



## simgrund (24 May 2011)

charles36 said:


> Hi Michael, I have left phone messages for you but now I know why they remain unanswered.  If we have your email address on record I will ensure you get documents.  If not perhaps you could leave your email address by private message in the notification section.  This message can apply to any person in similar circumstances who may be reading this post.




Hi Charles,
There is delivery in private message box.
Thanks, regards


----------



## charles36 (24 May 2011)

marcom said:


> From the WC release on 17 May. Placement - $7.55 million raised
> Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund has finalised the placement of 75.5 million units raising $7.55 million at $0.10 per unit to professional and sophisticated investors.
> 
> Now I will need some help from those investors that are familiar with the share market.
> ...




MARCOM  This must have deal is not done and dusted yet, not by a long way in my opinion, for what that is worth, of course.


----------



## Duped (24 May 2011)

ASICK said:


> I refer in part to a letter received by an investor in your fund from ASIC.  ASIC responded because of a complaint made by the investor in relation to the placement, "... Section 601GC(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act) provides that a responsibile entity may alter a scheme's constitution if it reasonably considers the change will not adversely affect members' rights.  At law, the question is not a general question whether members would be 'worse off' if the change is made (for example, it is not a general question of prejudice or financial disadvantage). It is a specific question that goes to the narrow matter of the affect of the amendments on members' rights as set out in the constitution, for example, a member's right to vote or a member's right to withdraw from the fund. ..."
> 
> ASIC doesn't concede that the amendment cause members to be 'worse off' but then on the other hand, it doesn't state they are not 'worse off'.
> 
> ...




Isn't ASIC just saying an RE can amend the constitution if it's in the best interests of members - except where that amendment adversely affects members rights.  I.e. the RE can't make an amendment that adversely affects members rights even if it's in members best interests.

Issing new shares certainly dilutes member's interests (IMO) but does issuing new shares dilute a members rights?  E.g. the right to vote is still there, unchanged, but the value of that right for the original unit holders has been diluted.  It seems ASIC is saying the 'rights' per se haven't been 'adversely affected' even if the value of that right has. Grrr.  Just like the value of a federal senate vote by e.g. a NSW citizen has diluted as the NSW population has increased dramatically compared to e.g. Tasmania. A federal senate vote by a Tasmanian is now worth about 14 times as much as a NSW voter.

I can see ASIC's point. But it still doesn't explain why ASIC lent the Commonwealth brand through its AFS licensing of financial advisors to flog this product to me.  

Wellington's amendment still needs to pass the 'best interests' test.

For all of you who've seen 'The Social Network', what WC is doing to us is similar to what Parker and Zuckerberg tried to do to Saverin.


----------



## ASICK (24 May 2011)

Duped said:


> Isn't ASIC just saying an RE can amend the constitution if it's in the best interests of members - except where that amendment adversely affects members rights.  I.e. the RE can't make an amendment that adversely affects members rights even if it's in members best interests.
> 
> Issing new shares certainly dilutes member's interests (IMO) but does issuing new shares dilute a members rights?  E.g. the right to vote is still there, unchanged, but the value of that right for the original unit holders has been diluted.  It seems ASIC is saying the 'rights' per se haven't been 'adversely affected' even if the value of that right has. Grrr.  Just like the value of a federal senate vote by e.g. a NSW citizen has diluted as the NSW population has increased dramatically compared to e.g. Tasmania. A federal senate vote by a Tasmanian is now worth about 14 times as much as a NSW voter.
> 
> ...




I agree.  It seems a nonsense that by having a unilateral constitutional amendment pass the narrow test under s. 601GC(1)(b) of the Act, a manager is then entitled to disregard its essential obligation under the Act  (s. 601FC).


----------



## seamisty (24 May 2011)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724039.PDF
CORPORATIONS ACT
SECTION 657E
INTERIMORDERS
PREMIUM INCOME FUND
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity for the Premium Income Fund (PIF)
made an application to the Panel dated 11 May 2011 in relation to the affairs of PIF.
The Panel ORDERS:
1. Mr James Byrnes and ALF PIF Finance Limited (ALF Finance) not publish or
dispatch any further material to PIF unitholders in respect of the off-market
takeover bid by ALF Finance for all of the units in PIF (ALF PIF Offer) or make
any variations to the ALF PIF Offer.
2. These interim orders have effect until the earliest of:
(i) further order of the Panel
(ii) the determination of the proceedings and
(iii) 2 months from the date of these interim orders.
Alan Shaw
Counsel
with authority of Peter Scott
President of the sitting Panel
Dated 24 May 2011


----------



## zixo (24 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724039.PDF
> CORPORATIONS ACT
> SECTION 657E
> INTERIMORDERS
> ...





Ironic how The ALF has always spruiked itself as being "one for the investors" against Wellington Capital. Its laughable that they think they'll do a better job than the scum sucking bottom feeders wellington who've simply profited on vunerability and insecurities of the PIF investors .  
It would be one for the books if ALF are found to be the secretive sophisicated investors wellington is crowing about. I have no doubt in my mind which way the ALF vote rights would be directed at any impending egm.


----------



## selciper (24 May 2011)

I received my AG kit today. What a huge amount of work must have been put in by the AG!


----------



## NOR (24 May 2011)

selciper said:


> I received my AG kit today. What a huge amount of work must have been put in by the AG!



 NOT A LOT OF WORK US FOR US  .PIF...JUST ... 7  FOR  AND THERE ..OUT


----------



## seamisty (24 May 2011)

selciper said:


> I received my AG kit today. What a huge amount of work must have been put in by the AG!



selciper you are correct and it is not over yet!! Thanks to all who recognise not only the committment, time,  (not to metion anguish) and personal expense from PIF AG execs and supporters but also the support, expertise and access to top quality legal advice we have received from BRI Ferrier and Castlereagh Capital to be in a position to offer what we consider a better alternative to our current situation. We still have an intense work load between now and the proposed EGM so thanks to all of those signing and submitting their proxies early. Your FOR votes encourages us to continue our efforts on behalf of those, that like ourselves, recognise that we were conned by an expert!! We voted for Wellington Capital in 2008 who declared 'that they were committed to the full return of investors capital in the next 3 to 5 years' Wellington Capital as far back as July 2008 also committed to 'pay a DISTRIBUTION of 3 cents per unit to each investor before Christmas 2008. Wellington Capital stated that distributions would commence on October 2008 and 24 Dec 2008 and the CONTINUE DISTRIBUTIONS ON A QUARTERLY BASIS thereafter http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/2008/InvestorInfoForumHandout.pdf
WC now appear to want to just wind up the PIF, dilute our units and score a bit of voting power along the way, quite the contrary to what we were promised!
Well I personally know of four other entities apart from BRI Ferrier/Castlereagh Capital that expressed an interest in being possible alternative RE's after it became apparent that Wellington Capital couldn't get their snout out of the trough long enough to actually produce promised results.The PIF AG actually approached BRI Ferrier and asked them to consider taking on the PIF as a preferred RE, Bri Ferrier did not approach the PIF AG. None of the other interested parties to my knowledge were prepared to actually personally fund and offer the same committment  that we have received from BRI Ferrier/Castlereagh Capital. CASCAP http://www.cascap.com.au./ have got not only got my vote but my thanks for bearing with us for so long to make this happen. Seamisty


----------



## atlas1950 (25 May 2011)

Hi Charles36,

Just a quick thankyou for helping me out and advising me how to vote, while I am still overseas. I am sure there are more people like me who are iether overseas, interstate, or in country areas who faced the problems that I had.

As every vote will be so critical for us to get over the line, we need to try to liase with those investors who cannot get access to there voting papers and to try to get them to vote on there proxy papers.

Michael


----------



## charles36 (25 May 2011)

I was trawling through my vast amount of documentation yesterday and I came across the transcript of a meeting held in Melbourne in July 2008,  The meeting of course was none other than that conducted by Wellington Investment Management Ltd.  In the light of what has happened to our fund I believe it is compulsory reading.  Perhaps someone with more computer literacy than I could even post it on the ASF.  If anyone is interested perhaps you could leave your email address in the private mail box and I will send it to you.


----------



## simgrund (25 May 2011)

charles36 said:


> I was trawling through my vast amount of documentation yesterday and I came across the transcript of a meeting held in Melbourne in July 2008,  The meeting of course was none other than that conducted by Wellington Investment Management Ltd.  In the light of what has happened to our fund I believe it is compulsory reading.  Perhaps someone with more computer literacy than I could even post it on the ASF.  If anyone is interested perhaps you could leave your email address in the private mail box and I will send it to you.




I will post it even if it is "confidential and privileged".  
I got removed once before, so the precedent was created.
Address in PMB.

Also, WC's "offer" is open till 2 June 2011.
Any clarion call as to how to react for true PIFers; or leave the  scramble to the Alfies of this world?

Thanks,


----------



## simgrund (25 May 2011)

This is the first page of:
*Transcription – Jenny Hutson, Wellington Capital 
Melbourne, July 2008*
It is of all 36 pages in total so please open the 

View attachment 43015

It is for those with fond memories of what innocent b*s*t* used to be;
before wax in our collective ear got melted.
Regards,
----------------------------------------------------
Jenny: Ladies and gentlemen, thanks for joining me here today. Today is an important day in terms
of the communication of information and as you’ve just heard from Chris, we are here to
answer all of your questions and to have other people share in the benefit of other people’s
questions. But to do that we need to give you some information first and to put it in context I
think it’s important to reflect upon what has brought us here and the people that can’t be
here. And so I’d like to commence by reading to you 2 of the many hundreds of letters that I
have received so that you can understand how serious and important a business it is for me
and for my team in terms of creating the best possible outcome for you the investors in the
Premium Income Fund.
Jenny just to confirm my phone call to you today, we are desperate and ask please that you
reconsider our February maturity investments. We had hoped that we would be able to
continue as long as the usual interest was paid. However it was very embarrassing to be
advised by the bank that no funds had been paid and therefore our fortnightly rental
automatic payment could not be met. We have never had financial problems in our 76 years
and now this due to no fault of our own. We’ve always managed our affairs to the best of our
ability. I called on Centrelink a few days to try and get our full pensions reinstated. They
have declined as they say you have a capital amount and they are not concerned whether
interest is being paid or not as they only use the asset base. But they said we must make a
firm request to get the February maturity investments repaid as soon as possible hence this
urgent request to you. Due to my husband’s Alzheimer’s we cannot really move to a
cheaper, smaller unit but we have looked as there is absolutely nothing suitable. This place
has an enclosed backyard and is security gated which ideal of course under the
circumstances of our health conditions. As you know Jenny we tried to take up an offer with
our son which has also fallen through as no funds were forthcoming from yourselves and our
rent has gone up $20 per week. We’ve had to sign a new lease to be able to continue here.
We have done all we can by cancelling household insurance, not using fuel, cutting our
electricity usage to a minimum and we never go out. So there is nothing else we can cut
down on except food of course, which has always been frugal – no luxuries, we do not drink,
we do not smoke so we’re not sure what we can do to meet our telephone account. We also
tried for state housing but there is nothing available for many years. Please reconsider and
please help us. Thanking you in anticipation and trust something can be done.
One more before we come to the context of the fund. Dear Jenny, I am in receipt of your
advising of your organisation having taken over from MFS. Needless to say I’m appalled to
learn of the latest developments with the group and am gravely concerned as to what is
going to happen to my life savings and now I am in a position of financial despair having all
of my investment and interests being frozen since last February. As a loan pensioner now
living on a miserable and inadequate income to meet my central financial commitments, I
have had to borrow money from family and friends and meet expenses at my retirement
village and believe you me it is not a cheap existence and it is getting dearer. I am now at
wit’s end as to how I am to meet my essential commitments and it is now starting to affect
my health. I am not well enough to attend your meetings but please keep me informed of
any developments. All I want is my money back. I said some time back that MFS and
Associates were not being honest with investors. It appears now that I might be right.


----------



## seamisty (25 May 2011)

Simgrund I read the transcript in its entirety earlier this morning. No wonder Wellington Capital Ltd removed the 6 part video link to the Melbourne PIF Investor Forum from their website!! All those 'misleading' promises and 'deceptive' statements, enough to make one  Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (25 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Simgrund I read the transcript in its entirety earlier this morning. No wonder Wellington Capital Ltd removed the 6 part video link to the Melbourne PIF Investor Forum from their website!! All those 'misleading' promises and 'deceptive' statements,
> 
> enough to make one  Seamisty




Was it before or after brekky?


----------



## marcom (25 May 2011)

The latest misleading and deceptive BS from WC:


----------



## Duped (25 May 2011)

marcom said:


> The latest misleading and deceptive BS from WC:




I wonder what ASIC think of the "commercial morality" of that WC announcement.

I wonder what Ian Ferrier thinks of being posted along side Jim Byrnes. 

Or the financial press for that matter. If there is respect for Ian Ferrier in financial circles then the press must be sitting a bit uncomfortable in their seats given their support for Hutson.  They invited her to the party. Ferrier would be a big scalp for Hutson to claim.  Who's next?


----------



## Duped (25 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724039.PDF
> CORPORATIONS ACT
> SECTION 657E
> INTERIMORDERS
> ...




Homepage for takeovers.gov.au prominantly displays the Kirby J quote "Certainly, it was open to the Federal Parliament to conclude that the  nature of takeovers disputes was such that they required, ordinarily,  prompt resolution by decision-makers who enjoyed substantial commercial  experience and could look not only at the letter of the Corporations Act  but also at its spirit, and reach outcomes according to considerations  of practicality, policy, economic impact, commercial and market factors  and the public interest." 

I wonder how promptly this panel will issue further orders?  After it's too late for ALF PIF?

Aside: that quote is gold. It sounds to lay me that Kirby didn't have confidence in the quality of legislation coming out of Canberra.  I.e. - I'd prefer you didn't bring your disputes into my court.  After following the Octaviar case - I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## JohnH (25 May 2011)

marcom said:


> The latest misleading and deceptive BS from WC:




................... and in the red (leather jacket) corner, representing???????????

................... a bottle of (good) cleanskin red for the best answer!!

(winner collects)


----------



## seamisty (25 May 2011)

JohnH said:


> ................... and in the red (leather jacket) corner, representing???????????
> 
> ................... a bottle of (good) cleanskin red for the best answer!!
> 
> (winner collects)



Gutter tactics are a two way street JohnH! Does Wellington Capital honestly think that PIF investors are so stupid to not see through what they are trying as a result of sheer desperation to achieve here? I would have thought Jenny Hutson as CEO of G8 education had more serious issues to deal with with than using false amd misleading information to discredit others?

My information is that the that Singapores' MCYS (Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports) has launched an investigation into G8 Education, trading as GEM on the ASX  re: 'failure to uphold operational standards in childcare centres' relating to the death of a child attending one of the Cherie Hearts centres under G8 management. 

Cherie Hearts has also commenced actions to void their contract with G8 Education. As of last week, CH have been regaining some of their company's assets including company vehicles etc.

So JohnH, in the other corner is a boxing kangaroo wearing red gloves and black gumboots!!

Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (25 May 2011)

So JohnH, in the other corner is a boxing kangaroo wearing red gloves and black gumboots!!

Seamisty[/QUOTE]


So do you prefer Shiraz or Cab. Sav.?


----------



## JohnH (25 May 2011)

Just noticed that Castlereagh's Brisbane office is one floor above Wellington's office in Queens Street.

Could be some stony silences going up and down in the lifts.


----------



## simgrund (25 May 2011)

marcom said:


> The latest misleading and deceptive BS from WC:




Let's see it in a Positive Light: there will be no interference from WC to scuttle the Meeting 
as their Pink Form Flamingoes will need this meeting to fly into.
It's all up to United-Us on the day.
We will carry it through. 

And have any steps been taken to have Independent Observers present at the meeting??? 

Regards,


----------



## DepressedDad (25 May 2011)

I'll just squeeze in a little comment here from a small player inbetween these huge comments from our dedicated experts. We’ve received our papers and it’s difficult for my Dad in his eighties to make head or tail of any of this.  But luckily thanks to this forum we can vote to press forward confidently with Castlereagh. Without all the information that’s been shared on here, we would have been left to rely on the (mis) self-serving information mostly fed to us from WC  and we now know just how incorrect that has been in the past!  Now back to HUGE comments.  We're loving all this activity & things coming to a head!!  Bravo team!! June 16th can’t come fast enough!


----------



## seamisty (25 May 2011)

JohnH said:


> So JohnH, in the other corner is a boxing kangaroo wearing red gloves and black gumboots!!
> 
> Seamisty





So do you prefer Shiraz or Cab. Sav.?[/QUOTE] Too soon to end the comp JohnH!!


----------



## JohnH (25 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> So do you prefer Shiraz or Cab. Sav.?



 Too soon to end the comp JohnH!![/QUOTE]

Only entrant so far Seamisty, but it is early days.

I know it's easy to be wise in retrospect, but it is a pity that the PIFAG didn't enclose a note mentioning this forum with the mail out.  (or is that not allowed?)  I'm sure there must be some unit holders who have internet access who haven't found us yet.


----------



## seamisty (25 May 2011)

JohnH said:


> Too soon to end the comp JohnH!!




Only entrant so far Seamisty, but it is early days.

I know it's easy to be wise in retrospect, but it is a pity that the PIFAG didn't enclose a note mentioning this forum with the mail out.  (or is that not allowed?)  I'm sure there must be some unit holders who have internet access who haven't found us yet.[/QUOTE]
I am sure there will be another opportunity JohnH, I think it will get a mention in the next PIFAG update but I will follow it up along with the Independant Observer query. Will you be going to the EGM on the 16th June in Sydney JohnH? We are hoping for a strong attendance. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (25 May 2011)

Hi All, I have just received an update from IMF so check your emails. Please be aware that the content is privileged, private and confidential and should not be disclosed to any third party. Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (25 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Only entrant so far Seamisty, but it is early days.
> 
> I know it's easy to be wise in retrospect, but it is a pity that the PIFAG didn't enclose a note mentioning this forum with the mail out.  (or is that not allowed?)  I'm sure there must be some unit holders who have internet access who haven't found us yet.



I am sure there will be another opportunity JohnH, I think it will get a mention in the next PIFAG update but I will follow it up along with the Independant Observer query. Will you be going to the EGM on the 16th June in Sydney JohnH? We are hoping for a strong attendance. Seamisty[/QUOTE]

Hope to come down Seamisty............ will you be staying over night or heading back west?


----------



## seamisty (25 May 2011)

JohnH said:


> I am sure there will be another opportunity JohnH, I think it will get a mention in the next PIFAG update but I will follow it up along with the Independant Observer query. Will you be going to the EGM on the 16th June in Sydney JohnH? We are hoping for a strong attendance. Seamisty




Hope to come down Seamisty............ will you be staying over night or heading back west?[/QUOTE] Seamisty's husband 'the old salty seadog' was born in Sydney and spent much of his time in the surf at Manly and Bondi. Consequently he is strapping on the Mal (which is currently getting a workout in South Sumatra) and we are driving over!! The whole 3,400 kms one way, so we will be staying a few days. I am looking forward to putting faces to names. Seamisty


----------



## marcom (25 May 2011)

Just noticed that the lastest WC misleading and deceptive BS notice contains a mockup of the Castlereagh voting form but with a Wellington logo asking voters to send their completed forms to:
Unitholders can vote by proxy or in person. Your Proxies should be:
POSTED TO: *Armstrong Registry Services Limited *Reply Paid 897 BRISBANE QLD 4001
OR FAXED TO: +617 3231 0099
OR DELIVERED TO: Level 22, 307 Queen Street BRISBANE QLD 4001
OR EMAILED TO pif@armstrongregistries.com.au

She must really be desperate. I'm sure that at the presentations Castlereagh will highlight this unmitigated piece of skulduggery, no its pure buggery!


----------



## JohnH (25 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Hope to come down Seamisty............ will you be staying over night or heading back west?



 Seamisty's husband 'the old salty seadog' was born in Sydney and spent much of his time in the surf at Manly and Bondi. Consequently he is strapping on the Mal (which is currently getting a workout in South Sumatra) and we are driving over!! The whole 3,400 kms one way, so we will be staying a few days. I am looking forward to putting faces to names. Seamisty[/QUOTE]

It's a long drive.............. enjoy the Oysters when you get to Ceduna (second night?)


----------



## DoraNBoots (25 May 2011)

marcom said:


> Just noticed that the lastest WC misleading and deceptive BS notice contains a mockup of the Castlereagh voting form but with a Wellington logo asking voters to send their completed forms to:
> Unitholders can vote by proxy or in person. Your Proxies should be:
> POSTED TO: *Armstrong Registry Services Limited *Reply Paid 897 BRISBANE QLD 4001
> OR FAXED TO: +617 3231 0099
> ...




Also note the pink proxy by Wellington says:
_"If your vote on any resolution is undirected, then by returning the Proxy Form with an undirected vote, you are directing your proxy, including the Chairman of the Meeting (if applicable), to vote against that resolution."_​I've no doubt WC are telling unitholders who call the hotline to "leave the pink form blank and we'll take care of it for you".  That's what unit holders were told for the Sept 08 vote.

I am pleased to say I got my yellow proxy form from the PIF AG today and that is the form I will be sending to Computershare to ensure my vote is counted.


----------



## seamisty (25 May 2011)

DoraNBoots said:


> Also note the pink proxy by Wellington says:
> _"If your vote on any resolution is undirected, then by returning the Proxy Form with an undirected vote, you are directing your proxy, including the Chairman of the Meeting (if applicable), to vote against that resolution."_​I've no doubt WC are telling unitholders who call the hotline to "leave the pink form blank and we'll take care of it for you".  That's what unit holders were told for the Sept 08 vote.
> 
> I am pleased to say I got my yellow proxy form from the PIF AG today and that is the form I will be sending to Computershare to ensure my vote is counted.



Not to mention DoraNBoots, its another chance to dip the snout in the trough by racking up another large bill from Wellington Capitals very own Armstrong Registry Services which the PIF will have to account for. Like hello, you conned us once WC, the trust has long gone. Fill out the YELLOW PROXY FORMS all, I am sure there will be another mailout, probablly printed by Print Mail Logistics of which WC is a substantial sharehloder which will contain the PINK form. Its getting cooler, save the PINK PROXY FORM from WELLINGTON CAPITAL LTD to use as a fire lighter or just :flush:it down the WC!! Seamisty


----------



## ian1328 (25 May 2011)

I have recently received information from Wellington Capitol re an offer of .09c shares and am asking this forum why I should not accept, as this would surely dilute my financial loss.


----------



## seamisty (25 May 2011)

JohnH said:


> Seamisty's husband 'the old salty seadog' was born in Sydney and spent much of his time in the surf at Manly and Bondi. Consequently he is strapping on the Mal (which is currently getting a workout in South Sumatra) and we are driving over!! The whole 3,400 kms one way, so we will be staying a few days. I am looking forward to putting faces to names. Seamisty



We sometimes do that it one hit JohnH. SA oysters rock, we get them sent over all the time fom Denial or Smokey Bay. Seamisty

It's a long drive.............. enjoy the Oysters when you get to Ceduna (second night?)[/QUOTE]


----------



## seamisty (25 May 2011)

ian1328 said:


> I have recently received information from Wellington Capitol re an offer of .09c shares and am asking this forum why I should not accept, as this would surely dilute my financial loss.



ian1328 I am doing nothing until I am assured that there is absolutely no other alternative, and if there is no other alternative forthcoming in the next few days, we may have to 'chase Wellington Capital to the end of the world' and 'stay on the battlefield' until we get the attention we deserve and like the previous directors, the current directors will be held accountable for NOT ACTING IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF ORIGINAL PIF INVESTORS!!  ( the majority who were conned)
Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (25 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> ian1328 I am doing nothing until I am assured that there is absolutely no other alternative, and if there is no other alternative forthcoming in the next few days, we may have to 'chase Wellington Capital to the end of the world' and 'stay on the battlefield' until we get the attention we deserve and like the previous directors, the current directors will be held accountable for NOT ACTING IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF ORIGINAL PIF INVESTORS!!  ( the majority who were conned)
> Seamisty




Yes, as I have posed this question in #7273. The date is 2 June, so many will find themselves in this conundrum of twin pressures.
The decision in my humble opinion is for an individual to make.
Personally, as I am outing myself a YELLOW FORM voter; this date is immaterial to me. 
No hand wringing and no headaches. Hope this is not seen as "undue influence".

Thanks Seamisty for noting the need for Independent Observer.

Best to all, 
Regards


----------



## seamisty (26 May 2011)

Byrnes' PIF bid blocked by panel Colin Kruger 
May 26, 2011

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/byrnes-pif-bid-blocked-by-panel-20110525-1f4ct.html#ixzz1NOvpV7hs

From the article:More than a year ago Wellington replaced Computershare as the registry for the National Stock Exchange-traded PIF units with Armstrong Registry Services.

Wellington's board members - including managing director Jenny Hutson - are all directors of Armstrong, which also shares its address with Wellington.

PIF paid out more than $1.5 million in custodian and registry fees for the 2009 and 2010 financial years


----------



## JohnH (26 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Byrnes' PIF bid blocked by panel Colin Kruger
> May 26, 2011
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/byrnes-pif-bid-blocked-by-panel-20110525-1f4ct.html#ixzz1NOvpV7hs
> ...




That could be the final straw Seamisty.  The Computershare ceased on 23rd April last year and Armstrong commenced on the 27th.  Can we find out how much Armstrong is costing us per year compared to Computershare?


----------



## Duped (26 May 2011)

ian1328 said:


> I have recently received information from Wellington Capitol re an offer of .09c shares and am asking this forum why I should not accept, as this would surely dilute my financial loss.




Have you tried putting a bid on the NSX @ 8.9c? Or even 8.8c. If you're successful you'll have achieved the same result (dollar cost averaging) AND have saved yourself 1% - 2% on WC's 9c offer AND put upward pressure on the price for your current units? If not succesful you could always then pay 9c for the new units being placed by WC.


----------



## pixierich (26 May 2011)

While not posting very often, I read this thread daily. My sincere thanks to Breaker, Charles, Seamisty et al for making the 16 June meeting possible.
I have just booked flights from Hobart so I can be there in person to support your efforts and stick up both my hands for the "YES" vote.
Can someone answer this question: My wife and I hold our units (222,000) in joint names; only I shall be at the meeting; can I vote on her behalf at the meeting, or should I bring completed yellow form??
Thanks in anticipation, and looking forward to meeting you all on the big day.


----------



## seamisty (26 May 2011)

I just had a phone call from a PIF unitholder who was absolutely disgusted at Wellington Capitals constant need to try and convince PIF investors of their outstanding performance referring to the last NSX announcement http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724040.PDF 
HELLO WC? If this was the case you would not have people clambering to sign Castlereaghs YELLOW FORM included in their document package, you would not have a LARGE amount of PIF investors totally dissatisfied with not only the your past lack of transparency, your constant FAILURE to respond to correspondence from investors, your large legal costs at our expense with to date has  achieved absolutely STUFF ALL, not to mention the loss of MILLIONS of $$$ under the management of WC and the team of 30 highly trained professionals!! Lets not forget the placement and rights issue of which from I am looking will only benefit WC and some 'sophisticated' investors when I am sure that we could not have been worse off with a business bank loan IF IN FACT it was actually necessary to get ones hands on some cash in a hurry. 
This investor also failed to see why the picture of MS Hutson had to be presented in colour while the chair of our proposed PREFERED choice of Responsible Entity, Ian Ferrier is presented in a black and white mug shot!!!! Well, my answer to that was that some people less photogenic need all the help they can get

For anyone not sure about how to fill in their YELLOW FORM please do not hesitate to call Castlereagh on 1300 661 651
Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (26 May 2011)

pixierich said:


> While not posting very often, I read this thread daily. My sincere thanks to Breaker, Charles, Seamisty et al for making the 16 June meeting possible.
> I have just booked flights from Hobart so I can be there in person to support your efforts and stick up both my hands for the "YES" vote.
> Can someone answer this question: My wife and I hold our units (222,000) in joint names; only I shall be at the meeting; can I vote on her behalf at the meeting, or should I bring completed yellow form??
> Thanks in anticipation, and looking forward to meeting you all on the big day.



 Look forward to seeing you at the meeting pixierich. We are encouraging everyone to fill in their YELLOW proxy form and send it off as soon as is convenient, to be received by Computershare by no later than the 13th June even if they will be attending the meeting in person. Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## thekids (26 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> I just had a phone call from a PIF unitholder who was absolutely disgusted at Wellington Capitals constant need to try and convince PIF investors of their outstanding performance referring to the last NSX announcement http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724040.PDF
> HELLO WC? If this was the case you would not have people clambering to sign Castlereaghs YELLOW FORM included in their document package, you would not have a LARGE amount of PIF investors totally dissatisfied with not only the your past lack of transparency, your constant FAILURE to respond to correspondence from investors, your large legal costs at our expense with to date has  achieved absolutely STUFF ALL, not to mention the loss of MILLIONS of $$$ under the management of WC and the team of 30 highly trained professionals!! Lets not forget the placement and rights issue of which from I am looking will only benefit WC and some 'sophisticated' investors when I am sure that we could not have been worse off with a business bank loan IF IN FACT it was actually necessary to get ones hands on some cash in a hurry.
> This investor also failed to see why the picture of MS Hutson had to be presented in colour while the chair of our proposed PREFERED choice of Responsible Entity, Ian Ferrier is presented in a black and white mug shot!!!! Well, my answer to that was that some people less photogenic need all the help they can get
> 
> ...




Just wanted to say THANK-YOU for the information that you and others post here, they are very helpful for the lay-person that really didn't understand what they could do about the our shares that continue to mismanaged.  I wish i had found out about the forum a long time ago, it helps to know that your not on your own and there may be ways to help our common cause.  We now know how to vote and we will send the YELLOW FORM off today to make sure our votes are counted.  Many thanks, Sue & Tony


----------



## Duped (26 May 2011)

pixierich said:


> While not posting very often, I read this thread daily. My sincere thanks to Breaker, Charles, Seamisty et al for making the 16 June meeting possible.
> I have just booked flights from Hobart so I can be there in person to support your efforts and stick up both my hands for the "YES" vote.
> Can someone answer this question: My wife and I hold our units (222,000) in joint names; only I shall be at the meeting; can I vote on her behalf at the meeting, or should I bring completed yellow form??
> Thanks in anticipation, and looking forward to meeting you all on the big day.




Call and ask Castlereagh.  It's in their interests that your vote is validly cast. Let us know what you find out.

From the PIF constitution:
"2.3 Persons registered jointly as the holder of a Unit hold as joint tenants and not as tenants in common unless otherwise specified by an Applicant in the Application form."


----------



## k.smith (26 May 2011)

I have sent my vote by FAX...as per the yellow form..

"alternatively you can FAX your form to 61 3 9473 2145"

if you are faxing from Melbourne, just fax to  9473 2145

if you are faxing from another state, you will need to put the area code, 
so 03 9473 2145

the 61 is there for overseas votes...

You can verify that Computershare have received your vote by calling them. (I did)


----------



## Mutchy (26 May 2011)

pixierich said:


> While not posting very often, I read this thread daily. My sincere thanks to Breaker, Charles, Seamisty et al for making the 16 June meeting possible.
> I have just booked flights from Hobart so I can be there in person to support your efforts and stick up both my hands for the "YES" vote.
> Can someone answer this question: My wife and I hold our units (222,000) in joint names; only I shall be at the meeting; can I vote on her behalf at the meeting, or should I bring completed yellow form??
> Thanks in anticipation, and looking forward to meeting you all on the big day.




Dear pixierich.
As you will both have to sign the proxy form and only one of you is coming to Sydney (and the plane may be late!) please complete and sign and post the proxy form.
Steve Mutch
Hon Sec PIF AG Inc.


----------



## rmstrader (26 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Gutter tactics are a two way street JohnH! Does Wellington Capital honestly think that PIF investors are so stupid to not see through what they are trying as a result of sheer desperation to achieve here? I would have thought Jenny Hutson as CEO of G8 education had more serious issues to deal with with than using false amd misleading information to discredit others?
> 
> My information is that the that Singapores' MCYS (Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports) has launched an investigation into G8 Education, trading as GEM on the ASX  re: 'failure to uphold operational standards in childcare centres' relating to the death of a child attending one of the Cherie Hearts centres under G8 management.
> 
> ...




 Seamsity - Who every your are, I can see that your dissemination of information is not based on providing helpful commercial investment information. It is at best a misguided approach that is based on some malicious personal intent and vendetta.
I have already asked for a response on another blog “G8 Education” regarding the validity of what I suspect is defamatory – unsubstantiated letter, that is not on the company’s letterhead that it is suppose to be from and is not even signed. In spite of two requests you have not been forthcoming in providing a response, why?
Now I note that with contempt your misinformation above.
Point 1. 
Jenny Hudson is not the “CEO of G8 Education” Mr. Craig Chapman is – you can’t even get a basic thing like this right. Jenny Hudson is not even an executive of the company!
Point 2. 
Upon reading your next statement re the death of the child “attending on the Cherie Hearts centre” I have been advised that the child passed away not at the centre. Interesting point – this centre is a franchise centre under the control and management of the Cherie Hearts management and was before G8 Education had even made the takeover offer. I am not sure if you are trying to imply that the Cherie Hearts team was somehow responsible.
My company was for some 10 years a corporate sponsor of one of the leading Australian SIDS foundations (sudden infant death syndrome) and until recently I was an advisors board member. I have seen the anguish that this causes and it is devastating. You are using a sad situation – that the parents of the child are on record as saying that this is a “private matter” and ”wish to be left alone in their grief” to pursue some perverted and bitter goal. It appears that you understand all about gutter tactics – because that where you appear to be working from.
Your logo of the “shark” is fitting for you. I hope you have the gust to apologies to all concern. 
I intend to lodge a formal complaint with the site managers, ASX and ASIC regarding your postings.

You are a disgrace to use the circumstance of the death of a child in this manner.


----------



## seamisty (26 May 2011)

rmstrader said:


> Seamsity - Who every your are, I can see that your dissemination of information is not based on providing helpful commercial investment information. It is at best a misguided approach that is based on some malicious personal intent and vendetta.
> I have already asked for a response on another blog “G8 Education” regarding the validity of what I suspect is defamatory – unsubstantiated letter, that is not on the company’s letterhead that it is suppose to be from and is not even signed. In spite of two requests you have not been forthcoming in providing a response, why?
> Now I note that with contempt your misinformation above.
> Point 1.
> ...



At no time did I ever intend to cause further grief to the families concerned. I sincerely apologise to any I may have offended. Jenny Hutson is not the CEO, sorry she is non executive director, chairperson and a sustantial holder in G8.
My post said  'relating to the death of a child attending one of the Cherie Hearts centres under G8 management' In hindsight I should have said who attended.

The unfortunate incident occured on the 14th April 2011. G8 made an announcement to the ASX on the 19 April 2011 which stated 'the Cherie Hearts Group International PTE LTD is not directly involved in operating the Cherie Hearts childcare centres and primarily acts as a holding company for the vendor' http://www.hotcopper.com.au/asx_announcements.asp?id=292510 I assumed this meant that G8 was still in control of operating all the CH childcare centres they had previously aquired in Dec 2010??

I have the required documents substaniating my posts which I will provide to any or all of the above. Good luck with getting a response from ASIC! Sorry I did not respond to your posts on the GEM thread, I was not aware of them.
I have earnt my 'logo' and am proud of it. Seamisty


----------



## elizaman (26 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Hi All, I have just received an update from IMF so check your emails. Please be aware that the content is privileged, private and confidential and should not be disclosed to any third party. Seamisty




Would this be an email to PIF AG members?  or others


----------



## seamisty (26 May 2011)

elizaman said:


> Would this be an email to PIF AG members?  or others



elizaman I asume that all PIF investors who signed up to participate in the Class Action will have received it. Seamisty


----------



## ASICK (26 May 2011)

If we were deterred by errors, we wouldn't post at all.

In any event, anyone who relies on any information on Aussie Stock Forums to make or vary an investment clearly hasn't read the site disclaimer:

"... TO THOSE VIEWING POSTS ON AUSSIE STOCK FORUMS

Aussie Stock Forums does not endorse or vouch for the accuracy or authenticity of postings.

No-one is permitted to make postings as a licensed investment adviser, or as a representative of a licensed adviser. 

Postings are at best general information, not professional investment advice prepared by taking into account any individual circumstances and needs of particular investors. Therefore, before acting on the basis of what is said in a posting, you should:
 (i) consider consulting a licensed adviser (ASIC’s website at www.asic.gov.au has a list of licensed advisers); and
 (ii) visit ASIC’s consumer website at www.fido.gov.au for general guidance about investing.

People making postings are individually responsible for the accuracy and authenticity of their postings. 

Because of the nature of the internet, it may be hard to identify or locate the person making a posting. The person may also be in an overseas jurisdiction, so it may be hard to take any legal action against them. 

You will have no access to ASIC-approved dispute resolution schemes to recover any losses you may suffer by relying on the postings. Securities cannot be offered to you for sale or issue through postings on Aussie Stock Forums. 

It is advisable that you alert the management of Aussie Stock Forums (using the website contact form or 'Report a Post' function) or the ASIC Infoline on             1300 300 630       if you have good reason to suspect that any postings are inaccurate, are based on inside information or are likely to mislead or deceive people who view or use the postings. ..."  (emphasis added)


----------



## zixo (26 May 2011)

Can someone please explain to me in simple terms for those of us who have little understanding for the justification of ASICS decision on the rights issue?
 From my complaint and correspondence with wellington Capital and from the information provided regarding the rights issue I cant make head or tails of it.

If I can’t afford to buy the units on offer It WILL dilute my original investment and they will be sold to an interested third party who in turn will profit from my misfortune and original investment.
I can’t understand how those mum and dad investors who believed wellingtons sell in 2008 and are at the other end of the economic scale due to wellingtons broken promises. How can we not be adversely affected?...It’s there in black and white in Wellingtons booklet on page 16 paragraph 6.2.


----------



## JohnH (26 May 2011)

rmstrader said:


> Point 1.
> Jenny Hudson is not the “CEO of G8 Education” Mr. Craig Chapman is – you can’t even get a basic thing like this right. Jenny Hudson is not even an executive of the company!




Without wishing to add fuel to a tiny fire, isn't Chris Scott M.D. ......... Craig Chapman is listed as "executive director".
http://www.g8education.com/content.cfm/Board_of_Directors/5/


----------



## Jadel (26 May 2011)

Entirely  Agree  Asick , these forums serve the function of letting off steam , Perhaps the following  post will act a a salutary lesson or be of assistance to some poor soul in the future.

A Cautionary Tale .

 This is a very painful story ,because I am forced to  admit the cardinal error of investing,not once but twice with the same charlatans and crooks ,was made by a person who was a very naÃ¯ve investor

 I once had the misfortune to invest in a  property syndicate called Landmark.

It was run by an Accountant named Stephen Diez.

A few of his properties trusts had tenancy Issues and failed  bank Covenants on valuations.

However,  their was absolutely no problems with most of the syndicates,, including my own.  Government contracted tenants had never missed making a rental  payment over a  5 years period

 .Nevertheless ,unbelievably, all the syndicates were  tarred with the same brush , and,    consigned by ASIC into the hands of two entrepreneurs  named  Kiing and Adams.  These two genteleman were the director of an purportedly  successful company  called MFS.

Now what gives ASIC the right to arbitraily cede property trusts to a  private Company  without a democratic vote.? Especially when these two  characters had a  previous sordid  histort of failed solicitors loans.

And why should perfectly good Syndicates be  lumped in with the bad?

Repeated and desperate attempts were made to ASIC , who was then run by a top honcho  called Geoffrey  Lucy,  pointing out this patently obvious fact, to no avail 

It was only then that I fully realised  that  ASIC was either totally corrupted or complete y incompetent .

And that business is  essentially rum by corporate  thugs ,  lawyers who manipulate  a flawed and defective financial regulator to   feed  on the misfortune and misery  of those utterly unable to protect themselves     

A few courageous souls  did make e a valiant effort  to  contact other investors, in order to convene an   EGM   to fight this injustice.

Somehow word of this filtered out,and before this action group  could continue,  King and Adams put in a Rights Issue 

 The properties were then hugely devalued and listed  in a ridiculous short period ,(5 days )  , Starting to ring some bells  ,

 And who do we now know  was  once   an associate and mentor of  Michael King ?

 Non other than an ambitions corporate layer named  Jenny Hudson . 

 Of course the majority of ruined and devastated investors did not have the  time or money to reinvest  in this listed Company .And so King and Adams acquired full  control  by purchasing the remaining shares and integrated  the newly formed Company into into their empire.

Now you may be interested  to know  the name of the  listed Company my  greatly devalued and diluted shares  turned into ………

 GEO  … Yes the same GEO  that was partly  owned by the PIF and subsequently   flogged off by Jenny H  to one of her business mates. Now listed as GPM 

By my reckoning,, I and other investors have know lost something like 95% of their original investment . On a scheme fully sanctioned and condoned by ASIC 

And thats not counting the money I invested into the PIF. 

My only excuse for this personal financial insanity was that I was beguiled by the Peacock name  ,the purported   Lloyds insurance cover , and Perpetual name used as Custodian 

. Of course, I now realise that was Peacock was impeccably  named   ,all feathers and no substance.

 Thank God he never became Prime minister of Australia. 

A sad story for the Jadel family .As part of this Funds invested was Mrs Jadels Superannuation. A fact I am reminded of on many occasions .

I can only hope that the saga we are currently involved in has a different ending.


----------



## pixierich (26 May 2011)

Duped said:


> Call and ask Castlereagh.  It's in their interests that your vote is validly cast. Let us know what you find out.
> 
> From the PIF constitution:
> "2.3 Persons registered jointly as the holder of a Unit hold as joint tenants and not as tenants in common unless otherwise specified by an Applicant in the Application form."




Thanks, Duped. Why didn't I think of that? I rang Castlereagh and they said under those circumstances (see my previous post), to fill out the yellow proxy form with both parties signing and post ASAP, which reinforces Seamisty's advice.
So that's what I've done. It's in the post as I write, hopefully to play its part in the debunking of JH.

Has anyone considered the parallels which can be drawn between what's going on in the Middle East, and our own situation at the moment? Finally the people have had a gutful and speak out. Despots are toppled. Let's hope that we arrive at the same outcome, but let's also be mindful of the fact that when despots realise their days are numbered, they will try to do as much damage as they can before they are finally ousted.

Thanks again, and regards to all.


----------



## pixierich (26 May 2011)

Mutchy said:


> Dear pixierich.
> As you will both have to sign the proxy form and only one of you is coming to Sydney (and the plane may be late!) please complete and sign and post the proxy form.
> Steve Mutch
> Hon Sec PIF AG Inc.




Thanks, Steve. All under control now. The plane won't be late - I've advised Virgin of the very important nature of this meeting.

Best regards.


----------



## DepressedDad (26 May 2011)

rmstrader said:


> Seamsity - Who every your are, I can see that your dissemination of information is not based on providing helpful commercial investment information. It is at best a misguided approach that is based on some malicious personal intent and vendetta.
> I have already asked for a response on another blog “G8 Education” regarding the validity of what I suspect is defamatory – unsubstantiated letter, that is not on the company’s letterhead that it is suppose to be from and is not even signed. In spite of two requests you have not been forthcoming in providing a response, why?
> Now I note that with contempt your misinformation above.
> Point 1.
> ...




Who ever YOU are rms trader, don't go calling Seamisty a 'disgrace' 'with malicious personal intent and vendetta' without expecting us to take offence. What absolute nonsense!!  

In case you haven't noticed, this site is ABOUT sharing as much information as possible about dishonest & misappropriation of OUR MONEY in a specific fund through lies and deliberate deceit. Seamisty has been absolutely instrumental in uncovering a HUGE amount of information which is about to make a difference to all of us with money in this fund.  Who are you, to go insulting one of our hardworking genuine ethical & honest workers?  Who put you up to this? (No wine as prize).  Have you got money in this fund? Clearly not or you would see it all very differently.

A small detail given to her & included within a wealth of information, which may not have accurately portrayed a completely unrelated set of circumstances is no reason for you to come on here bleating as if it's some HUGE injustice.  

Have you looked at the long damning incriminating list DoraNBoots has put together on JH & her colleague’s goings on???? (Thanks Dora for that.)  As if getting a tiny insignificant (to our fund) piece of information wrong makes a blind bit of difference to that HUGE list. 

Go back where you came from rmstrader. This site is here for those with money in the fund and anyone seeing their own money slipping away would NEVER attack Seamisty like you have. So personal & over NOTHING at all.  Leave us alone to fathom out ways to bring these crooks to justice.  Good luck sticking up for crooks like them. (Or should I say 'crooks' like you' as you must be one of them to disrespect someone so personally who has been so awesome for our fund.)

Keep the info flowing team.  There are enough of us & we are smart enough to nut out for ourselves  large & small details as they flow in, sometimes needing correcting. The more info the better!!  And we are about to meet some very significant goals in the near future so let’s not be distracted by self-indulgent posts like this, which are clearly NOT in the best interests of improving the value of our fund.


----------



## thekids (26 May 2011)

DepressedDad said:


> Who ever YOU are rms trader, don't go calling Seamisty a 'disgrace' 'with malicious personal intent and vendetta' without expecting us to take offence. What absolute nonsense!!
> 
> In case you haven't noticed, this site is ABOUT sharing as much information as possible about dishonest & misappropriation of OUR MONEY in a specific fund through lies and deliberate deceit. Seamisty has been absolutely instrumental in uncovering a HUGE amount of information which is about to make a difference to all of us with money in this fund.  Who are you, to go insulting one of our hardworking genuine ethical & honest workers?  Who put you up to this? (No wine as prize).  Have you got money in this fund? Clearly not or you would see it all very differently.




OMG well said DepressedDad & keep the info flowing Seamisty.  This site is for people with shares in PIF, pity we can't keep outsiders OUT.


----------



## seamisty (26 May 2011)

For all of you who have contacted me in relation to what to do re the rights issue, I honestly cannot give you any advice. It will have to be a personal decision made by every individual investor, whether you seek financial advice from a qualified person is your right. I honestly cannot believe how ASIC left us to fend for ourselves re the placement and rights issue, an absolute disgrace and I will be contacting them again because even though I am in a total quandry as to what to do I have NOT even received the appropriate documents from WC!!! And even if I receive it by tomorrow that leaves me precious little time to seek investment advice and organise finance while at the same time running a business then get payment by cheque there on time. Stuffed up there again Wellington Capital. Also I am at a loss as to how the extra units will benefit us with voting power when many have already or are in the process of voting?? This whole issue is nothing more than a BIG FAT WELLINGTON CAPITAL SCAM in my opinion. I believe we still have legals working on our behalf re this dilemma.
Seamisty


----------



## pixierich (26 May 2011)

Couldn't have put it better myself, DepressedDad!  Put your brain into gear before opening your mouth, rmstrader.
Be not discouraged, Seamisty. When one is as brave and outspoken as you, these kind of attacks are inevitable from time to time, and we all know will only harden your resolve to see justice done.


----------



## seamisty (26 May 2011)

Thanks for all the support. Our hardworking PIFAG vice president has spent the day at Castlereagh Capital working his butt off to get this show on the road. He called me and asked that to reiterate that you DO NOT return the pink form to WC if you are opposed to WC remaining Responsible Entity, bin it even if you have already completed your YELLOW FORM.
 There will not be any independant observers at the EGM but Computershare will be present to handle any late votes. 
Castlereagh Capital urges everyone to get their proxies in by no later than the 13th June even if you will be attending the EGM as this will negate the need for you to queue up to register. Naturally we are hoping for huge numbers of PIF investors showing support so in the event that you do not vote prior to the EGM you will need to be present at the meeting by 10.00am, an hour before it commences at 11.00am in time to register. 
My proxy vote was submitted today. Keep the support coming please.

Seamisty


----------



## casey2708 (26 May 2011)

I'm a regular reader here, but only one or two posts before this one.

Received the Wellington "Don't change" mailout today.  
I find the red & black 'scare' text and the portraiture on the pamphlet plainly insulting, as if I'm just a mug who can be impressed by such obvious 'tabloid' s**t.

The whole presentation is poor and shows an ugly attitude by Wellington - but I am not surprised as that's been on show for a while now.

I hope Wellington is replaced.

I thank all the hard workers and supporters who have created the chance to make the change  - but I remain pessimistic given the 'rights issue' and "9 cent unit issue", both designed to engineer a takeover. 

Good luck PIFAG, hope you succeed.  My proxy form has been posted.

Casey.


----------



## seamisty (26 May 2011)

Could I also add that for those of you that have voted FOR Castlereagh who trust me with your identity would you please give me your name or the name your investment is in by private message or email me if you have it so that we can tick you off our register? It will save us lots of time making calls. Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## ASICK (26 May 2011)

rmstrader said:


> ... My company was for some 10 years a corporate sponsor of one of the leading Australian SIDS foundations (sudden infant death syndrome) and until recently I was an advisors board member. I have seen the anguish that this causes and it is devastating. You are using a sad situation – that the parents of the child are on record as saying that this is a “private matter” and ”wish to be left alone in their grief” to pursue some perverted and bitter goal. It appears that you understand all about gutter tactics – because that where you appear to be working from.
> Your logo of the “shark” is fitting for you. I hope you have the gust to apologies to all concern.
> I intend to lodge a formal complaint with the site managers, ASX and ASIC regarding your postings. ...




If you're a compassionate person then you might try to take the time to understand the impact of the substantial losses suffered by many of the members of this forum (a number which includes Seamisty).
Sadly, it seems your compassion is very much focused with SIDS, in complete indifference to the anguish suffered by members of the PIF.


----------



## reasonable (26 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Thanks for all the support. Our hardworking PIFAG vice president has spent the day at Castlereagh Capital working his butt off to get this show on the road. He called me and asked that to reiterate that you DO NOT return the pink form to WC if you are opposed to WC remaining Responsible Entity, bin it even if you have already completed your YELLOW FORM.
> There will not be any independant observers at the EGM but Computershare will be present to handle any late votes.
> Castlereagh Capital urges everyone to get their proxies in by no later than the 13th June even if you will be attending the EGM as this will negate the need for you to queue up to register. Naturally we are hoping for huge numbers of PIF investors showing support so in the event that you do not vote prior to the EGM you will need to be present at the meeting by 10.00am, an hour before it commences at 11.00am in time to register.
> My proxy vote was submitted today. Keep the support coming please.
> ...




I shall be returning the yellow form but why not send in the pink one also voting Peter as chaiman and FOR all the resolutions?


----------



## simgrund (26 May 2011)

Seamisty #7218 quotes this passage from new unit issue atatements:

*"The New Units will be issued without disclosure to investors under Section 1012DAA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Corporations Act) as modified by ASIC Class Order 08/35." *

A'SICk can not be in two camps at the same time. Who disagrees?

Regards,


----------



## seamisty (26 May 2011)

reasonable said:


> I shall be returning the yellow form but why not send in the pink one also voting Peter as chaiman and FOR all the resolutions?



It is just a precautionary measure as I was told that if the pink one is sent after the yellow one and someone leaves it blank or makes a mistake it will over ride the original vote made on the yellow form. Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (26 May 2011)

I  do not know A' sick, but please read his or hers  posts carefully.

I see only a highly intelligent individual who is trying his best to assist and help 
investors on this forum .


----------



## rmstrader (26 May 2011)

ASICK said:


> rmstrader said:
> 
> 
> > ... My company was for some 10 years a corporate sponsor of one of the leading Australian SIDS foundations (sudden infant death syndrome) and until recently I was an advisors board member. I have seen the anguish that this causes and it is devastating. You are using a sad situation – that the parents of the child are on record as saying that this is a “private matter” and ”wish to be left alone in their grief” to pursue some perverted and bitter goal. It appears that you understand all about gutter tactics – because that where you appear to be working from.
> ...




ASICK - I appreciated your previous post which I will respond to but don't preach to someone when you don't know or understand their circumstances. If this person wants to help people then don't do it by bagging and misrepresenting the facts. If this person is trying to help people involved with PIF - then why the "attack" on G8 Education??

My focus is not "very much focused with SIDS in complete indifference to the anguish suffered by members of the PIF" This is a foolish unmeasured quote. At least the people of PIF have some hope - whether it is with their current management team or if they choose to vote otherwise with someone else. I hope they make the right decisions for themselves - at least they have some hope - I was a shareholder of MFS I had no say in it when Michael King sent it down to tubs and I got ZERO. everyone....stick to the facts stop playing the man and ASICK do your want to stick your other foot in your mouth. Poor attack and poor form! RMStrader.


----------



## reasonable (26 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> It is just a precautionary measure as I was told that if the pink one is sent after the yellow one and someone leaves it blank or makes a mistake it will over ride the original vote made on the yellow form. Seamisty




I understand but now knowing the relationship between Armstrong and hudson I would not trust Armstrong to declare the correct results.


----------



## Joe Blow (26 May 2011)

I am urging those who do not understand how to use the quote tags (when quoting other posts) to take a couple of minutes to review this thread: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2737

Any posts that make incorrect use of the quote tags from this point forward will be immediately removed from the thread, so the couple of minutes you spend learning how they are used may save you half an hour or more in reposting a very long post. 

Please note this is an extraordinarily simple concept, so please take a few minutes to learn how it works.


----------



## marcom (26 May 2011)

Jadel said:


> Entirely  Agree  Asick , these forums serve the function of letting off steam , Perhaps the following  post will act a a salutary lesson or be of assistance to some poor soul in the future.
> 
> A Cautionary Tale




Jadel, thanks for sharing your tale with us. Before reading your tale I was convinced that we just had the misfortune of falling in with a few crooks. Now I am really, really concerned as there is a pattern developing of recurrent fraud, deception and theft on a massive scale by an organised group of criminals that have been operating for many years with impunity. I just thought the regulators were incompetent, under-funded and inept, and hoped maybe they would take at least some action down the line. How naive I was! THERE IS NO CORPORATE REGULATION IN AUSTRALIA, and we are left to fend for ourselves in a shark pool.


----------



## astevo (26 May 2011)

It seems there is an unfortunate coincidence, and some confusion between the name used by a forum member and another entity (and nicknames given to it).

I'd like to thank "ASICK" for his/her knowledgable and insightful contributions. 

ASIC on the other hand, (and I'm sure this is the entity that Simgrund was referring to as A'sick) has thoroughly deserved my/our condemnation.

cheers! (in 3 weeks!)

- Alan.


----------



## rmstrader (26 May 2011)

JohnH said:


> Without wishing to add fuel to a tiny fire, isn't Chris Scott M.D. ......... Craig Chapman is listed as "executive director".
> http://www.g8education.com/content.cfm/Board_of_Directors/5/




Hi JohnH - look we all get things wrong - its a small thing arguing about who's who in the zoo - this was not my point. If this was the only thing Seamisty got wrong who would care - but it was all the other points that I take issue with. I respect their willingness to help the unit holders of PIF with information and assistance. By why the muck racking leveled at GEM.

For the record, on the latest industry briefing announcement to ASX Craig Chapman is the "CEO" (Chief Executive Officer) he is also a Director - which makes him an Executive director as well - yes and Chris Scott is the Managing Director not CEO. No big deal but is people don't get the little things right how do they get the big issue stuff right. unfortunately, seamisty has continued to make a further claim of a childs death (muck racking) against G8 Education. I at least have taken the time to query this and they are completely WRONG - if I can find out the facts in an hour why not them - I will address it with Seamisty again and hopefully a further apology to G8 will be forthcoming. rmstrader


----------



## seamisty (26 May 2011)

rmstrader I have apologised and as far as I am concerned the issue is at an end.(another apology from me will not alter the GEM share price or the fact that not one share was traded today) Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (26 May 2011)

reasonable said:


> I understand but now knowing the relationship between Armstrong and hudson I would not trust Armstrong to declare the correct results.




Hence the real need to secure Independent Observer entity.

Regards,


----------



## rmstrader (26 May 2011)

thekids said:


> OMG well said DepressedDad & keep the info flowing Seamisty.  This site is for people with shares in PIF, pity we can't keep outsiders OUT.




DepressedDads - no I am not a unit holder in PIF unfortunately I was a shareholder in MFS when Michael King sent it to the bottom of the sea. So while there is a connect there that it. I have also not mad a comment either way about PIF other then to say the it is up to the unit holder to make the right decision for then- I am in no way involved in the process, don't want to be. I am a small shareholder in my own right in G8 Education this I have previously stated - my comments to Seamisty have been about not misrepresenting the facts. In the old footy saying - play the ball not the man! what has G8 got to do with PIF other then Jenny Hudson is a NON executive director.


----------



## simgrund (26 May 2011)

astevo said:


> It seems there is an unfortunate coincidence, and some confusion between the name used by a forum member and another entity (and nicknames given to it).
> 
> I'd like to thank "ASICK" for his/her knowledgable and insightful contributions.
> 
> ...




Yes Alan, you're on the button with ASIC plume de nom of A'SICk. 
I meant no derogation to member's forum name who I suspect may have been on the same track.
That of displaying personal displeasure with this less than august body.
We are still waiting for their progress in $147.5 m recovery action.
So forgive this unintended confusion and bouques to ASICK for valuable feedbacks.

In contrition,


----------



## NOR (26 May 2011)

*: Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS*




rmstrader said:


> Seamsity - Who every your are, I can see that your dissemination of information is not based on providing helpful commercial investment information. It is at best a misguided approach that is based on some malicious personal intent and vendetta.
> I have already asked for a response on another blog “G8 Education” regarding the validity of what I suspect is defamatory – unsubstantiated letter, that is not on the company’s letterhead that it is suppose to be from and is not even signed. In spite of two requests you have not been forthcoming in providing a response, why?
> Now I note that with contempt your misinformation above.
> Point 1.
> ...


----------



## ASICK (26 May 2011)

rmstrader said:


> ASICK - I appreciated your previous post which I will respond to but don't preach to someone when you don't know or understand their circumstances. If this person wants to help people then don't do it by bagging and misrepresenting the facts. If this person is trying to help people involved with PIF - then why the "attack" on G8 Education??
> 
> My focus is not "very much focused with SIDS in complete indifference to the anguish suffered by members of the PIF" This is a foolish unmeasured quote. At least the people of PIF have some hope - whether it is with their current management team or if they choose to vote otherwise with someone else. I hope they make the right decisions for themselves - at least they have some hope - I was a shareholder of MFS I had no say in it when Michael King sent it down to tubs and I got ZERO. everyone....stick to the facts stop playing the man and ASICK do your want to stick your other foot in your mouth. Poor attack and poor form! RMStrader.




touchy aren't you? - arrogant too - but 'playing the man'?  I guess I was - as you now do to me  - strike up the band, and if you can take your feet out of your mouth, we'll goose step down the avenue together.


----------



## rmstrader (26 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> At no time did I ever intend to cause further grief to the families concerned. I sincerely apologise to any I may have offended. Jenny Hutson is not the CEO, sorry she is non executive director, chairperson and a sustantial holder in G8.
> My post said  'relating to the death of a child attending one of the Cherie Hearts centres under G8 management' In hindsight I should have said who attended.
> 
> The unfortunate incident occured on the 14th April 2011. G8 made an announcement to the ASX on the 19 April 2011 which stated 'the Cherie Hearts Group International PTE LTD is not directly involved in operating the Cherie Hearts childcare centres and primarily acts as a holding company for the vendor' http://www.hotcopper.com.au/asx_announcements.asp?id=292510 I assumed this meant that G8 was still in control of operating all the CH childcare centres they had previously aquired in Dec 2010??
> ...




Seamisty - I have no don't that you are attempting to assist people that share your opinion with hoe you should deal with PIF and as I have said the will of the unit holders I believe will be made know in some forthcoming vote - but here it is what has this got to do with G8 Education?  

Your apology is well place to any of the families involved, but yet you continued to REPEAT  the same accusations. If I can find out from G8 Education the real story inside leaving a message and getting a comment one hour later surely you could - ESPECIALLY given the gravity of the statement. "The unfortunate incident occured on the 14th April 2011" (the dead of a child) as you have stated, did not occur at a a Cherie Hearts  centre - it happened at the child's home! yet you still want to pass comment on another angle implying that ... ho well if G8 have said they run and own the Cherie Hearts franchise centers it must be their fault. I don't know how you are getting this information or who is feeding you this rubbish - but it is wrong and misleading muck racking.

Please I would suggest that you retract your statement and focus your efforts on PIF - I would not post the documents that you have. I have late today been advised by G8 Education that if you wish further evidence of what I have told you they have said they will post a written statement.  Get your facts right and play the ball not the man in your fight with PIF. rmstrader


----------



## ASICK (26 May 2011)

I just went to hot copper and note that Seamisty has posted 'my information is that', then comment re: child death.  It's more than fair comment to press for the source of the 'information' in the circumstances, and since the matter was raised on ASF, perhaps it should be settled on ASF.

This matter seems to be more about G8 than PIF and it seems that's why our new found friend has appeared on scene. 

To keep the tread on topic, I'll ignore any further witticisms from him/her (including the one posted immediately after this posting).


----------



## rmstrader (26 May 2011)

ASICK said:


> touchy aren't you? - arrogant too - but 'playing the man'?  I guess I was - as you now do to me  - strike up the band, and if you can take your feet out of your mouth, we'll goose step down the avenue together.




How original - arguing throw away lines from criticism leveled at you. Whose the touchy one???


----------



## simgrund (26 May 2011)

rmstrader said:


> Seamisty - I have no don't that you are attempting to assist people that share your opinion with hoe you should deal with PIF and as I have said the will of the unit holders I believe will be made know in some forthcoming vote - but here it is what has this got to do with G8 Education?
> 
> Your apology is well place to any of the families involved, but yet you continued to REPEAT  the same accusations. If I can find out from G8 Education the real story inside leaving a message and getting a comment one hour later surely you could - ESPECIALLY given the gravity of the statement. "The unfortunate incident occured on the 14th April 2011" (the dead of a child) as you have stated, did not occur at a a Cherie Hearts  centre - it happened at the child's home! yet you still want to pass comment on another angle implying that ... ho well if G8 have said they run and own the Cherie Hearts franchise centers it must be their fault. I don't know how you are getting this information or who is feeding you this rubbish - but it is wrong and misleading muck racking.
> 
> Please I would suggest that you retract your statement and focus your efforts on PIF - I would not post the documents that you have. I have late today been advised by G8 Education that if you wish further evidence of what I have told you they have said they will post a written statement.  Get your facts right and play the ball not the man in your fight with PIF. rmstrader




Hello rmstrader,
I wish to intrude but only in a role of a peacemaker.
There are many on this thread who recall with anguish previous suspensions of this thread. 
At fault were exactly the type of exchanges starting to heat up here.
That was terrible and it took real perseverance to return to this stage of informed exchanges. 
You probably realise that the good news spread on this thread
is, literally, life-saving.
Please help us maintain this by simply providing the corrective information for benefit of those you feel need to read it to change their perceptions.
We can do it without destructive consequences.
I sympathise with your losses in MFS.
PIF group too has a grievance against those very same Directors.
Hopefully ASIC - initiated legal action will punish them.
Best wishes to you,
simgrund


----------



## seamisty (26 May 2011)

Hi all, Sorry about the controversy generated by my G8 post. We all know that we have bigger issues at stake here and I refuse to risk blowing something out of proportion further than is already evident so I am not prepared to comment on the issue again. From past experience we know how valuable this thread is as a communication point, we also know how easy it is to lose it and that there will be attempts made to have us shut down. Everyone has their own agenda, ours at present is to achieve a better outcome for the PIF than what we are currently experiencing so lets move forward and concentrate on achieving that better outcome!! Seamisty


----------



## selciper (26 May 2011)

Please let's concentrate on the main task at hand - the EGM. Life is complicated enough at present where PIF is concerned without debating the moral merits or otherwise of certain posts. Keep away from minefields!


----------



## Mutchy (26 May 2011)

simgrund said:


> Hence the real need to secure Independent Observer entity.
> 
> Regards,




Hi Simgrund.
Computershare will be providing the personnel to register proxies at the EGM and will be providing independent observers and auditors for checking and tallying the proxies. 
The proxies, if any, lodged with Armstrong will have to be presented to Computershare personnel for the tally at the meeting. A poll will be called for each motion. 
Steve Mutch
Hon Sec PIF Ag Inc.


----------



## simgrund (26 May 2011)

Mutchy said:


> Hi Simgrund.
> Computershare will be providing the personnel to register proxies at the EGM and will be providing independent observers and auditors for checking and tallying the proxies.
> The proxies, if any, lodged with Armstrong will have to be presented to Computershare personnel for the tally at the meeting. A poll will be called for each motion.
> Steve Mutch
> Hon Sec PIF Ag Inc.




Relieved to hear it. Thanks Steve.
I am sending a proxy, as well as trek down south for the day.
See you again soon,


----------



## seamisty (26 May 2011)

k.smith said:


> I have sent my vote by FAX...as per the yellow form..
> 
> "alternatively you can FAX your form to 61 3 9473 2145"
> 
> ...



ksmith please post the number that you called Computershare on to verify your vote as I have had several enquiries from voters wanting confirmation of receipt. Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## k.smith (26 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> ksmith please post the number that you called Computershare on to verify your vote as I have had several enquiries from voters wanting confirmation of receipt. Thanks, Seamisty




Ph: 1300 567 148

It is a Computershare number, mentioned on the yellow proxy form itself and is  esp. for the PIF.

You will need to quote your ID number , which is the ten digit number starting with the letter C on the right-hand side of the YELLOW PROXY FORM.


----------



## seamisty (26 May 2011)

k.smith said:


> Ph: 1300 567 148
> 
> It is a Computershare number, mentioned on the yellow proxy form itself and is  esp. for the PIF.
> 
> You will need to quote your ID number , which is the ten digit number starting with the letter C on the right-hand side of the YELLOW PROXY FORM.



Thanks ksmith, will pass it on. Does anyone know what the go is for using 1300 numbers from overseas? Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (26 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Thanks ksmith, will pass it on. Does anyone know what the go is for using 1300 numbers from overseas? Seamisty



  Found this on the internet:-
"a customer may call you using your 1300 number if the country that they are calling you from accepts the call.

This will depend entirely on that countries telephone network. If the call is accepted by the overseas network the customer will be charged accordingly as per that network's fees.

Your customer's can call your 1300 number/s by dialling the overseas code of that country + Australia's country code (61) + your 1300 or 1800 number."


----------



## seamisty (26 May 2011)

JohnH said:


> Found this on the internet:-
> "a customer may call you using your 1300 number if the country that they are calling you from accepts the call.
> 
> This will depend entirely on that countries telephone network. If the call is accepted by the overseas network the customer will be charged accordingly as per that network's fees.
> ...



Have passed it on JohnH, thanks, Seamisty


----------



## k.smith (26 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Thanks ksmith, will pass it on. Does anyone know what the go is for using 1300 numbers from overseas? Seamisty




For all enquires to Computershare if calling from outside Australia, the number is +61 3 9415 4159

the 1300 number is just for calls within Australia.

Thanks, Jadel, for your insightful post today.
This site, and the AG, has been, imo, instrumental in giving a collective voice to the many decimated ordinary investors....


----------



## JohnH (26 May 2011)

Night all............   I'm going to bed, perchance to dream of red leather jackets and returned $$$.

...........Sorry Seamisty, just drunk you bottle of cleanskin!!


----------



## simgrund (27 May 2011)

JohnH said:


> Night all............   I'm going to bed, perchance to dream of red leather jackets and returned $$$.
> 
> ...........Sorry Seamisty, just drunk you bottle of cleanskin!!




Ha, at least you still can afford cleanskins.
The lesser of us are squeezing them last drops from bottles abandoned in the gutters.
A slurred cheer to you,


----------



## Blueboy1 (27 May 2011)

rmstrader said:


> ASICK - I appreciated your previous post which I will respond to but don't preach to someone when you don't know or understand their circumstances. If this person wants to help people then don't do it by bagging and misrepresenting the facts. If this person is trying to help people involved with PIF - then why the "attack" on G8 Education??
> 
> My focus is not "very much focused with SIDS in complete indifference to the anguish suffered by members of the PIF" This is a foolish unmeasured quote. At least the people of PIF have some hope - whether it is with their current management team or if they choose to vote otherwise with someone else. I hope they make the right decisions for themselves - at least they have some hope - I was a shareholder of MFS I had no say in it when Michael King sent it down to tubs and I got ZERO. everyone....stick to the facts stop playing the man and ASICK do your want to stick your other foot in your mouth. Poor attack and poor form! RMStrader.




Stop wasting everyone's time on this forum,we have enough to worry about without you bleating on over irrelevant topics.
Blueboy1


----------



## k.smith (27 May 2011)

Perhaps all our complaints regarding the rights issue are having some impact....
in our case,it would be PATHETIC if it is a case of better late than never...

http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.ns...acquisitions approved by members?opendocument

''......ASIC is also proposing to update RG 74 to take into account the significant developments to the law since the guide’s initial publication in 1994. These developments include more specific disclosure requirements and an extension of the regime to listed managed investment schemes. Importantly, there is significant new guidance about the circumstances in which ASIC will provide relief for ‘trust schemes’- complex transactions used to acquire control of a managed investment scheme.

ASIC’s updated guide will provide entities and their advisers with our current views on how the exception in item 7 applies, how we monitor compliance with item 7’s requirements and our policy on granting relief in relation to those requirements.

ASIC is seeking comments on the proposed update to RG 74 by 1 August 2011 and plans to publish a final guide by the end of the year.


----------



## marcom (27 May 2011)

k.smith said:


> Perhaps all our complaints regarding the rights issue are having some impact....
> in our case,it would be PATHETIC if it is a case of better late than never...
> 
> http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.ns...acquisitions approved by members?opendocument
> ...




They only seek industry comment not investor comment. TOO LITTLE TOO LATE ASIC!


----------



## JohnH (27 May 2011)

Yellow proxy completed and in the post today.

Are there any unit holders from the Gold Coast going down to the meeting and returning same day, who are interested in Taxi/airport parking sharing? (or mutual celebration/commiseration)


----------



## Duped (27 May 2011)

marcom said:


> Jadel, thanks for sharing your tale with us. Before reading your tale I was convinced that we just had the misfortune of falling in with a few crooks. Now I am really, really concerned as there is a pattern developing of recurrent fraud, deception and theft on a massive scale by an organised group of criminals that have been operating for many years with impunity. I just thought the regulators were incompetent, under-funded and inept, and hoped maybe they would take at least some action down the line. How naive I was! THERE IS NO CORPORATE REGULATION IN AUSTRALIA, and we are left to fend for ourselves in a shark pool.




My new motto.  Don't let a lawyer anywhere near your money.  Being a  lawyer doesn't automatically mean you make good business decisions.  Being a lawyer may get you through the forest without bumping into any  trees, but at which side of the forest will you end up?

Hear hear Marcom. Although in my case I didn't fall into PIF. As I've posted previously, I was pushed there by a financial advisor carrying the commonwealth brand through ASIC's AFS Licence. 

More than just wet corporate regulation in Australia, the finance sector recruits our democratically empowered but pliable regulators to help them prey on us. And appropriating the commonwealth brand (our virtuous brand) to anesthetise our caveat emptor (buyer beware) was one of their greatest scores. With ASIC placing the Swimming Flags nearer the sharks we wonder why we get taken. Doh!

The finance sector doesn't just have that front line weapon. As shown by the "lamentable" High Court decision in Octaviar, the sector employs the best of the corporatised lawyers to seek out the flaws, holes and weaknesses in the legislation empowered by our squabbling politicians and exploits them hard and fast.  Congratulations Fortress.

Swan then (granted he was put on the spot at the LSE) effectively flips us off as, in my words, greedy. Um, no Swanny, you ask us to trust your party. Is that our first error then? That's the Ennegram way isn't it? The naiive that trust me deserve what they get? Dopes need to by parted with their financial power do they? It's Darwinian. A darwinian market makes Australia strong right?

Our taxes and democracy is being used against us. Our taxes have effectively funded a marketing campaign for financial advisors. The press gangs of the finance sector.  But this is just the beginning. We are early victims. My friends just roll their eyes when I go on about PIF and they carry on merily believing they'r OK , their super's safe. Not so thinks Jeremy Cooper. IMO Australia is about 10-20 years away from the biggest collective WTF hangover since the Selector Acts that caused so much pain to Australian families.  Bumbling misleading folly. Sound familiar? (The ASIC public servants are fine too as their super is safely tucked away in defined benefit schemes like PSS and CSS. Any short fall to be paid for by you, the tax payer. Yikes.)

If any of you who've made it this far down my post want to be scared out of your pants then see the Cooper Review "3.2.2  Issues that need to be addressed now."  Page 14 of  http://www.supersystemreview.gov.au...part_one/Final_Report_Part_1_Consolidated.pdf

I wonder how long the Judiciary will toe the sidelines and  effectively say: not my problem, this is an issue for the legislature.  Australia is not the UK with its actively involved additional power:  monarchy.  We are a former colony.  Like Zimbabwe. Look how the UK  system inherited by Zimbabwe has 'evolved' there.

And rmstrader, think of the better health care, protection and schooling we could provide for our children if we didn't have to shoulder an ASIC aided rapacious and cynical finance sector and their mercenaries: corporatised lawyers. Y'know those Australians that take an oath to serve the court, i.e. to put the courts' interests before their clients'? 

No wonder we feel cultural cringe when we travel. We're pretenders that believe our own BS at home.  BS that is quickly exposed OS. Well unfortunately it seems I have to look forward to the certain end to the mining boom.  That'll turn on the lights and open the doors for us to sweep the dodgy house guests out.


----------



## Towbar (27 May 2011)

Just received the latest news letter from Wellington, the pink form was dispatched into the garbage container,unfortunately due to financial stress i will not be at the meeting in Sydney.A BIG thanks to all in the PIFAG who have oganisedthis EGM.Our yellow proxy
 forms are completed & on their way. Good luck to us all. Towbar


----------



## k.smith (27 May 2011)

marcom said:


> They only seek industry comment not investor comment. TOO LITTLE TOO LATE ASIC!




Yes... in these Consultation papers that ASIC send around, the decisions that are made include information from the responses received......

e.g..   http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/REP_138.pdf/$file/REP_138.pdf  

ASIC sent out this CP to 107 unlisted responsible entities.
They received written responses from 30 ''from a wide variety of sources"....

30..??? a wide variety..???

I am glad that there are forums such as this where investors CAN have their say...

sorry, having trouble with the link..


----------



## zixo (27 May 2011)

Just a reminder that your votes have to be at computershare no later than the 13th of June.
Remember to vote FOR the amendments if you intend to stop the excuses, Lies and Rorting of the fund.
If people can't attend the meeting on the 16th of June and intend to cast a proxy vote. I strongly suggest you please use the paperwork supplied by Castlereagh Capital and send it to computershare rather than Armstrong registries.  
I've found out personally that Strange things occur when any mail is directed to Armstrong registries and Wellington Capital.


----------



## seamisty (27 May 2011)

Thanks to all those who had notified me that they have voted by private message on the forum, by email and ph calls. Great work, early days.  Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (27 May 2011)

Extension of Rights Issue timetable http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724049.PDF


----------



## selciper (27 May 2011)

zixo said:


> Just a reminder that your votes have to be at computershare no later than the 13th of June.
> Remember to vote FOR the amendments if you intend to stop the excuses, Lies and Rorting of the fund.
> If people can't attend the meeting on the 16th of June and intend to cast a proxy vote. I strongly suggest you please use the paperwork supplied by Castlereagh Capital and send it to computershare rather than Armstrong registries.
> I've found out personally that Strange things occur when any mail is directed to Armstrong registries and Wellington Capital.




Mail problems with Armstrongs Registry? I'll second that. I suspect it's got only one person manning and operating the place. One more good reason to dump Wellington.


----------



## k.smith (27 May 2011)

http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201105/27/member-approved_takeovers-asic_acts.page

the wheels of industry....


----------



## marcom (27 May 2011)

Duped said:


> My new motto.  Don't let a lawyer anywhere near your money.  Being a  lawyer doesn't automatically mean you make good business decisions.  Being a lawyer may get you through the forest without bumping into any  trees, but at which side of the forest will you end up?




Duped, couldn't agree more. Many years ago I had a CEO who was a lawyer. I asked him why he left a successful Sydney iner-city ( Edgecliff) law practice he had founded with two other partners to go into business. He explained that there wasn't any real money in day to day cases and he found the law boring. Other than resorting to less than reputable practices he could see no future in staying at the bar. His view of the profession was that most new practitioners entered the profession with altruistic rose coloured glasses and over time transformed into the obsequious, dorsal finned sterotype. In his words "Do not trust a lawyer, they are all fundamentally dishonest"


----------



## selciper (28 May 2011)

Breaker's latest AG newsletter is a fine example of dedication and professionalism which is of great benefit to us all. I'm sure that the "Hutson team" wishes that that Charles36, Breaker and the AG would just peacefully retire and grow roses. I suspect that when Wellington took over PIF they never dreamt that an agile action committee would be formed. After all, so many investors were from an elderly demographic...


----------



## simgrund (28 May 2011)

selciper said:


> Breaker's latest AG newsletter is a fine example of dedication and professionalism which is of great benefit to us all. I'm sure that the "Hutson team" wishes that that Charles36, Breaker and the AG would just peacefully retire and grow roses. I suspect that when Wellington took over PIF they never dreamt that an agile action committee would be formed. After all, so many investors were from an elderly demographic...





*Ahd please note from earlier posts the suggested earlier date of mailing yellow proxy forms than the final date of 13 June.
A hearty good wishes to all *


----------



## simgrund (28 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> ksmith please post the number that you called Computershare on to verify your vote as I have had several enquiries from voters wanting confirmation of receipt. Thanks, Seamisty




I simply sent it registered to nail it.
Just a suggestion to ease all the stresses.
God Bless Registered Mail. 
Regards,


----------



## seamisty (29 May 2011)

Wellington has recently issued a pink proxy form which advises that it should be returned to:

Armstrong Registry. Armstrong, is a company beneficially owned by Jenny Hutson the

Chairwoman and Managing Director of Wellington, Mary-Anne Greaves a Director of

Wellington and Rachel Weeks director of McLean Legal, who is the solicitor acting on behalf

of Wellington in relation to the meeting. Armstrong’s annualised costs for registry services

are $500,000. Castlereagh has received a quote from an independent registry operator to

perform the same service for $100,000.

It is our view returning proxies to Armstrong creates a significant conflict of interest. We

encourage you to ignore the pink proxy form sent by Wellington and only return your

yellow proxy to Computershare who are an independent Australian leader in proxy

registration. Computershare are required to act honestly and independently as part of their

charter. They do not have the same conflicts as Armstrong.


----------



## zixo (29 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Wellington has recently issued a pink proxy form which advises that it should be returned to:
> 
> Armstrong Registry. Armstrong, is a company beneficially owned by Jenny Hutson the
> 
> ...




Thanks for that Fact Seamisty. 
Can I also suggest that ALL investors check and know what their current unit holdings held are. Please ensure that you all have an accurate summary of how many units you own.


----------



## Investor262 (29 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Thanks to all those who had notified me that they have voted by private message on the forum, by email and ph calls. Great work, early days.  Seamisty




Have just posted private message for you. Thanks for the GREAT effort!!!


----------



## purcellb (29 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Thanks to all those who had notified me that they have voted by private message on the forum, by email and ph calls. Great work, early days.  Seamisty




Hi, Have just posted my 643,962 proxy votes in favour of all resolutions to Computershare for registration and appointed Peter or Charles  to act on my behalf. I would encourage all who can't attend to do likewise. I will contact Computershare on 1300 567 148 to confirm my Proxy forms have been received and registered. Regards All.


----------



## seamisty (29 May 2011)

Thankyou Investor 262 and Purcellb and everyone else who has contacted me advising of their support for the PIFAG preferred RE, Castlereagh Capital. Please keep them coming Seamisty


----------



## Bumblebee (29 May 2011)

Had a phone call from WC on Friday asking if  I understood the mailouts and would I be voting for them.
'Far to little too late' and 'I will be looking forward to seeing the back of WC' prompted WC to ask if I would care to leave some feed back for the company. I'm still laughing over that one... not going to wate my time again.
I will be attending the Castlereagh meeting in Brisbane on the 6th June to show my support. Look forward to meeting fellow shareholders there. cheers Bumblebee


----------



## charles36 (29 May 2011)

Just for interest, if any unit holder has any doubts about what WC should be doing to raise capital have a look at the attachment.  I realise we are dealing with a company that has ALWAYS had an "ECONOMIC OUTCOME"  I wonder to whose benefit.


----------



## charles36 (29 May 2011)

charles36 said:


> Just for interest, if any unit holder has any doubts about what WC should be doing to raise capital have a look at the attachment.  I realise we are dealing with a company that has ALWAYS had an "ECONOMIC OUTCOME"  I wonder to whose benefit.




If you are having trouble with this post, press the attachment and then scroll down the page and press OPEN.  That will do the trick.  Happy reading and keep the votes for CasCap coming in.  Looking good.


----------



## Blueboy1 (30 May 2011)

http://www.businessday.com.au/business/wellington-set-for-a-bad-week-20110529-1fats.html

Here is some good press!

THE manager of the struggling Premium Income Fund (PIF), Wellington Capital, is expected to receive a humiliating rebuke from the Takeovers Panel today just as opposition grows to its controversial rights issue.

See the full article from the above link

Blueboy1


----------



## simgrund (30 May 2011)

Having again gone thoroughly through the "Rights Issue Information Booklet" from WC Ltd, I strongly suspect that this action may be creating a precedent in the Finance Industry.
If there are any precedents, could somebody let me know on what statutory basis distressed funds were coerced into capital raising from within its distressed members? 
After all, it is ASIC who is the Guardian of the member's right to have its RE act in the best interests of the fund members.
Yet it is ASIC  who provided the Class Order 08/35 to supplement section 1012DAA of the Corporations Act which enables the present Issue to be released to the public.
Such an obvious conflict of interest, as the fund raising proposal never went to member's vote. 
Thanks and Regards,


----------



## seamisty (30 May 2011)

Blueboy1 said:


> http://www.businessday.com.au/business/wellington-set-for-a-bad-week-20110529-1fats.html
> 
> Here is some good press!
> 
> ...



Also from the above article 'Adding to what could be a bad week for Wellington, a financial adviser has recommended PIF investors not participate in the ''perplexing'' rights issue.

The rights issue, and a separate capital raising, will reduce the value of investors' units in what was once a billion-dollar fund from 34 ¢ each to as low as 26 ¢.

''Disappointingly, we find it difficult to see how the best interests of unit holders are being served by Wellington's current actions,'' said Avenue Capital Management in a statement to investors who hold PIF units.':::

I have been in contact with a large number of PIF unitholders recently, and NOT ONE of them intend to participate in the offer!!


 They feel  Wellington Capital is BLACKMAILING them by indicating that if they do not take up the offer they will miss out as it will DILUTE their existing holding, but rather than rush off to the bank to borrow money it has made them rush off to the Post Office to send in their completed YELLOW Form to COMPUTERSHARE!!!

 They cannot fathom the rationale in returning capital to existing investors then Capital Raise just weeks later, especially as investors OUTSIDE of the PIF were approached first.

What also is coming across loud and clear is that the majority I have spoken to have not a shred of TRUST left in WC to work in their BEST interests. Seamisty


----------



## MAE (30 May 2011)

Wellington seems to have a very sharp knife.  The Pie seems to be getting cut up into even smaller pieces.  Soon I won't be able to feed the Cat!
I am in full support of the Pif Action Group's bid to overturn Wellington Capital.  We will be at the meeting on Monday in Brisbane.
I am in agreement with Seamistys past comments October, 2009, on "Your Financial Advisor".


----------



## marcom (30 May 2011)

Wellington YOU CAN FOOL SOME OF THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME, BUT NOT ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME

There is a pattern emerging here - JH's heavy handed stunts all explode in her face when properly chalenged. Charles, roll on the legal action.


----------



## simgrund (30 May 2011)

marcom said:


> Wellington YOU CAN FOOL SOME OF THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME, BUT NOT ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME
> 
> There is a pattern emerging here - JH's heavy handed stunts all explode in her face when properly chalenged. Charles, roll on the legal action.




Silenced Lambs we ain't!!!
Baa, Baaaaa,


----------



## Jadel (30 May 2011)

The latest diabolical  stunt , it never ends :

"Avenue Capital pointed out the timetable for the one-for-three rights issue had been shortened from June 17 to this Thursday ''without explanation''. ''We suspect it is due to the unitholder meeting currently scheduled for 16 June where one of the resolutions includes the removal of Wellington as the responsible entity,'' the adviser said."


This was , of course always the hidden agenda  , she will  flog off every single unsold  unit ,( And their will be a lot of them) to her  business associates before the meeting


----------



## seamisty (30 May 2011)

Here are the details of the PIF unitholders information meetings and the EGM to be held by Castlereagh Capital on behalf of the PIF AG: 

Tuesday, 31 May 2011 Sydney 11:00:00 AM SMC Conference Centre (Masonic Centre) 66 Goulburn Street, SYDNEY NSW 2000 


Friday, 3 June 2011 Melbourne 11:00:00 AM Ibis Hotel "15 Therry Street,
MELBOURNE VIC 3000 


Monday, 6 June 2011 Brisbane 11:00:00 AM Souths Leagues Club Davies Park, Jane Street, WEST END QLD 4101 


Wednesday, 8 June 2011 Port Macquarie 1:30:00 PM Port Macquarie Race Club "Near corner of Oxley Highway and Lady Nelson Drive
PORT MACQUARIE NSW 2444 


Thursday, 16 June 2011 Sydney 11:00:00 AM SMC Conference Centre (Masonic Centre) 66 Goulburn Street, SYDNEY NSW 2000


----------



## seamisty (30 May 2011)

NSX Announcement:http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724053.PDF
MEDIA RELEASE
1/2
No: 42/2011
30 May 2011
Premium Income Fund - Undertaking
The Panel has accepted an undertaking from Wellington Capital Limited as
Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund (PIF) in relation to the application
dated 11 May 2011 by Wellington in relation to the affairs of PIF (see TP 11/34).
The Panel was concerned that a statement in the media release made by Wellington
on 24 May 2011 was contrary to the undertakings given in its Notice of Appearance.
The effect of the undertaking is that Wellington will satisfy its obligations under the
Notice of Appearance it gave regarding media canvassing.
A copy of the undertaking is attached (Annexure A).
The sitting Panel in this matter is Peter Scott (sitting President), Byron Koster and
Diana Chang. The Panel makes no comment on the merits of the application.
Allan Bulman
Director, Takeovers Panel
Level 10, 63 Exhibition Street
Melbourne, VIC 3000
Ph: +61 3 9655 3597
allan.bulman@takeovers.gov.au
2/2
Annexure A
Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act (Cth) 2001
Section 201A
Undertaking
PREMIUM INCOME FUND
Pursuant to section 201A of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Act 2001 (Cth), Wellington Capital Limited as Responsible Entity of the Premium
Income Fund (PIF) undertakes to the Panel that:
1. it will not publish or dispatch any further material to PIF unit holders in respect
of the takeover bid by ALF PIF Finance Limited (ALF Finance) contrary to the
undertaking it has provided in its Notice of Appearance.
2. until the Panel has determined the proceedings, it will provide to the Panel for
its consideration, any future statements that it wishes to publish or send to PIF
unit holders in relation to the ALF Finance bid before those statements are
made public.
_____________________________
Signed by Jenny Hutson
with the authority, and on behalf, of Wellington Capital Limited as Responsible
Entity of the Premium Income Fund
Dated 30 May 2011


----------



## k.smith (30 May 2011)

I have just received a call from Wellington Capital asking me if I had received their package, and how I intended to vote...I told him that I had already voted FOR Castlereagh Capital....he then wanted to know why... I tied up his time as best I could: they have not lived up to any of their promises. The rights issue is devastating to me as a unitholder.

I am not a big unitholder (not in this fund, anyway).
So it is interesting that WC is ringing around the smaller unitholdings.
Could that mean that the big unitholders are NOT HAPPY???


----------



## seamisty (30 May 2011)

k.smith said:


> I have just received a call from Wellington Capital asking me if I had received their package, and how I intended to vote...I told him that I had already voted FOR Castlereagh Capital....he then wanted to know why... I tied up his time as best I could: they have not lived up to any of their promises. The rights issue is devastating to me as a unitholder.
> 
> I am not a big unitholder (not in this fund, anyway).
> So it is interesting that WC is ringing around the smaller unitholdings.
> Could that mean that the big unitholders are NOT HAPPY???



I think it would be fair to say that a very large number of substantial PIF unitholders along with unitholders across the board are  NOT HAPPY with WELLINGTON CAPITAL LTD k.smith!! That does not mean we can be complacent so please, no matter how many PIF units you hold, if you consider you have been failed by WC, fill out your YELLOW proxy form voting FOR Castlereagh Capital as preferred RE and send/fax it to Computershare. Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## k.smith (30 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> I think it would be fair to say that a very large number of substantial PIF unitholders along with unitholders across the board are  NOT HAPPY with WELLINGTON CAPITAL LTD k.smith!! That does not mean we can be complacent so please, no matter how many PIF units you hold, if you consider you have been failed by WC, fill out your YELLOW proxy form voting FOR Castlereagh Capital as preferred RE and send/fax it to Computershare. Thanks, Seamisty




yes, I faxed my yellow form to COMPUTERSHARE  on 03 9473 2145.
I then confirmed with the enquires line at COMPUTERSHARE on 1300 567 148 that they received my proxy form.
It is a good way to vote, imo...


----------



## astevo (30 May 2011)

I've also had my call from WC, and I also only have a fairly small number of units. It wasn't until after I told the guy to get lost that I thought I should have played along, and seen where the call went. Anyway, their arrogance to make such calls has made me even more convinced which way to cast my votes. My Yellow form is in tonight's mail.

cheers!

- Alan.


----------



## reasonable (30 May 2011)

astevo said:


> I've also had my call from WC, and I also only have a fairly small number of units. It wasn't until after I told the guy to get lost that I thought I should have played along, and seen where the call went. Anyway, their arrogance to make such calls has made me even more convinced which way to cast my votes. My Yellow form is in tonight's mail.
> 
> cheers!
> 
> - Alan.




Hi All

I also, as a small shareholder, have just had a call from a company called Radar on behalf of Wellington.  He could not answer any of my questions but wanted to know if voting for Wellington and if would be going to the meeting.  My yellow for has already gone but it makes me think that they are running scared.


----------



## selciper (30 May 2011)

I read Jadel's rather grim predictions, but do find it an encouraging sign that WC's "team" are manning the phones to contact PIF investors possessing a small number of units. If WC were all that confident about the looming outcome, they surely wouldn't go to all this trouble. (Let's hope that they use Skype for calls - otherwise we'll pay for the interstate toll charges.) However, I do wish that they'd call me for a torrid little chat.


----------



## zixo (30 May 2011)

selciper said:


> I read Jadel's rather grim predictions, but do find it an encouraging sign that WC's "team" are manning the phones to contact PIF investors possessing a small number of units. If WC were all that confident about the looming outcome, they surely wouldn't go to all this trouble. (Let's hope that they use Skype for calls - otherwise we'll pay for the interstate toll charges.) However, I do wish that they'd call me for a torrid little chat.




I also would love to have a chat with someone from Wellington!
The Financial Ombudsmen needs 45 days to process complaints which wellington no doubt knows as they've used the current WRONG ruling by wellingtons Mates, ASIC to hinder investors rights. 

As for the unit issue I havent had the updated information sent to me. so I'm already snookered. 
As if investors dont know that wellington are holding us hostage with a gun to our heads.


----------



## Jadel (30 May 2011)

Speak of the Devil.

 They must be getting desperate , Just got my phone call 2 minutes ago 

Any feed back , "Not that I would care to mention to a young lady"


----------



## Wolfgang (30 May 2011)

Thanks to all in the PIF AG who have organized this EGM and all the hard work. Our yellow proxy
forms are completed and sent on Friday.
Wolfgang


----------



## Shafted (30 May 2011)

I, too, am  a relatively small unit-holder (although to me it's a hell of a lot) and I, too, received “the call” from Wellington today.  Unfortunately I didn't have time to tie up the caller in a long argy-bargy, so told him in no uncertain terms what I thought of Wellington and that I'd be voting the yellow ticket.  Then slammed the phone down on him hard enough, hopefully, for him to need a break before resuming his insidious activities.

Amazing, isn't it?  (Or is it?)  Whenever I've called Wellington in the past, I've got just a recorded message – and only once did they ever ring me back.  Now they are lashing out our money to pay the bills for all these nuisance calls we don't want.

Roll on, 16th June.  I live in Cairns and, thanks to Wellington and MFS, can't afford to fly down for the meeting – but my proxy form is on the way to Computershare.

And to Seamisty: thank you for taking the time to reply to my private message confirming my vote.  If only Wellington were half as caring.....


----------



## simgrund (30 May 2011)

Jadel said:


> Speak of the Devil.
> 
> They must be getting desperate , Just got my phone call 2 minutes ago
> 
> Any feed back , "Not that I would care to mention to a young lady"




And I got the Pink Flamingo in the mail today.
Nothing's stopping me from ticking all in left column "FOR" and sending back.
But I would be wary sending it to Armstrong Registry lest IAC vote metamorphosis malaise strikes again.

So I will keep it for some colourful street parade in the future.

I want to voice on this Forum my strongest possible protest against Wellington Capital's use of the large mailing envelope for the purposes of publicly exposing my connection to Messes Ian Ferrier and Jim Byrnes.

The slogans used on the outside of envelope are immflamatory and point to the addresee as the target.
Whether it's to a mailman or to a neihbour; nobody should be put into such an involuntary position of outed personal affairs.

Take note Wellington Capital; you have already been warned off by Takeovers Panel.
Messes Ferrier and Byrnes have a strong Defamation case against you, 
should they decide to merge to take this course. They have my vote.


Regards,


----------



## zixo (30 May 2011)

Jadel said:


> Speak of the Devil.
> 
> They must be getting desperate , Just got my phone call 2 minutes ago
> 
> Any feed back , "Not that I would care to mention to a young lady"





Wellington are known for using our funds to fight against investors best interests. Most of those kids employed by wellington probably wouldn't of been born and have no idea about investment schemes or when most of us were saving our investments to deposit monies in the PIF.

I have no doubt that Wellington Capital will employ "a rent a crowd" to disrupt the upcoming egm and the real kicker will be that they'll probably use our money to do it.


----------



## ian1328 (30 May 2011)

Thank you to Seamisty and the many others for everything. I received my pink forms today which  have gone thru the shredder, yellow forms were sent last week and I will check tomorrow if they have been received. I am also declining from the Wellington share offer.


----------



## seamisty (30 May 2011)

Simgrund I finally received my three big envelopes and I totally agree with what you say about having the red banner with names splashed on the envelope from WC. I will keep the envelope for future reference/evidence of waste. Perhaps Wellington Capital can charge the PIF more for the colour printing and you can bet that the printer was Print Mail Logistics of which WC is a substantial shareholder!! ( same snout in different troughs)
Once again thanks to all who have supported us, please let me know by private messge in notifications on ASF when you have voted and your unit holding name as we can then tick you off the register and concentrate on calling others. Great to see the support base on the forum growing and some new posters. 
Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (30 May 2011)

Just received my call from Wellington.  Managed to ascertain that  it is an outside telemarketing company.  The caller was very professional and I wouldn't give too much information, but she did say that she had made about 200 calls and received a very mixed reception.  I pressed her to ask what the percentage for and against was, but she (and I understand :badsmile:this) emphasized that she was unable to give me that information.

I think the red witch from the north is running scared.


----------



## DepressedDad (30 May 2011)

Hi all

I've gone & fetched the slips from my Dad. Pink one has been threaded to tiny pieces with avengeance. (Did you notice they made the 'yes' squares bigger & darker?  How very professional!!!  ) The yellow one has been tucked lovingly into the computershare envelope & will wing it's way home tomorrow to join all it's friends!! 

I had a look at the graph of my superannuation fund today & saw it had clawed back from it's lowest point almost back to where it started.  That's what our fund should have done by now. Should have been back to 80 cents or so. But instead ravaged by thieves.  

A big thank you again to all those that have made this vote happen. Finally something to get excited about.


----------



## AusInCA (31 May 2011)

I too am a smallish holder of units in PIF. I've had a lot of reading to do over the last 3 days, since I received my Castlereagh envelope in the mail on Friday.  Luckily I found this forum on Friday. 

As I am now a non-resident Australian, receiving information is a bit difficult.  I missed being able to participate in the Class Action due to the paperwork not arriving in time to be able to be included. 

I don't need to think about whether to take up the rights offer, as I am a non-resident Australian I have been barred from participating.

I will be faxing my yellow proxy form to Computershare this evening voting For each of the 7 Motions.

For the members of the PIF Action Group who have got us to this point, thank you.


----------



## seamisty (31 May 2011)

AusInCA said:


> I too am a smallish holder of units in PIF. I've had a lot of reading to do over the last 3 days, since I received my Castlereagh envelope in the mail on Friday.  Luckily I found this forum on Friday.
> 
> As I am now a non-resident Australian, receiving information is a bit difficult.  I missed being able to participate in the Class Action due to the paperwork not arriving in time to be able to be included.
> 
> ...



Welcome to the forum AusInCA and thanks for your support. I am sure the Class Action is still open. If you open this link then click on John Walker in the Sydney section it will enable you to send an email enquiry http://www.imf.com.au/contact.asp

Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## charles36 (31 May 2011)

I have sent the following email to:

jhutson@wellcap.com.au Monday, 30 May 2011 3.34PM
Dear M/S Hutson, Could you please advise whether any costs associated with the marketing campaign being conducted by Wellington Capital Ltd in relation to the pending extraordinary general meeting being called by members of the Premium Income Fund Action Group (PIFAG) is being debited by Wellington Capital to the Premium Income Fund.  If the answer is in the affirmative would you kindly advise on what authority this has occurred?    (appropriately signed)

I also draw the attention of forum users to the fact the PIFAG had to purchase the Unit Holders Register for the sum of $250.00.  The register arrived in a "bare bones" state.  No email addresses and no telephone numbers.  When questioned about the missing links the PIFAG were told that is the requirement of the relevant legislation.  Well, we all know that WC is running a campaign by using alleged telemarking recruits to contact unit holders and I just pose this question, "Does the legislation apply to WC"  Have the telemarketing people spent hours and hours on the computer checking white pages and Google to contact unit holders?    I say where is the level playing field WC?  The PIFAG are acting in all unit holders interests by giving them a choice.  I might indicate the matter is not just resting with this post WC.


----------



## marcom (31 May 2011)

As we are away we missed the WC telemarketers call, but I am sure it went somthing like this - click on the youtube link to play:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cyIFMwI-Xs


----------



## marcom (31 May 2011)

Corporate cop turns heat up on white collar crims
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3231353.htm

...The newly-appointed head of the corporate watchdog ( read corporate Chihuahua) in Australia has signalled a renewed crackdown on white collar criminals.

The former investment banker Greg Medcraft, who took over as chairman of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission earlier this month says there'll be a greater use of surveillance such as telephone and wire taps to nail corporate crooks... that's "Please would you pick up the telephone ring ring badabad ding ding ring ring ring bing bing bing"

And for those interested in listening to the ferocious Chihuahua bark, a longer interview with Greg Medcraft and his vision for better consumer protection on the AM website.


----------



## marcom (31 May 2011)

The latest on GEO Property from SMH Business Day CBD:

ANOTHER CHANGE

Geo Property Group has taken decisive steps to finally blot out any lingering memories of its former manager, MFS Group, by proposing another name change.

The company changed its name from MFS Diversified Trust just two weeks after the Gold Coast-based MFS Group began its death spiral in early 2008. Geo has now pitched the idea of adopting the name of the home builder the property fund took over for about $200 million in 2006.

The notice of meeting lodged by Geo yesterday said: ''The directors have proposed a change of the company name to Villa World Limited as they believe it more accurately reflects the business of the company today.''

No doubt the name change reflects the value MFS bought to the table.

Before the takeover of Villa, the MFS Diversified Fund's then chief executive, Craig White, said: ''The merged group will become a larger and more significant member of the listed property sector.''

The merged property fund is now worth about one-third of what Villa was worth when it was taken over.

But in an effort to make things look more respectable, Geo has plans to get its share price back to pre-MFS collapse levels.

It is seeking shareholder approval of a five-for-one share consolidation.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/if-o...ere-so-easy-20110530-1fd0k.html#ixzz1NtMFR1dk


----------



## seamisty (31 May 2011)

Will someone please verify who the tele marketer is working for WC making the phone calls? Is it Radar Promotions? thanks, Seamisty


----------



## reasonable (31 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Will someone please verify who the tele marketer is working for WC making the phone calls? Is it Radar Promotions? thanks, Seamisty




Yes see my post.


----------



## k.smith (31 May 2011)

http://www.investordaily.com.au/11732.htm


----------



## seamisty (31 May 2011)

reasonable said:


> Yes see my post.



Thanks reasonable. Another unitholder just rang Radar Promotions based in Tasmania and they said it is not them making the WC related calls. Can someone please ask specifically if they get a call, they are currently calling investors around the $200,000 mark. Thanks,Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (31 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Will someone please verify who the tele marketer is working for WC making the phone calls? Is it Radar Promotions? thanks, Seamisty




SOME MINUTES AGO I TOO WAS HONORED BY THE CALL FROM WC's PROXY PROMOTERS.
MAN'S VOICE TONSILS WERE ENGLAND BOUND, OR ONE OF THE LOCAL DIALECTS.
THE NAME DISCLOSED WAS "MATT DURACK" OR THEREABOUTS. 
I PRESSED TO GET THE COMPANY NAME AS WELL AND HE HASTILY WOUND UP; 
CHATTY UP TO THAT MOMENT, CAMAREDERIE.
A PITY, AS HE HAPPENNED TO BE THAT RARE POM I COULD AUDIBLY DECIPHER.

And the rubber mallet with which they're drumming WC's message is Castlereagh's defective Financial Licence.
I would think info can be posted here regarding someone's diligent research of public records in that regard????
Regards.


----------



## zixo (31 May 2011)

charles36 said:


> I have sent the following email to:
> 
> jhutson@wellcap.com.au Monday, 30 May 2011 3.34PM
> Dear M/S Hutson, Could you please advise whether any costs associated with the marketing campaign being conducted by Wellington Capital Ltd in relation to the pending extraordinary general meeting being called by members of the Premium Income Fund Action Group (PIFAG) is being debited by Wellington Capital to the Premium Income Fund.  If the answer is in the affirmative would you kindly advise on what authority this has occurred?    (appropriately signed)
> ...




Interesting reading charles. I wonder how reputable these telemarketers are...who are they?  What will they do with my PRIVATE information and details?
I do NOT ever remember giving permission for wellington to use an outside source to solicit information. I wonder if this is a query for the Privacy commissioner?


----------



## zixo (31 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Will someone please verify who the tele marketer is working for WC making the phone calls? Is it Radar Promotions? thanks, Seamisty




Hi Seamisty. I have just pho0ned and have been assured it is not Radar promotions. Its probably another underhanded tactic of wellington capital.
The poor fellow i spoke to is going to lodge a complaint with WC as its misleading information that being sent out by the telemarketers whom we're paying for. Wellington are obviously trying to distance themselves from who are really making the calls...I wonder why?
Another one of your companies is it Jen?


----------



## seamisty (31 May 2011)

zixo said:


> Hi Seamisty. I have just pho0ned and have been assured it is not Radar promotions. Its probably another underhanded tactic of wellington capital.
> The poor fellow i spoke to is going to lodge a complaint with WC as its misleading information that being sent out by the telemarketers whom we're paying for. Wellington are obviously trying to distance themselves from who are really making the calls...I wonder why?
> Another one of your companies is it Jen?



I think its this mob zixo, RADAR Investor Relations
Public Relations Consultants - Sydney, NSW


----------



## zixo (31 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> I think its this mob zixo, RADAR Investor Relations
> Public Relations Consultants - Sydney, NSW




thanks seamisty, Just got off the phone with them and they verified they are the company that we're paying for. I wonder what kind of Wellington tentacles are attached to this mob.


----------



## selciper (31 May 2011)

I'm wondering whether the useless WC "help line" might also have been given to aa outside firm to operate. The last time I called the "service" I found the person I spoke to to be completely out of touch. He waffled on about the brilliance of the WC strategies, so much so that at the time I felt uncomfortable that such a character should be employed to answer important questions.


----------



## simgrund (31 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> Simgrund I finally received my three big envelopes and I totally agree with what you say about having the red banner with names splashed on the envelope from WC. I will keep the envelope for future reference/evidence of waste. Perhaps Wellington Capital can charge the PIF more for the colour printing and you can bet that the printer was Print Mail Logistics of which WC is a substantial shareholder!! ( same snout in different troughs)
> Once again thanks to all who have supported us, please let me know by private messge in notifications on ASF when you have voted and your unit holding name as we can then tick you off the register and concentrate on calling others. Great to see the support base on the forum growing and some new posters.
> Seamisty




It is not the cost; important as it is, that angers me. It is a privacy, as well as uni-arbitrary issue. These actions are ILLEGAL in a number of jurisdictions and I sincerely hope that PIF AG is compiling a list of these serious violations. I will be willing to start contributions bucket for this specific legal action against WC.
When present actions are completed; goes without saying.
Regards,


----------



## seamisty (31 May 2011)

It appears that some unitholders who were contacted by the Wellington Capital employed telemarketers today were told that the PIF AG proposed preferred Responsible Entity Castlereagh Capital does not hold the correct AFSL (Australian Financial Services Licence). This is NOT correct and I have attatched a copy. I am not sure if WC are covering themselves by saying that Bri Ferrier do not hold a AFSL, or if they are indeed saying Castlereagh Capital do not hold the licence. Why would Bri Ferrier need one anyway? They are not a Property Funds Manager, Castlereagh Capital are!! It would be interesting to find out who is held accountable for relaying incorrect information to PIF unitholders? The people who provided the original wrong information? Or those delivering incorrect information? Seamisty


----------



## zixo (31 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> It appears that some unitholders who were contacted by the Wellington Capital employed telemarketers today were told that the PIF AG proposed preferred Responsible Entity Castlereagh Capital does not hold the correct AFSL (Australian Financial Services Licence). This is NOT correct and I have attatched a copy. I am not sure if WC are covering themselves by saying that Bri Ferrier do not hold a AFSL, or if they are indeed saying Castlereagh Capital do not hold the licence. Why would Bri Ferrier need one anyway? They are not a Property Funds Manager, Castlereagh Capital are!! It would be interesting to find out who is held accountable for relaying incorrect information to PIF unitholders? The people who provided the original wrong information? Or those delivering incorrect information? Seamisty





Perhaps all investors should contact Radar on 02-82563333 to set the record straight and that they are purposefully misleading investors

http://www.radargroup.com.au/page/contact


----------



## aroach (31 May 2011)

Not sure if this has already been posted today or not, but here's the recording of Castlereagh's Sydney information session today, complete with presentation slides.

http://www.brr.com.au/event/81414/partner/theaustralian

(I used the Australian link rather than the original brr link because it's shorter)

If you haven't already been convinced to vote "For" all motions, this webcast will help. I found it very informative and now have even more confidence that Castlereagh will be the best RE for our fund.

My Proxy with all "For" votes went to Computershare today.

Thanks again everyone from the PIF AG executive committee!

Ashley


----------



## thekids (31 May 2011)

seamisty said:


> It appears that some unitholders who were contacted by the Wellington Capital employed telemarketers today were told that the PIF AG proposed preferred Responsible Entity Castlereagh Capital does not hold the correct AFSL (Australian Financial Services Licence). This is NOT correct and I have attatched a copy. I am not sure if WC are covering themselves by saying that Bri Ferrier do not hold a AFSL, or if they are indeed saying Castlereagh Capital do not hold the licence. Why would Bri Ferrier need one anyway? They are not a Property Funds Manager, Castlereagh Capital are!! It would be interesting to find out who is held accountable for relaying incorrect information to PIF unitholders? The people who provided the original wrong information? Or those delivering incorrect information? Seamisty




Its just an attempt at slinging mud and as we all know some of it will stick, especially to those not capable of researching things themselves (like the elderly who often dont use computers).  In the Notice of Meeting & Info Booklet sent out by PIF Action Grp, Castlereagh quoted their AFS Licence No 356926 on page 21 which of course matches the document seamisty attached.  I just hope the unitholders can get WC out...  So sick of the lies.


----------



## seamisty (31 May 2011)

Thanks to those of you who have notified me today of your FOR vote. For those who have already voted and intend to attend the EGM on the 16th June, please retain the yellow cover page that came with your yellow proxy form and take it to the meeting with you for identification purposes. The PIF AG and Castlereagh Capital are encouraging as many PIF unitholders as possible to attend the meeting in person for support on the day. I have spoken to some who will be flying to Sydney from Brisbane, Gold Coast, Melbourne and Tasmania! Great to hear,and I know many others will be driving from all over NSW. 
Sadly I have also spoken to many who would dearly like to attend but cannot due to health issues. Seamisty


----------



## aroach (31 May 2011)

zixo said:


> Perhaps all investors should contact Radar on 02-82563333 to set the record straight and that they are purposefully misleading investors
> 
> http://www.radargroup.com.au/page/contact




Just to add to zixo's great suggestion, it's likely the Radar people have also been briefed to respond with something like: "Castlereagh don't hold an AFSL of a kind necessary to be RE of PIF". This is misleading because, of course they don't...not while WC are the RE of PIF.

Castlereagh's AFSL authorises it to act as the RE of any fund named on it's licence and Castlereagh has applied to ASIC to vary it's licence to include the PIF as a named fund, which will take effect only when Castlereagh is appointed as PIF's RE.

This is explained fully on page 21 of the Premium Income Fund Notice of Meeting and Information Booklet, titled "Section 2.  Information About Castlereagh"

If you're well armed with this information the Radar telemarketers will have no response. 

Ashley


----------



## seamisty (31 May 2011)

aroach said:


> Not sure if this has already been posted today or not, but here's the recording of Castlereagh's Sydney information session today, complete with presentation slides.
> 
> http://www.brr.com.au/event/81414/partner/theaustralian
> 
> ...



Thanks Ashley, My dinosaur of a computer will not play that link fluidly, I found this link from the CASCAP website worked better for me. http://www.brr.com.au/event/81414/?popup=true Seamisty


----------



## charles36 (1 June 2011)

Is there anyone out there who believes that WC paid $250.00 to Armstrong Registry for the copy of the register to hand to Radar, 107 Pitt Street, Sydney for their use to peddle their information.  Do you believe that the register was pared down to the bare bones leaving out email addresses and telephone numbers.  Do you believe Radar sat for hours and hours in front of the computer searching the white pages and Google.  Well the PIFAG Executive and willing helpers, especially the Forster Group had to search for the information.   Level playing field.  I don't think so.  Fairness,  I am sure not.  Anyway anyone out there in cyber space who believes WC please contact.  I may be persuaded that I have been wrong...............


----------



## reasonable (1 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> It appears that some unitholders who were contacted by the Wellington Capital employed telemarketers today were told that the PIF AG proposed preferred Responsible Entity Castlereagh Capital does not hold the correct AFSL (Australian Financial Services Licence). This is NOT correct and I have attatched a copy. I am not sure if WC are covering themselves by saying that Bri Ferrier do not hold a AFSL, or if they are indeed saying Castlereagh Capital do not hold the licence. Why would Bri Ferrier need one anyway? They are not a Property Funds Manager, Castlereagh Capital are!! It would be interesting to find out who is held accountable for relaying incorrect information to PIF unitholders? The people who provided the original wrong information? Or those delivering incorrect information? Seamisty




When  Radar phoned me (also pom accent) he could not answer the question about the licence but offered to put it to WC.  I had already asked the question by email of WC and finally got a reply after 3 days today from c snow was follows

_Thank you for your email.

Whilst Castlereagh Capital have an AFS Licence, their licence is to run a fund called the Castlreagh Capital Property Fund which was established by them on 18 April 2011. Their licence is not a licence of a kind which allows them to operate the Premium Income Fund. AFS Licences are specific to a particular Fund. The effect of not having a licence for the Fund, and Castlereagh being voted in as responsible entity, is that ASIC can move to wind up the Fund.
_


----------



## seamisty (1 June 2011)

reasonable said:


> When  Radar phoned me (also pom accent) he could not answer the question about the licence but offered to put it to WC.  I had already asked the question by email of WC and finally got a reply after 3 days today from c snow was follows
> 
> _Thank you for your email.
> 
> ...



What WC fail to say is that there can only be one AFSL licence representing the PIF and that is currently held by WC. Castlereagh holds an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFS Licence) (No 356926) which authorises it
to act as the Responsible Entity of any fund named on that AFS Licence. Castlereagh's AFS Licence cannot include the name of the Fund while Wellington remains as the responsible entity of the Fund. Of course at the present time Castlereaghs licence cannot operate the PIF because it is not the current Responsible Entity!

I just hate the way Wellington Capital continue to treat the PIF unitholders like a group of people with lower intellect just because the majority believed the BS spiel Jenny Hutson served up in 2008 convincing them to vote for her as opposed to liquidating the PIF. Many of that group of people now see WC and Ms Hutson as having  misled them previously and  determined to continue misleading them while at the same time not only liquidating the PIF, but sharing the proceeds with her yet to be revealed sophisticated and professional investors to the financial detriment of existing PIF unitholders.

Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (1 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> What WC fail to say is that there can only be one AFSL licence representing the PIF and that is currently held by WC. Castlereagh holds an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFS Licence) (No 356926) which authorises it
> to act as the Responsible Entity of any fund named on that AFS Licence. *Castlereagh's AFS Licence cannot include the name of the Fund while Wellington remains as the responsible entity of the Fund. Of course at the present time Castlereaghs licence cannot operate the PIF because it is not the current Responsible Entity!
> *
> I just hate the way Wellington Capital continue to treat the PIF unitholders like a group of people with lower intellect just because the majority believed the BS spiel Jenny Hutson served up in 2008 convincing them to vote for her as opposed to liquidating the PIF. Many of that group of people now see WC and Ms Hutson as having  misled them previously and  determined to continue misleading them while at the same time not only liquidating the PIF, but sharing the proceeds with her yet to be revealed sophisticated and professional investors to the financial detriment of existing PIF unitholders.
> ...




Presumably Seamisty,  Ms Jennifer Hutson or Wellington did not hold a licence either when she became RE of the PIF


----------



## pjay (1 June 2011)

have just had a call from Radar re wellington told her to tell wellington they are flogging a dead horse yellow proxy in the mail just in case the bus breaks down on the way to the meeting,  PIFAG and others working behind the scene your doing a great job
Pjay


----------



## selciper (1 June 2011)

The fact that WC handed over a copy of the register to a hired PR firm is of concern. I thought that my dealings with the RE were private between them and me. For instance, my phone line is a silent one, but WC possess it for practical reasons, of course. Then there is the question of "file notes" - has the PR firm been given WC's opinions of certain investors they consider "difficult"? How many copies of the register have been photocopied? We must topple Wellington Capital on 16 June.


----------



## Duped (1 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Thanks Ashley, My dinosaur of a computer will not play that link fluidly, I found this link from the CASCAP website worked better for me. http://www.brr.com.au/event/81414/?popup=true Seamisty




Anyone having doubts about voting out WC should listen between 67 and 72 minutes of the presentation regarding the Kooralbyn Resort.


----------



## zixo (1 June 2011)

charles36 said:


> Is there anyone out there who believes that WC paid $250.00 to Armstrong Registry for the copy of the register to hand to Radar, 107 Pitt Street, Sydney for their use to peddle their information.  Do you believe that the register was pared down to the bare bones leaving out email addresses and telephone numbers.  Do you believe Radar sat for hours and hours in front of the computer searching the white pages and Google.  Well the PIFAG Executive and willing helpers, especially the Forster Group had to search for the information.   Level playing field.  I don't think so.  Fairness,  I am sure not.  Anyway anyone out there in cyber space who believes WC please contact.  I may be persuaded that I have been wrong...............





Sorry Charles but I suspect you may be waiting for quite some time for anyone to persuade you how wonderful Wellington are given their "gutter tactics" in Corporate dealings. 

My empathy go out to those people who don't have access to the facts and Information available through this Aussie stock Forums website. Alot of elderly people are simply going to be conned by lies and misinformation by paid spin masters Radar Investor relations.


----------



## seamisty (1 June 2011)

zixo said:


> Sorry Charles but I suspect you may be waiting for quite some time for anyone to persuade you how wonderful Wellington are given their "gutter tactics" in Corporate dealings.
> 
> My empathy go out to those people who don't have access to the facts and Information available through this Aussie stock Forums website. Alot of elderly people are simply going to be conned by lies and misinformation by paid spin masters Radar Investor relations.



SIGH, I am still waiting for my call Zixo. I would like to ask Radar if they would mind me recording the call in case it may contain misleading information which may need to be presented to the court at some stage as evidence and I can't wait to hear what 'reaction' I will get!!  

I have spoken personally to a lot of really nice elderly people over the last 3 years since the Wellington Capital Farce began to unravel and I am constantly amazed at just how informed most of them are!! Many have better computer skills than me and others are kept informed by family and friends but I can say that overall, they are extremely greatfull to those that are trying to remove Welligton Capital as they feel they were grossly misled by Ms Hutson.

Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (1 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> SIGH, I am still waiting for my call Zixo. I would like to ask Radar if they would mind me recording the call in case it may contain misleading information which may need to be presented to the court at some stage as evidence and I can't wait to hear what 'reaction' I will get!!
> 
> I have spoken personally to a lot of really nice elderly people over the last 3 years since the Wellington Capital Farce began to unravel and I am constantly amazed at just how informed most of them are!! Many have better computer skills than me and others are kept informed by family and friends but I can say that overall, they are extremely greatfull to those that are trying to remove Welligton Capital as they feel they were grossly misled by Ms Hutson.
> 
> Seamisty




Seamisty I'd love to be a fly on the wall if they actually call you !!


----------



## zixo (1 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> SIGH, I am still waiting for my call Zixo. I would like to ask Radar if they would mind me recording the call in case it may contain misleading information which may need to be presented to the court at some stage as evidence and I can't wait to hear what 'reaction' I will get!!
> 
> I have spoken personally to a lot of really nice elderly people over the last 3 years since the Wellington Capital Farce began to unravel and I am constantly amazed at just how informed most of them are!! Many have better computer skills than me and others are kept informed by family and friends but I can say that overall, they are extremely greatfull to those that are trying to remove Welligton Capital as they feel they were grossly misled by Ms Hutson.
> 
> Seamisty




I'm sorry to disappoint you Seamisty, I'm fairly certain, that you, like others in the AG executive committee wont be getting that joyous surprise phone call from some squirrel at Radar investor Relations.
On the upside You probably got your very own free ennegram profile mapped out and possibly a little Seamisty doll pin cushion sitting on Jens desk next to the stress balls.  

I really Just cant believe the low acts that wellington Capital would resort to, simply to discredit others particularly when they have always been so miserly with ANY truthful information to investors.


----------



## seamisty (1 June 2011)

There are so many PIF investors that are totally unaware of Wellington Capitals FAILURE relating to the Wollongong Hotel when it went to auction on the 7th May 2009.
The property was submitted for sale by Public Auction and as such the events of the auction are a matter of public record.

Several parties were bidding on the property with the last bid at $ 40.5 million.The Auctioneer at this stage asked for instructions from the Vendors and it was aprox 30 minutes later that he was instructed to pass the property in as $ 40.5 million was not acceptable to the Vendors.


 Real Commercial
Date: 7/5/09
Venue: Angel Place Conference Centre
Sub: 1
60-62 Harbour St, Wollongong
Marcello Jiminez, Charles Gonzalez & David Lyons
20000000
35000000
37000000
38000000
40000000
40500000
40500000

Here we are over 2 years later and the PIF has only been returned $15 million!!! From the WC PIF investor update http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pi...vestor_update_pif_30april_23may2011.pdf:Gross proceeds $43.1 million
Net cash proceeds to the Fund to date:
$15 million
Never mind what the gross proceeds are, what will the net proceeds be???

PIF INVESTORS COULD HAVE HAD THEIR 3 CENTS RETURN OF CAPITAL OVER TWO YEARS AGO AND THE PIF WOULD HAVE HAD AN EXTRA $18 MILLION TO COMPLETE OTHER PROJECTS TWO YEARS AGO!!

Gross incompetence, and yes I have full documentation to back this up. 

Any one still think Wellington Capital, Ms Hutson and her team of 30 highly skilled professionals are competant? Seamisty


----------



## ian1328 (1 June 2011)

Where would we be without Seamisty and all his hard work?


----------



## JohnH (2 June 2011)

Seamisty.......... please check you inbox.   JH


----------



## selciper (2 June 2011)

Radar are still ringing around. Received my call this morning.


----------



## marcom (2 June 2011)

selciper said:


> Radar are still ringing around. Received my call this morning.




Hope you gave them a good tongue lashing.


----------



## casey2708 (2 June 2011)

I've just received a cheap, shabbily produced one page 'anti-castlereagh' flyer - from un-named sender(s) labelling themselves ~PIF Reaction Group~.

They wasted their postage sending to me.

Casey.


----------



## selciper (2 June 2011)

marcom said:


> Hope you gave them a good tongue lashing.



Marcom, I had memorised a couple of sentences denouncing Wellington which the rep wrote down. He didn't appear the least surprised by my diatribe, but sounded relieved to say goodbye. I feel that the "no" column is filling fast.


----------



## coppo (2 June 2011)

Just got my call from an 'english' speaking person.

Advised him in no uncertain terms that I am extremely disappointed with Ms Hutson and her failed promises.

Call ended rather promptly.


----------



## Bazil (2 June 2011)

OK, so I've only just got here but can someone tell me why I should not be concerned by the one page flyer from the RE Action mob?


----------



## zixo (2 June 2011)

Bazil said:


> OK, so I've only just got here but can someone tell me why I should not be concerned by the one page flyer from the RE Action mob?





Hi Bazil,
welcome - I cant say I know anything about it as I haven't seen one.Whats your interest in the PIF, Are you a unitholder?
I imagine its just another one of those hastily prepared smear campaign lodged against the Action Group again.
 If you check back on the history you'll probably get up to speed on what Wellington Capital and other companies have done of late and how they'll do anything to keep the PIF the way it is. Its more than likely why the action group or Castlereagh capital are being targeted.  
You can read all the facts and make up your own mind on who's being truthful.


----------



## simgrund (2 June 2011)

Bazil said:


> OK, so I've only just got here but can someone tell me why I should not be concerned by the one page flyer from the RE Action mob?




Hello Bazil,
Additionally to what zixo introduced you to, it must be highlighted that WC is a parent or holding company for a Major unitholding in PIF.
Marcom, Seamisty and others may provide exact relationship; I am too agitated to do this research now.
The POINT being that both as a UNITHOLDER and a Responsible Entity it MUST keep its RE activities at arms length from its PIF holding.
WC does nothing of the sort. It vandalizes PIF holding so as to extract maximum profits during its tenure as RE. All the time scaling value downwards. 
The latest "offer" is the LAST STRAW.
An earlier example of this Pink Flamingo mailout is best for showing up this conflict of interest. 
And WC interest is overriding its obligation to "act in the interests of all unitholders". 
This is corporate bastardry. And other industry REs are paying attention to this treadmill.
Whatever your views or positions are, hope these explanations may assist you further.
Regards


----------



## ian1328 (2 June 2011)

I noticed that a recent posting from Seamisty has been removed. Why was this?


----------



## Joe Blow (2 June 2011)

ian1328 said:


> I noticed that a recent posting from Seamisty has been removed. Why was this?




Seamisty requested that this post be removed.


----------



## zixo (2 June 2011)

Great news! - we're all saved, a new sheriffs in town
ASICs really on its game this time - Pity it never acted once when we sent out repeated warnings about Wellington and MFS
I've wondered how much carbon tax the corporate regulator will pay given all the hot air they expell ?

http://www.smh.com.au/business/watchdogs-warning-for-financial-planners-20110602-1fi6d.html


Watchdog's warning for financial planners 
June 2, 2011 - 3:32PM


The new boss of the nation’s corporate watchdog has issued a warning to financial advisers planning to defy the proposed federal reforms for the industry.

Treasurer Wayne Swan appointed former investment banker Greg Medcraft as the chairman of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) last month.


----------



## marcom (2 June 2011)

zixo said:


> Great news! - we're all saved, a new sheriffs in town
> ASICs really on its game this time - Pity it never acted once when we sent out repeated warnings about Wellington and MFS
> I've wondered how much carbon tax the corporate regulator will pay given all the hot air they expell ?
> 
> ...




It's just the corporate Chihuahua yapping away. If ASIC doesn't have the resources to properly monitor managed investment funds, how is it going to monitor many more resourceful financial advisors? Stories like this are only for the gullible investors so they think there is regulatory protection in place.


----------



## Bazil (2 June 2011)

Thankyou Simgrund and Zixo, I should have stated that I am a PIF unitholder and hope to be attending the June 16 meeting. It's history repeating for me, anyone remember "Private Mortgage Lending" ? squandered the other half of my life's savings with them.  What is it with these Gold Coast people? and why don't I ever learn?


----------



## ian1328 (2 June 2011)

There was a posting by Breaker which has been removed too. I don't like this, it puts doubt in ones mind as to why


----------



## seamisty (2 June 2011)

ian1328 said:


> There was a posting by Breaker which has been removed too. I don't like this, it puts doubt in ones mind as to why



Ian please check your notification box. Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## k.smith (2 June 2011)

marcom said:


> It's just the corporate Chihuahua yapping away. If ASIC doesn't have the resources to properly monitor managed investment funds, how is it going to monitor many more resourceful financial advisors? Stories like this are only for the gullible investors so they think there is regulatory protection in place.




In 2002, when I invested, I believed that I had invested in a industry that had been "cleaned up" by ASIC, and following on from that, trusted that ASIC was a regulator who maintained "cleanliness" in the industry. After all, these schemes were approved by the government for receiving superannuation rollovers from SMSF's... it sure seemed to us at the time as if these schemes carried an endorsement ! 

There was a lot of publicity about the mortgage fund industry around 2000-2002, both in the media and from ASIC itself, which I believe left many of us investing into Mortgage Trusts like MFSPIF  with the perception that ASIC had cleaned up the industry.

http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.ns...into+solicitors+mortgage+schemes?opendocument
''...'We are therefore launching the biggest enquiry of this type ever undertaken by ASIC....'' 
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.ns...gage+scheme+investigation+update?opendocument
''...ASIC is also reviewing the policy and regulatory settings for mortgage schemes in general...''

How could the fact that so many of these schemes after the "biggest enquiry of this type ever undertaken by ASIC" have been  in the hands of ex-bankrupts and people who had a history with ASIC..and that this information was withheld from the PDS we invested under....how many investors would have invested their life savings and/or their rigorously scutinised SMSF savings IF THEY HAD KNOWN..??

In time, the bank interests rates will be lower, and investors will feel the pressure to look for better returns and the cycle will turn again..
I am already telling my children and grandchildren that all the reforms of the last few years cannot guarantee your capital from enterprising schemers in these schemes.... and that you are ALONE when things go wrong.

And if they are still so minded to invest, make sure that they have a law degree, a degree in financial literacy, and  a degree in corporate accounting....because I think that they will need them...

my opinion.


----------



## breaker1 (2 June 2011)

ian1328 said:


> There was a posting by Breaker which has been removed too. I don't like this, it puts doubt in ones mind as to why




Ian1328

I haven't withdrawn any post 

Which post are you referring to ?

Breaker


----------



## ian1328 (2 June 2011)

Hello all, 
I made a genuine mistake in an earlier posting by doubting the integrity of the PIF AG. They are a remarkable group indeed with only good intentions for all of us who have lost so much. We have been up against a brick wall with Wellington for the past 3 years, but their mortar is cracking, and on 16th June we will blow their dust away and rebuild with Castlereagh.


----------



## pgbbeme (2 June 2011)

Hi,
I am a small holder of PIF units, to be honest I'd already written this off as just another GFC disaster. I've known about this thread for a while, but there's too much detail for me to worry about my few dollars. I have received papers for the board meeting, both a pink and a yellow version and then today I get a school quality one page flyer telling me not to trust the same posters who are here talking, Seamisty, Breaker and Charles36. One thing I am concerned about is what Ferriers have to do with it. Not a great track record there.
Anyway in a nutshell what should I be doing for this meeting. After today's market I really have bigger fish to fry than this.


----------



## JohnH (2 June 2011)

pgbbeme said:


> Hi,
> I am a small holder of PIF units, to be honest I'd already written this off as just another GFC disaster. I've known about this thread for a while, but there's too much detail for me to worry about my few dollars. I have received papers for the board meeting, both a pink and a yellow version and then* today I get a school quality one page flyer telling me not to trust the same posters* who are here talking, Seamisty, Breaker and Charles36. One thing I am concerned about is what Ferriers have to do with it. Not a great track record there.
> Anyway in a nutshell what should I be doing for this meeting. After today's market I really have bigger fish to fry than this.




Hi pgbbeme,  any chance of you scanning and posting a pdf of this leaflet?
To put you in the picture I think you will find that 99% + of readers of this forum vote on the yellow form for "Yes" to all the proposals.  (this is my personal estimate, but I doubt that anybody will argue with it.)


----------



## seamisty (2 June 2011)

Great to see some some new but not unexpected posters on the forum due to the blatant attempt to discredit the voluntary efforts of several PIF unitholders that have  worked diligently at their own expense for over 3 years to keep PIF investors fully informed of the status of the PIF. Obviously from the feedback I have received over the last two days I am thankfull that you all recognise this flier for what it is.
Apart from the fact that the flier was intended to deceive, wouldn't one think that after going to the expense of printing and posting that rubbish to approximately 10,500 people they would have identified themselves and left a source for those wishing to join the 'reaction' group to contact them if they were indeed genuine? No, because they are gutless nonny no names.

Why would they expose the identity of others (which is not a closely guarded secret) and cowardly remain anonymous themselves? Because they know that they have used personal details from a confidential register to distribute false and defamatory information to a very large number of PIF unitholders who are disgusted at the trashy content and have brought it the attention of ASIC who is dealing with the matter, as are our lawyers.
I have been told that one undecided voter was so disgusted at the sneaky, underhand attempt to discredit the PIF AG that they immediately voted FOR Castlereagh Capital.

I was asked to post this on behalf of a fellow unitholder:'Just got this **** in the mail today. It makes me sick that whoever is sending this is stooping so low to either get our fund...or more than likely KEEP it in their grubby hands. It's unbelievable, keep spreading the word and post this on the forum. I got two of these so far in plain envelopes with regular 60c stamps so can't trace. PIF reaction group...what ****!!!! 

I have to add that this was one of many similar emails, so whatever the ulterior motive was behind the anonymous cowards who sent this, your credibility and motives are  highly questionable and appears to working in our favour. 

I personally have a police clearance and a working with children clearance because I am an on call court volunteer with the 'victim support and child witness service program'. I take this role very seriously along with my other voluntary committments, one other of which is to keep PIF unitholders fuly informed.
What are your credentials 'reaction' group, do you have any? Seamisty


----------



## selciper (3 June 2011)

"A rat had no morals, no conscience, no scruples, no consideration, no decency, no milk of rodent kindness, no compunctions, no higher feeling, no friendliness, no anything"  Quote by E.B. White (American author)


----------



## marcom (3 June 2011)

From the latest WC NSX update:

"*"Class Action – Federal Court Proceedings NSD 324/009*
Wellington Capital Limited in its capacity as Responsible Entity for the Premium Income Fund has entered into a funding agreement with IMF (Australia) Limited (ASX:IMF) in relation to Federal Court Proceedings NSD 324/009...

*Application of any proceeds from NSD 324/009*

Wellington Capital has entered into the agreement with IMF on behalf of the Premium Income Fund. It has agreed in that capacity that it will as responsible entity convene a Unitholders meeting of the Premium Income Fund within 30 days of receipt of proceeds in finalisation or settlement of the claim. The purpose of the meeting of Unitholders will be to enable the Unitholders in general meeting to consider an amendment to the Constitution of the Premium Income Fund, so that those Unitholders who were members of the Premium Income Fund on 15 October 2008, and remain members at the time of the finalisation or settlement of the claim, are pro-rata the beneficiaries of the proceeds.
Premium Income Fund
NSX Release: 2 June 2011"

Why is WC entitled to enrol with IMF - I thought an RE could not hold shares in the fund. We have been given the legal right to sue in our individual capacity by Federal Court Judge Perim, so why is WC involved at all.

If stealing our funds isn't enough she wants to pilfer our compensation - is there no end to the underhanded behaviour of this bitch!


----------



## seamisty (3 June 2011)

marcom said:


> From the latest WC NSX update:
> 
> "*"Class Action – Federal Court Proceedings NSD 324/009*
> Wellington Capital Limited in its capacity as Responsible Entity for the Premium Income Fund has entered into a funding agreement with IMF (Australia) Limited (ASX:IMF) in relation to Federal Court Proceedings NSD 324/009...
> ...



What gets me Marcom is why, all of a sudden WC is offering PIF unitholders the opportunity to have their say at a meeting to consider an ammendmant and vote on something Who will be at the meeting to vote, the NEW as yet UNAMED professional and sophisticated investors who would just LOVE to have the opportunity to vote on being included in the spoils!! Was there some kind of sweetner offered to these NEW unitholders that may have indicated they could be included in the divvy up of funds hopefully recovered from OUR Class Action. How would we ever know? Wellington Capital has already demonstrated that they couldn't give a stuff what unitholders wanted previously by taking it upon themselves to change the constitution to allow WC to introduce a placement and rights issue which will dilute the existing unitprice by another 8 cents.  WC did this without unitholders consent on the grounds that it was in the best interests of PIF unitholders! Suddenly WC are indicating that they want to give us a chance to vote on something? I'll be voting all right, at the EGM on the 16th June for Castlreagh Capital.

What has Wellington Capital got NEW now to offer the Class Action that they have not had previously? Oh yes thats right, some NEW INVESTORS!! How silly of me, does anyone really still think Wellington Capital is doing a good job

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (3 June 2011)

*Update on BRI Ferrier’s proposal for Castlereagh Capital to be the responsible entity
Wellington has received notification from Castlereagh Capital’s lawyers that its application to vary its licence so that it could potentially become the responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund, which was lodged with ASIC on 18 May 2011, was accepted yesterday, 2 June 2011. The variation is subject to a number of conditions, including the requisite majority of Unitholders in general meeting approving a change
in responsible entity.*

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724068.PDF


----------



## JohnH (3 June 2011)

Quote from WC's (aren't those initials appropriate) latest NSX release.

"*If you would like to discuss your investment* or need 
assistance with your proxy form, please contact the 
Wellington Hotline on 1300 854 885 (+617 3231 0000) or  
by email at investorrelations@newpif.com.au."  (my emphasis)

................... Go for it Seamisty, you have been wanting to have this opportunity for a long time!!!


----------



## marcom (3 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> *Update on BRI Ferrier’s proposal for Castlereagh Capital to be the responsible entity
> Wellington has received notification from Castlereagh Capital’s lawyers that its application to vary its licence so that it could potentially become the responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund, which was lodged with ASIC on 18 May 2011, was accepted yesterday, 2 June 2011. The variation is subject to a number of conditions, including the requisite majority of Unitholders in general meeting approving a change
> in responsible entity.*
> 
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724068.PDF




How is THE BITCH able to use the disclosure mechanism of the NSX to promote her position. AN UTTER DISGRACE NSX!!!!!


----------



## selciper (3 June 2011)

Have just received a phone call from Castlereagh. Good to know that they are working the phones at this time.


----------



## charles36 (3 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> What gets me Marcom is why, all of a sudden WC is offering PIF unitholders the opportunity to have their say at a meeting to consider an ammendmant and vote on something Who will be at the meeting to vote, the NEW as yet UNAMED professional and sophisticated investors who would just LOVE to have the opportunity to vote on being included in the spoils!! Was there some kind of sweetner offered to these NEW unitholders that may have indicated they could be included in the divvy up of funds hopefully recovered from OUR Class Action. How would we ever know? Wellington Capital has already demonstrated that they couldn't give a stuff what unitholders wanted previously by taking it upon themselves to change the constitution to allow WC to introduce a placement and rights issue which will dilute the existing unitprice by another 8 cents.  WC did this without unitholders consent on the grounds that it was in the best interests of PIF unitholders! Suddenly WC are indicating that they want to give us a chance to vote on something? I'll be voting all right, at the EGM on the 16th June for Castlreagh Capital.
> 
> What has Wellington Capital got NEW now to offer the Class Action that they have not had previously? Oh yes thats right, some NEW INVESTORS!! How silly of me, does anyone really still think Wellington Capital is doing a good job
> 
> Seamisty



 If ever there was a reason for unit holders to vote to remove Wellington Capital, this is it.  Calling a meeting to discuss who gets the spoils.  Why not let the Court decide.  Why the drama of having to call a meeting of divided unit holders who have different agendas.  VOTE FOR CASTLEREAGH CAPITAL to stop this rot.


----------



## seamisty (3 June 2011)

marcom said:


> How is THE BITCH able to use the disclosure mechanism of the NSX to promote her position. AN UTTER DISGRACE NSX!!!!!



Marcom I have questioned the NSX of their competency on several occassions. The most recent being::

Who was in charge of posting extremely confidential information on 10th May 2011 from DLA PIper in relation to the PIN announcement posted on the NSX Re: Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF: 

It was also in the public domain on a forum for approximately 9 hours before it was requested to be removed.
The content, containing confidential information has been compromised as the document contained information relating to a proposed EGM to be held in June. I believe as a consequence of that information being revealed prematurely the current Responsible Entity revised the dates of a non-renounceable rights issue which could well have dire consequences to the outcome of voting power which will be called upon in relation to the proposed meeting to replace the current Responsible Entity, Wellington Capital. 

What recourse does the NSX offer to those who will be affected by the potential ramifications by this monumental error by the NSX?  Please explain. :;

I sent that on the 11th May then again on the 19th May. I am still waiting for a response.

Seamisty


----------



## pgbbeme (3 June 2011)

So to recap, I should vote yes to all on the yellow form. Is that the general concensus? 

Is that the end of the distributions for a while. Is there any chance that I'll ever see my money.


----------



## reasonable (3 June 2011)

I had thought that the action group was trying to stop the rights issue but am informed by WC that:-

_Wellington has not been served with any legal proceedings which would result in allowing ‘the pif action group to stop it’.
_


----------



## charles36 (3 June 2011)

reasonable said:


> I had thought that the action group was trying to stop the rights issue but am informed by WC that:-
> 
> _Wellington has not been served with any legal proceedings which would result in allowing ‘the pif action group to stop it’.
> _




"All good things come to those who wait."


----------



## thekids (3 June 2011)

reasonable said:


> I had thought that the action group was trying to stop the rights issue but am informed by WC that:-
> 
> _Wellington has not been served with any legal proceedings which would result in allowing ‘the pif action group to stop it’.
> _




Oh yes they have thanks to the PIF Action grp &or Castlereagh, we were told about it today at the Melb PIF Action Grp meeting.   She just deceives and lies and keeps getting away with it.   I haven't even seen the anonymous 1 page piece of trash that is probably in my mail box at home, so will read it tonight just to see what new lies WC has come up with this time....   Its all just another attempt at mud slinging and we are all so sick of it.  WC are trying to confuse people so they don't know who to vote for and this is a problem.  When i was at the meeting in Melb today, one unit holder advised that JH was in a meeting with his financial adviser while he was at the PIF Action grp meeting and he didn't care what the adviser suggests after his meeting with JH, he was sending in his YELLOW form and voting FOR all motions.    

If you haven't been to a Castlereagh run for the PIF Action Grp meeting yet, try to get to one or at least watch the video on the Castlereagh website.  Very informative great work PIF Action Grp in getting everything moving and taking action.  I'm only a small unit holder but really happy to have people that know what they are talking about and are unit holders working for the best outcome for all unit holders something WC are not.

Just another quick point.   At the Melb meeting today one unit holder said he was concerned that unit holders have given up and lost interest because 3yrs ago at a unit holder meeting in Melb there were 300 people present and today there were only about 30-35 people present.   This is an issue for all of us, I dont know everything going on behind the scenes but i hope the Action Grp can turn this around....   
Cheers, Sue & Tony


----------



## reasonable (3 June 2011)

Has anyone gone for the rights issue?


----------



## seamisty (3 June 2011)

Thanks for that update Sue and Tony. 

Meetings yet to be held details:

Monday, 6 June 2011 Brisbane 11:00:00 AM Souths Leagues Club Davies Park, Jane Street, WEST END QLD 4101 contact Barbara McClelland 


Wednesday, 8 June 2011 Port Macquarie 1:30:00 PM Port Macquarie Race Club "Near corner of Oxley Highway and Lady Nelson Drive
PORT MACQUARIE NSW 2444 


Thursday, 16 June 2011 Sydney 11:00:00 AM SMC Conference Centre (Masonic Centre) 66 Goulburn Street, SYDNEY NSW 2000


----------



## BootsnAll (3 June 2011)

Have just received a double sided flyer from the anonymous REACTION group.
The way I read it they seem to think that Castlereagh Capital and Jim Byrnes ALFPIF are associated.
Nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## thekids (3 June 2011)

seamisty, pls clear you messages, you are full and can't receive any messages at the moment.


----------



## zixo (3 June 2011)

BootsnAll said:


> Have just received a double sided flyer from the anonymous REACTION group.
> The way I read it they seem to think that Castlereagh Capital and Jim Byrnes ALFPIF are associated.
> Nothing could be further from the truth.





In my mind it appears thats someone is trying to tell us that they're really against the AG whilst also trying to link castlereagh Capital with those snakes from the ALFPIN.
who would Have all three as their current adversaries? - Duh!

A word to the wise!
Please dont upset the retirees and elderly folk. You already know they've been through enough because of you. They might just decide to roll up on live camera feeds during sunrise with posters of you for all the world to see just how you've treated them thus far.
Queens street Brisbane might become a meeting place complete with fold up chairs, walking frames and wonderful grandmothers knitting tea cosy's. Pandoras box certainly has its surprises.


----------



## Would Be Trader (3 June 2011)

I have been a silent reader of this forum for a while but today I feel compelled to inform you that Mr Jenny Hutson in person has been visiting Financial Advisers in Melbourne today.

I have been informed by my Financial Adviser that Jenny was coming to his office this afternoon on her request.

I also made aware of this Castlereagh at the meeting in Melbourne earlier today.

I've just faxed my proxy form to Computershare. For good measure I'll mail it as well.

Good Luck to all of us in getting rid of this awful red jacket.


----------



## seamisty (3 June 2011)

Thanks for that wouldbetrader and 'thekids' my inbox has been emptied!! Seamisty


----------



## MAE (3 June 2011)

I have also received two flyers in the Post today.  This is just appalling, this whole situation we have all been put in is bad enough let alone someone playing stupid mind games.  By the way one of my envelopes which was prepaid reads "Postage Paid Australia, Sydney Heads, New South Wales", the other a 60c Stamp.


----------



## seamisty (3 June 2011)

MAE said:


> I have also received two flyers in the Post today.  This is just appalling, this whole situation we have all been put in is bad enough let alone someone playing stupid mind games.  By the way one of my envelopes which was prepaid reads "Postage Paid Australia, Sydney Heads, New South Wales", the other a 60c Stamp.



Please keep the prepaid envelope MAE, most who have contacted me have said theirs had a stamp also. We haven't finished with these low lifes and their smear campaign yet. Seamisty


----------



## selciper (3 June 2011)

I have just read the tawdry, anonymous flyer. Whoever addressed the envelopes must have had recourse to the register. The infuriating contents only increase my admiration for the AG executive. That they should be subject to such innuendos is appalling.


----------



## fleetz (3 June 2011)

Hi Folks,

Gotta say I am green with envy and admiration on how united your unitholders are and what a great job your PIF Action Group have done getting up a challenge to Wellington Capital.

I don't hold any units in your fund, unfortunately I do in the Pacific First Mortgage Fund (PFMF) (the old City Pacific First Mortgage Fund), we appear to share a similar  quality of RE!! Unlike your unitholders we are not united and organised. 

I sat and listened to the audio presentation today that Castlereagh did and I have to say if they walk the walk like they talk the talk you will do well. They sound very impressive, experienced and genuine. 

Wish you luck with you coming vote I hope you get the outcome you deserve and get an RE that will act in the best interests of all your unitholders. The only people that are going to protect your investment are the unitholders, who are the owners of the fund. ASIC, Politicians, Ombudsman etc etc will not do anything to protect you or us, I know as I and many other unitholders tried. We believed they would, so more power to you for taking it up to Wellington who by their current actions seemed very rattled. They probably are sensing their fate!

Rightly or wrongly RE's can if the unitholders let them get away with what they want to do which invariably is diametrically opposed to what is in the best interests of the unitholders. In your case I hope the voices of your unitholders say enough is enough.

Good luck.


----------



## zixo (3 June 2011)

reasonable said:


> Has anyone gone for the rights issue?




Hi Reasonable,
The rights issue is up to you as an individual.
I can say I havent..
JH and Wellington promised  so many things and reneged on everything single thing promised. They have even gone out of their way against investors interests and have blocked and hindered legal proceedings against the previous management.

I hate the idea of having a gun put to my head and then being told that UNKNOWN "sophisticated" investors would ultimately benefit from our losses - hello JIM!

Investors only need to think back on how things have turned out so far. Reality is  with Wellington at the helm we've gone backwards. I suspect every single transaction carried out by wellington has a bad smell to it and are not at arms lenght.

Wellington seriously need to be voted out, It will be then that we'll see exactly just how malicious and devious they've been with your money.

Personally I dont trust wellington when you have been given the facts, who does?


----------



## thekids (3 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Please keep the prepaid envelope MAE, most who have contacted me have said theirs had a stamp also. We haven't finished with these low lifes and their smear campaign yet. Seamisty




I got our two envelopes which are both post marked Northgate mail centre Qld 4013 6pm 1/6/11 and will hold on to them for the Action Grp, just in-case they are of some use down the track.

Also while at today's Melb meeting Castlereagh offered the truth about the Mirage at Port Douglas dealings and unit holders were given 55c each unit payout and then a final 1/2c in addition after the last creditors were paid.  All creditors were paid in full and unit holders originally paid 50c per unit.  So you cant allows believe everything you read can you.  
Cheers, Sue & Tony


----------



## flyinghigh (3 June 2011)

Would Be Trader said:


> I have been a silent reader of this forum for a while but today I feel compelled to inform you that Mr Jenny Hutson in person has been visiting Financial Advisers in Melbourne today.
> 
> I have been informed by my Financial Adviser that Jenny was coming to his office this afternoon on her request.
> 
> ...




I have holdings under my name and holdings held in BT wrap funds (administered by financial advisers).  I have been advised that because of the way wrap funds are structured, I do not have voting rights for the wrap fund holding. All PIF related correspondence has been addressed to my holdings outside wrap, never a word through BT. 
So why is JH visiting financial advisers?


----------



## BootsnAll (3 June 2011)

reasonable said:


> Has anyone gone for the rights issue?





 Any units not taken up by eligable unit holders will be "placed with interested parties at the discretion of the Responsible Entity" Page 4 of the Rights Issue Information Booklet.
 The NTA of the units is around 30 cents. After the rights issue about 27 cents.
 WC are selling them for 9cents.I think there will be people queing up for them. I wonder who they will be given to.
 I intend to apply.


----------



## thekids (3 June 2011)

BootsnAll said:


> Any units not taken up by eligable unit holders will be "placed with interested parties at the discretion of the Responsible Entity" Page 4 of the Rights Issue Information Booklet.
> The NTA of the units is around 30 cents. After the rights issue about 27 cents.
> WC are selling them for 9cents.I think there will be people queing up for them. I wonder who they will be given to.
> I intend to apply.




You are so right if we don't take up the offer, outsiders will get in at .09c to our holding so the way i see it, it may dilute our shares but it will also dilute our votes in the future.
I am not a financial adviser and i am only new to the forum, so this is just my view of whats happening.


----------



## seamisty (3 June 2011)

thekids said:


> I got our two envelopes which are both post marked Northgate mail centre Qld 4013 6pm 1/6/11 and will hold on to them for the Action Grp, just in-case they are of some use down the track.
> 
> Also while at today's Melb meeting Castlereagh offered the truth about the Mirage at Port Douglas dealings and unit holders were given 55c each unit payout and then a final 1/2c in addition after the last creditors were paid.  All creditors were paid in full and unit holders originally paid 50c per unit.  So you cant allows believe everything you read can you.
> Cheers, Sue & Tony



Very interesting to see that there is more than one outlet that the mailouts were posted from. One outlet in Qld, one in Sydney. Makes one have to ask the question just who did cut a secret deal with Jim Byrnes if in fact one actually exists because we know for certain that the PIFAG and Castlereagh Capital would not stoop so low. Who is actually aligned with who? Not exactly professional, businesslike or ethical behaviour from persons who have the motive to smear our name to either retain or gain control of the PIF.Nobody would go to that much trouble without an ulterior motive in my opinion.  Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (3 June 2011)

Looks like ALF PIF are out of the picture as far as having a crack at the RE rights to the PIF:http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724072.PDF


----------



## zixo (3 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Very interesting to see that there is more than one outlet that the mailouts were posted from. One outlet in Qld, one in Sydney. Makes one have to ask the question just who did cut a secret deal with Jim Byrnes if in fact one actually exists because we know for certain that the PIFAG and Castlereagh Capital would not stoop so low. Who is actually aligned with who? Not exactly professional, businesslike or ethical behaviour from persons who have the motive to smear our name to either retain or gain control of the PIF.Nobody would go to that much trouble without an ulterior motive in my opinion.  Seamisty




My bet is that the ALFPIF and wellington have aligned. Wellington has spent our money trying to fend off a takeover, They came to a mutual aggreement - Everyone knows that the egm will affect both the sponges at Wellington and BIG Jims Interest.

I got my letters in the mail today one is stamped and the other one is prepaid. I'm going to front australia post and others to see what I can find out.
I wonder how the police would handle 10500 investors complaining?

Gotta say, the pictures of you guys in the flyer look just like I imagined.... minus the halo's of course.


----------



## zixo (3 June 2011)

flyinghigh said:


> I have holdings under my name and holdings held in BT wrap funds (administered by financial advisers).  I have been advised that because of the way wrap funds are structured, I do not have voting rights for the wrap fund holding. All PIF related correspondence has been addressed to my holdings outside wrap, never a word through BT.
> So why is JH visiting financial advisers?




Hi Flyinghigh

Financial advisors should be working in your best interests. But you have a right to say which way you would like your vote to go. 
Perhaps its an idea that anyone who have financial advisors should tell them which way they would like them to vote. thats the democratic way. If they don't vote which way you would like whats their purpose other than getting better commissions and under the table bribes from Wellington.


----------



## zixo (3 June 2011)

thekids said:


> You are so right if we don't take up the offer, outsiders will get in at .09c to our holding so the way i see it, it may dilute our shares but it will also dilute our votes in the future.
> I am not a financial adviser and i am only new to the forum, so this is just my view of whats happening.




I am concerned about the rights issue also. I hope the AG can stop it. This whole thing goes totally against every original investors interests.
Those who relied on the countless lies told by JH and who can afford it the least will be the ones who suffer the most....JH and wellington know this and don't give a tinkers cuss.

Wellington tells unitholders they intend to develop tracts of land that they have had on the books for the last three years. Not once has JH ever mentioned a capital raising and suddenly they dredge this up as we prepare to go to an egm to throw out their stealing hides.
In my view its never about the capital raising or giving back to investors - its purely about securing voting rights. If ASIC had any single shred of credibility and decency they would stop it. ..They don't and they haven't.

On another point, when has anything that wellington has ever done or promised ever eventuated. We may have developers organised but I'm sure JH has her own private upside negotiated with them and the untold costs will always blow out against the PIF with wellington in charge.

Those units you purchase will only ever be worthwhile if a new RE is appointed. 
I'm no expert ....thats my personal viewpoint.


----------



## thekids (3 June 2011)

zixo said:


> I am concerned about the rights issue also. I hope the AG can stop it. This whole thing goes totally against every original investors interests.
> Those who relied on the countless lies told by JH and who can afford it the least will be the ones who suffer the most....JH and wellington know this and don't give a tinkers cuss.
> 
> Wellington tells unitholders they intend to develop tracts of land that they have had on the books for the last three years. Not once has JH ever mentioned a capital raising and suddenly they dredge this up as we prepare to go to an egm to throw out their stealing hides.
> ...




it's beyond me how JH can decide to sell off shares without unit holders voting on it in the first place but with that being said i don't understand how JH has got away with all that she has to date either.


----------



## DepressedDad (3 June 2011)

Personal attacks now?  Acts of cowards running scared.  As if it's not low enough stealing money from hard working honest folks who invested in the fund, she/they now show their true colours by stooping low, low, lower.  Not just crooks, CREEPS!!!  

Shop lifters & car theives do time in jail for their petty criminal behaviour. What will become of these lowly perpetrators??  Forget government regulators & protectors, if they won't do their job.  Can we just be served a helping of good old fashioned justice and see these crooks put where they belong?  

I feel sick at these disgusting personal attacks, but I know it will strengthen everybody's resolve to eventually get them behind bars.  They have underestimated the very people they have attacked here, in my opinion. Bad call scumbags!!!  This will  be more impetus and driving force to keep going, for as long as it takes, to make them answerable for their crimes.  Plus it's more evidence, hopefully, for when that day comes.  And knowing that will happen, and all the undefendable things she/they have done will come to light, makes me feel better.


----------



## seamisty (3 June 2011)

I would just like to thank all of you who have called, emailed, or contacted me on the forum to offer your support, thanking me for the efforts of the PIF AG and submitting your expressions of absolute disgust and disbelief relating to the recent mailout which all PIF unitholders received. I hope I have answered you all and am totally astounded as to the response I have received!  If I do not see you all at the EGM in Sydney on the 16th of June, make sure that if you are ever in the West,  you look me up!  You all rock!! Seamisty


----------



## selciper (3 June 2011)

I wonder if the cowardly characters who penned and posted the anonymous flyer thought at all about the success of modern-day tracing methods. As a reader of crime fiction, I'd suggest that they should wait for a knock on the door.


----------



## simgrund (4 June 2011)

This is an excerpt from Takeovers Panel declaration from yesterday regarding ALFies "offer extension" beyond 28 Feb this year:

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724072.PDF

24. It appears to the Panel that the circumstances are unacceptable:
(a) having regard to the effect that the Panel is satisfied the circumstances have had,
are having, will have or are likely to have on:
(i) the control, or potential control, of PIF
(ii) the acquisition, or proposed acquisition, by a person of a substantial interest
in PIF and
(b) having regard to the purposes of Chapter 6 set out in section 602 of the Act and
(c) because they gave or give rise to, or will or are likely to give rise to, a
contravention of a provision of Chapter 6 of the Act.
25. The Panel considers that it is not against the public interest to make a declaration of
unacceptable circumstances. It has had regard to the matters in section 657A(3).
DECLARATION
The Panel declares that the circumstances constitute unacceptable circumstances in relation
to the affairs of PIF.
Allan Bulman
Director
with authority of Peter Scott
President of the sitting Panel
Dated 3 June 2011

My personal Thank You to the Panel for work well done!
A'SICk, take note

Regards,


----------



## simgrund (4 June 2011)

Hello PIF Reaction Group,
Thank you for your mail read today.
I should say it provided incomplete reading, as the printed words seem to have been cut off by borders. 
This rendered your messages to appear somewhat circumcised in their meanings.
Would you please reissue me with a full text so I can be fully informed.
You seem like a genuinely concerned Party to this process. 
I wish to contact you to share these like-minded concerns with your Group.
Please provide contact details via Private Message box and I will respond with diligence.
Regards,


----------



## AusInCA (4 June 2011)

reasonable said:


> Has anyone gone for the rights issue?




I Received my rights issue document yesterday(2nd June) in the mail in Canada. It generally takes about a week to 10 days to receive normal mail.

I was surprised to see it, as I thought all non-residents were inelligible.  If I was to  accept it probably wouldn't make it back by the cut off date.


----------



## seamisty (4 June 2011)

marcom said:


> From the latest WC NSX update:
> 
> "*"Class Action – Federal Court Proceedings NSD 324/009*
> Wellington Capital Limited in its capacity as Responsible Entity for the Premium Income Fund has entered into a funding agreement with IMF (Australia) Limited (ASX:IMF) in relation to Federal Court Proceedings NSD 324/009...
> ...



A big turn around since June 2009 Marcom when I received this from Wellington Capital:: 

'Thank you for your email of 18 June 2009 in relation to the Federal Court Proceedings
As responsible entity of the Fund, Wellington will respond to all queries in relation to a unitholder's investment in the Fund.
Wellington will not however correspond with unitholders in relation to their individual queries in relation to a curent legal proceeding which names Wellington as a respondent. All correspondence in relation to any legal proceeding where there is legal representation will be conducted between the parties' legal representatives only.

As disclosed in the Fund's investor update released 29 May 2009, an update will be provided to Unitholders as to the impact of the class action on the Fund as soon as the Fund is in a position to do so.
Wellington is aware of its obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 and the Constitution of the Fund to act in the best interests of unitholders and will continue to do so.
If you have any fuither questions, I encourage you to contact the Wellington Hotline on 1300 854 885.
Kind regards
Jenny Hutson
Managing Director
Wellington Capital Limited
as Responsible Entity for Premium Income Fund 

On the 4th March 2010 I received this from Wellington Capital:
'Wellington Capital ltd as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund has a duty to act in the best iterests of all unitholders, and is aware that not all unitholders are represented in the class of persons represented in the class action.

Management Investments Ltd is no longer the responsible entity of the PIF, and is a named Respondent in the class action litigation.

Wellington Capital Ltd is not a party to the class action. Management Investments Ltd is defending itself in the class action. There is no conflict of interest.

The directors of Wellington Investment Management were Jenny Hutson, Robert Pitt and Craig Wallace

The directors of Wellington Capital Ltd are Jenny Hutson, Robert Pitt and Mary-Anne Greaves.

No conflict of interest and two years later after previously refusing to help PIF unitholders in any way relating to the Class Action, Wellington Capital has NOW put up thier hand and say YES YES YES we want to help you to distribute any monies recovered, not necessarily to just you the original applicants who paid $1.00 for their units and suffered the loss!! Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (4 June 2011)

I have put this together to further demonstrate what I consider poor management decisions on our behalf by Wellington Capital Ltd. Due to the actions of the current Responsible Entity the handling of the Wollongong Hotel Property cost PIF unitholders millions of dollars in lost income by not completing the project themselves.


20/01/2009 I told Justine Buckley that I could have organised finance for far less than the 25% interest rate that was negotiated by WC to repay the last of the RBOS loan.

3/02/2009 I called WC hotline staff and mentioned the PIF loan and the excessive 25% interest rate and was told that it was the going rate for commercial loans. I again mentioned that I could organise finance for far less.

16/03/2009 Sent to C Snow associate director WC
'I was astonished to see that the interest on the loan has jumped to 25% from 20% sometime since Nov 2008 quoted in the annual report of which investors were unaware of. 20% was exceptionally high and I mentioned to Justine via the hotline on more than one occasion I could provide money for less than that if it was secured. I also made mention of it to some of the AG at the same time who indicated they would also have been prepared to provide an interim loan if it was secured. This is another financial burden to the PIF which could have been avoided. Why weren't existing investors given the opportunity to provide extra short term capital?'


The cost to complete the Wollongong project was approximately $16 million. Why did Wellington not approach existing PIF unit holders to gauge interest of a possible loan or rights issue early in 2009 having been contacted previously in relation to an offer of funding.

Instead Wollongong hotel was taken to auction on the 7th May 2009 and passed in on the day for $40.5 million by Wellington Capital.

The estimated completed Project Value by the original developer for Wollongong was $125 million.

In correspondence I received from Wellington Capital Ltd on the 26th November 2009 stating ;;
The sale price under the contract is $38 million (plus GST).
The market release of 18 November 2009 states that the property has been sold at carrying value.

So 6 months after Wellington Capital Ltd knocked back $40.5 million at auction they accept two million less of which to this day PIF has only received $15million.
The Wollongong Hotel owed the PIF $57,993,841

Anyone consider this a professional business strategy by WC or gross incompetence? Its not too late to change your vote!! Seamisty


----------



## Unfortunate Inv (4 June 2011)

At a time as important as the present, I am disgusted at the lack of response being given to us, the investors of the PIF, by Wellington Capital.

I have constantly left my phone contact on recorded announcements both at Wellington Capital as well as Armstrong Registry, which happens to be a very similar recording with minimal to no response.

In view of what is happening, why should I not vote Wellington Capital out and give some other manager the chance of fixing what WC obviously are not doing! I believe that the investors of the PIF has given WC so many opportunities to resolve this mess, but we have been let down in so many ways by the lack of leadership and management.

I was given a lot of promises back in 2008 to give Jenny Hudson the chance to get the PIF back on track when the NAB was at $0.45 per unit and with a promise of a 3 cent per unit return by 24 December that same year and a 5 year turn around into hopefully restoring my units to their original $1.00 level and to legally pursue MFS, Octaviar and others responsible in pilfering what was to be a good investment.

Three years down the track I find myself;
Unable to contact Wellington Capital, 
My unit price decreased to 33.5 cents as at 31/12/2010, and falling, prior to the release of a further 75,500,000 units at a fire sale of $0.10 cents a unit to an 'Un-named professional investor' 
A registry change to Armstrong Registry, which I am told is owned by directors of Wellington Capital and charging us a rate of 500% over and above what we should be getting charged by a registrar. (Is this how you account for not paying yourselves any fees before you lodge a 3 cent payment to all unit holders?) 
I am being forced to purchase 80,000 units at $0.09 ea or my holding will be decreased by a further $24,000 after already suffering huge losses.. 
Since Wellington Capital, in Jenny Hudson, took over the PIF, I have received $4,800.00 of my own capital and am now being forced to borrow $7,200.00 in order to sustain my present holding in the fund. 
You deliberately already watered down my holding by creating 75,500,000 additional units at $0.10 per unit without going to the unitholders first and explaining in full, this being done just days after you paid us $7,500,000.00 of our own money in order to raise the same amount!!! Why were we not informed of this before making such a payment to us? 
The disgust and shame that you should be feeling at the present moment should enable you to hold your head in shame, especially when you knowingly have stripped our life savings to the state that we now find ourselves in.

As always I will not get a response to my email, just like the lack of response to my phone messages but I will endeavor to send this email to reach as many PIF unit holders as I possibly can.


----------



## zixo (4 June 2011)

I have a concern about the upcoming EGM vote that I hope someone could possibly give feedback?

We witnessed first hand the election of our investor "representatives" and how wellington Capital Flatly refused to disclose and inform investors on our voting results. I now have major doubts about Armstrong Registries impartiality Given the beneficial link between Wellington Capital and Armstrong registry.

What is to prevent Armstrong from destroying our votes, substituting votes or hiding votes which go against Wellington and are marked with the FOR votes ?

What process or procedures are in place to ensure that Armstrong will do the right thing given there is so much at stake for them and Wellington?

Is ASIC overviewing the process?

I strongly urge all unit holders to please post your votes/your choice/ your proxy to computershare by the 10th of June.


----------



## seamisty (4 June 2011)

Welcome on board Unfortunate Inv, you are not on your own with unanswered emails to WC! I've got heaps but I also have quite a few that were answered. One in particular I receiced from WC on the 2/2/2009 offered me 'periodic discussions' with the managing director after each investor update. Of coure I accepted but never once was the committment from Wellington Capital  honoured even though I reminded them after each update.
Well if I couldn't even get a phone call in response to offering WC a potential source of finance for a minimum of $10million dollars at a far lesser interest rate than Wellington Capital, 'a boutique merchant bank and fund manager experienced in providing dynamic advice and services' could negotiate (25%) what chance did I have of WC calling me to honour their offer of 'periodic discussions'? Wellington Capital knew I was a substantial PIF investor, wouldn't you think they would follow up any offer of finance when they were using the excuse of how difficult it was to get funding? Even though I had my doubts about WC less than 3 months after I voted for them, I knew that when they ignored an offer of funding to complete projects from PIF investors that we were well and truly stuffed!! I can substantiate my claims of contact to WC re finance on at least 4 occassions apart from discussing it with other PIF investors at that time. WC finally announce a capital raising just in time to garner a nice chunk of voting power, after ignoring other offers of funding previously with no votes attatched, how convenient!
Seamisty


----------



## thebear (5 June 2011)

i can not find any thing stating that investors in port douglas reef resort recieved any amount like stated?
i found this
News and events 
Ferrier Hodgson confirm that a first and final dividend of .00055659c per share was made to the members on 5 September 2006  02/10/2007  
the liquidator is currently in the process of finalising the dividend to creditors - the balance of funds will be distributed to shareholders in accordance with a Return of Capital - it is anticipated this will occur in September  05/09/2006  
delisted following failure to pay its annual listing fee in respect of the year ended 30 June 2007  29/08/2006  
shareholders resolve that the company be wound up voluntarily and that Brian Raymond Silvia Chartered Accountant be appointed liquidator  21/04/2006  
company lodges its half year accounts and half yearly report  14/03/2006  
the company advises that capital returns of 1.5 cent per share (to the value of $3,627,731.57) were paid on 11 October 2005 and 1.1 cent per share capital return (to the value of $2,660,336.48) paid on 15 December 2005 (quite why it has taken almost three months to announce it, is a little puzzling)  03/03/2006  
company advises shareholders that the record date for the return of capital, which was announced as 7 December 2005, has now been re-scheduled - the new record date for the return of capital is 8 December 2005  01/12/2005  
directors have resolved that the final return will be 1.1 cents per share - directors are still looking at "several possibilities for the remaining company structure, and the available cash post the final capital return, and are pursuing various options with the aim of maximising returns to shareholders"  30/11/2005  
provides notice of Annual General Meeting to be held at SM Gibson & Associates, Level 2, 25 Saltwater, 30 Macrossan Street, Port Douglas, Queensland on Wednesday, 30th November 2005 at 10.00 am  28/10/2005  
lodges annual report  30/09/2005  
at an EGM today the company passed the following resolution "That, for the purpose of section 256C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and clause 30.3 of the Company's constitution, an equal reduction in the capital of the Company, by way of a cash payment to holders of fully paid ordinary shares as at 7pm on the record date disclosed in the Explanatory Memorandum of $0.015 (1.5 cents) per ordinary share, be approved" - this resolution was carried unanimously  19/09/2005  
lodges Preliminary Final Report  31/08/2005  
advises an Extraordinary General Meeting of the company will be held at, Marino Moller Lawyers, Macrossan House, 19 Macrossan Street, Port Douglas on 19 September 2005 at 10.00 am  19/08/2005  
the sale of The Links Golf Course to Juniper Development Group is finalised today for the sum of $5.5 million  03/08/2005  
company advises it has entered into an unconditional sale contract for the Links golf course to Juniper Development Group for the sum of $5.5 million - settlement is scheduled to take place in early August 2005 - the board has resolved that a further return of capital of 1.5 cents per share should be distributed to shareholders - this capital return will take place sometime after the company receives the settlement proceeds from the golf course sale - as advised to shareholders in the Explanatory Memorandum on 31 March 2005, the board is now exploring the option of selling the company structure, and the remaining cash - it has been agreed that a time limit of sixty (60) days is being applied to this process  28/07/2005  
company advises that the return of capital has been finalised - on 14th June 2005 the company distributed the sum of $0.10 per share to all the holders of fully paid ordinary shares  14/06/2005  
the sale of the following business assets to S8 Limited were finalised today; Radisson Treetops Resort - The Rainforest Habitat Wildlife Sanctuary, and - Cairns Rainforest Dome  31/05/2005  
the timing for the return of capital is that it will be made on 14 June 2005 - the proceeds of 10 cents a share will be sent to shareholders on that date  10/05/2005  
a new timetable for the return of capital to the company's shareholders will be issued shortly, however it is envisaged at this time that the return will be distributed around mid June  28/04/2005  
shares suspended from quotation following the announcement that the company will proceed with the sale of the Radisson Treetops Resort, the Rainforest Habitat Wildlife Sanctuary and the Cairns Rainforest Dome - the settlement date is scheduled for the 30 May 2005  28/04/2005  
also after listening to all the ums in the recording from the nsw meeting-doesnt sound professional
and the attitude well with the size of the fund 5 million is nothing to loose to change !!!!!!


----------



## zixo (5 June 2011)

HI there thebear,

I cant say I know much about it at all. Its all pretty confusing.

The interesting thing kept coming up that I noted was that S8 were somehow involved somewhere in the collapse of the Reef resort Port douglas. From what is googled noted that the director of S8 is chris Scott the man who transferred the PIF to our very own Jenny Hutson who is/was the chairman.

s8 were approached for funding and declined.

- S8 were very happy to invest and acquire the port douglas radisson treetops from port douglas reef resort...once it collapsed I presume.

Is it a coincidence that I always find  is s8-mfs/octaviar-wellington always have a strong link and investors always lose money ?


----------



## selciper (5 June 2011)

A quote for the day: 

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."  (Thomas Jefferson)

Let ourF voices be heard loud and clear!


----------



## zixo (5 June 2011)

selciper said:


> A quote for the day:
> 
> "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."  (Thomas Jefferson)
> 
> Let ourF voices be heard loud and clear!




Thanks selcipher

yes...I still have to smile at the words we sometime hear.

JENNY HUTSON: With people whose lives have truly been destroyed in a financial sense by the plight of MFS, is something that is just extraordinary. This is about ordinary Australians, who believed what they read, who put trust and faith in the board and there's an enormous human cost

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2186788.htm

Or 

A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad. 
Theodore Roosevelt

They are truly words to live by.


----------



## selciper (5 June 2011)

Zixo,
You’re right to remind us of those 2008 holier-than-thou statements. At no time was it suggested that the optimistic projections made could falter after the magic wand was waved.

When everything is eventually written up in the media, the effect on the financial services industry will be definitely adverse. 

Are we about to face yet another week of skulduggery? (It’s time that the media started to take a hard look at our situation and its causes).


----------



## seamisty (5 June 2011)

Zixo WC  thought the PIF AG would be calling for an EGM in early April after the AG started contacting investors and told them to expect a document package relating to the calling of an EGM with the purpose of replacing Wellington Capital with an alternative RE. 
 Hypothetical scenario?
WC knew that unitholders had to be given 21 days notice of an EGM which I presume threw WC into a frenzy because after having  had virtually no NSX announcements apart from the belated Dec 2010 investor update, another REJECT announcement and the required financial report BANG!! It was like a long sleeping bear coming out of hibernation. One announcement after another towards the end of Mar early April, WC is keen to help investors in the Class Action, WC has finally got a strategy option in place, review fees, make another 1 cent payment( due to be paid to coincide with the expected EGM date to be announced, BLAH BLAH BLAH, look how freaking pro active we are, then oh sh1te, there was no EGM announcement!!! Whew, we have time to announce a placement and rights issue to cover our bottoms because we are in deep trouble here and need to shore up some votes!!! 
Oh no, in our haste we stuffed up, never mind, lets just change the constitution!! Meanwhile better get a few more announcements out there, weve got to look like we are indispensible, ah yes, tell the suckers that if WC do not remain RE, the contracts could fall over!! The problem is WC, its not you that own those assets, its the PIF unitholders!! If the proposed sale is a genuinely negotiated contract to a genuine buyer, what difference does it make who the RE is? It would be nice to think that we were on a level playing field here, achieving votes on merit as opposed to buying them, totally oblivious to the impact the action will have on existing unitholders. We are finally getting the transparency we were promised so long ago but the rose coloured glasses are no longer worn by the majority and most will see right through this pathetic charade.


----------



## charles36 (6 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Zixo WC  thought the PIF AG would be calling for an EGM in early April after the AG started contacting investors and told them to expect a document package relating to the calling of an EGM with the purpose of replacing Wellington Capital with an alternative RE.
> Hypothetical scenario?
> WC knew that unitholders had to be given 21 days notice of an EGM which I presume threw WC into a frenzy because after having  had virtually no NSX announcements apart from the belated Dec 2010 investor update, another REJECT announcement and the required financial report BANG!! It was like a long sleeping bear coming out of hibernation. One announcement after another towards the end of Mar early April, WC is keen to help investors in the Class Action, WC has finally got a strategy option in place, review fees, make another 1 cent payment( due to be paid to coincide with the expected EGM date to be announced, BLAH BLAH BLAH, look how freaking pro active we are, then oh sh1te, there was no EGM announcement!!! Whew, we have time to announce a placement and rights issue to cover our bottoms because we are in deep trouble here and need to shore up some votes!!!
> Oh no, in our haste we stuffed up, never mind, lets just change the constitution!! Meanwhile better get a few more announcements out there, weve got to look like we are indispensible, ah yes, tell the suckers that if WC do not remain RE, the contracts could fall over!! The problem is WC, its not you that own those assets, its the PIF unitholders!! If the proposed sale is a genuinely negotiated contract to a genuine buyer, what difference does it make who the RE is? It would be nice to think that we were on a level playing field here, achieving votes on merit as opposed to buying them, totally oblivious to the impact the action will have on existing unitholders. We are finally getting the transparency we were promised so long ago but the rose coloured glasses are no longer worn by the majority and most will see right through this pathetic charade.





 Well said, contracts fall over, that would be good news because they like all other investments were probably not in the best interest of unit holders.  I think I am missing something though.  I received a cent return of MY OWN MONEY. The total cost to the fund ,7.5 million dollars.   Soon afterwards WC sell 75 million units which adds to the total units in OUR fund , 830 million units up from 755 million.. Why?  The opinion has been expressed to me countless times , "WC are trying to 'cobble' together votes for the forthcoming election with no regard to the interest of unit holders as required  by the Corporations Act (Cth). To pay a return of our capital to the new unit SOPHISTICATED BUYER, who by the way is still anonymous like the mysterious lender of 5 million dollars we, OUR fund borrowed at 25%, our asset will be depleted far more than the one cent we received.  I am having trouble working this out, I know our RE has never embarked upon an Economic venture without an outcome but would'nt we have been better off to not receive the one cent distribution of our own money. This would enable our RE to spend the 7.5 million on whatever it is alleged to be required for and not deplete our asset by well more than one cent.  Puzzled you bet I am.  BUT WAIT, "THERE IS MORE"  IF THE RIGHTS ISSUE is successful our assets will be further diluted, instead of having 830 million units on issue we will have something in the order of 1.2 billion units.  A distribution of one cent of OUR OWN MONEY INSTEAD OF COSTING 7.5 MILLION, IT WILL COST 12 MILLION.  I could go on and on about the merits of this ECONOMIC VENTURE. What is wrong with  borrowing money from the bank by way of individual mortgages, say 15% instead of the 29% WC is intent on doing.  However, I will defer to greater minds other than listen to WC.  My parting remark, If you owned a business would you run it in this fashion.  don't think so.  Would you dismiss the your manager I am sure so!!!


----------



## Duped (6 June 2011)

@ thekids.  You wrote: "At the Melb meeting today one unit holder said he was concerned that unit holders have given up and lost interest because 3yrs ago at a unit holder meeting in Melb there were 300 people present and today there were only about 30-35 people present.   This is an issue for all of us, I dont know everything going on behind the scenes but i hope the Action Grp can turn this around...."

I went three years ago but won't go to the Castereagh presentation.  Simple really. Castlereagh presented the information up front and in writing. And the audio for the first meeting has promptly made available online. There's no need for me to go to a the meeting. Now that's efficiency.  I'm behind Castlereagh already.


----------



## Duped (6 June 2011)

flyinghigh said:


> I have holdings under my name and holdings held in BT wrap funds (administered by financial advisers).  I have been advised that because of the way wrap funds are structured, I do not have voting rights for the wrap fund holding. All PIF related correspondence has been addressed to my holdings outside wrap, never a word through BT.
> So why is JH visiting financial advisers?




Because plenty of people like me were steered into direct ownership in this fund by their AFSL (Cth branded) financial advisors.  Some of us have swallowed our Advisor's Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free-Card excuse: it's because of the GFC. Others .... well.... I'm guessing mine has the guilts and is trying to make good or wants to abate my compulsion to take legal action against him.

Welcome flyinghigh. Have you received any communication from BT to convert your 'units' into real units that give YOU the voting rights? IOOF have offered this option to its clients.  I'm not sure about Asgard. Perhaps your interests would be better served by moving your business to IOOF. 

I.e. see http://www.ioof.com.au/files/docsFo...id=A08A3129E5262B7CD642D5A4163217D4.external2

This is what IOOF say:

"WPIF units have been exchanged for Premium Income Fund (PIF) shares for all super/pension members and those IDPS investors who opted into the exchange. PIF shares trade on the NSX under
the code PIN. Investors wishing to sell their PIF shares should refer to the communication issued by IOOF. Any IDPS investor who did not opt into the exchange will need to contact IOOF to arrange
for their WPIF units to be exchanged for PIF shares before they can instruct IOOF to sell these shares on the NSX."

PS I'm with Colonial First State.


----------



## reasonable (6 June 2011)

Duped said:


> @ thekids.  You wrote: "At the Melb meeting today one unit holder said he was concerned that unit holders have given up and lost interest because 3yrs ago at a unit holder meeting in Melb there were 300 people present and today there were only about 30-35 people present.   This is an issue for all of us, I dont know everything going on behind the scenes but i hope the Action Grp can turn this around...."
> 
> I went three years ago but won't go to the Castereagh presentation.  Simple really. Castlereagh presented the information up front and in writing. And the audio for the first meeting has promptly made available online. There's no need for me to go to a the meeting. Now that's efficiency.  I'm behind Castlereagh already.




I too would have gone to the Melbourne meeting but the internet version was excellent and gave me all I needed.  

A word to the action group: Do not become complacent nor underestimate the gutter tactics that WC may stoop to to remain RE.


----------



## Duped (6 June 2011)

zixo said:


> Hi Flyinghigh
> 
> Financial advisors should be working in your best interests. But you have a right to say which way you would like your vote to go.
> Perhaps its an idea that anyone who have financial advisors should tell them which way they would like them to vote. thats the democratic way. If they don't vote which way you would like whats their purpose other than getting better commissions and under the table bribes from Wellington.




Flyinghigh.  The recent Ripoll enquiry recommended that financial advisors be forced to have a duty of care to put the financial interests of their clients in front of their own financial interests.  They are fighting against the implementation of this recommendation.  Says it all really.


----------



## Bumblebee (6 June 2011)

Just a short comment re attending the Castlereagh meetings around the country.
The Brisbane meeting will be on shortly this morning. Even though I read this thread almost daily and have read and digested Castlereagh's information, I will be attending the meeting.
I look forward to showing my support to Fellow shareholders and thanking Castlereagh personally for their work and effort so far.
Even if you have decided and voted there still may something new to learn, new investors to meet by attending a meeting near you. And positive attendance numbers will contribute to keeping the energy moving forward to topple JH from her throne.


----------



## Duped (6 June 2011)

Interesting reading thebear.  How confident are you that this is a complete record?


----------



## seamisty (6 June 2011)

Here are the details of the remaining PIF unitholders information meetings and the EGM to be held by Castlereagh Capital on behalf of the PIF AG: 


Monday, 6 June 2011 Brisbane 11:00:00 AM Souths Leagues Club Davies Park, Jane Street, WEST END QLD 4101 contact Barbara McClelland 


Wednesday, 8 June 2011 Port Macquarie 1:30:00 PM Port Macquarie Race Club "Near corner of Oxley Highway and Lady Nelson Drive
PORT MACQUARIE NSW 2444 


Thursday, 16 June 2011 Sydney 11:00:00 AM SMC Conference Centre (Masonic Centre) 66 Goulburn Street, SYDNEY NSW 2000


----------



## Duped (6 June 2011)

Good point Bumblebee.


----------



## Unfortunate Inv (6 June 2011)

I have 'FINALLY' received a phone call from Wellington Cap' where they were trying extremely hard to convince me that they at WC have our best interest at heart in their operations of the PIF.
I asked the question as to why is 'Armstrong Registry' billing the PIF a rate of $500,000.00 when other registries can do the same for around $100,000.00. The answer given was that the previous registry, in Computershare, were charging the PIF nearly $700,000.00 to do the same duties, plus additional fees for name changes and the like, so the swap to Armstrong Registry meant a saving to the PIF. Can anyone confirm this issue?


----------



## Unfortunate Inv (6 June 2011)

Wellington Cap also informed me that the bid by ALF PIF has now been quashed.
Is this true?


----------



## JohnH (6 June 2011)

selciper said:


> I have just read the tawdry, anonymous flyer. Whoever addressed the envelopes must have had recourse to the register. The infuriating contents only increase my admiration for the AG executive. That they should be subject to such innuendos is appalling.




Hi Seamisty, Just received my "reaction group" garbage.  This one was stamped, but also interestingly has an HRMC postmark dated 31st May.

HRMC is I believe the "Hunter Region Mail Centre"............ so that should narrow it down a bit.

Cheers,   John H.


----------



## reasonable (6 June 2011)

I have decided to apply for more units to avoid dilution.  I want to use these to vote WC out but have already sent off the proxy form to Computershare.

Presumably I will have to send the no-vote to Armstrong as Computershare will not have the new units on their register.  Does anyone know?

Thanks


----------



## Duped (6 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> What gets me Marcom is why, all of a sudden WC is offering PIF unitholders the opportunity to have their say at a meeting to consider an ammendmant and vote on something Who will be at the meeting to vote, the NEW as yet UNAMED professional and sophisticated investors who would just LOVE to have the opportunity to vote on being included in the spoils!! Was there some kind of sweetner offered to these NEW unitholders that may have indicated they could be included in the divvy up of funds hopefully recovered from OUR Class Action. How would we ever know? Wellington Capital has already demonstrated that they couldn't give a stuff what unitholders wanted previously by taking it upon themselves to change the constitution to allow WC to introduce a placement and rights issue which will dilute the existing unitprice by another 8 cents.  WC did this without unitholders consent on the grounds that it was in the best interests of PIF unitholders! Suddenly WC are indicating that they want to give us a chance to vote on something? I'll be voting all right, at the EGM on the 16th June for Castlreagh Capital.
> 
> What has Wellington Capital got NEW now to offer the Class Action that they have not had previously? Oh yes thats right, some NEW INVESTORS!! How silly of me, does anyone really still think Wellington Capital is doing a good job
> 
> Seamisty




WC wrote "so that those Unitholders who were members of the Premium Income Fund on 15 October 2008, and remain members at the time of the finalisation or settlement of the claim, are pro-rata the beneficiaries of the proceeds."

I read nothing in this text that makes it clear I have to be a member for the whole duration.  I.e. I could sell out and help put downward pressure on the NSX price and then buy in again.

But if WC does want to argue that ownership will need to be continuous then this will be against the interests of long suffering PIF investors wanting to realise capital losses to offset against other capital gains. A clever way of removing the downward pressure on the NSX price.

Oh and Seamisty.  $100 that WC will spring a couple of other items to be voted on at that EGM. Items that are in WC's interests. Like WC did last time with the $5M removal fee.


----------



## Duped (6 June 2011)

reasonable said:


> I have decided to apply for more units to avoid dilution.  I want to use these to vote WC out but have already sent off the proxy form to Computershare.
> 
> Presumably I will have to send the no-vote to Armstrong as Computershare will not have the new units on their register.  Does anyone know?
> 
> Thanks




Might be cheaper to just buy them on the NSX.  That way you'll also put upward pressure on the price of your other units.


----------



## thekids (6 June 2011)

Duped said:


> @ thekids.  You wrote: "At the Melb meeting today one unit holder said he was concerned that unit holders have given up and lost interest because 3yrs ago at a unit holder meeting in Melb there were 300 people present and today there were only about 30-35 people present.   This is an issue for all of us, I dont know everything going on behind the scenes but i hope the Action Grp can turn this around...."
> 
> I went three years ago but won't go to the Castereagh presentation.  Simple really. Castlereagh presented the information up front and in writing. And the audio for the first meeting has promptly made available online. There's no need for me to go to a the meeting. Now that's efficiency.  I'm behind Castlereagh already.




Duped that's good to know, i understand i also watched the online video which was really good but wanted to go to the meeting to listen to the Q & A at the end of the session.  I was just shocked and worried when someone said how low the numbers were compared to 3yrs ago.  I hope everyone does hop online to watch the video.  Castereagh mentioned that they will try to video again at the next Sydney session too.


----------



## seamisty (6 June 2011)

Hi Reasonable, here is the link in relation to the takeovers panel decission re ALF PIF
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724072.PDF
Perhaps you could call WC and ask what the go is re voting with the new units for those participating in the rights issue and post the answer on here for others. Maybe also ask WC for a costs summary of what was included in the $700,000 charged by Computershare that Armstrong can supply for $500,000 and then we will know what to get other quotes on. With all this new found transparency I am sure WC would oblige

Remember these are the same people who were instructing their hotline staff to infer that the PIF AG and Castlereagh Capital were aligned with ALF PIF which was totally untrue. Some unitholders were also told that PIF AG reps were possibly being financially rewarded for their efforts!! UMMNNN, who by? Whoever is meant to be compensating me must have the wrong address, perhaps the 'reaction group' could supply the correct one now that they access to the complete PIF register containing everyones personal contact details.

Seamisty


----------



## Duped (6 June 2011)

pgbbeme said:


> Hi,
> I am a small holder of PIF units, to be honest I'd already written this off as just another GFC disaster. I've known about this thread for a while, but there's too much detail for me to worry about my few dollars. I have received papers for the board meeting, both a pink and a yellow version and then today I get a school quality one page flyer telling me not to trust the same posters who are here talking, Seamisty, Breaker and Charles36. One thing I am concerned about is what Ferriers have to do with it. Not a great track record there.
> Anyway in a nutshell what should I be doing for this meeting. After today's market I really have bigger fish to fry than this.




We got called 'diehards' too.  I wear that as a badge of honour.  Although I'm not quite sure what to do with the connotation about wanting unitholders to die. 

You have to make your own decision pgbbeme.

Stuart Wilson, CEO of the ASA, wrote in the Australian on 8 July 2008: "The fund is a sick dog that needs to be put down, not kept on life support to generate fees for the new manager."

See the full article for his full prescient but sobering opinion: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/octaviar-is-a-sick-dog/story-e6frg9q6-1111116849271

We didn't react well to that here on ASF.  Talk about a cold shower. But given WC's performance, he appears to be correct. Who's better placed to return unit holder value?


----------



## thebear (6 June 2011)

here is a link to that page i found
http://www.delisted.com.au/Company/6654/PORT DOUGLAS REEF RESORTS LIMITED
thats is i could find
still undecided which way to vote


----------



## thekids (6 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Hi Reasonable, here is the link in relation to the takeovers panel decission re ALF PIF
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724072.PDF
> Perhaps you could call WC and ask what the go is re voting with the new units for those participating in the rights issue and post the answer on here for others. Maybe also ask WC for a costs summary of what was included in the $700,000 charged by Computershare that Armstrong can supply for $500,000 and then we will know what to get other quotes on. With all this new found transparency I am sure WC would oblige
> 
> ...




Maybe you could also ask just how did the Reaction grp get our personal details, not happy Jen!  and why doesn't she stand down as the RE when she is fully aware that the unitholders no longer have faith in her ability to run OUR funds.


----------



## seamisty (6 June 2011)

Duped this time WC won't be calling the shots at the EGM, this is not WC's show no matter how many Pro WC unitholders WC can muster up to attend, but it is all the more reason we urge PIF unitholders wanting a change of management to attend in person to raise their hands when called upon, ie electing a nominated chairperson on our behalf.

Seamisty


----------



## thekids (6 June 2011)

thebear said:


> here is a link to that page i found
> http://www.delisted.com.au/Company/6654/PORT DOUGLAS REEF RESORTS LIMITED
> thats is i could find
> still undecided which way to vote




Does anyone from the PIF Action Grp know more about this info, as Castlereagh advised at the Melb meeting that the truth was that they paid .55c then paid the final 1/2c on shares that originally cost unitholders .50c, its really hard to make sound decisions when we are always getting conflicting info.  But one thing i do know is that we don't want WC to continue to lie and run our units into the ground.


----------



## Duped (6 June 2011)

Standard trick of the trade is to juxtapose to unrelated pieces of information to lead the naiive reader to incorrectly draw a causal link.

Observe.  In the NSX release http://nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724067.PDF WC write a stand alone two sentence paragraph: 
_
‘The legal representation and strategy for class action members changed in November 2010. Wellington Capital as responsible entity for the Premium Income Fund has been in discussions with IMF and HWL Ebsworth to reach this agreed way forward.’_

Hands up who believes Hutson is saying e.g. WC joined the class action *because *the "legal representation and strategy for class action members changed". Does the NSX release really say that?  Or have you misread it?  What do you think a judge would say to you for adding the causal link? WC does not commit itself to a justification in this release.  IMLO WC's options are open to in future hunt out and present any justification that suits itself at the time.

Furthermore, whether or not "strategy" has in fact changed seems to me, in the absence of any knowledge on what has in fact changed, to be debateable.  Just like words like "acting in the best interests of unitholders". Ahhh word bending.  Fun isn't it. NOT. What a waste of time and money.


----------



## thekids (6 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Duped this time WC won't be calling the shots at the EGM, this is not WC's show no matter how many Pro WC unitholders WC can muster up to attend, but it is all the more reason we urge PIF unitholders wanting a change of management to attend in person to raise their hands when called upon, ie electing a nominated chairperson on our behalf.
> 
> Seamisty




At the Melb meeting Castlereagh explained how important it is to have the numbers at the EGM because if WC are appointed chairperson they can change the order of the motions thus giving them a completely different outcome to if an impartial or unitholder chairperson run the meeting.


----------



## Duped (6 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Duped this time WC won't be calling the shots at the EGM, this is not WC's show no matter how many Pro WC unitholders WC can muster up to attend, but it is all the more reason we urge PIF unitholders wanting a change of management to attend in person to raise their hands when called upon, ie electing a nominated chairperson on our behalf.
> 
> Seamisty




I meant the EGM WC says it "will" "hold within 30 days of receipt of proceeds in finalisation or settlement of the claim" from the class action. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Duped (6 June 2011)

thekids said:


> Maybe you could also ask just how did the Reaction grp get our personal details, not happy Jen!  and why doesn't she stand down as the RE when she is fully aware that the unitholders no longer have faith in her ability to run OUR funds.




Didn't WC want to bill the Action Group something in the order of $14 thousand for the list.  I wonder if the RE Action group were threatened with the same hurdle?


----------



## thekids (6 June 2011)

Duped said:


> Didn't WC want to bill the Action Group something in the order of $14 thousand for the list.  I wonder if the RE Action group were threatened with the same hurdle?




You forgot about 'Mates Rates' they are on the same side as WC and seem to be using all WC info, looks like another related entity perhaps


----------



## AusInCA (6 June 2011)

thekids said:


> Does anyone from the PIF Action Grp know more about this info, as Castlereagh advised at the Melb meeting that the truth was that they paid .55c then paid the final 1/2c on shares that originally cost unitholders .50c, its really hard to make sound decisions when we are always getting conflicting info.  But one thing i do know is that we don't want WC to continue to lie and run our units into the ground.




The one certainty at this stage is that if WC remains as RE we will continue to see the value of our units decline and the recent frenzy of information will dry up.


----------



## Duped (6 June 2011)

Bazil said:


> Thankyou Simgrund and Zixo, I should have stated that I am a PIF unitholder and hope to be attending the June 16 meeting. It's history repeating for me, anyone remember "Private Mortgage Lending" ? squandered the other half of my life's savings with them.  What is it with these Gold Coast people? and why don't I ever learn?




Probably because you are a good and trusting person.  You say what you do and do what you say. And you trust that our democracy delivers governance that will stop people preying on those virtues. 

Meanwhile, government still needs to somehow keep the velocity of money up so it can keep keeping collecting taxes to keep government going.  Fair enough I suppose, but it'd be nice to know what we're buying.


----------



## Duped (6 June 2011)

thebear said:


> here is a link to that page i found
> http://www.delisted.com.au/Company/6654/PORT%20DOUGLAS%20REEF%20RESORTS%20LIMITED
> thats is i could find
> still undecided which way to vote




Thanks thebear. Looks like a summary of the ASX announcements.  We can still review the pre 29/8/2006 originals at http://asx.com.au/asx/statistics/announcements.do.

The delisted.com info talks about cents per share whereas I recall the 55c number is quoted as cents in the $.  Perhaps this accounts for the discrepancy.


----------



## evelyn (6 June 2011)

I used to regularly check into this thread and (gratefully) keep up with what you wonderful people have been reporting but due to a very challenging year or so I have lagged way behind.

I realise I am relinquishing my autonomy to some degree by asking this, but I have to trust someone and I just don't have the 'head space' for it at present! 

Could someone confirm that the best immediate action is to tick the 'for' boxes on the yellow Computershare form that came with the AG?castlereagh docos and to discard the pink ones from Wellington.

There is no way I can go back and catch up with all I've missed and need to post the form by the morning, but will try to keep up going forward. I am very very grateful for those that have been willing and able to hang in with this. thanks, thanks, thanks.

I/we have two holding so will have two votes.


----------



## seamisty (6 June 2011)

evelyn said:


> I used to regularly check into this thread and (gratefully) keep up with what you wonderful people have been reporting but due to a very challenging year or so I have lagged way behind.
> 
> I realise I am relinquishing my autonomy to some degree by asking this, but I have to trust someone and I just don't have the 'head space' for it at present!
> 
> ...



Evelyn if you would like to private message me your phone number in notifications I could call you and explain our current situation re Castlereagh Capital, Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## marcom (6 June 2011)

AusInCA said:


> The one certainty at this stage is that if WC remains as RE we will continue to see the value of our units decline and the recent frenzy of information will dry up.




Evelyn, I think that AusInCA's quote above is a realistic assessment of where we are. Many posters on the forum have returned the yellow proxy form to Computershare with ALL 7 "'for" boxes crossed. But at the end of the day it's your call.

By the way the number of votes you have is the number of units held. Good luck.


----------



## marcom (6 June 2011)

Any news from the Brisbane meeting yet?


----------



## BABIHUTAN (6 June 2011)

With the return of the home minister fm China, our *FOR* vote all the way is in the mail to Computershare. 
We too are evidently on the reaction group mailing list hvg just rec'd their unsolicited flyer post marked HRMC MLOCR 501  31/5/11. {It would be interesting to know who authorised the release of the list and to whom and who paid for the mailout. Long suffering PIF members - ???}
That and some pink coloured bumf rec'd earlier hv been consigned to the WPB


----------



## Duped (6 June 2011)

Duped said:


> Thanks thebear. Looks like a summary of the ASX announcements.  We can still review the pre 29/8/2006 originals at http://asx.com.au/asx/statistics/announcements.do.
> 
> The delisted.com info talks about cents per share whereas I recall the 55c number is quoted as cents in the $.  Perhaps this accounts for the discrepancy.




See page 4 of the PDR chairman's address http://asx.com.au/asxpdf/20041125/pdf/3nv8d9w45p08f.pdf

I.e. NTA per share was reported as being 13.48 at 30 June 2004 and 16.4 cents per share  at 30 June 2003.  Based on these two dates, returning 55c for every $ invested would mean paying to shareholders about 7.414c per share and 9.02c per share respectively.

Note there were about 240million shares.


----------



## selciper (6 June 2011)

Perhaps the answer to my question is that the matter raised is presently confidential. I'll ask it anyway.

Q. Is there any news about the progress of the intended proceedings to seek an injunction regarding the placement and capital raising? 

It's perfectly understandable if the subject is not for general discussion.


----------



## seamisty (6 June 2011)

selciper said:


> Perhaps the answer to my question is that the matter raised is presently confidential. I'll ask it anyway.
> 
> Q. Is there any news about the progress of the intended proceedings to seek an injunction regarding the placement and capital raising?
> 
> It's perfectly understandable if the subject is not for general discussion.



I will endeavor to get something that I can post publically tomorrow pm selciper. Seamisty


----------



## selciper (6 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> I will endeavor to get something that I can post publically tomorrow pm selciper. Seamisty



Seamisty, many thanks.


----------



## DoraNBoots (6 June 2011)

Duped said:


> WC wrote "so that those Unitholders who were members of the Premium Income Fund on 15 October 2008, and remain members at the time of the finalisation or settlement of the claim, are pro-rata the beneficiaries of the proceeds."
> 
> I read nothing in this text that makes it clear I have to be a member for the whole duration.  I.e. I could sell out and help put downward pressure on the NSX price and then buy in again.
> ...




Hello Duped,
If the Placement and Rights Issue proceed then there is no chance of that clause going into the PIF's constitution.  WC make it look like they are looking out for unitholders by saying they will call the meeting to ammend the constitution, BUT it will be a waste of our money to call the meeting because...

WC are proposing to call the meeting once the Class Action finalises.  By the time that happens those that would vote for this change will represent less than 75% of the fund (75% approval is required to add this clause to the constitution).

It disgusts me that WC have excluded those that have had to sell their PIF units from being beneficiaries of the Class Action.


----------



## Bumblebee (6 June 2011)

Todays Brisbane Meeting presented by Castlereagh was certainly worth the visit. Numbers probably on par with Melbourne.Those attending were well informed and thirsty for further answers and explanations. Constant questions from the floor were well received and responded to by Castlereagh. This through the set presentation somewhat off balance but made for a vibrant informative meeting. Went for just over two and a half hours and it seemed that all present stayed the distance.
Recommend anyone who can to attend the remaining meetings.


----------



## zixo (6 June 2011)

JohnH said:


> Hi Seamisty, Just received my "reaction group" garbage.  This one was stamped, but also interestingly has an HRMC postmark dated 31st May.
> 
> HRMC is I believe the "Hunter Region Mail Centre"............ so that should narrow it down a bit.
> 
> Cheers,   John H.





Hi John 
It's an alarming thought that Wellington Capital and Armstrong registries were entrusted with Investors personal details and now all unitholders were sent unaddressed letters in an obvious poor attempt at a smear campaign.
The Initial source for the information which has been sent to unitholders is/was Originally held in trust with wellington Capital.
Recently Wellington embarked on a information session with Radar Investor services in Sydney.
We do not know what information was given to previously unknown Radar Group.
I believe wellington have all unitholders banking details, Taxation Numbers, Phone numbers, age and date of birth.
OUR private information is a fraudsters and identity thiefs gold mine

If investors feel that their private details have been violated and are unsecure.
I urge unitholders to contact Wellington Immediately and seek assurances that their personal information was not released.
Alternatively:  

You can contact the Office of the Privacy Commssioner.
 Telephone  1300 363 992
privacy@privacy.gov.au
http://www.privacy.gov.au/complaints/how/complaint-form


----------



## Unfortunate Inv (6 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Duped this time WC won't be calling the shots at the EGM, this is not WC's show no matter how many Pro WC unitholders WC can muster up to attend, but it is all the more reason we urge PIF unitholders wanting a change of management to attend in person to raise their hands when called upon, ie electing a nominated chairperson on our behalf.
> 
> Seamisty




Everyone should bear in mind that safety will be a result of having the numbers present at the meeting of the 16th.... This is our money!!! WC had a long enough chance to do something for PIF investors but they failed us with their lack of response and the results are in the value of our investment.. We must elect a manager that has transparancy in our investment!!!


----------



## zixo (6 June 2011)

Duped said:


> Standard trick of the trade is to juxtapose to unrelated pieces of information to lead the naiive reader to incorrectly draw a causal link.
> 
> Observe.  In the NSX release http://nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724067.PDF WC write a stand alone two sentence paragraph:
> _
> ...




Hi Duped

Why Wellington Capitals sudden position change in the class action when they fought for the last 3 years against it so vehemently. then to insult unitholders further they advertise their feat with PIF investors money of the NSX?

Why are wellington so fiercely concerned in any benefit to the unit holders when they never were before? 

could it be true that they never intend or intended to help unitholders or the class action and this will only to allow them greater access to information in helping them defend those who we're persuing to begin with?

Is it that Wellington are only interested when it come to dividing up the class action compensation?

I really cant believe how brazen to even think that investors are so stupid to believe wellingtons snippet when its clear that more questionable motives are behind it.

Its hilarious particularly when wellington caused so much heartache blocking the class action to begin with.

If ever there is one single reason to distance ourselves away from Wellington - this is it it.


----------



## astevo (6 June 2011)

zixo said:


> Why Wellington Capitals sudden position change in the class action when they fought for the last 3 years against it so vehemently ... If ever there is one single reason to distance ourselves away from Wellington - this is it it.




I totally agree. 

I can't understand how WC became a party to the class action. They no longer represent the orignal investors affected. Not all current unit holders were affected, so it's not appropriate that all current (and future) unit holders are potential beneficiaries of the class action. But I'm sure WC's real motives are not for the unit holders - I'm sure they see opportunities to benefit themselves, directly or through related parties, anonymous "sophisticated investors" and other devious means.

- Alan.


----------



## DoraNBoots (7 June 2011)

astevo said:


> I totally agree.
> 
> I can't understand how WC became a party to the class action. They no longer represent the orignal investors affected. Not all current unit holders were affected, so it's not appropriate that all current (and future) unit holders are potential beneficiaries of the class action. But I'm sure WC's real motives are not for the unit holders - I'm sure they see opportunities to benefit themselves, directly or through related parties, anonymous "sophisticated investors" and other devious means.
> 
> - Alan.




I totally agree 

This latest agreement WC has made with IMF is for the benefit of the RE as they try to get new investors into the fund and could enable them to hinder the case further.  It in no way benefits current unit holders.  WC have sold the Placement Units and have buyers for the ‘Shortfall New Units’ with the expectation these new unitholders will benefit from PIF litigation.

Surely these sophisticated investors realise the risk that WC could be leading them on, because now WC is an applicant they are in a position to hinder the case even more than they have in the past.  Wellington IM are respondents in this case and yet Wellington Capital (the same people) say they now want to be the applicant.  It amazes me how this conflict is even legal!

Let’s not forget WC was given this job of managing the PIF by the crooks that gave away over half of our fund for their own use.  MFS needed someone to come in and cover their bottoms and pay off the RBOS loan without a fuss.  Well it’s my opinion that’s what WC have done and so I can’t see they are appropriate people to now be the applicants in the Class Action.


----------



## simgrund (7 June 2011)

astevo said:


> I totally agree.
> 
> I can't understand how WC became a party to the class action. They no longer represent the orignal investors affected. Not all current unit holders were affected, so it's not appropriate that all current (and future) unit holders are potential beneficiaries of the class action. But I'm sure WC's real motives are not for the unit holders - I'm sure they see opportunities to benefit themselves, directly or through related parties, anonymous "sophisticated investors" and other devious means.
> 
> - Alan.




Hi Alan,
Please stop scratching your head or you'll end up with a bald patch as I have. 
Computershare's "Top Holders Daily" from 1 Sept 08 shows "Wholesale Premium Income Fund Inc", 
held by Perpetual Nominees supposedly in Trust, as a holder of 81,692,884 units 
or 10.82% of ISSUED CAPITAL.
This may have something to do with these recent machinations.
Any solid thoughts on this?
Regards,


----------



## seamisty (7 June 2011)

Simgrund according to this announcement on the NSX http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723819.PDF more than half of those units have been converted to ordinary units so WC now control only 5% voting power as opposed to the original 10.8%. Hopefully the remaining investors in the WPIF convert thier units also if they do not wish to have WC vote on their behalf.
 I also think this contributed largely to WC introducing the placement and rights issue, to shore up diminished voting power, nothing to do with raising capital, purely for raising WC vote strength. PIF investors would have benefitted more through a bank or similar business loan if the funds were so desperately needed. I strongly suspect there is more than one reason to protect the PIF documents from getting into the hand of a forensic accountant and it has nothing to do with protecting the best interests of the original PIF investors.
Remember how opposed WC were to having Deloittes replaced with Bentleys after trying to come to a Deed of company arrangement with OCV? 
It's a shame the findings from the Public examinations have not been finalised, I am sure that will be compelling reading. My opinion and many others is that if we do not get rid of Wellington Capital on the 16th June, we will never get anyone else interested because with the dilution of units and the pitifull state if the PIF assets, it will not be worth fighting over. Perhaps that was also part of WC strategy all along?
Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (7 June 2011)

Hi all, here is the link to the Originating Process being lodged in the Federal Court of Victoria relating to the injuntion of the WC placement and rights issue http://castlereagh.rlbrandmgmt.com....ins/filemanager/files/Originating_Process.pdf

More information will be posted on the Castlereagh website as it becomes available.http://www.cascap.com.au./page.php?page=36  Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (7 June 2011)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724075.PDF

.................it has begun!


Litigation Update 
Wellington Capital Limited was served late yesterday with an originating process in the Federal Court of 
Australia, Victoria District Registry. The proceedings have been lodged by the PIF Action Group 
Incorporated and Mark Robert Hodges and Charles Robert Hodges as custodian for the PIF Action Group 
Incorporated. 
The application is for: 
 declarations under section 21 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth); 
 an injunction under sections 1323 and or section 1324 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); and 
 other orders pursuant to section 1325 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). 
The application is returnable on Wednesday 8 June 2011 at 10.15am before Justice Gordon. 
Further updates will be provided as the matter progresses


----------



## seamisty (7 June 2011)

JohnH you have mail.


----------



## reasonable (7 June 2011)

JohnH said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724075.PDF
> 
> .................it has begun!
> The application is returnable on Wednesday 8 June 2011 at 10.15am before Justice Gordon.




Good news but seems to be cutting it fine to stop the rights issue deadline of 9th.


----------



## seamisty (7 June 2011)

New NSX announcement re Litigation Update
Wellington Capital Limited was served late yesterday with an originating process in the Federal Court of
Australia, Victoria District Registry. The proceedings have been lodged by the PIF Action Group
Incorporated

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724075.PDF


----------



## simgrund (7 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Simgrund according to this announcement on the NSX http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723819.PDF more than half of those units have been converted to ordinary units so WC now control only 5% voting power as opposed to the original 10.8%. Hopefully the remaining investors in the WPIF convert thier units also if they do not wish to have WC vote on their behalf.
> I also think this contributed largely to WC introducing the placement and rights issue, to shore up diminished voting power, nothing to do with raising capital, purely for raising WC vote strength. PIF investors would have benefitted more through a bank or similar business loan if the funds were so desperately needed. I strongly suspect there is more than one reason to protect the PIF documents from getting into the hand of a forensic accountant and it has nothing to do with protecting the best interests of the original PIF investors.
> Remember how opposed WC were to having Deloittes replaced with Bentleys after trying to come to a Deed of company arrangement with OCV?
> It's a shame the findings from the Public examinations have not been finalised, I am sure that will be compelling reading. My opinion and many others is that if we do not get rid of Wellington Capital on the 16th June, we will never get anyone else interested because with the dilution of units and the pitifull state if the PIF assets, it will not be worth fighting over. Perhaps that was also part of WC strategy all along?
> Seamisty




Thanks Seamisty.
Exactly what I suspected for a long time. Remaining holding had to be balooned at our expense. Or so WC thought. Roll on Justice!


----------



## k.smith (7 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Hi all, here is the link to the Originating Process being lodged in the Federal Court of Victoria relating to the injuntion of the WC placement and rights issue http://castlereagh.rlbrandmgmt.com....ins/filemanager/files/Originating_Process.pdf
> 
> More information will be posted on the Castlereagh website as it becomes available.http://www.cascap.com.au./page.php?page=36  Seamisty




Great to be able to read the documents... I am heartened to see that transparency IS possible in these funds after all....


----------



## seamisty (7 June 2011)

k.smith and all, the Castlereagh capital litigation page has just been updated. I sincerely hope those who have not voted for Castlereagh can at least see that they are being offered transparency and just how financially detrimental the Placement and rights issue is on our existing PIF investment when a loan would have been far more beneficial financially.( to us that is because we did not need to cut deals to secure votes!)
http://www.cascap.com.au./page.php?page=36
Seamisty


----------



## aroach (7 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> New NSX announcement re Litigation Update
> Wellington Capital Limited was served late yesterday with an originating process in the Federal Court of
> Australia, Victoria District Registry. The proceedings have been lodged by the PIF Action Group
> Incorporated
> ...




Thanks Seamisty and PIF AG!!

Notice that WC are STILL not acting in the interests of unit holders, by withholding information from NSX that affects the value of PIF shares. The WC announcement does not mention that the originating process is about WC modifying the PIF constitution and allotting/issuing additional units. I wouldn't be holding my breath that WC will announce this detail prior to postal close-off of proxy votes.

Is there a different avenue for a notice (with additional detail) to be announced on the NSX about this application in the Federal Court, other than through WC? Might be worth pursuing.

Ashley


----------



## astevo (7 June 2011)

Dear PIFAG committee,
I've been trying to decide whether to go to the 16 June meeting for a couple of weeks now. It's not that I don't want to - I'd love to be there, to see, and be part of, a positive result, but I think my airfares etc might be better spent another way. Is there a "fighting fund" or some such that I (and others who may not have contributed financially to the AG and it's activities) might make a contribution?

- Alan.


----------



## AusInCA (7 June 2011)

Not sure it has any significance, I was reading the affidavits for the originating process and noticed that in the affidavit by A.M. the amount of the $7.55M placement was written as $7,550.00.


----------



## marcom (7 June 2011)

DoraNBoots said:


> I totally agree
> 
> Let’s not forget WC was given this job of managing the PIF by the crooks that gave away over half of our fund for their own use.  MFS needed someone to come in and cover their bottoms and pay off the RBOS loan without a fuss.




This is nothing short of a criminal conspiracy to defraud engineered by Scott and Hutson and with the acquiescence of then liquidator. I hope Bentlys can fully expose what these crooks have done to us.


----------



## coppo (7 June 2011)

Just faxed off my 2 forms to computershare. 
Thanks again Seamisty.


----------



## selciper (7 June 2011)

Is it possible that the Wellington "team" are all on a short fuse today?


----------



## flatback (7 June 2011)

View attachment 43181

 i found this in the brisbane Courier Mail today interesting.


----------



## zixo (7 June 2011)

simgrund said:


> This is an excerpt from Takeovers Panel declaration from yesterday regarding ALFies "offer extension" beyond 28 Feb this year:
> 
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724072.PDF
> 
> ...





Hi Sigmund

Does this mean that the original PIF unit holders who sold to ALFPIF
will get their units back?

do you know what will be done with the votes that the ALF crew currently have ? will they be valid in the upcoming EGM?.

Wellington Capital were probably counting on the ALFPIF for Votes? Surely they wont be going over to Wellington at their disposal!


----------



## simgrund (7 June 2011)

zixo said:


> Hi Sigmund
> 
> Does this mean that the original PIF unit holders who sold to ALFPIF
> will get their units back?
> ...




Hi Zixo,
Good to exchange high fives with you again.
Straight reading of Panel's Orders limits the status quo to position pre 28th Feb. I understand that post 28th Feb transactions WILL be REVERSED and NOT ELIGIBLE @ EGM. 
If an objection can be lodged for pre 28th Feb then this may put a spanner in ALFies plans to meddle onwards.
I have no idea whether this may be possible.
Perhaps it is A'SIC'k's time to put on Superman's leotards. 
I reluctantly opine that THOSE 2 mil plus units are beyond any forced redemption.
and will be a voting block to take notice of.
That's how it looks to me.

Regards, see you soon


----------



## seamisty (7 June 2011)

astevo said:


> Dear PIFAG committee,
> I've been trying to decide whether to go to the 16 June meeting for a couple of weeks now. It's not that I don't want to - I'd love to be there, to see, and be part of, a positive result, but I think my airfares etc might be better spent another way. Is there a "fighting fund" or some such that I (and others who may not have contributed financially to the AG and it's activities) might make a contribution?
> 
> - Alan.



astevo thanks for the offer re a fighting fund. We need every available PIF unitholder who wants to replace WC and can make it to the EGM to be there!!  Your contribution of being at the meeting will help the fight anyway as we will have an extra hand to raise in the air which is really important! So all, get your yellow proxies off to Computershare prior to the 12th of June and then get yourselves to the EGM in person with  the top page of your proxy for identification. We look forward to meeting you all and thank you for your support. Seamisty


----------



## DepressedDad (7 June 2011)

This is all sweet music to our ears!  I really get the feeling us goodies are closing in on the baddies!!  I know it's early days but I just feel we've rounded the corner after so much time under their evil power.  And I'm imagining how the baddies like reading these posts as their putrid actions are one by one exposed.

So just wanted to say:      YOU GUYS ROCK!!!!!!!!


----------



## Bumblebee (7 June 2011)

Be there or be square!
It has been explained to me that it is absolutely vital that everyone who can possibly be in physical attendance at the EGM in Sydney on the 16th , be there.
It is important to get your yellow sheet completed and of to Computershare but that’s  not the end of it.
Actual numbers of people there, at the meeting,  on the day can make all the difference.
If you want change, more honesty and transparency. If you want to see the PIF start to turn around into a positive direction, then get along to the EGM.
If Wellington should take the chair through a majority by show of hands on the day:  they can ,if they then choose, quite simply move to adjourn the meeting.....and that's the end of that! See you later!
So please, be aware of how your presence  is needed and will really count on the day.


----------



## seamisty (7 June 2011)

DepressedDad, Bumblebee and others, thanks for your ongoing support, please support us with your presence at the EGM on the 16th June at the SMC Conference & Function Centre. Old salty seadog tells me that if we drive 1400kms in one day, then take it easy and do 1000 kms for the next 2 days we will arrive with plenty of time to rock up for the EGM on the 16th June! HAHA, I am sure Ms Hutson will not be so inconvenienced. Rest assured WC, we are paying our own expenses. If you can't afford to pay the expenses of  your own as well as  the team of hand picked WC highly so called professionals you have employed to deplete the PIF further, please do not bother to attend the EGM. Instead get your books in order, hopefully they will be under intense scrutiny very soon. 

Seamisty


----------



## astevo (7 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> We need every available PIF unitholder who wants to replace WC and can make it to the EGM to be there!!



OK. I've booked some flights and will be there. Arriving Sydney airport at 10. Hopefully a train (or if necessary a taxi) will get to the EGM before 11.

- Alan.


----------



## DoraNBoots (8 June 2011)

Great news Alan,  Look forward to seeing you there 

To those that are considering booking a flight, please look at booking early flights as registration is from 10am and it’s important you have a chance to register before you enter the meeting room and to be there at the start of the meeting.


----------



## DepressedDad (8 June 2011)

Seamisty. You need to empty your inbox to make way for more mail.  You  are obviously very busy and very popular!!


----------



## seamisty (8 June 2011)

DepressedDad said:


> Seamisty. You need to empty your inbox to make way for more mail.  You  are obviously very busy and very popular!!



LOL, Its emptied now DepressedDad, sorry to those who couldn't leave a message, please try again.  Seamisty


----------



## erniel (8 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> LOL, Its emptied now DepressedDad, sorry to those who couldn't leave a message, please try again.  Seamisty




I have today recieved a  letter in the post from someone who calls themselves the  PIF reaction group making some desparaging remarks re the PIF AG, 
There is no address or phone number , I would presume it comes from the same crowd who phoned me to tell me that Ferrier would liquidate our fund and that they do not have a financial services licence,anyone else recieve this correspondence?


----------



## seamisty (8 June 2011)

Hi Erniel, That piece of trash was sent to every PIF unitholder. The motive behind it is quite obvious, to cast doubt and create mistrust and confusion by sending absolute rubbish and untruths. Well they wasted their time and money!! PIF unitholders haven't had much else for well over three and a half years. We don't know the exact origins of the mailout but I am sure the first place to look is back to who has a copy of the PIF contact register supplied by Wellington Capital. PIF AG have a bare bones copy they purchased and we all know that out of the three contenders we are hardly going to discredit ourselves are we? Well that only leaves two others that could expect to gain a few votes from the sordid exercise. At least the PIF AG do not have anything to hide and do not have a problem with their identities being known or 'exposed' as was the intention, unlike others who are so proud of their work, they had to cowardly conceal their indentities and contact details.
Seamisty


----------



## thekids (8 June 2011)

erniel said:


> I have today recieved a  letter in the post from someone who calls themselves the  PIF reaction group making some desparaging remarks re the PIF AG,
> There is no address or phone number , I would presume it comes from the same crowd who phoned me to tell me that Ferrier would liquidate our fund and that they do not have a financial services licence,anyone else recieve this correspondence?




Yes, most of us got it several days ago, just another attempt to get people on WC's side.... Full of lies as usual.  Geee and we are likely to listen when they won't even put their name to the document.


----------



## reasonable (8 June 2011)

Do we expect a decision on the injunction today?  Or are we likely to have to wait for the usual slow legal processes?


----------



## k.smith (8 June 2011)

There is an article in the news today...

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-capital-raising/story-e6freomx-1226071268524


----------



## Bumblebee (8 June 2011)

Thanks K. Smith for that CourierMail link.
It really needs some warning to folk opening it.
That full screen shock in Fire Engine Red almost ruined my morning coffee


----------



## seamisty (8 June 2011)

For those wishing to receive updates from Castlreagh Capital you will have to enter your email address in the link on this page . http://www.cascap.com.au./page.php?page=32


----------



## thekids (8 June 2011)

k.smith said:


> There is an article in the news today...
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-capital-raising/story-e6freomx-1226071268524




Hi k.smith
hey thanks for the laugh   hope we get the result we are after.  cheers Sue & Tony


----------



## selciper (8 June 2011)

Today's Courier Mail coverage is bad publicity for Wellington - very bad indeed for its corporate image. Readers always notice tell-tale lines like "Ms Hutson did not return calls yesterday."


----------



## Blueboy1 (8 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> For those wishing to receive updates from Castlreagh Capital you will have to enter your email address in the link on this page . http://www.cascap.com.au./page.php?page=32




Seamisty,I have repeatedly tried to get this link to work without success. I have entered my email address but all I get is "Server not found", I reported it to Cascap yesterday.
Regards,
Blueboy1


----------



## seamisty (8 June 2011)

Blueboy I just tried it again and it opened, then on the page towards the bottom of the left hand side is the provision that says ::Join The Premium Income Fund Mailing List with a box to enter your email address. Is anyone else having problems?
Seamisty


----------



## Mutchy (8 June 2011)

Blueboy1 said:


> Seamisty,I have repeatedly tried to get this link to work without success. I have entered my email address but all I get is "Server not found", I reported it to Cascap yesterday.
> Regards,
> Blueboy1




The correct link is http://www.cascap.com.au/
Steve


----------



## thekids (8 June 2011)

Blueboy1 said:


> Seamisty,I have repeatedly tried to get this link to work without success. I have entered my email address but all I get is "Server not found", I reported it to Cascap yesterday.
> Regards,
> Blueboy1




Not sure what the problem is but it worked for me.  Maybe try copying the link text and paste it in a separate page in your web program.  cheers, sue


----------



## reasonable (8 June 2011)

I have just seen WC's take on this mornings hearing and the postponement of the EGM.  But what is the PIF AG report?


----------



## Mutchy (8 June 2011)

reasonable said:


> I have just seen WC's take on this mornings hearing and the postponement of the EGM.  But what is the PIF AG report?




Where?
Steve


----------



## seamisty (8 June 2011)

reasonable said:


> I have just seen WC's take on this mornings hearing and the postponement of the EGM.  But what is the PIF AG report?



Looks like the EGM has been adjourned until 11.00am on 23 June 2011 NSX announcement, I am sure there will be a reason for the decission. It was always on the cards. http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724081.PDF

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (8 June 2011)

Wednesday 8th June 2011http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724084.PDF
Unit holders
Premium Income Fund
Dear unit holders,
Takeover bid by ALF PIF Finance Limited (ALF) for Premium Income Fund
(PIF).
The Takeovers Panel pursuant to orders require ALF PIF to inform the market of
information that is already the subject to the Takeovers panels release, these
notifications include:
● On 3 June 2011, the Panel made a declaration of unacceptable circumstances
and orders. A copy of the Panel’s declaration and orders was released on NSX
on 3 June 2011.
● That the bid ended on 28 February 2011 without conditions having been meet
or waived by the bidder.
● ALF has not and will not be processing any acceptances in relation to the bid
and all acceptances will be returned to unit holders.
ALF will separately provide a release regarding information investors should be
aware of which will not be reviewed or endorsed by the Panel.
Michael Pakula
Chairman
ALF PIF Finance Limited


----------



## JohnH (8 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Looks like the EGM has been adjourned until 11.00am on 23 June 2011 NSX announcement, I am sure there will be a reason for the decission. It was always on the cards. http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724081.PDF
> 
> Seamisty





Bug*er!!!  :swear:


----------



## zixo (8 June 2011)

This is certainly going to give JH and Wellington Capital some breathing space.
Hopefully more investors can be better informed about wellington and the shady deals that have been occuring before the 23rd of June.

I'm just waiting to see what miraculous new ploy is going to be headed our way by Wellington.

Lets just face it no one wants wellington Capital to be involved with the PIF.

Didn't JH publicly say she would resign at one of the Wellington Capital bigtop events that were designed to be led to vote for her?


----------



## seamisty (8 June 2011)

Zixo I bet there are some fairly relieved professional and sophisticated investors out there who decided NOT to purchase the remaining 38million units that were originally on offer in the initial placement of 113million units. The as yet unamed professional and sophisticated investors who took up the other 75.5million new units are probablly chomping on antacids at the moment waiting on an outcome. I wouldn't be holding my breathe either if I was them, thinking they will be included in any proceeds from the Class Action. 
'For those dominated and motivated by greed, may your wallets bleed'
Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (8 June 2011)

Just came back from Port Macquarie Info meet with Castlereigh's Phillip Armstrong.
Attended by 14 of us; that however happened because of time notice confusion.
No matter, the main points on top of what surfaced so far:
1. none of the Placement and Rights Issue units will be counted in the ballot
2. proxies sent to Wellington's Armstrong Registry will be RETURNED to Computershare and it is Computershare Registry which will handle ALL proxy count and verification.
3. reason for postponent to 23 june is that the hearing will be on 14 june and whatever Judge's decision, the 2 day gap (16 june meeting) is insufficient to inform the members of these decisions, etc

That's what I think I understood. And hoping corroborations will follow shortly.

Another strong point made for "maximum of us" to attend the meeting:
OUR VOTING PRESENCE IS NEEDED ON THE FLOOR TO ELECT A CHAIRPERSON.
We need a PIF tinted Chairperson and Proxies will not help there.

Regards, keep the Faith


----------



## zixo (9 June 2011)

latest snippet.
But can someone tell me what morals we're talking about?

http://www.smh.com.au/business/fitting-reflection-by-gpgs-nowchairman-20110608-1ft8r.html


ACTION STATIONS

Wellington Capital's date with destiny has been postponed, with the disgruntled investors in its Premium Income Fund delaying next week's vote to oust Wellington as the fund's manager.


----------



## charles36 (9 June 2011)

Does any person know the identity of the anonymous "The PIF REACTION GROUP" I for one would like to meet with the author or authors of the "waste of paper" leaflet delivered to my home.  I believe at some stage I have met the suspected source of the document.  However,  I am very busy with a very important task and I will not succumb to the filthy tricks campaign.  When time permits I intend to look further into the matter.  I would like anyone that may know the identity of the persons concerned to contact me.  Just for the record, I have never met Mr. Jim Byrnes or any of his associates and by the way I do not intend to do so.


----------



## simgrund (9 June 2011)

charles36 said:


> Does any person know the identity of the anonymous "The PIF REACTION GROUP" I for one would like to meet with the author or authors of the "waste of paper" leaflet delivered to my home.  I believe at some stage I have met the suspected source of the document.  However,  I am very busy with a very important task and I will not succumb to the filthy tricks campaign.  When time permits I intend to look further into the matter.  I would like anyone that may know the identity of the persons concerned to contact me.  Just for the record, I have never met Mr. Jim Byrnes or any of his associates and by the way I do not intend to do so.




From 7420 post: "...THE NAME DISCLOSED WAS "MATT DURACK" OR THEREABOUTS."
This was a phone-out, supposedly from Wellington's hirelings; but I strongly suspect the leaflet-ters and phone-rs are connected by the same employer. 
Regards,


----------



## selciper (9 June 2011)

zixo said:


> latest snippet.
> But can someone tell me what morals we're talking about?
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/fitting-reflection-by-gpgs-nowchairman-20110608-1ft8r.html
> ...



Re that statement by Husuon. It's typical of her to make snooty observations in arguments. It's easy to remember her "morally indignant" views of Andrew Peacick, too. The trouble is that often it's the pot calling the kettle black. She has little that's fresh and original left to say.


----------



## simgrund (9 June 2011)

selciper said:


> Re that statement by Husuon. It's typical of her to make snooty observations in arguments. It's easy to remember her "morally indignant" views of Andrew Peacick, too. The trouble is that often it's the pot calling the kettle black. She has little that's fresh and original left to say.




And the part of her comment: ''I am surprised at having brought an urgent injunction application that the applicants were not in a position to have the matter determined finally today,''
Does not mention her own "efficiency" in recovery action for $147.5. 
Did she get instant result the moment her Wellington lodged THAT application?
What a horribly rogue thing to say.
Regards,


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/fitt...nowchairman-20110608-1ft8r.html#ixzz1OjuPLDwR


----------



## selciper (9 June 2011)

"Hutson expected to be called to give evidence on June 12..."

http://castlereagh.rlbrandmgmt.com....11/small_victory_for_pif_investors_9.6.11.pdf


----------



## zixo (9 June 2011)

selciper said:


> "Hutson expected to be called to give evidence on June 12..."
> 
> http://castlereagh.rlbrandmgmt.com....11/small_victory_for_pif_investors_9.6.11.pdf




Hi selcipher
Where will it be ?
Will it be a close sitting?

It's very interesting to see JH will make herself available to answer questions.
Whats amazes me is she has never had any time to answer questions from investors
before
Perhaps unitholders can be there and try and get to look her in the eye and ask her why she promoted herself to trust her when she has only failed in every single issue she promised.


----------



## selciper (9 June 2011)

Zixo, the date quoted in the article should be June 14. Well, a possible appearance  under cross examination in the Federal Court is far removed from the atmosphere of a roadshow. Interesting days await us next week.


----------



## JohnH (9 June 2011)

I have just received a call from a Unit holder who was referred to me by my accountant.  He was not aware of this Forum, and was totally confused as to how he should act for the upcoming election.   You can't blame him for that, as without the debate that is voiced here, it could be very confusing.
*There may be many others out there who are in the same dilemma. * 
Can I suggest that all contributors contact their financial advisors and ask them to make their clients who have units aware of this thread.
I have now had a further call from the Unit holder who confirmed that he has now sent off his yellow form to computershare with "Yes" to each motion.               John H.


----------



## charles36 (9 June 2011)

JohnH said:


> I have just received a call from a Unit holder who was referred to me by my accountant.  He was not aware of this Forum, and was totally confused as to how he should act for the upcoming election.   You can't blame him for that, as without the debate that is voiced here, it could be very confusing.
> *There may be many others out there who are in the same dilemma. *
> Can I suggest that all contributors contact their financial advisors and ask them to make their clients who have units aware of this thread.
> I have now had a further call from the Unit holder who confirmed that he has now sent off his yellow form to computershare with "Yes" to each motion.               John H.




Well done JH.  Everyone counts towards the demise.


----------



## BootsnAll (9 June 2011)

*:bananasmiGood to see the media is giving us some coverage.*

View attachment 43202


----------



## zixo (9 June 2011)

BootsnAll said:


> *:bananasmiGood to see the media is giving us some coverage.*
> 
> View attachment 43202





she was quoted as saying we were sowing 'fear and confusion"??????

How about the broken promises and untold heartache you've caused to thousands of investors?

If only more Investors knew about Aussie stock forums, Then they would be able to see the truth laid bare.
The media have been absolutely marvelous. They knew that there is something fishy about Wellington Capital and JH back in 2008 . tried to warn us but couldnt stop the roadshow
The media when confronted with the facts know something is really crook, but cant print it because it may jeopardise future litigation.

If anyone knows any financial advisor who may control units in the PIF - now is the time to let them know the truth about wellington Capital


----------



## JohnH (9 June 2011)

........... on a lighter, but applicable note, Google "pif reaction group, (don't put in the final ") and click on Images.    ..........

......................... remarkable likeness in the second row!!!


----------



## simgrund (9 June 2011)

JohnH said:


> ........... on a lighter, but applicable note, Google "pif reaction group, (don't put in the final ") and click on Images.    ..........
> 
> ......................... remarkable likeness in the second row!!!




Can't quite pick it John, you mean this one?


----------



## NOR (9 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> DepressedDad, Bumblebee and others, thanks for your ongoing support, please support us with your presence at the EGM on the 16th June at the SMC Conference & Function Centre. Old salty seadog tells me that if we drive 1400kms in one day, then take it easy and do 1000 kms for the next 2 days we will arrive with plenty of time to rock up for the EGM on the 16th June! HAHA, I am sure Ms Hutson will not be so inconvenienced. Rest assured WC, we are paying our own expenses. If you can't afford to pay the expenses of  your own as well as  the team of hand picked WC highly so called professionals you have employed to deplete the PIF further, please do not bother to attend the EGM. Instead get your books in order, hopefully they will be under intense scrutiny very soon.
> 
> Seamisty




hi all  nor here   seamisty  we pif need you    so it/s  good u have xtra week to take your time comeing across to  egm we will not start without you drive safe


----------



## JohnH (9 June 2011)

simgrund said:


> Can't quite pick it John, you mean this one?




Nah......... that's a bit more complimentary than the one I was thinking of


----------



## seamisty (9 June 2011)

Hi NOR, We have just received notification of scheduled marine park planning meetings in Adelaide on June 20th-21st which we have to attend so have a 1400 km drive after these meetings  to get to the new proposed EGM on the 23rd June to be held at the Grace Hotel, 77 York St, Sydney 11.00 am start, 10.00 for registration. On top of that I had to change 4 airfares  for our daughter to meet with us after the meeting in Sydney and also had to  cancel previously booked accommodation, but hey, thats life. 
Just another hiccup along the path I and a few others have chosen to commit ourselves to on the behalf of other PIF AG member unitholders and non PIF AG members alike. I must say I am am really dissapointed to find that an extreme minority few of PIF AG members have supported WC while still remaining on the PIF AG data base to be kept fully  informed of our efforts to hopefully return a better outcome for unitholders. AS most of you know, our efforts are voluntary and encouraged by your support and I thank you for that. For those of you who are PIF AG members who do not support or appreciate our efforts I question your reason for being part of the PIF AG? This post is purely from my own personal perspective and not on behalf of the PIF AG exec committee members. 
Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (9 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Hi NOR, We have just received notification of scheduled marine park planning meetings in Adelaide on June 20th-21st which we have to attend so have a 1400 km drive after these meetings  to get to the new proposed EGM on the 23rd June to be held at the Grace Hotel, 77 York St, Sydney 11.00 am start, 10.00 for registration. On top of that I had to change 4 airfares  for our daughter to meet with us after the meeting in Sydney and also had to  cancel previously booked accommodation, but hey, thats life.
> Just another hiccup along the path I and a few others have chosen to commit ourselves to on the behalf of other PIF AG member unitholders and non PIF AG members alike.* I must say I am am really dissapointed to find that an extreme minority few of PIF AG members have supported WC while still remaining on the PIF AG data base to be kept fully  informed of our efforts to hopefully return a better outcome for unitholders. *AS most of you know, our efforts are voluntary and encouraged by your support and I thank you for that. For those of you who are PIF AG members who do not support or appreciate our efforts I question your reason for being part of the PIF AG? This post is purely from my own personal perspective and not on behalf of the PIF AG exec committee members.
> Seamisty




Disappointing Seamisty, and hard to understand.  Most of us were supporters of WC in the early days, and indeed defended her/them against criticism.  Our trust has proven to be totally misplaced, but, I suppose it's a bit like people who continue to send money to the "Nigerian scam" who think that eventually it will come good.


----------



## seamisty (9 June 2011)

Well as I said JohnH, it is a very insignificant number, but if that absolute minority still have faith in WC, they do not need the PIF AG wasting their time sending them updates with detailed up to date information relating to the PIF. A saying which could once have been attributed to me, 'none are so blind as those who cannot see'. I now have new glasses as well as a wealth of information which leaves me out of pocket, out of trust and a whole lot better informed.Seamisty


----------



## reasonable (9 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Himembers alike. I must say I am am really dissapointed to find that an extreme minority few of PIF AG members have supported WC while still remaining on the PIF AG data base to be kept fully  informed of our efforts to hopefully return a better outcome for unitholders.
> Seamisty




Why do you think some PIF AG members support WC?  If so they must be linked to WC in some way.  You would not be surprised to find that WC had joined the group to be kept informed though?

I had hoped for a decsision ot the hearing yesterday but must asume that the PIF AG have good reason to delay it?


----------



## seamisty (9 June 2011)

It has been agreed with Wellington that the Meeting on 16 June 2011 will be adjourned for one week. The adjournment is a result of the current injunction proceedings brought by the PIF Action Group against Wellington and its directors. The new Adjourned Meeting details are provided below:

Time
 11.00 am (Eastern Standard Time) sign in commences at 10.00 am

Date
 Thursday, 23 June 2011

Place
 Grace Hotel

77 York Street, Sydney

Please note change of venue


----------



## simgrund (10 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Hi NOR, We have just received notification of scheduled marine park planning meetings in Adelaide on June 20th-21st which we have to attend so have a 1400 km drive after these meetings  to get to the new proposed EGM on the 23rd June to be held at the Grace Hotel, 77 York St, Sydney 11.00 am start, 10.00 for registration. On top of that I had to change 4 airfares  for our daughter to meet with us after the meeting in Sydney and also had to  cancel previously booked accommodation, but hey, thats life.
> Just another hiccup along the path I and a few others have chosen to commit ourselves to on the behalf of other PIF AG member unitholders and non PIF AG members alike. I must say I am am really dissapointed to find that an extreme minority few of PIF AG members have supported WC while still remaining on the PIF AG data base to be kept fully  informed of our efforts to hopefully return a better outcome for unitholders. AS most of you know, our efforts are voluntary and encouraged by your support and I thank you for that. For those of you who are PIF AG members who do not support or appreciate our efforts I question your reason for being part of the PIF AG? This post is purely from my own personal perspective and not on behalf of the PIF AG exec committee members.
> Seamisty




Good Day Seamisty,
Is this NEW ADRESS confirmed? If so, it needs widest spread ASAP so as not to confuse with the old 16th address at 66 Goulburn,
Regards


----------



## seamisty (10 June 2011)

Simgrund I am sure all unitholders will be notified by mail:

9 June 2011

It has been agreed with Wellington that the Meeting on 16 June 2011 will be adjourned for one week. The adjournment is a result of the current injunction proceedings brought by the PIF Action Group against Wellington and its directors. The new Adjourned Meeting details are provided below:

Time
 11.00 am (Eastern Standard Time) sign in commences at 10.00 am

Date
 Thursday, 23 June 2011

Place
 Grace Hotel

77 York Street, Sydney

Please note change of venue




A meeting will be held on 16 June 2011 for procedural purposes only. There is no need for you to attend this meeting.
http://www.cascap.com.au./page.php?page=42


----------



## seamisty (10 June 2011)

Class action update from the Commonwealth Courts portal


ORDER

JUDGE:
	Justice Perram
DATE OF ORDER:
	7 June 2011 
WHERE MADE:
	Sydney


THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.	Leave be granted to the 13th respondent to file in Court an affidavit of Mr Davey sworn 6 June 2011.
2.	The notices of motion filed by the 13th respondent on 23 May 2011 and 8th respondent on 31 May 2011 be dismissed.
3.	The time for the applicants to file evidence on the notices of motion for summary dismissal be extended to 9 June 2011.
4.	Leave be granted to the applicants for first access to inspect and uplift documents produced on subpoena to ASIC issued 16 May 2011 and leave be granted to the respondents for following access to inspect and uplift those documents.


Date that entry is stamped:


----------



## MAE (10 June 2011)

Good Morning All, just wanted to let you know that Wellington has just rung to see if we have sent off our voting papers, and of course who were we voting for, I told him I had sent the paperwork off, but I didn't tell him that we had sent our paperwork to Computershare, and I told him I was not prepared to tell him or Wellington who I would or would not be voting for.

I am though voting to get rid of Jenny Hutson, Wellington and all the sneaky, underhanded and greedy people who want our money, well whats left of it!!

A very big thankyou to Seamisty for all your efforts!!  Actually a big thankyou to everyone of you all who are fighting for our rights!!


----------



## charles36 (10 June 2011)

BootsnAll said:


> *:bananasmiGood to see the media is giving us some coverage.*
> 
> View attachment 43202




PIFAG "Sowing confusion and fear"   Since when is telling  as it is, confusion and fear.  My opinion there is only one group causing "confusion and fear" and they should get out of the way and let professional people try and solve the mess that has been created by their management.  My conversations with many unit holders has revealed there is certainly confusion and fear for their finances under the present management and cannot fill in their yellow proxy form quick enough.


----------



## seamisty (10 June 2011)

'Confusion and fear', That's there to remind you, that somewhere out there is something better, and that something is worth fighting for. -Nathan Scott


----------



## Duped (10 June 2011)

Is "sowing confusion and fear" always a bad thing?  A group of people that has been deeply mislead is often going to be initially confused and fearful when they learn the truth.  As for the choice of the term 'sowing'?  Well that simply reflects badly on Wellington.


----------



## marcom (10 June 2011)

The demise of ASIC former head Mr D and an interesting piece of info about Equitytrust:

D'ALOISIO DELETED

Was it Brian Long who recently told a Ten Network annual general meeting that there is nothing more ex than an ex-partner of an accounting firm?

Same applies to ex-chairman of the corporate regulator, apparently.

Just weeks after Tony D'Aloisio exited the Australian Securities and Investments Commission on a less-than-auspicious Friday the 13th, the regulator's office foyer marks his absence, according to CBD spies.

The wall space devoted to portraits of the six serving commissioners is now emphatically punctuated by a blank space and bare nail where D'Aloisio's profile took pride of place.

EQUITITRUST US

The Big D may be gone but the stormtroopers are still out there keeping the corporate machine in check.

We have it on good authority ASIC officials were not snooping around last week at the offices of the Gold Coast mortgage fund operator Equititrust, but it does not mean their handiwork is not evident.

We can't but help that think there is more than coincidence to the fact that a recent Equititrust announcement appears to kill the proposal to swap investors' units for shares, thereby circumventing Equititrust's obligation to pay out investors their original $1 investment.

''Any proposal is unlikely to involve a restructure of the fund but may be a separate opportunity for investors to participate using their investment in the fund,'' it said.

The company has delayed a report updating investors on how much of their investment has been lost on dodgy loans to the likes of Dudley ''King Con'' Quinlivan, a two-times bankrupt who was loaned as much as $70 million on a project which may now be worth as little as $20 million.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/sydney-airport-gets-new-wingwoman-20110609-1fuzx.html#ixzz1OpZZPalK

WHY ISN"T ASIC CRAWLING ALL OVER WC!!!!!!!!


----------



## Duped (10 June 2011)

My lay reading of Wellington's NSX release of 8 June 'Litigation Update'.

_"Wellington Capital Limited was prepared at the Her Honour’s suggestion to have the matter heard on a final basis today."_ Who did Her Honour ask first? PIFAG  et al or Wellington? It's easy to say I am 'prepared' if I already know I'm not going to have to prove it. If Her Honour asked PIFAG et al first then ...well ... we just have to trust Wellington is being honest about having been 'prepared'. 

_"‘I am surprised at having brought an urgent injunction application that the applicants were not in a position to have the matter determined finally today."_ Surprised?  Really? Genuinely 'surprised'? Again ... we'll just have to take Hutson's word for it. 

My nickname for lawyers is 'word benders'.  Maybe a more apt phrase is 'word illusionists' or 'word front-runners'.


----------



## simgrund (10 June 2011)

Duped said:


> My lay reading of Wellington's NSX release of 8 June 'Litigation Update'.
> 
> _"Wellington Capital Limited was prepared at the Her Honour’s suggestion to have the matter heard on a final basis today."_ Who did Her Honour ask first? PIFAG  et al or Wellington? It's easy to say I am 'prepared' if I already know I'm not going to have to prove it. If Her Honour asked PIFAG et al first then ...well ... we just have to trust Wellington is being honest about having been 'prepared'.
> 
> ...




Duped, I am back like a bad breath. 
But did Big Red demand the same finality of proceedings when she lodged action for recovering our $147.5? Where's the latest on that?
Regards,


----------



## Duped (10 June 2011)

simgrund said:


> Duped, I am back like a bad breath.
> But did Big Red demand the same finality of proceedings when she lodged action for recovering our $147.5? Where's the latest on that?
> Regards,




Exactly. Hutson asked us to trust her back 3 years ago. And some still do.  But that trust IMO has delivered us a lot more in the way of clever words than it has delivered financial results.

One thing that is undeniable is that WC's neglect of the NSX price delivered to the market: takeover target. Deliberately or through being naiive?  Either reason is enough for WC to be removed.


----------



## seamisty (10 June 2011)

PIF Investor action group claim small victory
Friday, 10 June 2011 12:00pm

By Rachel Davis  |  In Investment 
'The rights issue is viewed by PIFAG to be contrary to unitholders interests because, in their opinion, it forced them to take up the issue if they did not wish to have their unitholding diluted.

A full hearing to consider all matters will take place on Tuesday 12 June at 12pm.   Managing Director of Wellington Capital, Jenny Hutson, is expected to be called to give evidence at this hearing.'
 Full article http://www.financialstandard.com.au/news/view/12052537/


----------



## seamisty (10 June 2011)

Investor release no 3 off the CasCap website

http://castlereagh.rlbrandmgmt.com....ns/filemanager/files/Investor_Update_No_3.pdf


----------



## zixo (10 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Investor release no 3 off the CasCap website
> 
> http://castlereagh.rlbrandmgmt.com....ns/filemanager/files/Investor_Update_No_3.pdf






I sincerely hope that most of the people who read this forum will make an attempt to attend. 

Have any of the Investors who follow this thread considered sharing taxis or buses to get to the venue in Sydney on the 23rd? 

If there is ever one time to make a difference to your future regarding this fund and bringing the people who ruined THE PIF to account for their actions. NOW IS THE TIME!


UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL!

I remember hearing it spruiked all too loud and clear -when Wellington Capital asked for our trust only to betray us in the most horrible conniving ways. 

I guess it doesn't sound that great when its been said by the very investors who are now against everything wellington Capital and its directors stand for.


----------



## Roobo (10 June 2011)

*Re: Thanks*

Thanks to all the information provided by Seamisty, Duped, Marcom, Charles36, Zixo the list goes on, you know who you are. Through this forum I found out about the PIF Action Group meeting and was able to email Castlereagh direct, they emailed voting forms which were printed out and mailed off to Computershare many days before receiving the material from wellington which topped up my recycled bin. I live o/s at present so this forum is greaty appreciated. 
Thanks heaps.


----------



## simgrund (10 June 2011)

charles36 said:


> PIFAG "Sowing confusion and fear"   Since when is telling  as it is, confusion and fear.  My opinion there is only one group causing "confusion and fear" and they should get out of the way and let professional people try and solve the mess that has been created by their management.  My conversations with many unit holders has revealed there is certainly confusion and fear for their finances under the present management and cannot fill in their yellow proxy form quick enough.




Hello Charles,
At Port Macquarie info meet with Castlereagh we heard that the proxies sent to ARMSTRONG REGISTRY will be taken to COMPUTERSHARE REGISTRY and checked under supervision, counted and registered THERE in one process.
If you can, please confirm if this understanding is correct.
It will, I think calm many doubts in many mainds.
Thanks & Regards,


----------



## seamisty (10 June 2011)

Simgrund one can only hope that at the exorbitant amount the PIF is being charged by Armstrong Registry Services, a related owned entity of Wellington Capital, that the proxies arrive on time to Computershare in their original condition. WC in their capacity as Responsible Entity failed PIF investors previously by refusing to divulge the results of a simple vote for an Investor Advisory Committee of which WC collated the unrevealed votes. Not to mention Wellington Capital has also not divulged the identities of the two duly appointed IAC reps who have since resigned their positions as IAC reps or the identities of the new 'sophisticated and professional' investors that have taken up the heavily discounted PIF units in the capital raising placement issue. 

I would also think it prudent for any party standing to gain from discrediting PIF AG members by instigating a smear campaign who was NOT involved, that they would actually come out and  publicly say so. The silence is deafening considering the limited prime suspects who would have gained traction from such a pathetic, trashy attempt to create 'fear and confusion'. The only real transparency we are seeing is from Castlereagh Capital, who obviously have taken on board our concerns re lack of previously.

Thanks Roobo and other new posters for your support, if nothing else, the smear campaign and some media attention has certainly directed some more attention to this thread. 
Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (11 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Simgrund one can only hope that at the exorbitant amount the PIF is being charged by Armstrong Registry Services, a related owned entity of Wellington Capital, that the proxies arrive on time to Computershare in their original condition. WC in their capacity as Responsible Entity failed PIF investors previously by refusing to divulge the results of a simple vote for an Investor Advisory Committee of which WC collated the unrevealed votes. Not to mention Wellington Capital has also not divulged the identities of the two duly appointed IAC reps who have since resigned their positions as IAC reps or the identities of the new 'sophisticated and professional' investors that have taken up the heavily discounted PIF units in the capital raising placement issue.
> 
> I would also think it prudent for any party standing to gain from discrediting PIF AG members by instigating a smear campaign who was NOT involved, that they would actually come out and  publicly say so. The silence is deafening considering the limited prime suspects who would have gained traction from such a pathetic, trashy attempt to create 'fear and confusion'. The only real transparency we are seeing is from Castlereagh Capital, who obviously have taken on board our concerns re lack of previously.
> 
> ...




Agh; the IAC Enigma. 
The Science's unwavering search for "The Cloak of Invisibility"
finally triumphing with the modest input from Wellington Capital's Formulae!!!
It's so successful, that the Patent Office is still not up to scratch with Registering the Patent as it is waiting for a dose of Invisible Ink from WC to sign it off.
Thank you Seamisty for this, yet another, Opportunity to pay homage to IAC Mirage.
Regards, 

*P.S. On a different track, why not put the PINK FLAMINGO's to 
good use rather than consign them to an ignominious fate in the shredder bin?
Write big YES across it, tape it to a foot long stick and bring it 
to the MEETING to wave it in WC's face.
I did at PMcq meeting and will again in Sydney.
Cheers*


----------



## seamisty (11 June 2011)

Hi All, Would any PIF AG members who will be attending the EGM on the 23rd June in Sydney that did not click on the WILL ATTEND link in the last update please notify me by private message or email if you will be attending or alternatively click on the link. Also will non PIF AG  members who have voted FOR Castlereagh Capital who will be there, please let me know. Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (11 June 2011)

PIF AG Executive,
Would you know if Alfie's "acceptances" will be counted towards our score.
Quoting: 
SMH Colin Kruger June 10, 2011

"BYRNES NOTICE
Speaking of terminal cases, the Takeovers Panel has read the last rites on the colourful bid for the once-billion-dollar Premium Income Fund (PIF) lead by the even-more colourful businessman Jim Byrnes.

The panel made a declaration of unacceptable circumstances in relation to the bid, which offered PIF unitholders the chance to swap their units for shares in ALF PIF - effectively swapping a 100 per cent interest in their investment for a 20 per cent interest.

It appears that, due to a paperwork snafu, ALF PIF's bid technically lapsed in late February and was not successfully extended as first thought.

This leaves ALF stranded with 1.17 per cent acceptance more than a year into its takeover battle. Among the orders are the requirement that ''ALF has not and will not be processing any acceptances in relation to the bid and *all acceptances will be returned to unit holders''.* bolding added

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/sydney-airport-gets-new-wingwoman-20110609-1fuzx.html#ixzz1OvGevwXu
"


----------



## seamisty (11 June 2011)

Simgrund my understanding is that any unitholders who accepted the ALF PIF offer will have their units returned to them, so it will be up to them as individuals to make the decision to support the CasCap offer or not. I would expect that  those unitholders who took up ALF PIF's offer did so because thay had had enough of the current RE, Wellington Capital and so hopefully will support the move to replace WC.
I have recently spoken to one such person who will now support Castlereagh Capital as the preferred Responsible Entity for the Premium Income Fund. Seamisty


----------



## zixo (11 June 2011)

simgrund said:


> PIF AG Executive,
> Would you know if Alfie's "acceptances" will be counted towards our score.
> Quoting:
> SMH Colin Kruger June 10, 2011
> ...





Hi Sigmund

According to the news article "This leaves ALF stranded with 1.17 per cent acceptance more than a year into its takeover battle. Among the orders are the requirement that ''ALF has not and will not be processing any acceptances in relation to the bid and all acceptances will be returned to unit holders''.

Do you know what will become of the 1.17 % of votes which should be transferred to
unitholders?
Will original unitholders be eligble to vote in the EGM or will the voting power of the ALF become redundant up until they are returned to unitholders?

I suspect the reason many Investors sold their units to the ALF was because of the way the fund was being managed and saw it as the only alternative to try and push for movement of the class action .
Which of course Wellington Capital had been against the class action from its inception. 
Until recently when they wanted to participate but only to have closer contact with the prosecutors who are trying the case.


----------



## charles36 (11 June 2011)

simgrund said:


> Hello Charles,
> At Port Macquarie info meet with Castlereagh we heard that the proxies sent to ARMSTRONG REGISTRY will be taken to COMPUTERSHARE REGISTRY and checked under supervision, counted and registered THERE in one process.
> If you can, please confirm if this understanding is correct.
> It will, I think calm many doubts in many mainds.
> Thanks & Regards,




Hi Simgrund.  I am not exactly up to date with that but you can be assured whatever tricks that can be played will be played.  I will make contact with the appropriate person to give a ruling and let you know ASAP.   Keep up the good work.  Any unit holder who has not voted should do so now or risk getting more of the same.  If the rights issue gets through who is to say there will not be another one issued in the future or more sale of units to further dilute the fund.


----------



## simgrund (11 June 2011)

zixo said:


> Hi Sigmund
> 
> According to the news article "This leaves ALF stranded with 1.17 per cent acceptance more than a year into its takeover battle. Among the orders are the requirement that ''ALF has not and will not be processing any acceptances in relation to the bid and all acceptances will be returned to unit holders''.
> 
> ...



-

Hi Zixo,
Them are the QUESTIONS!
As the Meeting's on 23rd this month; the process of return and reaffirm ownership may take these units outside the voting date.
Perhaps an Order may be sought to speed up this process OR to reconstruct the Owner's List and notify them that they can vote provisionally or via some deferred privilege.
I am scratching my receding hairline on this one.
One thing I may say with certainty is that ALFie has been effectively stripped of voting rights from the date of those Orders. 
I am staking my tupee on that one.

Regards,


----------



## bespoke (11 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Hi All, Would any PIF AG members who will be attending the EGM on the 23rd June in Sydney that did not click on the WILL ATTEND link in the last update please notify me by private message or email if you will be attending or alternatively click on the link. Also will non PIF AG  members who have voted FOR Castlereagh Capital who will be there, please let me know. Thanks, Seamisty




Confirming that I will be there on the 23rd.
John


----------



## seamisty (11 June 2011)

bespoke said:


> Confirming that I will be there on the 23rd.
> John



Noted, Thanks bespoke.


----------



## aroach (11 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Hi All, Would any PIF AG members who will be attending the EGM on the 23rd June in Sydney that did not click on the WILL ATTEND link in the last update please notify me by private message or email if you will be attending or alternatively click on the link. Also will non PIF AG  members who have voted FOR Castlereagh Capital who will be there, please let me know. Thanks, Seamisty




Hi Seamisty,  I just discovered the link in the email for people who sent in their proxy vote but are unable to attend the EGM, doesn't have the .com. I just added it and it went through fine, but that might be a reason for lower numbers tallied in that category. Just a thought.

Ashley


----------



## seamisty (11 June 2011)

aroach said:


> Hi Seamisty,  I just discovered the link in the email for people who sent in their proxy vote but are unable to attend the EGM, doesn't have the .com. I just added it and it went through fine, but that might be a reason for lower numbers tallied in that category. Just a thought.
> 
> Ashley



Thanks Ashley, yes you are right. Not often something like that gets past Breaker, so yes add the .com alternatively email Breaker or just let me know on here and I will pass it on. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (11 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Thanks Ashley, yes you are right. Not often something like that gets past Breaker, so yes add the .com alternatively email Breaker or just let me know on here and I will pass it on. Cheers, Seamisty




Already confirmed "Will" but just to also confirm I have re-booked my flights.  --- Another $100 for re-booking fee, but should be worth every last cent.  ... John H


----------



## DoraNBoots (12 June 2011)

JohnH said:


> It may well be prudent  to prepare a list of investors who are prepared to sign an affidavit confirming the RE's statement that non performance would mean that no exit fee would be paid.  .................  You can count me in.  ..  John H




Below is an extract of an email sent to ASIC on 19 Sept 2008.  This is the day after the 18 Oct 2008 EGM was adjourned.  It was at this meeting that Jenny Hutson said WC would not take the 2% removal fee if she is told at an EGM that she is being removed due to poor performance.  The email below shows that ASIC were informed of this statement.


19/09/2008 10:08 AM 
To Deleted@asic.gov.au 
cc  Deleted@asic.gov.au  ; Deleted@asic.gov.au 
Subject RE: PIF managed by Wellington IM 34054/08  PCS2008/21210 Additional Information

Dear Deleted-ASIC,

…Some Text deleted….

I was at the PIF meeting yesterday and …Some text deleted….

JH said the constitution says the 2% removal fee will not be payable if WC are removed due to poor performance.  She was asked who will make the judgement and she eventually said that if she is at an EGM and is being removed and she is told it’s due to poor performance she will not take the 2%.  ...deleted...

Jenny was asked what the target rate of return is for the quarterly distributions and she said it was 1.5 cents per unit. 

Thanks again for your time! 
Kind regards,
Unitholder​

ASIC replied to this email.


----------



## seamisty (12 June 2011)

ASIC in social media push to help people get smart with money 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ns-off-the-leash/story-e6frg9io-1226068239701

From the above article:'Medcraft has three aims: confident and informed investors, fair and efficient financial markets, and efficient registration and licensing.

He wants to achieve these goals through engagement with the industry, surveillance, education, deterrence and policy action.

The role of gatekeepers is highlighted because Medcraft, like others, is fed up with lawyers and bankers who push a client over the cliff and absolve themselves of all the blame.

At some point he figures these groups need to take some responsibility and have some ethical standards.

At some point, of course, Medcraft will need to back his worthy campaign with action by punishing those who step over the line.

Financial crises are caused by greed and inadequate regulation and enforcement, which is where ASIC steps in.Better educated consumers and ethical advisers help, but greed is a tough foe.'


Perhaps if ASIC actually did step in and take action when they are first alerted to possible wrongdoing and not still be dithering around 3-4 years later it might just deter a few greedy crooks from doing the wrong thing? Its all very well educating would be investors etc, but what about the regulators?

'ASIC is taking its campaign to the streets with YouTube films and iPad applications aimed at educating investors in the hope of minimising future financial losses

His push into social media is part of what he sees as proactive action to avoid the nightmares of failed investment schemes.'

How will this help the thousands of investors already out of pocket who dont even know what an iPad is and have no access to a computer? Mind you, most of those already affected by failed funds etc will NEVER trust anyone with their money again apart from maybe a bank.

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (12 June 2011)

A bagful of PIF prediction made in August 2008 by Jennifer Hutson in the Gold Coast Bulletin.

http://www.goldcoastbusinessnews.com.au/article1206/Crunch time for PIF.html


----------



## simgrund (12 June 2011)

selciper said:


> A bagful of PIF prediction made in August 2008 by Jennifer Hutson in the Gold Coast Bulletin.
> 
> http://www.goldcoastbusinessnews.com.au/article1206/Crunch time for PIF.html




Thanks Selciper,
Warm glow of "Eat Your Words" time is almost upon us".

*Quoting part of the above link*

"Crunch time for PIF
Aug, 2008

Jenny Hutson tells Gold Coast Business News that it’s not over yet for PIF

What impact has this had on you personally?
There are a lot of small investors who have been committed to the fund for a long time and seeing them recover their money would give me immense personal pride."


----------



## selciper (12 June 2011)

Simgrund, it's no wonder to me that the majority of us voted in Wellington's favour in 08 because of Hutson's enticing predictions. We were, unfortunately, all susceptible to those optimistic words. 

"The only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience."- Milton Friedman


----------



## seamisty (12 June 2011)

YEEHAAA, Just had confirmation from a fellow West Australian who will be flying over specifically for the EGM so that makes 3 of us West Aussies attending the EGM that I know of!! 
I strongly urge all PIF unitholders who can possibly support us on the day to please attend the EGM. We have already seen the extreme measures some are prepared to implement to discredit the PIF AG.
WC will be fighting until the end to protect the PIF expenditure figures relating to OUR depleting fund, because I bet there will be some explaining to do as to just where the money has gone. How once profitable assets are going backwards and why the PIF is not generating a scerrick of income over and above the exorbitant operating expenses.
PIF AG NEED YOUR SUPPORT IN PERSON!!! Seamisty


----------



## NOR (12 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> YEEHAAA, Just had confirmation from a fellow West Australian who will be flying over specifically for the EGM so that makes 3 of us West Aussies attending the EGM that I know of!!
> I strongly urge all PIF unitholders who can possibly support us on the day to please attend the EGM. We have already seen the extreme measures some are prepared to implement to discredit the PIF AG.
> WC will be fighting until the end to protect the PIF expenditure figures relating to OUR depleting fund, because I bet there will be some explaining to do as to just where the money has gone. How once profitable assets are going backwards and why the PIF is not generating a scerrick of income over and above the exorbitant operating expenses.
> PIF AG NEED YOUR SUPPORT IN PERSON!!! Seamisty




hi all  [[ nor here ]]  yellow yellow yellow so much yellow it will become [[[[  gold  gold  gold  ]]]] lets see heaps wave with  PRIDE FOR PIF AG  THANK YOU


----------



## simgrund (13 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> YEEHAAA, Just had confirmation from a fellow West Australian who will be flying over specifically for the EGM so that makes 3 of us West Aussies attending the EGM that I know of!! ----------------------------------------
> PIF AG NEED YOUR SUPPORT IN PERSON!!! Seamisty




Just a thought of CONCERN for you, Charles36, Breaker1, Marcom, Munchie & many of the working core of PIF AG;
Please protect yourselves at the meeting with Kevlar Gloves and Kevlar Chest Vests as my predictive instincts tell me you will be overrun with Handshakes, Hugs and Embraces which may leave you bruised if without the suggested Protection.
Regards,


----------



## zixo (13 June 2011)

selciper said:


> Simgrund, it's no wonder to me that the majority of us voted in Wellington's favour in 08 because of Hutson's enticing predictions. We were, unfortunately, all susceptible to those optimistic words.
> 
> "The only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience."- Milton Friedman




Hi selciper,

Although I am loath to admit it. I too was one of the many people who against my better instincts actively endorsed wellington Capital.
For all my trouble, Ive seen the very person whom I trusted in wellington morph into the modern day King, Adams, White and Hutchings.
The sooner the PIF is out of the clutches of JH and her cohorts the better for everyone involved.


----------



## selciper (13 June 2011)

zixo said:


> Hi selciper,
> 
> Although I am loath to admit it. I too was one of the many people who against my better instincts actively endorsed wellington Capital.
> For all my trouble, Ive seen the very person whom I trusted in wellington morph into the modern day King, Adams, White and Hutchings.
> The sooner the PIF is out of the clutches of JH and her cohorts the better for everyone involved.



Hi, Xizo - I think most PIF investors (like myself) put their trust in Wellington's projections probably while in a state of shell-shock after the MFS collapse. I don't kick myself for having voted "yes". I was just a naive old codger at the time in believing that it was for our interests that the new RE would be working.  And ASIC would watch things, wouldn't they? The next couple of weeks, I hope, will see the revaluation and restoration of that all important word: trust. .


----------



## SUNRAY (14 June 2011)

Hi For the first time to all you hard working Folks,I have been following this forum for some time now since I found it by accident,My Yellow Proxy is in and would love to see Wellington out. The Infomatoin received from your Posts have been priceless,
I am not able to travel at the moment and as our units are in my name onley,could My Husband go in my place to the Sydney meeting?

Cheers Sunray.


----------



## seamisty (14 June 2011)

SUNRAY said:


> Hi For the first time to all you hard working Folks,I have been following this forum for some time now since I found it by accident,My Yellow Proxy is in and would love to see Wellington out. The Infomatoin received from your Posts have been priceless,
> I am not able to travel at the moment and as our units are in my name onley,could My Husband go in my place to the Sydney meeting?
> 
> Cheers Sunray.



Sunray if your holding is in your name only you would have to appoint your husband as your proxy to vote on your behalf at the meeting by writing his name in the box at the top of your yellow form. You can always call Castlereagh Capital on  1300 661 651 and request a new proxy form, then fax it to Computershare on 03 94154159. Castlereagh will be able to email the new proxy which you can print and fill in then fax. Welcome to the forum, Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (15 June 2011)

Remember David Kennedy and David Anderson of MFS/OCV? Both are currently  key personnel at Equititrust. It also appears both have omitted their previous employment at MFS/OCV on their employment history/resume, nor their involvement re Bentleys' Public Examination into the collapse of MFS/OCV and money missapropriated from our PIF.(No surprises there!)

Equititrust CEO=David Kennedy LLB, LLM, B Bus (Acc), ACA

A Chartered Accountant and lawyer, David was previously a partner at Hong Kong's largest restructuring firm for over 8 years. With a background in insolvency and company restructuring within the property development industry, David also has extensive international experience in Australia, Singapore Malaysia, Thailand, and Canada. 

Director Strategic Solutions - David Anderson B.Comm IP MICM
Joining Equititrust in 2010, David is a former Corporate Recovery and Reconstruction Partner
with KPMG Australia, with over 20 years international experience, in Australia, UK and Hong
Kong. Prior to joining Equititrust David has 8 years as CFO of a listed Funds Manager.

In todays news:
WHOM WE TRUST

More news is expected today from law firm Piper Alderman on a campaign to oust Gold Coast mortgage fund operator Equititrust as the responsible entity (RE) for its flagship Equititrust Income Fund.

A new manager would help clear the air on some of Equititrust's more colourful decisions, like its massive loan exposure to the twice-bankrupt Dudley ''King Con'' Quinlivan.

Alas, a new RE will not be able to shed light on some of the more interesting developments around Equititrust's Chevron Island home.

The company's loan triage operation, Landsolve Partners, appears to have developed a life of its own and is hustling for investor funds.

Only big money is invited this time round - $50,000 minimum - which may rule out some of the poor pensioners who have done their dough at Equititrust.

There's not much in the way of details yet. Your columnist could not find any registration with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, or any documents, for the Landsolve Capital Solutions Fund.

But don't worry; there are plenty of familiar faces. Equititrust and Landsolve Partners share the same telephone number, address and some of the same board members, including Equititrust's founder, Mark McIvor



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/arno...kes-biscuit-20110614-1g21b.html#ixzz1PHnj2uQV

Lets hope nobody is fooled into parting with their money until all involved have been totally cleared of any wrong doing or mismanagement of previously collapsed Funds.

Seamisty


----------



## elizaman (15 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Hi All, Would any PIF AG members who will be attending the EGM on the 23rd June in Sydney that did not click on the WILL ATTEND link in the last update please notify me by private message or email if you will be attending or alternatively click on the link. Also will non PIF AG  members who have voted FOR Castlereagh Capital who will be there, please let me know. Thanks, Seamisty




Sorry. Can't rearrange for the 23rd. Good luck all. Fingers crossed


----------



## elizaman (15 June 2011)

Update # 3 indicates a meeting/hearing  on the 14th June for all parties. Also indicates an update to be posted on the proceedings for this hearing.??? Has this been done??? I just got back from holidays with no email etc (loved it) so trying to catch up. Just cancelled my flight to sydney for tomorrow luckily as well 
Good luck


----------



## charles36 (15 June 2011)

JUST IN CASE. A new flyer has been posted " AUTHORISED BY THE PIF REACTION" GROUP.
Does anyone know the identity of this group or in fact any member of the group?  When looking at this flyer, who has the most to gain by discrediting the credible PIFAG?  Far be it from me to suggest any person.  However, for the record, it appears the quotes attributed to me are quotes from the Aussie Stock Forum, but not by me or any person acting on my behalf or the PIFAG.  I also want it known that I have never publicly spoke in a detrimental way about ASIC, others have but that is their choice.  From my perspective I am hopeful that the yellow forms will win instead the sickly pink forms.  Keep up the good work people and send the message, "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH."


----------



## Unfortunate Inv (15 June 2011)

aroach said:


> Hi Seamisty,  I just discovered the link in the email for people who sent in their proxy vote but are unable to attend the EGM, doesn't have the .com. I just added it and it went through fine, but that might be a reason for lower numbers tallied in that category. Just a thought.
> 
> Ashley




I'll be there...

Paul B


----------



## breaker1 (15 June 2011)

charles36 said:


> JUST IN CASE. A new flyer has been posted " AUTHORISED BY THE PIF REACTION" GROUP.
> Does anyone know the identity of this group or in fact any member of the group?  When looking at this flyer, who has the most to gain by discrediting the credible PIFAG?  Far be it from me to suggest any person.  However, for the record, it appears the quotes attributed to me are quotes from the Aussie Stock Forum, but not by me or any person acting on my behalf or the PIFAG.  I also want it known that I have never publicly spoke in a detrimental way about ASIC, others have but that is their choice.  From my perspective I am hopeful that the yellow forms will win instead the sickly pink forms.  Keep up the good work people and send the message, "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH."




*Charles36*

I have done a search on all of the quotes attributed to you in the latest (second) Reaction Group circular which appears to have been mailed to all PIF investors.
THIS SEARCH PROVES THAT NONE OF THE QUOTES ON THIS CIRCULAR ARE YOURS

I have only had time to check two of the quotes attributed to me and they also are NOT quotes by me or authorised in any way by me

The cowardly people, without any moral conscience whatsoever, who are responsible for this anonymous rubbish - are purposely misleading fellow investors 

Feedback shows that these nameless cowards, have gone to great trouble to hide their tracks and remain hidden, by posting these letters at various mail boxes or centres around QLD and NSW

*breaker*


----------



## marcom (15 June 2011)

We had a win in the Federal Court case last week, see http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/666.html


----------



## seamisty (15 June 2011)

Breaker, Charles36, I haven't seen the latest bit of crap circulating and I don't particularly want to so please don't bother sending it to me anyone
However I strongly suspect that since the last one was such a flop and caused such little 'reaction' that those responsible have had to resort to new low tactics to try and involve more of us, possibly by drawing attention to our ASF thread. This thread has such a strong support base and reaches out to many more who do not post but follow the course of discussion very closely. Most days in recent weeks there are usually around 2,000 hits to this thread alone. 
I think it best to ignore any posters that may try to stir up discussion which will draw the attention of the moderators. The best outcome the 'reaction' cowards can hope for is for our communication point to be cut off at this critical point in time.
Interesting to note that there is only one other contender left in the running now, sure narrows the field of prime suspects with cash to waste.
Lets all stay focussed on the main issue here and that is to rescue the remnants of the PIF and all accompanying documents relating to the loss/expenditure of millions and millions of our hard earned money.

Seamisty


----------



## reasonable (15 June 2011)

breaker1 said:


> *Charles36*
> 
> I have done a search on all of the quotes attributed to you in the latest (second) Reaction Group circular which appears to have been mailed to all PIF investors.
> THIS SEARCH PROVES THAT NONE OF THE QUOTES ON THIS CIRCULAR ARE YOURS
> ...




This so called reaction group want to hide their identity to make false claims.  If any of what they say was true they would be willing to put their name to it.


----------



## seamisty (15 June 2011)

Interesting reading Marcom http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/c.../2011/666.html 
This is just the beginning of a whole new era of exposing the fraudulent corporate activities of SOOOO many and who assisted who.
Bentleys have concluded their examinations and are currently seeking advice from lawyers and counsel on the most appropriate course of action to deal with their findings.
ASIC is still conducting their own investigations and the Equititrust saga is under close scrutiny as are many others. 
The walls are crumbling.
Seamisty


----------



## breaker1 (15 June 2011)

Regarding the "Reaction" cowards "Group" second circular:

I have checked and searched all 8 quotes attributed to me and 7 of them have nothing to do with me. They are not my quotes. They were not authorised by me. 

One quote was taken from a release by me on this site which simply mentions other services provided by BRI Ferrier in addition to the licenced Fund Management service of Castlereagh Capital. 

Leave it to ASF readers to work out the motives of these anonymous and clearly desperate people


----------



## seamisty (15 June 2011)

A distraction for you Breaker !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-diB65scQU


----------



## seamisty (16 June 2011)

The following is a bit of information I have put together.

PLOYME Where Employers and Casual Workers meet

Robert Wibaux Chief information officer (CIO), or information technology (IT) director at Ployme

Kooralbyn Asset Management is listed as an employer with Ployme http://www.ployme.com.au/JobAdvertiserProfile.aspx?JAID=24923

Kooralbyn Asset management 
18 Ventnor Street
Toowong, QLD, 4066

KOORALBYN ASSET MANAGEMENT PTY LTD (KAM for short) is a company owned by David Burke and our external compliance officer Phillip Wibaux
I do not know if this is a coincidence or not but I remember being told that David Burke flew casual employees to a mortgagee in control PIF asset in Victoria FROM Qld to do work which could have been done just as easily by local trades people. I have mentioned on here before that what really disturbed me was that the employees who were flown from Qld were then delivered to the resort by LIMOUSINE!!!!! Who do you think picked up the tab? Any wonder why Wellington Capital does not want to let the PIF books out of their control? 

This is the same resort where a luxury four wheel drive courtesy car was removed by David Burke under instruction from WC which was later seen at Kooralbyn Resort in Qld when a fire broke out , another PIF asset where I believe Philip Wibaux was caretaking at the time.


What other closely guarded information, including the IAC voting results and reasons for the previous refusal to assist PIF unitholders in their endeavour to get the Class Action up and running would WC be reluctant to share? Maybe why when interest rates were at an all time low we had to pay 25% interest on a loan to repay money illegally taken from our Fund. What other sources for finance did WC investigate at that time? All relevant I am sure. Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (16 June 2011)

Put another way, the present pleading in this case contends that entry by the Fund into the PacFin transactions was improvident. The Commission’s pleading alleges that $150 million was misappropriated from the Fund and that the PacFin transactions never occurred but are instead merely the window dressing for a conspiracy to disguise what is, in effect, an old fashioned fraud.


Nice turn of phrase by Justice Perram . 

 Mrs Jadel just reminded me that  one of King and Adams honchos, once made  the following remarks to her personally  at a seminar we attended ; “stick with us were going places”.

. Places they never imagined in their worst nightmares, methinks.


----------



## seamisty (16 June 2011)

Another snippet of info re Mr Callianiotis of Harbour St Developments (partner Solly Stanton) who WC did a joint venture or some such obscure deal with our PIF Wollongong asset. I presume it is the same George Callianiotis of Tagma Property Consultants where former corporate lawyer and Wellington Capital PIF fund manager Anthony Stanton is currently employed.

Launch pad for failed former HIH director Rodney Adler worth $3.8 million
WELCOME inside former white collar criminal Rodney Adler's corporate lair. 

The sumptuous 12th floor office in a prestigious city office building is worth a cool $3.75 million.

Customers waiting to see one of Mr Adler's associates for a loan or to propose a venture capital investment to his wife Lyndi wait in the lobby - decorated in a style reminiscent of a casino.

They are reminded of Mr Adler's past with a bronze bust of his late father Larry. He founded the FAI Insurance empire which his son would ultimately see destroyed.

Just as Mr Adler is seeking to make over his reputation three and a half years after his release from jail, the 12th floor's decor was redone last year. It was stripped back to its shell and renovated before Mr Adler and his associates moved in in October.

It is not clear whether Mr Adler owns the office suite or whether the mysterious owner has just allowed him to occupy it rent free. The floor is owned by the GCAD Partners Unit Trust, and the trust members are unknown.

The trustee is George Callianiotis Jr, the 33-year-old son of the late Queensland developer of the same name.

Mr Adler has been banned from acting as a company director for 20 years as part of his punishment for breaking company law in relation to HIH Insurance. The judge who banned him said it was necessary to protect the public.

Full article: http://www.news.com.au/business/lau...yer-rodney-adler/story-e6frfm1i-1226069905266


----------



## zixo (16 June 2011)

I received my unsigned - no return address REACTION GROUP smear campaign letter Against the Castlereagh capital and the AG in the mail.

I have to admit that their efforts in photocopying have vastly improved.  And they also managed to apply one stamp correctly... 
It makes entertaining reading when the sneaky cowards cant even requote other posters quotes properly...Who knows, these people might develop the intelligence to hold crayons properly.

Curious to have a look at wellington Capitals books and find out what their office expediture towards the Premium Income Fund has been for the last month... eh?


----------



## NOR (16 June 2011)

zixo said:


> I received my unsigned - no return address REACTION GROUP smear campaign letter Against the Castlereagh capital and the AG in the mail.
> 
> I have to admit that their efforts in photocopying have vastly improved.  And they also managed to apply one stamp correctly...
> It makes entertaining reading when the sneaky cowards cant even requote other posters quotes properly...Who knows, these people might develop the intelligence to hold crayons properly.
> ...




hi all pif  investers  Strange i read about  all the coward posters that i have not recived  we sold  our house insouth west sydney  moved to  the south side gave new address   to post office  ALL MAIL   FROM [[ AG ....CASTLEREAGH  CAPITAL R FINDING MY NEW LETTER BOX  [[  BUT NOT WELLINGTON OR...   YOUR  COWARDS MAY HAVE SOMETHINK TO HAVE WITH PAST PHONE CALLS WC & I  IN PAST    HOPE TO SEE [[[  ALLL PLEASE   23rd .........[[[  SAVE COWARD POSTER FOR ME PLEASE MUST SEE ]]]]


----------



## NOR (16 June 2011)

NOR said:


> hi all pif  investers  Strange i read about  all the coward posters that i have not recived  we sold  our house insouth west sydney  moved to  the south side gave new address   to post office  ALL MAIL   FROM [[ AG ....CASTLEREAGH  CAPITAL R FINDING MY NEW LETTER BOX  [[  BUT NOT WELLINGTON OR...   YOUR  COWARDS MAY HAVE SOMETHINK TO HAVE WITH PAST PHONE CALLS WC & I  IN PAST    HOPE TO SEE [[[  ALLL PLEASE   23rd .........[[[  SAVE COWARD POSTER FOR ME PLEASE MUST SEE ]]]]




THE STRANGE PART IS[[[[[[  WELLINGTON CAN NOT FIND MY ADDRESS OR YOUR THIS LOT OF ....COWARDS......


----------



## selciper (16 June 2011)

NOR, is it Wellington or Armstrong Registry?


----------



## JohnH (17 June 2011)

Just received the latest garbage from the anonymous "Reaction Group".   What on earth are they trying to achieve???  I even notice that they have attributed one of my posts to Seamisty!!  

The whole thing would be laughable except that I have a suspicion that this is our money that is being wasted on this c.$10,000 a drop distribution of misinformation.


----------



## reasonable (17 June 2011)

JohnH said:


> Just received the latest garbage from the anonymous "Reaction Group".   What on earth are they trying to achieve???  I even notice that they have attributed one of my posts to Seamisty!!
> 
> The whole thing would be laughable except that I have a suspicion that this is our money that is being wasted on this c.$10,000 a drop distribution of misinformation.




There is only one party with the motive and our funds to do this!


----------



## atlas1950 (17 June 2011)

Hi all,

Any news with the court case of last week re: the capital raising by WC.

Michael


----------



## seamisty (17 June 2011)

atlas1950 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Any news with the court case of last week re: the capital raising by WC.
> 
> Michael



Michael I see there is a new NSX announcement but I can't open it. Maybe someone else can post the link if it opens for them? Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## AusInCA (17 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Michael I see there is a new NSX announcement but I can't open it. Maybe someone else can post the link if it opens for them? Cheers, Seamisty




The announcement on June 17 is only the announcement of the rescheduling of the EGM to June 23rd.
Link:
http://nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724113.PDF


----------



## seamisty (17 June 2011)

Hi all, I was contacted by someone from the forum who told me that the first bit of trash mail they received anonymously was posted in a pre paid envelope and I asked them to keep it but because I have received so many private messages lately I accidently deleted the details while clearing my inbox so would you please resend that info or anyone else who got a pre paid envelope who still has it? Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## elizaman (17 June 2011)

atlas1950 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Any news with the court case of last week re: the capital raising by WC.
> 
> Michael




I asked this question a couple of days ago with no reply. Update # 3 mentioned an update on proceedings following June 14th. Wellington PIF web site states in litigation update june 8th that PIF AG were not ready for hearing??? Also states that the rights issue will close as scheduled on june 9 however no allotments until judgement is finalized. PIF AG states judgement hopefully to be handed down on June 20/21. I guess we just wait for judgement assuming all evidnce has been entered and heard.??
In light of events though is the june 23 meeting in Sydney still concrete. Might assist others in travel arrangements?? To reschedule a for a third time might cause some alarm for various reasons. Possibly wait to see final outcome of hearing prior to any EGM meeting schedule??


----------



## NOR (17 June 2011)

selciper said:


> NOR, is it Wellington or Armstrong Registry?




hi all......selciper....we all know they sleep both  in the same bed both in charge of the mail &we r not geting it i have rang wellington 4 times when we do get mail they call me mrs....... &my  wife mrs....they dont get much right


----------



## MAE (17 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Hi all, I was contacted by someone from the forum who told me that the first bit of trash mail they received anonymously was posted in a pre paid envelope and I asked them to keep it but because I have received so many private messages lately I accidently deleted the details while clearing my inbox so would you please resend that info or anyone else who got a pre paid envelope who still has it? Thanks, Seamisty




Hi Seamisty, I wrote into the forum stating that I had received two envelopes one with a 60c stamp and the other in a prepaid envelope with the markings of (Postage Paid Australia - Sydney Heads, New South Wales) both stamped (HRMC MLOCR 501 31ST MAY 11).  I still have those envelopes.  Regards MAE


----------



## seamisty (17 June 2011)

MAE said:


> Hi Seamisty, I wrote into the forum stating that I had received two envelopes one with a 60c stamp and the other in a prepaid envelope with the markings of (Postage Paid Australia - Sydney Heads, New South Wales) both stamped (HRMC MLOCR 501 31ST MAY 11).  I still have those envelopes.  Regards MAE




Thanks Mae! I will Private message you. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## selciper (17 June 2011)

NOR - Thanks. I thought perhaps your timeline might give a clue as whether the spineless rabble might have been using the latest register entries. There could be plentiful clues: 20,000 mailings and, of course, if they licked the stamps - DNA traces. And surely there would be a record of whom the register has been distributed to. 

As Sherlock Holmes would ask Watson, "Who hopes to gain from distributing this crude list of lies?"


----------



## simgrund (18 June 2011)

selciper said:


> NOR - Thanks. I thought perhaps your timeline might give a clue as whether the spineless rabble might have been using the latest register entries. There could be plentiful clues: 20,000 mailings and, of course, if they licked the stamps - DNA traces. And surely there would be a record of whom the register has been distributed to.
> 
> As Sherlock Holmes would ask Watson, "Who hopes to gain from distributing this crude list of lies?"




Or this trio from Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida:

"Men prize the thing ungained more than it is"; 

"All the argument is a ***** and a cuckold"; 
(added: sorry, forum's moronic auto-censoring kicked in)

"There's language in her eye, her cheek, her lip,/
Nay, her foot speaks."

See you all, bring your flags!
Warmest,


----------



## atlas1950 (18 June 2011)

Simon,

Just sent you a private message in your inbox.

Michael


----------



## JohnH (18 June 2011)

selciper said:


> NOR - Thanks. I thought perhaps your timeline might give a clue as whether the spineless rabble might have been using the latest register entries. There could be plentiful clues: 20,000 mailings and, of course, if they licked the stamps - DNA traces. And surely there would be a record of whom the register has been distributed to.
> 
> As Sherlock Holmes would ask Watson, "Who hopes to gain from distributing this crude list of lies?"




Came to me about 3 this morning ------  As far as I can see, the attendance figures for all the Castlereagh meetings have not been published.   If the attendance figures stated in the garbage sheet are accurate, then is there a commonality in the attendees?

_Numbers 32:23_


----------



## simgrund (18 June 2011)

JohnH said:


> Came to me about 3 this morning ------  As far as I can see, the attendance figures for all the Castlereagh meetings have not been published.   If the attendance figures stated in the garbage sheet are accurate, then is there a commonality in the attendees?
> 
> _Numbers 32:23_




And some 16 can be added for Port Macquarie meeting,
All these physical Nos are irrelevant as the video of the first meeting was widely watched and provided maximum exposure.
Let's spill out of Pinaroo Room at Grace Hotel on 23rd and make those numbers count!!!
Regards,


----------



## JohnH (18 June 2011)

simgrund said:


> And some 16 can be added for Port Macquarie meeting,
> All these physical Nos are irrelevant as the video of the first meeting was widely watched and provided maximum exposure.
> Let's spill out of Pinaroo Room at Grace Hotel on 23rd and make those numbers count!!!
> Regards,




I think you miss my point Simon, I'm not criticising the turnout - most of us watched it on Utube - we are interested to establish the author(s) of the Garbage sheet.  If it is somebody who has privy to the attendance figures, we should be able to narrow it down.

Cheers,  John H.


----------



## simgrund (18 June 2011)

JohnH said:


> I think you miss my point Simon, I'm not criticising the turnout - most of us watched it on Utube - we are interested to establish the author(s) of the Garbage sheet.  If it is somebody who has privy to the attendance figures, we should be able to narrow it down.
> 
> Cheers,  John H.




I am with you John.
As mentioned, some 20,000plus mailings is no trivial expense 
no matter how dedicated a splinter group may be.
Such expense could only be undertaken by a large Registry directed by even larger "Authority".
That Authority is unmistakenly Wellington. Wellington stooped to blazing opponent's names on A4 envelopes right across the country and it is not beneath them to spread this insidious campaign themselves or via insipient hirelings. "Them"; without a spine to refuse such commission.
Money talks, *our money*; especially easy to spread around in the best tradition of WC's bastardly predecessors.
*Go on Wellington Capital!
Take me to Court to prove I am wrong! 
I am on the Register that you so infamously defiled.*

Pink Flamingo will fly at the meeting. 
This is the count that counts.  

Regards,

P.S. I will welcome any suggestions for literary expressions to exceed levels of Anger I try to express in my Posts.
Please bear in mind Forum's censorship settings, from which even Will Shakespeare copped a serving.
Cheers,


----------



## BABIHUTAN (19 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> Hi all, I was contacted by someone from the forum who told me that the first bit of trash mail they received anonymously was posted in a pre paid envelope and I asked them to keep it but because I have received so many private messages lately I accidently deleted the details while clearing my inbox so would you please resend that info or anyone else who got a pre paid envelope who still has it? Thanks, Seamisty




I hv the envelope Seamisty & wl bring to Sydney 23rd. Second edition was mailed with 60c stamp


----------



## BABIHUTAN (19 June 2011)

BABIHUTAN said:


> I hv the envelope Seamisty & wl bring to Sydney 23rd. Second edition was mailed with 60c stamp




sorry dropped a few words in previous post tt shud hv read, _"Will bring second envelope too - seeming posted fm same mail center 14/6 at 6pm"_


----------



## seamisty (19 June 2011)

BABIHUTAN said:


> sorry dropped a few words in previous post tt shud hv read, _"Will bring second envelope too - seeming posted fm same mail center 14/6 at 6pm"_



Thanks BABIHUTAN, it seems that some who received two copies from the first mail out had one pre paid and one stamped. Anyone get a prepaid from the second bunch? I have been told they can be traced? See you at the meeting!!! Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (19 June 2011)

COFFS HARBOUR & SURROUNDS; one way lift to Sydney opportunity

Fellow Coffs Coast area PIFers,
I will be leaving Coffs Harbour Tuesday 21st morning (flexible). I will stay in Sydney till Sunday 26th. I have room for one person. 
If somebody needs a one-way lift to Sydney from around my area or reasonably near neighbourhood please let me know through Private Message Box.

Regards,


----------



## marcom (20 June 2011)

From todays SMH CBD.

PREMIUM BOUT

We suspect charity will be in short supply at this week's meeting of Premium Income Fund unitholders.

Forget the hundreds of millions of investors' money lost in allegedly fraudulent circumstances, judging by some of the anonymous mail circulating to the 11,000-odd unitholders, it's the battle over the carcass that is getting nasty.

In the red corner is BRI Ferrier's Ian Ferrier - backed by the PIF Action Group - attempting to wrest control of the fund from the incumbent manager, Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital.

The PIF Reaction Group, which has spent a considerable sum sending out anonymous letters to the unitholders, is backing the incumbent.

''Don't risk your money with crooks, predators and amateurs - vote no to the rebel Ferrier group'' reads one of the missives ''authorised by the PIF Reaction Group''.

Conspiracy theories abound, with the PIF Reaction Group linking the veteran liquidator Ferrier with another PIF suitor - the colourful business identity Jim Byrnes.

''Jim Byrnes is part of a secret deal with the Ferrierfiles to make millions from our fund. Stop the rot,'' the group says

If you ignore the fact that a fortune has been taken from those who can least afford it, this would be funny.

A TWITCH IN TIME

Speaking of PIF, your columnist could not help but notice spasms of movement from the corpse of the fund's founder, MFS/Octaviar.

David Burke has quietly quit as a director of the company, which has long since joined the boneyard shuffle.

Burke was appointed alongside David Chapman as henchman of Chris Scott in a boardroom coup in March 2008, but they could not stop the company's irreversible slide into liquidation.

However, board members did manage controversially to appoint one of their associates, Wellington Capital, as manager of PIF before this happened.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/no-bite-in-this-macquarie-dog-20110619-1ga4b.html#ixzz1Pm8zHkIK


----------



## Unfortunate Inv (20 June 2011)

elizaman said:


> I asked this question a couple of days ago with no reply. Update # 3 mentioned an update on proceedings following June 14th. Wellington PIF web site states in litigation update june 8th that PIF AG were not ready for hearing??? Also states that the rights issue will close as scheduled on june 9 however no allotments until judgement is finalized. PIF AG states judgement hopefully to be handed down on June 20/21. I guess we just wait for judgement assuming all evidnce has been entered and heard.??
> In light of events though is the june 23 meeting in Sydney still concrete. Might assist others in travel arrangements?? To reschedule a for a third time might cause some alarm for various reasons. Possibly wait to see final outcome of hearing prior to any EGM meeting schedule??




Judgement due to be handed down today, 20/06/2011, at approx 12 Noon;

SUPREME COURT ACTION AGAINST WELLINGTON 

You would be aware that your action group has taken Wellington Capital to the Victorian Supreme Court in Melbourne a second time last Tuesday via our lawyers DLA Piper. DLA Piper presented that Wellington's dumping of millions of new units into our already troubled Fund is NOT in the best interests of PIF investors and should be stopped and reversed.

We await Justice Gordon's ruling on the matter Monday 20 June around 12 noon. Information on the judgment will be posted on Castlereagh Capitals website about an hour or two after, so please tune into the Castlereagh website on their link www.cascap.com.au  on Monday shortly after the judgment

We trust that members appreciate the seriousness and importance of the above court action we are conducting for members benefit. We are confident in our presentation to Justice Gordon via DLA Piper Lawyers and trust that Monday's decision brings us good news. If successful, it may even set a working precedent for ASIC

PPB


----------



## DoraNBoots (20 June 2011)

Good news!!

The judgment can be found here:
https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/VID516/2011/actions


Extract:
_IN THESE DECLARATIONS AND ORDERS:
The phrase “Rights Issue” means the rights issue referred to in the first defendant’s:
1.	National Stock Exchange Releases dated 6, 10, 17, 19 and 27 May 2011; and  
2.	the Rights Issue information booklet dated 19 May 2011.

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
1.	In relation to the Rights Issue, the modification of the Constitution of the Premium Income Fund (ARSN 090 687 577) (PIF) dated 15 October 2008 (the PIF Scheme Constitution) which the first, third and fourth defendants purported to make by deed poll dated 9 May 2011 was and is contrary to s 601GC(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act).
2.	In relation to the Rights Issue, the modification of the PIF Scheme Constitution which the first, third and fourth defendants purported to make by deed poll dated 16 May 2011 was and is contrary to s 601GC(1)(b) of the Act.

AND THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
3.	The defendants and each of them, whether by themselves, their servants and agents or howsoever otherwise, are restrained from allotting or issuing to any person any unit in PIF pursuant to the Rights Issue.
4.	The defendants pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the proceeding, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.​_


----------



## ASICK (20 June 2011)

A black eye for ASIC too.  Great news!


----------



## selciper (20 June 2011)

Thanks DoraNBoots for the quick reporting of the good news. She Stooped to Conquer (and is starting to topple over).


----------



## DepressedDad (20 June 2011)

Well done everyone who played a part in this first victory!!! Thank you, thank you, thank you.  And a very tasty entree it is.  Looking forward to the main meal!


----------



## seamisty (20 June 2011)

YEEHAAA, lets hope todays ruling by Justice Gordon is just the beginning of more victories to be won re WC this week, then we can really see just how badly the PIF has  have been managed by WC under the guise of 'working in the best interests of unitholders'!!!!! Onwards and upwards! I am very 'encouraged and delighted' with todays outcome. Cheers to everyones efforts and support, Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (20 June 2011)

New NSX Announcement:

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724116.PDF

It seems that if the PIF AG had filed for an injunction a bit earlier, we may have won on both counts, ie the "Placement of Units" and the "Rights Offer".... Our units are being diluted by 9% instead of a much larger amount...and we're supposed to be grateful??? 

What the hell does a few days earlier or later make in filing an injuction? If it was against the Corporations Act or NOT in our best interests earlier on, why isn't it still the case?? I don't understand our court system....

Those 75 million votes could make all the difference to our success or failure. Please everybody, get your proxies in today (even if a bit late) and get to the EGM on Thursday at the Grace Hotel, 77 York Street, Sydney. It's in OUR best interests to replace WC, who have NOT had our best interests at heart, ever I would suspect. We need to install our preferred chairman to run the meeting, else our efforts may all be for nothing.

United we stand!


----------



## NOR (20 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> YEEHAAA, lets hope todays ruling by Justice Gordon is just the beginning of more victories to be won re WC this week, then we can really see just how badly the PIF has  have been managed by WC under the guise of 'working in the best interests of unitholders'!!!!! Onwards and upwards! I am very 'encouraged and delighted' with todays outcome. Cheers to everyones efforts and support, Seamisty




how sweet it is   thank dora n boots thanks all pif investers  specical thanks to ..ag.....        see ya jen comeing to get you


----------



## petes (20 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> YEEHAAA, lets hope todays ruling by Justice Gordon is just the beginning of more victories to be won re WC this week, then we can really see just how badly the PIF has  have been managed by WC under the guise of 'working in the best interests of unitholders'!!!!! Onwards and upwards! I am very 'encouraged and delighted' with todays outcome. Cheers to everyones efforts and support, Seamisty




  Ignorance is Bliss!  I have seen my S/Fund investment go down the tube.  No message from Wellington re EGM being postponed to 23rd.  The only way of knowing the new date was by stumbling on this forum.  Great news - will be there for support.


----------



## elizaman (20 June 2011)

Unfortunate Inv said:


> Judgement due to be handed down today, 20/06/2011, at approx 12 Noon;
> 
> SUPREME COURT ACTION AGAINST WELLINGTON
> 
> ...




Thanks for the reply. Will look at the web site with interest.


----------



## seamisty (20 June 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> New NSX Announcement:
> 
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724116.PDF
> 
> ...



Cookie I just checked the date of my original complaint to ASIC and the NSX re the placement and rights issue, part of that complaint sent to ASIC on the 11th May 20011was:: "we are extremely concerned with the latest 'Capital Raising' exercise by Wellington Capital not being in the best interests of unitholders and  believe that the resulting dilution of unit holder value will be more detrimental than beneficial. To change our constitution to enable this to happen is not only unprofessional in my opinion, but totally unacceptable behaviour from a Responsible Entity entrusted to work in the best interests of unitholders. We see this purely as a vote grabbing exercise.  What protection do we have from an RE who changes the constitution without unit holder approval to the detriment of investors?  Can ASIC reverse this decision if they deem it to be NOT in the best interests of unitholders?"

Part of the response I received from ASIC on the 1st of June 2011 is as follows:::'My apologies for not responding to your email sooner. ASIC is maintaining an active monitoring brief in respect of the issues relating to the rights issue and upcoming members meeting. ASIC has carefully considered the issues raised by the members of the Premium Income Fund (Fund) in respect of the placement and rights issue and responded to members who have complained to ASIC about these.'

I take it that ASIC should now be reviewing their decision not to intervene on behalf of PIF unitholders earlie which could have prevented this situation before the PIFAG had to seek legal representation. I am sure there will be more to come re the placement issue which has diluted our fund and given equal rights to the newas yet un named professional investors. Seamisty


----------



## marcom (20 June 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> New NSX Announcement:
> 
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724116.PDF
> 
> ...




Breaker and Charles36
What Justice Gordon is saying is that we were too late to apply for INJUNCTIVE RELIEF on the first placement, but using her arguement that *the placements made by deed poll are contrary to s 601GC(1)(b) of the Act* an URGENT APPLICATION to ASIC to strike out the first placement should be made immediately.


----------



## ASICK (20 June 2011)

marcom said:


> Breaker and Charles36
> What Justice Gordon is saying is that we were too late to apply for INJUNCTIVE RELIEF on the first placement, but using her arguement that *the placements made by deed poll are contrary to s 601GC(1)(b) of the Act* an URGENT APPLICATION to ASIC to strike out the first placement should be made immediately.




Isn't it now simply a matter that the PIF action group seek a declaration that the first placement be reversed now that the constitutional amendments have been voided?  I guess time is against the group unless they wish to postphone the meeting yet again?

Seems to me that the group won the day for the orders sought, but those orders didn't capture all the objectives.

Perhaps ASIC might just come in as a 'white knight' with a little nudge from your legal team (which I'm sure will be happening).


----------



## simgrund (20 June 2011)

Once more with feeling from Willie's Troilus and Cressida:

"There's language in her eye, her cheek, her lip,/
Nay, her foot speaks."

Never a blink in the eye! And the Placement will not count either as reversal post meeting will normalize the final count.

I can now turn the page to Richard of the "Kingdom for a horse" fame.

Regards,


----------



## alans (20 June 2011)

Re the NSX Wellington litigation update, Justice Gordon noted about Units issued the subject of placement: If, as here, the plaintiff sought relief other than damages, they should have moved earlier.’
Does this mean PIFAG can claim damages from the RE, to compensate dilution of unit value?


----------



## Harald (20 June 2011)

ASICK said:


> Isn't it now simply a matter that the PIF action group seek a declaration that the first placement be reversed now that the constitutional amendments have been voided?  I guess time is against the group unless they wish to postphone the meeting yet again?
> 
> Seems to me that the group won the day for the orders sought, but those orders didn't capture all the objectives.
> 
> Perhaps ASIC might just come in as a 'white knight' with a little nudge from your legal team (which I'm sure will be happening).




Maybe we have to be a little patient. There still isn't a update on the Castlereagh website. Couldn't that mean that they are hard working to find a reply to J.H.
statement that she was the winner in Melbourne? We should be optimistic that she
can't use those 75 million votes by herself to her advantage.


----------



## Would Be Trader (20 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> YEEHAAA, lets hope todays ruling by Justice Gordon is just the beginning of more victories to be won re WC this week, then we can really see just how badly the PIF has  have been managed by WC under the guise of 'working in the best interests of unitholders'!!!!! Onwards and upwards! I am very 'encouraged and delighted' with todays outcome. Cheers to everyones efforts and support, Seamisty




Well Done Seamisty, Breaker and all the other front line soldiers of the PIF AG!

So much is owed to you by so many.

In regard to the meeting on the 23 June, all I have to say is .... I would be very worried if I owned a red leather Jacket

Cheers


----------



## DoraNBoots (20 June 2011)

(WC quote) Justice Gordon saying:
_"That conclusion is fortified by the fact that the Plaintiffs were aware of Wellington's intention to make the placement as early as 6 May 2011 but did not institute proceedings in this court until 6 June 2011."​_
There were only 6 business days between the announcement of the Placement and the issue of these units.  Hardly time to act before the units were issued.  It was not until after the 17 May 2011 (when the units were issued) that ASIC notified their decision not to intervene.


----------



## marcom (20 June 2011)

ASICK said:


> Isn't it now simply a matter that the PIF action group seek a declaration that the first placement be reversed now that the constitutional amendments have been voided?  I guess time is against the group unless they wish to postphone the meeting yet again?
> 
> Seems to me that the group won the day for the orders sought, but those orders didn't capture all the objectives.
> 
> Perhaps ASIC might just come in as a 'white knight' with a little nudge from your legal team (which I'm sure will be happening).




ASICK, yes if ASIC will issue a declaration of breach of s 601GC(1)(b) of the Act PIF AG can go back to court to have the units annuled or can ASIC as regulator of the ASX and NSX simply direct WC and the NSX to cancel the shares?


----------



## ASICK (21 June 2011)

marcom said:


> ASICK, yes if ASIC will issue a declaration of breach of s 601GC(1)(b) of the Act PIF AG can go back to court to have the units annuled or can ASIC as regulator of the ASX and NSX simply direct WC and the NSX to cancel the shares?




Hi Marcom,  My guess is as good as yours - I find it difficult to believe that such an outcome is possible, that (1) ASIC is able to able to seemingly ignore s. 601FC(1)(b) of the Corporations Act while assessing s. 601GC(1)(b) of the act, and (2) that a judge is able to determine that constitutional amendments are invalid, yet a placement pursuant to such an amendment is not invalid.  To me, it's a world of contradictions.

I haven't read the judge's reasons for judgment - where is it?

I think that one option is that your side could go back to court and seek further orders, but in order to do that, the meeting would have to be postphoned (again).  There may be consequences if the meetings proceeds without contesting the placement  - would that amount to an acceptance of the placement in the circumstances?  

Secondly, I would have thought ASIC has the authority to wind back the placement as the constitutional amendment on which the placement relies is invalid.

I should add that I'm surprised that ASIC reasoned that since WC said that the placement and rights issue were in investors' best interests, then that was the case.  No real test of the facts, but rather an acceptance of the manager's view over that of investors.


----------



## zixo (21 June 2011)

JUST IN

SHIFTING STUMPS

News flash for directors in the funds management game: you can't arbitrarily change the issue price of your units just because it might suit you.

The Federal Court yesterday ruled on a stoush between, on one side, the Premium Income Fund Action Group, backing Castlereagh Capital's Ian Ferrier, and on the other, Wellington Capital, led by Jenny Hutson. Justice Michelle Gordon blew the whistle on Wellington Capital's attempts on May 9 and May 16 to change the pricing of a rights issue through tweaking the fund's constitution.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/flying-roo-better-than-tiger-moth-20110620-1gbxt.html


----------



## JohnH (21 June 2011)

....and from the Brisbane Courier Mail

http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/investors-backed-over-fund-changes/story-fn6ck2gb-1226078752902


The last line of the report has to be the understatement of the year!!!        John H.


----------



## seamisty (21 June 2011)

JohnH said:


> ....and from the Brisbane Courier Mail
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/investors-backed-over-fund-changes/story-fn6ck2gb-1226078752902
> 
> ...



It appears the rights issue was poorly subscribed to anyway with approx only a third of unitholders taking up the offer. 

'A third project, a planned 16-storey unit project at Main Beach, has now been thrown in to doubt since it requires up to $25 million in capital, she said.'

Well if a total of $25.9million had been raised as was hoped for by WC to complete 3 projects when one project alone needed that amount to complete what was WC going to do? Get half way through the Main Beach development then WC offer a joint venture to one of their cronies to share in the profits as in the Wollongong deal? Who needs transparency when it is so obvious that the whole placement and rights issue was a farce akin to blackmail right from the start. We copped the 'vote for WC or your fund will be liquidated' campaign where we were conned, but we are a lot wiser and united these days and very much aware of these type of scare mongering tactics.

Whats your next move to RECRUIT support WC? All the smear campaign did was align WC with gutless supposedly anonymous cowards willing to stop at nothing to help WC retain control of the PIF. What is in those records that so desperately needs to be kept from a forensic accountant?
Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (21 June 2011)

Judgment in relation to PIFAG proceedings against Wellington Capital is now on the cascap website

http://castlereagh.rlbrandmgmt.com....anager/files/FCA_698_-_PIFAG_v_Wellington.pdf


----------



## JohnH (21 June 2011)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724119.PDF

WC are trying to stop the meeting!!!


----------



## marcom (21 June 2011)

JohnH said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724119.PDF
> 
> WC are trying to stop the meeting!!!




This shows that she doesn't have the numbers because -
a. ASIC may moving to cancel the first rights issue or
b. she doesn't have enough votes from the rights issue or financial advisors or
c. she is a complete and utter bitch!


----------



## seamisty (21 June 2011)

marcom said:


> This shows that she doesn't have the numbers because -
> a. ASIC may moving to cancel the first rights issue or
> b. she doesn't have enough votes from the rights issue or financial advisors or
> c. she is a complete and utter bitch!



Or all of the above Marcom.All other efforts to out number Castlereagh supportors have failed  Seamisty


----------



## Blueboy1 (21 June 2011)

JohnH said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724119.PDF
> 
> WC are trying to stop the meeting!!!




JohnH. In my lay opinion:-
If as Judge Gordon found that the plaintiffs (PIFAG) "sought relief,other than damages,they should have moved earlier" then surely this can be also used as a precedent in the ensuing case tomorrow.....Wellington is seeking relief other than damages in trying to stop the meeting on the 23rd,with only a day to spare,knowing that members have arranged (and paid for) accommodation,airfares and the like,however Wellington has known the meeting was to take place on the 23rd and even agreed to the deferment of it.
Why then, should there be a double standard? 
If Judge Gordon found that the plaintiffs should have moved earlier then the precedent exists that Wellington should also have moved earlier to prevent the meeting on the 23rd.
Regards,
Blueboy1


----------



## JohnH (21 June 2011)

Blueboy1 said:


> JohnH. In my lay opinion:-
> If as Judge Gordon found that the plaintiffs (PIFAG) "sought relief,other than damages,they should have moved earlier" then surely this can be also used as a precedent in the ensuing case tomorrow.....Wellington is seeking relief other than damages in trying to stop the meeting on the 23rd,with only a day to spare,knowing that members have arranged (and paid for) accommodation,airfares and the like,however Wellington has known the meeting was to take place on the 23rd and even agreed to the deferment of it.
> Why then, should there be a double standard?
> If Judge Gordon found that the plaintiffs should have moved earlier then the precedent exists that Wellington should also have moved earlier to prevent the meeting on the 23rd.
> ...



What you say is fair and commonsense Blueboy1, but unfortunately this does not always seem to be the norm  in this unfortunate affair.  -  still we can but hope.
I can't see how anyone can stop us having a meeting....  John H


----------



## DoraNBoots (21 June 2011)

Thanks to the PIF AG for these two announcements 

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724117.PDF
41999 NSX Revocation of Constitutional amendments made on 9 May 2011 and 16 May 2011
_"Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund advises that it has as a consequence of the decision of Justice Gordon in the Federal Court on 20 June 2011 revoked the amendments made by Deed Poll to the Constitution of the Premium Income Fund on 9 May 2011 and 16 May 2011.
The consequence is that the Constitution of the Premium Income Fund as at 8 May 2011 is the Constitution as at today."​_
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724118.PDF
41999 NSX Rights Issue
_"The Rights Issue originally announced on 6 May 2011 and closed on 8 June 2011 cannot proceed as a consequence of Orders made by Her Honour Justice Gordon in the Federal Court of Victoria yesterday."​_


----------



## Blueboy1 (21 June 2011)

http://www.financialstandard.com.au/news/view/12072780/
PIF Action Group lands Federal Court win
Financial Standard.
The above article is a well informed account of the recent case and portrays Wellington in the light that shows their more shadowy side.
Blueboy1
PS You are right JohnH,things do have a habit of not being what they seem but perhaps the lawyers acting for PIFAG may be able to assert pressure from the findings of Judge Gordon as the precedent has been set.


----------



## Blueboy1 (21 June 2011)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724118.PDF
Managing Director Jenny Hutson said, "I greatly appreciate the support demonstrated by unit holders in this issue"

Nice try Jen........What support?
Blueboy1


----------



## Duped (21 June 2011)

seamisty said:


> It appears the rights issue was poorly subscribed to anyway with approx only a third of unitholders taking up the offer.
> 
> 'A third project, a planned 16-storey unit project at Main Beach, has now been thrown in to doubt since it requires up to $25 million in capital, she said.'
> 
> ...




Further to that seamisty was the fact that the $11.3M placement wasn't filled either.

WC went to market to raise $11.3M with a placement of units. *WC only managed to raise $7.55M despite placing those units at only 10c each which is less than a third of the audited value of PIF's net tangible assets.*

Despite these facts WC still blames everyone but itself. Hutson even blames Justice Gordon with "Returning this capital will mean that we are able to proceed with two of the three planned projects namely those  located in Townsville and the Hunter Valley in the short term and will need to revisit the source of capital for the Gold Coast project."

And then as you point out, of the $24.91M WC tried to raise from unit holders, WC could only find support for about $6M additional capital according to Courier Mail.

Is there anyone here on ASF still buying WC's stories?

For all of you who feel they missed out due to Justice Gordon's decision: you can always just buy more units on the NSX


----------



## selciper (21 June 2011)

Does Hutson ever think in societal terms rather than a narrow-minded board room attitude to existence? To attempt to derail the EGM demonstrates an indifference to entirely justified complaints about the Wellington performance.

What is an addiction to court rooms called?

And the volcanic ash cloud may have an effect.


----------



## Duped (21 June 2011)

Interesting revelation from yesterday's Federal Court decision is: "Some of the Placement Units have been traded on the NSX".  Well isn't that just fantastic: more downward pressure on the NSX price.


----------



## JohnH (21 June 2011)

Duped said:


> Interesting revelation from yesterday's Federal Court decision is: "Some of the Placement Units have been traded on the NSX".  Well isn't that just fantastic: more downward pressure on the NSX price.




Even more interesting Duped - If they bought at 10 cents (or was it 9) and traded at a maximum of 9 cents -  where's the sense???  (no pun intended)  I thought these were Jenny's sophisticated investors!!!


----------



## 2CentsWorth (21 June 2011)

Duped said:


> Interesting revelation from yesterday's Federal Court decision is: "Some of the Placement Units have been traded on the NSX".  Well isn't that just fantastic: more downward pressure on the NSX price.




 Duped,
there is something very fishy about that statement....Who, in a right business mind, would buy a share at 10 cents, and sell it a few days later for 8.8cents...that is unless,they were setting up a cunning situation that could be used to their advantage at some future date. 
Now whose name springs to mind, that just might think like that?...Need any clues!


----------



## zixo (21 June 2011)

WHERES ASIC??????


----------



## zixo (21 June 2011)

2CentsWorth said:


> Duped,
> there is something very fishy about that statement....Who, in a right business mind, would buy a share at 10 cents, and sell it a few days later for 8.8cents...that is unless,they were setting up a cunning situation that could be used to their advantage at some future date.
> Now whose name springs to mind, that just might think like that?...Need any clues!




I believe the cut off date for the vote was 4.00pm with JH'S Registry service - these unitholders who bought shares should be invalid to vote or should be withdrawn from the vote.
I ENCOURAGE ALL INVESTORS TO TURN UP AT THE MEETING ON THURSDAY 23rd of June.


----------



## ASICK (21 June 2011)

Justice DowsettCourt No.1, Level 7

9:15 AM  Interlocutory Hearing

1QUD140/2011WELLINGTON CAPITAL LIMITED AS RESPONSIBLE ENTITY OF THE PREMIUM INCOME FUND v PREMIUM INCOME FUND ACTION GROUP INCORPORATED (NSW INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION NO. 9894759) & ORS


Seems that the hearing tomorrow is only a small part of something much larger since the matter is only  interlocutory in nature.

It'd be interesting to see what claim/s WC is making.


----------



## JohnH (21 June 2011)

ASICK said:


> Justice DowsettCourt No.1, Level 7
> 
> 9:15 AM  Interlocutory Hearing
> 
> ...




............probably loss of income!!!


----------



## marcom (21 June 2011)

The decision, if there is one tomorrow will be after 4.15pm -

Justice Dowsett Court No. 1, Level 7

9:15 AM Interlocutory Hearing

1 QUD140/2011 WELLINGTON CAPITAL LIMITED AS RESPONSIBLE ENTITY OF THE PREMIUM INCOME FUND v PREMIUM INCOME FUND ACTION GROUP INCORPORATED (NSW INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION NO. 9894759) & ORS

10:15 AM Part Heard

2 QUD107/2010 HOMELOAN REFUNDS PTY LTD & ANOR v UNIVERSAL INTEGRITY PTY LTD & ORS

4:15 PM Interlocutory Hearing

3 QUD140/2011 WELLINGTON CAPITAL LIMITED AS RESPONSIBLE ENTITY OF THE PREMIUM INCOME FUND v PREMIUM INCOME FUND ACTION GROUP INCORPORATED (NSW INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION NO. 9894759) & ORS


----------



## JohnH (21 June 2011)

marcom said:


> The decision, if there is one tomorrow will be after 4.15pm -
> 
> Justice Dowsett Court No. 1, Level 7
> 
> ...




Well, on that basis, we had better confirm our flights (volcano permitting)


----------



## Harald (21 June 2011)

marcom said:


> The decision, if there is one tomorrow will be after 4.15pm -
> 
> Justice Dowsett Court No. 1, Level 7
> 
> ...




So the question now is  should I travel to the meeting, stay overnight in Sydney and
walk in the morning to the meeting to find out it is cancelled. 

My answer is a clear   Yes   I will drive 450 km one way and take the risk.

Hopefully all of us can't be confused by JH tactics. I only now realise what kind of idiot
I have been when I voted back in 2008 for JH.


----------



## zixo (21 June 2011)

Harald said:


> So the question now is  should I travel to the meeting, stay overnight in Sydney and
> walk in the morning to the meeting to find out it is cancelled.
> 
> My answer is a clear   Yes   I will drive 450 km one way and take the risk.
> ...




Thanks Harald.
There is a real possibility that the EGM scheduled for thursday the 23rd may be cancelled because Wellington Capital has sought a court ruling to stop the Investors meeting, Its all pending on the judges decision tomorrow.

If we need to Change the meeting again I hope every single Investor is made aware it is soley because of the actions that Wellington Capital have made to OUR fund simply to ensure JH and Wellington remain as the Responsible entity.

Perhaps the ruling of a postponement may ensure that any Investor who has not voted or wish to change their vote may still be entitled.

All Investors, not only Ag members need be become aware of wellingtons desperate ploy.


----------



## Shafted (21 June 2011)

Now Hutson really is showing herself in her true colours, and in all her ruthlessness and disregard of investors' interests.  Knows she can't win the vote, so tries to stop the meeting.  For all the world like a spoilt child: “It's my ball, and if you won't let me win, you can't play with it any more.”

We all know what her real motives are, but on what conceivable legal grounds does she claim that the meeting should be stopped?  From everything I have seen, it has been called in 100% compliance with the PIF constitution, and the Action Group, its advisers and Castlereagh would hardly have gone this far without being absolutely sure of their ground.

Dirty fighters usually get their comeuppance eventually, and let's all of us do everything we can to make sure JH gets hers on Thursday.  It's been a long time coming.


----------



## DepressedDad (21 June 2011)

Yes, I'm wondering on what legal grounds she is asking the meeting be stopped at the eleventh hour. Definetely showing her true colours in NOT letting the Unit holders decide who runs their fund (so blatantly NOT acting in their best interests) and showing her true colours as a conniving control freak with a lot to hide.

Surely as she daily digs herself deeper in deceit acting immorally & now proven illegally, ASIC will ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING!!   Are there any professionals at ASIC that will turn up at work tomorrow and say to each other, 'Gee we've been trusted with this responsibility and we're getting paid to do this job, in the light of what's going down now, do you think we might have to do something here??'


----------



## Blueboy1 (22 June 2011)

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...led-for-thursday/story-e6freqmx-1226079456192
From:The Courier-Mail
June 22, 2011
Brisbane Merchant bank Wellington Capital asks courts to halt investor meeting scheduled for Thursday
A BRISBANE merchant bank facing a possible loss of control over a $250 million fund has launched a last-minute court bid to stop a planned investor meeting tomorrow in Sydney.

Wellington Capital's application in the Brisbane Federal Court seeks a declaration that the notice of meeting is invalid and an order restraining a breakaway group of unit holders in the Premium Income Fund from going ahead with the gathering.

The first hearing is scheduled for this morning, with critics alleging the legal challenge is a desperate bid by Wellington to shut down voting.

An affidavit filed by Wellington managing director Jenny Hutson late on Monday alleges a series of irregularities involving Computershare as the proxy vote collector and a failure to dispatch several promised daily updates.

She also accuses the PIF Action Group, which is seeking to oust Wellington as the fund's responsible entity, of using an out-of-date register of investors.

As a result, some new investors and those who have changed address have not received adequate notice of the meeting, she says.

Lastly, Ms Hutson alleges that powers of attorney may have been improperly used to lodge proxy votes and that no notice of that fact has been lodged with the National Stock Exchange.

Ms Hutson did not return calls yesterday. Wellington had previously urged almost 11,000 investors in the troubled fund to reject seven resolutions at the meeting, including one that would result in Castlereagh Capital taking over as manager.

Castlereagh head of funds management Philip Armstrong yesterday accused Ms Hutson of "an act of desperation to stop a process" in which the voting so far has gone strongly against Wellington.

Mr Armstrong said the motion to remove Wellington had the support of 82 per cent of the 325 million units voted so far, or about 40 per cent of the total.

The other six resolutions had the backing of more than 90 per cent.

He denied there had been any significant delay in dispatching voting updates and accused Wellington of declining multiple requests to supply up-to-date registries. He dismissed the powers of attorney matter as a non-issue.

Mr Armstrong said Wellington could have taken action to stop the meeting a month ago but lodged its application on the same day it lost a Federal Court case in Melbourne.

In that matter, Wellington was prohibited from raising up to $24.9 million after a judge ruled it had violated the Corporations Act by failing to seek investor approval for a change in the constitution.

Mr Armstrong said the likely adjournment of tomorrow's meeting would cost thousands of dollars and inconvenience several hundred investors planning to attend.

"They just want to have their say," he said.


----------



## Duped (22 June 2011)

JohnH said:


> Even more interesting Duped - If they bought at 10 cents (or was it 9) and traded at a maximum of 9 cents -  where's the sense???  (no pun intended)  I thought these were Jenny's sophisticated investors!!!




JohnH and 2CentsWorth.  I didn't want to comment on that aspect because there could be a number of reasons the new unit holders are selling at a loss so soon.  E.g. to elicit the exact reaction we got from Justice Gordon. I.e. Gordon J didn't cancel the placement. Or e.g. the sophisticated investor/s is engaging in a bit of price discovery. I.e. testing to see how competitive the competing bidders are.
It could be anything.


----------



## selciper (22 June 2011)

Would those ASIC sleuths consider putting away their coffee cups and do some work for us?


----------



## DepressedDad (22 June 2011)

From the web: (Bold & colour added) 
____________________________________________________________________
What we do

ASIC is Australia’s corporate, markets and financial services regulator.

We contribute to Australia’s economic reputation and wellbeing by ensuring that Australia’s financial markets are fair and transparent, supported by confident and informed investors and consumers.

We are an independent Commonwealth Government body. We are set up under and administer the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act (ASIC Act), and we carry out most of our work under the Corporations Act.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 requires us to: 
maintain, facilitate and improve the performance of the financial system and entities in it 
promote confident and informed participation by investors and consumers in the financial system 
*administer the law effectively* and with minimal procedural requirements 
*enforce and give effect to the law* 
receive, process and store,  *efficiently and quickly* information that is given to us 
make information about companies and other bodies available to the public as soon as practicable.
______________________________________________________________________
Well if The Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 requires you to do those things why aren't you doing them?????


----------



## atlas1950 (22 June 2011)

New Nsx annousement. Meeting IS on for Thursday.

Good luck to us all.

m


----------



## Blueboy1 (22 June 2011)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724126.PDF

The meeting is on....

Extracted from the above link:

Meeting scheduled for 23 June 2011

Wellington Capital has agreed not to proceed with its interlocutory proceedings in the Federal Court.The Court ordered that the interlocutory proceeding be dismissed.

The consequence is that tomorrow's meeting of Unitholders,will proceed as planned as follows:

23 June 2011 at 11.00am
Pinaroo Room,
77 York Street,Sydney

Jenny Hutson,Chairperson of Wellington Capital as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund said:

'it is my view that the ultimate decision making body is the members in general meeting. I look forward to Unitholders having the opportunity to consider the resolutions put forward in the notice of 16 May 2011.'


----------



## MAE (22 June 2011)

atlas1950 said:


> New Nsx annousement. Meeting IS on for Thursday.
> 
> Good luck to us all.
> 
> m




Hi All, yes thats right the meeting is still going ahead.

If I had added in this link right, you can view it there.

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724126.PDF

Below are the Comments from Jenny Hutson in the Article that reads:

"Is is my view that the ultimate decision making body is the members in general meeting.  I look forward to Unitholders having the opportunity to consider the resolutions put forward in the notice of 16 May 2011"

Lets hope the Volcanic Ash stays away so we can get there.

MAE


----------



## charles36 (22 June 2011)

What Wellington has failed to mention in the NSX release is that legal proceedings are still in play and the matter is set down for hearing before Mr. Justice Dowsett in the Brisbane Supreme Court for trial on the 6 July, 2011.  I thought this might be an important issue for unit holders to know.  Apparently Wellington DO NOT.  The judgment is yours fellow unit holders.  Please be at the meeting.  This is our meeting called by the PIFAG and paid for independently of Wellington and the PIF. It is our meeting called for the purpose of among other resolutions to remove Wellington Capital.
We need all the help and support we can get.  Will be pleased to meet you all there. Regards Charles 36. I would imagine you all know who I am thanks to my alleged adversary, the pif reaction group (anonymous incorporated)  Cheers.


----------



## elizaman (22 June 2011)

URGENT URGENT.  To all posters
Based upon the fact that there maybe an issue with who chairs the meeting and the fact that we have to be in attendance to vote for a chairperson???? is anyone heading up or know anyone heading up from Melbourne. ????  Earliest flight I can get on economy is 7.30am getting into Syd at 9.00am If all goes well should be no problems getting there but if there is a problem as there has been recently it will probably be a waste of time. Could go business if I have to. Would like to team up if possible with any melbourne mebers heading up. Let me know ASAP if you can. Thanks


----------



## ASICK (22 June 2011)

charles36 said:


> What Wellington has failed to mention in the NSX release is that legal proceedings are still in play and the matter is set down for hearing before Mr. Justice Dowsett in the Brisbane Supreme Court for trial on the 6 July, 2011.  .. .




It's not just WC not opening up about the claims in the Federal Court in Brisbane, there doesn't seem to be anything coming from Castlereagh either.

WC didn't proceed (for whatever reason) with the interlocutory hearing, but still, members are none the wiser about the matters set down for trial - what is WC chasing?


----------



## marcom (22 June 2011)

A little history of what happened prior and following the Balmain Trilogy expulsion of City Pacific from the First Mortgage Fund in July 2009 - this demonstrates the lenghts that pigs will go to keep their head in the trough!

http://www.balmaintrilogy.com.au/news_300609.aspx

30 June 2009

WEB UPDATE
City Pacific seeks to frustrate unit holders

We can confirm that a notice has been lodged with ASIC under the Corporations Act requiring the regulator to register Trilogy as the new responsible entity of the City Pacific First Mortgage Fund.

We can also confirm that:

Before the unitholders meeting last Thursday (June 25), City Pacific applied to the Federal Court for an injunction to prevent the meeting from occurring. This failed.

At the meeting, and following the appointment of a unitholder as Chairman, the unitholders overwhelmingly carried a resolution to remove City Pacific as responsible entity and appoint Trilogy in its place. Computershare calculated that more than 87% of units voted at the meeting were voted in favour of the resolution.

We believe that City Pacific has no interest in listening to the members that it allegedly represents indeed, the day after the meeting, City Pacific again instituted Court proceedings for summary judgment to invalidate the meeting. This again failed.

City Pacific also sought an injunction to prevent Trilogy from lodging a notice of change of responsible entity with ASIC in order to delay its removal. This also failed.

City Pacific further sought that the hearing of the matter occurs in late August. From this action we can only assume that City Pacific wishes to remain as responsible entity for the interim period, which in effect would enable it to continue charging fees well beyond that which Trilogy has agreed to charge and use Fund assets to pay for the litigation.

The Court has not been prepared to let this matter wait and required lodgment of City Pacific's amended statement of claim by July 3 before a directions hearing on July 6.

BalmainTrilogy is concerned that the overwhelming, clearly stated and valid demands of the members, as evidenced by their vote, to replace City Pacific is being frustrated by City Pacific desperately trying to delay its inevitable removal.

It is clearly a matter of great discomfort to the majority of unitholders that City Pacific is prepared to disregard the unitholders best interests and bring court action after court action, at the expense of members to overturn the clear wishes of the members.

*Note that the law firm acting for City Pacific to frustrate investors replacing them was none other than McCoulough Robertson JH's partners law firm.* Yes and they are at it again!!!


----------



## zixo (22 June 2011)

Can All PIF AG Unitholders please make our presence known and our voices heard tomorrow at the meeting. I urge all to attend.


----------



## elizaman (22 June 2011)

zixo said:


> Can All PIF AG Unitholders please make our presence known and our voices heard tomorrow at the meeting. I urge all to attend.




Would love to know if there are any members from Melbourne. ??? I'm thinking about heading up. Just not sure I can get there on time. Would like to share a taxi if possible. Anyone???. I still haven't bought a ticket as yet.


----------



## astevo (22 June 2011)

elizaman said:


> I'm thinking about heading up. Just not sure I can get there on time. Would like to share a taxi if possible. Anyone???




Hi Elizaman,
Subject to volcano ash clouds and Tiger's whims I'll be flying up too. Seats with Tiger at 0650 still available. (Return is now a bit exxy though!)
Rather than taxi, I'd suggest the train from airport to city (Wynyard is close). Quick (20 mins), very frequent (every 5-10 mins), and reasonable price ($15 one way, $25 return, much cheaper if concession).

- Alan.


----------



## AusInCA (22 June 2011)

I hope all goes well for this round of the fight, at the meeting tomorrow.  As I'm 10,000KM away I can't be there.  I'll be on this forum first thing in the morning hoping for a win for investors.


----------



## Towbar (22 June 2011)

AusInCA said:


> I hope all goes well for this round of the fight, at the meeting tomorrow.  As I'm 10,000KM away I can't be there.  I'll be on this forum first thing in the morning hoping for a win for investors.




Towbar We too are unable to be at the EGM, Due to our remoteness & financial problems,We send our best wishes to the PIFAG,& Hopefully some one at the meeting
will keep us unit holders on this forum, informed of the progress of the meeting.


----------



## atlas1950 (22 June 2011)

Towbar said:


> Towbar We too are unable to be at the EGM, Due to our remoteness & financial problems,We send our best wishes to the PIFAG,& Hopefully some one at the meeting
> will keep us unit holders on this forum, informed of the progress of the meeting.




I too will be unale to attend and want to wish good luck at the meeting. I will be following the thread from the moment the meeting starts, so if somehow we can get updates as to the progress of the meetings, it would be great.

M


----------



## NOR (22 June 2011)

marcom said:


> A little history of what happened prior and following the Balmain Trilogy expulsion of City Pacific from the First Mortgage Fund in July 2009 - this demonstrates the lenghts that pigs will go to keep their head in the trough!
> 
> http://www.balmaintrilogy.com.au/news_300609.aspx
> 
> ...



 THIS NEED/S TO BE HANDED TO ALL POOR UNINFORMED PEOPLE @ MEETINGYES THEY ARE READEY


----------



## JohnH (22 June 2011)

There are 3 of us on flight DJ504 from Gold Coast tomorrow at 7:00.  Anyone else who wants to share a taxi from Sydney to City (and back?) please respond before 5:45 tomorrow morning (Thursday) - Ideally with mobile number to me privately.

Cheers,

John H.


----------



## marcom (22 June 2011)

Best wishes for tomorrow. We also are unable to make the meeting. We are in Yangshou a small rural village in central China. We have been posting from a wifi terminal in our $19 a night hotel. We have tried to explain the PIF drama to some of the Chinese people here, who told us that there are plenty of crooks in China just like Australia!

Please post results on the forum as soon as possible. We wiil win!


----------



## Bumblebee (23 June 2011)

Many of us unable to travel will be thinking of you all in Sydney today for the meeting. Best wishes to PIFAG, all investors and Forum posters for the best possible result.
Can anyone keep us all, hanging on the Forum, up to date on the proceedings. cheers Bumblbee


----------



## marcom (23 June 2011)

More on the Equity Trust saga:

Wanted returns? Well, you got them
Scott Rochfort
June 23, 2011

CBD
Comparisons can be odorous ... Alan Joyce. <em>Illustration: John Shakespeare</em>

Comparisons can be odorous ... Alan Joyce. Illustration: John Shakespeare

The Gold Coast fund manager Equititrust has found an innovative way of demonstrating its claim of having ''pioneered unprecedented, industry leading capital protection initiatives for [its] investors''.

In its latest update, Equititrust put a positive spin on the book value of the units in its loss-making flagship mortgage fund stumbling from $1 to 78 ¢.

Investors in the Equititrust Income Fund, rather than earning monthly distributions, discovered from the update that they have been getting capital returns for the past few months.
Advertisement: Story continues below

''Accordingly, as EIF has no income to distribute, the ordinary monthly payments received by investors in the period 2 July 2010 to 29 March 2011 are all partial repayments of capital and, therefore, are not income and will not need to be included in the assessable income in an investor's tax return for the current year,'' said the update.

The latest valuation is from April 30 and does not include the current review of the fund's loan book.

''Operating costs, including future bank interest and the costs incurred in managing the fund, have not been recognised in this calculation and equally further income earned from interest during the realisation process has also not been recognised,'' Equititrust said in relation to its latest valuation.

Equititrust founder Mark McIvor and chief executive David Kennedy quit as directors of the fund last week.

The company, however, has yet to get around to updating its website. ''Established in 1999, the Equititrust Income Fund provides you with excellence in monthly and annual income,'' says a blurb on the site.

''The fund offers you the opportunity to invest in a senior investment position backed by Equititrust's own capital protection investment.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/wanted-returns-well-you-got-them-20110622-1gffg.html#ixzz1Q3LlaDdw


----------



## atlas1950 (23 June 2011)

Bumblebee said:


> Many of us unable to travel will be thinking of you all in Sydney today for the meeting. Best wishes to PIFAG, all investors and Forum posters for the best possible result.
> Can anyone keep us all, hanging on the Forum, up to date on the proceedings. cheers Bumblbee




My contact, who is at the meeting right now, is emailing me live updates. I am in New York,and as I get emails I will post them immediately to let people now what is happening.

First comment is there is a huge turnout.

So far, so good. Will post as I get more info.

M


----------



## Bumblebee (23 June 2011)

Thank you Atlas 1950.
This is fabulous!!...Or meeting in Sydney updates coming via New York!!!
So far so good you say. Good attendance numbers. Lets hope they are waving the right coloured flag (not RED).
Reckon there are lots of folk, like me, hanging on this thread for any information.
Thanks again Atlas 1950...keep it coming.


----------



## atlas1950 (23 June 2011)

Bumblebee said:


> Thank you Atlas 1950.
> This is fabulous!!...Or meeting in Sydney updates coming via New York!!!
> So far so good you say. Good attendance numbers. Lets hope they are waving the right coloured flag (not RED).
> Reckon there are lots of folk, like me, hanging on this thread for any information.
> Thanks again Atlas 1950...keep it coming.




We are all on the same team. We have all suffered the same pain with Jenny.

Waiting anxiously for my next email, and will post it immediately.

m


----------



## ASICK (23 June 2011)

From a contact:

"... Just tried to get into the PIF unit holder meeting. 

Absolutely packed. No visitors allowed. 

Hopefully, not good for WC!!! ..."


----------



## marcom (23 June 2011)

atlas1950 said:


> My contact, who is at the meeting right now, is emailing me live updates. I am in New York,and as I get emails I will post them immediately to let people now what is happening.
> 
> First comment is there is a huge turnout.
> 
> ...




atlas1950 Thanks, sitting here in front of my laptop in Yangshou, China anxiously awaiting the results that are comming via US!


----------



## Wolfgang (23 June 2011)

Thanks Atlas 1950

I am also hanging on.
Thanks to all involved in getting this mess fixed.

Wolfgang


----------



## atlas1950 (23 June 2011)

atlas1950 said:


> We are all on the same team. We have all suffered the same pain with Jenny.
> 
> Waiting anxiously for my next email, and will post it immediately.
> 
> m




Message number2 from meeting.

Meeting adjourned till middle of July. Lots of legal discussion. Ferrier very impressive.

Thats all I got for the moment.

m


----------



## DepressedDad (23 June 2011)

As disappointing as that may seem, maybe that gives the fund more chance to sort out legal issues in our favour, BEFORE it is handed over.  Hopefully some press now too, given the turn out.  Staying positive!


----------



## marcom (23 June 2011)

When I told my Chinese friend about the result he reminded me of the old Chinese proberb about removing corrupt officials. He explained the process is like removing dog sh*t from your boots - it takes alot of messy scrubing to remove the bulk, but then the stench lingers for a long time.


----------



## 66Joy (23 June 2011)

Like many other Pif investors spread across various various parts of the globe I was up very early, 5 a.m. Spanish time, to anxiously check the Forum for results of Meeting.
Adjournment is of course somewhat disappointing but, for those of us so far away could someone please inform more details of how everything actually went ???

Thanks in advance for details.


----------



## Bumblebee (23 June 2011)

Here is the latest from Wellington on the NSX

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724134.PDF

Can someone from the meeting let us all know what happened??


----------



## zixo (23 June 2011)

I'm asking unitholders and AG members to Please Question everything you read via the NSX!

Jenny Hutson was invited to sit in at the beginning of the meeting and refused. She did not confront unitholders, Nor did she address Investors and unitholders at the end of the meeting as she had earlier advised and relayed to the chairman as PROMISED.

Numerous phonecalls were made during the meeting asking ms JH to attend and she somehow became unavailable to contact.
Her Staff were advised and somehow they also became unavailable and they all vanished  
I dont know how she was locked in a room perhaps she mistakenly locked herself in another room because she had been sought out by many people attending.
The nsx report may need some SERIOUS clarification as to numerous statements.
 My daughter who was attending went out and in a few times as did people who had to use the bathroom and waited patiently for hours waiting for ms hutson to attend... plainly she had other places to be.
MAJORITY OF UNITHOLDERS waited until were asked to leave by the venue when the room was required for another function. 

Keep reading this forum -


----------



## reasonable (23 June 2011)

zixo said:


> I'm asking unitholders and AG members to Please Question everything you read via the NSX!
> 
> Jenny Hutson was invited to sit in at the beginning of the meeting and refused. She did not confront unitholders, Nor did she address Investors and unitholders at the end of the meeting as she had earlier advised and relayed to the chairman as PROMISED.
> 
> ...




But looking at the numbers on the NSX statement it looks like we have lost!  Nothing is on the Castleraigh website.


----------



## ASICK (23 June 2011)

reasonable said:


> But looking at the numbers on the NSX statement it looks like we have lost!  Nothing is on the Castleraigh website.[/QUOTE
> 
> Isn't there TWO registries being used?: Armstrong & Computershare  - doesn't the NSX announcement only cover one of them, the one held by Armstrong?
> 
> ...


----------



## JohnH (23 June 2011)

Have just arrived home from Sydney.  I did try to post on the free internet kiosk at Mascot, and had nearly completed the post, when it timed out and could not get back on again.   Probably just as well, because after reading Wellington's NSX report, my comments were so heated, I would likely have been banned from this forum by the moderator.

I can confirm that we were told  that Hutson was invited to the meeting, but declined.  She did however state that she would address us after the meeting was adjourned.  She was nowhere to be found.  Her mobile was rung, and was answered by her solicitor, who said she would try and find her.  She could not be found.

There were around 350 people in the meeting, and after hearing both Castlereagh and the Chairman speak a show of hands was asked.  There was 100% with no abstentions that members were totally confident in both organisations.

What really gets up my nose (I would like to use stronger language but this is an open forum) having done her utmost to cause as much distress and financial insecurity to unit holders in a totally cavalier manner, Hutson did not have the guts to keep her word, and address the meeting.

In view of the statements on the NSX, and the knowledge that several hundred people know what truly happened, I should image that the Action Groups solicitor's will spend some time before they publish their plan of action.

John H.


----------



## zixo (23 June 2011)

I suppose the meeting was adjourned because wellington Capital sought court action on the 22nd of June to prevent it going forward.
From what I can understand, the Investors Action Group accepted the adjournment Not because of the count you are seeing listed by the Wellington capital on the NSX but because of the details of law in the corporations act which are being used to stifle investors rights 

I do not know about the final count and I suggest Investors carefully do their homework "read between the lines" about whatever statements come out from Wellington regarding alot of recent information.

In a nutshell, I think what occured today was All Investors in the Pinaroo room were prepared to vote and have the matter finally settled today. I got the impression that every single investors there ARE not happy with wellington
Wellington sized up the opposition grabbed the bat and walked home and didn't want to talk to the very investors who's fund they are supposedly trustees for.   

Every trick and every tactic is being used to continually wear investors down to make them give up and prevent Investors attending the next meeting.


----------



## JohnH (23 June 2011)

zixo said:


> I suppose the meeting was adjourned because wellington Capital sought court action on the 22nd of June to prevent it going forward.
> From what I can understand, the Investors Action Group accepted the adjournment Not because of the count you are seeing listed by the Wellington capital on the NSX but because of the details of law in the corporations act which are being used to stifle investors rights
> 
> I do not know about the final count and I suggest Investors carefully do their homework "read between the lines" about whatever statements come out from Wellington regarding alot of recent information.
> ...





Couldn't agree more Zixo, but I think it will backfire.  Talking to people today they are now even more determined to follow this through (if they possibly can).  I also believe that there were people there today who if the meeting had gone ahead might have voted for Hutson, but after her deplorable behaviour are now totally for Castlereigh.


----------



## DoraNBoots (23 June 2011)

Regarding this statement by JH in todays NSX announcement:
_“Immediately prior to the meeting I had discussions with the meeting convenors with a view to cooperatively determining a way forward to validly conduct today’s meeting in a way that was in the best interests of unitholders. When negotiations became intractable, the door to the room in which I was present was locked, preventing my exit. I required security assistance to be able to leave.”​_
JH was in the meeting room with all of us investors immediately prior to the meeting. She was standing up the back in negotiations and then she left.  The door she was standing next to may have been locked  because we were advised that we could only enter the room through one set of doors.  Only the doors at the other end of the room from where JH was standing were to be used for today’s meeting.  It seems that JH is complaining about being locked in the room with us investors!  We were sitting there waiting for the meeting to start and then JH left the room!  For her to give the impression that she was locked and couldn’t get into the meeting is laughable.  We were told JH would not participate in the meeting but that she had agreed to come back after the meeting was adjourned and would speak  to us.  Once the meeting was adjourned the chariman was unable to locate JH and I and many others finally left the room once Hotel staff notified us that they needed the room for another function.

One of the issues today was that WC say they should chair the meeting while AG lawyers are saying the Corp Act says that at a meeting called by unitholders the chair should be elected by unit holders (who are present at the meeting).  Sounds like this will be decided in the court which is scheduled early July.  One thing for sure is that ALL unitholders in the meeting today wanted to be able to elect the chairman as opposed to having WC impose themselves on us as chair, this was shown by a show of hands.

There is an amazing story about a rent-a-crowd that will blow your minds but I’ll leave that to someone else to tell.


----------



## Bumblebee (23 June 2011)

Check out the story from Castlereagh's website

http://castlereagh.rlbrandmgmt.com....cement_-_meeting_adjournment_Jun_11_FINAL.pdf


----------



## Sutho81 (24 June 2011)

Can anyone please explain or reassure me about the figures Wellington posted on the NSX website in relation to the votes?

It looks like we lost.

Can I assume correctly that the figures are only from Armstrong Registry and not Computershare?

Also would anyone have a rough idea of how many proxies there are that have voting power. If the figures mentioned on the NSX are short of what really exists then there is still hope.

Example Wellington states Proxies for removal of Wellington = 208,638,814, and Against = 310,739,020, and Abstain = 1,844,132.

Question out of all the numners above does anyone have the total number of votes that could possibly exist in the fund that will give us a real idea of the result???

I would imagine all proxies returned to Computershare would be pro Castleraegh.


----------



## k.smith (24 June 2011)

DoraNBoots said:


> .....
> 
> There is an amazing story about a rent-a-crowd that will blow your minds but I’ll leave that to someone else to tell.




What happened today is truly an amazing story... 

When the partner of a family member  offered to accompany me on the train into the city I was happy to have a guide. This person (who I will refer to as ****) was attending a 8.30 meeting in the city.

While in transit, we were  amazed to find we were both attending meetings at the same venue... my meeting was for 11am on level one, **** was for 8.30am on level two.

But it was to get a lot more amazing...

I filled in the time between 8.30 to 9.30 then made my way up the Pinarro Rooms, where I met a number of unitholders. Around 10am,  a very concerned **** tapped me on the arm. She had come down from the level above to see me, she said, because she realised that HER meeting had something to do with MY meeting.... she remembered the name, Wellington Capital.(I am always talking to my family about these funds...!!!)

**** told me that she is registered with xx xx agency, and (because she is an enterprising hard-working sort) on her days off, she does "stand-ins" or "seat fillers", earning a little extra $$...

She received  an email from this agency where she is registered on the 20-06-2011 which said...(in part)
"... PXT Message: Please call Paul at XXXX urgently on XXXXXXXX  re work this Thursday paying $26.63 per hour min 4 hour call
This is XXXXXXXX the Transfilm shoot tomorrow, please be aware you are ALL being stand ins and seat fillers paying $26.63 p/hr. Details will follow shortly.
Transfilm shoot tomorrow - 8.30am Grace Hotel Marra Conference Room Lvl 2, 77 York St Syd. Wear Smart business clothes. Reply with full name to confirm message
**** XXXX 
Please be aware all the XXXX people at the JOB today will all be paid at the rate of $26.63 per hour min 4 hour call...."

**** realised IMMEDIATELY that there was more to this than being a "stand-in" or a "seat filler" (despite **** being still quite young..!!)

**** thought that there were approx 200 people at this 8.30 meeting.

**** said that they were addressed by JH, and later by a "man" and that they were told that they would be required to vote in favour of JH being elected as a chairman, and they were given pink flyers to "wave.." in support of JH.....and yes...they WOULD be "filmed" waving the pink flyers (apparently, the question was asked..!!!)

 Furthermore, as a special "thank-you", they were given 1000 shares each in the Premium Income Fund. They could elect to keep these shares, or by writing their details on the back of the document, "sell" these "shares" , and receive $100.(the document, an Australian Standard Transfer Form, was issued by Armstrong Registry Services Limited . There was a "team" present with computers, punching out the forms...(yes, I have a copy..)


Amazing..??
I could add a few more words...

imo, that this scenario can happen in corporate AUSTRALIA, in OUR COUNTRY, in a fund where the lives of THOUSANDS of investors have been left DEVASTATED is a DISGRACE...

SHAME, SHAME, SHAME...! !


----------



## k.smith (24 June 2011)

Just read this, hot off the press....

http://www.smh.com.au/business/to-be-pebacked-or-not-to-be-8230-20110623-1ghjq.html
''......Unit holders were then told Hutson was holding her own PIF meeting just upstairs at Sydney's Grace Hotel....''

hmmm.... lot more to that story...!!!


----------



## zixo (24 June 2011)

And this in from the Australian

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ash-over-meeting/story-e6frg8zx-1226080889613


----------



## lavis (24 June 2011)

And this in the Courier Mail

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ash-over-meeting/story-e6frg8zx-1226080889613


----------



## lavis (24 June 2011)

Oops sorry, the courier mail search was a link to the Australian


----------



## elizaman (24 June 2011)

Bumblebee said:


> Check out the story from Castlereagh's website
> 
> http://castlereagh.rlbrandmgmt.com....cement_-_meeting_adjournment_Jun_11_FINAL.pdf




There is a problem with your link and secondly there is nothing on the Castleragh web site in reference to yesterday's meeting as yet. Unless I'm not looking in the right section???


----------



## BootsnAll (24 June 2011)

*Re: Jh Rent-a-crowd at the meeting*


This fraud should be publicised as widely as possible. ASIC sits by and does nothing, after being made aware for months of what WC is up to. It is an absolute disgrace. Surely this latest fraudulent stunt by JH must warrant further investigation by them. 

Talkback radio and other media should be made aware of this.


----------



## elizaman (24 June 2011)

Quite honestly I'm not surprised by yesterday's actions. We really need to get all the legal stuff out of the way prior to July's meeting. Every contingency has to be thought of remembering when you are defending against this type of action you may have to get your own hands a bit dirty if nothing more than thinking worst case scenarios and planning for them somehow.

I would also note that WC was very quick to get a report on the NSX whether it be accurate or not however on our side so to speak there is nothing. I would guess the numbers quoted on WC are about 490 odd million votes out of a possible 755 million or so plus the recent rights placement to the " serious investor/s" so there are still quite a few left out here. I'm not sure if PIF AG wants to play the hand that shows how many votes and/or proxies computershare had but hopefully in doing there math the same degree of comfort is still there to be able to move forward.

The legal stuff has to be sorted out and I would even ask is there anyway that this type of meeting can be done in court to force WC/JH to act accordingly or done in the presence of the court somehow?? Surely there must be provisions for this as per hostile takeovers provisionse??tc Surely there was always going to be an issue with 2 separate/different registires??? and how and who the summations where going to be done. Most on this forum have always shown reluctance to the authenticity of Armstrong doing this task due to the close proximity however put yourself in WC shoes they can have the same thoughts whther warranted or not about computershare.

Lastly I would urge our own side to at least update or present some notes on a regular basis if nothing more than to update. We just lost a portion of the rights issue because we did not act quick enough rightly or wrongly. Let's learn from that and be on the front foot.  It hopefully will prevent some of the inuendo etc etc for the more serious followers so that all parties can just get on with it. I think the meeting and the outcome was a good thing in a way as it now shows the tactical side and the level of play of the opposition which hopefully will educate our team to finalize this phase of our investment and allow us to get on with it's running and somehwat back to profitability.

With Respect


----------



## elizaman (24 June 2011)

*Re: Jh Rent-a-crowd at the meeting*



BootsnAll said:


> This fraud should be publicised as widely as possible. ASIC sits by and does nothing, after being made aware for months of what WC is up to. It is an absolute disgrace. Surely this latest fraudulent stunt by JH must warrant further investigation by them.
> 
> Talkback radio and other media should be made aware of this.




Fully agree. We really need to get one of the current affair programs on board. An interview with ksmith's family friend would be a good start I think. If there is exposure on the national front also showing ASIC's lack of imput they would love the story if only for a day. It should add a little more pressure politically. I know I wrote in to ASIC and received the reply that all was in accordance etc etc as did many of us that wrote in but this method does not add the pressure we need for them to act. Gotta be woth a try at least???

With respect


----------



## DoraNBoots (24 June 2011)

Bumblebee said:


> Check out the story from Castlereagh's website
> 
> http://castlereagh.rlbrandmgmt.com....cement_-_meeting_adjournment_Jun_11_FINAL.pdf





There are temp issues with the link above but here's a copy of the announcement.


----------



## reasonable (24 June 2011)

I would think that WC tactics with false representation of voters warrants criminal proceedings!


----------



## Blueboy1 (24 June 2011)

elizaman said:


> There is a problem with your link and secondly there is nothing on the Castleragh web site in reference to yesterday's meeting as yet. Unless I'm not looking in the right section???



 I was unable to get the link to work either, although I found the update,go to http://www.cascap.com.au/page.php?page=40 then go to:- "23 June 2011 - PIF investors forced to wait as Wellington Capital legal action leads to adjournment of investor meeting"
I have reported this to CASCAP who have been having previous problems with their website,particularly with overseas connections.

This bizarre behaviour by WC has to stop and some sensibility needs to be restored.The latest clutch of blatant lies and unmitigated fraudulent actions by JH reveal what we are dealing with here and it makes me cringe to think that our fund is under the control of someone who will stop at nothing to line her own pockets at the expense of honest folk,some of whom have invested their life savings into this unfortunate quagmire and were relying upon the empty promises that have never been fulfilled by JH and her criminal cronies.
Where is the accountability? - What will she dream up next? - Will the courts listen if she fails to appear because she has locked herself in the lavatory? 
The latest antics are the stuff that movies are made from and show the actions of a desperate woman, it is my guess that she is fighting for her life and what went on behind closed doors may be revealed as public knowledge if we are successful in having her forcibly removed,she knows that and will not release her sweaty little fingers from our assets easily and will probably try to run us out of patience and funding for continuing litigation using every dirty little trick she can conjure up at the expense of our own fund and we will be paying for her to argue the toss.
The latest round of scurrilous behavior in K.smith's 'Rentacrowd' account does require media attention if the persons concerned are willing to go public...............Let's hope so.
We need all the help we can get to remove this cancer that is eating through our fund.
Blueboy1


----------



## smbtrade2 (24 June 2011)

I was at the meeting as well and like others would have liked the issue resolved. However I felt that the Chairman acted very appropriately in postponing the meeting. We had no other choice. We have to proceed in a manner that is 100% legally correct as WC (what appropriate initials) will pounce on any legal technicality to prevent us from removing them from the trough.
The follow-up postings have been excellent for those unable to attend and the new information astounding. JH may think that 'the show ain't over till (she) sings' but I, for one, am totally fed up with her off-key performances.
I would particularly like to thank Peter Grenadier, Charles Hodges & all the others who have worked with such tenacity & commitment to make these meetings possible. You are the people who have built the tunnel that the rest of us may eventually be able to see some light at the end of. It was also a pleasure to meet Seamisty who has put so much effort into keeping this thread alive & keeping us informed. This thanks also applies to other regular conributors that I didn't get to meet. Cheers


----------



## reasonable (24 June 2011)

I would particularly like to thank Peter Grenadier said:
			
		

> Hear hear!


----------



## BootsnAll (24 June 2011)

Just sent the following email to Alan Jones at Radio 2GB:

I would like to bring to your attention an ongoing debacle of shareholders of Premium Income Fund trying to remove Wellington Capital as Responsible Entity, as they feel it is not acting in their best interests.  Wellington Capital CEO Jenny Hutson had taken various actions, some bordering on fraudulent to prevent that happening. Please have a look at various postings on the following Aussie Stock forums link, particularly posting number 7807.  https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10937&page=391&highlight=PIF  Meanwhile, ASIC just sit on their hands and do absolutely nothing, despite having been made aware of the problem a long time ago. Why???


----------



## pixierich (24 June 2011)

K. Smith, your story takes the breath away! Are we living in Australia, or the Philippines, or Columbia?
Where were all the super-sleuth reporters while the reptilian Hutson was throwing our money at hired extras? 
More importantly, where were ASIC representatives? 
Counting their paper-clips and drinking coffee, no doubt. They are complicit with Hutson in their lack of action.
We have to rid ouselves of this "hungry ghost"; K.Smith, on behalf of us all, please share your story with the media, (without compromising your friend of course), "SMH" or "The Australian" would be a good place to start. Thanks and all the best.


----------



## Investor262 (24 June 2011)

reasonable said:


> Hear hear!




I would just like to add my sincere appreciation to very one who attended the meeting yesterday and for providing such quick and accurate info to those of us who were not able to attend. I am disappointed that we were not able to progress further buth have confidence in Peter, Charles, Seamisty and all the other wonderful people working so hard. Thank you, thank you!


----------



## selciper (24 June 2011)

That chance encounter on the train with the "stand-in" may well prove to be a very serious blow to Hutson's mean aspirations. The house of WC could  come crashing down. Yes, the whole shebang.

Will ASIC staff please turn up for work for at least one day next week.


----------



## Hogan (24 June 2011)

BootsnAll said:


> Just sent the following email to Alan Jones at Radio 2GB:
> 
> I would like to bring to your attention an ongoing debacle of shareholders of Premium Income Fund trying to remove Wellington Capital as Responsible Entity, as they feel it is not acting in their best interests.  Wellington Capital CEO Jenny Hutson had taken various actions, some bordering on fraudulent to prevent that happening. Please have a look at various postings on the following Aussie Stock forums link, particularly posting number 7807.  https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10937&page=391&highlight=PIF  Meanwhile, ASIC just sit on their hands and do absolutely nothing, despite having been made aware of the problem a long time ago. Why???




As all the minions at Wellington Capital obviously keep track of the PIFAG through this forum, now is the time for one of you to blow the whistle on JH and her dirty tactics before you go down the WC (pun) with her.


----------



## Mutchy (24 June 2011)

The first part of the charade occurred when some of our investors turned up very early to find that Armstrong Registry personnel had assumed the tables outside the doors where Computershare would normally be seated to process the proxy votes. One of the first and very astute investors to attempt to register deduced that these were not the proper people and quizzed them discovering their identity and alerting all the other investors present who in turn had the situation rectified when Computershare turned up and assumed control of the registration process.
The renta-crowd details have been provided to our lawyers by one of the "crowd". See ksmiths earlier post.
JH was not locked out of the meeting. She was locked in. Because there was only one way in or out and that was through the security cordon she could not get out the alternative exit when she wanted to. Her proxy holders were not able to get in any of the doors; firstly because there was a security cordon vetting the Computershare proxy forms and secondly, the other entry was locked.
Steve


----------



## elizaman (24 June 2011)

BootsnAll said:


> Just sent the following email to Alan Jones at Radio 2GB:
> 
> I would like to bring to your attention an ongoing debacle of shareholders of Premium Income Fund trying to remove Wellington Capital as Responsible Entity, as they feel it is not acting in their best interests.  Wellington Capital CEO Jenny Hutson had taken various actions, some bordering on fraudulent to prevent that happening. Please have a look at various postings on the following Aussie Stock forums link, particularly posting number 7807.  https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10937&page=391&highlight=PIF  Meanwhile, ASIC just sit on their hands and do absolutely nothing, despite having been made aware of the problem a long time ago. Why???




I hope you don't mind but I have also copied your post to A Current Affair. Will let everyone know if I get a reply


----------



## gardie (24 June 2011)

Good morning all

I am a bit confused regarding the numbers for and against and if these were all of the "for" proxies.

One thing is for sure if you remove the units issued to sophisticated investors under the placement (which I am guessing some of which have been gifted away to the rent a crowd !) WC doesnt have much of a support base.

Not sure how many units left in the wholesale fund that WC get to vote with but it really is showing that without the placement WC was definitely on the way out the door.

Couple of questions 
- if the units were placed with a related party and given someone was prepared to hand some of these away yesterday is there not a conflict of interest and something that needs to be declared ?

Can any of the units issued under the placement if the holder stands to gain a benefit from having WC retained be voted or should they be precluded from voting ?

Its time some good journalist found out who got issued these units and who was prepared to give some away yesterday.

I have been complaining lately about WC conduct to two people directly in ASIC by email. Not sure if it helps but will be doing it again this morning about this latest dirty trick.

Power to the people !!!!


----------



## DepressedDad (24 June 2011)

Grateful thanks again to our workers who have had to endure this.  I'm sure it will make our resolve stronger. Quite Unbelievable!! Did she think not one person would question their actions??  We can see now how she won 'Business woman of the Year". Did the rent-a-bystander still get paid?  How were they paid? All those people have nothing to lose by coming forward.  They didn't willingly commit fraud. In fact, upstanding people NOT WANTING to rip off honest investors would be crying blue murder.

I think she is now not just trying to keep feeding from the trough, we can see she has had enough.  I think she is now much more desperate because she knows once the forensic accountants swoop in, she'll be on the new prison diet.

Hoping ACA will do a 'real' story about 'real' people.  Beats getting speeding fines because a car was on the back of a trailer, and one wayward phone or power bill.  Huge public interest in such scandalous tactics from supposedly well respected business people.


----------



## charles36 (24 June 2011)

I was personally disappointed that the meeting was adjourned, the PIFAG have always acted morally, there is no other proper way, sometimes to our detriment when dealing with hostile people.  It was impossible for the meeting to proceed, the correct decision was made by the Chairman and I am sure the attendees realised the complexity of the situation.  I was really, really, disappointed I was not invited to the upstairs meeting, I may well have cast my vote if asked.  I suppose I cannot help bad luck.  I am sorry the RE was allegedly "locked up."  Maybe something for the future.


----------



## Duped (24 June 2011)

I wonder how long it will take for any recipient of a 1000 PIF Unit holding to learn it is an unmarketable (or barely marketable) parcel. They'd have to either sell them off market (probably back to the gifter at a discount). Buy more or wait for a next opportunity to be given another parcel to realise more of their value. Doh! Duped. Welcome to the club.


----------



## MAE (24 June 2011)

Mutchy said:


> The first part of the charade occurred when some of our investors turned up very early to find that Armstrong Registry personnel had assumed the tables outside the doors where Computershare would normally be seated to process the proxy votes. One of the first and very astute investors to attempt to register deduced that these were not the proper people and quizzed them discovering their identity and alerting all the other investors present who in turn had the situation rectified when Computershare turned up and assumed control of the registration process.
> The renta-crowd details have been provided to our lawyers by one of the "crowd". See ksmiths earlier post.
> JH was not locked out of the meeting. She was locked in. Because there was only one way in or out and that was through the security cordon she could not get out the alternative exit when she wanted to. Her proxy holders were not able to get in any of the doors; firstly because there was a security cordon vetting the Computershare proxy forms and secondly, the other entry was locked.
> Steve




My husband and I were also at the meeting and take my hat off to all the hard working people who tried to bring some justice to this mess.  We need more media coverage!!   I took a photo of JH inside the meeting room (unfortunately I only got the back of her, and the unmistable red jacket!!!!!).  

I am disgusted at the tactics of "Rent A Crowd", something needs to be done!!  Surely this can't be allowed!!  

I am fighting not only for what I have lost but for everyone of you who have lost what should be a beautiful time in your lives.

Thank you to Peter Grenadier, Charles Hodge, Mark Hodge, Seamisty and the list goes on.

It wasn't the outcome we wanted, but we will keep fighting this!!


----------



## Duped (24 June 2011)

There's an article in the AFR about yesterday's meating.  Anyone have a copy yet?


----------



## Bumblebee (24 June 2011)

Castlereagh's website seems to be operational again.
There is a second media release.
For those having difficulty ...click on the 'NEWS' tab on the top right of page and selsct PIF media releases.
My head is still spinning re JH and WC behaviour.
I am so angry about her disgusting behaviour I feel like picketing her office to get some media attention.


----------



## Mutchy (24 June 2011)

It is alleged that there were 200 in the "rent a crowd". 
On the basis that there were 3 banks of seats 13 seats wide and about 7 rows deep there were at least 3 x 13 x 7 = 273 votes present with many more crowded into the standing room. We had them outnumbered anyway for a vote to elect a chairman.
Steve


----------



## Duped (24 June 2011)

zixo said:


> I'm asking unitholders and AG members to Please Question everything you read via the NSX!
> 
> Jenny Hutson was invited to sit in at the beginning of the meeting and refused. She did not confront unitholders, Nor did she address Investors and unitholders at the end of the meeting as she had earlier advised and relayed to the chairman as PROMISED.
> 
> ...






 Zixo.  WC seems to be doing the old juxtaposition trick again in para 4 of yesterday's NSX announcement. 

_"The registry services arranged by Wellington Capital were excluded from occupancy of the premises by the meeting convenors. The registry was relocated to an adjacent floor at the meeting venue. The floor in between was locked on instructions from the meeting convenors, thereby physically excluding those who sought to register or attend the meeting through the registry services provided by Wellington Capital."_

 Based on information by ASF posters,  newspapers and Castlereagh, this 4th paragraph  seems to be structured  in a way  such that the reader may readily conclude that it was the  instructions to lock "[t]he floor" that lead to the decision  to relocate. 

But the second sentence does not say e.g. 'The registry was THEN relocated' or 'The registry was HENCE relocated'.

WC could easily argue to a Judge that this paragraph was meant to be construed as e.g. :  WC decided on its own initiative to relocate to another floor without clearly telling the convenors where they would be; and when the convenors locked "the floor" (like they lock the door in parliament just before a vote is to be taken) WC's Registry was consequently excluded. And hence, this NSX announcement is arguably not misleading if in fact it was WC's decision to relocate to another floor. 

I assume it is logical and sensible to 'lock' non-Unit/Shareholders out of a venue when a show-of-hands vote is to be taken so that the final result is unimpeachable. (It is also logical and sensible for the convenors to require attendees to stand still as the vote is taken.) [FONT=&quot] If so then it was the decision to 'relocate to another floor' that led to WC's registry service from being excluded.  This NSX announcement by WC does not appear to give a reason as to who made the decision to relocate or why it was made.  That's just my lay opinion. 
[/FONT]


----------



## Sutho81 (24 June 2011)

Can anyone please explain or reassure me about the figures Wellington posted on the NSX website in relation to the votes?

It looks like we lost.

Can I assume correctly that the figures are only from Armstrong Registry and not Computershare?

Also would anyone have a rough idea of how many proxies there are that have voting power. If the figures mentioned on the NSX are short of what really exists then there is still hope.

Example Wellington states Proxies for removal of Wellington = 208,638,814, and Against = 310,739,020, and Abstain = 1,844,132.

Question out of all the numners above does anyone have the total number of votes that could possibly exist in the fund that will give us a real idea of the result???

I would imagine all proxies returned to Computershare would be pro Castleraegh.


----------



## Duped (24 June 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> Can anyone please explain or reassure me about the figures Wellington posted on the NSX website in relation to the votes?
> 
> It looks like we lost.
> 
> ...




I don't know.  But shouldn't the rows go close to adding up to the same total.  According to my transcribing into Excel they are:
Resolution 1 493,747,927
Resolution 2 493,920,563
Resolution 3 493,425,650
Resolution 4 495,567,028
Resolution 5 531,546,372
Resolution 6 531,970,337
Resolution 7 493,388,031

Difference between the highest and lowest is 38,582,306. Does this simply mean that about 38 million worth of votes couldn't be bothered to tick the boxes for resolutions 1 to 4 and 7.  Shouldn't an empty box equate to an 'abstain'? Anyone?

If we assume WC doesn't get the chair then the Open Proxies go to PIFAG, whereby the lowest 'for' vote was 41.1% for Resolution 6. But this only represented  47.5% of the 1,119,710,357 units on issue. 

Castlereagh was reported by the Courier Mail as saying "Mr Armstrong said the motion to remove Wellington had the support of 82 per cent of the 325 million units voted so far, or about 40 per cent of the total. The other six resolutions had the backing of more than 90 per cent."

Hence based on this available data, assuming no votes were sent to both registries, then the lowest 'for' vote was 56.68% for resolution 5.  I.e. 10,324,406 + 208,359,693 + 82% of 325M = 485,463,220 'for' votes out of 856,546,372 votes cast). Even if WC did get the Chair and presumably then the 10M Open Proxies, the lowest 'for' vote % would be  54.27%.


----------



## evelyn (24 June 2011)

elizaman said:


> I hope you don't mind but I have also copied your post to A Current Affair. Will let everyone know if I get a reply




this rent-a-crowd action is shocking (unable to express this adequately).

did you send ACA an outline of the rent-a-crowd aspect of the story? a link can be easily disregarded but a brief of the actual contents should get their attention.

thanks to all that attended and are continuing to keep up the momentum.


----------



## DepressedDad (24 June 2011)

'Giving' out free shares seems very fishy to me. (Apart from the fact that whose are they to 'give' them out anyway? Or buy back?) 

In this totally astounding dishonest & foolish act why wouldn't they just hope (against all sensible reasoning) that the the rent-a-hand-raise would just do their paid job & disappear into thin air, never thinking too much about their 'photo shoot'.

WHY would they then give more information about the fund, when they didn't need to, plus beginning a link to the fund, and it's troubles, by their inviting them to become a Unit holder?  Makes no sense.  Obviously a portion of them would then follow the fund & it's goings-on & it's price.

It must be more skull duggery, in that they made them Unit holders so they could vote minutes later?  Did they need those papers to even get into the meeting? Either VERY FOOLISH or very fishy.  

But now it hasn't worked & is public knowledge,  surely it's a case of giving enough rope to hang herself. If ASIC  moves its blinkers to right over it's eyes, surely the courts will act on such despicably underhanded dishonesty. They look at all such damning evidence & protect honest people don't they?

We thought we had her measure but this is a brand new benchmark, way lower than low!!


----------



## Mutchy (24 June 2011)

Duped said:


> I don't know.  But shouldn't the rows go close to adding up to the same total.  According to my transcribing into Excel they are:
> Resolution 1 493,747,927
> Resolution 2 493,920,563
> Resolution 3 493,425,650
> ...




You are correct. The sum of all proxy votes should all add to the same figure. You can't have any discrepancy because only whole proxy forms are acceptable and the total figure will be the total number of proxy forms received. As I understand the practice, unticked boxes are an "abstain" unless the person counting the proxies ticks one of the the unticked boxes "for" or "against". That's why an unbiased and unrelated independent company should tally the votes.

Compared with the figures I have seen from Computershare the figures for the "abstain" vote are about one sixth of those received by Computershare. Also the figures for the "For" vote are lower than those from Computershare. 

The magnitude of the figures suggest Armstrong Registry Services have combined the figures from Computershare with their own. Otherwise the total numbers of proxies lodged would be about 900,000,000. This exceeds the total number of units on issue being 830,000,000. Armstrong have been supplied with Computershare figures on an almost daily basis while Armstrong have refused to do the same.

Based on the proportions of votes received being about 90% "for" and 5% "against" as Mr Phil Armstrong of Castlereagh Capital has said, the total number of investors who would vote against the motions would be about 5% of 755,000,000 ie 37,750,000. This assumes all of the proxies voting against the motions had been received by Armstrong Registry Services and 100% of our investors had voted. 

The total issued units is about 755,000,000 being original issue and 75,000,000 being the Placement ie 830,000,000.

If we assume the total placement voted "against" and add that number to the maximum proportion calculated above we get 75,000,000 + 37,750,000 = 112,000,000.

To see figures approaching 300,000,000 "against" is unbelievable. When coupled with other discrepancies, especially the totals not being the same, the table in the NSX release appears to be a fabrication. One could therefore seriously doubt the ability and integrity of Armstrong Registry Services.

Steve


----------



## Sutho81 (24 June 2011)

If Hutson is connected with the Armstrong Registry taking proxy's then isnt that a conflict of interest that should exclude Armstrong Registry?

Its also a conflict of interest her trying to take the chair at the meeting considering that the motions are about dismissing her company.

Ideally someone independent and impartial should take control.

Are there any legal ways of preventing Armstrong from taking a vote count and banning Hutson from nominating to chair the meeting?


----------



## reasonable (24 June 2011)

Castleraigh may be very good at their job but useless at presenting their website.  The latest has date errors and missing links.


----------



## selciper (24 June 2011)

reasonable said:


> Castleraigh may be very good at their job but useless at presenting their website.  The latest has date errors and missing links.




I heartily agree. The Castlereagh website(s) is/are quite confusing and requires a layout rethink.


----------



## 66Joy (24 June 2011)

Re Mutchy and Steve's laudable attempts to calculate the CORRECT voting results yesterday I would like to bring to everyone's attention that we had a very similar scenario 2 years ago when we held a Meeting to vote out City Pacific and replace them with Balmain Trilogy.

Although the vote to oust City Pacific went very much our way, City Pacific,  immediately after the Meeting proceeded to post INCORRECT FIGURES on the net.
Legal measures had to be taken, ALL VOTES HAD TO BE OFFICIALLY RECOUNTED and the end result was indeed very different. Since this time Balmain Trilogy have been doing an excellent job.

Hopefully this information can be of some help to us all.


----------



## aroach (24 June 2011)

66Joy said:


> Re Mutchy and Steve's laudable attempts to calculate the CORRECT voting results yesterday I would like to bring to everyone's attention that we had a very similar scenario 2 years ago when we held a Meeting to vote out City Pacific and replace them with Balmain Trilogy.
> 
> Although the vote to oust City Pacific went very much our way, City Pacific,  immediately after the Meeting proceeded to post INCORRECT FIGURES on the net.
> Legal measures had to be taken, ALL VOTES HAD TO BE OFFICIALLY RECOUNTED and the end result was indeed very different. Since this time Balmain Trilogy have been doing an excellent job.
> ...




Hi 66joy.  Refer also to post #7775 by marcom on page 389. It sounds like JH's partners law firm McCoulough Robertson who represented City Pacific, are giving her the same old tired advice which didn't work for them then ...strange how she thinks it may work this time...

Ashley


----------



## zixo (24 June 2011)

What is happening to OUR fund is WRONG.
Wellington Capital is showing Investors that they are ABOVE the law.
The corporate regulator has had solid proof and has NEVER listened.

WE need to make a difference Not only for ourselves but for future investors who have been forgotten and who will no doubt be caught in similar circumstances with no Law no regulation and no HELP.

Now is the time to personally make a difference. I encourage all investors to please contact the media and make our situation know to the broader public.  

Address:
 Radio 2GB
 Level 1, Building C, 33-35 Saunders St
 Pyrmont NSW 2009, Australia
 GPO Box 4290
 Sydney, NSW 2001, Australia 		
Phone: (02) 8570 0000

Fax: (02) 8570 0219
Open Line and Talkback:
 131 873 (Local Call)
 Outside Australia: +61 2 8514 9500


----------



## NOR (24 June 2011)

marcom said:


> A little history of what happened prior and following the Balmain Trilogy expulsion of City Pacific from the First Mortgage Fund in July 2009 - this demonstrates the lenghts that pigs will go to keep their head in the trough!
> 
> http://www.balmaintrilogy.com.au/news_300609.aspx
> 
> ...




 AS I HAVE POSTED BEFORE THIS NEEDS TO BE PUT UP TIME &TIME AGAIN..THANKYOU .......MARCOM


----------



## pifed (24 June 2011)

Congratulations to Peter and his PIFAG Team on their good work to date. It is starting to show good signs of Justice on the horison


----------



## DoraNBoots (24 June 2011)

Just a reminder that yesterday’s rent-a-crowd is not the first time a group has been paid to show support for WC.  On 15 Sept 2008, WC advised some investors there would be a rally held by investors on the front steps of the WC building.  The rally was to show support for WC and disapproval of ASIC taking WC to court (the judge ruled WC had mislead with regard to the "quarterly thereafter statements" in the Explanatory Memorandum)

Here's a picture of the rally of 'investors' that took place on the front steps of 307 Queen Street Brisbane 15 Sept 2008:
View attachment 43377


The members of the rally were of course not investors but uni students who were paid $75 cash each.  WC were supplying bottled water.  The students could not answer questions about the PIF when asked by a bystander.  Their spokes person and organiser was not an investor in the PIF either.

The students were chanting and handing out a red flyer which among other things said "PIF off ASIC!!"  The flyer had the same feel to it as the two anonymous letters all unit holders received in the mail recently.


----------



## Sutho81 (25 June 2011)

Does it strike anyone as odd how quick Hutson got the news release off to the NSX? It was posted on the NSX Website at 2:59pm. The meeting was scheduled for 11:00am.

So in a matter of hours Hutson had time to type up this letter and get it posted to the NSX ASAP. Perhaps she knew in advance that she had plans to get lost!

Anywonder no one could find her when they wanted her to address the meeting. She was too busy writing the NSX news release.

It seems to quick for me, Hutson has never been quick about anything in relation to our fund. News releases are few and far between, the website is rarely updated, the fund has gone backwards.

I just cant wait for her and her pack of cronies to be fired!


----------



## zixo (25 June 2011)

Newspapers have begun taking notice. 

One's company, two's a crowd 
Michael West
June 25, 2011
The Premium Income Fund is a misnomer. So distressing has this investment been that, if truth in advertising were a concern, it should really have been dubbed the Discount Income Fund, or perhaps the Income Obliteration Fund.

One would have thought that the archetypal PIF investor would have been a greying and beleaguered Queensland pensioner-type as the average age of the PIF investor is thought to be in the vicinity of 71.

Not on your nelly! Onlookers were dismayed to find that the swathe of PIF investors swanning about the unit holders' meeting on Thursday this week toting their how-to-vote cards looked more like the cast of Beverley Hills 90210 than Dad's Army.
Advertisement: Story continues below 

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/ones-company-twos-a-crowd-20110624-1gjcn.html


----------



## zixo (25 June 2011)

If the last story isnt to convince people that wellington are not working in investors interests - please read another newspaper

www.theaustralian.com.au/business/e...ium-fund-meeting/story-e6frg8zx-1226081607396

SOMEONE hired 200 extras to stack a unitholders meeting of the beleaguered Premium Income Fund in Sydney -- a real estate investment vehicle that has so far lost about $600 million for 10,000 investors. 

"We thought we were there for a film," said one attendee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Each person was given $100 and an envelope that contained a certificate for 100 units in the fund, worth around 8.5c each. One attendee involved said: "I became very suspicious. Isn't it illegal to issue a share certificate with my name on it without my permission?"

The extraordinary allegation is the latest twist in the saga of PIF, which was founded in Brisbane out of the ill-fated MFS group and which is now subject to an attempt by a group of unitholders to sack Wellington Capital, the company that had been appointed as trustee after PIF's near collapse.

But the extras ended up not being allowed into the real meeting to vote. The person who appears to have briefed them, Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital, said: "I didn't have a meeting. I just had a chat."


----------



## selciper (25 June 2011)

Hutson, in all probability, faces a massive challenge. 

The SMH's Michael West is a senior journalist who, if his past form is any guide, doesn't ever let go of a good story. (He wrote a great deal about the PIF in 08.) The Australian piece adds extra pressure on WC. Do ASIC staff read the newspapers?


----------



## ASICK (25 June 2011)

selciper said:


> Hutson, in all probability, faces a massive challenge.
> 
> The SMH's Michael West is a senior journalist who, if his past form is any guide, doesn't ever let go of a good story. (He wrote a great deal about the PIF in 08.) The Australian piece adds extra pressure on WC. Do ASIC staff read the newspapers?




In the circumstances, does ASIC have to read the newspapers?


----------



## JohnH (25 June 2011)

ASICK said:


> In the circumstances, does ASIC have to read the newspapers?




Hutson's bullygirl tactics (from someone who in reality is our employee) are beyond belief. 
 It is so outrageous that they probably think the scenario is just a figment of 10,000 unit holders imagination.


----------



## selciper (25 June 2011)

ASICK said:


> In the circumstances, does ASIC have to read the newspapers?



Perhaps ASIC staff don't make it past the celebrity gossip in newspapers. I believe that these "sleuths" operate in a cocoon. Here's a chance for the new chairman to demonstrate his acumen before his sleepy troops..

By the way, according to the SMH, a "former MFS director" was acting as a security guard at the Thursday EGM. Intriguing, eh?


----------



## marcom (25 June 2011)

selciper said:


> Perhaps ASIC staff don't make it past the celebrity gossip in newspapers. I believe that these "sleuths" operate in a cocoon. Here's a chance for the new chairman to demonstrate his acumen before his sleepy troops..
> 
> By the way, according to the SMH, a "former MFS director" was acting as a security guard at the Thursday EGM. Intriguing, eh?




My best guess is it was David Burke. Here is some info on him and the other belevers in ENEMA-GRAM:

*Company linked to controversial philosophy
*
http://www.couriermail.com.au/money...mium-income-fund/story-e6freqox-1225939828971

AUSSIE Stock Forums, an internet chat site for investors, has been abuzz recently over the fact a number of close associates of Wellington Capital chief executive Jenny Hutson are devotees of a controversial philosophy focused on personality types.

Hutson business associate David Burke is the founder and director of the Australian Institute for Enneagram Studies, which has close links to the Catholic Church.

The enneagram is a nine-pointed diametric figure which believers say can reveal nine distinct personalities. They claim it is a "psycho-spiritual framework that provides a wealth of information about human behaviour and condenses a great deal of wisdom into a compact system".

Critics, however, debunk it as new-age pseudoscience.

Burke served with Hutson on the board of the S8 Property Trust before it was acquired by now-defunct Gold Coast tourism and finance group MFS. He also joined the MFS board with Ms Hutson's business associate Chris Scott just months before it collapsed in late 2008.

Wellington compliance committee member Phillip Wibaux and five other Wellington employees are all Enneagram followers. A lawyer doing work for the firm is also a believer.

Burke and Wibaux are the sole directors and shareholders of an entity called Kooralbyn Asset Management. Wellington's Premium Income Fund remains the first mortgagee in possession of the Kooralbyn Hotel Resort on the Gold Coast, which shut down in mid-2008 owing $60 million.

The property failed to sell at auction in May last year and remains shuttered. Mr Wibaux is understood to serve as an overseer of the property.

Hutson said she was aware of the philosophy but was not a practitioner.


----------



## DepressedDad (25 June 2011)

How many fund managers turn up to meeting with a body guard?  Honest hard working ones don't need to. Ask yourself WHY she needed to turn up with SIX body guards.  If she has been acting in the investor's best interests why would she need to be flanked by so many????  We all know the answer to that. Let's hope the media also start putting these pieces together & start seeing that blatant actions such as that,  BY HER,  are evidence that she has wronged a lot of people and can expect them to be very angry!!!


----------



## marcom (25 June 2011)

Mutchy, two Chinese friends and I went over the Wellington proxy figures with an abacus and several bottles of Tsingtao Beer last night. Surprisingly, they could not achieve a correct balance even after alowing for the usual Chinese fuding fraction. Aparently this is common in Chinese business dealings - they called it "a little more for me, a little less for you!" After telling them what had happened at the meeting they said that in China she would be shipped out to a forced labour camp and subjected to daily business maths lessons! And as for the attempt to stack the meeting, they said "Bushi, Bushi Ta hen chajin (no, no that's awful) ".


----------



## pifed (25 June 2011)

OK, We get told by Wellington Capital that they are acting in our ( Unit Holders interest )

Then they get restrained by a "Court of Law" not to issue any more Units and then we find out that they are giving away Units "free" of charge.
Should we now be seeking advise on how to handle people who are not of a Stable mind


----------



## pgbbeme (25 June 2011)

Hi Guys/Girls,

If this wasn't so serious for you large holders, it would be hysterically funny. I'm not sure they are playing with a full deck. The article in the Australian should let a lot more people know what's happening.

Surely with these goings on, we'll get what we want in the end.


----------



## DepressedDad (25 June 2011)

pgbbeme said:


> Hi Guys/Girls,
> 
> If this wasn't so serious for you large holders, it would be hysterically funny. I'm not sure they are playing with a full deck. The article in the Australian should let a lot more people know what's happening.
> 
> Surely with these goings on, we'll get what we want in the end.




Yes, I've got to agree this has reached a new level of intrigue. What about ' Reply with FULL name to confirm message'.  FULL name just to confirm a message??  (Or to use without your permission on a legal document for underhanded purposes??)  Can't you just see them scheming that?  What about if there was a double agent in their midst who had arranged for the seat-fillers to vote for Ferrier at the meeting instead of Jenny?  Can't wait for the movie!


----------



## charles36 (25 June 2011)

I would like to thank all of the unit holders who spoke with me at the meeting on Friday and offered their support and encouragement.  I particularly would like to thank the unit holders who told me they had voted for WC but after seeing the management of WC"S performance at the meeting they would definitely like the opportunity to reverse their decision and indicated they would never consider voting for WC again nor open any of their communications.  I have also received a number of telephone calls at my home indicating the same thoughts.  This is of course before the press articles.  There is definitely serious times ahead but as far as I am personally concerned, the PIFAG will maintain their dignity, not lower themselves to adopt improper strategies with the solemn belief "that the truth will out."  To anyone that this might concern, "It is not an offence to mislead the press"  that is of course you are of that persuasion but it is certainly a serious offence to mislead a Court of Law.  Interesting times ahead.


----------



## zixo (25 June 2011)

charles36 said:


> I would like to thank all of the unit holders who spoke with me at the meeting on Friday and offered their support and encouragement.  I particularly would like to thank the unit holders who told me they had voted for WC but after seeing the management of WC"S performance at the meeting they would definitely like the opportunity to reverse their decision and indicated they would never consider voting for WC again nor open any of their communications.  I have also received a number of telephone calls at my home indicating the same thoughts.  This is of course before the press articles.  There is definitely serious times ahead but as far as I am personally concerned, the PIFAG will maintain their dignity, not lower themselves to adopt improper strategies with the solemn belief "that the truth will out."  To anyone that this might concern, "It is not an offence to mislead the press"  that is of course you are of that persuasion but it is certainly a serious offence to mislead a Court of Law.  Interesting times ahead.





Can someone advise me if Unit holders who have already voted for wellington who after reading the latest facts about our TRUSTEE now choose to change their vote..are they still eligible.


Can you please tell me what needs to occur?  

If its at all possible I Stongly suggest anyone who now has Now finally  seen the light to send your proxies to computershare.

Because perhaps wellington Capitals and Armstrongs registries computers may still be in the 2nd floor foyer at the grace hotel printing out PIF units to young unsuspecting students?


----------



## BootsnAll (25 June 2011)

I believe if you attend the meeting you can vote from the floor. When you register on the day tell Computershare you now wish to vote from the floor.  As far as I know you can change your vote anytime prior to the meeting. I would suggest you ring Computershare to varify that this is so.


----------



## selciper (25 June 2011)

Precedent tells us that Boards usually fracture when failure is nigh. Oh, to be a fly on the wall this weekend in a certain Brisbane boardroom: "But you said..." "No, I didn't..." etc etc. 

K Smith's brilliant contribution deserves great praise. So much for Wellington's snooty attitude in relation to this forum. And let's make sure that the PIF isn't paying the bill for personal bodyguards.


----------



## charles36 (25 June 2011)

charles36 said:


> I would like to thank all of the unit holders who spoke with me at the meeting on Friday and offered their support and encouragement.  I particularly would like to thank the unit holders who told me they had voted for WC but after seeing the management of WC"S performance at the meeting they would definitely like the opportunity to reverse their decision and indicated they would never consider voting for WC again nor open any of their communications.  I have also received a number of telephone calls at my home indicating the same thoughts.  This is of course before the press articles.  There is definitely serious times ahead but as far as I am personally concerned, the PIFAG will maintain their dignity, not lower themselves to adopt improper strategies with the solemn belief "that the truth will out."  To anyone that this might concern, "It is not an offence to mislead the press"  that is of course you are of that persuasion but it is certainly a serious offence to mislead a Court of Law.  Interesting times ahead.




Please forgive me for losing track of time.  I meant Thursday not Friday,  I certainly did not engage in any other meeting.  I only attended the advertised meeting.


----------



## JohnH (25 June 2011)

selciper said:


> Precedent tells us that Boards usually fracture when failure is nigh. Oh, to be a fly on the wall this weekend in a certain Brisbane boardroom: "But you said..." "No, I didn't..." etc etc.
> 
> K Smith's brilliant contribution deserves great praise. So much for Wellington's snooty attitude in relation to this forum.* And let's make sure that the PIF isn't paying the bill for personal bodyguards*.



 ...Or for the $20,000+ for the "ring-ins"!      ........... John H.


----------



## elizaman (25 June 2011)

charles36 said:


> I would like to thank all of the unit holders who spoke with me at the meeting on Friday and offered their support and encouragement.  I particularly would like to thank the unit holders who told me they had voted for WC but after seeing the management of WC"S performance at the meeting they would definitely like the opportunity to reverse their decision and indicated they would never consider voting for WC again nor open any of their communications.  I have also received a number of telephone calls at my home indicating the same thoughts.  This is of course before the press articles.  There is definitely serious times ahead but as far as I am personally concerned, the PIFAG will maintain their dignity, not lower themselves to adopt improper strategies with the solemn belief "that the truth will out."  To anyone that this might concern, "It is not an offence to mislead the press"  that is of course you are of that persuasion but it is certainly a serious offence to mislead a Court of Law.  Interesting times ahead.




Charles.  Have you looked into the legitamacy of holding over the proxies til July 14th? There are 10000 odd shareholders with only 200 odd showing up to the meeting so changing your vote from WC to AG on the day is not going to achieve much. Would the proposals need to a reissued. Also WC , through Armstrong is holding proxies voting for WC so I would think they will be shy to give any of those up so if people want to change but if WC shows up with their original won't that get a bit complicated and probably give reason to postpone AGAIN? 
With Respect


----------



## elizaman (25 June 2011)

DepressedDad said:


> How many fund managers turn up to meeting with a body guard?  Honest hard working ones don't need to. Ask yourself WHY she needed to turn up with SIX body guards.  If she has been acting in the investor's best interests why would she need to be flanked by so many????  We all know the answer to that. Let's hope the media also start putting these pieces together & start seeing that blatant actions such as that,  BY HER,  are evidence that she has wronged a lot of people and can expect them to be very angry!!!




More i,portantly who is paying for the 6 bodyguards. Will be interesting to see how the auditors allocate aall of these costs in the last couple of months. As unit holders can we aask how WC is paying for various items such as body guards, stand in's, film crews, flights and expenses for all of the above not too mention the legal wrangling going on?


----------



## charles36 (25 June 2011)

elizaman said:


> Charles.  Have you looked into the legitamacy of holding over the proxies til July 14th? There are 10000 odd shareholders with only 200 odd showing up to the meeting so changing your vote from WC to AG on the day is not going to achieve much. Would the proposals need to a reissued. Also WC , through Armstrong is holding proxies voting for WC so I would think they will be shy to give any of those up so if people want to change but if WC shows up with their original won't that get a bit complicated and probably give reason to postpone AGAIN?
> With Respect




I have learnt that anything to do with WC is complicated.  The Court case is set down for the 6 July, 2011, it is the intention of the PIFAG lawyers to ventilate all aspects of this matter.  Let us all wait and see.  My experience, however little I may be judged, is that Justice will prevail and the law is not an ass.  I have high hopes for the future.  I am sure the PIFAG have demonstrated their honesty and credibility and will not waver or reduce ourselves to improper tactics to win at all costs.  We shall leave that for others.


----------



## pifed (25 June 2011)

I think it would be safe to say that you should add the cost of the "PIF Reaction Group" flyers to the list (of who is paying ) as well


----------



## breaker1 (25 June 2011)

reasonable said:


> Castleraigh may be very good at their job but useless at presenting their website.  The latest has date errors and missing links.




Castlereagh is currently moving from 1 Castlereagh Street Sydney to Australia Square

With the EGM, press releases, court actions, etc and a huge move on the go, I am impressed they got anything out

However I have advised them of the date error and link clarifications:

Notice
Reads 23 July - should read 23 June

Notice ...is linked left under heading, 'Latest Meeting Details', then 'Media Coverage' and 'Media Releases'

thanks Reasonable


----------



## zixo (25 June 2011)

WC's tactics are based on fear and confusion.
They choose the most vunerable in society  - the elderly and weak to wear down.

There have been numerous Transactions on the NSX which I suspect will influence the investors greatly.

I expected the Rent a crowd because its an MO in their previous behaviour. And we havent seen NOTHING yet!

When Given all the facts and explained what Wellington capital do to their own investors. Is there anyone who would still want WC as a trustee or involved in any financial dealing?


----------



## DepressedDad (25 June 2011)

JohnH said:


> ...Or for the $20,000+ for the "ring-ins"!      ........... John H.




So 200 'stunt'men (for her stunt) x $200 ($100 in cash & $100 in shares)  = $40,000. Plus $20,000 + for rent-a-phonecaller = $60,000.  All the while after years of struggling, my Dad finally sells his comfortable 4 bed/2 bath house in Runaway Bay and trades down to a tiny miserable relocatable grovel in an aged care complex to free up some capital to invest so he can have a little spending money each week, now he's in his eighties.  Yep, Jenny sure put paid to that plan.  To think what he could have done (and eaten) with just that $40.000 she threw at randoms for the morning's debarkle. 

Would she treat her own father the same?  My answer is yes, but let's hope some of the other rats decide not to go down with the fast sinking ship & spill some beans. (Although I agree it will be out of self-preservation rather than their greed no longer outweighing the blatant & deliberate devastation of so many people's lives). 

A gross underestimation of 'a small group of disgruntled investors' or words to that effect.   Can't find the exact infamous quote oinked out a while ago.  You guys (& gals) should be very proud of yourselves unearthing the filthy sneaky tactics of these common criminals. And all the while, conducting yourselves with dignity, integrity and honesty.  Justice will prevail now the walls are crumbling.


----------



## To Trusting (25 June 2011)

I just wanted to thank all involved in the court action and meetings. Unfortunately we weren’t able to attend the last meeting. However with all the “shenanigans” we have decided that it is important that we attend the next meeting. 

The red jacket might need to be replaced with a prison uniform.


----------



## IrishJig (25 June 2011)

DepressedDad said:


> So 200 'stunt'men (for her stunt) x $200 ($100 in cash & $100 in shares)  = $40,000. Plus $20,000 + for rent-a-phonecaller = $60,000.  All the while after years of struggling, my Dad finally sells his comfortable 4 bed/2 bath house in Runaway Bay and trades down to a tiny miserable relocatable grovel in an aged care complex to free up some capital to invest so he can have a little spending money each week, now he's in his eighties.  Yep, Jenny sure put paid to that plan.  To think what he could have done (and eaten) with just that $40.000 she threw at randoms for the morning's debarkle.
> 
> Would she treat her own father the same?  My answer is yes, but let's hope some of the other rats decide not to go down with the fast sinking ship & spill some beans. (Although I agree it will be out of self-preservation rather than their greed no longer outweighing the blatant & deliberate devastation of so many people's lives).
> 
> A gross underestimation of 'a small group of disgruntled investors' or words to that effect.   Can't find the exact infamous quote oinked out a while ago.  You guys (& gals) should be very proud of yourselves unearthing the filthy sneaky tactics of these common criminals. And all the while, conducting yourselves with dignity, integrity and honesty.  Justice will prevail now the walls are crumbling.




Don't forget to add in the cost to fly approximately 30 people from The Forest Resort to the meeting, chauffer them from the airport, breakky, restaurant lunch, and dinner, and flights home. Who paid for them?


----------



## Hogan (25 June 2011)

elizaman said:


> More i,portantly who is paying for the 6 bodyguards. Will be interesting to see how the auditors allocate aall of these costs in the last couple of months. As unit holders can we aask how WC is paying for various items such as body guards, stand in's, film crews, flights and expenses for all of the above not too mention the legal wrangling going on?




Well you can be sure of one thing.  There is no way on this earth that JH's purse is paying for any of the costs in her attempt to maintain her strangle hold on our fund.  There is only one cash cow for her and that is US.  We are paying for the lot through our hard earned and rapidly depleting investment.  She does not give a ratz about using every last cent of our money to achieve her aims.


----------



## Sutho81 (25 June 2011)

Its not just the elderly caught up in the PIF problems.

I am 30 and am just as much a victim too.

For information of all people the PIF Reaction group flyers are coming from Queensland. They were processed at the Northgate Mail Centre in Queensland 4013.

I have kept the envelope sealed with the flyer inside when I discovered its postage location stamped on the envelope. Photos have been sent the the AG and Castlereagh. The evidence is still here should it be needed for proof in legal action.


----------



## JohnH (26 June 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> Its not just the elderly caught up in the PIF problems.
> 
> I am 30 and am just as much a victim too.
> 
> ...




>>> They spread it around a bit, probably to try and confuse - mine were sent from the Hunter Valley Mail Centre (and I'm based in Queensland)


----------



## zixo (26 June 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> Its not just the elderly caught up in the PIF problems.
> 
> I am 30 and am just as much a victim too.
> 
> ...




HI Sutho81

Its good to see the support of so many new names. I thank you all.

Unfortunately the vast amount of Investors are elderly and used the Premium income fund to supplement their pensions. They do not have access to the computer nor do they generally know how to navigate the internet. many have never ever been to a open forum like Aussie Stock Forums.

WC have been difficult to contact by phone and for the most part only ever had a recorded message - Communication is basically by phone. Wellington Capital generally ring you back in their convenience...... eventually.

MFS knew who its target base of investors were, and as we all know WC have taken over where MFS left off.

From what I understand Radar Investor relations were hired by WC, some Unit holders were individually advised by phone that castlereagh capital was not licenced to run our fund.
This is purely not the case and the correction was later posted on the NSX ....ONLY.( I dont know if any were phoned back correcting their previous comment) 

Unit holders need to be informed with ALL THE FACTS that WC are not Disclosing to us about OUR fund.  The latest fiasco in sydney asks the question why were stand ins handed pink proxys, told to act passionately and paid to pose as investors supporting WC. The same could be said about hired uni students holding placards supporting WC years ago.

I was at the meeting and am gobsmacked that Jenny Hutson didnt take ONE MOMENT to Acknowledge or address the very Investors who's fund she is controlling. All the facts about WC need to be spread far and wide to unitholders, but how? 

Most unitholders are totally confused with all the "mis"information being sent to them and dont know what to do. Unit holders need to be Fully informed, but by whom?


----------



## Dexter (26 June 2011)

Most of us agree that JH is not a fit and proper person to be in charge of our Fund.

Given the litany of evidence we have amassed over time and following the last weeks antics in Sydney I think it is time to bring her to heel.

It may be easier to convince a judge that her licence should be revoked rather than risk another EGM which she will probably thwart one way or another.

I have always contended that the Fund should be placed into administration rather than continue long term as Castlereagh propose.  Most of us are elderly and would prefer something now to enjoy rather than leave an unknown legacy for our heirs.


----------



## selciper (26 June 2011)

This standard NSX page may be of interest to anyone who hasn't seen it before.

http://www.nsxa.com.au/company_details.asp?nsxcode=PIN


----------



## marcom (26 June 2011)

Many people on this forum have mentioned that this whole episode is so laughable it deserves to made into a movie. Well, many moons ago I worked in the film industry and know how to develop a film treatment. For defamation reasons names and places naturally need to be changed.

Charles36, Breaker and Seamisty here is a little snippet about mailouts.

Napoleon Capital is embroiled in a hostile takeover bid by Darling Capital (the Darlings) headed by the gracious Mr Ferrett, who has a well deserved reputation for getting to the botton of things. There is a meeting of investors sheduled in coming weeks and Napoleon Capital's thoroughly unscrupulous leader Hottie Bandito needs something to discredit the very credible opposition. 

Her closest advisor and mentor in the ENEMA - GRAM (a secret society based on  narcissistic worship who practice daily enema cleansing), Dudley Wills suggests confusing investors with a series of derogatory messages about the alleged evils of the Darlings supporters. Dudley is only too willing to assist Hottie in any way as her organisation provides accommodation and very generous support for ENEMA - GRAM.

Dudley has flyers prepared and to cover their tracks enlists the help of the faithful ENEMA - GRAM congregation spread across the country to mailout small bundles of what they are told are recruiting flyers for the sect. In this way it will look like the anti-Darling movement is on a wide scale, and it will be difficult to trace their origins and importantly Hottie can deny she had any involvment.

Hottie is not pleased with the quality of the first flyer and implores Dudley to produce a further flyer campaign that will "spray mud all over the Darling's supporters".

*In the next episode* Dudley takes time out from extracting funds from ENEMA - GRAM's vunerable perdominately older, single female flock, to arrange a lavish film shoot in a very upmarket CBD location - unfortunately this produces a disasterous set of consequences for Hottie....

*Stay tuned for more.*


----------



## smbtrade2 (26 June 2011)

JH may think it's red but we know what her true colours are. No way this woman is ever going to win Australia's Got Talent. Cheers.


----------



## zixo (26 June 2011)

This from Brisbane 

http://www.brisbanebusinessnews.com.au/article2033/WELLINGTON CAPITAL IN BID TO SAVE FUND.html

I wonder where the Voting irregularities really are???


----------



## DepressedDad (26 June 2011)

LOL Marcom. Love it!  Keep it coming...

But will Sesame St let miss piggy play the hottie??


----------



## JohnH (26 June 2011)

http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/media/20071018_CityNews_MillionsOfWaysToRaiseAFamily.pdf

Read this article - but only if you have a strong stomach!

Particularly take into account "The Wellington Way"!!!  -  How many points out of the 14 would you give her?


----------



## Farmman (26 June 2011)

Oh dear!
I am also a unitholder in Rimcorp Property Trust No 3 (another WC fund), as well as PIF.
Any comments.


----------



## charles36 (26 June 2011)

marcom said:


> Many people on this forum have mentioned that this whole episode is so laughable it deserves to made into a movie. Well, many moons ago I worked in the film industry and know how to develop a film treatment. For defamation reasons names and places naturally need to be changed.
> 
> Charles36, Breaker and Seamisty here is a little snippet about mailouts.
> 
> ...




Marcom.  Can Robert Redford play my part.


----------



## selciper (26 June 2011)

I wonder if the Queensland government might be feeling that the "Wellington Way" could be unhelpful to the state's future investment prospects. Indeed, I will never invest one more cent into a Queensland enterprise.


----------



## DepressedDad (26 June 2011)

charles36 said:


> Marcom.  Can Robert Redford play my part.




And Erin Brockovich for Seamisty!!!


----------



## zeva (26 June 2011)

selciper said:


> I wonder if the Queensland government might be feeling that the "Wellington Way" could be unhelpful to the state's future investment prospects. Indeed, I will never invest one more cent into a Queensland enterprise.








I am with you, not only will I never ever invest with anything to do with Queensland, I do not even want to visit Queensland any more.


----------



## simgrund (26 June 2011)

2CentsWorth said:


> Duped,
> there is something very fishy about that statement....Who, in a right business mind, would buy a share at 10 cents, and sell it a few days later for 8.8cents...that is unless,they were setting up a cunning situation that could be used to their advantage at some future date.
> Now whose name springs to mind, that just might think like that?...Need any clues!




As memory still serves me; same manipulation was used shortly after opening of PIF (PIN) trade on NSX. Shares were bought at "exorbitant" levels to drum up frothy excitement. That fizzled, as it continues to ever since.

Regards


----------



## simgrund (26 June 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> Can anyone please explain or reassure me about the figures Wellington posted on the NSX website in relation to the votes?
> 
> It looks like we lost.
> 
> ...




To all who fret over WC table of proxies:
THESE FIGURES MUST BE VERIFIED BY AUTHORISED INDEPENDENT AUDITOR.
This Auditor must give certification.
Any TRASH coming from uncorroborated well of WC latrine needs flushing down the drain ASAP.
Please comrades, let this be the last word on this matter. 
And why did I not see any PINK proxy forms with "FOR" emblazoned on it waiving at the meeting?  
Redeem yourselves on 14th July.

Regards,


----------



## marcom (26 June 2011)

charles36 said:


> Marcom.  Can Robert Redford play my part.




Most assuredly Charles as Robert Redford's Sundance Films is a major financier of independent films in the US and Europe. The film might also get a showing at the annual Sundance Film Festival.


----------



## simgrund (26 June 2011)

DepressedDad said:


> How many fund managers turn up to meeting with a body guard?  Honest hard working ones don't need to. Ask yourself WHY she needed to turn up with SIX body guards.  If she has been acting in the investor's best interests why would she need to be flanked by so many????  We all know the answer to that. Let's hope the media also start putting these pieces together & start seeing that blatant actions such as that,  BY HER,  are evidence that she has wronged a lot of people and can expect them to be very angry!!!




Why?
Because DD, she could not secure her own bullet proof vest in RED. 
Plausible?
Keep ducking, cheers


----------



## JohnH (26 June 2011)

simgrund said:


> To all who fret over WC table of proxies:
> *THESE FIGURES MUST BE VERIFIED BY AUTHORISED INDEPENDENT AUDITOR.
> This Auditor must give certification.*
> Any TRASH coming from uncorroborated well of WC latrine needs flushing down the drain ASAP.
> ...




Totally agree. WC refused to let us to see the voting figures for our unit representatives.  How can they/she expect us to assume that a registry that is half owned by her/them will provide any accurate figures what so ever?


----------



## astevo (26 June 2011)

Continuing Marcom's theatrical theme...

and despite how serious it is, I couldn't help laughing at this pic that accompanied Michael West's article in yesterday's Fairfax papers...



(http://www.theage.com.au/business/ones-company-twos-a-crowd-20110624-1gjcn.html)

- Alan.


----------



## simgrund (26 June 2011)

*HANDS OFF OUR JENNY*

*In sympathy to Jenny; a personal solicitation,

As I was nearing the end of a long return journey from yet another aborted meeting, IT occurred to me.
The "IT" being your solution, no; your Salvation no less.
Salvation from all these Court houndings. Salvation from member bashings, press shellacking, peer group downgrading and similar denigrations to your persona.

Jenny; your solution is to declare yourself mad.
Or as lawyers like to characterise such condition in their court depositions as “cuckoo” “loony” “psycho” “raver” & ad nauseam other.
Your urgent Application will be given preferential treatment by any Court Registrar as they will fondly associate this Application with many previous from you for other, no less lunatic, legal endeavours.
Certification will be a cert!
You will not have to rely solely on your own self-assessment, as there will be multitudes from PIF midst to support the Application with glowing testimonials. 

The benefits will be immediate.
You will be protected, cosseted, sanctuarised and insulated from outside rubble.
Entire Government Departments will be at your disposal to attend to any murmur of a complaint from you in the defense of your “protected status”. 
Once in the safety of such rectum rectification facility, you no longer will have the need for your “imaginary friends” such as IAC or PIF Reaction Group. 
You will have real ones. I can be one. I can come and have some chess playing with you. 
All real Mad People played brilliant chess, like Fisher, Morphy, 
Steinitz,  Pillsbury. Indeed, you will be in illustrious company. 

Once you acclimatise, you may be upgraded to superior chicken soup made 
from free-range chickens. Unlike myself; as I now won’t be able to afford even the rarest of stakes after the expenses of this last trip to Sydney.

Please, do not hesitate to explore this propitiatory proposition. 
I can guide you further. 
As I recently guided Marrickville Mayor after her infestation with international affairs, while forsaking the locals. 
Or the Burwood Court Magistrate from my recent case there. 
This one may have gone to the Dark Side for good.
But I digress. 

Feel free to use this friendly Forum for any supportive purpose.

Sincerely,*


----------



## marcom (27 June 2011)

*ASIC to warn before taking action: report*

Published 7:52 AM, 27 Jun 2011 Last update 7:52 AM, 27 Jun 2011

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...report-pd20110627-J7TE2?OpenDocument&src=hp11

    The Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) is set to warn companies, boards and advisors before it moves to take any action against them, in the wake of recent criticism over its transparency, according to The Australian Financial Review.

    According to the report, the change is part of a move by the regulator to be more open in its dealings and is being pushed by new ASIC chairman Greg Medcraft.

    Calls for the change came out of a recent ASIC stakeholder survey and will bring the regulator into line with fellow watchdogs such as the tax office and ACCC.

    The policy is in contrast to that of former ASIC chair Tony D'Aloisio, who believed that such an approach limited flexibility, according to the AFR.

*Its not warnings we want, we want ACTION!!!!*


----------



## Duped (27 June 2011)

zixo said:


> Can someone advise me if Unit holders who have already voted for wellington who after reading the latest facts about our TRUSTEE now choose to change their vote..are they still eligible.
> 
> 
> Can you please tell me what needs to occur?
> ...




Didn't someone post on this thread that unit holders can just send in another voting form and that the latest form will displace any previous form? Perhaps call Castlereagh for confirmation because it's in their interests to get your vote AND for that vote to be valid. Castlereagh may even send out a a fresh form. Computershare confirmed that that you can vote again and it's the latest one that counts.


----------



## Duped (27 June 2011)

DoraNBoots said:


> Just a reminder that yesterday’s rent-a-crowd is not the first time a group has been paid to show support for WC. On 15 Sept 2008, WC advised some investors there would be a rally held by investors on the front steps of the WC building. The rally was to show support for WC and disapproval of ASIC taking WC to court (the judge ruled WC had mislead with regard to the "quarterly thereafter statements" in the Explanatory Memorandum)
> 
> Here's a picture of the rally of 'investors' that took place on the front steps of 307 Queen Street Brisbane 15 Sept 2008:
> View attachment 43377
> ...




How prescient that one dissenting  woman in the middle with the sign 'GO Jenny'. Yes Jenny, please just go when your RE is voted to leave!


----------



## Mutchy (27 June 2011)

Duped said:


> Didn't someone post on this thread that unit holders can just send in another voting form and that the latest form will displace any previous form? Perhaps call Castlereagh for confirmation because it's in their interests to get your vote AND for that vote to be valid. Castlereagh may even send out a a fresh form. Computershare confirmed that that you can vote again and it's the latest one that counts.




Yes, you can submit a new proxy form and it will supersede your previous form. You can change anything on the form including who you nominate to be your proxy holder at the next meeting if you can not attend and want someone to represent you. New forms can be downloaded from the Castlereagh Capital website:

http://castlereagh.rlbrandmgmt.com.au/include/tiny_mce/plugins/filemanager/files/PIF_Proxy_Form.pdf

I understand voting will cease 72 hours before the next Extraordinary General Meeting which is to be held on 14th July 2011.
Steve


----------



## DepressedDad (27 June 2011)

From Wikipedia:
Bribery, a form of corruption, is an act implying money or gift given that alters the behavior of the recipient. Bribery constitutes a *crime* and is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.

The bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the recipient's conduct. It may be any money, good, right in action, property, preferment, privilege, emolument, object of value, advantage, or merely a *promise or undertaking to induce or influence the action, vote*, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity.[1]

__________________________________________________________________
Despite Hutson not knowing anything about it (but instructing the people who had been bribed, about how to vote)  *crimes* have clearly been committed. The payment of $100 was solely a bribe, (no photo shoot in sight) and there is concrete evidence of how & who paid the bribes.  

Apart from the abhorrent fact that she is so despictably dishonest & immoral & unprofessioonal to have done this to us, HER investors,* it is a crime*. 

Surprisingly her lawyer husband (working for the law firm we pay) didn't point out to her that bribery is actually against the law.


----------



## selciper (27 June 2011)

Will ASIC take action based on the recent SMH report by Michael West about the dark side of the aborted EGM? It's more than likely that the ASIC "flying squad" will remain grounded, yawning their way through yet another one of tjeir inactive weeks.


----------



## k.smith (27 June 2011)

Interesting development..??

1,000,000 shares have just traded on the NSX for 9.8c/10c


----------



## Duped (27 June 2011)

Mutchy said:


> You are correct. The sum of all proxy votes should all add to the same figure. You can't have any discrepancy because only whole proxy forms are acceptable and the total figure will be the total number of proxy forms received. As I understand the practice, unticked boxes are an "abstain" unless the person counting the proxies ticks one of the the unticked boxes "for" or "against". That's why an unbiased and unrelated independent company should tally the votes.
> 
> Compared with the figures I have seen from Computershare the figures for the "abstain" vote are about one sixth of those received by Computershare. Also the figures for the "For" vote are lower than those from Computershare.
> 
> ...




Too true Mutchy. I slipped up with the total units on issue. NSX this morning lists it as 830,532,768.

When I add the 325 million Castereagh totals (that was reported in the press) to WC's totals I get:
Resolution 1: 818,747,927
Resolution 2: 818,920,563
Resolution 3: 818,425,650
Resolution 4: 820,567,028
Resolution 5: 856,546,372
Resolution 6: 856,970,337
Resolution 7: 818,388,031

If I remove the implausible results for 5 and 6, the average is 819,009,840. I.e. about 1.387% of units didn't vote. Is this about normal? Seems like a high 'turnout' to me.

If we apply this total of 819,009,840 to the totals of 'FOR votes' given by Castlereagh and Wellington for Resolutions 5 and 6, then the 'FOR vote' won by 59.27% and 62.41% respectively. (This calculation effectively just removes about 38million 'AGAINST votes' from WC's published list.)

(If WC won the chair and directed the 'open votes' AGAINST resolutions 5 and 6 then these numbers drop by about 2.5%.)

(If I also drop the statistically 'out laying' total for Resolution 4 then the average (for resolutions 1-3 and 7) comes down to 818,620,543. I.e. 1.434% of units didn't vote. If I apply this total of 818,620,543 again to Resolutions 5 and 6, then the 'FOR vote' wins by 59.30% and 62.44% respectively.)

Now Castlereagh was reported in the press as saying that 82% of the 325million votes received for Res 5 where FOR, whereas it was about 90% for the other 6 resolutions. I.e. 9% lower FOR votes for Res5. If I apply this same pattern to WC's published totals then Resolution 5 gets about 466.5 million out of the above calculated 819,009,840 votes cast: i.e. 57.0% FOR votes.

Of course, these calculations are wholly reliant on completely unaudited and obviously questionable figures.


----------



## Duped (27 June 2011)

k.smith said:


> Interesting development..??
> 
> 1,000,000 shares have just traded on the NSX for 9.8c/10c




Those transactions went straight through. I.e. I checked the BIDS earlier this morning and there was nothing listed above the 140+ thousand at 8.8c. My guess is that many unit holders are all sitting on huge capital losses that apparently can be offset against capital gains made elsewhere. Given that we are three days out from the end of the financial year I'd guess that some, out of the ordinary, transactions could take place. Although fingers crossed that the price is on the up after last week's activities.


----------



## JohnH (27 June 2011)

Duped said:


> Those transactions went straight through.  I.e. I checked the BIDS earlier this morning and there was nothing listed above the 140+ thousand at 8.8c.  My guess is that many unit holders are all sitting on huge capital losses that apparently can be offset against capital gains made elsewhere.  Given that we are three days out from the end of the financial year I'd guess that some, out of the ordinary, transactions could take place. Although fingers crossed that the price is on the up after last week's activities.




Maybe it's the Red Witch cashing in to pay for her minders and ring-ins!


----------



## Duped (27 June 2011)

Duped said:


> Those transactions went straight through. I.e. I checked the BIDS earlier this morning and there was nothing listed above the 140+ thousand at 8.8c. My guess is that many unit holders are all sitting on huge capital losses that apparently can be offset against capital gains made elsewhere. Given that we are three days out from the end of the financial year I'd guess that some, out of the ordinary, transactions could take place. Although fingers crossed that the price is on the up after last week's activities.




Furthermore, these transactions mean that WC can hence report in the next Update that 30.9% of the units traded in the quarter were at or above 10c. (This of course can change during the next 3 days.)


----------



## Duped (27 June 2011)

JohnH said:


> Maybe it's the Red Witch cashing in to pay for her minders and ring-ins!



 Begs that question too doesn't it. I understand that off market transactions are legal. But I'm not sure if these are recording as 'trades' with the NSX (or ASX for that matter). Either way, why did someone pay 10c each when they didn't even bother to bid at e.g 9c for even just a day?


----------



## astevo (27 June 2011)

JohnH said:


> Maybe it's the Red Witch cashing in to pay for her minders and ring-ins!




or someone needs a million units to help 'stack' the next meeting! (and maybe it's tax deductible or even re-imbursable as "meeting expenses")

- Alan.


----------



## Sutho81 (27 June 2011)

Should we be worried about the excissive trading on the NSX and who is getting those units?

Does anyone have information about that other attempted take over from ALF, could they have purchased units in the fund and are now selling them back as their attempt failed?

The actions be Wellington have certainly made me more determined to get rid of them. It is clear to me that all Wellington wants is to drain our fund of whatever money they can get out of it and leave us with nothing.


----------



## Mutchy (27 June 2011)

Interesting decision by the court regarding the role of directors and their reliance on their auditors. It may well bear on our Class Action.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/27/3254406.htm

Steve


----------



## Jadel (27 June 2011)

Mutchy said:


> Interesting decision by the court regarding the role of directors and their reliance on their auditors. It may well bear on our Class Action.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/27/3254406.htm
> 
> Steve




I sincerely hope this court judgment means we can get the CEO  Andrew Peacock back from America to face the music Mutchy ??? . It is deplorable that he is not mentioned as 
having had any responsibility at all  in the fraudulent activity regarding the PIF.

He would be living the high life in that society ,with his ex ambassador wife , no doubt oblivious to the fact that  he has destroyed the lives of a great many  investors, who completely relied on his  integrity and reputation to invest in MFS and the PIF.


----------



## charles36 (27 June 2011)

Just to let you know that Seamisty and her husband are both well and still on their trek north.  My wife and I were pleased to have them as our guests for lunch today.  She asked me to inform you that she is still in touch with ASF and is eagerly awaiting a chance to again post on the forum.  We wished them well on their journey on behalf of all PIFAG members and avid readers of the ASF.  In the meantime our lawyers are busy sharpening their pencils and preparing for the forthcoming Court case on the 6 July, 2011at the Supreme Court, Brisbane.  I am looking forward to receiving my subpoena demanding my presence.


----------



## pifed (27 June 2011)

Jadel said:


> I sincerely hope this court judgment means we can get the CEO  Andrew Peacock back from America to face the music Mutchy ??? . It is deplorable that he is not mentioned as
> having had any responsibility at all  in the fraudulent activity regarding the PIF.
> 
> He would be living the high life in that society ,with his ex ambassador wife , no doubt oblivious to the fact that  he has destroyed the lives of a great many  investors, who completely relied on his  integrity and reputation to invest in MFS and the PIF.




I would doubt that Andrew Peacock would have enough nouse to know what he was getting involved in, and hence the  Crook MFS directors needed a stooge like him


----------



## zixo (27 June 2011)

This is about our old "friends" in the ALF. 
I wonder if the premium Income fund is susceptible to another takeover from "colourful" characters since WC took control with our very own list of "colourful" Characters?

ALF hopes for better luck listing 
Scott Rochfort 
June 27, 2011
 CBD 
After taking more than a year to win over 1.17 per cent of the unitholders in the MFS-founded Premium Income Fund as part of its popular takeover bid, the business advised by the banned company director Jim Byrnes is now looking to list on the ASX.

On Friday, ALF PIF Finance (a subsidiary of a former lingerie firm) took what appeared to be its first steps towards a planned listing by changing its name to ALF Finance Ltd. It is now believed ALF (aka Australian Litigation Funders), which includes Byrnes's wife, Gina, as a director, along with the former ragtrader Michael Pakula, hopes to lodge a prospectus with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in the next few weeks.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/alf-hopes-for-better-luck-listing-20110626-1glt3.html


----------



## zixo (27 June 2011)

Mutchy said:


> Interesting decision by the court regarding the role of directors and their reliance on their auditors. It may well bear on our Class Action.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/27/3254406.htm
> 
> Steve




Yes its great stuff!
Does anyone know if ASIC were present to see our very own EGM "auditions" last Thursday?


----------



## DepressedDad (27 June 2011)

marcom said:


> *ASIC to warn before taking action: report*
> 
> Published 7:52 AM, 27 Jun 2011 Last update 7:52 AM, 27 Jun 2011
> 
> ...




Now look here Jenny. You've been a very very naughty girl losing 600 million dollars off these poor people's fund.  Now don't do it again.

Greg


----------



## JohnH (27 June 2011)

marcom said:


> *ASIC to warn before taking action: report*
> 
> Published 7:52 AM, 27 Jun 2011 Last update 7:52 AM, 27 Jun 2011
> 
> ...




Now there's a thought.............. maybe the ATO might find an examination interesting!!


----------



## ian1328 (27 June 2011)

Mutchy said:


> Yes, you can submit a new proxy form and it will supersede your previous form. You can change anything on the form including who you nominate to be your proxy holder at the next meeting if you can not attend and want someone to represent you. New forms can be downloaded from the Castlereagh Capital website:
> 
> http://castlereagh.rlbrandmgmt.com.au/include/tiny_mce/plugins/filemanager/files/PIF_Proxy_Form.pdf
> 
> ...




Do are submitted votes sent for the 'meeting that didn't happen' count at the next one?


----------



## simgrund (27 June 2011)

zixo said:


> This is about our old "friends" in the ALF.
> I wonder if the premium Income fund is susceptible to another takeover from "colourful" characters since WC took control with our very own list of "colourful" Characters?
> 
> ALF hopes for better luck listing
> ...




Well, ALFie may huff and puff but his registration with Takeovers Panel will stay like a branding rod across his forehead. 
Zixo, that coffee assignment is still on, O'K.
Be well,


----------



## k.smith (27 June 2011)

''....The judgment should also give ASIC the courage to go in hard after auditors and lawyers who sign off on books and give companies and boards advice.....''

''...It seems that ASIC under the former chairman Tony D'Aloisio preferred to go down the enforceable undertakings and settlements route. This outcome is cheaper, but it doesn't don't deal with the problem and doesn't act as a big enough disincentive for bad behaviour. At best, such approaches are a cop-out for the regulator, which doesn't have to mount a case, and the true criminality of the accused is never tested.

More importantly, it cheats the law of precedents, creates a lack of transparency (because settlements and enforceable undertakings are created behind closed doors), and it makes it hard for companies to get a consistent line.

Let's hope the Centro win gives Medcraft and ASIC the courage to keep testing the courts.

aferguson@fairfaxmedia.com.au


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic...ss-medcraft-20110627-1gmop.html#ixzz1QSzyT1jw


We have been HOPING and HOPING...

for YEARS...


----------



## Duped (28 June 2011)

http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/mystery-rebel-group-joins-tug-of-war/story-fn6ck2gb-1226082293753

*Mystery rebel group joins tug of war                              *



                                 Anthony Marx
                             From:                                          The Courier-Mail
                                 June 27, 2011                                 12:00AM
"*THE flyers filled with dire warnings arrived without any clues as to who sent them.                                  *                               "Save our PIF from corporate predators ... Don't risk your money with crooks, predators and amateurs," one of them said.
Who  distributed the crudely drafted notices recently to some of the nearly  11,000 investors in the struggling Premium Income Fund remains a  mystery.
The authors only identify themselves as the PIF Reaction  Group, with no names or addresses, but it's clear they support the  current fund manager, Brisbane merchant bank Wellington Capital, which  is now fighting an increasingly complex and protracted takeover bid  engineered by disgruntled investors under the banner of the PIF Action  Group.
These rebel unit holders allege that Wellington has made a  hash of overseeing the $264 million fund, which has continued to  haemorrhage value and post huge losses over the past three years.
                      They want Sydney-based Castlereagh Capital to step in as  responsible entity and have launched a well-financed campaign to tip out  Wellington.
Matters came to a head last week with two court  battles and a controversially aborted meeting but irate investors vow to  regroup on July 14 to finish the job. There were allegations that  Wellington stacked that meeting and more legal skirmishes now appear  inevitable.
Like a political campaign, both sides have tried to  woo investors by lauding their own record and rubbishing their opponent.  Wellington CEO Jenny Hutson has distanced herself from the PIF Reaction  Group, insisting she had nothing to do with their mailouts......"




"*both *sides have tried to *woo *investors by *lauding *their own record and *rubbishing *their opponent." 

That paints PIFAG in a similar bad light to its opponents. How does Mr Anthony Marx propose PIFAG DOES arrange for unit holders rights to be exercised without drawing such, less than favourable, words from the likes of him.


----------



## JohnH (28 June 2011)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/announcements_list.asp

Litigation update – Federal Court Proceedings 
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund advises that it has filed an 
Amended Application, Statement of Claim and affidavits in support in the Federal Court in Brisbane. 
The application is made under section 1324 of the Corporations Act for orders concerning the validity of the 
Notice of Meeting sent by the Premium Income Fund Action Group Incorporated, Peter Grenadier and 
Charles Hodges dated 16 May 2011.  
The orders being sought are as follows: 
 a declaration that the notice of meeting of members of the Premium Income Fund dated 16 May 2011 
issued by the first, second and third defendants, is invalid. 
 a declaration that the defendants contravened s 252G of the Corporations Act; 
 a declaration that the second and third defendants contravened s 671B of the Corporations Act; 
 a declaration that the meeting of members of the Premium Income Fund purportedly held on 23 June 
2011 was: 
 inquorate; 
 dissolved pursuant to clause 10.6 of the Constitution of the Premium Income Fund; 
 a declaration that any resolution purported to be passed at the meeting of members in the Premium 
Income Fund purportedly held on 23 June 2011, including the resolution purporting to adjourn the 
meeting to 14 July 2011, is invalid; 
 an order restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants or agents or howsoever otherwise, from 
proceeding with the meeting of unit holders of the Premium Income Fund as described in the notice of 
meeting of the Premium Income Fund dated 16 May 2011 
The matter will be heard before Justice Dowsett in the Federal Court in Brisbane on 6 July 2011 
Further updates will be provided as the matter progresses.


----------



## marcom (28 June 2011)

A simlpe question in court on 6 July should sort this out. Who did WC give access to the mailing list. The flyers are critical of Castlereagh and ALF so you can rule these parties out. Who has access to the list in the WC office? Best guess is it is another David Burke spectacular - this way JH can say  " Wellington CEO Jenny Hutson has distanced herself from the PIF Reaction Group, insisting she had nothing to do with their mailouts......"

I want to see her say that on oath in court!


----------



## charles36 (28 June 2011)

JohnH said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/announcements_list.asp
> 
> Litigation update – Federal Court Proceedings
> Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund advises that it has filed an
> ...




I would like all interested unit holders to say focussed and wait until after the 6 July, 2011.  Remember there are two sides to every story.  It does not mean that the first person to tell a story always has a claim to the alleged right story.


----------



## JohnH (28 June 2011)

charles36 said:


> I would like all interested unit holders to say focussed and wait until after the 6 July, 2011.  Remember there are two sides to every story.  It does not mean that the first person to tell a story always has a claim to the alleged right story.




So true Charles - I think in this case the expression "porky" is doubly meaningful!


----------



## marcom (28 June 2011)

Centro class action boosted by court decision: IMF
June 28, 2011 - 10:41AM

A multi-million dollar class action against shopping centre owner Centro will be boosted by a Federal Court decision against the company's directors, the claimants say.

Publicly listed litigation funder IMF and law firm Maurice Blackburn are leading the action on behalf of hundreds of investors seeking an estimated $200 million in damages due to alleged deceptive conduct and breaches of continuous disclosure obligations.

The allegations are levelled against Centro Properties Group, Centro Retail Group, and their auditors, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, and relate to conduct from August 2007 to February 2008.
Advertisement: Story continues below

On Monday, the Federal Court found eight Centro directors breached the Corporations Act by failing to properly disclose the terms of billions of dollars worth of short-term debt in 2006/07 annual reports.

That decision provides further support for those involved in the class action against Centro Properties, Centro Retail and PricewaterhouseCoopers, IMF said on Tuesday.

Maurice Blackburn also welcomed the Federal Court ruling.

"The Federal Court decision reinforces the class action case," senior associate Martin Hyde said.

Hearings in the class action are due to begin in the Federal Court in Melbourne in March next year.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/cent...ecision-imf-20110628-1go8b.html#ixzz1QX1TzZMQ


----------



## marcom (28 June 2011)

And a short piece on the high flying NSX borse:

PLEASE EXPLAIN

It does not take much of a trade to get a price query from the Newcastle Stock Exchange. The bourse pounced on the Newcastle-based Illuminator Investment Company on Friday, seeking an explanation over the trade of $400.05 worth of shares.

The trade, at 15 ¢ a share, was well down on the previous trade at 35 ¢ a share. ''Is the company aware of any price information concerning it that has not been announced, which, if known, could be an explanation for recent trading in the securities of the Company?'' thundered the NSX in its three-page query to Illuminator's chairman, Steven Pritchard.

Pritchard, who happens to be a former NSX chairman and also heads the Newcastle office of the broker who conducted the trade, appeared puzzled in his response yesterday, pointing to the company's net asset backing of 37.9 ¢ a share.

''We know of no reason why the shares would trade at less than half this price,'' he said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/ohalloran-dines-out-on-a-century-20110627-1gnfk.html#ixzz1QX2Rq2xD


----------



## Cookie1 (28 June 2011)

Attached is an article from the Australian Financial Review Friday 24 June 2011 entitled "Investors Miffed after PIF farce". Click on the attachment below for the full article.

It was great to meet some of my fellow investors at the meeting in Sydney on Thursday and nice to put faces to names. Be sure to turn out again on July 14th! I'll be there God willing.

Cookie1


----------



## Mutchy (28 June 2011)

ian1328 said:


> Do are submitted votes sent for the 'meeting that didn't happen' count at the next one?




Yes. The proxy forms which you lodged for the last meeting are still valid.
Steve


----------



## Sutho81 (28 June 2011)

Regarding the next meeting for the election of a chairman, I believe you need a minimum number of investors representing a certain number of units in the fund for the meeting to proceed.

Question - If I was to turn up at the meeting is it possible somehow that I can represent my own units as well as a representative of the units held by my mother who cannot be present.

We have both voted in favour of Castlereagh, and given the actions of Wellington I am now determined to take a more proactive role in helping defeat them.


----------



## elizaman (28 June 2011)

Mutchy said:


> Yes. The proxy forms which you lodged for the last meeting are still valid.
> Steve




They are until there is another submission to a court having all proxies declared null and void and for the process to start again I suspect. I think it is very important to keep reviewing this forum as well as Castlereagh's web site for any early indictaions to make sure


----------



## Duped (28 June 2011)

Thanks Cookie1.

Hutson is quoted as saying "If the meeting today had proceeded as it should have, there would have been a quorum and final resolution" and "It is extremely disappointing that unit holders who have chosen to participate do not have a final outcome today". Really, Jenny? "Extremely disappointing"? 

Then why the application to the Federal Court on 21 June and amended application today for:

"a declaration that the *notice of meeting* of members of the Premium Income Fund dated 16 May 2011 issued by the first, second and third defendants, is invalid." [emphasis added]

Why, if Hutson really does care about unit holders getting an outcome, is the Hutson lead WC seeking (in those same proceedings) to prevent the meeting proceeding in July by applying to the Federal Court for:

"a declaration that any resolution purported to be passed at the meeting of members in the Premium Income Fund purportedly held on 23 June 2011, *including the resolution purporting to adjourn the meeting to 14 July 2011, is invalid*;" [emphasis added]

"an order *restraining *the defendants by themselves, their servants or agents or howsoever otherwise, *from proceeding *with the meeting of unit holders of the Premium Income Fund as described in the notice of meeting of the Premium Income Fund dated 16 May 2011" [emphasis added]

I just can't seem to find the consistency between what the AFR heard from Hutson after the meeting and her WC's actions just a few days before AND after talking to the AFR. Anyone?  Perhaps the learned Journalists at the AFR can explain?

AFR quotes Hutson as saying "If the meeting today had proceeded *as it should have*" [emphasis added].  This of course, IMLO, is Hutson's opinion. This is the same person that lead WC to spend PIF money on a fruitless challenge against Pearl's acquisition of the Gold Coast Sheraton Mirage. And the same person who according to the Courier Mail on June 21 "disagreed with the court's interpretation". Then of course are all the deliverables she offered at the roadshows in 2008. 

All these opinons are all wonderful and great for e.g. making WC supporters feel better about WC's performance, but do they contribute anything at all to returning capital to the PIF unit holders? Perhaps any WC supporters here can enlighten me? 

Umm, errr, could it be that all these opinions are simply: wrong? Hmmm perhaps Packer's boys from Arctic capital weren't really such tough negotiators after all? They just weren't so easily lead?  I wonder what Enneagram personality type the AFR is? The same as the remaining WC supporters?


----------



## elizaman (28 June 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> Regarding the next meeting for the election of a chairman, I believe you need a minimum number of investors representing a certain number of units in the fund for the meeting to proceed.
> 
> Question - If I was to turn up at the meeting is it possible somehow that I can represent my own units as well as a representative of the units held by my mother who cannot be present.
> 
> We have both voted in favour of Castlereagh, and given the actions of Wellington I am now determined to take a more proactive role in helping defeat them.




Check with Castlereagh to be sure but I would think your units are fine however your mother would have to sign her proxy vote over to you unless you have both already signed them over to WC or PIF AG. ( the pink or yellow forms ) At which point you would have download the proxy forms from Castlereagh and go through the correct proceedure. I believe someone on this forum mentioned that the most recent dated form will preceed the original one. I'm still not sure how or who is keeping track of all these changes between computershare and Armstrong but fingers crossed a third party is bought in to audit all and crossed referenced with the investor list or it's done in court.


----------



## reasonable (28 June 2011)

WC could well be funding their gutter tactics from the interest earned on cash put up by subscribers to the rights issue.  

They banked the cash and haven’t yet returned it!


----------



## Duped (28 June 2011)

Furthermore, if Hutson is truly so averse to 'extreme disappointment' for unit holders, she could have so easily simply forewarned the convenors that she intended to enforce clauses 10.7 to 10.10 of the consititution.  Clause 10.1: "The Chairman of the Board is entitled to take the chair at every general meeting."  It seems that instead of liaising with the convenors prior to the meeting to ensure it proceeded smoothly to avoid an "extremely disappointing" outcome for "unit holders who have chosen to participate", the Hutson lead WC was busy applying to the court to stop the meeting.

Again, I can't find the consistency between this Hutson lead WC conduct and Hutson's words quoted in the June 22 NSX announcement "it is my view that the ultimate decision making body is the members in general meeting. I look forward to Unitholders having the opportunity to consider the resolutions put forward in the notice of 16 May 2011."

Why did Hutson *insist *on taking the Chair?  The constitution says that Hutson was "*entitled *to take the chair". The constitution does not say Hutson MUST take the chair. Does it? Couldn't the RE and Board just as easily discharged their duties by offering their opinions to the Chair rather than actually Chairing the meeting themselves? They were offered to address the meeting.  Wouldn't this have been sufficient to discharge their duties to the investors?

Any WC supporters out there have a reason? Are there any of you left?  If so, you're being very quiet?

Any more comments from the AFR? 

On a lighter note the band Extreme had a hit with 'More Than Words'.


----------



## selciper (28 June 2011)

Once a business name is associated with the word "farce" (AFR headline) it will head in only one direction - down.

I well recall the comment made by an analyst at King's fateful 08 video conference: "Michael, the game's up." How long will it be before a similar phrase is addressed towards Wellinngton?


----------



## simgrund (29 June 2011)

Hello PIF friends in Nerang QLD, 
I am coming over to your lovely paradise for a 2 day (weekend 2-3 July) sports participation at Sports Centre 1 Herbertson Drive, Molendinar.
Would be nice to meet over coffee and enjoy an exchange of expletives, invectives and disparagements we all have penned up without an outlet till 14th. 
If you are like minded and willing to share your repertoire with me, please communicate through "Notifications" before noon Thursday tomorrow.
I expect to be in Nerang Friday 9-10 am for look-around before playing on Saturday.
Be well, keep the Faith, 
simgrund


----------



## JohnH (29 June 2011)

Two questions to the more knowledgeable.

1.  When WC issued/sold the shares to the sophisticated investors, should there not have been a "notification of change of substantial share holding" published"

2.   Does ASX rule 7.1 or similar apply to NSX issues?  (the 15% rule)?

................  John H


----------



## Investor262 (29 June 2011)

simgrund said:


> Hello PIF friends in Nerang QLD,
> I am coming over to your lovely paradise for a 2 day (weekend 2-3 July) sports participation at Sports Centre 1 Herbertson Drive, Molendinar.
> Would be nice to meet over coffee and enjoy an exchange of expletives, invectives and disparagements we all have penned up without an outlet till 14th.
> If you are like minded and willing to share your repertoire with me, please communicate through "Notifications" before noon Thursday tomorrow.
> ...



 I can meet up with you at that time, what place? Kind regards


----------



## simgrund (29 June 2011)

Investor262 said:


> I can meet up with you at that time, what place? Kind regards




Hi INV.262
I sent message to your box, (notifications: click etc.)
See you soon


----------



## DoraNBoots (29 June 2011)

JohnH said:


> ...
> 
> 1.  When WC issued/sold the shares to the sophisticated investors, should there not have been a "notification of change of substantial share holding" published"
> ................  John H




Hi JohnH,
Since there has been no disclosure I assume that each Placement buyer bought units worth less than 5% of the fund.
The NSX Periodic Disclosure document found here states:
http://www.nsxa.com.au/documents/practice_notes/PN09-PeriodicDisclosure.pdf
_"It is a requirement under the corporations Act to lodge substantial shareholder notices for any person that holds 5% or more of a listed entity to the NSX."_​


----------



## JohnH (29 June 2011)

DoraNBoots said:


> Hi JohnH,
> Since there has been no disclosure I assume that each Placement buyer bought units worth less than 5% of the fund.
> The NSX Periodic Disclosure document found here states:
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/documents/practice_notes/PN09-PeriodicDisclosure.pdf
> _"It is a requirement under the corporations Act to lodge substantial shareholder notices for any person that holds 5% or more of a listed entity to the NSX."_​




Thanks DnB......... so Alfie's disclosures were purely PR!?


----------



## Shafted (29 June 2011)

Perhaps I'm being naÃ¯ve, but isn't it illegal to try and stack a meeting of investors with people who have been appointed as shareholders only hours before the meeting solely for stacking purposes, and without their consent?  And isn't it illegal to issue shares to persons who have not knowingly applied for them?

If the answer to either or both of these questions is “Yes”, can't a complaint be made to the police so that the perpetrators can be charged?


----------



## DoraNBoots (29 June 2011)

JohnH said:


> Thanks DnB......... so Alfie's disclosures were purely PR!?




I think it was necessary for ALF because they were involved in a takeover bid for all units in the PIF.

The NSX Periodic Disclosure document states:
_"Substantial Shareholder Notices...Timetable for Reporting:...By 9.30 am of the next business day of the relevant financial market after they become aware of the information in the case where a take over bid is operation."_


----------



## simgrund (30 June 2011)

Hello Investor 262,
Have you checked Messages re meet up on Friday?
Cheers,


----------



## selciper (30 June 2011)

SMH article about ASIC and Auditors.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic-warns-auditors-to-be-more-sceptical-20110629-1gr2r.html


----------



## marcom (30 June 2011)

AFR article on auditors:

Regulator raises red flag on auditors
PUBLISHED : 10 hours 24 minutes ago | UPDATED: 4 hours 51 minutes ago
http://www.afr.com/p/national/regulator_raises_red_flag_on_auditors_Z3tPiB3OSUn805MPOY325O

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has found that almost one in three auditors fail to obtain *sufficient evidence when inspecting company accounts.


----------



## simgrund (30 June 2011)

Hi DoraNBoots, 
I am trying to send you a reply via Email with all the toppings.
It takes ages and is still in progress.
I broke it into 2 parts and it's still chortling.
This is a shortie to let you know I am in responding gear.
See you in Sydney.
simgrund


----------



## selciper (30 June 2011)

Shafted said:


> Perhaps I'm being naÃ¯ve, but isn't it illegal to try and stack a meeting of investors with people who have been appointed as shareholders only hours before the meeting solely for stacking purposes, and without their consent?  And isn't it illegal to issue shares to persons who have not knowingly applied for them?
> 
> If the answer to either or both of these questions is “Yes”, can't a complaint be made to the police so that the perpetrators can be charged?




Shafted - I bet that quite a few investors would like an answer to your questions about stacking meetings. I came across this brief offering about political branch stacking which is possibly some guide. Perhaps someone can find more comprehensive comments on the subject of stacking EGMs and the law. (Wikipedia has an entry on the matter which I haven't yet perused.)

http://cartledged.blogspot.com/2005/09/branch-stacking.html


----------



## zixo (30 June 2011)

Heres a link to any interested unitholders who have not yet heard the castlereagh Capital Investor information session. They sound Very impressive, most of all, what they are saying makes complete sense in what they're saying. 

http://www.brr.com.au/event/81414/?popup=true

The castlereagh Capital website is www.cascap.com.au


----------



## zixo (1 July 2011)

FROM the Sydney Morning herald  Today
If this doesn't convince Investors that something fishy is going on, I dont know what will?
http://www.smh.com.au/business/well...rigged-voting-court-claim-20110630-1gt4o.html

Wellington Capital boss faces rigged voting court claim 
 Colin Kruger, Michael West 
July 1, 2011


AN AFFIDAVIT being lodged with the Federal Court today implicates the Wellington Capital boss Jenny Hutson in a bizarre scheme, involving hired actors, to ensure her company did not get removed as manager of the embattled Premium Income Fund (PIF).

 The document alleges Ms Hutson was involved in an orchestrated attempt to subvert the outcome of a meeting of PIF investors, by signing up a rent-a-crowd of as many as 200 people to temporarily become PIF investors and vote in her favour.

 PIF units were transferred into their names for the duration of the June 22 investors meeting so they could support Ms Hutson's bid to chair the meeting.


----------



## reasonable (1 July 2011)

It seems to me that WC hired the 200 crowd knowing that it would outnumber the 150 genuine investors.  The conclusion being that there may be a spy in the camp?


----------



## selciper (1 July 2011)

No doubt in my mind that the must-read SMH article in today's edition is very, very important. I think that there's an office in Brisbane where the staff have a sinking feeling.


----------



## marcom (1 July 2011)

I read Michael West's article in the Herald with great interest, particularly the statement " ...the forms gave the addresses of the freshly minted PIF investors as 11/6-10 O'Connell Street, Sydney."

So I Googled that address and guess what I found - the hubby's law firm!

MCCULLOUGH ROBERTSON LAWYERS - Level 11/ 6-10 O'Connell St Sydney
[Site popularity rank: #2,500,471] www.infoguideaustralia.com/sydney/.../mccullough-robertson-lawy... - Cached
Address Level 11/ 6-10 O'Connell St. Neighbourhood Sydney. City Sydney. Province NSW. PC 2000. Telephone number Telephone number :: MCCULLOUGH ROBERTSON ...


----------



## Cookie1 (1 July 2011)

marcom said:


> I read Michael West's article in the Herald with great interest, particularly the statement " ...the forms gave the addresses of the freshly minted PIF investors as 11/6-10 O'Connell Street, Sydney."
> 
> So I Googled that address and guess what I found - the hubby's law firm!
> 
> ...




Good work, Marcom.

Cookie1


----------



## JohnH (1 July 2011)

Today's NSX update from Wellington

Press commentary 1 July 2011 
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund is aware of the claims made in media today relating to the adjourned meeting of 23 June 2011 held in Sydney. 
Managing Director, Jenny Hutson said: ‘Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund has important obligations in relation to its management of the Fund and role in properly convened meetings. Wellington Capital has directly and through its agents undertaken its roles and responsibilities appropriately and will continue to do so. Suggestions to the contrary are misleading, deceptive  and are emphatically denied.  
The issues associated with the meeting called pursuant to the Notice of Meeting dated 16 May 2011 remain 
the subject of litigation in the Federal Court.’ 
Further updates will be provided as the matter progresses


----------



## Cookie1 (1 July 2011)

NSX Announcement today: http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724159.PDF

Premium Income Fund  
NSX Release: 1 July 2011 

*Press commentary 1 July 2011 
*
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund is aware of the claims made in media today relating to the adjourned meeting of 23 June 2011 held in Sydney. 

Managing Director, Jenny Hutson said: _‘Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund has important obligations in relation to its management of the Fund and role in properly convened meetings. Wellington Capital has directly and through its agents undertaken its roles and responsibilities appropriately and will continue to do so. Suggestions to the contrary are misleading, deceptive  and are emphatically denied.  

The issues associated with the meeting called pursuant to the Notice of Meeting dated 16 May 2011 remain the subject of litigation in the Federal Court.’ 
_
Further updates will be provided as the matter progresses.


----------



## atlas1950 (1 July 2011)

If it is proven that this law firm was involved in stacking the meeting, could they be at risk in being struck off. It seems to me that if it is an  illegal act, and if so, they should feel the full force of the law.

M


----------



## DepressedDad (1 July 2011)

Surprise surprise.  She emphatically denies it. So there's two fat woman in the same building, in the same meeting, addressing the actors, in red jackets??  Liar & a cheat now. But then tell us something we don't know Jenny.


----------



## Duped (1 July 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> NSX Announcement today: http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724159.PDF
> 
> Premium Income Fund
> NSX Release: 1 July 2011
> ...




If Wellington Capital or any of its agents, staff, shareholders, directors or their agents consider that anything I have posted on this thread as being misleading or deceptive then please contact me by private message immediately with details of the offending conduct so I can consider it for removal to minimise damage.


----------



## seamisty (1 July 2011)

Hi All, Glad to see the media on board re the farce of the EGM in Sydney and the continuing underhand tactics relating to the PIF management being exposed. Not surprising JH is denying any involvement re the engaging of rent a crowds etc, but when credible witnesses can be produced willing to support the honest investors what else is left but to lie and continue to deceive?Perhaps the Victorian golf club members who were enjoying their all expenses paid trip to Sydney to wave the 'pink slip' should have been told to dress smart bussiness class also, as they stood out like the proverbial dogs balls . ( Interesting not one raised their hand in support of WC when asked the question) I hope WC staff and associates are well aware of the repercussions involved with fraudulent behaviour? The day of reckoning is approaching, previous WC supporters (even though previously somewhat sceptical) are now seeing the real truth revealed. 
Thanks to all who attended the EGM, was great to meet so many of you. It sure was interesting observing the small WC contingent of employees BEFORE and AFTER the antics were exposed!!! No wonder  WC had to pay for support! The scurrying of drowning rats would have made an apt comparison!! Great to see so much new support on the forum. Seamisty


----------



## Harald (1 July 2011)

reasonable said:


> It seems to me that WC hired the 200 crowd knowing that it would outnumber the 150 genuine investors.  The conclusion being that there may be a spy in the camp?




How could a spy in the camp tell JH the day before how many genuine investors
woul attend the meeting?


----------



## Duped (1 July 2011)

This is one of the NSX listing rules: 

"6.17 The issuer shall inform the Exchange without delay, *for dissemination by the
Exchange*, of any decision made in regard to:-
(1) any proposed alteration of the issuer’s constitution;
(2) any changes in its Board of directors, and shall procure and lodge with
the Exchange as soon as practicable after their appointment a signed
declaration and undertaking in the form set out in Part B of Appendix 2,
from each new director;
(3) any change in the rights attaching to any class of listed securities and
any change in the rights attaching to any shares into which any listed
debt securities are convertible or exchangeable;
(4) any changes in its secretary, auditors or registered address; and
*(5) any change of the place where a register of its securities is kept.*"

Hmmmmm.  Where was the register on the day of the meeting?

Surely only Unit Holders entered into the register (after they have acquired the units) would be allowed to vote?


----------



## Duped (1 July 2011)

NSX listing rule:

"Equality of treatment
6.53 The issuer shall ensure equality of treatment for all holders of listed securities
of the same class (excluding foreign shareholders)."

Would this be breached if it can be shown that the requirements for registering an off-market transfer were altered for any off-market transfers occuring at the meeting venue?

Similarly doesn't this put Australian residents in a different time zone at a disadvantage? E.g. don't the listing rules or PIF constitution apply to Australian residents in the Cocos Islands, Heard Island and AU Antarctic Territory? It was still 6am on Heard Island when the meeting commenced.

(I wonder how the NSX, ASX and CHESS feel about the superior timeliness that off-market tranfers have compared to the services they provide?)


----------



## Cookie1 (1 July 2011)

Welcome back to the forum, Seamisty; we've missed you!

Cookie1


----------



## Duped (1 July 2011)

Re my last two posts.  These listing rules apply to both Equity Securities (Section IIA) and Managed Investment Schemes (Section IIC). 

For the latter the clauses are 6.17(13) and 6.50 respectively.


----------



## reasonable (1 July 2011)

Harald said:


> How could a spy in the camp tell JH the day before how many genuine investors
> woul attend the meeting?




Perhaps you should ask the spy.  I know that some in the PIFAG have been asking for that information.


----------



## DepressedDad (1 July 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> Welcome back to the forum, Seamisty; we've missed you!
> 
> Cookie1




Hear, hear..


----------



## zixo (1 July 2011)

This is the link to the Modelling agency website allegedly used to stack the recent meeting if anyone is interested in auditioning for a part in an upcoming movie regarding the PIF 

http://www.mctv.com.au/cgi-bin/exec/index.pl?~container1:main~#~:~body:front.pl~artistlist:empty~


----------



## JohnH (1 July 2011)

Harald said:


> How could a spy in the camp tell JH the day before how many genuine investors
> woul attend the meeting?





Probably she just rang up and asked how many people the room would hold, and made a guesstimate.


----------



## zixo (1 July 2011)

This is a well deserved tick for ASIC.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...corporations-act/story-e6frg90f-1226085794157

ASIC charges Westpoint officers with breaching Corporations Act

TWO former executives of the failed Westpoint property group have been charged with breaches of the Corporations Act by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. 

The regulator today charged Westpoint founder Norman Carey and former chief executive controller Graeme Rundle in Perth Magistrates Court with two criminal charges each.

If convicted, each offence carries a maximum penalty of five years jail.


----------



## propfundmanager (1 July 2011)

I would just like to say I admire you all - I have been involved in property funds management for a long time and what is going here is both a sad inditement of what occurred during the boom times as well as the looters that fall out after. What we see here may be a looter at their best - bold as brass to start with and then suddenly nowhere to be seen other than attempting to save their own skin.  I have been in this space for nearly a quarter of a century, and like most on the post have never seen anything quite like this. My belief is that you'll beat her - you'd have to but EVERYONE MUST VOTE. My question is though - WHERE THE HELL IS ASIC? Your patience, and tenacity is amazing. Great story today in the SMH - most I spoke to cannot believe it!


----------



## DepressedDad (1 July 2011)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



seamisty said:


> Javier, I spoke with a lawyer in regards to this a couple of months ago and was advised that it would be very expensive at this stage until such times as ASIC had made enquiries and determined the areas of misconduct and made applicable rulings where neccessary. I then contacted ASIC and they assured me they are conducting an extensive investigation as a result of being inundated with complaints from investors from both OCV and the PIF. I agree though we will definitely need some legal representation at some stage. Regards, Seamisty




What is so infuriating & heartbreaking is that over THREE YEARS has passed since Seamisty put the above post on this forum.  It is post number 220 on page 11 & dated 12 June 2008. (219 posts had already been made about unacceptable goings on & being left in the dark.)  ASIC admitted to being inundated with complaints from investors in the PIF all that time ago.  In the light of now INDISPUTABLE evidence from the meeting stacking fiasco that WC/JH are at best, unprofessional & dishonest, at worst criminals, how do staff feel now about their inaction?  

It is not so much that THREE YEARS has passed, it is what has now happened in those THREE LONG YEARS. What damage was allowed to be done, year after year because  ASIC did absolutely nothing. They could have saved so much angst, even lives. Better late than never ASIC. There have been 7758 more posts on 388 more pages since this one above. PLEASE PLEASE do something.  We're not asking for anything extraordinary.  Just do your job. PLEASE. DO SOMETHING!!!!


----------



## banco (1 July 2011)

Someone needs to work out a way to ask her about this meeting unde oath.


----------



## reasonable (2 July 2011)

banco said:


> Someone needs to work out a way to ask her about this meeting unde oath.




I doubt that would make a difference.  Lying is in her dna.


----------



## marcom (2 July 2011)

Can anyone access the Castlereagh Investor Update 4. All I get is - 

404 Not Found
The requested URL /include/tiny_mce/plugins/filemanager/files/PIF_Unit_Holder_Update_No_4.pdf was not found on this server.

In fact all the PIF information links on the site are similarly broken. My wife who is a web site designer thinks the site may have been hacked or who ever updated the site did it incorrectly.

Castlereagh urgently need a better functioning web site.


----------



## caineh (2 July 2011)

IT guys are currently reviewing website, links should be working shortly


----------



## marcom (2 July 2011)

caineh said:


> IT guys are currently reviewing website, links should be working shortly





Thanks those links are working now.


----------



## selciper (2 July 2011)

For those who have only recently participated in this forum, this 2009 video featuring Ms Hutson may be of interest. For old timers, it's still five minutes of viewing time well spent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H60lzsGvAWQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H60lzsGvAWQ


----------



## charles36 (2 July 2011)

I attended the meeting on the 23 June, 2011 and was present when an unofficial vote was called at the request of unit holders present by the Chairman for the purpose of ascertaining whether people wished to vote Wellington Capital OUT.  The vote was dec lared UNANIMOUS by the Chair.  A vote was called to establish whether unit holders wanted CASCAP as the RE of OUR fund.  The vote was also declared UNANIMOUS BY THE CHAIR.  Now the question, there was no person in the room at the legitimate meeting voting for Wellington Capital, the meeting was advertised to all unit holders.  It is assumed there would be some supporters wanting to retain WC, where were they?  They certainly were not warned to be at the meeting held on the second floor above us at 8.30a.m.  I did not receive an invitation.  Did anyone on this forum receive an invitation?  So it seems to me that the only supporters at the 8.30a.m. meeting were the hired hands.  Part time actors who had been paid to attend.  I have been informed that there were 200 of these persons plus approximately 30 from Victoria who received bus and plane fares to Sydney to vote for Wellington Capital.  I am also informed that they were told they would have a good time, all they had to do was vote and then enjoy the hospitality of WC.  These people, the hired hands and the Victorians were not unit holders in our fund.  Is this bizarre or what?


----------



## pifed (2 July 2011)

selciper said:


> For those who have only recently participated in this forum, this 2009 video featuring Ms Hutson may be of interest. For old timers, it's still five minutes of viewing time well spent.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H60lzsGvAWQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H60lzsGvAWQ



 Makes one want to Vomit, and that Bloody Red Jacket again


----------



## pifed (2 July 2011)

charles36 said:


> I attended the meeting on the 23 June, 2011 and was present when an unofficial vote was called at the request of unit holders present by the Chairman for the purpose of ascertaining whether people wished to vote Wellington Capital OUT.  The vote was dec lared UNANIMOUS by the Chair.  A vote was called to establish whether unit holders wanted CASCAP as the RE of OUR fund.  The vote was also declared UNANIMOUS BY THE CHAIR.  Now the question, there was no person in the room at the legitimate meeting voting for Wellington Capital, the meeting was advertised to all unit holders.  It is assumed there would be some supporters wanting to retain WC, where were they?  They certainly were not warned to be at the meeting held on the second floor above us at 8.30a.m.  I did not receive an invitation.  Did anyone on this forum receive an invitation?  So it seems to me that the only supporters at the 8.30a.m. meeting were the hired hands.  Part time actors who had been paid to attend.  I have been informed that there were 200 of these persons plus approximately 30 from Victoria who received bus and plane fares to Sydney to vote for Wellington Capital.  I am also informed that they were told they would have a good time, all they had to do was vote and then enjoy the hospitality of WC.  These people, the hired hands and the Victorians were not unit holders in our fund.  Is this bizarre or what?




Not Bizarre  CRIMINAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## JohnH (2 July 2011)

I think the "lady" in red is shortly to find out that you don't mess with old farts...age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill! Bull**** and brilliance only come with age and experience.

I am in no way insinuating that any of us:2evil: are old, some are just more youthfully challenged.


----------



## Cookie1 (2 July 2011)

pifed said:


> Makes one want to Vomit, and that Bloody Red Jacket again




Here's the follow-on to that you tube video...an announcement of the winners of the debate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXKLa5LLdqQ&NR=1

This _will_ make a person want to vomit; just persevere past the first minute or so.

Absolutely disgusting....


----------



## Towbar (2 July 2011)

marcom said:


> Thanks those links are working now.




Regarding the above emails from Castlereagh, Ive had no trouble in downloading the links. Thanks Towbar


----------



## Towbar (2 July 2011)

pifed said:


> Not Bizarre  CRIMINAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Surely this illegal activity has been noted by ASIC? Why havnt they sprung into action & condemed it!!! Towbar


----------



## NOR (2 July 2011)

charles36 said:


> I attended the meeting on the 23 June, 2011 and was present when an unofficial vote was called at the request of unit holders present by the Chairman for the purpose of ascertaining whether people wished to vote Wellington Capital OUT.  The vote was dec lared UNANIMOUS by the Chair.  A vote was called to establish whether unit holders wanted CASCAP as the RE of OUR fund.  The vote was also declared UNANIMOUS BY THE CHAIR.  Now the question, there was no person in the room at the legitimate meeting voting for Wellington Capital, the meeting was advertised to all unit holders.  It is assumed there would be some supporters wanting to retain WC, where were they?  They certainly were not warned to be at the meeting held on the second floor above us at 8.30a.m.  I did not receive an invitation.  Did anyone on this forum receive an invitation?  So it seems to me that the only supporters at the 8.30a.m. meeting were the hired hands.  Part time actors who had been paid to attend.  I have been informed that there were 200 of these persons plus approximately 30 from Victoria who received bus and plane fares to Sydney to vote for Wellington Capital.  I am also informed that they were told they would have a good time, all they had to do was vote and then enjoy the hospitality of WC.  These people, the hired hands and the Victorians were not unit holders in our fund.  Is this bizarre or what?




hi all... I TO WAS AT MEETING ARRRIVED 9.45  HEADED UP STAIRS TO 1ST FLOOR WHEN DOWN CAME  6 OR SO VERY HAPPY YOUNG PEOPLE 20 TO 25YEAR OLDS SKIPING WAVING ...[[[  PINK..]]] PAPERS I SAID TO MY SELF WHAT R YOUNG PEOPLE LIKE THAT DOING IN OUR ..PIF ......NOW I KNOW DONT I...WE   ..KEEP UP GOOD WORK WERE GETTING ..HER ..IT OR WHAT EVER...NOR..


----------



## selciper (2 July 2011)

Towbar said:


> Surely this illegal activity has been noted by ASIC? Why havnt they sprung into action & condemed it!!! Towbar




ASIC at the moment are apparently quite happy to let the PIFAG do the hard work. Once this hard slog is completed, ASIC will step forward and take appropriate action (and seek praise). If this is the case, it's a disgrace.


----------



## zixo (3 July 2011)

charles36 said:


> I attended the meeting on the 23 June, 2011 and was present when an unofficial vote was called at the request of unit holders present by the Chairman for the purpose of ascertaining whether people wished to vote Wellington Capital OUT.  The vote was dec lared UNANIMOUS by the Chair.  A vote was called to establish whether unit holders wanted CASCAP as the RE of OUR fund.  The vote was also declared UNANIMOUS BY THE CHAIR.  Now the question, there was no person in the room at the legitimate meeting voting for Wellington Capital, the meeting was advertised to all unit holders.  It is assumed there would be some supporters wanting to retain WC, where were they?  They certainly were not warned to be at the meeting held on the second floor above us at 8.30a.m.  I did not receive an invitation.  Did anyone on this forum receive an invitation?  So it seems to me that the only supporters at the 8.30a.m. meeting were the hired hands.  Part time actors who had been paid to attend.  I have been informed that there were 200 of these persons plus approximately 30 from Victoria who received bus and plane fares to Sydney to vote for Wellington Capital.  I am also informed that they were told they would have a good time, all they had to do was vote and then enjoy the hospitality of WC.  These people, the hired hands and the Victorians were not unit holders in our fund.  Is this bizarre or what?




I also attended the meeting. I sat next to a couple of Genuine UNITHOLDERS who wished to speak to wellington representatives. These people were just ordinary investors who wanted to hear both sides.
When JH didnt show as promised and the question was asked at the meeting when the unofficial show of hands were presented as wanting CASCAP to now control our fund. These two  "youthfully challenged" (thanks JohnH ) folk didn't hestitate an instant in now showing their support for Cascap in managing our fund. In fact No-one in the room that I was aware of voted in Favour of Wellington anymore. 

Did anyone notice one supporter for wellington at the show of hands at the  "adjourned official" EGM? 
If wellington were having another unitholder meeting, why were we not invited and why were these particular investors DENIED the opportunity to simply TALK to a Wellington Representative when they were in the same building?


----------



## marcom (3 July 2011)

propfundmanager said:


> I would just like to say I admire you all - I have been involved in property funds management for a long time and what is going here is both a sad inditement of what occurred during the boom times as well as the looters that fall out after. What we see here may be a looter at their best - bold as brass to start with and then suddenly nowhere to be seen other than attempting to save their own skin.  I have been in this space for nearly a quarter of a century, and like most on the post have never seen anything quite like this. My belief is that you'll beat her - you'd have to but EVERYONE MUST VOTE. My question is though - WHERE THE HELL IS ASIC? Your patience, and tenacity is amazing. Great story today in the SMH - most I spoke to cannot believe it!




Thanks for this perspective on our problems with WC. Her actions demonstrate just how unprofessional JH is and why your professional peers are rightfully appauled. She is a blight on your profession and unfortunately it is the publicity surrounding this type of manager that tends to influence public persceptions about the profession.

ASIC's decision not to act represents a classic case of regulatory failure. The new Chair's early pronouncements about facilitating "more industry dialogue" (read softly softly approach) signals that regulatory capture theory is alive and well at ASIC. Lots of dialogue, practice notes etc but no action. Don't expect too much action under this Chair.


----------



## JohnH (3 July 2011)

banco said:


> Someone needs to work out a way to ask her about this meeting unde oath.



 To see what it is all about *under oath*, have a look at the sworn affidavits - The Federal Court in Brisbane will hear this application brought by Wellington Capital Limited on Wednesday, 6 July 2011. To review a summary of the affidavit material and submissions filed in relation to the PIF Action Group  http://cascap.com.au/page.php?page=36 
...............  John H


----------



## simgrund (4 July 2011)

*Dear Jenny,
I did not hear from you since my initial proposition via #7901.
I take it as a positive sign that you are genuinely considering this suggestion and perhaps googling for most reputable institutions renowned for rectum rectification remedy.
No doubt it is clear to you by now that urgency has intensified considerably.
Earlier PIF snippets in CBD columns by sneering journos have matured to full article status with front-page priority. 
Still waters of ASIC are rippling with WestPoint directors thrashing about in a tightening net. 
Once ASIC refines its brush, it will start tarnishing with it many more, some of who may be your related pals.
I just returned from long trip up North.
I am dead tired, am giving Wimbledon a miss and am concentrating solely on your present and future welfare. Please appreciate my dedication.
As you look into all the mirrors inside the places you feverishly haunt to weave another thread of falsehood into public's consciousness, start seeing this ditty:
"No cracked reflection 
Will cause deflection
From path of rectum 
Rectification!!!"
Memorising it will help your senses of acceptance.
A further nudge is the reaction of your phone call centre operative named Justine, to whom I posed a question: 
"Does Wellington Capital have any statistics on the number of suicides among PIF investors since steal-over of the fund by WC back in 2008?"
And Justine was momentarily stumped, then blurted, "Don't know" and said she did not wish to upset me any further with WC script and let me hang up.
A conscience before duty? Time to show yours Jenny. 
And think of shrinking vacancies in these institutions once ASIC, looking resplendent in their new set of dentures, starts snapping at the tails of all those rats currently in corporate hiding.
Stop prevaricating and say a loud YES. 
Sincerely,*


----------



## charles36 (4 July 2011)

I have neem extremely busy and I may have missed Wellington Capital reverting the Constiution to former status after it had been fiddled with to meld WC justification for placement of units and the so called rights issue.  Has the constitution been altered?  Can one of you kind persons look this up and if it has not been amended could you please pay the courtesy to WC and give them one of you gentle reminders, please. If it is already done I offer my sincere apologies to WC??????


----------



## DoraNBoots (4 July 2011)

charles36 said:


> I have neem extremely busy and I may have missed Wellington Capital reverting the Constiution to former status after it had been fiddled with to meld WC justification for placement of units and the so called rights issue.  Has the constitution been altered?  Can one of you kind persons look this up and if it has not been amended could you please pay the courtesy to WC and give them one of you gentle reminders, please. If it is already done I offer my sincere apologies to WC??????




ASIC search shows the following regarding the PIF constitution:
10/05/2011	023747357 	4	5101B Constitution For Managed Investment Scheme Modification Of
16/05/2011	026213159 	4	5101B Constitution For Managed Investment Scheme Modification Of
21/06/2011	021724117(?) 	1	41999 (AR 2011) Nsx General Market Disclosure Other

The 21/6/2011 NSX announcement is:
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724117.PDF
_*Revocation of Constitutional amendments made on 9 May 2011 and 16 May 2011*
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund advises that it has as a consequence of the decision of Justice Gordon in the Federal Court on 20 June 2011 revoked the amendments made by Deed Poll to the Constitution of the Premium Income Fund on 9 May 2011 and 16 May 2011.
The consequence is that the Constitution of the Premium Income Fund as at 8 May 2011 is the Constitution as at today.​_
The PIF website under ‘Corporate Governance’ still shows Amendments to the Constitution dated 10 May and 16 May 2011.  

I will follow up today to see if in fact the current constitution is as it was on the 8 May 2011.


----------



## charles36 (4 July 2011)

DoraNBoots said:


> ASIC search shows the following regarding the PIF constitution:
> 10/05/2011	023747357 	4	5101B Constitution For Managed Investment Scheme Modification Of
> 16/05/2011	026213159 	4	5101B Constitution For Managed Investment Scheme Modification Of
> 21/06/2011	021724117(?) 	1	41999 (AR 2011) Nsx General Market Disclosure Other
> ...




Thanks Dora n Boots.  I gues WC have a lot of other more serious matters on their mind and by the way, so they should.


----------



## simgrund (4 July 2011)

charles36 said:


> Thanks Dora n Boots.  I gues WC have a lot of other more serious matters on their mind and by the way, so they should.




Dora, Charles,
Why do we read NSX updates with WC monnograms?
IS this an original NSX issue or trawled through Wellington's dungeons of truth-bending 
annexes?

Regards,


----------



## simgrund (4 July 2011)

Dare we hope for speedy resuscitation of our $147.5 mil Octaviar action? 

http://www.smh.com.au/business/new-asic-chief-willing-to-jawbone-20110703-1gx8l.html

Cheers,


----------



## selciper (4 July 2011)

To judge by present activity, we're entering a cycle which embraces many days of reckoning for the PIF.


----------



## BootsnAll (4 July 2011)

Is anyone else going to attend the Court in Brisbane on 6th June?


----------



## BootsnAll (4 July 2011)

Sorryyyy!!!
The date is 6th July:bonk:


----------



## DoraNBoots (4 July 2011)

BootsnAll said:


> Is anyone else going to attend the Court in Brisbane on 6th July?




Yes,  are you?


----------



## BootsnAll (4 July 2011)

DoraNBoots said:


> Yes,  are you?




DEFINITELY! :bbat:
Hope we see you there.


----------



## Dexter (4 July 2011)

Is any body else waiting for a refund on the Rights Issue?  I seem to be getting the run around.


----------



## Harald (4 July 2011)

Dexter said:


> Is any body else waiting for a refund on the Rights Issue?  I seem to be getting the run around.




Hopefully there aren't to many who got the feeling of a real Schadenfreude.


----------



## Jadel (4 July 2011)

Dexter said:


> Is any body else waiting for a refund on the Rights Issue?  I seem to be getting the run around.




May have gone across the  gravitational ,Event Horizon, into a Black Hole , never to be seen again.


----------



## simgrund (5 July 2011)

Jadel said:


> May have gone across the  gravitational ,Event Horizon, into a Black Hole , never to be seen again.




But don't discard the RECEIPTS!!!
Further recovery-fun afoot in the POST JENNY era.
I suggest an informal register among us is started a la an earlier one of our shareholdings that WAS unsuitable for this forum.
This one will though. Maybe painful to disclose, but may give an idea of how miniscule the take-up was in contrast to WC's pre-court (rights issue castrated) boasting.
Let the fun begin:

nametag----------------------------$
Simgrund---------------------------00.00


----------



## zixo (5 July 2011)

Jenny, wellington capital and Aussie stock forums have made the news again

Great work dora!

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/isoft-board-faces-a-few-hard-questions-20110704-1gz4j.html

ENCORE ACT

Allegations that the Wellington Capital founder, Jenny Hutson, hired extras (at $26 an hour) to drum up support at a unitholder meeting are not the first time she has been accused of renting a crowd.

The claims Hutson hired actors as an attempt to shore up support at a meeting of Premium Income Fund (PIF) unitholders (that was called to depose her) have jogged someone's memory about a street rally in September 2008 outside Wellington's Brisbane offices.

A post on the Aussie Stock Forums chatroom has enclosed a picture of some youthful looking protesters showing support for Hutson. It seemed to relate to the corporate regulator's move at the time to block a planned meeting of PIF unitholders called by Hutson.

The protest banners in the photo (all in the same typeface) included: ''Go Jenny'', ''ASIC are wrong'', ''Pif off ASIC'', ''Jenny for President'' and ''Wake up ASIC''. In reference to the then chief executive of the PIF former manager MFS, Michael King, another placard said: ''King is Evil.'' In contrast to most unitholders, not one protester seemed to have a lock of grey hair


----------



## simgrund (5 July 2011)

For trackers of Trio tribulations:
ttp://www.smh.com.au/business/how-regulator-missed-chance-in-trio-debacle-20110704-1gz6a.html
Regards,


----------



## Wolfgang (5 July 2011)

Channel 2 Broadcast: 11/03/2008
7.30 Report

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2186788.htm

Wolfgang


----------



## simgrund (5 July 2011)

Correction on this link, sorry

http://www.smh.com.au/business/how-regulator-missed-chance-in-trio-debacle-20110704-1gz6a.html


----------



## Duped (5 July 2011)

zixo said:


> Jenny, wellington capital and Aussie stock forums have made the news again
> 
> Great work dora!
> 
> ...




Excellent zixo thanks. 

Collective memory on this thread is great. Here's another one. Recall that WC changed the 2008 income tax annual statement and sent out an amended version to everyone.  Too bad for people like me who had already filed their tax return before the replacement arrived.

Welcome to any new readers.


----------



## JohnH (5 July 2011)

Wolfgang said:


> Channel 2 Broadcast: 11/03/2008
> 7.30 Report
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2186788.htm
> ...




Greg Hoy reports. 

JENNY HUTSON, WELLINGTON CAPITAL: It is about bringing the general on the field of battle, who in this instance, is Andrew Peacock to account. 

When Andrew took over as chair, the company was worth in excess of $2 billion. It last traded at less than $500 million. So, less than 25 per cent of that value. And corporate Australia has always been about accountability, as has political Australia.

(sound of a phone ringing) " -  _ For whom the bell tolls

What is the opposite of "deja vu"? - fabulous find Wolfgang_ - also notice she's not wearing the red jacket!!!


----------



## DoraNBoots (5 July 2011)

Details of tomorrow's hearing and the lead up to it can be found here: https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/QUD140/2011/actions

I look forward to seeing you tomorrow BootsnAll


----------



## selciper (5 July 2011)

So much for Hutson’s allusions to battlefields, generals, presidents and, of course, the Duke of Wellington. In her war room, Hutson must be stooped over maps that have recently served her so poorly. Her outflanked lieutenants await their commander-in-chief's next orders.


----------



## Duped (5 July 2011)

Links on the Castlereagh site (cascap.com.au) aren't working for me. 

I wouldn't be suprised if the site is under attack by a 'denial of service' attack or something like that.  After all we've had:



the lengths PIF Reaction Group went to remain annonymous
the hiring of actors to stack the PIF meeting


----------



## Duped (5 July 2011)

Anothor write up by another  law firm after another trial resulting from the washup from MFS/Octaviar.

http://innovativethinking.gtlaw.com.au/ve/ZZY31j26a5992XwjF97

What's it all achieving?

Hey, at least Swanny will be able to say our savings created lots of jobs for the likes of Wellington Capital, lawyers, courts and journalists. We are so selfish and greedy aren't we Swanny   You remember don't you, we were going after higher gains and sadly the worst has happened.  Nothing to do with the 'commercial morality' of the individuals running the fund, right?  Why don't you like us?  Is it because we are greedy, selfish rent seekers who didn't put our savings in the industry super funds?


----------



## JohnH (5 July 2011)

Duped said:


> Links on the Castlereagh site (cascap.com.au) aren't working for me.
> 
> I wouldn't be suprised if the site is under attack by a 'denial of service' attack or something like that.  After all we've had:
> 
> ...



 Try clicking on the "read more" tag Duped, that seems to work.  cheers  JohnH


----------



## Duped (5 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> Try clicking on the "read more" tag Duped, that seems to work.  cheers  JohnH



   No luck with either Firefox or Explorer (IE7). I'll see if upgrading Explorer will fix it.


----------



## lavis (5 July 2011)

Links aren't working for me either and I run a Mac. Seems the same problem as the other day.


----------



## JohnH (5 July 2011)

Duped said:


> No luck with either Firefox or Explorer (IE7). I'll see if upgrading Explorer will fix it.



Try highlighting then right clicking on "cascap.com.au" and select "goto cascap.com.au"
It works ok with IE9 and Chrome


----------



## Duped (5 July 2011)

Duped said:


> No luck with either Firefox or Explorer (IE7). I'll see if upgrading Explorer will fix it.




Looks like I'm stuck with IE7 on my 64bit XP system.  Shall try Chrome another day. Thnx JohnH


----------



## Cookie1 (5 July 2011)

The Castlereagh Capital website is up and running again http://www.cascap.com.au/

The links appear to be working; I'd suggest trying it again.

Cheers,
Cookie1


----------



## zixo (5 July 2011)

Marcom /Duped would you be kind enough to check your notifications. Ive sent you a message.

Cheers


----------



## BABIHUTAN (5 July 2011)

Duped said:


> Looks like I'm stuck with IE7 on my 64bit XP system.  Shall try Chrome another day. Thnx JohnH






Cookie1 said:


> The Castlereagh Capital website is up and running again http://www.cascap.com.au/
> 
> The links appear to be working; I'd suggest trying it again.
> 
> ...




I too was unable to open links on Cascap website and presume this is because I am running Xp and because of this I cannot upgrade to IE9. Chrome fixed the problem and it is faster opening web pages than IE8.
Tks to those tt pointed me in the right direction


----------



## JohnH (5 July 2011)

BABIHUTAN said:


> I too was unable to open links on Cascap website and presume this is because I am running Xp and because of this I cannot upgrade to IE9. Chrome fixed the problem and it is faster opening web pages than IE8.
> Tks to those tt pointed me in the right direction



 Yes Chrome is faster than IE - I have it as my default


----------



## simgrund (5 July 2011)

selciper said:


> So much for Hutson’s allusions to battlefields, generals, presidents and, of course, the Duke of Wellington. In her war room, Hutson must be stooped over maps that have recently served her so poorly. Her outflanked lieutenants await their commander-in-chief's next orders.



 Goodness me, sure hope them troops that Jenny shuffles on the Board are woodies and not made of lead. Such a health hazard we don't want to jeopardise Jenny at this sensitive times of her manyfold decision making.
Take the right turn Jenny.

Good one selciper, Regards,


----------



## JohnH (5 July 2011)

_The Pirates of Queen Street, With "apologies" to W. S. Gilbert
The "Irresponsible" Entity's Song._
When I became the PIF Irresponsible Entity
 I promised that the unit holders would receive my empathy
I promised distribution of 3 per cent by Christmas time,
and quarterly payments which never ever came on line.
I was going to claim $4000 k against the former auditors, 
 buy 45 cents from all cash strapped hol--ders. 
and turn the PIF into a profitable entity
well really that I promised but did I really me-an-ity?
About the promised 3 cents I'm teeming with a lot of news,
With many cheerful ways to provide to all you with my views
In short, in matters legal financial and trickery,
I am the very model of an Irresponsible Entity. 

_Chorus: In short, in matters legal financial and trickery,
She is the very model of a Irresponsible Entity. 
_
I understand vote stacking  both for representatives and meeting chairs,
if I underestimate the numbers I hold another meeting  just upstairs.
and if I'm asked by others if I know what I have fiddled there,
I tell them that I really wanted very much to take the chair.
I'm  very good at helping out associates and cronies too,
and surround myself with quite a few advisors and  known phonies who
will help me when I want to show them what I want to do
but does anybody now believe that what I ever say is true?
If I do not think the votes for me  are to be complimentary
I  manipulate the numbers by creating my own Registry,
In short, in matters legal financial and trickery,
I am the very model of an Irresponsible Entity. 

_Chorus: In short, in matters legal financial and trickery,
She is the very model of a Irresponsible Entity. 
_
_Third verse hopefully after the 14th._  Amazing what a bottle of cheap red can do!


----------



## seamisty (5 July 2011)

LOL JohnH, I am told we have a whole new appreciative audience of all things PIF related who are treating our thread as the ONLY truthfull source of information relating to our Fund thanks to the smear campaign and latest media articles!! WELLINGTON CAPITAL PTY LTD and related cohorts dodgy antics exposed on this thread have become a must read by many and that includes non investors as well as unit holders. WC are now being treated with the contempt they deserve, why else would WC have to go to such expensive, questionable extremes to garner support from people OUTSIDE of PIF unit holders? I hope those who were tricked into rocking up to the Grace Hotel on the 23rd June have taken the time to digest the fact that they too were also 'conned' and have some empathy for those trying to salvage the last scraps of our lifetime savings. Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (5 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> _The Pirates of Queen Street, With "apologies" to W. S. Gilbert
> The "Irresponsible" Entity's Song._
> ...




That's great JohnH!  I love it


----------



## Harald (5 July 2011)

JohnH You made my day!!!!


----------



## BootsnAll (5 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> _The Pirates of Queen Street, With "apologies" to W. S. Gilbert
> The "Irresponsible" Entity's Song._
> 
> :thankyou:  Bravo John! Gilbert & Sullivan would be very proud of you.


----------



## DepressedDad (5 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> _The Pirates of Queen Street, With "apologies" to W. S. Gilbert
> The "Irresponsible" Entity's Song._
> 
> Geez, now I can't get the song out of my head!!!  Thanks John H!!


----------



## Cookie1 (5 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> _The Pirates of Queen Street, With "apologies" to W. S. Gilbert
> The "Irresponsible" Entity's Song._
> ...
> 
> ...




Thanks, John, for the laugh we all needed. Loved it. Will look forward to the 3rd verse!

Cookie1


----------



## seamisty (5 July 2011)

After returnimg home from my latest (sucessfull)PIF fact finding mission in QLD I finally received the last  mailout from the PIF non reaction group of which I felt compelled to share with all of those that have previously shared information with me re wellington capital and all those remotely related. (No wonder no one wanted to be identified with content which is nothing short of libellous!) My attention was drawn by several as to the tacky unprofessional likeness re printing techniques of previous newsletters relating to the :band(drum roll) enneagram.http://www.enneagram.com.au/newsletter/Insight0207v4.pdf Well, I can only guess that perhaps the assumption was partly contributed to the fact that there are 3 key people associated with the Enneagram newsletter that are closely associated with WC:hilip Wibaux, Rachel Weeks, David Burke.(Not to mention other 'Staff' members) Two of who were identified at the EGM although david burke was described to me as looking more like a homeless street bum than a sucessfull personality profiling, not for profit cult leader. ( I hope it wasn't him I gave five bucks to begging not far from the Grace Hotel because I am told there is a severe shortage of cash surrounding the WC/G8 compound) I can honestly say I did see two, maybe three insignificant people hanging around JH at the EGM who followed her around like lap dogs standing on strategic corners in the foyers at the Grace Hotel trying to look important, but seriously failing, (until the :fan when there was a flurry of activity)unlike the PIF supporters who wanted to make themselves known!! I hope you realise WC that the bean counters have been active for quite some time, or maybe you do, thats why the desperate measures alarm was activated.
Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (6 July 2011)

Farmman said:


> Oh dear!
> I am also a unitholder in Rimcorp Property Trust No 3 (another WC fund), as well as PIF.
> Any comments.



Hi Farmman. Welcome to the thread, I am particularly interested in speaking to you in relation to the Rimcorp Property Trust No 3 and will send you a personal message re notifications. Regards, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (6 July 2011)

Happy birthday JohnH!!:alcohol::birthday:


----------



## DepressedDad (6 July 2011)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



zixo said:


> Hi All,
> 
> First time poster
> Can someone explain how on earth Wellington Capital managed to wrangle a deal to sell Geo shares worth .40cents for .25 cents, also , If someone could explain how A LOAN to the LLA group was allowed to be Dealt whilst the BOS had complete control  of all the funds, yet they have not allowed any distributions.
> ...




To all new members & visitors to this forum, please take note of the above comments made in June 2008.  Yes, OVER THREE YEARS AGO.  All of the evil & deception that now defines JH & WC, as shocking & professionally unbelievable as it is, is not a result of RECENT wrongdoings.  This forum has over 400 pages and over 8000 contributions, ALL relating to questionable goings-on right from the very start of the incestuous takeover of the fund. No information ever given. (For good reason)  No calls taken.  Zixo is casting light on JH's credibility over three years ago here. On the same page (Page 6) there are concerns by Seamisty, Dora'nBoots, Duped & Selciper. (You guys rock!)

FINALLY the behaviour is public & indefensible.  But for newcomers who don't have time to go back over the forum's dated capture of events, please see the above post as evidence that the immoral, unprofessional, illegal brazen behaviour exhibited now is just a continuation of all past behaviours. 

P.S. It's great to have you back Seamisty!!!!!


----------



## charles36 (6 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> After returnimg home from my latest (sucessfull)PIF fact finding mission in QLD I finally received the last  mailout from the PIF non reaction group of which I felt compelled to share with all of those that have previously shared information with me re wellington capital and all those remotely related. (No wonder no one wanted to be identified with content which is nothing short of libellous!) My attention was drawn by several as to the tacky unprofessional likeness re printing techniques of previous newsletters relating to the :band(drum roll) enneagram.http://www.enneagram.com.au/newsletter/Insight0207v4.pdf Well, I can only guess that perhaps the assumption was partly contributed to the fact that there are 3 key people associated with the Enneagram newsletter that are closely associated with WC:hilip Wibaux, Rachel Weeks, David Burke.(Not to mention other 'Staff' members) Two of who were identified at the EGM although david burke was described to me as looking more like a homeless street bum than a sucessfull personality profiling, not for profit cult leader. ( I hope it wasn't him I gave five bucks to begging not far from the Grace Hotel because I am told there is a severe shortage of cash surrounding the WC/G8 compound) I can honestly say I did see two, maybe three insignificant people hanging around JH at the EGM who followed her around like lap dogs standing on strategic corners in the foyers at the Grace Hotel trying to look important, but seriously failing, (until the :fan when there was a flurry of activity)unlike the PIF supporters who wanted to make themselves known!! I hope you realise WC that the bean counters have been active for quite some time, or maybe you do, thats why the desperate measures alarm was activated.
> Seamisty




What did a lap dog do to you?


----------



## charles36 (6 July 2011)

I think it will be a very interesting morning at the Brisbane Supreme Court.  I think a certain person willl have a very red face to match that very worn and tired red jacket.  We need all the votes we can get, keep working to have any friends or relatives to vote.  Every one counts.  To all those working for the PIFAG keep up the good work and thank you.


----------



## JohnH (6 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Happy birthday JohnH!!:alcohol::birthday:




Well thank you Seamisty - had to think for a moment how you had worked that out!!(FB)
I'm hoping for a rather nice present from the Brisbane Court this morning.


----------



## DoraNBoots (6 July 2011)

*Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF*



DepressedDad said:


> To all new members & visitors to this forum, please take note of the above comments made in June 2008.  Yes, OVER THREE YEARS AGO.  All of the evil & deception that now defines JH & WC, as shocking & professionally unbelievable as it is, is not a result of RECENT wrongdoings....




Hi DepressedDad,
A lot of work was done in 2008 trying to get ASIC and the NSX to ensure WC provided accurate info to unitholders so we could make an informed decision at the Sept 2008 EGM.  We believed WC were not stating realistic forecasts and were providing misleading information to unitholders.  ASIC took WC to court in Sept 2008 - this hearing showed WC wrote misleading statements in the Explanatory Memorandum and the meeting was adjourned for one month.  Unfortunately a lot of the issues raised by ASIC (& unitholders) were not addressed with the judge saying there was not enough time for WC to provide a defence.  So issues like WC’s ridiculous forecasts were not challenged.  For an insight into the work done in 2008, have a look at some of the ASIC complaints lodged in 2008.   These can be found in the yahoo group under Files\Complaints:  http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/PIFActionGroup


----------



## MAE (6 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> Well thank you Seamisty - had to think for a moment how you had worked that out!!(FB)
> I'm hoping for a rather nice present from the Brisbane Court this morning.




Happy Birthday John H, yes lets hope Brisbane Court can deliver your Present!!: 

Regards Mr and Mrs MAE


----------



## simgrund (6 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Happy birthday JohnH!!:alcohol::birthday:



I will join in.
And, from seeing you at our Jenny Bashing Conference last week, I would say 
you have preserved yourself splendidly through all these turbulent PIF torrents.
And to ALL: Keep On Keeping On,
Warmest,


----------



## Blueboy1 (6 July 2011)

ODE TO JENNY

My dear Jenny,the funds in a mess,
we're all  now suffering from far too much stress.
We've listened and learned that the promises made, 
were really just empty,a phony charade.
It's got to the stage where we just cannot hack it,
we think it's now time to remove the red jacket.
You've had plenty of time to restructure our fund
but you've left us all feeling quite moribund.
The road show is over,we have all seen the light,
we want someone honest to rescue our plight.
Please walk away Jenny and leave us alone,
you're clutching at straws like a dog with a bone.
The five million's not yours,your wasting your time
your profit's been realized for no more than a dime.
You took over the fund for less than a cent
and now it's milked dry leaving only dissent.
With Armstrong Registry and Print mail logistics
and gross manipulation of all the statistics,
you showed your true colours more yellow than red
and knelt down with the pigs at the trough to be fed,
from the scraps of our savings all showing a loss
the false updates kept coming without giving a toss.
The ring in's and stand in's that you hired to deceive,
will not help the judge give you any reprieve.
Stand up and be counted,now is the time
Be judged by those ruined by your monstrous crime.
Get out now Jenny,before it's too late,
the investors are not only angry but full of hate.
You defrauded their savings you just can't do that
Just walk away Jennay and hand over the bat.


----------



## seamisty (6 July 2011)

Web Cast Information Session for All Investors including Q & A
A web Presentation will be held for all investors on 6 July 2011 with an interactive question and answer session available to all participants on the web cast. We urge all unit holders to log onto this web link to receive the latest update. Time 5.00pm (Eastern Standard Time) Date Wednesday, 6 July 2011 Web link  ;;;;http://www.brr.com.au/event/82029


----------



## seamisty (6 July 2011)

HAHA Blueboy1!!! I can just feel the LOVE (not) emmanating from your 'ODE TO JENNY'!! I have no doubt it will be amongst other ASF posts discussed at smoko this morning at the Wellington Capital bunker while other senior executives and body guards are otherwise occupied in court. (hopefully handing over legitimate documents) Honestly, between expensive court appearances, illegal capital raisings and recruitment campaigns is it any wonder PIF investors have had a gut full of current WC mismanagement??? Seamisty


----------



## DepressedDad (6 July 2011)

Yes, Blueboy, DO give up your day job!!  Brilliant!!


----------



## JohnH (6 July 2011)

Thanks Blueboy - maybe we should put on a show after next weeks meeting!!   lol

.................. or maybe a wake!!!


----------



## selciper (6 July 2011)

Curiosity is lying in wait for every secret. 
(Ralph Waldo Emerson - American writer.)


----------



## JohnH (6 July 2011)

He that loses wealth loses much;
He who loses a friend loses more;
But he who loses courage loses all.

_Miguel de Cervantes_

Well, we have to do something while we are impatiently waiting for the judgement Selciper.


----------



## DepressedDad (6 July 2011)

Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud.” 

_ Sophocles  _


----------



## JohnH (6 July 2011)

Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.

_John F Kennedy_


----------



## Blueboy1 (6 July 2011)

An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force.

An object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.
_Sir Isaac Newton_


----------



## IrishJig (6 July 2011)

Looks like no final result in court today. They are scheduled again for 9:00am Thursday, according to the Commonwealth Court portal.


----------



## JohnH (6 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Web Cast Information Session for All Investors including Q & A
> A web Presentation will be held for all investors on 6 July 2011 with an interactive question and answer session available to all participants on the web cast. We urge all unit holders to log onto this web link to receive the latest update. Time 5.00pm (Eastern Standard Time) Date Wednesday, 6 July 2011 Web link  ;;;;http://www.brr.com.au/event/82029




............... anybody been able to access this?  I normally have no trouble streaming, but can't seem to get anything.


----------



## zixo (6 July 2011)

Does anyone know if the podcast is working I cant get access and nor can others


----------



## JohnH (6 July 2011)

BootsnAll said:


> DEFINITELY! :bbat:
> Hope we see you there.



 Can any of you guys update us?   We can't get on the webcast   ..John H


----------



## Mutchy (6 July 2011)

zixo said:


> Does anyone know if the podcast is working I cant get access and nor can others




I just clicked on the link which Seamisty provided and it is playing now.

Welcome back Seamisty; glad you made it home OK.
Steve


----------



## IrishJig (6 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> Can any of you guys update us?   We can't get on the webcast   ..John H




Go into cascap site and link on there. It is currently happening.


----------



## JohnH (6 July 2011)

IrishJig said:


> Go into cascap site and link on there. It is currently happening.




Managed to get it, then had to close it to take a bloody telemarketercall from Sydney/Mumbai who wanted to mend my computer!  (Told him I was with the Federal Police with associates in Mumbai)

Can't get back on the podcast now so must have missed my "window of Opportunity".
It sounds like the court case reconvenes tomorrow, but does anybody have any details?


----------



## Harald (6 July 2011)

Castlereagh and Wellington have to make tomorrow morning in the Brisbane Court
their final submissions. Judgement seems to be delivered early next week.
There seems to be a small risk of another postponement.


----------



## selciper (6 July 2011)

Well, I followed the podcast instructions on my Mac. Moved the icon into iTunes podcasts window and am hearing the podxast of the Golbourne St meeting! I hope that there's a delayed repeat later.


----------



## MAE (6 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> ............... anybody been able to access this?  I normally have no trouble streaming, but can't seem to get anything.




Hi I haven't had any trouble viewing this for the past hour and a half!!


----------



## Mutchy (6 July 2011)

MAE said:


> Hi I haven't had any trouble viewing this for the past hour and a half!!




Me Too. I joined half way through because I was late logging on. But the full dialogue will be available on Cas Cap's website according to Phil Burgess.
Steve


----------



## Cookie1 (6 July 2011)

I logged on about 5.20p so asked the question if the webcast would be available in full on the CasCap website. The answer is "yes" but I don't know how soon it will be operational. I want to catch up on the first few minutes.

Cookie1


----------



## NOR (6 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Web Cast Information Session for All Investors including Q & A
> A web Presentation will be held for all investors on 6 July 2011 with an interactive question and answer session available to all participants on the web cast. We urge all unit holders to log onto this web link to receive the latest update. Time 5.00pm (Eastern Standard Time) Date Wednesday, 6 July 2011 Web link  ;;;;http://www.brr.com.au/event/82029



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            GO TO SEAMISTY LINK ABOVE  ....VIEW REPEAT....NOR


----------



## k.smith (6 July 2011)

We had no problems listening to the audio...

good to hear what's going on as it happens..


----------



## Hogan (6 July 2011)

I logged in at 5.30pm and listened to the final sixty minutes.  Just went back to this link http://www.brr.com.au/event/82029 and it started from the beginning of the broadcast.

So the full broadcast is available right now.

Cheers.


----------



## NOR (6 July 2011)

NOR said:


> GO TO SEAMISTY LINK ABOVE  ....VIEW REPEAT....NOR




I ASKED WERE THEYTAKING  OVER FROM ...IMF ..HE SAIDTHAT IS UP TO PIF VOTERS      DID WE ..THE ONES HO WENT WITH IMF .... &THE ONES HO DID NOT   ALL READY HAD THAT VOTE


----------



## zixo (6 July 2011)

Blueboy1 said:


> ODE TO JENNY
> 
> My dear Jenny,the funds in a mess,
> we're all  now suffering from far too much stress.
> ...




Blueboy
BRAVO, absolutely Brilliant word play!! LOL


what direction could someones reputation ever go with just a couple of things being disclosed lately??? ......
:flush:

stay tuned for more exciting news


----------



## Janiss (6 July 2011)

Hi Blueboy
Loved your Ode. Thanks.


----------



## seamisty (6 July 2011)

Hi all, I was just doing some research into Mclean legal of which Rachel Weeks states on Linkedin that she is a 'Partner at McLean Legal'  http://au.linkedin.com/pub/rachel-weeks/b/307/757  Trouble is, I am having difficulty in tracking down McLean Legal's website or who the other partners/staff are??? Apparently Mclean Legals address is the same as her  only apparent client, Wellington Capital. Dare we assume that Rachel Clare Weeks is actually an employee (along with numerous other Enneagram devotees) of Wellington Capital??? Don't forget this is the same Rachel Clare Weeks who owns 30% of Armstrong Registry Services. Any wonder we do not trust WC?? Seamisty


----------



## Javier (6 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Hi all, I was just doing some research into Mclean legal of which Rachel Weeks states on Linkedin that she is a 'Partner at McLean Legal'  http://au.linkedin.com/pub/rachel-weeks/b/307/757  Trouble is, I am having difficulty in tracking down McLean Legal's website or who the other partners/staff are??? Apparently Mclean Legals address is the same as her  only apparent client, Wellington Capital. Dare we assume that Rachel Clare Weeks is actually an employee (along with numerous other Enneagram devotees) of Wellington Capital??? Don't forget this is the same Rachel Clare Weeks who owns 30% of Armstrong Registry Services. Any wonder we do not trust WC?? Seamisty




I met this Rachel Weeks at the first WC meeting on the GC. She came up to me, shook my hand, said she knew who I was and thanked me for all the support I had given JH. 

This of course was before we knew what was really going to happen, she spoke very highly of JH and I'll never forget what she said about Jenny being a great person and human being. It was all part of the scam, when you posted that pic link, then I knew it was her. These people are just pure evil...they are just all in there together worming away at our money.


----------



## seamisty (6 July 2011)

Hi Javier, great to have met you at the EGM. So it appears that Rachel Weeks, the Enneagram teacher, has been waving the flag for Wellington Capital from day one even though Jenny Hutson professes to having no connection to the Enneagram?? More LIES??? Oh Hello Jenny, why would one need to  wear founding member of the Australian Enneagram institute, David Justin Burke like a favourite handbag if one was not affiliated with that particular cult?? Lets not forget that WC and Caroline Snow were instrumental in the purchase and relocation of the old church from Binjour in Qld. A bit of background info on Andelaine and the relocated church for all the ASF newcomers::Andelaine is the centre of the AIES
meditation and contemplation
program. As part of the ongoing,
continuing development of this
contemplation hub, a centuriesold
neo-Gothic church will be
relocated there as the designated
meditation hall for future
retreats.
The church, which is presently
located near Gayndah, 3 hours
north of Brisbane, will be divided
in two, and transported by
road in a feat of extraordinary
modern logistics and engineering,
to Andelaine, where it will be
reassembled and renovated.
A number of benefactors have
contributed generously financially
to this project in order to physically
complement
the existing
contemplative program and
community.
When completed, the meditation
hall will be
large enough to fit
200 people, with catering and
toilet facilities. It will be annexed to
the existing house as an extension
via a cloister.http://www.enneagram.com.au/newsletter/Insight0207v4.pdf

I have been told that people who consider themselves of superior intellect surround/employ staff they consider easy to manipulate and or influence. I wonder if WC thought that this would be the case with PIF unitholders? Did the WC bean counters think that we would ALL be too old and fragile to challenge them when we realised we had been duped???
Seamisty


----------



## BootsnAll (6 July 2011)

We and Dora spent a whole day in court. Morning was taken up both legal teams arguing various points of law, and to what was, or wasn't admissible. JH's mob tried hard to exclude the share register but were overruled by the judge who allowed 3 pages to be photocopied and admitted as exhibits. These contained what seemed to be evidence of shenanigans involving the rentacrowd at the meeting she had on 23/6 one floor above us.
I really don't want to be more specific at this stage as the case is ongoing.
Afternoon consisted of cross-examinations. 
It was gratifying to see JH under the grill; the first time without the trademark red jacket. It was all black with a string of pearls yet! :nuts:
The judge pulled the plug on proceedings at 5 pm after the crossexaminations were over. Tomorrow (Thursday) at 9 am the lawyers will deliver their submissions and hopefully we will get a verdict. We will not be in court tomorrow.
Peter Grenadier & Mark Hodges came from Sydney, then spent most of the day sitting outside the courtroom, before being called to testify just prior to 5 pm. They each had only about 5 minutes each. Then it was back on the plane to Sydney. We really owe these guys a debt of gratitude.
Cheers:goodnight


----------



## seamisty (6 July 2011)

BootsnAll said:


> We and Dora spent a whole day in court. Morning was taken up both legal teams arguing various points of law, and to what was, or wasn't admissible. JH's mob tried hard to exclude the share register but were overruled by the judge who allowed 3 pages to be photocopied and admitted as exhibits. These contained what seemed to be evidence of shenanigans involving the rentacrowd at the meeting she had on 23/6 one floor above us.
> I really don't want to be more specific at this stage as the case is ongoing.
> Afternoon consisted of cross-examinations.
> It was gratifying to see JH under the grill; the first time without the trademark red jacket. It was all black with a string of pearls yet! :nuts:
> ...



Thanks BootsnAll. I wonder how JH coped under so much pressure? Or did she get the chance to pace the street outside as at the Sydney EGM where it was observed (yes WC, we also observe the observers) that JH was hyperventilating, frothing at the mouth (ie. swearing) and had to be constantly reassured by the hired goons to calm down, and this was as a result of being told to re locate Armstrong registry services!!! One can only picture the 
ensuing scenario after JH realised the game was up and the WC 'rent a crowd' was exposed and shut out of the EGM!! Any wonder JH was missing in action when she should have been addressing PIF investors?? Not exactly professional behaviour one would expect from someone who touts such glowing business credentials? ( Or was it just a severe menopausal hot flush?) The professionals I deal with call it 'unstable behaviour'. Seamisty


----------



## Bumblebee (6 July 2011)

Was great to hear Phil Armstrong’s presentation this afternoon. Thanks to all who made that happen.
Phil’s response to my email question re ASIC’s ability to cancel Wellington’s License to be RE of the PIF should they deem her unfit in light of illegal/ fraudulent behaviour,  has encouraged me to write to ASIC (again) about this particular matter.
Castlereagh indicated ASIC were being approached in this regard by themselves and PIFAG and encouraged investors to contact ASIC to add to the swell of discontent re this matter.
I, also, am encouraging other investors to let ASIC know your outrage at JH’s latest illegal ‘follies’ and ( as an investor)  ask them to cancel her Licence to be RE the PIF.

'Wouldn’t that be loverly!'


----------



## simgrund (7 July 2011)

At last! 
Troops rally to support my efforts to have Jenny choose the lesser of 2 evils and impale herself on the trident of Lunacy, Idiocy and Cretiny. 
Your fame precedes you Jenny and the doors are wide ajar.
Great stuff Blueboy and JohnH in nailing your brilliancies on this Forum's 
board of "NAME  & SHAME".
From many more please. Shed your inhibitions. 
Take a cue from Jenny's exemplary "up yours".  
Wonderful work from all.
Off to Sydney at 8 this morning. Going early to secure front seats. 
See you all there.
Regards,

P.S. Dora, did the pictures come through?


----------



## DoraNBoots (7 July 2011)

Like BootnAll I’ll leave comments till later about yesterday’s hearing.  It seemed to go well and was great to have the rent-a-crowd affidavit allowed by the judge, plus the copy of a ‘register’ dated 22nd June 2011.

WC’s barrister came across to me as quite petty.  He was yelling at a witness at one point and even accused him of smiling!  Is this a crime now? 

WC’s barrister made some pretty amazing statements about one of us observers in the begining of the hearing, asking the judge to remove one of us from the room.  The judge seemed to be annoyed by this attempt and denied WC’s request.


----------



## lavis (7 July 2011)

Hello,

Things are looking good.
Positive article in this morning's courier mail

http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/hutson-denies-hiring-actors/story-fn6ck2gb-1226089205539


----------



## seamisty (7 July 2011)

lavis said:


> Hello,
> 
> Things are looking good.
> Positive article in this morning's courier mail
> ...



A great article, thanks for the link lavis!!

From the article:'BRISBANE businesswoman Jenny Hutson denied in Federal Court yesterday that her merchant bank Wellington Capital had hired actors last month in a bid to thwart an investor revolt. 

The court however heard that local firm Wallace Solutions, run by former Wellington director Craig Wallace, had "gifted" several thousands units in Wellington's Premium Income Fund to up to 200 actors just two days before the aborted June 23 meeting in Sydney' :::

CRAIG WALLACE - NON- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FUNDS MANAGEMENT Anthony Moreton Group 
 Formerly a director of KPMG Corporate Finance and now principal of The Alternative Advisory Firm 

 CRAIG WALLACE - 2 May 2008  is appointed a director of OCTAVIAR Investment Management along with Jenny Hutson and Robert Pitt

Craig Wallace - S8 Property Trust Company Secretary and compliance committee member 

Craig Wallace - Secretary of James Heading Pty Ltd

Craig Wallace - Substantial shareholder in G8 Education

Craig Wallace - 18 August 2008 Director for the Premium Income Fund



RACHEL WEEKS -Director Anthony Moreton Group 
Investment Banking industry August 2006 – August 2007 (1 year 1 month) 

RACHEL WEEKS - Was previously a senior associate with McCullough Robertson, Brisbane

AMAZING how the same names keep popping up!!!!!

Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (7 July 2011)

lavis said:


> Hello,
> 
> Things are looking good.
> Positive article in this morning's courier mail
> ...




A very slight variation on that lovely Nat King Cole lyric.


The scam is over,
it's time to call it a day,
so pack your red leather coat
 and go far and far away,
 I'ts time to wind up the masquerade,
just make your mind up 
*the piper must be paid.*​


----------



## pifed (7 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> A great article, thanks for the link lavis!!
> 
> From the article:'BRISBANE businesswoman Jenny Hutson denied in Federal Court yesterday that her merchant bank Wellington Capital had hired actors last month in a bid to thwart an investor revolt.
> 
> ...




Would "Dingo's" be a good description.

Well done and Thanks to all "The Team" involved, Keep up the Good work


----------



## Duped (7 July 2011)

zixo.  my mailbox was full. have cleaned it out now.


----------



## Duped (7 July 2011)

Interesting reading on that enneagram.com.au site seamisty.  Reminded me of another group.

From http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard

"You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."

"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write  that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can  control anybody is to lie to them."

"If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any  organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to  cause them to sue for peace."

"This is the correct procedure: Spot who is attacking us. Start  investigating them promptly for felonies or worse using our own  professionals, not outside agencies. Double curve our reply by saying we  welcome an investigation of them. Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime  actual evidence on the attackers to the press. Don't ever tamely submit  to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the  way."

"MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MORE MONEY*.*"

Smart guy that Hubbard.  Although perhaps he's a thorough observer and that such attitudes have been long and widely applied. Hence the need for: 'thou shalt not bear false witness'.  I'm not sure how ASIC correlates this with it's 'thou shalt not mislead or deceive'.  I'm still trying to work out what that ASIC agent meant by "commercial morality".


----------



## JohnH (7 July 2011)

http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/city-beat-zapping-into-town/story-fn6ck2gb-1226089187925

OFF TO A CAPITAL START

COUNSEL for Wellington Capital boss Jenny Hutson got things off to a flying start in Brisbane Federal Court yesterday when he alerted the judge to a person in the court who had allegedly violated a restraining order.

Philip Morrison, QC, alleged that investor Dennis Chapman had been slapped with an "apprehended violence order" after making death threats against Hutson and her staff.

Justice John Dowsett was having none of it and testily noted that police would not be removing anyone from his court.

Outside court, a furious Chapman said he had never been subject to such an order and he vowed to launch defamation proceedings over the matter. He also said he would file a complaint to the Law Society about an alleged falsehood made in Federal Court.

Wellington is hoping to shut down a challenge from investors who want the firm removed as manager of the struggling Premium Income Fund.

Later, Hutson told the court she had been "shoulder charged" at an investor meeting last month, an injury she said her physio likened to a rugby hit, but she decided against mentioning this in an NSX announcement.


----------



## seamisty (7 July 2011)

'Later, Hutson told the court she had been "shoulder charged" at an investor meeting last month, an injury she said her physio likened to a rugby hit, but she decided against mentioning this in an NSX announcement'
http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/c...-1226089187925

Perhaps Ms Hutson hurt herself while barging up the stairs when she found out the 'rent a crowd' she knew nothing about could only exit from their 'meeting' room from downstairs and would not be attending the EGM? I believe it was a sight to behold!!! Even the restrictive red jacket had been discarded and I am told Ms Hutson was visibly sweating profusely!!!!

I am sure with so many witnesses around (apart from WC hired hands) a security guard executing a rugby tackle on someone who was constantly under scrutiny by an army of disgruntled investors would not have gone unnoticed? Quite the contrary, the applause would have been deafening!!

Or maybe Ms Hutson tripped and fell while fleeing the scene of the crime, trying to hastily distance herself from the Grace Hotel and a few hundred disgruntled PIF investors who had been informed Ms Hutson had previously committed to address them after the EGM was adjourned but then reneged and could not be located??? We are delighted to present ................ with this years AWARD for the best performance of scenarios, lies and deceit.

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (7 July 2011)

"Pass the parcel" would seem as inevitable as a board implosion.


----------



## Janiss (7 July 2011)

I am sure with so many witnesses around (apart from WC hired hands) a security guard executing a rugby tackle on someone who was constantly under scrutiny by an army of disgruntled investors would not have gone unnoticed? Quite the contrary, the applause would have been deafening!!


LOL!!!! Thanks Seamisty, this is hilarious.


----------



## Blueboy1 (7 July 2011)

*On the darker side.....*

She wore black trimmed with pearls in the courtroom today,
a solemn reminder that crime does not pay.
Gone was the red coat for which she is famed
the fame juxtaposed for the crimes she is blamed.
Claims of hired actors,she emphatically denied
but the Judge in his wisdom knew she had lied.
The net is now closing,leave no stone unturned,
cover your tracks or you're bound to be burned.
Ego's are shattered when lies are exposed
and the fragments lie scattered in sullen repose.
Tread softly now Jenny,your time has elapsed
the fund that you managed has all but collapsed.
Your days are now numbered,it's hauntingly clear,
no longer we'll be lumbered,instead we will cheer,
'Thank God for Justice'..now that it's prevailed
let the wolves from the gutters be hung and impaled.
The greed that devoured the fruits of our labours,
lies tarred and feathered as we rejoice with our neighbours.
Forgiveness is dormant,there's no longer room,
you're bound for a future of darkness and doom.
The cheats and the liars are always revealed,
as truth finds it's ally in justice appealed.
Your sins are on trial,there is no escape,
the loss of our savings the deceit and the rape,
is finally halted and truth will prevail,
as we laugh and rejoice as you rot in jail!


----------



## Duped (7 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> 'Later, Hutson told the court she had been "shoulder charged" at an investor meeting last month, an injury she said her physio likened to a rugby hit, but she decided against mentioning this in an NSX announcement'
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/c...-1226089187925
> 
> Perhaps Ms Hutson hurt herself while barging up the stairs when she found out the 'rent a crowd' she knew nothing about could only exit from their 'meeting' room from downstairs and would not be attending the EGM? I believe it was a sight to behold!!! Even the restrictive red jacket had been discarded and I am told Ms Hutson was visibly sweating profusely!!!!
> ...




I think I can see some exits that JH could use to back away from phrases "shoulder charged" and "likened to a rugby charge" if need be.  

Your Honour:

E.g. I've never been shoulder charged in my life before, so what I felt from that contact, to the best of my knowledge, seemed to be like what the people on TV call a shoulder charge.

E.g. there may have been a misunderstanding in the communication between myself and my physio that resulted in my physio saying that. I'm just forwarding what my physio said.

E.g. I didn't say the contact was as hard as rugby charge.  I said it was like a rubgy charge.  As in, like body parts, like angles of attack, like motions and like duration was involved.

Looks like fun and games. Not.  What a waste of Australian resources (time and money) if it comes to this..


----------



## DoraNBoots (7 July 2011)

Today's hearing will continue on Monday:
11-Jul-2011  11:00 Part Heard Justice Dowsett Court No. 1, Level 7


----------



## JohnH (7 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> 'Later, Hutson told the court she had been "shoulder charged" at an investor meeting last month, an injury she said her physio likened to a rugby hit, but she decided against mentioning this in an NSX announcement'
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/c...-1226089187925
> 
> Seamisty




When you click on this link now Seamisty you get :-
"We could not find the page you requested. This is either because:

There's an error in the address or link you have entered in your browser;
There's a technical issue and the page has not been properly published;
The article was removed to comply with a legal order;
It is an older article that has been removed from the site."

I think I would be on a looser if I took a bet on which one applies!  .....  John H


----------



## piffy (7 July 2011)

Blueboy1 said:


> *On the darker side.....*
> 
> She wore black trimmed with pearls in the courtroom today,
> a solemn reminder that crime does not pay.
> ...




Brilliant Blueboy!!  You bring some light to this mess and deception.


----------



## DepressedDad (7 July 2011)

DoraNBoots said:


> Today's hearing will continue on Monday:
> 11-Jul-2011  11:00 Part Heard Justice Dowsett Court No. 1, Level 7




So Jenny will be going to bed for 4 sleeps with that SICK feeling in her stomach we all felt when we realised we'd been duped... remember?  It's been a slow process but justice begins.....


----------



## k.smith (7 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> When you click on this link now Seamisty you get :-
> "We could not find the page you requested. This is either because:
> 
> There's an error in the address or link you have entered in your browser;
> ...




Hi John..........if you type the first ten words of the first sentence , "Later....etc..." in your search bar, in will direct you to a link that you should be able to open.
Hope that helps....


----------



## seamisty (7 July 2011)

Try this JohnH http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/city-beat-zapping-into-town/story-fn6ck2gb-1226089187925


----------



## JohnH (7 July 2011)

k.smith said:


> Hi John..........if you type the first ten words of the first sentence , "Later....etc..." in your search bar, in will direct you to a link that you should be able to open.
> Hope that helps....




Thanks KS, when I google it it brings up the article which is the same as the link I posted.  (which still works)  Just wanted to see if it was a different report on the fiasco.

Does anyone know if submissions have finished, and that Monday is Judgement Day:behead:?
..............  John H  (I wish I didn't have those initials!)


----------



## zixo (7 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> 'Later, Hutson told the court she had been "shoulder charged" at an investor meeting last month, an injury she said her physio likened to a rugby hit, but she decided against mentioning this in an NSX announcement'
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/c...-1226089187925
> 
> Perhaps Ms Hutson hurt herself while barging up the stairs when she found out the 'rent a crowd' she knew nothing about could only exit from their 'meeting' room from downstairs and would not be attending the EGM? I believe it was a sight to behold!!! Even the restrictive red jacket had been discarded and I am told Ms Hutson was visibly sweating profusely!!!!
> ...





Hmmmm......I agree seamisty, Bodyguards, advisors, legal teams surrounding her every move, not to mention the ordinary bystanders and neglected elderly investors.
In everything thats been said there is just one catch in making statements which aren't really proven until tested. 
There are all sorts of security surveillance in the grace hotel. 
Guess that comes to mind later... :dimbulb:


----------



## Cookie1 (7 July 2011)

DoraNBoots said:


> Today's hearing will continue on Monday:
> 11-Jul-2011  11:00 Part Heard Justice Dowsett Court No. 1, Level 7




I wonder what implication this will have for our planned meeting 14 July? Certainly it would be difficult to have a judgement on Tuesday if hearings are continuing on Monday.

Is WC purposely drawing out proceedings to disrupt the meeting? (I don't know why I thought that could be the case!!)

Again travel plans etc thrown into disarray??


----------



## elizaman (7 July 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> I wonder what implication this will have for our planned meeting 14 July? Certainly it would be difficult to have a judgement on Tuesday if hearings are continuing on Monday.
> 
> Is WC purposely drawing out proceedings to disrupt the meeting? (I don't know why I thought that could be the case!!)
> 
> Again travel plans etc thrown into disarray??




To all. I have mentioned this before and bought it up in the broadcast last night as well. I believe the risk is that with all the on again off again calls for a meeting without finalizing all the legal issues  the risk will be that people will either not be able to come because they have already lost money on flights cancelled/postponed, hotels or other travel costs lost or diluted or simply cannot rearrange schedules/work etc and when it comes time that we need as many as we can get there to vote we might find it more difficult due to these disruptions. I mentioned before that if as many things that can be done in the court can be done than that will keep WC/JH in line as Mr Armstrong mentioned last night , any course of action they take that defies a court order or a judgement/decision is in contempt and therefore it makes sure they comply. Hence the register list yesterday is now public record and I'm sure there will be other matters that just need the court to say " okay we have heard all the arguments now this is the judgement"  Act accordingly.
I really think , and Im sure the powers on our side are doing this but do they probably also do not want to loose the intensity or focus of all the investors and want keep us on the hook so to speak. Well I'm here to tell them all after all that has happened, I'm not going anywhere and will support them 100 percent where I can but being interstate like many and with air travel a little " up in the air" ( excuse the pun) it's tough to keep rearranging/rescheduling. Should a judgement not come down in time or come the day prior and is not in line with expectations a days notice is not much. Let's get as many ducks in row as we possibly can and then drop em like flies.

Food for though


----------



## zixo (7 July 2011)

Thanks for the excellent link Lavis - welcome to the Aussie stock forums

http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/hutson-denies-hiring-actors/story-fn6ck2gb-1226089205539

Hutson denies hiring actors

BRISBANE businesswoman Jenny Hutson denied in Federal Court yesterday that her merchant bank Wellington Capital had hired actors last month in a bid to thwart an investor revolt. 

The court however heard that local firm Wallace Solutions, run by former Wellington director Craig Wallace, had "gifted" several thousands units in Wellington's Premium Income Fund to up to 200 actors just two days before the aborted June 23 meeting in Sydney.

Ms Hutson said PIF investor John Grant had organised the gathering of investors ahead of the meeting and she was asked to briefly address them. She said she spoke for just a few minutes to only 70 investors and knew nothing more about Mr Grant's plans.

Yet Peter Dunning, SC, acting for the rebel PIF Action Group seeking to oust Wellington as fund manager, described the gathering of actors as a "sham" aimed at influencing the share register ahead of voting.

He referred repeatedly to an affidavit submitted to the court by aspiring actress Nada Sefian, a Sydney flight attendant who alleges she was among 200 actors paid $26.63 per hour by a talent agency and given 1000 units in the PIF to help sway the outcome.

Ms Sefian said in the affidavit she had never before heard of Wellington or PIF and alleges that Ms Hutson told the group she needed their votes to chair the meeting.


----------



## JohnH (7 July 2011)

elizaman said:


> the risk will be that people will either not be able to come because they have already lost money on flights cancelled/postponed, hotels or other travel costs lost or diluted or simply cannot rearrange schedules/work etc and when it comes time that we need as many as we can get there to vote we might find it more difficult due to these disruptions.
> Food for though




Agreed Elizaman,  It cost me around $100 in cancellation fees for the last one, and I won't be booking for Thursday until I am sure that the meeting is on.  Having said that, the Judge seems to be quite sympathetic to our demise, and hopefully will give an early judgement.


----------



## zixo (7 July 2011)

Raptis Group moves to return to trading - I wonder if RAPTIS have EVER paid off what was owing to The PIF???

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...eturn-to-trading/story-e6freqmx-1226088361133

FAILED Gold Coast developer Jim Raptis is aiming to get back into the property game two years after his building empire crashed with $1 billion in debts.


----------



## charles36 (7 July 2011)

zixo said:


> Hmmmm......I agree seamisty, Bodyguards, advisors, legal teams surrounding her every move, not to mention the ordinary bystanders and neglected elderly investors.
> In everything thats been said there is just one catch in making statements which aren't really proven until tested.
> There are all sorts of security surveillance in the grace hotel.
> Guess that comes to mind later... :dimbulb:




Where would investigators start.  How would they eliminate all the suspects who would have some sort of gripe against Wellington Capital, S8, GB  and any other *'s now or in the future.


----------



## zixo (7 July 2011)

charles36 said:


> Where would investigators start.  How would they eliminate all the suspects who would have some sort of gripe against Wellington Capital, S8, GB  and any other *'s now or in the future.




My sentiments exactly Charles. It's easy to make a statement. 
Now, Wouldn't it be Interesting if evidence is around which proves opposite to whats claimed??

I'm afraid wellington Capital S8 GB are certainly gathering an enormously long list of  interested people who would like to play a game of Rugby with them...and the list is growing.


----------



## DepressedDad (7 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> 'Later, Hutson told the court she had been "shoulder charged" at an investor meeting last month, an injury she said her physio likened to a rugby hit, but she decided against mentioning this in an NSX announcement'
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/c...-1226089187925
> 
> Seamisty




So now we're getting to the nitty gritty & the courts will decide what crimes have been committed.  Let me get this right. WE allege JH (not you John) & WC have lost 600 million from the fund through many & varied illegal, immoral & downright disgustingly dishonest doings, and she alleges....... a 'shoulder charge!'   

Is that the best she's got?  Is it in response to our allegations or a whole new sympathy puller?  (My sympathies go to the physio and his table.) Did she give names to the Police and has she pressed charges?? I almost feel sorry for her (note I said almost) if that's her ONLY pathetic response to these crucifying career ending revelations. 

No wonder someone was laughing in court.  You're a JOKE Jenny. Shoulder charged indeed!  Bleat bleat!! I reckon she was shoulder charged by her enneama mates lining up at the trough for the last drops.  Look at it as good training for prison.


----------



## lavis (8 July 2011)

Not an article that aids the digestion of breakfast this morning, sadly

http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/investor-group-made-capital-error/story-fn6ck2gb-1226090110431

Hope Monday goes better


----------



## zixo (8 July 2011)

lavis said:


> Not an article that aids the digestion of breakfast this morning, sadly
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/investor-group-made-capital-error/story-fn6ck2gb-1226090110431
> 
> Hope Monday goes better




AH yes...Queensland :Beautiful one day.....


----------



## JohnH (8 July 2011)

_nil desperandum_  We have a very fair and learned Judge.


With the possible exceptions of the Church and the Monarchy, no institution has as many good customs as the Law and the Courts. Today, customs associated with the Church and the Monarchy are constantly under attack. We should not assume that our own customs will fare any better. The Law, the Courts, the Judges do not exist as forces of nature. *Those institutions have been created by human beings to serve the needs of communities of human beings and will survive only for so long as they do so. We should remember that.*  (My emphasis)

Justice J.A. Dowsett  February 2011


----------



## MAE (8 July 2011)

Hi All, Constantly reading the forums every day, we will be writing to ASIC to try and help throw more weight.

I often wonder if there is anybody out there from the original MFS days that are on our side

Maybe the Commission Cheque was everything and pride had nothing to do with it


----------



## reasonable (8 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> Agreed Elizaman,  It cost me around $100 in cancellation fees for the last one, and I won't be booking for Thursday until I am sure that the meeting is on.  Having said that, the Judge seems to be quite sympathetic to our demise, and hopefully will give an early judgement.




Might I suggest that if the egm is adjourned again that a Melbourne location should be considered.  The turnout at the first WC meeting was far in excess of the reported 150 at the last adjourned meetong Sydney.


----------



## seamisty (8 July 2011)

reasonable said:


> Might I suggest that if the egm is adjourned again that a Melbourne location should be considered.  The turnout at the first WC meeting was far in excess of the reported 150 at the last adjourned meetong Sydney.



Reasonable there were far more than 150 people at the EGM in Sydney. I think the approx figure of actual unit holders was 150 but there were many more attending who held a proxy for other unitholders who could not attend. By my calculations there was in excess of 300 people in the Pinaroo room and that did not include the rent a crowd from the casting agemcy who were not permitted to attend. There were a few there who I believe had been coerced to attend to vote in favour of WC from a PIF related property in Victoria.

The majority of PIF unitholders actually reside in NSW so it is seen as the logical place to hold the meeting, making it not as far for those to travel from Vic and QLD.

WC spent vast amounts of money supplied to them from associates/directors from MFS/OCV to spread their BS that convinced so many of us to vote for WC originally. I believe that money could well be part of the 'preferential payments' that is being investigated by Bentleys as part of the Public Examinations. 

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (8 July 2011)

There are 5 new NSX announcements which I can't open due to a 20 minute delay but it appaers there are various classes of PIF units??? Would someone who can open them please post? thanks, Seamisty


----------



## ASICK (8 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> It's not just WC not opening up about the claims in the Federal Court in Brisbane, there doesn't seem to be anything coming from Castlereagh either.
> 
> WC didn't proceed (for whatever reason) with the interlocutory hearing, but still, members are none the wiser about the matters set down for trial - what is WC chasing?




I just wonder why the meeting proceeded when the matter before the court wasn't resolved?  It was only the interlocutory matter which was discontinued.  There was always a risk that no matter what the meeting determined, the meeting could be held to be invalid.


----------



## seamisty (8 July 2011)

Litigation update – Federal Court Proceedings 140 of 2011
The Federal Court Proceedings 140/2011 which was heard before Justice Dowsett on both Wednesday 6 July
and Thursday 7 July this week will continue before his Honour on Monday 11 July 2011.
Wellington Capital is seeking the following orders:
 a declaration that the notice of meeting of members of the Premium Income Fund dated 16 May 2011
issued by the first, second and third defendants, is invalid.
 a declaration that the defendants contravened s 252G of the Corporations Act;
 a declaration that the second and third defendants contravened s 671B of the Corporations Act;
 a declaration that the meeting of members of the Premium Income Fund purportedly held on 23 June
2011 was:
 inquorate;
 dissolved pursuant to clause 10.6 of the Constitution of the Premium Income Fund;
 a declaration that any resolution purported to be passed at the meeting of members in the Premium
Income Fund purportedly held on 23 June 2011, including the resolution purporting to adjourn the
meeting to 14 July 2011, is invalid; and
 an order restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants or agents or howsoever otherwise, from
proceeding with the meeting of unit holders of the Premium Income Fund as described in the notice of
meeting of the Premium Income Fund dated 16 May 2011.
The Premium Income Fund Action Group Incorporated, Peter Grenadier and Charles Hodges are seeking the
following orders:
 the Notice of Meeting dated 16 May 2011 was, and remains, valid and efficacious;
 clause 10.3 of the Constitution is invalid;
 the meeting of the members of the Fund on 23 June 2011 was:
 quorate;
 further or alternatively, pursuant to the Constitution of the Fund, quorate for the purposes of the
resolutions passed at that meeting.
 Mark Hodges validly chaired of the meeting of the members of the Fund on 23 June 2011;
 Mark Hodges remains the chairman at the commencement of the meeting of the members of the Fund
adjourned to 14 July 2011 for the purpose of conducting the election of the chairman; and
 a declaration that that upon the true construction of section 253E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the
Plaintiff and its associates are not entitled to vote on any of resolutions 1 to 4 at the meeting of the
members of the Fund adjourned to 14 July 2011.
A further update will be provided on Monday 11 July 2011 once the hearing before Justice Dowsett is
finalised.

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724199.PDF


----------



## seamisty (8 July 2011)

Seems like there is another NSX stuffup. The 5 PIN announcements appear to be all the same even though listed under different headings

PINA  Premium Income Fund 24MTH Units  
PIND  Premium Income Fund 6MTH Units 
PIN  Premium Income Fund  
PINC  Premium Income Fund 9MTH Units 
PINB  Premium Income Fund 12MTH Units


----------



## JohnH (8 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Seems like there is another NSX stuffup. The 5 PIN announcements appear to be all the same even though listed under different headings
> 
> PINA  Premium Income Fund 24MTH Units
> PIND  Premium Income Fund 6MTH Units
> ...




Maybe someone's hand was shaking when they uploaded them!


----------



## Harald (8 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> I just wonder why the meeting proceeded when the matter before the court wasn't resolved?  It was only the interlocutory matter which was discontinued.  There was always a risk that no matter what the meeting determined, the meeting could be held to be invalid, which in any event, it was so held.




That was just exactly what JH expected us to do. That we would not attend the meeting and she would have had success with her rented crowd and her manipulated proxies.


----------



## seamisty (8 July 2011)

Harald said:


> That was just exactly what JH expected us to do. That we would not attend the meeting and she would have had success with her rented crowd and her manipulated proxies.



Your onto it Harald!! I imagine it was also WC intention that by trying to get the meeting adjourned through the court it would influence unitholders to cancel their travel arrangements, give WC time to get the rent a crowd papers in order by the 21st(even without their permission) then change their mind and let the meeting go ahead, chortling through their snouts at the thought of parading enough people through the door waving pink slips to outnumber the reduced pro numbers due to WC's campaign to destabilise the whole show!! No wonder JH looked so ill when the ruse was exposed and the meeting was adjourned anyway knowing that if WC did not get control then we would be back in court regardless. Too bad for WC that not everyone can be profiled, controled or categorised whether on the WC payroll or not and some can actually think for themselves, maybe some even more smarter than others???? 

Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (8 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> Maybe someone's hand was shaking when they uploaded them!



 Only one release there now!


----------



## lavis (8 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> There are 5 new NSX announcements which I can't open due to a 20 minute delay but it appaers there are various classes of PIF units??? Would someone who can open them please post? thanks, Seamisty




The last one is just a statement of the bleeding obvious
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724199.PDF
The link seems to be working now.


----------



## ASICK (8 July 2011)

Harald said:


> That was just exactly what JH expected us to do. That we would not attend the meeting and she would have had success with her rented crowd and her manipulated proxies.




I'd like to point out the quote you made was from my post prior to it being edited.  I had misunderstood what a friend had told me as meaning the judge had held the registry to be  inadequate, rather than the judge merely making comment in that regard.  As soon as I saw the following posting by Seamisty I realised my error and corrected it.

Still that doesn't change my intended meaning as to completing the legal claim before proceeding with the meeting.  I'm not a W.C. support by any stretch of the imagination, but I wonder just who would look the sillier if you'd proceeded to a meeting, won the day, and then had the whole thing squashed by a court finding of a breach of the Corporations Act by those calling the meeting?

W.C. is only pursuing what it regards as it's legal right to do.    What I can't understand is how the judge let the main issue proceed even though it was clear that the meeting was being held the very next day, with a trial testing the validity of that very meeting to held some time after the meeting itself?

I think W.C.'s motives were overt, and to some extent, it seems smart of W.C. to withdraw the interlocutory claim in the circumstances.  It seems to me that the any potential damage caused to the folk calling the meeting would be greater if they tasted success at the meeting but were squshed at a later date by the court. (IMO)


----------



## elizaman (8 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> Agreed Elizaman,  It cost me around $100 in cancellation fees for the last one, and I won't be booking for Thursday until I am sure that the meeting is on.  Having said that, the Judge seems to be quite sympathetic to our demise, and hopefully will give an early judgement.




The judge in Qld wasn't so sympathetic so it does all need to get sorted out in the courts nearly to the point where the EGM is just a formality I think. I tried booking last minute for the june 23 meeting and couldn't get a flight that got me into Sydney earlier enough unless I paid full fare or business class. Now with Tiger out of the way I would think it would be more of a gamble??? 
WC/JH will resort to any number of tactics which has been proven. If it's all done in the courts the tactics will be minimized and actions will have to be taken one way or the other. Other than voting a chairman in on the day there is nothing we as unit holders can really do based on all the going on's presently in all the courts in various states.


----------



## elizaman (8 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Reasonable there were far more than 150 people at the EGM in Sydney. I think the approx figure of actual unit holders was 150 but there were many more attending who held a proxy for other unitholders who could not attend. By my calculations there was in excess of 300 people in the Pinaroo room and that did not include the rent a crowd from the casting agemcy who were not permitted to attend. There were a few there who I believe had been coerced to attend to vote in favour of WC from a PIF related property in Victoria.
> 
> The majority of PIF unitholders actually reside in NSW so it is seen as the logical place to hold the meeting, making it not as far for those to travel from Vic and QLD.
> 
> ...




I certainly agree that if the majority of unit holders are in NSW than Sydney should be the preferred location. The only point I'm making is that there are a number of issues before the courts which really need to get ironed out. PIFAG only really need us on site when a chairman has to be elected. Everything else can be done by proxies. Based on continued postponments it is difficult for people to arrange there schedules etc. Actually aren't you yourself in WA? On june 23 I couldn't get out of Melbourne on time and the ash cloud didn't make things any easier. Let's get it all sorted out in the courts. It should keep all parties somewhat on the path . In my opinion. There is no perfect solution in all this however the courts can act as a third party. I can see all of us showing up to another meeting and there will be some reason why it cannot be fully concluded. JH/WC does another act or something. This action albeit wrong just dilutes the unit holders faith somewhat in getting it all ironed out for Castlereagh.  A little like the boy who cried wolf. I'm not saying any of us in our minds are weakening however when it actaully comes to paying for the flights/hotels/trains/travel/time off work etc etc people always seem to weaken a little. Some because they simply can't afford it, some because it's too difficult. 
Food for thought. 
PS I'm off overseas now so can't make it on July 14th so I'm hoping it does get postponed but hopefully further into the future where a majority of issues have been heard and judgements issued.


----------



## Duped (8 July 2011)

lavis said:


> Not an article that aids the digestion of breakfast this morning, sadly
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/investor-group-made-capital-error/story-fn6ck2gb-1226090110431





My lay enquiry based solely on that limited article.  In three parts: 

 "Justice Dowsett did not accept that argument, noting it was clear the group had the onus to inform all investors."You can't get these things accidentally," he said. 
Mr Dunning said the Corporations Act did not specify who had to provide the notice and only about 3.5 per cent of the investors were affected.
He said that number would not have made any difference to the vote outcome.
Justice Dowsett was unmoved.
"It's not hard to get it right, you know," he said.
"It's quite clear what's intended. Everybody knows what a notice of meeting is.""

Well it seems to be official then. I just don't get corporate law in Australia. 

  It seems impossible to give notice 21 or 28 days before the meeting (Corp Act S2459H or S249HA respectively) AND for this “written notice of a meeting of a company’s members … be given individually to each member entitled to vote at the meeting” (Corp Act S249J). How can one call a meeting in compliance with S2459H and S249HA if the register can still be updated on the day of the meeting? How is it feasible that a diligent PIFAG can comply with the legislation? 

OK, so say the registry can be closed off at, say, a week before the notice of meeting is taken by Dave in Dispatch down the road for Australia Post to do their magic. If the letters were handed to Aussie Post on 16 May then a diligent and efficient Armstrong Registry Services combined with an efficient PIFAG would need to close the register at the latest on, let's say, 9 May. How many of those (new or amended) "370 investors" (that may or may not have got the notice of meeting) were added to or amended in the register after May 9? They're still unit holders on the day of the meeting, but they won't get individual notification 21 or 28 days before.  

  How is it actually possible in practice to make sure that the prescribed notice is given individually to "all investors" when the register can be closed off just before a meeting?  

  Does the Corporations Act in practice allow that some small % of members entitled to vote will not be given (individually) notice of the meeting? So what would that % be? Some ASX listed companies turn over a huge % of stock every day. More than PIF has in 2 years. 

       [FONT=&quot]Alternatively, the Court can find guidance in PIF’s very own PIF Constitution (Section 9.4): "*The non-receipt of a notice of any general meeting by, or the accidental omission to give notice to, any person entitled to notice does not invalidate any resolution passed at that meeting*." (Combine this with Section 11.1 "All the provisions of these rules as to general meetings apply to any special meeting of any class of Unit Holders which may be held pursuant to the operation of these rules or the Law.")

These clauses make it very clear to potential investors that resolutions may be passed without them being notified of the meeting. If potential investors are not satisfied with the risk of this occurring then they had the choice to not invest. They were pre warned. S249J 3 (d) of the Corporations Act even says “A company may give the notice of meeting to a member by any *other means* that the company’s constitution (if any) permits. Well, there it is in S9.4 of the Constitution isn't it?  I.e.  the ‘other means’ being a process that might accidentally omit you.

Back to the  %.  How many of the 370 was made up of the approx 200 actors gifted their shares in the day or so prior to the time of the meeting? 

Continued ...
[/FONT]


----------



## Duped (8 July 2011)

part 2.

But more significantly, where's the evidence to show that few of that "370 investors" have a separate unit holding that predate February 2011? Does anyone recall JH or WC saying that many holders have taken the opportunity of a low NSX price to increase their holdings (dollar cost averaging). Given that none of the pre Oct 2008 unit holdings were acquired through the NSX they would have been allocated an issuer sponsored SRN right? Now when you sign up to a broker (can't buy on the NSX without one) they'll likely open a CHESS account for you which means any units they buy for you will be allocated a HIN right? So the amalgamation of holdings by such an investor in PIF (topping up) requires a proactive step. Right? Wouldn’t this greatly increase the probability that many of the “370 investors” may have been notified through a separate holding?

 Furthermore, of the requests to amend the holders address were made to bring consistency between holdings?

 How much can we knock that 370 number down?

Sections 249H and 249HA say "at least XX days notice must be given of a meeting of company's members". (I'm not sure if this is the relevant law). I can't see anything in there about where the onus lies to make sure "all investors" receive the notice. Clearly, formally serving the notice on every single member is not anticipated. At the other end of the scale there are very many laws in Australia that put the onus on members (of communities) to read the paper. I.e. the law is satisfied that applicants for proposals that impact on members of a community merely need to put a notice in the community newspaper. What PIFAG achieved was a far far far more individual notification procedure than this latter scenario.

 I agree that “You can’t get these things accidentally”. But didn’t WC post a notice on 20 May under PIN on the NSX about the Meeting? Given that the original letter was dated 16 May, some of the “370 investors” very likely in practice were actually individually notified of the Meeting BEFORE the other long term investors got their letters. Why? Because the NSX offers a FREE electronic notification service through a Widget. (Wouldn’t signing up to this services satisfy the requirements of S249J (3) (ca) If so, then has Armstrong told  us of this or all these different options? http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s249j.html) Receiving WC’s notice of the meeting by a minded investor in today's digital world is far less ‘accidental’ than catching a notice of meeting in a newspaper. 

 [FONT=&quot]How much onus should there be on an investor to check e.g. the online NSX announcements?  Or join a forum like this. Or subscribe to a digital notification service? How much onus is there on an investor to monitor their investments? How much onus is there on an investor to familiarise themselves with the communication options under S249J of the Corp Act. Well the High Court in Octaviar put a substantial onus back on us PIF investors (despite disclosures by OCV that the Castle loan was NOT secured) in para 32  “Thus a person minded to search the register would be informed, by virtue of the definition of Secured Money and the existence of cl 1.2 of the Charge, of the need to look elsewhere to ascertain the precise nature and details of the liability or liabilities secured.”  So in my words the High Court said to PIF investors (creditors to Octaviar) something along the lines of:  it’s  your money and ASIC has set up a register for you to monitor (.e. just like the NSX announcements page  for PIF) and it's your responsibility to monitor that register for the company you lent to AND then it’s up to you to go and do your own research in spite of that company’s assurances.  That’s quite an onus. I can’t see how this could be contrasted more with the scenario that we are facing whereby a Special Meeting can be thwarted because every single member is entitled to sit back and have a notice of meeting mailed to him/her; even if the legislation that gives this entitlement is conflicted.

continued ...
[/FONT]


----------



## Duped (8 July 2011)

part 3

 So the register PIFAG used may have been 3 months old? Where is the evidence that the register Armstrong maintains is always up to date? Who knows? How many other clients does Armstrong have? What's Armstrong's track record? Where’s the evidence that Armstrong doesn’t update the register once a month. If so, then a copy of the register requested by PIFAG say at the end of April may omit  share/unit holders that acquired their rights or amended their addresses at the start of that month. An accurate register relies entirely on the integrity and efficiency of the registry service. And PIFAG has notified the court of the potential for conflict of interest between WC and Armstrong. Right? Furthermore, how long has Armstrong taken to respond to requests for copies of the register?  If it’s 2 months then the copy of the register PIFAG used was not so out of date at all?

There seems to lay old me that there are plenty of unique facts around PIF that would make a decision in PIFAG's favour easily distinguishable in future.


----------



## reasonable (8 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Reasonable there were far more than 150 people at the EGM in Sydney. I think the approx figure of actual unit holders was 150 but there were many more attending who held a proxy for other unitholders who could not attend. By my calculations there was in excess of 300 people in the Pinaroo room and that did not include the rent a crowd from the casting agemcy who were not permitted to attend. There were a few there who I believe had been coerced to attend to vote in favour of WC from a PIF related property in Victoria.
> 
> The majority of PIF unitholders actually reside in NSW so it is seen as the logical place to hold the meeting, making it not as far for those to travel from Vic and QLD.
> 
> Seamisty




I entirely accept what you say.  I was going by the numbers reported on this forum.  Lets hope that the courts decide on the chairman and perhaps the final outcome.


----------



## seamisty (8 July 2011)

Duped said:


> part 3
> 
> So the register PIFAG used may have been 3 months old? Where is the evidence that the register Armstrong maintains is always up to date? Who knows? How many other clients does Armstrong have? What's Armstrong's track record? Where’s the evidence that Armstrong doesn’t update the register once a month. If so, then a copy of the register requested by PIFAG say at the end of April may omit  share/unit holders that acquired their rights or amended their addresses at the start of that month. An accurate register relies entirely on the integrity and efficiency of the registry service. And PIFAG has notified the court of the potential for conflict of interest between WC and Armstrong. Right? Furthermore, how long has Armstrong taken to respond to requests for copies of the register?  If it’s 2 months then the copy of the register PIFAG used was not so out of date at all?
> 
> There seems to lay old me that there are plenty of unique facts around PIF that would make a decision in PIFAG's favour easily distinguishable in future.



Duped in view of the fact that there were entries on the Armstrong Register dated the 21st of June 2011 of unit holders who did not even exist on that day I think WC are going to have a hard time explaining to the court the legitimacy/accuracy of the register whilst under the control of WC/Armstrong at any given time. I would imagine that the alleged illegal entries would be seen as a criminal offence under some bloody rule/corporations act somewhere? Seamisty


----------



## Bumblebee (8 July 2011)

Now maybe , just maybe, this could account for the bruising.

Nothing to do with a 'rugby like tackle' at all!

http://www.couriermail.com.au/enter...-through-mossman/story-e6frep26-1226090461076


----------



## reasonable (8 July 2011)

My analysis of emails received from both Armstrong and WC leads me to the conclusion that Armstrong is manned by WC.

The fact that Armstrong registry is manned by WC surely would knock out any pretence of independence?


----------



## Duped (8 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Duped in view of the fact that there were entries on the Armstrong Register dated the 21st of June 2011 of unit holders who did not even exist on that day I think WC are going to have a hard time explaining to the court the legitimacy/accuracy of the register whilst under the control of WC/Armstrong at any given time. I would imagine that the alleged illegal entries would be seen as a criminal offence under some bloody rule/corporations act somewhere? Seamisty




I'm still digging. Doh! Rules for PIF meetings (Managed Investment Schemes) may be under Part 2G.4 and not 2G.2.  So the sections I quoted below may be incorrect.  But there sems to be equivalant rules for an MIS. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/

But WOW! 
Calling of Meetings of Members by Members S252D(2) "The meeting must be called in the same way--so far as is possible--in which meetings of the scheme's members may be called by the responsible entity. "

*"SO FAR AS POSSIBLE*"

How vague is that?

"S252D(3)  The percentage of the votes carried by interests that members hold is to be worked out as at the midnight before the meeting is called."

So some of what I queried earlier is moot. But not completely because whoever organised the hired actors clearly believes that individuals who become members after this cutoff time have the right to vote? I.e. 48 hours before the meeting. If so, then how would they be individually notified in the manner prescribed by part 2G.4.  

E.g. "S252F At least 21 days notice must be given of a meeting of the members of a registered scheme." 

Hmmm nothing in that sentence limiting the "the members" to members "to be worked out as at the midnight before the meeting is called"


----------



## DepressedDad (8 July 2011)

Thank you Duped for going to so much detail. There sure is a lot of common sense in what you say. We knew it wouldn't be easy & it might take some time & doing, to get the meeting details right according to the letter of the law, but I am still completely confident it will be done. The letter of the law also applies to all they have done so let's see some judgments on that.

I am buoyed by the fact that not ONE investor out of 11,000 turned up to Sydney to argue, support & vote that JH & WC keep running the fund. Not ONE! So no opposition to our group. (Not a small break-away faction!)

The wheels of justice turn slowly. This case from 2008 has just had a favourable conclusion for duped investors over the ditch and that is inspiration as well. The facts don't lie. We'll get our turn.

http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=133283&fm=psp,nwl


----------



## seamisty (8 July 2011)

Lastest NSX announcement http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724200.PDF
'The Fund’s registry
services provider Armstrong had sub-contracted the registry role to Link Market Services and engaged two
scrutineers from Bentleys to oversee the meeting process.':::
I wonder how impressed the sub contactors and scrutineers were after finding out about the rent a crowd with back dated proxies that were meant to be registered on the day??

Who on earth would trust Armstrongs voting figures after the performance at the EGM?


----------



## NOR (8 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Reasonable there were far more than 150 people at the EGM in Sydney. I think the approx figure of actual unit holders was 150 but there were many more attending who held a proxy for other unitholders who could not attend. By my calculations there was in excess of 300 people in the Pinaroo room and that did not include the rent a crowd from the casting agemcy who were not permitted to attend. There were a few there who I believe had been coerced to attend to vote in favour of WC from a PIF related property in Victoria.
> 
> The majority of PIF unitholders actually reside in NSW so it is seen as the logical place to hold the meeting, making it not as far for those to travel from Vic and QLD.
> 
> ...




hi all ....is it possiable to have tv hookup  meeting   NSW QLD VIC& W.AUS DID NOT FORGET YOU SEAMISTY...NOR


----------



## seamisty (8 July 2011)

NOR said:


> hi all ....is it possiable to have tv hookup  meeting   NSW QLD VIC& W.AUS DID NOT FORGET YOU SEAMISTY...NOR



Thanks NOR for remembering me!! I don't think we could ask CASCAP to foot the bill for something like that NOR as the cost would be enourmous and the PIFAG has an empty piggy bank, thats why we all pay for ph calls etc ourselves. WC is notorious for spinning any legal action out for as long as possible hoping to wear peoples morale down while emptying their pockets at the same time! Not to mention keeping their legal mates employed.

Perhaps WC (not PIF) might like to foot the expense of a live telecast themselves for future evidence of rugby tackles/manhandling etc? Seamisty


----------



## ASICK (8 July 2011)

Duped said:


> <<>>>  Alternatively, the Court can find guidance in PIF’s very own PIF Constitution (Section 9.4): "*The non-receipt of a notice of any general meeting by, or the accidental omission to give notice to, any person entitled to notice does not invalidate any resolution passed at that meeting*."  <<<>>> These clauses make it very clear to potential investors that resolutions may be passed without them being notified of the meeting. <<<>>>




 I don't think 'non-receipt' implies a non-sending, rather I think it means something was sent but, for whatever reason, was not received.  



Duped said:


> <<<>>>   But didn’t WC post a notice on 20 May under PIN on the NSX about the Meeting? <<<>>>




Doesn't such a notice deem that investors have been notified?  You raise an interesting point. It's an investor's responsibility to look to the stock for notices, not the manager responsibility to inform each of the members by some other means.    Such a notice would certainly do more than fill the gaps, it would overlay the whole membership.  The exchange notification is unique to listed funds and would not apply to say,  the Equititrust Income Fund, or the Pacific First Mortgage Fund.


----------



## Harald (8 July 2011)

In 2008 I wondered why JH wanted to have our fund listed on the NSX.
Now I know. Not only she and her assicoates got the possibility to cheap access to
our shares but much more importantly for JH it was and is the opportunity for her and
her cohorts to announce there lies and make fraudulent statements without  being in danger to be punished.
Shoudn't be Castlereagh be able to make the NSX aware that they have to take care to protect the interests  of the shareholders in the PIF as well?


----------



## JohnH (8 July 2011)

Harald said:


> In 2008 I wondered why JH wanted to have our fund listed on the NSX.
> Now I know. Not only she and her assicoates got the possibility to cheap access to
> our shares but much more importantly for JH it was and is the opportunity for her and
> her cohorts to announce there lies and make fraudulent statements without  being in danger to be punished.
> Shoudn't be Castlereagh be able to make the NSX aware that they have to take care to protect the interests  of the shareholders in the PIF as well?




............. another point, Perpetual are still the "trustees" of our fund, is their no way we can involve them in our plight?


----------



## BABIHUTAN (8 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> Agreed Elizaman,  It cost me around $100 in cancellation fees for the last one, and I won't be booking for Thursday until I am sure that the meeting is on.  Having said that, the Judge seems to be quite sympathetic to our demise, and hopefully will give an early judgement.




John, I too donated an airline over 2/3rds of the PER/SYD/PER fare as a result of JH's fickle ON-OFF-ON tactics just ahead of the planned 23rd EGM. The backlog caused by disrupted services due to the ash cloud resulted in being offered an $1100 seat one way tt would hv got me there on time. Regretably for cost considerations I missed the meeting and a chance to put faces to Forum Nom-de Plumes. 
I still hv some credit left for future travel and would be pleased to add to it to hopefully assist in voting the current RE out. As a poster suggested the meeting should perhaps be postponed until there is an assurance it will not be frustrated on technicalities
CASA can move to shut down and airline over night and the federal govt the live cattle trade - why is that ASIC seemingly has done nothing in three years to protect investors whilst what little is left, is haemoraging rapidly?  &


----------



## seamisty (8 July 2011)

If WC are so convinced they have the majority vote why are they still calling unitholders today, the third call for some , once from Radar and twice now from WC to ask who they have voted for as it does not appear that they have lodged their proxy with Armstrong? Is Wellington Capital concerned that their register is not in order and it may not pass closer scrutiny so need to get some more legitimate names on board? Who knows what goes on in that office, the only thing PIF unitholders can be guaranteed of is that WC need to be held accountable for all expenses incurred  by them and other associates employed on their behalf who are racking up expenses solely for the self preservation of the existing RE. Fortunately I have a fairly comprehensive list of names of those involved which can no doubt be traced back if needed.

Another issue which intrigues me is why did WC have to sub contract Armstrong Registry services at the EGM? Is it because only existing WC staff are processing the proxies/data etc and had to stay in Qld to man the bunker or was it because WC wanted to appear that it was conducted as an arms length transaction thus allowing WC to distance itself from any further accusations of misconduct in relation to unwitting dodgy processing of forms as was the case of JH declaring she knew nothing of the rent a crowd?? Lots of questions of which we can only draw our own conclusions until we see what transpires from the court next week. I strongly suspect the proposed EGM will have to be adjourned yet again which does not overly concern me as it appears that more and more unitholders who had previously decided to stay 'with the devil they know' are now really concerned that DEVIL is exactly that, an atrociously wicked, cruel, and truly evil entity, a far cry from a Responsible Entity.

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (8 July 2011)

BABIHUTAN said:


> John, I too donated an airline over 2/3rds of the PER/SYD/PER fare as a result of JH's fickle ON-OFF-ON tactics just ahead of the planned 23rd EGM. The backlog caused by disrupted services due to the ash cloud resulted in being offered an $1100 seat one way tt would hv got me there on time. Regretably for cost considerations I missed the meeting and a chance to put faces to Forum Nom-de Plumes.
> I still hv some credit left for future travel and would be pleased to add to it to hopefully assist in voting the current RE out. As a poster suggested the meeting should perhaps be postponed until there is an assurance it will not be frustrated on technicalities
> CASA can move to shut down and airline over night and the federal govt the live cattle trade - why is that ASIC seemingly has done nothing in three years to protect investors whilst what little is left, is haemoraging rapidly?  &



I have given up on ASIC BABIHUTAN, but that does not mean that one day they will not be held accountable for NOT acting on our behalf when even a court ruled that WC breached the constitution after all the information was supplied to ASIC who declined to intervene on our behalf, which consequently cost us dearly with a dilution and possible extra voting power to WC as a result of the placement of 75.5million extra equally ranking shares in the PIF which should never have happened had ASIC done their job.

As to all expenses relating to your investment in the PIF it is my understanding they should be tax deductable, especially the costs involved in attending a EGM. A pity WC, not the PIF, cannot be held responsible for personal costs incurred by unitholders, especially if it is proved that WC did not act in the best interest of unit holders which was proved financially detrimental to them.(as in the placement issue?) I have said before, possible grounds for another class action in the future.
Seamisty


----------



## charles36 (9 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> I have given up on ASIC BABIHUTAN, but that does not mean that one day they will not be held accountable for NOT acting on our behalf when even a court ruled that WC breached the constitution after all the information was supplied to ASIC who declined to intervene on our behalf, which consequently cost us dearly with a dilution and possible extra voting power to WC as a result of the placement of 75.5million extra equally ranking shares in the PIF which should never have happened had ASIC done their job.
> 
> As to all expenses relating to your investment in the PIF it is my understanding they should be tax deductable, especially the costs involved in attending a EGM. A pity WC, not the PIF, cannot be held responsible for personal costs incurred by unitholders, especially if it is proved that WC did not act in the best interest of unit holders which was proved financially detrimental to them.(as in the placement issue?) I have said before, possible grounds for another class action in the future.
> Seamisty



 Does anyone ever recall seeing the T.V programme, Stalag 17, there was a very fat untidy army officer who was always saying "I know nuthing"  Any thoughts about who could play that part with consummate skill.  Having in mind previous military quotes we have all been subjected to in the past.


----------



## DepressedDad (9 July 2011)

charles36 said:


> Does anyone ever recall seeing the T.V programme, Stalag 17, there was a very fat untidy army officer who was always saying "I know nuthing"  Any thoughts about who could play that part with consummate skill.  Having in mind previous military quotes we have all been subjected to in the past.




 A similar bumbling, highly unmilitary 325-pound charachter in Stalag 13 comes to mind. It was in black & white but I'm sure Sergeant Schultz's overcoat was red.    "I see nothing–NOTHING!". Well, it had to be or it was a one way ticket to the Eastern Front. mmmm.

Our movie could be 'Charles' Heroes'. But with Robert Redford. Anyone know where we can hire some cheap actors?


----------



## JohnH (9 July 2011)

DepressedDad said:


> A similar bumbling, highly unmilitary 325-pound charachter in Stalag 13 comes to mind. It was in black & white but I'm sure Sergeant Schultz's overcoat was red.    "I see nothing–NOTHING!". Well, it had to be or it was a one way ticket to the Eastern Front. mmmm.
> 
> Our movie could be 'Charles' Heroes'. But with Robert Redford. Anyone know where we can hire some cheap actors?




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcxGFmYyPs  enjoy (there is a remarkable similarity)


----------



## zixo (9 July 2011)

Everybodys talking about it... Wellington  Capital... Let them do it right for YOU!!! 

http://www.freehills.com.au/7314.aspx

Endnotes
At a practical level, one would have thought that these amendments should have been made some years earlier, when unitholders approved listing on the National Stock Exchange. 
The objecting unitholders also separately took steps to convene a meeting to remove the RE.


----------



## seamisty (9 July 2011)

marcom said:


> I read Michael West's article in the Herald with great interest, particularly the statement " ...the forms gave the addresses of the freshly minted PIF investors as 11/6-10 O'Connell Street, Sydney."
> 
> So I Googled that address and guess what I found - the hubby's law firm!
> 
> ...



HMMNN, so we have Mr John Grant who supposedly hired the rent a crowd:
John Grant CA, MBA                         
Chairman
Independent Non-Executive
Director for Ambri Limited
Appointed: 21 September 2001
Resigned: 15 December 2006

Non-Executive Directors Senior Executives for Ambri Limited
Brett Heading (Chairperson)
(appointed 10 November 2006)
Other related parties
McCullough Robertson - Brett Heading
http://www.aspectfinancial.com.au/asxdata/20071026/pdf/00775058.pdf

The shares to the new investors who all had the same address (being that of McCullough Robertsons Lawyers Sydney office) were 'gifted' them from Craig Wallace who is a director and company secretary for Burnett Valley Olives Pty Ltd, a company that Brett Heading has a 'private' interest in. Not to mention all the prior/existing associations with Jenny Hutson. COSY HUH??? Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (9 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> HMMNN, so we have Mr John Grant who supposedly hired the rent a crowd:
> John Grant CA, MBA
> Chairman
> Independent Non-Executive
> ...




Great work, Seamisty! You're the best at ferreting out information! 

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive!" 

I don't know who said it, but it's certainly true!


----------



## zixo (9 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> HMMNN, so we have Mr John Grant who supposedly hired the rent a crowd:
> John Grant CA, MBA
> Chairman
> Independent Non-Executive
> ...






And KPMG just happen to be their auditors ....Coincidence?


----------



## JohnH (9 July 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> Great work, Seamisty! You're the best at ferreting out information!
> 
> "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive!"
> 
> I don't know who said it, but it's certainly true!




To Douglas; and with some avail;
  'Twas therefore gloomed his rugged brow.
Will Surrey dare to entertain,
'Gainst Marmion, charge disproved and vain?
  Small risk of that, I trow.
Yet Clare's sharp questions must I shun;
Must separate Constance from the nun -
*Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!*
A Palmer too!””no wonder why
I felt rebuked beneath his eye:
I might have known there was but one
Whose look could quell Lord Marmion."

Sir Walter Scott, Marmion - isn't Google great!!!


----------



## seamisty (9 July 2011)

Coincedences are always worth researching Zixo, especially when 'all roads lead to Rome' or maybe in our case 'all roads lead to the QUEEN BEE and her DRONES'!!!!!
Seamisty


----------



## selciper (9 July 2011)

There's a lesson coming out of the UK at present - a lesson for would-be business miscreants. Much is about accountability at the very top. No wonder Rupert Murdoch is arriving in London today. No doubt the Guardian's headline about his son's corporate responsibilities aren't of much comfort during this crisis.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/08/james-murdoch-criminal-charges-phone-hacking


----------



## seamisty (10 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> HMMNN, so we have Mr John Grant who supposedly hired the rent a crowd:
> John Grant CA, MBA
> Chairman
> Independent Non-Executive
> ...



A bit more on John Grant::
John Grant        
Chairman Bioplatforms Australia

John Grant has over 20 years of experience in venture capital investing in technology based businesses both in Australia and internationally principally through Hambro-Grantham (now Colonial First State Private Equity), a venture capital investment company which he jointly founded with Hambros Plc. of UK in 1984. Following the sale of this business to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in 2000, John has been primarily engaged as a professional company director.

John’s previous business experience comprised investment banking (including 6 years as Managing Director and CEO of International Pacific Corporation Limited, now Rothschild Australia), management consulting and public accounting.

John’s current board appointments include: John Swire & Sons and Research Australia. Previous board positions include Biota Holdings (Chairman), Perpetual Trustees Australia, New Zealand Venture Investment Fund, Colonial First State Private Capital and Goodman Fielder.

John was also Chairman of the recent Commonwealth of Australia Investment Review of Health and Medical Research. He is a Chartered Accountant with a Master of Business Administration from Columbia University, New York. He is a member of the Union Club, Royal Sydney Golf Club, The Cabbage Tree Club and Royal Prince Edward Yacht Club.


----------



## Blueboy1 (10 July 2011)

Seamisty, here's one for you!

*SEAMISTY'S REVENGE......*

The Pig and her band escaped the mainland,in her beautiful pea green boat
it's not very funny,that the Pig stole the money,which kept our fund afloat.

The Pig looked up to the stars above,as she sang to a small guitar 
and a chorus sang 'Oh Piggy my love,what a clever Piggy you are.'

Piggy said to her friends 'Oh elegant friends,how charmingly sweet you sing,'
her friends took a bow as they asked the old sow 'What will you do with the bling?'

They danced holding hands,as they made all their plans,to escape with all their spoils
and their foes were dismayed,at the games Pig had played,in stealing the fruits of their toils.

They sailed away,for three years and a day,to the land where the bong tree grows
and there in the wood the Piggywig stood, confronted by all her foes.

Seamisty's research had proved to besmirch the credentials of the Pig
and she'd traced her here,where the Pig stood in fear,whilst Seamisty danced a jig.

'The games up Piggy'! came the volumous cry, 'It's time to return our bling'
but with a long sigh and a tear in her eye,the Pig couldn't say anything.

In a single bound, Seamisty covered the ground,that stood between her and the sow,
harpoon in hand,she crept on the sand,as sweat poured from the Piggy's brow.

The Pig was now whimpering,snuffling and simpering and she trembled in disgrace,
as Seamisty stood,rock solid as wood,pointing a harpoon in her face.

'Hand over your stash and give us our cash',Seamisty said with a leer,
'Do it right now you evil old sow,or tonite it's bacon and beer'.

'Now it's time to pay for your crime' said Seamisty yelling out loud,
as she pulled the trigger to the audible sniggar,of the now rejoicing crowd. 

With a whizzing sound,the harpoon had found,it's mark into piggy's rear,
the Pig on the run,couldn't avoid her gun,as the crowd let out a cheer.

The Pig limped away,in a state of dismay,as Seamisty held up the stash,
in a victorious way she had won the day and now had retrieved some of her cash.

The Pig lives alone,removed from her throne,in the land where the bong tree grows
but Seamisty wears a smile,as she sits on her pile,which now just grows and grows.

With a wise old owl like Seamisty on the prowl,never give up hope again,
there's a lesson to be learned,by those that were burned and who suffered so much pain.

Seamisty has shown that when the truth's known,all lies will be overcome
and those who've been lying,will soon be crying,whilst we're all having fun.


----------



## smbtrade2 (10 July 2011)

Ha ha. Blueboy1 you are truly our Poet Laureate. Reading your poem's a wonderful way to start the day. Cheers.


----------



## seamisty (10 July 2011)

Blueboy1 that is absolutely priceless!!!! I can't stop laughing:jump: I'm going to print it and have it framed, thanks so much for taking the time to compose it. Maybe we could send it to all the staff at WC for Xmas? Their associates might like to include a copy in another mailout to all the PIF unitholders since the main source of content is from ASF?
Also they have access to the latest updated register which includes names of people who were unaware they were even investors when they were registered!!!! I would hate to see them miss out, especially since some of them are also now keen followers of ASF and all things WC related since they have  been 'gifted' shares in the PIF. Good thing about the new investors is that they live in Sydney, nice and handy ready for the next EGM when ever it will happen and I have heard that some are not too impressed with the current RE:nono: after the true circumstances relating to their appearance and the nature of the role they had to play  was revealed to them after the 'film shoot' at the Grace Hotel on the 23rd June 2011!!
Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (10 July 2011)

*"Seamisty's Revenge...."* Best laugh I've had in a long time. What talent we have amongst us! Keep up the good work Blueboy1.

Cookie1


----------



## JohnH (10 July 2011)

True Brilliance Blueboy - can't stop the tears of mirth!!    ........ John H


----------



## Jadel (10 July 2011)

Blueboy 

I think it has been previously pointed out by Duped, that personal  posts along these lines are counter productive to our cause.


----------



## Blueboy1 (10 July 2011)

Jadel said:


> Blueboy
> 
> I think it has been previously pointed out by Duped, that personal  posts along these lines are counter productive to our cause.




Sorry you feel that way Jadel,it's intended to commend....not offend!
Cheers,
Blueboy1


----------



## JohnH (10 July 2011)

Jadel said:


> Blueboy
> 
> I think it has been previously pointed out by Duped, that personal  posts along these lines are counter productive to our cause.




Sometimes laughter is the best medicine Jadel - we have plenty to cry about, so does a little humour really hurt our cause?


----------



## MAE (10 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> Sometimes laughter is the best medicine Jadel - we have plenty to cry about, so does a little humour really hurt our cause?




Blueboy

I didn't know it

But you are a Poet

You have brightened my Carbon Tax Day

I think I might run away

And have a five week holiday


----------



## Jadel (10 July 2011)

No of course not John.However we now know what that this person is capable 
 of  trying anything  . And there are certain laws in regards to defamation.


----------



## zixo (10 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Blueboy1 that is absolutely priceless!!!! I can't stop laughing:jump: I'm going to print it and have it framed, thanks so much for taking the time to compose it. Maybe we could send it to all the staff at WC for Xmas? Their associates might like to include a copy in another mailout to all the PIF unitholders since the main source of content is from ASF?
> Also they have access to the latest updated register which includes names of people who were unaware they were even investors when they were registered!!!! I would hate to see them miss out, especially since some of them are also now keen followers of ASF and all things WC related since they have  been 'gifted' shares in the PIF. Good thing about the new investors is that they live in Sydney, nice and handy ready for the next EGM when ever it will happen and I have heard that some are not too impressed with the current RE:nono: after the true circumstances relating to their appearance and the nature of the role they had to play  was revealed to them after the 'film shoot' at the Grace Hotel on the 23rd June 2011!!
> Seamisty





You have a point seamisty, I imagine alot of unsuspecting young people who unknowing were wrapped up in a questionable investor meeting on the 23rd are going to be very curious how things eventuate with their brand new units and would only want the best for THEIR FUND. They now have a say on whats going on - welcome NEW Unitholders!


----------



## JohnH (10 July 2011)

zixo said:


> You have a point seamisty, I imagine alot of unsuspecting young people who unknowing were wrapped up in a questionable investor meeting on the 23rd *are going to be very curious* how things eventuate with their brand new units and would only want the best for THEIR FUND. They now have a say on whats going on - welcome NEW Unitholders!




Yes, if any of you new unit holders are out there, please introduce yourselves.  You will be made very welcome.


----------



## zixo (10 July 2011)

Isnt this the same Mr Craig Wallace who was a founding Director for the Premium Income Fund according to Wellington Capitals own investor pack?  

http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/2008/InvestorInformationPack.pdf

This was available in 2008

Craig Wallace B.Com MBA FCPA FAICD – Age 55
Director
Craig was formerly a director of KPMG Corporate Finance, and is now principal of The Alternative
Advisory Firm. He has over 25 years experience in investment banking and corporate advice, dealing with
transactions involving property, construction, tourism and accommodation, as well as other industries.
Craig is currently a director of Anthony Morton Group Funds Management Limited. He has joint
responsibility for the approval and management of over $300 million in funds that have been invested in a
number of prominent building and construction projects.
Craig’s expertise involves corporate restructures, divestments, acquisitions and financing with the objective
of improving returns on assets.
He was formerly a director of ASX listed SunnyCove Management Limited. SunnyCove communities are strata titled
investments owned by independent landlords seeking rental yield returns and capital gain.
Craig is a director of a number of Australian Financial Services Licensees, and has been responsible manager for others.
Qualifications and Memberships
Bachelor of Commerce
Diploma of Advanced Accounting
Master of Business Administration
Fellow of the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants
Fellow, Australian Institute of Company Directors


----------



## atlas1950 (11 July 2011)

Hi all, 

Trading halt just announced on the NSX.
Announcement to be made at 10:30am

Michael


----------



## Cookie1 (11 July 2011)

There are 2 new NSX announcements; I can't seem to access them "
HTTP Error 404". Can anyone else access them and post them here?

"PIN 	Premium Income Fund  
41999 NSX General Market Disclosure Other  Apartment Sales - $1.494 million	11-Jul-2011 9:55:07 AM"

"PIN 	Premium Income Fund  
41999 NSX General Market Disclosure Other  Forest Resort Residential Development - Mortgagee in Possession Contracts - $2.28 million	11-Jul-2011 9:54:20 AM"

Thanks.

Cookie1


----------



## Duped (11 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> I don't think 'non-receipt' implies a non-sending, rather I think it means something was sent but, for whatever reason, was not received.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't such a notice deem that investors have been notified?  You raise an interesting point. It's an investor's responsibility to look to the stock for notices, not the manager responsibility to inform each of the members by some other means.    Such a notice would certainly do more than fill the gaps, it would overlay the whole membership.  The exchange notification is unique to listed funds and would not apply to say,  the Equititrust Income Fund, or the Pacific First Mortgage Fund.




 Thanks ASICK. Agreed about the non-sending. I was focussed on the “accidental omission to give notice to”

  The legislation, from my lay investigations, requires all members to be “individually” notified. S252G (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s252g.html)

  Which begs the question if I have two holdings (on with SRN and one with a HIN) and haven’t taken the proactive step of amalgamating them. (Or maybe I don’t want to amalgamate them because it will make completing my tax returns easier in future.) Is S252G breached if I receive notice regarding only one of my holdings.  I suspect the answer is NO. Because from what I can see in the Corp Act a "member" is defined as “a person” a not “a person of a particular address.

  Other questions remain, like:

  Whoever hired those actors seems (based on the published info I’ve seen ) to believe that members can be added or amended in the register right up until the start of the meeting.  If this is correct then how is PIFAG supposed to have given notice “individually” to all members? There’s other issues as well like S173 whereby, it seems to lay old me, that Wellington or Armstrong or whoever  has up to 7 days to provide the copy of the register. How much onus is the court going to put on PIFAG? Is PIFAG supposed to have filed applications for copies of the register (and paid whatever fee WC/Armstrong asked for each application) for say 4 days in a row starting a week and 4 days before the meeting? 

  Is S173 satisfied if the copy of the register is merely posted within the 7 days? And does S173 stop the  copy being a poor quality paper photocopy with the data disassociated? Set up your registry in some remote corner of Australia and it can take 3 days to get to Sydney.  Make it a mess of disassociated data and it would take days for a diligent PIFAG to distil it.

  Seems to (casual lay observer) me that for the legislation to function in practice for a hostile removal of the RE there has to be an allowance for some % of members not getting notified ‘individually’.  PIF constitution seems to (at least tacitly) allow for it.  If so then what % should it be? If PIF is very thinly traded in comparison to other MIS (and companies?) then a % small enough to thwart PIFAG won’t help the more heavily traded MIS (and companies)  overcome any short comings of the legislation

  Having said all this, there could be a body of law to answer all these questions.  I’m just a casual lay observer.


----------



## seamisty (11 July 2011)

Another proposed WC Capital Raising:http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724205.PDF


----------



## Duped (11 July 2011)

I'm having difficulty interpreting WC's NSX ann on friday http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724200.PDF

So WC makes an allegation of 'false and misleading statements about Wellington". This is what I could find so far in the release to support WC's position:

"Castlereagh obstructed that occurring by: refusing to agree a way forward as to the meeting chair" - Exactly what was the "a way forward" that Castlereagh refused to agree with?  One particular "a way forward" suggested by WC?  I.e. one particular "a way forward" among many possible alternative ways forward? One particular "a way forward" that suited WC?  Am I reading this wrong?

"Castlereagh obstructed that occurring by: excluding Link Registry Services from participation in the meeting registration process" - Perhaps Castlereagh would have also "excluded" Just Take My Word For It Registry Services (or Seamisty Registry Services  ) if it turned up on the day claiming it is a subbie of Armstrong Registry Services. The NSX lists Armstrong and not Link.  So what does a requisitioner do? Take a lone Directors word for it?  Did Link show the meeting requisitioners a copy of the sub-contract or perhaps give the requisitioners a letter of introduction with Armstrong's company seal on it? Anyway, how exactly DID Castlereagh "exclude Link"? Did Link put themselves on the wrong side of a door that they new would have to locked? Were Link actually instructed to leave?  Did anyone threaten to throw Link out?  Or did they leave on their own initiative after someone started questioning their right to be there?

"He indicated that it was the requisitionists meeting and that Computershare had been contracted by them and was the only party that would be providing registry services."  WOW!  Just "indicated". That term seems a long way from "said". Wouldn't the term "indicated" give WC opportunity to back away from this sentence in the future? 

"The Fund’s registry services provider Armstrong had sub-contracted the registry role to Link Market Services and engaged two scrutineers from Bentleys to oversee the meeting process." Cool.  More witnesses. Bentleys were there. Maybe Bentleys can give their side of the story?

And a reminder to Wellington Capital and any of it's directors, staff and agents: if any of what I post offends then let me know right away so I can consider it and minimise any  damage.


----------



## Bessie223 (11 July 2011)

Hi Seamisty
I was curious as to whether the Burnett Valley Olive Farm is situated at Murgon, if so it is awfully close to where the temple of worship is to be located at Gayndah. I suppose this could be just another coincidence.


----------



## seamisty (11 July 2011)

Bessie223 said:


> Hi Seamisty
> I was curious as to whether the Burnett Valley Olive Farm is situated at Murgon, if so it is awfully close to where the temple of worship is to be located at Gayndah. I suppose this could be just another coincidence.



Hi Bessie223, The old church, originally erected out of spotted gum in 1915 WAS located at Binjour(not far from Gayndah and the Burnett area), Burnett Highway. It was RELOCATED piece by piece and rebuilt atDavid Burkes Andelaine Enneagram retreat in the Numinbah Valley on the  Nerang-Murwillumbah Rd, St East Qld.

Burnett Valley Olives is an Olive Grower in Moffatdale near Murgon, South Burnett

'Clovely Estate is located 13 km south-east of Murgon on Steinhardts Road. Clovely's vineyards were established in 1997 and are the largest in the South Burnett, covering 174ha (430 acres). Clovely Estate is owned by the Heading family who've been farming in the South Burnett for more than a century'

Coincedences are always worth researching Bessie!!
Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (11 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Another proposed WC Capital Raising:http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724205.PDF




This basically means that  WC have taken steps to absolutely ensure that if PIFAG do not win at this EGM we will never ever get another chance. 

I went into court today , complex deliberations on precisely which provisions of the Corporations Act apply, including those points recently mentioned by Duped.

A decision will probably be reached tomorrow morning .


----------



## ASICK (11 July 2011)

W.C. promised not to encumber the fund - however, in my opinion, a capital raising in the circumstances has precisely the same effect as debt would on investors.  Any new investment will be secured by the fund's assets ahead of existing investors. It'll be interesting to see the terms of any offer.


----------



## Duped (11 July 2011)

WC today, in one day, made four separate announcements for transactions on 4 of PIF's assets. 

Can someone please describe what a fire sale of assets would look like? Or what a liquidatioin of assets looks like?


----------



## k.smith (11 July 2011)

Just received my call from the call centre re my vote ...

amazingly that WC are still calling investors at this late hour while they are suggesting victory re the NSX announcement...WHY ? ? ?

I  voiced my opinion in no uncertain terms, and pointed in particular to the rights issue... and NO, I would not be voting for Wellington Capital...


----------



## seamisty (11 July 2011)

k.smith said:


> Just received my call from the call centre re my vote ...
> 
> amazingly that WC are still calling investors at this late hour while they are suggesting victory re the NSX announcement...WHY ? ? ?
> 
> I  voiced my opinion in no uncertain terms, and pointed in particular to the rights issue... and NO, I would not be voting for Wellington Capital...



Maybe they are getting the Armstrong registry in order k.smith? WC would find it hard to justify having names on pink slips voting for WC who previously said they would not vote for either turning up on both registers??? I made notes of anyone who previously said they would not vote myself and recently followed up on those, some who have since changed their minds and decided to vote for CasCap after the rent a crowd disgrace.

I also spoke to my old high school headmaster who had previously voted for WC but changed his vote when he received the 'dirt mail' ( He must have forgiven me for being such a turd of a student!!!)

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (11 July 2011)

Duped said:


> WC today, in one day, made four separate announcements for transactions on 4 of PIF's assets.
> 
> Can someone please describe what a fire sale of assets would look like? Or what a liquidatioin of assets looks like?



 And some PIF unitholders were a tad wary because Bri Ferrier (not Castlereagh Capital) is involved with administration, restructuring and administration? The biggest liquidator to date with our assets has been Wellington Capital except that the majority of the returns are being absorbed by Wellington Capitals operating and legal expenses. One of todays announcements state:

'13 Contracts – Residential Development, Forest Resort, Creswick, Victoria
(Mortgagee in possession)
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund is pleased to announce that
13 contracts have been exchanged in relation to the residential land component of the Forest Resort located
at Creswick, Victoria.
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund is selling the 13 lots within
the residential development at Forest Resort as mortgagee in possession.
The residential development comprises 11 stages and forms part of the underlying security property located
at Forest Resort, Creswick.
Three contracts will settle within days and the balance within 12 months from today.'


Er HELLO!! Why would WC need a stuffing 12 month deferred contract? WC have taken over two years to sell two lots of land at discounted prices then out of the blue 13 lots are supposedly sold on the never never? Er, or is that so that WC can plead 'this contract may fall over if WC is removed as RE'??? Heard that before YEH? 
The titles are freely available and have been for two years!!!! Another Claytons Contract trotted out at the eleventh hour perhaps??? Or some more cronies calling in favours in case the :fan?

Seamisty


----------



## zixo (11 July 2011)

Seamisty,
 The thing that blows my mind is that Unitholders are quite supportive of the AG organised Class action which was not only paid for and started by Action group members. And support the AG as we continue to pursue it vigilantly whilst constantly being blockaded by unspeakable tactics.

WHY has WC continually thrown out NSX statements willy nilly as if they are doing something,  yet they wont even consider addressing their very own investors at a genuine Investor meeting whilst they were in attendance?

I predict that if WC is retained the fund will hit an artery and bleed like never before,  then and only then will unitholders HOPE the action group will do something to stem the flow. 

What ALL Unit holders need to realise is that they have only this one chance, to  have a say about how WC and their predecessors Octaviar have treated us.


----------



## seamisty (11 July 2011)

zixo said:


> Seamisty,
> The thing that blows my mind is that Unitholders are quite supportive of the AG organised Class action which was not only paid for and started by Action group members, but they AG have continued to pursue it vigilantly whilst constantly being blockaded by stalling tactics.
> 
> Of late WC are continually throwing out NSX statements willy nilly as if they are doing something,  yet wont even consider addressing their very own investors at a genuine Investor meeting whilst they were in attendance.
> ...



ZIXO I hear you!! I sincerely hope that if the EGM goes ahead as scheduled this Thurs, that every single PIF unitholder, especially those PIF Action Group members that signed up for the Class Action support the very investors that put their necks on the line originally!! Many contributed financially to secure legal representation when it was MADE VERY CLEAR that WELLINGTON CAPITAL was in NO WAY going to assist the investors of the PIF to pursue compensation from the former auditors etc. Quite the contrary. It was only recently when Wellington Capital realised that this could be used detrimentaly against them in the quest to remove them as RE that jennearous WC saw fit to announce cooperation!! Please PIF unitholders living in the Sydney CBD (and elsewhere)attend the EGM and show your appreciation and support to your fellow investors who have worked so hard and honestly on your behalf and cannot make it to the meeting. 
We have witnessed the dirty tactics and dishonest lengths that some are prepared to go to ensure that the PIF stays where it is as a cash cow until it is milked totally dry.

Seamisty


----------



## NOR (11 July 2011)

k.smith said:


> Just received my call from the call centre re my vote ...
> 
> amazingly that WC are still calling investors at this late hour while they are suggesting victory re the NSX announcement...WHY ? ? ?
> 
> I  voiced my opinion in no uncertain terms, and pointed in particular to the rights issue... and NO, I would not be voting for Wellington Capital...




hi all     we to received a call from  wc  sat 9th july driving our motorhome in tweed head  we ask to call back in 10min to pull over .......must of  realised ho they were ringing havenot heard from them   sorry jenny   love to tell u what i think of u


----------



## Harald (11 July 2011)

I am now very optimistic that JH hasn't the numbers she claims to have.
She wouldn't have made public those dubious contracts at this stage without need.
Anyway, I am very much afraid that those contracts are not favourable to us investors.
Everything that JH was doing seems in my opinion to be to the disadvantage of
the unitholders.

So there is really  the urgent need to attend the meeting on Thursday.

I will be there!!!!


----------



## seamisty (11 July 2011)

Well I'm a tad pissed off, I did not receive a ph call from Radar or any from WC re my voting preference who also proffess to be concerned about PIF unitholders who were unaware of the EGM etc not being fully informed of  the current situation.
Well I can assure all PIF unitholders there are original developers of PIF related properties who are justifiably more pissed off at being given the run around by Wellington Capital because after having taken legal action over 2 years ago they are still waiting for WC to produce 'discovery' through the courts as to how they justified sending in Korda Mentha to take control of a PIF asset which they claim was not in default of their original MFS/OCV loan.
If this action was indeed justified why can't Wellington Capital after 2+years produce the documents to support their action?? Do these documents exist or is WC stalling the legal action because they cannot afford any more adverse media attention? Who knows?? One thing we can all be assured of is that the PIF will be responsible for legal costs. (for the time being at least but rest assured it is well documented for further reference)
Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (12 July 2011)

Seamisty - is your mail box full again?


----------



## seamisty (12 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> Seamisty - is your mail box full again?



No JohnH, but no notifications came up? When I checked my mailbox there were a few messages there. Weird. Will respond shortly. Cheers, seamisty


----------



## seamisty (12 July 2011)

Litigation Update
The Federal Court Proceedings 140/2011 which were heard before Justice Dowsett on 6 and 7 July 2011
continued before his Honour yesterday Monday 11 July 2011.
The hearing continues before Justice Dowsett from 9.30am today, 12 July 2011.
Further updates will be provided as the matter progresses.
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724208.PDF


----------



## Jadel (12 July 2011)

k.smith said:


> Just received my call from the call centre re my vote ...
> 
> amazingly that WC are still calling investors at this late hour while they are suggesting victory re the NSX announcement...WHY ? ? ?
> 
> I  voiced my opinion in no uncertain terms, and pointed in particular to the rights issue... and NO, I would not be voting for Wellington Capital...




Yes it is a worry K Smith 

One would not think that nobody in their right mind ,would be prepared to make such an announcement , after the previous capital  raising  had been ruled to be detrimental to investors,by a court of law  .Unless of course they  are of the opinion that the outcome has already been decided  in their favour 

The announcement has also been carefully crafted . It states that  “ Issues relating to the meeting are resolved “ rather than a decision made by investors at the meeting.  This begs the question of exactly how quickly WC can proceed with this Capital Raising. ???


----------



## Duped (12 July 2011)

http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/bank-refuses-rebels-compromise/story-fn6ck2gb-1226092628837

*"BRISBANE merchant bank Wellington Capital rejected a compromise  plan offered last night by rebel investors hoping to remove it as  manager of a beleaguered $264 million mortgage fund.                 ...*

"_However, Wellington counsel Philip Morrison, QC, said he could not  agree since there were still unresolved problems with proxies, the  registry, a quorum, selection of a meeting chairman and a snapshot date  stemming from PIFAG's aborted June 23 meeting._
_Justice John Dowsett reiterated his view that the process had  already been hopelessly compromised and "it would be better if we just  start afresh"._
_He said it was preferable to have a "clean break"  and hold a new meeting under fresh auspices because the technical  "damage done" earlier could not be repaired._"

Ummmm how is starting afresh going to resolve those "unresolved problems". If there's difference of legal opinion then there's differences of legal opinion.  They're not going to magically go away by "starting afresh". Isn't the definitition of sanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

_"Justice Dowsett again criticised PIFAG for failing to *send a* notice of meeting to some of almost 11,000 investors.__He  said the group could have asked Wellington to call the meeting rather  than rely on a dated register from February 9. Because the notice did  not go out until May 16, the register had *119 new investors and 263 who  had different addresses.*"_ [emphasis added]


S252G merely requires written notice be given individually to each member.  Sending to an address is merely a procedural convenience. PIFAG could have served the notices in person if it chose to do so.  All S252G requires is that written notice be given individually.  


"119 new investors" Do we really know if they are indeed new investors?  (Actually the Corporations Act calls them "members") Or are they in fact actually only just new share holdings/investments of existing members?  Has the Federal Court actually checked every one of the names of these "new investors" against the other 10 thousand+ names? 



Isn't the whole 'address' thing for identifying "members" a procedural convenience?  Where in S252G is it prescribed that notice be given to addresses on a register?


Furthermore, if some of those "new investors" are companies.  Then hasn't that company been notified individually if each of the directors of that company has been notified in writing through another PIF holding?


From my lay perspective it seems speculative to assume that a member hasn't been notified individually if PIFAG didn't send a letter to every address on the register.  And S252G merely states that 



"Notice to members, directors and auditors individually 
               (1)  Written notice of a meeting of a registered scheme's members must be given to:"


In fact sub section S252G(3) merely says "How notice is given":  *"may *give notice" in person, by post, fax or electronic address. [emphasis added]


S252G (3) (b) even states that an RE doesn't even need to post to an address listed on the register.


"by sending it by post to the address for the member in the register of members *or an alternative address* (if any) nominated by the member; " [emphasis added]

"_He  said the group could have asked Wellington to call the meeting rather  than rely on a dated register from February 9._"

ASKED WELLINGTON TO CALL A MEETING to have itself removed?  What? Did I read that right?

"rely on a dated register"  How dated is it given the thin turn over? More dated than a week old register that has 20 times the turnover?

Of course PIFAG could have done better.  We all can always do better.  That's waht drives  technical innovations and new legislation. That's not the question.  The question is: did PIFAG do as much as others have been allowed to get away with.


----------



## Cookie1 (12 July 2011)

Regarding investors missing out due to change of address: How many people move address and don't have their mail forwarded for a minimum of 3 months, and usually longer...at least 6 months? I can't see how those people who moved to another location would have missed out on their notification.

Have the returned mail notifications been checked against the list of investors who changed address? I would think there would be very few to none, given the Australia Post forwarding service.


----------



## Duped (12 July 2011)

"S252G(3) How notice is given
Unless the scheme's constitution provides otherwise, the responsible entity may give notice of the meeting to a member:                   ...
                       (b)  by sending it by post to the address for the member in the register of members or an alternative address (if any) nominated by the member; or"


How about this for an interestiong exercise? I nominate this ASF thread to be the address to which individual notice is given.


----------



## Cookie1 (12 July 2011)

Another NSX announcement: http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724210.PDF

NSX Release: 12 July 2011 

*Litigation Update  
*
The hearing of the Federal Court Proceedings 140 of 2011 continued today before Justice Dowsett. His Honour has asked for final submissions in writing by 4.00pm today. 

His Honour has indicated that judgement in relation to the proceedings and the notice of meeting will be delivered tomorrow, 13 July 2011. 

Further updates will be provided as the matter progresses. Premium Income Fund


----------



## Duped (12 July 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> Regarding investors missing out due to change of address: How many people move address and don't have their mail forwarded for a minimum of 3 months, and usually longer...at least 6 months? I can't see how those people who moved to another location would have missed out on their notification.
> 
> Have the returned mail notifications been checked against the list of investors who changed address? I would think there would be very few to none, given the Australia Post forwarding service.




Good point about the return notifications.  What duty is there on the RE to chase members so that S252G can be satisfied?  Absolutely none?  What, not even a reminder in all those Updates, Announcements, Reports and Webpages?  Does anyone recall seeing any reminder whatsoever  from WC saying that members should make sure they can be contacted so that e.g. S252G can be complied with?


----------



## Cookie1 (12 July 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> Another NSX announcement: http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724210.PDF
> 
> NSX Release: 12 July 2011
> 
> ...




Where does this leave those of us who must travel tomorrow to Sydney if the meeting is on for the 14th of July (Thursday)? Do we drive/fly to Sydney only to find the meeting may have been postponed? It can't be fair to investors who wish to attend the meeting to be left up in the air like this! A lot of investors cannot afford the extra cost with this on again, off again meeting.

What time tomorrow will we find out something? We don't drive on the highway after dark these days and we wouldn't be able to get a flight, train or bus at such late notice.


----------



## Duped (12 July 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> Where does this leave those of us who must travel tomorrow to Sydney if the meeting is on for the 14th of July (Thursday)? Do we drive/fly to Sydney only to find the meeting may have been postponed? It can't be fair to investors who wish to attend the meeting to be left up in the air like this! A lot of investors cannot afford the extra cost with this on again, off again meeting.
> 
> What time tomorrow will we find out something? We don't drive on the highway after dark these days and we wouldn't be able to get a flight, train or bus at such late notice.




Up A SIC creek without a paddle 

How can ASIC squat on legislation that can allow this to happen?

Too many dangers in these Corporations Act waters.  I'm going to swim in the safe zone of Bank Term deposits.  And then when the Banks do to Australia what is happening to Greece, I'm going to sit back and watch the ASIC staff squeal.  There are consequeces to everything.  Don't oversell your capabilities ASIC.  That's for the pollies.  Not for a COMISSION.


----------



## flatback (12 July 2011)

Duped said:


> Up A SIC creek without a paddle
> 
> How can ASIC squat on legislation that can allow this to happen?
> 
> Too many dangers in these Corporations Act waters.  I'm going to swim in the safe zone of Bank Term deposits.  And then when the Banks do to Australia what is happening to Greece, I'm going to sit back and watch the ASIC staff squeal.  There are consequeces to everything.



Surely our council of solicitors is just as cunning as JH or are we going to be railroaded into submission by this pompus arrogant person who has no, (known to us anyway ETHICS?) our problem is that, her council has put forward a better arguement than ours and the courts are being hoodwinked by this cunning person, there must come a time in all of this ,that common law fairness comes into play ,there must come a time when the courts see this charade of gobbly goop for what it is. keep up the good work everybody.
Flatback


----------



## 17340 (12 July 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> Where does this leave those of us who must travel tomorrow to Sydney if the meeting is on for the 14th of July (Thursday)? Do we drive/fly to Sydney only to find the meeting may have been postponed? It can't be fair to investors who wish to attend the meeting to be left up in the air like this! A lot of investors cannot afford the extra cost with this on again, off again meeting.
> 
> What time tomorrow will we find out something? We don't drive on the highway after d
> ark these days and we wouldn't be able to get a flight, train or bus
> ...


----------



## selciper (12 July 2011)

It seems at present that the "stacking of meeting" episode has been relegated to the farthest back-burner. 

It's true, as Cookie1 points out, that when you change address you inform your post office who redirect your mail. If you move interstate, you're given three months to change your license. And as for the reliability of Armstrong Registry...
.


----------



## Duped (12 July 2011)

From today's Courier Mail article:

"Justice John Dowsett reiterated his view that the process had already  been hopelessly compromised and "it would be better if we just start  afresh"."

But PIFAG wouldn't be starting "afresh" if starting again buys time for WC to issue more units (by raising capital) before the next "snap shot" of the register. (Whenever that is supposed to occur) PIFAG would be starting from a different position wouldn't it?


----------



## Jadel (12 July 2011)

Duped said:


> From today's Courier Mail article:
> 
> "Justice John Dowsett reiterated his view that the process had already  been hopelessly compromised and "it would be better if we just start  afresh"."
> 
> But PIFAG wouldn't be starting "afresh" if starting again buys time for WC to issue more units (by raising capital) before the next "snap shot" of the register. (Whenever that is supposed to occur) PIFAG would be starting from a different position wouldn't it?





Exactly Duped , This is what really has me worried


----------



## Duped (12 July 2011)

Jadel said:


> Exactly Duped , This is what really has me worried




I wonder if the honourable Justice has worked it out?

ASIC has been busy:
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byHeadline/11-140MR%20ASIC%20proposals%20to%20improve%20unlisted%20property%20schemes%20disclosure?opendocument


Perhaps ASIC could improve it's efficiency by just simple noting that such schemes were resurrected from where they were sensible abondoned: the 18th and early 19th century.  And are just as dangerous now as they were back then.  I.e. they don't enjoy the scrutiny of a market based price discovery mechanism - instant liquidity on an exchange. If you really insist on investing in them then do so at your own peril.  You're on your own.

Tulip farms anyone?  Anyone want to pay a commission to become a factor in an Australian North South Trading Company?

If you don't know where you've come from then something that feels like 'innovation' or 'moving forward' actually has you heading back to where you fled.

But then again, if you sell shoes, you wouldn't care where they're heading.  Just keep em walking. Keep the money flowing.  Push, pull, guide, nudge and shove.  Do what ever you can to keep the velocity of money up?


----------



## seamisty (12 July 2011)

I have just heard that the last band of followers sent to Sydney as proxies from the Forest Resort have been told to stand by the phone for instructions for another trip subject to the meeting proceeding ?

I am not sure how many  people can be mislead a second time after witnessing first hand (and participating in) the deceptive tactics engaged by persons associated with Wellington Capital but who would know! 

Seamisty


----------



## Duped (12 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> I have just heard that the last band of followers sent to Sydney as proxies from the Forest Resort have been told to stand by the phone for instructions for another trip subject to the meeting proceeding ?
> 
> I am not sure how many  people can be mislead a second time after witnessing first hand (and participating in) the deceptive tactics engaged by persons associated with Wellington Capital but who would know!
> 
> Seamisty




A camera crew to meet them at the airport?

If any news service or journalist wants to witness first hand how clever lawyers can smash the alleged investor protections of the Corporations Act. They can report as its happening for a change. Rather than after the "alleged incident". Gotta be more interesting than being a court reporter? I'm sure many of us here will gift em the shares so they can be there.


----------



## Duped (12 July 2011)

Duped said:


> I wonder if the honourable Justice has worked it out?
> 
> ...





Oops that's a bit unfair.  How is the honourable Justice supposed to know what WC is planning.

What I meant to say was: I wonder if the honourable Justice has worked it out that WC is not going to let him off the hook in any way.

PIF seems to be leaving the law harried, lamenting, in uproar or frustrated wherever it goes.


----------



## DepressedDad (12 July 2011)

So the judge has mentioned procedural problems & how we could have done better. (Without any cooperation, in fact obstruction , it's a miracle we got her to the point where she HAD to desperately hire actors)

But what is he saying about the downright dishonest deception of hiring actors to change the outcome of a supposedly democratic vote??  I agree that common sense is lacking here if there's legal nitpicking about details (which is fair enough) but no sounding judgement re DISHONESTY & DELIBERATION DECEPTION??  Is that coming tomorrow??


----------



## Harald (12 July 2011)

Does anybody know at which time tomorrow this Justice is willing to give us a clue at
what will happen on Thursday?


----------



## Cookie1 (12 July 2011)

Harald said:


> Does anybody know at which time tomorrow this Justice is willing to give us a clue at
> what will happen on Thursday?




Harold, I've been wondering the same thing. In the end we've decided to go ahead and drive from Port Macquarie to Sydney tomorrow late morning; otherwise, we wouldn't be able to make the meeting. It could just turn out to be a visit with the family and a birthday celebration, but at least we'll be there if the EGM goes ahead.

Cookie1


----------



## Jadel (12 July 2011)

DepressedDad said:


> So the judge has mentioned procedural problems & how we could have done better. (Without any cooperation, in fact obstruction , it's a miracle we got her to the point where she HAD to desperately hire actors)
> 
> But what is he saying about the downright dishonest deception of hiring actors to change the outcome of a supposedly democratic vote??  I agree that common sense is lacking here if there's legal nitpicking about details (which is fair enough) but no sounding judgement re DISHONESTY & DELIBERATION DECEPTION??  Is that coming tomorrow??




Depressed Dad

 My overall impression from the court room was that sadly  the , rent   a crowd  matter, will be viewed as a minor issue only.

Jenny H gave an account,  that though implausible ,  would in fact be very difficult to disprove  .

Most of the time was taken up by referring to different clauses in the legislation ,which  had to be looked at, in a  20 cm thick edition of the Corporations Act ,and then deliberated on  at length as to what  interpretation applied  .

Regrettably, this means that presiding Judges in these type of cases ,only  have  a limited window of time  to process a huge amount of  conflicting evidence .

The issue will probably be resolved on legal technicalities regarding the Corporations Act


----------



## JohnH (13 July 2011)

Good Morning Everybody.  Decision Day!!!  Does anybody know if we have somebody who will be reporting back from the Court?


----------



## DoraNBoots (13 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> Good Morning Everybody.  Decision Day!!!  Does anybody know if we have somebody who will be reporting back from the Court?




Hi JohnH,  
A time is not yet set for the judgment.  I just spoke to the court and was told:  The judgement is being written at the moment and the parties will be notified when a time has been set, the web site will also be updated.  
https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/QUD140/2011/actions

I am not sure if any investors will attend.


----------



## JohnH (13 July 2011)

DoraNBoots said:


> Hi JohnH,
> A time is not yet set for the judgment.  I just spoke to the court and was told:  The judgement is being written at the moment and the parties will be notified when a time has been set, the web site will also be updated.
> https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/QUD140/2011/actions
> 
> I am not sure if any investors will attend.




Thanks Dora.


----------



## charles36 (13 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> Thanks Dora.




I believe a decision will be handed down at 2.15p.m.  Like everything connected to our fund, NO GUARANTEES the time is correct.


----------



## Duped (13 July 2011)

Jadel wrote: "Jenny H gave an account,  that though implausible ,  would in fact be very difficult to disprove  ."

Playing to our legal system's weaknesses? Which proponents of our common law system (as opposed to Civil Law) say is a good thing. Right?  But doesn't that create an extra conductive seat for our Honourable Justices (to which we allocate great power) to sit in.  I wonder how Justice Dowsett has been feeling today about being in the hot seat?


----------



## Duped (13 July 2011)

New announcement http://nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724211.PDF

"Managing Director, Jenny Hutson said
_‘To sign a contract to host the Victorian PGA Championship at the Novotel Forest Resort Creswick represents an exciting opportunity to economically benefit both the Fund and residents of the Forest Resort and greater community. It is pleasing that an excellent result for the Novotel Forest Resort Creswick has been achieved with a party who intends to promote the Victorian PGA Championship at a premier regional venue and add value to a great asset._’"

Congratulations to the owner/manager of the resort for this achievement?  Hmmmm, I hope no one reading this will give too much credit to WC or indeed PIF for this achievement.  Afterall, WC/Hutson is not saying in this announcement that WC of PIF signed the agreement, right?  Can anyone find any reference in the announcement to the actual resort owner or manager?  I can't. Just the resort, PGA, WC and PIF.  Everyone but the resorts actual owners/managers.

The only powers PIF has over this property is the power of sale.  Right? So who actually owns and runs it?


----------



## BootsnAll (13 July 2011)

charles36 said:


> I believe a decision will be handed down at 2.15p.m.  Like everything connected to our fund, NO GUARANTEES the time is correct.




Decision will be handed down when the legal profession decide they have made enough money.


----------



## DoraNBoots (13 July 2011)

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/QUD140/2011/actions

13-Jul-2011  14:15 Judgment Justice Dowsett Court No. 1, Level 7


----------



## Harald (13 July 2011)

DoraNBoots said:


> https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/QUD140/2011/actions
> 
> 13-Jul-2011  14:15 Judgment Justice Dowsett Court No. 1, Level 7




Did the Judge hand down his judgement? The link shows a still open status.


----------



## DoraNBoots (13 July 2011)

Harald said:


> Did the Judge hand down his judgement? The link shows a still open status.




He would be doing it now...


----------



## BootsnAll (13 July 2011)

Suspense is killing me........:freak3:


----------



## JohnH (13 July 2011)

Just received email from castlereigh ....... no meeting tomorow


----------



## reasonable (13 July 2011)

Seems to me that the judge did not hear all the evidence.  So just how do we get rid of the crooks running our fund?


----------



## JohnH (13 July 2011)

well, at least it looks as though the Judge is still talking......... hopefully making other observations and rulings.


----------



## DoraNBoots (13 July 2011)

reasonable said:


> ...  So just how do we get rid of the crooks running our fund?




With another meeting.  
It will be interesting to see the judgement.  On Monday the judge was discussing the option of him ordering the meeting and in this case he seemed to be leaning towards allowing the already submitted proxies to be carried over.  He should also be deciding some of the issues such as if an investor is allowed to chair the meeting or if WC must do it.


----------



## Harald (13 July 2011)

This shouldn't be the end, it should be just the beginning to get rid off JH.
The sooner, the better. Every day with her  brings our diminished fund
further south.


----------



## JohnH (13 July 2011)

I see that the Court is now "Adjourned - For Hearing"!!  Can one of you more knowledgeable people tell the rest of us what this means (and when)?
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724215.PDF
I see that there is a gloat from Wellington


----------



## BootsnAll (13 July 2011)

_Here is the Judge's order:_
*ORDER*​ 
*JUDGE:*

         Justice Dowsett
*DATE   OF ORDER:*

13 July 2011 
*WHERE MADE:*

         Brisbane


*THE COURT DECLARES THAT:*

1.         Pursuant to section 1322 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) the meeting of unit holders of the Premium Income Fund first convened on 16 June 2011, adjourned to 23 June 2011 and then to 14 July 2011 was invalidly convened and that such irregularity has caused, or may cause, substantial injustice that cannot be remedied by an order of the court and that the meeting is therefore invalid.

*OK, so now we will have to convene another "proper" meeting.
We just can't roll over and submit!
*
[FONT=&quot]
 [/FONT]


----------



## JohnH (13 July 2011)

BootsnAll said:


> _Here is the Judge's order:_
> *ORDER*​
> *JUDGE:*
> 
> ...




Yes B&A..... but the statement also says that the case is "Adjourned - For Hearing"  - presumably this means that it is still ongoing.  ........... and yes, of course *there is no way we are going to just roll over and submit*


----------



## reasonable (13 July 2011)

BootsnAll said:


> _Here is the Judge's order:_
> 
> *OK, so now we will have to convene another "proper" meeting.
> We just can't roll over and submit!
> ...




AGREED.  But presumably this would have to be done through WC - so they would stitch it up in their favour.


----------



## flatback (13 July 2011)

Duped said:


> Jadel wrote: "Jenny H gave an account,  that though implausible ,  would in fact be very difficult to disprove  ."
> 
> Playing to our legal system's weaknesses? Which proponents of our common law system (as opposed to Civil Law) say is a good thing. Right?  But doesn't that create an extra conductive seat for our Honourable Justices (to which we allocate great power) to sit in.  I wonder how Justice Dowsett has been feeling today about being in the hot seat?



This is starting to look as if we cannot call a meeting (Special)without we obtain permission from JH,
 and it is pretty obvious that all of you people who voted for her in the first place (accepting all 3) changes to the constitution without considering the consequences, have not stopped bleeting,i dont care if i upset a few people but its got to be said,
 in all probability the Judge cant help us because of a point of law, and therein lay the answer its not his job to help us , its his job to apply the law, and you people made it easy for him when you agreed to what JH wanted , i dont think the present people(castlereagh) fighting for us are helping, they must have foreseen this problem of invalid proxies  and the issue with people having to travel vast distances to get to these meetings, dont say its all JH fault you have to pre empt these issues, and Castlereagh didnt.
go ahead take my statement apart, for bad grammer/ spelling/and in your mind outlandish statement, if only Great Dame was here, his words would be( i told you so) i can already see who will lead the pack
 i rest my case


----------



## Sutho81 (13 July 2011)

Ok meeting is off. So I assume its back to square one to start the process again.

I as a young investor who was saving for my first home was putting $1000 away per month in the PIF savings scheme when MFS had it. I am 30 now and all that money is literally a write off.

After seeing what the PIFAG is capable of and how badly Wellington has behaved, I am determined to do all I can do to help get rid of Wellington and bring some form of hope back into the fund.


----------



## ASICK (13 July 2011)

reasonable said:


> AGREED.  But presumably this would have to be done through WC - so they would stitch it up in their favour.




I don't have too much experience with meetings, but I would say that it's better to let the manager run the meeting at the fund's expense.  It seems to me, that if you can't win the proxies, then you can't win anyway.  Of course, it's a different proposition if a show of hands is required to win the day.

In my view, all effort should be directed to communication with members, both in writing/email and phone (particularly in writing/email). If the proxies aren't favourable, then the day is lost.

If it is the case that members feel uncomfortable with the fund's registry (even any level of distrust is a sad state of affairs), then the action group could simply ask members to direct their proxy to the fund's registry and cc to  Castlereagh Capital?

From an outsider's perspective, I think there's been too much effort on chairing the meeting in circumstances where the meeting itself probably wouldn't have shifted sentiment one iota (IMO).


----------



## JohnH (13 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> I don't have too much experience with meetings, but I would say that it's better to let the manager run the meeting at the fund's expense.  It seems to me, that if you can't win the proxies, then you can't win anyway.  Of course, it's a different proposition if a show of hands is required to win the day.
> 
> In my view, all effort should be directed to communication with members, both in writing/email and phone (particularly in writing/email). If the proxies aren't favourable, then the day is lost.
> 
> ...





Yes and No ASICK (how I love that NdeP)  If (and I mean If) it comes to the worst, I think the cc to Castlereagh is brilliant.  Disagree with your feelings about the meeting, as we saw people going in pro Wellington, and coming out pro Castlereagh....... John H

P.S. Would still appreciate someone confirming/dis-confirming that   "Adjourned - For Hearing" means that the Learned Judge still has more to say.


----------



## Mutchy (13 July 2011)

BootsnAll said:


> _Here is the Judge's order:_
> *ORDER*​
> *JUDGE:*
> 
> ...




He has ruled that the meeting was invalidly called. There are many possible reasons why he has come to this conclusion. Let's wait until we get the full text of what he has said before making any suggestions or decisions about what to do next.

Also it may be possible to appeal the decision.


Steve


----------



## Harald (13 July 2011)

flatback said:


> This is starting to look as if we cannot call a meeting (Special)without we obtain permission from JH,
> and it is pretty obvious that all of you people who voted for her in the first place (accepting all 3) changes to the constitution without considering the consequences, have not stopped bleeting,i dont care if i upset a few people but its got to be said,
> in all probability the Judge cant help us because of a point of law, and therein lay the answer its not his job to help us , its his job to apply the law, and you people made it easy for him when you agreed to what JH wanted , i dont think the present people(castlereagh) fighting for us are helping, they must have foreseen this problem of invalid proxies  and the issue with people having to travel vast distances to get to these meetings, dont say its all JH fault you have to pre empt these issues, and Castlereagh didnt.
> go ahead take my statement apart, for bad grammer/ spelling/and in your mind outlandish statement, if only Great Dame was here, his words would be( i told you so) i can already see who will lead the pack
> i rest my case




Please flatback, fall flat on your back and leave us alone!!!!


----------



## JohnH (13 July 2011)

http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/bank-dodges-hostile-takeover-bid/story-fn6ck2gb-1226094071717

BRISBANE merchant bank Wellington Capital has fended off a well-funded hostile takeover bid for control of its struggling Premium Income Fund after winning a key court ruling yesterday.

But disgruntled investors with the PIF Action Group say they plan to have another crack at evicting Wellington, who they complain has mismanaged the $264 million fund over the past three years. etc etc etc


----------



## seamisty (13 July 2011)

'His Honour has recognised that there has been a substantial injustice not capable of remedy by the courts'
Yes, well we have seen this before when the Wellington Capital placement went ahead, unable to be reversed because it was too hard to deal with by the courts. It should never have occurred in the first instance if ASIC had of done their job.
'What the Judge has determined is that it is necessary to comply with the Corporations Act and the Constitution of the Fund'
Perhaps we need to lodge an appeal to Judge Dowsett re Wellington Capitals placement issue where the corporations act was breached initially??

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (13 July 2011)

Not sure if G8 education investors follow Wellington Capital and the boards chairperson jenny Hutson but it appears there was a huge bailout today of G8 investors,Volume 1,843,518 Value $1,330,204 Trading at an approx 10 month low of 72 cents. I wonder if there is bad news pending for G8?
Seamisty


----------



## Harald (13 July 2011)

I really can't beleave that an Australian High Court Judge could get it so wrong.

Those 380 not informed investors got the information about the PIFAG action only
some days later trough Wellington, but with all the defamation from JH. So it was not an injustice to those, it was an injustice that happened to us.

Secondly how can this judge rule that we have to comply with the corporations law
and the funds constitution. Even a judge should have realized that the PIF constitution 
doesn't comply with the corporations law. Does he really lay the blame for this on us
the investors and not on JH?


----------



## selciper (13 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Not sure if G8 education investors follow Wellington Capital and the boards chairperson jenny Hutson but it appears there was a huge bailout today of G8 investors,Volume 1,843,518 Value $1,330,204 Trading at an approx 10 month low of 72 cents. I wonder if there is bad news pending for G8?
> Seamisty




Yes, I follow the G8 share price from time to time. It has certainly dropped recently. I wonder why.

As for today's judgment, my thanks to the AG executive who have toiled so hard. If the time and funds are available they, hopefully, can come out fighting. It's pure Franz Kafka territory. Nothing makes sense or seems fair at the moment, but you rarely know the end to Kafka's stories until
the last page.


----------



## DepressedDad (14 July 2011)

Yes, my thanks too, to all the AG executives and our workers & investigators who have put in so many hours & spent their own money getting this all started. I also see it as a beginning, as we didn't lose today, we just haven't won....  yet!   Justice & honesty will prevail. Yelllow coat, I mean red coat certainly didn't win today.  She just staved off this challenge by using her typical cunning conniving tactics. 

Thanks to our awesome workers, professionally her name is, or will be, MUD, so there'll be no gloating. And she can't stave off challenges forever as we all know she has acted against the law, on many counts, so it is only a matter of time before a judge has all that information in front of him or her and will then act according to the letter of the law, as they did today.  We're all here for the long haul & all the hard work that's been done by so few is very much appreciated and will bring us all well deserved results in due course.


----------



## zixo (14 July 2011)

A story in the Australian,
Even news corp media know something is Dodgy. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...rama-act-aborted/story-fn91wd6x-1226094167213.

A FEDERAL Court judge in Brisbane ruled yesterday that a meeting Premium Income Fund unitholders scheduled for Sydney today will not take place, because some unitholders were not given enough notice. 

The meeting was to have been a continuation of the notorious meeting held in Sydney on June 23, where about 200 film extras were each given 1000 units in the fund and told to vote in favour of Wellington Capital, the Brisbane-based management company that is the Responsible Entity for the Fund, founded originally by doomed Gold Coast financier MFS.

In the end, the 200 extras did not vote at the June 23 meeting, which was called by a group of unitholders titled the PIF Action Group, which was seeking to have Wellington replaced by Castlereagh Capital, chaired by insolvency specialist Ian Ferrier.

Justice John Dowsett had ruled on a complex case brought by Wellington relating to whether the meeting requisition was valid, given that the PIF Action Group had used an out-of-date share register.

The group's barrister had told Justice Dowsett they had been forced to do so because they could not obtain an up-to-date register. The fund's register is managed by Armstrong Registry Services, run out of the same office as Wellington Capital. Wellington is managed by Brisbane lawyer Jenny Hutson, who could not be reached for comment last night. She has denied knowing the 200 investors were extras.

A spokesman for the Action Group, Charles Hodges, said his group was "very disappointed" that the meeting was not being held but added the judge's decision was "based predominantly on the issue of a number of investors".


----------



## DoraNBoots (14 July 2011)

DepressedDad said:


> Yes, my thanks too, to all the AG executives and our workers & investigators who have put in so many hours & spent their own money getting this all started. I also see it as a beginning, as we didn't lose today, we just haven't won....  yet!  ...




I agree.
And a huge thanks to Castlereagh. Without them the illegal amendments that Wellington Capital made to our constitution would still be in place.  It amazes me that a third party has to step in and help decimated (mum & dad) investors fend off illegal activity from the RE while ASIC watches.


----------



## Javier (14 July 2011)

Agree BIG thank you to Castlereagh.Big thank you also to Seamisty and Dora...nice meeting you both in Sydney. We would be lost without Charles (and Mark)and of course Breaker for the start of this.

One question...when Castlereagh overcomes the Evil one...will they delist our fund from the NSX?


----------



## k.smith (14 July 2011)

DoraNBoots said:


> I agree.
> And a huge thanks to Castlereagh. Without them the illegal amendments that Wellington Capital made to our constitution would still be in place.  It amazes me that a third party has to step in and help decimated (mum & dad) investors fend off illegal activity from the RE while ASIC watches.





I agree, Dora.

You may be interested to read what is happening in the Charter Hall Office Fund..


''....It could be another 900 years before they will be able to change their responsible entity, going by the notice of meeting lodged on the website of the group attempting to wrest control of the fund....''

''...''This document may include forward-looking statements, which involve a number of risks and uncertainties,'' the notice of meeting said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/trus...-the-future-20110713-1he48.html#ixzz1S26MluHV

imo, the RED ALERT button should be flashing there as well....


----------



## selciper (14 July 2011)

"Jenny Hutson, who could not be reached for comment last night. She has denied knowing the 200 investors were extras." (The Australian)

Good to see the Australian hasn't forgotten the extras fiasco. Hope that ASIC are reminded to do something about it.


----------



## charles36 (14 July 2011)

We all have to abide by the law, and unfortunately, sometimes we do not agree with the interpretation of the law.  It has been stated that the PIFAG did not use an up to date register to contact all unit holders.  This may be so, but if we take this in the true perspective, in fact, all unit holders were contacted.   The PIFAG, immediately on discovering a very small pecentage of unit holders who had recently purchased units or changed their address were contacted.  Wellington Capital, who I assume had an up to the minute register contacted ALL unit holders in their quest for proxy support and finally the notorious and anonymous cowards, "the pif reaction group" circulated all unit holders  using the latest version of the register.  In effect, no unit holder was disadvantaged and had an opportunity to cast a proxy.  Be that as it may, the law is the law.  We all have to thank WC for their sacrifice in this regard.  A media release attributed to WC indicated they would have "romped in" if the meeting was held must have been a great temptation.  I personally am at loss to understand why WC's proxies were guarded with such secrecy.  It is also known that there were many proxies held by WC that favoured PIFAG but were never handed over to Computershare, the truly independent registry.  It is noted that Computershare was the registry of choice by WC at the EGM held on 18 October, 2008.

We are all aware of the hiring by WC of RADAR to do their bidding in attempting to cobble together proxies and as a result there would have been many unit holders contacted who were only provided with information given by WC.  A one sided affair.  The PIFAG were not able to cope with this marketing campaign to our detriment, I suppose.  It is true, the Executive spread themselves too thin and I suspect burn out may have happened to one or two volunteers.  To combat the likes of Radar it is desirable that the PIFAG become more proactive than ever if we are going to put WC away for good. Therefore, I am appealing, to all unit holders to give some thought as to how they can help us.  There are many enthustiastic unit holders who post on the forum and there are many more unit holders who read the posts.  I know they are greatful for the efforts put in by the authors of the posts.   I would like any person who think they can help to contact either Seamisty or myself by private mail on this forum in the  first instance

The PIFAG have been very active in the past and will continue well into the future.  Most notable achievements was establishing the CLASS ACTION,  Court Action to prevent WC from placement of units and rights issue.  This was a clear example of WC not acting in the interest of unit holders and of course the recent calling of an EGM.

I would like to take this opportunity of publicly thanking Castlereagh Capital for all the support.  They have remained steadfast in their resolve to help us in our endeavours to restore some credibility to OUR FUND.  CasCap have committed huge resources to help us and it is now up to us all to do our part. 

As you are no doubt aware, Judge Dowsett only gave a verbal direction and it will take another three weeks for a written decision to be handed down.   I guess we all have to wait and see what his final decision will be.  I personally will be very interested in this document.

I thank you for taking the time to read this post/appeal and I am looking forward to hearing from any volunteers.   Cheers for now,    Charles V/Pres. PIFAG


----------



## Sutho81 (14 July 2011)

It does sound like a great injustice and a bad decision made by the judge.

In my view all unit holders were informed as the PFIAG had forced Wellingtons hand and Wellington sent out proxies to ALL unit holders. So in a round about way the PIFAG did ensure ALL unit holders were informed of the vote be it a letter from Castlereagh or a letter from Wellington.

Looking at Wellingtons vote count a considerable amount of people voted to dump them in their registry count.

Assuming all votes can be added and we see the voted held by computershare then it might be a different result.


----------



## reasonable (14 July 2011)

charles36 said:


> As you are no doubt aware, Judge Dowsett only gave a verbal direction and it will take another three weeks for a written decision to be handed down.   I guess we all have to wait and see what his final decision will be.  I personally will be very interested in this document.
> 
> I thank you for taking the time to read this post/appeal and I am looking forward to hearing from any volunteers.   Cheers for now,    Charles V/Pres. PIFAG




I guess everyone is stunned at the decision on a technicality and the blinkered view of the judge.  However the judge has already made the only decision that matters.

The PIFAG/Castlereagh must know from computershare results whether we have the numbers to get rid of WC.  If not I guess there will be no further involvement from Castlereagh.  So it will be interesting to see what Castlereagh do.  (I see from their website that they are still advertising today’s aborted meeting)

As far as volunteering goes I would help and I’m sure many others would if they knew what PIFAG intended next.


----------



## zixo (14 July 2011)

Javier said:


> Agree BIG thank you to Castlereagh.Big thank you also to Seamisty and Dora...nice meeting you both in Sydney. We would be lost without Charles (and Mark)and of course Breaker for the start of this.
> 
> One question...when Castlereagh overcomes the Evil one...will they delist our fund from the NSX?




Hi Javier,

http://www.brr.com.au/event/82029
In the podcast from the 5th of July Castlereagh said that they would keep the fund listed for the interim until,they decide what the actual price of the PIF units are.

As for the Decision ..... Where else but Queensland?

Its interesting to see that WC are sponsoring the PGA, just as we in the PIF are going in reverse under the stewardship of WC and JH. Even though WC cant face their own unitholders.
Isnt it Nice to see those people from the forest lodge are enjoying themselves on the misery of others?


----------



## Jadel (14 July 2011)

Javier said:


> Agree BIG thank you to Castlereagh.Big thank you also to Seamisty and Dora...nice meeting you both in Sydney. We would be lost without Charles (and Mark)and of course Breaker for the start of this.
> 
> One question...when Castlereagh overcomes the Evil one...will they delist our fund from the NSX?



Javier 

I personally posed this question to a CasCap representative at the Brisbane meeting and received a non committal reply.

. It is indeed  unfortunate that Investors have had to experience, first hand ,the placement sale to so called ,“sophisticated investors “ at a pittance , to now  fully  understand the inherent dangers of listing  on a secondary and little known illiquid Exchange. 

Two  bitter experiences  in similar situations many years ago had burned an edilible memory in my brain, on what the likely financial outcome would be, if we were listed on the NSX .The PIF will be the third catastrophe.

Like Duped, I have now well and truly learnt a lesson,and the small remainder of my ill gotten lifetime earnings are in Bank Deposits.

Our asset value has already been diluted and based on the recent NSX announcement it appears that Jenny H  has every intention of  merrily continuing down the capital raising path ;.too  the detriment of the many investors who have been financially devastated ,and are unable to participate.

Therefore,  in my humble opinion, we would unquestionably have a greater prospect in disposing of the, “Evil One” if a strategy of  non dilution  and de- listing from the NSX was made  absolutely clear to investors.


----------



## simgrund (14 July 2011)

Harald said:


> I really can't beleave that an Australian High Court Judge could get it so wrong.
> 
> Those 380 not informed investors got the information about the PIFAG action only
> some days later trough Wellington, but with all the defamation from JH. So it was not an injustice to those, it was an injustice that happened to us.
> ...




Harald,
You may recall that moron of a Magistrate who let John the  "Singo" off the speeding charge because his, 
er RR, could navigate these speeds "safely".
Such moronic judicial reasoning thread continues to this day.
I am out of Coffs Harbour, sitting in Kogarah RSL's net station gobbling up all the news of these past 2 days.
I am minus trip expenses for 23rd and today's abortions, added lost glasses, stoned windshield from last return from Sydney, shredded tyre, from a screw mind you, not a nail.
But am I dejected, disgruntled, truncated by these lacerations? Hell no!
I am all pumped up for return to Coffs to begin 3rd installment of my dialogue with Jenny to coincide with Jenny's advanced onset of corporate MADNESS.
Will Judge Dowson ever think how rediculous his legalese is:
  -- PIF employs WC to perform a role
  -- WC fails in performing that role to satisfaction of Employer
  -- Employer must seek permission from Employee to vacate the role.
Let's All give a collective shake of the head in collective disbelief!

Cheers,


----------



## alans (14 July 2011)

Javier said:


> Agree BIG thank you to Castlereagh.Big thank you also to Seamisty and Dora...nice meeting you both in Sydney. We would be lost without Charles (and Mark)and of course Breaker for the start of this.




I support Javiers sentiments but not to be forgotten is the young lady who brought the film extra scam to our attention and supported it with a court submission. She also deserves our thanks.


----------



## BootsnAll (14 July 2011)

zixo said:


> As for the Decision ..... Where else but Queensland?
> 
> Its interesting to see that WC are sponsoring the PGA, just as we in the PIF are going in reverse under the stewardship of WC and JH. Even though WC cant face their own unitholders.
> Isnt it Nice to see those people from the forest lodge are enjoying themselves on the misery of others?




*Hey Zixo, be fair to us Banana benders! :dunno:
This decision was made by a FEDERAL COURT JUDGE. 
*


----------



## BootsnAll (14 July 2011)

BootsnAll said:


> As for the Decision ..... Where else but Queensland?
> 
> Its interesting to see that WC are sponsoring the PGA, just as we in the PIF are going in reverse under the stewardship of WC and JH. Even though WC cant face their own unitholders.
> Isnt it Nice to see those people from the forest lodge are enjoying themselves on the misery of others?




*Hey Zixo, be fair to us Banana benders! :dunno:
This decision was made by a FEDERAL COURT JUDGE. 
*


----------



## JohnH (14 July 2011)

BootsnAll said:


> *Hey Zixo, be fair to us Banana benders! :dunno:
> This decision was made by a FEDERAL COURT JUDGE.
> *




................... and I just have a feeling we may be hearing a lot more from him.  The irresponsible entity has been remarkably quite after her initial gloat.


----------



## zixo (14 July 2011)

BootsnAll said:


> *Hey Zixo, be fair to us Banana benders! :dunno:
> This decision was made by a FEDERAL COURT JUDGE.
> *




LOL..YOU'RE right Boots, I'm still shaking my head too.

But, I'm sure we'll just have to wait for whatever final statements are made.

In the end It's going to be a reflection of the Australian character for right and wrong and the reality of seeing a nation which prides itself in laws and justice which history has proven according to the Premium Income fund, to me, appear non existant.


----------



## Sutho81 (15 July 2011)

You know I just have a suspicion as to why Wellington refused to release their proxy forms.

It only dawned on me after seeing comments that Armstrong is the registry and will not release a list of investors to the PIFAG for the purpose of the meeting.

The proxy forms contain the names and addresses on of all unit holders.

It may be that Wellington was trying to keep them secret in order to prevent the list of investors getting released.


----------



## MAE (15 July 2011)

charles36 said:


> We all have to abide by the law, and unfortunately, sometimes we do not agree with the interpretation of the law.  It has been stated that the PIFAG did not use an up to date register to contact all unit holders.  This may be so, but if we take this in the true perspective, in fact, all unit holders were contacted.   The PIFAG, immediately on discovering a very small pecentage of unit holders who had recently purchased units or changed their address were contacted.  Wellington Capital, who I assume had an up to the minute register contacted ALL unit holders in their quest for proxy support and finally the notorious and anonymous cowards, "the pif reaction group" circulated all unit holders  using the latest version of the register.  In effect, no unit holder was disadvantaged and had an opportunity to cast a proxy.  Be that as it may, the law is the law.  We all have to thank WC for their sacrifice in this regard.  A media release attributed to WC indicated they would have "romped in" if the meeting was held must have been a great temptation.  I personally am at loss to understand why WC's proxies were guarded with such secrecy.  It is also known that there were many proxies held by WC that favoured PIFAG but were never handed over to Computershare, the truly independent registry.  It is noted that Computershare was the registry of choice by WC at the EGM held on 18 October, 2008.
> 
> We are all aware of the hiring by WC of RADAR to do their bidding in attempting to cobble together proxies and as a result there would have been many unit holders contacted who were only provided with information given by WC.  A one sided affair.  The PIFAG were not able to cope with this marketing campaign to our detriment, I suppose.  It is true, the Executive spread themselves too thin and I suspect burn out may have happened to one or two volunteers.  To combat the likes of Radar it is desirable that the PIFAG become more proactive than ever if we are going to put WC away for good. Therefore, I am appealing, to all unit holders to give some thought as to how they can help us.  There are many enthustiastic unit holders who post on the forum and there are many more unit holders who read the posts.  I know they are greatful for the efforts put in by the authors of the posts.   I would like any person who think they can help to contact either Seamisty or myself by private mail on this forum in the  first instance
> 
> ...




Charles, Thanks for your feedback.  We read the forum every day like so many of us Investors, personally I am with you all the way, what is it that you want the Volunteers to do!!


----------



## charles36 (15 July 2011)

MAE said:


> Charles, Thanks for your feedback.  We read the forum every day like so many of us Investors, personally I am with you all the way, what is it that you want the Volunteers to do!!




Thanks MAE,  as you may be aware the PIFAG Executive are all enthusiastic volunteers who have identified the injustices that have occurred and continue with monotonous regularity to occur to OUR FUND.  If we are to go back to unit holders we need support of like minded unit holders to contact as many persons as possible to explain our position and why it is necessary to remove Wellington Capital.  There is no end to the resources of WC.  It appears they want to hold onto OUR fund AT ALL COSTS.  We do not have funds to pay the likes of Radar Telemarketing Group but we have an abundance of untapped human resources.  All we need is for the willing to participate.  We will provide all necessary documentation and assistance to the volunteers.


----------



## DoraNBoots (15 July 2011)

Will be interesting to see what eventuates from the side issue that popped up at the latest hearing.  

WC tried to have a unitholder removed from the court room.  As reported in the media WC said this _"person had allegedly violated a restraining order.  Justice John Dowsett was having none of it and testily noted that police would not be removing anyone from his court." _ This took place on the first day of the hearing, and on the 3rd day the unitholder asked to address the judge and informed the court that he had been to the police and they confirmed there is no AVO or order of any kind.  The judge asked WC if they would like to make an apology and the answer from Ms Hutson via her legal counsel was "No apology, there is an order".  The judge commented that he would not take it lightly if there is in fact no order.


----------



## AusInCA (15 July 2011)

DoraNBoots said:


> The judge commented that he would not take it lightly if there is in fact no order.




Let's just hope this is followed up By Justice Dowsett and there is no order.


----------



## zixo (16 July 2011)

From the Australian

Note that ASIC never have Commented......for the last 3 years!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-paid-protesters/story-fn91wd6x-1226095570433

Wellington Capital paid extras to stage protest 
Andrew Main From:The Australian July 16, 2011 12:00AM 

AUSTRALIAN shareholder meetings can be noisy affairs, particularly when people have lost money. But Brisbane-based management company Wellington Capital, which since 2008 has been Responsible Entity or trustee for the embattled MFS-founded Premium Income Fund, has been involved in what in local terms is an unprecedented coincidence. 

FUND ALLEGEDLY PAID FOR PROTESTERS AT SHAREHOLDERS MEETINGS


----------



## seamisty (16 July 2011)

Managing Director, Jenny Hutson said
‘To sign a contract to host the Victorian PGA Championship at the Novotel Forest Resort Creswick
represents an exciting opportunity to economically benefit both the Fund and residents of the Forest Resort
and greater community. It is pleasing that an excellent result for the Novotel Forest Resort Creswick has
been achieved with a party who intends to promote the Victorian PGA Championship at a premier regional
venue and add value to a great asset.’

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2008/03/26/9292_gold-coast-business.html
MFS pulls out of $16.5m Golf deal

It is understood MFS, which were due to be the naming rights sponsor until 2010, paid $5 million plus GST each year for the contract


----------



## Jadel (16 July 2011)

Great Article 

I seem to recall that Jenny H was reported as having actively supported the 2008 shenanigans.

From memory, bottled water was supplied by her staff  to these people . Now it is  claimed  she  attempted to move them on . ?


----------



## charles36 (16 July 2011)

zixo said:


> From the Australian
> 
> Note that ASIC never have Commented......for the last 3 years!
> 
> ...




Wellington Capital are well aware there is more to come from this RENTA A CROWD saga.  I have been informed that there is a serious allegation at present under investigation concerning more shenanigans allegedly perpetrated by a Victorian connection.

On another note, I recall Wellington Capital informing unit holders that she is now co-operating with our lawyers and the litigation funder of the CLASS ACTION.  Documents will be provided that hitherto were not in the "possession" of WC.  I believe this co-operation has been short lived.  Document supply has evaporated.  Anyone surprised?

I am reminded of a quote by US President Franklin D Roosevelt when he famously said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."  Well my quote is "There are a lot of good men and women unit holders in OUR FUND who are doing something."

Just a reminder to WC, the PIFAG (Inc) are as determined as ever to right the wrongs that have been inflicted upon us.


----------



## seamisty (16 July 2011)

Jadel said:


> Great Article
> 
> I seem to recall that Jenny H was reported as having actively supported the 2008 shenanigans.
> 
> From memory, bottled water was supplied by her staff  to these people . Now it is  claimed  she  attempted to move them on . ?



Yes, Jadel, Justine Buckley, one of  the Wellington Capital hotline recruits told me on the day that Wc  instructed staff members  to distribute bottled water to the 'protestors'. Perhaps the protesters had been asked to be moved on alright, to the WC headquarters doorstep where they were expected!
The following  post was made on Aussie Stock Forums on the  22nd Oct by Burnt:: 

22nd-October-2008 12:25 AM
 Burnt

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF


Interesting job ad placed by Philip Higson on 15th Sept :-

http://www.ployme.com.au/SearchEmplo...=50&nod=1&pg=3 https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/printthread.php?t=10937&pp=20&page=152

 I can't actually find the job ad but I can tell you that one of the 3 founders of PloyMe was  Rob Wibaux. The PIF external compliance officer is Philip Wibaux. Another company listed on Ployme is Kooralbyn Asset Management, owned by Philip Wibaux and David Burke. David Burke is the Australian founder of the Enneagram  and Philip Wibaux is an enneagram teacher.

Great to see some journalists finally linking all these connections and reporting them in the media. 
Seamisty


----------



## DepressedDad (16 July 2011)

Great press coverage there.  How can any sensible law abiding upstanding honest person read that account & not agree there are dirty dishonest goings on at the top?  Even if a Judge doesn't use the first opportunity to seek justice for the people (as he is meant to do), there's NO other interpretation of these facts other than there is criminals at work here. 

"The law requires investors to have been registered as holders for at least two days before they can vote their holdings, but any backdating of share registers is regarded as a criminal offence in NSW."

If this Judge isn't interested in this serious criminal offence will another one do their job??  (Not to mention ASIC being forced to do something here eventually or look really ineffective.)  Sooner or later I believe so.  We live in a civilised society under the rule of law. Politicians write the law & Judges apply it.  If backdating share registers is a criminal offence then sooner or later a crime can be proved.

Good evidence to cite to Unit holders in a phone around.  Elderly people, the age of my father, believe & are polite to people taking an interest in phoning them.  So when WC's paid phlebs phoned him he was all ears to what ever they had to say and foolishly actually believed what grown-ups said to him, not expecting people to lie. If it wasn't for me telling him the truth, he would have been happy to please them.

I agree Charles. We need 100 volunteers to phone 100 investors.  Phoning 20 a day for 5 days is nothing to ask of us, after all the hard work done already. Saying a few key things like. YOU HAVEN'T HAD YOUR PROMISED PAYMENTS.  THE FUND IS WORTH MUCH LESS. IT HASN'T BEEN RESTORED TO 80% OF IT'S VALUE LIKE OTHER FUNDS, SOLELY  BECAUSE OF FRAUDELENT MISMANAGEMENT.  And quote the newspaper article. 

Count me in for 100 phone calls.  I'll private message you Charles & I urge every one here to do the same to ensure a landslide vote next chance we get.  And I am confident that this country's laws will be adhered to eventually.  

In the meantime, WC & JH's business reputations are beyond saving as more ridiculous lies pour out by the day, repulsing genuine business people. So we are meeting our goals.  By continuing to treat us so badly she is DRIVING us to work hard to not only remove her but RUIN her. Let's get phoning!!!!!


----------



## AusInCA (16 July 2011)

zixo said:


> From the Australian
> 
> Note that ASIC never have Commented......for the last 3 years!
> 
> ...




This is the best article I have read on this whole sad affair. ASIC and/or the Court has to take action against Wellington/Hutson.


----------



## selciper (16 July 2011)

Comforting (just a little) to read that ASIC are actually showing an interest in what's happening. The point is being reached where I believe that Wellington have become delusional in believing that it's business as usual.


----------



## seamisty (16 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Managing Director, Jenny Hutson said
> ‘To sign a contract to host the Victorian PGA Championship at the Novotel Forest Resort Creswick
> represents an exciting opportunity to economically benefit both the Fund and residents of the Forest Resort
> and greater community. It is pleasing that an excellent result for the Novotel Forest Resort Creswick has
> ...



No mention of what it will cost PIF unitholders to secure the contract to host  this prestigious event. No mention as to what it will cost the PIF to bring the golf course up to a world class standard expected to host such an event. $1million, $2million? Will the old fairway mowers need upgrading?
Also isn't the resort expected to provide accommodation and meals free of charge to the competitors for the glory of having their name associated with such an event? 
A bit more detail relating to the expenses involved would have been appreciated.
Also with such scathing comments as follows relating to the standard/quality experienced by guests of the Novatel Forest Resort since it has been under Wellington Capital and ACCOR management leads me to believe 'It will never happen'!!!


What happened to The Novotel?” 

Reviewed June 21, 2011 

Having stayed at The Novotel Creswick in 2008 back when it first opened the experience was absolutely one in a million. 3 years on......it was amazing to see the decline in... well everything.

I am sad to say I would not recommend this place, in fact I would strongly advise you keep driving and don't look back. Hard to believe it was once too good to be true but now......never again.

Just lost my business....”

Reviewed June 16, 2011 


Overnight stay at Novotel - this time will be my last. Have used the hotel frequently on business trips I was generally pleased with the overall nature of my stays. However, I do not know what has happened recently but certain elements of their service have seen a drastic decline. Looks like they've changed a lot of their staff recently. The staff used to be friendly. One waiter, although he may have been a supervisor just threw the food on the table and trotted off back to the bar.



“This place looks like it's going broke”

Reviewed April 24, 2011 


This is the second time we have stayed at Novotel Forest resort. My wife and I stay about two years ago and it was excellent nice new rooms wonderful food and a golf course just great (even though quite young). After having a great time we decided to bring my wife's sister and her husband for a weekend away together. It was embarrassing we had pumped this place up so much and it has changed so much since our first stay. The food was over priced and so slow and when finally arrived it was substandard. The heating didn't work it was freezing my wife was forced to sleep in her clothes to keep warm. The golf course has just been let go the fairways and overall condition of the course has really gone downhill since our first visit 2 years ago. The whole resort appears to have lost it's shine and the general upkeep of the place has been neglected. I noticed part of the car park had been cordoned off for repairs 2 years ago and it was still there second time round. From a outsider this place looks like it is going broke. Won't be coming back to this place in a hurry it is an embarrassment to the usual good Novotel name.

NEVER AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Reviewed April 11, 2011 


For the price, is was a total rip off !!! The beds were SHOCKING and that's putting it polity !!! The beds were soooooooo HARD !!! Eletric blankets are a MUST !!! The pillows were like bricks, we all have sore necks !!! The built in heater, you cannot control it !!! Used other heating & it wasn't even much warmer ...! We asked for room to be cleaned due to having room service for breakfast, it wasn't done !!! Next early arvo they were still there !!! I can't beleive how bad out stay was there !!! NO SERVICE, NO CLEAN towels every day 

Very poor”

Reviewed April 6, 2011 


We have stayed in Hotels and Motels around the world and this stay would rate 
as One of the Worst for a place that is proud to be a smoke free site I belive you need
to re think this I have not seen so many Butts near every door and even on fhe balcony.
Noisy & poor service”

Reviewed June 21, 2011 
This was our second stay with the Novotel in Creswick - we gave it a second chance after the last filthy nigthmarish exeperience due to an Accor winter special promising luxurious spa suites.
  The food is awful - room service and restaurant both a real let down we ended up escaping to the local pub which was much better and quite cute, the hotel corridoors where covered in lolly wrappers and potato chip crumbs for two days.

The golf course is the only redeeming feature and the town of Creswick itself is very sweet. 

In short never again! next time I will be staying at the Peppers in Hepburn. It has also been the final straw in not renewing my accor membership after three years as I would prefer to spend my holiday dollars on better properties and service.

Well theres plenty more where they come from. In view of the fact that David Burke and Jenny Hutson are constantly on site and WC have independant 'Staff' employed there, what is going on?
I hope this Resort will not become another mothballed 'Kooralbyn' worth a fraction of its original value because Wellington Capital is not a  competant Property  Funds  Manager??/
Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (16 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Yes, Jadel, Justine Buckley, one of  the Wellington Capital hotline recruits told me on the day that Wc  instructed staff members  to distribute bottled water to the 'protestors'. Perhaps the protesters had been asked to be moved on alright, to the WC headquarters doorstep where they were expected!
> The following  post was made on Aussie Stock Forums on the  22nd Oct by Burnt::
> 
> 22nd-October-2008 12:25 AM
> ...



I found the job ad registered with PloyMe, it gives Philip Higson  promotions  job description as 'leaflet handout and sandwhich board messaging', payment $75.00, address 302 Queen St Brisbane. Surprise Surprise!!(NOT)Isn't that the same address as Wellington Capital?? More untruths/false information being fed to the media by WC? Totally  Unacceptable behaviour from a responsible entity:bad:
Seamisty


----------



## charles36 (16 July 2011)

We should not be mistaken or mislead.  The PIF is the mortgagee in possession of most properties, proper details very hard to find in the "mish mash" of reports emanating from WC.  Therefore, the PIF is only entitled to receive from any sale of mortgaged properties what is actually owed on the mortgage, plus interests and costs.  Any proposed development and expenditure to improve sale prospects will cost the fund interest on borrowed funds and could result in an actual loss.  The RE has a responsibility to maintain our asset and act in the interest of all unit holders and where the RE interest conflicts with unit holders interests the unit holders interest takes precedence.  Spending money on promoting a Golf Tournament is not an allowable expenditure that I can find, I could be wrong.  When you are only the mortgagee in possession why hasn't action been taken to either sell the property or encourage mortgagee to re-finance if possible and pay out the mortgage.  Surely three years is enough time, how much more time do WC need to make a decision.  We are all aware of MFS Golf Promotion fiascos.


----------



## seamisty (17 July 2011)

Class Action resumes tomorrow and Tues:
18-Jul-2011 

10:15

Notice of Motion

Justice Perram

Court Room 22A 

19-Jul-2011 

10:15

Notice of Motion

Justice Perram

Court Room 22A


----------



## Harald (17 July 2011)

charles36 said:


> We should not be mistaken or mislead.  The PIF is the mortgagee in possession of most properties, proper details very hard to find in the "mish mash" of reports emanating from WC.  Therefore, the PIF is only entitled to receive from any sale of mortgaged properties what is actually owed on the mortgage, plus interests and costs.  Any proposed development and expenditure to improve sale prospects will cost the fund interest on borrowed funds and could result in an actual loss.  The RE has a responsibility to maintain our asset and act in the interest of all unit holders and where the RE interest conflicts with unit holders interests the unit holders interest takes precedence.  Spending money on promoting a Golf Tournament is not an allowable expenditure that I can find, I could be wrong.  When you are only the mortgagee in possession why hasn't action been taken to either sell the property or encourage mortgagee to re-finance if possible and pay out the mortgage.  Surely three years is enough time, how much more time do WC need to make a decision.  We are all aware of MFS Golf Promotion fiascos.



How can you be so impatient Charles. JH  is acting like the Coles advertising. They bring the price down down down. So JH regards it as good to bring our values down
down down.
To avoid a further downsizing I'm willing to be another investor who joins the hopefully  big group of volunteers which will kick out JH.


----------



## charles36 (17 July 2011)

Harald said:


> How can you be so impatient Charles. JH  is acting like the Coles advertising. They bring the price down down down. So JH regards it as good to bring our values down
> down down.
> To avoid a further downsizing I'm willing to be another investor who joins the hopefully  big group of volunteers which will kick out JH.




Harald,  I would have more confidence if I had my units under the control of Coles, at least we would have transparency, a business plan together with directions as to how our objectives will be achieved.  But alas,  AT THE MOMENT we are stuck with an RE who wants to further dilute our assets to raise capital to allegedly carry out construction work on projects that will not be ready to proceed for many, many months.  If then.
I thank you for the offer to volunteer and I would like to take this opportunity of thanking many unit holders who have offered their help.  Seamisty has kindly undertaken to keep a list  of volunteers and we will be in touch in due course.


----------



## JohnH (17 July 2011)

charles36 said:


> Harald,  I would have more confidence if I had my units under the control of Coles, at least we would have transparency, a business plan together with directions as to how our objectives will be achieved.  But alas,  AT THE MOMENT we are stuck with an RE who wants to further dilute our assets to raise capital to allegedly carry out construction work on projects that will not be ready to proceed for many, many months.  If then.
> I thank you for the offer to volunteer and I would like to take this opportunity of thanking many unit holders who have offered their help.  Seamisty has kindly undertaken to keep a list  of volunteers and we will be in touch in due course.



I hate telemarketing (that's why I used to employ others to do it for me) but count me in Charles/Seamisty..............  John H.


----------



## simgrund (17 July 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> You know I just have a suspicion as to why Wellington refused to release their proxy forms.
> 
> It only dawned on me after seeing comments that Armstrong is the registry and will not release a list of investors to the PIFAG for the purpose of the meeting.
> 
> ...




In tune with your suspicions Sutho81,
It was the crux of JH strategy to claim before Judge Dawsett that "disadvantaged unitholders" (DU's) would have "missed their rights at the meeting";
*the very new ones secreted away in Armstrong's Registry held tightly in Jenny's armit for added security.*
*Our venerated juduciary with rectal straightitude of Judge Dawsett's mindset fall for these frauds time and time again. Oh the poor DU's they wail, but not scratching His Mind just an inch further to ask: who are these DU's and were their details released to PIFAG's legitimate purposes as required by no less venerated ASIC Legislation? 
*
   As I said before; WC is OUR employee.
   WC aka Jenny Hutson has failed to perform duties assigned to her.
   ASIC failed in enforcing Employer/Employee agreement by permitting
   illegal clauses in subsequent alterations to agreement.
   An Employee enabled to resist its own eviction for criminal behaviour????
Shame on Australian Judiciary for bringing us these miseries! 

Regards,


----------



## seamisty (17 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> I hate telemarketing (that's why I used to employ others to do it for me) but count me in Charles/Seamisty..............  John H.



Not my favourite pastime either JohnH, but after the first few hundred calls it got easier LOL!!!I actually spoke with some really lovely PIf investors who were genuinely appreciative of my efforts to tell them the truth re the deceptive information and behaviour  being delivered by WC staff and others related/associated with WC, backed up with relevant documentation where needed. I was always willing to leave my number with anyone who wanted it, unlike other anonymous cowards working on behalf of WC who don't appear to be able to differentiate between truth and their own greed inspired hallucinations!!!
I still receive calls of support  from some of those I originally spoke to (one even from Spain). With what has transpired re rent a crowds and dodgy Armstrong registers, an announcement from Wellington Capital (even though the first one breached the constitution and was canned) relating to another cap raising, a bloody golf tournament contract on a property that is in active litigation with WC who after 2+ years rather than produce 'discovery documents' as ordered by the court WC is happy to delay proceedings time after time at the expense of the PIF (Does WC even have the requested documents???)
So all in all, as time moves along, our telemarketing campaign will get easier, as WC continues to tell 'porkies' to cover their deceitfull behaviour which appears to be unravelling at a fast rate of knots. I am sure even some who were unwitting players in the dodgy dealings are ruing the day they agreed to help out a 'former associate' and are now embarassed at having their name associated with WC???
Thanks to all those who have offered assistance, I will be in touch in due course.
Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (17 July 2011)

Attached is an article  entitled "*Moss faction alleges many Charter Hall failings*" from the _Weekend Australian Financial Review_ July 16-17, which may be of interest...especially the last 3 paragraphs:

'Despite the unfavourable odds, many institutional managers remain sympathetic to the dissidents' concerns.
In its document, Moss Capital points out that Charter Hall Group "has persistently pursued a strategy to retain assets under management and fee streams".
It said the trust's board suffers from an "inherent and irreconcilable conflict between its self-interest in maintaining management control ... and its duty to act in the best interest of [the trust's] unit holders".'


----------



## MAE (18 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Not my favourite pastime either JohnH, but after the first few hundred calls it got easier LOL!!!I actually spoke with some really lovely PIf investors who were genuinely appreciative of my efforts to tell them the truth re the deceptive information and behaviour  being delivered by WC staff and others related/associated with WC, backed up with relevant documentation where needed. I was always willing to leave my number with anyone who wanted it, unlike other anonymous cowards working on behalf of WC who don't appear to be able to differentiate between truth and their own greed inspired hallucinations!!!
> I still receive calls of support  from some of those I originally spoke to (one even from Spain). With what has transpired re rent a crowds and dodgy Armstrong registers, an announcement from Wellington Capital (even though the first one breached the constitution and was canned) relating to another cap raising, a bloody golf tournament contract on a property that is in active litigation with WC who after 2+ years rather than produce 'discovery documents' as ordered by the court WC is happy to delay proceedings time after time at the expense of the PIF (Does WC even have the requested documents???)
> So all in all, as time moves along, our telemarketing campaign will get easier, as WC continues to tell 'porkies' to cover their deceitfull behaviour which appears to be unravelling at a fast rate of knots. I am sure even some who were unwitting players in the dodgy dealings are ruing the day they agreed to help out a 'former associate' and are now embarassed at having their name associated with WC???
> Thanks to all those who have offered assistance, I will be in touch in due course.
> Seamisty




Hi Seamisty and Charles

We would like to help out as Volunteers, look forward to hearing from you soon.


----------



## seamisty (18 July 2011)

MAE said:


> Hi Seamisty and Charles
> 
> We would like to help out as Volunteers, look forward to hearing from you soon.



Thanks Mae (and others), I have sent you a private message. Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (18 July 2011)

selciper said:


> Comforting (just a little) to read that ASIC are actually showing an interest in what's happening. The point is being reached where I believe that Wellington have become delusional in believing that it's business as usual.




Ha! "Delusional" you say.
That's the kindest sobriquet one can bestow on our Red Terror*.
She is MAD, MAD, MAD!!!. Criminally so.
I am sweating on the 3rd instalment of my dialogue with JH to convince her that a voluntary retirement to Rectum Rectification Facility (apologies for repetition) will be the sanest deed of her wretched corporate panorama.
Join me, selciper and others, in accelerating this process of JH gaining an eternal gratitude of “disgruntled”, “dissident”, “irritated”, “disenchanted” (some of the media terms for PIFers, but none for JH?) counting in the legitimate thousands!
I am off to an early appointment with Centrelink to verify my legitimacy as a beggar.

Regards,

* Robert Conquest wrote "The Great Terror" on the red terror of Stalinist Soviet Union. I see parallels in power grabs.


----------



## simgrund (18 July 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> Attached is an article  entitled "*Moss faction alleges many Charter Hall failings*" from the _Weekend Australian Financial Review_ July 16-17, which may be of interest...especially the last 3 paragraphs:
> 
> 'Despite the unfavourable odds, many institutional managers remain sympathetic to the dissidents' concerns.
> In its document, Moss Capital points out that Charter Hall Group "has persistently pursued a strategy to retain assets under management and fee streams".
> It said the trust's board suffers from an "inherent and irreconcilable conflict between its self-interest in maintaining management control ... and its duty to act in the best interest of [the trust's] unit holders".'




Good one Cookie1, must be shouted in the boldest, loudest, deafening; in a word a real FORTISSIMO.

*"inherent and irreconcilable conflict between its self-interest in maintaining management control ... and its duty to act in the best interest of [the trust's] unit holders".' *

ASIC's and Judge Dowsett's attentions are invited.

Regards


----------



## Jadel (18 July 2011)

I fully expect WC to engage in a capital raising exercise, to vested interest ,as soon as a judgement is handed down regarding the EGM. . This of course will virtually eliminate any chance we have of ever removing WC.

A private written communication to investors, explaining in full the court decision by Justice Gordon,   and subsequent dilution of our assets by any further capital raising, together with details of the rent a crowd shenanigans, could be considered .  

 Regrettable, my personal experience is that a great number of investors remain, mostly uninformed of these events ,unless they are member of ASF, or happen to buy a newspaper  .

Simgrund, Murphys Law ,Anything that can go wrong will go wrong


----------



## selciper (18 July 2011)

Hi Simgrund - I think that the WC Board are delusional, just as the News Limited bunch have proven to have been suffering from the same malaise. It’s clear that News Limited expected their plots to be forever overlookled. Even up to a few days ago Murdoch deluded himself into believing that this crisis was a matter being well handled. Then the whole thing exploded in his face and has spread like wildfire - years after the initial causes. There’s a lesson there for any who think that they are immune from inevitable challenge.


----------



## DepressedDad (18 July 2011)

If JH had the votes she posted why would she not welcome a meeting? Why would she move heaven & high water to NOT have one?  So the votes she's published have to be fraudalent????  Another crime surely???  In her desperation to cling onto our money, she is committing crimes that ultimately won't be hard to prove. When we do our ring around will we ask which way investors voted so we can double check votes that have come in to check their accuracy? 

So instead of making payments to gravely affected investors she's donating *our* money to upgrade a golf course?  Have I got that right?


----------



## Sutho81 (18 July 2011)

I suspect her vote count is from a few proxies held at Armstrong and does not include Computershare.

From what I have been told the total number of votes should = the total number of units in the fund, and her tally does not add up in any direction.

I would be happy to volunteer for a ring around as well.

This cold hearted callous woman running our fund is now trying to stir us up by investing in golf - similar to what MFS did. Surely she is aware of the irony of what her sponsorship of this golf tournament is doing.


----------



## DepressedDad (18 July 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> I suspect her vote count is from a few proxies held at Armstrong and does not include Computershare.
> 
> From what I have been told the total number of votes should = the total number of units in the fund, and her tally does not add up in any direction.
> 
> ...




Maybe she's sees her number's up & she's giving away as much of our money to her friends as quickly as possible.....


----------



## thekids (18 July 2011)

DepressedDad said:


> Maybe she's sees her number's up & she's giving away as much of our money to her friends as quickly as possible.....




This women doesn't do anything that doesn't line her own pocket, we're just not sure right now exactly how it is getting into her pocket


----------



## seamisty (18 July 2011)

thekids said:


> This women doesn't do anything that doesn't line her own pocket, we're just not sure right now exactly how it is getting into her pocket



Well is it any wonder trust for WC actions is long gone? WC only have themselves to blame from their past performances of handling the truth carelessly and trying to implicate all and sundry apart from themselves whenever an honest explanation is called for and cannot be provided by WC themselves.
 I am at a loss as to why Wellington Capital find the need to tie up residential lots at Forest Resort on a 12 month settlement contract at highly inflated prices compared to current market value (heavily discounted compared to original values before Wellington Capital took control of Forest resort) which are presently available??? As usual, the whole deal has the now well known WC stench attatched. I will be making further enquiries tomorrow as to how WC has managed to add an approx $700,000 premium above current market value on another long term deal (with unnamed purchasers) which may or may not eventuate but meanwhlie excludes other genuine buyers from purchasing the blocks. Maybe WC need to save their nails to dig themselves out of the deep hole they are in rather than scratching more backs???
Seamisty


----------



## Sutho81 (19 July 2011)

The evil woman hutson certainly knows how to stir us up. I noticed on Wellingtons website today that there is a pictrue of a golden egg amongst white eggs. Perhaps a subtle gloat that she still has our fund!!!

On a serious note, despite the judges ruling, is it possible in theory to start a fresh and call another meeting?


----------



## seamisty (19 July 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> The evil woman hutson certainly knows how to stir us up. I noticed on Wellingtons website today that there is a pictrue of a golden egg amongst white eggs. Perhaps a subtle gloat that she still has our fund!!!
> 
> On a serious note, despite the judges ruling, is it possible in theory to start a fresh and call another meeting?




Sutho81 I thought it looked more  liked Greedy Humpty Dumpty!!! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8808921797991466552#

Seamisty


----------



## Harald (19 July 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> The evil woman hutson certainly knows how to stir us up. I noticed on Wellingtons website today that there is a pictrue of a golden egg amongst white eggs. Perhaps a subtle gloat that she still has our fund!!!
> 
> On a serious note, despite the judges ruling, is it possible in theory to start a fresh and call another meeting?




I'm absolutely sure that Castlereagh will call another meeting. But I'm afraid that this "Judge" is holding back the proceedings with his very late announcing his reasons
for his castastrophic decision. He will take another 2 weeks to find the reasons for his decision and gives so the advantage to JH to bring our fund further down.
Shouldn't a judge in an Australia High Court have the ability to see the damage he is doing to us investors? Again I'm afraid he just doesn't care.


----------



## seamisty (19 July 2011)

The outcome from yesterday and todays class action hearing::Adjourned - Judgment Reserved


----------



## NOR (19 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> The outcome from yesterday and todays class action hearing::Adjourned - Judgment Reserved




thanks seamisty .....good days r comeing ....no not yours..miss pigey red coat...ours ag


----------



## seamisty (19 July 2011)

NOR said:


> thanks seamisty .....good days r comeing ....no not yours..miss pigey red coat...ours ag



HA HA NOR


An old folktale in which a botoxique investment bank was given  a goose that laid an egg every day, and the egg was made of gold. The botoxique bank prospered  and the more they had, the more greedy they became. 

One day, the botoxique bank manager said, "Why wait for one little egg every day? There must be a great store of gold inside this goose. If I kill it, I can have it all now." And so she killed the goose, only to find that there was nothing unusual inside her. 

And that, of course, was the end of the supply. 

So in her greed she destroyed the source of her good fortune. 

To kill the goose that lays the golden egg is to destroy something that provides a steady, long-term gain for the sake of a quick reward.



Summary::

In general, it means if something is profitable, don't do anything to screw it up. If a goose is laying golden eggs, collect the eggs and distribute the rewards fairly. Don't kill it in an attempt to increase short term profit by diluting the strength of the golden yolk. This strips away the opportunity for continued profit, no matter how many eggs   are handed out, the quality of the yolk will pale into insignificance where it is no longer profitable. A dead goose lays no eggs, golden or otherwise, but the yolk from the previous golden eggs remain forever visible upon the face of those who dared to steal and kill the golden goose.

Posting pictures of eggs on a so called professional fund managers website with no justifiable explanation reinforces PIF unit holders opinion of the ongoing  petty unprofessional lengths WC are prepared to associate themselves with. I have witnessed this type of behaviour many times before, but it has generally been associated with unprofessionals.

Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (20 July 2011)

An interesting article produced by McCullough Robertsons lawyers in April 2009:::

a warning on unilateral constitution changes by a responsible entity
http://www.mccullough.com.au/publications/publications.aspx?p=47&itm=2503


----------



## simgrund (20 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> An interesting article produced by McCullough Robertsons lawyers in April 2009:::
> 
> a warning on unilateral constitution changes by a responsible entity
> http://www.mccullough.com.au/publications/publications.aspx?p=47&itm=2503




A stellar example, seamisty. Rock solid for joining many other precedents to put forth in our case for RE change.
This particular egg of an WC is truly scrambled against Red Terror.

Cheers to all!


----------



## charles36 (20 July 2011)

WATERSHED DECISION RELATING TO RESPONSIBLE ENTITY'S POWER TO AMEND CONSTITUTION.

A release by McCullough Robertson, 19 July, 2011.


http://www.mccullough.com.au/publications/publications.aspx?p=47&itm=3207


----------



## aroach (20 July 2011)

charles36 said:


> WATERSHED DECISION RELATING TO RESPONSIBLE ENTITY'S POWER TO AMEND CONSTITUTION.
> 
> A release by McCullough Robertson, 19 July, 2011.
> 
> ...




There's a very interesting sentence in McCullough's note:
"Wellington then placed units to an *investor *at 10 cents per unit". (bold added by me)

It's either a slip of their keyboard, or the McCullough lawyer who wrote the note has inside information about the "sophisticated investor(s)" that we don't have. On face value it now appears there was only one investor involved in buying the units that WC placed...

Ashley


----------



## charles36 (20 July 2011)

Further to my post, 8306 I would personally and on behalf of the PIFAG like to thank Castlereagh Capital for all of their assistance in righting the wrong that was inflicted upon the unit holders of Wellington Capital PIF.  Clearly WC erred and as a result the fund increased from approximately 755 million units to 830 million units causing serious dilution of the value of units held by unit holders who were in the fund prior to the placement.  Unfortunately this could not be reversed and unit holders are stuck with the extra units.  Without the intervention of the PIFAG, with the assistance of CASCAP, the situation would have been far worse.  There would have been and increase firstly, 775 mill. to 830 mll. and then the rights issue adding a further 290 mill units bringing the total units in the fund to 1.2 billion units.  WC have notified unit holders that they intend to again introduce a special class of units in the near future.  This issue has to be further explained by WC.

Unit holders might consider their individual situations and consider whether the actions of WC is in their interest.  Hopefully, we will all be given a chance to again vote in the near future and hopefully the unit holders who failed to vote will feel the need to replace WC and cast their proxy accordingly.   The PIFAG members will be out in force seeking support of unit holders in the near future.  We are still seeking volunteers, there are many tasks that need to be undertaken, if you can spare some time to help, please contact Seamisty or myself.


----------



## charles36 (20 July 2011)

aroach said:


> There's a very interesting sentence in McCullough's note:
> "Wellington then placed units to an *investor *at 10 cents per unit". (bold added by me)
> 
> It's either a slip of their keyboard, or the McCullough lawyer who wrote the note has inside information about the "sophisticated investor(s)" that we don't have. On face value it now appears there was only one investor involved in buying the units that WC placed...
> ...




Ashley, there were a number of investors.  Sophisticated, who knows.


----------



## JohnH (20 July 2011)

charles36 said:


> Ashley, there were a number of investors.  Sophisticated, who knows.




............... but does that mean 1 plus 200 Charles?


----------



## charles36 (20 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> ............... but does that mean 1 plus 200 Charles?




Pick a number between one and twenty.


----------



## simgrund (20 July 2011)

aroach said:


> There's a very interesting sentence in McCullough's note:
> "Wellington then placed units to an *investor *at 10 cents per unit". (bold added by me)
> 
> It's either a slip of their keyboard, or the McCullough lawyer who wrote the note has inside information about the "sophisticated investor(s)" that we don't have. On face value it now appears there was only one investor involved in buying the units that WC placed...
> ...




Yes Ashley; when I read it off a printout it too stood out like a Kilimanjaro peak in a Redfern backyard. More than a slip of a tongue as eventually courts will pry Armstrong Register from Jenny's rigid armpit and a "sophisticated one' will be tarnished with the brush of Truth.
Watching Murdochs squirm during their public interrogation, I try to imagine Jenny on the griller sizzling merrily through a similar interrogation. Merriment won't last long when Judge Gordon's assertion of Member's rights will trump every time from now on.
Judge Dowsett; there's a clue in it for you.
Cheers,


----------



## atlas1950 (21 July 2011)

charles36 said:


> Pick a number between one and twenty.




Hi Charles36,

I fully support Castlereagh and the wonderful work the AG is doing for all of us.

I do think that Castlereagh should make a comment as to the latest court case. I feel as if, by not hearing from them, that we are left dangling, and not knowing where we stand. Perhaps they are working on a statement, but there silence is deafening. For what we poor unfortunate investors have been thru, I don't think it is too much to ask.

I would just like to know, in there opinion, if we still have any chances of removing WC,or are we dead in the water. 

atlas1950


----------



## seamisty (21 July 2011)

Legal dispute cuts into G8 net profit
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  July 21st, 2011


Chris Scott and Jenny Hutson.
A LEGAL stoush over a Singapore acquisition has shaved more than $2 million of G8 Education's profit expectations for the 2011 financial year.



http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/07/21/334095_gold-coast-business.html


----------



## faithnomore (21 July 2011)

Thank you atlas1950 I am sure your sentiments are exactly what a lot of us poor unfortunates are thinking




atlas1950 said:


> Hi Charles36,
> 
> I fully support Castlereagh and the wonderful work the AG is doing for all of us.
> 
> ...


----------



## JohnH (21 July 2011)

atlas1950 said:


> Hi Charles36,
> 
> I fully support Castlereagh and the wonderful work the AG is doing for all of us.
> 
> ...




Hi Atlas and Faithnomore,

 I have/had assumed that Castereagh are awaiting the Judges full report before commenting further.

However, I have just looked at https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/QUD140/2011/actions and although it shows are case as still "open"  it also lists as "finalised-Granted/Allowed".

I've asked before what the ramifications of "open" means, but, as yet, nobody seems to be able to enlighten us.

*:swear:*  John H.

*Having said all that, there is now way that we are going to let the matter rest!!!*


----------



## selciper (21 July 2011)

It's difficult not to agree with the sentiments of Atlas 1950. We are becalmed. I suppose, as it has been for years, that we again Godot-style have to wait and wait. Perhaps some light will be seen when the text of the full judgment is handed down. In the meantime, I ask myself how it's possible to attempt to stack an EGM without ensuing action from the authorities. It's a funny old world.


----------



## charles36 (21 July 2011)

selciper said:


> It's difficult not to agree with the sentiments of Atlas 1950. We are becalmed. I suppose, as it has been for years, that we again Godot-style have to wait and wait. Perhaps some light will be seen when the text of the full judgment is handed down. In the meantime, I ask myself how it's possible to attempt to stack an EGM without ensuing action from the authorities. It's a funny old world.




CasCap are like the rest of us, we await the Judiciary's pleasure.   No strategy nor decision can be made until we know what confronts us.  The main thing as far as I can see is we all maintain our firm commitment to remove WC.  Let us not forget that ASIC have the Regulatory Authority to remove an RE for many reasons and surely WC fall somewhere within this ambit.  The PIFAG have made a detailed complaint to ASIC and as no information has been received to the contrary it is assumed very serious attention is being paid to our concerns.  A very good friend one described to me his feelings about ASIC,  "Asic is like a slow moving elephant but once it gets moving it tramples everything in its way."

Let"s hope we hear those thundering feet shortly.


----------



## DepressedDad (21 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Legal dispute cuts into G8 net profit
> Nick Nichols, business editor   |  July 21st, 2011
> 
> 
> ...




I always wince up steeling myself ready for that face & that jacket but this one had me doing a double take.  Is her head TWICE the size of Chris' or what?? Looks like a caritature blown up head on tiny shoulders.  Has someone had fun with photoshop or is it just me?? Damn, I'll have to wait a while til dinner now.


----------



## DepressedDad (21 July 2011)

charles36 said:


> CasCap are like the rest of us, we await the Judiciary's pleasure.   No strategy nor decision can be made until we know what confronts us.  The main thing as far as I can see is we all maintain our firm commitment to remove WC.  Let us not forget that ASIC have the Regulatory Authority to remove an RE for many reasons and surely WC fall somewhere within this ambit.  The PIFAG have made a detailed complaint to ASIC and as no information has been received to the contrary it is assumed very serious attention is being paid to our concerns.  A very good friend one described to me his feelings about ASIC,  "Asic is like a slow moving elephant but once it gets moving it tramples everything in its way."
> 
> Let"s hope we hear those thundering feet shortly.




Yes, I agree Charles.  They have been embarrassingly and frustratingly inefficient and ineffective so far  BUT taking action on blatant & contrived abuse of power is their job and sooner or later they HAVE to do something here, especially in the light of recent activities that are indisputably not in the Unit holder's best interests. (We know they gathered information at the court.)

Hopefully the new boss will have a sense of work ethic & pride and in the near future their investigations will lead to actions that send a message that they are able and willing to protect law-abiding tax-paying citizens.


----------



## charles36 (22 July 2011)

I have a lot of trouble coming to grips with the hide of WC. They take action to stop the PIFAG holding the EGM because 119 unit holders were not contacted by the AG.  I said before that there is evidence these persons were contacted in three ways.  However, please consider this, how possibly could the PIFAG notify the 200 hired hands who were only placed on the register, even before they themselves new they were unit holders, on the day of the meeting.  I know we are good but not that good.  These people, according to WC,  were eligible to vote but they had not been given any documentation by WC, other than the notification that they were now unit holders, transfer forms and pink proxies forms.  They were also told how to vote and why.  (The PIFAG were not being fair)  By not providing the newfound members with appropriate information is that acting in their interests, let alone the interest of all other unit holders?  I don't think so, you might say "I know so."   The PIFAG were not given any opportunity to forward any documents to these newly enlisted unit holders.  How is that fair and  what about the protestations of WC taking action against the PIFAG for unintentionally missing 119 unit holders.  There is also a suggestion that at least 30 persons from the Creswick. Victoria area also attended the class of 200 and received similar treatment.  I would like WC to explain how this vote buying exercise was in the interests of unit holders in the WC PIF.  Now there is a challenge, anyone care to help?


----------



## breaker1 (22 July 2011)

I am still staggered by the "ring ins" at the 23 June EGM 

The main argument Wellington used to halt the 14 July EGM at the court hearings was the missing of 119 PIF investors with Memorandum notification of same EGM. 

Your observation Charles36 on the "ring ins" shows up, in my opinion, a certain amount of duplicity in that main argument


----------



## Sutho81 (22 July 2011)

charles36 said:


> I have a lot of trouble coming to grips with the hide of WC. They take action to stop the PIFAG holding the EGM because 119 unit holders were not contacted by the AG.  I said before that there is evidence these persons were contacted in three ways.  However, please consider this, how possibly could the PIFAG notify the 200 hired hands who were only placed on the register, even before they themselves new they were unit holders, on the day of the meeting.  I know we are good but not that good.  These people, according to WC,  were eligible to vote but they had not been given any documentation by WC, other than the notification that they were now unit holders, transfer forms and pink proxies forms.  They were also told how to vote and why.  (The PIFAG were not being fair)  By not providing the newfound members with appropriate information is that acting in their interests, let alone the interest of all other unit holders?  I don't think so, you might say "I know so."   The PIFAG were not given any opportunity to forward any documents to these newly enlisted unit holders.  How is that fair and  what about the protestations of WC taking action against the PIFAG for unintentionally missing 119 unit holders.  There is also a suggestion that at least 30 persons from the Creswick. Victoria area also attended the class of 200 and received similar treatment.  I would like WC to explain how this vote buying exercise was in the interests of unit holders in the WC PIF.  Now there is a challenge, anyone care to help?




I am no lawyer but I am rational enough to realise that Wellington ensured all unit holders got a proxy form and hence were well informed. I believe the PIFAG is indirectly responsible as they forced Wellingtons hand to send out proxies themself.

Is there a way we can challenge the court ruling and make an appeal based on the illegal activities of Wellington. We could easily argue that Wellington sought to maliciously and deliberatly sabotage the meeting by their actions.


----------



## seamisty (22 July 2011)

Charles36 Perhaps the delay in Justice Dowsett completeing his judgement is because he is carefully researching all the documented evidence which was produced on behalf of the PIFAG and he is realising just how manipulative and deceiving the current PIF Responsible Entity is? Hopefully even judges keep up with the media, especially articles relating to current legal cases. I am still receiving calls from PIF unitholders and others who cannot believe the behaviour exercised by or on behalf of Wellington Capital related associates and the lack of intervention to date by our judiciary system and other regulatory bodies.
On another note, I sent the following to Wellington CapitasMs Hutson and Ms Snowl on Monday, but it appears to have been misplaced or perhaps WC staff have all been deployed to Forest Resort to mow the grass in preparation for the big PGA golf tournament::::

Dear Ms Hutson and Ms Snow,
Just to refresh your memories:
The following is a copy of the duties and responsibilities of the PIF's Compliance Committee which consists of the current mmbers::

Mary-Anne Greaves (internal member)



Phillip Wibaux (external member)



Troy Outerbridge (external member)



The functions of the Compliance Committee are governed by the Fund’s Compliance Plan and include:

monitoring compliance with the Compliance Plan and reporting its findings to the directors of the responsible entity at such times it considers necessary or desirable or the directors of the responsible entity require;


as soon as practicable, reporting to the board of any breach of the Corporations Act involving the Fund or a provision of the Constitution of which it becomes aware or that it suspects;

as soon as practicable, reporting to ASIC if the Compliance Committee is of the view that the responsible entity has not taken or does not propose to take appropriate action to deal with any issue so reported;

assessing annually (unless otherwise determined by the Compliance Committee) whether the Compliance Plans are adequate;


reporting on the adequacy of, and making recommendations to the board of the responsible entity about amendments to the Compliance Plans at such times as it considers necessary or desirable; and doing such other things as the Corporations Act requires.

In carrying out its functions, the Compliance Committee may commission independent legal ,accounting or other professional advice or assistance, at the reasonable expense of the Fund.

The duties of the members of the Compliance Committee are, to the extent that the Corporations Actand ASIC policy require, to:


act honestly;


exercise the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person would exercise if theywere in the member’s position;


not make use of information acquired through being a Compliance Committee member to


either gain an improper advantage for the member or another person or cause detriment t othe Fund;


not make improper us eof their position as a Compliance Committee member to gain (directly or indirectly) an advantage for themselves or for any other person or cause


detriment to the Fund; anddo such other things as the Corporations Act requires them to do, and not do such things as it prohibits them from doing.


In view of the fact that both yourself, Jenny Hutson, and Mary-Anne Greaves as PIF directors both signed off on the document below to amend the constitution which was later ruled as a breach of the existing constitution by Justice Gordon as it did not comply with section 601 of the Corporations Act and was revoked, should this not have been brought to ASICs attention by our compliance committee? Isn't it a conflict of interest and a serious breach of duties to have a compliance committee member, Mary-Anne Greaves who is also a director of the PIF sign off on an ammended deed poll which was ruled invalid ?

http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pi...ease - change to constitution_10 may 2011.pdf



Seamisty


----------



## zixo (22 July 2011)

200 hired Actors at the sydney egm - fake protestors outside WC building in 2008.
The 30 golfers who attended the meeting in Sydney and then somehow the resort seems to snaffle the Victorian PGA?
coward Reation group letters sent to all investors with up the date client list?
The fact that WC havent assisted or persued in a class action which just happened to be one of the reasons they were voted in?
the fund evaporating money?
Registry impartiality?
phonecalls from a radar investor relations misinforming investors?
75 million shares secretly allocated to Sophisticated investors? 
court action against your very own investors?
Ghost investor advisory vote?
raptis? geo? woolongong?  

....We can go on and on and on.

I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone who ever reads this thread and is even the slightest bit informed, or cares, can honestly believe that WC are working in the best interests of Investors.....but some do....WHY?

Thats the question I'd like answered.


----------



## k.smith (22 July 2011)

breaker1 said:


> I am still staggered by the "ring ins" at the 23 June EGM
> 
> The main argument Wellington used to halt the 14 July EGM at the court hearings was the missing of 119 PIF investors with Memorandum notification of same EGM.
> 
> Your observation Charles36 on the "ring ins" shows up, in my opinion, a certain amount of duplicity in that main argument




I have been looking at some paperwork regarding transfers....

In 2007, new "Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Legislation " came into effect. 

Reading the paperwork that I have, it seems that "we" (being the fund management) must *verify the identity of all new investors into the fund*, a process " similar to the 100 point check system already in use by other financial institutions''

Could new investors be on the registry without passing the points check ?


----------



## k.smith (22 July 2011)

k.smith said:


> I have been looking at some paperwork regarding transfers....
> 
> In 2007, new "Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Legislation " came into effect.
> 
> ...




for clarity, when I say "we" I am  quoting the wording on a document that I received from a manager in another fund...


----------



## simgrund (23 July 2011)

charles36 said:


> I have a lot of trouble coming to grips with the hide of WC. They take action to stop the PIFAG holding the EGM because 119 unit holders were not contacted by the AG.  I said before that there is evidence these persons were contacted in three ways.  However, please consider this, how possibly could the PIFAG notify the 200 hired hands who were only placed on the register, even before they themselves new they were unit holders, on the day of the meeting.  I know we are good but not that good.  These people, according to WC,  were eligible to vote but they had not been given any documentation by WC, other than the notification that they were now unit holders, transfer forms and pink proxies forms.  They were also told how to vote and why.  (The PIFAG were not being fair)  By not providing the newfound members with appropriate information is that acting in their interests, let alone the interest of all other unit holders?  I don't think so, you might say "I know so."   The PIFAG were not given any opportunity to forward any documents to these newly enlisted unit holders.  How is that fair and  what about the protestations of WC taking action against the PIFAG for unintentionally missing 119 unit holders.  There is also a suggestion that at least 30 persons from the Creswick. Victoria area also attended the class of 200 and received similar treatment.  I would like WC to explain how this vote buying exercise was in the interests of unit holders in the WC PIF.  Now there is a challenge, anyone care to help?




Thank you charles36 for this precis of *JH BASTARDRY*. It was soooo obvious to any level thinking "reasonable man" that the "induction" of "new investors" would be for the *SOLE PURPOSE* of crutching up Jenny's support at the crucial moment of a vote to oust her.
I castigated Judge Dowsett in a couple of earlier posts; by deliberately mis-spelling his name, for not including 2 questions: 
*"Who are these New Investors?"* & *"Was an updated Armstrong Register made available to PIFAG in line with ASIC guidelines?".*
The *FRAUD* would have well been exposed right there and then.
I restore JD's correct spelling by hoping that his continuing investigation will produce
the ONLY conclusion possible in the light of existing damning evidence.
And he must access Weekend Australian July 16-17 article to nail the stake into WC for good. 
Don't worry Judge, the *red coat* is not armour-plated. Tthe stake will go right through!
Again, *huge thank you to THE TEAM*. The horizon is appearing.
Warmest,


----------



## selciper (23 July 2011)

This is one definition of the verb 'dissolve': To cause to disappear or vanish; dispel. 

Perhaps the 'stacking of meeting' is in line to be caused to disappear too, just like the meeting has vanished. Can you stack a meeting that is later shown not to exist?


----------



## seamisty (24 July 2011)

Here is an interesting article re Firepower on just how useless ASIC are. Investors in the PIF know only too well the frustrations reflected in this article. Three and a half years on and we are still waiting on ASIC to act!!!!

How fraudsters can easily bring the watchdog to heel
July 24, 2011 


 Four years after a huge fraud was exposed, ASIC is celebrating a relatively technical victory about the way the Firepower gang sold shares. ASIC did hesitate to act - not moving until the game was pretty much over, just as it failed to move on Storm Financial until it was kaput.

But the surreal aspect is that ASIC and the legal system treats Firepower as if it was something like a real enterprise instead of a fraud.

Banning Tim Johnston from managing companies for 20 years would have been like banning Ronald Biggs in absentia from catching trains.

ASIC has nothing to be proud of in the Firepower matter. It is belatedly tidying up a mess it allowed to blossom


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/how-...ring-the-watchdog-to-heel-20110723-1hu5a.html


----------



## Jadel (24 July 2011)

Seamisty 

 The Watchmites mandate is to act in only what they perceive to be in the public interest 

 It  is such a broad interpretation of enforcing the so called, Corporations Act ,that in borders on absurdity .

I have stated before that the Corporations Act is no more than a Mission Statement, Brownies Honour Code or Wish List . It is open to all sorts of interpretation and exploitation by high profile lawyers.

 This point was made personally to  Bernie Ripoll who chairs the  Financial Services Committee  ,and I can inform you that he did not disagree.


----------



## Jadel (24 July 2011)

zixo said:


> 200 hired Actors at the sydney egm - fake protestors outside WC building in 2008.
> The 30 golfers who attended the meeting in Sydney and then somehow the resort seems to snaffle the Victorian PGA?
> coward Reation group letters sent to all investors with up the date client list?
> The fact that WC havent assisted or persued in a class action which just happened to be one of the reasons they were voted in?
> ...




  Zixo 

 As you have previously stated the fact of the matter is that only a very small percentage of investors actually read ASF and therefore are not fully informed on exactly what is taking place with our Fund .

The recent article in the Australian was excellent, however once again I suspect that only a fraction of investors will ever get to read that account.

I do not know how many people attended the CasCap information sessions .   I can verify that approximately 20 investors attended in Brisbane , and that the majority of these investors  were already committed to voting for CASCAP .

 Compare this to the stage managed presentations by WC , attended by thousands of investors where Jenny H presented herself as the saviour of our Fund.

I think it is fair to comment that Flying two CasCap executives to Brisbane, was not a well-organized exercise in getting the message across to investors  , to say the least .


----------



## seamisty (24 July 2011)

Quote Jade l"I thnk it is fair to comment that Flying two CasCap executives to Brisbane, was not a well-organized exercise in getting the message across to investors , to say the least"

Jadel, In the absence of any other better alternative RE  to date who has been willing to put their hand in their pocket on our behalf,  I think it fair to say that under the circumstances we are lucky that CasCap has supported us as much as they have.

Wellington Capital Ltd was paid $3.75million directly from the coffers of Octaviar, the same company who it appears had already robbed the PIF blind, (a fact that would have been known to WC), to cover PIF operating expenses and the cost of conducting the forums. This money was paid to WC even though WC had professed to having purchased (HAHA show us the proof!)the PIF shares held by Octaviar. 

My point is,  Wellington capital was PAID to take on the PIF. If it was such a basket case as investors were led to believe, why was WC (and still are) so hell bent on hanging on to the fund by any dishonest way imaginable? Because the PIF is the cash cow propping up Wellington Capitals other ailing subsiduaries and paying the wages and maintaining the lifestyles of all those associated hanger oners who don't give a rats about anyone but themselves. 

I sincerely hope CasCap are prepared to help us take this further, they have invested substantially on our behalf already with nothing to show for it but an insight as to what a bunch of lowlifes we have to deal with.
Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (24 July 2011)

I merely make the point that we may have a problem when it  comes  to the most effective method of disseminating  certain facts concerning our fund  .

Zixo is astounded as to why so many investors continue to support WC , and rightly so

As we are all aware ,from prior personal experience, some individuals do not easily change their minds  once they have formed an opinion


----------



## charles36 (24 July 2011)

Jadel said:


> I merely make the point that we may have a problem when it  comes  to the most effective method of disseminating  certain facts concerning our fund  .
> 
> Zixo is astounded as to why so many investors continue to support WC , and rightly so
> 
> As we are all aware ,from prior personal experience, some individuals do not easily change their minds  once they have formed an opinion




Attention has been drawn to CasCap and I would just like to say, who let CasCap down, was it the unit holders, the PIFAG or people who could have helped organise the meeting but sat on their hands and did nothing.  Now is not the time to hold post mortems.  I look forward to all the people  (unit holders and volunteers) to join together at the appropriate time to gather the support necessary to topple WC which so many unit holders have no confidence.  Who said the last attempt was not a success on the part of PIFAG and others to garner the necessary support to oust WC.  We were up front and provided our proxies to an independent registry and even on the alleged numbers "cobbled"  together by WC, I believe we would have one if both side's proxies were scrutinised by Computershare, a totally independent company.


----------



## zixo (24 July 2011)

In my opinion up till now we've been failed by the law and the justice system that governs this country regarding the premium Income fund. 
Its easier for the authorities and people to stand by and let others do the hard yards  rather than becoming involved or actually giving a damn.

How many people have pestered their federal members of parliament or lodged a complaint with ASIC? 

Had justice allowed the meeting to take place on the 14th of July. Theres little doubt cascap would be explaining very clearly and concisely what has happened to the fund since wellington were handed the controls by Octaviar.

The reason that Wellington took the actions they did when confronted with an EGM and investor revolt was because Perhaps the books they are in trust of would indeed show that preserving the interests of the former directors was paramount. Thats we had to repay loans which suddenly appeared in the fund and the books may just well show the fact that the lack of accounting for how these things happened has to be explained.

How can anyone think that up to this point that The law in this country is an ass.
We're to blame for allowing corrupt behavior to go un-answered and doing nothing at all levels.

Lets see how justice Dowsett sees things.  Perhaps he isnt wearing the Mr Magoo glasses like everyone else.


----------



## seamisty (24 July 2011)

In my opinion, Wellington Capital Ltd owes the PIF approx $18million for wrongly ammending the constituition by deed poll, which permitted the issue of 75.5 million new units at a heavily discounted price which could not be cancelled, causing a dilution to existing unitholders. 
Does anyone think it worth asking our one unknown IAC member to table a proposal on behalf of unitholders that WC compensate the Fund for their behaviour which was ruled not in the best interests of existing unitholders by Justice Gordon?
 Does anyone think that our Compliance Committee would have lodged a complaint with ASIC in relation o the same issue?
Does anyone who voted for WC still think that WC are working in the best interests of unit holders?
Oh and by the way, I am still waiting for a response from Wellington capital from a week ago for the following:


Dear Ms Hutson and Ms Snow,

PIF AG members would like some more detail relating to the NSX announcement http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724211.PDF  regarding the PGA contract with Forest Resort as it lacks important details.



At what cost to the PIF is the annual contract fee?

It appears the golf course is not currently up to PGA championship standard, how much does WC envisage it will cost the PIF to upgrade the facility to host such an event?

What nett annual financial benefit to the PIF does WC envisage this contract will bring after all expenses are deducted?

The Forest Resort is currently  part of an active marketing campaign, it is well known  in the golfing paternity that other venues which have hosted similar events have done so at a substantial financial loss. Knowing the Forest Resort is locked into a 5 year contract to host a two tier golf event which are renowned for not drawing large crowds, wouldn't this be seen as a potential financial burden for any prospective purchaser?



The Forest Resort is involved in current litigation with the original developer and WC relating to premature foreclosure. Should it be proved that WC were negligent in their duties by invalidly appointing Korda Mentha where does the PIF stand with an outstanding 5 year contract?

Simple but relevant questions yes? Why is it SO DIFFICULT then for Wellington Capital, with all their so called  transparency of late to answer such simple questions if they are indeed focussed on working in the best interests of PIF unitholders as they would like to delude some into believing?
Surely these questions would have been original concerns addressed by a diligent responsible entity before such a contract would have been signed off on?
 So many unanswered questions are of real concern, are the answers so bad WC are reluctant to provide them or is the WC team embarrassed because they have no answers?
 Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (24 July 2011)

Refer Seamisty's post #8337 above.

Thanks, Seamisty, for keeping track of the many issues and history of what's happened to the PIF.

I'm assuming many of your questions above are rhetorical in nature since it seems that the "supposed" IAC...are faceless people, if they ever did exist. And look at who is on the Compliance Committee; we certainly can't expect them to act in our best interests, can we?  We should be able to but obviously not in our case.

The judge could have stipulated that WC had to reimburse the fund for the damage done to it by the placement of 75.5 million units since she determined it was done in contravention of the Corporations Act; she just couldn't figure out how to undo the damage done. WC owes the PIF the amount by which she willingly, knowingly and wrongfully diluted the investment of the original unitholders. 

Lots of valid questions about the golf tournament and cost to the PIF need to be answered by WC. It seems absurd to take on sponsoring such an event when it's obvious WC is winding up the PIF as fast as possible.

What more does WC have to do to PIF investors before ASIC will do its job?

I applaud and thank Castlereagh Capital for all they've done for us and the financial backing they've given the PIF Action Group Inc and hope and pray they will continue with us in this challenge to replace WC. There's no way we could have come this far without them. As Charles36 says, we need all the help we can get when we're ready to take the next step in our quest to rid ourselves of the plague that beset us 3 years ago.

Cookie1


----------



## simgrund (25 July 2011)

zixo said:


> In my opinion up till now we've been failed by the law and the justice system that governs this country regarding the premium Income fund. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------How can anyone think that up to this point that The law in this country is an ass.  We're to blame for allowing corrupt behavior to go un-answered and doing nothing at all levels.
> Lets see how justice Dowsett sees things.  Perhaps he isnt wearing the Mr Magoo glasses like everyone else.




Unfortunately, a 20/20 vision of our venerated Judiciary was not academically achieved by the current panel of adjudicators on the conduct of our incalcitrant wrongdoers.

From abovementioned article by Andrew MAIN, Weekend Australian 16-17 July:

[Justice Dowsett commented that the scheme involving the extras was "rent a no vote... or rent an entitlemnt to vote" but has not expressed a formal view of the extras scheme.]

The Wrongdoers of this world have Just said a huge "thank you" for this gem of judicial prevarication. It is your job, Judge, and duty to adjudicate at those crucial moments of impaired visions.

To continue:
[But he ruled on Wednesday July 13 that the meeting had not been validly called. That was because the group which it, the PIF Action Group had not used an up-to-date-share register in (sic) circulating members.] 
[Justice Dowsett refused to allow the last-minute, backdated registration to be called a fraud, but conceded that it was a "possible irregularity on the register".

"Possible" you muse, "Possible"??? 
Where did the collective accumulation of FRAUD DEFINITIONS, encrusted by countless Precedents for you to access, gone to ??? 

Thousands, 10,000 plus,  continue to suffer. On the brink of personal fatalities up to and including losses of lives, while you Judge, practice a personal role in this Theatre of the Absurd that is this blighted Australian Judiciary.* 
A role of "Protector" of less than 200 in no financial abyss to speak of.

With protection  like this for the Wrongdoers; who needs Mafia. 

As another week stretches our endurance further towards its end point, I urge you Justice D not to make me go back to mis-spelling your name.
Make this week of Deliberations count towards your redemption in our eyes.

Patience Jenny; I will get back to you as soon as I get this important message to Judge Doubtsett.

Zixo, anyone,
Can I get advice on how to access Judge's net-site to send this post along.
Seems to be the "in-thing".

**(Singo getting off speeding charge; now there's an enduring and oft followed Precedent)*

-


----------



## ASICK (25 July 2011)

zixo said:


> In my opinion up till now we've been failed by the law and the justice system that governs this country regarding the premium Income fund.
> Its easier for the authorities and people to stand by and let others do the hard yards  rather than becoming involved or actually giving a damn. ...




I'm sorry that you think that the legal system let you down.   I take the view that it didn't make any sense to take a 'head in the sand' approach to  W.C.'s claims.  

There is no point blaming the justice system (which will decide on strict points of law) when the issues should have been resolved before the meeting proceeded with in any case.

I think the best that can be hoped for is  that both parties leave the court with wins and wounds, but there's no harm in wishing for a miracle.


----------



## seamisty (25 July 2011)

Hopefully  Justice Dowsett will hand down his decision today.

25-Jul-2011 

10:15

Judgment

Justice Dowsett

Court No. 1, Level 7


----------



## simgrund (25 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> I'm sorry that you think that the legal system let you down.   I take the view that it didn't make any sense to take a 'head in the sand' approach to  W.C.'s claims.
> 
> There is no point blaming the justice system (which will decide on strict points of law) when the issues should have been resolved before the meeting proceeded with in any case.
> 
> I think the best that can be hoped for is  that both parties leave the court with wins and wounds, but there's no harm in wishing for a miracle.




So ASICK, in your view the Magistrate who let the driver off on a drink-drive charge (4x the legal limit, a recent case)  is not to be blamed because he views the driver as a "good person" ??? 
The bleeding "do-gooders" tweeked another girdle in the human engineering structure of an "up-yours" Aussie.
Would you agree that such impunity leaves community in further danger.
Tear shed,


----------



## ASICK (25 July 2011)

simgrund said:


> So ASICK, in your view the Magistrate who let the driver off on a drink-drive charge (4x the legal limit, a recent case)  is not to be blamed because he views the driver as a "good person" ???
> The bleeding "do-gooders" tweeked another girdle in the human engineering structure of an "up-yours" Aussie.
> Would you agree that such impunity leaves community in further danger.
> Tear shed,




First I would say that it makes NO SENSE to criticize the judiciary BEFORE a decision is to be handed down - what sense would it make to offend the judge?  In fact, I couldn't think of anything more counter-productive. 

Second, you cannot compare a decision from a Magistrates Court with one from the Federal Court.  Magistrates have broads discretionary powers in many matters which come before them.

Third,  you have to accept the claim was in the system and your side knew it was there.  To my mind, it was like sailing a ship over a mine hoping that it was dud.

I remain with the view that it was a mistake in judgement to continue on with the meeting while the court case was pending, a mistake which members should accept and move on - otherwise it would be to wrongly externalize blame, like the guy who kicks a rock and says "bl**dy rock". 

Your ship sailed, and the mine wasn't a dud.


----------



## flatback (25 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> First I would say that it makes NO SENSE to criticize the judiciary BEFORE a decision is to be handed down - what sense would it make to offend the judge?  In fact, I couldn't think of anything more counter-productive.
> 
> Second, you cannot compare a decision from a Magistrates Court with one from the Federal Court.  Magistrates have broads discretionary powers in many matters which come before them.
> 
> ...



My thoughts exactly asick, to many of these people,on to many occassions have blamed everybody else, as i have said in a previous thread our barristers should have been aware of these issues before we went ahead.
Flatback


----------



## Sutho81 (25 July 2011)

Isnt it amazing that there is no news updates from Wellignton on the NSX website about what they are doing!

I mean before the judgement was announced they were making announcements left right and centre trying to make it look like they were doing something for our fund.

Now we are entering the waiting period before any decisions can be made and look what happens. As per usual no announcements from Wellington and as per usual nothing is getting done with our fund apart from being drained by Hutson of funds for the past 3 years.


----------



## zixo (25 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> First I would say that it makes NO SENSE to criticize the judiciary BEFORE a decision is to be handed down - what sense would it make to offend the judge?  In fact, I couldn't think of anything more counter-productive.
> 
> Second, you cannot compare a decision from a Magistrates Court with one from the Federal Court.  Magistrates have broads discretionary powers in many matters which come before them.
> 
> ...




Asick, You seem to be better informed about how the justice system hasn't failed the investors of the premium income fund. 
From the day MFS imploded Till this day regardless of the countless complaints sent to asic, They have failed to act or inform investors on every single complaint made by unitholders. 
ALWAYS erring and protecting the group who is holding our fund in trust....why?

From what I understand you seem to be an advisor who has no doubt got an interest in what we write here because of your friend who is a unitholder. Yet you seem to find fault whenever we/I simply ask for justice to be done when its sought and for for questions to be answered when they are asked.

I may have to refer to your insight how I could possibly get some of my questions answered because I sure as hell cant get them answered by anyone at wc or asic or anyone else in the know.

The prime source of information for me is whats posted here on the ASF by those dedicated and committed to doing the right thing by everyone regardless if they are an action group member. There is no-one else protecting our interests, is there? 

In those few weeks that cascap were vying for the vote I got more answers to questions than three years of wellingtons who are suppossed to be looking after our fund and whos job it is to inform investors.
I don't trust wellington capital anymore ...do you?

Are you protecting wellington capital? Do you think Wellington are doing a good job managing whats left of our fund and are they acting in the best interest of unitholders?


----------



## simgrund (25 July 2011)

flatback said:


> My thoughts exactly asick, to many of these people,on to many occassions have blamed everybody else, as i have said in a previous thread our barristers should have been aware of these issues before we went ahead.
> Flatback




Agh!  
The harpers are outing themselves.
The Doubtsett brigade convenening for the purpose of "balance" straight from 
political correctness manual !?!?!?!?!?!?! 
Whether a Magistrate or a Judge; understandings of Ethics must pass the SAME STANDARD. 
To which us, mere plebeians that we are, the Fate does not bind.
Lucky you.
Cheers,


----------



## Harald (25 July 2011)

simgrund said:


> Agh!
> The harpers are outing themselves.
> The Doubtsett brigade convenening for the purpose of "balance" straight from
> political correctness manual !?!?!?!?!?!?!
> ...




Good on You Simgrund, I absolut agree!!!!!!


----------



## ASICK (25 July 2011)

simgrund said:


> Agh!
> The harpers are outing themselves.
> The Doubtsett brigade convenening for the purpose of "balance" straight from
> political correctness manual !?!?!?!?!?!?!
> ...




What's your point?  Who's failed your 'ethics test'?


----------



## Harald (25 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> What's your point?  Who's failed your 'ethics test'?




Why do You ask? It is so obvious!!

How can Yoy blame again CasCap for proceeding with the meeting.
They had to hold it. It had been called and JH would have hold the meeting
at the Grace with those rent ins and would have claimed victory.

Could it be the case that You are symphatetic to JH and disappointed that she 
didn't have success?


----------



## ASICK (25 July 2011)

Harald said:


> Why do You ask? It is so obvious!!
> 
> How can Yoy blame again CasCap for proceeding with the meeting.
> They had to hold it. It had been called and JH would have hold the meeting
> ...




I'm sorry to see that you seem to have developed an irrational belief that everyone who doesn't agree with you is somehow aligned with the manager of your fund. 

"How can you blame ... CasCap for proceeding with the meeting."?   Well, easy - very easy - they continued on with the meeting while a trial on the Notice was pending.

There was a claim by Wellington Capital that the Notice of Meeting was defective - what is the point of having the meeting and then risk having a judge rule the meeting invalid because the Notice was defective?

It wasn't just CasCap's costs that were at risk, but also the travel and other expenses of members of your fund - members deserve certainty.  Many of your members are now out of pocket, money some might have found difficult to expend but did so because of the call by members to other members to attend the meeting.   Even the stop/start of the change of date may have cost members extra.

The only way certainty could be ensured was to resolve the legal issues which your side had notice of.     Actually (as I've previously posted), I was surprised that the judge didn't press the parties to conclude the legal proceeding before members would meet.

Cascap's costs are tax deductible but I'll bet for those investors on a low income stream there's no such benefit for them.

Maybe the cost of attending the meeting was nothing to you, but to others, even tax deductible, was still expensive.

You ask why I ask the obvious? Well, beause I don't get the gist of your argument - is it that the court lacks ethics? if so, which court/s? and what are the ethics so lacking?  

You seem to be avoiding the issues and shooting the messenger.


----------



## Duped (25 July 2011)

Meanwhile over on the NSX. Buying support appears to have started drying up from around the time of Justice Dowsett's decision. Will we see the price drop to 5.6c?


----------



## charles36 (25 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> I'm sorry to see that you seem to have developed an irrational belief that everyone who doesn't agree with you is somehow aligned with the manager of your fund.
> 
> "How can you blame ... CasCap for proceeding with the meeting."?   Well, easy - very easy - they continued on with the meeting while a trial on the Notice was pending.
> 
> ...




Asick, I am loathe to buy into this issue but as you have obviously read the judgment could you please enlighten us all with your version of what His Honour has determined.  I do not and never will shoot the messenger.  I was at the meeting and heard what was said.  Did you attend the meeting in question?  Also you continue to give us the benefit of your thoughts which is appreciated.  Do you have any particular message for legitimate unit holders in relation to the so called "renta crowd."  Is this course of conduct permissible and was it a benefit to all unit holders or just for the benefit of WC?


----------



## simgrund (25 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> What's your point?  Who's failed your 'ethics test'?




Aagh again!
An outsider spoiling for a fight.
Other threads through which you prowl don't excite nor fulfill your primordial 
needs to obstruct for the sake of obstructing, egh?
Well Ken, or Shmen, or Wren or any other whistle you respond to: 
I don't, as a principle, indulge in impenetrable imbecility.
You will have to earn your right to snare anyone into word-i-cuffs with you. 
Here's your right of passage.

Firstly, analyse and explain the following passages to the puzzled folk of this thread:

[I don't have too much experience with meetings, but I would say that it's better to let the manager run the meeting at the fund's expense. It seems to me, that if you can't win the proxies, then you can't win anyway. Of course, it's a different proposition if a show of hands is required to win the day.]

*you need to show why the writer thinks that a Manager targeted for replacement should be the Chair*

[In my view, all effort should be directed to communication with members, both in writing/email and phone (particularly in writing/email). If the proxies aren't favourable, then the day is lost.]

*you need to show why the writer thinks it is necessary to state such bleatingly obvious truth to an intelligent audience *

[If it is the case that members feel uncomfortable with the fund's registry (even any level of distrust is a sad state of affairs), then the action group could simply ask members to direct their proxy to the fund's registry and cc to Castlereagh Capital?]

*you need to show writer's star gazing qualifications
*
[From an outsider's perspective, I think there's been too much effort on chairing the meeting in circumstances where the meeting itself probably wouldn't have shifted sentiment one iota (IMO).] 

*you need to explain why the writer, as an Outsider, meddles in affairs he has not one iota of expertise in.
*
And a closing general question: Why writer predicates many of his/her pronouncements with "if".
After all: "IF" man's nipples could lactate, how different the world would be.

Please feel free to take all the time you need to provide requested analysis


With hearty cheers,


----------



## Duped (25 July 2011)

ASICK. WC's NSX announcement of 22 June at a second before 10:47am:

http://nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724126.PDF

*"Meeting scheduled for 23 June 2011*
Wellington Capital has agreed not to proceed with its interlocutory proceedings in the Federal Court. The Court ordered that the interlocutory proceeding be dismissed.
The consequence is that tomorrow’s meeting of Unitholders, will proceed as planned as follows:
*23 June 2011 at 11.00am
Pinaroo Room,
77 York Street, Sydney*
Jenny Hutson, Chairperson of Wellington Capital as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund said:
_‘it is my view that the ultimate decision making body is the members in general meeting. I look forward to Unitholders having the opportunity to consider the resolutions put forward in the notice of 16 May 2011.’_ "

Would you agree that dropping the interlocutory proceedings and then making such a statement could lead the market to believe that WC's claims against the meeting would be completely dropped?  If so, then isn't it illegal to mislead the market?

Why drop the interlocutory proceedings to stop the meeting going ahead if you have no intention of dropping claims the meeting was invalidly called? That's the question the market would have asked?


----------



## zixo (25 July 2011)

Asick,

I'm curious on watching you answer Charles36 question

Just to get the record straight - exactly what affiliation do you have with this fund and with wellington?  

You're obviously well versed in the nature of predictive law,  perhaps you can answer some of my earlier queries now that you seem to have gathered an audience. I'd be happy to wait my turn.


----------



## ASICK (25 July 2011)

charles36 said:


> Asick, I am loathe to buy into this issue but as you have obviously read the judgment could you please enlighten us all with your version of what His Honour has determined.  I do not and never will shoot the messenger.  I was at the meeting and heard what was said.  Did you attend the meeting in question?  Also you continue to give us the benefit of your thoughts which is appreciated.  Do you have any particular message for legitimate unit holders in relation to the so called "renta crowd."  Is this course of conduct permissible and was it a benefit to all unit holders or just for the benefit of WC?




All I know is that the judge has already found that the Notice was defective and _ipso facto_, the meeting was invalid.  What happened at the meeting has nothing to do with the Notice for the meeting.

The 'rent-a-crowd' allegations are a separate matter and members should not combine the two - one will not offset the other (IMO).

I can't speak to the ligitimacy of the issuance of units on that day - but if the court doesn't find J.H.'s 'fingerprints' on the deal then it's unlikely she's face any difficulty.

I'm not sure that the registry company is going to fare so well, but that will be subject to the provisions of the Corporations Act ("the act").  You'll probably all be aware that the act doesn't cover all the angles, and that legislators normally move to close the loopholes after the holes have been very well 'exercised' (so to speak).

I somehow get the view that some/many members on this forum feel that any wrongdoing (if so found) by W.C. or another assoicated entity will somehow bring the meeting back to life, but as far as I'm concerned, that will not be the case.

I posted before that both sides might have 'wins' and 'wounds' - that is, on the one hand, your side will win some points over the 'rent-a-crowd' issues, while wounded by the meeting being found invalid, while on the other hand, W.C. might win over the meeting, but be wounded on the other issues.

Since the judge has already handed down a finding on the Notice being defective, it is unlikely he would overturn his own decision - still, the issue is open to appeal: every finding is open to appeal - the matter could go on for quite some time.


----------



## ASICK (25 July 2011)

Duped said:


> ASICK. WC's NSX announcement of 22 June at a second before 10:47am:
> 
> http://nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724126.PDF
> 
> ...




First - I'll piont out that I don't practice law - so any view I express is simply my own opinion.  

An interlocutory proceeding is a pre-trial proceeding and whether it is continued or discontinued has no bearing on whether a trial is proceeded with, unless of course it's a successful motion to strike out the claim.

As to the notice on the NSX - I think the notice is correct.  It is not W.C. calling the meeting and CasCap sought to proceed in the face of the continuing claim by W.C. at its' own risk.

For me, I wouldn't have proceeded with the meeting before resolving the legal claims before the court - the risks would be too high, and furthermore, there would no certainty for unitholders.

Look, it's a judgement call, and CasCap made a judgement probably based on the view that they had a good answer to W.C. claims, but I think CasCap should have looked at the potential affects on investors and the losses they stood to suffer if the Notice turned out to be defective.

Again, these are only my personal opinions, which may, or may not, have merit.


----------



## NOR (25 July 2011)

simgrund said:


> Aagh again!
> An outsider spoiling for a fight.
> Other threads through which you prowl don't excite nor fulfill your primordial
> needs to obstruct for the sake of obstructing, egh?
> ...




wow ...SIMGRUND..WELL DONE ...NOW LETS HERE FROM HIM...HER...IT..OR WC ..JH


----------



## Duped (25 July 2011)

Duped said:


> ASICK. WC's NSX announcement of 22 June at a second before 10:47am:
> 
> http://nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724126.PDF
> 
> ...




Furthermore, doesn't this in effect give WC two bites at it's opponent.  Which is something that, I recall reading, our legal system is dead against.  If so, then this is also something the market would have presumed.

The skill that these lawyers, who have run PIF from the beginning, navigate our legal system can make it appear far less well serving than many of us are lead to believe. Should we allow ourselves to believe?  From the NewLawyer http://www.thenewlawyer.com.au/arti...essible-Rolls-Royce-Chief-Justice/496001.aspx

"In a speech given at the Australian Lawyers Alliance Western Australian  State Conference, Chief Justice  Wayne Martin described the Australian  justice system as a Rolls Royce that the average Australian could only  admire rather than utilise.
...
"Justice Kenneth Hayne has spoken of what he describes as 'the vanishing  trial' in the civil context. That description is entirely justified by  the statistics maintained by the Supreme Court of Western Australia.  Those statistics show that *less than 3 per cent* of the cases commenced  in our court are resolved by a trial, which of course means that more  than 97 per cent are resolved by some other means; most often by  agreement between the parties,” he said."

Less than 3%.  Doesn't that mean any legislation that has unintended consequences will remain on our statute books, untested, for longer?  Just some musings.


----------



## seamisty (25 July 2011)

Duped said:


> ASICK. WC's NSX announcement of 22 June at a second before 10:47am:
> 
> http://nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724126.PDF
> 
> ...



Duped I am no expert but I strongly suspect that the sole purpose of WC to try and postpone the meeting then at the 11th hour announce that jennearous WC had decided it was in the best interests of ALL to allow the EGM to proceed was all part of a stupid game. With approx 230 paid for WC proxies on standby, and many legitimate PIF unitholders having cancelled previous travel arrangements as was intended by the confusion WC had created, WC could hardly contain their excitement!!! Knowing there was a room full of actors hidden upstairs on the 23rd of June waiting to wave pink forms , WC staff members could not wipe the greedy grins from their faces, swanning around the foyer (on their own, no loyal supporters willing to be seen  with them). WC even had their own registry services on hand to process the new investors. THEN THE RUSE WAS UP, WELLINGTON CAPITAL HAD BEEN SPRUNG!!!!The grins melted like lard on a hot day and were replaced with grimaces and groans of disbelief!!! WC  staff sprung into action and went off in all directions, mobile phones were hanging off ears like the latest  designer earrings, jackets were off, carpet on stairs to the 'upstairs room' was glowing with heat and sweat was pouring from red faces!!! Up until this point, that meeting would have proceeded as planned by WC, but they knew that without the rent a crowd, they didn't have a hope of taking control of that meeting. The shattered eggos were left with no alternative but to resort to plan B, take us back to the court on the pretext of using an outdated register which would have been totally acceptable had previous plottings and well laid Wellington Capital plans played out as was expected and WC had got elected as chairperson. The only reason Ms Hutson did not address the people at the meeting was because she was not physically capable, having been overcome by a sudden stress related illness!!!
Its not over yet, but at least we know now what depraved individuals we are dealing with who will stop at nothing to conceal real information while content to distribute false information.  

Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (25 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Duped I am no expert but I strongly suspect that the sole purpose of WC to try and postpone the meeting then at the 11th hour announce that jennearous WC had decided it was in the best interests of ALL to allow the EGM to proceed was all part of a stupid game. With approx 230 paid for WC proxies on standby, and many legitimate PIF unitholders having cancelled previous travel arrangements as was intended by the confusion WC had created, WC could hardly contain their excitement!!! Knowing there was a room full of actors hidden upstairs on the 23rd of June waiting to wave pink forms , WC staff members could not wipe the greedy grins from their faces, swanning around the foyer (on their own, no loyal supporters willing to be seen  with them). WC even had their own registry services on hand to process the new investors. THEN THE RUSE WAS UP, WELLINGTON CAPITAL HAD BEEN
> SPRUNG!!!!The grins melted like lard on a hot day and were replaced with grimaces and groans of disbelief!!! WC  staff sprung into action and went off in all directions, mobile phones were hanging off ears like the latest  designer earrings, jackets were off, carpet on stairs to the 'upstairs room' was glowing with heat and sweat was pouring from red faces!!! Up until this point, that meeting would have proceeded as planned by WC, but they knew that without the rent a crowd, they didn't have a hope of taking control of that meeting. The shattered eggos were left with no alternative but to resort to plan B, take us back to the court on the pretext of using an outdated register which would have been totally acceptable had previous plottings and well laid Wellington Capital plans played out as was expected and WC had got elected as chairperson. The only reason Ms Hutson did not address the people at the meeting was because she was not physically capable, having been overcome by a sudden stress related illness!!!
> Its not over yet, but at least we know now what depraved individuals we are dealing with who will stop at nothing to conceal real information while content to distribute false information.
> 
> Seamisty




And willingly aided by duplicitous characters like ASICK.
Reveal thyself before public's revelation leaves red lashes across your back.
Tell me unequivocally there are no links between you, WC and PIF Reaction Group.

And on a totally unrelated matter; may I commend you seamisty on the attractiveness of your writings. I detect a whiff of Dostoyevsky's drama.
May the Pen continue its mighty march!

Regards,


----------



## charles36 (25 July 2011)

Asick, thank you for your prompt reply.  Have you read the His Honour's finding or not.


----------



## ASICK (25 July 2011)

charles36 said:


> Asick, thank you for your prompt reply.  Have you read the His Honour's finding or not.




"All I know is that the judge has already found that the Notice was defective and ipso facto, the meeting was invalid. What happened at the meeting has nothing to do with the Notice for the meeting."

I'm sorry I didn't answer the question directly - the short answer is NO.


----------



## Harald (25 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> I'm sorry to see that you seem to have developed an irrational belief that everyone who doesn't agree with you is somehow aligned with the manager of your fund.
> 
> "How can you blame ... CasCap for proceeding with the meeting."?   Well, easy - very easy - they continued on with the meeting while a trial on the Notice was pending.
> 
> ...




To be honest, I didn't want to question the courts ethics.  I was questioning Your ethics. Wasn't that obvious?

To blame CasCap for causing avoidable costs to investors is outrageous. When
JH announced on the NSXA that the meeting would go ahaed I was allready on my    way to Sydney where I had booked and paid accommodation and so have been many investors. And this was good. JH would have rolled us as intended with her rented
crowd.

And now for Your feeling: I somehow got the view that some/many members on
this forum feel that any wrongdoing (if so found) by WC or another associated entity
will somehow bring the meeting back to life, but as I'm concerned, that will no
be the case.
First of all: You don't seem to be concerned because You don't seem to be an
investor.
Second: It's disgusting to be called an idiot by You. We all hope and some pray
that CasCap is willing to take a second attempt.
I do have the feeling that You want to undermine this.


----------



## ASICK (25 July 2011)

Harald said:


> To be honest, I didn't want to question the courts ethics.  I was questioning Your ethics. Wasn't that obvious?
> 
> To blame CasCap for causing avoidable costs to investors is outrageous. When
> JH announced on the NSXA that the meeting would go ahaed I was allready on my    way to Sydney where I had booked and paid accommodation and so have been many investors. And this was good. JH would have rolled us as intended with her rented
> ...




Well, who else do you blame? W.C. didn't call the meeting.  The proceeding in the Federal Court was still on foot.

Like it or not, W.C. had a right to bring an action, and it had a right to cease its' quest for an injuction.

CasCap took the risk - it was a decision that they made - we all make decisions, some turn out good, others turn out bad - that's life.

Judges take an impartial view and make decisions based on the law and the facts - why blame the judge?

Why does stating the obvious align me with one side or the other?

I'm afraid you didn't grasp my inference - I did not infer you were an i**ot.

I too hope that CasCap makes another run for your fund.   You have no idea how much I wished that your side would attain success - actually, I wish your side nothing but success, because your success will give members of other funds the impetus to achieve better outcomes for themselves.


----------



## DepressedDad (25 July 2011)

Yes, thanks Seamisty for ALWAYS writing exciting, interesting & hopeful posts.  You are a treasure. 

I so look forward to reading information, comments and especially developments on this wonderful thread. But some contributors I give more credibility to than others. I hang on every word you write too Charles. Thanks so much for being there for us.  I wouldn't worry about other contributor's knocking or lower yourself to even responding.  All us readers make our minds up about source credibility. And it's easy for us to discount those who are wanting to criticise instead of working towards a common goal.  I too question if such knockers have their OWN money involved. 

Look how far we've come. It was great to read Seamisty's account of the angst & humiliation as the fraudilent plan went pear shaped.  And who do we have to thank for that?  The brilliant hardworking team on here with the help of Cascap. We have made such progress, especially lately. To expose WC and JH as fraudsters on the FRONT page of the Business section is a HUGE victory in itself.  Even if it is one step backwards to two forward, we're still moving. We knew it wouldn't be easy and we're not stopping until we're wrestled the reins from the trotters. 

So keep the info flowing team.  We're smart enough to sort out the genuine posts from those looking to distract us, which we'll discount & ignore. Thanks again to our workers. The try line is in sight.


----------



## selciper (25 July 2011)

Wikipdia contains a short entry for Justice Dowsett.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dowsett


----------



## simgrund (26 July 2011)

selciper said:


> Wikipdia contains a short entry for Justice Dowsett.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dowsett




Oops, Queensland origins as well? White-shoe brigade mentality crossover?

And before the howling begins, answer the 2 questions I asked of the Judge:
*Why you did not ask WC who were the "new investors"?
Why the updated Armstrong Register was not passed to PIFAG **as: 

1.     requested many times over?
2.     required by various supervisory Legislation?
3.     Judicial Ethic of Justice would deem necessary to ask to complete the  "picture"?*

And again to howlers: trawl your consciences for your feelings towards all the miseries  our thousands are experiencing and bordering on life threatening everyday shortages in food, medicine, treatment, support.

......While the Judge scuttles the means of real remedy to these miseries 
by putting perceived, but not investigated unfairness to 200 ahead of all logic, reason and rationale. 

Have you got any feelings?

Mull, mull, mull over it to your heart's content.

Regards


----------



## Jadel (26 July 2011)

I can recall Justice Dowsett making a comment at the proceedings, to the effect that he had once been involved in a similar case before. I assumed it must have been as a Barrister .

We will have to hope he was acting for the defence at that time .

In any event we will all know the outcome shortly


----------



## seamisty (26 July 2011)

Latest blurb from the WC bunker:
Dear Unitholder
My aim continues to be to maximise the cash returned to you from the assets of the Fund. My team has, and will continue, to strive to achieve the best outcome for you in the shortest possible timeframe.
I am committed to ensuring that my team works with integrity, diligence and in a professional manner. In the last three months, the following key achievements have been made: $40.7 million in contracts have been signed; negotiations have progressed well on the sale of 50% of the Chifley Wollongong Hotel, which I expect will
yield approximately a further $10 million; major assets including the Forest Resort at Creswick have been made ready for sale and will be taken to the market; two proposals have been made to take control of your Fund – the first from ALF PIF, and the second from Castlereagh. Deliberately misleading, ambiguous, unfounded and inflammatory statements have been made by the proponents of both of these proposals about Wellington Capital and the Fund. Both proposals have now been dismissed by you, the Unitholders.
I am most grateful for the support received from you.
I am particularly grateful for the letters, emails and calls of support and encouragement which I have received from you over recent times.
I aim to continue to ensure that the Fund has no debt, is well managed, and delivers returns to you as soon as possible.
My objective is to sell the underlying assets of the Fund within two years and return the proceeds to you.
Separately, I will continue to pursue all relevant litigation and the $211 million claim which the Fund has in the MFS liquidation.
Kind regards
Jenny Hutson

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724240.PDF 

For all PIF investors who were concerned thatCASCAP would liquidate the PIF, just exactly what are Wellington Capitals intentions? Why the need for a capital raising? Sorry WC, Deliberately misleading, ambiguous, unfounded and inflammatory statements appear to be someone elses forte, lets not continue the charade of pass the blame game please?
Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (26 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Latest blurb from the WC bunker:
> Dear Unitholder
> My aim continues to be to maximise the cash returned to you from the assets of the Fund. My team has, and will continue, to strive to achieve the best outcome for you in the shortest possible timeframe.
> I am committed to ensuring that my team works with integrity, diligence and in a professional manner. In the last three months, the following key achievements have been made: $40.7 million in contracts have been signed; negotiations have progressed well on the sale of 50% of the Chifley Wollongong Hotel, which I expect will
> ...




Hi Seamisty,

Some might have missed that there are 12 pages to this report.

Some interesting statements......... e.g.

"Investor forums conducted by Castlereagh
Wellington Capital is aware that Castlereagh held an investor 
forum on 6 July 2011 where a range of questions were asked 
and responded to by Castlereagh.
The Investor Forum broadcast on 6 July 2011 makes false and 
misleading statements about Wellington Capital and its conduct 
and should be disregarded by Unitholders in the Fund. "


----------



## Sutho81 (26 July 2011)

It looks like Wellington is making up more lies in their latest NSX announcement. They state the Castlereagh takeover was rejected by us the unit holders. How can anyone beleive their BS when we all know that they prevented the vote from going ahead.

The numbers Wellignton is showing in their favour is certainly not something to be proud of. It looks like half the proxies they received are against them!

I am sure if the proxies they have were combined with the ones Computershare has then the result would be goodbye Wellington.

Seeing all these BS statements by Wellington just makes my blood boil and want to get personally involved in their removal!


----------



## selciper (26 July 2011)

This is an extract from a US site. Enron were guilty of 'wilful blindness.' (James Murdoch at the recent London hearing was asked whether he understood the  term.)

-----------------------

Main Entry: willful blind·ness 
Function: noun 
:  deliberate failure to make a reasonable inquiry of wrongdoing (as drug dealing in one's house) despite suspicion or an awareness of the high probability of its existence 
NOTE: Willful blindness involves conscious avoidance of the truth and gives rise to an inference of knowledge of the crime in question.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law,  © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


----------



## elizaman (26 July 2011)

zixo said:


> Asick, You seem to be better informed about how the justice system hasn't failed the investors of the premium income fund.
> From the day MFS imploded Till this day regardless of the countless complaints sent to asic, They have failed to act or inform investors on every single complaint made by unitholders.
> ALWAYS erring and protecting the group who is holding our fund in trust....why?
> 
> ...




To all who seem to want to have a go at Asick, you really need to try and place this frustration nito something more positive with the PIFAG. Big business is tough. I wrote about this ages ago mentioning we need to get our ducks in a row before calling meetings and wasting time and money on valued unit holders. Quite honestly did you really think that JH?WC were going to just give it all back without a fight. Really!!!! Lets support the PIFAG get all the rule books out from both sides, try to proactively read each step in the process as best we can which will require thinking out of the box. to sit there and cry justice, blaming everything within the "City Hall" will not achieve anything will possibly alienate some units holders that feel there is no sense in trying to fight city hall. As much as possible has to be done through the courts. It's costly and timely but in the end it will probably be the only way out of the tyranny of WC. They will not go quitely and a unit holders sense of justice can be somewhat biased and personal when $$$ are on the line. The judge has made a decision based on how it was presented. Obviously it was not presented well enough along with the steps PIFAG and/or Castlereagh took to get us to this point. Lets learn from it and move on. I am of the same opinion as someone else this forum in that I would like to get involved personally as well somehow. There appears to be some very knowledgeable people on this forum much smarter than I so it should be possible. By the way I am a member of the PIFAG and though I'm currently out of the country still review this forum when I can. Question: has the PIFAG issued any updates regarding what has happened???

With Respect


----------



## MAE (26 July 2011)

I guess a lot of people reading the Wellington Investor Update: July 2011 were probably not at the meeting.

Fact and Fiction are very different.  If only I had filmed the meeting!

I feel we should be concentrating more on bringing the illegal rent a crowd debacle to the legal authorities, may be then ASIC might have some more clout.


----------



## ASICK (26 July 2011)

[elizaman]   

"I wrote about this ages ago mentioning we need to get our ducks in a row before calling meetings and wasting time and money on valued unit holders." 

"Obviously it was not presented well enough along with the steps PIFAG and/or Castlereagh took to get us to this point. " 

"Lets learn from it and move on." [/QUOTE]

Very well said, no one should expect to poke their hand into an ants' nest and not get bitten.

[zixo]  

"Asick, You seem to be better informed about how the justice system hasn't failed the investors of the premium income fund." From the day MFS imploded Till this day regardless of the countless complaints sent to asic, They have failed to act or inform investors on every single complaint made by unitholders.  ALWAYS erring and protecting the group who is holding our fund in trust....why?"

If you rely on ASIC, you do so at your peril.  Maybe with a new man-at-the-top ASIC might become functional, but to date it's really been quite a croc to not only the PIF.  Please don't take ASIC's incompetence as an affront to just yourselves.

The court will make decisons on the facts and the law.  There is no point blaming the judiciary when the fault clearly lies elsewhere.

"From what I understand you seem to be an advisor who has no doubt got an interest in what we write here because of your friend who is a unitholder. Yet you seem to find fault whenever we/I simply ask for justice to be done when its sought and for for questions to be answered when they are asked."

Frankly speaking, I'm disappointed about the outcome to date, but unless members come to understand the facts and how those facts affect their respective opportunities in the fund, then you (as a group) will never progress anywhere.

If you see my attempts at explaining the facts (as I see them) as fault finding, then you clearly do not understand what is going on around you.  Don't feel bad about that either, you're not the only one.  We're all on a sharp learning curve.

"I may have to refer to your insight how I could possibly get some of my questions answered because I sure as hell cant get them answered by anyone at wc or asic or anyone else in the know.

The prime source of information for me is whats posted here on the ASF by those dedicated and committed to doing the right thing by everyone regardless if they are an action group member. There is no-one else protecting our interests, is there?"

You're lucky you have your representative group because it's taken disgruntled members a long way along the track to a peaceful resolution of your concerns.  The old adage applies, "The good Lord helps those who help themselves".

"In those few weeks that cascap were vying for the vote I got more answers to questions than three years of wellingtons who are suppossed to be looking after our fund and whos job it is to inform investors."

I can see that CasCap is much more transparent than Wellcap seems to be.  Of course, there should also be a general hope that such transparency will continue in the event CasCap takes over the fund.  You have to keep in mind that CasCap is in it for the bucks too.  It's nice to think all 'buddy buddy' but the proof as to whether that will continue will be 'in the pudding' (so to speak).

"I don't trust wellington capital anymore ...do you?"

I have no idea.  WellCap is fighting for its' lucrative income stream from the fund, and clearly there's a matter of prestige melded in there somewhere too.   

"Are you protecting wellington capital? Do you think Wellington are doing a good job managing whats left of our fund and are they acting in the best interest of unitholders?"

This story gets a little bit boring - I can't even understand how you can conclude that I support Wellcap by simply pointing out facts.  It's a paranoia that seems to unnecessarily permeate the minds of quite a few members of this forum.

You really should learn to understand the information and make informed decisions. When you understand what is happening, then you'll be able to attack my opinions rather than attack (or suspect) me.

I really don't know what sort of job WellCap has done for your fund.   I really can't speak to that issue, but clearly many of you think that the job has been far from well done.

The cost of the Armstrong registry is one issue which was an eye-popper for me, especially when compared with the quote obtained by CasCap.  

Other than that, I'm can't comment.


----------



## seamisty (26 July 2011)

I have resorted to making complaints to ASIC again, especially in relation to related party transactions. The following makes interesting reading and in my opinion there is no way that WC should have an inhouse majority owned and controlled registry business responsible for collating information and votes. I will copy the whole article as I had a problem with the originl link. Worth the read.

Related party transactions and the arm's-length exception: guidance for directors
 July 25 2011

 Overview of restrictions on provision of benefits to related parties

 The prohibition (other than under limited exceptions) on public companies or entities that they control providing a financial benefit to related parties without shareholder approval was introduced into Australia's Corporations Act 20 years ago. The prohibition also applies (with some technical differences) to responsible entities of registered managed investment schemes that wish to give a financial benefit to a related party. The related party provisions were designed to ensure that financial benefits given by public companies to persons who were in a position to influence significantly the decision to give the benefit were subject to shareholder approval, unless they were on commercial terms. The power of the provisions rests in both the limited exceptions available and the expansive definitions of who is a 'related party' (this includes directors, their spouses and relatives) and what constitutes a 'financial benefit' (this extends beyond a mere payment to include the issuance of securities, supply of services and release from obligations). One of the few statutory exceptions which allows a public company or responsible entity to give a financial benefit to a related party without shareholder approval is where it is given on terms that would be reasonable in the circumstances if the public company and the related party were dealing at arm's length, or it is given to the related party on even less favourable terms (the arm's-length exception).
 Although the related party provisions are not new, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has rarely proceeded with regulatory actions focused on a breach of the provisions and, until recently, there has been sparse regulatory and judicial guidance on the way in which the provisions operate. This may be surprising to some observers, given that many of the listed fund structures embraced by the Australian market before the financial crisis involved complex related party structures which often led to upstream common ownership - and potential conflicts of interest - between various players, including fund sponsors, managers and responsible entities.
 New ASIC Regulatory Guide
 In recognition of these concerns, in March 2011 ASIC released a long-overdue Regulatory Guide(1) on the related party provisions. The guide provides a synthesis of the regulator's views on the few judicial decisions that do exist in respect of the provisions and, among other things, gives directors new guidance about the criteria that ASIC expects boards will apply in determining whether a related party transaction is on arm's-length terms.
 As a matter of market practice, boards of some public companies wishing to give (or that had already given) a financial benefit to related parties have often been attracted to the arm's-length exception because it was perceived that it was relatively easy to come within its purview. There is tacit acknowledgment of this by ASIC in the guide, which notes that prudent directors who wish to rely on the exception should be confident that a transaction is genuinely on arm'- length terms, rather than it merely being arguable that the transaction is arm's length.
 Arm's-length exception and the ASIC test
 The prevailing judicial test for determining whether a related party transaction is arm's length is an objective one, assessed against a standard which assumes that the public company or responsible entity entering into the transaction is:

 unrelated to the other party in the transaction;


 free from any undue influence or pressure;


 knowledgeable about the business and other drivers of the transaction to judge what is in its interests; and


 concerned only to achieve the best available commercial result for itself in all of the circumstances.

 For a transaction to be on arm's-length terms, it must be reasonable 'in the circumstances'. ASIC concludes in its guide that other than the fact that the parties have a relationship, all of the circumstances of the related party transaction are relevant to this assessment, including:

 whether alternative transactions are open to the entity that are not with related parties;


 prevailing economic conditions and their impact on the parties and their relevant industries; and


 any special value to the transaction which accrues to the related party, but would be unavailable to an unrelated party.

 ASIC highlights three key factors in the guide that boards should take into account when determining whether a transaction is on arm's-length terms. A robust board process analysing whether a related party transaction is arm's length would involve posing the following questions for consideration, drawing on professional or expert advice where appropriate.
 First, are the terms of the related party transaction market based on comparable transactions in similar circumstances between unrelated parties? This may be something on which boards should seek independent expert guidance. Risk allocation (eg, in the form of indemnities and warranties) and consideration are relevant. Excessively onerous consideration or generous risk allocation when compared to market suggests that the terms are less likely to be 'reasonable' and therefore come within the arm's-length exception.
 Second, does the parties' conduct in the bargaining process around the financial benefit demonstrate that the negotiated outcomes of the transaction could reasonably have been achieved by uninfluenced, self-interested parties? Applicable considerations will include:

 whether the transaction is reflected by a binding contract;


 the involvement of professional advisers;


 how vigorously the transaction and the terms that comprise it were negotiated;


 the entity's bargaining position (eg, whether it was in financial distress at the time); and


 whether any director has a material personal interest in the transaction.

 Third, what are the short and long-term impacts on the company or registered scheme of entering into the transaction? This includes assessing whether:

 any negative impact from the transaction (economic or otherwise) is balanced by positives;


 the transaction is consistent with the company's business plan; and


 the contract which gives effect to the transaction adequately protects the interests of the entity giving the financial benefit.

 The conservatism with which ASIC is now approaching the arm's-length exception is demonstrated by its conclusion in the guide that if it is merely arguable, but not clear, that the exception applies, shareholder approval for the giving of the financial benefit should be sought. A similar prudent approach is likely to be needed where the related party transaction gives rise to a conflict of interest with a director.


----------



## Duped (26 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> First - I'll piont out that I don't practice law - so any view I express is simply my own opinion.
> 
> An interlocutory proceeding is a pre-trial proceeding and whether it is continued or discontinued has no bearing on whether a trial is proceeded with, unless of course it's a successful motion to strike out the claim.
> 
> ...




Fair enough.  But that doesn't change the fact that it was also WC that chose to drop the Interlocutory action.  

I originally responded to your post #8351 because you wrote e.g. "Maybe the cost of attending the meeting was nothing to you, but to others, even tax deductible, was still expensive."

Where was WC's regard for costs to unitholders when it decided to drop the interlocutory action? 

Don't you think that a unitholder would ask, why would WC make me pointlessly incur the expense of attending the meeting when:
A) WC is obligated to act in unitholder's best interests AND
B) JH has stated "_I look forward to Unitholders having the opportunity to consider the resolutions put forward in the notice of 16 May 2011_"?

Regarding interlocutory actions. At the end of the day the only actionable event that WC needed to take action on was to prevent any changes being made to the operation of the fund. This is not like IP infringement or domestic violence where interlocutary orders will prevent repeated violations and the consequentual continuing damages. All WC had to do was sit back and wait for someone to come knocking on its door saying A) the Constitution will be amended as such and B) your fired. Only then did WC need to say 'on what authority'. Only when CasCap lodged forms with ASIC, initiated legal proceedings, tried to act on behalf of PIF etc did WC really need to initiate proceedings. Right? 

So why did WC make PIF incur the expense of the interlocutory proceedings to then just drop them?

I agree with what you said "I was surprised that the judge didn't press the parties to conclude the legal proceeding before members would meet." By not granting the interlocutory orders, has the Federal Court got itself involved and influenced the outcome? Is it then fair that Dowsett can use anything CasCap did on the day of the 23rd to cancel the meeting? Afterall, it is posible that it was the Federal Courts own actions/inactions that induced CasCap into making the mistakes it was clearly about to make?

Wasn't the Federal Court in a position to throw the Interlocutory Action out AND warn CasCap not to proceed? Now we're faced with the prospect that the meeting was invalidly adjourned. Right? 

I'm not sure what the PIF consitution has to say about adjourning the meeting but I can't see anything in Part 2G.4 that puts a time limit on when the meeting must be held. S252K certainly anticipates long adjournments: "When a meeting is adjourned, new notice of the adjourned meeting must be given if the meeting is adjourned for 1 month or more." That's what our democratically elected Federal Government anticipates members doing - adjourn a meeting called by members (under S252D) by more than a month.

The requirement to notify ALL investors individually can still be met can't it? There's nothing in S252G that puts a time limit on when the individual notification must occur. S252F does not say the 21 day limit prescribed applies to the individual notification. S252G says "written notice" it does not say "the notice of S252F".

As for quorum.  Well.  Anyone know what Doewsett says about this?


----------



## Duped (26 July 2011)

"Very well said, no one should expect to poke their hand into an ants' nest and not get bitten." Spot on.  The law around this product is an ants' nest. So why were the ASIC branded (AFSL) financial advisors pushing us into it. I'm back to safer investments like bank deposits and a highly liquid SX. And when those banks start to do to the ASIC public servants what is happening in Greece I will not be shedding a tear. I will be whipping my $ out of here quicker than you can say Jersey.  Just like the Greeks did.  the ASIC servants can keep their 7xFAS (for what it's worth)

Hutson said something along the lines of 'PIF is a great fund'.  Yeah right. For who.

Whereas ASA CEO Stuart Wilson published: "Octaviar fund is a sick dog that needs to be put down".

And how exactly does Mr Wilson propose that be done?

"If you rely on ASIC, you do so at your peril." a-men You'll be up A SIC creek without a paddle.

"The court will make decisons on the facts and the law." And what exactly is the law when only 3% of disputes go to trial? If 97% of transactions are taking place on the streets then it's the law of the streets isn't it?  Who's fault is that? Perhaps Judges are a bit soft on BS peddling lawyers.  Y'know em who after all "have a business to run". Lawyers are a bit like journalists. And after all, Murdoch has a business to run and a duty to shareholders. Isn't Slater and Gordon now listed?  Who allowed that to happen? Do we just have to trust that lawyers are doing the right thing? According to their oath.  Like we trust WC to be doing the right thing?

".. then you clearly do not understand what is going on around you."If we did then we probably would never have invested in this fund. We're an ASIC branded AFSL financial advisor's fish in a barrel.


"The good Lord helps those who  help themselves". Otherwise known as tough love. But there's a point where teacher watching a grade 6 pushing a prep kid around 'aint gonna help anyone.

"... there should also be a general hope that such transparency  will continue in the event CasCap takes over the fund." Spot on.  

"I have no idea.  WellCap is fighting for its' lucrative income stream  from the fund, and clearly there's a matter of prestige melded in there  somewhere too."    Spot on. 

"Are you protecting wellington capital? Do you think Wellington are  doing a good job managing whats left of our fund and are they acting in  the best interest of unitholders?"

"It's a  paranoia ...." Ouch.  Perhaps it's more like - lashing out in anger.

"When you understand what is happening, ..." If we did then we probably wouldn't be in the fund or on this forum.

Thanks for your input.


----------



## charles36 (26 July 2011)

As you aware the Federal Court made orders on the 13 July, 2011 in the PIFAG v Wellington proceedings that the meeting should not proceed as scheduled for the 14 July, 2011.  The full judgment has now been handed down.

The basis for the courts decision was largely technical issues relating to the register used to post notice to the unit holders and the quorum provisions for holding the meeting.

It was argued by Wellington that approximately 300 investors MAY NOT HAVE RECEIVED notice of meeting due to the changes in the register and changes of address after the date Wellington provided the register to PIFAG.  You will be aware that there are over 10,700 investors in the fund.  There was no proof that these investors did not receive notice, only that they MAY not have.

We are disappointed that such a small percentage of people potentially not receiving notice has led to the meeting being declared invalid particularly in circumstances where there is common ownership between Wellington and Armstrong Registry Services (which runs the registry for the fund) and in circumstances where Armstrong were less than cooperative in providing the register or any updates to any information on the register. The PIFAG certainly did not intend for any unit holder to be not informed.  Far from it.

The only comfort we can take is that if the meeting had proceeded it most likely would have been unable to be held in an orderly manner due to persisting disagreement between PIFAG and Wellington over issues to do with quorum, chairperson and registry services.

Unfortunately the court has decided that the current quorum provisions of the fund are valid.  These require a quorum of 51% of all unit holders for a resolution to remove Wellington Capital.  We were of the view (Based on QC'S advice) that the provisions were prohibitive to investors calling a meeting to remove Wellington.  We are naturally disappointed that the court did not agree.

We note that M/S Hutson alleges that she had enough proxy forms received by Wellington and in her possession that the meeting would have had a quorum if she had provided those forms to the registry (Computershare, a company previously used by Wellington and apparently good enough to handle the proxies for the meeting to elect Wellington, October, 2008) appointed by the PIFAG.  It was noted by the court that M/S Hutson made a press release on the day of the 23 June, 2011 meeting in which "she was asserting that the meeting had been without a quorum. She did not expressly mention that she had produced this result by not attending to vote the proxies which she was holding."  I wonder whether the unit holders who entrusted their proxy to Jenny Hutson expected their vote to be treated in this way?  Perhaps so, but then maybe not.
,
The court also addressed the matters raised in an affidavit filed in the proceedings by one of the people who attended a meeting near the venue of the legitimate meeting on 23 June, not realising they were being asked to attend to accept a transfer of units in the fund and vote for M/S Hutson for the position of Chairman at the legitimate meeting.  There has been numerous press articles concerning this extraordinary behaviour on behalf of the organisers of the meeting of some 230 hired hands.  I also note in the latest memorandum no mention has been mentioned of this escapade nor of any action taken by Wellington to address this matter.

Whilst these matters did not impact the technical issues on which the case was decided the court noted that "THE ALLEGATIONS ARE OF SOME CONCERN.  THE UNIT HOLDERS MAY HAVE TO CONSIDER THEM IN CONNECTION WITH THE FUTURE CONDUCT OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE FUND.

The PIFAG have certainly noted the comments of His Honour and have taken action to have the appropriate Regulatory Authority and Legal Advisors informed.  I personally look forward to a positive outcome and believe all serious minded unit holders should do the same.  If no action is taken is would set a very dangerous precedent for the calling of meetings, be they shareholders meetings or meetings called by unit holders to remove Responsible Entitities from Managed Funds.  Simple, hire a crowd and run the meeting any way you wish.

I note Wellington Capital have not mentioned the comments of His Honour in the latest memorandum either.


----------



## ASICK (26 July 2011)

[Duped]

"Fair enough.  But that doesn't change the fact that it was also WC that chose to drop the Interlocutory action.  

I originally responded to your post #8351 because you wrote e.g. 'Maybe the cost of attending the meeting was nothing to you, but to others, even tax deductible, was still expensive.'

Where was WC's regard for costs to unitholders when it decided to drop the interlocutory action?  Don't you think that a unitholder would ask, why would WC make me pointlessly incur the expense of attending the meeting when:
A) WC is obligated to act in unitholder's best interests AND
B) JH has stated "_I look forward to Unitholders having the opportunity to consider the resolutions put forward in the notice of 16 May 2011_"?"

We see things differently.  The meeting was called by CasCap/PIFAG and it's their responsibility as to the conduct of the meeting.  They continued on with the meeting in the face of the pending litigation.

There were three issues (in time sequence):
1. the injuction (an interlocutory step in the trial process)
2. the meeting
3. the trial

After the injuction was discontinued, there were two issues (in time sequence):
1. the meeting
2. the trial

I don't see anything difficult in understanding those sequences, and neither should anyone else.    The meeting was always subject to the outcome of the trial, even if the meeting was conducted and a vote taken.

I do not see that it was WC's obligation to warn investors of the risk posed by the future series of events, rather I see as the responsibility of those who called the meeting, but as I've said before, it's just a personal opinion.

"Regarding interlocutory actions. At the end of the day the only actionable event that WC needed to take action on was to prevent any changes being made to the operation of the fund. This is not like IP infringement or domestic violence where interlocutary orders will prevent repeated violations and the consequentual continuing damages. All WC had to do was sit back and wait for someone to come knocking on its door saying A) the Constitution will be amended as such and B) your fired. Only then did WC need to say 'on what authority'. Only when CasCap lodged forms with ASIC, initiated legal proceedings, tried to act on behalf of PIF etc did WC really need to initiate proceedings. Right?"

I think that from WC's perspective, the  originating claim was necessary and it was reasonable in the circumstances to seek an injunction to stop the meeting.  I think members would have been better served if the injunction was successful because a lot of anguish and costs suffered by members would have been avoided.

WC's claims and injunction related to the meeting's originating document, the Notice of Meeting, not to some event subsequent to the proposed meeting.

"So why did WC make PIF incur the expense of the interlocutory proceedings to then just drop them?"

I don't know if they did incur any costs because I haven't read any judgments.  It's possible that costs were in the cause (subject to a final finding on costs by the trial judge), and it's probable that if WC lost that the fund would pay anyway (a query to WC would confirm who eventually paid for any costs lost by WC).

"I agree with what you said "I was surprised that the judge didn't press the parties to conclude the legal proceeding before members would meet." By not granting the interlocutory orders, has the Federal Court got itself involved and influenced the outcome? Is it then fair that Dowsett can use anything CasCap did on the day of the 23rd to cancel the meeting? Afterall, it is posible that it was the Federal Courts own actions/inactions that induced CasCap into making the mistakes it was clearly about to make?"

I really should have said that I'm surprised that CasCap and the PIFAG didn't advise members of the risks of going ahead with a meeting in the circumstances.  In reality, it's not for the judge to direct entities as to how they should conduct their business activities.

"Wasn't the Federal Court in a position to throw the Interlocutory Action out AND warn CasCap not to proceed? Now we're faced with the prospect that the meeting was invalidly adjourned. Right? "

I would think if the Notice was invalid, then the meeting was illegal and what happened as to the adjournment is really a moot point.  It's for the parties to plead the orders sought, not for the judge.

"I'm not sure what the PIF consitution has to say about adjourning the meeting but I can't see anything in Part 2G.4 that puts a time limit on when the meeting must be held. S252K certainly anticipates long adjournments: "When a meeting is adjourned, new notice of the adjourned meeting must be given if the meeting is adjourned for 1 month or more." That's what our democratically elected Federal Government anticipates members doing - adjourn a meeting called by members (under S252D) by more than a month."

Yes, but you have to speak to a meeting which has been legally called, not one with an invalid Notice.

"The requirement to notify ALL investors individually can still be met can't it? There's nothing in S252G that puts a time limit on when the individual notification must occur. S252F does not say the 21 day limit prescribed applies to the individual notification. S252G says "written notice" it does not say "the notice of S252F"."

That logic won't work because the court will read the two sections together in order to give efficacy to the operation of  the Act.

"As for quorum.  Well.  Anyone know what Doewsett says about this?"

I have no idea.


----------



## seamisty (26 July 2011)

Todays NSX announcement page 3:::

Holiday Inn, Gold Coast, Queensland A call option over 31 apartments has been entered into for a period of three months. 63 apartments remain to be sold. $5.68 m


Page 4:Holiday Inn, Surfers Paradise,104 apartments in the Holiday Inn A conditional call option over 31 apartments has been entered into.
On settlement of the 31 apartments, proceeds to the Fund will total $5.68 million.
The balance 73 apartments are for sale. 

How many apartments remain to be sold? 63 or 73? 104-31=73
Are these figures deceptive, misleading or just plain old ambiguous??? I get it, someone else apart from WC compiled the update!

Plenty of 'conditional' contracts in there, I see we take a $2.57mill  (plus outstanding interest) haircut on this one:
Tweed Heads, New South Wales Conditional contract of sale.$7 m Completion due September 2011. When is settlement due?

Lithgow, New South Wales Conditional contract of sale. Due to settle August 2011. On
settlement, proceeds to be returned to the Fund will be $0.25
million. YEEE OUCH!!!! This ones not even a haircut, more like a close shave!! 
 $1,171,137.00 :bekloppt:

We may or may not get $22mill for Kooralbyn, it owed us around $41mill plus interest three and a half years ago. A big round of applause for WC effort for may or maybe not securing a buyer for less than half of what we are owed on this one?? Just what were those caretakers doing out there? Bunny bashing on the golf course?

Trinder Avenue, Maroochydore, Queensland owed us $14.1 million plus interest nearly SIX years ago!!! Anyones guess as to what we may or may not get back on this one, but don't fret, we did get paid $100,000 up front! The bloody fund could be wound up before we see any return from this one!
Guess we shouldn't complain,'the team has, and will continue, to strive to achieve the best outcome for you in the shortest possible timeframe.'
Well nearly three years on and the PIF worth approx$100mill less (thats not including what was realised to repay the debt) we have been paid two cents of our capital back totalling approx $15million. What happend to the other $85million?????No amount of fancy contracts, 'conditional' or otherwise can hide the fact that this fund has been badly managed, diluted and being quietly liquidated.

Seamisty


----------



## zixo (26 July 2011)

Duped ..thanks for articulating alot of things far more clearer than I could ever write in response to my queries to asick.

Asick,

Thanks for your response. Perhaps you need to become an investor. Then you may not see things in such a clinical sense. 

Most "lay" people when given Straight facts and clear evidence would draw a similar conclusion to me regarding the management of this fund.
Wellingtons management of the PIF and information to ALL of its investors has made me aware that I am not being served one iota. 
I want answers ...not just noise.

I hope you realise that everything that is written in todays NSX statement from JH and wc will not be undertaken to achieve a better outcome for investors.
JH has made glowing statements about the fund in the past and every single thing promised has never eventuated. 

Over the years Ive seen wedges appear between investors here on this forum. Little did I know that It was the handiwork of wc who were driving investors apart with fake investors and hired protestors. which JH continually says" none of my doing"
Not to mention the fictitious REACTION group letters posted to every investor with an up to date register supplied by Armstrong or the issuance of units a an egm by armstong ...none of JHs doing ...of course!

Because of WC management of the PIF I have come to the conclusion that there are two types of law in this country regarding investors.

Wellingtons law and a law for everyone else. there is Justice for those with law degrees and other peoples money and point of "law" for those without. 

Points of law are a mute cause particularly when ethics governance and standards can be so easily manipulated by those aiming to push and test the "law" at someone elses expense simply for their own profit.


----------



## charles36 (26 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Todays NSX announcement page 3:::
> 
> Holiday Inn, Gold Coast, Queensland A call option over 31 apartments has been entered into for a period of three months. 63 apartments remain to be sold. $5.68 m
> 
> ...




Seamisty, don't be too hard on WC, they run the fund on a skeleton staff or I should say team of 30, plus consultants and advisors, they are really doing it on a shoestring.  I think not.  Don't forget the Registry, now there is a shoestring budget.


----------



## Duped (26 July 2011)

A summary of the page 3 table perhaps seamisty?

Conditional Contract
Call Option
1 settled that WC previously reported sold? 5 still on the market?
1 settled that WC previously reported sold? 15 still on the market?
Conditional Contract
Conditional Contract
Conditional Contract
Conditional Contracts

And one big fat juicy $ number. 

I offer the following conditional contract for Kooralbyn.  If I win at least $80m in lotto in the next 2 years, I'll buy Kooralbyn for $32M.  How's that? We can get that big fat juicy number over the $50m mark.

What are the conditions? Money talks.  Guess what walks.


----------



## DoraNBoots (26 July 2011)

Judgement for Wellington Capital Limited, in the matter of Premium Income Fund v Premium Income Fund Action Group (Includes Corrigendum dated 25 July 2011) [2011] FCA 781 (25 July 2011) found here:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/781.html


----------



## Harald (26 July 2011)

DoraNBoots said:


> Judgement for Wellington Capital Limited, in the matter of Premium Income Fund v Premium Income Fund Action Group (Includes Corrigendum dated 25 July 2011) [2011] FCA 781 (25 July 2011) found here:
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/781.html




The "judgement" seems to be beancounting without any logic!


----------



## JohnH (26 July 2011)

There's a few answers in the judgement.  I think it proves that Wellington does not have the numbers.   
If  a quorum requires 51%, (and Wellington has stated that she had), then the meeting would have been legal if she had attended, and she would, by virtue of the proxies, have won all of the proposals.
She probably came down to Sydney, believing that she had them, and had agreed to attend the meeting.  However, when she found that she was in the minority she pulled out, and as the PIFAG did not have access to the Wellington held proxies, we could not prove that we had a quorum.
A very  clever, ruthless (I am reluctant to use the word) "Lady"

We must now convene another, legal, meeting, and rid ourselves of this pox!


----------



## simgrund (26 July 2011)

Harald said:


> The "judgement" seems to be beancounting without any logic!




From the tail end of a judgement:

On Quorum
    "The second difficulty with the argument is that s 601FM expressly adopts the procedure prescribed in Div 1 of Pt 2G.4. Although that Division does not contain any provision relating to quorums, meetings called pursuant to that section are subject to s 252R. Section 252R(2) provides:

        (1) This section applies to a registered scheme subject to the provisions of the scheme’s constitution.

        (2) The quorum for a meeting of registered scheme members is 2 members and the quorum must be present at all times during the meeting" 

....further down 

"OTHER MATTERS

   65  These conclusions make it unnecessary that I consider other matters raised in argument, given the urgent context in which the question of validity of the meeting has arisen. Should the parties wish to pursue these matters further, they should apply accordingly."

Please help my thawing Siberian mind:

Does Judge D seems to say a quorum of 2 was required?
Did we have 2  Unadulterated Members on the floor at both of our tragic abortions? 
How gracious of  Judge D to throw us a flippancy of "..... they should apply accordingly".
How about clear guidance (yes, from you Judge) for us to do exactly that without the fear of another legal stumble engineered ad hoc?

*"The happinnes of most people we know is not ruined by great catastrophes or fatal errors, but by the repetition of slowly destructive little things.                                                                                  Ernest DIMMET"*

Regards


----------



## seamisty (26 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> There's a few answers in the judgement.  I think it proves that Wellington does not have the numbers.
> If  a quorum requires 51%, (and Wellington has stated that she had), then the meeting would have been legal if she had attended, and she would, by virtue of the proxies, have won all of the proposals.
> She probably came down to Sydney, believing that she had them, and had agreed to attend the meeting.  However, when she found that she was in the minority she pulled out, and as the PIFAG did not have access to the Wellington held proxies, we could not prove that we had a quorum.
> A very  clever, ruthless (I am reluctant to use the word) "Lady"
> ...



JohnH I have had this discussion with many. Hutson waved a fist full of pink poxies saying she had 3,000, all registered by her own registry service, in her own office, where Rachel Weeks, her personal leagal also works from, who is a substantial holder in Armstrong as well. If WC had 3,000 FOR votes in the bag, law of averages according to Armstrongs figures, would indicate that WC should have had enough support on the day of the EGM  from her large amount of fans without having to BUY SUPPORT ON THE DAY!!! The majority of PIF unitholders are from NSW. Considering there were approx 250+  individuals attending to support Castlereagh Capital on their own merit, just what was written on those 3,000 pink forms? Makes you seriously wonder if in fact they existed, were they legitimate? Devious comes to mind. Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (26 July 2011)

The judgement says that on the 21 June 2011, the AG tried to come to an agreement with WC to adjourn the 23 June 2011 meeting until issues were resolved but WC declined the proposal,  while at the same time WC ask the court to deem the meeting invalid.  WC said they want the meeting to go ahead in NSX announcements and yet they didn't turn up to the 23 June meeting and hand over the proxy forms.  

A meeting of hired actors is convened on the floor above the legitimate unitholder meeting where they are given 1000 shares each by a former director of Wellington (Wallace was a director of Wellington IM as RE of the PIF).  These actors are addressed by Jennifer Hutson (WC director) and David Burke (former MFS director) and told to vote for Wellington.  WC say in their NSX announcement that if the meeting had gone ahead (i.e. if Hutson had attended the meeting) there would have been a quorum.  How can WC be trusted to hold proxy forms for our fund if they won't even turn up to a unitholder meeting that they tell us is going head!  

Here's what Hutson said on the 22nd June 2011 about the meeting:
_Jenny Hutson, Chairperson of Wellington Capital as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund said:
‘it is my view that the ultimate decision making body is the members in general meeting. I look forward to Unitholders having the opportunity to consider the resolutions put forward in the notice of 16 May 2011.’_

Talk about saying one thing to the NSX while doing another...

WC say there would have been a quorum but won't hand over the proxy forms.
WC say they want the meeting to go ahead but ask the court to deem it invalid.
WC won't agree to adjourn the meeting and they inform the NSX it is going ahead and then don't show up.
It seems the Interlocutory Hearing on the 22 June was designed to deter legitimate unit holders from attending the meeting on the 23rd while WC had every intention of going ahead with the rent-a-crowd.

Below are interesting extracts from the judgement found here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/781.html


> "15. On 21 June 2011 the solicitors for the defendants proposed that the parties consent to orders adjourning the meeting scheduled for 23 June 2011 until these proceedings had been resolved.The plaintiff declined the proposal.
> 
> 16. Mr Macafee, the solicitor acting on behalf of the defendants, attended at the appointed meeting place at about 9.15 am on 23 June 2011. He found Ms Hutson and Mr Armstrong in a meeting room. The second defendant and Ms Weeks, a solicitor from McLean Legal, were also present. That firm was then acting for the plaintiff. Ms Hutson was examining a large pile of proxy reports. Mr Macafee said that the Chairman was entitled to take the chair. He also said that he had made it clear in an email of 22 June 2011 that he thought that it was in the best interests of the unit holders that the meeting be adjourned. He said that Ms Hutson had previously thought that adjournment was in the best interests of unit holders but now proposed that it proceed. Ms Hutson said that she wanted certainty, that she was holding in excess of 3,000 proxy forms and that she proposed not to attend the meeting. It emerged that another meeting was being conducted elsewhere in the building.
> 
> ...




One thing I recall when Hutson was on the stand, she was asked about the rent-a-crowd and if she thought it was necessary as RE of the fund to investigate this behaviour and she said no.


----------



## ASICK (26 July 2011)

To Simgrund - actually I thought your comments quite inane and not worthy of reply, however, I will refer to the post in that I thought too much effort was made in taking control of the meeting.  Strange isn't it? but if J.H. had the chair, you guys would have had the quorum (setting aside the defect in the Notice).


----------



## Joe Blow (26 July 2011)

Just a reminder that all posts that use the 







> tags incorrectly are being removed from the thread as a matter of course due to the confusion caused when they are requoted. Posts that quote posts with broken
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## seamisty (26 July 2011)

Quote DoraNboots "One thing I recall when Hutson was on the stand, she was asked about the rent-a-crowd and if she thought it was necessary as RE of the fund to investigate this behaviour and she said no"
That statement alone should have rung alarm bells in my opinion. Another complaint to ASIC of the current RE putting interests of others before PIF unitholders??? The list is growing. 

Ms Hutson states in the NSX announcement today::"I am particularly grateful for the letters, emails and calls of support and encouragement which I have received from you over recent times." Where was that support on the 23rd June if it actually existed?

The PIF AG would also like to thank all of you who supported us in our efforts to remove WC as RE, especially the unitholders who attended the EGM at their own expense who did not need to be bribed, paid or compensated in some way for their loyal support. We know travel arrangements were compromised  due to the efforts of Wellington Capital to create confusion relating to the EGM and resulted in penalty costs for many. Thanks also to those who could not attend the EGM but were supportive regardless.We would also like to thank all of you who have offered assistance in  helping in any way possible in the future to assist in the removal of WC as RE. To those of you who have had the courage to contact us and say "Hey we got it wrong, please be advised that we are extremely concerned with what went down at the EGM and no longer support WC"(and many more similar stories) thanks also.
We did not need benefactors or actors for support, we already had it.

Seamisty


----------



## selciper (26 July 2011)

Well, where can we go from here? Surely it's time for ASIC to actually take notice. Do they care about meetings being stacked? By their apparent inactions they give the impression that they don't mind at all.


----------



## seamisty (26 July 2011)

selciper said:


> Well, where can we go from here? Surely it's time for ASIC to actually take notice. Do they care about meetings being stacked? By their apparent inactions they give the impression that they don't mind at all.



U bet its time ASIC paid attention to the plight of the PIF selciper, they have only had three and a half years and thousands of complaints, so not sure what it takes to grab their attention? Last time I think it was some adverse media articles, any way I will complain away and encourage others to do like wise. Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (26 July 2011)

Duped said:


> Fair enough.  But that ---------------------
> As for quorum.  Well.  Anyone know what Doewsett says about this?




Gretings Duped,
Quorum; mentioned it in the earlier post above.
Looks like an own goal.

And it's not Doewsett; it's DOUBTSETT.
Doubt... for getting lost sight of a legitimate claim in the legalese maze of his own making;
Doubt... for leaving masses of confused elderly in continuing despair;
Doubt... for casting shadows on integrity of PIFAG & CasCap;
Doubt... for this legal system to be ever clearly defined;
Doubt... for optimism;
As seamisty says, I could go on and on and on.

And to ASICK: working diligently on post 8354 as requested?
Bear in mind; it's your redemption on this forum.
And with at least one share bought on NSX
(cheaper than 9 cent manna from Jenny) you will go legit.
Jenny's redemption of course is easier.
Make another Mad Move.
Busy machiavelizing another rights issue?
Try to forget to call Investor meeting to approve it, O'K.

Cheers,


----------



## simgrund (27 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> There's a few answers in the judgement.  I think it proves that Wellington does not have the numbers. ------------------------------------
> A very  clever, ruthless (I am reluctant to use the word) "Lady"
> 
> We must now convene another, legal, meeting, and rid ourselves of this pox!




We must go forth, John.
And feel free to adapt Red Terror as a sobriquet for this poxy lady.
Cheers,


----------



## simgrund (27 July 2011)

Well spotted Selciper with "Willful blindness" definition.
I say to all the knockers: try to strech remnants of your consciences to apply this definition to all the ASICS's, Doubtsetts, Parliamentarians and other so called public guardians of this world. 
They all seem to have swiped the blinkers off the last nag on the racecourse.

The good people on this thread have nothing to blame themselves for.
The roosters coming to this thread puffing out with their unsolicited insane diatribe 
of the "you people.. you guys.." blah blah blah type are doing nothing constructive 
(e.g. "I don't know" when asked a pertinent question) 
except adding to deception and confusion in the manner of the Malodorous One and the immitators who followed. Stop your imagination for an honest review.
Otherwise just PEEL OFF! 
The real PIF AG has made super progress without the proddings of the  aforementioned roosters. Horizons are clearing. 
And  progress continues.

With best regards


----------



## simgrund (27 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> To Simgrund - actually I thought your comments quite inane and not worthy of reply, however, I will refer to the post in that I thought too much effort was made in taking control of the meeting.  Strange isn't it? but if J.H. had the chair, you guys would have had the quorum (setting aside the defect in the Notice).




Inane it may be; but can you provide an intelligent answer?
And to previous confront about your associations with WC, PIF Reaction mob???
Still hiding??? You have been warned before that the Outing is near!

In waiting mode,


----------



## seamisty (27 July 2011)

Court deals blow to plans of Octaviar liquidators 
SMH Elisabeth Sexton 
July 27, 2011
THE liquidators of Octaviar have experienced a setback in their plans to sue one of the property and tourism financier's creditors, Fortress Credit Corporation.

The full Federal Court has overturned a litigation funding agreement allowing the parent company, Octaviar Ltd, to use money held by a subsidiary which carried out the group's treasury functions, Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd.

Fortress was not represented when Justice Margaret Stone approved the funding agreement in February, and on Monday three appeal judges set aside her ruling and sent the matter back for ''further consideration''.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/cour...liquidators-20110726-1hyj2.html#ixzz1TFVU8APA
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/cour...liquidators-20110726-1hyj2.html#ixzz1TFV4piga


----------



## ASICK (27 July 2011)

simgrund said:


> Inane it may be; but can you provide an intelligent answer?
> And to previous confront about your associations with WC, PIF Reaction mob???
> Still hiding??? You have been warned before that the Outing is near!
> 
> In waiting mode,




To Simgrund (in waiting mode), you set out your questions in a clear and concise manner in a new posting, and I'll be happy to attend to each and every one of them.

Further, you make allegations that I'm associated with WC and PIF Reaction. 

If you don't tender proof of your allegations by the presentation of clear evidence on this forum, then you should apologize and ask the moderator to remove posting # 8401, otherwise I will make a complaint to the moderator that you, Simgrund, are making defamatory statements on this forum.

Simgrund, you seem to lack the technical skills to deal with the issues confronting members of your fund, rather you prefer to engage in nonsensical verbiage,  which in the end, takes everybody nowhere.


----------



## Duped (27 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> To Simgrund - actually I thought your comments quite inane and not worthy of reply, however, I will refer to the post in that I thought too much effort was made in taking control of the meeting.  Strange isn't it? but if J.H. had the chair, you guys would have had the quorum (setting aside the defect in the Notice).




And the Chair could then have changed the order of the motions to make sure the ~$5M termination fee would have to be paid to WC.  As you say, you're not across all the details. Me neither. That's why I'm here on ASF.

The question now is: why weren't the proxies that were entrusted to Armstrong Registry Services at the meeting?  Hutson is making lots of noise about being locked out.  But this is in dispute according to Dowsett's decision:

"[18] ...[FONT=&quot]She implied that her non-attendance was attributable to the dispute about the Chairman’s claim to chair the meeting and/or the fact that she was detained against her will.

[[/FONT][FONT=&quot]19]      [/FONT][FONT=&quot]There is other evidence concerning events prior to the meeting, including evidence from Ms Hutson and from Mr Ferrier, another officer of Castlereagh.  Mr Armstrong has also given an account of events, as has Ms Weeks.  Many of the incidents referred to by Mr Macafee and in the statement to the Stock Exchange are in dispute.  It would be very difficult fairly to resolve such disputes, given the relatively superficial cross-examination which has occurred, no doubt as a result of the urgency of these proceedings.  It would, I think, be unfair to any of the witnesses to undertake a detailed examination of his or her evidence with a view to accepting or rejecting such evidence.  Further, I have concluded that it is not necessary that I do so in order to resolve the matter."[/FONT]

Lets assume e.g. that Hutson was as 'at fault' for being locked out as CasCap/PIFAG. Then the only excuse Hutson has left for those proxies not being in attendance is the dispute over the Chair.  The PIF constitution clearly states Hutson was entitled to take the chair.  But Hutson is not obligated to. So the question arises: is Hutson allowed to exclude those proxies from a meeting merely because she is being denied her entitlement to (but not obligation) the Chair.  This denial would of course be a breach of the terms of the PIF Constitution right?  Would a breach of the PIF constitution necessarily render the meeting invalid? (Possibly.  But even if she did win this argument to overturn a vote against WC - it wouldn't be good for business.) BUT is: preventing a breach of the PIF constitution an acceptable reason for withholding proxies from a meeting?  After all, as we have been told, withholding those proxies means the meeting can't be validly adjourned.

Just some musings from a lay casual observer.


----------



## charles36 (27 July 2011)

Duped said:


> And the Chair could then have changed the order of the motions to make sure the ~$5M termination fee would have to be paid to WC.  As you say, you're not across all the details. Me neither. That's why I'm here on ASF.
> 
> The question now is: why weren't the proxies that were entrusted to Armstrong Registry Services at the meeting?  Hutson is making lots of noise about being locked out.  But this is in dispute according to Dowsett's decision:
> 
> ...




Do not forget the proxies being held by M/S Hutson.  Included in these proxies were a number who wished to vote in favour of CASCAP.  This was confirmed to me by M/S Hutson at about 9 a.m. on the morning of the 23 June, 2011, in the presence of Mr. Phil Armstrong,  M/S Rachael Weeks, and an associate of M/S Hutson.  These persons I am sure would have wanted their proxies cast.  In addition I have evidence of quite a few unit holders who changed their proxy from WC to CasCap after hearing the shenanigans of M/S Hutson & Co at the unofficial meeting attended by the hired hands.


----------



## BootsnAll (27 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> To Simgrund (in waiting mode), you set out your questions in a clear and concise manner in a new posting, and I'll be happy to attend to each and every one of them.
> 
> Further, you make allegations that I'm associated with WC and PIF Reaction.
> 
> ...





*A note to ASICK & SIMGRUND.
This forum is not for airing your personal vendettas. Keep this up and the Administrator will probably bounce you off the forum.
I suggest you both take a cold shower & think before you post.:twak:
*


----------



## ASICK (27 July 2011)

[Duped]

"And the Chair could then have changed the order of the motions to make sure the ~$5M termination fee would have to be paid to WC.  As you say, you're not across all the details. Me neither. That's why I'm here on ASF."

Duped, for sure, it's nice to engage in debate with you.  We each have knowledge about particular issues, but we each recognize that knowledge is limited.

I don't believe the order of the motions mattered at all anyway.   I think that once the manager is ousted, then the manager is ousted, and it's my view that the manager couldn't be compelled to do anything once ousted.

However, if it was the case that the order of motions was a critical issue, then that should have been disclosed to members.  I don't recall such a disclosure being made, and I'm sure if it was the case, that many many more members would have attended the meeting to press shoulder to shoulder to win the day.

"The question now is: why weren't the proxies that were entrusted to Armstrong Registry Services at the meeting?  Hutson is making lots of noise about being locked out.  But this is in dispute according to Dowsett's decision:

"[18] ...[FONT=&quot]She implied that her non-attendance was attributable to the dispute about the Chairman’s claim to chair the meeting and/or the fact that she was detained against her will.

[[/FONT][FONT=&quot]19]      [/FONT][FONT=&quot]There is other evidence concerning events prior to the meeting, including evidence from Ms Hutson and from Mr Ferrier, another officer of Castlereagh.  Mr Armstrong has also given an account of events, as has Ms Weeks.  Many of the incidents referred to by Mr Macafee and in the statement to the Stock Exchange are in dispute.  It would be very difficult fairly to resolve such disputes, given the relatively superficial cross-examination which has occurred, no doubt as a result of the urgency of these proceedings.  It would, I think, be unfair to any of the witnesses to undertake a detailed examination of his or her evidence with a view to accepting or rejecting such evidence.  Further, I have concluded that it is not necessary that I do so in order to resolve the matter."[/FONT]"

The judge's statements speak for themselves, detailed examination wasn't necessary because the issues were moot given that the judge found the Notice was defective in any event.

"Lets assume e.g. that Hutson was as 'at fault' for being locked out as CasCap/PIFAG. Then the only excuse Hutson has left for those proxies not being in attendance is the dispute over the Chair.  The PIF constitution clearly states Hutson was entitled to take the chair.  But Hutson is not obligated to. So the question arises: is Hutson allowed to exclude those proxies from a meeting merely because she is being denied her entitlement to (but not obligation) the Chair.  This denial would of course be a breach of the terms of the PIF Constitution right?  Would a breach of the PIF constitution necessarily render the meeting invalid? (Possibly.  But even if she did win this argument to overturn a vote against WC - it wouldn't be good for business.) BUT is: preventing a breach of the PIF constitution an acceptable reason for withholding proxies from a meeting?  After all, as we have been told, withholding those proxies means the meeting can't be validly adjourned."

If the constitution (in so far as it related to J.H. chairing the meeting) is breached, then I'd say the meeting would be invalid.  However, as I understand it, the judge didn't address that issue in the judgment.  So many issues become moot on the finding that the Notice was defective.

"Just some musings from a lay casual observer." As are those from all of us.


----------



## ASICK (27 July 2011)

BootsnAll said:


> *A note to ASICK & SIMGRUND.
> This forum is not for airing your personal vendettas. Keep this up and the Administrator will probably bounce you off the forum.
> I suggest you both take a cold shower & think before you post.:twak:
> *




A note to BootsnAll:

Defamatory statements should never be permitted on this forum.  You should direct your comments to Simgund and ask him to either wirthdraw the statements I complain of, or alternatively tender evidence to support his allegations.

I cannot permit such allegations to go unchallenged.


----------



## selciper (27 July 2011)

Bernie Madoff, the notorious American Ponzi scheme operator who lost billions of investors' savings, was arrested in December 08. He pleaded guily - that admission sped up the judicial process. He was in jail, sentenced to 150 years, by March 09. In this country we have fraudsters who ripped off elderly people as far back as early 2007, living normal lives with no sign of prison terms looming before them.

I raise the above observation to underline the incredible slowness of ASIC. In the matter of the alleged  rigged meeting, there must be paper and electronic trails a mile long, so why don't we see any evidence of action by the regulator?


----------



## Duped (27 July 2011)

Interpreting WC: Investor Update July 2011 Page 10

"Wellington Capital is aware that Castlereagh held an investor forum on 6 July 2011 where a range of questions were asked and responded to by Castlereagh.
The Investor Forum broadcast on 6 July 2011 makes false and misleading statements about Wellington Capital and its conduct and should be disregarded by Unitholders in the Fund."

I can't see anywhere in this statement that WC alleges Castlereagh made "false and misleading statements".  It wasn't just Castlereagh making statements. Unitholders also made statements.

I can't see why Castlereagh's statements should be disregarding if it was only the unitholders that made "false and misleading statements".

Good old juxtaposition trick here again perhaps? Anyone agree?


----------



## simgrund (27 July 2011)

BootsnAll said:


> *A note to ASICK & SIMGRUND.
> This forum is not for airing your personal vendettas. Keep this up and the Administrator will probably bounce you off the forum.
> I suggest you both take a cold shower & think before you post.:twak:
> *




Far from vendetta. It is important that the disinformation is stopped cold dead in its tracks. As Duped does in a post immediately preceding ably supported by charles36.
If I can contribute with the others to flush these disseminators out, then I will continue to do it. It is working splendidly so far.
Views of many are expressed against ASICK's undermining campaign. 
And with Moderator's much appreciated tolerance.  
These issues are beyond personal. they are binding all of us.

Cheers,


----------



## ASICK (27 July 2011)

simgrund said:


> Far from vendetta. It is important that the disinformation is stopped cold dead in its tracks. As Duped does in a post immediately preceding ably supported by charles36.
> If I can contribute with the others to flush these disseminators out, then I will continue to do it. It is working splendidly so far.
> Views of many are expressed against ASICK's undermining campaign.
> And with Moderator's much appreciated tolerance.
> ...




You should tender your evidence or withdraw your defamatory statement.

Now you speak of a 'undermining campaign' by ASICK - why don't you be more specific and disclose the exact statements I've made that  constitute 'undermining'?

Simgrund, I've looked back at EVERY posting you've ever made, and I can't find even one posting which speaks to anything of a technical nature relating to even one issue confronting members of your fund.  

Now's your chance to speak to specific issues and engage in debate rather than engaging in inane rhetoric while making unfounded and absurd allegations.


----------



## lawry1dog (27 July 2011)

Would like to thank all who have helped us out trying to get our money back.
It is much appreciated and have learnt a lot about managed funds.

My current interpretation of state of play, is as follows:-
*Going by the last WC update, it seems a 2 year wait for any money from them.*
*The Class Action will be judged soon and maybe some money coming our way, but   
 via WC (have to wait 30 days after decision).*

So does that mean a 2 year wait still for WC to liquidate and could the Class Action go to an Appeal and thus a 2 year wait there as well?

Could someone clarify my assumptions, Please.
Am I too pessimistic?


----------



## Duped (27 July 2011)

Actually I don't think any of this is nice.  I don't enjoy this. I don't enjoy the fight. I'd rather be spending time with my family and friends or my community. I'm not a warrier that loves the battle field.  I'm a builder/grower. But sometimes the builders/growers have to fight. I think building and growing is nice.  



> I think that once the manager is ousted, then the manager is ousted,...



 Are you saying that you believe that from the second the motion to sack WC is carried that all of WC's duties and responsibilities end. Even to act on the motion that was carried before they were sacked?  Don't need to "compell" WC when it's a a huge cash entitlement that should mean WC will be only to happy to act on. Remember that WC raised ~$7M in the recent placement.  Which I'm guessing is probably about the right amount to pay WC its ~$5M termination fee, whatever the WC appointed agents McCollough Robertson will be owed by PIF and whatever Armstrong Registry Services bills PIF.



> However, if it was the case that the order of motions was a critical issue, then that should have been disclosed to members.



 OK then. So WC should have disclosed to members that WC had not been invited to be the Chair, that WC intended to enforce it's entitlement to the chair and that if WC wasn't given the chair then it WC might withhold proxiesto prevent a breach of a clause of the constitution.  (After all, don't you think that Hutson agreeing to make a speech to the Hired Actors indicates she was aware of how critical the issue was?)



> ... moot given that the judge found the Notice was defective in any event.



 That's right. A lot of this could be swept under the carpet because 372 (~3%) investors MAY have not been individually notified.


----------



## ASICK (27 July 2011)

[Duped]

"Are you saying that you believe that from the second the motion to sack WC is carried that all of WC's duties and responsibilities end. Even to act on the motion that was carried before they were sacked?"

yes, that is my view/opinion and it differs from that of CasCap and the PFIFAG.  On balance, it's more likely the case that I'm wrong, but I sustain the view because the issue hasn't been tested yet.   I remain of the view that even if WC was ousted, that WC would bring an action for the payment of the $5m fee.

"Don't need to "compell" WC when it's a a huge cash entitlement that should mean WC will be only to happy to act on. Remember that WC raised ~$7M in the recent placement.  Which I'm guessing is probably about the right amount to pay WC its ~$5M termination fee, whatever the WC appointed agents McCollough Robertson will be owed by PIF and whatever Armstrong Registry Services bills PIF."

WC wouldn't need to raise money by way of a placement.   In the event WC was entitled to the $5m, then the fund, like it or not, would be forced to an sell asset/s in order to pay the debt in a business-like manner, regardless of whether the asset/s was/were sold at fair value or otherwise (in order words, a real fire sale/s).

"OK then. So WC should have disclosed to members that WC had not been invited to be the Chair, that WC intended to enforce it's entitlement to the chair and that if WC wasn't given the chair then it WC might withhold proxies to prevent a breach of a clause of the constitution.  (After all, don't you think that Hutson agreeing to make a speach to the Hired Actors indicates she was aware of how critical the issue was?)"

I should have been more speciifc.   CasCap/PIFAG should have made it clear to members in order to bolster support at the meeting.  I think it was a mistake not to make members aware of the risks of various issues.   

Of course if WC was aware of the risk to CasCap and PIFAG (that is, if they thought the proposals did have merit), then what motivation would WC have to strengthen the other side's chances?


----------



## Duped (27 July 2011)

ASICK.  No need to force sales of assets and/or go to court to enforce rights.  The cash bags are packed and ready from the last placement aren't they?  If one bird in the hand is  better than two in the bush then what about two birds in the hand.


----------



## ASICK (27 July 2011)

Duped said:


> ASICK.  No need to force sales of assets and/or go to court to enforce rights.  The cash bags are packed and ready from the last placement aren't they?  If one bird in the hand is  better than two in the bush then what about two birds in the hand.




If you think about it, if WC is ousted, then I don't think they could write the $5m cheque, in which case, if a new manager believed that WC was not entitled to the payment, then any dispute would necessarily end up in court for resolution.  

If the court orders the payment, then the source of the money is a moot point.

If WC is not ousted then there's no need to write the cheque and the cash bags wouldn't be used for that purpose. However, there is the issue (as I understand it), that if a certain value is returned to investors, then WC would be entitled to management fees.

Depending on CasCap's plans, there's a gap in play which might allow WC to make the extra payment to investors and then pick up the management fee for itself, and then what?  back to the game?

I think what we're all seeing is the danger in allowing even the slightest amendment to a fund's constitution go down without very very close scrutiny by investors, hence the reason members should come to understand the technical aspects of their respective funds.

I wonder just how many people understood WC's proposal for listing the fund in the first place?


----------



## thekids (27 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> If you think about it, if WC is ousted, then I don't think they could write the $5m cheque, in which case, if a new manager believed that WC was not entitled to the payment, then any dispute would necessarily end up in court for resolution.
> 
> If the court orders the payment, then the source of the money is a moot point.
> 
> ...





If you are talking about the RIGHTS ISSUE, that has been refunded to investors.

If you are talking about the purchases on the stock exchange, i guess that's why JH wanted PIF listed.  She knows it's pay day once she has paid another 1c each.


----------



## Duped (27 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> Depending on CasCap's plans, there's a gap in play which might allow WC to make the extra payment to investors and then pick up the management fee for itself, and then what?  back to the game?




Eh? What's the management fee got to do with my last post. I'm talking about the termination fee. See Clause 23.3 of the PIF constitution. "2% of the gross value of the scheme (as determined in the most recent audited accounts)" 

In case anyone needs help with the Rithmetic: 2% of $255.5M is $5.11M in that cash bag. (Or 2% of $253.3 if WC is jennerous to unitholders and only takes a cut of the NET assets.)

Note: "gross value".  I.e. not Net Value.  So what's stopping WC loading up the fund with $50M debt to justifying dropping another $million into that cash bag. WC has already recently said it wants 10s of $millions to prepare assets for sale hasn't it? If the capital raising fails then WC has an excuse for borrowing doesn't it?

So all our discussion about order of the motions? Is that moot now?

(If WC could only just PDF all their docs so I could cut and paste I'd drop the full text of the clause in here.  You want me to transcribe the whole thing?)

BTW WC: don't you think you should update your webpages to show the correct number of units on issue.  This one still lists it as 755,032,768  http://www.wellcap.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=8


----------



## thekids (27 July 2011)

Duped said:


> Eh? What's the management fee got to do with my last post. I'm talking about the termination fee. See Clause 23.3 of the PIF constitution. "2% of the gross value of the scheme (as determined in the most recent audited accounts)"
> 
> In case anyone needs help with the Rithmetic: 2% of $255.5M is $5.11M in that cash bag. (Or 2% of $253.3 if WC is jennerous to unitholders and only takes a cut of the NET assets.)
> 
> ...






Duped, I was referring to available funds to pay themselves the 5mil


----------



## Duped (27 July 2011)

And there it is. A bid just went up for 200,000 at 6c.  Shall be interesting when that old bid at 8c is completely filled. I wonder how the 119 new names on the register (that MAY not have been individually notified) feel about the share price dropping to 6c since about the time of Dowsett's decision? I wonder how they would feel now about the substantial injustice that they MAY have been dealt. Tough position Dowsett was put in.


----------



## ASICK (27 July 2011)

Duped said:


> Eh? What's the management fee got to do with my last post. I'm talking about the termination fee. See Clause 23.3 of the PIF constitution. "2% of the gross value of the scheme (as determined in the most recent audited accounts)"
> 
> In case anyone needs help with the Rithmetic: 2% of $255.5M is $5.11M in that cash bag. (Or 2% of $253.3 if WC is jennerous to unitholders and only takes a cut of the NET assets.)
> 
> ...




I am acutely aware of the distinction between management fees and a termination fee, as I'm sure you are.

I added comment on the managment fee payable when a certain amount is repaid to investors, which was additional to the comment on the termination fee in the following context, that there would be no need for the manager to draw funds for the termination fee (since WC would remain the manager), BUT, there is nothing stopping monies being paid to investors, and then WC drawing management fees (which would come from asset sales regardless of such sales being fire sales) because such fees would be due and payable ... if this happens, then WC would pick up its' mangement fees, and then what happens? does the game go on to oust WC and risk WC taking $5m on top of the management fees? (if the management fees were drawn).

Investors might feel it's okay for the manager to pick up the $5m as a 'good bye' fee, but add a similar amount in management fees, and the 'good bye' starts to take on a whole different impost, a rather significant one.


----------



## selciper (27 July 2011)

I see today that a couple of Australian big players are going to jail, but certainly not for 150 years!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...apsed-owing-630m/story-e6frg6nf-1226102589309


----------



## JohnH (27 July 2011)

selciper said:


> I see today that a couple of Australian big players are going to jail, but certainly not for 150 years!
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...apsed-owing-630m/story-e6frg6nf-1226102589309




Yep............ maximum of 18 month in total for the two!  That's well over a Million dollars a day for what was lost!!


----------



## Duped (27 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> Investors might feel it's okay for the manager to pick up the $5m as a 'good bye' fee, but add a similar amount in management fees, and the 'good bye' starts to take on a whole different impost, a rather significant one.




Which would make the order of the motions even more important. Which is why I responded to your comment (see below) in the first place



> To Simgrund - actually I thought your comments quite inane and not  worthy of reply, however, I will refer to the post in that I thought too  much effort was made in taking control of the meeting.  Strange isn't  it? but if J.H. had the chair, you guys would have had the quorum  (setting aside the defect in the Notice).


----------



## ASICK (27 July 2011)

Duped said:


> Which would make the order of the motions even more important. Which is why I responded to your comment (see below) in the first place




With respect, I spoke to the gap (in time, be it short or long) now created by the failure of the meeting, which would not have been an issue had the meeting been proceeded with and was resolved in your side's favour.   Now there is time for the manager to make a payment to investors in order to be entitled to draw a management fee, which fee  I understand to be substantial.  This is ADDITIONAL to any termination fee and as has happened,  the manager did not make the payment before the meeting and would not have been entitled to management fees prior to the meeting.

I'll repeat: I don't believe the order of the proposals matters because it is my view that two meetings would have necessary to avoid the $5m payment to the manager in the event it was ousted.   I'm of the belief that the original proposals were not adequate to protect against the payment of the termination fee if WC was ousted.  Your side thought otherwise, but in any event, the matter was not tested.

I'm sure the intention was to frame the proposals in such a way as to avoid the  termination payment in the event 75% (plus 1 unit) supported the constitutional amendments, but even if successful at the meeting, and regardless of the order of the proposals,  I don't believe WC would have accepted the outcome, and the matter would have ended up in court anyway.

It is simply my view that, in order to avoid the entrenched clauses,  the whole process should have taken two steps - (1) a meeting to effect constitutional amendments to repeal all offensive clauses, and (2) another meeting to oust the manager.  There would have to be a reasonable time period between the two meetings.

Whether you agree or not, I merely present an alternative perspective.


----------



## Duped (27 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> I'll repeat: I don't believe the order of the proposals matters because it is my view that two meetings would have necessary to avoid the $5m payment to the manager in the event its' ousted.   I'm of the belief that the original proposals were not adequate to protect against the payment of the termination fee if WC was ousted.  Your side thought otherwise, but in any event, the matter was not tested.




But as you say.  You're not a lawyer.  Whereas according to another poster here, PIFAG/CasCap had advice from a QC. So this conversation comes to an end. Or are you a lawyer?


----------



## ASICK (27 July 2011)

Duped said:


> But as you say.  You're not a lawyer.  Whereas according to another poster here, PIFAG/CasCap had advice from a QC. So this conversation comes to an end. Or are you a lawyer?




As I understand it, the QC's opinion related to whether the consitutional amendments relating to a quorum where consistent with the Corporations Act.  However the judge didn't agree with the QC, an outcome which is not uncommon.  The law doesn't follow the opinions of any QC (Senior Counsel) but rather the decisions of judges.

Both sides of every case get professional advice, but only one side ever wins.  

No, I am not a lawyer.


----------



## Duped (27 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> As I understand it, the QC's opinion related to whether the consitutional amendments relating to a quorum where consistent with the Corporations Act.  However the judge didn't agree with the QC, an outcome which is not uncommon.  The law doesn't follow the opinions of any QC (Senior Counsel) but rather the decisions of judges.
> 
> Both sides of every case get professional advice, but only one side ever wins.
> 
> No, I am not a lawyer.




And Justice Gordon didn't agree with Hutson about the amendment to the PIF constitution. And JJ Holmes, Muir, White, Gummow, Hayne, Kiefel, Bell and CJ French didn't agree with J McMurdo.  And you're not a lawyer. Let alone a judge.  Right? So then why are you here writing reams slamming PIFAG/CasCap's performance about untested law. They shouldn't have used a "dated" register.  Granted.  The rest, as you say, is moot.

Re your two stage proposal.  And what's stopping WC from immediately calling an EM to reinstate the termination fee before the 2nd meeting can be held? Wack it into a bundle of motions and apply the WC marketing machine to dopes like me who thought investing in something like PIF was a good idea in the first place and presto. It's crazy to think that the Corporations Act can allow for a clause to be added to the constitution with a lower quorum requirement than a quorum requirement to have the same clause removed.  Seriously? Do you think that's fair?


----------



## ASICK (27 July 2011)

[Duped]

"Re your two stage proposal.  And what's stopping WC from immediately calling an EM to reinstate the termination fee before the 2nd meeting can be held? Wack it into a bundle of motions and apply the WC marketing machine to dopes like me who thought investing in something like PIF was a good idea in the first place and presto."

There is nothing to stop the manager calling a meeting, but why would the manager need to do that?  As you say, the "WC marketing machine" could be mobilized in any event: something that would be expected.

"It's crazy to think that the Corporations Act can allow for a clause to be added to the constitution with a lower quorum requirement than a quorum requirement to have the same clause removed. Seriously? Do you think that's fair?"

Fair? what's fair got to do with it?  I've never read your fund's constitution, but the clause you speak to would either (1) have been present by the birth of the fund, or (2) have inserted as a new or amended clause.

So, either members knew (or ought to have known) about it when they invested, or alternatively, the clause was inserted as a new clause or an amendment by way of a meeting of members.

If members knew when they invested, then why did they invest?

If members thought the clause oppressive when proposed as a new clause or amendment, then why did 75% plus 1 unit support it?

This is called the 'devil in the detail', but investors don't want to know about detail, and then when the 'devil' pops up, then and only then do they take the time to complain about the detail: it's a case of putting the cart before the horse, and it's altogether too bl**dy late.


----------



## Jadel (27 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> As I understand it, the QC's opinion related to whether the consitutional amendments relating to a quorum where consistent with the Corporations Act.  However the judge didn't agree with the QC, an outcome which is not uncommon.  The law doesn't follow the opinions of any QC (Senior Counsel) but rather the decisions of judges.
> 
> Both sides of every case get professional advice, but only one side ever wins.
> 
> No, I am not a lawyer.




Many moons ago, the QC in a large court action I was involved with informed  me the that the legal fraternity was a select club and the outcome would be determined on that basis  , regardless of any  legal technicalities 

 Can we leave this debate on that note


----------



## JohnH (27 July 2011)

Jadel said:


> Many moons ago, the QC in a large court action I was involved with informed  me the that the legal fraternity was a select club and the outcome would be determined on that basis  , regardless of any  legal technicalities
> 
> * Can we leave this debate on that note*




Totally, totally agree Jadel.  Can we not put all this rhetoric and expertise to looking forward, rather than crying over spilt milk?  ....... John H


----------



## Harald (27 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> [Duped]
> 
> "Re your two stage proposal.  And what's stopping WC from immediately calling an EM to reinstate the termination fee before the 2nd meeting can be held? Wack it into a bundle of motions and apply the WC marketing machine to dopes like me who thought investing in something like PIF was a good idea in the first place and presto."
> 
> ...




Please stop it Asick. You make me throwing up. Most of us have invested in this fund
because of financial advisors. As I understand You are one of those. My financial
advisor first advised us to invest in MFS and than advised us to vote for JH. We followed his advise and now know how bad this dicision was.

We couldn't know that there is a difference even in the High Courts in Australia.
Most probably we would have got justice in an NSW or Victoria High Court but
didn't get it in Brisbane. But off course You know everything and reminds us
investors how stupid we are.


----------



## ASICK (27 July 2011)

Harald said:


> Please stop it Asick. You make me throwing up. Most of us have invested in this fund
> because of financial advisors. As I understand You are one of those. My financial
> advisor first advised us to invest in MFS and than advised us to vote for JH. We followed his advise and now know how bad this dicision was.
> 
> ...




For you Harald, I will.  I, like you, lost money throught my lack of knowledge about managed funds, but I've taken the view to learn where I went wrong and try to guard against it happening again.   I want to know the detail, because I fear the 'devil' that's always there.  If you wish to ignore the detail and wait for the "devil" to appear, then there's no help I'm able to offer.


----------



## Harald (27 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> For you Harald, I will.  I, like you, lost money throught my lack of knowledge about managed funds, but I've taken the view to learn where I went wrong and try to guard against it happening again.   I want to know the detail, because I fear the 'devil' that's always there.  If you wish to ignore the detail and wait for the "devil" to appear, then there's no help I'm able to offer.




I don't wish to ignore details nor I'm waiting for the devil. This devil got already her
fingers on our fund. I only have the feeling that You want to destabilise the trust
that has grown between CasCap and us investors. Is it this that You want??


----------



## seamisty (27 July 2011)

Absolutely no mention anywhere in the 12 pages of the last PIF update issued by Wellington Capital and paid for by us, of the 'rent a crowd' at the EGM? Considering it was covered extensively in the media and mentioned in court transcripts I find this odd. Especially since Ms Hutson professed to have not having prior knowledge of this deceptive charade. Was no mention made because if at some future point in time after the whole incident is fully investigated by ASIC and it is found that WC did in fact have prior knowledge of the event and all those extra entries on Armstrongs data base were not end of year top ups from funds etc but in fact the exact name match of the approx 200 'extras' who were hired on the 23rd June and had not signed any paperwork on the 21st June when they were in fact registered( don't cancel any imminent travel plans etc waiting for an outcome!) Also if I have to contribute to printing and mailing costs of material that contains statements such as "Deliberately misleading, ambiguous, unfounded and inflammatory statements have been made' I want to know what this specifically relates to? Be more specific or don't waste any more of my money.
No comment from the one lonely remaining IAC member?
Seamisty


----------



## selciper (27 July 2011)

I would have thought that ASIC would first check with the Actors Agency concerned  to see who initially made contact with them and who footed the bill for 200 stand-ins. There has to be an abundance of clues that have been left behind. This must be a considerable worry for someone.


----------



## simgrund (27 July 2011)

So now we know who you are ASICK. 
The following are few examples from your participation on Equititrust thread.
Same dreary finger poking with "...you guys, sitting ducks, sinking feeling"
and other degrading, humiliating diatribe. 
And that's from someone who is not a member of that thread's fraternity. 
Just as you are not a member of PIF fraternity. 
If you were, acquisition of Empathy would transform you.
Not much excitement happening on Equi thread; being squeezed between Kostag and No Trust who hardly paid any attention to your unsolicited insights.
So you hopped onto PIF train with more bells and whistles.
You are a vagabond, a drifter seeking to worm yourself into circles of people who have genuine desires to interchange information to sustain their senses of optimism, hope, dignity and determination.
We, these people, do not want to be degraded by the likes of you by being told how inferior our "technical understandings" are. 
We don't want your acidic dripping distracting us from exchanges of support and compassion on this thread. 
You should write down all your technicalities into a book and submit it for publishing. Good luck there.
No point to bait the good folk here hoping a legal action may come your way for perceived defamation. 
Ha, more good luck to you there.  

[[["*13th-June-2011 07:14 PM #746 ASICKJoin DateFeb 2011Posts191 Re: Equititrust?* Just another great example of how interest is accrued and then capitalized and of how the fund and its paper profits grew as a hollow facade, only to crash a year or two into the future.
By your manager's own admission, the fund had about $30m in impairments paid from another 'pocket' without the knowledge of the owners of the fund advancing the loans - it's just extraordinary that ASIC pays not attention to such a goings-on.
You guys were just sitting ducks - just like the members of the badly damaged funds which preceded you. 
*15th-June-2011 06:40 AM #752  ASICKJoin DateFeb 2011Posts191 Re: Equititrust? *Did anyone make a complaint to ASIC about Equititrust Limited proping up impaired loans and not disclosing this action to investors? Why weren't the auditors aware of the acts? If the auditors were aware of it, why didn't they advise invesotrs? Could you imagine if you'd been aware of that a year or two ago?
Isn't the auditor KPMG? a well known co/defendent in so many claims by members of damaged managed funds.
The auditors are there to protect investors. 
*16th-June-2011 08:24 AM ASICKJoin DateFeb 2011Posts191Re:Equititrust?*
 'Deckchairs Ahoy!' 
I recall speaking about a 'sinking feeling' - do you guys have that feeling yet?
When the ships sink, don't they sink fast?
The real problem is that the capitain/s rarely go down with the ship/s. 
*17th-June-2011 12:17 PM #768  ASICKJoin DateFeb 2011Posts191Re: Equititrust? *
If Equititrust Limited isn't permitted to make money from running the fund, then don't you guys think it's the end of Equititrust as manager? - if it doesn't have the requisite liquidity in the company, ASIC will stip the company of its AFSL.
Is your fund in its death throes? 
*17th-June-2011 07:23 PM #770 ASICKJoin DateFeb 2011Posts191Re: Equititrust? *
"No Trust", first cab off the rank should be a complaint to ASIC about the manager's unilateral constitutional amendment.
Secondly, your solicitor should obtain the registry from the fund manager and write to all investors - no point trying to contact investors via this forum. 
*23rd-June-2011 07:34 PM #793  ASICKJoin DateFeb 2011Posts192 Re: Equititrust?*
"... EIF will record an accounting loss and a tax loss for the year ended 30 June 2011. Accordingly, as EIF has no income to distribute, the ordinary monthly payments received by investors in the period 2 July 2010 to 29 March 2011 are all partial repayments of capital and, therefore, are not income and will not need to be included in the assessable income in an investor’s tax return for the current year. ..."
Drat! nothing earned for the WHOLE year ... but you did get some of your money back .. you can add that to the $0.78c each unit is now worth (as at 30 April 2011).
But wait! there's - two more months to lose some more yet!
My guess - recovery of anywhere near $0.78 is a dream, but it's a dream many investors will cling to for fear of loss.
What a difference a year makes."]]]

There will be thousands thanking you for telling them "...two more months to lose some more yet!"
A real cheerleader in the hour of need, ha!


----------



## MAE (27 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> [elizaman]
> 
> I really don't know what sort of job WellCap has done for your fund.   I really can't speak to that issue, but clearly many of you think that the job has been far from well done.
> 
> ...


----------



## seamisty (27 July 2011)

Gee Mae, have I been 'out posted' for a change? Darn, will have to give up my 'other' volunteer day job! Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (27 July 2011)

Duped said:


> Which would make the order of the motions even more important. Which is why I responded to your comment (see below) in the first place




Duped, my respected collegue & friend,
I so sympathise with your inability to ignore this interloper.
The Moderator will be grateful for reems of freed cyber space
now being cluttered with these fruitless exchanges.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Malodourous one may have morphed into
ASICK. 
Same impenetrable dogmas.

Agh, the tangled webs we weave!


----------



## ASICK (27 July 2011)

simgrund said:


> Duped, my respected collegue & friend,
> I so sympathise with your inability to ignore this interloper.
> The Moderator will be grateful for reems of freed cyber space
> now being cluttered with these fruitless exchanges.
> ...




Simgrund, I looked back through your postings again, just to see if you made one useful contribution in order to prevent loss in your fund, but alas, I could not find one.  In fact, your inane mumblings do nothing to aid your fellow fund members from minimizing the loss you've continue to suffer.

The position that members of your fund now find themselves is not a pleasant one, and in my opinion, you are worse off today than you were last month.

But, it's your money, and if you want to waste it, then go ahead - if you value your mumblings over your money, then please mumble away as your coinage shrinks.


----------



## Harald (27 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> Simgrund, I looked back through your postings again, just to see if you made one useful contribution in order to prevent loss in your fund, but alas, I could not find one.  In fact, your inane mumblings do nothing to aid your fellow fund members from minimizing the loss you've continue to suffer.
> 
> The position that members of your fund now find themselves is not a pleasant one, and in my opinion, you are worse off today than you were last month.
> 
> But, it's your money, and if you want to waste it, then go ahead - if you value your mumblings over your money, then please mumble away as your coinage shrinks.




And there is no advantage at all for us to read Your mumblings. Just the opposite!!
As You said, it's our money and You will defenitely not be able to save 1 cent for us.
Just the opposite because we have to read Your mumblings and are distracted from
some positive thinking and planning.


----------



## seamisty (27 July 2011)

Simgrund would you please check your notifications, I have sent you a PM. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (27 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> Simgrund, I looked back through your postings again, just to see if you made one useful contribution in order to prevent loss in your fund, but alas, I could not find one.  In fact, your inane mumblings do nothing to aid your fellow fund members from minimizing the loss you've continue to suffer.
> 
> The position that members of your fund now find themselves is not a pleasant one, and in my opinion, you are worse off today than you were last month.
> 
> But, it's your money, and if you want to waste it, then go ahead - if you value your mumblings over your money, then please mumble away as your coinage shrinks.




As I said already; an impenetrable imbecility.
I am afraid there may be no cure.
I am done with; be you Malodorous One, ASICK, Ken or whatever.
I am off to smell the roses.

Cheers


----------



## AusInCA (27 July 2011)

ASICK said:


> Strange isn't it? but if J.H. had the chair, you guys would have had the quorum (setting aside the defect in the Notice).





If J.H. chaired the meeting, in particular with the rent-a-crowd in attendance, the meeting possibly would have been dissolved without the motions being put to a count.


----------



## Harald (27 July 2011)

simgrund said:


> As I said already; an impenetrable imbecility.
> I am afraid there may be no cure.
> I am done with; be you Malodorous One, ASICK, Ken or whatever.
> I am off to smell the roses.
> ...




Hi Simgrund, I had already turned off the computer and had to restart.
Could it be that ASICK was giving us the clue what he stands for?
Could it be that ASICK means a sick one?

Kind Regards


----------



## DepressedDad (28 July 2011)

I like Simgrund's posts so who are you to call them inane mumblings A SIC ONE?  We don't all make contributions on here that 'prevent loss in the fund'. Since when was that a prerequist to posting??

I think it's time for you to move right along ASICK.  I don't want to open my computer & read such things from you as ' The position that members of your fund now find themselves is not a pleasant one, and in my opinion, you are worse off today than you were last month.'  Who are you to say?  And have you noticed no one is interested in your pessimistic critical opinion.

Moving right along now. Nothing to see here. You've outstayed your welcome. Go stir up some others down on their luck with your words of wisdom like 'serves you right, should have read the fineprint'. Thanks for dropping by.  Now beat it!


----------



## ASICK (28 July 2011)

DepressedDad said:


> I like Simgrund's posts so who are you to call them inane mumblings A SIC ONE?  We don't all make contributions on here that 'prevent loss in the fund'. Since when was that a prerequist to posting??
> 
> I think it's time for you to move right along ASICK.  I don't want to open my computer & read such things from you as ' The position that members of your fund now find themselves is not a pleasant one, and in my opinion, you are worse off today than you were last month.'  Who are you to say?  And have you noticed no one is interested in your pessimistic critical opinion.
> 
> Moving right along now. Nothing to see here. You've outstayed your welcome. Go stir up some others down on their luck with your words of wisdom like 'serves you right, should have read the fineprint'. Thanks for dropping by.  Now beat it!




No problems,  you're welcome to read my site anytime you get bored:
http://www.moneymagik.com

Back in August 2010, Balmain Trilogy (BT) called a meeting of the Pacific First Mortgage Fund (PFMF) for the purpose of implementing a new 'strategy' which included, among other things, a so-called 'performance fee'.   The fee was uncapped and attached itself to the any proceeds of the IMF action the fund was bringing.  The fee could be substantial.  

A number of us managed to get some funds together and sent a letter around to investors pointing out the defects in the proposal, and requested members oppose the proposal.  A member of the fund received national media attention which gave support to our cause to the extent Michael Pascoe published a scathing attack on BT's greedy grab for cash: http://www.smh.com.au/business/bonus-racket-twice-paid-for-a-single-job-20100830-1431p.html?skin=text-only

As a consequence of the pressure (probably mostly from Mr. Pascoe's article), BT dropped the uncapped fee to a mere $30m.

For us, facts were important, and it was important to inform as many of the 10,000 or so members of our position.   We didn't expect everyone to support us, and we knew that many small investors would support the manager because they perceived the manager's plan as a way out of the fund.

With the support of another fund manager we managed to send out a second letter since BT responded to our first letter with a quite document of their own.  BT had its' website, a call centre (which phoned probably most members of substance in the fund,  many of them a number of times), at least one senior staff member of Trilogy who phoned key members of the fund a number of times,  a hefty explanatory memorandum, and a supportive expert report:
http://balmaintrilogy.com.au/pdf/NOM_FINAL_5_8_2010.pdf
http://balmaintrilogy.com.au/pdf/ExpertsReport.pdf

Before the vote at the meeting, BT had amassed 66% of the vote - the meeting seemed very supportive of BT and cheered and clapped the BT CEO as he spoke to particular issues, but in the end, the hundreds of attendees (most of whom I think were relatively small unitholders) only advanced BT's share to 67%.  This is why I believe that if you can't win on the proxies, then you're unlikely to win at all: we had the experience and understand that fact. 

Sure, it's not a sure fired formula for success, but working on the 'crowd' (so to speak) by mail, email or telephone, will give the best outocome, and part of that 'working' is being as precise as possible with the detail of your argument.  What members of forums don't really understand it that NON-FORUM members have no idea of what's happening in forums and have no idea of the myriad of complaints forum members have against the manager.

At the moment, a number of us are looking for a new manager, and CasCap was a manager we would have liked to consider our fund.  I've spoken to Phil Armstrong and was very impressed by his frankness and knowledge.  We very much wanted CasCap to prevail and that view has not wavered.

To say that we were disappointed with the outcome in your case is an understatement.

Why ASICK? well, it was coined on my site in a posting some months ago, and when I lost my internet connection to my home I somehow lost access to my old handle of MELLIFUOUS - nothing sinister, I just thought I'd use ASICK when I decided it was easier to strike up a new handle.

ASICK was coined because I thought ASIC was SICK.  We'd made a substantial number of complaints and NOT ONE OF THEM was given any real consideration.  I am aware of a substantial complaint that went to ASIC from a member of your fund which was rejected, yet the Federal Court in Melbourne, by striking out your fund's recent uni-lateral amendments by the manager, effectively vindicated the complaint - again showing just how ineffective ASIC really is.

Forums seem to have developed two purposes, (1) social and grief, and (2) technical matters.   I've seen that (1) seems to override (2) to near extinction, a fact that is, in my view, counter-productive in protecting your best interest, which is what is left of YOUR MONEY.

I posted a number of posts on Equititrust because it was quite clear to me that the fund was about to go into a nose-dive, and it did.  If one takes the time to read the posts in context, one will see that they were all well-intentioned.

I think most members of these managed funds do not understand the basic principles of accounting and do not understand the ASIC reporting document RG-45.   Terms like ACCRUED INTEREST, LVR, and CAPITALIZED INTEREST are not widely understood.

It was from accrued capitalized interest whence most of Equititrusts losses arose.  These investors struggle, and if one takes the time to see the anguish from the fund members such as NO TRUST, one will see their utter dismay as being trapped in a lossy fund so late after those funds which have preceeded, such as the PIF and PFMF.

CityPac tried to list the PFMF (then known as the CPFMF) and that was resisted.  The listed PIF was the model we used to mount resistance, because we knew that listed the fund would isolate us from our money, as listing your fund has isolated all of you from your money.  You are now forced to 'redeem' by way of the sale of the units you hold on the NSX, your right to redeem from the PIF has been extinguished.

Citypac discontinued the listing idea and then proceeded with an equity sway (as has been suggested by Equititrust Limited for its' EIF fund).  That's where units in the fund are swapped for shares in the management company.  Wow, what a disaster that would have been for us if we'd warmed to that idea - I fear a poor outcome for Equititrust members if they warm to the idea with Equititrust Limited too.

As a consequence of your fund's nasty entrenched "$5m if you kick me out fee", we were alert to BT's efforts to deeply entrench its' fee, a fact that we brought to members attention.  We've come to understand that the "devil" IS in the detail, and so, if we ignore the detail, we're likely to come face to face with the 'devil'.

I can see my views are not well received, but you're the masters of your own destiny - I (and others) took our destiny into our own hands and fought what we believed to be the imposition of a repressive regime, and we won.

Regardless of the different way we see progression through the mess we find ourselves in, I hope you find a way out that leaves you with at least a reasonable return in the circumstances.   

I was approached by a member of your 'executive' at the Brisbane meeting, and he advised me at that time your fund would seek to oust your present manager.  I think he found some comfort in the work we'd done in opposing BT.  

As managed funds go, I think we were the first fund which successfully opposed a management initiated proposal.   It was a difficult and stressful time, but well worth the effort.

I believe detail is important, many of you don't - so let it be.  

As a matter of fact, I have a degree in law, but I don't practice law.   

Thanks for listening.


----------



## DoraNBoots (28 July 2011)

Harald said:


> ... reminds us investors how stupid we are.




Hi ASICK, I think the above from Harald says it all. I have found most on this threat that have the ability to look at the detail and provide constructive comment are bullied to the point that they go away. And anyone who isn't a unitholder seems not to be welcome. I find this severely reduces the benefit of this thread and makes it more of a social club than a useful place to share ideas (other than RE bashing). I do of course appreciate the media and NSX updates are all posted in one easy location.

Without outside help I do not see us getting a good outcome. People like asick, tuart, Stuart Wilson would have lots to offer us if only we could hack the truth.


----------



## simgrund (28 July 2011)

Aaaaaaaagh  again,
The NAME & SHAME show continues.
Here's the interloper's pride and joy project of brotherly inter-spitting.  

[[[19th-October-2009 11:51 AM #1 mellifuous Join DateJul 2009Posts465
 Managed fund co-operation group 

Welcome to this new thread which has been created in the hope that members all all managed funds might find ways of solving issues of common concern. 

Issues such as how to put pressure on government for a changes in applicable law in order to give (better) protection to investors in managed funds, how to pressure ASIC to look into alleged wrongdoings by fund managers, and how to gain co-operation with the media to present the plight of investors in a constructive and beneficial way.

If you are a member of a manager fund, or if you are not but feel you are able to contribute in a constructive way, then I sincerely hope you will join to express your view and co-operate to alleviate our mutual concerns.

This new thread is a joint effort of members of FMF and MFS at this time.]]] 

The thread's audience petered out after 145 posts 
and Mellifuous; aka Malodorous One, skinked away for serious deliberations on which brand of rejuvenating deodorant to use next.

Oh mother! We get ASICK the Tormentor.
Quickly, pass another gallon of deodorant!!!

And to Boots & All;
That Avatar boot; is it steel capped? 
Use it on the types I have just exposed. 
The Moderator appreciates all efforts to clean up the thread for use of genuine members.
Hope this subject will pop up next time we meet for coffee.

Regards,


----------



## simgrund (28 July 2011)

DoraNBoots said:


> Hi ASICK,  I think the above from Harald says it all.  I have found most on this threat  that have the ability to look at the detail and provide constructive comment are bullied to the point that they go away.  And anyone who isn't a unitholder seems not to be welcome.  I find this servely reduces the benift of this thread and makes it more of a social club than a usefull place to share ideas (other than RE bashing). I do of course appreciate the media and NSX updates are all posted in one easy location.
> 
> Without outside help I do not see us getting a good outcome.  People like asick, tuart, Stuart Wilson would have lots to offer us if only we could hack the truth.




Pleese, no encouragements for disruptive postings.


----------



## JohnH (28 July 2011)

“He who knows not and knows not he knows not: he is a fool - shun him. 
He who knows not and knows he knows not: he is simple - teach him.
He who knows and knows not he knows: he is asleep - wake him.
He who knows and knows he knows: he is wise - follow him.”


----------



## simgrund (28 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> “He who knows not and knows not he knows not: he is a fool - shun him.
> He who knows not and knows he knows not: he is simple - teach him.
> He who knows and knows not he knows: he is asleep - wake him.
> He who knows and knows he knows: he is wise - follow him.”




JohnH,
There are limits on levels of human generosity & tolerance. 
Especially when one is constantly singed while trying to answer that instinctive call to help. 
We learn to restrict our senses of passionate indignation when we learn to stop for a moment to pose a question: 
Hey, this indignitator could be one of Malodorous' wannabees. 
Then it's Bob's your uncle type of easy to ignore.
Or have  Boots&All's avatar (hope it's steel cap) step up with a well directed kung fu kick  to send this "HE" into a one-way orbit to write his book of technicalities to his heart's content.

We don't need here the purveyors of Dante's "Lasciate ogni speranza voi ch'entrate"!

Another cup of coffee soon?


----------



## JohnH (28 July 2011)

simgrund said:


> JohnH,
> There are limits on levels of human generosity & tolerance.
> Especially when one is constantly singed while trying to answer that instinctive call to help.
> We learn to restrict our senses of passionate indignation when we learn to stop for a moment to pose a question:
> ...




I agree that we do not need to be constantly reminded of our own stupidity and misplaced trust.  I do however believe that all contributors (including non unit holders) to this forum *may* have something to offer.  
Relevant expertise, sympathy, compassion, creativity, humour yes - but not negativity.
Dora & Boots, I also agree that sometimes  this forum is treated as social site - but where's the harm?
............ and yes Simgrund do give me a call when next up this way for a coffee, I do not believe that those that join this forum should abandon hope   ... John H.


----------



## Duped (28 July 2011)

Thanks for your frankness telling us about yourself ASICK



> ... but why would the manager need to do that?



 To vote on a motion to have the 2% termination fee reinstated into the constitution



> If members thought the clause oppressive when proposed as a new clause or amendment, then why did 75% plus 1 unit support it?



 Probably because it was bundled with other motions AND Hutson made a bunch of promises AND Huston highlighted an  alternative of 14c through liquidation. There's tomes already written on this forum about that event. Recall that ASIC actually took action against WC  back then.

See clause 23.3 and 10.2 to 10.4 at http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/pif_constitution.pdf.

The higher quorum requirement given in 10.3 and 10.4 was added at the same time as the 2% termination fee clause 23.3.  The quorum requirement to get these changes in was less.

Something unique about PIF is the wholesale fund (WPIF) which holds about 5% of the units. Apparently WC decides how WPIF votes its 41,114,196 PIF units. Do you think it would be OK for other wrap account companies to leave their clients money in WPIF rather than advising them on how to convert WPIF units to PIF units like IOOF has? See the bottom of page 3 of http://www.ioof.com.au/files/docsForms/Frozen_Fund_Summary_2008-12-15.pdf

Yes.  I'm trying to get myself across the detail.


----------



## simgrund (28 July 2011)

Duped said:


> Thanks for your frankness telling us about yourself ASICK
> 
> ------------------




I envy genuinely your generosity of spirit; but did the Malodorous One proffer his "frankness" voluntarily?

Still in the fields,


----------



## Sutho81 (28 July 2011)

AusInCA said:


> If J.H. chaired the meeting, in particular with the rent-a-crowd in attendance, the meeting possibly would have been dissolved without the motions being put to a count.




Hence here explains Hutsons motive for hiring the rent a crowd.

She knew with the proxies Armstrong registry held that the numbers against her were right down the middle. Had those proxies been combined with the ones held by Computershare then she would have been in for a smashing defeat.

Her only chance of keeping the fund was hiring the rent a crowd to ensure she got the chair.


----------



## Duped (28 July 2011)

simgrund said:


> I envy genuinely your generosity of spirit; but did the Malodorous One proffer his "frankness" voluntarily?
> 
> Still in the fields,



I do a lot of deleting and amending.


----------



## gardie (28 July 2011)

Good morning

If my memory serves me correctly financial advisors were paid an "administration fee" to assist in gathering up the support from their clients in the 2008 WC vote by WC. 

If this is true I woinder what the views of these advisors are now and in round two of calling a meeting will they help by getting on the phones to get support for the removal of the RE from their clients.

As to ASIC stepping in last time the only issue they queried was the representation of WC about quarterly distributions.

They did not question the more fundamental issues of 
- representing that the only alternative to WC was liquidation at 14 cents which was factually incorrect as only the members could of caused the liquidation. WC did not have this power.
- representing that the fund could be returned to $1.00 in three to five years which even a basic calculation when WC were proposing to make distributions and keep half the money in mortgages was impossible to achieve.

If ASIC had looked at the more serious issues at the time which were the representations made to induce the vote then things may have been different.

Having said that WC was paid millions to run a slick campaign.

AS to the comment about steel cap boots and attacking Doranboots take the time to go back to when WC first came on the scenes and look at the attacks on people like Jadel and Doranboots who saw through the c--p that was put out from WC and took a different stand to the majority. Talk about steel cap boots.

They could be crowing "I told you so" but instead want to, like everyone who contributes to this thread help in any way we can.

I while not been an investor talk to a number of people caught in this horrible mess and do the only thing I know how to do and keep complaining to ASIC in the hope that at some point the large number of complaints finally stir action against WC. 

I had also initially wondered what was driving ASICK but after the detail provided about BT understand where he is comning from and think every comment and view point should be accepted as everyone is looking for one thing which is a positive outcome from here.


----------



## Harald (28 July 2011)

gardie said:


> Good morning
> 
> If my memory serves me correctly financial advisors were paid an "administration fee" to assist in gathering up the support from their clients in the 2008 WC vote by WC.
> 
> ...




Maybe You should take a look in Your financiell records. I'm afraid that You are
in the same business as ASICK, being a financiell advisor, one of those who
landed us in this mess in the first place and. 

Could it be that You and ASICK are posting on this tread in the hope to make
additional bucks and that this is the only motivation? As You stated, You are not 
an investor.


----------



## simgrund (28 July 2011)

Duped said:


> I do a lot of deleting and amending.



I respect alert minds.
Cheers,


----------



## JohnH (28 July 2011)

Seamisty, would you look at notifications please.

Cheers................  JohnH


----------



## gardie (28 July 2011)

No Harold 

I am not a financial advisor and no I have no interest in trying make a buck from the horrifying cirmcumstances investors find themselves in.

I am appalled at the behaviour of WC, lack or action from ASIC, lacxk of action from NSX about the misleading announcements.

I was also appalled tha at the time financial advisors would accept payment to roll their clients over when if they did their job and analysed what was been said by WC and promises it would have been clear it could not be acheived.


----------



## seamisty (28 July 2011)

Gardie, I spoke to a few financial advisers, some who were skeptical of CasCap originally then changed their opinion as time went on. Others were the same as me, thought that we were doing the right thing initially by electing WC as opposed to liquidation. Now they realise that although yes they too believed at the time it was the better alternative and advised their clients to support WC, they could see that the PIF had certainly not performed as we all expected, quite the contrary.
I also believe that once the hiring of votes was exposed there were some who were willing to recontact their clients advising renewed support for CasCap.

In saying that I spoke with one adviser who said he only had the one client invested in the PIF and he wasn't wasting any time contacting them as their investment was ONLY $200,000

We know we had a lot of support and I think we can confidently rely on that support as being ongoing, which frees us up to concentrate on other areas.
Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (28 July 2011)

gardie said:


> Good morning
> 
> If my memory serves me correctly financial advisors were paid an "administration fee" to assist in gathering up the support from their clients in the 2008 WC vote by WC.
> 
> ...




Yes, it's true.  Financial advisors were told they would be paid up to 0.25% for handling any valid proxy forms,  BUT only if the resolutions were passed.  Not sure how this kind of bribery is considered acceptable.

Anyone know if this handling fee was paid to advisors?  It was to be paid when the Dec 2008 cash payment was made, which never happened. 

From the 2008 EM:


> 10.12 Handling Fees
> Where a proxy form is stamped with the stamp of an adviser or has previously been noted as an adviser’s client, and proxy is valid, the responsible entity may pay a handling fee to the relevant adviser up to a maximum of 0.25% of the value of Units held by that particular unitholder calculated with reference to the current net asset backing of 45 cents per Unit. This will be paid in the event that the proposed resolutions are passed. Payment will occur at the time the December 2008 cash payment is made to Unitholders.




Anyone hear from RickH lately?  I wonder what he thinks about the current situation.


----------



## Harald (28 July 2011)

I just got this crap from Wellington that JH announced on the NSXA as an update in
our letterbox.

I'm sure JH has put many thousand of dollars in her own pocket for this rubbish
and misinformation. Off course, she had to pay Armstrong Registry for their
services in supplying the investor list.

We must get rid of her!!!!


----------



## Sutho81 (28 July 2011)

I just got the same crap letter too. I got two letters because two investors live in my house.

I have to admit it was seeing this rent a crowd, the fake reactrion group letters (I am sure Hutson was behind) as well as the lies and announcements to the NSX all done by Wellington that has fuelled my anger against them to the point where I am williing to donate my time and effort to helping remove Wellington by whatever legal means possible. Should another meeting be called I am more than happy to ring as many investors as possible and even contribute to a mass mail out informing investors of how bad Wellington really are.


----------



## Jadel (28 July 2011)

DoraNBoots said:


> Yes, it's true.  Financial advisors were told they would be paid up to 0.25% for handling any valid proxy forms,  BUT only if the resolutions were passed.  Not sure how this kind of bribery is considered acceptable.
> 
> Anyone know if this handling fee was paid to advisors?  It was to be paid when the Dec 2008 cash payment was made, which never happened.
> 
> ...




 Dora

Rick H  ,Ranch, Goldfinger.

I am quite certain we will never hear from any of this trio again.

They did their work very effectively, for one reason  only ,and have undoubtedly crawled back into the rotten woodwork , from whence they sprang.


----------



## selciper (28 July 2011)

It may be because I'm suffering from a condition called asic-anger at present, so possibly I'm wrong in in thinking that CasCap is unlikely to continue this frustrating journey.


----------



## Duped (28 July 2011)

> Anyone know if this handling fee was paid to advisors?  It was to be paid when the Dec 2008 cash payment was made, which never happened.



The financial advisor, who took me out onto this thin ice and then drove off, said they'd forward the payment to me.  My vague recollection is I didn't get paid. That financial advisor might have been marginally less financially illiterate than me, but I'm sure they're not dishonest enough to welch on an express email agreement.  But then again, my judgement is shot. 'Cos I believed Hutson for a long time.


----------



## k.smith (28 July 2011)

Harald said:


> Maybe You should take a look in Your financiell records. I'm afraid that You are
> in the same business as ASICK, being a financiell advisor, one of those who
> landed us in this mess in the first place and.
> 
> ...




No, I know that ASICK is not a financial advisor and your comment is completely wrong (and  insulting)
I think you must re-read his  8449 post again, and then perhaps you may understand his commitment to helping investors in our much devastated funds (one of which effects both him and me)

Investors are learning the hard way that we can only depend on ourselves, so it is imperative that we educate ourselves as best we can....and without the benefit of expensive legal counsel,(which the fund manager has at their disposal) it is a  monumental challenge, and we can really only help eachother. 

There have been some invaluable contributions on this thread, and ASICK has done much to contribute to helping us unitholders with his legal background (and his considerable business experience)


----------



## seamisty (28 July 2011)

It is my understanding that a PIFAG update is being finalised which wil be sent to all members in due course, hopefully by tomorrow. A copy will also be available on the CasCap website  www.cascap.com.au  once the update has been released. Hopefully it will give us all some renewed optimism to resume the challenge of removing Wellington Capital as RE of our Fund. Frustration can be redirected back into effort, especially with all the extra offers of assistance!! Thanks for all the forum contributions which has kept us all logging on, unity is parramount to achieve our goals so stay cool!!! Seamisty


----------



## DepressedDad (28 July 2011)

k.smith said:


> There have been some invaluable contributions on this thread, and ASICK has done much to contribute to helping us unitholders with his legal background (and his considerable business experience)




Agreed. All information, opinions & especially ideas are most welcome here. I appreciated reading ASICK's long account this morning which must have taken some time to put together.  The point must be made that, this is a very disturbing situation for all and the easiest way to not let it disturb us further, is to walk away.  I'm speaking for myself when I say that when I read critical & pessimistic posts the wisest thing for my sanity appears to admit it is time to walk away & not upset myself by reading the thread & forget it all. This is how I feel when I read ' We are worse off now than we were this time last month' and similar posts that say JH has now closed the door on any more challenges.  

P.S. I don't believe we are worse off since we know ASIC is well aware of the buy-a-vote and has attended court.  Yes they move SLOWLY but there's no reason to believe they aren't gathering information now & won't move in the end with mounting pressure & complaints. This last month has seen WC/JH  indisputably ousted for very unprofessional if not fraudulent bahaviour so I believe there have been gains this month.

My point is that critical pessimistic posts (and very personal personal attacks) drives investors away, such as me, who need to be retained to fight the fight.  (There's only so much angst & bashing we can take before cutting our losses!) So could contributors please consider that in what and how they write so as to not undo all the good work that has been done, mobilising good numbers of people still ready to band together to get justice.


----------



## Harald (28 July 2011)

k.smith said:


> No, I know that ASICK is not a financial advisor and your comment is completely wrong (and  insulting)
> I think you must re-read his  8449 post again, and then perhaps you may understand his commitment to helping investors in our much devastated funds (one of which effects both him and me)
> 
> Investors are learning the hard way that we can only depend on ourselves, so it is imperative that we educate ourselves as best we can....and without the benefit of expensive legal counsel,(which the fund manager has at their disposal) it is a  monumental challenge, and we can really only help eachother.
> ...




So ASICK is not a financial advisor - he is a SAINT. I apolgize

Without wanting to be cynical, my experience taught me that when something         that seems to be to good to be true, than most probably it isn't true.

Hopefully ASICK is the exception.


----------



## k.smith (28 July 2011)

Remember this..?? 

http://www.theage.com.au/business/a...m-income-fund-unit-holders-20080911-4eri.html

''.....Many PIF investors believe the only options available are either to accept the Wellington Capital offer to run their fund, or watch it liquidated at 14 ¢ a unit. They have been led to believe a "no" vote means liquidation and therefore losses. This is wrong. ASIC needs to step in...''

''...PIF investors need to know they have other choices. In fact, they can dump Wellington altogether and appoint their own Responsible Entity (RE). The RE ought to be simply a manager that PIF's 10,000 unit holders can trust and that can preside over an orderly sale of their assets....''

A big problem in both the PIF and the PFMF (and no doubt, other funds) is that

"......................investors need to know they have other choices..............."  other than what their responsible entity presents to them.  

How do unitholders...... 

(a) get in contact with each other in the first place..... someone needs to find +/-$500 to "buy" the registry... and thats financial hurdle No.1

(b) succeed in getting a good,readable and workable copy of the registry...  it's often been documented how difficult that can be.

(c) approach enough unitholders who are prepared to contribute to a mailout to all unitholders...and that's  financial hurdle No.2 (10,000 investors = 10,000 @ $0.50 stamps (at bulk discount) + printing and mailing costs = $+/-$7000...)

(d) put forward the "other choices" (that Michael West was so aware investors in the PIF were NOT aware of) knowing that your financial resources, which are purely voluntary contributions from the burnt investors themselves, limit the attempt to just one or two mailouts(that's $7000 + $7000 = $14,000) 

(e) fend off the "wild-cards" such as "low ball offers", rights issues, infiltration by vested interests into our forums that have a self interested agenda ....etc.. 

(f) scrutinise and evaluate every single word that fund managers' put forward...without the luxury of any  help/aid/input of a legal team such as fund managers have at their  disposal propagating their carefully constructed one-track agenda. And when it hits our letterboxes, all those carefully constructed words come with disclaimers like this...

http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/2008/Explanatory Memorandum.pdf
''....Neither the responsible entity, the Fund nor any other person gives any representation, assurance or guarantee that the results, performance or achievements expressed in or implied by the forecast statements contained in this Explanatory Memorandum will actually occur....'

In my mind, it all means that a fund manager can promise all and disclaim it, yet at the same time, marry these disclaimed promises to amended constitutions that are financially beneficial to the manager and that have no real relation the the future  success or failure of our assets.(such as our PIF experience with the termination fee)  Investors have no way of evaluating the implications of these amendments without seeking financial help, a considerable expense to a major percentage of unitholders who have already lost so much  (and imo a fact that they are very well aware of)

so then were are stuck with (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) and the rest... 
I hope some laws get changed...


----------



## seamisty (28 July 2011)

Hi All, I just received this:

Dear Investor



The below link provides an update on the Premium Income Fund 



http://castlereagh.rlbrandmgmt.com.au/include/tiny_mce/plugins/filemanager/files/Update_No_6.pdf 



Investor Relations



Tel 1300 661 651 Fax + 61 2 8263 2379 

Level 30, Australia Square, 264 George Street, Sydney NSW 2000

www.cascap.com.au


----------



## seamisty (28 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Gardie, I spoke to a few financial advisers, some who were skeptical of CasCap originally then changed their opinion as time went on. Others were the same as me, thought that we were doing the right thing initially by electing WC as opposed to liquidation. Now they realise that although yes they too believed at the time it was the better alternative and advised their clients to support WC, they could see that the PIF had certainly not performed as we all expected, quite the contrary.
> I also believe that once the hiring of votes was exposed there were some who were willing to recontact their clients advising renewed support for CasCap.
> 
> In saying that I spoke with one adviser who said he only had the one client invested in the PIF and he wasn't wasting any time contacting them as their investment was ONLY $200,000
> ...



I also forgot to mention Gardie that Ms Hutson did the rounds of some Financial Advisers and Fund managers in Melb and Syd before the EGM feeding them the 'same old rhetoric' of what a wonderfull job WC was doing etc. If any of them believed WC and advised their clients to support WC I would not be at all surprised if they have not since been inundated with highly indignant clients/investors who DO NOt want WC  as RE once it was revealed in the media what actually  happened at the EGM. I know this for a fact as I have spoken to several individuals since who are non too happy with having been advised to do nothing or vote for WC previously.
 Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (28 July 2011)

Hello Duped,
Could you please free-up your Private Messages box.
Thanks & regards


----------



## simgrund (28 July 2011)

Thanks selciper.
Was that the only PM you got from me this evening?
I am limited to just 5 PM's per hour.
So I may have halucinated somewhere there.
Please let me know.
Cheers,


----------



## seamisty (29 July 2011)

A refresher for all PIF unitholders wishing to make complaints to ASIC re the PIF:: Page 64, Explanatory Memorandum issued by Wellington Capital http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/2008/Explanatory Memorandum.pdf
Fee on removal
"If Resolution 3 is passed Wellington Capital Limited will become the responsible entity of the Fund. Subsequently if the responsible entity is removed as the responsible entity of the Fund, then in consideration for work done the responsible entity will be entitled to a fee equal to 2% (plus GST) of the value of the assets in the Fund (except where the responsible entity has breached its statutory duties). For example, if the Fund assets are $300 million a removal fee of $6.6 million would be payable out of the Fund assets. If this payment is made it would adversely affect the Fund’s net
assets. The fee would be paid from available cash or through the liquidation of assets of the Fund"

Well I am sure with Justice Gordons findings relating to the deed poll ammendment made by Wellington Capital relating to the PIF placement and rights issue in May 2011 which was deemed contrary and did not comply  the Corporations Act and was subsequently revoked because it was ruled that 'it was not in the best interests of unitholders' ASIC would surely have to intervene?
Also lets hope ASIC are closely scrutinising the inhouse Armstrong register and doing some cross referencing of names. Illegal entries would provide at least two breaches of duties I would imagine. 
Not to mention what reason was given to Wellington Capital by those responsible for the 'smear campaign' to be provided with a very updated copy of the PIF registry and has ASIC followed up on that complaint?

Three strikes and you are definitely out!! Seamisty


----------



## Duped (29 July 2011)

That raises an interesting point k.smith.

S252G notice given individually 

"(3)  Unless the scheme's constitution provides otherwise, the *responsible entity *may give notice of the meeting to a member:                        (a)  personally; or 
                       (b)  by sending it by post to the address for the member in the register of members or an alternative address (if any) nominated by the member; or 
                       (c)  by sending it to the fax number or *electronic address* (if any) nominated by the member" [emphasis added]


OK so that's how an RE may give notice. But what about a meeting called by members (under S252D)? Do some members need to face the risk and expense of going to court so we can clarify that this law?  I.e. that members may also give notice by email to reduce the cost of calling a meeting.  Or is this an advantage granted to only an RE? That's quite a barrier to entry.  A tilted playing field.

OK.  Let's assume S252G is interpreted or amended so that Notice of a members meeting called by members can be given by email.  How do the convenors (members) get hold of the email addresses?

J Dowsett's decision didn't disagree that WC performed it's duty pursuant to the Corporations Act. I.e. para 37 "It [WC] said that the information provided on 10 February 2011 complied with the requirements of the Corporations Act, and that there was no requirement that the register contain telephone numbers, facsimile numbers or *email addresses*." [emphasis added]

How do convenors under S252D (i.e. members) get hold of the email addresses?

There is no definition of 'address' in clause 9 of the Act.

We've heard a lot about Abbott's comment about calling climate change "crap".  Now Gillard is saying journalists should stop writing "crap". Well here's a plea from a voting retail investor to you politicians and public servants living off the public purse: stopping passing and then squatting on (which on the facts of this case appear to be in my lay casual observer view) "crap" legislation.

ASIC bleats about 'investing between the flags'.  I wonder if ASIC really has much of an idea about the rocks, sand bars and rips between those flags.

From ASIC's web page 'Our Role' http://asic.gov.au/asic/ASIC.NSF/byHeadline/Our%20role

"What we do

We contribute to Australia’s economic  reputation and wellbeing by ensuring that Australia’s financial markets  are *fair* and *transparent*, supported by confident and informed investors  and consumers." [emphasis added]

"*Our priorities *
ASIC's priorities are:


Assist and protect *retail investors* and consumers in the financial economy"
So ASIC, how would you rate your performance in the light of this Dowsett decision?  All I can see in this case is ASIC squatting on legislation that tilts the playing field away from members towards the RE.


----------



## seamisty (29 July 2011)

Prior to the PIF Action Group trying to remove Wellington Capital as manager/RE of the PIF and reinstate them with Castlereagh Capital I was constantly chasing overdue 4 monthly PIF investor updates. One response from Ms Snow dated 3-10-2010:"Investor Updates are produced for the periods ended April, August and December, and released the followng month."
The 12 glossy pages that would have cost a small fortune and contained little of substance arrives in the mail in July when it is not due to even be relased until September!!!! Wellington Capital are not running a super efficient operation (even though Armstrong registered investors two days in advance of actors being gifted PIF units), they are running scared!
Seamisty


----------



## gardie (29 July 2011)

Hi Seamisty

That was an interesting comment about the planner who did not think $200k was worth contacting the cleint about. Takes a long for most people to save $200k to invest !

The promise to pay planners a fee only on success of the resolutions opens another  whole area of legal questions. Despite what the govt is trying to legislate about a duty of care a financial planner has always at law been required to put clients interests first.

If an investor relied on the advice of a planner to vote for the original resolutions, was the planner inflluenced by the fact that doing one thing held a promise to pay a fee while the other did not.

I do have a question though. IN the wholesale fund could the investors not call a meeting to force the manager to vote a certain way.

Would need to call the meetings together but have wholesale meeting one hour ahead of other PIF EGM.


----------



## pifed (29 July 2011)

Fin Advisers are the likes of some Insurance Salesmen who were no good at that, and are only interested in their own pockets and who were paid commision from MFS.and were the only ones to get anything out of it while we all lost. Best described as WARTS


----------



## selciper (29 July 2011)

Duoed, thanks for all the hard work in which you have made our situation more understandable re EGMs. It looks like any unhappy investor faces an uphill battle to achieve his/hers rights. I'm reminded of an innocent man who manages to yell at the firing squad before they fire, "Justice? Justice is...terrible!"

When I once offered Wellington my email address, they showed absolutely no interest in writing it down.


----------



## seamisty (29 July 2011)

gardie said:


> Hi Seamisty
> 
> That was an interesting comment about the planner who did not think $200k was worth contacting the cleint about. Takes a long for most people to save $200k to invest !
> 
> ...




Gardie I was really disgusted at the attitude of the FA that made that comment. Fortunately the majority of FA/Fund managers were really interesed in what I had to say and were quite supportive. I take your comments on board re the WPIF. Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## charles36 (30 July 2011)

Duped said:


> The financial advisor, who took me out onto this thin ice and then drove off, said they'd forward the payment to me.  My vague recollection is I didn't get paid. That financial advisor might have been marginally less financially illiterate than me, but I'm sure they're not dishonest enough to welch on an express email agreement.  But then again, my judgement is shot. 'Cos I believed Hutson for a long time.




Duped, do you wish to share the name of this financial advisor with me via the private mail box?


----------



## simgrund (30 July 2011)

*Call for assistance: *

I am trying to contact breaker1 seamisty  or other memberr of PIF AG for an urgent advice before this coming Tuesday, 2 August.
Tried Private Messages; E-mails; couple of mobiles with "incoming call restriction" curse imbedded.
Please try on my behalf to have one of these members contact me via Private Message.
No blood spilled, just an opportunity to spill our tale of woe into federal member's ear.

Cheers,


----------



## charles36 (30 July 2011)

simgrund said:


> *Call for assistance: *
> 
> I am trying to contact breaker1 seamisty  or other memberr of PIF AG for an urgent advice before this coming Tuesday, 2 August.
> Tried Private Messages; E-mails; couple of mobiles with "incoming call restriction" curse imbedded.
> ...




Go to the private mail box.  You should have my phone number.  Charles36


----------



## zixo (30 July 2011)

Seamisty, I doubt if there were any Financial advisors who were not willing to see the best outcome for their clients once the facts about wellingtons Capitals shenanigans was explained to them.
Also, It may be worth noting and keeping a record if there were any financial advisors who objected to the AG and our attempt to get some control of our fund.

I have tried countless times in the past in trying to work out a simple question. 
Who is our elected investor advisor(s)?
I'm pretty annoyed and its been noted that wellington has not been far from helpful about who our elected investor advisor is in all the enquiries I've made - does anyone here know, as its about the only place I can get an straight forward real answer?

.......Sigmund - can you please check your private messages


----------



## simgrund (30 July 2011)

Re: Call for assistance

Connections made.
Thanks to all who helped.

Regards 

A question?
What's the point of an emergency-purpose mobile if it has 
[incoming call restriction] feature on????

Wouldn't it make better sense to program permission for some important numbers to get through and the [rabble] left seething outside????

Aagh, the tangled web we weave,


----------



## seamisty (30 July 2011)

zixo said:


> Seamisty, I doubt if there were any Financial advisors who were not willing to see the best outcome for their clients once the facts about wellingtons Capitals shenanigans was explained to them.
> Also, It may be worth noting and keeping a record if there were any financial advisors who objected to the AG and our attempt to get some control of our fund.
> 
> I have tried countless times in the past in trying to work out a simple question.
> ...



ZIXO don't do your head in over the IAC farce. The 2 members who suddenly 'resigned' probablly never existed any way! Just a voice on the end of a ph link up from WC office maybe?? WC tidying their books before they are taken away for forensic examination??? Eventually all will be revealed I am sure. The clock is ticking and it has twelve numbers as opposed o nine. Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (31 July 2011)

DoraNBoots,
Goodd Morning.
Please empty your mail inbox.
With thanks,


----------



## gardie (31 July 2011)

Good morning

I know it is a side issue but the name 
PIF Reaction Group which mailed the flyers out is a name that implies some form of association or legal entity 

If my understanding of the law is correct then it is illegal to hold yourself out as some form of association if you are not.

I have done some searches of the public registers and cannot find any record of the existence of this group.

Now this "group" must have paid WC for a copy of the register as there is no way WC would break the rules and just hand out a copy of the register to anyone would they !!

So they must have provided an address to WC and there will be a record of receipt of payment for the register.

So it would not be hard for someone like ASIC to find out where this group's address is and then find out who funded the costs of the flyers. A few questions by ASIC would reveal all and then unit holders could have a chance to meet with this group and hold a discussion on the difference of views.

I feel another complaint to ASIC coming on tomorrow.

They went to a lot of trouble to hide who PUF Reaction Group is but it seems its time to track this group down


----------



## seamisty (31 July 2011)

gardie said:


> Good morning
> 
> I know it is a side issue but the name
> PIF Reaction Group which mailed the flyers out is a name that implies some form of association or legal entity
> ...



What makes it even easie rfor ASIC to narrow the field Gardie is it was a very up to date register as one unit holder who received a copy of the last flier had just recently moved and upgraded their address on the register. ASIC was notified I am fairly certain, but if it has taken them three and a half years to do nothing relating to the PIF so far what chance have we got of seeing any results from ASIC relating to the mailout in the next year or two? Thats why I too keep making complaints to ASIC, eventually we must get someones attention? Seamisty


----------



## Sutho81 (31 July 2011)

gardie said:


> Good morning
> 
> I know it is a side issue but the name
> PIF Reaction Group which mailed the flyers out is a name that implies some form of association or legal entity
> ...




I do not believe such a group exists.

When you think about it logically it is a play on words based on PIF Action Group. What the author has done is try to create confusion by making people think it is the PIF Action Group sending them.

No group exists and there is unlikely to be any record of a group paying money to Wellington for the register.

I strongly beleive that Hutson herself and the managers at Wellington are directly responsible for this mail out. I beleive they created the name PIF Reaction Group in order to deceive less inteligent investors that it is the PIF Action Group sending them.

That is what I stronly beleive.

I still have my envelope with postal location. All one has to do is identify the company that printed them based on their postal locations all around Australia and then get orders for the company to release information on who paid them for the mail out.

My letter came from Northgate Mail Centre in QLD 4013. There is one link in the chain for a company close to that address that could send them out.


----------



## DepressedDad (31 July 2011)

I agree.  Ofcouse there's NO GROUP.  There can be no 'group' of supporters because what real 'group' would be backing JH/WC unless they LOVE losing their money. No one in their sane mind knowing all details would think she has done a good job, let alone feel strongly enough about it to group together & use their own money to lobby around.  Think of the cost of the mail outs. ($12,000? ) What 'regular' investor(s) would ever be interested in dong this?   And remember the investors that turned up at the meeting.  Did any of them there strike you as being vermently suportive of JH/WC that they would spend thousands of their own money to pay for the register & then print & mail out crap. Twice.  Group???  So lots of these investors at the meeting.  Hardly!!!!

It's all a scam.  That's why there's no names on the fliers. So no selling needed.  They just went about their normal fraudilent activities for those days going to any lengths to greedily hold on to the fund.  C'mon ASIC!!!!!  Use your common sense & stop the daylight theft continuing.


----------



## simgrund (31 July 2011)

DepressedDad said:


> I agree.  Ofcouse there's NO GROUP.  There can be no 'group' of supporters because what real 'group' would be backing JH/WC unless they LOVE losing their money. No one in their sane mind knowing all details would think she has done a good job, let alone feel strongly enough about it to group together & use their own money to lobby around.  Think of the cost of the mail outs. ($12,000? ) What 'regular' investor(s) would ever be interested in dong this?   And remember the investors that turned up at the meeting.  Did any of them there strike you as being vermently suportive of JH/WC that they would spend thousands of their own money to pay for the register & then print & mail out crap. Twice.  Group???  So lots of these investors at the meeting.  Hardly!!!!
> It's all a scam.  That's why there's no names on the fliers. So no selling needed.  They just went about their normal fraudilent activities for those days going to any lengths to greedily hold on to the fund.  C'mon ASIC!!!!!  Use your common sense & stop the daylight theft continuing.




Yep; never a sliver of doubt.
From post #7901's verses for Jenny's Salvation:

"...............The benefits will be immediate.
You will be protected, cosseted, sanctuarised and insulated from outside rubble.
Entire Government Departments will be at your disposal to attend to any murmur of a complaint from you in the defense of your “protected status”. 
Once in the safety of such rectum rectification facility, you no longer will have the need for your “imaginary friends” such as IAC or PIF Reaction Group...." 

From the fields, weaving garlands.

P.S. RE-al tragedy will be to find out WHO? paid the costs of this farce.


----------



## gardie (31 July 2011)

Hi Sutho and Depresseddad

If what you say is correct and that no such group exists then this is misrepresentation.

WC have to be able to prove this group exists and that this group paid for the register otherwise its another hole dug that they one day will be accountable for.

How can a group undertake two mail outs without having bought the registry. A simple enquiry by ASIC to WC will allow them to trace who is this reaction group and then ASIC could ask them who paid the costs for the mail out.

As I said it feels like another complaint to ASIC coming on.


----------



## Sutho81 (31 July 2011)

gardie said:


> Hi Sutho and Depresseddad
> 
> If what you say is correct and that no such group exists then this is misrepresentation.
> 
> ...




All evidence points to no group existing.

1. Its clearly a deceptive name designed to imply its the PIFAG without breaking the law and claiming to be the PIFAG.
2. There is no return address or contact details for such a group.
3. No internet search can provide any results for any group of people that support Wellington.

I agree with you that Wellington must prove that this group exists.

I think there has to be strong grounds for legal action as Armstrong Registry being part of Hutsons evil empire had to destribute the register. As no Reaction Group exists it can only come from the parties that had the register.

I think we need to try to identify the company that printed the leaflets and posted them. I suspect that Wellington has to be behind it and probably contracted a third party company to do the mail out. If we can identify the company based on where the letters came from then hopefully we can establish a link to Wellington sending out the letters or people connected to Wellington.


----------



## charles36 (31 July 2011)

gardie said:


> Hi Sutho and Depresseddad
> 
> If what you say is correct and that no such group exists then this is misrepresentation.
> 
> ...




The PIFAG have made a detailed report concerning the alleged use of the register for an unlawful purpose.  We have also provided evidence of approximate date when register would have been used.  As a person allegedly mentioned in the flyers, my lawyers would be paticularly interested in locating the author and the abettors of this document for obvious reasons.  However, from the calls and emails I received unit holders were more hostile towards the perpertrators than myself and expressed their annoyance and dismay that the register with their personal particulars could be released to person or persons for such an unlawful purpose.  One has only to know the vigorous test the PIFAG were subjected to by WC/Armstrong Registry before we were allowed to purchase the register.  If that is the case for us WC/Armstrong Registry would have  interrogated the PIF Reaction Group in the same manner.  Anyone Agree?  Another question might be asked, once WC realised the register was used for an improper purpose, if they of course believed that to be so, what did they do about it.  Obviously nothing one would think because another flyer went out.  Still no investigation or report to ASIC by WC identifying the persons responsible.  I suppose I could be wrong and WC did do the right thing and report the matter to ASIC.   Anyone agree?


----------



## seamisty (31 July 2011)

I am absolutely disgusted that ASIC has not responded as yet to the comprehensive complaint submitted by the PIFAG relating to the use of the Wellington Capital controlled PIF register which was used by anonymous persons to distribute false and misleading information.
I am also sick and tired of receiving the same generic response from ASIC every time  I lodge a PIF related complaint assuring me ASIC is making enquiries into the concerns raised.
How long does it take to request from Wellington Capital a list of who has received a copy of the PIF register in the past 4 months? It has to be paid for and a very good explanation as to what the purchaser intendes to use it for etc.
I am no longer going to just email my complaints to different ASIC employees and CC them to MP's etc, I am also going to send them by registered post to Greg Medcraft, ASIC Chairman.
GPO Box 9827 
Sydney NSW 2001 
DX 653 Sydney 

I urge others to do likewise. I am sure the new ASIC CEO needs to be made aware just how long we have been waiting for some much needed intervention from his inefficient staff. Seamisty


----------



## Sutho81 (31 July 2011)

charles36 said:


> The PIFAG have made a detailed report concerning the alleged use of the register for an unlawful purpose.  We have also provided evidence of approximate date when register would have been used.  As a person allegedly mentioned in the flyers, my lawyers would be paticularly interested in locating the author and the abettors of this document for obvious reasons.  However, from the calls and emails I received unit holders were more hostile towards the perpertrators than myself and expressed their annoyance and dismay that the register with their personal particulars could be released to person or persons for such an unlawful purpose.  One has only to know the vigorous test the PIFAG were subjected to by WC/Armstrong Registry before we were allowed to purchase the register.  If that is the case for us WC/Armstrong Registry would have  interrogated the PIF Reaction Group in the same manner.  Anyone Agree?  Another question might be asked, once WC realised the register was used for an improper purpose, if they of course believed that to be so, what did they do about it.  Obviously nothing one would think because another flyer went out.  Still no investigation or report to ASIC by WC identifying the persons responsible.  I suppose I could be wrong and WC did do the right thing and report the matter to ASIC.   Anyone agree?




I totally agree on all you mentioned:

1. The flyers fuelled my anger at Wellington and Hutson and gave me motivation to want to remove them.
2. From all the reports it is clear Wellington made it difficult for the PIFAG to get the register - yet this fraudulent non existent group gets a copy.
3. The fact that no contact details are on the letter is evidence to suggest that the group does not exist and is a name concocted by a purpetrator to confuse the Reaction Group with PIFAG. (When my mother got the letter she was asking me if the PIFAG sent it to her)

In the absence of such a group existing, and the support in the flyers leaning towards Wellington, one would be reasonable to assume Wellington was behind it. 

Perhaps legal action against Wellington and Armstrong would be the way to go????

A quick google search of "mass mail outs" came up with a company called Direct Mail Solutions. www.directmailsolutions.com.au - Assuming Wellingont used a company like this (I am sure many exist in Australia) then all we have to do is find the common link with all the letters in order to;
1. Identify the company that produced the mass mail out (including locations)
2. Obtain court orders to get the client details of who placed the order.
3. Establish the link of the client and Wellington.


----------



## JohnH (31 July 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> I totally agree on all you mentioned:
> 
> 1. The flyers fuelled my anger at Wellington and Hutson and gave me motivation to want to remove them.
> 2. From all the reports it is clear Wellington made it difficult for the PIFAG to get the register - yet this fraudulent non existent group gets a copy.
> ...




You could be on to something here young fellow (comparatively)  Some were sent from Northgate, others from the Hunter Valley mail centres.

The SEMA Group Pty Ltd a national direct mailing Company has the following branches:-

Sydney
6 The Crescent
Kingsgrove NSW 2208
T +61 2 9554 0000

Brisbane 
36 Northlink Place
Virginia QLD 4014
T +61 7 3866 8444

and, did anybody get their Reaction garbage from Melbourne??

Melbourne
10 William Angliss Drive
Laverton North VIC 3028
T +61 3 9927 5444

John H.


----------



## selciper (31 July 2011)

We don't know what's been going on behind the ASIC-Wellington scenes over the many issues that have concerned us deeply for years. It's difficult to find a reasonable explanation for ASIC's deplorable silence. They permit Wellington (it seems) to thumb their nose at the organisation month after month. Understandably, ASIC must at times operate in the shadows, but somewhere along the line they have mistaken themselves for that other ultra-secretive instrumentality which is called ASIO.


----------



## simgrund (31 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> You could be on to something here young fellow (comparatively)  Some were sent from Northgate, others from the Hunter Valley mail centres.
> 
> The SEMA Group Pty Ltd a national direct mailing Company has the following branches:-
> 
> ...




John, this is the obvious way to trace this Group of Immaculate Conception.
Dear Jenny can not be compelled to admit to anything even when she may be directed to do so by a judge. She will lie.
Only incontrovertible evidence  will do this. 
With or without ASIC's help.
We did some fun amateurish sleuthing just recently on this thread. 
Exposure followed.
We can co-ordinate such efforts into serious and efficient hunt with dedicated communications structure. 
Actual detective costs could be surprisingly low.
There is a wealth of investigative expieriences among many accessing this thread.
I am prepared to make first contribution  towards meeting the costs. 
Please contact if wishing to explore this further.

Regards,


----------



## charles36 (31 July 2011)

simgrund said:


> John, this is the obvious way to trace this Group of Immaculate Conception.
> Dear Jenny can not be compelled to admit to anything even when she may be directed to do so by a judge. She will lie.
> Only incontrovertible evidence  will do this.
> With or without ASIC's help.
> ...




Contact Lyonswood Investigations, Drummoyne, nsw for a quote.


----------



## seamisty (31 July 2011)

Can anyone please tell me the date on the envelope of the first smear letter. Tthe second was 14 June 2011. Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (31 July 2011)

charles36 said:


> Contact Lyonswood Investigations, Drummoyne, nsw for a quote.




I will Charles.
Can you email your selection of points in brief form that I can present at the Tuesday meeting? Check the PRIV. MESS. box.

Thanks,


----------



## Sutho81 (31 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Can anyone please tell me the date on the envelope of the first smear letter. Tthe second was 14 June 2011. Thanks, Seamisty




I received one on the 2nd June and have a phone record of calling Castlereagh on the day to report the activity. We no longer have those as it was widely reported.

However I have kept the second mailout. I still have the completely sealed envelope with Northgate Mail Centre markings. Contents still inside and undisturbed. Something told me it might come in usefull if the offender could be tracked.


----------



## JohnH (31 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> Can anyone please tell me the date on the envelope of the first smear letter. Tthe second was 14 June 2011. Thanks, Seamisty




Hi Seamisty,  HRMC MLOCR 501 31 MAY 11

HRMC is Hunter Valley Mail Centre near Newcastle.

Cheers,

John H.

PS second was on the 14th June............ I still have both envelopes.


----------



## seamisty (31 July 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> I received one on the 2nd June and have a phone record of calling Castlereagh on the day to report the activity. We no longer have those as it was widely reported.
> 
> However I have kept the second mailout. I still have the completely sealed envelope with Northgate Mail Centre markings. Contents still inside and undisturbed. Something told me it might come in usefull if the offender could be tracked.



Thanks Sutho81, Seamisty


----------



## gardie (31 July 2011)

Hi

In relation to tracking back and finding out who is the PIF Reaction Group the flyers have come from bulk mails from various places.

Now Australia Post would have a record of payment unless they paid cash. Unless it is  part of a legal action Aust Post could not  provide those details to the public but ASIC would have the powers to find this answer so supplying where and what date they were posted will ease ASIC  job in their investigations.

Someone doing some leg work may find where they were printed if it was not done on anyones own copier machine.  Someone has put 20,000 pieces of paper into addressed envelopes so a big chance one of the data groups did the job.

It will be the one that says sorry we cannot give out details due to privacy that did the job because all the rest will be happy to say no we did not do that job ! If we can help ASIC by pointing to who managed the mail out even better.

When people say the PIF Reaction Group doesn't exist this is not quite true.

Something exists and it is either

1) A person who is misrepresenting to investors that they are some form of body of people which is not legal to do
2) They are some form of group and have again acted illegally by not disclosing address, form of structure etc

Either way someone spent a good chunk of money on this and it is worthy more pursuit as it has broken the law


----------



## seamisty (31 July 2011)

Also lets not forget:::
Print Mail Logistics (PML) who are responsible for the majority of printing material for the PIF are also shareholders in Armstrong Registry Services, who is coincidently  also the registry provider for PML.

  Armstrong Registry Services Limited is a substantial shareholder in Print Mail Logistics.

 Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital ltd is corporate adviser to Print Mail Logistics Limited.

Seamisty


----------



## DoraNBoots (31 July 2011)

JohnH said:


> Hi Seamisty,  HRMC MLOCR 501 31 MAY 11
> 
> HRMC is Hunter Valley Mail Centre near Newcastle.
> 
> ...




My first reaction group letter was marked the same as JohnH's and the second was stamped with:
MRMC MLOCR 501 14 June 2011  (6.PM 14 JUN 2011)  HUNTER REGION NSW 2310


----------



## seamisty (31 July 2011)

DoraNBoots said:


> My first reaction group letter was marked the same as JohnH's and the second was stamped with:
> MRMC MLOCR 501 14 June 2011  (6.PM 14 JUN 2011)  HUNTER REGION NSW 2310



So how many copies of the register would have been disrtibuted between 23rd May and the first mailout?Thats when an investor got notification from Armstrong Registry Services(ARS) that they had received a change of addressof who received the mailouts by direct mail, not a redirection! Narrows the field somewhat. Seamisty


----------



## JohnH (31 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> So how many copies of the register would have been disrtibuted between 23rd May and the first mailout?Thats when an investor got notification from Armstrong Registry Services(ARS) that they had received a change of addressof who received the mailouts by direct mail, not a redirection! Narrows the field somewhat. Seamisty




Very interesting......... definately two different print-outs, or the first one was manually copied (unlikely).  First one is printed in Times New Roman, and second in Courier New !!!  Both with self adhesive labels, so probably provided on disc to the mailing house.


----------



## DoraNBoots (31 July 2011)

seamisty said:


> So how many copies of the register would have been disrtibuted between 23rd May and the first mailout?Thats when an investor got notification from Armstrong Registry Services(ARS) that they had received a change of addressof who received the mailouts by direct mail, not a redirection! Narrows the field somewhat. Seamisty




If a request for the PIF members register is made,  WC request the following:

Between $250 and $300 be paid into Armstrong's bank account
The requester must sign a WC document that says they will use it in accordance with the law
The requester must tell WC how they intend to use the register
WC would have to know who requested the register that was used to send the Reaction Group letters due to the fact that an up to date copy was used.  WC not reporting this illegal use of the register indicated to me it's a related party.  Interesting to note that WC put in writting that the register has not been provided to any person identifying themselves as the 'PIF Reaction Group'.  There's our proof WC know it was a misrepresentation by the sender.

Also interesting to note that at the 23rd June 2011 unitholder meeting in Sydney, it was asked if anyone from the Reaction Group was in the meeting and no one put up their hand.

An investigation by ASIC should easily show who dropped $2xx into Armstrong's account and signed the documents mentioned above in the week between 23 May 2011 and 31 May 2011 (probably a few days before to allow for printing).  Unless of course it was a related party mailout.


----------



## Cookie1 (31 July 2011)

Both of my PIF Reaction Group flyers are printed in Courier. I don't know when or where the first one was posted from as I was overseas and the envelope was thrown away in my absence. The second envelope has an adhesive label, is hand-stamped with a 60 cent stamp and also has "HRMC MLOCR 501 14J" (I can't make out out the rest as it printed on the stamp which has a dark background). 

Seems as though somebody paid double to post our 2nd one. The 60 cent stamp was obviously put on first.


----------



## seamisty (31 July 2011)

'An investigation by ASIC should easily show who dropped $2xx into Armstrong's account and signed the documents mentioned above in the week between 23 May 2011 and 31 May 2011 (probably a few days before to allow for printing). Unless of course it was a related party mailout.' Exactly DoraNboots, what does it take to make the regulator regulate?? A negative media campaign I imagine. ASIC are pathetic and crooked directors and negligent RE's know they have plenty of time to absorb the fat and gnaw the crackling from the pig, giving them plenty of time to dispose of the bones before the pork barrel police knock on their doors. History repeats it self time after time and the token gesture of punishment, if ever implemented remain a joke.
The best we can do is continue to alert others of these parasites and phonies who continue to masquerade as legitimate business entities and expose them for the frauds, liars and cheats they really are. Seamisty


----------



## tinhat (31 July 2011)

I don't have any interest in the PIF or in any other entity that is or has been involved in these affairs. I'm just chiming in to say that if your complaints and enquiries to ASIC have not been met with satisfactory responses then you should document all your correspondence with and replies received from ASIC and contact the minister responsible for ASIC which is David Bradbury.

http://www.davidbradbury.com.au/

David Bradbury is the member for Lindsay (quite a marginal seat formerly occupied by Jackie Kelly).

Any of you that have had unsatisfactory dealings with ASIC over this affair should be contacting the minister and your local member.

Good luck.


----------



## JohnH (1 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> Also lets not forget:::
> Print Mail Logistics (PML) who are responsible for the majority of printing material for the PIF are also shareholders in Armstrong Registry Services, who is coincidently  also the registry provider for PML.
> 
> *  Armstrong Registry Services Limited is a substantial shareholder in Print Mail Logistics.*
> ...




Yep........ they own 30% according to last financial statement!!!


----------



## simgrund (1 August 2011)

tinhat said:


> I don't have any interest in the PIF or in any other entity that is or has been involved in these affairs. I'm just chiming in to say that if your complaints and enquiries to ASIC have not been met with satisfactory responses then you should document all your correspondence with and replies received from ASIC and contact the minister responsible for ASIC which is David Bradbury.
> 
> http://www.davidbradbury.com.au/
> 
> ...




Good advice on follow-up actions,  tinhat.
Keep up appearances, thanks.
Cheers

To DoraNBoots:::::::::::::::LEASE CLEAR UP YOUR MESSAGE INBOX. Thanks


----------



## simgrund (1 August 2011)

selciper said:


> It may be because I'm suffering from a condition called asic-anger at present, so possibly I'm wrong in in thinking that CasCap is unlikely to continue this frustrating journey.




God forbid selciper.
We must continue to show Cas-Cap our support to the fullest; our appreciation for their courage in forging this pioneering assault on Corpo-Rot within Australian Financial Industry; align with them in pioneering new templates for these services so our grandchildren, if not children, *do not waste *another moment of anguish a la PIF immortals.

Chin up mate,


----------



## Jadel (1 August 2011)

Checking on content


----------



## AusInCA (1 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> What makes it even easier for ASIC to narrow the field Gardie is it was a very up to date register as one unit holder who received a copy of the *last flier *had just recently moved and upgraded their address on the register.



     (Above emphasis added by me)

Not sure if anyone has picked up on this, but this would indicate that there would have had to be *2* copies of the register sent to whom ever did the mail out. One prior to each mail out.  

To me however , I think it would indicate more, that it is less likely that the mail out was by the mysterious unidentified *PIFRG*, but originating  internal to WC.


----------



## Sutho81 (1 August 2011)

gardie said:


> Hi
> 
> In relation to tracking back and finding out who is the PIF Reaction Group the flyers have come from bulk mails from various places.
> 
> ...




If what you are saying is from a legal point of view then I think your point in "1)" applies. I am suspecting you are either in the legal profession or have more knowledge than us ordinary investors.

I am sure that Wellington was behind it and that there is no group of investors that would join such a supportive group of investors.

On another point There seems to be allot of statements saying that whoever sent it would have paid for a copy of the register. Lets just assume that it definately was Wellington that did the mail out and they used their existing copies of the register to do the mail out - where does that leave us if there is no evidence of any other party purchasing the register?


----------



## seamisty (1 August 2011)

'Lets just assume that it definately was Wellington that did the mail out and they used their existing copies of the register to do the mail out - where does that leave us if there is no evidence of any other party purchasing the register?'

Sutho81, it leaves us with a PRIME SUSPECT
One thing for sure, anyone who DID in fact purchase a copy of the PIF register prior to 23rd June 2011 could not be accused of misusing an 'out of date register' can they? ASIC have all this information, lets see how long it takes them to act on it. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (1 August 2011)

Bentleys have finally updated their Public Examinations page:::
http://www.bentleys.com.au/our_serv...y_and_insolvency/octaviar_public_examinations


----------



## charles36 (1 August 2011)

I would like to run this scenario past interested unit holders.  Wellington Capital is very busy since being challenged, selling off properties by way of delayed contracts, some delayed for eighteen months.  I hope it is realised that these properties will remain as a NTA and therefore will be audited and the last audited figure is what WC will be paid if removed or retired as RE of fund.  The eighteen months timeframe is very important to WC and most detrimental to unit holders.  The last audited figure will be about the time the fund is finally wound up.   What does that tell you?   In addition, as we have been told, any settlement of the class action by IMF will be paid into the PIF which will be controlled by Wellington Capital.  With me so far?  Therefore, assuming three hundred million is paid into the fund by IMF the NTA goes up.  Agree?  Well at the time of the last audited figure this amount will no doubt be shown as an asset.  Can you tell me who will take 2% of the last audited figure?  You guessed it.  I would like to thank all the unit holders who rallied around and supported CASCAP.  I honestly believe we actually had more proxies than that cobbled together by WC.  We will never know.  WC will never release them for scrutiny.  There were many members of the class action who did not take the opportunity to vote either way, will no doubt be like the rest of us and be subject to the  management of WC.  I understand there will be a vote by proxy no doubt for unit holders to decide how proceeds of class action should be handled. 
that is of course if a quorum is reached.  Armstrong Registry,  Owned by M/S Hutson, M/S Greaves (WC Secretary and Compliance Committee member and Rachael Weeks, WC legal advisor will no doubt be the INDEPENDENT registry.    Best of luck to us all.


----------



## charles36 (1 August 2011)

charles36 said:


> I would like to run this scenario past interested unit holders.  Wellington Capital is very busy since being challenged, selling off properties by way of delayed contracts, some delayed for eighteen months.  I hope it is realised that these properties will remain as a NTA and therefore will be audited and the last audited figure is what WC will be paid if removed or retired as RE of fund.  The eighteen months timeframe is very important to WC and most detrimental to unit holders.  The last audited figure will be about the time the fund is finally wound up.   What does that tell you?   In addition, as we have been told, any settlement of the class action by IMF will be paid into the PIF which will be controlled by Wellington Capital.  With me so far?  Therefore, assuming three hundred million is paid into the fund by IMF the NTA goes up.  Agree?  Well at the time of the last audited figure this amount will no doubt be shown as an asset.  Can you tell me who will take 2% of the last audited figure?  You guessed it.  I would like to thank all the unit holders who rallied around and supported CASCAP.  I honestly believe we actually had more proxies than that cobbled together by WC.  We will never know.  WC will never release them for scrutiny.  There were many members of the class action who did not take the opportunity to vote either way, will no doubt be like the rest of us and be subject to the  management of WC.  I understand there will be a vote by proxy no doubt for unit holders to decide how proceeds of class action should be handled.
> that is of course if a quorum is reached.  Armstrong Registry,  Owned by M/S Hutson, M/S Greaves (WC Secretary and Compliance Committee member and Rachael Weeks, WC legal advisor will no doubt be the INDEPENDENT registry.    Best of luck to us all.




By the way, WC take home reward under the scenario I have mentioned will probably be about 11 million dollars.  Any unit holder has a differing view please help me.  We had a great chance to correct this most unsatisfactory state of affairs but unfortunatelly we did not take it.  We will have to wait and see what develops from hereon.


----------



## charles36 (1 August 2011)

Just another little issue to help you digest your weeties, the fund cannot be wound up whilst in litigation, that of course includes the class action.  WC will receive management fees until such time as class action or other litigation is satisfied and funds if any are distributed.


----------



## reasonable (1 August 2011)

charles36 said:


> Just another little issue to help you digest your weeties, the fund cannot be wound up whilst in litigation, that of course includes the class action.  WC will receive management fees until such time as class action or other litigation is satisfied and funds if any are distributed.




Our future would seem to depend entirely on whether Castlereagh want to take things further.


----------



## atlas1950 (1 August 2011)

Hi Charles36

If we are successful in the CA, and if we are award, say $200 million, as far as you know, would this money be given to us investors who participated in the action directly, OR, would it be given  to WC for them to do with it as they see fit.

If it is given to WC, and they  waste it upon themselves at our cost,what a great injustice that would be.

Keep the faith,

Michael


----------



## ASICK (1 August 2011)

Rather than face the wrath of Simgrund and his whipping boy, Mr. Joseph Blow, I'll post comments from time to time on http://www.moneymagik.com/pif.php.


----------



## gardie (1 August 2011)

Seamisty 

It cannot have been WC or Armstrong Registries nor any related party who formed PIF Reaction Group because a company run by a fromer business woman of the year and a lawyer would know that they would need to disclose their relationship on the flyer.

They will have to produce a record of it appears two acquisitions of the register by an independent third party when ASIC comes knocking on their door.

Any other outcome points to what appears to be criminal behaviour.

Surely not the case ????


----------



## Javier (1 August 2011)

charles36;649145 In addition said:
			
		

> Huh?????? That's news to me? When where we told ANY proceeds of a succesful class action be put back into the fund? I signed up for any proceeds to be given directly to the participants of the class action who held units at the mentioned qualifying date in 2008 (??) What you are saying can't be correct as the class action only benefits the unit holders of the fund in that 2008 and prior timeframe , irrespective of whether those units may have now been sold, the class action in NO WAY benefits people that purchased or acquired shares after that date.


----------



## To Trusting (1 August 2011)

gardie said:


> Seamisty
> 
> It cannot have been WC or Armstrong Registries nor any related party who formed PIF Reaction Group because a company run by a fromer business woman of the year and a lawyer would know that they would need to disclose their relationship on the flyer.
> 
> ...




Gardie - Love your work.


----------



## seamisty (1 August 2011)

gardie said:


> Seamisty
> 
> It cannot have been WC or Armstrong Registries nor any related party who formed PIF Reaction Group because a company run by a fromer business woman of the year and a lawyer would know that they would need to disclose their relationship on the flyer.
> 
> ...



As I have been indicating for quite some time Gardie::

Quid pro quo
Quid pro quo (From the Latin meaning "something for something") indicates a more-or-less equal exchange or substitution of goods or services. English speakers often use the term to mean "a favor for a favor" and the phrases with almost identical meaning include: "what for what," "give and take," "tit for tat", "this for that", and "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours". Something like "Reap and Sow" also applies to this phrase

Translated=
 Incestuous connections in the corporate world!!
 We are on to it, but sadly ASIC lags behind as per usual, permitting the trail to grow cold why they procrastinate and wonder how they can proceed to intervene without being implicated themselves in our losses through lack of action on their part. Unlike investors caught up in these rip offs,  ASIC employees still get paid whether they produce results or not. Thanks for your input, Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (1 August 2011)

ASICK said:


> Rather than face the wrath of Simgrund and his whipping boy, Mr. Joseph Blow, I'll post comments from time to time on http://www.moneymagik.com/pif.php.




What's the matter Malodorous One; wouldn't you rather write the BOOK of TECHNICALITIES and see how many copies it sells?

Did you know from among the wealth of your "KNOWLEDGE" that it is not permitted to promote commercial material on this site???? 

Quickly, put on the veil!

Under the willow tree, 
chirping with bugs


----------



## seamisty (1 August 2011)

Javier said:


> Huh?????? That's news to me? When where we told ANY proceeds of a succesful class action be put back into the fund? I signed up for any proceeds to be given directly to the participants of the class action who held units at the mentioned qualifying date in 2008 (??) What you are saying can't be correct as the class action only benefits the unit holders of the fund in that 2008 and prior timeframe , irrespective of whether those units may have now been sold, the class action in NO WAY benefits people that purchased or acquired shares after that date.



Hi Javier, FYI:

Class Action – Federal Court Proceedings NSD 324/009
Wellington Capital Limited in its capacity as Responsible Entity for the Premium Income Fund has entered into a funding agreement with IMF (Australia) Limited (ASX:IMF) in relation to Federal Court Proceedings NSD 324/009. The consequence is that Wellington Capital will become an applicant in the claim in its capacity as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund.
Jenny Hutson Managing Director said
‘As advised on 30 March 2011 Wellington Capital remains focussed on ensuring that every legal action which has the potential for positive recovery to Unitholders is vigorously pursued. Our aim has always been to understand the time cost and benefit of potential litigation and to position the Premium Income Fund and our Unitholders to ensure the best potential outcome’.
‘The legal representation and strategy for class action members changed in November 2010. Wellington Capital as responsible entity for the Premium Income Fund has been in discussions with IMF and HWL Ebsworth to reach this agreed way forward.’
Application of any proceeds from NSD 324/009
Wellington Capital has entered into the agreement with IMF on behalf of the Premium Income Fund. It has agreed in that capacity that it will as responsible entity convene a Unitholders meeting of the Premium Income Fund within 30 days of receipt of proceeds in finalisation or settlement of the claim. The purpose of the meeting of Unitholders will be to enable the Unitholders in general meeting to consider an amendment to the Constitution of the Premium Income Fund, so that those Unitholders who were members of the Premium Income Fund on 15 October 2008, and remain members at the time of the finalisation or settlement of the claim, are pro-rata the beneficiaries of the proceeds.
Premium Income Fund
NSX Release: 2 June 2011  http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724067.PDF
 A complete turn around from when our lawyers approached Ms Hutson to help us re the class action when were struggling for support and Ms Hutson declined???? I still have that original communication somewhere. Seamisty


----------



## Joe Blow (2 August 2011)

This thread is being reopened this morning after a brief closure. 

Any troublemakers or those determined to provoke others in this thread will have their ASF accounts suspended. Warnings and/or instructions issued by myself or ASF's moderators are expected to be taken seriously.

This thread is beginning to cause management problems again, and it was closed a few years ago for this reason. I will not hesitate to close it once more should it again become difficult to manage.


----------



## Jadel (2 August 2011)

Javier said:


> Huh?????? That's news to me? When where we told ANY proceeds of a succesful class action be put back into the fund? I signed up for any proceeds to be given directly to the participants of the class action who held units at the mentioned qualifying date in 2008 (??) What you are saying can't be correct as the class action only benefits the unit holders of the fund in that 2008 and prior timeframe , irrespective of whether those units may have now been sold, the class action in NO WAY benefits people that purchased or acquired shares after that date.




Javier

There are approximately now an extra  75 million  units in the fund as result of the placement to unknown so called sophisticated investors 

In exactly the same way as Judus  Iscariot betrayed  Jesus  the  people who took up this offer would have demanded their 30 pieces of silver in payment prior to the deal being struck 

The  article printed by Seamisty gives details of that agreement .


----------



## selciper (2 August 2011)

ASIC at work in the Centro case. SMH today.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic-argues-for-tough-centro-penalties-20110801-1i87n.html


----------



## charles36 (2 August 2011)

Joe Blow said:


> This thread is being reopened this morning after a brief closure.
> 
> Any troublemakers or those determined to provoke others in this thread will have their ASF accounts suspended. Warnings and/or instructions issued by myself or ASF's moderators are expected to be taken seriously.
> 
> This thread is beginning to cause management problems again, and it was closed a few years ago for this reason. I will not hesitate to close it once more should it again become difficult to manage.




Thank you Joe Blow, Your generosity is very much appreciated by all sensible users of the thread.  I would like on behalf of the PIFAG to say to all users, please respect each other, we all have our own agendas but we must pull together if we are serious about bringing some stability back into the PIF.  Interlopers may have something to offer but if they wish to wander off on some other cause it is best for all concerned to not become involved with useless banter.  It has caused problems in the past and just recently.  I know there are many people who do not post on the forum but do rely on the genuine posters for some solace and information.  Turn our thoughts and energies to the real problem.  Please take my comments in the spirit it is given.


----------



## Joe Blow (2 August 2011)

A reminder to everyone on this thread to please ensure that you close your quote tags when quoting another post.  I will be removing all posts that make incorrect use of the quote tags as a mater of course. 

When posts without closed quote tags are subsequently requoted, it becomes almost impossible to determine who is saying what, and it can appear that statements are being attributed to persons who did not post them. 

Please take a couple of minutes (and that's all it will take) to learn how the quote tags work by reviewing this thread: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2737

The last two posts on this thread were removed for this reason.


----------



## Jadel (2 August 2011)

charles36 said:


> Thank you Joe Blow, Your generosity is very much appreciated by all sensible users of the thread.  I would like on behalf of the PIFAG to say to all users, please respect each other, we all have our own agendas but we must pull together if we are serious about bringing some stability back into the PIF.  Interlopers may have something to offer but if they wish to wander off on some other cause it is best for all concerned to not become involved with useless banter.  It has caused problems in the past and just recently.  I know there are many people who do not post on the forum but do rely on the genuine posters for some solace and information.  Turn our thoughts and energies to the real problem.  Please take my comments in the spirit it is given.




We all have to remain objective and dispassionate in  our current disagreeable circumstances. 

 The last thing we want to do is bother the Mod unnecessarily.

God Forbid  that we  turn into a society like China were ever internet  discussion is censored


----------



## Wayne Wheeler (2 August 2011)

It's interesting to visit here from time to time to check on how the whole PIF story gets worse & worse for you unitholders. What a difference a few months can make.

As you would all know, our ALF PIF Finance bid was "knocked out" by the TakeOver Panel on a technicality to do with mail-out details - not our fault. We all know who raised the matter and complicated the issue - the same entity that had your EGM knocked out on a similar technicality - not your fault. There were even complaints made to your moderators to stop my posts, which were really nothing more than observations. It seems that the system can be manipulated by those who know how, and that all of our regulatory authorities will (at best) sit on their hands or (at worst) are seen to be complicit in the manoeuvrings (how do you spell that?).

Anyway, despite wasting heaps of our own money on the bid, we're still interested in trying to work a deal with you guys. We're wondering if a new bid which included a cash component would attract significant and further interest? As an aside, we had already raised enough acceptances to give us a serious hand in the game when we were estopped, and all acceptances returned under instruction. Looks like things have spiralled downward even further since then.

We have significant group experience in dealing with "distressed" properties and projects, and can offer an alternative to the strategy of attrition being inflicted here. I think I read the term malodorous used here somewhere - Indeed!

Maybe we're wasting our time - again, but I would welcome any constructive suggestions, comments or criticisms.

WW


----------



## breaker1 (2 August 2011)

You ARE wasting your time - we want nothing to do with ALF PIF


----------



## seamisty (2 August 2011)

Wayne Wheeler said:


> Maybe we're wasting our time - again, but I would welcome any constructive suggestions, comments or criticisms.
> WW



My contructive criticism is that ALF PIF directors were content to sit back and watch the PIF AG get slagged off in two smear mailouts which contained misleading, dishonest and inflamatory comments relating to some PIF AG members being part of a 'secret deal' for their own financial gain with Jim Byrnes. This could not have been further from the truth but ALF PIF did not once came on this thread at that time to deny those allegations or any association with the PIF AG what so ever. ALF PIF never once contacted the media to correct or refute these allegations. Did ALF PIF or Jim Byrnes ever lodge an official complaint with Wellington Capital and ASIC about the misuse of the PIF register knowing it had been used to contact PIF unitholders with fliers containing false information relating to Jim Byrnes and some PIF AG members? Seamisty


----------



## Sutho81 (2 August 2011)

What I want is probably different to what others want.

The one thing I want and others want is our money back!

I am not interested in shares, units, or any fund set up to manage this and have some sort of share in it.

I personally would like to see the whole fund liquidated in a time frame that gives us the maximum amount of cash back.

Units in the PIF were $1.00 per unit with monthly interest of 9.5% for some people. I am certainly not going to support ALF PIF when it is clear that they get a majority stake in our fund.

I want to see Wellington to be sacked for missmanagement, failure to deliver on promises, deceptive behaviour and being dishonest.

Had Wellington followed through on their promise with the buy back at 45c per unit I probably would have cut my losses and accepted.

As it stands now I am not going to sell my units for anything less than the above 45c, so it looks like I just hang onto them and stick with everyone else.


----------



## simgrund (2 August 2011)

Wayne Wheeler said:


> It's interesting to visit here from time to time to check on how the whole PIF story gets worse & worse for you unitholders. What a difference a few months can make.
> 
> As you would all know, our ALF PIF Finance bid was "knocked out" by the TakeOver Panel on a technicality to do with mail-out details - not our fault. We all know who raised the matter and complicated the issue - the same entity that had your EGM knocked out on a similar technicality - not your fault. There were even complaints made to your moderators to stop my posts, which were really nothing more than observations. It seems that the system can be manipulated by those who know how, and that all of our regulatory authorities will (at best) sit on their hands or (at worst) are seen to be complicit in the manoeuvrings (how do you spell that?).
> 
> ...




Really Mr WW; you should be talking deals with Jenny Hutson.
And she is not participating in this thread.
We are grateful for returned acceptances.
Cheers,


----------



## Wayne Wheeler (2 August 2011)

OK -  a couple of quick responses. Many thanks, and a couple of quick notes before I head out.

Breaker1 - Fair enough. Interesting that you don't know anything about us except what you may have read about Jim Byrnes, and yet you still dismiss our legitimate interest without discussion or consideration.
Jim's certainly able to defend himself and I won't bother to do that here, except to say that his area of special expertise is in corporate insolvency, bankruptcies and companies that are in administration/liquidation etc. Suffice to say that there's not many happy people in these situations, and Jim is very good at what he does. He has sometimes succeeded in cases where high-powered (and expensive) law firms have failed. Accordingly, he has often been unfairly treated in the media because of guilt by association in these matters. As a brief summary, I would much rather have him on my side of the table in any negotiation rather than be on an opposing side. I'd love to see him go head to head with JH.

Seamisty - Thanks for your honest appraisal. The simple truth is that we were firmly ordered by the Takeover Panel to not have any public comment or discourse on this matter whatsoever. As I've said above, there was even an attempt to have us silenced on this forum. It wasn't that we "sat back" and did nothing - we were forcibly muzzled under threat of enormous fines, whilst others were seemingly free to enact duplicitous dealings with impunity. Breathtaking!!
I'm pleased that you have managed to elicit the truth in the outrageously deceptive circumstances of the whole, sorry PIFAG and the further attempts to smear ALFPIF and Jim Byrnes. Let's be clear, we (ALF PIF Finance P/L) had no part in any of those communications and have had no dealings whatsoever with WC.

Sutho81 - We too currently think that the whole fund should probably liquidated as quickly as a strategy for maximum returns can be formulated, agreed with you all & implemented. However, as you guys know it's very difficult to develop a finite strategy or place a pre-determined value on units when the exact makeup of the assets is clouded in secret/shady dealings, associated interests, unknown litigation exposure, endless snouts in the trough etc. Notwithstanding what you have paid and/or lost to date, do you know exactly what your units are worth currently (and realistically?)?
We believe that we have the expertise, financial backing and the resolve to come up with a mutually beneficial arrangement. Sadly, I think the events of the last few months (and seemingly ongoing) are certainly going to deter many from your cause as this bleak situation continues to deteriorate.

WW


----------



## zixo (2 August 2011)

Hi Wayne,

As mentioned on earlier post no-one that I know of will ever want any association with the ALF anymore.

If the ALF were at all genuinely serious about investors concerns it should of put the matters regarding its association to CAS CAP at rest and made a statement. You could of gained some traction and honour.

Instead it seems you sat back and said nothing.
Even one simple post on the ASF verifying whatever misinformations was spread by the fictitious reaction group was false, you had ample oppourtuunity to set the truth straight - YOU DIDNT. 

It make me wonder if in fact the link between ALF and wellington is closer than anyone is led to believe, but its all part of wcs plan of destabailisation.

Sorry but ALF blew any chance for even a glimmer of respectability with me the moment the smear campaign started & its far worse now.


----------



## charles36 (2 August 2011)

Wayne Wheeler said:


> OK -  a couple of quick responses. Many thanks, and a couple of quick notes before I head out.
> 
> Breaker1 - Fair enough. Interesting that you don't know anything about us except what you may have read about Jim Byrnes, and yet you still dismiss our legitimate interest without discussion or consideration.
> Jim's certainly able to defend himself and I won't bother to do that here, except to say that his area of special expertise is in corporate insolvency, bankruptcies and companies that are in administration/liquidation etc. Suffice to say that there's not many happy people in these situations, and Jim is very good at what he does. He has sometimes succeeded in cases where high-powered (and expensive) law firms have failed. Accordingly, he has often been unfairly treated in the media because of guilt by association in these matters. As a brief summary, I would much rather have him on my side of the table in any negotiation rather than be on an opposing side. I'd love to see him go head to head with JH.
> ...




Mr. Wheeler, I notice you advocate liquidation but you agree in as many words that you do not know what assets and value of such assets are.  I find that odd.  You have made some comments re shady dealings, snouts in trough etc., which of course to the untaught mind would suggest improper practices on behalf of our RE.  Your credibility would be seriously enhanced if you took yourself and your evidence to ASIC.  By adopting this suggestion you would be demonstrating that you are a good citizen doing your duty and reporting a crime.  I will watch for developments.


----------



## Sutho81 (2 August 2011)

The other thing I havent mentioned is that I wish the fund was not on the NSX. That gives Wellington the opportunity to purchase units at cheap prices.

For me personally the loss of my investment was a great hit to my budget and savings and future. If I had the opportunity to get half of that back (ie the 45c buy back) it would have made a difference.

I know that many others do not support liquidation - I do and the money could help.

For me the take over by Castlereagh offered a real glimmer of hope for the fund. Wellington failed to deliver on their promises (we all saw them in their true colours as of late). The fact Castlereagh offered to do something and were prepared to work on the fund gave me hope and they got my support.

I did not support the ALF PIF as it was clear that the investment would be in their favour with very little/nothing for us.

For many investors the loss we suffered is too great to just write off with minimal in return. For me to sell my units on the NSX I would not sell for under 45c - and I know that wont happen.


----------



## selciper (2 August 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> The other thing I havent mentioned is that I wish the fund was not on the NSX. That gives Wellington the opportunity to purchase units at cheap prices.
> 
> For me personally the loss of my investment was a great hit to my budget and savings and future. If I had the opportunity to get half of that back (ie the 45c buy back) it would have made a difference.
> 
> ...



Sutho81 - I notice that in references to Castlereagh you use the past tense which is significant for any of us who hope that CasCap are maintaining an interest in PIF. We are certainly in need of some morale-boosting news.


----------



## BABIHUTAN (2 August 2011)

Javier said:


> Huh?????? That's news to me? When where we told ANY proceeds of a successful class action be put back into the fund? I signed up for any proceeds to be given directly to the participants of the class action who held units at the mentioned qualifying date in 2008 (??) What you are saying can't be correct as the class action only benefits the unit holders of the fund in that 2008 and prior timeframe , irrespective of whether those units may have now been sold, the class action in NO WAY benefits people that purchased or acquired shares after that date.




  Jadel, Javier , Seamisty & other posters on this theme - tt too is my understanding of what many Investors signed up for in 2008. There was a specific cutoff date tt was subequently extended by IMF by a few months - no quarrel there, provided it did not allow Johnny come lately investors who saw an opportunity to make money as a result of our misfortunes - $1 tt we pd against 0.06 - 0.09 tt they wud hv come in at in order to reap the same rewards of the CA if successful. No one in their right mind would consider buying for appreciation in the forseeable future.
The criteria to participate pro-rata in the CA recoveries is linked directly the holdings those signed up Investors held on tt second cut off date. 
IMF made very clear tt if, for whatever reason, an Investor subsequently needed to sell part or all of their holdings after tt 2nd cutoff date their pro-rated CA recovery (if any) would not be compromised. IMF took this litigation on, on a no cure no pay basis.
If the CA is ultimately successful those qualifying Investors would share pro-rata in any  recoveries and likewise they wud share the fee tt Investors agreed to pay IMF by the same ratio.
I cannot see how WC can come into the equation other than if WC was [if it is in fact legal for an RE to hv a pecuniary interest in a fund tt it manages] an Investor in its own right on the cut off date. WC wud then hv the same rights as all of us pre cut off date. IMO WC as RE has nothing to do with the CA except to piggyback with us if qualified.

We, as a group of investors hv got to where we are today entirely thru the selfless efforts of those dedicated members of the PIFAG. WC as RE has had & nothing to do with the success of findng someone take on the case, rather as I recall went out of their way in frustrating appoaches made by the PIFAG, IMF and their former lawyers for legitimate assistance. 
My wife & I invested with Mclaughlins FS fm its early days and after serveral years with good but not excessive returns started rolling over distributions and never drewdown on capital, paying tax on years of distribution monies we are unlikely to ever see - so much for the power of compounding  - BAH!


----------



## zeva (2 August 2011)

Sutho 81 I agree with you, I personally believe that WC aim is to strip the PIF assets with no or little return to the investor and when there is nothing else left JH will hand over the empty shell of the PIF back to us (the investors)


----------



## Sutho81 (2 August 2011)

I am still hopefull that Castlereagh will have another attempt at the fund. I would really love them to. They have my vote already.

Its clear the fund is no good in Hutsons hands. The Armstrong Registy is a slap in the face to us investors that she is draining the fund of funds with proceeds going straight to her fat rear ended pocket!


----------



## Wayne Wheeler (2 August 2011)

charles36 said:


> Mr. Wheeler, I notice you advocate liquidation but you agree in as many words that you do not know what assets and value of such assets are.  I find that odd.  You have made some comments re shady dealings, snouts in trough etc., which of course to the untaught mind would suggest improper practices on behalf of our RE.  Your credibility would be seriously enhanced if you took yourself and your evidence to ASIC.  By adopting this suggestion you would be demonstrating that you are a good citizen doing your duty and reporting a crime.  I will watch for developments.




Well, Charles, I'm suggesting that I have absolute knowledge of impropriety by your RE or anyone else - far from it. I have no detailed understanding of how your RE has managed your fund other than what I read here or via public media outlets such as the NSX. Please don't try to attribute this type of innuendo as being originally sourced from myself.
My comments here are, and always have been, a reflection of the comments & statements which have been previously posted here by unitholders and other interested parties, some of whom have alleged improper associations by former people associated with your fund at various stages of it's history. The post above is ample evidence of the dissatisfaction voiced on a daily basis since the inception of this forum.
I have already mentioned our instructions to refrain from any public comment during the bid enquiry process - that is now a matter of record. I have no wish to stir those matters up again.
I'm not sure how you think that we are somehow accountable for your current situation. We would simply propose an alternative method of realising the maximum return on the funds assets. You can choose to agree or disagree with our proposal - but surely you would want to hear the offer?

WW


----------



## simgrund (2 August 2011)

Wayne Wheeler said:


> -------------------I think I read the term malodorous used here somewhere - Indeed!----------------------
> 
> WW




Then don't try to become One!


----------



## aroach (2 August 2011)

With respect to all, please heed the very justified warning from the Administrator, Joe Blow in his post #8543.

Please stay focussed on using this thread for providing information, and on the common cause of trying to find ways to restore the PIF to something that actually returns some value to us investors.

So, in that light it's best to simply ignore posts you don't like rather than attacking the poster.

Thank you

Ashley


----------



## charles36 (2 August 2011)

Wayne Wheeler said:


> Well, Charles, I'm suggesting that I have absolute knowledge of impropriety by your RE or anyone else - far from it. I have no detailed understanding of how your RE has managed your fund other than what I read here or via public media outlets such as the NSX. Please don't try to attribute this type of innuendo as being originally sourced from myself.
> My comments here are, and always have been, a reflection of the comments & statements which have been previously posted here by unitholders and other interested parties, some of whom have alleged improper associations by former people associated with your fund at various stages of it's history. The post above is ample evidence of the dissatisfaction voiced on a daily basis since the inception of this forum.
> I have already mentioned our instructions to refrain from any public comment during the bid enquiry process - that is now a matter of record. I have no wish to stir those matters up again.
> I'm not sure how you think that we are somehow accountable for your current situation. We would simply propose an alternative method of realising the maximum return on the funds assets. You can choose to agree or disagree with our proposal - but surely you would want to hear the offer?
> ...




Not really, I deal in facts not fiction, maybe or possibly.


----------



## Wayne Wheeler (2 August 2011)

Please note that my last (and penultimate) post should begin....: "Well, Charles, I'm not suggesting that I have absolute knowledge of impropriety by your RE or anyone else - far from it...."



simgrund said:


> I would rather have #8550 as our standard bearer during this infestation.
> Cheers




And message understood, Simgrund. Good luck to you all!


----------



## Harald (2 August 2011)

aroach said:


> With respect to all, please heed the very justified warning from the Administrator, Joe Blow in his post #8543.
> 
> Please stay focussed on using this thread for providing information, and on the common cause of trying to find ways to restore the PIF to something that actually returns some value to us investors.
> 
> ...




Don't You think that Your advise would be to simplistic Ashley?

When we would follow Your advise WW and maybe even JH would take over 
this thread.


----------



## simgrund (2 August 2011)

selciper said:


> Sutho81 - I notice that in references to Castlereagh you use the past tense which is significant for any of us who hope that CasCap are maintaining an interest in PIF. We are certainly in need of some morale-boosting news.




Selciper, Sutho,
There are simply too many steps taken by CasCap along this track to swerve off it right now.
And both judgements have openings for forward movement. 
In particular this passage in Judge Dowson's reference to another Judge's 
decision re relationship between responsible entity and a member.
That relationship being analogous to the relationship between trustee and a beneficiary.
"While the duty of a trustee is to exercise a degree of restraint and conservatism in investment judgements, the duty of a director may be to display enterpreneural flair and accept commercial risks to produce a sufficient return on the capital ivested." (From Daniels v Anderson (1995))
A golf adventure is such a flair and ASIC seems to be saying that WC would act outside its trustee responsibility.
So the definition is set by this precedent and there is plenty for CasCap to get
 their teeth into.
Let's help

Regards,

Cheers,


----------



## DoraNBoots (2 August 2011)

Wayne Wheeler said:


> As you would all know, our ALF PIF Finance bid was "knocked out" by the TakeOver Panel on a technicality to do with mail-out details - not our fault.  We all know who raised the matter and complicated the issue - the same entity that had your EGM knocked out on a similar technicality




I don't agree with the above.  The ALF unacceptable circumstances decided by the Takeover Panel seem serious to me and nothing like the reason the AG meeting was deemed invalid.  

For those interested in the unacceptable circumstances for the ALF PIF offer see this link:
http://www.takeovers.gov.au/content/Reasons_For_Decisions/2011/downloads/010_Premium_Income_Fund.pdf  There's a summary on page 16 in Annexure C.

One unacceptable circumstance is in the quote below but there are many other similar issues:


> 50. The replacement bidder's statement does not go into any detail about how the value of the bid consideration is derived. PIF’s stated net asset backing at 31 December 2009 was 35 cents per unit. Accepting unit holders get a preference share in ALF Finance, said to be worth 15c per unit (assuming redemption), plus 19.09% of ordinary equity. ALF Finance and Mr Byrnes in submissions each derived a value for the offer consideration based on the stated net asset backing of PIF units. Therefore, the value of the offer comes from the value that is assumed to be in the target itself.
> 
> 51. This of course assumes that the preference shares are redeemed for cash, which ALF Finance is not required to do. It also assumes access to the net asset backing of the PIF units, which may be unavailable if ALF Finance does not get all the units.
> 
> 52. In our view, the value of the offer, and particularly the fact that it is based on the value of the target, was not disclosed adequately, or at all, to unit holders. Nor were the risks of the preference shares not being able to be redeemed.




*Mr Wheeler,*  I'm interested to know why you didn't follow up concerns re Wellington's disclosure?  The following states Mr Byrnes was informed of his ability to make an application but it seems he didn't do so:


> 71. We think that Wellington should have addressed, either in the target’s statement or a supplementary target’s statement as appropriate, the circumstances surrounding the need to raise capital shortly after making a distribution, whether there are legitimate claims by or against it or PIF that are likely to be the subject of litigation, and information regarding the ‘PIF Action Group’, being unit holders holding approximately 27% of the issued units who are seeking to replace Wellington as the responsible entity.
> 
> 72. Mr Byrnes was informed of his ability to make an application, as such matters were not addressed in the application before the Panel. He did not do so. He was also informed that he could perhaps raise his concerns in a preliminary submission (if he became a party), but the Panel may decide that they were not relevant to the application. We are inclined to think there is some merit in his concerns, and we would have been prepared to consider these issues (and possibly others that he and ALF Finance raised), and we may perhaps have issued a supplementary brief. There is no utility in taking this course in all the circumstances.


----------



## seamisty (2 August 2011)

Wayne Wheeler said:


> OK -  a couple of quick responses. Many thanks, and a couple of quick notes before I head out.
> 
> Seamisty - Thanks for your honest appraisal. The simple truth is that we were firmly ordered by the Takeover Panel to not have any public comment or discourse on this matter whatsoever. As I've said above, there was even an attempt to have us silenced on this forum. It wasn't that we "sat back" and did nothing - we were forcibly muzzled under threat of enormous fines, whilst others were seemingly free to enact duplicitous dealings with impunity. Breathtaking!!
> I'm pleased that you have managed to elicit the truth in the outrageously deceptive circumstances of the whole, sorry PIFAG and the further attempts to smear ALFPIF and Jim Byrnes. Let's be clear, we (ALF PIF Finance P/L) had no part in any of those communications and have had no dealings whatsoever with WC.
> ...



Thanks Wayne for your response. Fair call ALF PIF could not correspond directly with PIF unitholders re the ruling from the takeovers tribunal, I buy that. A media release however refuting the PIF AG/Jim Byrnes 'secret deal' association would have put an end to speculation and any distrust relating to the mailout if ALF PIF had wanted to. My own thoughts are that because ALF PIF had failed in their own proposal to take control of the PIF, by not intervening it would cause damage to the credibility of the PIF AG executive committee. So now we have ASIC not regulating (as usual), ALF PIF not taking responsibility for false statements relating to themselves and PIF AG and Wellington Capital still wasting our money and using our Fund to prop up their own image and contribute to WC operating expenses which sees PIF unitholders getting approx 2 cents return of capital for every $100million of their own assets liquidated. Great. 
 Also being the personal target of a smear campaign funded by ............., I was hoping that ALF PIF may share the links to the un named blogs/forums etc that have caused them grief also with "negative, false, and misleading, deceptive, defamatory, and libelous statements"?  http://www.irw-press.com/en/news_13211.html
Get the drift Wayne? The reason PIF unit holders trust so few is because there are so few to trust. Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (3 August 2011)

Joe Blow said:


> A reminder to everyone on this thread to please ensure that you close your quote tags when quoting another post.  I will be removing all posts that make incorrect use of the quote tags as a mater of course.
> 
> When posts without closed quote tags are subsequently requoted, it becomes almost impossible to determine who is saying what, and it can appear that statements are being attributed to persons who did not post them.
> 
> ...




Joe, I could not follow instructions given on site above.
Instead, I found that clicking on 4rth icon from right on the main bar containing *B*, _I_, U will bring out the quote tags for any text inserts to fit between them.
Would it be possible for you to reinstate my post on private message box so I can do the right thing with the Q-tags.
Thanks


----------



## Joe Blow (3 August 2011)

simgrund said:


> Would it be possible for you to reinstate my post on private message box so I can do the right thing with the Q-tags.
> Thanks




20 minutes after a post has been submitted it can no longer be edited. You will have to repost anything that you would like to correct.


----------



## aroach (3 August 2011)

Harald said:


> Don't You think that Your advise would be to simplistic Ashley?
> 
> When we would follow Your advise WW and maybe even JH would take over
> this thread.




I should have been clearer with my post. When I said "that you don't like" I didn't mean ignoring posts that we disagree with.

If we disagree with a post then by all means reply with a substantiated counter-argument. After all, that's one of the reasons forums are created.

By saying "a post you don't like" I was trying to say "a nasty post" or "a personal attack post", but in a nicer way...didn't work. 

So basically, if we all refrain from personal attacks in our posts, this thread will be kept open and we will at least maintain one of the objectives toward trying to restore some PIF value...keeping unit holders better informed.

But if you are personally attacked in a post then report it immediately to the moderator and I'm sure he will remove the offending post and possibly the poster too.

Thanks


----------



## selciper (3 August 2011)

More on Centro. SMH today.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/weve...ro-nonexecutive-directors-20110802-1i9t4.html


----------



## Jadel (3 August 2011)

BABIHUTAN said:


> Jadel, Javier , Seamisty & other posters on this theme - tt too is my understanding of what many Investors signed up for in 2008. There was a specific cutoff date tt was subequently extended by IMF by a few months - no quarrel there, provided it did not allow Johnny come lately investors who saw an opportunity to make money as a result of our misfortunes - $1 tt we pd against 0.06 - 0.09 tt they wud hv come in at in order to reap the same rewards of the CA if successful. No one in their right mind would consider buying for appreciation in the forseeable future.
> The criteria to participate pro-rata in the CA recoveries is linked directly the holdings those signed up Investors held on tt second cut off date.
> IMF made very clear tt if, for whatever reason, an Investor subsequently needed to sell part or all of their holdings after tt 2nd cutoff date their pro-rated CA recovery (if any) would not be compromised. IMF took this litigation on, on a no cure no pay basis.
> If the CA is ultimately successful those qualifying Investors would share pro-rata in any  recoveries and likewise they wud share the fee tt Investors agreed to pay IMF by the same ratio.
> ...




Hi Bahbituan
 In a perfect world , new investors who have not lost money as a result of the PIF fraud should  not be entitled to any proceeds from the Class Action at the expense of  those investors who have  suffered financially.

I sincerely hope this is the case; the presiding judge of course will make the final determination on who is included or excluded....


----------



## Duped (3 August 2011)

As for the Reaction Group. They wrote:

"Bri Ferrier made sure we lost $55 million ... in saving Raptis from paying his dues to OUR FUND".  Umm .... errr .... isn't that exactly why PIF would benefit from 'hiring' an RE which draws on such expertise?  Wouldn't unitholders benefit from having such expertise working for them rather than against them? Isn't that like saying: I'm not going to hire that tax accountant or tax lawyer because he's really good at getting the best outcome from his client? Duh?  

Then there's this quote the Reaction Group attributed to a poster on this thread: "*I have had investors speak to me saying they have been told that ALF PIF has arranged for BRI Ferrier to be licensed and that they're working together to take over the fund*". Really? Hmmmm.  

This is what the Australian Financial Review published on 10 May in an article by Ben Wilmot entitled "Ferrier backs PIF rescue bid".

"The PIF is subject to a separate takeover bid by ALF PIF Finance, which is controlled by an offshore company led by Jim Byrnes.

Wellington Capital managing director *Jenny Hutson* raised concerns that ALF and Castlereagh Capital were working together.

"*I have had investors speak with me today indicating they've been contacted by  ALF PIF recently and been told that ALF PIF has arranged for BRI Ferrier to be licensed and that they're working  together to take over the fund*" " [emphasis added]

Eh? Substantially the same quote isn't it? What's the Reaction Group trying to pull/push in this sample from their mail out?


----------



## Duped (3 August 2011)

Oh dear! Found another statement in the Reaction Group's mail out that seems to be  due scrutiny.  

"7. In a TOP SECRET DEAL, Jim Byrnes has been guaranteed a share of all proceedings from OUR LITIGATION in return for his vote. Jim Byrnes estimates this is worth *$46 million*.  Thats 7 cents per unit." [emphasis added]

"TOP SECRET DEAL" is it? Ummm type "ALF PIF FINANCE LIMITED" into google.  On the very first page of results is the link to http://www.irw-press.com

IRWPress has a number of releases by ALF GROUP HOLDINGS AG.  On 4 April 2011 ALF GROUP published (to the world and anyone who could be bothered to do some due diligence on ALF):

"Further, to add to the prospects of the success of the bid, Australian Litigation Funders Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of ALF, has agreed to take over and fund all recovery action, all unit/ shareholder class action claims against the existing manager and all recovery action against third parties who may have a liability owing to PIF.

The offer from Australian Litigation Funders Pty Ltd provides existing unit holders of PIF with the comfort that the PIF capital will not be dissipated by expensive and time consuming litigation and that Australian Litigation Funders Pty Ltd will work on a no win/no fee basis and take a fixed percentage of 33% from all recoveries (plus legal costs).

ALF believes that there is potentially over AUD $140,000,000 in potential claims, suits and recoveries. This means that there is the potential to deliver fees of approximately *AUD $46m *to ALF from litigation recoveries alone." [emphasis added]

Is this the "TOP SECRET DEAL" that the Reaction Group is referring to?  If it's the same deal then it's probably about as TOP SECRET as what we publish on this thread is TOP SECRET to those ALF GROUP investors over in Europe.


----------



## DoraNBoots (3 August 2011)

Duped said:


> As for the Reaction Group. They wrote:
> 
> "Bri Ferrier made sure we lost $55 million ... in saving Raptis from paying his dues to OUR FUND".  Umm .... errr .... isn't that exactly why PIF would benefit from 'hiring' an RE which draws on such expertise?  Wouldn't unitholders benefit from having such expertise working for them rather than against them? Isn't that like saying: I'm not going to hire that tax accountant or tax lawyer because he's really good at getting the best outcome from his client? Duh?
> ...



That's exactly what I thought when I read it.  It made Ferrier's look like the better option as they got a good deal for their client while WC negotiated a terrible outcome for the PIF. 



Duped said:


> As for the Reaction Group. They wrote:
> ...
> Then there's this quote the Reaction Group attributed to a poster on this thread: "*I have had investors speak to me saying they have been told that ALF PIF has arranged for BRI Ferrier to be licensed and that they're working together to take over the fund*". Really? Hmmmm.
> 
> ...




Wow, that's interesting.  I was amazed when I read Ms Hutson make such a ridiculous comment to the media and I find it hard to believe anyone not associated with her could write it again and attribute it to an AG member.

http://www.takeovers.gov.au/content/DisplayDoc.aspx?doc=reasons_for_decisions/2011/010.htm  The Takeover Panel say that Hutson breached the media canvassing undertaking that Wellington gave to them and a further undertaking was accepted by the Panel on 30 May 2011 as follows: 


> Pursuant to section 201A of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001(Cth), Wellington Capital Limited as Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund (PIF) undertakes to the Panel that:
> 1.it will not publish or dispatch any further material to PIF unit holders in respect of the takeover bid by ALF PIF Finance Limited (ALF Finance) contrary to the undertaking it has provided in its Notice of Appearance.
> 2.until the Panel has determined the proceedings, it will provide to the Panel for its consideration, any future statements that it wishes to publish or send to PIF unit holders in relation to the ALF Finance bid before those statements are made public.
> Signed by Jenny Hutson
> ...




WC were not allowed to communicate with investors about the ALF PIF deal but on the 31 May 2011 (the day after the above undertaking) an anonymous letter is sent to all unitholders saying:


> "In a TOP SECRET DEAL, Jim Byrnes has been guaranteed a share of all proceedings from OUR LITIGATION in return for his vote.  Jim Byrnes estimates this is worth $46 million.  Thats 7 cents per unit"


----------



## Duped (3 August 2011)

Duped said:


> As for the Reaction Group. They wrote:
> 
> "Bri Ferrier made sure we lost $55 million ... in saving Raptis from paying his dues to OUR FUND".  Umm .... errr .... isn't that exactly why PIF would benefit from 'hiring' an RE which draws on such expertise?  Wouldn't unitholders benefit from having such expertise working for them rather than against them? Isn't that like saying: I'm not going to hire that tax accountant or tax lawyer because he's really good at getting the best outcome from his client? Duh?
> 
> ...




Ooops.  I meant to write:

'he's really good at getting the best outcome for his client?'

and not "he's really good at getting the best outcome from his client?" Doh!

As for BRI Ferrier's cut of that $55m.  Isn't 'paying more for better service' a key aspect of the market based economic system that our nation subscribes to? Don't us Aussies use the expression 'pay peanuts and you get monkeys'?


----------



## ian1328 (3 August 2011)

If things turn per shaped and Joe Blow closes us down, is there another way of keeping in touch?


----------



## selciper (3 August 2011)

ian1328 said:


> If things turn per shaped and Joe Blow closes us down, is there another way of keeping in touch?




It seems to me that following the necessary protocols isn't particularlydemanding of us. We should all take responsibility and follow the rules..


----------



## seamisty (3 August 2011)

ian1328 said:


> If things turn per shaped and Joe Blow closes us down, is there another way of keeping in touch?




Ian1328 please ensure I have your contact details by private message although I am sure we all respect the forum rules and will abide by them. Having access to this type of communication is a privledge, even though some of us are often tempted to test the boundaries of what is acceptable, myself included. Cheers, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (3 August 2011)

Interesting to see that G8 (GEM)education shares are hovering around a 12 month low, 56-59cents and larger than usual volumes are being traded. More interesting that after close of trade today, trading and market status of GEM is now stating 'enquiry'.HMNN, unusual. Will keep you posted. Seamisty


----------



## Wayne Wheeler (3 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> Get the drift Wayne? The reason PIF unit holders trust so few is because there are so few to trust. Seamisty




Yep, I get it Seamisty - and thanks for the civilised discussion. I won't post here any more as there's simply too much hostility. I understand the anger & frustration but I choose not to provide myself as a venting mechanism for some here. I offer this brief reply only as courtesy to you.

Quite simply, we submitted an offer which many unitholders did not accept but which others did. Our bid was found to be invalid - mainly on a technicality of mailing addresses from a list controlled by others. Like you, we have now lost a lot  (a lot!) of our own money and must consider whether or not to try again with a new bid, or to look to other opportunities.

WW


----------



## seamisty (3 August 2011)

Wayne Wheeler said:


> Yep, I get it Seamisty - and thanks for the civilised discussion. I won't post here any more as there's simply too much hostility. I understand the anger & frustration but I choose not to provide myself as a venting mechanism for some here. I offer this brief reply only as courtesy to you.
> 
> Quite simply, we submitted an offer which many unitholders did not accept but which others did. Our bid was found to be invalid - mainly on a technicality of mailing addresses from a list controlled by others. Like you, we have now lost a lot  (a lot!) of our own money and must consider whether or not to try again with a new bid, or to look to other opportunities.
> 
> WW



Thankyou


----------



## Duped (4 August 2011)

http://www.nirmalsinghbhangoo.com/gold-coast/

"THE drawn-out haggling over the Sheraton Mirage has come to an end with  Nirmal Singh Bhangoo’s company, Pearls Australasia, yesterday signing a  bargain deal for the Gold Coast`s biggest beachfront resort. Apartment  and shopping centre developer Pearls Infrastructure Projects is  understood to have snared the trophy asset for less than $60 million  from receivers to a Raptis Group subsidiary. ...."


----------



## Duped (4 August 2011)

Duped said:


> Oh dear! Found another statement in the Reaction Group's mail out that seems to be  due scrutiny.
> 
> "7. In a TOP SECRET DEAL, Jim Byrnes has been guaranteed a share of all proceedings from OUR LITIGATION in return for his vote. Jim Byrnes estimates this is worth *$46 million*.  Thats 7 cents per unit." [emphasis added]
> 
> ...




Thinking of defending the Reaction Group with e.g.: they were told it was a secret deal so how were they supposed to know it was public knowledge?  

Well bung ALF and $46 into google and up pops a link to that publication of 4 April 2011.  Number 3 on the list of results.  Easy peasy.  Takes less than a minute.  Bung in "Australian Litigation Funders" (Big Jim's company) and $46 and again, up pops the link to the 4 April 2011 publication.  This time it's number 6 on the list. 

In fact this latter search shows that the statement published on 4 April about a deal with Jim Byrnes' Australian Litigation Funders worth up to an estimated $46m had previously already been published on 24 February 2011.  See http://www.irw-press.com/en/news_11577.html


----------



## seamisty (4 August 2011)

:topic but may be of interest to some::AACo accused over 'ghost cattle'SEAN SMITH, The West AustralianAugust 1, 2011, 6:59 am

The Federal Court is set to test allegations by a Perth businessman that Australian Agricultural Co inflated its accounts with "ghost cattle".

Don Fuller on Friday filed a three-pronged statement of claim against AACo, Elders and 23 current and former directors and executives from the companies seeking more than $30 million damages for alleged defamation and fraudulent accounting.

Mr Fuller says he filed a "multi-billion-dollar" proposal in 2008 to buy Futuris Corporation's 43 per cent stake in AACo but the plan foundered when he claimed that AACo's cattle numbers had been overstated by nearly 200,000 head.

AACo's then-directors, Stephen Toms, Charles Bright, Philip Toyne and Brett Heading, sued Mr Fuller for defamation over the allegations, though the action was later withdrawn

Full article:http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/-/national/9948503/aaco-accused-over-ghost-cattle/


----------



## seamisty (5 August 2011)

Sale of 50% interest in Trust that owns the Chifley Wollongong Hotel
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724263.PDF


----------



## JohnH (5 August 2011)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724263.PDF

Wellington have provisionally sold a 50% interest in Chiffley Wollongong for $10.5M.

Can anybody recall what this property stood us in at???  John H.

"Snap" Seamisty............


----------



## seamisty (5 August 2011)

JohnH said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724263.PDF
> 
> Wellington have provisionally sold a 50% interest in Chiffley Wollongong for $10.5M.
> 
> ...



Owed the PIF  $58million as at19/3/2007


----------



## JohnH (5 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> Owed the PIF  $58million as at19/3/2007




and 50% sold for $10.5m .............. another $37M loss............ s'pose that's par for the course!!!


----------



## seamisty (5 August 2011)

From todays NSX announcement"Sale of 50% interest in Trust that owns the Chifley Wollongong Hotel Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund has completed negotiations in relation to the sale of half of its interest in the trust that owns the 168 room Chifley Wollongong Hotel. The sale is conditional upon the final valuation being to the satisfaction of the vendor and finance approval.
Settlement is scheduled to occur in October 2011. The net proceeds payable to the Premium Income Fund on sale will be a minimum of $10.5 million."

"In addition to its interest in the 168 room Chifley Wollongong, the Premium Income Fund continues to market the remaining 5 Chifley residence apartments which formed part of the original 84 apartments. 79 of these apartments have already been sold and settled."

From this media article::http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/...an-view-units-sell-like-hotcakes/1666089.aspx


Discounted ocean view units sell like hotcakes

BY ALEX ARNOLD

03 Nov, 2009 03:00 AM


 A fire sale of apartments within the stalled Ocean View City Beach project in Harbour St has sparked a buyer frenzy not seen in Wollongong for some time.

In just four days more than $28 million worth of property has been snapped up with 47 of the 67 discounted apartments selling, including the building's five penthouse apartments which were priced from $981,000.


The top price achieved was $1.05 million":::

This means that approx $42million will be realised from apartment sales PIF 50% share = $22mill with 50% of the hotel still owned by PIf valued at $10.5mill. Total approx $43mill with only $10.5 mill outstanding IF the scheduled settlement goes ahead in Oct 2011

So what has happened to the other approx $22mill already settled in apartment sales???? Our 2 cents return of capital was paid from the sale of a number of PIF assetts!!!! From a boutique merchant bank the figures never seem to add up for me Seamisty


----------



## zixo (5 August 2011)

hmmmm ...another loss.

I guess JH and Wellington Capital are at the least least predictable selling off our assets and discount our fund to their mates.


where is ASIC?


----------



## Cookie1 (5 August 2011)

Further on the sale of assets...I've been keeping an eye on the Icon Apartments in Port Macquarie and the information we're being fed about them.

NSX Release 11 July 2011: "Icon Port Macquarie
Settlement has occurred in relation to one apartment in the Icon Port complex. *Gross proceeds are $550,000*. 15 apartments remain to be sold."

Investor Update July 2011: Page 1 under "Executive Summary"
"Contracts entered into for a number of assets held as security for defaulted loans. Upon settlement of these contracts, *$40.7 million will be returned to the Fund*."

Page 3 under "Contracts": "Wellington Capital is committed to returning the *net cash* from sales to Unitholders as security properties are sold whilst also ensuring that properties are well positioned for sale."
"Icon Port Macquarie, new South Wales: Settlement has occurred in relation to one apartment in the Icon Port complex. 15 apartments remain to be sold. Proceeds $0.55m". 

Note the *Proceeds* of the list of contracts shown as $40.7 million. I'm assuming this is *"gross proceeds"* rather than the *"net cash"* referred to above, since the property sold was a townhouse with listed price of $550,000.

Page 24 of the July 2011 Investor Update shows "Port Macquarie, New South Wales, Security type: Residential aprtment complex
Status: The development of this property has been completed by the Fund.
15 of *26* apartments remain available for sale. Most recent sale of one apartment saw *proceeds returned to Fund* *of $0.55 million*." (I was told it was under contract fairly recently.)

Some things we know:
• I know (because I've talked with both agents) that all of level 3 was being leased and was not for sale a few weeks ago. At the time 1 remained to be leased and all were at least 6-month leases.
• We were told some time ago by JH that a "deal" was done with a developer  to complete the project for a reasonable amount of the profits from sale of apartments, but we haven't been told anything about the deal. He did get his pick of apartments...the penthouse with the best views according to one of the listing real estate agents.
• The Real Estate agents of course get their commissions as well as other associated costs of selling a property.
• On the leases, the agents get fees for managing the rentals as well as maintenance costs and body corporate fees to come out of moneys collected.

What I want to know is what are the net proceeds to actually come into the PIF on sales of properties. The figures given in the July 2011 Investor Update are ambiguous at best and very misleading. They tell us nothing.

Below are ads from Port Macquarie Domain for 29 July and 5 August for the Icon Apartments. Last week the ad said "Icon - Only 2 On Offer" and today "Price Reduced by $100,000" with mention of "24 house size apartments". Obviously the sales strategy has changed to fire sale the apartments as quickly as possible. 

JH, what is the actual return to the fund on all properties sold and under contract? 

We're tired of being fed untruths and half truths. How much are we losing with all the "deals" you're doing in the best interests of investors? Aren't the deals actually done to get cash into the fund so you can take your ill-gotten payout when we replace you?

Note: Bold text is my emphasis.

Cookie1


----------



## selciper (5 August 2011)

The talented team has done it again.


----------



## Harald (5 August 2011)

Is there any good or bad news about our future proceedings to kick out JH?

Wasn't there a promise that we would get an update not later than the 5th
of August?

I'm sorry to be so impatient but I really would like to see some activity from
our side and not only from JH. She is taking away a fortune.


----------



## simgrund (6 August 2011)

Harald said:


> Is there any good or bad news about our future proceedings to kick out JH?
> 
> Wasn't there a promise that we would get an update not later than the 5th
> of August?
> ...




Hello Harald,
Hang in there mate.
This action is far from over.
There are behind the scenes manouvrerings going on and you understand that they can not be aired on the forum.
For my little part I have sent another urgent nudge to ASIC through my Federal MP. 
Waiting for response now.
Every bit of pressure is being applied, however miniscule.
We are due for an upswing.
Regards, simgrund


----------



## DepressedDad (6 August 2011)

In the last 2 months we have seen SOMEONE or ('someones') 'buy' 2 registers (yeah right) and spend thousands smearing good people so JH/WC can keep plundering the fund & keeping their friends in the lifestyle they've become accustomed.  It will be a *VERY SIMPLE* task for ASIC to ask *WHO* bought the registries.  There's the first very simple investigation needed which should take a few minutes. If there is 'SOMEONE' JH/WC will name as a sacrificial lamb, let ASIC see their bank records paying for the printing & postage. (And advise which mail centres they used.) And in another few minutes, well spent, ASIC can ask the mail centres who paid the bill on that date. ASIC can then determine their relationship to JH/WC.  Does anyone really believe there is going to be a neutral supportive investor (s) who LOVES her work and is wiling to shell out thousands to keep her in the job, but couldn't be bothered going to the meeting to vote?

And while ASIC's out door knocking, maybe they'll pop into the agency that employed the actors and take a couple of minutes to ask just 2 simple questions; namely* WHO *booked the actors and WHO paid? It must be of interest to ASIC WHO attempted to pervert the course of justice now it's been tabled in a court of law. They must be very curious who would go to that trouble & expense, even working with officials to sign them up as Unitholders BEFORE they even were Unitholders.  And we know Jenny 'knows absolutely nothing about it'  because that's what she swore  under oath.  So there's another mystery easily solved with a couple of questions.  Bring it on. We know ASIC is 'taking an interest.' 

JH/WC can hide the millions of dollars lost on all these shabby deals with a stroke of the pen, but the above 2 blatant contradictions to the law are out in public now and investigations can ONLY point to JH/WC's illegal breach of the Acts.


----------



## elizaman (6 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> Thanks Wayne for your response. Fair call ALF PIF could not correspond directly with PIF unitholders re the ruling from the takeovers tribunal, I buy that. A media release however refuting the PIF AG/Jim Byrnes 'secret deal' association would have put an end to speculation and any distrust relating to the mailout if ALF PIF had wanted to. My own thoughts are that because ALF PIF had failed in their own proposal to take control of the PIF, by not intervening it would cause damage to the credibility of the PIF AG executive committee. So now we have ASIC not regulating (as usual), ALF PIF not taking responsibility for false statements relating to themselves and PIF AG and Wellington Capital still wasting our money and using our Fund to prop up their own image and contribute to WC operating expenses which sees PIF unitholders getting approx 2 cents return of capital for every $100million of their own assets liquidated. Great.
> Also being the personal target of a smear campaign funded by ............., I was hoping that ALF PIF may share the links to the un named blogs/forums etc that have caused them grief also with "negative, false, and misleading, deceptive, defamatory, and libelous statements"?  http://www.irw-press.com/en/news_13211.html
> Get the drift Wayne? The reason PIF unit holders trust so few is because there are so few to trust. Seamisty




Hi. Seamistry I have always read your posts as they are very informative and assist us that can't really add anything greatly. But I have to say based on previous posts and related media regarding the ALF PIF and the constant advice both from PIF AG and WC along with others on this forum surely you wouldn't expect them "ALF PIF" to jump in anytime during the last couple of months to help us whether it be refuting/denying or adding anything to help our cause. "Whats in it for me" theory first comes to mind. The PIF AG executive has to stand on it's own and build it's own credibility which I believe it has. In a nutshell most parties have told ALF PIF to p........ off and that there a bunch of c.....s in short with no real concern for unit holders or no substance to there offer.  I would say that if we've learnt nothing in the last few months, we should at least take away the fact that most of these type of people care nothing about personal defamation, slander, misleaading or defamatory remarks, trick playing or delay tactics etc. It is strictly business with a bottom line. It's not personal so trying to plead or request them to assist with no potential gain will bear no results in my opinion. PIF AG may have made a similar error in the courts. It's not personal to WC/Judges/Barristers etc. To us it is of course as it affects us daily but not to them. 
I did not support ALF PIF the first time around and possibly will not a second time however I want to make that decision for myself once I see what they are offering. WW does make a good point in that we should at least see what they are offering. It makes no sense to me that we would not review what they have to offer or anyone else for that matter. Information from CC and PIF AG is still forth coming so in light of hearing nothing at this time these offers will come albeit not formally. My suggestion would be not to respond at all unless it is presented formally. Other than that it's a free sounding board which is also a tactic of sorts.
I still look forward to your every post 

with respect


----------



## elizaman (6 August 2011)

charles36 said:


> Not really, I deal in facts not fiction, maybe or possibly.




Charles, I see nothing to respond to here. ASIC has clearly not done anything with the information a number of us have sent them along with the media coverage regarding actors at meetings, multiple registers, etc so to ask someone that has made a failed bid for the fund to assist or to try and lead them into some sort of guilt ridden assistance with no potential compensation is a waste of time in my opinion. WW if you have an offer to make then make it formally through the right channels, otherwise I would suggest to all that no response to any sort of offer on this forum be made. "Put up or shut up" comes to mind with all due respect.


----------



## elizaman (6 August 2011)

Wayne Wheeler said:


> It's interesting to visit here from time to time to check on how the whole PIF story gets worse & worse for you unitholders. What a difference a few months can make.
> 
> As you would all know, our ALF PIF Finance bid was "knocked out" by the TakeOver Panel on a technicality to do with mail-out details - not our fault. We all know who raised the matter and complicated the issue - the same entity that had your EGM knocked out on a similar technicality - not your fault. There were even complaints made to your moderators to stop my posts, which were really nothing more than observations. It seems that the system can be manipulated by those who know how, and that all of our regulatory authorities will (at best) sit on their hands or (at worst) are seen to be complicit in the manoeuvrings (how do you spell that?).
> 
> ...




Go through the proper channels with a serious offer would be a good start. Short of doing that # 8550 is probably a majority view point I suspect

with respect


----------



## elizaman (6 August 2011)

selciper said:


> It seems to me that following the necessary protocols isn't particularlydemanding of us. We should all take responsibility and follow the rules..




If and it's a big "if"  firstly all being members of the PIF Action Group would be a first start. At least there is a line of communication from where another point of connection could be made for all. 
If all posts are kept to the facts and The PIF AG routinely updates all members to prevent the inuendo occuring on this forum than there should be no need but it does make sense to plan for the worst and hope for the best.


----------



## elizaman (6 August 2011)

DepressedDad said:


> In the last 2 months we have seen SOMEONE or ('someones') 'buy' 2 registers (yeah right) and spend thousands smearing good people so JH/WC can keep plundering the fund & keeping their friends in the lifestyle they've become accustomed.  It will be a *VERY SIMPLE* task for ASIC to ask *WHO* bought the registries.  There's the first very simple investigation needed which should take a few minutes. If there is 'SOMEONE' JH/WC will name as a sacrificial lamb, let ASIC see their bank records paying for the printing & postage. (And advise which mail centres they used.) And in another few minutes, well spent, ASIC can ask the mail centres who paid the bill on that date. ASIC can then determine their relationship to JH/WC.  Does anyone really believe there is going to be a neutral supportive investor (s) who LOVES her work and is wiling to shell out thousands to keep her in the job, but couldn't be bothered going to the meeting to vote?
> 
> And while ASIC's out door knocking, maybe they'll pop into the agency that employed the actors and take a couple of minutes to ask just 2 simple questions; namely* WHO *booked the actors and WHO paid? It must be of interest to ASIC WHO attempted to pervert the course of justice now it's been tabled in a court of law. They must be very curious who would go to that trouble & expense, even working with officials to sign them up as Unitholders BEFORE they even were Unitholders.  And we know Jenny 'knows absolutely nothing about it'  because that's what she swore  under oath.  So there's another mystery easily solved with a couple of questions.  Bring it on. We know ASIC is 'taking an interest.'
> 
> JH/WC can hide the millions of dollars lost on all these shabby deals with a stroke of the pen, but the above 2 blatant contradictions to the law are out in public now and investigations can ONLY point to JH/WC's illegal breach of the Acts.




I agree as does nearly everyone on the forum with your comments. We badly criticized WC for lack of correspondance early on in the proceedings and rightfully so , however  PIF AG andd CC appear to be the only group at this point which can initiate this type of proceeding which I'm sure  hoping ) they are in the midst of along with a number of issue's.  I would hope though that there main focus is on legally caling an EGM with the correct proceedures as outlined in the judgements so we can all legally remove WC at which point most of these issues will be dealt with after we take back control of the fund. The energy has to be on having the vote to remove the RE first, otherwise we will just be wasting a lot of time and money, some will lose faith, the support base will weaken and when we actually do get an opportunity to vote the numbers will not be there. along with the capital raisings weakening the strength of our vote , this should be our main focus. Call the EGM correctly and legally- take back control and then lets look at the other issues.  The PIF AG / CC needs to at least send some notices out without specifics so there remains a level of confidence that things are happening.


----------



## seamisty (6 August 2011)

This could be well worth following!!
Equititrust trust Limited Class Action
 Update - Monday, 11th July 2011

Piper Alderman continues to investigate the merits of a unit holder class action against Equititrust Limited, the responsible entity of embattled mortgage fund Equititrust Income Fund, for breaches of the Corporations Act.

Following a unit holders' meeting held on 20 April 2011, there have been a number of reports in the media relating to Equititrust Limited's financial position, that have lead to significant scrutiny of its management of the Equititrust Income Fund. Despite investigations undertaken by ASIC, Equititrust Limited has failed to adequately resolve the issues identified or address the concerns of individual unit holders.

The recent resignations from the Board of Equititrust Limited of Mark McIvor, the driving force behind the company, and David Kennedy, who remains in the position of CEO, have further heightened the concerns of investors.
http://www.piperalderman.com.au/firm/equititrust-limited-class-action


----------



## Cookie1 (6 August 2011)

Ah, yes, David Kennedy; where have we heard that name before? It seems to keep popping up relative to questionable goings on in dealing with other people's money....


----------



## selciper (7 August 2011)

It's quite interesting to read the old MFS blurb about its executive 'team.' David Kennedy is given space.

http://media.wotnews.com.au/asxann/00750313.pdf


----------



## seamisty (8 August 2011)

A bit more on Equititrust: http://www.smh.com.au/business/class-action-expected-within-weeks-20110807-1ihhc.html

From the above aricle"The company was forced to back down on the claimed independence of another director, David Tucker, admitting ''it may be suggested that Mr Tucker is not an independent director'' as the law firm where he is a partner, Tucker & Cowen Solicitors, is a ''substantial provider'' of legal services to Equititrust".


----------



## charles36 (8 August 2011)

elizaman said:


> Charles, I see nothing to respond to here. ASIC has clearly not done anything with the information a number of us have sent them along with the media coverage regarding actors at meetings, multiple registers, etc so to ask someone that has made a failed bid for the fund to assist or to try and lead them into some sort of guilt ridden assistance with no potential compensation is a waste of time in my opinion. WW if you have an offer to make then make it formally through the right channels, otherwise I would suggest to all that no response to any sort of offer on this forum be made. "Put up or shut up" comes to mind with all due respect.




elizaman, I am not sure what you mean.  I was answering  Mr. Wheeler's post when I made that comment.  As far as I am concerned that is what i do, deal with facts etc.  Regards


----------



## seamisty (8 August 2011)

Lest we forget::http://www.couriermail.com.au/money...mium-income-fund/story-e6freqox-1225939828971
"Our fund had decreased further in value by approximately $150 million under Wellington's control, with no return to investors and not one single commitment made by them having been delivered," one frustrated investor alleged"Wellington also teamed up with Callianiotis in a joint venture to complete an apartment project at Port Macquarie.

Further cementing ties between the two camps, former Wellington general manager of funds management, lawyer Anthony Stanton, has started working as a manager for two of Callianiotis's other businesses, Tagma Property Consultants and The Geocal Group.

Down in Victoria, Wellington appointed receivers and managers in April last year to take control of the Novotel Forest Resort situated outside Melbourne.

But a subsequent move by Wellington to bankrupt the developers stalled when a counterclaim was filed in court.

It is understood the developers this month will file an amended complaint.

It will apparently seek more than $144 million in damages over Wellington's move to seize the resort even though loan repayments were allegedly $4.3 million ahead at the Hutson said Wellington would be bringing an action to strike out the claim.


----------



## zixo (9 August 2011)

The PIN units traded at just seven cents today on the NSX

thats better than the coles commercial


----------



## seamisty (10 August 2011)

There is a couple of interesting media articles today relating to balmain trilogy and the PFMF:
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/08/10/339801_gold-coast-business.html
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  August 10th, 2011

CITY Pacific founder Phil Sullivan is turning the tables on Balmain Trilogy by backing a move to oust the funds manager as responsible entity of the frozen Pacific First Mortgage Fund.

The assault comes two years after Balmain Trilogy triggered a collapse of City Pacific by seizing control of its flagship fund once valued at $1 billion


http://www.smh.com.au/business/city-pacific-chief-it-wasnt-my-fault-20110809-1ikzo.html
City Pacific chief: It wasn't my fault 
Scott Rochfort 
August 10, 2011.


The former head of the collapsed Gold Coast property developer City Pacific, Phil Sullivan, has emerged from a three-year hibernation to provide ''unpaid assistance'' to a group of investors seeking to oust the managers of the City Pacific-founded First Mortgage Fund.

In a lengthy posting on the new Protect FMF website, Sullivan has lent his support to the group (which has yet to disclose who its backers are) seeking to dump Balmain Trilogy as the managers.


Here is the link to the letter sent to PFMF unitholders::http://www.protectpfmf.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ProtectPFMF-NoticeToUnitholders.pdf


----------



## seamisty (10 August 2011)

Apparently a bushfire was brought under control yesterday very close to Kooralbyn resort. (Routley drive)

Large Gold Coast fire contained


9th August 2011

FIRE crews have contained a large blaze that was threatening homes in the Gold Coast hinterland.

The grass fire was travelling towards homes on Muirhead Cl, Routley Dr, Windon Cl and Drynan Pl at Kooralbyn on Tuesday afternoon.

Residents were warned to be prepared to evacuate but about 5.30pm (AEST) the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service (QFRS) lifted the alert, saying fire crews had the blaze under control.

Crews continue to backburn the area and will monitor the fire.


----------



## selciper (10 August 2011)

Todau's SMH article the Centyo class action. It reminds me that there's a dearth of news about PIF at present. I guess a newsletter will be coning when there's movement that can be revealed. Meanwhile, we're back in the Godot holding pen..

http://www.smh.com.au/business/lapt...estors-case-vs-centro-pwc-20110809-1ikzu.html


----------



## LTD (10 August 2011)

Hello All, 
    Seamisty, keep up the good work.
I am a dreaded ex MFS shareholder who has your interests at heart and wish all the unit holders the best of luck...
I thought a few here might be interested in the continuing litigation news re MFS/OCV
and I apologise if you have already seen the news article...


Court deals blow to plans of Octaviar liquidators
 Elisabeth Sexton 
July 27, 2011.


"THE liquidators of Octaviar have experienced a setback in their plans to sue one of the property and tourism financier's creditors, Fortress Credit Corporation"...cont



http://www.smh.com.au/business/court-deals-blow-to-plans-of-octaviar-liquidators-20110726-1hyj2.html


----------



## simgrund (11 August 2011)

This may be a timely familiarisation;

http://www.smh.com.au/money/investing/profile-greg-medcraft-20110809-1ijn0.html

Regards,


----------



## PIFholder (11 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> There is a couple of interesting media articles today relating to balmain trilogy and the PFMF:
> The former head of the collapsed Gold Coast property developer City Pacific, Phil Sullivan, has emerged from a three-year hibernation to provide ''unpaid assistance'' to a group of investors seeking to oust the managers of the City Pacific-founded First Mortgage Fund.
> 
> In a lengthy posting on the new Protect FMF website, Sullivan has lent his support to the group (which has yet to disclose who its backers are) seeking to dump Balmain Trilogy as the managers.
> ...




Hi seamisty and other dedicated posters
i read this site often, but don't nearly  have the amazing knowledge on all things PIF as you do. congrats on your efforts so far - we won't die wondering if someone tried to help us, thats for sure

does anyone know if CasCap are taking over the first mortgage fund? I've lost money in PIF and FMF so am wondering if CasCap are coming to rescue us from both of these managers?


----------



## simgrund (11 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> Apparently a bushfire was brought under control yesterday very close to Kooralbyn resort. (Routley drive)
> 
> Large Gold Coast fire contained
> 
> ...




Hmm!
Just as I got myself a souvenir from local op shop: a Kooralbyn Hotel 
Resort  shirt. Spooky coincidende!?
Beaut yellow thing, short sleeved with embroidered ID.  
Adding to treasured collection with Enneagram Book, Sydney Ladies Golf Tournament memorabilia, MFS Platinum membership card, Chritmas '06 luncheon invitation and, of course, the original MFS PDS for Capital Insured Income Fund.

Cheers,


----------



## seamisty (11 August 2011)

PIFholder said:


> Hi seamisty and other dedicated posters
> i read this site often, but don't nearly  have the amazing knowledge on all things PIF as you do. congrats on your efforts so far - we won't die wondering if someone tried to help us, thats for sure
> 
> does anyone know if CasCap are taking over the first mortgage fund? I've lost money in PIF and FMF so am wondering if CasCap are coming to rescue us from both of these managers?



Hi PIFholder, I am not sure wherewe currently stand with CasCap but as far as the PFMF is concerned from what I read in the media the latest contendesr for that Fund,' Protect PFMF' apart from Phil Sullivan wish to remain ANONYMOUS!!! Must be the latest  trend?  

POWER-LESS

One of the largest unit holders in the City Pacific-founded First Mortgage Fund, Tom Powers, has rejected talk he is involved in a bid to topple the management of the fund.

On Tuesday, the City Pacific founder, Phil Sullivan, lent his support to a group of unnamed investors called Protect PFMF, who are looking to topple Balmain Trilogy as the managers of the fund that once held $900 million in deposits.

''I will not be associated with anything that Phil Sullivan has anything to do with,'' Powers told CBD in his more polite mode.

''If they wanted my support they shouldn't have got Phil Sullivan.''

In a posting on the Protect PFMF site, Sullivan played down his role in the demise of City Pacific. ''The accounting practices that City Pacific was bound by are accepted worldwide as the international standard,'' he said. He made no mention of the mistake in the 2008 preliminary second-half accounts, which contained numerous errors.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/gold...-in-brazil-20110810-1imv9.html?skin=text-only


Another media article relating to PFMF 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ve-on-the-market/story-fn9656lz-1226112692066


----------



## seamisty (11 August 2011)

LTD said:


> Hello All,
> Seamisty, keep up the good work.
> I am a dreaded ex MFS shareholder who has your interests at heart and wish all the unit holders the best of luck...
> I thought a few here might be interested in the continuing litigation news re MFS/OCV
> ...




Thanks LTD, I did post it earlier but thanks anyway. Welcome back


----------



## seamisty (12 August 2011)

Investors upset at Trio fraud sentence
Michelle Rafferty

Updated August 12, 2011 13:49:07 
Retirees and investors who were robbed of about $180 million are devastated by the two-and-a-half-year prison sentence handed down to the man who stole their money.

The sentence was handed to Shawn Richards in the New South Wales Supreme Court in Sydney this morning.

The 36-year-old Canadian national used complex tax havens to steal the money he conned out of investors during the four years he worked at Trio Capital, even keeping $1 million in an off-shore account for himself
Full Story:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-12/trio-fraud-conviction/2836754/?site=newcastle


----------



## seamisty (12 August 2011)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724279.PDF


----------



## NOR (12 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724279.PDF




seamisty.........lost for words.......ha ha ha ha


----------



## Harald (12 August 2011)

NOR said:


> seamisty.........lost for words.......ha ha ha ha




That's a pity and nothing to laugh about!!


----------



## NOR (12 August 2011)

Harald said:


> That's a pity and nothing to laugh about!!




nor here ...harald i am very sorry u read it that way no nothing to laugh about .........but  cannot u see what jh has put to us today &every day is a big joke


----------



## NOR (12 August 2011)

NOR said:


> nor here ...harald i am very sorry u read it that way no nothing to laugh about .........but  cannot u see what jh has put to us today &every day is a big joke




hi all nor here.......SEAMISTY.....               i hope i did not afend u for without you this forum is dead ....i ..we hang on to yourevery word


----------



## seamisty (13 August 2011)

Investors beware: lax laws let spruikers loose
Adele Ferguson and Simon Johanson 
August 13, 2011
Investors left reeling from the past week's sharemarket gyrations face losing millions more from finance and property schemes supervised by the corporate regulator ASIC.

Lax corporate and financial regulations allow holders of nearly 5000 Australian Financial Services Licences to ''sublet'' them to an unknown number of ''authorised representatives'' to enable them to run financial planning and share trading or ''shadow broking'' businesses

Full article:http://www.theage.com.au/business/investors-beware-lax-laws-let-spruikers-loose-20110812-1ir2d.html


----------



## selciper (13 August 2011)

Advice: be sure to sound remorseful when you help lose many millions of of dollars of investors' money. (Some reactions to the Trio Capital employee's sentencing.) SMH today.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/trio...9-years-over-stolen-super-20110812-1iqr4.html


----------



## To Trusting (14 August 2011)

I'm not exactly sure where the PIF fits into this mess. Can someone please enlighten me. Thanks in advance.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/5441090/OPI-Pacific-horror-losses-become-clear


----------



## JohnH (15 August 2011)

To Trusting said:


> I'm not exactly sure where the PIF fits into this mess. Can someone please enlighten me. Thanks in advance.
> 
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/5441090/OPI-Pacific-horror-losses-become-clear




Go to the first post in this thread.  Breaker1 describes our connection far more succinctly than most.


----------



## selciper (15 August 2011)

ABC radio's Background Briefing this week investigates auditors' roles. Excellent 40 minute coverage of this important subject. Program is repeated tomorrow on Radio National at 7.10 pm EST. Podcast available now on this link.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2011/3291026.htm


----------



## Sutho81 (15 August 2011)

So is there any new official newss yet when Castlereagh will have another crack at getting the fund?

I suspected it could be a lengthy process getting the register from Armstrong, but was hoping for at least a news release stating that work is still being done.


----------



## Cookie1 (15 August 2011)

selciper said:


> ABC radio's Background Briefing this week investigates auditors' roles. Excellent 40 minute coverage of this important subject. Program is repeated tomorrow on Radio National at 7.10 pm EST. Podcast available now on this link.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2011/3291026.htm




Well done, Selciper. I've just finished listening to the podcast; it's mind-blowing reality what auditors get away with vs what they are accountable for. It's obviously a problem to be addressed globally and it seems that the "4 big auditors" are all involved in such practices...so much conflict of interest.  The corporate watchdogs seem to be intimidated by the very people/institutions they are supposed to be monitoring. We can only pray justice will prevail for investors who have been misled by corporations and their auditors while the corporate watchdogs sit idly by.

Cookie1


----------



## simgrund (15 August 2011)

Auditors amiss?!/!

From SMH
Online acclaim for Sullivan yet to click
Scott Rochfort
August 15, 2011

CBD
<em>Illustration by John Shakespeare</em>

Everyone loves a former chief ... Phil Sullivan's name is coming up roses. Illustration by John Shakespeare

The founder of Gold Coast property development concern City Pacific, Phil Sullivan, seems to have a level of popularity not enjoyed by the former chief executives of other failed investment schemes.

Well, that is if you go only by the comments posted on a website set up by a group of anonymous investors seeking to take management control of the City Pacific-founded First Mortgage Fund.

Days after Sullivan said on the website that he would give ''whatever unpaid assistance'' to the group calling itself Protect PFMF, the tributes have been pouring in.
Advertisement: Story continues below

''Great effort,'' said one unit holder commenting on Sullivan's efforts to dump Balmain Trilogy as the managers of the fund containing more than $900 million of now-eroded deposits.

''Delighted to hear from you - the 'words of truth' that was sadly missed during the past three years of darkness and misery - that you've recovered health and are still willing to help us all,'' said another testimonial. ''I never doubted Phil, and I do not doubt him now,'' said another.

CBD was unable to find a negative word on the website about Sullivan.

The adulation shown towards Sullivan comes despite unit holders seeing the value of their units in the fund sink already by more than 70 per cent. They have also managed to get only 5 ¢ back (as a capital return) for each of their $1 units. Imagine Sullivan's level of popularity had unit holders actually received a positive return.

In his posting Sullivan rejected the ''ludicrous suggestions … that City Pacific was operating a 'Ponzi scheme'.''

Unit holders have been unable to withdraw their deposits since early 2008, more than a year before Balmain Trilogy secured enough support from unit holders to have City Pacific dumped as the manager of the fund.

BACKER PUZZLE

Sadly, CBD was unable to find many of its own tributes about Sullivan among the unit holders it has contacted.

''We were absolutely amazed and insulted when we received that anonymous form,'' said one unit holder about the correspondence she received from Protect PFMF. ''How dare they,'' she said, disgusted that the group had declined to identify who its backers were.

''Is this an attempt by Phil Sullivan to regain control over the fund? How is this possible?'' asked another unit holder. Sullivan's sudden reappearance on the scene comes about three years after he left City Pacific to ''allow the next generation of management to lead the business forward''.

Sullivan blamed the problems in the First Mortgage Fund on the difficulty in securing banking finance and being forced to ''sell down … assets to repay the banks''.

''This forced sell-down of assets resulted in a reduction of the perceived values of all property by valuers and auditors and the consequent impairments and reduction in our fund unit holding values,'' Sullivan said.

SIN OF OMISSION

The City Pacific founder made no mention of how more than 90 per cent of the $920 million in loans lent to property developers were in default by the end of 2008, more than six months before Balmain Trilogy gained management control.

Sullivan departed only seven weeks before the end of 2008.

Among the fund's toxic loans was the $264 million loaned to property developments run by City Pacific. In the last half of 2008, the fund booked more than $80 million in impairments on these related party loans. And by the end of 2008, the $1 units in the fund had been written down to 61 ¢.

''Only when the world's finances and banking system hit the wall with the onset of the banking credit squeeze and the global financial crisis did City Pacific see rough water, along with every other mortgage and property-based fund, worldwide,'' Sullivan said in his version of history.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/onli...et-to-click-20110814-1it0l.html#ixzz1V4x0EOrY


----------



## seamisty (15 August 2011)

NOR said:


> hi all nor here.......SEAMISTY.....               i hope i did not afend u for without you this forum is dead ....i ..we hang on to yourevery word



Hi Nor, No way was I offended, unfortunately we are all in limbo. ASIC stuffs around as usual, throwing scraps to the media making out they are pro active but are ineffective as ever. Our regulators are pathetic,backed up by their media statements::"former Astarra Asset Management (AAM) director 

Shawn Richard to jail ruled that Richard was entitled to a discounted sentence because of the assistance he provided authorities following the collapse of its responsible entity Trio Capital.

New South Wales Supreme Court judge Peter Garling on Friday sentenced Richard on two counts of dishonest conduct, sending him behind bars for a minimum of two years and six months and an additional 15 months good behaviour bond.

But he ruled that Richard was entitled to a 37.5 per cent discount on the sentence because of "utilitarian value of his plea of guilty" and the help he gave authorities.

"Richard is guilty of serious crimes of a high order," Garling said.

"They were carefully considered and planned, they were concealed, they continued over a period of nearly four years and they led to significant financial losses in excess of $26 million." 

"Richard knew what he was doing was dishonest, that he was providing misleading information to those entitled to accurate information and that in respect of the criminality encompassed by charge one, he received $1 million personally, which was a very significant personal benefit." 

"But Richard is entitled to a discount because of the utilitarian value of his plea of guilty and because of the assistance he has provided to authorities."

ASIC Chairman Greg Medcraft welcomed the sentence as an effective deterrent against dishonest conduct by those in positions of trust."::

 ASIC is a nothing more than a tax payer token gesture of a group of well paid individuals that spit out regular media releases  justifying their existanc, achieving nothing more than a bunch of muzzled dogs at the end of the day IMO. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (15 August 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> So is there any new official newss yet when Castlereagh will have another crack at getting the fund?
> 
> I suspected it could be a lengthy process getting the register from Armstrong, but was hoping for at least a news release stating that work is still being done.



Sutho81, sorry, no news, nothing from Castlereagh Capital that I am aware of. I hope every one is still making complaints to ASIC etc re our predicament. Seamisty


----------



## Duped (16 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> ...
> 
> ASIC is a nothing more than a tax payer token gesture of a group of well paid individuals that spit out regular media releases  justifying their existanc, achieving nothing more than a bunch of muzzled dogs at the end of the day IMO. Seamisty




Oh they're more dangerous than that seamisty.  Creating a perception of safety is causing the good ship Australia to steam full speed towards that iceberg. 

Increasing the velocity of money makes it easier to collect taxes.  (And government employees get paid from taxes.)  And Aussie $ saved and jammed in superannuation (i.e. investment capital with heavy restrictions on it's application) doesn't flow as freely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money

Also, remember that public servants don't have skin in the Superannuation game like private sector workers. They're safely in defined benefit schemes that pay e.g. 7 * Final Average Salary. Think that more people on the pension (after their super investments are wiped out) means less money for pubic servants?  Well, they won't be competing for the future tax $ to fund their retirement lifestyle.  Not since the Future Fund was set up. Skimming $ (billions ?) every year off the tax take. Oh and the Future Fund competes with our funds for investment opportunities and the best quality staff. The usual justification is that Public Servants earn less up front.  Hmmm - lets look at the ASIC numbers.

From pages 65-67 of http://asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/ASIC_AnnualReport-2009-10.pdf/$file/ASIC_AnnualReport-2009-10.pdf

In 08-09 it looks like 716 of the 1656 staff (*43%*) were paid more that $82K. Or at least  *26.6%* of them were paid more than $94,700. How's that compare to the nation as a whole?

From table 9 of http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.aspx?menuid=0&doc=/content/00268761.htm&page=8&H8

*14%* of all taxable incomes were above $82,690

*10%* of all taxable incomes were above $94,159

I'm not sure if the ATO numbers include Aussies who didn't file a tax return or if the ASIC numbers are pro rata for part timers but these numbers paint a very telling counter-argument. I doubt these published ASIC salaries include super.


----------



## Duped (16 August 2011)

simgrund said:


> ...
> 
> Sullivan blamed the problems in the First Mortgage Fund on the difficulty in securing banking finance and being forced to ''sell down … assets to repay the banks''.
> 
> ...




That's GOLD simgrund.

*WHEN *the tide goes out, we see who isn't wearing any swimmers.  (I.e. "when" not "if")  And its the RE's like the one Phil worked in that dacked the investors. The credit  squeeze was always going to happen.  It's called 'cycles'.  Try finding a book about finance /economics that doesn't mention 'cycles'.

It's the AFSL flag waving REs that kept directing investors across the train tracks.  When the train finally came, it was us who where caught on the tracks.

As Swan said about us PIF investors at the London School of Economics - we were caught in a market linked investment.  Ummmmm can I contribute to Comsuper's PSS from the private sector then? I'm only too happy to tie my pay scale to an EL or SES band in accordance with the responsibilities I have.


----------



## simgrund (16 August 2011)

Duped said:


> That's GOLD simgrund.
> 
> *WHEN *the tide goes out, we see who isn't wearing any swimmers. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------/QUOTE]
> Further into that CBD chuckle:
> ...


----------



## selciper (16 August 2011)

We seem to be enduring one of those periods when there is little or no news to cheer us up. To me it's extraordinary that the widely reported EGM stacking incident appears to have died a quick death. The press is filled with quotes about 'moral vacuums" (the UK riots) but meetings' stacking is a forgotten subject despite its implications.


----------



## Duped (16 August 2011)

Duped said:


> Oh they're more dangerous than that seamisty.  Creating a perception of safety is causing the good ship Australia to steam full speed towards that iceberg.
> 
> Increasing the velocity of money makes it easier to collect taxes.  (And government employees get paid from taxes.)  And Aussie $ saved and jammed in superannuation (i.e. investment capital with heavy restrictions on it's application) doesn't flow as freely.
> 
> ...




Thath ASIC link should have been http://asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/ASIC_Annual_Report_08-09_full.pdf/$file/ASIC_Annual_Report_08-09_full.pdf


----------



## Harald (16 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> Sutho81, sorry, no news, nothing from Castlereagh Capital that I am aware of. I hope every one is still making complaints to ASIC etc re our predicament. Seamisty




I'm sorry Seamisty to read this really bad news.

Regarding those complaints to ASIC: I'm very much afraid that we deliver those
very well overpaid public not servants the paper that they need to use on the toilet.


----------



## seamisty (16 August 2011)

For those of you who are not aware of the GEM (G8 Education) thread on ASF  I have just copied the last post made on there by 'PRO' as I am sure it will be of interest to many. I note that the info contained in the post below was not included in the GEM update made to the ASX on the 10th August? Any wonder the GEM share price is struggling!! I will also post the link to the GEM thread. Cheers, Seamisty
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22284
Updates on Cherie Hearts’ legal suit against G8 in Singapore..

Pre-trial hearing, Monday, 8th August 2011

The Singapore High Court has once again ruled in favour of Cherie Hearts Group International (“CHGI”) in their ongoing suit against G8 Limited (“G8”).

G8 tried desperately to submit its affidavit at the 11th hour on Saturday, 6th August 2011, but all attempts were in vain. The High Court Judge dismissed and disregarded their last minute affidavit at the pre-trial hearing on Monday, 8th August 2011.

At the same time, the High Court Judge also dismissed..
G8’s application for the revenue from child care centre operations to be paid to them by CHGI. 
the need for CHGI to transfer the ownership of the bank accounts of their subsidiaries over to G8. 
Another pat on the back for CHGI! Well done 

Fresh rumours just out of the oven.. G8 has asked the Singapore High Court for an adjournment of the Main Trial scheduled for 5 to 16 September 2011. Looks like they’re beginning to feel the heat! They’re obviously not prepared are they? Not a good sign for them..

Wonder what trick they will come up with next?? Nonetheless justice will prevail!

Recent centre inspections

Recent centre inspections carried out by CHGI involving Cherie Hearts centres managed by G8 has revealed shocking findings. G8 has seriously flouted safety and hygiene standards and regulations as stipulated by MCYS (Singapore’s governing ministry for child care centres). Sharp objects such as scissors and pins were found well within children’s reach. First aid kits contained expired products. Food preparation and centre hygiene standards were seriously compromised. Fire escape routes were strewn with obstacles, not to mention fire escape doors with no keys to open them! Parents’ complaints have never been higher. Due to the severity of the above findings, these matters have been escalated to MCYS.

**Up until today, G8 refuses to factor in ‘Contingent Liabilities’ into all of its agreements.


----------



## JohnH (16 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> **Up until today, G8 refuses to factor in ‘Contingent Liabilities’ into all of its agreements.



  Watch this space  for 200 "Happy parents" carrying pro G8 Banners!!!


----------



## seamisty (16 August 2011)

PIF share price is pathetic, trading at around 6 cents and g8 share price hovering at 12 month lows. Bentleys and ASIC on WC's case?? Forest Resort developers not sitting by quietly? Surely  management can't continue to blame anyone but themselves? S8 also had legal issues? I can keep adding related names here which are also embroiled in current/past legal disputes but will save it for later when I think it  more appropriate.  Seamisty


----------



## atlas1950 (17 August 2011)

Hi Charles26 and Seamisty,

It has been very quiet on the battleground, and I, of all people, don't wish to complain about our Great White Hope, meaning Castlereagh Capital. They have stepped up to the plate when others wouldn't, coped personal abuse from our so called RE, invested there own money to try to help us, and at the end of the day, we don't seem to be any closer to a final conclusion. 

We all new that WC would not go peacefully, and many of us stood shoulder to shoulder with CC, but my great disappointment has been that we have not heard a word from our White Knight. We, as investors, are all on tender-hooks, and you would think they would make a couple of announcements to where we all stand. Are they still fighting in our corner?????? Are they still prepared to continue the fight???

Investor updates on the 28th July stated that they are looking into our position and getting there legal advise. They said, by the latest, they would make a release by 5th August "at the very latest". Surely we are entitled to know if they are still with us to fight this battle. Just a simple press release will do, so that I , and many others, have some hope in the future.

Please don't think I am unappreciative of everybodies efforts. 

Keep the faith,

atlas1950


----------



## selciper (17 August 2011)

atlas1950 said:


> Hi Charles26 and Seamisty,
> 
> It has been very quiet on the battleground, and I, of all people, don't wish to complain about our Great White Hope, meaning Castlereagh Capital. They have stepped up to the plate when others wouldn't, coped personal abuse from our so called RE, invested there own money to try to help us, and at the end of the day, we don't seem to be any closer to a final conclusion.
> 
> ...




Atlas 1950 - We've learnt to be patient (and penniless) over these recent years. When things go quiet, it often means that there's dedicated activity behind the scenes. Let's hope that this is again the case, but the nomination of August 5th as a day for an announcement and allowing it to pass by without recognition is indeed surprising and disappointing.


----------



## atlas1950 (17 August 2011)

selciper said:


> Atlas 1950 - We've learnt to be patient (and penniless) over these recent years. When things go quiet, it often means that there's dedicated activity behind the scenes. Let's hope that this is again the case, but the nomination of August 5th as a day for an announcement and allowing it to pass by without recognition is indeed surprising and disappointing.




Selciper,

And that is my point. The date passed and not a word. Atleast we should be treated with a bit more courtesy than that. How hard would it be to make a press release to keep us updated. I for one flew back early from New York to be here for the second meeting, and I know many other elderly investors came from interstate and country NSW, to be there as well. with a great expense to themselves.

We have been greatly disappointed with many things since Nov 2007, but CC are on OUR side (I think), and to liase with us and to be keep informed is not too much to ask.

atlas1950.


----------



## charles36 (18 August 2011)

selciper said:


> Atlas 1950 - We've learnt to be patient (and penniless) over these recent years. When things go quiet, it often means that there's dedicated activity behind the scenes. Let's hope that this is again the case, but the nomination of August 5th as a day for an announcement and allowing it to pass by without recognition is indeed surprising and disappointing.




It is indeed frustrating for all concerned, the PIFAG have not gone away, we have our own thoughts like everybody else regarding the behaviour of certain people and it is imperative that proper steps are taken to ensure there is no encore performance of the last meeting.  Unfortunately at this stage it is impossible to say what the next step will be.  I sincerely hope with we have some information in the near future and my message to all our supporters is to stay focussed and be ready to rally when called upon.  My best wishes to all readers and posters.


----------



## seamisty (18 August 2011)

Heres your chance to have your say everyone, a bit more of our money used to prop up an ailing WC image::

Fund Briefing Meetings – Sydney, Melbourne and Gold Coast
Wellington Capital Limited in its capacity as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund is pleased to
announce that investor and advisor briefing meetings have been scheduled for 6, 7 and 8 September 2011 in
each of Sydney, Melbourne and the Gold Coast.
The meetings have been scheduled so that investors and advisors can be briefed on:
 the current position of the Fund;
 the plan for each of the assets held by the Fund;
 the strategy to enable cash payments to Unitholders; and
 timetable for asset realisations.
The timing of these meetings will enable Wellington Capital to present the position as at 30 June 2011, as set
out in the audited accounts.
Unitholders and advisors will, in addition to receiving an update, have the opportunity following the briefing
to ask questions about the Fund.
Jenny Hutson, Managing Director said
‘An invitation to attend the Fund Briefing Meetings will shortly be sent to each of you. I encourage you to
attend a briefing session if possible.
For those who are unable to attend relevant information will be released to the market and provided to you.
These briefings will address the status and plan for each asset held by the Fund individually and will assist
Unitholders and Advisors in understanding our strategy and plans for the Fund particularly in relation to
realising assets and returning cash to Unitholders.’
Date Location Venue Time
6 September 2011 Sydney Wesley Conference Centre
220 Pitt Street, Sydney
11.00am
Registration from 10.30am
Date Location Venue Time
7 September 2011 Melbourne Bayview Eden Melbourne
6 Queens Road, Melbourne
11.00am
Registration from 10.30am
Date Location Venue Time
8 September 2011 Gold Coast Gold Coast Convention
Centre, Gold Coast
Highway, Gold Coast
11.00am
Registration from 10.30am
Premium Income Fund

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724289.PDF


----------



## reasonable (18 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> Heres your chance to have your say everyone, a bit more of our money used to prop up an ailing WC image::
> 
> Fund Briefing Meetings – Sydney, Melbourne and Gold Coast




This must be "leave your weapons at the door" meeting.   Presumably the absence of ANY comment by Cascap means their interest is now dead.


----------



## charles36 (18 August 2011)

I wonder whether another rent-a-crowd will be hired. 1000 units free, plus $26.63 an hour.  Free morning tea and loan of placards with photo of Forrest Gump saying "I love you Jenny."


----------



## aroach (18 August 2011)

reasonable said:


> Presumably the absence of ANY comment by Cascap means their interest is now dead.




Devaluation of the fund through fire sales, mismanagement and excessive related party transaction debits and legal fees by the evil one and cohorts has probably shown that what's left is worth a lot less in reality than on paper. So maybe CasCap don't see the value in another expensive and risky fight against someone prepared to lie, be unethical and unlawful, when CasCap have to adhere to the law and be ethical, with no real support from the courts or ASIC.

Maybe it's only us investors that see the value in pursuing this...we all want to see the evil one brought to justice...not a valid reason for a business to pursue it though.   I REALLY hope I've got this all wrong...

But maybe, just maybe, CasCap is now adopting some of Sun Szu's strategies. That may explain the lack of publicly released announcements...lets hope.


----------



## seamisty (18 August 2011)

charles36 said:


> I wonder whether another rent-a-crowd will be hired. 1000 units free, plus $26.63 an hour.  Free morning tea and loan of plackards with photo of Forrest Gump saying "I love you Jenny."



Well I wont be wasting any money to attend any of the meetings to be fed another ambiguous, deceiving/misleading spiel that was previously video recorded in six parts and USED to be on the PIF website until it became such an embarassing reminder of a fountain of broken Wellington Capital promises it had to be removed!! Blind Freddy can see the game plan is to liquidate the PIF as quickly as possible so it is not a viable proposition for any one else to consider taking on, get rid of the assets and shut the door before a forensic accountant comes knocking on it. Perhaps WC are expecting some more bad publicity in the near future from any of several legal disputes, hence the need to muster some support? I heard our illustrious leader was in Sydney this week so anything is possible Charles36! Seamisty


----------



## selciper (18 August 2011)

Anticipate obfuscation, Dorothy Dixer questions and time constraints. As economist John Kenneth Galbraith said, “Meetings are indispensable when you don't want to do anything.”


----------



## elizaman (18 August 2011)

Hi all. I promised someone on this thing that I would not post anymore however I have to say that things I mentioned weeks ago are being seen in a lot of the posts. PIFAG and or CC ( if they're still on board) SEND SOMETHING OUT. SAY HELLO OR SOMETHING. With no communictaions people's minds will wonder. It's natural. I see there is some is advocation for not attending the proposed WC meetings to here whatever it is they have to say but as the saying goe's , "10% of something is better than 100% of nothing"  If anyone is at all interested in their investment , for whatever it's worth, in my opionon I would say you'd be foolish not to attend or listen to what they have to say because whether you like it or not it is the only voice speaking, it has the power at this time to do whatever it wants so you might as well show up and voice an opinion. Voicing it here does nothing until we are all needed to rally but there does not appear to be a rally. I will go and listen to what is being said, what the plans are and voice my opinion if I feel a need. 
I will try not to post, but it's hard.


----------



## charles36 (18 August 2011)

elizaman said:


> Hi all. I promised someone on this thing that I would not post anymore however I have to say that things I mentioned weeks ago are being seen in a lot of the posts. PIFAG and or CC ( if they're still on board) SEND SOMETHING OUT. SAY HELLO OR SOMETHING. With no communictaions people's minds will wonder. It's natural. I see there is some is advocation for not attending the proposed WC meetings to here whatever it is they have to say but as the saying goe's , "10% of something is better than 100% of nothing"  If anyone is at all interested in their investment , for whatever it's worth, in my opionon I would say you'd be foolish not to attend or listen to what they have to say because whether you like it or not it is the only voice speaking, it has the power at this time to do whatever it wants so you might as well show up and voice an opinion. Voicing it here does nothing until we are all needed to rally but there does not appear to be a rally. I will go and listen to what is being said, what the plans are and voice my opinion if I feel a need.
> I will try not to post, but it's hard.




I respectfully suggest you read Post 8649. The sudden surge of information coming from Wellington is breathtaking.  I would prefer the meeting take place after the release of the latest audited figures, due three weeks after the proposed meetings.  Then there could be some meaningful debate.  We could discuss valuations of the properties, e.g.  Wollongong Hotel would be a good place to start.  I will make a prediction, "the microphone at the meeting will be handed to the pre-arranged rent-a-crowd."  Call me cynical, I do not care.  I have experienced the publicity tours of WC before.  How much is each meeting going to cost.  Stretch limousines, business class travel and an entourage larger than Julia Gillard, not forgetting the body guards.  PIF will be picking up the "tab."


----------



## seamisty (18 August 2011)

I imagine all those professional and sophisticated investors who paid 10 cents a unit in the placement would be less than impressed that their investment is currently trading at .66cents per unit on the NSX and the PIF manager sees fit to conduct another travelling road show (possibly paid for from proceeds from the capital raising) to sing Wellington Capitals praises. I'd prefer the money involved to promote themselves again be returned to unit holders instead, especially since it appears unlikely the PIF will be in existance once the remaining assets have been divested. Seamisty


----------



## charles36 (19 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> I imagine all those professional and sophisticated investors who paid 10 cents a unit in the placement would be less than impressed that their investment is currently trading at .66cents per unit on the NSX and the PIF manager sees fit to conduct another travelling road show (possibly paid for from proceeds from the capital raising) to sing Wellington Capitals praises. I'd prefer the money involved to promote themselves again be returned to unit holders instead, especially since it appears unlikely the PIF will be in existance once the remaining assets have been divested. Seamisty




Wrong Seamisty.  The PIF will be in existence as long as their is litigation on foot.  Also that includes the Class Action.  Fees, limousines and Business Class travel will continue until the last cent has been exhausted.  We should all pray that the Regulatory authority
identifies and acts upon the hundreds of complaints lodged by the unit holders of the PIF.


----------



## LTD (19 August 2011)

The NZ arm of MFS,bought/owned? a string of financial advisers under the name Vestar who directed investments into (building development too) ie..Bridgecorp, Capital & Merchant.etc... 
I have lost rack of how OPI fit into this and Boston finance? but it all fell like dominoes....imo
Capital & Merchant got taken out by their lender Fortress in November 2007.See court case on the net.
Anyway some-one here might be interested in an update and make more of the details than myself...interested to hear some-ones account of the NZ domino layout.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/5471843/Anger-at-Bridgecorp-payout-of-3-5c

inpart .....

"he had invested through financial planning company Vestar, which put client funds into finance companies including Bridgecorp and Capital and Merchant Finance. In total he lost $400,000. 

"We are taking the directors of Vestar to court and we've got a court date early new year and we've got 150 people in our group which I'm heading up," he said. " continues


----------



## Duped (19 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> Heres your chance to have your say everyone, a bit more of our money used to prop up an ailing WC image::
> 
> Fund Briefing Meetings – Sydney, Melbourne and Gold Coast
> Wellington Capital Limited in its capacity as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund is pleased to
> ...




Seems that's all WC has to offer: words and then more well crafted words.  I guess the NSX price reflects that. You can make words mean anything.  (Like that amusing exchange between Baron  Lawson and that Auditor over the meaning of 'belly up'.  Thanks for that link selciper) But cash says only one thing: success or failure. I guess that's why it's been such a large part of our society for thousands of years.

Some more interpretations of WC's clever words.  This time from WC's 12 August letter:

"No debt means we can act on the right sales opportunities ..."  Yes you 'can' but whether you 'will' is a completely different capability.

"The contract for the sale of half of the Fund's interest in the trust ... is a very positve outcome for the Fund". Umm don't you mean that 'CONDITIONAL' contract.  Really?  You call that a "very positive outcome"?  I don't.

A barrister once told an associate of mine about their opponent, "she is the type of person who will argue that red is green".  I.e. these people never ever ever concede on any point.  EVER. (IMO the ONLY action one can  then take is avoid having anything to do with people like that. Well the PIFAG and CasCap tried to do that.)

The above invitation lists some steps for managing the fund.  If that's not a 'winding up' of the fund then - what is?  Anyone? Please? But of course IMLO, WC will NEVER concede to describing it's actions as 'winding up the fund'.  Just like that Auditor wouldn't agree to Baron Lawson's definition of 'belly up'. Not when there's money to be made.

But more importantly, WC seems recently to have been wholly silent on the fund's objectives as stated on the Wellcap website (and PDS?) re  "investment  ranges and benchmark asset allocations". 

Is this legal? Doesn't the website (and PDS?) define a target allocation for the assets? Is it legal for the WC website (and the PDS?) to define one set of on-going objectives (asset allocation) AND for WC to simultaneously say it's aim is to sell assets and return value to unit holders? Whatever happened to what we were being told by WC for a period up until about 15 September 2010: 

"Our continuing focus is on the rebuilding of unit value. This will be achieved through a combination of further development of selected existing assets, selected realisations *and *with measured new investments aimed at *rebalancing the asset class allocations *of the fund in time.’"

If it isn't  illegal then the next question is: is it ethical? Is this the sort of conduct a unit holder would want from an RE?  I.e. quietly dropping previous investment strategies? Anyone else agree that WC appear to have back flipped?

What is WC's true objective for the fund because WC is sending mixed messages IMLO?

As for 'no debt'.  It's called deleveraging. Just about every one is doing it.


----------



## Duped (19 August 2011)

charles36 said:


> ...  I would prefer the meeting take place after the release of the latest audited figures, due three weeks after the proposed meetings.  Then there could be some meaningful debate....




Great point charles36. My guess is that the public pressure on auditors to pick up their game (in the light of all that Centro litigation) is translating to PIF's auditors putting downward pressure on WC's valuations of PIF's asset prices.


----------



## selciper (19 August 2011)

Can't help wondering whether Hutson will be travelling with outriders leading her limo to the three gatherings. Or will a deputy have to face the inevitable simmering hostility at the venues? No doubt all sorts of studies are taking place so as to design an agenda that gives WC the upper-hand during question time.


----------



## charles36 (19 August 2011)

selciper said:


> Can't help wondering whether Hutson will be travelling with outriders leading her limo to the three gatherings. Or will a deputy have to face the inevitable simmering hostility at the venues? No doubt all sorts of studies are taking place so as to design an agenda that gives WC the upper-hand during question time.




Any person who thinks it is not "I love myself presentation" should re visit the DVD or hard copy of the transcript of the Melbourne meeting July, 2008.  Use this as a guide and then decide whether you are dealing with a company in which you can have confidence.  I note the Gold Coast Bulletin has a gloating article regarding the proposed meeting wherein it is stated there probably will be "fireworks."   I take it they do not mean crackers.  However, I think they are "crackers" if they believe unit holders will have any faith in what it is envisaged they will be told.  Remember, 65 cents, 45 cents, 14 cents, circa 2008, now 6.6 cents and falling.  The NTA is supposed to be 33.6 cents.  Unit holders have bought on the assumption the NTA of the fund would support this decision.  The auditors have signed off on this assumption.  The valuation was made by Wellington Capital and their advisors and the auditors acted upon this advice.  It will be very interesting to see what the next NTA reveals and the explanations given for the expected sudden drop.


----------



## charles36 (19 August 2011)

Just one other matter when you may deliberating the merits or otherwise of the present RE.  Upon appointment of Wellington Capital  there was approximately $413 million NTA and now if you have faith the NTA is approximately $245 million.  The unit holders have lost $168 million but for this loss we were rewarded collectively $15 million by way of 'RETURN OF CAPITAL"  OUR OWN MONEY.  As we are now in "firesale" mode can anybody out the in cyberspace enlighten me on two things.  Firstly, how can our present loss be expressed in percentage terms against our reward.  Secondly, any clue on what the final loss and washup of the fund will deliver to us.  Perhaps, in time we will be able to find out what expenses and fees we have been debited to manage our Capital.  We still have a chance to stop the rot and change the RE.  Should this eventuate we will have the services of Forensic Accountants to detail to us exactly how we lost our life savings.  Otherwise it may just be supposition.


----------



## PIFholder (19 August 2011)

charles36 said:


> Wrong Seamisty.  The PIF will be in existence as long as their is litigation on foot.  Also that includes the Class Action.  Fees, limousines and Business Class travel will continue until the last cent has been exhausted.  We should all pray that the Regulatory authority
> identifies and acts upon the hundreds of complaints lodged by the unit holders of the PIF.




charles36, i like you am in despair about cascap. they have abandoned us. i rang today and got bri. who are they???????????????????

my friend who was in court said cascap will have to pay at least $700k for the costs of the court case because those the evil ones won. i am so worried about this how can cascap keep going when it costs so much. 

i read the website today which says that it is to complex. what does that mean? surely we aren't just relying on asic to help us now? 

do you know whether cascap have given up?

what elizaman says seems right to me what do you think?


----------



## seamisty (19 August 2011)

Just to refresh everyones memory of what was promised/recorded by JH at the original WC travelling road show in 2008  when we were conned I will post a few snippets from the now deleted meeting that was recorded and sent to us on CD and USED to be on avilable on the PIF website::

"we decided to commit to this fund for the long term and you will hear me so many times
today, if it is your will, I will be here in 2 years, 5 years and 10 years and it will be a very proud day when I can put a dollar back in your pocket"

"a unit in this fund is on a going concern basis worth between 45 cents
and 65 cents and with the right team in place it is our aim within 3 to 5 year timeframe to return that value to a dollar whilst along the way recommencing distributions which we plan to do in October"(2008)

"there will be distributions of capital in the beginning, but distributions will be
commenced in October with a second distribution to be made before Christmas(2008) and we are anticipating that that cash distribution will be 3 cents per unit."

"There would be a formal
meeting if the choice is not to go forward and not to reshape the fund and follow the course that would see distributions recommence, liquidation becomes the alternative"

"Our plan is to commit – is not to ever
disappoint again. So when we commit to a 3 cent distribution by Christmas it’s because we have a high degree of confidence that we can make sure that that in facts happens. So 3 cents per unit by Christmas, quarterly distributions thereafter and it’s reasonable to assume that 6 cents per annum is the board’s current target as a minimum."

"Structured growth, sensible growth, careful growth is the message understanding that we will need at the right time to be bold when the market turns so that we can take what is yours and turn it into something much, much bigger. Our plan is for 3 cents per unit before Christmas, quarterly distributions to follow and a special distribution this financial year above and beyond that dependent upon the cash received."

Yes folks, its all there on your CD paid for by the PIF. Those empty committments, does a leopard change its spots? Seamisty


----------



## Harald (19 August 2011)

This is a letter that I sended today to JH

Dear Jenny

My wife Susanne And I thought that there must be an end of all the negativity in
the way Your performance is criticised. We are pleased to declare Your performance
world-class. Only a Queensland Business Women of the Year could perform so
successful as You did and You really should get a trophy and here are the reasons:

After taking over in 2008  this messy fund You performed a real turnaround. You
declared at this time the value in every unit at 45 cents. Now it is 6.6 cents and
falling. My question is, how did You do this? You smart lady did set up this
Armstrong Registry to save us plundered unit holders some money. You should 
be declared a Saint!
And now You are giving away assets for a fraction of money that MFS did invest
and You declare those deals as a good outcome for all unit holders. You are a
very smart thinking lady indeed and taking care for our needs.

And congrulations to Your planned road show. Only a genie could get this idea.
Your thinking could be: Because I want to wreck this fund completely, I and my
cohorts are going on the road, spend a lot of money from those ungrateful investors
and have fun.
No worries about some unpleasant questions that could be asked. Some of my good
friends will take care as in the Grace with those hired would like to be actors.
Very clever, those cohorts act on the border of criminality or maybe even criminal
and You know nothing.

But now enough of the praise because one seed of suspiciousness against Your 
honesty is remaining: You declared on the NSX that You had the quorum at the 
meeting at the Grace and had the support of more than 3000 unit holders. Our
question is: Why didn't You hand over those proxies to CasCap and instead got
this ridicolous court decision in an Queensland Federal Court? Don't You think that 
this stinks?
Could it be that more than 95 % of investors wanted to throw You out and my wife
and I are some of the last fools who trust You?

Not so kind regards

Harald


----------



## seamisty (19 August 2011)

Harold, I can assure you and your wife that you are not in the minority that are highly suspicious of the latest WC intention to be 'on the road again'!! I strongly suspect that those sophisticated and professional investors who took up the placement issue (some in the little WC house perhaps?) are a tad pissed off!! Also a couple of fund managers that advised their PIF clients to support WC against CasCap as a prefered RE were left with egg on their face when it was revealed in the media that WC had to resort to fowl play (the egg shells are thinner than a goose egg) to garner support!! The problem is now, Octaviar aren't handing out a few million $ to Wellington Capital to sell themselves again!! Its coming out of our pockets!!! Class actions will dominate the legal profession for years to come!!
Seamisty


----------



## Sutho81 (20 August 2011)

Maybe this upcoming meeting will be ideal for the PIFAG and members against Wellington to make themself known, and infiltrate this meeting to find other investors not aware of what is really going on. This could be the perfect opportuinity to find the people who turn up listening to Wellington, and to try and turn them to our side.


----------



## charles36 (20 August 2011)

Now here is a good idea.  I hatched it from your recent posts.  Harald, you like writing letters, send ,  Dear M/S Hutson,  Thanks you so kindly for arranging a "roadshow".  As unit holders are paying for this jaunt we demand you provide equal time for CASCAP, the preferred RE of the majority of PROVEN voters, to speak at your roadshows.  The PIFAG offered you equal time to debate with Mr. Ian Ferrier. Chairman of CASCAP, on the 23 June, 2011, you initially accepted.  However, on being informed that a trial vote taken at the legitimate meeting overwhelmingly voted Wellington Capital OUT you hurriedly left the building to meet with your cohorts for a sumptous lunch and drinks until late in the afternoon.  Now is the time M/S Hutson for you to show some of that humility and generosity that you often espouse to possess.  
I eagerly await your response.
I would send a letter too but for some reason I never receive a response from Wellington Capital.


----------



## Harald (20 August 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> Maybe this upcoming meeting will be ideal for the PIFAG and members against Wellington to make themself known, and infiltrate this meeting to find other investors not aware of what is really going on. This could be the perfect opportuinity to find the people who turn up listening to Wellington, and to try and turn them to our side.




Do You really think that investors can be this stupid? Don't You realise that we
had the majority when JH started this court action in Brisbane?


----------



## simgrund (20 August 2011)

charles36 said:


> Any person who thinks it is not "I love myself presentation" should re visit--------------- I note the Gold Coast Bulletin has a gloating article regarding the proposed meeting wherein it is stated there probably will be "fireworks." ----------------




Hi Charles36,
I tried to access GGB article via their website; do you have a link?
And would the article be by N.Nichols per chance?
Thanks,


----------



## Harald (20 August 2011)

charles36 said:


> Now here is a good idea.  I hatched it from your recent posts.  Harald, you like writing letters, send ,  Dear M/S Hutson,  Thanks you so kindly for arranging a "roadshow".  As unit holders are paying for this jaunt we demand you provide equal time for CASCAP, the preferred RE of the majority of PROVEN voters, to speak at your roadshows.  The PIFAG offered you equal time to debate with Mr. Ian Ferrier. Chairman of CASCAP, on the 23 June, 2011, you initially accepted.  However, on being informed that a trial vote taken at the legitimate meeting overwhelmingly voted Wellington Capital OUT you hurriedly left the building to meet with your cohorts for a sumptous lunch and drinks until late in the afternoon.  Now is the time M/S Hutson for you to show some of that humility and generosity that you often espouse to possess.
> I eagerly await your response.
> I would send a letter too but for some reason I never receive a response from Wellington Capital.




I really don't know why I'm not getting answers either.

At the beginning of the meeting in Grace I was telling Mr. Ferrier that JH wouldn't
attend after the meeting. Nobody should trust her. She will break every promise!


----------



## Sutho81 (20 August 2011)

Harald said:


> Do You really think that investors can be this stupid? Don't You realise that we
> had the majority when JH started this court action in Brisbane?




I am sure we did have the numbers.

If Wellington is arranging this meeting then there is a high probability that new investors may attend who bought up shares on the NSX. There may be people turn up who we are able to get our message across to.

I really want Wellington out and I think we need all the numbers we can get plus many more.

Unfortunately there are people out there who voted for Wellington. If these people turn up to the meeting then this may be our best opportunity to sell our messaget o them.


----------



## selciper (20 August 2011)

It's worth considering the possibility that the calling of these meetings is a Wellington misstep. They are most unlikely to receive good publicity from the events (GGB excluded) and any members of the "team" speaking from the stage risk being ridiculed.


----------



## charles36 (20 August 2011)

simgrund said:


> Hi Charles36,
> I tried to access GGB article via their website; do you have a link?
> And would the article be by N.Nichols per chance?
> Thanks,




Seamisty tried to find the link to no avail.  I was informed of the article by one of our faithful lot who read it.  It is a small article in the GCB. I think she said Friday's edition.


----------



## selciper (20 August 2011)

Five handy pieces of free advice on the matter of crisis management. Will WC be able to adhere to*these basic guidelines at the coming meetings? It strikes me that this check list demonstrates the very least that we should expect from the WC "team". Anything less would be unsatisfactory.

http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/reid-on-marketing/crisis-management-my-top-10-advice-1-5


----------



## Harald (20 August 2011)

selciper said:


> Five handy pieces of free advice on the matter of crisis management. Will WC be able to adhere to*these basic guidelines at the coming meetings? It strikes me that this check list demonstrates the very least that we should expect from the WC "team". Anything less would be unsatisfactory.
> 
> http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/reid-on-marketing/crisis-management-my-top-10-advice-1-5




Didn't You get it? JH doesn,t know what it means to be honest, straightforward and
forthcoming! You can only expect that those meetings will cost us unitholders               a fortune for nothing.


----------



## selciper (20 August 2011)

Harald said:


> Didn't You get it? JH doesn,t know what it means to be honest, straightforward and
> forthcoming! You can only expect that those meetings will cost us unitholders               a fortune for nothing.




Harald - unfortunately the meetings with their costs are locked in. Perhaps this will be an opportunity for you to ask questions directly to the RE. Of course, WC will most likely warn the audiences that any questions must be devoid of slanderous statements. That hurdle, as you know, can be jumped by well-crafted use of language.


----------



## Harald (20 August 2011)

selciper said:


> Harald - unfortunately the meetings with their costs are locked in. Perhaps this will be an opportunity for you to ask questions directly to the RE. Of course, WC will most likely warn the audiences that any questions must be devoid of slanderous statements. That hurdle, as you know, can be jumped by well-crafted use of language.




No Selciper, JH will only answer Dorothy Dixers, even when You jump up and down
with well crafted use of language.


----------



## simgrund (21 August 2011)

charles36 said:


> Seamisty tried to find the link to no avail.  I was informed of the article by one of our faithful lot who read it.  It is a small article in the GCB. I think she said Friday's edition.





Thanks Charles36,
I asked to keep track of Mr.Nichols. I will try to dig further.
Cheers


----------



## Jadel (21 August 2011)

selciper said:


> Harald - unfortunately the meetings with their costs are locked in. Perhaps this will be an opportunity for you to ask questions directly to the RE. Of course, WC will most likely warn the audiences that any questions must be devoid of slanderous statements. That hurdle, as you know, can be jumped by well-crafted use of language.




Selciper 

 I think it indeed would be useful to formulate a list of questions to ask at the ,so called ,.information session.   I am prepared to start with this one below :

Jenny 

Three years ago  I prepared a submission, and subsequently had an interview with an ASIC analyst ,where I gave detailed  information on why there  was compelling reasons to believe   a major fraud had taken place in our fund .

Subsequently, I and others provided data to ASIC that the Maximum Yield Fund  had been used as a substitute entity , to illegally siphon money, taken directly from the PIF over a 24 hour period,  to pay out Octaviers  debt .

.I would therefore greatly appreciate if you could inform investors gathered here today, exactly why it was necessary to rapidly sell down 200 million dollars of PIF  assets in order   to pay out monies that were cynically  stolen from our fund by  Octaviers  Directors . 

 As the RE at this time, you would  have had in possession all the details this transaction on file  . Moreover ,as a  experienced corporate solicitor ,you would no doubt fully understand the  legal implications ;namely that as a potential criminal  transaction these funds were not in any way  the responsibility of the PIF to reimburse to the Royal Bank of Scotland. 

Justice  Perram who is currently presiding  Judge in our Class Action  expressed  this matter in the following  terms  ,“ just old fashioned fraud” .

It appears to me ,that  instead of  vigorously  endeavouring  to protect the interests of investors by testing the issue in a  court of law, as any other RE with their salt would have done ,you chose to immediately and recklessly fire sale 200 million of our best assets at the height of the GFC .

 An action, which has basically destroyed our fund and the lives of many investors .

Further to this Jenny  , you  were prepared  to accept 22.5 cents in the dollar in lieu of that debt to certain directors who had subsequently gained control of Octavier ,and with whom you previously and currently now have close business and other affiliations.

 MR Scott is a director is a Co director of S8  and Mr Burke I believe is an Enneagram cult leader whose beliefs  are followed by some of your staff.

Regretably ,an impression could easily be drawn ,that the interests of protecting Octavier and these individuals came before the best interests of investors ,who under the Corporations Act you have a  solemn responsibility to protect.

I would be very interested to hear your explanation regarding these matters.


----------



## selciper (21 August 2011)

Jadel - I thin your questions might elicit a lengthy silence! It's my opinion that anybody asking questions at these meetings should be reading them verbatim from a notepad. The questions should also be retained for the record. WC could do their best to rule tje curly ones as being out of order or improper. And, as if on cue, the roaming person with the microphone will sprint away towards the next in line...


----------



## DepressedDad (21 August 2011)

selciper said:


> Jadel - I thin your questions might elicit a lengthy silence! It's my opinion that anybody asking questions at these meetings should be reading them verbatim from a notepad. The questions should also be retained for the record. WC could do their best to rule tje curly ones as being out of order or improper. And, as if on cue, the roaming person with the microphone will sprint away towards the next in line...




Any chance of investigative journalists being present for this very reason?


----------



## seamisty (21 August 2011)

Duped said:


> Great point charles36. My guess is that the public pressure on auditors to pick up their game (in the light of all that Centro litigation) is translating to PIF's auditors putting downward pressure on WC's valuations of PIF's asset prices.



Just another thought, there has been much speculation and rumour that a close associate of WC with the same business address is now an additional substantial PIF unitholder after taking up units in the WC PIF placement offer. To the best of my knowledge  the details of the new PIF/placement investors have not been publically announced. Usually the top 20 PIF holders are announced in the annual financial report, would this have something to do with the fact that Wellington Capital is holding information forums/meetings prior to the annual financial report being made public which could hold some information WC would rather not have to discuss publically???? Having been misinformed previously by senior WC staff on other issues I  strongly suspect WC will not put themselves in a position where their credibility can be challenged, hence the non appearance of JH at the EGM in Sydney. Never under estimate the actions of desperate egos as was previously demonstrated by WC by having to be affilated with HIRED support to prop up a tarnished image!!!You had your chance to deliver your spiel at someone elses expense WC at the EGM. It was your call JH to ignore PIF investors and miraculously do a disappearing act when you realised your credibility was shot and your box of pink proxies would leave wet ink stains on any who handled them!! (we won't even go to names on said proxies) Seriously, apart from telling a few new PIF investors how freaking wonderfull WC is and assuring some misguided fund managers why they should still advise their clients to 'hold the faith', what is the purpose of these meetings????Is someone knocking at the WC door? If they aren't, they darn well should be. Seamisty


----------



## charles36 (22 August 2011)

Jadel and others. like reading the posts but why would you ever believe JH will answer your questions, Jadel you have been trying for years, the PIFAG have been trying on behalf of unit holders to no avail.  The meetings will be a "Claytons" meeting.  Stacked to the rafters with paid staff and cohorts transported at great expense to all venues.  The most asked questions list is being prepared now and JH's answers are being learned by rote.  Any new questions will be answered with "that is a good question, breathing time, then rubbish will flow.  Save our money Wellington Capital, resign and give a fair dinkum company a go.


----------



## Duped (22 August 2011)

charles36 said:


> Jadel and others. like reading the posts but why would you ever believe JH will answer your questions, Jadel you have been trying for years, the PIFAG have been trying on behalf of unit holders to no avail.  The meetings will be a "Claytons" meeting.  Stacked to the rafters with paid staff and cohorts transported at great expense to all venues.  The most asked questions list is being prepared now and JH's answers are being learned by rote.  Any new questions will be answered with "that is a good question, breathing time, then rubbish will flow.  Save our money Wellington Capital, resign and give a fair dinkum company a go.




Exactly charles36.  It's too easy for the following to occur.

That under absolutely no circumstances will non scripted questions be allowed to be asked. 

This meeting can too easily be stage managed and stacked to the max. 

All the questions can be scripted.  There could only too easily be plenty of plants in the meetings who will have their hand up the whole time so it doesn't look suspicious but in the end, the mike need only be handed to unit holders who will ask the scripted questions. Easy peazy.Am I wrong? Anyone?

Make sure it's only WC and secretive WC supporters throwing dirt. Play the ball, not the man.  No matter how dirty the opposition play. If you try and play dirty, they'll beat you with experience.


----------



## selciper (22 August 2011)

Well, if Charles36 is correct - and he has vast experience in these matters - we appear then to be checkmated before entering the venues. Perhaps the only psychological weapon we have avaialble will be good old derisive laughter.


----------



## seamisty (22 August 2011)

Duped said:


> Exactly charles36.  It's too easy for the following to occur.
> 
> That under absolutely no circumstances will non scripted questions be allowed to be asked.
> 
> ...




Thats why WC lost the plot and did the no show at the EGM!! All that carefull WC planning to stack the EGM with the rent a crowd and their own registry arrangements in place was exposed before it could be implemented. WC aren't going to take any chances next time!!! The pre meeting rehearsals are probably being conducted as I type!  :blaah: Seamisty


----------



## Duped (22 August 2011)

selciper said:


> Well, if Charles36 is correct - and he has vast experience in these matters - we appear then to be checkmated before entering the venues. Perhaps the only psychological weapon we have avaialble will be good old derisive laughter.



I don't know what to do selciper. We just all go along and put your hand up and be ignored?  

Let WC land its punch? Because it won't change the numbers. 6.6c on the NSX.  Only 2c return of capital. Substantial dilution through the placement. NTA plunging downwards. 

Wake up WC supporters. Look at the numbers. PIF 'aint a social club. It's not a religion or a sect. The Corporations act is very clear - it's a "managed *investment *scheme". [emphasis added].  You're in it for the money. Not for clever and comforting words. If you want that, you could just stick the money in the bank and give the interest to the church through the Sunday collection and then join your fellows for a nice communal chat over some lovely tea and cake afterwards. (By far the better alternative IMO because the church uses at least some of that money to do valuable work in the community and fund schools.)

WC's excuse - "It remains a challenging time".

Well the response is simple then.  WC is not up for the task. From what  I've read, plenty of canny investors have profited well for the GFC. They see market turmoil and corrections as opportunity to profit. And now I'm reading about us sitting on the edge of a double dip global recession that many economists said would inevitably happen.  Did WC take the opportunity of asset prices bolstered by quantitative easing and broader economic stimulus to exit PIF's positions? Doesn't look like it? Does it? If there's another dip into recession and nothing left in the tank for economic stimulus then what do we think will happen to PIF's asset values?

Based on what I've heard and read WC seems to be running PIF like a social club.   We get more words about WC being OK during the Brisbane flood and after  an electrical fault in their building than why WC has dropped from it's  latest investor updates it's plans to make "measured new investments aimed  at rebalancing the asset class allocations of the Fund in time".


----------



## Duped (22 August 2011)

Did my last post hit the spot?  A trade just went through at 9.5c.  Let's see if a higher price is sustainable or it's just a show trade like that show trade of $900 worth at 45c on 22 October 2008.


----------



## seamisty (22 August 2011)

Duped said:


> Did my last post hit the spot?  A trade just went through at 9.5c.  Let's see if a higher price is sustainable or it's just a show trade like that show trade of $900 worth at 45c on 22 October 2008.



Or maybe someone needed a few PIF units in a hurry for 'Gifting' purposes? Bums on seats, new faces, a few more innocents handed a piece of paper ( by persons unrelated to WC of course) with a question they have to ask in return for being 'gifted' a few units??? The mind boggles but one can hardly be blamed for thinking the worst on past performances/shenanigans relating to the PIF can they? Seamisty


----------



## zixo (22 August 2011)

Duped said:


> Did my last post hit the spot?  A trade just went through at 9.5c.  Let's see if a higher price is sustainable or it's just a show trade like that show trade of $900 worth at 45c on 22 October 2008.




Hi Duped,

Dont expect the unit price to stay there for long. Its more than likely a mistake or someones having a joke. I think JH would collapse in a heap knowing that the pif is actually associated with anything positive for its investors.

Just like her reputation its all gone downhill and its bound to stay there


----------



## Duped (22 August 2011)

zixo said:


> Hi Duped,
> 
> Dont expect the unit price to stay there for long. Its more than likely a mistake or someones having a joke. I think JH would collapse in a heap knowing that the pif is actually associated with anything positive for its investors.
> 
> Just like her reputation its all gone downhill and its bound to stay there




It's got the marks of show trade. That 15,000 units was sitting in the Offer column at 9.5 cents for a while.  Whoever bought them didn't even bother to put in a Bid at 7 or even 8 cents first.There's no buying depth above 7 cents.


----------



## Duped (22 August 2011)

WC STILL have the wrong numbers on WC's main Funds web page http://www.wellcap.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=8: 

"There are currently 755,032,768 Units  in on issue in the Premium Income  Fund. The Premium Income Fund currently has  10,729 Unitholders."

How out of touch with the product can WC be? 

How's that going to inspire new potential investors who could put real upward pressure on the unit price on the NSX?  The lower the NSX price the more likely PIF will get hit with "opportunistic" takeover offers. Investing 101. Could WC help paint a bigger target on PIF?


----------



## Sutho81 (22 August 2011)

Back to Castlereagh again. Here is a quote from their website.



> Castlereagh Capital Limited is still consdiering legal advice and reviewing the current position as to what course of action it will adopt. Once we have determined out course of action we will notify investors immediately. Due to the complexity of the matter our decision has been delayed for a period longer than we originally anticipated.
> 
> Electronic copies of the documents provided to unit holders of the Fund in relation to the Replacement of the Responsible Entity are provided below:




I dont know when they posted this information, but given they have not oficially told us they are no longer interested in our cause then it looks to me like there is a small glimmer of hope that they may have another crack at taking the fund.

Are there any other thoughts or people who know better?


----------



## seamisty (22 August 2011)

Just doing a bit of research on Rachel Weeks who"has been heavily involved in providing personality training since 2002, has worked in several major interventions focussing on the development of high performance teams, change management and conflict resolution in government departments, large professional services firms, and private enterprises"
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&source=www.google.com.au

Wouldn't you think that such qualifications/involvements would be included as part of a Linkedin reference? Nothing, zip, zilch, nada from 1998 until 2006  
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/rachel-weeks/b/307/757 Also missing from Ms Weeks linkedin profile is her time as a  senior associate with McCullough Robertson, Brisbane. Yep the Linkedin profile sure  has been pruned! it used to include::
2006 RACHEL WEEKS is a senior associate with McCullough Robertson, Brisbane. 
Nov 2007 Rachel Weeks  joined HWL’s Brisbane office as Special Counsel
9 September 2008 HWL EBSWORTH’S NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP CONTINUES TO EXPAND POST-MERGER Rachel Weeks, a Special Counsel in the Brisbane Commercial Group has been appointed to the position of Partner:;
Funny that, I heard there was also some recent severe pruning of details from Linkedin profiles of employees of 'Property Solutions & Advisory Pty. Ltd', a company closely associated with Balmain Trilogy (same adress etc, heard that before?) when it was questioned as to the relationship between the two companies.
Related party transactions appear to be closely monitored from many different levels. Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (22 August 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> Back to Castlereagh again. Here is a quote from their website.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Anything is possible Sutho81, I hope CasCap correct those spelling errors! Seamisty


----------



## selciper (22 August 2011)

As a friend pointed out to me today, "14, 45, 60!" is a pretty good protesters' catch-cry.


----------



## seamisty (22 August 2011)

selciper said:


> As a friend pointed out to me today, "14, 45, 60!" is a pretty good protesters' catch-cry.



14, 45, 65 selciper, realistically more like 5!! Seamisty


----------



## charles36 (23 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> 14, 45, 65 selciper, realistically more like 5!! Seamisty




Seamisty, what are you talking about, you should be going progressively DOWN.  65, 45, 14, 6, ZERO.   Has anyone out there have any information on the NSAPIFRAG.  translated.(Not so anonymous premium income fund RE action group.)  Might be a good question to ask at the Self Promotional meetings due shortly.  How can we join this group?


----------



## seamisty (23 August 2011)

Premium Income Fund
NSX Release: 23 August 2011

Class Action - Federal Court Proceedings
Plan for compensation to be for the benefit of Unitholders as at 15 October 2008 Wellington Capital Limited, IMF (Australia) Limited and the Class Action lawyers share the view that the benefit of the Class Action should be for those Unitholders who suffered the loss to which the proceedings relate, that is those Unitholders who were Unitholders in the Premium Income Fund as at 15 October 2008 whether they remain Unitholders or not.
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund will in relation to the legal proceeds in the Federal Court and any future proceedings, ask the court to make orders that any resulting damages or
compensation be paid to the Unitholders at the time the loss was incurred, being 15 October 2008. If a settlement is reached, one of the terms will be that any agreed settlement sum be paid to Unitholders as at 15 October 2008.
In the event that the Federal Court does not make these orders, Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund will pursue every other available legal avenue to achieve an outcome where the
Unitholders who suffered the loss are the beneficiaries of any order made, including asking ASIC to modify the
application of the Corporations Act 2001, and if necessary, Unitholders to vary the Constitution of the Premium
Income Fund. Wellington Capital Limited will be assisted by IMF and the Class Action lawyers in that regard.
Investors buying units in the Premium Income Fund whether on market or off market should do so on the basis that they will not be entitled to any damages or compensation received from any legal action relating to the claim for losses suffered by Unitholders as at 15 October 2008.
Jenny Hutson, Managing Director said: ‘I appreciate how important any compensation from the Federal Court
proceedings is to Unitholders who suffered loss as a result of the loan drawdown and investment decisions made by the Fund’s former responsible entity.
It is entirely appropriate and desirable that those who suffered the loss are the beneficiaries of any compensation or damages.
As responsible entity, Wellington Capital will ensure that every legal avenue possible is pursued to ensure that
outcome is achieved, including asking the court for a declaration to this effect, asking ASIC to modify the application of the Corporations Act, and then only if necessary, asking Unitholders to vary the Constitution of the Premium Income Fund.’
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of Premium Income Fund as applicant in class action.
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund announced on 2 June 2011 that it had executed a funding agreement with IMF (Australia) Limited (ASX:IMF), the class action funder. At this time, IMF and HWL Ebsworth have not joined Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund to the action. It has been agreed with IMF and HWL Ebsworth that it is in the best interests of Unitholders to revisit the position once Justice Perram of the Federal Court determines the position on the two proposed Statements of Claim currently before him.
Future steps following Justice Perram’s decision may include Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the
Premium Income Fund (funded by IMF) separately commencing proceedings against KPMG.
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724313.PDF


----------



## Duped (23 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> Premium Income Fund
> NSX Release: 23 August 2011
> 
> Class Action - Federal Court Proceedings
> ...




Thanks Seamisty.  

All. More words words words.  We've had commitments such as this from WC before. Will it actually happen? Remember the offer of a buyback?

And even if the court does order "that any resulting damages or compensation be paid to the Unitholders at the time the loss was incurred, being 15 October 2008. " What's stopping WC asking a court to cancel or amend those orders? (or whatever terminology applies.)  Anyone?


----------



## selciper (23 August 2011)

Off topic, but interesting. Today's Crikey articles by Paul Barry describes how political branch stacking works.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/08/23/power-index-how-to-fix-a-pre-selection-ballot/


----------



## seamisty (23 August 2011)

So here we are all shaking our heads asking why Jenny Hutson announces on the 18th august 2011  out of the blue that Wellington Capital will be conducting another travelling road show under the guise of 'Fund Briefing Meetings' to be held 6, 7 and 8 September 2011 in each of Sydney, Melbourne and the Gold Coast.
 Heres your answer, nothing to do with being a conscientious fund manager, it was so WC could try and adjourn the G8/Cherie Hearts trial scheduled to be held in Singapore from the 5th-15th September 2011 because Jenny Hutson was unavailable!!!! HAHA, the Singapore trial date was set months ago!! Nice try JH but it appears the Singapore judges are not going to be stuffed around. An extract from post 29 on the GEM thread "Pre-trial hearing, Thursday, 18th August 2011
--G8’s Attempt to Adjourn the Main Trial--

As you would recall, there were recent rumours that G8 had asked for an adjournment of the Main Trial. It appears as if these rumours were true after all! The first reason being that Jenny Hutson was unavailable. Yes.. ‘The Jenny Hutson’ to appear on trial in Singapore! The second reason being that their ‘expert witness’ could not generate a meaningful report?! Well they should have jolly well thought of that before deciding to put a receivership on CHGI! This is a true indication that they had no basis for their unjust actions!

Unfortunately for G8, CHGI has emerged victorious yet again! The Singapore High Court has refused to grant G8 adjournment of the Main Trial as per their requests. 

But in kind, the High Court Judge has given them a 2 day extension. That’s not going to be of much help now is it G8?? ":::

So where does that leave the PIF meetings?? Perhaps Ms Hutson will have to have them 'adjourned'?

:bowser:Bon Voyage!! Seamisty


----------



## Jadel (23 August 2011)

Duped said:


> Thanks Seamisty.
> 
> All. More words words words.  We've had commitments such as this from WC before. Will it actually happen? Remember the offer of a buyback?
> 
> And even if the court does order "that any resulting damages or compensation be paid to the Unitholders at the time the loss was incurred, being 15 October 2008. " What's stopping WC asking a court to cancel or amend those orders? (or whatever terminology applies.)  Anyone?




Exactly Duped .  

 601FC(1)  Corporation Act  compels the RE to treat members of the same class equally. 
 And that is the only law a Judge would have to work with, unless a constitutional amendment is put in place.

Even with a Fund Manager acting in good faith  , we could have a very real  potential problem .Lets assume a turnover of 20 % on the NSX  over the time it takes for the class to come to court . Add in the placement and any future cap raising and that is a lot of new investors who would command a substantial chunk of the votes  . Enough votes to demolish any hopes of passing a special resolution on this issue .


----------



## Sutho81 (23 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> So here we are all shaking our heads asking why Jenny Hutson announces on the 18th august 2011  out of the blue that Wellington Capital will be conducting another travelling road show under the guise of 'Fund Briefing Meetings' to be held 6, 7 and 8 September 2011 in each of Sydney, Melbourne and the Gold Coast.
> Heres your answer, nothing to do with being a conscientious fund manager, it was so WC could try and adjourn the G8/Cherie Hearts trial scheduled to be held in Singapore from the 5th-15th September 2011 because Jenny Hutson was unavailable!!!! HAHA, the Singapore trial date was set months ago!! Nice try JH but it appears the Singapore judges are not going to be stuffed around. An extract from post 29 on the GEM thread "Pre-trial hearing, Thursday, 18th August 2011
> --G8’s Attempt to Adjourn the Main Trial--
> 
> ...




Maybe we could do the Judges a favour and let them know about this stunt she is pulling.


----------



## Sutho81 (23 August 2011)

I am not sure if this relates to us but I have noticed Wellington selling properties that they are in possesion of at ridiculous prices which are bad for our fund. That news has come up in the past.

I am just wondering if we as unit holders could put a legal order on the properties out fund is mortgagee in possesion of. I am not sure of the name of it, but am aware such a legal order exists where a property can have an order slapped on it preventing the owner or custodian from selling it.

If we could do such an action and tie up Wellingtons hands from selling what we own due to impending take over offers as a reason then it prevents Wellington from ripping us off further.

This is just a thought - not sure if we can do it or if it will work, but if it stuffs Wellington around then its good for us.


----------



## seamisty (23 August 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> Maybe we could do the Judges a favour and let them know about this stunt she is pulling.



 WC organised and announced on the NSX 18th August 2011 a complete round of  'investor briefing meetings' to coincide with the Singapore High court trial date which WC had apparently previously tried to adjourn in July 2011 because they were unavailable If WC were unavailable/too busy, did not have child minders or whatever reason to not front up for a trial in Sept, how come suddenly WC found the time to organise a travelling road show in Australia in Sept at the same time a trial was scheduled in Singapore that WC said  they could not previously attend due to prior committmentsAny wonder the GEM/G8 share price is going nowhere? G8 investors are more than likely starting to realise the PIF investors are not peeing in the wind and there could well be serious management issues!!
Sutho8, rest assured that this forum is not only followed by PIF investors. I am interested to see what our next NSX announcement will be. I think the whole WC story is starting to unravel. Seamisty


----------



## Duped (24 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> WC organised and announced on the NSX 18th August 2011 a complete round of  'investor briefing meetings' to coincide with the Singapore High court trial date which WC had apparently previously tried to adjourn in July 2011 because they were unavailable If WC were unavailable/too busy, did not have child minders or whatever reason to not front up for a trial in Sept, how come suddenly WC found the time to organise a travelling road show in Australia in Sept at the same time a trial was scheduled in Singapore that WC said  they could not previously attend due to prior committmentsAny wonder the GEM/G8 share price is going nowhere? G8 investors are more than likely starting to realise the PIF investors are not peeing in the wind and there could well be serious management issues!!
> Sutho8, rest assured that this forum is not only followed by PIF investors. I am interested to see what our next NSX announcement will be. I think the whole WC story is starting to unravel. Seamisty




And the September roadshow is at PIF unitholders expense.


----------



## Duped (24 August 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> I am not sure if this relates to us but I have noticed Wellington selling properties that they are in possesion of at ridiculous prices which are bad for our fund. That news has come up in the past.
> 
> I am just wondering if we as unit holders could put a legal order on the properties out fund is mortgagee in possesion of. I am not sure of the name of it, but am aware such a legal order exists where a property can have an order slapped on it preventing the owner or custodian from selling it.
> 
> ...




I'm not sure it will help unit holders because WC would probably fight the orders at PIF unit holders expense IMLO


----------



## Duped (24 August 2011)

Jadel said:


> Exactly Duped .
> 
> 601FC(1)  Corporation Act  compels the RE to treat members of the same class equally.
> And that is the only law a Judge would have to work with, unless a constitutional amendment is put in place.
> ...




It's in PIF's constitution too Jadel. Clause 14.7:

14.7 The Responsible Entity:
14.7.1 will perform its functions and exercise its powers under this Constitution in the best interest of all Unit Holders and not in the interests ofthe Responsible Entity if those interests are not the same as those of Unit Holders generally; and
14.7.2 subject to sub-clause 14.7.1, will treat the Unit Holders of the same class equally and will treat Unit Holders of different classes fairly.

Who knows what that means in practice? 

Any defence in court by WC of its actions when challanged will probably be paid for at unitholder's expense. I.e. out of PIF's assets and funds.

It's like Cold War MAD.  Mutually Assured Destruction.


----------



## Duped (24 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> WC organised and announced on the NSX 18th August 2011 a complete round of  'investor briefing meetings' to coincide with the Singapore High court trial date which WC had apparently previously tried to adjourn in July 2011 because they were unavailable If WC were unavailable/too busy, did not have child minders or whatever reason to not front up for a trial in Sept, how come suddenly WC found the time to organise a travelling road show in Australia in Sept at the same time a trial was scheduled in Singapore that WC said  they could not previously attend due to prior committmentsAny wonder the GEM/G8 share price is going nowhere? G8 investors are more than likely starting to realise the PIF investors are not peeing in the wind and there could well be serious management issues!!
> Sutho8, rest assured that this forum is not only followed by PIF investors. I am interested to see what our next NSX announcement will be. I think the whole WC story is starting to unravel. Seamisty




I'm not exactly convinced this is the only reason for the roadshow Seamisty. WC's  reason is "The timing of these meetings will enable Wellington Capital  to *present *the position as at 30 June 2011, as set out in the audited accounts." [emphasis added]

My guess is there's some nasty numbers in there that need "*present*[ing]". Like some big legal bills? Some big asset write downs? The bills and the "*present*[ation]" are all at PIF unitholders expense of course. Time will tell.

All
None of us should ever forget that WC effectively helped paint a huge  target on PIF through actions such allowing the unit price to languish at 1/3 to a 1/4 of  NTA on the NSX and issue new units at 10c. Investing 101.

It'll be interesting to hear Hutson's excuse for addressing the rent a  crowd.  Irrespective of who organised the rent a crowd - Hutson CHOSE  to stand up there and address them.  (Allegedly right?) Quite the case of  incredibly poor  judgement by Hutson?  And a breach of clause 14.7 of the PIF constitution cited in my last post?  Is this the sort of person one wants to run one's fund?

The only 'speaking' that WC doesn't seems to want to do is let the numbers speak for themselves.

Last but not least WC will probably also blame this forum.  WC will blame everyone and everything but themselves. There is a simple and ancient expression that sums this type of behaviour up: "The Lady doth protest too much, methinks".

All at PIF unitholders expense?


----------



## Duped (24 August 2011)

Duped said:


> I'm not sure it will help unit holders because WC would probably fight the orders at PIF unit holders expense IMLO





Sort of like a scorched earth policy I guess Sutho81. Of course if the enemy doesn't end up occupying the your turf you'll probably have to "*present*" yourselves to your citizens and explain why you torched their farms.


----------



## selciper (24 August 2011)

A story today in the SMH about the poor morale existing within ASIC. The remedy suggests a typical public service solution - management consultants' workshops. These often alienate staff even more.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic-invests-in-a-shakeup-of-work-culture-20110823-1j8e3.html


----------



## Duped (24 August 2011)

76+ thousand have traded at 6.6/6.5 since.  Making that 15,000 unit trade @ 9.5c look more suss and paltry by the day.


----------



## seamisty (25 August 2011)

AH, we have a new substantial holder!! Mr Craig Wallace.

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724322.PDF


----------



## charles36 (25 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> AH, we have a new substantial holder!! Mr Craig Wallace.
> 
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724322.PDF




I have a number of friends, yes that is right,  couple of friends, believe it or not, they want to support JH and they have asked me how they apply to become part of the audience and where do they collect their free gift package and wages.  Can anyone enlighten me?


----------



## Sutho81 (25 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> AH, we have a new substantial holder!! Mr Craig Wallace.
> 
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724322.PDF




So what does that mean for us. Is he what we would describe as friend or foe of the PIFAG?

He only has like 6% of voting power by the looks of it.


----------



## zeva (25 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> AH, we have a new substantial holder!! Mr Craig Wallace.
> 
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724322.PDF




A total of 19,350,889 units have been traded on the NSX. where did the other 30,000,000 units come from?


----------



## Duped (25 August 2011)

zeva said:


> A total of 19,350,889 units have been traded on the NSX. where did the other 30,000,000 units come from?




Off Market Transfer(s) is my guess zeva. It'll be interesting to see the changes to the list of top ten shareholders in the Annual report.  If there's no equivalent drop in another holder's holdings then either Mr Wallace' company is part of the 'sophisticated' investors that got dibs on WC's illegitimate  placement (Gordon J ruled the constitutional amendment breached the Corpration Act) or his company acquired them from a large number of unitholders.  If it's the latter then I ask - is there a shadow market and who's running it?


----------



## Duped (25 August 2011)

Duped said:


> Off Market Transfer(s) is my guess zeva. It'll be interesting to see the changes to the list of top ten shareholders in the Annual report.  If there's no equivalent drop in another holder's holdings then either Mr Wallace' company is part of the 'sophisticated' investors that got dibs on WC's illegitimate  placement (Gordon J ruled the constitutional amendment breached the Corpration Act) or his company acquired them from a large number of unitholders.  If it's the latter then I ask - is there a shadow market and who's running it?




Amend to:

Off Market Transfer(s) is my guess zeva. It'll be interesting to see the  changes to the list of top ten shareholders in the Annual report.  If  there's no equivalent drop in another holder's holdings then either Mr  Wallace' company acquired them from aone of Hutson's 'sophisticated'  investors that got dibs on WC's illegitimate  placement (Gordon J ruled  the constitutional amendment breached the Corpration Act) or his company  acquired them (directly or indirectly) from a large number of unitholders.  If it's the latter  then I ask - is there a shadow market and who's running it?


----------



## Cookie1 (25 August 2011)

To refresh everyone's memories from post #8087 by Seamisty that appeared back on 7th July on this forum. Obviously it is the same Craig Wallace involved in the 200 hired actors on June 23rd. Mr Wallace is obviously a Director of Yuan Essentials as well.



seamisty said:


> A great article, thanks for the link lavis!!
> 
> From the article:'BRISBANE businesswoman Jenny Hutson denied in Federal Court yesterday that her merchant bank Wellington Capital had hired actors last month in a bid to thwart an investor revolt.
> 
> ...




The audacity of JH and her cronies knows no bounds.

Cookie1


----------



## seamisty (25 August 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> So what does that mean for us. Is he what we would describe as friend or foe of the PIFAG?
> 
> He only has like 6% of voting power by the looks of it.




MR Craig Lewiss Wallace, close business associate of Ms Hutson, Mr Heading, Chris Scott, Rachel Weeks and David Burke just for starters. Sutho81, I strongly suspect that Mr Wallace was a beneficiary along with other associates of WC of the wrongly placed placement!!!! I bet there is much more to this holding than it appaers. Its like a big roll of toilet paper thats been gradually unravelling, quietly picking up momentum as more and more information comes to light. Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (25 August 2011)

An ASIC search on Yuan Essentials Pty Ltd, reveals the registration date is 23 August 2011 and the registered office is in Toowong QLD 4066. The 8-page application #026226207 was received by ASIC on 23/08/11 (only 2 days ago). Description of the document is: 201C Application for Registration as a Proprietary Company.

I couldn't find information who the officers of the company are; obviously Craig Wallace is a Director.

There seems to be a lot of scrambling going on prior to the Fund Briefing meetings; it likely doesn't bode well for the orginal unitholders


----------



## seamisty (25 August 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> An ASIC search on Yuan Essentials Pty Ltd, reveals the registration date is 23 August 2011 and the registered office is in Toowong QLD 4066. The 8-page application #026226207 was received by ASIC on 23/08/11 (only 2 days ago). Description of the document is: 201C Application for Registration as a Proprietary Company.
> 
> I couldn't find information who the officers of the company are; obviously Craig Wallace is a Director.
> 
> There seems to be a lot of scrambling going on prior to the Fund Briefing meetings; it likely doesn't bode well for the orginal unitholders



What a coincidence!! Our external COMPLIANCE OFFICER Mr Phillip Wibaux also has a TOOWONG address. Could the new substantial holder be related to "KOORALBYN ASSETT MANAGEMENT"

KOORALBYN ASSET MANAGEMENT PTY LTD two directors,  each own 3 shares, total $6.00

 Document Number 5E2027797
 Details Type(current/former) Current
 Role Director
 Appointment Date 18/12/2008
 Full Name BURKE DAVID JUSTIN
 Birth Details 25/09/1958 LATROBE TAS
 Address 3233 NERANG-MURWILLUMBAH ROAD NATURAL BRIDGE QLD 4211
 Document Number 5E2027797
 Details Type(current/former) Current
 Role Director
 Appointment Date 18/12/2008
 Full Name WIBAUX PHILIP JACQUES
 Birth Details 10/05/1966 BRISBANE QLD
 Address 18 VENTNOR STREET TOOWONG QLD 4066


I am getting a VERY strong whiff of shENNEAGRAMS!! Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (25 August 2011)

Oh yes, look who else has a TOOWONG address!!

Enneagram Australia Pty Ltd

 PO Box 2345

 Toowong BC

 Queensland 4066

 Australia

Contact Enneagram Australia

I wonder if the PIF REACTION GROUP had a TOOWONG address???


----------



## Duped (25 August 2011)

Wow.  Unit price has gone beserk. Every single offer has been cleared out. Highest bid currently stands at 18c. But units have sold for 20c. Does the NSX give out speeding tix like the ASX.  I.e. a 'please explain'?


----------



## simgrund (25 August 2011)

Duped said:


> Wow.  Unit price has gone beserk. Every single offer has been cleared out. Highest bid currently stands at 18c. But units have sold for 20c. Does the NSX give out speeding tix like the ASX.  I.e. a 'please explain'?




...And at this moment ; suspended!?!!?!!!?????

http://www.nsxa.com.au/prices_alpha.asp?nsxcode=NSX CODE

Whoa,


----------



## simgrund (25 August 2011)

Duped said:


> Wow.  Unit price has gone beserk. Every single offer has been cleared out. Highest bid currently stands at 18c. But units have sold for 20c. Does the NSX give out speeding tix like the ASX.  I.e. a 'please explain'?




Good day Duped,
Well exclaimed!
Trade history so far appears to be:



> Home | Contact Us | About Us | Shareholders |  Print  | RSS
> [NSX Home]
> National Stock Exchange of Australia ®
> For Companies	For Brokers	For Advisers/Facilitators	For Investors	NSX  Markets
> ...




Mr. Wallace's latest acquisitions appear to exceed the total shown by NSX.
I am anxious to learn at which point of this chronology I went blind?

Regards,


----------



## simgrund (25 August 2011)

FROM LINKEDIN SITE 


> View attachment 44210
> 
> Rachel Weeks
> Partner at McLean Legal
> ...




Would this be the same Rachel Weeks from our well bonded, enneagram-chipped WC team?
If anyone can confirm please.

Thanks,


----------



## seamisty (25 August 2011)

simgrund said:


> FROM LINKEDIN SITE
> 
> 
> Would this be the same Rachel Weeks from our well bonded, enneagram-chipped WC team?
> ...



Thats one and the same Simgrund. McLean Legal also has the same business address as WC!!


----------



## zixo (25 August 2011)

Craig Wallace - Isnt he the thing who gave away free units to unsuspecting actors which were set up the rent a crowd saga at the PIFAG meeting to oust WC?

Is it the same craig wallace who was once a WC director in charge of the PIF.
Perhaps JH is having the Alan Bond syndrome? I wonder if she remembers who he is.
just like the times she repeated herself saying she knew nothing about the rent a crowd.

These are the people who are running our fund. Always looking after their mates. They actually started to make King and co look good.


----------



## seamisty (25 August 2011)

As per usual I am highly suspicious of the amount of units that traded today, almost in one hit. Had to be some sort of a cross trade as they were almost all handled by the same broker, did not hit the NSX screen until after they were bought/sold and to top it off, come on a day when a new substantial investor is announced! I wonder if there are some end of year financial books/registers that need rebalancing? I am also amazed that the NSX did not issue a 'speeding ticket' with a please explain the sudden unit price increase or perhaps they are yet to notice?
"Oh, the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round........."
Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (25 August 2011)

seamisty said:


> Thats one and the same Simgrund. McLean Legal also has the same business address as WC!!




Thanks Seamisty,
I am doing research on Seul University diploma credentials acceptance in Australia.
Less than 4 year course waived through here. Hmm, very intriguing.
Cheers,


----------



## Cookie1 (25 August 2011)

Evidently, the NSX has noticed the price increase and trading today; see NSX Release http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724324.PDF

It will be interesting to see what JH has to say! Excerpt from NSX letter to Ms Hutson:

"25 August 2011 


Ms Jenny Hutson 
Wellington Capital 
Responsible Entity for Premium Income Fund 

Email : JHutson@wellcap.com.au 

Dear Mrs Hutson, 

Premium Income Fund  (the “Company”) 

Re: Price Query 

NSX has noted a change in price of the Company’s securities from the last traded price of $0.066 on 
the 25 August 2011. 

The trade history for 25 August as listed below has come to our attention."

C'mon Jenny; it's time to fess up! What have you been up to this time?


----------



## seamisty (25 August 2011)

It appears Craig Wallace has been really busy recently (with a little help from his friends???)
He has not only created a new company to become an initial substantial holder of PIF units::
152 829 751 YUAN ESSENTIALS PTY LTD Document No
ACN (Australian Company Number): 152 829 751
Registered in: Queensland
Previous State Number:
Registration Date: 23/08/2011
Next Review Date: 23/08/2012
Company bound by:
Current Organisation Details
Name : YUAN ESSENTIALS PTY LTD 026226207
Name Start: 23/08/2011
Status : Registered
Type : AUSTRALIAN PROPRIETARY COMPANY
Class : LIMITED BY SHARES
Subclass : PROPRIETARY COMPANY
Registered Office
UNIT 16 48 GLEN ROAD TOOWONG QLD 4066 026226207
Start Date: 23/08/2011
Principal Place of Business
UNIT 16 48 GLEN ROAD TOOWONG QLD 4066 026226207
Start Date: 23/08/2011
Directors
CRAIG LEWISS WALLACE 026226207
UNIT 16 48 GLEN ROAD TOOWONG QLD 4066
Born: 24/06/1952 - BRISBANE QLD
Appointment Date: 23/08/2011
Secretary
CRAIG LEWISS WALLACE 026226207
UNIT 16 48 GLEN ROAD TOOWONG QLD 4066
Born: 24/06/1952 - BRISBANE QLD
Appointment Date: 23/08/2011
ASIC Company Extract ACN: 152829751
:::
Mr Wallace has also changed the name of one? of his companies today from
WALLACE SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (that gifted the shares to the EGM rent a crowd) to 
UNDERWOOD ASSOCIATES PTY LTD. Just so we have it on our radar here are the details::

Extracted from ASIC's database at AEST 20:24:06 on 25/08/2011
Name
NDERWOOD ASSOCIATES PTY LTD
ACN
148 011 090
ABN
21 148 011 090
Type

Australian Proprietary Company, Limited By Shares
Registration Date

24/12/2010
Next Review Date

24/12/2011
Status

Registered
Locality of Registered Office

Toowong QLD 4066
Jurisdiction
Australian Securities & Investments Commission
Former Name(s)

WALLACE SOLUTIONS PTY LTD













These are the documents that ASIC has most recently received from or in relation to this organisation. Page numbers are shown if processing is complete and the document is available for purchase. 




Date

Number

Pages

Description




25/08/2011

026226221 

Not Imaged

205A Notification of Resolution Changing Company Name




31/05/2011

027546723 

44

309A Notification of Details of a Charge




24/12/2010

025133979 

8

201C Application For Registration as a Proprietary Company


----------



## gardie (26 August 2011)

according to Sydney Morning Herald today the Wallace units have come from the placement.

Now how does a company only formed a few days ago end up holding these units. where were they parked previously. 

Also didnt Hutson claim in court that she was not aware of who had taken up the placement.

Rachael Weeks and Craig Wallace suddenly pop up as the major beneficiaries of the placement which was ruled illegal and Hutson didnt know business associates were taking up units ?


----------



## seamisty (26 August 2011)

PREMIUM PUZZLE
Scott Rochfort 
August 26, 2011 SMH

There have been more astonishing disclosures surrounding the MFS-founded Premium Income Fund (PIF). Yesterday it was announced that a former director of the PIF's manager of the past three years - the Jenny Hutson-headed Wellington Capital - had snared a 6.44 per cent stake in the fund.

Neither Wellington nor the buyer, Craig Wallace, offered any explanation at all for the purchase of the 53.4 million units priced at 10 ¢ a pop.

The purchase price just happens to coincide with the pricing of the massively dilutive raising announced by Wellington in May, which placed 75.5 million new units to ''sophisticated investors'' in May.

The raising - which was priced at a 70 per cent discount to the fund's net tangible asset backing - occurred just after the fund paid a 1 ¢ return ($7.5 million) to unitholders in the fund once worth $1 billion.

Hutson only needs to return another cent to be eligible to collect around $3.5 million in management fees.

The 6.44 per cent stake is held under the name of a company - Yuan Essentials - that was registered by Wallace only on Tuesday.

This was the same day Hutson issued a bizarre statement to the National (aka Newcastle) Stock Exchange arguing the class action related to the PIF ''should be for those unitholders who suffered the loss to which the proceedings relate'' or investors who held units before October 15, 2008.

The disclosure of Wallace's new substantial stake came as units in the fund surged 203 per cent to 20 ¢. A former director of KPMG Corporate Finance, Wallace was a director of Wellington when it made its successful takeover of the PIF from its former manager MFS in 2008.

Wallace's firm, Wallace Solutions, was accused in June of helping hire extras, at $26 an hour, to attend a PIF unit-holder meeting


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/moor...harter-hall-20110825-1jcdz.html#ixzz1W4kZm0KC


----------



## breaker1 (26 August 2011)

RE: SMH article above

Wellington are definitely on the move to entrench themselves as RE of the Fund with the associated purchase of the 53M PIF units via former director of Wellington, Craig Wallace

It makes me think, why are they trying so hard to remain as RE, what on earth are they trying to hide? Are PIF matters worse than we already think?


----------



## Cookie1 (26 August 2011)

Just received my notice of Fund Briefing Meetings in the mail. WC wants us to mark the appropriate box with an "X" to indicate the session we want to attend and return it to them by mail, fax or email.

Does this mean that if we don't pre-register we won't be allowed in?

Also I notice that units are still trading on the NSX but the price is steadily dropping down from 20 cents yesterday now to 13 cents. Am waiting to see what JH's explanation is for the sudden increase in activity, selling price and volume.


----------



## Duped (26 August 2011)

My guess is that someone might be trying to push up the VWAP (volume weighted average price).  Remember that WC (Hutson?) has already threatened further dilution by issuing more units.  This time they could be a different Class of units.  Yikes. Can they be preferential units?

Generally, a higher VWAP means it's easier to attract capital.  

Also, NTA per Unit at 30 June 2011 will be much lower. My guess is in the mid to low 20c. If the VWAP is up around that level then the Courts and Press won't be able to point out a substantial difference between NTA and the price paid for the new units. I.e. Scott Rochford (see seamisty's post just below) wrote "The raising - which was priced at a 70 per cent discount to the fund's net tangible asset backing ".

Note that WC will get paid on NTA and not NTA per unit. I.e. it doesn't matter how much Hutson dilutes the PIF units, her company, and hence Hutson, gets paid the same.

I'm off to study up on Wash Transactions.

IMT - I'm watching out for a fresh placement of units to dilute the value of existing units..


----------



## Cookie1 (26 August 2011)

Duped said:


> My guess is that someone might be trying to push up the VWAP (volume weighted average price).  Remember that WC (Hutson?) has already threatened further dilution by issuing more units.  This time they could be a different Class of units.  Yikes. Can they be preferential units?
> 
> Generally, a higher VWAP means it's easier to attract capital.
> 
> ...




JH in the NSX Release dated 11 July 2011 under "Capital raising" stated: "The units which will be offered will be a new class of units. The class will be issued in accordance with the Constitution of the Fund as it currently stands."

It's time to read the constitution again!


----------



## breaker1 (26 August 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> Does this mean that if we don't pre-register we won't be allowed in?
> 
> Also I notice that units are still trading on the NSX but the price is steadily dropping down from 20 cents yesterday now to 13 cents. Am waiting to see what JH's explanation is for the sudden increase in activity, selling price and volume.




The 23rd Aug letter from Wellington does not specify that you can't attend if you don't register. I have asked Wellington to clarify on that point and will advise

The rapid drop down from 20c was predictable


----------



## breaker1 (26 August 2011)

*Market crash 'could hit within weeks', warn bankers*
"A more severe crash than the one triggered by the collapse of Lehman Brothers could be on the way, according to alarm signals in the credit markets."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...rash-could-hit-within-weeks-warn-bankers.html


----------



## breaker1 (26 August 2011)

breaker1 said:


> The 23rd Aug letter from Wellington does not specify that you can't attend if you don't register. I have asked Wellington to clarify on that point and will advise




Wellington advises:

"If a Unitholder does not register their attendance for an information session, they may still attend"

Breaker


----------



## seamisty (26 August 2011)

breaker1 said:


> Wellington advises:
> 
> "If a Unitholder does not register their attendance for an information session, they may still attend"
> 
> Breaker



So it was therefore NOT neccesary to go to the expense of a mailout (unless you maybe have a pecuinary interest in the printing company?) PIF unit holders could have lodged their indication of attendence via email or the hotline. Was WC maybe trying to confuse some unitholders into thinking that it was essential to pre register so that WC knew how much armour/bodguards would be needed for the meetings and just exactly who would be present? Rest assured there will be a reason for it and it won't be so WC don't run short on tea bags and biccies!!. Seamisty


----------



## ASICK (26 August 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> JH in the NSX Release dated 11 July 2011 under "Capital raising" stated: "The units which will be offered will be a new class of units. The class will be issued in accordance with the Constitution of the Fund as it currently stands."
> 
> It's time to read the constitution again!




The new class will probably be a good investment (depending on the rate of return).  My guess is that such units will function like debt - the units will be redeemable before existing units and will earn interest to boot.

In its' explanatory memorandum, WC stated (in part), "... It is not the intention of the responsible entity to borrow for long term investing. It is the responsible entity’s aim to borrow only for short periods and repay the funding as soon as practicable. As other investments mature or are liquidated then the borrowing will be repaid. ..."

It'll be interesting to see if WE equates a new class of investment as the equivalent of debt, and whether such new class will comply with WC's intentions as outlined in the above excerpt.


----------



## Duped (26 August 2011)

Thanks ASICK. For those of you who don't understand it means dilution dilution dilution.  The value of your units is watered down.

Let's see if Hutson points to the high price currently being achieved on the NSX and tries to claim the increase is due to WC's initiatives.

The important question to ask is - will those buyers be there when YOU want to sell.


----------



## selciper (26 August 2011)

All these recent moves remind me of the old saying , "It's important to know that you are dealing with shadows."


----------



## simgrund (27 August 2011)

breaker1 said:


> Wellington advises:
> 
> "If a Unitholder does not register their attendance for an information session, they may still attend"
> 
> Breaker





Thanks breaker1;
I wonder if JH should have expanded on this by advising of any plusses for being a registered attendee?
Surely there seems to be further reason than just getting an idea of a potential number so that catering would not be caught short.
Regards,


----------



## charles36 (27 August 2011)

simgrund said:


> Thanks breaker1;
> I wonder if JH should have expanded on this by advising of any plusses for being a registered attendee?
> Surely there seems to be further reason than just getting an idea of a potential number so that catering would not be caught short.
> Regards,




Simgrund, you will never get anywhere with Wellington Capital by thinking in a reactive mode, the deed is already done and dusted.  You have to think forward, what is going to happen next and be ready for it.  Wellington Capital are more worried about what the PIFAG are doing than we are about them.  My advice is "so they should be worried."


----------



## simgrund (27 August 2011)

charles36 said:


> Simgrund, you will never get anywhere with Wellington Capital by thinking in a reactive mode, the deed is already done and dusted.  You have to think forward, what is going to happen next and be ready for it.  Wellington Capital are more worried about what the PIFAG are doing than we are about them.  My advice is "so they should be worried."




I take this as 







> do unto others as they w'd do unto you



.
I am off to Gold Coast briefing but am certainly not registering. 
I would love to be a privy to WC's impending pile of worry.
Well armed with Patience.
Cheers,


----------



## simgrund (27 August 2011)

ASIC moves:



> Liquidator gets that sinking feeling
> Michael Evans
> August 27, 2011
> 
> ...




Regards,


----------



## selciper (28 August 2011)

Based on the premise that bad excuses are worse than none, the forthcoming meetings will probably be designed around a structure of overbearing pride and hyperbole (“I and my team...”). That would be a risky tactic to follow in the prevailing climate.


----------



## zeva (29 August 2011)

Now that  JH has her cohorts with a big slice of PIF voting units, could this new road show of hers be to have the numbers to changes to the PIF constitution, so that she and her merry band of Robbin Hoods can take the rest of the PIF assets with little or no return to the original investors.


----------



## MAE (29 August 2011)

The below article was in Saturdays "The Bulletin" Gold Coast, 27th August, 2011

The Paper Writes, article by (Nick Nichols)

 "Wellington to Explain Surge"
A 200 per cent surge in the unit price of Wellington Capital's Premium Income Fund has triggered a "please explain" from the National Stock Exchange.
The investment's fund's units jumped from 6.6c to a high of 20c on Thursday following a series of high volume trades, including one in which 9.9 million units were traded.
The monster trade, handled by broker Camerons, was worth $1.9 million.
Camerons also handled an earlier trade for one million units totalling $200,000.
Wellington Capital has until Monday afternoon to respond to the NSX request for information it may have to explain the sudden interest in the Premium Income Fund (PIF).
Wellington managing director Jenny Hutson (pictured) (I have omitted picture) yesterday said she was unaware of any information explaining the price surge and would lodge a response with the NSX on Monday.
She said Wellington Capital was observing its obligations for market transparency.
The fund is due to deliver its financial results in September, ahead of a national roadshow to update unitholders in Sydney, Melbourne and the Gold Coast.
"Hopefully this is a step in the right direction for unitholders," Ms Hutson said of the buyers interest in the fund.
The latest round of share trades has all but absorbed standing sell order for units, with only 460,000 PIF units on offer at 25c each.
The units last traded at 17c yesterday."

As per usual Ms Hutson "knows nothing"!!


----------



## Cookie1 (29 August 2011)

NSX Disclosure 29 Aug 2011: http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724329.PDF

Craig Wallace and his Yuan Essentials Pty Ltd acquired on 25 August 2011 a further 32,651,654 PIF units @ $0.139 per unit (3.93% voting power). With the 53+million acquired last week, he now holds 10.37% voting power of all units in the PIF. 

Why would anyone in their right mind buy into the PIF unless they know something that the NSX and original investors don't know. Obviously WC and JH don't have any idea about transparency and integrity. People like this should be banned for life from ever touching anyone else's money or assets!


----------



## selciper (29 August 2011)

Can 't help asking myself whether JH has made a serious error of judgement by calling next week's meetings. Is the WC 'team" so out of touch as to believe that the audiences will silently accept craftily prepared propaganda?


----------



## Duped (29 August 2011)

According to FCA11-698 WC tried to change the PIF constitution so that new units could be issue at 90 VWAP and then 30 day VWAP.

Of course, those changes were reversed by the Federal Court of Australia.

Hutson defended WC's actions with according to the Courier Mail: 'Wellington managing director Jenny Hutson described the decision as "disappointing" and *disagreed *with the
court's interpretation of how a fund manager can implement changes to a constitution without adversely affecting investor rights.
Ms Hutson said her firm had taken "*proper and appropriate*" action to implement the rights issue after consulting with the NSX, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and its own legal counsel." [emphasis added]

Ummm ...... how does disagreeing with the Federal Court of Australia help PIF unit holders. Just costs the unit holders more money doesn't it?

Oh and IMO, WC didn't take "proper and appropriate" action. Because the Federal Court of Australia says so.

As of Friday the 30 day VWAP (volume weighted average price) stood at *18.58c*. Right?

(Interestingly those transactions of 9.8c and 10c on 27 June sit just inside a 60 day VWAP. Right?)

Prior to last Thrusday and Friday's "please explain" trading activity the 30 day VWAP was *7.32c*.

That's a spectacular jump in a little over one day. 

I also note the last trade of 460,000 units at 17c each is listed as at 4:09 pm.  I.e.  AFTER the market closed. There appears to have been trading AFTER the market closed on the Thursday as well. 

Prior to last week there'd been only 350,432 units booked as traded after 4pm. That's out of a total of 19,850,889 units traded prior to last week's spike.

What do we think? Announcement of a new placement soon? Some wash transactions?


----------



## Duped (29 August 2011)

selciper said:


> Can 't help asking myself whether JH has made a serious error of judgement by calling next week's meetings. Is the WC 'team" so out of touch as to believe that the audiences will silently accept craftily prepared propaganda?




I don't know, but from a market perspective any positive news Hutson's WC puts out does little  to affect the NSX price of the units.  But since the former RE director and secretary Craig Lewiss Wallace takes out a big stake (via Yuan Investments) the price has shot up. 

From that perspective - it suggests the markey doesn't think  much of Hutson's WC.

Wouldn't be because Hutson's TEAM can't even get the basic info about PIF right on WellCap's web pages would it?  See http://www.wellcap.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=8


----------



## Cookie1 (29 August 2011)

JH's response to the NSX: http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724330.PDF

"I know nothing...nothing". (Just like Sergeant Schultz of Hogan's Heroes.)

Jenny, when are you going to learn to tell the truth and the meaning of the words "honesty", "integrity" and "transparency"?

Obviously you think the NSX will believe your untruths you bandy about so freely; we, the investors don't believe you for a second.


----------



## JohnH (29 August 2011)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724330.PD

Ms Hutson's "answer" to the NSX.   Jenny is remarkably uninformed.  I trust that Scott Evans will delve a little deeper.

John H.


----------



## simgrund (30 August 2011)

JohnH said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724330.PD
> 
> Ms Hutson's "answer" to the NSX.   Jenny is remarkably uninformed.  I trust that Scott Evans will delve a little deeper.
> 
> John H.




Agree John. I have sent an E-mail this previous minute asking him to do just that.
Let's as many of us as we can send this message to Mr. Evans.

scott.evans@nsxa.com.au

Regards,


----------



## Jadel (30 August 2011)

selciper said:


> Can 't help asking myself whether JH has made a serious error of judgement by calling next week's meetings. Is the WC 'team" so out of touch as to believe that the audiences will silently accept craftily prepared propaganda?




Selciper 


A recent survey found that 20% of the public believe Sherlock Holmes, Miss Marple, and Black Adder are real people.

Only 8% of people change their opinion in regards  political affiliations , Tony Abbot could take off his Budgie Snugglers and go running down the street stark naked and it would not make the slightest difference in how people vote .

Therefore, the short answer to your question is yes


----------



## lawry1dog (30 August 2011)

Thanks for everyone in their efforts in getting our money back. 
Much appreciated.

I have been a unit holder since 2007 and still waiting for my redemption.

I am a system analyst and could someone verify the following figures and timeframes?

The fund has *755,032,768 *units all up at a estimated value (Dec 2010) of *34* cents each.
So that is *$256,711,141* all up value of fund.

Now WC are selling everything within 2 years, so I assume WC will pay us back 34 cents in the dollar.

But as the real estate market is going down by over 12% in some areas then I work out
we will get back, approx 30 cents in the dollar.

Of course WC will want commission and management fees, etc which could be another
10%, then we will get back, approx 26.5 cents in the dollar.

*So is my estimate of around 26 cents in the dollar, feasible in 2 years time?*


----------



## AusInCA (30 August 2011)

lawry1dog said:


> The fund has *755,032,768 *units all up at a estimated value (Dec 2010) of *34* cents each.




I don't know if your assumptions on future value are correct, but the base number of units is now incorrect.  Approximately 75 million additional units were sold in the capital raising in May. The number of units is now around 830,000,000. So if the method of calculation is correct the units will be worth less than the 26 cents you have posted.


----------



## lawry1dog (30 August 2011)

AusInCA said:


> I don't know if your assumptions on future value are correct, but the base number of units is now incorrect.  Approximately 75 million additional units were sold in the capital raising in May. The number of units is now around 830,000,000. So if the method of calculation is correct the units will be worth less than the 26 cents you have posted.




Thanks for the information, AusInCA.
I have done the figures again and estimate that it could be finally *24 cents in the dollar*.

The current fund valuation is now:-  *30.9 cents*  (if there is 830,000,000 units).


----------



## selciper (30 August 2011)

Jadel said:


> Selciper
> 
> 
> A recent survey found that 20% of the public believe Sherlock Holmes, Miss Marple, and Black Adder are real people.
> ...




Jadel - Unfortunately you are probably right. I may be a victim - again - of wishful thinking. After all, I believed that there would be serious  after-effects from the alleged stacking of the EGM. And that certainly hasn't happened up to now.


----------



## JohnH (30 August 2011)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724332.PDF

I see that our new sophisticated investor Craig has purchased another 669550 @ 16 cents.  This now gives him 10.45% voting power.  ................ and Jenny of course will have no idea why he is so interested in *our* fund.


----------



## Duped (31 August 2011)

lawry1dog said:


> ...
> 
> *So is my estimate of around 26 cents in the dollar, feasible in 2 years time?*




You probably got that figure of ~755 million units from WC's webpage http://www.wellcap.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=8

The Hutson lead WC team seam to be so incompetent and/or unprofessional that they can't get basic facts about the fund correct on this key tool for attracting investors - their web presence. 

Go to nsxa.com.au, enter PIN in market data and select 'Capital'.

There are 830,532,768 units outstanding. With a 30/12/10 total equity of $253,321,000 this gave a NTA per share of 30.91cents. *But:*

WC announced to the market on 11 July its intention to raise more capital through the issue of new shares in a new class.  See http://nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724205.PDF

So current value per unit WILL, according to WC, be further diluted.  I.e. watered down.

Also -

Hutson has recently complained about the high level of legal activity. So expect the value of PIF to be further smashed down by legal expenses which the lawyers will demand are paid for out of real $. As opposed to dilutable PIF units.

The high level of legal activity is of course WC's fault in the first place. 

WC allowed the unit price on the NSX to languish at around 1/3 of NTA for years. IMLO that's painting a HUGE target on PIF. IMLO it's hopelessly naiive of WC to expect that PIF wouldn't become the target of a takeover bid. And of course it did didn't it?

Then there was the CasCap bid to become RE. This was triggered by WC's decision to issue another 364,677,589 units. See http://nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723982.PDF. The capital raise was purely and solely WC's decision.  Again, WC would be hopelessly naiive in believing that such a massive dilution wouldn't be challenged.

WC's, IMLO, judgement is costing PIF unitholders lots of real $. WC let the NSX price languish and the inevitable takeover bid arrived via ALFPIF.  WC chose to issue a massive number of new units and the predictable challenge arose. WC chose to amend the constitution and the Federal Court (Gordon J) told WC it was wrong.

It doesn't matter what Hutson's WC thinks, their actions have lead to real $ costs to PIF unitholders.

That's just my lay perspective anyway. I bet a $100 that unit holders won't get the 14c per unit liquidation that Hutson threatened us with at the 2008 roadshow. Any taker?

And if unitholders don't get 14c then the record will show that Hutson and her team will have added absolutely no value whatsoever. (According the WC's very own figures)  I wonder how the AFR are feeling now about putting Hutson in their Boss Magazine of July 2006.  They gave her a leg up and look how that free kick is being rewarded. Or alternatively, it says something about the AFR.


----------



## Cookie1 (31 August 2011)

JohnH said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724332.PDF
> 
> I see that our new sophisticated investor Craig has purchased another 669550 @ 16 cents.  This now gives him 10.45% voting power.  ................ and Jenny of course will have no idea why he is so interested in *our* fund.




http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724338.PDF

Add to that another 195,969 units at $0.1936 per unit purchased by Craig for 10.47% voting power reported today on the NSX. His holding is now 87,015,973 units.


----------



## k.smith (31 August 2011)

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/08/30/345031_gold-coast-business.html#comment

''...BETWEEN G8 Education and S8, Chris Scott has been involved in 50 acquisitions -- but he says the takeover of Singapore childcare group Cherie Hearts has been the worst....''

sounds messy...


----------



## Jadel (31 August 2011)

Duped said:


> You probably got that figure of ~755 million units from WC's webpage http://www.wellcap.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=8
> 
> The Hutson lead WC team seam to be so incompetent and/or unprofessional that they can't get basic facts about the fund correct on this key tool for attracting investors - their web presence.
> 
> ...





Duped
Also keep in mind that we have some  massive litigation  currently underway against the Fund 

Please  check your private message box


----------



## Duped (31 August 2011)

Jadel said:


> Duped
> Also keep in mind that we have some  massive litigation  currently underway against the Fund
> 
> Please  check your private message box




Sorry.  Let me clarify that: I bet a $100 that unit holders  won't get the 14c per unit liquidation that Hutson threatened us with at  the 2008 roadshow if WC remains at the helm and manages PIF as it has stated it will. Any Taker.


----------



## selciper (31 August 2011)

Article from this afternoon's SMH by Michael West about the scales of justice - literally. Note the email address at the bottom of the page entitled "invstigations".

http://www.smh.com.au/business/centro-sentence-a-crying-shame-20110831-1jlfk.html


----------



## charles36 (31 August 2011)

Duped said:


> Sorry.  Let me clarify that: I bet a $100 that unit holders  won't get the 14c per unit liquidation that Hutson threatened us with at  the 2008 roadshow if WC remains at the helm and manages PIF as it has stated it will. Any Taker.




Don't you wish you had Wellington Capital working for the unit holders.  When asked at recent Court proceedings the Manager of WC said she was keen to keep the position of RE because of the 30 staff employed by Wellington Capital.  Very gracious indeed.  So there you have it on oath, unit holders do not rate.


----------



## lawry1dog (1 September 2011)

Sorry about my future calculation of the Unit Price in 2 years time.

Seems the figures are not realistic.

The current fund's worth is:-  *$253,321,000*

I calculate that the fund will be worth in 2 years time :- *$25,332,100*
This after from history, properties have been sold at average half the original cost.
And also WC will probably want 20% for management, staff, legals, etc..

So that is $253,321,000 divided by 2 = $126,660,500
And take off 20% = $126,660,500 / 5  =  $25,332,100

Now there are 830,532,768 unit holders, so the final unit price to paid out
will be:- $25,332,100 / 830,532,768  =  *3 cents* in the dollar.


Can someone verify these calculations?


----------



## Duped (1 September 2011)

lawry1dog

Your calcs indicate WC's 20% cut will amount to 3c per unit. Returns by your calcs would be ($126,660,500 -  $25,332,100)/830,532,768 = 12c in the dollar.

Cheers.


----------



## lawry1dog (1 September 2011)

You are right Duped, my calculation was wrong.

Depends what amount you take the 20% off.
Say it comes off the current value ($253,321,000), then the calculation will be:-

*$126,660,500 - $50,664,200 / 830,532,768  =  9 cents*

Which seems to compare to the NSX value for most of this year.

Any news about the Class Action?


----------



## Cookie1 (1 September 2011)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724345.PDF

Craig Wallace (Yuan Essentials) has acquired a further 1,500,087 units in the PIF at $0.199 per unit and now holds 10.65% voting power in the fund.


----------



## JohnH (1 September 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724345.PDF
> 
> Craig Wallace (Yuan Essentials) has acquired a further 1,500,087 units in the PIF at $0.199 per unit and now holds 10.65% voting power in the fund.



.................... and of course, our illustrious bleeder will still have no knowledge why there is so much interest in our fund.   How naive does she think we are??      .. JohnH


----------



## Cookie1 (1 September 2011)

JohnH said:


> .................... and of course, our illustrious bleeder will still have no knowledge why there is so much interest in our fund.   How naive does she think we are??      .. JohnH




Obviously just as naive as she thinks the NSX is.... The NSX believes her, but we know better!


----------



## Duped (2 September 2011)

IMLO all this NSX trading lately defies open market logic and common sense. Many of those big sales at highly elevated prices like 20c are 'flash trades'.  I.e. neither the seller or the buyer puts in an offer or a bid for any perceptible period of time. There's no bid/offer activity for ages and then, BANG, one of these monster trades go through.

Is this what Wallace's Yuan Essentails would do if it wanted to influence the price while only buy from a specific seller.  I wonder who it is?

Who's running the shadow market? If it's a broker firm then I wouldn't want to go anywhere near them. Because if they're running a shadow market aren't they the sort of firm that's more likely to trade against their clients?

I mean why bother going through the cost of transfering the units via the NSX? To influence the price? I mean PIF units can be transferred off market can't they?  Just fill in an off market transfer form. No need to advertise what you pay.  No need to pay broker fees, Assuming any such off market transactions aren't recorded on the NSX then these flash transactions defy common sense.

Day before yesterday we had 1million+ units trade at 20c.  And now that seller of 9440 units can't even get 9c. That seller has been gradually dropping their offer price for over a day now. Shouldn't that have triggered another 'please explain' from the NSX? The price is bouncing all over the place. Over in the proper market, the ASX, But over here on the NSX the PIF price can bounce up and down by 100% and the NSX does .... nothing.

Why does WC expose our units to this illogical market mechanism? With an ex Director right there in the thick of it.  Isn't WC simply exposing us Mum & Dad investors to the tricks of the sophisticated investors?


----------



## Duped (2 September 2011)

My second last para should read:


Day before yesterday we had 1million+ units trade at 20c.  And now that  seller of 9440 units can't even get 9c. That seller has been gradually  dropping their offer price for over a day now. Shouldn't that have  triggered another 'please explain' from the NSX? The price is bouncing  all over the place. Over in the proper market, the ASX, BOW's price only  jumped 60% on new of a takeover offer and it got reported on the  evening news. But over here on the NSX the PIF price can bounce up and  down by 100% and the NSX does .... nothing.


----------



## selciper (2 September 2011)

Hearing on the radio news how two countries were avoiding formal, public negotiations and choosing instead to "back-channel", I was reminded that back-channeling wasn't restricted to the field of diplomacy...


----------



## simgrund (3 September 2011)

Some more on the Lottery of Justice in Australia:



> Rough justice proof of two-speed system
> September 3, 2011  Rough justice proof of two-speed system
> 
> 
> ...




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/roug...peed-system-20110902-1jpsb.html#ixzz1WpxDody1


----------



## Jadel (4 September 2011)

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
    I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.  If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive 
the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.


----------



## selciper (4 September 2011)

What the WC team are probably about to do.

http://www.effectivemeetings.com/presenting/preparation/ps.asp.


----------



## simgrund (4 September 2011)

selciper said:


> What the WC team are probably about to do.
> 
> http://www.effectivemeetings.com/presenting/preparation/ps.asp.




Instructive Selciper.
And perhaps digesting latest escapes by fellow clubbers!?!@??



> Off the hook, with barely a slap
> September 3, 2011
> 
> Michael West
> ...




Justice Middleton; Justice Dowsett; etc, etc,


----------



## selciper (4 September 2011)

Simgrund - the name of the newest art form nowadays is escapology. Here's a guide to handling a Q and A session for CEOs etc. An audience member should always watch the roving microphone and to whom it is offered..

http://www.effectivemeetings.com/presenting/preparation/qa.asp


----------



## simgrund (4 September 2011)

selciper said:


> Simgrund - the name of the newest art form nowadays is escapology. Here's a guide to handling a Q and A session for CEOs etc. An audience member should always watch the roving microphone and to whom it is offered..
> 
> http://www.effectivemeetings.com/presenting/preparation/qa.asp




HA - HA; looks like you've garnered the entire shipping container of this resource and will be feeding us mercilessly these juicy tid-bits mirth by mirth till these briefing meetings are over.
Looking forward to mine this coming 8th as will combine the outing with a little R&R in Nerang. 
Cheers selciper,


----------



## k.smith (5 September 2011)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...um-in-payout-bid/story-e6frg9jf-1226129264123

''............ASIC, meanwhile, has been taking obvious interest in the adventures of the Premium Income Fund since 2008, when it staged a legal challenge to Wellington's bid to be installed as responsible entity on the basis that unitholders were not adequately informed about the fund in August 2008, when the first date for the unitholder vote was set. The meeting, at which Wellington was voted in, did end up occurring in late September 2008....''


----------



## selciper (5 September 2011)

Just as John Cleese famously blamed everything that went wrong on "the war", expect JH to blame everything on "the GFC". It's unlikely that today's timely spread in the Australian brought smiles to the WC board members' faces.


----------



## Duped (5 September 2011)

selciper said:


> Just as John Cleese famously blamed everything that went wrong on "the war", expect JH to blame everything on "the GFC". It's unlikely that today's timely spread in the Australian brought smiles to the WC board members' faces.




Steven Keen's warnings unfortunately appear to be playing out. Prperty prices are dropping around the country according to the press. Yes Keen took the walk to Kosciusko. But was he forced to concede by our Federal institutions stepping into prop up the market.  Who dare disagree we had a massive stimulus to shield the Australian economy. 

So why didn't WC take the opportunity to exit the market back then? The current "sideways" moving property market is no surprise to many. What does PIF pay WC for? Has WC's decisions resulted in PIF failing to sell when the selling was good?


----------



## Duped (5 September 2011)

Another 'Please Explain' from the NSX.
http://nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724353.PDF


----------



## selciper (5 September 2011)

Duped said:


> Another 'Please Explain' from the NSX.
> http://nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724353.PDF




Somehow, it's not exactly WC's day. May there be more like this one to come.


----------



## Towbar (5 September 2011)

selciper said:


> Somehow, it's not exactly WC's day. May there be more like this one to come.




Towbar I await to hear Jenny Hutsons answer to the NSX latest "Please explain !!
I will be making time to go to the Gold Coast Briefing,are there any other PIFAG 
Members from North NSW & Sothern Queensland attending"?


----------



## MAE (6 September 2011)

Towbar said:


> Towbar I await to hear Jenny Hutsons answer to the NSX latest "Please explain !!
> I will be making time to go to the Gold Coast Briefing,are there any other PIFAG
> Members from North NSW & Sothern Queensland attending"?




Yes we will be attending the meeting on the Gold Coast!!!!!


----------



## JohnH (6 September 2011)

Me too! I will be attending Gold Coast.  -  Mae, do you want to meet up before hand??


----------



## Duped (6 September 2011)

Towbar said:


> Towbar I await to hear Jenny Hutsons answer to the NSX latest "Please explain !!
> I will be making time to go to the Gold Coast Briefing,are there any other PIFAG
> Members from North NSW & Sothern Queensland attending"?




It's probably a bit unfair of me to call the NSX notice a 'please explain'. It's more like the 'anything you want to tell me' routine that a teachers use.  Really only a crude, toe in the water line of attack and only effective against those that are most fearful of being sued. 

Any listed entity that knows their stuff will provide the standard response as WC did.  And then there's entities run by lawyers. Like WC. They really know the deal.  They really know how far to push.  They know all the different shades of gray so can venture deep into the gray area with confidence. 

So I don't hold out much hope for these NSX Price Queries helping unit holders much.


----------



## simgrund (6 September 2011)

Towbar said:


> Towbar I await to hear Jenny Hutsons answer to the NSX latest "Please explain !!
> I will be making time to go to the Gold Coast Briefing,are there any other PIFAG
> Members from North NSW & Sothern Queensland attending"?




Hi Towbar and John H,

I am turning up. Happy to see you and others there.

Cheers,


----------



## JohnH (6 September 2011)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724354.PDF

Our illustrious bleeder has re-written the Constitution!!!


----------



## MAE (6 September 2011)

JohnH said:


> Me too! I will be attending Gold Coast.  -  Mae, do you want to meet up before hand??




Hi John H, yes we would love too, send me a private message if you like and let me know what time etc.


----------



## Duped (6 September 2011)

JohnH said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724354.PDF
> 
> Our illustrious bleeder has re-written the Constitution!!!




As per usual WC has made it non-text searchable.  Why? Hmmmm what's WC up to now? Good governance?  That's a questionable reason considering the WellCap webpage (http://www.wellcap.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=8) STILL lists the incorrect number of units.


----------



## JohnH (6 September 2011)

Powerpoint presentation for the meetings  http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724356.PDF

Preliminary financial report
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724355.PDF

At least Melbourne and Gold Coast will have chance to look it through!!


----------



## JohnH (6 September 2011)

Duped said:


> It's probably a bit unfair of me to call the NSX notice a 'please explain'. It's more like the 'anything you want to tell me' routine that a teachers use.  Really only a crude, toe in the water line of attack and only effective against those that are most fearful of being sued.
> 
> *Any listed entity that knows their stuff will provide the standard response as WC did.  And then there's entities run by lawyers.* Like WC. They really know the deal.  They really know how far to push.  They know all the different shades of gray so can venture deep into the gray area with confidence.
> 
> So I don't hold out much hope for these NSX Price Queries helping unit holders much.




Spot on Duped!!     http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724357.PDF


----------



## Duped (6 September 2011)

JohnH said:


> Powerpoint presentation for the meetings  http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724356.PDF
> 
> Preliminary financial report
> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724355.PDF
> ...




 [FONT=&quot]Page 6 of WC's presentation states "No further capital raising". Well that's a big back flip from WC's NSX announcement of 11 July isn't it? Will WC back flip again just as soon?

In brief: 
Net Assets dropped another $31,475,000.
A net $7,551,000 of that went to unitholders.
So unitholders have lost another $23,924,000 under WC's management. 
I.e. 10.6% of Net Assets in one year under WC.


Check out what's been happening under the title 'Current Liabilities - 3.9 Trade and other payables'. It's never been anywhere this high under WC:

at 31 December 2008 - $4.688 million
at 30 June 2009 - $1.993 million
at 31 December 2009 - $5.009 million
at 30 June 2010 - $5.6778 million
at 31 December 2010 - $2.189 million
at 30 June 2011 - *$8.503 million*[/FONT]


----------



## JohnH (6 September 2011)

....... any news from anyone who attended the Sydney exercise?


----------



## atlas1950 (6 September 2011)

Hi all,

Just back from the meeting. Saw Breakeri1 there. I would guesstimate about 250 people in the auditorium. Lots of security. Yes, she did wear the infamous red jacket.

Points she touched on: 1) Emphasis will now be made on return of capital, after hearing what investors wanted. Has about $51million  of conditional contracts, and if they proceed, this money will be returned to us. So she says. Has another $120 million worth of security to hit the markets as well.

                                 2) There are 3 areas of litigation which could prove fruitful for investors.a) Class action. b) ASIC suing for $145 million and c) Bentleys recovering $200 million from Octavior. Any proceeds from any or all litigation will be returned to shareholders, who held shares at the time.

Her presentation was slick,and professional. Let us hope that she keeps her promises.

Atlas1950


----------



## JohnH (6 September 2011)

atlas1950 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Just back from the meeting. Saw Breakeri1 there. I would guesstimate about 250 people in the auditorium. Lots of security. Yes, she did wear the infamous red jacket.
> 
> ...



 Thanks Atlas,  How did she respond to curly questions??  Or did she not permit any?


----------



## atlas1950 (6 September 2011)

Hi all,

She was saying things that people wanted to hear. But will see carry it thru.????????Breaker1 was cut short and later was refused a second question. I was surprised a lawyer from Ebsworth (the firm assisting IMF with our CA) was the moderator.

She spoke for about 90 minutes and the investors were very civil during her presentation. After that we had a coffee break for 30 minutes, then a Q&A.

She kept emphasizing "a return of capital once settlements takes place". She was referring to the conditional contracts she has in place. 

Michael


----------



## Duped (7 September 2011)

atlas1950 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Just back from the meeting. Saw Breakeri1 there. I would guesstimate about 250 people in the auditorium. Lots of security. Yes, she did wear the infamous red jacket.
> 
> ...




I.e. building up unitholders hopes?  Exactly what she did that 3 years ago. Why wouldn't she, it worked last time on us dopes.

Seems like she's just throwing lots of big numbers around with little attention to the likelihood of actually getting close to those numbers.

Is it just me or didn't the 'Forum Presentation' seem a bit desperate to get the word 'million' next to each $ amount.  Like on page 27 "$0.25 million". 

This is supposed to be a $225 MILLION fund.  So why are contracts of $250K getting so much air time. Seems like a filler to fill a  void or distract. Spin? Compared that number to the Outstanding Liabilities 'Trade and other Payables' of $8.5 million.  A number 34 times bigger.  How much attention did she give to that LIABILITY given that it will take the sale of 34 such $250K properties to cover that LIABILITY?

How would the unit value look in such nomenclature:

Net Assets Per Unit $0.00000027 million per unit

Thanks for the post atlas1950


----------



## Duped (7 September 2011)

*Jenny Hutson defends Premium Income Fund trustee performance                              *



                                 Andrew Main
                             From:                                          The Australian
                                 September 07, 2011                                 12:00AM
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...stee-performance/story-fn91wd6x-1226130886099

C'mon Australian media.  Pick up your game. The units traded at 20c - not 2c.

If the media did some more research on PIF then perhaps these articles might start using phrases like 'She alleges' or 'She claims' rather than 'She said' or 'Hutson has argued'. And the media can get all the info right here on this forum if they could be bothered. Counter positions to what Hutson claims are all here in the one spot.

Yes we know that WC or Hutson or PIF or whatever didn't rent the crowd.  We also know that Hutson is a highly acclaimed lawyer. Youngest ever partner of her old firm right? And we know that a lawyer's job is to know how long your arm needs to make things at 'arms length'. 

Hutson was involved with the stacking of the meeting (rent a crowd). After all, she did address the rent a crowd right? 

*Hutson, why did you address the rent a crowd?*

Last night I enjoyed watching the UK committee of MPs interview the News Execs.  It's nice to watch how the UK operates.  Not like this copy of the UK system we call Australia. That's certainly not the insipid interrogation PIF's REs have received over here by our institutions. Including our Fourth Estate. We certainly are a copy.  Not like the original.


----------



## selciper (7 September 2011)

A thought or two about today's Australian report on the Sydney meeting: Andrew Main is quite senior as a business writer. He is also heard often on ABC 702. So, it's surprising that he made a mistake with the share prices. I found it interesting that he used direct quotes from the gathering. How did he obtain the exact spoken words? At least the Australian is keeping a file on PIF, but their reports can hardly be classified as investigative. Their lack of follow-up on the "extras' hiring" has been disappointing.


----------



## Duped (7 September 2011)

Ahhh.  Now we're getting somewhere.

*                     Raise funds from Peter to pay Paul                 *

*                 Scott Rochfort             *

     September 7, 2011


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/raise-funds-from-peter-to-pay-paul-20110906-1jw09.html#ixzz1XE908HDF

The question remains? But why did Hutson address that group of investors when the PIF constitution requires all unitholders be treated equally?


----------



## selciper (7 September 2011)

In my last post I meant to mention that Hutson's use of the GFC as an excuse for failure was entirely predictable. Lehman Brothers collapsed around 15th September 08.


----------



## MAE (7 September 2011)

I will be at the meeting tomorrow on the Gold Coast.  I hope Hutson doesn't bore me and probably everybody else with a list of her previous accomplishments.  

I hope we can get straight to the point which is the Premium Income Fund and trust that she will have proper answers to questions no doubt being repeated in Sydney and Melbourne.

For Example:

Hutson's most recent accomplishment an asset drop of 28 million dollars in two months!!

In the words of the NSX "Please Explain"


----------



## Duped (7 September 2011)

Here's the AFR's latest effort:

http://www.bizreview.com.au/p/busin...ss_faces_investor_heat_2YrSTL48Fa60dhivg2N4KI


----------



## JohnH (7 September 2011)

....... anybody out there with results from the Melbourne meeting???


----------



## selciper (7 September 2011)

Duped said:


> Ahhh.  Now we're getting somewhere.
> 
> *                     Raise funds from Peter to pay Paul                 *
> 
> ...



The SMH CBD coverage of the Sydney meeting certainly has more teeth to it than the Australian's tepid offering. What we need to find is a bright, resourceful and ambitious journalist who might investigate our problems in the hope that his/her efforts could be rewarded with a Walkley recognition. Unfortunately "Crikey" seems to have lost its early verve, but a new well-funded online Australian publication, "The Global Mail", will hit our screens early next year. Monica Attard, ex-ABC will be in charge.


----------



## reasonable (7 September 2011)

There were probably 200-250 people at the meeting today.  Its difficult to say with so many bodyguards around.  

She came across very well posing many of the questions in the presentation but answering her own questions to her advantage.  Gave a detailed run down on the position of each investment and the forward strategy. The main point is that overall  this is to wind up the fund and return what cash is left within 2 years but to continue managing beyond until all resolved..  She was very credible as she was 3 years ago.
Most of theaudience’sfollowing questions were alredy answered in her presentation and asked by those who either missed that, did not understand it or wanted further clarrification.

There was only one question/statement at the end about the fact that she had not delivered a single objcective from her statements to gain support to be RE 3 years ago.  On being pressed she actually appologised for this.


----------



## Duped (7 September 2011)

Duped said:


> Ahhh.  Now we're getting somewhere.
> 
> *                     Raise funds from Peter to pay Paul                 *
> 
> ...




Something I've mentioned before is how WC quietly dropped the business plan it had spruiked until early this year.  That plan was to return the fund to the benchmark asset allocation.

The plan is all now - return capital to unitholders.  I.e. a liquidation.  I.e. a winding down of the fund.  Same sort of financial acrobatics (back flipping) WC has been doing in regard to capital raising.

Scott Rochford's article quotes Hutson "With 10,000 investors in the fund, we have the full spectrum of need and investment profile."

I ask: really? Prove it. I suspect you couldn't find a listed entity in Australia like PIF with 10K+ investors that has a more homogenous lot of investors. Hutson's response sounds like absolute BS actually.

Yeah, some of us may want the long term rebalancing of assets business plan.  But very probably only because that's what WC lead us to believe could be achieved. In which case the only diversity amongst the investors is really those who have faith in WC and those who don't.


----------



## simgrund (7 September 2011)

From Andrew Main article in the Australian 5 September 2011:
Justice as dispensed by Justice Dowsett: 


> There's a clue to the level of tension between some unitholders and Wellington in the almost unprecedented episode in June when 200 extras were hired by a supporter of Hutson and told to vote in her favour at a Sydney meeting called tFrom the Andrew MAinot voting and in July, Hutson told judge John Dowsett of the Federal Court in Brisbane that she had "no idea" about the 200 extras and had had nothing to do with their each being granted 1000 units in the fund in order to vote.
> 
> Meanwhile, the registration of their holdings was backdated by a day to satisfy the NSW law that investors must have held units in an entity for 48 hours before they can vote at meetings.
> 
> ...




"possible irregularity on the register"???; not to be pursued by this judge.
Still dumbfounded. 
Off to GC to hear what I already know from Sydney and Melbourne collegues.
Regards,


----------



## Duped (8 September 2011)

simgrund said:


> From Andrew Main article in the Australian 5 September 2011:
> Justice as dispensed by Justice Dowsett:
> 
> 
> ...




Exactly simgrund.

"Possible irregularity on the Register"
Hired actors/students supporting Hutson
Hutson choosing to address the rent a crowd.
Back flip on regular distributions
Back flip on buy back
Incorrect 2008 tax statement
WellCap web page error about the fund
Hutson's vested interest in Armstrong
Hutson's vested interest in Print Mail Logistics (?)
Incorrect decision to amend constitution
Incorrect information in Investor Update
Dilution of PIF units
Attempt to dilute PIF units even further
Flip flopping on capital raising.
Back flipping on the business plan.
Flip flopping on the Class Action
Flip flopping on holding a GM to vote on RE
Continuous losses year after year
etc?


All not illegal.  What difference does that make.  This is business. Business is about confidence.
IMLO:
Hutson's conduct is making PIF a laughing stock.  
Hutson's conduct is painting ENTER WITH CAUTION all over the PIF units.  
Hutson's conduct is turning PIF units toxic. 
No wonder the unit price is at a massive discount to NTA (painting a huge TakeOver target on PIF).

What a joke.  This isn't how a successful $200M+ enterprise is run is it?  This is how I'd run a cult or a fan club. Or if I was running PIF to benefit someone else.  Y'know like those 'sophisticated investors'.  Whose units ended up in Craig Wallace' hands. In normal publicly listed enterprises the Head, the CEO, would be gone by now wouldn't it?

For those of us who still support WC in the face of WC's overwealming failure to lead and deliver: NO WONDER YOU'VE LOST SO MUCH MONEY. Enjoying the roadshow?  Making you feel better about your decisions?  

WC must resign.  

If not then, 14c: here we come. If Hutson said in 2008 '14c now or 14c by 5 years' how would you have voted. Think about it WC supporters: if you only end up with 14c then what value has WC added.  All you will have achieved is to reward WC's conduct.

*Third loss in a row puts PIF on notice                              *



                                 Anthony Marx
                             From:                                          The Courier-Mail
                                 September 08, 2011                                 12:00AM
http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/...ts-pif-on-notice/story-fn6ck2gb-1226131723270

" ... Critics have alleged Wellington attempted to stack an investor meeting  in Sydney with up to 200 hired actors provided with free shares but Ms  Hutson has denied any involvement in the aborted scheme. ..."

Um that's completely wrong. Hutson WAS INVOLVED with the attempt to stack the July meeting.  Hutson chose to address them.  That's involvement in my opinion.


----------



## simgrund (8 September 2011)

Duped said:


> Exactly simgrund.
> 
> "Possible irregularity of the Register"
> Hired actors/students supporting Hutson
> ...




That's it Duped!
Herein lies PIF tragedy in that J Dowsett's job was to follow the thread of ...hired mob; predated registration; scrutiny of 2 Registers (to name 3 of the most obvious irregularities) and nail them in court. 
He failed miserably in these public duties.
We should be screeming about this ad noseaum because if ever there was a case of "we wus robbed" this is it.
Bear with my repetition. But this judgement should be thrown out and Court's credibility restored by other Justices with  true grasp of common sense.

So dumbfounded I remain, yet grateful for your pin-point clarity.
Cheers,


----------



## selciper (8 September 2011)

The G8-Cherie Hearts hearing is underway in Singapore.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1151702/1/.html


----------



## selciper (8 September 2011)

From the US "Audit Directory" - irrefularity and fraud.

http://www.auditing.uidaho.edu/default.aspx?pid=79191


----------



## Duped (8 September 2011)

selciper said:


> From the US "Audit Directory" - irrefularity and fraud.
> 
> http://www.auditing.uidaho.edu/default.aspx?pid=79191




For a laugh have a look at Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

Put at the front of your mind ALP Branch Stacking, Craig Thomson and the Fitzgerald Inquiry and then have a look at the countries we rate ourselves above.


----------



## JohnH (8 September 2011)

Just returned from the Gold Coast Meeting.   Sounds like much the same as the other two.  About 300 attendees and (surprisingly) JH seemed to have a lot of support.  I don't think they were rent a crowd as the age bracket was mid 70s. 
She gave her usual (if somewhat nervous) presentation, pre-empting most of the anticipated curly questions. 
This was reflected when I was permitted to ask "that as it has just been announced that a further $31 million of our money has been lost in the last financial year, would she confirm that if and when we receive the third promised one cent a unit, due to this non performance  Wellington will not be taking a fee as she (personally)  promised at the meeting here prior to us appointing  her in 2008?"
She quickly came back with the answer that what she had said was that if she was dismissed as RE for non-performance she would not take the 2% fee, and that still stood.  However, she would start paying the .7% when the next 1 cent distribution took place.  She received a round of applause for this response!! - have to grudgingly admit that she is good.
There was a couple of questions about Craig Wallace, and she responded in the same way as reported from Sydney.  Most of the other questions did seem like ring-ins and were mainly re-affirming all the good she had done.   
I left after the second break, as I really didn't think anything else constructive would be asked or responded to.


----------



## MAE (8 September 2011)

Have just returned from the Gold Coast meeting.  Similar to Sydney and Melbourne, the Grey Army which is fast becoming the White Army were frisked with Metal Detectors on entering.  My guess is they were looking for "weapons of mass destruction, nunchucks, knuckle dusters, flick knives etc." None of which were found!!

We had the same boring format and list of promises.  Someone was called to order over the jovial reply to the Red Jacket shoulder charging incident in Sydney.

June 23 questions for Jenny Hutson seemed to invoke her darkest hour.

One question from the floor was about something on the lines of any remnants left could they be forwarded on in her will!!!! (chuckle chuckle)

I was not at the meeting three years ago, but talking to people today it seems to be a repeat of promises that were never fulfilled.

"Fool me once, shame on you!  Fool me twice, shame on me"

I had the foresight to not invest $10.00 in hearing the JH promises at the Gold Coast Convention Centre, I instead parked for free at the Casino carpark (Casino pokies are set for a better investment return!)

On a serious note, talking to people today, I wish more people knew about the Stock Forum.  Obviously a lot of these people rely on their information from the newspapers.


----------



## Duped (8 September 2011)

JohnH said:


> Just returned from the Gold Coast Meeting.   ....
> She quickly came back with the answer that what she had said was that if she was dismissed as RE for non-performance she would not take the 2% fee, and that still stood.....




Thanks JohnH.

I fear that a warm feeling is all that unitholders will probably ever gain from that commitment by Hutson IMLO.

Remember that Hutson disagrees with Justice Gordon's decision to dis-allow WC's amendment of the constitution. She's got form on legal interpretation

So isn't this how it could probably play out?

WC would keep enough $ in a PIF account to cover the 2% payout.
Hutson perpetually claims WC has performed well in the light of the mess it inherited and the GFC.
Hutson claims WC is entitled to the 2% payout.
The instant the results of the vote are announced, instructions are sent to transfer the 2% out of PIF's account into WC's account. (And then to who knows where?)
WC is still registered as RE with ASIC so is not prohibited by law to transact PIF's assets. (?)
Hence Perpetual is powerless to stop WC withdrawing the 2% payout from PIF's account. (?)
WC says: if you want the money back you'll need to convince a Judge that WC didn't perform so I guees I'll see you in court.
That's when the bucket of cold water hits investors in the face.

Fanciful?

Possession is nine tenths of the law; innit?  I.e. If one wants to ask a Court to use its powers to issue orders to take property away from a person then the Judge is going to want to be jolly sure his/her Court is not going to use those powers to cause injustice. 

E.g. Dowsett J ruled "I conclude that for the meeting to proceed would, or *may *cause injustice to unit holders which I could not remedy by any order". [emphasis added]
Meanwhile the holder of the asset can behave anyway they wish because they're not the one that has to convince the judge.

If the burden of proof is on unitholders.  This is a huge disadvantage. Isn't that how it works? Anyone disagree?

Fighting over the burden of proof is high stakes. For good reason.

By coincidence the High Court found in favour of Momcilovic just today.  Momcilovic challenged the interpretation of S 5 of the Drugs Act which said something along the lines of: if the drugs are in your house the prosecutor no longer needs to prove they are yours.  You now have to prove they are not yours. The Attorney General of Victoria lost.

See http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/34.html

Just about every State Solicitor General got involved.


----------



## selciper (8 September 2011)

Most members of secretive cults are taught that adhering to certain disciplines will make them superior human beings. The aim is usually to aspire to a state of higher awareness. Many such groups  would regard the average citizen walking in the street as being "asleep" (a zombie). That is, non-members of the cult are drifting through life with dulled mental faculties, dreaming away their valuable time. They are programed like obedient robots.  Handy knowledge, if it's correct, to use at critical times.

I remember a book title by Barry Jones. It was called "Sleepers Awake!"


----------



## Towbar (8 September 2011)

Towbar,Have just returned from "briefing on Gold Coast,some 300plus unitholders were in attendence,mostlly "grey nomads".Jh performance was slick.She wore the same Red Jacket,some sarcastic remarks from the audience.Each asset & security was discussed at some length, as per presentation.NO MORE CAPITAL RAISING!!& ALL MONIES AS THEY CAME TO HAND would be returned to pre 2008 investors.She spoke at some length about the Sydney EGM,& THAT SHE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THE 200 actors
At Question time some one wanted to know where the fund would be in 10years, her reply was"a very distant memory!! Anothere question was about the loss of 34.48 million in the last finanacial report, she didnt reply to it . Spoke to people around me, they knew nothing about the" Aussie Forum"They got all their info from the papers


----------



## Jadel (8 September 2011)

Towbar said:


> Towbar,Have just returned from "briefing on Gold Coast,some 300plus unitholders were in attendence,mostlly "grey nomads".Jh performance was slick.She wore the same Red Jacket,some sarcastic remarks from the audience.Each asset & security was discussed at some length, as per presentation.NO MORE CAPITAL RAISING!!& ALL MONIES AS THEY CAME TO HAND would be returned to pre 2008 investors.She spoke at some length about the Sydney EGM,& THAT SHE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THE 200 actors
> At Question time some one wanted to know where the fund would be in 10years, her reply was"a very distant memory!! Anothere question was about the loss of 34.48 million in the last finanacial report, she didnt reply to it . Spoke to people around me, they knew nothing about the" Aussie Forum"They got all their info from the papers




Thanks Mae, John and Towbar 

 What comes across is that the great majority of investors simply do not understand 
 what has actually happened to our Fund.

The fact that people would actually applaud someone ,who was cynically prepared to devalue their assets by 30% to save her skin ,  and is now prepared to take a 2% fee after abysmal non-performance  ,is very sad.

Of course, a wind up scenario was always going to be attractive to an investor group predominantly over the age of 73. 

Unfortunately, it has taken three years and many  millions of dollars in unnecessary expenses for Jenny H to finally come to this conclusion.


----------



## MAE (9 September 2011)

Jadel said:


> Thanks Mae, John and Towbar
> 
> What comes across is that the great majority of investors simply do not understand
> what has actually happened to our Fund.
> ...




Jadel, we were shocked to see so many people clapping, this to us clearly meant that the people in the room were none the wiser of what has been happening.

Definition of APPLAUD
intransitive verb

: to express approval especially by clapping the hands 

transitive verb
1
: to express approval of : praise <applaud her efforts> 
2
: to show approval of especially by clapping the hands


----------



## elizaman (9 September 2011)

Hi all.  Have been reading all the threads. Can't help but write something, sorry to some in advance.
JH states that WC will not take their fee if removed as RE. The answer to nearly everyone of the posts is right there. The constant posting of the same points is (in my opinion ) is just a waste of time. Individually we cannot do anything and are quite powerless. JH knows this and wrongly or rightly uses this to her advantage. The PIFAG was set up for the collective gathering of us all to counteract some or all of the antics/tactic not too mention some committee that was set up back in 2008 that I've never heard from.
I know this will not go over to well but PIFAG has to take some responsibility albeit not for any financial losses we have had to accept. That clearly belongs to WC. But some of us did put our faith in PIFAG and I know they have worked hard and for no short term compensation but have clearly failed to date in removing WC as the RE. Now this could be from poor legal advice as it appears that most issues did not get judged in our favor but the processes and the potential tactics of the defendant were mostly known. 
Based upon some of the recent posts it is unclear whether a large percentage of the 10k investors were on board as well although it probably depends on which register was used I guess.
Basically I would like to know what is actually being done by PIFAG in response to all of these meetings along with the continual reporting of the same issues that have always been in place and acted upon by WC. If there is nothing that can be done than let's move on and we'll just go down the WC road. As I mentioned, individually we can do nothing other than complain which is okay a couple of times but continually on the same topics for a lengthy period of time is just not healthy as much as that is hard to swallow. As I have stated a number of times both on this forum and in private messages I will help where in can although I certainly do not have the financial or techincal knowledge of most on this forum, I will help where I can. I have pretty much written off my 300k, but do know that ACTION can only be taken as a group. 
With respect to all


----------



## simgrund (9 September 2011)

elizaman said:


> Hi all.  Have been reading all the threads. Can't help but write something, sorry to some in advance.
> JH states that WC will not take their fee if removed as RE. The answer to nearly everyone of the posts is right there. The constant posting of the same points is (in my opinion ) is just a waste of time. Individually we cannot do anything and are quite powerless. JH knows this and wrongly or rightly uses this to her advantage. The PIFAG was set up for the collective gathering of us all to counteract some or all of the antics/tactic not too mention some committee that was set up back in 2008 that I've never heard from.
> I know this will not go over to well but PIFAG has to take some responsibility albeit not for any financial losses we have had to accept. That clearly belongs to WC. But some of us did put our faith in PIFAG and I know they have worked hard and for no short term compensation but have clearly failed to date in removing WC as the RE. Now this could be from poor legal advice as it appears that most issues did not get judged in our favor but the processes and the potential tactics of the defendant were mostly known.
> Based upon some of the recent posts it is unclear whether a large percentage of the 10k investors were on board as well although it probably depends on which register was used I guess.
> ...




Hi elizaman,
I am very saddened to read your post.
We are all disillusioned in different shades of justice not served.
PIFAG came closest to improve our situation with bringing up dates for crucial meetings.
PIFAG always clarified their position as not being legally qualified but acting in the role of facilitator to our combined concerns.
Let us be very clear here: it is the Australian Legal and Supervisory systems that failed us. You will hear this from hundreds of thousands of victims in other disasters brought upon them by deliberate negligence of supervisory roles and obligations. 
Justice Dowsett's cop out of his obligations is the most recent example of this let down.
This is where the blame lies.
My hopes now lie with the class action.
And Justice at the end of this Rainbow?
We sincerely hope.
Regards,


----------



## selciper (9 September 2011)

We have suffered major setbcks recently. The PIFAG will, I hope, remain tenacious. There's always the (slim) chance that an ASIC officer will take his feet off the desk and do something useful. The Singapore finding-to-come will be interesting to hear.


----------



## Duped (9 September 2011)

Elizaman.  Thanks for your post. Posting on this thread isn't complaining as some people like to believe.  It's for sharing information. For collective memory. For, most importantly IMO, recording all the info in one place to help others learn, to avoid repeating our  mistakes and to counter those who will rewrite history.

I take resposibility for not listening to my father's advice and hence putting faith in my financial advisor.

I take responsibility for not listening to greatdame and putting my trust in WC.

But in absolutely NO WAY do I take ANY responsibility for WC's conduct depleting the value of PIF units.

That's what abused partners do.  They excuse their abusers behaviour.  By trying to find some way to blame themselves for the damage caused by their abuser's abusive behaviour. No way. And the abusers really don't like ti when their victim tries to leave.

Jennifer Joan Hutson asked us for our TRUST and we gave it to her.


----------



## Duped (9 September 2011)

Towbar said:


> ... At Question time some one wanted to know where the fund would be in 10years, her reply was"a very distant memory!! ...




*"a very distant memory"*
WOW! All I can say is WOW!

We put our trust in WC and now Hutson wants it to be a distant memory.

So what did happen to the business plan "with measured new investments aimed at rebalancing the asset class allocations of the Fund in time." Published in the Investor Update of 19 January 2010.

http://nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723633.PDF


----------



## Cookie1 (9 September 2011)

NSX Release: 9 September 2011 http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724372.PDF

"*Fund Briefing Meetings* 
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund has completed its Fund briefing meetings in each of Sydney, Melbourne and the Gold Coast.  

The briefing presentation, which was released to the market on 6 September 2011, will be posted to Unitholders on request. Unitholders requiring a hard copy are invited to contact the Wellington Hotline on 1300 854 885 or by email to investorrelations@newpif.com.au 

The meetings briefed advisers and investors on: 
• the current position of the Fund; 
• the plan for each of the assets held by the Fund; 
• the strategy to enable cash payments to Unitholders; and 
• timetable for asset realisations. 

The briefing set out the financial position of the Fund as at 30 June 2011. 
The asset summary list set out in the presentation will be included in the Annual Financial Report for the period ended 30 June 2011. This report is due to be released to the market by 30 September 2011 and will be mailed to all Unitholders shortly thereafter. 

Jenny Hutson, Managing Director, said ‘I am delighted that I had the opportunity to meet with and present to over 1,000 of the Fund’s Unitholders and advisers to set out the assets in the Fund, an overview of the past year’s events and our strategy to ensure there is a maximum return to Unitholders.’  "

It appears that unless a unitholder monitors the NSX Releases for PIN (the PIF) that they will not be receiving a copy of the presentation. How else would unitholders know it is available and they can request a hard copy be sent them. Many unitholders are elderly and do not have access to the internet. It doesn't seem that _all unitholders are being treated the same_ as JH says she does. It's all a lot of propaganda anyway so perhaps it's best that the majority of unitholders know nothing about it....

In *Investor Update: July 2011 Issue 2A 2011*, in the Executive Summary, the 5th item, unitholders are told "Annual Financial Report for 30 June 2011 to be released and despatched to Unitholders by 15 September 2011." It seems the date has now slipped to 30 September 2011; perhaps they're trying to find a better way to tell us the bad news and about their incompetence in managing the PIF???
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724240.PDF


----------



## Cookie1 (9 September 2011)

By the way, has anyone had time yet to compare the "new" constitution with the current constitution? I can't imagine WC just consolidating all the changes from 2008 without adding a few sweeteners to the RE at the expense and detriment of the original unitholders.

I've printed the new constitution but haven't had time to sit down yet and analyse what's been changed.


----------



## selciper (9 September 2011)

Cookie 1 has pointed to the illogicality of the "briefing" material advice. It only reinforces the feeling that WC communications are one massive farce.


----------



## JohnH (9 September 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> NSX Release: 9 September 2011 http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724372.PDF
> 
> "*Fund Briefing Meetings*
> 
> ...




Cookie, I don't know whether you missed this, but it is the preliminary report. http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724355.PDF .... John H


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 September 2011)

Keep up the rage guys and girls. WC and Octav/MFS is unbelievable, there should be a Royal Commission.

gg


----------



## JohnH (9 September 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Keep up the rage guys and girls. WC and Octav/MFS is unbelievable, there should be a Royal Commission.
> 
> gg




Thanks for the encouragement GG.


----------



## seamisty (9 September 2011)

Hi All, Great to see posters still posting on the thread. Sorry I have not been contributing recently but have just returned from an overseas fact finding mission. It appears my time may have been better spent there than attending a Wellington Capital PIF funded BS forum offerring the same old 'regurgitated rhetoric' of how wonderfull WC is!! 
On another note I would not be at all surprised to see another G8 education director resignation after the findings of the current G8/Cherie Hearts legal proceedings in Singapore. I believe Chris Scott has recently purchased a luxury mercedes benz? Hmnn, looks nice. Seamisty


----------



## Cookie1 (9 September 2011)

JohnH said:


> Cookie, I don't know whether you missed this, but it is the preliminary report. http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724355.PDF .... John H




Thanks, JohnH; I did see the Preliminary Annual Report. I was just pointing out that back in July JH promised to despatch the Final Year Results to unitholders by 15 Sept and now it's 30 Sept. I was questioning if they are still trying to put some spin on it with the 2-week delay in actually despatching it...perhaps only on the accompanying propaganda that will arrive with it in our post boxes. We'll know at the end of the month in any case!


----------



## AusInCA (9 September 2011)

Duped said:


> *"a very distant memory"*
> WOW! All I can say is WOW!
> 
> We put our trust in WC and now Hutson wants it to be a distant memory.




I hope it's not a distant memory, for anyone assessing whether to do business with Wellington Capital or Jenny Hutson.  I hope the memory of this debacle she has so greatly contributed to remains for the rest of her career and beyond.


----------



## gardie (10 September 2011)

Hi All 

I know I have and others have complained that the information provided to NSX is not complete.

How can investors fully understand the position when all that is provided is the written down value.

Without the original loan, current balance, written down value and contract price an investor cannot understand the losses suffered.

The way it is currently reported 
if PIF made a loan if $100 and the written down value is $50 you only hear about the written down value compared to the selling price. If they are saying they are getting $40 then investors think oh well thats $10 loss but dont get to see that is is really a $60 loss.


----------



## seamisty (11 September 2011)

I'm not sure what to make of the following relating to ALF (Jim Byrnes etc) listing on the ASX::Zurich – 8th September 2011 – The 2010 Annual General Meeting (AGM) of ALF Group Holdings AG (ALF)
" That ALF LTD be able to issue new pre IPO shares to investors at not less than .10c and not more than .25c to raise an amount up to AUD $1m in cash for ALF LTD’s day-to-day activities and meet the initial costs associated with three hostile takeovers of Mortgage funds and the establishment of a REIT in conjunction with JV partners."

"That ALF Finance and Investments Limited complete, file and serve takeover offers for 100% of the issued units in each of:

- SHAKESPEARE AND HANEY SECURITIES LIMITED
 - EQUITITRUST CAPITAL LIMITED 
- PREMIUM INCOME FUND "

(http://www.irw-press.com/en/news_13559.html):::::::

Does ALF intend to raise capital by listing on the ASX to launch a hostile takeover on the PIf and other funds?
Mr Byrnes second banning by ASIC to be a company director has now expired.
Back to the boards for Big Jim Byrnes 

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/back...-jim-byrnes-20110905-1ju37.html#ixzz1XaJPAeLM


----------



## Cookie1 (11 September 2011)

seamisty said:


> I'm not sure what to make of the following relating to ALF (Jim Byrnes etc) listing on the ASX::Zurich – 8th September 2011 – The 2010 Annual General Meeting (AGM) of ALF Group Holdings AG (ALF)
> " That ALF LTD be able to issue new pre IPO shares to investors at not less than .10c and not more than .25c to raise an amount up to AUD $1m in cash for ALF LTD’s day-to-day activities and meet the initial costs associated with three hostile takeovers of Mortgage funds and the establishment of a REIT in conjunction with JV partners."
> 
> "That ALF Finance and Investments Limited complete, file and serve takeover offers for 100% of the issued units in each of:
> ...




Hi Seamisty,

Welcome back to the forum; we missed all of your extra bits of information.

I just tried the first link shown above but it didn't work; try using just
http://www.irw-press.com/en/news_13559.html which seems to work.

With Jim Byrnes, you never know what's coming next!


----------



## charles36 (12 September 2011)

gardie said:


> Hi All
> 
> I know I have and others have complained that the information provided to NSX is not complete.
> 
> ...




Gardie, Have faith.  Nobody else can understand either.  Until such times as a Forensic Accountant/s have access to the books and records no one will ever know what has happened to our funds.  I am still trying to work out who protects the mums and dads who believed that a managed fund was a reasonably safe investment.  Perhaps it is in the right hands.  All I know is that we have an RE who believes a 35 million loss is a good result, I suppose it is if you lost more than that the previous years.  What I want to know is whether Wellington Capital again valued our assets like previous audits.


----------



## charles36 (12 September 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Keep up the rage guys and girls. WC and Octav/MFS is unbelievable, there should be a Royal Commission.
> 
> gg




Thank you Garpul Gumnut.   There are enough unit holders collectively throughout Australia in any number of Managed Funds that have lost their life savings through improper management by Responsible Entities.  There in itself is a funny term "RESPONSIBLE" RESPONSIBLE TO WHOM?  CERTAINLY NOT THE UNIT HOLDERS.   You are right, there should be a commission of inquiry.  Since the change from Trustees of Managed Funds to Responsible Entity with the supposed duties of a trustee in 2001 there has been nothing but sadness and misery associated with the way some of the funds have been managed.  The ASF has provided a conduit of support for unit holders in the distressed Wellington Capital PIF and as you can tell is widely used.  Thanks for your comfort and sage advice.


----------



## selciper (12 September 2011)

It never ceases to surprise me how the press can get excited about WC one day and forget to follow up later. Take the example of the EGM extras' incident. The SMH and Australian huffed and puffed, but they dropped the story like a stone afterwards. There was only incidental reference to the matter later and really no explanation as to why the authorities found no reason for action. If it's the hair-splitting difference between irregularity and fraud, then readers deserve an explanation from specialist financial journalists. Or is all too complicated, even for these "experts"?


----------



## seamisty (12 September 2011)

selciper said:


> It never ceases to surprise me how the press can get excited about WC one day and forget to follow up later. Take the example of the EGM extras' incident. The SMH and Australian huffed and puffed, but they dropped the story like a stone afterwards. There was only incidental reference to the matter later and really no explanation as to why the authorities found no reason for action. If it's the hair-splitting difference between irregularity and fraud, then readers deserve an explanation from specialist financial journalists. Or is all too complicated, even for these "experts"?



Not too many journos appear to do their own research these days selciper. Many an occasion I have supplied basic  info which I have regarded as newsworthy material which has beeen ignored. At other times when I have written a detailed report it sometimes gets published. I have concluded that  'gag orders' are not necessarily a law unto themselves.
More a manipulative legal  tool to allow the legal directive to issue an outcome which benefits the plaintifff???


----------



## seamisty (13 September 2011)

Liquidator targets MFS 

Michael Evans 
September 13, 2011. 

THE liquidator of collapsed Gold Coast property developer MFS is preparing legal action against former company officials and advisers and has told unsecured creditors they are set to receive a dividend.

Kate Barnet of Bentleys Corporate Recovery, liquidator of the company now known as Octaviar, has told creditors that ''legal actions were likely to involve a series of potential defendants including auditors, advisers as well as directors and officers of the failed group''.

''It is reasonable for creditors to expect further returns,'' she said.

It is believed that special counsel Adam Bell is preparing his final report to deliver to the liquidator, recommending precise targets of legal action.

Corporate regulator ASIC has launched civil action against former MFS executives while a class action has also been filed on behalf of investors in MFS's Premium Income Fund against auditor KPMG.

Octaviar collapsed in January 2008 owing creditors about $2.5 billion. At public examinations last year, company officials were questioned about their role in the collapse


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/liquidator-targets-mfs-20110912-1k5zi.html#ixzz1XmQUoD7x


----------



## seamisty (13 September 2011)

Octaviar at last pays out to creditors 

Anthony Marx 
From:The Courier-Mail
September 13, 201112:00AM

LIQUIDATORS of failed Gold Coast tourism and finance group Octaviar Administration are planning to make their first payment to unsecured creditors as they ready legal action against key figures to recover more money. 

Creditors chasing debts have until October 5 to submit final claims and a dividend will be paid on October 31, Kate Barnet and Bill Fletcher of Bentleys Corporate Recovery said yesterday.

Although details about the number of creditors or how much they are owed was not released, Ms Barnet said the pending payout would be a "significant outcome" given the complexities of the case

Wellington Capital, which now manages the Premium Income Fund, filed a legal claim against MFS in mid-2008 to claw back the money but the matter has not progressed in court
Full article http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...out-to-creditors/story-e6freqmx-1226135257800


----------



## MAE (13 September 2011)

This was in the Gold Coast Bulletin on Friday 9th September, 2011.

MFS creditors up for partial payout
Written by: Nick Nichols

FORMER Gold Coast financial
powerhouse MFS might be in
liquidation but it is sitting on a
$1S0 milllon pile of cash and still
bleeding $500,000 a month in fees
to liquidators.
Yet there could be some good
news for creditors by Christmas.
Wellington capital managing
director Jenny Hutson told investors
in the former MFS-controlled
Premium Income Fund that liquidator
Kate Barnet had taken an
"innovative" approach to distributing
the stricken company's cash to
existing creditors.
She said this could deliver a partial
payout to PIF unitholders
before the end of the year.
MFS - now known as Octaviar -
has registered debts of about
$2.1billion.
PIF accounts for 10 per cent of
the claim, or an estimated $15 million
share of the MFS cash kitty.
That represents about 2Q a unit
for PIF investors which is on top of
the 27C a unit the fund is estimated
to be worth today.
Investors already are almost
three years overdue for the initial
3Q payout promised by Ms Hutson
in 2008, although Wellington
Capital is also yet to draw any management
fees from the fund.
Wellington Capital - which now
controls the fund despite a challenge
by insolvenry specialist Ian
Ferrier earlier this year - has repaid
2f a unit to investors. Ms Hutson
said she was hopeful at least
another lQ would be paid before
Christmas from the MFS dividend. It had been 1000 days since
Ms Hutson last addressed investors
in the fund on the Gold Coast.
"A lot has happened and a lot has
still to happen," she told about 300
unitholders at the Gold Coast Convention
Centre yesterday.
In 2008, Ms Hutson had hopes of
reviving PIF and restoring units to
their full $l value.
Yesterday, on the third leg of a
 national tour, she told investors the
crash in asset values since then had
taken that option off the table.
"One dollar is not a number we
will ever see again," she said.
The fund, once worth $770 million,
is now valued at $224.9 million.
Its Gold Coast portfolio,
including assets bought by Raptis
Group, has been responsible for
a significant portion of the fund's
losses.
Ms Hutson said the fund had
$51.2 million in assets under conditional
contract which could
deliver another 5f to unitholders.
Every $8.3 million recovered by
PIF returns lt a unit to investors.
Ms Hutson said a further
$100 million in-assets would go to
market over the next 12 months.
Still on foot were legal claims
totalling $211 million against MFS
and parties associated with the
company, including a compensation
claim spearheaded by the Australian
Securities and Investments
Commission for $147.5 million.
She said the claim could take 18
months to two years to achieve.

PIF PAYMENT PLAN
Total Assets $224.9m
Already Paid $15.0m
MFS Distribution $15.0m
Under Contract $52.5m
Next 12 Months $100m
Litigation Unknown
*Every $8.3 million recovered is worth 1c a unit


----------



## seamisty (13 September 2011)

DEREGISTERED

One decision that appeared to go largely unnoticed in July regarded a former chief financial officer of the collapsed Gold Coast financial concern MFS (aka Octaviar), David Anderson, having his registration as a liquidator cancelled.

Anderson, whose company Business Puzzle Solutions Pty Ltd collected about $1 million in consulting fees assisting the former MFS liquidator Deloitte, had his registration annulled due to his failure to lodge his 2010 annual statement as a registered liquidator. The statement was due in September last year.

''The plain fact of the matter is that, despite having had ample opportunity to lodge his annual statement, he has chosen not to do so and apparently has no present intention of doing so,'' the decision by the Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board said.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/priv...ded-message-20110912-1k5yd.html#ixzz1XmdxDTpD


----------



## Joe Blow (13 September 2011)

Just a reminder that articles from other websites are not to be reproduced in full here at ASF as it is in violation of copyright guidelines.

For those who are unsure how to quote an article from another website, please review the following thread: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10373


----------



## MAE (13 September 2011)

Hi All, 

My apologies for posting incorrectly on this thread.    

Below is a link from the Courier Mail dated Thursday 8th September, 2011, with regards to the Wellington Capital Meetings recently held.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/...ts-pif-on-notice/story-fn6ck2gb-1226131723270


----------



## seamisty (14 September 2011)

MFS creditor win on way: liquidator
Nick Nichols, business editor   |  September 14th, 2011

She also defended the liquidation of Octaviar as the most appropriate action to recover funds for creditors.

Based on the cash at hand and the company's creditors claims, the liquidation will return about 6c in the dollar without accounting for a successful legal claim.

This compares with a proposed 22.5c-in-the-dollar payout put forward by white knight director Chris Scott in 2008
Full story:::

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/09/14/349271_gold-coast-business.html


----------



## selciper (14 September 2011)

Strange isn't it the way Hutson is always available for comment when the GCB wants to ask a question or two. Other newspapers reportedly don't get a return call very often. Inevitably her comment to the GCB is, "This is an excellent result for PIF investors."


----------



## seamisty (15 September 2011)

Of interest to some relating to the latest Print Mail Logistics auditors report. Armstrong Registry Services, Wellington Capital and other J Hutson related companies/entities hold approx 30% of shares on issue in Print Mail Logistics::
Page 78 of annual report http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724351.PDF
Emphasis of matter
Without qualifying our opinion, we draw attention to Note 1(a), in the financial report, which indicates that the
company and consolidated entity incurred losses of $38,674 and $335,087 respectively during the year
ended 30 June 2011 and, at that date, the company’s and consolidated entity’s current liabilities exceeded
their current assets by $1,670,287 and $1,556,188 respectively. These conditions, along with the other
matters set forth in Note 1(a), indicate the existence of a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt
about the company and consolidated entity’s ability to continue as a going concerns and therefore, whether
they will be able to realise their assets and discharge their liabilities in the normal course of business.


----------



## charles36 (15 September 2011)

seamisty said:


> Of interest to some relating to the latest Print Mail Logistics auditors report. Armstrong Registry Services, Wellington Capital and other J Hutson related companies/entities hold approx 30% of shares on issue in Print Mail Logistics::
> Page 78 of annual report http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724351.PDF
> Emphasis of matter
> Without qualifying our opinion, we draw attention to Note 1(a), in the financial report, which indicates that the
> ...





Could some one point me in the direction of a successful venture controlled or managed by Wellington Group of companies, please.


----------



## atlas1950 (15 September 2011)

Charles36,

The problem is that she looses other peoples money (OPM). If it was her money, I am sure Jenny and her wonderful team still wouldn't have the ability to make a profit.

M


----------



## selciper (15 September 2011)

From today's UK Independent, a tale about a US scam.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ged-with-stealing-from-democrats-2354923.html


----------



## LTD (16 September 2011)

OPI Pacific and Boston Finance mentioned in a NZ article, here:

http://http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/fma-still-investigating-16-finance-companies-4404035

"FMA still investigating 16 finance companies"
Published: 12:53PM Thursday September 15, 2011 Source: BusinessDesk


in Part states:
"Companies still in the FMA's sights are Allied Nationwide Finance, Boston Finance, Equitable Mortgages, Hanover Capital, Hanover Finance, Kiwi Finance, LDC Finance, Mutual Finance, OPI Pacific, Propertyfinance Securities, South Canterbury Finance, St Laurence, Strategic Finance, Structured Finance, Viaduct Capital and Vision Securities." continues

I am having problems with the link. 

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/fma-still-investigating-16-finance-companies-4404035

so a google news search for OPI pacific might be required


----------



## atlas1950 (18 September 2011)

Has anyone heard from Castlereagh Capital??????? Not a word from our great white hope.

I know they have spent lots of there time and money, but surely we deserve better than this. Just a one line statement will do me, but nothing.

Do you all think I am expecting too much???????????

Michael


----------



## Harald (18 September 2011)

atlas1950 said:


> Has anyone heard from Castlereagh Capital??????? Not a word from our great white hope.
> 
> I know they have spent lots of there time and money, but surely we deserve better than this. Just a one line statement will do me, but nothing.
> 
> ...




Yes Michael, I'm afraid You are expecting to much. Reading that CasCap got only
less than 40 % support from us investors, that JH got more than 300 investors
to each of her meetings and Cascap less than 100 and that JH got even applause
on the Goldcoast, I really think we don't deserve better. All this naivity, someone more  nasty would call it stupidity shown by most investors in the PIF is absolut breathtaking!!


----------



## seamisty (18 September 2011)

Harald said:


> Yes Michael, I'm afraid You are expecting to much. Reading that CasCap got only
> less than 40 % support from us investors, that JH got more than 300 investors
> to each of her meetings and Cascap less than 100 and that JH got even applause
> on the Goldcoast, I really think we don't deserve better. All this naivity, someone more  nasty would call it stupidity shown by most investors in the PIF is absolut breathtaking!!



I guess we will never know the true voting results while ever WC have ten fingers+ in the pie re Armstrong Registry Services!! Don't forget Wellington Capital could not even bring themselves to divuldge the true results from something as simple as a vote for a PIF investor advisory committee because they polled apparently not in the best interests of the RE. UMMNN, where do PIF investors actually stand with the IAC these days???? Who was the one remaining member suffering from laryngitis whose use by date has now expired??How do we know that the 'applause ' on the GC was not paid for 'buy' another gennearous benefactor???? A benefactor that 'knows nothing, hears nothing, and never in their wildest dreams' (well not that is publically known) would be part of private negotiations between others that may or may not have taken place??? Other meanings for the initiail WC?? Well Chewed, Well Conned, Well Connected, the mind boggles really.Legendary status  for failure to deliver on all business fronts and former and present associates now on the red alert radar.


----------



## Duped (19 September 2011)

AusInCA said:


> I hope it's not a distant memory, for anyone assessing whether to do business with Wellington Capital or Jenny Hutson.  I hope the memory of this debacle she has so greatly contributed to remains for the rest of her career and beyond.




I'd like to correct the year in the post of mine you quoted AusInCa. I.e. to

_So what did happen to the business plan "with measured new investments  aimed at rebalancing the asset class allocations of the Fund in time."  Published in the Investor Update of 19 January 2011.

http://nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021723633.PDF_



Here's Hutson talking about the backflip (according to the Gold Coast Bulletin):
_
"In 2008, Ms Hutson had hopes of reviving PIF and restoring units to their full $1 value.
Yesterday, on the third leg of a national tour, she told investors *the crash in asset values since then *had taken that option off the table.
"One dollar is not a number we will ever see again," she said"_ [emphasis added]

Ahhh that's right.  Blame the GFC.

Are there any unit holders out there who were naiive enough to believe we would ever see $1 again? 

Read this again: "she told investors the crash in asset values since then had taken that option off the table."

What "asset values"? 


The year-on-year paper valuations presented to us by WC? Well that's a mechanism that WC can use to manage down our expectations of "asset values". E.g. so that the valuations aren't so high they appear unbelievable. So unbelievable that WC's can't defend its integrity.  Remember that the higher the paper valuations, the more Hutson and her company get paid.
Sale prices substantially below WC's paper valuations?  Doesn't that simply show that Hutson's company doesn't know their market?  That WC's paper "asset values" were fanciful? If so then why keep a responsible enetity that doesn't know its business very well? Remember that the higher the paper valuations, the more Huston and her company get paid.
Now anyone, hopefully a WC supporter, can you show me where Hutson has stated that the "crash in asset values" is or has ever been a surprise to her (or unexpected or was ever unlikely)? 

I see nowhere, any statement by Hutson that the asset prices crash is a surprise to her. Whereas I see plenty of money (wo)men saying a big drop in value of commercial and even residential property was a certainty.


----------



## Duped (19 September 2011)

From Gold Coast Bulletin:
_
"In 2008, Ms Hutson had hopes of reviving PIF and restoring units to their full $1 value.
Yesterday, on the third leg of a national tour, she told investors *the crash in asset values since then *had taken that option off the table.
"One dollar is not a number we will ever see again," she said"_ [emphasis added]



I repeat: Are there any unit holders out there who were naiive enough to believe we would ever see $1 again? 

See my posts #2155 and #2162.

As Darrly Kerrigan would say: Yer Dreamin'.

Some more generous might yours: 'wishful thinking'.  Judges like to use the word 'fanciful'.  I say you were 'wrong'. (Ahhh word bending - fun game isn't it?)  What word would Hutson use? 

Perhaps she'll pull out the same defence of her actions as when Justice Gordon overturned WC's amendment of the PIF constitution.  I.e. Huston just says 'she disagees with your opinion'.  That's lovely but how does that help investors? I say Gordon's decision means Hutson's WC was in the worng.

Hutson's WC seems to be gettin a lot of things 'More Wrong Than Correct' doesn't it?


----------



## Duped (19 September 2011)

Good to see that WC has finally corrected the incorrect number of units on their page http://www.wellcap.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=8

So perhaps what we post here does get back to WC afterall?  I certainly didn't notify anyone of the error except readers of this thread.


----------



## seamisty (19 September 2011)

Duped said:


> Good to see that WC has finally corrected the incorrect number of units on their page http://www.wellcap.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=8
> 
> So perhaps what we post here does get back to WC afterall?  I certainly didn't notify anyone of the error except readers of this thread.



Well on the off chance(sic) that WC need to pop in andbe updated again any time soon here's another figure that is grossly outdated on the WC website!! There are no different classes of investors as far as I know. I guess a company as inadequate as WC have proved to be  need to cling to outdated valuations. I bet if the current figures were on the up side to when WC took on the PIF  we would have before and after amounts!!  

WPIF: Net Asset Backing

35.1 cents as at 30 June 2010
   as opposed to the PIF:
27 cents as at 30 June 2011

34 cents per unit as at 31 December 2010

35.1 cents per unit as at 30 June 2010


----------



## Duped (19 September 2011)

AusInCA said:


> I hope it's not a distant memory, for anyone assessing whether to do business with Wellington Capital or Jenny Hutson.  I hope the memory of this debacle she has so greatly contributed to remains for the rest of her career and beyond.




It     will be easy for Hutson to put PIF behind her because, after all,     she's making money. So what's she really complaining about? Her work     load? It's not the easy money Hutson expected?

Whereas us PIF investors whose savings have been smashed and gutted - we're in a completely different boat. Any one of us who doesn't have vivid memories of this experience will just get screwed again and again and again.  

To make a mistake is OK. Not learning from your mistake is not OK.  

Just another example of Hutson being out of touch. Out of touch with PIF investors. Or is she? Is Hutson acutely aware that us investors (as a whole) are a dumb fat cow to be milked?


----------



## Duped (20 September 2011)

MAE said:


> This was in the Gold Coast Bulletin on Friday 9th September, 2011.
> 
> MFS creditors up for partial payout
> Written by: Nick Nichols




Absolutely stunning MAE.  Not one mention of the dilution of the unit value. Nick Nichols omission is absolutely stunning. Assuming he assembled the information himself. Makes WC's performance look good.  Not really surprising then if Hutson gets cheered by Gold Coast unitholders that get their info only from Nichols.

I wonder what the journalists over at the Australian know what their sister publication is doing for WC.


----------



## lawry1dog (21 September 2011)

*Hoping that some of our had earned money comes back soon.*

We put all of our life savings into MFS in January 2007 (over $500,000), after researching MFS and
seeing they had a Morning Star five star rating and a good interest rate.

We had planned to take our money back by redemption in January 2008 to buy a home, but of course the fund was frozen firstly for 180 days and then 360 days. Then of course Wellington took it over in October 2008.

Ever since then have had to start all over again and now have an unnecessary mortgage and working 2 jobs to stay afloat.
*And of course we have received only 2, 1cent distributions, as of now (ie over 3 years ago).*

Could WC please inform me of why they have over 30 staff working on our fund(our money), who are receiving probably good salaries, when us unit holders get nothing. 
*Why could not 30 unit holders manage & sell our properties instead.*

Seems our money is being used by WC for their own use, when it should be coming back to unit holders, *especially the original ones who had their money frozen in 2008*.

Please we are desperate now, and with the coming global recession and real estate about to collapse, 
can you *Please*, WC, sell all the properties now before it is too late.

*We just want some money to put food on our table.*

*Please WC can you HELP!!!!!*


----------



## seamisty (21 September 2011)

lawry1dog said:


> *
> 
> Please WC can you HELP!!!!!*



* WELLINGTON CAPITAL PTY LTD appear to be REALLY GOOD at HELPING THEMSELVES at the EXPENSE OF OTHERS!!!! I would be really interested to know what gets charged back to the PIF indirectly. I wonder if the PIF paid entourage that swans around Forest Resort from time to time pay for their personal expenses or if it goes on the PIF fringe benefit account???? Hmnn, I was recently down that way on my way home from a fact finding mission, once the resort is sold who knows what may come to light. Seamisty*


----------



## selciper (21 September 2011)

Anybody who believes that a journalist is covering an issue unfairly (without balance) is entitled to complain to the Australian Press Council. Their link is below.

http://www.presscouncil.org.au/contact-us/


----------



## Sutho81 (21 September 2011)

lawry1dog said:


> Could WC please inform me of why they have over 30 staff working on our fund(our money), who are receiving probably good salaries, when us unit holders get nothing.
> *Why could not 30 unit holders manage & sell our properties instead*



*

I would just love for us the unit holders to have control of the fund. I would love to see Wellington sacked, give all traditional unit holders management positions, pay ourselves excessive salary making up for our loss, run the fund into the ground and leave a massive debt for someone else!*


----------



## seamisty (21 September 2011)

Quote from Wellington Capitals complaints officer Caroline Snow , associate director of WELLINGTON CAPITAL PTY LTD to myself dated feb 3, 2010::

"I confirm your acceptance of the offer of periodic discusssions between yourself and the Company's managing Director"

Despite several reminders from myself to WC this committment from WC was never further acknowledged or upheld. Bull **** must sit comfortably with some but it is on record that WC staff are prepared to support false promises from their senior business associates. I guess WC staff will  eventually be like former MFS/OCV employees who are too embarassed to affilliate their names with their past employees. So is Ms Snow a liar: a person who has lied or lies repeatedly or a beguiler - someone who leads you to believe something that is not true? Not having ever received an answer from Wellington Capital in relation as to when I could expect my 'periodic discussions' I wouldn't know. It sure wasn't the only time I felt deceived by WC actions. 

Ms Hutson may have distanced herself from the 'rent a crowd' fiasco by stating 'I know nothing' but I believe David Burke and Craig Staff (WC paid employees??)supported by others at Forest Resort actively campaigned on behalf of WC to recruit staff and golf club members to support WC at the EGM in Sydney. This is not a well kept secret. How much did it cost PIF unit holders and is still costing us? Golf club upgrades?? Seamisty


----------



## simgrund (22 September 2011)

Another story on the Director's Cut.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/how-acrs-juggling-act-fooled-thousands-20110921-1klc2.html


----------



## selciper (22 September 2011)

"Nobody can acquire honor by doing what is wrong.” (Thomas Jefferson)


----------



## charles36 (22 September 2011)

simgrund said:


> Another story on the Director's Cut.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/how-acrs-juggling-act-fooled-thousands-20110921-1klc2.html




Simgrund and others.  We have to remain steadfast and with steely resolve, no matter what happens to the fund, to stay in there to the bitter end.  I will not be satisfied until a thorough investigation is made to discover what actually happened to OUR fund and what funds have been appropriated therefrom and by whom, whether legitimate or otherwise.  I have always held the belief that "the truth will out"  all we have to do is be patient and wait for the tide to turn and "the sycophantic people will start leaving a sinking ship."


----------



## simgrund (22 September 2011)

charles36 said:


> Simgrund and others.  We have to remain steadfast and with steely resolve, no matter what happens to the fund, to stay in there to the bitter end.  I will not be satisfied until a thorough investigation is made to discover what actually happened to OUR fund and what funds have been appropriated therefrom and by whom, whether legitimate or otherwise.  I have always held the belief that "the truth will out"  all we have to do is be patient and wait for the tide to turn and "the sycophantic people will start leaving a sinking ship."




Agree unconditionally.
That's why I posted this article as it shows that eventually these brazen crooks get outed.
Keep up the good work AG.
Regards


----------



## pifed (22 September 2011)

It is about time you all woke up to the fact that we have all been "DUDDED" in the biggest possible way and ASIC and other authorities dont give a S--T


seamisty said:


> Quote from Wellington Capitals complaints officer Caroline Snow , associate director of WELLINGTON CAPITAL PTY LTD to myself dated feb 3, 2010::
> 
> "I confirm your acceptance of the offer of periodic discusssions between yourself and the Company's managing Director"
> 
> ...


----------



## NOR (22 September 2011)

charles36 said:


> Simgrund and others.  We have to remain steadfast and with steely resolve, no matter what happens to the fund, to stay in there to the bitter end.  I will not be satisfied until a thorough investigation is made to discover what actually happened to OUR fund and what funds have been appropriated therefrom and by whom, whether legitimate or otherwise.  I have always held the belief that "the truth will out"  all we have to do is be patient and wait for the tide to turn and "the sycophantic people will start leaving a sinking ship."




hi all...nor....wc with staff of 30  there must be  one or two  or many more  that will turn on a .......bosss......that..sh...t  on   every body...rob/s every  body...wont pay us pif  iwill bet   they will not get there fair pay    &turn on her...&..let us all know what is going on@   ..wc..


----------



## seamisty (22 September 2011)

NOR said:


> hi all...nor....wc with staff of 30  there must be  one or two  or many more  that will turn on a .......bosss......that..sh...t  on   every body...rob/s every  body...wont pay us pif  iwill bet   they will not get there fair pay    &turn on her...&..let us all know what is going on@   ..wc..



NOR most of my info comes from WC related current/ex employees!!!HAHA, personality profilers have got nothing on fatter wallets!! Having said that my information is that the WC controlled PIF wallet has been frequently abused and keenly recorded and some people do not have a price tag. Thankfully there still exists a few individuals who have a sense of propriety. Discovery has many different interpretations. WC has many eyes and ears and some who despise liars, cheats and thieves.( and hidden recording devices)


----------



## selciper (23 September 2011)

Thirty employees looking after the running of PIF? Yesterday I found myself waiting in an open-plan insurance office. Out of interest I counted the employees - it came to a total of twenty-eight. Then I pictured the PIF staff and asked myself, considering the fund's devastating performance, what in heaven's name are those thirty PIF people doing? What are their designations and duties? Shareholders should be informed.


----------



## selciper (23 September 2011)

Here's a little known video with ASIC boss, Greg Medcraft. Inspirational?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySIJOVLQ2Qc


----------



## charles36 (23 September 2011)

INFORMATION  I received contact from a unit holder who holds an old age pension under CENTRELINK and he was informed that Centrelink do not take responsibility for checking all investments/unit price etc for individual pensioners.  It is for the pensioner to inquire from Centrelink to ensure they receive their just entitlement.  It is a matter for the individual but if I was them I would do some checking.  Kind regards to all.  Charles36.


----------



## seamisty (23 September 2011)

I can't help but notice the absence of the previous plethora of NSX PIN announcements now Wellington Capital think they are back in the box seat. We only appear to get regular updates when the pressure is on the PIF RE. 

I notice  Mr David Kennedy has resigned as Chief Executive Officer of
Equititrust, to be effective in December 2011. Mr Kennedy has expressed his desire
to resign and pursue other business interests. http://www.equititrust.com.au/Pdfs/Disclosures/Disclosure_Statemtent_22_09_2011.pdf

Also of interest Cherie Hearts/g8 education is still in court in Singapore, obviously the case was far more complex than originally expected. Todays reason::FURTHER AND BETTER PARTICULARS


----------



## charles36 (23 September 2011)

seamisty said:


> I can't help but notice the absence of the previous plethora of NSX PIN announcements now Wellington Capital think they are back in the box seat. We only appear to get regular updates when the pressure is on the PIF RE.
> 
> I notice  Mr David Kennedy has resigned as Chief Executive Officer of
> Equititrust, to be effective in December 2011. Mr Kennedy has expressed his desire
> ...




I wish Cherie Hearts well in their endeavour to get "FURTHER AND BETTER PARTICULARS"  The PIFAG have been after that for three years but alas to NO AVAIL.  However, the thought did cross my mind, having cognizance of other funds under WC control, it may well be that they either do not know the meaning of further and better particulars or there just "ISN'T ANY."


----------



## Jadel (25 September 2011)

selciper said:


> Thirty employees looking after the running of PIF? Yesterday I found myself waiting in an open-plan insurance office. Out of interest I counted the employees - it came to a total of twenty-eight. Then I pictured the PIF staff and asked myself, considering the fund's devastating performance, what in heaven's name are those thirty PIF people doing? What are their designations and duties? Shareholders should be informed.




Selciper
To be fair some of these employees may be multi tasking  in other WC operations 
 Nevertheless it would be very interesting to know what sort of profit margin
Wellington Caspital is operating at with our ruined and devastated   Fund ,  after  operating expenses for staff etc .

in my experience most business models work at a 20 to 25 % margin .

It was suggested many years ago that a single  Administrator working closely with a investor advisory  Committee would give us a better outcome. No Armstrong Registry Services , staff and assorted hangers on ,etc

Regetably, for all of us , the general sentiment at that time was that Jenny H had some sort of God given powers that would turn a sows ear into a silk purse.


----------



## seamisty (25 September 2011)

I would just like to draw your attention to this NSX announcement 16th May 2011:
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724013.PDF
Mortgagee in Possession Contract: 48 – 52 Carlyle Street, Mackay
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund is pleased to announce that a
contract has been signed for the sale of the Carlyle Street, Mackay property.
The property is located at 48-52 Carlyle Street, Mackay, Queensland.
The contract for sale is subject to a 90 day finance condition, followed by a 14 day settlement and will
contribute a net $2 million to the Fund on settlement.
48 – 52 Carlyle Street, Mackay is residential property with an existing development approval in place. The
incoming purchaser intends to make application for a variation to the Development Application to allow for
the construction of serviced apartments.
Mackay is a vibrant tropical city located 970 kilometres north of Brisbane on the east coast of Queensland.
The property is located in close proximity to the Mackay City centre with easy access to a variety of retail,
commercial and hospitality facilities. The property is situated just 600 metres from the newly constructed
Mackay Convention Centre.
Managing Director Jenny Hutson said:
“This sale is above valuation and above our current carrying value for the debt. It is further evidence of of the
outcomes that can be achieved by negotiating with the right parties at the right time.”::: Now I would like to reveal who the unamed 'right party' was at the time.


GEORGE CALLIANIOTIS of Geocal constructions,  where  Anthony Stanton the former general manager of Wellington Capital PIF is also employed. George Callianiotis and related parties also scored the rights tobe involved with two other PIF assets, Icon at Pt Maquarie and the Wollongong Hotel.

http://www.dailymercury.com.au/story/2011/09/24/room-flexibility-feature-of-hotel-visit-tourism/
Room flexibility feature of hotel

Kate Bastable | 24th September 2011

RELIEF for Mackay's visitor accommodation shortage is on the way, with construction of a 10-storey hotel expected to begin in Carlyle St in March.

Developer Geocal Group's director George Callianiotis said the hotel would have 73 two-bedroom, dual-key apartments, which could be split into one-bedroom apartments and one-bedroom hotel rooms.

Mr Callianiotis said his hotel would help fill demand, as would other hotels planned for Brisbane St's Latitude and beside the Mackay Entertainment 
and Convention Centre::::::::

(Latitude was also a PIF asset that was sold in 2009) Not sure where the income from these sales ended, certainly not to the rightfull owners, us the unit holders!


----------



## seamisty (25 September 2011)

Jadel said:


> Selciper
> 
> It was suggested many years ago that a single  Administrator working closely with a investor advisory  Committee would give us a better outcome. No Armstrong Registry Services , staff and assorted hangers on ,etc
> 
> Regetably, for all of us , the general sentiment at that time was that Jenny H had some sort of God given powers that would turn a sows ear into a silk purse.



Nothing much has changed Jadel, WC still appears to have support as was demonstrated at the Qld recent PIF forum. Unfortunately the silk purse has been milked dry resulting in more than one fat sow. However I think some of the sows'  ears are smarter than the 'sows' rears. The rears (or 'arrears') are really good at passing on many things apart from returns to PIF original investors. A few of the sows' ears recognise the well scrutinised PIF trough is nearly empty and facing a please explain from many directions and want to move on without the' failed' stigma behind their name.


----------



## seamisty (26 September 2011)

An interesting read::Senator uses privilege to point a finger and force ASIC's hand 


September 26, 2011.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/sena...-asics-hand-20110925-1krkn.html#ixzz1Z0BQIiRC


----------



## selciper (26 September 2011)

seamisty said:


> An interesting read::Senator uses privilege to point a finger and force ASIC's hand
> 
> 
> September 26, 2011.
> ...




Perhaps this is a cue for us to be making more political represenations about our plight.


----------



## seamisty (26 September 2011)

selciper said:


> Perhaps this is a cue for us to be making more political represenations about our plight.



Totally agree selciper, anyone willing to take on the responsibility? Senaor John Williams has his own website  http://www.johnwilliams.com.au/


Contact John Williams
Electorate Office
Telephone: 02 6721 4500
Toll Free: 1300 301 816
Fax: 02 6721 4544


----------



## seamisty (26 September 2011)

It appears Chris Scott/S8 could have another legal battle on their hands to contend with. People are sick and tired of being ripped off and being let down by the regulators time and time again!!

Notice of Class Action S8/Driftcove Pty Ltd from Wayne Stevens 

Tuesday, 06 September 2011 10:30


WAYNE STEVENS
 PAST CHAIRMAN – The Phoenician Body Corporate
CLASS ACTION – S8 / DRIFTCOVE PTY LTD
 Dear Fellow Phoenician Unit Owners
Recently legal advice suggests that it may be possible for you to recover a significant amount of money in respect of commissions wrongly taken by Driftcove Pty Limited in the letting of your unit at the Phoenician.
 You will recall that last year the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) settled the 2,821 charges against the S8 subsidiary Driftcove in return for the payment of OFT costs and owner’s compensation of $25,212.04, without any admissions of liability. The director of Driftcove, Christopher Scott, admitted guilt and was fined $130,000. Having regard to the seriousness and scale of the problem for Unit Owners, and the corresponding unearned profits retained by Driftcove/S8, they got off very lightly to the obvious convenience of OFT.
 The executive director of OFT stated publicly that “the practice of charging booking fees or directing bookings to another company for the purpose of charging a booking fee is unlawful”. Yet the practice of deducting undisclosed letting charges (or ‘booking fees’) of up to 30% of rental income continues unabated.
 Bearing in mind OFT’s apparent inability to seriously grapple with this problem, it seems to me that Unit Owners are now obliged to carry matters forward on their own account, if anything is to be done.
 Over the past couple of months I have been liaising with senior and junior counsel in Sydney (Mr A. Martin SC and Mr G. Drew) who are experts in class actions, with a view to ascertaining whether a viable claim exists against the letting agent and/or S8 for the recovery of substantial compensation in relation to the undisclosed letting charges.
 Counsel have reviewed the presently available material and formed the preliminary view that the affected Unit Owners may have reasonable prospects of succeeding in an action for compensation to recover the undisclosed letting charges. Counsel have indicated that the most effective way to achieve this would be to bring a class action against the letting agent and/or S8

Full article:: http://www.uoaq.org.au/index.php?op...class-action-driftcove&catid=2:news&Itemid=12


----------



## Duped (26 September 2011)

seamisty said:


> It appears Chris Scott/S8 could have another legal battle on their hands to contend with. People are sick and tired of being ripped off and being let down by the regulators time and time again!!
> 
> Notice of Class Action S8/Driftcove Pty Ltd from Wayne Stevens
> 
> ...




I.e. possibly a new class action against S8.. I.e. Octaviar. Doesn't that mean another competing claim for the remaining Octaviar cash that Bentley's recently indicated could be paid out before Christmas? That'll hold up any payment to PIF won't it?


----------



## seamisty (26 September 2011)

Duped said:


> I.e. possibly a new class action against S8.. I.e. Octaviar. Doesn't that mean another competing claim for the remaining Octaviar cash that Bentley's recently indicated could be paid out before Christmas? That'll hold up any payment to PIF won't it?



Not sure Duped. Octavier got rid of S8/Stella.


----------



## charles36 (26 September 2011)

seamisty said:


> Not sure Duped. Octavier got rid of S8/Stella.





Claims will be against S8 prior to the sale to Octaviar.   Chis Scott CEO, JH Chairman of the Board.  I believe there were 2842 claimants involved.  All I can say is best of luck to them all.


----------



## Duped (27 September 2011)

Thanks seamisty and charles36. I agree the claims against S8 will most likely now be directed at the new owners of Stella. Claims against the directors? Just great. More to distract Hutson from managing PIF.


----------



## lawry1dog (27 September 2011)

*Hoping that some of our had earned money comes back soon.*

As you know our life savings are in Wellington Capital and we never voted for our units to be on the NSX.
The NSX as we know is nothing like the ASX, where hardly anything happens and no one know it even exists.

*So I make the following points about our plight on the NSX:-*
   . When it is time to sell on the NSX, of course there will be no buyers.
   . The unit price has hardly ever rose above 10 cents.
   . When the unit did go to almost 20 cents a couple of weeks ago, the buyer was a WC accaintance.
  .  Was this a way of inflating the unit price temporarily, so that the Class Action payout will be a lower percentage.

  Did WC think that the Class Action judge was about to make a ruling during the unit buying period.
  Is WC talking to KMPG or others, in an attempt to save a big payout?

Also can I ask if anyone on this forum has either bought or sold Units on NSX?

*Wonder if it is a good idea to sell now, given that there are still buyers out there?*

I assume that because we were original unit holders back to 2008, we will still get compensation from the Class Action, and from WC?

We are very worried about the NSX situation and hoping WC is taken over and the NSX is aborted completely.

Are our fears about the NSX, in any way true.

But at the end of the day, we just want our money back.

*Please can someone inform us on what may happen.*


----------



## simgrund (27 September 2011)

lawry1dog said:


> *Hoping that some of our had earned money comes back soon.*
> 
> As you know our life savings are in Wellington Capital and we never voted for our units to be on the NSX.
> The NSX as we know is nothing like the ASX, where hardly anything happens and no one know it even exists.
> ...




lawry1dog,
About class action. The payout will only be made to unitholders at a cut off date in 2008. Any new unitholders are excluded. That is how we understand it today; please correct me if not so.
There are many of us in your situation. We wait with patience.

Charles36. please check inbox for 6 Sep post from me. Thanks.
Regards,


----------



## Duped (27 September 2011)

lawry1dog said:


> The NSX as we know is nothing like the ASX, where hardly anything happens and no one know it even exists.




Or they do know it exists and the price reflects the market's confidence in the Hutson lead Wellington team.



lawry1dog said:


> .  Was this a way of inflating the unit price temporarily, so that the Class Action payout will be a lower percentage.




I don't know about Class Action payment but another explanation could be what the ATO calls Wash Transactions. (Or maybe it is legal tax planning) Say you have a company called Gromit Solutions Pty Ltd.  It's sitting on a loss of $100K. So you buy $100K of shares in the Pitiful Investment Fund at 10c and then sell it to another of your companies Yen Essentials Pty Ltd for 20c.  The 100K profit Gromit Solutions makes negates the loss. Do it through the NSX to make it more difficult for the Watch Chihuahua to get close enough for a nip. Then if the Pitiful Investment Fund actually does return 20c to Yen Essentials Pty Ltd that company doesn't have to pay tax on it's 100% profit. Fanciful? I don't really know but the ATO's laws on wash transactions and arms length transactions are real.



lawry1dog said:


> Also can I ask if anyone on this forum has either bought or sold Units on NSX?



  I'd caution anyone from disclosing this.  PIF has thin trading volumes and Hutson herself is director of the company that looks after the share register.  It wouldn't take much for Hutson to narrow down who you are.  And we've seen what some will do it keep the status quo.  Dilute the units. Rent a crowd. Use the register to send annonymous mail (PIF Reaction group.).




lawry1dog said:


> *Wonder if it is a good idea to sell now, given that there are still buyers out there?*



 That's the key question for all companies isn't it. How deep is the buying market and how much are they willing to pay. One thing is for certain Hutson knows more than anyone because she knows the comings and goings on the share registry doesn't she?


----------



## Duped (27 September 2011)

Duped said:


> I don't know about Class Action payment but another explanation could be what the ATO calls Wash Transactions. (Or maybe it is legal tax planning) Say you have a company called Gromit Solutions Pty Ltd.  It's sitting on a loss of $100K. So you buy $100K of shares in the Pitiful Investment Fund at 10c and then sell it to another of your companies Yen Essentials Pty Ltd for 20c.  The 100K profit Gromit Solutions makes negates the loss. Do it through the NSX to make it more difficult for the Watch Chihuahua to get close enough for a nip. Then if the Pitiful Investment Fund actually does return 20c to Yen Essentials Pty Ltd that company doesn't have to pay tax on it's 100% profit. Fanciful? I don't really know but the ATO's laws on wash transactions and arms length transactions are real.




Should read: Then if the Pitiful Investment Fund actually does return 20c to Yen  Essentials Pty Ltd that company doesn't have to pay tax on the 100% return after the shares were picked up for 10c.

How did Gromit Solutions Pty Ltd make a $100K loss?  Paying a salary to you.


----------



## seamisty (27 September 2011)

Just collating some PIF data and I am wondering if anyone noticed the following.
http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/20090529_InvestorUpdate_April.pdf
Premium Income Fund
Investor Update: 30 April 2009
Repayment of finance facility completed on
23 March 2009. The Fund is now debt free.(the net asset
backing of a unit in the Fund remains at 44 cents per unit).
Debt Reduction
Full payment of the Fund’s debt facility has now occurred. The
debt has been fully repaid through asset realisations in an
extremely difficult economic environment.

NSX announcement 24 May 2011 http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/media/proxy form_pif.pdf
No Fund debt
 Wellington has through asset sales repaid the $100 million in Fund debt to Royal Bank of Scotland. Wellington is committed
to ensuring that the Fund does not have debt again.

11 July 2011 http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724203.PDF

Trinder Avenue, Maroochydore, Queensland – Joint Venture
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund and as mortgagee in
possession is pleased to announce that a contract has been signed and settled in relation to the properties at
4, 12, 22, 23, 24 and 30 Trinder Avenue, Maroochydore.
The property, located at Maroochydore on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, is a residential development site, part of which has previously been sold with the net proceeds used to reduce debt to the Fund. 

WHAT DEBT?????? The PIF has supposedly been DEBT FREE since MAR 2009!!!!!

 Some extra info re Trinder Avenue::

Recently Sold Properties

13/30 Trinder Avenue MAROOCHYDORE QLD

Government Notified Sale
Sold: 14/06/2011

Sold - $1,095,000


4/30 Trinder Avenue MAROOCHYDORE QLD

Government Notified Sale
Sold: 14/06/2011

Sold - $1,095,000
19/30 Trinder Avenue MAROOCHYDORE QLD


Government Notified Sale
Sold: 18/02/2011

Beds: 4

Baths: 2

Car Spaces: 2

Sold - $510,000


23/30 Trinder Avenue MAROOCHYDORE QLD

Government Notified Sale
Sold: 14/06/2011

Sold - $1,095,000


24/30 Trinder Avenue MAROOCHYDORE QLD

Government Notified Sale
Sold: 14/06/2011

Sold - $1,095,000 on 14/06/2011 

Just where are our asset realisations going???


----------



## BABIHUTAN (27 September 2011)

selciper said:


> The G8-Cherie Hearts hearing is underway in Singapore.
> 
> http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1151702/1/.html




I hv not been able troll up anything further following the CNA report of the 7th Sept hearing. I hv not found a way to access archived material older than 7 days on this, &  Asiaone's website. I hv been monitoring both off & on and may hv missed something.
Do you, or anyone else, know what was outcome of this 3 day hearing of the Singapore High Court? 
It would be nice to know what further troubles might be in store for G8 - JH after Seamisty's post yesterday of a possble class action involving CS & S8


----------



## seamisty (27 September 2011)

BABIHUTAN said:


> I hv not been able troll up anything further following the CNA report of the 7th Sept hearing. I hv not found a way to access archived material older than 7 days on this, &  Asiaone's website. I hv been monitoring both off & on and may hv missed something.
> Do you, or anyone else, know what was outcome of this 3 day hearing of the Singapore High Court?
> It would be nice to know what further troubles might be in store for G8 - JH after Seamisty's post yesterday of a possble class action involving CS & S8



Hello BABIHUTAN, The Cherie Hearts saga continues and I believe Ms Hutson was scheduled  to take the stand yesterday and today in Singapore.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE
LAW NOTICE FOR THE WEEK MONDAY 26 SEPTEMBER TO FRIDAY 30 SEPTEMBER 2011
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE JUDITH PRAKASH

DAY DATE TIME CASE VENUE
MONDAY 26 SEP 10:00 AM S 211/2011
CHERIE HEARTS GROUP INTERNATIONAL PTE.
LTD. & ORS
(ALLEN & GLEDHILL LLP)
(ANG CHENG HOCK SC/ VINCENT LEOW/ JOEL
LIM)
V.
G8 EDUCATION LIMITED
(HARRY ELIAS PARTNERSHIP LLP)
(PHILIP FONG/ JOANA TEO/ VIKNESWARI)
CONTINUATION FROM PRECEDING WEEK
WOS FILED ON 28/03/2011
SET DOWN ON 01/09/2011
FIXED FOR 12  ½ DAYS [07 – 22, 26 & 28/09/2011]
NATURE: BREACH OF CONTRACT
[DTS TO BE USED]
COURT 6B

It appears Ms Hutsons presence is in high demand for court appaerances, I believe she has been served a subpoena to appear in Melbourne court on Monday with some very elusive documents!!


----------



## selciper (27 September 2011)

Seamisty, very pleasing to read that the Cherie Hearts Singapore case is still running. It's a pity that it isn't getting media coverage at the moment. No doubt that will change when a judgement is handed down.


----------



## seamisty (27 September 2011)

seamisty said:


> Totally agree selciper, anyone willing to take on the responsibility? Senaor John Williams has his own website  http://www.johnwilliams.com.au/
> 
> 
> Contact John Williams
> ...



Hmnn well the lack of response to my request indicates just how little ongoing support PIF investors are prepared to give. I do thank the one person I know who made another effort to draw attention to our plight. I will continue to use this thread to post information concerning the PIF so that there will always be a data base that can be used as a source of information for the possibility of another class action. I encourage others to do the same. Thanks to those who post regularly and also to those who are keen ASF followers who appreciate our efforts. Seamisty


----------



## atlas1950 (28 September 2011)

Seamisty,

You don't know how important it is for so many of us the contribution you and others have made. By posting on this thread, you have give us hope and information that we would never have been able to get. So please keep up the great work.

Michael


----------



## simgrund (28 September 2011)

seamisty said:


> Totally agree selciper, anyone willing to take on the responsibility? Senaor John Williams has his own website  http://www.johnwilliams.com.au/
> 
> 
> Contact John Williams  Electorate Office
> ...





Or email to :  Gary.Lamrock@aph.gov.au [Senator J.Williams office]


----------



## simgrund (28 September 2011)

Rogue liquidators in regulator's sights
Elisabeth Sexton
September 28, 2011

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/rogu...tors-sights-20110927-1kvd9.html#ixzz1ZCUCB3o4


----------



## charles36 (28 September 2011)

simgrund said:


> Rogue liquidators in regulator's sights
> Elisabeth Sexton
> September 28, 2011
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/rogu...tors-sights-20110927-1kvd9.html#ixzz1ZCUCB3o4




It will be a great day when we can sit at our computers and read similar results for other people who have destroyed the lives and wealth of many unit holders and shareholders.  I hope I am around long enough to see it.


----------



## seamisty (29 September 2011)

ASIC continues to procrastinate: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-...recover-lost-millions/3034964/?site=newcastle

From the above article::"ASIC was notified of the situation at YCW and from council's perspective we've had no feedback from ASIC and I think ASIC needs to be examined as well.

"ASIC has let a lot of people down over a period of time and I think it's time all of this was brought out into the open."


----------



## selciper (29 September 2011)

A quote from the past: G8 chairperson Jenny Hutson told shareholders the chances of Cherie Hearts winning the dispute were ‘beyond remote’.


----------



## JohnH (29 September 2011)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724458.PDF

Notice of ceasing to be a substantial shareholder.  They have unloaded 663894 shares from the Wholesale  PIF -  presumably the remainder.  I think we can assume where they (and the rest) went!!

............  John H.


----------



## Duped (30 September 2011)

JohnH said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724458.PDF
> 
> Notice of ceasing to be a substantial shareholder.  They have unloaded 663894 shares from the Wholesale  PIF -  presumably the remainder.  I think we can assume where they (and the rest) went!!
> 
> ............  John H.





JohnH. I suspect WPIF is still number two in the top 10 shareholder list. Ceasing to be a "substantial shareholder" merely means WPIF holds less than 5%.


----------



## seamisty (30 September 2011)

PIF annual financial report has been posted on the NSX.  I hear Ms Hutson is back in Australia and the Cherie Hearts case was still in court today in Singapore.

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724465.PDF


----------



## Cookie1 (1 October 2011)

I haven't made it all the way through the PIF Annual report yet but went straight to the Auditor's report at the back (47th & 48th pages). It seems the auditor's couldn't give an audit opinion on the financial report; even the auditor's can't get information needed out of Wellington Capital.

_"Auditor's responsibility
_Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial report based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards. Because of the matter described in the Basis for Disclaimer of Opinion paragraph, however, we were not able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion.

_"Basis for Disclaimer of Opinion
_The recoverable amount of mortgage loans amounting to $135,722,000 representing 60% of the Trust's net assets have been valued by the directors assisted by their external advisors on the basis described in note 2(d) and note 14. At the date of issue of this report we were unable to obtain access to the external advisors and their supporting work papers and as a result were unable to to evaluate the appropriateness of the advisors work and obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence in relation to the recoverable amount of the mortgage loans. In addition, included within other financial assets are asset backed loans amounting to $24m. We were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence about the carrying value of these asset backed loans as management were unable to provide us with sufficient appropriate audit evidence in respect of the valuation of the underlying security. As a result of these matters, we were unable to determine whether any adjustments might have been found necessary in respect of the recoverable amount of the mortgage loans or the valuation of the asset-backed loans.

_"Disclaimer of opinion
_Because of the significance of the matters described in the Basis for  Disclaimer of Opinion paragraph, we have not been able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide the basis for an audit opinion. Accordingly we do not express an opinion on the financial report.

"PricewaterhouseCoopers"

Note 2(d) is on page 18 and Note 14 on page 25 of the Annual Report.

A lot of questions need to be asked: Why was the appropriate information not made available to the auditors? Who are the external advisors? Why wasn't access provided to the external advisors?  Certainly WC's behaviour is NOT acceptable. 

ASIC, where are you???

Cookie1


----------



## selciper (1 October 2011)

Coolie1 - Quite staggering really. Surely this must be one for ASIC


----------



## simgrund (1 October 2011)

selciper said:


> Coolie1 - Quite staggering really. Surely this must be one for ASIC




Is Auditor under professional obligation to report to ASIC such non-compliances?


----------



## charles36 (1 October 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> I haven't made it all the way through the PIF Annual report yet but went straight to the Auditor's report at the back (47th & 48th pages). It seems the auditor's couldn't give an audit opinion on the financial report; even the auditor's can't get information needed out of Wellington Capital.
> 
> _"Auditor's responsibility
> _Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial report based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards. Because of the matter described in the Basis for Disclaimer of Opinion paragraph, however, we were not able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion.
> ...




Cookie and others.  During the campaign to remove Wellington Capital I spoke to many unit holders, some very well off and some not so.  I discussed the manner in which Wellington Capital arrived at the NTA and I always referred to the last audit wherein the valuations of our holdings was estimated by Wellington Capital Ltd, M/S Jennifer Joan Hutson and her advisors.  I tried in vain to ascertain who the advisors were but of course to NO AVAIL.  I came to the conclusion that the advisors could have been the "tea lady" for all we knew but then again a tea lady has some budgeting skills and we might have been better off.  I am waiting for a detailed analysis of the latest audit and I then intend to refer the matter to ASIC.  OTHER PEOPLE MAY FEEL THE SAME WAY?


----------



## seamisty (1 October 2011)

Cookie1 said:


> I haven't made it all the way through the PIF Annual report yet but went straight to the Auditor's report at the back (47th & 48th pages). It seems the auditor's couldn't give an audit opinion on the financial report; even the auditor's can't get information needed out of Wellington Capital.
> 
> _"Auditor's responsibility
> _Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial report based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards. Because of the matter described in the Basis for Disclaimer of Opinion paragraph, however, we were not able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion.
> ...



 Cookie wouldn't you think that after the thousands of complaints that ASIC has received for over 3years relating to the PIF that they should be all over Wellington Capital's Financial reporting themselves? But no, once again it will be up to individual Premium Income Fund unitholders to pester the crap out of ASIC once again to remind them of just how pathetic they have been in regulating/monitoring the actions of a Responsible Enity that has proved on many occassions to be seriously incompetent. Here we go again, for those of you who are less than impressed with WC performance in charging an audit to us where it could not be succesfully undertaken due to Wellington Capital once again hindering the process by failing to provide relevant documentation. So much for having a Compliance Plan and a Compliance Committee. In our case as much use as 't1ts on a boar pig'.


Please take the time to contact ASIC in relation to the latest act of Wellington Capital PIF mismanagement.
Write ASIC::
ASIC Complaints
Australian Securities and Investments Commission
GPO Box 9827
Your Capital City

Ph ASIC:: 
1300 300 630

Or alternatively email:James Stewart | Lawyer | Misconduct & Breach Reporting | ASIC | Level 20, 240 Queen Street Brisbane QLD 4000 

james.stewart@asic.gov.au 

FAX :::Brisbane Office:: Fax: (07) 3867 4725

Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## seamisty (1 October 2011)

selciper said:


> Coolie1 - Quite staggering really. Surely this must be one for ASIC



My complaint re audit has been emailed to ASIC.



What an auditor must report under s311 and
601GH:An auditor is obliged to report where he or she has reasonable grounds to
suspect that there has been or is a significant contravention of the
Corporations Act.

What is a ‘significant’ contravention?
RG 34.29::'the adequacy of the information available about the overall
financial position of the company, registered scheme or disclosing
entity'

RG 34.31::Some other types of suspected contraventions that could be considered by an auditor to be significant.

(a) insolvent trading;
(b) a breach of accounting standards or the ‘true and fair view’
requirements;
(c) a breach of Div 2, Pt 2 of the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission Act 2001 (the ASIC Act);
(d) suspected dishonest or misleading and deceptive conduct; and
(e) a breach that may cause a significant loss to any person or class of
persons.

Plenty more on auditors responsibilites from the ASIC website:http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/rg34.pdf/$file/rg34.pdf


----------



## seamisty (2 October 2011)

Looks like Mr Byrnes' ALF  is at it again, Equititrust is now in its sights!!;;

http://www.irw-press.com/en/news_13725.html



'We further confirm that the first of three takeover offers on Equititrust is ready to be sent to the company next week. ALF Finance and Investments has written to the targets largest shareholder and former chairman and invited a private discussion before sending out the offer. The results of that discussion will determine which version of the offer will be submitted. ;


----------



## Sutho81 (2 October 2011)

seamisty said:


> Looks like Mr Byrnes' ALF  is at it again, Equititrust is now in its sights!!;;
> 
> http://www.irw-press.com/en/news_13725.html
> 
> ...




No one in their right mind would accept a take over offer from that company. They are only looking after themselves with the intent of screwing the investors who sign over to them.

Unfortunately for us I think their take over was too close to the Castlereagh attempt which may have unnerved some into accepting Castlereagh.

I personally cant wait to see another attempt to sack Wellington by Castlereagh or another responsible company.


----------



## charles36 (2 October 2011)

It will be very interesting to see how ASIC, ATO, NSX, CENTRELINK and any other Government Regulatory authority treat the self assessment of the value of Wellington Capital PIF.  If no evidence can be produced of Licensed valuers or accepted methods of valuations of the Managed Fund in question then how can Wellington Capital correctly estimate the value of our units?  What faith could people have in purchasing units nor how do unit holders really make a considered decision?   How can anyone rely upon Wellington Capital?  Obviously the Auditors do not so why should we?  Wake up Government authorities and please do something to rectify this most unsatisfactory state of affairs before there is nothing left to value.


----------



## DepressedDad (2 October 2011)

In my business I have a 3 month audit & the auditor reports to the Government Office of Fair Trading as part of their job.  Is it worth enquiring if the auditor here is following regulations? They must care about their professional obligation & duty of care.


----------



## charles36 (3 October 2011)

DepressedDad said:


> In my business I have a 3 month audit & the auditor reports to the Government Office of Fair Trading as part of their job.  Is it worth enquiring if the auditor here is following regulations? They must care about their professional obligation & duty of care.




I have a "Self funded retirement superannuation fund" which requires an audit costing about $600 all up. It must be audited every year, no excuses, the ATO come down heavily on the little bloke who does not comply.  We all know that Wellington Capital Ltd appear to be a law unto themselves.  I did not attend any of the last roadshows but I was informed  that something was said that the valuations had all been properly costed etc?  Where does that leave the unit holders who went away humbly satisfied?  Where does that leave the unit holders who allegedly voted to retain Wellington Capital Ltd. in preference to a well run and organised company with experience in dealing with property sales and recovery?


----------



## seamisty (3 October 2011)

DepressedDad said:


> In my business I have a 3 month audit & the auditor reports to the Government Office of Fair Trading as part of their job.  Is it worth enquiring if the auditor here is following regulations? They must care about their professional obligation & duty of care.



Lets hope the 'regulators' are as quick to pick up on the lack of  PIF compliance as the media has!! Make sure you all draw it to the attention of the appropriate regulators please, I would hate to let them think we have given up and are prepared to let these type of actions pass un- noticed.

Auditor's concern a PIFfling matter 
Scott Rochfort
October 3, 2011.
The manager of the MFS-founded Premium Income Fund, Wellington Capital's Jenny Hutson, does not appear too concerned about being unable to lodge an audited set of full-year accounts.
''Thank you for your support during what has been an eventful year for your fund,'' a smiling Hutson said in her letter in the PIF annual report. She made no mention of the auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers declining to sign the same set of accounts, given it was unable to gain comfort on the new $135.7 million valuation on the loans made by the mortgage fund to various developers, loans that make up 60 per cent of the fund's net assets.
''At the date of issue of this report, we were unable to obtain access to the external advisers and their supporting work papers and, as a result, were unable to evaluate the appropriateness of the advisers' work and obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence in relation to the recoverable amount of the mortgage loans,'' PwC partner Timothy Allman said in his report on the PIF.
With Wellington Capital able to collect management fees once she returns another 1 ¢ to unitholders, it should be interesting to see if Hutson bases her 0.7 per cent annual fee on the unaudited $224.9 million of assets in the fund.
Wellington in its accounts did not name the ''independent advisers'' it used to value its mortgage loans, which had been already written down by $72.5 million the previous financial year. PwC also said it was unable to ''obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence'' over a further $24 million worth of asset-backed loans held by the fund


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/auditors-concern-a-piffling-matter-20111002-1l3r0.html#ixzz1ZfL3O3c7
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/auditors-concern-a-piffling-matter-20111002-1l3r0.html#ixzz1ZfKpkjmb


----------



## marcom (3 October 2011)

Back from OS (with a new more appropriate avatar) only to find the latest WC PIF rort amply highlighted in this Scott Roachfort article in the Brisbane Times. What are those ASIC F===WITS doing allowing unaudited valuations!!!!

Auditor's concern a PIFfling matter
Scott Rochfort
October 2, 2011

CBD

The manager of the MFS-founded Premium Income Fund, Wellington Capital's Jenny Hutson, does not appear too concerned about being unable to lodge an audited set of full-year accounts.

''Thank you for your support during what has been an eventful year for your fund,'' a smiling Hutson said in her letter in the PIF annual report. She made no mention of the auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers declining to sign the same set of accounts, given it was unable to gain comfort on the new $135.7 million valuation on the loans made by the mortgage fund to various developers, loans that make up 60 per cent of the fund's net assets.

''At the date of issue of this report, we were unable to obtain access to the external advisers and their supporting work papers and, as a result, were unable to evaluate the appropriateness of the advisers' work and obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence in relation to the recoverable amount of the mortgage loans,'' PwC partner Timothy Allman said in his report on the PIF.
Advertisement: Story continues below

With Wellington Capital able to collect management fees once she returns another 1 ¢ to unitholders, it should be interesting to see if Hutson bases her 0.7 per cent annual fee on the unaudited $224.9 million of assets in the fund.

Wellington in its accounts did not name the ''independent advisers'' it used to value its mortgage loans, which had been already written down by $72.5 million the previous financial year. PwC also said it was unable to ''obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence'' over a further $24 million worth of asset-backed loans held by the fund.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/bus...ling-matter-20111002-1l3r0.html#ixzz1ZfI6GyNe


----------



## seamisty (3 October 2011)

HAHA! We doubled up on the article Marcom, welcome back to OZ and love your new avitar!


----------



## seamisty (3 October 2011)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE IN THE HIGH COURT BEFORE THE SENIOR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TEH HWEE HWEE MONDAY, 3 OCT 2011, AT 9:00AM, CHAMBER 4B

S/N CASE NO. PLAINTIFF/S DEFENDANT/S SUBJECT MATTER

15. S551/2011 LIM SEO HWEE, GARY & ORS (SUMMIT LAW CORPORATION) CHERIE HEARTS CHILDCARE SERVICES PTE LTD & ORS (ALLEN & GLEDHILL LLP) CONTRACT - OTHERS


----------



## charles36 (3 October 2011)

seamisty said:


> IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE IN THE HIGH COURT BEFORE THE SENIOR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TEH HWEE HWEE MONDAY, 3 OCT 2011, AT 9:00AM, CHAMBER 4B
> 
> S/N CASE NO. PLAINTIFF/S DEFENDANT/S SUBJECT MATTER
> 
> 15. S551/2011 LIM SEO HWEE, GARY & ORS (SUMMIT LAW CORPORATION) CHERIE HEARTS CHILDCARE SERVICES PTE LTD & ORS (ALLEN & GLEDHILL LLP) CONTRACT - OTHERS




SEAMISTY:  The management of Wellington Capital are a well sought after "commodity" and I know they are are very adapt at what they do but even they cannot be in two Courts in different countries at the same time.  Can you enlighten me how this can be done.  I am sure this will not be the last of Court appearances for Wellington Capital Ltd.


----------



## seamisty (3 October 2011)

charles36 said:


> SEAMISTY:  The management of Wellington Capital are a well sought after "commodity" and I know they are are very adapt at what they do but even they cannot be in two Courts in different countries at the same time.  Can you enlighten me how this can be done.  I am sure this will not be the last of Court appearances for Wellington Capital Ltd.




Well charles36, could one not expect any less from a company who prides itself on 'Innovative Corporate Advice, Experienced Funds Management offerring corporate
solutions beyond the conventional' ?

'Wellington Capital has acted as corporate adviser on over $2 billion in projects.  Our extensive involvement in providing corporate advice enables us to provide expert advice on mergers and acquisitions, capital raisings and restructuring.

Wellington Capital has experience as corporate adviser to the boards of various listed and unlisted companies and fund managers.  The team has a comprehensive understanding of the regulatory and commercial considerations as corporate adviser and fund manager.  They have been involved in advising a range of boards on complex corporate issues including capital raisings, mergers and acquisition and debt restructures.

In addition, Wellington Capital is a nominated adviser of the National Stock Exchange.':::

Surely some Wellington Capital staff must be starting to be a tad embarrassed by their supreme commanders performance?
I bet GEM/G8 shareholders are also feeling a bit concerned by a court case that has run into well over double time of the original 10 days put aside.


----------



## selciper (3 October 2011)

'Thank you for your support during what has been an eventful year for your fund,'' a smiling Hutson said in her letter in the PIF annual report. (SMH CBD today.)

Surely that statement is worthy of a golden Monty Python award. 

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/auditors-concern-a-piffling-matter-20111002-1l3r0.html#ixzz1ZfzthwUZ


----------



## Duped (3 October 2011)

seamisty said:


> ...
> 
> Auditor's concern a PIFfling matter
> Scott Rochfort
> ...




Thanks seamisty. Hence the roadshow I guess.

Scotty - Hutson has got a very good reason not to pay herself on the unaudited accounts.
Clause 23.1 of the PIF Constitution
WC "is entitled to be paid ... a management fee equal to the sum of 0.7% per annum of the value of the otal funds under management as determined with reference to the preceeding month and the most recent *audited* accounts." [emphasis added]

That's one heck of a incentive right there for Hutson's WC to sabotage the audit.
At NTA $225M unaudited Hutson and Co gets $131K per month.
At NTA $253M audited Hutson and Co gets $148K per month.

But is Hutson's WC in breach of S18.1 of the PIF constitution where WC must "comply with its obligations at law in respect of preparing, auditing and issuing the financial statements and reports of the" PIF.

So it's off again I went to that seedy downtown full of dark back alleys of a piece of legislation called the Corporations Act.
S314(3) requires the Annual Financial Report within 3 months of the end of the financial year. No mention in that section about an audit.

So does WC's report of last friday comply with S295 "contents of the annual financial report". Well there's no mention in S295 of an auditor's report.  So I guess the answer is yes.

So what is the deadline for an audit? I can't find anything in the Corporations Act, namely Part 2M.3 Division 3.  Anyone?

So what's stopping WC delaying the release of information so the auditor can form an opinion for years?  Like for the Health Services Union?

Is this another case of ASIC squatting on legislation which from a small investors point of view is, to borrow a term from both Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, "crap"?  I.e. more legislation that  functions to merely create the perception that Australia is a safe place for small investors to invest?

The Corporations Act is aptly named. It's certainly not the Small/Retail Investors Act.


----------



## Duped (3 October 2011)

selciper said:


> 'Thank you for your support during what has been an eventful year for your fund,'' a smiling Hutson said in her letter in the PIF annual report. (SMH CBD today.)
> 
> Surely that statement is worthy of a golden Monty Python award.
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/auditors-concern-a-piffling-matter-20111002-1l3r0.html#ixzz1ZfzthwUZ




Thank you for letting us continue to do to you what we are doing.  
Or
Thankyou for supporting us to enrich ourselves from your wealth.  
I'd be smiling too


----------



## charles36 (3 October 2011)

AUDIT REPORT

2010    Audit services ........................................$73,000........................2011.................$142,840
           Compliance plan audit.................................3,475.......................... .............................15,800
           Tax Services.............................................. 21,865.....................................................48,688
           Note: Fund not taxable.

Total:...................................................................$98,340..................................................$207,320

Apparently the fund passed audit in 2010, cost a lot less than 2011.  Why the increase in costs and the following comment from auditor?

Quote:  "PWC were not able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion."

Question:  How was the fund valued last time PWC?
Question:  Where to now Wellington Capital?  Who is responsible for this fiasco?  Who is       responsible to pay PWC?

I have a particu;lar concern with Wellington Capital Ltd participating in the valuation of the fund as there is a problem, whether real or imagined, for a company to receive a fee proportioned on the value of an asset which has not been supported by independent valuation.  It may or may not be the law, either way in my opinion it is not safe.


----------



## selciper (3 October 2011)

Duped, thanks for your fine-print analysis of audits and PIF obligations. Nevertheless, I think that the WC court astrologer may be frowning as he gazes into the 2012 crystal ball. He may be seeing something like "signs of an unfortunate confluence of events will lead to a difficult period of trying matters". Well, I hope so anyway.


----------



## seamisty (4 October 2011)

Even though the PIF interim financial report for 2010 did not have to be fully audited, PWC signed off on  http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/2011/pif_half_year_interim_financial_31_dec_10.pdf


Page 14


'With the assistance of independent advisors, the directors have made an assessment of each mortgage loan to determine the likelihood of recovery and the extent of any possible impairment in the value of these investments.'


Who were the 'independant advisers'??Surely these figures would have to have been made available to the auditors at that time?


----------



## NOR (4 October 2011)

Duped said:


> Thank you for letting us continue to do to you what we are doing.
> Or
> Thankyou for supporting us to enrich ourselves from your wealth.
> I'd be smiling too




O YES &THANK/S TO ....SH..SH.SH asic sh sh  please sleep on never wake up u lot of   B.................GERS....JEN


----------



## selciper (5 October 2011)

I notice that the increasingly large protests in the US against Wall Street bankers and traders have brought about many bitter references to kleptomania. A dictionary definition of kleptomania is: "An obsessive impulse to steal regardless of economic need." 

According to the BBC, this protest movement has the potential to become enormous.


----------



## JohnH (5 October 2011)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724473.PDF

Update.............Consolidated Constitution
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the 
Premium Income Fund has lodged a consolidated constitution 
with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.  A 
copy is available from the Wellington Capital website 
www.wellcap.com.au. A hard copy will be made available to 
Unitholders on request. 
This presents, in one document, the Constitution of the Premium 
Income Fund as it currently stands for ease of reference. 
(_can anyone wade through the site and find this?_


----------



## Cookie1 (5 October 2011)

JohnH said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724473.PDF
> 
> Update.............Consolidated Constitution
> Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the
> ...




Hi John H

Try this link: http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/2011/nsx release_consolidatedconstitution_5sept2011.pdf

It was originally an NSX PIN company announcement on 6 September 2011. You can also go to the Wellington Capital website, select the "Investors" tab at the top of the page, then click on "Premium Income Fund"; then on the righthand side of the page under  "PIF: Investor and Media Updates 2011", click on "5 September 2011: NSX Release Consolidated Constitution". I printed it off some time ago but still haven't found the time to wade through it. The dates aren't the same for some reason????

It would be a good idea if someone could find the time to compare the old constitution & various changes with the new "consolidated constitution" to ensure that JH isn't trying to pull the wool over our eyes again.

(I think I've given the correct instructions to find the Consolidated Constitution; give it a go and see if it works!)

Cookie1


----------



## Duped (6 October 2011)

Thanks seamisty.  Doesn't surprise me.

The red flags have been waving for PIF investors for such a long time. The incompetence of our public servants, those individuals who make a safe living with a generous and safe defined benefit superannuation pretending to be looking after our interests, is unbelieveable. Perhaps the public service ignorance is wilful.  I.e. corrupt?

Here's another example.  The ABC was making a fool of themselves yesterday about the class action launched aganst the ANZ for $50M odd. The ABC was dribbling about it being perhaps Australia's biggest ever. What a bunch of uninformed dopes. Not even close. Our class action is about an order of magnitude bigger. How could such a richly endowed organisation such as the ABC be so uninformed or incompetent.


----------



## DepressedDad (6 October 2011)

http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/05/19/plus-ca-change-conflicts-continue-at-octaviar/

An article from three & a half years ago about the dastardly duo.  Look at the comment at the bottom.  Never a truer word said. One wonders how many more years he/she can do this? Will this be the last straw?


----------



## selciper (6 October 2011)

As having a new boss in charge of ASIC hasn't seen any improvement in its performance, the government perhpaps should consider making it a division of the Australian Federal Police.


----------



## marcom (7 October 2011)

Another piece from Scott Roachfort on the asset valuation scam. SMH CBD 7 Oct 2011

READ THE LINES

Yesterday's ''Elephant in the Room Announcement Award'' goes to the manager of the MFS-founded Premium Income Fund, Wellington Capital.

The Wellington founder, Jenny Hutson, in an investor update yesterday noted how she was committed to ''no further capital raising'' and ''limiting fees to 0.7 per cent of funds under management for two years''.

Hutson also noted how the annual financial report ''has been completed''. She just failed to mention that the fund's auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers declined to provide an opinion on the accounts.

PwC partner Timothy Allman said in the PIF accounts he was unable to attain appropriate evidence on the $135.7 million valuation on the loans made by the mortgage fund to various developers - loans that make up 60 per cent of the fund's net assets.

''At the date of issue of this report, we were unable to obtain access to the external advisers and their supporting work papers and, as a result, were unable to evaluate the appropriateness of the advisers' work and obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence in relation to the recoverable amount of the mortgage loans.''

PIF unitholders might be wondering whether it would be appropriate for Wellington to base its management fees on a valuation that was not signed off by an auditor.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/happ...ter-another-20111006-1lboo.html#ixzz1a2bg9Smu


----------



## charles36 (7 October 2011)

marcom said:


> Another piece from Scott Roachfort on the asset valuation scam. SMH CBD 7 Oct 2011
> 
> READ THE LINES
> 
> ...




Wellington Capital, It is not the only matter we are wondering about?


----------



## selciper (7 October 2011)

A report in the Australian today about alleged goings-on in WA.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...aj-oswal-doubles/story-e6frg6nf-1226160727705


----------



## Duped (7 October 2011)

selciper said:


> A report in the Australian today about alleged goings-on in WA.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...aj-oswal-doubles/story-e6frg6nf-1226160727705





Australian's really do seem to be a particularly easy target for transferring wealth.  

Bondie.

The PIF thing.

Then there's the Myer thing.  See http://www.smh.com.au/business/ato-hopes-dashed-in-myer-float-case-20111004-1l7bt.html

Then of course there's the string of legal victories by Fortress over its Octaviar play.

Is Australia the dopiest country on earth?


----------



## selciper (8 October 2011)

This documentary via YouTube shows the UK Fraud Squad in action. Much emphasis os placed on the detrimental effects the losses have on the elderly and the jetset lifestyles of fraudsters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGAPTj4dqZY


----------



## seamisty (8 October 2011)

CEOs - the new corporate fraudstersds
CHIEF Executive Officers (CEOs) are the fastest growing percentage of corporate fraudsters, according to a survey by forensic audit firm KPMG. 

In its report titled “Who is the typical corporate fraudster?”, KPMG’s analysis of global patterns of fraud, it says 26 percent of fraudsters are chief executives – up from 11 percent in 2007. 

The report indicates that a typical corporate fraudster is a senior finance executive, and that 32 percent of all employees who commit fraud work in corporate finance. 

http://www.iol.co.za/sundayindependent/ceos-the-new-corporate-fraudstersds-1.1144649


 HMNN, I wonder if KPMG have statistics on ex employees?


'Two former KPMG execs get stiff jail terms for tax shelter'
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ec-10-years-jail/story-e6frg906-1225697633903


'Ex KPMG manager pleads guilty to insider trading with Promentum'
http://www.proprint.com.au/News/239...guilty-to-insider-trading-with-promentum.aspx


'Ex-boss of city business body faces fraud charges' http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2010/08/16/201291_news.html


----------



## selciper (9 October 2011)

Rather fail with honour than succeed by fraud. 
(Sophocles)


----------



## seamisty (10 October 2011)

Another potential dismal failure relating to Wellington Capital is the Wellington Property Securities Fund. The same board of directors as the PIF had the 'pleasure' in presenting their report. The auditors Crowe Horwath did not express any pleasure, quite the contrary and expressed concerns as to whether the fund had the ability to continue as a going concern. 
http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/wpsf/2011_annual_report_wellington_property_securities_fund.pdf


----------



## charles36 (10 October 2011)

seamisty said:


> Another potential dismal failure relating to Wellington Capital is the Wellington Property Securities Fund. The same board of directors as the PIF had the 'pleasure' in presenting their report. The auditors Crowe Horwath did not express any pleasure, quite the contrary and expressed concerns as to whether the fund had the ability to continue as a going concern.
> http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/wpsf/2011_annual_report_wellington_property_securities_fund.pdf




SEAMISTY  I would say Wellington has not had a good year so far.  PIF, PRINT LOGISTICS, PROPERTY SECURITIES,  CHERIE HEARTS G8,   S8 (class action contemplated) FOREST RESORT (Court Action)  Could not be classed as an outstanding success.  What next?


----------



## elizaman (10 October 2011)

seamisty said:


> Another potential dismal failure relating to Wellington Capital is the Wellington Property Securities Fund. The same board of directors as the PIF had the 'pleasure' in presenting their report. The auditors Crowe Horwath did not express any pleasure, quite the contrary and expressed concerns as to whether the fund had the ability to continue as a going concern.
> http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/wpsf/2011_annual_report_wellington_property_securities_fund.pdf




With all due respect, read and convey all of note 25 in the report.


----------



## seamisty (10 October 2011)

A bit more info.

 Wellington Property Securities fund 100% own 6 and 8 Pikki St Maroochydore. I see that 6-18 Pikki St Maroochydore is up for sale as a mixed use development site . 

6 Pikki St was listed as being for lease until recently and of interest was previously the address for Sunnycove management ltd. 

Remember Sunnycove? Directors and Executives:
   Mr Andrew Kemp (Chairman)
   Mr Mark Roberts (Managing Director)
   Mr Matthew Madsen (Director)
   Mr Craig Wallace (Director)
Some familiar names in there?

MFS Diversified did some sort of a deal with Sunnycove  to manage some Village Life centres.

Wellington Property Securities trust is also invested in Westlawn property Trust, a company that owns 307 Queen St Brisbane where Wellington Capitals' office is 
located.
Jenny Hutson previously did the corporate legal work for Westlawn Finance and Westlawn Property Trust.


----------



## seamisty (10 October 2011)

seamisty said:


> Another potential dismal failure relating to Wellington Capital is the Wellington Property Securities Fund. The same board of directors as the PIF had the 'pleasure' in presenting their report. The auditors Crowe Horwath did not express any pleasure, quite the contrary and expressed concerns as to whether the fund had the ability to continue as a going concern.
> http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/wpsf/2011_annual_report_wellington_property_securities_fund.pdf



Print Mail Logistics also used Crowe Horwath as their auditor for their annual 2011 report who declared "

Emphasis of matter
Without qualifying our opinion, we draw attention to Note 1(a), in the financial report, which indicates that the
company and consolidated entity incurred losses of $38,674 and $335,087 respectively during the year
ended 30 June 2011 and, at that date, the company’s and consolidated entity’s current liabilities exceeded
their current assets by $1,670,287 and $1,556,188 respectively. These conditions, along with the other
matters set forth in Note 1(a), indicate the existence of a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt
about the company and consolidated entity’s ability to continue as a going concerns and therefore, whether
they will be able to realise their assets and discharge their liabilities in the normal course of business."  

Following that Print Mail Logistics called an AGM on the 10th October (today) of which one of the resolutions was for ' Change of Auditor'
	
The outcome?? You guessed it!!! Print Mail Logistics now have a new auditor!!!

	



----------



## charles36 (10 October 2011)

The suspense is killing me, how long do we have to wait for the final death knell of the PIF.  We took the chance (PIFAG) had great support but no matter how much support we generated we could not have won under the circumstances that existed last time.  Nobody predicted the  actions of Wellington Capital.


----------



## Duped (10 October 2011)

elizaman said:


> With all due respect, read and convey all of note 25 in the report.




With pleasure elizaman.

First WC issues PDF's that aren't text readable.  Now this PDF WC released is some sort of weird layout (in columns?) that can't be easily Copy+Pasted. Silly games really. Excel to CSV to Word and then Find-Replace made relatively short work of stitching it back together.  [emphasis added]

"[FONT=&quot]The Directors have prepared the financial report of the Fund on the going concern basis, which *assumes *that the fund will be able to discharge its liabilities and realise its assets in the ordinary course of business on the following basis:[/FONT]  

[FONT=&quot]Although one of the covenants in the bank loan has been *breached *at 30 June 2011, the bank has not requested any facility reduction and has provided confirmation dated 29 September 2011 that they are *satisfied *with the conduct of the facility in relation to the Wellington Direct Property Trust.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The bank has *indicated *that they will seek to extend to 31 July 2012 when the existing facility expires at 31 October 2011.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The properties held by the Fund remain strong and have been fully leased.[/FONT]"
Element of surprise is key for creditors isn't it? Keep em thinking they're in the clear until you turn up unannounced to change the locks? I imagine the bank would be well aware that if they get all heavy handed they risk motivating the borrower to strip the cupboards of all assets long before the bank gets around to excercising their rights.

Bottom line is that one of the covenants was breached.  The bank can collect? So perhaps the bank is licking its lips for extra pounds of flesh they can demand in return for extending the existing facility. Look what Fortress got from MFS/Octaviar when Fortress turned the screws.  Fortress got an extra fifty odd million $ converted from unsecured to secured at the 11th hour.

Oh and what penalties is the Trust up for now it's breached? All sorts of clauses can kick in once there is a breach.

Maybe WC will pull what they did to PIF. Pay off the bank by borrowing from a top secret lender at 20%/25%.  Yikes.


----------



## charles36 (10 October 2011)

WHOLESALE PREMIUM INCOME FUND.   Another fund failed to pass muster.  Price Waterhouse Cooper, the auditors for the WPIF have indicated:  DISCLAIMER OF OPINION:  Because of the significance of the matters described in the basis of the disclaimer of opinion paragraph, we have not been able to OBTAIN SUFFICIENT APPROPRIATE AUDIT EVIDENCE to provide the basis for an audit opinion.  Accordingly we do not express an opinion on the financial report.  Well, does the Board of Wellington,  know more than the auditors about audits?  A certain Director has signed off on the Financial statements "As giving a true and fair view of financial position."  What a dilemma.  Lawyers on one hand and qualified Auditors on the other.  Lawyers have made the judgment but the auditors require appropriate evidence which has not been produced.  Not much of a decision I would think.  May be time to change these Auditors also Wellington?


----------



## charles36 (10 October 2011)

charles36 said:


> SEAMISTY  I would say Wellington has not had a good year so far.  PIF, PRINT LOGISTICS, PROPERTY SECURITIES,  CHERIE HEARTS G8,   S8 (class action contemplated) FOREST RESORT (Court Action)  Could not be classed as an outstanding success.  What next?




I cannot keep up,  Another one WPIF


----------



## JohnH (10 October 2011)

charles36 said:


> I cannot keep up,  Another one WPIF




Charles, I can think of no other reason than that this is all a game to JH and her cronies.  It is unbelievable that they can operate in this cavalier manner without any intervention from ASIC.   Presumably she sees it purely as a game of strategy, and just doesn't realise or accept that the pawns (us) are in fact real people, in many cases elderly, and in many cases struggling to survive as a result of the mess that has been made with our funds.


----------



## charles36 (10 October 2011)

JohnH said:


> Charles, I can think of no other reason than that this is all a game to JH and her cronies.  It is unbelievable that they can operate in this cavalier manner without any intervention from ASIC.   Presumably she sees it purely as a game of strategy, and just doesn't realise or accept that the pawns (us) are in fact real people, in many cases elderly, and in many cases struggling to survive as a result of the mess that has been made with our funds.




John H,  There is an old saying "every dog has his day and when he does (he does something to every other dog's tree"  I believe the Forensic Accountants should be able to look at the fund on behalf of unit holders and give the true picture of what has happened, what is happening and some guide for the future.  While ever the fund does not have a true audit of the valuation of our assets the fund will just languish on the NSX to the detriment of all unit holders.  Wellington Capital have been busy cementing themselves as the RE of the fund and while the present position stands there is little point in trying to remove WC.  However, at some time the Government Regulator may see their way clear to do something to help.  Here's hoping.  In the meantime stay 'POSITIVE."


----------



## seamisty (10 October 2011)

seamisty said:


> Print Mail Logistics also used Crowe Horwath as their auditor for their annual 2011 report who declared "
> 
> Emphasis of matter
> Without qualifying our opinion, we draw attention to Note 1(a), in the financial report, which indicates that the
> ...



Perhaps Print Mail Logistics should consider replacing their corporate adviser, Ms Hutson managing director  from Wellington Capital as well as their auditor? It was Ms Hutson that organised for PML to be listed on the NSX and commence trading on the 23rd November 2009 http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722273.PDF

In just short of two years Print Mail Logistics has been traded a total of just 16 times!!


----------



## selciper (10 October 2011)

One way of remaining positive in this situation is to be reminded that nobody's streak of good luck goes on forever. Clearly, luck has already been pushed too far, and the effect of this will be felt deeply by the groups who have adversely affected our lives.


----------



## seamisty (11 October 2011)

selciper said:


> One way of remaining positive in this situation is to be reminded that nobody's streak of good luck goes on forever. Clearly, luck has already been pushed too far, and the effect of this will be felt deeply by the groups who have adversely affected our lives.



selciper personally I am not a lucky person in the manner of being a winner or scoring a reward for nothing etc. After over three years of researching why my hard earned  life savings were stolen from me I am convinced that there is a culture of corrupt practice and mutual undertakings between certain circles within the so called 'corporate hierachy.' I have never been a 'conspiracy theorist', but it is becoming obvious that certain names continue to be linked to business practices which are being exposed as 'unacceptable'.
Also I have had offers for my PIF units from others which I have refused because I consider that if I had accepted those offers then I would lose my 'voice' and my right to a share from any successful litigation returns.  In the event that the CA, ASIC or Bentleys return some cash to the PIF fund, where will that money go? Who has the right to lay claim to it? Investors who have bailed out or those remaining in thhe fund? What rights do the placement investors have? Too many questions with no adequate answers so meanwhile I will just continue my research  and post my findings.


----------



## Cookie1 (11 October 2011)

seamisty said:


> selciper personally I am not a lucky person in the manner of being a winner or scoring a reward for nothing etc. After over three years of researching why my hard earned  life savings were stolen from me I am convinced that there is a culture of corrupt practice and mutual undertakings between certain circles within the so called 'corporate hierachy.' I have never been a 'conspiracy theorist', but it is becoming obvious that certain names continue to be linked to business practices which are being exposed as 'unacceptable'.
> Also I have had offers for my PIF units from others which I have refused because I consider that if I had accepted those offers then I would lose my 'voice' and my right to a share from any successful litigation returns.  In the event that the CA, ASIC or Bentleys return some cash to the PIF fund, where will that money go? Who has the right to lay claim to it? Investors who have bailed out or those remaining in thhe fund? What rights do the placement investors have? Too many questions with no adequate answers so meanwhile I will just continue my research  and post my findings.




Seamisty,

A huge thank you from me and the many other investors who regularly monitor this forum. Your diligent research (I don't know how you find out some of the things that you do and don't want to know) is so much appreciated. We wouldn't have a clue what is happening if it weren't for your contribution and the others as well.

Cookie1


----------



## atlas1950 (11 October 2011)

Hi All,

Am I correct in saying that our next important date we should keep our eyes open for is at the end of October when Bentleys might distribute some of our frozen funds.

I know there is a lot of doom and gloom, and the way I see it, we have three areas of retrieving some of our investments.

1) Hopefully some release of our funds from Bentleys as stated from them about 3 weeks ago.

2) The eventual 1 cent distribution from WC. I am sure this one will come so that it will allow her to pay herself the .7% management fees.

3) The eventual distribution from our Class Action.

The CA is the one that I put a lot of faith into. IMF would not be putting there time and millions of dollars into it, if they felt we had no case. So let us not loose complete faith in all the hard work that we have done so far, and the name of the exercise now, I believe, is retrieving as much of our capital as possible.

Apart from my 3 points, can anyone think of any other areas where we could get some of our investment back.

Michael


----------



## marcom (11 October 2011)

atlas1950 said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Am I correct in saying that our next important date we should keep our eyes open for is at the end of October when Bentleys might distribute some of our frozen funds.
> 
> ...




We might also get something out of the ASIC case against MFS directors and others when ASIC get off their backsides and get the case going.


----------



## atlas1950 (11 October 2011)

Marcom,

Like many others, I have no faith in ASIC. I will believe it when I see it in terms of monetary retrieval. We can live in hope, but until I see there money coming thru, I believe that my three areas of retrieval are the most likely. 

Can anyone think of other areas that we can hope for???

Michael


----------



## Duped (11 October 2011)

atlas1950 said:


> 1) Hopefully some release of our funds from Bentleys as stated from them about 3 weeks ago.




That money will be paid to PIF and it will be entirely up to the flip-flop WC as to what happens to it.  

How good is Hutson's judgement.  Well she didn't seem to think it was a bad idea to address the rent a crowd?


----------



## selciper (11 October 2011)

marcom said:


> We might also get something out of the ASIC case against MFS directors and others when ASIC get off their backsides and get the case going.



Conjecture again on my part - ASIC may be keenly waiting on the Bentleys report and recommendations to be released. After all, Bentleys will have done the burdonsome chores for the regulator over the past eighteen months or so (giving ASIC a free ride).

Seamisty, your hard work is invaluable!


----------



## atlas1950 (11 October 2011)

Let us hope you are right. There have been too many disappointments with ASIC, so I personally don't put too much faith in them.

It seems to me the CA is our best hope, plus the other drips and drabs filtering thru.

Keep the faith everyone.

Michael


----------



## charles36 (11 October 2011)

atlas1950 said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Am I correct in saying that our next important date we should keep our eyes open for is at the end of October when Bentleys might distribute some of our frozen funds.
> 
> ...



Michael,  There are a few more ways to recover some of our money but at this stage less said the better.  "Never telegraph your punches."


----------



## marcom (12 October 2011)

An interesting piece in the LAWYERS WEEKLY

*Fine line between super boss and psycho*
Posted Oct 06 2011, 08:27 PM by Lawyers Weekly 

According to psychologist and executive coach Paul Babiak, psychopaths - who are generally described as being "completely amoral and concerned only with their own power and selfish pleasures" (sound familiar?) - are likely to be overrepresented in the business environment because it happens to play to their strengths.

In short, where greed is considered to be a good thing (worried yet?) and profit-making tops the values list (run while you can!), psychopaths thrive.

Frankly, based on that little assessment, it seems likely that most lawyers are probably working with at least one psychopath.

More from http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/blo.../fine-line-between-super-boss-and-psycho.aspx

I can think of one that fits the description - wonder who that would be?


----------



## Duped (12 October 2011)

charles36 said:


> Michael,  There are a few more ways to recover some of our money but at this stage less said the better.  "Never telegraph your punches."




Well well well. Barrett J in the NSW Supreme Court has upheld the Gordon J (Federal Court) decision from June. That was the decision where the FCA said that Hutson's WC illegally changed the PIF consitution so that it could issue more units that substantially diluted the value of the existing unit holder's investment.

Hutson's response (http://nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724118.PDF) to Gordon J's decision was "It is disappointing that having taken *appropriate legal advice* in relation to the issue that the outcome is a decision by Justice Gordon that the issue cannot proceed" [emaphasis added]

Well how "appropriate" WAS that legal advice? We've got two judges now that disagree.

On June 21 The Courier Mail published "Wellington managing director Jenny Hutson described the decision as "disappointing" and *disagreed *with the court's interpretation of how a fund manager can implement changes to a constitution without adversely affecting investor rights." [emphasis added]

Hey Jennifer Joan Hutson - it appears there are now *TWO *judges that disagree with *YOU*.

Add this to your bad decision to choose to address the rent a crowd.

From such information it seems your WC is either a sham/front as some are alleging,or you're not showing very good judgement.  Both are grounds for the interests of unit holders being served best by your *immediate resignation*. 

And you can more quickly precipitate your desire to make PIF "*a very distant memory*" (see post #8835). 

http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=154995

http://www.freehills.com/7528.aspx

http://www.minterellison.com/Pub/NA/20111011_Centro/


----------



## simgrund (12 October 2011)

Duped said:


> Well well well. Barrett J in the NSW Supreme Court has upheld the Gordon J (Federal Court) decision from June.
> http://www.freehills.com/7528.aspx




I isolated these 2 sections from Freehills for better analysis. 
What is the correct interpretation?
As long as the "rights" are untouchable, the bread & butter "interests" can be 
slaughtered for the original unit holders???



> 06 October 2011
> In brief
> 
> Section 601GC(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) allows the responsible entity of a managed investment scheme to amend the scheme constitution without unitholder approval if the responsible entity reasonably considers that the changes will not adversely affect unitholders’ rights.
> ...




and further



> Ruling
> 
> Barrett J analysed the Premium Income Fund and ING Funds Management Ltd cases, as well as various cases which addressed similar issues in the context of the rights of shareholders in a company. His Honour noted that the suggestion in the Premium Income Fund case that unitholders had a ‘right’ to insist that no new units be issued other than pursuant to the existing pricing formula was dicta. He then went on to expressly reject this interpretation of unitholders’ ‘rights’, contrasting the meaning of unitholders’ ‘rights’ with unitholders’ ‘interests’ (ie, something that affects the enjoyment or value of unitholders’ rights). His Honour then held that it was open to the RE, on reasonable grounds, to find that the pricing amendments would not adversely affect unitholders’ rights.
> 
> Barrett J went on to note that although the RE had the power to make the amendments under section 601GC(1)(b), it still had to ensure that it properly discharged its fiduciary duties when exercising that power. In particular, His Honour emphasised that the RE must conclude that it is acting for the benefit of unitholders when committing to a particular course of action. In this case, His Honour was satisfied that the RE had adequately considered relevant issues and documented its reasons for exercising its amendment powers.


----------



## charles36 (12 October 2011)

Duped said:


> Well well well. Barrett J in the NSW Supreme Court has upheld the Gordon J (Federal Court) decision from June. That was the decision where the FCA said that Hutson's WC illegally changed the PIF consitution so that it could issue more units that substantially diluted the value of the existing unit holder's investment.
> 
> Hutson's response (http://nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724118.PDF) to Gordon J's decision was "It is disappointing that having taken *appropriate legal advice* in relation to the issue that the outcome is a decision by Justice Gordon that the issue cannot proceed" [emaphasis added]
> 
> ...



DUPED  Do you think you might be a bit premature in your summation, Wellington are winding up the "Spinning Top" to make an announcement re the judgment.  Either way it cannot be justified to say that the "Placement Issue was in the interest of unit holders, diluting our assets could never be described by any reasonalble authority as an advantage.  However, you never know what spin will follow.  Cheers.


----------



## seamisty (12 October 2011)

I've actually posted this on here previously http://www.liv.asn.au/News-and-Publ...-that-come-back-to-haunt--Ensuring-company-pr but I personally cannot see that the 'Explanatory memorandum' offered to us by Wellington Capital and Ms hutson is/was any different to a prospectus as such. It was a booklet containing information relating to our fund and the reasons why PIf unitholders would be better off electing WC as RE to take the fund forward, recommence distributions and return the unit value back to a dollar in 3-5 years as opposed to liquidation. It did  not eventuate and the PIF is being liquidated with no consultation with PIF unitholders who were vehmenently opposed to liquidation hence electing a company who assured us that was not going to happen if we elected WC. It was also WC that instructed Radar promotions to draw attention to the fact that Castlereagh Capital were liquidators when they contacted all PIF unitholders (except me!!) and that they should vote for WC. 
It would be interesting to know legally the obligation differences between both a 'prospectus' and an EM and what recourse investors have when it is proved that investors were deceived and misled into giving control of their Fund to an RE on the content of an Explanatory Memorandum which proved to contain false information.


----------



## selciper (13 October 2011)

Having recently viewed the UK fraud squad documentary, I looked up a dictionary definition of 'a gang': "A group of criminals or hoodlums who band together for mutual protection and profit". And they got their man by using high-tech methods.


----------



## Duped (13 October 2011)

Not directed at you charles36 and simgrund

Barret J found that members having the right to have the PIF units valued in accordance with the PIF constitution was merely 'obiter'.

Hutson's Board still illegally changed the PIF constitution.  And we have two Judges supporting the illegality of what Hutson's Board did.

So either Hutson's legal advice was not "proper and appropriate" as she publicly opined.  Or she misinterpreted or ignored that "proper and appropriate" legal advice. Yikes?

Hutson is showing poor judgement and decision making.  Recall that she chose to address the rent-a-crowd. Without identifying who they are? So how easy is it for select unit holders to ensnare and use Hutson as a weapon against other unit holders? Is it safe for Hutson to be in charge of PIF then? 

And then , according to the Age, "One person asked if it was moral. The lady in the red coat told them what they were being asked to do was *not illegal*. "The NRMA did it," she said, according to the movie extra.". If something's "not illegal" then you'll do it eh Hutson?

It seems that Hutson thinks it's OK to return to the bad old King days of questionable and unprofessional  management of PIF. Remember the allegations of our RE backdating documents? Thanks to the brave legal action taken by PIFAG (The conduct of the secretive 'PIF ReAction group' confers PIFAG's courage), Gordon J's published decision reveals that Hutson doesn't think her Board need undertake due process for deciding to amend the PIF constitution. What? Hutson again thinking it's 'not illegal'?  We've got two Justices now conferring that the Hutson board's actions were illegal.

Oh at it seems Hutson has found a loophole whereby it's not illegal to leave the annual financial statement without an audit.

For the best interests of unitholders, WC must *resign immediately.*


Hutson's latest words of wisdom are that "Wellington is committed to no further further capital raising".  Hence Hutson has lead the market to believe that new units will not be issued. A complete back flip from the Hutson' position less than 2 months earlier. (WC July 11 NSX release: WC "now proposes to undertake a further capital raising".) Will the Flip Flop Hutson board back flip again? A flip flop board that is lead by Not-Illegal Hutson who does whatever she wants; even stuff Judges subsequently find illegal. Only when she' s caught of course. Hutson who wishes for PIF to be "a very distant memory". 

In her MD  report in the latest annual report Hutson didn't even have the courtesy to address the $20M+ (UN-audited) loss for the year . Yet she throws in some hyperbola about debt instability in the US and Europe. Yeah, so what.  WC paid off PIF debt by selling PIF assets. And in doing so, Hutson's WC incurred huge losses.  Whoop-di-doo.  What's that got to do with the price WC is getting for flogging off PIF assets?

How much more unprofessional and dangerous for investors can the Wellington Charade (Wannabe Charade?) be? Under WC the NSX unit price continues to linger WAY below NTA. Hence PIF continues to be a target of another 'opportunistic' takeover bid.  A bid that WC will spend more PIF investor $ to defend.

But WC's rusted on supporters still don't get it. They'll hand over their cash to any slick salesman?  Which is why they're in this situation in the first place?


----------



## selciper (14 October 2011)

New York hedge fund executive gets  a long jail term (Bloomberg). American judges certainly frown on white collar crime.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...nce-sends-wall-street-right-message-view.html


----------



## BootsnAll (14 October 2011)

*Outrigger buys Surfers Holiday Inn*

  Lucy Ardern   |  October 12th, 2011
  OUTRIGGER Hotels and Resorts has purchased the Holiday Inn Surfers Paradise, which has been in receivership since 2009.
  Outrigger Hotels regional general manager Grant James said the investment in the city was a ''major show of confidence'' in its tourism industry.
  The sale contract, which includes the management rights, is expected to settle late this year or early 2012, when the property will be renamed Outrigger Surfers Paradise.
  The management rights were purchased from receiver managers Colryan Pty Ltd.


----------



## seamisty (14 October 2011)

Forest Resort is back in court again today re 'directions hearing'
Supreme Court List for Friday, 14 October 2011

Commercial Court - List E
RYTELLE PTY LTD (ACN 105 101
639) (Receivers and Managers
appointed) & Ors.
10:00 S CI 2009 06858 PERPETUAL v. Directions Hearing
NOMINEES LIMITED (ACN
000 733 700)


----------



## seamisty (14 October 2011)

seamisty said:


> Forest Resort is back in court again today re 'directions hearing'
> Supreme Court List for Friday, 14 October 2011
> 
> Commercial Court - List E
> ...



 Just an update to this post. Todays hearing has been adjourned until the 18th November when it is expected the setting for a trial date will occur.


----------



## marcom (14 October 2011)

Is it possible as part of the CA that we obtain Court approval under S 247A of the Corporations Act for a forensic accountant to inspect the PIF books with the view to amending the Statement of Claim to include all of the amounts that The Fat Slug (herein refered to as TFS in deference to John H's sensitivity to references to JH) has pilfered from our fund?

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 247A
Order for inspection of books of company or registered managed investment scheme

(1) On application by a member of a company or registered managed investment scheme, the Court may make an order:

(a) authorising the applicant to inspect books of the company or scheme; or

(b) authorising another person (whether a member or not) to inspect books of the company or scheme on the applicant's behalf.

The Court may only make the order if it is satisfied that the applicant is acting in good faith and that the inspection is to be made for a proper purpose.

(2) A person authorised to inspect books may make copies of the books unless the Court orders otherwise.

(3) A person who:

(a) is granted leave under section 237; or

(b) applies for leave under that section; or

(c) is eligible to apply for leave under that section;

may apply to the Court for an order under this section.

(4) On application, the Court may make an order authorising:

(a) the applicant to inspect books of the company; or

(b) another person to inspect books of the company on the applicant's behalf.

(5) The Court may make the order only if it is satisfied that:

(a) the applicant is acting in good faith; and

(b) the inspection is to be made for a purpose connected with:

(i) applying for leave under section 237; or

(ii) bringing or intervening in proceedings with leave under that section.

(6) A person authorised to inspect books may make copies of the books unless the Court orders otherwise.


----------



## seamisty (14 October 2011)

Another Corporate Casualty 
Ex-Sonray boss Scott Murray sentenced to five years jail 


THE former chief executive of Melbourne-based financial company Sonray Capital Markets has been jailed for five years for contributing to the company's collapse. 

Scott Kenneth Murray, 33, pleaded guilty to 10 deception charges including false accounting and theft after the company went into administration last June with losses of $47 million
Full story:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-to-5-years-jail/story-fn91v9q3-1226166689822

Another article relating to above:
http://www.investordaily.com/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/12753.htm?rdeCOQ=SID-0A3D9633-DFFE1942       Investors participating in the financial markets are entitled to expect that their money will be handled responsibly and honestly. ASIC will act to ensure that anyone who acts in a way that causes a market participant to breach this trust, causing financial losses to investors, is brought to account."


----------



## charles36 (14 October 2011)

Before we embark upon Court proceedings should we not endeavour to raise funds for the purpose of an independent valuation of all our assets.  We are aware the assets are valued By Wellington Capital and advisors but we have no knowedge of who the valuers actually are.  For all we know the assets could be worth a lot more but then again they could be worth a lot less.


----------



## seamisty (14 October 2011)

charles36 said:


> Before we embark upon Court proceedings should we not endeavour to raise funds for the purpose of an independent valuation of all our assets.  We are aware the assets are valued By Wellington Capital and advisors but we have no knowedge of who the valuers actually are.  For all we know the assets could be worth a lot more but then again they could be worth a lot less.



I understand that this property/golf resort in Melbourne recently sold for $13million and is on 'par' with the Forest Resort at Creswick.http://www.insidegolf.com.au/news/heritage-golf-country-club-sale-finalised/

Wellington Capital values the Forest Resort at $40.9million. Any wonder the PIF auditors PricecewaterhouseCoopers  were not able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide the basis for an audit opinion and  accordingly could not express an opinion on the 2011 financial report ? Just how far out are WC current property valuations. 50% 6o%??


----------



## pifed (14 October 2011)

charles36 said:


> Before we embark upon Court proceedings should we not endeavour to raise funds for the purpose of an independent valuation of all our assets.  We are aware the assets are valued By Wellington Capital and advisors but we have no knowedge of who the valuers actually are.  For all we know the assets could be worth a lot more but then again they could be worth a lot less.




We should also look to having Valuations done on the assets that have been sold, and also see that they were "Arms length" Transactions and not sold to JH connections


----------



## marcom (15 October 2011)

charles36 said:


> Before we embark upon Court proceedings should we not endeavour to raise funds for the purpose of an independent valuation of all our assets.  We are aware the assets are valued By Wellington Capital and advisors but we have no knowedge of who the valuers actually are.  For all we know the assets could be worth a lot more but then again they could be worth a lot less.




I suggested the use of S247A in conjunction with the class action which would also encompass a thorough audit of asset values etc. If IMF could be convinced that the cost of the audit would produce a viable stream of additional claims they would bear the additional costs involved.

Also has anyone noticed the shrinking number of existing posts on this forum - two of mine have dissapeared. Seems like someone doesn't like any mention of the infamous Singapore Sling!


----------



## seamisty (15 October 2011)

seamisty said:


> I understand that this property/golf resort in Melbourne recently sold for $13million and is on 'par' with the Forest Resort at Creswick.http://www.insidegolf.com.au/news/heritage-golf-country-club-sale-finalised/
> 
> Wellington Capital values the Forest Resort at $40.9million. Any wonder the PIF auditors PricecewaterhouseCoopers  were not able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide the basis for an audit opinion and  accordingly could not express an opinion on the 2011 financial report ? Just how far out are WC current property valuations. 50% 6o%??



Well I have made some more enquiries re the valuation of Forest Resort and it is way below the valuation of $40.99million as stated by Wellington Capital in the latest (unaudited?)annual report. 
The property is being marketed by Colliers and I have been told that they had Forest Resort independantly valued and were given the figure of $26million but were instructed by WC to list it at $40.99million. I have been told that the agent considers it will be extremely difficult to sell due to the discrepancy in the property valuation and actual listing price. I was also told that the Heritage golf course mortgagee sale in Melbourne (with two prime golf courses) which was a similar property category to the Forest Resort that was reported to have sold for around $13 million was a superior property to Forest Resort.

Further enquiries led to me being told that a potential purchaser who was showing interest in purchasing the Forest Resort has received a professional indicative valuation for the Resort as part of his due diligence into his potential acquisition and was given the valuation at $22,750,000. If I can find out this information then I believe that WC would have to know that their current value of $40.99million for Forest Resort is totally incorrect. Just what is the true total value of the PIF assets?


----------



## selciper (16 October 2011)

Anyone with a spare five minutes might like to view this US 2009 video showing how a renegade fund manager operated.  The elderly were his target. Note the jail sentence!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEVFfoDWRVw&feature=related


----------



## seamisty (17 October 2011)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE
WEDNESDAY 
TO
FRIDAY
19 OCT
TO
21 OCT
10:00 AM
PART HEARD
S 211/2011
CHERIE HEARTS GROUP INTERNATIONAL PTE.
LTD. & ORS
(ALLEN & GLEDHILL LLP)
(ANG CHENG HOCK SC/ VINCENT LEOW/
JACQUELINE LEE/ JOEL LIM)
V.
G8 EDUCATION LIMITED
(HARRY ELIAS PARTNERSHIP LLP)
(HARRY ELIAS SC/ PHILIP FONG/ JOANA TEO/
VIKNESWARI MUTHIAH/ LIONEL CHAN)
LAST HEARD FOR 13 DAYS FROM 07 - 28/09/2011
WOS FILED ON 28/03/2011
SET DOWN ON 01/09/2011
FIXED FOR 3 DAYS [19 - 21/10/2011]
NATURE: BREACH OF CONTRACT
[DTS TO BE USED] court 6B


----------



## marcom (17 October 2011)

An interesting article in the Courier Mail about the business interests of Bikies Inc Gold Coast chapter:

Josh Robertson
From: The Courier-Mail
October 08, 2011 1:00AM 

BIKIES Inc, Gold Coast chapter, is a web of intrigue: more than 140 companies and $32 million in property linked to several dozen men and their associates who collectively boast almost 300 serious criminal convictions and 800 years of jail time.

For the first time, The Courier-Mail can detail the strength of criminal and business links of the Glitter Strip's outlaw motorcycle clubs...

Gold Coast bikies' business interests are varied and colourful  from tattoo parlours, car yards, motorcycle shops, security firms and the like to *childcare centres* and mail-order lingerie... (emphasis added)

Full story at http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/exposed-the-coasts-bikie-tsars/story-fn6ck45n-1226161598878

Apparently there have been other stories in this investigative series.


----------



## JohnH (17 October 2011)

can't remember if there is a patch on the back of the red leather!!!


----------



## Duped (17 October 2011)

seamisty said:


> I understand that this property/golf resort in Melbourne recently sold for $13million and is on 'par' with the Forest Resort at Creswick.http://www.insidegolf.com.au/news/heritage-golf-country-club-sale-finalised/
> 
> Wellington Capital values the Forest Resort at $40.9million. Any wonder the PIF auditors PricecewaterhouseCoopers  were not able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide the basis for an audit opinion and  accordingly could not express an opinion on the 2011 financial report ? Just how far out are WC current property valuations. 50% 6o%??




All.

Jennifer Joan Hutson can destroy much PIF wealth through the Wellington (charade?) by e.g. shifting PIF wealth to associates.  And Jennifer Joan Hutson has form now through that placement of investor diluting units that ended up in Craig Wallace' hands.  

Remember what Jennifer Joan Hutson's Wellington (charade?) said to investors about the ALF PIF bid?  "The [ALF PIF] proposal shifts over $120 million of the current value in the Premium Income Fund to the current Bidder’s shareholders and away from you.")

Looks like Jennifer Hutson pulled a Jim Byrnes stunt.

And now this audit failure stunt by the Wellington charade.

The red flags are flapping all over the place.  But the numpty PIF investors (who were duped into PIF in the first place) seem to still believe in fairies.  If they wish hard enough they can bring back Tinkerbell to sprinkle fairy dust on PIF's assets to save them from Captain 'GFC' Hook.

Bottom line is the unit price is racing towards that dastardly 14c that Jennifer Joan 'Not Illegal' Hutson threatened us with. But the numpty PIF investors who believe in magic still refuse to grow up.


----------



## Duped (17 October 2011)

Blakes and Arthur Rob's have chimed in over Barrett J's decision:

http://www.blakedawson.com/Templates/Publications/x_article_content_page.aspx?id=63981

http://www.aar.com.au/pubs/fm/fofm13oct11.htm

AAR report: "The _Centro_ case was unusual as it involved pricing amendments  that were expected to result in units being issued at a *premium *to their  market value." [emphasis added]

Wellington tried to amend the PIF constitution while Jennifer Joan 'Not Illegal' Hutson's board tried to issue new units at a massive discount to audited net tangible assets.

Rather a different set of facts? Hence Bake Dawson properly points out: "Both the _PIF_ decision and the _Centro_ decision are  first instance decisions. There is still some uncertainty as to which  decision would likely be followed in any subsequent judicial  consideration of this issue"?

Judges fault?  Well Judges are going to continue handing down decisions based on the facts presented.  And while operators like Jenny 'Not Illegal' Hutson continue unfettered then  decisions that define the grey area are going to hassle the less innovative (read: experimental) operators like Centro.

I wonder how the likes of Centro are enjoying forking out all those $$$$ in legal fees as a direct result of MFS/Octaviar decisions like McMurdo's Octaviar decision and now Gordon's Wellington decision? They can't be too upset considering they appear to sit back and watch the Octaviar Administration and PIF fester. Not Centro's problem? I bet Centro has a big fat legal bill confirming that it's causing them problems. 

Of course, more uncertainty in the law means more $ of business for the law firms.

Barrett's decision is also a bit of a slap in the face to ASIC who supported Gordon's view.  But that's what ASIC is going to get for as long it allows the likes of MFS/Octaviar and now the Wellington charade to piddle in the big kid's pool.

First we had MFS/Octaviar's excuse for an RE not documenting how they were splashing around our PIF $ to related parties.  Now we have the Jennifer Joan 'Not Illegal' Hutson Board (for an excuse for an RE: A Wellington charade?) not documenting it decision to rewrite the PIF constitution so Wellington could dilute existing PIF investor's wealth. Looks like a return to the bad old Michael King days of sloppy management of PIF?


----------



## Duped (17 October 2011)

Is this one of PIF's?

http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/...-s-port-douglas-dream-for-sale/2011100651705#


----------



## seamisty (17 October 2011)

Duped said:


> Is this one of PIF's?
> 
> http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/...-s-port-douglas-dream-for-sale/2011100651705#



I don't think PIF had anything at Port Douglas Duped, I think it had something to do with Bale resorts??


----------



## seamisty (18 October 2011)

The PIF boat may be sinking but the prime suspects of who pulled the sea **** is shrinking!!I believe ASIC has also taken on board some recent major PIF concerns.


----------



## marcom (18 October 2011)

Shorten pushes for foreign fund tax breaks

Business Spectator Published 5:38 AM, 18 Oct 2011 Last update 5:38 AM, 18 Oct 2011

    In a bid to strengthen financial services exports to Asia, Financial Services Minister Bill Shorten is lobbying for tax breaks for foreign funds investing in Australia, according to a report by the Australian Financial Review.

*Mr Shorten said he hoped to announce a new plan to establish an investment manager regime for the funds management sector, following a meeting yesterday with senior finance executives.*

    The plan would likely allow foreign funds using an Australian fund manager to avoid being taxed on their returns, while local funds would continue paying tax on fee income.

    The funds management sector is pushing for the reforms, saying that without them Australia will lose the opportunity to attract billions in overseas investments.

    The initiative will require Cabinet approval, and would come with a cost to the federal budget, the report said.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...cument&src=hp8&WELCOME=AUTHENTICATED REMEMBER

Note: Bill Shorten's ex-wife is Deborah Beale (daughter of Julian Beale former federal Liberal MP) also ex-MFS who we are suing in the Class Action. For some juicy gossip on the marriage breakup see http://www.heraldsun.com.au/the-mp-and-the-g-gs-daughter/story-fna7dq6e-1111117540832 

Well at least he told her personally at the football and not by text message!

Why are so many short people attracted to politics?


----------



## selciper (18 October 2011)

seamisty said:


> The PIF boat may be sinking but the prime suspects of who pulled the sea **** is shrinking!!I believe ASIC has also taken on board some recent major PIF concerns.




Seamisty - If ASIC are showing signs of stirring, it sounds like some rare good news has come our way at last.


----------



## simgrund (18 October 2011)

Some more on investor safety in Australia!

Super bad: First State set police on man who showed them how 770,000 accounts could be ripped off
Asher Moses
October 18, 2011 - 3:13P

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/securi...-ripped-off-20111018-1lvx1.html#ixzz1b6Xp3KXE


----------



## Mary Lynch (18 October 2011)

Hello all.  A short time ago I was diagnosed with an uncurable form of cancer. There is no known cause of this cancer, but as most of us know ca is stress related.  At 62 this is very sad for me.    However, I am wondering just how many of the original MFS unitholders have died or been stricken with heart attacks, strokes or stress related illnesses. Many, of course are retirees who may have encountered these ailments anyway, but no doubt there departure or whatever has been hastened.
The HUGE difficulty of the entire debacle is the powerlessness of it all.  Many of you have lost a substantial percentage of your life savings; we had a particularly bad outcome which I won't go into right now.   The thing is we have no one to shout at, or get furious with to relieve our outrage, and it is left to internalise.   AND the worst thing is that many of us are not going to live long enough to see the crooked low life bastards thrown into gaol...if indeed they EVER ARE; more likely they will get off with a slap on the wrist and a miserable fine.
I must say that I have been surprised that none of those crooks have been shot, or that Michael King's Polo ranch hasn't been set on fire; it just shows how controlled we all are!
I will never forget the lavish morning tea at the Park Royal Hotel in Melbourne when they were INSOLVENT! UGGG!
I am sure this thread has served many of you well in releasing some of the stress, but I urge you all to be mindful of how debilitating it really can be. I, for one, am without question as to why I have cancer.


----------



## seamisty (18 October 2011)

I have previously noted my concerns relating to the current litigation between the original developer of Forest Resort and Wellington Capital. On several occasions I have endeavoured to seek information from WC asking what possible financial repercussions will PIF unitholders face should the claim be succesfull in favour of the plaintiff (by counterclaim).  I have never received a response. I have also previously brought this matter to the attention of both ASIC and the NSX drawing attention to the magnitude of the compensation/damages involved and that I thought existing and potential investors should be made aware of future consequences to the PIF. Nobody seems unduly concerned? 
The amended pleadings dated 31st May 2011 which is filed in the Supreme Court of Melbourne is now on the public record and available from the courts. I will attach part of the pleadings which may be of interest to some. To me it does not appear that 'the case is baseless and simply a matter of a borrower refusing to pay debt'
Ms Hutson was quoted in this media article as saying Ms Hutson says the Walshes' case is baseless: ''We think there's no substance at all - that is and remains our position on it.''
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/f...esort-dream-20110402-1cskj.html#ixzz1b6VGSEw3


----------



## seamisty (18 October 2011)

Mary Lynch said:


> Hello all.  A short time ago I was diagnosed with an uncurable form of cancer. There is no known cause of this cancer, but as most of us know ca is stress related.  At 62 this is very sad for me.    However, I am wondering just how many of the original MFS unitholders have died or been stricken with heart attacks, strokes or stress related illnesses. Many, of course are retirees who may have encountered these ailments anyway, but no doubt there departure or whatever has been hastened.
> The HUGE difficulty of the entire debacle is the powerlessness of it all.  Many of you have lost a substantial percentage of your life savings; we had a particularly bad outcome which I won't go into right now.   The thing is we have no one to shout at, or get furious with to relieve our outrage, and it is left to internalise.   AND the worst thing is that many of us are not going to live long enough to see the crooked low life bastards thrown into gaol...if indeed they EVER ARE; more likely they will get off with a slap on the wrist and a miserable fine.
> I must say that I have been surprised that none of those crooks have been shot, or that Michael King's Polo ranch hasn't been set on fire; it just shows how controlled we all are!
> I will never forget the lavish morning tea at the Park Royal Hotel in Melbourne when they were INSOLVENT! UGGG!
> I am sure this thread has served many of you well in releasing some of the stress, but I urge you all to be mindful of how debilitating it really can be. I, for one, am without question as to why I have cancer.



Mary Lynch I am so sorry to hear this. Seamisty


----------



## atlas1950 (18 October 2011)

Mary.

I am very saddened to hear about your plight. I wish you good health and may you recover from your present illness. I and my family wish you well.

Michael


----------



## simgrund (18 October 2011)

Hello Mary,
Pls. check the post box.
We  keep best hopes for recovery.
Warmest,


----------



## Towbar (18 October 2011)

seamisty said:


> Mary Lynch I am so sorry to hear this. Seamisty




Sorry to hear about your plight Mary,My wife & Myself wish you the very best,Regards
Towbar


----------



## seamisty (18 October 2011)

It's a well known fact that this thread is monitored by Wellington Capital on a daily basis. Perhaps WC may like to respond to you Mary Lynch as to how many PIF investors are no longer with the PIF for reasons other than selling their units on the NSX. Honesty and compassion appears to be sadly lacking with WC senior management  and 'MOST' other staff members.


----------



## Cookie1 (18 October 2011)

Hi Mary,

I'm so sorry to hear of your illness; my husband and I do send our very best wishes to you in your treatment and recovery.

During the period of time when I was ringing investors to garner support for the PIFAG and Castlereagh Capital leading up to the June 23rd EGM, I spoke to a number of elderly investors where either they or their spouses/partners had stress related illnesses including cancer and heart attacks. There had also been at least two deaths of investors where the PIF units were tied up in estates. There were instances where investors desperately needed their money back to pay medical bills. One spouse was in hospital and not expected to recover; his wife was so upset and frustrated at their situation. She was convinced his cancer was directly related to the stress of the PIF.

Some of the conversations were heart-wrenching and make me very angry that MFS and Wellington Capital/JH are getting away with the unconscionable. It's way past time for ASIC to step in. The QLD court certainly let us  down. I thought justice was blind but in this case, the judge just turned a blind eye.

Cookie1


----------



## marcom (19 October 2011)

Mary

Our best wishes for the future - try to keep positive, we will get these bastards one day!

MARCOM


----------



## MAE (19 October 2011)

Dear Mary

Very sorry to hear of your illness, wishing you all the best!!

I would like to think that one day (very soon) that those who have wrecked so many peoples livelihood will be held accountable and pay for their crime.

Stay safe everyone!!

Regards MAE


----------



## selciper (19 October 2011)

Mary,

Your message was very moving. I am distressed to read that you believe that financial stress may have contributed to your illness. How can one ever deal with People Without Conscience?

Sincerely,

selciper


----------



## Duped (19 October 2011)

Very sorry to hear your news Mary.  My very best hopes, wishes and prayers for a return to good health.


----------



## Mary Lynch (19 October 2011)

Where do I find the post box Simgrund?


----------



## Duped (19 October 2011)

Aaaah don't you just love how perverse Australian law and the administration thereof is:

http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/securi...-ripped-off-20111018-1lvx1.html#ixzz1b6Xp3KXE

Simple lesson: finance companies will do anything 'not illegal' to spin their way out a mess they make for themselves. Oh how naiive some Australians are about the true nature of Australia. In a dog eat dog Australia you don't want to be a lone little dog. In hindsight this guy perhaps should have sent an annonymous tipoff or initiated legal action for breach of privacy.


----------



## Duped (19 October 2011)

Duped said:


> Aaaah don't you just love how perverse Australian law and the administration thereof is:
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/securi...-ripped-off-20111018-1lvx1.html#ixzz1b6Xp3KXE
> 
> Simple lesson: finance companies will do anything 'not illegal' to spin their way out a mess they make for themselves. Oh how naiive some Australians are about the true nature of Australia. In a dog eat dog Australia you don't want to be a lone little dog. In hindsight this guy perhaps should have sent an annonymous tipoff or initiated legal action for breach of privacy.




From that Fairfax article "The firm said they may go after him for costs relating to the matter"  

Good one Minter Ellison.  We all know how quickly legal and IT costs can  escalate. So it appears you effectively threatened to crush him. You forced him  to go to the press. What choice did he have.  I wonder how First State Super now feel about this  issue being published to the world. (What is it that Leslie Winkle calls Sheldon Cooper?) Lawyers don't seem to do businessparticularly well. All force and no  ... well ... business.


----------



## DepressedDad (19 October 2011)

Hi Mary

We too are saddened and sickened by how your life has played out BECAUSE of the despicably dishonest and deliberately deceitful actions of a handful of people and sadly many others that have stood by and let them destroy good people.

The body is not meant to be in a constant state of stress and angst and deteriorates when it is.  So I have no doubt that the actions of these despicable nasty people have caused widespread ill health & death among the Unit holders.  What's so frustrating is that you can't walk into a dairy and steal a loaf of bread without repercussions yet these scum bags can absolutely RUIN the rest of thousands of Unit holder's lives by STEALING every dollar they have worked for over all the decades of their lives.  Why don't ASIC care?  Every year they procrastinate (waiting for MORE evidence before asking a couple of pertinent questions??) MORE illness & grief is suffered by good people.


----------



## Duped (19 October 2011)

marcom said:


> Is it possible as part of the CA that we obtain Court approval under S 247A of the Corporations Act for a forensic accountant to inspect the PIF books with the view to amending the Statement of Claim to include all of the amounts that The Fat Slug (herein refered to as TFS in deference to John H's sensitivity to references to JH) has pilfered from our fund?
> 
> CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 247A
> Order for inspection of books of company or registered managed investment scheme
> ...




Good find. But will it achieve what we want it to achieve.  Will it force WC to produce evidence of a dodgy method for valuing the PIF assets.  Dodgy enough to convince a court that WC hasn't complied with the Corp Act.

And if so, will there be restrictions on how you use  that info. (What does "good faith" and "proper purpose" mean?)

What's preventing WC from using PIF money to fight the court application and then lodge an appeal.

Remember this is Jenny 'Not Illegal' Hutson we're talking about here. She'll simply refuse to do anything she doesn't have to. She's the gatekeeper.  For whom?  I'm not sure because she was quick to dilute existing investors holdings with that placment of new units.

Will the info we want actually be in the "books"
The Act defines books as 
"(a)  a register; and   (b)  any other record of information; and 
  (c)  financial reports or financial records, however compiled, recorded or stored; and 
  (d)  a document" 

"information" is merely defined as "includes complaint"

The definition of "financial records" is:
"(a)  invoices, receipts, orders for the payment of money, bills of exchange, cheques, promissory notes and vouchers; and 
  (b)  documents of prime entry; and 
  (c)  working papers and other documents needed to explain: 
    (i)  the methods by which financial statements are made up; and 
    (ii)  adjustments to be made in preparing financial statements" 

 "working papers and other documents needed to explain: (i)  the methods by which financial statements are made up" might cover the method/details of valuing the assets.  But where does it say that WC must create such working papers and documents?  If not clearly defined then what's stopping WC just saying that there are no papers that can be defined as "working papers" or documents that can be defined as "others documents needed".  

And recall that the Gordon J decision revealed that the Hutson lead board didn't have an adequate paper trail to justify their decision to amend the constitution. So perhaps the Jenny 'Not Illegal' Hutson lead WC board similarly didn't generate any "working papers or other documents needed"  for the asset valuations.

The only proscribed requirements I can find in the Corporations Act (S295) demanding any sort of believeability of the numbers WC presented is telling directors to declare they comply with the "accounting standards" and are a "true and fair view". The latter seems a pretty low hurdle to clear given that PIF units have traded at a fraction of WC's estimate of PIF's NTA for 3 years now. 

Haven't got time now to swim the Accounting Standards channel http://www.aasb.gov.au/Pronouncements/Current-standards.aspx


----------



## simgrund (19 October 2011)

Mary Lynch said:


> Where do I find the post box Simgrund?



 Hello Mary,
Look up on the top blue bar above AUSSIE STOCK logo of the home page.
Find "Notifications", press arrow and select "inbox".
From there you can receive, send, etcetera. 
CHECK THIS SPOT FOR MESSAGES/MAIL 

Mary, do you play chess? 
We could set up  PIFAG v WC competition on the board playing via E-mail.
Interested?

Be well, pls. visit forum more often.


----------



## selciper (20 October 2011)

Does anyone know how the CA is progressing? It seems a long time since heard any news about it.


----------



## simgrund (20 October 2011)

selciper said:


> Does anyone know how the CA is progressing? It seems a long time since heard any news about it.




We wonder as well.
This is IMF site last updated early this month.
I am offering chess games while in waiting mode.
Cheers, 


```
PIF (Premium Income Fund) Investors v KPMG & Ors
Date of Funding: 	13 Jul 2009 (Announced)
Plaintiff: 	Mark Hodges & Charles Hodges ATF Charles Hodges Superannuation Fund
Defendant: 	Andrea Jane Waters; Michael John Andrew and Others trading as KPMG; Wellington Investment Management Limited (formerly MFS Investment Management Limited); Various former officers of MFSIM
Court: 	Federal Court (NSW)
Cause of Action: 	Breach of duty of care; contraventions of sections 601HG, 601FC, 601FD of the Corporations Act.
Estimated Completion: 	July 2013
Important Date(s): 	
16-Dec-2009 : 	Hearing of various applications before Justice Perram
	
Current Stage: 	Further application to file further pleading likely to be heard in July - September 2011 period.

 	Last Updated: 05/10/2011
```


----------



## simgrund (20 October 2011)

Another "reform" way too late for us.


An end to the reward holiday
John Collett
October 19, 2011

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/money/super-a...ard-holiday-20111018-1lttf.html#ixzz1bHSaD7bv


----------



## BABIHUTAN (20 October 2011)

My wife & myself are terribly sorry to hear of your diagnosis Mary. We wish you a full and speedy recovery. Hang in there


----------



## ASICK (20 October 2011)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/end-looms-for-equitrust-after-police-raids-20111020-1m9l1.html

This article might give rise to some hope.


----------



## Duped (20 October 2011)

simgrund said:


> Another "reform" way too late for us.
> 
> 
> An end to the reward holiday
> ...




Nice find. 

Really shines a light on the poor level of ethics that self regulation in the industry allowed. And these people think they are doing no wrong. Just like many once thought that slavery, racism and sexism (rule of thumb?) wasn't wrong.

Proposed law seems good for the Queensland hotel operators. Perhaps even the Forest Resort Creswick?

Hmmm .... how to sidestep the law? The hotel gives massive discounts on room rates and picks up the lost $ by charging much more for conference room hire, catering, surcharges, fees, bonusus for quality service, out of pockets such as need for more staff during the conference, etc etc. The Funds generously offer to increase the $ they stump up for UNobtanium Level corporate sponsorship. Would that do it?


----------



## Duped (20 October 2011)

ASICK said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/business/end-looms-for-equitrust-after-police-raids-20111020-1m9l1.html
> 
> This article might give rise to some hope.




They should have paid Jenny 'Not Illegal' Hutson's WC to be a consultant.

Or perhaps PIF is shielded by its link to MFS/Octaviar which is too big/interconnected to be seen/allowed to be examined. Y'know connected to Peacock, KPMG etc.  And apparently Deborah Beale.  Ex of Bill Shorten, son in law of our GG.  Wikipedia tells me Debbie Beale' grandfather was our Ambassador to the US.

There's an interesting mention of a bloke from a "Fortress" in the book $hitstorm. Something about him being the bloke in the US that our diplomats go to?  Or something like that.  Anyone got a copy?  I'll have to get it from the library again to check the reference.


----------



## ASICK (20 October 2011)

http://www.equititrust.com.au/Pdfs/Disclosures/Disclosure_Statement_20_10_2011.pdf

It might interesting to have a look at the Equititrust thread from time to time.   I get the feeling things are really going to be moving over there.


----------



## Jadel (20 October 2011)

Mary, I am truly saddened by your circumstances 

 The PIFI is fighting, and I can assure you we will continue to do everything in our power to protect the rights of investors such as yourself  , who have been forced to sell their units on the NSX for  a pittance, to ensure that  your rights to the class action are not diminished.

In the meantime please do not give up hope.  I am a great believer in alternative therapies if they have been fully researched.

Have included the protocol  of Royal Prince Alfred Hospital below :

O'Brien decided cancer treatment facilities should be expanded to a purpose-built cancer centre, probably on the other side of Missenden Road. A million-dollar business plan has been completed and the Federal Government has promised $50 million. More funds are needed.
Says O'Brien: "We don't want to create an ivory tower but we want to create a new way of dealing with the disease. The other thing we want to do is to create a wellness centre, to deal with the psychology of cancer, giving people clinical support and information.
"We would also have a place for alternative therapies. There are so many unanswered questions. There is so much that conventional medicine does not provide. We would create an environment where some of these therapies - herbal treatment and so on - could be studied in a scientific environment and subjected to clinical trials. So many medicines have come from plants and there is no doubt that many people have benefited from them."

Kind Personal Regards Chris


----------



## selciper (20 October 2011)

Duped said:


> They should have paid Jenny 'Not Illegal' Hutson's WC to be a consultant.
> 
> Or perhaps PIF is shielded by its link to MFS/Octaviar which is too big/interconnected to be seen/allowed to be examined. Y'know connected to Peacock, KPMG etc.  And apparently Deborah Beale.  Ex of Bill Shorten, son in law of our GG.  Wikipedia tells me Debbie Beale' grandfather was our Ambassador to the US.
> 
> There's an interesting mention of a bloke from a "Fortress" in the book $hitstorm. Something about him being the bloke in the US that our diplomats go to?  Or something like that.  Anyone got a copy?  I'll have to get it from the library again to check the reference.




As time passes and more names pop up, it will become possible to produce one of those charts setting out "connections." Little boxes with names, and arrows leading to persons presently not in the frame. Well, that's how it often happens in movies.


----------



## Duped (21 October 2011)

Some of you probably think.  Here goes Duped again on one of his rants. ASIC squatting on crap legislation blah blah blah. Corporations Act aptly named because it protects corporations and not investors blah blah blah. Public Sector conflicted because their super is defined benefit and also because they need to keep $ flowing to raise taxes to pay themselves blah blah blah. ASIC gifted financial advisors a free ride of the Commonwealth brand through the Australian Financial Services License regime blah blah blah.

Well check out the World Bank's latest ranking for Australia:

http://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/Australia-falls-World-Bank-abc-2160469500.html?x=0

"Australia is the 15th easiest place in the world to do business, a World  Bank report has found, but it has fallen five places from last year. .... 
But its overall ranking was dragged down by low ratings on ease of  paying taxes (53rd), *investor protection (65th)* and dealing with  construction permits (42nd). ..." [emphasis added]

ASIC - that's a big fat Fail for protecting us PIF Mum and Dad investors.

Haha.  So perhaps this is why Shorten wants to cut taxes for foreign investors? (It's candy to temp) Because we can transfer more of the foreigners wealth to us by ripping them off than taxing them? Think they'll fall for it? Think they know there's lots of witches in the Hansel and Gretel ginger bread and candy houses in Oz.

Seems to have worked before. How much did the Japanese pay to build the the Cape Schanck Resort?  And you much did the RACV pick it up for?  My vague recollection was RACV paid about 30% of what it cost the Japanese investors to build.


----------



## selciper (21 October 2011)

Andrew Peacock's Wikipedia entry refers to his time with MFS quite prominently in the first paragraph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Peacock


----------



## Duped (21 October 2011)

http://www.graysonline.com/sale/700...pment/unreserved-it-equipment-brisbane-pickup

Bentley's is liquidating Octaviar assets through Graysonline.  Time to grab a trophy if you missed out on a hat.

I wonder how much Octaviar originally paid for the coffee pot warmer. 
What were the Jastek scales used for? To measure the annual reports to check they were heavy enough to impress?

I wouldn't be bidding on the 'Fellows Powershred c-129 Paper shredder'.  What's the chance of it having been overworked.


----------



## simgrund (21 October 2011)

Duped said:


> http://www.graysonline.com/sale/700...pment/unreserved-it-equipment-brisbane-pickup
> 
> Bentley's is liquidating Octaviar assets through Graysonline.  Time to grab a trophy if you missed out on a hat.
> 
> ...




Looks like all safes with the loot went to related parties pre-auction!?!?
Bummer, missed again.


----------



## JohnH (21 October 2011)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724517.PDF

Well, there we go!!!! Price Waterhouse have resigned as Wellington's auditors .............. guess we all know why!!

New auditors are just across the road....other side of Creek Street from the irresponsible entities offices.


----------



## seamisty (21 October 2011)

JohnH said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724517.PDF
> 
> Well, there we go!!!! Price Waterhouse have resigned as Wellington's auditors .............. guess we all know why!!
> 
> New auditors are just across the road....other side of Creek Street from the irresponsible entities offices.



Creek St rings a bell, Creek Street Holdings Pty Ltd HMNN??
I am on a crappy airport computer will do some further research during the next few days. I wonder how many of these big companies like PWC have previously felt compelled to dodge unfavourable reports to the big end of town with the possibility of losing business as a result? I think there could be a shift in the equation, is it possible that supporting  the previous big end of town  is now causing embarassment to reputable some bussineses ??


----------



## JohnH (21 October 2011)

seamisty said:


> Creek St rings a bell, Creek Street Holdings Pty Ltd HMNN??
> I am on a crappy airport computer will do some further research during the next few days. I wonder how many of these big companies like PWC have previously felt compelled to dodge unfavourable reports to the big end of town with the possibility of losing business as a result? I think there could be a shift in the equation, is it possible that supporting  the previous big end of town  is now causing embarassment to reputable some bussineses ??




OK Bon voyage (wherever that might be) JH


----------



## charles36 (22 October 2011)

JohnH said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724517.PDF
> 
> Well, there we go!!!! Price Waterhouse have resigned as Wellington's auditors .............. guess we all know why!!
> 
> New auditors are just across the road....other side of Creek Street from the irresponsible entities offices.




Interesting times ahead.  We paid , that is all the unit holders, $211,000 for the INCOMPLETE audit by PWC.  It is our audit.  Wellington are responsible for this debacle.  PWC, "We have not been able to obtain sufficient APPROPRIATE audit evidence to provide the basis for an audit opinion.  Accordingly we do not express an opinion on the financial report."  It appears to my untaught mind that if the law says you shall have the fund audited it is your duty to assist and KEEP APPROPRIATE evidence for an audit.  FAILURE which has happened here, either by design or incompetence, is in my opinion negligent, at the very least.  The Corporations Act (Cth) deals with such negligence.  This brings into question another matter, PWC, very respected auditing firm cannot sign off on the Financial Report but the Directors of Wellington could?  Same documents, who is right and who is wrong.  I ask this question, the PIF has a Compliance Committee, chaired by a Director who signed off on the Financial Report, who has no doubt reported to the Compliance Auditor (PWC)  "Do unit holders have confidence in the management of the Premium Income Fund?"  I did not attend any of the meetings held recently by Wellington Capital but one might question the timing of the meeting and the rush to hold such meetings.  As the audit report was due to be handed down shortly after the meetings would it not have been more prudent for a competent management team to hold off on the meetings and then give unit holders a chance to question the annual audit report.  Of course it would have been but for one reason, the result of the audit was probably predicted and unit holders may have become angry.  The reason being the NTA could not be justified and therefore the value of our units would have been diluted yet again.  I refer you to the post of SEAMISTY wherein she competently as usual outlines the value of Forest Resort which is for sale.  Valued at $26 million, on our books for $41 million, there is a descrepancy of $15 mill. representing  a deflated value of your units by approximately another 1.5 cents.  By the way you will re call that PWC is not the only auditing firm to give Wellington the "flick" recently.


----------



## seamisty (22 October 2011)

Bearing in mind that several previous employees of MFS/OCV have been involved with Equititrust ,the following articles will be of interest 

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/prop...es-of-troubled-property-fund-equititrust.html
ASIC raids offices of troubled property fund Equititrust 
Friday, 21 October 2011 09:43 
Patrick Stafford 
(extracts from above media link)
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has reportedly raided the offices of fund management group Equititrust, also removing the company's financial services licence
According to a statement released by the company yesterday, statutory accounts and compliance audits were in arrears for the financial year ending June 2011. It also said there was "an absence of a consolidated integrated database across the property assets

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...raid-equititrust/story-e6freqmx-1226172406007


----------



## marcom (22 October 2011)

From the NSX announcement 21 October "Pricewaterhouse Coopers have resigned as auditor from the Premium Income Fund and the Wholesale Premium Income Fund. The appointment of Johnston Rorke* remains subject to regulatory approval*."

If the appointment of the new auditors is subject to ASIC approval, the resignation of PWC must also be actioned by ASIC. If ASIC let this one through it will prove that there is NO EFFECTIVE COMPANY REGULATION IN AUSTRALIA.

COME ON GREG DO YOUR BLOODY JOB!


----------



## simgrund (22 October 2011)

So familiar it's spooky!
Note 100 shareholder attendance for a $44 billion stake-holding.

Murdoch survives News Corp shareholder vote
Simon Mann
October 22, 2011 - 6:59AM

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/murd...holder-vote-20111022-1md62.html#ixzz1bSyjim3J



```
Rupert Murdoch has thwarted attempts by dissident shareholders to remove him as chairman of News Corporation, the company he has headed for more than five decades.

......attended by about 100 shareholders and their proxies.

"It is fair to say that the company has attracted a certain amount of attention in recent months ... and I wanted to reaffirm the seriousness by which I take what has gone on in London, as well as put that controversy in context of our entire global business... and to share with you my optimism about the potential growth for our profits, our products and our people," he said.

"The story of our company is the stuff of legend – from a small newspaper in Adelaide, to a global corporation based in New York with a market cap of $44 billion ... informing, entertaining and educating at least a billion people each day."

The company was counting votes and was expected to confirm later in the day the vote in favour of board members.

Accusing the company of a “gross lack of independence and poor governance”, Mr Mayne said decisions had been taken that treated shareholders as if they were in “a family-run company”.

“I really think you should get with the program,” Mr Mayne told Mr Murdoch. “It’s time to take the governance high road.”

At several points Mr Murdoch questioned the veracity of Mr Mayne’s statements, saying at one point: “Stephen, I’d hate to call you a liar but I don’t believe you.”

In a comical twist Mr Mayne called for a show of hands among directors who believed that News Corp’s dual class voting system was a good thing. Several had complied, with Mr Mayne inviting a second straw poll before Sir Rod Eddington stepped in: “Stephen, Stephen . .  with all respect: Rupert runs the meeting, not you.”

At times Mr Murdoch struggled to keep the meeting on track and was reminded on a number of occasions by interim counsel Janet Nova on how to proceed. At one point he read rules for asking questions from the floor after several had already been asked.
```

Regards,


----------



## selciper (22 October 2011)

I'm afraid that if ASIC fail to act on the PWC matter, Wellington will be gleeful and take a non-intervention in this disturbing matter as a signal to continue doing "business" as usual. And PIF investors will be ever more cynical about the mysterious regulator.


----------



## simgrund (22 October 2011)

selciper said:


> I'm afraid that if ASIC fail to act on the PWC matter, Wellington will be gleeful and take a non-intervention in this disturbing matter as a signal to continue doing "business" as usual. And PIF investors will be ever more cynical about the mysterious regulator.




Would you agree Selciper. that such ommissions would, in USA, be dragged before the appropriate Senate Commission quick and smart.
I dread to think of Bernie Madoff's legal team preparations had he been indicted in Australia.
And ASIC's more MYTHICAL, (bragging about its "successes" like Centro), than MYSTICAL.


----------



## charles36 (22 October 2011)

PWC are a well respected Auditing Firm and no doubt staffed and managed by very astute personnel.  This company may have the perception that there may be another Class Action in the wind and want no part of any litigation.  It is not beyond the realms of possibility that at sometime in the future when the totality of the MFS/Wellington alliance is known that unit holders may see an avenue to further recoup some of their losses.  Who knows what the future holds.  I only hope we all remain healthy and see some finality to our well intentioned investments to our advantage.  The PIFAG are in for the long haul and there to help ALL unit holders, all assistance is appreciated.  We have not cocooned ourselves away because of the aborted EGM, far from it.  I note that Wellington have not seen the need to call for nominations for the IAC which was supposed to be called every two years from my recollection.  As they did such a "WONDERFUL"  job you would thinlk their assistance to Wellington  and Unit Holders in general, it would be a number one priority.  It may well be that Wellington cannot find suitable candidates like the last lot selected.  ANY VOLUNTEERS?


----------



## JohnH (22 October 2011)

charles36 said:


> I note that Wellington have not seen the need to call for nominations for the IAC which was supposed to be called every two years from my recollection.  As they did such a "WONDERFUL"  job you would thinlk their assistance to Wellington  and Unit Holders in general, it would be a number one priority.  It may well be that Wellington cannot find suitable candidates like the last lot selected.  ANY VOLUNTEERS?



 I have no doubt that Charles that we would have no difficulty providing candidates for the IAC.  But what is the point in even standing.  Wellington refused to publish the voting in the last "election", and for all we know the representatives were figments of somebody's imagination.

However, there is hope.  In the last few days we have seen the grisly end of another dictatorship.


----------



## selciper (22 October 2011)

Simgrund, I'm far from being any kind of expert on US law, but from what I've seen and read their judicial system comes down hard on operators who manipulate the vulnerable. After all, shonky American fund managers receive massive prison sentences. Bernie Madoff, had he lived here, might have received five years and a pat on the back for showing remorse and offering co-operation.


----------



## simgrund (22 October 2011)

charles36 said:


> PWC are a well respected Auditing Firm and no doubt staffed and managed by very astute personnel.  This company may have the perception that there may be another Class Action in the wind and want no part of any litigation.  It is not beyond the realms of possibility that at sometime in the future when the totality of the MFS/Wellington alliance is known that unit holders may see an avenue to further recoup some of their losses.  Who knows what the future holds.  I only hope we all remain healthy and see some finality to our well intentioned investments to our advantage.  The PIFAG are in for the long haul and there to help ALL unit holders, all assistance is appreciated.  We have not cocooned ourselves away because of the aborted EGM, far from it.  I note that Wellington have not seen the need to call for nominations for the IAC which was supposed to be called every two years from my recollection.  As they did such a "WONDERFUL"  job you would thinlk their assistance to Wellington  and Unit Holders in general, it would be a number one priority.  It may well be that Wellington cannot find suitable candidates like the last lot selected.
> ANY VOLUNTEERS?




Thank you charles36 and all in PIFI /AG. These are hearty words.
Further on that with my cent and a quart: 
New IAC needs to be able to sleep on WC doorway on the eve of 
every IAC - WC legislation prescribed meeting.
I would welcome someone's diligence in producing on these pages
statutory provisions in ASIC or other guidelines for this compliance. 
WC commitments to same in their PDS's, Explanatory Memorandums, Jenny in Wonderlands literature are indecently inoperative.

We must continue this mission. 
You can count on our collective outing of ASIC at every opportunity.
Regards,


----------



## marcom (24 October 2011)

In todays AFR: http://www.afr.com/p/national/asic_lawyer_warns_cuts_will_backfire_EgVNUUAfLfmv3CJn3nmXLN

ASIC lawyer warns cuts will backfire

ASIC has been savaged by one of its own lawyers for slashing staff in a key investigative unit just as it sees a big rise in cases that need action.

I ask what were they doing before the slashing staff reduction?


----------



## selciper (24 October 2011)

marcom said:


> In todays AFR: http://www.afr.com/p/national/asic_lawyer_warns_cuts_will_backfire_EgVNUUAfLfmv3CJn3nmXLN
> 
> ASIC lawyer warns cuts will backfire
> 
> ...




This article, quoting mind-numbing ASIC management speak, was written about eight weeks ago. It's all about typical public service in-fighting at its worst.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/asic_lawyer_warns_cuts_will_backfire_EgVNUUAfLfmv3CJn3nmXLN


----------



## Duped (24 October 2011)

seamisty said:


> Creek St rings a bell, Creek Street Holdings Pty Ltd HMNN??
> I am on a crappy airport computer will do some further research during the next few days. I wonder how many of these big companies like PWC have previously felt compelled to dodge unfavourable reports to the big end of town with the possibility of losing business as a result? I think there could be a shift in the equation, is it possible that supporting  the previous big end of town  is now causing embarassment to reputable some bussineses ??




Thanks Seamisty. Creek St is in Brisbane's financial district.  So there are plenty of companies calling it home.

So the Wellington charade appears to be resorting to forum shopping for a friendly Auditor. Shop around for an auditor with a lesser reputation to protect? This is heading in the direction of the sort of thing that Madoff did http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008533585_madoff18.html

Tutt tutt.  Now we're getting spelling/grammar mistakes in announcements: "The have a high level of Partner involvement, allowing clients direct access to their Partner’s knowledge and depth of experience." Sloppy sloppy sloppy.


----------



## selciper (24 October 2011)

The link I gave didn't seem to copy correctly. Here goes again.

http://www.hcamag.com/news/breaking...ed-to-change-unproductive-assumptions/117324/


----------



## charles36 (24 October 2011)

Duped said:


> Thanks Seamisty. Creek St is in Brisbane's financial district.  So there are plenty of companies calling it home.
> 
> So the Wellington charade appears to be resorting to forum shopping for a friendly Auditor. Shop around for an auditor with a lesser reputation to protect? This is heading in the direction of the sort of thing that Madoff did http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008533585_madoff18.html
> 
> Tutt tutt.  Now we're getting spelling/grammar mistakes in announcements: "The have a high level of Partner involvement, allowing clients direct access to their Partner’s knowledge and depth of experience." Sloppy sloppy sloppy.




Any auditor has to be aproved by the Government Regulator and I would think the first thing that the Regulator may ask of any new candidate, "What can you do to correct an audit without satisfactory documentation.  PWC could not do it how come you can?"  What I really want to know who pays for this debacle?  Any suggestions?


----------



## seamisty (24 October 2011)

Duped said:


> Thanks Seamisty. Creek St is in Brisbane's financial district.  So there are plenty of companies calling it home.
> 
> So the Wellington charade appears to be resorting to forum shopping for a friendly Auditor. Shop around for an auditor with a lesser reputation to protect? This is heading in the direction of the sort of thing that Madoff did http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008533585_madoff18.html
> 
> Tutt tutt.  Now we're getting spelling/grammar mistakes in announcements: "The have a high level of Partner involvement, allowing clients direct access to their Partner’s knowledge and depth of experience." Sloppy sloppy sloppy.



Interesting. 

Name : CREEK STREET HOLDINGS PTY LTD 026219759
Name Start: 22/12/2010
Status : Registered
Type : AUSTRALIAN PROPRIETARY COMPANY
Class : LIMITED BY SHARES
Subclass : PROPRIETARY COMPANY

Principal Place of Business
LEVEL 22 307 QUEEN STREET BRISBANE QLD 4000 
Start Date: 22/12/2010

Directors
RACHEL CLAIRE WEEKS 

Secretary
RACHEL CLAIRE WEEKS


Class: ORD 026219759
ORDINARY SHARES
Number of Shares/Interests Issued : 100
Total Amount (if any) Paid / Taken to be Paid: 100.00
Total Amount Due and Payable : 0.00
Members
Class : ORD No. Held: 100 026219759
Beneficially Held: NO Paid : FULLY
114 248 458 WELLINGTON CAPITAL LIMITED
GPO BOX 694 BRISBANE QLD 4001
ABN (Australian Business Number) 45 114 248 458

I wonder if by any chance Creek St Holdings Pty Ltd ever held placement/ordinary units in the PIF?
Maybe a PIF unitholder could check, I understand PIF unitholders have the right to inspect the PIF unitholder register held by Wellington Capital Pty Ltd of the same address as Creek St Holdings Pty Ltd!!!


----------



## Jadel (24 October 2011)

seamisty said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Name : CREEK STREET HOLDINGS PTY LTD 026219759
> Name Start: 22/12/2010
> ...




 That has already been done by our of our members Seamisty.

 I will let you deduce the obvious result.


----------



## Duped (24 October 2011)

seamisty said:


> ...
> 
> Directors
> RACHEL CLAIRE WEEKS
> ...




I stand corrected.  Thanks seamisty.


----------



## marcom (24 October 2011)

Now if CREEK STREET HOLDINGS PTY LTD 026219759 which is beneficially owned by Wellington Capital Pty Ltd at some stage (if not now) holds/held PIF shares well this amounts to a contravention of the PIF Constitution and the Corporations Act? Correct?


----------



## charles36 (24 October 2011)

marcom said:


> Now if CREEK STREET HOLDINGS PTY LTD 026219759 which is beneficially owned by Wellington Capital Pty Ltd at some stage (if not now) holds/held PIF shares well this amounts to a contravention of the PIF Constitution and the Corporations Act? Correct?




Will check, nothing surprises anymore Marcom.


----------



## seamisty (24 October 2011)

JohnH said:


> OK Bon voyage (wherever that might be) JH



Thanks JohnH, I am back from a quick trip away.

For anyone interested in an update of the recent Cherie Hearts/ g8 education legal proceedings in Singapore the case was wrapped up after Chris Scott took the stand on Friday. The outcome is to be delivered possibly in January.


----------



## seamisty (25 October 2011)

WOW!!! I am suffering PIF info overload!!! Thanks to all who are contributing, much appreciated. 

Where are they now?? Time to pool info and start a register of our own?
  An update of my own personal 'financial advisor' Donna Meadows from MFS/OCV who assured me all 
was well with the PIF in late 2007/early 2008 and encouraged me to invest more. I also know of other PIF investors  who were in the same situation.

Donna Meadows 
Marketing and Business Development at Wealthfarm Group 

no mention of previous MFS/OCV involvement

About wealthfarm:::

Financial Planners, Accountants, Mortgage Brokers and Property Buyers Agents

Welcome to Wealthfarm

Wealthfarm prides itself on an award-winning service model where clients are finally achieving the financial freedom they seek. The company customises holistic solutions across financial planning, accounting, property buyers agents and mortgage brokering services.

Specialising in strategic financial planning, investment advice, accounting and innovative finance solutions for both businesses and individuals, Wealthfarm is helping clients achieve their financial dreams. After all, it’s not how much you earn, but what you do with it that counts.

By becoming a client of Wealthfarm, we become your entire financial centre. Whatever you’re looking for, you will find it here.

Stress less and start your journey today.


----------



## seamisty (25 October 2011)

Out with the old, in with the new auditor 



Scott Rochfort
October 25, 2011.

The manager of the clapped-out MFS-founded Premium Income Fund has again raised eyebrows among some of its 10,000-odd unitholders.

There was no mention of how PwC partner Tim Allman said in the PIF accounts he was unable to attain appropriate evidence on the $135.7 million valuation on the loans made by the mortgage fund to various developers - loans that make up 60 per cent of the fund's net assets

Full article: http://www.smh.com.au/business/out-...new-auditor-20111024-1mgci.html#ixzz1bjmjjfnD


----------



## marcom (25 October 2011)

Just had a look at the Wealthfarm Group web site and there is another MFS escapee working in their client team:

Judy Stead
Senior Client Services Officer

Judy joined Wealthfarm in April 2010 and has over 20 years experience in financial services, client services and office administration.

When not working, Judy enjoys boating, fishing, camping and spending time with family and friends.

No mention of MFS of course!

Anyone recognise any others?


----------



## MAE (25 October 2011)

"Where are they Now" 

Are you familiar with facebook!!

You can search for friends, I was able to type in Michael King and his profile photo which is unmistakable, (polo horses) came up.

He has 277 friends to date, I have spotted a Craig White in his friends list, would this be the same Craig White from MFS days.

I was wondering if Michael King might like to add us PIF Investors to his friends list, mmm!!!


----------



## seamisty (25 October 2011)

WOW!! There's a whole swag of previously connected MFS/Living and Leisure staff with this company 
http://www.signaturecapitalinvestments.com.au/IRM/content/about_directorprofiles.html

Directors:John Morrison, Paul Manka and Bruce McCormish
Company Secretary: Louise Edwards (another corporate lawyer)

Interesting media article relating to Signature Capital Investments
http://m.theage.com.au/business/former-multiplex-owner-in-9m-boardroom-battle-20110926-1ktii.html

YEEKS!!Its nearly as bad as Equititrust   'Signature hands over control to single entity'
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...to-single-entity/story-fn91v9q3-1226164317178


----------



## selciper (25 October 2011)

I don't think  that it's being over-optimistic to say that today's CBD  piece is unwelcome at Wellington Capital. What happens if ASIC don't give the green light to the new auditor?


----------



## charles36 (25 October 2011)

MAE said:


> "Where are they Now"
> 
> Are you familiar with facebook!!
> 
> ...




Is JH there?


----------



## 66Joy (25 October 2011)

Does anyone know what has become of Ian Zelinski ?


----------



## AusInCA (26 October 2011)

Now let me see if I've got this straight.  With the resignation of PWC as auditor. The new auditor has an association with Ms Hutson.  So Wellington now as well as being R.E. for  PIF and also controlling the Registry function and also the Mail House involved, they also now have a link to the *external* auditor.  It just keeps on getting more unbelievable.


----------



## simgrund (26 October 2011)

66Joy said:


> Does anyone know what has become of Ian Zelinski ?




Agh, Mr Zelinski!
In Polish, the name would be akin to "Mr Greenman".
We may safely assume Mr G is deeply rooted in some 
activity where his talents continue to prosper. 
There may be a bump or two by way of a call up
by ASIC and or IMF actions on our behalf.
And thanks for mentioning Judy Stead.
I will always recall her gracious hosting of 
Ladies Aussie Open in early '07.
It is there she kept reassuring me that she personally.
processed my withdrawal application.
In gratitude I later made her a little corny souvenir of a tournament 
golf ball with MFS insignia on it.  
In blissful and joyous ignorance, I continued to gorge 
on dainty canapes; instead of choking her windpipes 
and demanding pyment right there and then in the hospitality tent.
Story of my life; another missed opportunity.
Sorry 66Joy, just reflections,
Regards,

Ps. Mr Z's last communication to me was 
an offer of a Premier Service membership.


----------



## selciper (26 October 2011)

A thought of Sophocles: Things gained through unjust fraud are never secure.


----------



## BootsnAll (26 October 2011)

*ASIC raids Equititrust office*

  Nick Nichols, business editor   |  October 21st, 2011
  A WEEK of boardroom drama at Equititrust escalated yesterday when the national corporate watchdog raided the Chevron Island offices of the funds manager.
  Officers of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) executed a warrant to remove company records, forcing Equititrust to send its staff home for the day.
  The move was branded last night as the work of "mischief makers" by company founder Mark McIvor. It comes on the heels of his ousting of former director David Tucker last week and the appointment of a new chairman and chief executive this week.
  ASIC would not comment on the nature of its investigation yesterday but new chairman Jeff McDermid confirmed the focus was on "prior transactions".
  In another development yesterday, Mr Tucker filed an application in the Queensland Supreme Court to have a receiver appointed to oversee the winding up of the Equititrust Income Fund (EIF) -- a task being done by the current board.
  "Personally, I find that quite bizarre," Mr McIvor told the Bulletin last night.
  Mr Tucker, who has been Equititrust's legal counsel for many years, was forced off the board by Mr McIvor after a request by former chairman John Goddard was ignored.
  Equititrust had cited "perceived conflicts of interest arising from the fact his legal firm had been receiving millions of dollars in fees from Equititrust" for his removal.
  "Since being sacked, Mr Tucker has repeatedly expressed concern that (Equititrust's) legal spend, which last year amounted to $1.7 million, will be taken away from his firm," it said.
  Mr Tucker has nominated a receiver to Equititrust.
  Mr McIvor questioned the motives behind the move.
  "We'll see what the court thinks of that next week," he said.
  Equititrust has until next Thursday to respond.
  Mr McDermid said the new board, including chief executive Troy Bingham and insolvency expert Paul Vincent, had done a preliminary review and found Equititrust's latest statutory accounts and compliance audits were in arrears.
  He said a former senior KPMG accountant had been appointed to complete the statutory accounts.
  "The board has also resolved to undertake an immediate full forensic audit and review of the company's data files to determine the true state of affairs so as to ensure the responsible and lawful management of the wind up of the funds' property assets."
  Equititrust is winding down its frozen funds, including the EIF which had $181 million in assets at the end of August, valuing the $1 units at 78c each.


----------



## marcom (27 October 2011)

You just can't keep him down!

*Raptis on lookout for home, retail sites*

 by: Bridget Carter
 From: The Australian
 October 27, 2011 12:00AM
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ome-retail-sites/story-fn9656lz-1226177753498

GOLD Coast developer Jim Raptis says he is looking for sites to embark on new developments through the listed company he founded before it collapsed with debts of $1 billion during the global financial crisis.

Mr Raptis told The Australian yesterday that after undertaking some "general" advisory work, he hoped to be back developing again in a year with the listed Raptis Group.

OK but what about paying PIF back for the dud loans!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## seamisty (27 October 2011)

Accounts and Audit
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund wishes to confirm the basis
upon which the valuation of the assets of the Premium Income Fund occurred at 30 June 2011. Additionally
Wellington Capital wishes to confirm that nothing has come to its attention since the publication of the
accounts which changes the directors’ views as to the value of the mortgage loans nor the asset backed loans
as at 30 June 2011.
Valuation Methodology
Page 5 of the Annual Report of the Premium Income Fund for 30 June 2011 released to the market on 30
September 2011 states the valuation methodology adopted by directors. This methodology is the same as
that adopted in prior years.
‘The primary assets of the Fund are loans made to borrowers. Where a borrower has defaulted the
Fund has taken steps to secure the underlying security and become mortgagee-in-possession. The value
of the underlying security property has been based on Directors valuations and assessments of the
properties in comparison to similar properties. Contracts of sale provide the best evidence of a
valuation and a number of properties have subsequently been sold realising a value greater than their
book value. For those properties that have not been sold, formal external valuations provide the next
best comparison.
An obligation exists upon the Directors to inform the market and if necessary issue restated accounts
should the value of assets be significantly and materially different to the book value.’
Note 2(d) (page 18 of the Annual Report) and Note 14 (page 25 of the Annual Report) outlines in further
detail the methodology used to determine carrying values.
The auditors for the period to 30 June 2011, PricewaterhouseCoopers, did not formulate an opinion as to the
carrying value of the assets as at 30 June 2011 as set out in their opinion on page 39 of the Annual Report.
They did however note that the net assets had been valued by the directors, assisted by external advisors, on
the basis described in Note 2(d) and Note 14.
Continuous Disclosure
The directors of Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund confirm that
they have disclosed all information required to ensure that the market is fully informed and have met and
continue to meet the disclosure obligations of the Corporations Act 2001 and the NSX Listing Rules.
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724537.PDF

Who do Wellington Capital think they are fooling apart from themselves? Is this the same WC who also claimed to know nothing about the 'rent a crowd' at the EGM in Sydney and why the PIF unit price hit 20cents on  the NSX, around the same time as the Craig Wallace owned company Yuon Essentials became a major shareholder? You bet it is.


----------



## simgrund (27 October 2011)

Another mirror image of universality of anonymous advisors.
Doesn't matter where in the world.



> .......Olympus shares fell 7.6 per cent on Wednesday and have lost more than half their value since Woodford was fired.
> 
> The Briton said he was fired for questioning the payment to unidentified advisers in the $US2.2 billion takeover of medical equipment maker Gyrus. At about 30 per cent of the acquisition price, that set a record in M&A fees.
> 
> ...




Regards,


----------



## marcom (27 October 2011)

Really Jenny (aka TFS) PWC did not resign for nothing. Having a irresponsible entity basing its fees on unsupported directors valuations is criminal.

And this piece of contorted logic: "Contracts of sale provide the best evidence of a
valuation and a number of properties have subsequently been sold realising a value greater than their book value. For those properties that have not been sold, *formal external valuations provide the next best comparison*.

"Contracts of sale provide the best evidence of a valuation.." Not if it is a firesale and/or nonarms length transactions between greedy mates.

"...*formal external valuations* provide the next best comparison". That's OK but you would not disclose them to PWC so they refused to sign off on the accounts and resigned. This is clearly cargo cult mentality - looks like you may have had one too many enemagrams!!!!


----------



## charles36 (27 October 2011)

I am a very simple person who likes a little bit of logic.  Why will Wellington not reveal who these external advisors are and what methodology was used.  It is not the first time they have been asked.  It may well be that if PWC resigned this time because of the reasons outlined they should have resigned much earlier if the same valuation method was conducted as stated by Wellington.  Another thing, it may be correct for the management to value the assets of a fund but is it morally right when the management have a vested interest in the result of the valuation.  It is acknowledged that the management fee and dismissal of the management hinge on the last audited value of the fund.  As there has been no audit does the fee revert to the last audit which in fact reveals a higher NTA?


----------



## JohnH (27 October 2011)

charles36 said:


> I am a very simple person who likes a little bit of logic.  Why will Wellington not reveal who these external advisors are and what methodology was used.  It is not the first time they have been asked.  It may well be that if PWC resigned this time because of the reasons outlined they should have resigned much earlier if the same valuation method was conducted as stated by Wellington.  Another thing, it may be correct for the management to value the assets of a fund but is it morally right when the management have a vested interest in the result of the valuation.  It is acknowledged that the management fee and dismissal of the management hinge on the last audited value of the fund.  As there has been no audit does the fee revert to the last audit which in fact reveals a higher NTA?




Reminds me of my dear old dad Charles, he used to say "I am a simple man of taste!"  As regards to the logic, there can really only be one interpretation of Wellington's actions, and I just cannot understand why ASIC have not stepped in. ...Do they have the equivalent of the UK Fraud Squad in Australia???     .........  John H


----------



## charles36 (27 October 2011)

JohnH said:


> Reminds me of my dear old dad Charles, he used to say "I am a simple man of taste!"  As regards to the logic, there can really only be one interpretation of Wellington's actions, and I just cannot understand why ASIC have not stepped in. ...Do they have the equivalent of the UK Fraud Squad in Australia???     .........  John H




JohnH  My mother used to say to me, "Charles my son, all good things come to those who wait."  I say the time is nigh, if my logic holds up.  Regards Charles36


----------



## selciper (27 October 2011)

The latest WC communique is quite fantastical. Perhaps it's a sign that they are feeling the water rising over their waists.


----------



## seamisty (28 October 2011)

ASIC appears to be taking an interest in audits.

Elderslie auditor agrees gatekeeping days are over 
Leonie Lamont
October 28, 2011
THE lead auditor who signed the accounts of Elderslie Finance and Grenfell Securities in the years before their collapse will never work as an auditor again, the corporate regulator says

ASIC said Mr Lockyer had not ensured qualified audit reports were issued; that the work performed regarding ''going concern'' was adequate; ''and that the audit opinion issued properly disclosed the seriousness of Elderslie's and Grenfell's position''.

Fll article: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/bus...gatekeeping-days-are-over-20111027-1mm1m.html


----------



## seamisty (28 October 2011)

The Equititrust saga is interesting, more updates in the links below


http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/equititrust-fails-to-block-move/story-e6freqmx-1226178897603

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/10/28/361131_crime-and-court-news.html


----------



## charles36 (28 October 2011)

Do any other unit holders feel like they are involved in a "COLD WAR"  I mean all we are trying to do is get the best we can from our miserable investment and when you ask a question or two you feel as if you are the enemy trying to infiltrate a closed shop.  The sooner there is some closure to this episode in my life the better I will feel.  However, I would not want  expediency to sacrifice justice for all.


----------



## marcom (28 October 2011)

*ASIC boosts convictions, revenues*

Published 6:00 AM, 28 Oct 2011 Last update 6:00 AM, 28 Oct 2011

 By a staff reporter

    The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has doubled the number of insider trading cases, which helped boost revenues seven per cent to $622 million, according to its annual report.

    The regulator produced six criminal convictions resulting in jail time in the past year, in addition to four cases of market manipulation and insider trading that remain before the courts.

    Revenues were helped by the convictions, such as former Orion Asset Management equities dealer John Hartman who paid $1.57 million to the government when he pleaded guilty to 25 insider trading changes.

    In addition, *a former senior manager at KPMG Andrew Dalzell*, Macquarie Bank fund manager Oswyn de Silva, former Macquarie Equities client advisor Newton Chan, former Bell Potter adviser Rocco Musumeci and former ABN Amro adviser Richard Wade were charged for insider trading in the past year.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...report-pd20111027-N2Q55?OpenDocument&src=hp28


----------



## seamisty (28 October 2011)

marcom said:


> *ASIC boosts convictions, revenues*
> 
> Published 6:00 AM, 28 Oct 2011 Last update 6:00 AM, 28 Oct 2011
> 
> ...



Purely for interests sake I have been doing some research into what constitutes  'market manipulation'

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1041A 
Market manipulation 
                   A person must not take part in, or carry out (whether directly or indirectly and whether in this jurisdiction or elsewhere): 

                     (a)  a transaction that has or is likely to have; or 

                     (b)  2 or more transactions that have or are likely to have; 

the effect of: 

                     (c)  creating an artificial price for trading in financial products on a financial market operated in this jurisdiction; or 

                     (d)  maintaining at a level that is artificial (whether or not it was previously artificial) a price for trading in financial products on a financial market operated in this jurisdiction. 

Note 1:       Failure to comply with this section is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)). 

Note 2:       This section is also a civil penalty provision (see section 1317E). For relief from liability to a civil penalty relating to this section, see section 1317S. 
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s1041a.html


----------



## Duped (28 October 2011)

seamisty said:


> ...
> Who do Wellington Capital think they are fooling apart from themselves? Is this the same WC who also claimed to know nothing about the 'rent a crowd' at the EGM in Sydney and why the PIF unit price hit 20cents on  the NSX, around the same time as the Craig Wallace owned company Yuon Essentials became a major shareholder? You bet it is.




Fortunately for WC it doesn't take much to fool some PIF investors.

And it seems that our experience has changed nothing.

Check out this ad from NRMA's member magazine 'Open Road' for September/October

Feels awfully familiar to me.  Selling a huge increase in risk in exchange for a few % more interest. This page from Colonial presents the case well. http://www.colonialfirststate.com.au/producteducation/managedfunds/assclassmf.aspx?menutabtype=pe

IMLO PIF is more of a Property Security than a Fixed Interest investment.


----------



## simgrund (28 October 2011)

charles36 said:


> Do any other unit holders feel like they are involved in a "COLD WAR"  I mean all we are trying to do is get the best we can from our miserable investment and when you ask a question or two you feel as if you are the enemy trying to infiltrate a closed shop.  The sooner there is some closure to this episode in my life the better I will feel.  However, I would not want  expediency to sacrifice justice for all.





You know Charles, one of the immortal sayings in 
human evolution is "I'll be back". 
Said by Justice that eventually reaches those malignant parasites feeding on trusting folks like us. 
While we watch ASIC's snail-marching towards dispensing Justice, let's hope
it follows the priority list it surely must have created.
And we hope  PIF is at the top of that list by now.
Stand firm,
Regards


----------



## Duped (28 October 2011)

seamisty said:


> ... Additionally Wellington Capital wishes to confirm that nothing has come to its attention since the publication of the accounts which changes the directors’ views as to the value of the mortgage loans nor the asset backed loans
> as at 30 June 2011.
> Valuation Methodology
> Page 5 of the Annual Report of the Premium Income Fund for 30 June 2011 released to the market on 30 September 2011 states the valuation methodology adopted by directors. This methodology is the same as that adopted in prior years.
> ...




As usual, lots of words from Wellington. 

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. 

Hmmm,  lets see what the market thinks.  Ooops bid at 8.5c vanished and  another holding takes the bullet @ 8.1c.  Nice work WC. Even the Fairfax  press calling PIF "clapped out" didn't appear to have that effect.

"_nothing has come to its attention since the publication of the accounts which changes the directors’ views_"  Certainly won't if you avoid looking for new info. Especially if you  stick your head in the sand. Like continuing to dine after the Titanic  had been sliced open and began its death.

WC announces:

"_based on Directors valuations_" I'll be discounting that considering they have a vested interest in the valuations being higher rather than lower.

"_comparison to similar properties._"  Note 2(d) goes on to say "_The current lack of comparable market evidence ..._" So I guess that element of the "valuation methodology" can't have played a big role.

"_a number of properties have subsequently been sold realising a value greater than their
book value._"  Fair enough.  That gives me some confidence. But this needs to be discounted by  the fact that PIF doesn't really hold that many properties and even then  the range is very broad.  Right? I.e. is WC saying that because it got it  right for apartments in Coffs means it'll get it rights for a resort in  the Gold Coast hinterlands, a sand stone quarry in Helidon or an empty  block in Yeppoon?

So we (hence also PWC) are left with "_formal external valuations provide the next best comparison_"  

And right there is WC's big ommission in this announcement:
"At the date of issue of this report we were 

unable to obtain access to the external advisors and their supporting work papers and as a result were 

unable to evaluate the appropriateness of the advisors work"


----------



## seamisty (28 October 2011)

Investor Advisory Committee
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund is pleased to advise that it has
three current nominations from Unitholders wishing to be members of the Investor Advisory Committee.
These nominations were received in response to the request for nominations set out in Investor Update 2 of
2011.
As there are three nominations for the three positions, no election is required. Ms Andrejic, Ms Busch and
Mr Nichols now comprise the Investor Advisory Committee.
Managing Director, Jenny Hutson said, ‘I am pleased to welcome Ms Busch and Mr Nichols to the Investor
Advisory Committee and thank Ms Andrejic for her continuing efforts on the Committee. My thanks goes to
the departing members of the first committee in what has been a pivotal time for the Premium Income Fund.’
Details of Committee Members
Mr Robert Nichols
‘My experiences are spread out covering a wide area. Firstly I have worked for my myself since I was 21
years of age. I have had numerous businesses including in the building industry, real estate, news agencies. I
owned, ran and made cut off’s of four newsagencies. I have set up, run and controlled my own
superannuation fund with real estate stocks and shares. I have also owned and operated an Australian wide
wholesale movie business. I have operated my own strata management business with 120 different body
corporates and have owned and operated my own child care centre.
I feel I have sufficient broad experience to bring to the Investor Advisory Committee.’
Ms Faye Busch
‘For 21 years, I was an owner-operator of a successful motel and upmarket restaurant business which won a
Queensland Tourism award. I could write a book on the highs and lows of running a 24/7 small business and
the absolute dedication required.
On retirement, unbelievably, an accident in a restaurant with a book and a pot of tea caused me to invent a
small convenient ‘thing’ to hold books open. The development of the pocket sized BookWiz from idea to
product was an exciting journey with sales in Britain, Europe an Australia.
As a member of the PIF Investor Advisory Committee, I will always have the investors’ interests at heart.’
Ms Brownyn Andrejic
‘I am a qualified accountant and manage my family superannuation fund.
I have also managed our family business for the last 25 years including shopping centres and shopping
arcades in north Queensland.
I have four children and a keen interest in finance and investments.’
Role of the Investor Advisory Committee
The purpose of the Investor Advisory Committee is to ensure investor input into the decision making process
of the Fund into the future.
Members of the committee have an opportunity to discuss current issues with the board and management
team and the outcome of each committee meeting is be provided to all unitholders in the following Investor
Update.
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724547.PDF


----------



## marcom (28 October 2011)

Seems to be one important omission - how do we contact our new representatives?????


----------



## AusInCA (29 October 2011)

marcom said:


> Seems to be one important omission - how do we contact our new representatives?????





The announcement has an email address for contact:  iac at wellcap.com.au


----------



## simgrund (29 October 2011)

AusInCA said:


> The announcement has an email address for contact:  iac at wellcap.com.au




Oh yeh, didn't we bombard it all throughout the tenure of IAC Mark1?
Apart from miniscule inclusions of worthless dispensation of their "duties" in WC updates,
fair dinkum members got no feedbacks from that inoperative Mark1.

*So I will chance it again: 

Dear IAC Mark 2, could you please respond to my request to post on this forum
your assurances of ESTABLISHING a bona fide liaison with us.
And then all will be forgiven with this fresh start. 
The bygones will truly be gone.
*
In anticipation, regards


----------



## JohnH (29 October 2011)

simgrund said:


> Oh yeh, didn't we bombard it all throughout the tenure of IAC Mark1?
> Apart from miniscule inclusions of worthless dispensation of their "duties" in WC updates,
> fair dinkum members got no feedbacks from that inoperative Mark1.
> 
> ...




Note that Bronwyn Andrejic was a member of mark 1 as well.  This could well be her http://en-gb.facebook.com/people/Bronwyn-Andrejic/1587722455


----------



## simgrund (29 October 2011)

JohnH said:


> Note that Bronwyn Andrejic was a member of mark 1 as well.  This could well be her http://en-gb.facebook.com/people/Bronwyn-Andrejic/1587722455




Ha ha, Facebook!!! 
Typical of that cauldron of Narcissim.
Appear where it's worthless and disappear 
when genuinely needed.

C'mon Bronwyn, give us a list of your stellar representations
of PIF'ers during your Mark1 sojourn.
What were, in your opinion, stellar achievements in advancing rank PIF'ers
core concerns???

In anticipation, Regards


----------



## seamisty (29 October 2011)

In the course of my ongoing research I found this job listing dated 20/09/2011

I understand the position has since been filled so don't all rush for your resumes!

To have to employ someone skilled in counselling people who suffer stress, anxiety and grief, is in all likelihood  a direct result of the ongoing financial hardship investors continue to suffer under the management of Wellington Capital who pledged to 'reshape and continue'  and recommence distributions if elected as RE over THREE YEARS ago is further evidence of a company that failed to deliver.

Telephone Counsellor - Wellington Capital
Telephone Counsellor 

Wellington Capital, a Brisbane based Merchant Bank and Fund Manager, is seeking an experienced telephone counsellor to work 9 hours per week (across 3 days) in our Investor Relations team.

To be suitable for this role you will have:

High level of interpersonal, communication, organisational skills which can be applied to dealing with complex issues within a financial services environment
Ability to work with minimal supervision
Ability to work as part of a close team
Demonstrated experience in the treatment of a broad range of issues including grief, anxiety and commonly encountered stress conditions
A desire for continuous upgrading of skills and knowledge through supervision and internal training

Formal qualifications are desirable, but not essential.  Proven skills and experience in telephone counselling is essential.

Wellington Capital offers a supportive working environment.  Flexible hours are available within the business day.

To apply, send your resume with a covering letter by email to:

Kate Hanrick
General Manager 
Wellington HR
khanrick@wellcap.com.au


----------



## selciper (29 October 2011)

Great piece of research about the "grief counsellor", Seamisty. The appointment leads me to believe that telephoned expressions of despair by PIF investors are growing considerably. Kate Hanrick is a new name to me.


----------



## seamisty (29 October 2011)

selciper said:


> Great piece of research about the "grief counsellor", Seamisty. The appointment leads me to believe that telephoned expressions of despair by PIF investors are growing considerably. Kate Hanrick is a new name to me.



Kate Hanrick was there from day one selciper, she was listed as Office Manager in the Explanatory Memorandum. Dale Blackburn listed as Fund Accountant left WC in Sept 2008 so he didn't hang around for long!


----------



## charles36 (30 October 2011)

selciper said:


> Great piece of research about the "grief counsellor", Seamisty. The appointment leads me to believe that telephoned expressions of despair by PIF investors are growing considerably. Kate Hanrick is a new name to me.




Not a new name.


----------



## seamisty (30 October 2011)

charles36 said:


> Not a new name.



Coincidently there is an accounting firm called HanrickCurran located in the same building as Wellington Capital.

http://www.hanrickcurran.com.au/home
 Level 11, 307 Queen St, Brisbane Qld 4000


----------



## seamisty (30 October 2011)

I wonder if WC staff get to attend these type of training workshops?
http://www.nds.org.au/news/article/1338
Fraud and Corruption Awareness Training
Don't let your organisation become a victim to fraud!  According to KPMG, the average loss from fraud  by each organisation experiencing at least one incident of fraud rose from $1.5 million in 2008 to $3 million in 2010, while the number of frauds increased by 53% over the same time. These numbers are staggering but this number can be reduced by fraud prevention.

NDS invites you to attend a fraud and corruption awareness training workshop presented by KPMG Forensic. The NSW Industry Development Fund has funded twenty one (21) training workshop sessions to be held across NSW.

KPMG draw on their extensive experience conducting fraud investigations, developing fraud risk management frameworks and fraud control strategies to step you through the drivers of fraud and corruption and the proven methods of preventing fraud, giving you the tools to develop your own fraud control strategy.

The interactive 4-hour workshops will provide attendees with an understanding of:
 The types of behaviours that constitute fraud and corruption and the consequences of such actions;
 The size and magnitude of fraud and corruption in Australia;
 How fraud and corruption occurs and the influence of organisational environments;
 Example case studies specific to the NGO sector;
 A practical approach to managing the risk of fraud and corruption;
 How to use the tools within the NGO Fraud and Corruption Control Toolkit.

The training date, time and location details [Word 327KB] are available to download.

Places are limited so secure your spot now on what is considered "must have" knowledge for management.


----------



## simgrund (30 October 2011)

selciper said:


> Great piece of research about the "grief counsellor", Seamisty. The appointment leads me to believe that telephoned expressions of despair by PIF investors are growing considerably. Kate Hanrick is a new name to me.




I too thank you Seamisty for this timely information.
And not a moment too soon.
This is not an occasion to dispense my usual hydrochloric cynism.
Nor wish RE ill for her misdeeds in bringing all these pestulance upon us.
On the contrary, I am grateful.
When will the service number come out?
I want to get in before Michael King does as I am nearer to suicide.

Heaven be praised!!! Salvation cometh!!!


----------



## charles36 (30 October 2011)

I seem to remember a unit holder contacting the Hotline for some explanation as to what happened to his money and he was arrested.  One should be careful when seeking help who knows what advice you might be given.  I notice that the counsellors were not required to have financial qualifications, I would have thought that unit holders would be seeking just that advice.  Probably asking questions like, "What has happened to my money, why have so many promises been broken etc?


----------



## JohnH (30 October 2011)

charles36 said:


> Not a new name.




Likes holidays in China 
https://picasaweb.google.com/alliot...nnerAtTheGreatWallOfChina#5187406087295576178

............... and also (surprise surprise) a Kate Hanrick also worked/works for 
McCullough Robertson!!!!


----------



## marcom (31 October 2011)

Ex-MFS Director Paul Manka in the news again:

SHARE CHASE

The board of the formerly MFS-aligned hedge fund investment company Signature Capital has found a useful way to spend shareholder funds.

Signature, which is chaired by the former adviser to MFS, John Morrison, has hired a proxy solitication service to muster support to head off an attempted spill of its board by the fund manager Geoff Wilson at a shareholder meeting next Monday.

CBD has received reports of shareholders who have had calls from the firm Global Proxy Services seeking support for the board.

The resolutions at next week's meeting include the dumping of Morrison, former MFS director Paul Manka, Bruce McComish, Julie Raffe and Bill O'Neill from the board of the company.

The resolution is seeking Wilson be appointed to the board, along with former E*Trade boss Brett Spork and Paul Dortkamp.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/qant...-with-texan-20111030-1mqdz.html#ixzz1cIw8HHIZ

Same tactics as someone else we all know!


----------



## seamisty (31 October 2011)

Check out the credentails of a former Wellington Capital 'counsellor' who manned the PIF hotline for 1 year and 9 months. 
http://au.linkedin.com/in/russellworkman
Russell Workman
Corporate Consulting and Coaching: counsel to CEO’s, Exec's, Leadership, Management 
Location Brisbane Area, Australia Industry Professional Training & Coaching 

Russell Workman's Overview 

Current Director at Russell Workman Executive Coaching and Training
 Past Business Development Manager at Multilink Community Services 
Counsellor at Wellington Capital 
Manager of Corporate Responsibility and HBOS Foundation at Halifax Bank of Scotland 
Counsellor 
Wellington Capital
April 2009 – December 2010 (1 year 9 months
Manager of Corporate Responsibility and HBOS Foundation 
Halifax Bank of Scotland2008 – 2008 (less than a year) 
Russell Workman is a professional social worker, counselor, corporate responsibility consultant, and business manager of Magicians Way. He is a solutions expert in business and relationships, specialising in the use of creativity and intuition development.

http://www.linkedin.com/company/russell-workman-executive-coaching-and-training
Russell Workman Executive Coaching and Training 
Russell Workman has been in practice for 10 years and has a private counselling and coaching practice in Brisbane, is trained in Family therapy, Narrative Therapy, Hypnotherapy, Solution Focussed Therapy, and is a Master Practitioner and Trainer in Neuro-Linguistic Programming. 
He has extensive experience in corporate wellbeing, counselling, coaching, mental health and has held senior management roles in finance and banking, health, and community welfare initiatives. 
Russell specialises in motivation, strategy, work place mediation, executive coaching, goal setting, personality analysis, relationships, problem solving, depression, grief, family breakdown, drug and alcohol issues, couples and individual counselling, young people.
 Specialties Work Place Mediation, Executive Coaching, Brainstorming Sessions, Goal Setting

A bit more on page 4 re Russell Workman.


----------



## Duped (31 October 2011)

seamisty said:


> ...
> 
> http://www.linkedin.com/company/russell-workman-executive-coaching-and-training
> Russell Workman Executive Coaching and Training
> Russell Workman has been in practice for 10 years and has a private counselling and coaching practice in Brisbane, is trained in Family therapy, Narrative Therapy, Hypnotherapy, Solution Focussed Therapy, and is a Master Practitioner and Trainer in Neuro-Linguistic Programming. ...




"Neuro-Linguistic Programming." [i.e. NLP] That's brilliant.  Perfect. From wikipedia: "Founders Richard Bandler and John Grinder say that NLP is capable of addressing problems such as ... and learning disorders, and helps people attain fuller and richer lives".

Learning Disorders. Well some of us PIF investors certainly do have/had an inability to learn from our mistakes.   Suckers.

Hmmm off to quackwatch.org now to check it out.


----------



## seamisty (31 October 2011)

seamisty said:


> Check out the credentails of a former Wellington Capital 'counsellor' who manned the PIF hotline for 1 year and 9 months.
> http://au.linkedin.com/in/russellworkman
> Russell Workman
> Corporate Consulting and Coaching: counsel to CEO’s, Exec's, Leadership, Management
> ...




Sorry, forgot to put the link in for  this re read page four.http://www.magiciansway.com/newsletter/dec-08/December Silver Lining.pdf


----------



## marcom (31 October 2011)

Just sent the following email to Adam Hoey at Bentleys Brisbane office:

Hello Adam

Just enquiring if the payments to Octaviar creditors has/will occur as promised by today? Any update on when the statements of claim will be served on Octaviar directors and others?

Cheers
Robert Axam
Premium Income Fund investor 

I'll post his reply when it is received.


----------



## charles36 (31 October 2011)

marcom said:


> Just sent the following email to Adam Hoey at Bentleys Brisbane office:
> 
> Hello Adam
> 
> ...




Marcom,  How is any distribution from Bentleys to be treated by Wellington.  Does it go into the fund for expenses etc?  If a distribution is made will this be counted towards previous distribution of two cents and if sufficient to make the grand total to three cents will this be treated as a return of capital like the rest?  Therefore, can Wellington then commence to charge the .07% fee.  If so where is the justification for that?  Greatful for an explanation.


----------



## selciper (31 October 2011)

Does it mean that when in the past I was naive enough to telephone the WC "help line", I wasn't connected to a well-briefed rep but to a "counsellor"? Possibly, that explains the vacuous nature of any information elicited.


----------



## marcom (31 October 2011)

charles36 said:


> Marcom,  How is any distribution from Bentleys to be treated by Wellington.  Does it go into the fund for expenses etc?  If a distribution is made will this be counted towards previous distribution of two cents and if sufficient to make the grand total to three cents will this be treated as a return of capital like the rest?  Therefore, can Wellington then commence to charge the .07% fee.  If so where is the justification for that?  Greatful for an explanation.




Rest assured Charles she will do everything she can to pilfer our money!!!!


----------



## marcom (31 October 2011)

marcom said:


> Just sent the following email to Adam Hoey at Bentleys Brisbane office:
> 
> Hello Adam
> 
> ...




Here's the reply:

Dear Marcom

I refer to your email earlier today regarding Octaviar.

Mr William J Fletcher and Ms Katherine E Barnet were appointed Joint and Several Liquidators of Octaviar Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) (OL) on 9 September 2009 and subsequently over other entities within the Octaviar Group.  The Administrators of the group, Deloitte, issued a declaration stating that there is no likelihood that shareholders will receive any distribution on their shares. This form can be found on our website. 

Please note however that the investment described in your email below relates to the Premium Income Fund, a fund now under the control of Wellington Capital.  For further information on your investment, please refer to www.wellcap.com.au.   

If there is any other way I can assist, please don’t hesitate to ask.

Kind regards,

Adam Hoey
Accountant Corporate Recovery

I guess he didn't want to answer the question.


----------



## Duped (31 October 2011)

marcom said:


> ...
> 
> I guess he didn't want to answer the question.




Perhaps, like me, he watched Yes Minister on the weekend. It's back on TV for a new generation of fans


----------



## simgrund (31 October 2011)

marcom said:


> Rest assured Charles she will do everything she can to pilfer our money!!!!




Another urgent submission is needed to be sent to the Court for payment treatment determination by a Justice who knows his Book of Justice inside out.
I wonder if Bentlery's as official liquidators have an authority to give a 
determination to release payment direct to PIF holders of which WC is just one.
among many. 
Surely there are guidelines for Liquidators on a duty like this.
I can't do research, perhaps we can look into it closer.
Regards,


----------



## marcom (31 October 2011)

Duped said:


> Perhaps, like me, he watched Yes Minister on the weekend. It's back on TV for a new generation of fans




I'll look forward to watching Yes Minister - nothing has changed. Remember the episode about the hospital that won the award for efficiency when they had no patients - what a hoot, trouble is is was based on fact!


----------



## zixo (31 October 2011)

With the pigs firmly stuck in the trough.
 I often wonder where ASIC our corporate regulator is. I wonder how Bill shorten and his labor cohorts feel having full knowledge of how Wellington have treated us.

I anxiously await the day that JH and everyone that have done their bit to steal part of our lives learn what the meaning of justice is.


----------



## selciper (31 October 2011)

At about the same period as 'Yes Minister' was first screened, SBS ran a brilliant Italian drama series of a very different genre. 'Octopus' showed the workings of the Mafia in Sicily and how Italian politicians of the highest order were heavily involved in all kinds of criminal activity. The overall message was 'don't trust the powerful', which is pretty well what the "occupy" movements are saying. 

I've just heard a BBC business report describing how hedge funds have found a way of doubling their money by taking advantage of Greece's weakness - confirming that money addicts have no scruples.


----------



## seamisty (31 October 2011)

Maybe we should also have been targeting the taxation dept re reporting WC activities duties regarding  regulating/monitoring as I am researching info that there is a whole other scam out there that is using so called legitimate businesses to hide income from not for profit organisations? Maybe also using govt grants? Regular weekend workshops run by current/former Wellington Capital staff employees (many enneagram associated) are charging fees well in excess of the pittance they receive for their few hours of 'counselling' while employed by David Burke on behalf of WC for the PIF. If these activities are all above board then those involved wont have a problem. At least the taxation dept appear more on the ball than ASIC!!


----------



## marcom (1 November 2011)

selciper said:


> At about the same period as 'Yes Minister' was first screened, SBS ran a brilliant Italian drama series of a very different genre. 'Octopus' showed the workings of the Mafia in Sicily and how Italian politicians of the highest order were heavily involved in all kinds of criminal activity. The overall message was 'don't trust the powerful', which is pretty well what the "occupy" movements are saying.




selciper is this the series you mentioned?
Italy / Crime 
Playing Time 411:00 minutes over 
Content Model: DVD, 2 discs, 
Data Stage Line: How it all began, this Disc 2 was originally Octopus (La Piovra 9) that was placed between the Series 7 & 10. 
Production: Dutch Filmworks 
Director: Giacomo Battiato with Raoul Bova, Anja Kling & Fabrizio Contri
Description: 
In this fascinating and exciting episodes of the acclaimed Italian film series La Piovra (The Octopus), we see how the mafia in the 50 years gets a firm grip on the Italian police and politics. Sicilian farmers extortion and put under pressure. Nobody dares to do something. Besides police inspector Carlo Arcutti. In secretly gather evidence against the mafia, which he is aided by his former girlfriend Barbara Altamura, who suspects that her husband, a wealthy banker, dealing with organized crime. 
While between Barbara and a romance blossoms Arcutti inspector, the mob gets wind of the investigation and destiny strikes. 
Category   Image 
Source     DVD 
Language Italian 
Subtitles  Dutch 
Audio      Dolby Digital 2.0


----------



## selciper (1 November 2011)

Marom - Yes indeed, that's the series I was thinking about. If you enter La Piovre into YouTtbe, there's
 a short montage.

I found some US guff about Enneagram helping to run businesses efficiently. I notice that the lady pictured is partial to red clothing.

http://www.sandrawalston.com/enneagram/the-business-model/


----------



## seamisty (1 November 2011)

selciper said:


> Marom - Yes indeed, that's the series I was thinking about. If you enter La Piovre into YouTtbe, there's
> a short montage.
> 
> I found some US guff about Enneagram helping to run businesses efficiently. I notice that the lady pictured is partial to red clothing.
> ...




This one appears to likes black selciper and works for Wellington Capital as??? You guessed it, a part time  PIF hotline 'counsellor'!! I used to get Jayana quite often on the WC hotline way back in the beginning. Anyone called the hotline recently?? Competition must be fierce in the enneagram workshop arena, theres not shortage 'training providers' offering  retreats, mediation weekends, Colloquiums, reflection days, professional training programmes etc etc etc
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/jayana-mcmahon/28/606/2a0
Health and Consiousness field for 20years.
Training background: Kinesiology, ESR, Bodywork, Biofeedback clearing, SATS (Special Abilities Training School) and Enneagram. Cert IV Trainer and Assessor. Facilitator of Inner Judge, Self Inquiry and Enneagram workshops. Private sessions by appointment. Awareness Intensive Retreat facilitator
http://www.wholisticbusinessnetwork.com/members/venues.html
Jayana  - is a trained facilitator with the Integral Being Institute where she  goes right to the heart of whatever  the issue is for you. Sessions, Awareness Retreats, and Yearly Guidance Programs offer ongoing support in self enquiry and awareness, developing ground to grow in capacity; to understand and defend against obstacles; to break through to who you truly are. Jayana has a strong and compassionate presence drawing from a background in Self Enquiry, Awareness Intensive and Meditation retreats, Certified Enneagram Teacher (AIES), Kinesiology, Massage, Naam Rung bodywork.
http://www.holisticlocal.com.au/events/view/3193/Mastering+the+Inner+Judge+-+Introductory+Day
'Do you wish to become an active and creative agent in your life in 2011?
Break free of repetitive patterns of doubt, fear and mediocrity?
This 1 day introductory group reveals how the Inner Judge controls your life and how to break free. Commencing soon in Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney. Everyone welcome, suitable for professionals - human resources, teachers, project leaders, mental health workers, sports and arts performance and trainers. Spend a day with Jayana in lively and interactive introduction to your inner judge. '
Jayana McMahon has been working in the health and consciousness fields for many years. She is a facilitator with Integral Being Institute teaching Inner Judge, Transformative Enneagram and Awareness Intensives and personal coaching sessions. She considers Inner Judge work a fundamental step in true liberation.www.integralbeing.com

 Fee: $200 Payment required at registration to secure your place.


----------



## seamisty (1 November 2011)

The Color Code and the Enneagram 
The Color Code is an interesting personality theory created by Taylor Hartman. It divides personalities into four types, Red, Blue, White, and Yellow.

According to TheColorCode.com:

RED (Motive: POWER)””These are the power wielders. Power, the ability to move from point A to point B, and get things done is what motivates and drives these people. They bring great gifts of vision and leadership and generally are responsible, decisive, proactive and assertive.

BLUE (Motive: INTIMACY)””These are the do-gooders. Intimacy, connecting, creating quality relationships and having purpose is what motivates and drives these people. They bring great gifts of quality and service and are generally loyal, sincere, and thoughtful.

WHITE (Motive: PEACE)””These are the peacekeepers. Peace, or the absence of conflict, is what motivates and drives these people. They bring great gifts of clarity and tolerance and are generally kind, adaptable, good-listeners.

YELLOW (Motive: Fun)””These are the fun lovers. Fun, or the joy of doing something just for the sake of doing it, is what motivates and drives these people. They bring great gifts of enthusiasm and optimism and are generally charismatic, spontaneous, and sociable


----------



## charles36 (1 November 2011)

seamisty said:


> The Color Code and the Enneagram
> The Color Code is an interesting personality theory created by Taylor Hartman. It divides personalities into four types, Red, Blue, White, and Yellow.
> 
> According to TheColorCode.com:
> ...




Seamisty what colour are you?  I know who is "RED"


----------



## seamisty (1 November 2011)

charles36 said:


> Seamisty what colour are you?  I know who is "RED"



charles36 I am  a rainbow traveller of no specific colour. I am a totally transparent being who absorbs the colours surrounding me at any given time or place so that I may remain invisible. I can astral travel and read minds and am also receptive of thought projections from others. I have many different personalities which are on call to deal with any given circumstance at any given time. I also have many loyal friends from many different backgrounds and individual beliefs. I am an enigma with an agenda. I hope this answers your question


----------



## JohnH (1 November 2011)

seamisty said:


> charles36 I am  a rainbow traveller of no specific colour. I am a totally transparent being who absorbs the colours surrounding me at any given time or place so that I may remain invisible. I can astral travel and read minds and am also receptive of thought projections from others. I have many different personalities which are on call to deal with any given circumstance at any given time. I also have many loyal friends from many different backgrounds and individual beliefs. I am an enigma with an agenda. I hope this answers your question



 We'll take that as read!! ........... and blue, and indigo, violet etc etc


----------



## seamisty (1 November 2011)

JohnH said:


> We'll take that as read!!



LOL JohnH, I should have said "I have many loyal friends who are hardworking, honest and pay their taxes" from many different backgrounds!!


----------



## simgrund (2 November 2011)

JohnH said:


> We'll take that as read!! ........... and blue, and indigo, violet etc etc




And then, colours would mean zilch without numbers.
From Riso's Enneagram Part II Nine Personality Types, under Analysing the Unhealthy Three, The Exploitative Opportunist, Page 99:


> Failure is one of the most humiliating prospects for Threes. If they continue to overextend themselves and cannot make good on their claims, they will attempt to maintain their inflated self-esteem by exploiting others.
> As unhealthy Threes aee it, exploitation of some sort is necessary to continue to protect a superior self-image. Ironically, they have become superior not only to everyone else but also to themselves by overshooting the limits of their talents. Either they must come down to earth and recognize their limitations, or they must take from others to maintain their superiority.




Enough said. Chin up Seamisty, you are up there in the dozens.
Regards


----------



## marcom (2 November 2011)

EXAM TROUBLE

The founder of the failed Gold Coast financial concern City Pacific, Phil Sullivan, has been resisting a request to appear at an examination by the corporate regulator.

Sullivan last week initiated proceedings in the Federal Court against the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, which was seeking to examine him under Section 19 of the ASIC Act.

The court ordered on Monday - by consent - that the examination ''be deferred to a date to be fixed as directed by the court''. The first directions hearing has been set for November 18. ASIC has the power under Section 19 of the act to question under oath if it ''suspects or believes that a person can give information relevant to a matter that it is investigating''.

ASIC issued Sullivan a notice requiring appearance at an examination on October 4.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/russians-cheer-qantas-grounding-20111101-1mtw6.html#ixzz1cUdHGo2y


----------



## seamisty (2 November 2011)

Its not looking real good for investors in Equititrust:Curbs on Equititrust 
THE Australian Securities and Investments Commission has placed extraordinary curbs on Equititrust and is launching a hearing into alleged breaches of the Gold Coast mortgage fund operator's financial services licence.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/curbs-on-equititrust-20111101-1mtu9.html#ixzz1cUjWtDkO


----------



## charles36 (2 November 2011)

seamisty said:


> Its not looking real good for investors in Equititrust:Curbs on Equititrust
> THE Australian Securities and Investments Commission has placed extraordinary curbs on Equititrust and is launching a hearing into alleged breaches of the Gold Coast mortgage fund operator's financial services licence.
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/curbs-on-equititrust-20111101-1mtu9.html#ixzz1cUjWtDkO




Do unit holders believe there is a lot of difference between Equitrust and Wellington Capital?


----------



## seamisty (2 November 2011)

charles36 said:


> Do unit holders believe there is a lot of difference between Equitrust and Wellington Capital?



The only difference is that ASIC got of its ass and did something. Meanwhile PIF unitholders are waiting, waiting, waiting...........


----------



## marcom (3 November 2011)

Here is a small mention of ASIC accounting orders regarding Compass. The last paragraph says it all. Article by Michael West SMH Business Day 3 November 2011.

"...The review of the ASIC exemption order also brought back a recent memory of another ASIC exemption order for Evans & Tate Limited. As in the case of Compass, the Evans & Tate order was given to Martin Jones of Ferrier Hodgson. And as in the case of Compass, the Evans & Tate order was signed off by the same ASIC officer, Lorraine Mizzi.

Evans & Tate, as reported in these pages previously, sold a winery to then ASIC chairman Tony D'Aloisio shortly after the issue of its ASIC accounting exemption order. The winery sale by a financially distressed company being regulated by ASIC to the chairman of ASIC was apparently approved by the Treasurer *as consistent with the maintenance of the high standards of ethical behaviour expected from public servants.*

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/dire...ss-accounts-20111102-1mvle.html#ixzz1caVKRNu4

Just appalling - another reminder about the lack of regulation in this country. No wounder nothing happens at ASIC about our complaints!


----------



## selciper (3 November 2011)

From Nature's Voice: 'The all-black carrion crow is one of the cleverest, most adaptable of our birds. It is often quite fearless, although it can be wary of man. They are fairly solitary, usually found alone or in pairs. The closely related hooded crow has recently been split as a separate species. Carrion crows will come to gardens for food and although often cautious initially, they soon learn when it is safe, and will return repeatedly to take advantage of whatever is on offer.'


----------



## Jadel (3 November 2011)

marcom said:


> Here is a small mention of ASIC accounting orders regarding Compass. The last paragraph says it all. Article by Michael West SMH Business Day 3 November 2011.
> 
> "...The review of the ASIC exemption order also brought back a recent memory of another ASIC exemption order for Evans & Tate Limited. As in the case of Compass, the Evans & Tate order was given to Martin Jones of Ferrier Hodgson. And as in the case of Compass, the Evans & Tate order was signed off by the same ASIC officer, Lorraine Mizzi.
> 
> ...





Marcom 

They all have their snouts neck deep in  the  trough 

Remember this guy was once the CEO of the ASX

Tony D' Aloisio son sold a buisness named Green Frog Nominees that later became a Company   called,  Opus Prime


----------



## simgrund (3 November 2011)

ASIC out of hybernation?

Advisers' misconduct targeted
November 2, 2011     Fund Pick

At a time when the Commonwealth Bank, along with other banks, insurers and fund managers, is fighting aspects of the government's proposals to reform the financial planning industry, Commonwealth Financial Planning has been forced to accept an ''enforceable undertaking'' from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

It follows an investigation by the regulator in the provision of advice by some of Commonwealth Financial Planning's financial advisers.

The Commonwealth Bank is part of the push to water down the government's proposed reforms to financial planning and to delay their implementation. The proposed reforms are in response to financial planning disasters, such as Storm Financial.

The Commonwealth Bank provided loans to many of Storm's clients. At the time, it apologised for shortcomings in its lending practices and paid some compensation to clients.

Among the proposed reforms, the banks and insurers do not like the ''opt in'' proposal, under which clients of advisers will have to agree, every two years, to continue to receive ongoing services from their financial planner.

Banks and insurers rely on the financial planners they employ and those that are aligned to them to keep the money flowing into their superannuation funds.

To resist reforms that will help protect consumers while being found wanting by the regulator under the current laws is not a good look for the Commonwealth Bank.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/money/advisers-misconduct-targeted-20111101-1msn7.html#ixzz1ccGXTYmr


----------



## selciper (4 November 2011)

Some news from America. The regulators there move a good deal faster than our tired ASIC snail. And what is it about the capital letters MF? They seem to attract bad luck. (Story in Information Clearing House.)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29597.htm


----------



## charles36 (5 November 2011)

Would the unit holder who posted ot the ASF that they still have the unopened DOCUMENT RECEIVED FROM THE "ALLEGED" PIF REACTION GROUP please contact me.  Thank you.  Charles36


----------



## JohnH (5 November 2011)

charles36 said:


> Would the unit holder who posted ot the ASF that they still have the unopened DOCUMENT RECEIVED FROM THE "ALLEGED" PIF REACTION GROUP please contact me.  Thank you.  Charles36




If it's any help Charles, I still have the two envelopes, but they are opened.


----------



## charles36 (6 November 2011)

JohnH said:


> If it's any help Charles, I still have the two envelopes, but they are opened.




Thank you JH but I need the pristine copy.  I know they are out there.  Regards Charles 36.


----------



## selciper (7 November 2011)

In the case of news, we should always wait for the sacrament of confirmation. (Voltaire)

The trouble for us is that there is NO news to confirm - IMF, ASIC, WC, Bentleys and the media generally are silent. After all, we are talking about huge sums of money having disappeared which caused lasting hardship for many thousands of investors. .


----------



## selciper (7 November 2011)

And here's an item about Equititrust from today's SMH.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/westpac-owed-millions-by-equititrust-20111106-1n1z4.html


----------



## Delia (7 November 2011)

charles36 said:


> Would the unit holder who posted ot the ASF that they still have the unopened DOCUMENT RECEIVED FROM THE "ALLEGED" PIF REACTION GROUP please contact me.  Thank you.  Charles36




Hello Charles,
I have the second unopened document in my possession.  i would be very happy to post it on to you.
Margaret.


----------



## seamisty (7 November 2011)

Delia said:


> Hello Charles,
> I have the second unopened document in my possession.  i would be very happy to post it on to you.
> Margaret.



Hi Delia, Please check your private message/notification inbox at the top of the page for contact/mailing details re flier. Thanks, Seamisty


----------



## lawry1dog (8 November 2011)

Could WC please inform me of why they have over *30 staff *working on our fund(our money), who are receiving probably good salaries, when us unit holders get nothing. 
Why could not 30 unit holders manage & sell our properties instead.

Seems our money is being used by WC for their own use, when it should be coming back to unit holders, especially the original ones who had their money frozen.

I really cannot see anything coming back now, as there has been so much time gone by. 
I guess the rule, is to never put your money in anything other than a Bank.


----------



## charles36 (8 November 2011)

Delia said:


> Hello Charles,
> I have the second unopened document in my possession.  i would be very happy to post it on to you.
> Margaret.




Thank you Margaret, I am sorry for not responding earlier but for some reason I have not been able to login.  If you could go to private box as suggested by Seamisty that would be great.  Regards Charles36.


----------



## Sutho81 (8 November 2011)

I have the unopened copy of the PIF reaction group letters.

I just checked the forum this morning.

I have a completely sealed envelope of the second mailout containing the pifreaction group documents.

It is postmarked from northgate mail centre QLD 4013


----------



## charles36 (8 November 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> I have the unopened copy of the PIF reaction group letters.
> 
> I just checked the forum this morning.
> 
> ...




Thank you Sutho, go to private mail box.  Regards Charles36.


----------



## Delia (8 November 2011)

charles36 said:


> Thank you Margaret, I am sorry for not responding earlier but for some reason I have not been able to login.  If you could go to private box as suggested by Seamisty that would be great.  Regards Charles36.




Hello Charles,
I have your mailing address from Seamisty and will get the flier in the mail ASAP.  Sorry it has taken me 24 hours to get back to you.
Margaret.


----------



## charles36 (8 November 2011)

I have had many inquiries from unit holders concerning the distribution of the two separate documents by the PIF REACTION GROUP.   The PIFAG are making inquiries to establish the identity of the person/persons responsible for the distribution of the grossly offensive documents and I have to say we are pleased with our progress.

It is our desire to use our resources, best we can, to gather sufficient evidence to report our findings to the Police .

The Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) Section 474.17 "Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence" provides:

(1)  A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a) the person uses a carriage service; and

(b) the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive.

Penalty:  Imprisonment  for 3 years.

During the period, prior to the aborted meeting on the 23 June, 2011, I spoke to literallly hundreds and hundreds of unit holders.  The documents were discussed, obviously, many unit holders were disgusted but unfortunately a number of unit holders chose to believe the documents and thus the authors achieved their objective in swinging these particular unit holders to vote for Wellington Capital.

It is noted that the PIF REACTION GROUP IS NOT INCORPORATED and efforts to trace this group has been unsuccessful.  It leads to a conclusion that there may have never been such a group in existence.  The PIFAG have requested Wellington Capital/Armstrong Registry Services to assist by indicating the purchaser/purchasers of the unit holders' register.  However,  the response from Wellington was, in part, "there have been a large number of requests for the register of members of the Premium Income Fund during 2011."  To make it easy for Wellington the PIFAG isolated the dates in question.  There was a time span of less than seventeen days.  The PIFAG believe this would not be a mammoth task to look between those dates to see who requested and paid for the register.  Wellington Capital/Armstrong Registry Services have not acceded to PIFAG's request.

It is interesting to note that Wellington Capital have indicated, "Wellington Capital has had a number of communications with persons representing to be part of the 'PIF Reaction Group.'  The Fund has a diverse variety of Unitholders who choose to communicate with each other in a variety of methods.

Wellington Capital have acknowledged their responsibilities by saying, "Section 173(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that a company or scheme must give a person a copy of the register within 7 days if the person makes application in accordance with the Act."  There is also a proviso that the register must be used for a lawful purpose.  In fact the PIFAG could not obtain a copy of the register until they signed an agreement to use the register for a lawful purpose.  Wellington Capital have stated that they are unaware as to who sent the documents in question to the 10,400 unit holders but does not in any way support the use of the Funds register for other than proper purposes.  

Unit holders may question, seeing that Wellington Capital has refused to help in detecting the persons responsible, are they saying the register was used for a lawful purpose?

Certainly, prima facie, it appears that a serious breach of the Criminal Code Act 1995, (Cth) may have been committed.  This of course includes any person who may have "aided, abetted, counselled or procured in the production and distribution of the document.

Once again thank you to the unit holders who have supported the PIFAG and by no means can it be construed that we have cocooned ourselves away.  It is our intention to keep monitoring the performance of our Fund and to do what it takes to save it from a "Wipepout."


----------



## JohnH (8 November 2011)

When constabulary duties  to be done  - to be done
........ a policeman’s lot *can be* a happy one – happy one!!!

_with apologies to G & S_


----------



## marcom (8 November 2011)

Michael West has a very interesting article in the SMH Business Day today titled *"Can investors trust ASIC?"*. The comments at the conclusion of the article are also worth a read.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/can-investors-trust-asic-20111108-1n4wv.html


----------



## selciper (8 November 2011)

Having finished the West article, I can only say that the management consultants' concept of "bonding" within the public service and companies has brought only trouble. And so have MBAs. Out with the psychobabble and in with ethics!
As


----------



## seamisty (8 November 2011)

WC assures me they are 'unaware of who sent the correspondence' relating to the PIF reaction group fliers. In view of the fact that the PIF AG narrowed the use of the PIF unitholder register down to a 17 day period relating to the mailout makes it easy to investigate. To the best of my knowledge Wellington Capital chose not to investigate the misuse of the PIF register. I am a bit intrigued then as to this following statement also from Wellington Capital ::Wellington Capital have indicated, "Wellington Capital has had a number of communications with persons representing to be part of the 'PIF Reaction Group.' The Fund has a diverse variety of Unitholders who choose to communicate with each other in a variety of methods". Does this mean that Wellington Capital Limited has knowledge of persons directly associated with the 'PIF Reaction Group'?? Has Wellington Capital Limited pursued this opening for a thorough investigation to reaffirm that all has been done to identify all possible links/associations with the misuse of confidential personal details relating to investors of the PIF? WC reassures me that they take the protection of PIF personal details and their obligations to protect that information seriously. Well, at least PIF AG members are supportive, thanks to all those who have responded re unopened fliers.


----------



## charles36 (9 November 2011)

If the PIF REACTION GROUP really existed and they wrote what they honestly believed I pose this question to them, "Come forward, explain your actions and be adjudged from thereon." I await your early response.  In the meantime you are standing by causing some anxiety for others.


----------



## simgrund (9 November 2011)

ASIC on the defensive? 
What odds on underground betting board for either of them?



> Sullivan takes the fight to watchdog
> Scott Rochfort
> November 9, 2011
> 
> ...


----------



## simgrund (9 November 2011)

charles36 said:


> If the PIF REACTION GROUP really existed and they wrote what they honestly believed I pose this question to them, "Come forward, explain your actions and be adjudged from thereon." I await your early response.  In the meantime you are standing by causing some anxiety for others.




Let's really stick it to them!

The so called "PIF Reaction Group" is the shadow from Wellington Capital's offices operating outside normal office hours. The "shadow" has unlimited and so far untraceable accesses to WC (read legitimate PIF) funds and Member Register.
By circumventing ASIC's barbed wire legislative installations (read peacock's plume barrier), WC and its shadow roam unfettered with a corporate smirk so familiar from mug shots of Alan Bonds, Bernie Madofs of this world.
Smirk while you can, you vultures. 
We are wide awake.

Regards,


----------



## Jadel (9 November 2011)

marcom said:


> Here is a small mention of ASIC accounting orders regarding Compass. The last paragraph says it all. Article by Michael West SMH Business Day 3 November 2011.
> 
> "...The review of the ASIC exemption order also brought back a recent memory of another ASIC exemption order for Evans & Tate Limited. As in the case of Compass, the Evans & Tate order was given to Martin Jones of Ferrier Hodgson. And as in the case of Compass, the Evans & Tate order was signed off by the same ASIC officer, Lorraine Mizzi.
> 
> ...




This post was made by a good friend of mine many years ago on another forum:

 What seems to have slipped under the proverbial radar here is this:

The son of the ASX Chairman, Maurice newman obtained a Financial Services Licence. But this particular licence " ... included a nominee company called Green Frog Nominees. By having its own nominee company, Nexus was in a position to hold its own clients' securities and to run its lending practices away from the gaze of the ASX."

Did you get that ..."A-W-A-Y from the gaze of the ASX"

Why?

Why would a respectable entity need to conceal anything at all from the ASX?

Because even if there was something sinister about it, it remains doubtful, history has shown, whether the ASX would want to disturb the status quo which allows it to be the regulator and at the same time, P-R-O-F-I-T from the activities of those whom it is charged to R-E-G-U-L-A-T-E.

Did you understand that? The regulator is also involved in profiting from the activities, but to this day, D-E-N-I-E-S and conflict of interest.

Am I stupid, blind, or what?

Did I misunderstand that you can be both Judge AND defendant?

Last law book I read said there needs to be uninvolved parties before an impartial judgement can be passed down by any regulator ... but hey! What the fique would I know?

So here is a little family secret ... Dad arranges for Son to obtain Licence, which is held for a little while as a 50% partner ... then quietly on-sold to form a company which would NEVER otherwise have gotten through the regulator.

And here it is, operating under the nose of ASIC, with the full blessing of none other than the Chairman of the ASX, no less, who vicariously needs to be held accountable because this arrangement has come about with not only his full knowledge, but quite possibly his active participation in the application for the Licence in the first instance.

Was the licence obtained for a mate with the intention of later selling the half-share to allow the formation of Opes Prime?

Unless I am getting too old to read the public domain reports on this, it seems so to me.

But then, I am from Frog's Hollow, and what the fique would I know - we are all too naive over there, and far too trusting.

Now the innocent investors with Opes are going down with the guilty, and that is N-O-T freaking F-A-I-R. (We do not use expletives in Froggy)

Would someone please tell me where one can still invest safely in this country, and have that fact overseen by a RESPONSIBLE, IMPARTIAL and HONEST entity?


----------



## Sutho81 (9 November 2011)

There is enough circumstancial evidence to suggest that it was hutson herself behind the mailout and creation of the PIF reaction group.

The name of the group was clearly designed to look similar to PIF action group and to create confusion with investors.

The ONLY beneficiary of the fraudulent letters was hutson.

hutson also had access to the register.

hutson refuses to investigate or provide information that it may have been another party.

We have all seen her tactics and stunts pulled such as the hired actors that she personally addressed in Sydney.

The evidence suggests that we should be investigating hutson herself for the fabrication and creation of this false pif reaction group, and that we should be looking into her and links to her for evidence.


----------



## seamisty (9 November 2011)

New tools to help Australian plan for retirement http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/news/new-tools-to-help-australian-plan-for-retirement
'The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has launched a new retirement planning guide and an online calculator in an effort to support Australians who are preparing their retirement finances.'

No mention in the article of there being a very strong chance of being a victim of fraud of some description no matter how much due diligence you do, how safe the 'product' invested is purported to be, how well  the whole financial product/investment industry is NOT REGULATED and how many millions of retirees there currently are, financially crippledd as a direct result of having their retirement funds frozen, stolen, misapropriated or whatever. Issue all the guidelines you like ASIC, bottom line is you would serve retirees better by using the TOOLS already in place and actually start regulating as is your job because by the time you act (if at all) those reading your 'NEW' set of guidelines could well be ripped off by the same existing crooks who reinvent themselves time and time again simply because they can.


----------



## selciper (9 November 2011)

I was recently reading a book in which an FBI agent,  about to arrest a fraudster during a sting 
operation says to him, "You left a calling card!" "Huh?" "Fingerprints all over the cheque..." Let's hope that life imitates art and provides uneasy times for the spineless Reaction mob.


----------



## charles36 (9 November 2011)

selciper said:


> I was recently reading a book in which an FBI agent,  about to arrest a fraudster during a sting
> operation says to him, "You left a calling card!" "Huh?" "Fingerprints all over the cheque..." Let's hope that life imitates art and provides uneasy times for the spineless Reaction mob.




I am pleased with the response concerning the unopened PIF REACTION GROUP mailout. A Unit holder has contacted me from England and has documents also.  The number is building up, the more the better of course.  Keep them coming, please.  There are people who know exactly what took place and eventually "the truth will out" at the appropriate time.


----------



## Sutho81 (9 November 2011)

charles36 said:


> I am pleased with the response concerning the unopened PIF REACTION GROUP mailout. A Unit holder has contacted me from England and has documents also.  The number is building up, the more the better of course.  Keep them coming, please.  There are people who know exactly what took place and eventually "the truth will out" at the appropriate time.




I would imagine you should be getting mine today by registered post or early tomorrow. Please let me know when you get it.

I am glad I did not open that letter and had the perception to realise from the first mailout that it was something fraudulent.

As I said there is enough circumstancial evidence to suggest hutson and that cohort yaun essentials or whatever he calls himself are two prime suspects with the most to gain from the mailout. It is them who the investigation should focus on as I am confident that it was a combined effort of both of them to ochestrate this little scheme.


----------



## seamisty (9 November 2011)

I am assured  that the current state of the PIF is under close scrutiny along with many other funds of a similar structure facing oblivion due to mismanagement, false committments and alleged fraudulent behaviour. It appears that the 'volcano' representing managed funds which has been recently continually spewing out evidence relating to possible corrupt activities from a closely related  inner circle is no longer dormant and is reaching boiling point, the pressure point is being tested and the volcano is no longer in a trance. (PS, this post was solely for the purpose of giving the Wellington Capital Limited  ASF forum spy/monitor something to report as I understand they have been working overtime recently!! )


----------



## Sutho81 (9 November 2011)

seamisty said:


> I am assured  that the current state of the PIF is under close scrutiny along with many other funds of a similar structure facing oblivion due to mismanagement, false committments and alleged fraudulent behaviour. It appears that the 'volcano' representing managed funds which has been recently continually spewing out evidence relating to possible corrupt activities from a closely related  inner circle is no longer dormant and is reaching boiling point, the pressure point is being tested and the volcano is no longer in a trance. (PS, this post was solely for the purpose of giving the Wellington Capital Limited  ASF forum spy/monitor something to report as I understand they have been working overtime recently!! )




I hope you are right because it really makes my blood boil to see the way they are running our fund into the ground.

I am only 30 years old now and when they froze MFS they froze my entire life savings that I was forcing myself to save and not touch for house/new cars. The inability to get money back put me into debt.

Short of selling what I have with my rate of savings it will be by the end of next year before I am out of debt.

These people really dont know how they effect the little people and all the lifes they destroy.

I am one of the lucky ones as there are others in worst situations than me.


----------



## seamisty (9 November 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> I hope you are right because it really makes my blood boil to see the way they are running our fund into the ground.
> 
> I am only 30 years old now and when they froze MFS they froze my entire life savings that I was forcing myself to save and not touch for house/new cars. The inability to get money back put me into debt.
> 
> ...



Sutho81, I have it on good authourity that Ms Hutson from Wellington  Capital Limited stood up in front of staff from one of the PIF related assets,  the Forest Resort in Creswick Victoria and stated how she persnonally 'loved spending other peoples money'. Well she got that right!! (if nothing else) more to come re KAM = Kooralbyn Asset Management and their close association and billing arrangements with work done in and around  Victoria with Wellington Capital related entities. Don't you just love technology???


----------



## seamisty (10 November 2011)

I have recently been encouraged to post Wellington Capital related responses to previous PIF related enquiries, please post your own communications as well.


Thank you for your emails of 20 and 22 April 2009. 



Wellington has disclosed the intention to make a 3 cent distribution from its earliest statements as responsible entity of the fund.  The intention was a central part of information provided to the EGM of 15 October 2008 at which unitholders overwhelmingly voted in support of Wellington’s plan for the fund.  Wellington has also given undertakings to ASIC in relation to the proposed distribution.  Therefore, Wellington is of the belief that it has both a responsibility and a mandate to make the 3 cent distribution as soon as able. 



Wellington shares your concern at the sale of assets and reduction of capital in order to fund distributions and operating costs.  However, the holding costs of assets and the overhead costs of the Fund significantly exceed the revenue earned by the present assets of the Fund.  These costs can only be met in the short term by the structured sale of assets.  Wellington has undertaken an analysis of all assets with respect to identifying those that are suitable for immediate disposal, those that should be held as is pending market recovery, and those that can be developed and in time will deliver a premium to the fund. 



You rightly observe that the payment of the proposed distribution and the disposal of appropriate assets will result in a short term reduction of the net asset value of the Fund.  Wellington believes that this step is necessary in terms of transforming the largely non-performing present asset base into one which can deliver both modest distributions to unitholders and ultimately rebuild the capital value of the fund.



The buyback remains on the agenda as it was overwhelmingly support by unitholders.  



Your questions highlight the key challenges faced by the Wellington management team.  The team has worked tirelessly on your behalf to discharge the last of $200 million of debt by the end of March 2009.  The distribution is desperately needed by many of the unitholders and the management team will work hard to deliver that as the next priority.  Throughout this process, all decisions have been made with a frugal eye to preserving value in the fund.  There has been no fire sale and no asset has been sold for less than market value. 



Wellington continues to believe that the Fund is worth more to all unitholders as a going concern and it is pleasing to note that you share that view.  



Kind regards 




Caroline Snow
Associate Director


----------



## selciper (10 November 2011)

It's always comforting to remember that however hard an organisation guards against the enemy from within, whistleblowers are always waiting for the right moment to spill the beans.


----------



## coppo (10 November 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> I hope you are right because it really makes my blood boil to see the way they are running our fund into the ground.
> 
> I am only 30 years old now and when they froze MFS they froze my entire life savings that I was forcing myself to save and not touch for house/new cars. The inability to get money back put me into debt.
> 
> ...




I know how you feel Sutho81.
I had to move to Tassie, so sold my house in Adelaide, moved down, invested all I made from selling my house beofre I was going to buy another, only for this tripe to happen. Now, with my wife and 2 young children, I have been renting for 5 years. Everyone knows rent money is dead money.
Thanks Wellington, thanks PIF


----------



## simgrund (10 November 2011)

coppo said:


> I know how you feel Sutho81.
> I had to move to Tassie, so sold my house in Adelaide, moved down, invested all I made from selling my house beofre I was going to buy another, only for this tripe to happen. Now, with my wife and 2 young children, I have been renting for 5 years. Everyone knows rent money is dead money.
> Thanks Wellington, thanks PIF




Hello coppo,
A word of sympathy to you, sutho81 and many among us 
in as painful situations as yours.
And it pains me personally to interpret your inclusion of PIF in thanking Wellington for these disasters.
I hope you did not really mean to align PIF in the same line of fire we had Wellington nailed to for a number of years.
PIFAG need our recognition till successful end.
Work towards this end continues.
We will get there,  
Cheers,


----------



## seamisty (11 November 2011)

selciper said:


> It's always comforting to remember that however hard an organisation guards against the enemy from within, whistleblowers are always waiting for the right moment to spill the beans.



Our thread on ASF has attracted a large following thats for sure. I sure receive some interesting diverse messages!! 

IF YOU ARE AFFILIATED WITH,  HAVE FELLOWSHIP WITH, COMMUNE WITH, WINK AT, TOLERATE, ABIDE THE ERRORS, (SIN), ARE PARTNERS, COMPANIONS, PARTICIPATING IN, SHARING WITH, ASSOCIATED WITH THE ABOMINATION OF “THE CORPORATE IMAGE,” THAT JUST REFLECTS A MAN MADE INSTUTIONLISED MAUSOLEUM SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU ARE DEPENDANT ON THIS ABOMINATION BUILT BY THE FLESH TO AFFIRM YOUR POSITION, THEN YOU ARE CONDONING THEIR EVIL PRACTICES: 


DON`T AID AND ABET…DON`T “BID THEM GOD SPEED AND BECOME PARTAKERS OF THEIR EVIL DEEDS”….

  DON`T BE FOUND GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION!!!!!!


http://straighttalkmin.org/doc/GUILTY_BY_ASSOCIATION.htm


----------



## seamisty (11 November 2011)

This article re Greg Medcraft the chairman of ASIC is well worth taking the time to read.
Watching the watchdog 

Nick McKenzie, Richard Baker and Simon Mann
November 11, 2011.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/watching-the-watchdog-20111110-1n9so.html#ixzz1dL60HDCP


----------



## marcom (11 November 2011)

And another article in Business Spectator

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...-report-pd20111111-NGRQE?OpenDocument&src=hp6

ASIC chief questioned over previous role: report

Published 8:31 AM, 11 Nov 2011

    The new chief of the Australian corporate watchdog is facing questions regarding his past role with major international bank, Societe Generale, which has been accused of breaking corporate laws and engaging in misconduct, according to Fairfax Media.

    Greg Medcraft was hand-picked by the Australian Government earlier this year, to chair the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and took up his $700,000-a-year post in May, the newspaper reported.

    It has since emerged that Societe Generale is being pursued in the US over massive transactions involving sub-prime home mortgages in the lead-up to the global financial crisis.

    The US Federal Housing Finance Agency has alleged in a lawsuit that Societe Generale's securitisation business – which Mr Medcraft oversaw – was negligent, did shoddy due diligence and seriously mislead American home loan providers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Jadel, looks like this is another one you can add to your list.


----------



## marcom (11 November 2011)

There is a supervised case review on the ASIC case today  - 12122/09 AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION -V- MANAGED INVESTMENTS LIMITED & others . On 9 November: Affidavit by DB STARKOFF + EXHIBITS A AND B on behalf of the Applicant (ASIC) was submitted. Hopefully a hearing date will be set this time.


----------



## selciper (11 November 2011)

The chatter about the hand-picked Mr Medcraft will only result in ASIC officers wasting more time exchanging gossip at the water cooler. There should be an immediate resignation to clear the air. But we know that it will be business as usual with statements of "full confidence" from Treasurer Swan.


----------



## selciper (12 November 2011)

I don't get it. How do you know if you have selected the best person to fill a very senior job if the position isn't widely advertised? Article from SMH  12 November.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/asic-chief-exempt-from-job-policy-20111111-1nbs2.html


----------



## simgrund (13 November 2011)

selciper said:


> I don't get it. How do you know if you have selected the best person to fill a very senior job if the position isn't widely advertised? Article from SMH  12 November.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/national/asic-chief-exempt-from-job-policy-20111111-1nbs2.html




It's called mateship, selciper; M A T E S H I P. 
Of the ALP type. The one that bedevilled Australia for donkeys years.
Remember Susan Ryan doling out ALP largesse on the white board?
And countless others. There's a recorded history.
This has been yet another addition to that shameful record.
Regards,


----------



## selciper (13 November 2011)

Simgrund, at the height of this year’s International Monetary Fund scandals, CNN published the following details about the then chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s salary package:

“According to his contract, Strauss-Kahn's salary in 2010 was $441,980.00. That's more than President Barack Obama makes, and Strauss-Kahn pays no taxes on his income. In addition, Strauss-Kahn receives a yearly allowance of $79,120.00 in monthly installments which, the contract says, comes "... without any certification or justification by you, to enable you to maintain, in the interests of the Fund, a scale of living appropriate to your position as Managing Director."

The salary of the ASIC chief is 700k.

Had the ASIC position been advertised, who is to say that a talented QC (SC) or retired judge would not have applied for the ASIC position?

Christine Lagarde, DSK’
s successor, despite incredibly high qualifications, had to be voted into her new position and had to beat off rivals in an open tournament.


----------



## charles36 (13 November 2011)

simgrund said:


> It's called mateship, selciper; M A T E S H I P.
> Of the ALP type. The one that bedevilled Australia for donkeys years.
> Remember Susan Ryan doling out ALP largesse on the white board?
> And countless others. There's a recorded history.
> ...




I recall a Liberal Party MP who did the same thing on a whiteboard and had to eventually resign or was a misplaced person.  How do we get accountability when people/investors/unit holders allow the foxes to roam within the confines of the fowl pen.  Anything come to your mind immediately Simgrund?  I do not know about anybody else but I have learnt and expensive lesson but fortunately I have an astute family who have gained from my unfortunate escapade into Managed Funds and they will never be enticed into such investments.  If nothing else that is a "positive."


----------



## tinhat (13 November 2011)

simgrund said:


> Remember Susan Ryan doling out ALP largesse on the white board?




I believe you are referring to Ros Kelly.


----------



## simgrund (14 November 2011)

tinhat said:


> I believe you are referring to Ros Kelly.




You are absolutely right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ros_Kelly

Both are from similar time frame

My dementia is getting worse.

Regards,


----------



## simgrund (14 November 2011)

charles36 said:


> I recall a Liberal Party MP who did the same thing on a whiteboard and had to eventually resign or was a misplaced person.  How do we get accountability when people/investors/unit holders allow the foxes to roam within the confines of the fowl pen.  Anything come to your mind immediately Simgrund?  I do not know about anybody else but I have learnt and expensive lesson but fortunately I have an astute family who have gained from my unfortunate escapade into Managed Funds and they will never be enticed into such investments.  If nothing else that is a "positive."




Of course Charles. 
There are 2 kinds of Lessons: those learned in a nick of time to prevent next catastrophe; and those that were learned, alas, without an opportunity to put them to good use.
Which is where I am on the last rung of ladder to retirement next April.

With good wishes,


----------



## breaker1 (14 November 2011)

FYI - a reply I received from Wellington recently RE how they might handle any payments if received from Bentleys:
_________________________________________

Managing Director
Wellington Capital

If Bentleys, the receivers of Octaviar, shortly release any Octaviar assets (monies) to the PIF, say enough to pay one or two cents (one or two %) to PIF investors, will Wellington use this money for payment of the third cent to PIF investors?

If not, what would Wellington use Octaviar recovered monies for?

If Wellington uses any moneys returned to the PIF via Bentleys to pay PIF investors another cent or more, will Wellington begin to claim management fees of 0.7% per annum of current net tangible assets still remaining in the Fund?

If so, would these fees be back-dated? If so, how far back?

Would any other Wellington costs or fees be backdated after any Wellington management fees begin?

If Wellington does claim management fees, on what justification on profits Wellington has made for the PIF do Wellington claim such fees?

Sincerely

PIF Action Group
__________________________________________________


Wellington REPLY .....

I refer to your email addressed to Ms Hutson ....

Creditors Payment to Octaviar entities

We have not received any notification from Bentleys in relation to the creditors payment which was scheduled for 31 October 2011 as to acceptance of the Fund's proof of debt, or partial amount payable in total to all the creditors of the Octaviar group entities.

Any payment received by the Premium Income Fund from the liquidators of Octaviar entities would be paid to unitholders. This payment would be made if sufficient proceeds were received to make a sensible payment as compared to the number of units on issue. If there are insufficient proceeds received from the liquidators, the proceeds will be held in the Fund's account until such time as there are sufficient assets sales to make a further cash payment to unitholders.

Management fees to responsible entity


As set out in the NSX Release 30 March 2011, Wellington amended clause 23 of the Fund's Constitution, which deals with the remuneration of the responsible entity of the Fund. The amendment provides that once cash payments of 3 cents per unit have been paid to unitholders, the responsible entity will only be able to charge it's funds management fee for a period of two years.

Once a further 1 cent payment is made to unitholders, Wellington Capital Limited will be entitled to charge management fees as follows:

23.1 The responsible entity is entitled to be paid out of Scheme Property a management fee equal to the sum of 0.7% per annum of the value of the total funds under management as determined with reference to the preceding month and the most recent audited accounts. The fee will be calculated and paid monthly in advance.
23.2 The fee payable after 2008 to the Responsible Entity under clause 23.1 will only be paid for a period of 2 years commencing on the date unitholders are in receipt of cash payments totalling 3 cents per unit. After that period the Responsible Entity will no longer be entitled to the remuneration as set out in clause 23.1

The fee is a management fee not a performance fee. There is no mechanism in the (Fund) Constitution for the backdating of management fees.

Clause 23.9 sets out that the Fund must pay it's own expenses. There is no mechanism for the payment of any other fees to the responsible entity by the Fund

Signed 
Wellington Capital Limited
Nov 2011
_______________________________________________

I note that my last question was not answered. 
Breaker


----------



## seamisty (15 November 2011)

Thanks Breaker. I also note that the majority of my questions/complaints to Wellington capital receive an unsatisfactory response. Finally after being fobbed off once again re a series of questions relating to the PIF 2011 annual auditand other PIF related concerns I took the advice from our complaints officer Caroline Snow to contact the  'Credit ombudsman' to make a further complaint as to the conflicting information from PWC and WC. To cut a long story short, the 'Credit Ombudsman' informs me that it is not in a position to deal with such complaints and will notify Wellington Capital Limited of this. I can only assume that WC were using them as another fob off avenue without doing their homework as to the actual roles and responsibilities of the 'Credit Ombudsman'.

I was 'encouraged' however from my communication from ASIC today informing me that they were continuing to examine my concerns relating to this and that their considerations into this matter was taking longer than expected.


----------



## charles36 (15 November 2011)

charles36 said:


> If the PIF REACTION GROUP really existed and they wrote what they honestly believed I pose this question to them, "Come forward, explain your actions and be adjudged from thereon." I await your early response.  In the meantime you are standing by causing some anxiety for others.




Guess what?  No member of the so-called PIF REACTION GROUP  has come forward to explain their concerns.  Why?  Maybe they never existed.  Who benefited?  I know Wellington Capital definitely did because I spoke to numerous unit holders, particularly the older person, who believed what they read and changed their vote from Castlereagh Capital to Wellington Capital.  I cannot think of any reason for the printing, packaging and posting of the documents in question other than to MENACE, HARASS AND CAUSE OFFENCE to the persons depicted in the publications.  Well, my offer is still open to any person who has any information concerning these documents even if for some how you were personally involved there maybe some reason to offer for your exculpation.  Certainly assisting the PIFAG is a good start.


----------



## simgrund (15 November 2011)

charles36 said:


> Guess what?  No member of the so-called PIF REACTION GROUP  has come forward to explain their concerns.  Why?  Maybe they never existed.  Who benefited?  I know Wellington Capital definitely did because I spoke to numerous unit holders, particularly the older person, who believed what they read and changed their vote from Castlereagh Capital to Wellington Capital.  I cannot think of any reason for the printing, packaging and posting of the documents in question other than to MENACE, HARASS AND CAUSE OFFENCE to the persons depicted in the publications.  Well, my offer is still open to any person who has any information concerning these documents even if for some how you were personally involved there maybe some reason to offer for your exculpation.  Certainly assisting the PIFAG is a good start.




WC will be outed not with a wimp but with a big BANG!!!
I publicly accuse them of perpetrating this outrage and the sooner ASIC's new boss shakes off his honeymoon veils the sooner he will start earning his inflated keep.
This forum will really serve it's purpose in exposing this scam.
Go on Reaction PIF, react!

Brickbats to you,

PS Thanks to seamisty & breaker1 on the latest; it helps


----------



## seamisty (15 November 2011)

charles36 said:


> Guess what?  No member of the so-called PIF REACTION GROUP  has come forward to explain their concerns.  Why?  Maybe they never existed.  Who benefited?  I know Wellington Capital definitely did because I spoke to numerous unit holders, particularly the older person, who believed what they read and changed their vote from Castlereagh Capital to Wellington Capital.  I cannot think of any reason for the printing, packaging and posting of the documents in question other than to MENACE, HARASS AND CAUSE OFFENCE to the persons depicted in the publications.  Well, my offer is still open to any person who has any information concerning these documents even if for some how you were personally involved there maybe some reason to offer for your exculpation.  Certainly assisting the PIFAG is a good start.



From a recent communication by Caroline Snow, Premium Income Fund designated complaints officer and Associate Director of Wellington Capital and I quote "Wellington Capital has had a number of communications with persons representing to be part of the PIF Reaction Group. The Fund has a diverse variety of unitholders who choose to communicate in a variety of methods.
 Wellington Capital is unaware of who sent the correspondence of which you refer to
unitholders and does not support in any way the use of the Funds register for other than proper purposes" end quote.

Obscure or what??? We know the Fund has a diverse range of unitholdrs, especially when it is not a well kept secret that Forest Resort golfers and staff, part time actors and Wellington Capital Limited employees themselves were 'gifted' parcels of shares and in some cases all expense paid trips to Sydney as enticement to wave a pink slip in favour of Ms hutson as the preferred chairperson at the EGM in Sydney. I did hear a rumour that golf related persons from  Victoria were interviewed by ASIC relating to this matter. I am told that the misuse of a client register, especially if it is proved that it was remotely connected to the current Responsible Entity is a SERIOUS OFFENSE!!! Golden eggs tarnish very quickly once the goose droppings start to pile up. Whew those big birds are reknowned for how much ****e they can produce and the trail usually always leads back to the hen house.


----------



## Sutho81 (15 November 2011)

simgrund said:


> WC will be outed not with a wimp but with a big BANG!!!
> I publicly accuse them of perpetrating this outrage and the sooner ASIC's new boss shakes off his honeymoon veils the sooner he will start earning his inflated keep.
> This forum will really serve it's purpose in exposing this scam.
> Go on Reaction PIF, react!
> ...




I have said that before in a previous post. There is enough circumstancial evidence to suggest that Wellington, hutson and that other cohort yuan investments (or whatever he calls himself) are directly responsible for the concoction of the name of the group and the mailout.

It would appear with recent media articles that we are allowed to make these allegations of who we think is behind this fraud and conducted this criminal type behaviour.

I strongly believe that hutson was behind the mailout, knew it was fraudulent, cooperated, ordered and assisted with the mailout, covered up after the facts, refused to investigate and release infromation relating or proving existance of a group. It was hutson that had the most to gain and there is enough circumstancial evidence to suggest that she was behind this criminal type activity that warrants further investigation into her activities for fraud, and other criminal activities relating to the mailout.


----------



## simgrund (15 November 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> ...  ... hutson was behind the mailout, knew it was fraudulent, cooperated, ordered and assisted with the mailout, covered up after the facts, refused to investigate and release infromation relating or proving existance of a group. It was hutson that had the most to gain and there is enough circumstancial evidence to suggest that she was behind this criminal type activity that warrants further investigation into her activities for fraud, and other criminal activities relating to the mailout.




There is NO WAY this evidence is just cicumstantial.
Access to REGISTER can NOT BE GAINED without WC releasing it to asking parties; 
be they rogue, foe or friend.
And they are bound to ASIC's rules on disclosure.
WC must vet such requests in their RE performance  duties 
to act in the interests of all unitholders.

Jenny, look closely at Japanese time-honoured hara-kiri 
by those associated with wrongdoing.
Time you followed suit. 
And be a redeemed shadow floating out there beyond the clouds. 

Don't ponder too long,


----------



## marcom (15 November 2011)

An interesting development in the Qld Supreme Court ASIC case against MFS Directors and Managed Investments directors (including TFS). On Friday 11/11 the case review was heard by Fryberg J instead of Lyons J, the applications judge who has conducted the numerous case reviews since 2009.	 

Normally case reviews are scheduled on a 3 month basis but Fryberg J ordered the next review for one month on 12/12/2011 Review Supervised Case. Maybe the case will start moving next month and with a new judge.

http://apps.courts.qld.gov.au/esear...ocation=BRISB&Court=SUPRE&Filenumber=12122/09


----------



## selciper (15 November 2011)

Perhaps the PwC walkout will be the straw that broke the camel's back. We have for too long been unwilling and unpaid actors in this Wellington Capital horror movie produced, directed and written by Jennifer Hutson. The ever-reluctant ASIC may have no choice but to start moving.


----------



## seamisty (15 November 2011)

http://rca.colliers.com.au/property-hotel+leisure-vic-creswick-5933201
Novotel Forest Resort - 4.5 star hotel with development upside

Colliers International has received instructions from the mortgagee to sell the property known as Novotel Forest Resort by Expression of Interest with a closing date of Tuesday 29 November 2011 at 4pm AEST

Another related article:http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/commercial/commercial-hammer-prices/2011110252185
The Walsh family almost lost the hotel after being caught up in the collapse of Gold Coast lender MFS in 2009, which had provided a $48.3 million loan to fund construction of the resort. In April this year Walsh lodged a $168 million lawsuit in the Victorian Supreme Court against MFS and its custodian prior to its collapse, Perpetual Trustees.


----------



## Sutho81 (15 November 2011)

simgrund said:


> There is NO WAY this evidence is just cicumstantial.
> Access to REGISTER can NOT BE GAINED without WC releasing it to asking parties;
> be they rogue, foe or friend.
> And they are bound to ASIC's rules on disclosure.
> ...




Given that we know for a fact hutson will not cooperate, is there any other criminal offence that we may be able to try and bring charges on such as concealing a crime, or anything along those lines.

Surely by now the evidence is no such pif reaction group exists and it is the fraudulent concoction of possibly hutson to win support and votes.

Given that the mailout was full of lies and on a better than average score "completely criminal" are we able to pursue wellington and hutson and her cohorts for concealing this criminal offence by failing to provide information relating to who obtained the registy copy.

Surely if asic wont touch them, then can we in cooperation with various state police forces request charges be brought against hutson and her team.

The mailout was sent to all states so they would have had to have committed crimes in NSW, VIC, QLD etc. Some of the mailout came from the same state so it may be easy to charge them under some state laws.


----------



## simgrund (15 November 2011)

Sutho81 said:


> ..............................
> 
> Given that the mailout was full of lies and on a better than average score "completely criminal" are we able to pursue wellington and hutson and her cohorts for concealing this criminal offence by failing to provide information relating to who obtained the registy copy. ...............





 Spot on Sutho81.
White collar criminality is still a "softly, softly, lest we molest political correctness unnecessarily" mentality in this high brow country.
And having an ALP minded ASIC chief installed outside of merit based democratic selection does not help us. 
Rest assured though; all the pig's troughs eventually run empty for them.



> You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.



                                                                                              Abraham Lincoln

Cheers,


----------



## selciper (16 November 2011)

Out of interest I looked up the Australian Shareholders' Association. The link is to their second page.

http://australianshareholders.com.a...tion=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=60


----------



## Sutho81 (16 November 2011)

Maybe it is time we started pushing for ACA to take up the cause for us. Name and shame hutson and have ACA put her in the same category as robert hughes. It would appear there was no legal obstacle to airing his alleged crimes and police began investigating him.

Perhaps if we list a detailed case of crimes committed by hutson to ACA they may be able to help and get the ball rolling for a police investigation into her to commence with a hope that criminal charges be laid against her.

The mailout of the non existant group is one possible crime. Covering up the incident would have to be another crime as well. I believe that there may be laws in existance that she can be charged for concealing the initial crime of the fraudulent mailout.


----------



## simgrund (17 November 2011)

Sorry for this depressive drip:

Are mortgage funds down for the count?
John Collett
November 16, 2011

The mortgage fund sector has its work cut out convincing investors the sector has a future and is not in irreversible decline.

According to the Australian Property Funds Survey by Property Investment Research, the gross assets in the mortgage funds dropped by 21 per cent, from $14 billion last year to $11 billion this year.

As a percentage of money invested in all types of listed and unlisted property funds, the mortgage fund sector makes up only 4 per cent.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/money/super-a...r-the-count-20111115-1nfxe.html#ixzz1dw4XCKPP


Regards,


----------



## charles36 (17 November 2011)

Seamisty will not be posting on this forum for approximately one month.  I would like to encourage fellow posters to take care in what they say, check carefully before you post that you do not create problems for yourself.  In addition, the forum is a very valuable tool for unit holders to communicate their thoughts and it would be a shame to see it shut down over some indiscretion.  Regards Charles36.


----------



## selciper (17 November 2011)

charles36 said:


> Seamisty will not be posting on this forum for approximately one month.  I would like to encourage fellow posters to take care in what they say, check carefully before you post that you do not create problems for yourself.  In addition, the forum is a very valuable tool for unit holders to communicate their thoughts and it would be a shame to see it shut down over some indiscretion.  Regards Charles36.



If Seamisty won't be posting for a month, I guess it's up to us regulars to monitor widely for any news. The silly season is sometimes a period when advatage can be taken by some in the knowledge that there are numerous distractions.


----------



## simgrund (18 November 2011)

charles36 said:


> Seamisty will not be posting on this forum for approximately one month.  I would like to encourage fellow posters to take care in what they say, check carefully before you post that you do not create problems for yourself.  In addition, the forum is a very valuable tool for unit holders to communicate their thoughts and it would be a shame to see it shut down over some indiscretion.  Regards Charles36.






> The Happiness of most people we know is not ruined by great catastrophes or fatal errors, but by repetition of slowly destructive little things.  Ernest DIMMET



Regards,


----------



## selciper (19 November 2011)

This article from the Australian in mid-July is a reminder that we must keep pressure on ASIC. The report's contents are interesting to read from today's perspective.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-paid-protesters/story-fn91wd6x-1226095570433


----------



## charles36 (19 November 2011)

selciper said:


> This article from the Australian in mid-July is a reminder that we must keep pressure on ASIC. The report's contents are interesting to read from today's perspective.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-paid-protesters/story-fn91wd6x-1226095570433




I have been told that the press is nosing around and do not intend to let go.  It was expressed that the aborted meeting was unbelieveable and this may well be the subject of close scrutiny.  Who knows where this will all end up.  I remain positive and I hope all unit holders are doing the same.  Don't give up on the Government Regulator either.  Just a little side story,  I know a Police Officer who went to a large Supermarket as a result of one of the staff allegedly stealing some of the stock.  Not very serious you might think but by the end of the day the alert Police Officer had discovered that not only this person stealing but there were nine others including the storeman who was signing for the goods on the delivery truck. The driver. who was part of the deal, then delivered them to a warehouse on behalf of the Storeman.  At the end of the day there were eleven people arrested and the Manager was dismissed for poor management.  The moral of this story is when one person is cornered they soon give up their associates.


----------



## NOR (19 November 2011)

charles36 said:


> I have been told that the press is nosing around and do not intend to let go.  It was expressed that the aborted meeting was unbelieveable and this may well be the subject of close scrutiny.  Who knows where this will all end up.  I remain positive and I hope all unit holders are doing the same.  Don't give up on the Government Regulator either.  Just a little side story,  I know a Police Officer who went to a large Supermarket as a result of one of the staff allegedly stealing some of the stock.  Not very serious you might think but by the end of the day the alert Police Officer had discovered that not only this person stealing but there were nine others including the storeman who was signing for the goods on the delivery truck. The driver. who was part of the deal, then delivered them to a warehouse on behalf of the Storeman.  At the end of the day there were eleven people arrested and the Manager was dismissed for poor management.  The moral of this story is when one person is cornered they soon give up their associates.




hi Charles....nor hear...we r still all hear behind you not much to say but were [[[[hear]]]]   jenney...


----------



## MAE (20 November 2011)

NOR said:


> hi Charles....nor hear...we r still all hear behind you not much to say but were [[[[hear]]]]   jenney...




Charles yes we are here with you too, like Nor " Not much to say, BUT we are here "


----------



## marcom (20 November 2011)

Charles you are right about things starting to happen at ASIC. In the Brisbane Supreme Court: 

18/11/2011	Amended Statement of Claim	THIRD FURTHER AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM - PURSUANT TO FRYBERG J - 11/11/11 on behalf of Applicant (ASIC).

Looks like the learned judge told ASIC to pull it's finger out and get the case started. The next court date is 12 December.


----------



## simgrund (20 November 2011)

Could be a useful reminder

How to protect your online security

❏ Use strong passwords, not your mum's maiden name, your pet's name or your birth date. Don't select the "remember my password" option.

❏ Limit the amount of personal information you post on public sites. This information can be used by a criminal to develop a composite identity.

❏ Never click a link or open an attachment from someone you don't know. Do not respond to suspicious emails or mail.

❏ Carry only essential personal information with you.

❏ Check your credit report to see if there has been any unauthorised activity.

❏ Limit the credit you have on credit cards.

❏ Avoid using public computers to access personal information.

❏ Ensure no personal information remains on your computer hard drive before you sell or dispose of it. The same goes for mobile phones.

Source: Australian Crime Commission

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/money/super-and-funds/super-in-the-spotlight-20111115-1nfxx.html#ixzz1eDIDMH4M


----------



## selciper (20 November 2011)

From today's UK Independent: "Police fingerprinted and photographed former Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on her hospital bed today over electoral fraud charges..." 

Arroyo was president for nine years and was untouchable during that period.


----------



## simgrund (21 November 2011)

simgrund said:


> Could be a useful reminder
> 
> How to protect your online security
> 
> ...




I was hoping for member contributions to this list in the manner of:

* Avoid REs bringing on Golf Promotions when members can least afford it

* Gag any gloaters in red leather coats

* Rub shoulders with only genuine, original members

* Scream "discrimination" at every opportunity

to suggest a few.

Regards,


----------



## selciper (21 November 2011)

Item about Gold Coast crime. TV Night, today.

http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2011/11/gold-coast-mayor-unhappy-with-60-minutes.html


----------



## marcom (22 November 2011)

marcom said:


> Charles you are right about things starting to happen at ASIC. In the Brisbane Supreme Court:
> 
> 18/11/2011	Amended Statement of Claim	THIRD FURTHER AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM - PURSUANT TO FRYBERG J - 11/11/11 on behalf of Applicant (ASIC).
> 
> Looks like the learned judge told ASIC to pull it's finger out and get the case started. The next court date is 12 December.




More evidence the Judge told ASIC to get the case happening:

18/11/2011	Notice	FURTHER AMEDED ORIGINATING APPLICATION - *AS ORDER BY FRYBERG J - 11/11/11*	Applicant


----------



## marcom (22 November 2011)

While we are doing the court rounds:

In the Federal Court - Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 086 169 422 & Ors v Andrea Jane Waters & Ors

21-Nov-2011 	Notice of Acting - Appointment of Lawyer 	Mark Robert Hodges 	
15-Nov-2011 	Affidavit 	Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd Acn 086 169 422 	
15-Nov-2011 	Notice of Ceasing to Act 	Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd Acn 086 169 422 	
15-Nov-2011 	Notice of Ceasing to Act 	Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd Acn 086 169 422 	
15-Nov-2011 	Notice of Ceasing to Act 	Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd Acn 086 169 422 	
15-Nov-2011 	Notice of Ceasing to Act 	Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd Acn 086 169 422 	
15-Nov-2011 	Notice of Ceasing to Act 	Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd Acn 086 169 422 	
15-Nov-2011 	Notice of Ceasing to Act 	Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd Acn 086 169 422 

Charles, you may know something about this.

And in relation to the PIF AG case:

Wellington Capital Limited ACN 114 248 458 as Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund ARSN 090 687 577 v Premium Income Fund Action Group Incorporated (NSW Incorporated Association No. 9894759) & Ors
*Application Listed * There are no further details on this application.


----------



## selciper (22 November 2011)

Equititrust - SMH

http://www.smh.com.au/business/a


----------



## Cookie1 (22 November 2011)

selciper said:


> Equititrust - SMH
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/a




Hi Selciper,

I tried the link but it didn't work. Is this the link you meant?
http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic-moves-to-install-receiver-at-equititrust-20111121-1nr04.html

Cheers, Cookie1


----------



## selciper (22 November 2011)

Hi Cookie 1, your link is the correct one. Mine seems to have been corrupted (a tterm familiar to us) through the processes. Sorry about that.
selciper


----------



## simgrund (22 November 2011)

From that article, almost parallel to our Auditor saga. 



> Equititrust's fate was sealed this month when the company revealed it was unlikely to find an insurer to cover it for professional indemnity, and any possible fraud by its officers, beyond 4pm yesterday. A lack of insurance would have prevented Equititrust from continuing to act as responsible entity for the fund. The company did not return calls yesterday but it is understood its board resigned en masse after the insurance expired.
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic...equititrust-20111121-1nr04.html#ixzz1ePCGHpF2




Best wishes to long suffering ET brethren

Regards


----------



## charles36 (22 November 2011)

marcom said:


> While we are doing the court rounds:
> 
> In the Federal Court - Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 086 169 422 & Ors v Andrea Jane Waters & Ors
> 
> ...




It is a long story but Class Action members will be informed shortly. There has been a change of Solicitors.   Ceasing to act is the formal notification to the Court by HWL Ebsworths.  So far as Mark Hodges, Lawyer is concerned this is only a temporary measure and he certainly does not act as a lawyer for the Class Action.  He is the trustee of my Super Fund and as such is an applicant in the Class Action proceedings.  I assume the Wellington Capital v/c PIFAG relates to costs from previous Court hearings.  Regards Charles


----------



## marcom (22 November 2011)

charles36 said:


> It is a long story but Class Action members will be informed shortly. There has been a change of Solicitors.   Ceasing to act is the formal notification to the Court by HWL Ebsworths.  So far as Mark Hodges, Lawyer is concerned this is only a temporary measure and he certainly does not act as a lawyer for the Class Action.  He is the trustee of my Super Fund and as such is an applicant in the Class Action proceedings.  I assume the Wellington Capital v/c PIFAG relates to costs from previous Court hearings.  Regards Charles





I was getting a little worried about how close WC and JH are to  HWL Ebsworths - their role at the WC's recent roadshows is of particular concern. Frankly,I think that we could do a lot worse than Mark as our class action solicitor - frankly it would be very reassuring to have a solicitor who is on our side for a change and has some personal commitment to the case.


----------



## simgrund (23 November 2011)

marcom said:


> I was getting a little worried about how close WC and JH are to  HWL Ebsworths - their role at the WC's recent roadshows is of particular concern. Frankly,I think that we could do a lot worse than Mark as our class action solicitor - frankly it would be very reassuring to have a solicitor who is on our side for a change and has some personal commitment to the case.




This would be the last straw if Class Action Team were to be infested with Enneagramists.
Cheers,


----------



## marcom (23 November 2011)

FAUX ASIC ALERT

Surely not. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has issued a warning that there could be fraudsters among us, pretending to be ASIC officers.

The corporate watchdog warned the scam also included the use of fake ASIC stationery. ''The letter or email requests upfront payment and copies of personal documents in exchange for access to a substantial overseas inheritance,'' it explained.

The corporate cop even managed to handball the problem to another federal agency. ''Consumers who receive a request to transfer money in exchange for an inheritance, lottery win or other large windfall should treat it as a scam and report it to the ACCC,'' ASIC commissioner Peter Kell said in a statement.

''We are warning consumers about this fake correspondence as ASIC never contacts the public requesting upfront payment in such circumstances,'' he said.

However, CBD has some sure-fire ways to quickly detect whether any messages purporting to be from ASIC are genuine or not.

One method includes firing off a response email. If you get a message back within a week, it may not be ASIC. Another could include calling any supposed ASIC officer at 8.59am or 5.01pm. If the phone answers, you may have a problem.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/bour...ed-delivery-20111122-1nsx5.html#ixzz1eTNrsPq0


----------



## selciper (23 November 2011)

simgrund said:


> This would be the last straw if Class Action Team were to be infested with Enneagramists.
> Cheers,



Whatever the reasons - and they obviously must be sound - let's wish that the process is not prolonged. And, let's remember, IMF is not a free service. If we win, they will charge each of us about 35 per cent.


----------



## atlas1950 (23 November 2011)

Selciper,

Just to correct you a little, if we win, we don't get billed individually, IMF gets there 35% from whatever award is given to us. If we lose, IMF don't get paid at all, and we as individuals, won't get stuck with a large legal bill.

We started with Carneys, then went to HWL Ebsworths,now there appears to be another problem somewhere. Is our case collapsing.?????

Still waiting  from Bentleys to distribute some of our funds, which they said they would by the end on October. Does anyone have any thoughts or updates.

Michael


----------



## selciper (23 November 2011)

atlas950 - Well, I think that 35 per cent is 35 per cent. Wherever the sum is derived from, I'm paying  if we win. I simply would like IMF to communicate more often. I do share your concerns about the status of the CA. Surely changing solicitors again isn't a good omen for the CA. On the other hand all the preliminaries may now be complete...who knows? The Bentleys delay is also a puzzle.


----------



## charles36 (23 November 2011)

selciper said:


> atlas950 - Well, I think that 35 per cent is 35 per cent. Wherever the sum is derived from, I'm paying  if we win. I simply would like IMF to communicate more often. I do share your concerns about the status of the CA. Surely changing solicitors again isn't a good omen for the CA. On the other hand all the preliminaries may now be complete...who knows? The Bentleys delay is also a puzzle.




There is a change of company but the practising Solicitor remains the same.  No doubt further information will be forthcoming in the near future.  For all intents and purposes it is believed the Class Action is proceeding, albeit a bit slow,  but there is nothing anyone can do about that.  Cheers Charles 36.


----------



## marcom (24 November 2011)

It seems that PIF is not the only fund suffering because of  ASIC's regulatory action priority list. Todays SMH article on City Pacific FMF also reveals the same shenanigans that were perpetrated by MFS with PIF.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic...lots-return-20111123-1nuyy.html#ixzz1eZ8VCtqR


----------



## marcom (24 November 2011)

More on Equity Trust:

MUSICAL CHAIRS

The revolving door that is the board of the floundering Gold Coast financial concern Equititrust has now seen 14 director resignations, appointments and reappointments since June.

Barely a month after swearing in a new chief executive and a new board, Equititrust this week saw another board resign just as the company's indemnity insurance policy expired.

Luckily, Equititrust founder Mark McIvor has rejoined the board after a five-month break, with his wife Stacey also becoming a director.

The next Equititrust board change could happen as soon as tomorrow with the Sydney businessman Ian Lazar applying to the courts to have a liquidator appointed.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/exot...-bank-daddy-20111123-1nuzb.html#ixzz1eZlwGOcR


----------



## Duped (24 November 2011)

http://www.vov.co.nz/vestar-legal-case-armitage-v-church#more-592


----------



## Cookie1 (24 November 2011)

New Lawyers appointed for Class Action

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724646.PDF

Premium Income Fund
NSX Release: 24 November 2011

Litigation Update – Class Action – New South Wales Federal Court Proceedings 
NSD324/2009 Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund has been advised that HWL Ebsworth Lawyers have ceased to act as the lawyers for the applicants in the Premium Income Fund class action, which is proceeding NSD324/2009 in the New South Wales Federal Court.  

Johnson Winter & Slattery Lawyers of Sydney have been appointed the lawyers for the Applicants. 

The parties to the Class Action are awaiting judgement from His Honour Justice Perram in relation to the Notice of Motions heard before him in July 2011. A date for the delivery of His Honour’s decision has not yet been set.  

Further updates will be provided as the matter progresses.


----------



## selciper (24 November 2011)

This is the Johnson Winter and Slattery website.

http://www.jws.com.au/home


----------



## marcom (25 November 2011)

Things continue to move on the Brisbane Supreme Court case 12122/09 AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION -V- MANAGED INVESTMENTS LIMITED & others:

25/11/2011 Application Striking Out - Statement Of Claim Submitted by Respondent

25/11/2011 Affidavit W Herrmann WH1 Solicitor for Respondent

The respondent is not named but you can bet it is a stalling tactic by King and/or White.


----------



## marcom (26 November 2011)

More movement on the ASIC case yesterday:

25/11/2011	Application	Directions	Respondent	
25/11/2011	Application	Striking Out - Statement Of Claim	Respondent	
25/11/2011	Affidavit	B T COHEN EXH A	  Respondent

Just more stalling action - roll on 12/12.


----------



## selciper (26 November 2011)

Anyone interested in where the economies of the world-wide may be heading can here a hair-raising view from Steve Keen, Australian academic and economist. His forecasts are here in an interview on the BBC's Hard Talk. Don't listen at bed time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00lmvyl#synopsis


----------



## marcom (26 November 2011)

selciper said:


> Anyone interested in where the economies of the world-wide may be heading can here a hair-raising view from Steve Keen, Australian academic and economist. His forecasts are here in an interview on the BBC's Hard Talk. Don't listen at bed time.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00lmvyl#synopsis




Selciper thanks for the informative link. Anyone who wants to understand what is happening in the world economic collapse and what it will mean for us should look at the excellent http://macrobusiness.com.au/ site. The daily commentary on the Eurozone meltdown is chilling. While most of the contributors are economists and financial market analysts, many readers of the blog are non-financial/economists and hence the level of technical explanation that is given.


----------



## zixo (26 November 2011)

thanks for the Intersesting links. 
It seems the only way investors can ever win in the mess that people like JH have created for us is if they declare bankruptcy send all their bills to parasitic companies like wellington and MFS and then pehaps their likes will somehow have to repay all the debt from any gains they say they will make in their mismanagement.


----------



## JohnH (28 November 2011)

Tucked in amongst all the Angus Security Announcements today http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724652.PDF -  Reckon that's about half a cent return for every $1000 invested!!!!


----------



## marcom (28 November 2011)

JohnH said:


> Tucked in amongst all the Angus Security Announcements today http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724652.PDF -  Reckon that's about half a cent return for every $1000 invested!!!!




Probably sold it to her mates at a firesale rate.


----------



## MAE (28 November 2011)

JohnH said:


> Tucked in amongst all the Angus Security Announcements today http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724652.PDF -  Reckon that's about half a cent return for every $1000 invested!!!!




Wow, I am glad to hear Ms Hutson thinks this a good sale!!!


----------



## selciper (28 November 2011)

I was reminded today that the American fraudster, Bernie Madoff, confessed to his crimes three years ago and was sentenced some six months later. He is known as prisoner 61727-054 and is serving 150 years in jail. How many Australian Madoffs are going to spend another Christmas comfortably at home?


----------



## Duped (29 November 2011)

Details of that NSX ann:

_*Mortgagee in Possession Contract – Helidon Sandstone Mine*
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund is pleased to announce that the Helidon Sandstone Mine has been sold and settled. The sale price was $300,000.
The Helidon Sandstone Mine was held as security for one of the Fund’s mortgage loans, and comprised both freehold land and two associated mining leases.
Managing Director, Jenny Hutson said, ‘The Helidon property was originally part of the security provided to the Fund by the borrower connected to the Kooralbyn International Resort. The sale of this security property represents a positive outcome for Unitholders in relation to the security property relating to this loan. This security property has been sold at the __*loan’s carrying value of $300,000.*’_ [emphasis added]


According to WC's figure, it appears that property owed us $4,314,083 @ 31 May 2008.

Next question is: was the asset written down to $300K prior to the current, UNAUDITED, accounts? Because if not, then Hutson could be gauging far more than 2.5% of that $300K for herself. Remember she's got 30 odd hungry mouths in her empire now that need to be fed.


----------



## selciper (29 November 2011)

"Jenny Hutson said, ‘The Helidon property was originally part of the security provided to 
the Fund by the borrower connected to the Kooralbyn International Resort. The sale of this security property represents a positive outcome for Unitholders in relation to the security property relating to this loan. This security property has been sold at the loan’s carrying value of $300,000.’"

A positive outcome for investors? A positively outrageous statement (once again) by the talented Wellington team's leader..


----------



## marcom (29 November 2011)

Meanwhile over at City Pacific:

QUESTION TIME

The managers of the City Pacific-founded First Mortgage Fund have dangled a carrot in the faces of the 10,000-odd unitholders in the capsized fund - an opportunity to see the former City Pacific boss Phil Sullivan front a public examination.

After more than a year of vowing to get Sullivan to answer some questions, Balmain Trilogy, the managers of the fund, have finally announced that February 2 will be the date of the examination.

''We look forward to hearing his answers. I guarantee he will not enjoy the questions,'' the Balmain Trilogy joint chief executive Andrew Griffin said in a statement.

The catch is that unitholders wanting the examination to go ahead will have to vote against a proposal for a Sullivan-endorsed group to replace Balmain Trilogy as the managers of the fund, once worth $1 billion.

City Pacific went broke after it lost management control (and the tens of millions of dollars of annual fees) of the fund in 2009, when Balmain Trilogy was voted in as manager. Sullivan is already resisting an order to front the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and answer any questions it may have.

SO SAYS SULLIVAN

Despite repeated claims from Pacific First Management that its planned coup does not involve putting Sullivan back in control of the fund, it has been happy to run numerous postings from the City Pacific founder on its website .

''I am attempting to salvage what is left of my investment from the Trilogy disaster,'' Sullivan said in one posting last week. He made no mention of the City Pacific disaster.

In another posting, Sullivan noted how his family had been intimidated over the past few years. ''We are not used to the bullyboy tactics of having rocks thrown through my office windows, or having my wife find four masked machete-wielding bandits in our home.

''Curiously enough the only item of value to be taken was one of three computers in the home that had certain information stored,'' he said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/dynamic-duo-put-up-the-barricades-20111128-1o34p.html#ixzz1f39aCAlq


----------



## simgrund (29 November 2011)

Just read through an IMF update on transition to Johnson Winter and Slattery as our new Class Action Solicitors.                                                                     Your post #9228 makes sense Marcom, and it is safe to assume that your suspicions on HWL-Ebs had a mortician’s rhythm to them.                                                                                                                                     Let’s hope there is an improvement there somewhere for PIF. 
I believe another improvement for us may have happened in my meeting with ASIC in Sydney office yesterday afternoon, Monday. I’ve been tracking this meeting through MP Luke Hartsuyker’s office and on Thursday 24th, already in Sydney, finally managed to secure it.
I met with the Senior Manager (Deterrence; Financial Services) Mr.Tim Walker together with ASIC Lawyer Thaw Thaw Htin.
Mr. Paul Eastment, Senior Manager ASIC,  who facilitated the meeting as a follow up of my direct request to him, was conferencing via telephone from Brisbane. 
I prepared with Seamisty helping, 3 main points I was anxious to make ASIC aware of:
1.	







> Wellington Capital confirmed to ASIC that it considers the amendments to be within its power and in the best interests of the PIF.                                                                                                    In these circumstances ASIC is not proposing to take further action in relation to the specific issues raised in relation to the Placement and Non-Renounceable Rights Issues



Excerpt from Mr G. Medcraft reply to my representations through Mr Hartsuyker’s office, 22 August 2011
I discussed this passage at length and pointed out that for PIF members such treatment of WC assurances was akin to a farmer asking a fox if he raided chicken coup at night. Of course NO said fox, snorting last chicken fluff off the top of his nose. 
I hope the message was left there.

2.	Illegal use of Register and giving FULL access to third parties; real as PIF Reaction Group may be, or imaginary, for 2 defamatory mail-outs, while denying legitimate access to PIF AG for meeting purposes. 

I cited both articles in The Australian by Andrew Main and pointed out Justice Dowsett’s error in law by not scrutinising the origin of “new members” which he chose to “protect” from PIF AG’s omission from meeting notices. 
I stressed time and time again WC’s wilful neglect of ASIC protocols in respect of RE fiduciary duties to act in the best interests of fund members.

3.	WC interferences in the conduct and application of legal processes by PIF    AG and its agents.

A brief of WC illegalities by ASIC’s own legislative definitions. Well canvassed.

The last point I managed to slot in was about WC going, again, outside fiduciary duties of an RE.
This was to issue intimidatory directions to ASF forum Administrators, which resulted in a suspension of our member for a month.
Such brazen assault on Administrator’s independence and integrity, which we all respect and look up-to, had to be outed to ASIC as an example of sordid injustices 
PIF AG and the bulk of fair dinkum PIF unit holders continues to absorb from this Responsible Entity.

In summary, our case is now being handled by the Deterrence Team and I sincerely hope that this is a progress in ASIC’s calendar of priorities.

I am pleased to have shared this news with you,


----------



## To Trusting (30 November 2011)

simgrund said:


> In summary, our case is now being handled by the Deterrence Team and I sincerely hope that this is a progress in ASIC’s calendar of priorities.
> 
> I am pleased to have shared this news with you,




Thanks Simgrund for all of your efforts.


----------



## marcom (30 November 2011)

simgrund, thanks for your perseverance and and hard work getting the ASIC meeting.

I think WC deliberately established links with HWL Ebsworth in an effort to undermine/gain information about our case and to confuse the silent majority. Perhaps there was even an enema-gram connection. This all seemed to happen after Ebsworths sought to have the ASIC case applications admitted as evidence in the CA - a major turning point in Justice Perram's attitude towards our case. Remember his words "...an old fashioned fraud.."


----------



## selciper (30 November 2011)

This looks like a case of fair justice. (From a US newspaper).

http://www.wmur.com/r/29846098/detail.html


----------



## selciper (30 November 2011)

Simgrund, I'd like to second Marcom's vote of thanks for your ASIC ensubmissions. Have just read your report. Great workk on behalf of PIF investors.


----------



## simgrund (30 November 2011)

Thanks Marcom for your recognition.
I still have my Application for Administrative Hearing with ASIC to follow through.
It is obvious beyond doubt, that far from being a Responsible Entity worthy of her Financial Licence from ASIC, our Terror in Red applies same _modus operandi_ since 2008 to pulverise straying minnows in her way into submission.

I have news for you Jenny; your Financial Licence is now under greater scrutiny  than you have ever scoffed at with your past arrogance. 

Your game is up and if it takes more reminders from Abraham Lincoln to hound you down, then that's exactly what resurrected Abe will do.

Personally, that invite to a Rehab of Salvation is still open.

Regards to all,


----------



## DepressedDad (30 November 2011)

Yes, Well done Sigmund.

I know you are personally suffering hugely in your time of need because of other's actions.  So it must have felt good to finally have someone listen to such disgraceful and clearly unlawful behaviour.  Roll on judgement day which will stop the sickening arrogance.


----------



## marcom (30 November 2011)

simgrund said:


> ... I still have my Application for Administrative Hearing with ASIC to follow through.
> 
> I have news for you Jenny; your Financial Licence is now under greater scrutiny than you have ever scoffed at with your past arrogance.




Most assuredly simgrund. Here is a link to the ASIC site about Administrative Hearings conducted by ASIC - http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Administrative+hearings?openDocument

Also look at the hearings Manual - there is a link at the beginning of the Hearings info.

"There are three broad categories of administrative hearings that we
conduct:
• *protective hearings* in which we are contemplating using our
administrative powers to protect the public generally and investors
and consumers in particular5;
• licensing hearings which are held before we decide whether it is
appropriate to refuse to grant a licence6 or to register a person as a
liquidator or an auditor7; and
• application of security hearings which consider claims by other
persons for payment from a security lodged with ASIC8."

The footnote 5 to Protective Hearings lists:

"5 Examples of protective hearings are: s206F of the Corporations Act (disqualifying
a person from managing corporations);* s915C (suspension or cancellation of an
Australian financial services licence) *and s920A (excluding a person from the
financial services industry); *and s739 (stop order hearing with respect to the offer,
issue, sale and transfer of securities)* and s1020E (stop order hearing with respect to financial product disclosure documents and statements)."

If you need any help just let us know. Follow the Administrative Hearing and remember to tell ASIC "show no mercy...take no prisoners!"


----------



## marcom (30 November 2011)

Just to put simgrund's meeting with ASIC Senior Manager (Deterrence; Financial Services) into perspective, here is an employment ad for the position in WA listing the duties, qualifications and experience required:

Senior Manager, Financial Services - Deterrence

Reference 	188377
Sector 	Accountancy, Finance Manager Jobs
Salary, Benefits & OTE 	Executive Level 2 band
Town/City 	Perth
Locations 	Australia, Rest of the World
Job Type 	Permanent
Date Posted 	27th Jul

Senior Manager
Financial Services - Deterrence

Take a high profile role in regulating Australia’s Financial markets

Deterrence teams within ASIC are *responsible for undertaking major investigations, civil actions and prosecutions* to drive behavioural change. *Investigating serious corporate misconduct*, the Financial Services teams deal with cases that seek to have a deterrent effect in the financial services industry.

*Consisting of lawyers, investigators and accountants*, these teams take both reactive and proactive action to regulate the market. The projects handled by our teams are focused upon assisting retail investors and consumers and building confidence in Australia’s capital markets.

As a strong people manager with significant Financial Services experience or a background in complex litigation, this role is your opportunity to:

• Manage and coach a multi-skilled team of professionals, providing strategic direction and project management expertise to litigation and investigations at a local and national level.

• Successfully complete matters under your management by developing and implementing tactics to achieve agreed regulatory outcomes.

• Develop and maintain key relationships and actively encourage the sharing of knowledge throughout ASIC.

For more information and to apply, go to careers.asic.gov.au/jobmax and search by reference 188377.

The advertised position may be a Position of Trust, which will require the successful applicant to be an Australian citizen (or eligible for citizenship) and subject to the successful completion of a security assessment.

Looks like ASIC is on JH's case - lets hope the can nail her!


----------



## simgrund (30 November 2011)

marcom said:


> Most assuredly simgrund. Here is a link to the ASIC site about Administrative Hearings conducted by ASIC - http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Administrative+hearings?openDocument
> 
> Also look at the hearings Manual - there is a link at the beginning of the Hearings info.
> 
> ...




The only way to go, Marcom. I will regenerate in a few days and reach for the ASIC's AH file from top shelf. I applied for Protective Hearing of course, 22 August 2011,  received response to the Application on 1 September 2011 
from *Misconduct & Breach Reporting Shareholder Services* endeavouring to respond to me within 28 days. I believe it's appropriate to send a gentle nudge. 
Thanks for offers of assistance; will need it definitely.  

What happened to our literatis writing inverted praises to Jenny?
Let's revive those skills so sorely missed on this Forum.
And seamisty may be kept amused as we stand chuckle to chuckle together.

Regards,


----------



## selciper (30 November 2011)

PIN announcements on NSX today.

http://www.nsxa.com.au/


----------



## MAE (30 November 2011)

To Trusting said:


> Thanks Simgrund for all of your efforts.




Thanks Simgrund, very much appreciate your hard work!!!


----------



## JohnH (30 November 2011)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724676.PDF  - well there we are, JH can now draw her .7%!!!


----------



## marcom (1 December 2011)

*Hutson milks small change from fund*
Scott Rochfort
December 1, 2011 CBD SMH

Ka-ching! The Queensland businesswoman best-known for her trademark red leather jacket, Wellington Capital's Jenny Hutson, finally looks set to milk some management fees from the carcass of the MFS-founded Premium Income Fund she wrestled control of nearly four years ago.

The Premium Income Fund yesterday announced it would pay its long-suffering unit holders a 1 ¢ distribution on December 12.

This would take the payments to a whopping 3 ¢ (for each originally-valued $1 unit), making Hutson's outfit now eligible to collect an annual management fee valued at 0.7 per cent of the fund's gross assets.

But Hutson, a trusted ally of the entrepreneur Chris Scott who was badly burnt by the collapse of MFS, is yet to say what the management fee will be.

No word yet if the fee will be based on the $233 million of gross asset valuation in the fund's full-year accounts that its recently resigned auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers refused to sign-off on

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/bus...e-from-fund-20111130-1o6zz.html#ixzz1fDqzBX4v


----------



## simgrund (1 December 2011)

marcom said:


> *Hutson milks small change from fund*
> Scott Rochfort
> December 1, 2011 CBD SMH




From the same CBD potpouri; do these girls socialise?

YOU GO, GIRL

You can't please all of the people all of the time, but you can go mighty close, as Gloucester Coal proved yesterday with the election of its first female director, Julie Beeby, the boss of WestSide Corp, a coal seam outfit in Queensland. The proxy vote in her favour was 99.95 per cent.

''I have never seen a director elected with a vote of 99.95 per cent,'' the chairman, James MacKenzie, told the small annual meeting gathering yesterday.

The meeting was attended by MacKenzie's public image consultant and Sydney's ''go-to'' disaster media handler, Sue Cato, who, CBD understands, just might be about to weigh in to the BlueScope Steel disaster, where directors have torched hundreds of millions of dollars in shareholders' wealth over the past few weeks with both the shares and rights hitting new lows yesterday.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/hutson-milks-small-change-from-fund-20111130-1o6zz.html#ixzz1fEJhHgm4


----------



## JohnH (1 December 2011)

simgrund said:


> From the same CBD potpouri; do these girls socialise?
> 
> YOU GO, GIRL
> 
> ...




I wonder if the .05% prove to be right?  If you think back, that was probably the percentage of people against Wellington at the road shows.  Sadly I was not one of them.


----------



## marcom (1 December 2011)

JohnH said:


> http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724676.PDF  - well there we are, JH can now draw her .7%!!!




And her mongrel mate with 10%+ of PIF shares illegally bought at our expense will get $800,000+ of our money!!!


----------



## simgrund (1 December 2011)

marcom said:


> And her mongrel mate with 10%+ of PIF shares illegally bought at our expense will get $800,000+ of our money!!!




The most unkind cut of all.
The original PIFers subsidising Jenny's piggery.
2 more years of this molestation?!?!!?

Regards,


----------



## charles36 (1 December 2011)

Would someone please enlighten my untaught mind on how the 1 cent payment forecast for the 12December, 2011 will effect the fee which will become due and payable to Wellington Capital. I know that it will not come from profit or income because there has not been any of either but what concerns me is the fee is payable as a percentage from the last audited figure of the PIF?  Given that PWC refused to sign off on the valuation of the fund in their last audit up to June, 2011 that leaves the last official audit as being June 2010.  If this is the case the fee for Wellington will be higher than what would have been expected for 2011.  I would be grateful for an explanation.


----------



## marcom (1 December 2011)

charles36 said:


> Would someone please enlighten my untaught mind on how the 1 cent payment forecast for the 12December, 2011 will effect the fee which will become due and payable to Wellington Capital. I know that it will not come from profit or income because there has not been any of either but what concerns me is the fee is payable as a percentage from the last audited figure of the PIF?  Given that PWC refused to sign off on the valuation of the fund in their last audit up to June, 2011 that leaves the last official audit as being June 2010.  If this is the case the fee for Wellington will be higher than what would have been expected for 2011.  I would be grateful for an explanation.




Yes Charles this is exactly what JH would like to do - except that the issue of the unsigned accounts and PWC's inability to gain any insight into the basis of the recent valuations is why ASIC is currently looking at this. The bigger issue for ASIC is the the basis for RE remuneration and that covers a variety of funds and mechanisms. Clearly, unsupported Directors valuations as a basis for remuneration is susceptible to fraud.


----------



## zeva (1 December 2011)

marcom said:


> And her mongrel mate with 10%+ of PIF shares illegally bought at our expense will get $800,000+ of our money!!!




JH has done nothing at arms length, her mongrel mate is more like her partner in crime.
She got the PIF for free and she has been using our hard earned money to insure that she keeps her snout in the trough.


----------



## DepressedDad (1 December 2011)

Has ASIC got any powers to step in and stop such a payment when there are clearly so many breaches of acts?  Surely something can be done to freeze such actions while further investigations take place????


----------



## selciper (1 December 2011)

ASIC surely must act immediately. What holds them back? It's interesting that the Australlian Shareholders' Association remains silent. They were initially full of interest in the PIF when Hutson was nosing around in 08.


----------



## marcom (1 December 2011)

DepressedDad said:


> Has ASIC got any powers to step in and stop such a payment when there are clearly so many breaches of acts?  Surely something can be done to freeze such actions while further investigations take place????




ASIC has all the powers to not only prevent the payment but cancel the shares illegally allotted by WC - lets see if they exercise those powers!


----------



## selciper (1 December 2011)

This audio comes out of the USA. Gerald Celente is an idiosyncratic economics forecaster. His excitable style takes getting used to, but his forecasts over the past four yeas have been impressive (if gloomy). And even he has recently lost money.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29858.htm


----------



## atlas1950 (2 December 2011)

Hi all,

New announcement on the NSX by the Lady in Red.

Michael


----------



## JohnH (2 December 2011)

atlas1950 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> New announcement on the NSX by the Lady in Red.
> 
> Michael




half a cent per unit!!!   http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724685.PDF

Wonder how many more there are out there like that?


----------



## simgrund (2 December 2011)

JohnH said:


> half a cent per unit!!!   http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724685.PDF
> 
> Wonder how many more there are out there like that?




WC fails to inform unitholders of the originating values of investments made.
The final figures in most cases are carcases of the once decent market reflections. 
Such as Helidon Sandstone Mine.
Please WC, inform us fully through your NSX releases.
Do not fear transparency; this will in no way increase our gratitude from levels of today.

Regards,


----------



## simgrund (2 December 2011)

What's with Gold Coast's Fraud Production Line:



> Love, lies and luxury: Hearts United cheats go to ground
> Tim Elliott
> December 2, 2011 - 5:32PM
> 
> ...




DISCLAIMER: There are good people in GC, census has been commissioned


----------



## Jadel (2 December 2011)

JohnH said:


> half a cent per unit!!!   http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724685.PDF
> 
> Wonder how many more there are out there like that?




I think this return  was almost certainly from  an investment made in Maquarie Fortress Warrants who invested in U.S company Bonds

 Maquarie recently sold the portfolio for 45cents  in the dollar ,wound up the Fund .and returned the balance to investors

 The return of monies had absolutely mothing to do with any proactive effort by WC as inferred on the NSX


----------



## SPLITPIN (7 December 2013)

Testing to see if back in action


----------



## BABIHUTAN (7 December 2013)

SPLITPIN said:


> Testing to see if back in action




Hopefully it is, SPLITPIN but not 100% sure in right place.
I logged on just now, after 2 yrs absence n got to this point but in all things Internet I hv discovered what you see might not necessarily be where you think you are!


----------



## seamisty (7 December 2013)

Babihutan its coming up as a new post so am thinking we are back on ASF and our thread has been restored?? I just got to remember how to navigate my way around, this was always the preferred option with posters!:thankyou:


----------



## NOR (7 December 2013)

seamisty said:


> Babihutan its coming up as a new post so am thinking we are back on ASF and our thread has been restored?? I just got to remember how to navigate my way around, this was always the preferred option with posters!:thankyou:




Hi all  NOR here hope this is a new Start to a happy end for all us pif..


----------



## atlas1950 (7 December 2013)

NOR said:


> Hi all  NOR here hope this is a new Start to a happy end for all us pif..




Great to be back on this forum. Brings back many happy/sad memories and discussions.

Michael


----------



## BABIHUTAN (7 December 2013)

NOR said:


> Hi all  NOR here hope this is a new Start to a happy end for all us pif..






atlas1950 said:


> Great to be back on this forum. Brings back many happy/sad memories and discussions.
> 
> Michael




Hear, hear, I'll drink to that


----------



## BABIHUTAN (7 December 2013)

seamisty said:


> Babihutan its coming up as a new post so am thinking we are back on ASF and our thread has been restored?? I just got to remember how to navigate my way around, this was always the preferred option with posters!:thankyou:




I think you are right seamisty; it took me a while to remember how to find the thread and login. See yr pvt msges


----------



## wally3218 (8 December 2013)

Glad to see the forum is back and running hope it stays this way.
It was the only way to find out what was going on.


----------



## MAE (9 December 2013)

atlas1950 said:


> Great to be back on this forum. Brings back many happy/sad memories and discussions.
> 
> Michael




Hi all, also testing to see if we are indeed back :xmastree


----------



## seamisty (10 December 2013)

http://www.financialstandard.com.au/news/view/36806426
A submission to the Senate inquiry into the regulator's performance provides yet another testimony of a culture of "cronyism and favouritism" which includes threats and harassment of employees.

The testimony comes from a former employee of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) who worked in the regulator's stock exchanges operation from 2010 to 2013.

The submission states that "many ASIC employees are too intimidated by senior management."

"Typical responses [to matters of concern] include: you don't do that here, people who complain are gotten rid of, I've seen things done here to staff and don't want the same to happen to me, they'll get rid of you, there's nothing you can do, it's the way things work here."

The former employee lists several examples where ASIC failed to act to companies neglecting to provide information or cases of misbehaviour.

In one of the cases, ASIC failed to provide a company with information to assist it to fulfill its regulatory obligations and therefore the company did not provide the necessary information.

"Senior manager response was to berate me for raising these concerns and to shout that 'ASIC didn't care about such matters and that another regulator could bother about them,'" the former employee said.

The person recalls that after raising those concerns, "some 54 versions of ASIC's final report were produced with input from five different staff members. Any issues of possible contention such as those I raised were written out."

The document also includes a case where the former employee was "reprimanded by for seeking this advice and my concerns used as a reason to place me on probation. To retain my employment I was directed to "improve" my handling of such matters."


----------



## DepressedDad (11 December 2013)

Yeeha.  We ARE back!  So excited to see all the familiar names!!  There's strength in numbers. And the more information shared the better. What's still left is OUR money so here's hoping there are officials out there with integrity & conscience who can do something to return the remaining funds to the investors and not allow it all to be whittled away in fees for another 2 years.


----------



## NOR (12 December 2013)

NOR said:


> Hi all  NOR here hope this is a new Start to a happy end for all us pif..






JHC Holdings is YONG's Venture Capital, Joint Venture (JV), Mezzanine Funding or Development Management arm, another added service to YONG's developer clients, land owners, local or international high net worth individual investors, for their development funding by way of JV or pure development management services. The development funding will either from JHC Holdings, its subsidiaries or from YONG's high network individuals. Even for large public companies like Delfin Lendlease, around 70% of their projects are joint venture with land owners or fund managers.

Currently, JHC has a land banking of around 2,500 lots on around 5,100,000m ² land with eventual completion value around 1 billion fully owned by Peter Huang and his wife and is planning to increase it to around 10,000-20,000 lots in the future through Joint Venture and Development Management while potentially making YONG a $1 billion company.

JHC is the advance of YONG's specialised Property Development Company - Paramount Property which successfully developed Sunnybank Hills Pacific Centre Complex in 2001 where YONG's headquarters is located along with many other different businesses. The Pacific Centre, Paramount Property's maiden project, won both the QMBA Brisbane Region Award and the QLD Wide State Award.

read more


News & Events

1st / November / 2013

JHC BuyS the Iconic Kooralbyn Resort



JHC Subsidiary has bought the Kooralbyn Resort from the receiver and the contract has gone unconditional from 31 October 2013. The previous 5 star resort sits on 333 hectares of future urban land in the Gold Coast Hinterland boasting a 100 room hotel built by Japanese in 1991 and 36 lodges built by the original owner Sydney Knights: Sir Peter Abeles and Sir Arthur George in 1973. It also has one of the best golf courses in Australia, a private airport, polo field, equestrian field and an international school. The polo field was the richest Australian Kerry Packer's favorite play ground. World no. 1 Cathy Freeman and world no. 2 Adam Scott as well as Jason Day etc all graduated from the school and it's the only school in Australia produced 2 Young Australian of the year: Olympian Cathy Freeman and scientist Scott Hocknull. 
 The property also has great future development potential including a 423 lot golf frontage subdivision. The resort is one of the only few resorts in Australia enjoying the integrated resort status (ITR) where any foreign person can buy the established home there, instead of having to buy only brand new properties.



1st / May / 2013

JHC has formally launched its new project - Crystal Place at 36 Ewing Road, Logan Central. It boasts 16 townhomes priced from only $299,000 which is below the bank valuation. 11 out of the 16 townhouses have also obtained NRAS approval so investor will be positively geared from the very beginning.

17th / September / 2012

JHC Holdings is formally appointed by one of China's largest developers as development manager to start the process for MCU for the property at 2236 Beaudesert Rd, Calamvale, potentially a $35 Million, 90 townhouses projects.

2nd / May / 2011

JHC Holdings has successfully completed and handed over all 5 projects for the State Government on turn key based.

9th / August / 2010

JHC Holdings acquired the 10,752 m ² Hillcrest retail warehouse property for positively geared incoming producing and future renovation property to further improve its value.

25th / July / 2010

JHC Holdings acquired another 168 Acres South Ripley property for future small lots land subdividivision and potential shopping centre development.

5th / February / 2010

JHC Holdings was formally appointed by the QLD State Government to deliver five social housing projects. The projects are located in Redcliffe, Albion, Brassal, Waterford West and Mermaid Beach.


----------



## seamisty (13 December 2013)

Former Octaviar director loses stay appeal 

Thursday, 12 December 2013 | Richard Mayo
The former deputy chief executive of failed property managed investment scheme Octaviar Ltd (formerly MFS Ltd) has failed in his bid to have civil proceedings against him and five others stayed.
Full article  http://www.investordaily.com.au/34730-former-mfs-director-loses-stay-appeal


----------



## seamisty (16 December 2013)

Litigation update http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021728066.PDF


----------



## seamisty (16 December 2013)

seamisty said:


> Litigation update http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021728066.PDF




I also see a couple more additions added to the  Documents Filed. I wonder why there is an NSX announcement relating to todays court?



Date Filed

Document Title

Filed By


13-Dec-2013 Affidavit  Kpmg   
10-Dec-2013 Notice of Dispute


----------



## seamisty (17 December 2013)

Investor update Dec 2013      http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021728072.PDF

Business update:::                http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021728073.PDF


----------



## JohnH (17 December 2013)

Is it indicative that Ms Hutson is now wearing black instead of red?

.............. John H  aka MiaGain


----------



## NOR (17 December 2013)

Business Update

Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund advises that its offices and all it non workers,
Will wakeup and go home for xmass..


----------



## seamisty (20 December 2013)

FTI Consulting cops some more negative press:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...p-to-70-per-cent/story-fnihsrf2-1226786439354


----------



## SPLITPIN (20 December 2013)

JohnH said:


> Is it indicative that Ms Hutson is now wearing black instead of red?
> 
> .............. John H  aka MiaGain




I alluded to this some time ago on HC and the correct description of what the colour "Black" means.


----------



## SPLITPIN (20 December 2013)

Looks like we all now need to monitor two web pages as now players with different post names in different games.

One web site keeps everything from day one where the other one drops everything off after a period.

I note throughout time the major changes in attitude from all the postings.

Also both site documentation and records has been accumulated and stored for legal / historical purposes.

I also note that HC did not wilt when it came to push and shove by WCL where ASF did.


----------



## seamisty (23 December 2013)

A very interesting read relating to  Wellington Capital Ltd and some questionable ''cost reimbursements'' re the Rimcorp Property Trust no4


http://www.theage.com.au/business/c...-after-leaving-north-pole-20131222-2zt0s.html


As for the 'KIBBLE' connection, the journos need to look a bit closer to the Heading/Hutson family tree in my opinion.


----------



## JohnH (23 December 2013)

seamisty said:


> A very interesting read relating to  Wellington Capital Ltd and some questionable ''cost reimbursements'' re the Rimcorp Property Trust no4
> 
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/business/c...-after-leaving-north-pole-20131222-2zt0s.html
> ...




Seamisty,  Haven't we been there before?  I have a distinct feeling of deja vu.  I really must contain my comments otherwise this site would be in danger of being closed down again!!!  

Anyway, lets hope we can afford to forget about this just for a few days, and wish all of you a Peaceful Christmas, and hope we might see some form of revenge (at least) in the New Year.  ...John H  :xmaswave


----------



## seamisty (23 December 2013)

JohnH said:


> Seamisty,  Haven't we been there before?  I have a distinct feeling of deja vu.  I really must contain my comments otherwise this site would be in danger of being closed down again!!!
> 
> Anyway, lets hope we can afford to forget about this just for a few days, and wish all of you a Peaceful Christmas, and hope we might see some form of revenge (at least) in the New Year.  ...John H  :xmaswave



 Merry Xmas John H and to all our fellow piffers. 

I thought the very least I could do for one of the few remaining journo's still reporting on WELLINGTON CAPITAL LTD related news was send a well deserved bone to KNIBBLE on over the break. (along with the rest of the carcass!!!)


----------



## seamisty (23 December 2013)

For the purpose of record keeping:::

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/cases/s275-2013/Wellington_Chrono.pdf

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SYDNEY OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY No. S275 of 2013
BETWEEN:
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRAL!.~ l
FILED
WELLINGTON CAPITAL LIMITED
Appellant
and
1 3 DEC 20i3
1 0 A STRALIAN SECURITIES & INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
THE REGISTRY SYDNEY First Respondent
Part I:
PERPETUAL NOMINEES LIMITED
Second Respondent
APPELLANT'S CHRONOLOGY
20 I certify that this chronology is in a form suitable for publication on the internet.
Part II:
The following table sets out a chronology of the principal events in the litigation:
4 September 2012
4 September 2012
Wellington Capital Limited
(Wellington), the Responsible
Entity of the Premium Income Fund
(PIF), sold $90.75 million in assets
to Asset Resolution Limited (ARL)
830,532,768 shares in ARL issued to
Perpetual Nominees Limited
(Perpetual) as custodian of the
PIF.
Filed on behalf of the Appellant by: Date of this document: 11 December
McCullough Robertson Lawyers 2013
Level 11 Central Plaza Two 66 Eagle
Street
BRISBANE QLD 4000
GPO Box 1855, BRISBANE QLD 4001
Contact: Guy Humble
Re~ 146364-00058
Phone: (07) 3233 8844
Fax: (07) 3229 9949
Email: ghumble@mccullough.com.au
-2-

4 September 2012 Wellington resolved to instruct
Perpetual to transfer the ARL shares
to the unit holders in the PIF, in
proportion to the number of units
held by each unit holder.
4 September 2012 Wellington instructed Perpetual to
effect the ARL share transfer.
4 September 2012 Perpetual signed a master transfer
form for the purpose of transferring
the ARL shares to the unit holders.
4 September 2012 The signed master transfer form
was provided to Armstrong Registry
Services Limited (Armstrong), the
registry service provider for
Wellington, to effect the transfer of
the ARL shares to each unit holder
in the PIF.
4 September 2012 The Wholesale Premium Income
Fund (WPIF) received ARL shares
because it held units in the PIF.
5 September 2012 The transfer of the shares was
completed.
5 September 2012 Wellington announced to the
National Stock Exchange (NSX) the
sale by it of $90.75 million in assets
to ARL, and transfer of the shares.
7 September 2012 The details of the new ARL
shareholders were sent to a printing
company for the purposes of
providing holding statements to unit
holders.
by 19 September The holding statements had been
2012 printed and dispatched to all holders
of ARL shares, together with a copy
of the 5 September announcement.
20 September 2012 Wellington, as Responsible Entity for
the WPIF, resolved to make an in
specie distribution of the ARL shares
to the unit holders in the WPIF, in
proportion to the number of units
11 October 2012
17 October 2012
7 November 2012
17 May 2013
28 May 2013
8 November 2013
held by each unit holder.
ASIC commenced proceedings in the
Federal Court of Australia.
Hearing before Jagot J in the
Federal Court of Australia. Charles
Hodges and IOOF joined to the
proceeding as representative
parties.
Notice of Appeal Filed in Full Court
of Federal Court of Australia.
Appeal hearing in Full Court of
Federal Court of Australia before
Jacobson J, Gordon J and Robertson
J.
Judgment in Full Court of Federal
Court of Australia.
Grant of Special Leave by the High
Court of Australia.
Dated 11 December 2013
1 0 Guy John Humble
20
Solicitor for the Appellant
Telephone: (07) 3233 8844
Facsimile: (07) 3229 9949
Email: ghumble@mccullough.com.au


----------



## seamisty (3 January 2014)

EX????Aunty Jenny, please correct me if I am wrong and put Rimcorp property trust no 4 investors mind at rest re the KIBBLE connection?? My HUMBLE apologies if I have mistaken the  Matt and James Kibble, Brett Heading nephews, as being associated with the takeover???
James is currently in his eighth year working as a Regional Sales Trader for Investment Bank, J.P.Morgan, based in Hong Kong. Prior to banking in Asia he worked as qualified lawyer with McCullough Robertson in Australia.  He graduated with a Bachelor of Commerce and Laws (Honours) at the University of Queensland.  http://selongselo.com/about-us/meet-the-team/


----------



## seamisty (3 January 2014)

seamisty said:


> EX????Aunty Jenny, please correct me if I am wrong and put Rimcorp property trust no 4 investors mind at rest re the KIBBLE connection?? My HUMBLE apologies if I have mistaken the  Matt and James Kibble, Brett Heading nephews, as being associated with the takeover???
> James is currently in his eighth year working as a Regional Sales Trader for Investment Bank, J.P.Morgan, based in Hong Kong. Prior to banking in Asia he worked as qualified lawyer with McCullough Robertson in Australia.  He graduated with a Bachelor of Commerce and Laws (Honours) at the University of Queensland.  http://selongselo.com/about-us/meet-the-team/




http://www.smh.com.au/business/comm...-after-leaving-north-pole-20131222-2zt0s.html


----------



## Cookie1 (4 January 2014)

seamisty said:


> EX????Aunty Jenny, please correct me if I am wrong and put Rimcorp property trust no 4 investors mind at rest re the KIBBLE connection?? My HUMBLE apologies if I have mistaken the  Matt and James Kibble, Brett Heading nephews, as being associated with the takeover???
> James is currently in his eighth year working as a Regional Sales Trader for Investment Bank, J.P.Morgan, based in Hong Kong. Prior to banking in Asia he worked as qualified lawyer with McCullough Robertson in Australia.  He graduated with a Bachelor of Commerce and Laws (Honours) at the University of Queensland.  http://selongselo.com/about-us/meet-the-team/




Seamisty, your talent for research is awesome!


----------



## seamisty (8 January 2014)

Quote: However, ASIC concluded there was insufficient evidence to investigate.

 Wellington Capital Ltd Premium Income Fund(PIF) investors were told the very same by ASIC!!!!!!
This media article is very interesting,  http://www.wealthprofessional.com.au/news/whistleblower-asics-culture-to-shift-blame-182746.aspx
Extracted from the above link:
'The whistle-blower who Australian Securities and Investments Commission allegedly ignored has provided two more submissions to the Senate inquiry into ASIC’s practices, detailing how ASIC confirmed the whistle-blowing matter was within its investigation powers but decided to do nothing.'

The above article, from my own experiences with dealing with ASIC, describes exactly how I feel about them (ASIC) and the way they continually fobbed off one complaint after another relating to WELLINGTON CAPITAL LTD management, (or lack of) with the PIF!!!! In many instances ASIC failed to even speak to key people who could have provided evidence that warranted further investigation. Surely the latest senate enquiry will have to act on the numerous submissions outlining the absolute failure of ASIC to regulate???


----------



## seamisty (9 January 2014)

The beginning of another new year, five long years in April 2014 of legal 2ing and froing in the Class Action, not too sure if todays filing of documents is 4 separate ones or the same one entered 4 times. Onwards and upwards!!!!

Documents Filed     Loading 



Date Filed

Document Title

Filed By


08-Jan-2014 Subpoena to Produce Documents  Charles Hodges & Mark Hodges As Trustees Of The Charles Hodges Superannuation Fund  
08-Jan-2014 Subpoena to Produce Documents  Charles Hodges & Mark Hodges As Trustees Of The Charles Hodges Superannuation Fund  
08-Jan-2014 Subpoena to Produce Documents  Charles Hodges & Mark Hodges As Trustees Of The Charles Hodges Superannuation Fund  
08-Jan-2014 Subpoena to Produce Documents


----------



## NOR (9 January 2014)

seamisty said:


> The beginning of another new year, five long years in April 2014 of legal 2ing and froing in the Class Action, not too sure if todays filing of documents is 4 separate ones or the same one entered 4 times. Onwards and upwards!!!!
> 
> Documents Filed     Loading
> 
> ...



hi all ..it is for 4 supoenas ..who to ??? It looks like a big long year for class action going into 2015....I WONDER WHY JUSTICE PERRAM who has been over seeing our case since may22nd 2009 now JUSTICE  WIGNEY. HAS TAKEN OVER the case but on3rd april justice perram is back for one more day.. see court  DATES. 

File details


Court:
Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales Registry  

Number:
NSD324/2009 

Title:
Charles Hodges and Mark Hodges as trustees of the Charles Hodges Superannuation Fund v Andrea Jane Waters & Ors 

Filing Date:
17-Apr-2009 

Finalised Date:



Existing applications




Application title

Type

Filed

Status

Finalised






CORPORATIONS 

Other

17-Apr-2009

Open





Court Events and Orders     Loading 







Date

Time

Reason

Presiding Officer(s)

Location

Outcome

Orders


    13-Feb-2015  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    12-Feb-2015  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    11-Feb-2015  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    10-Feb-2015  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    09-Feb-2015  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    06-Feb-2015  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    05-Feb-2015  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    04-Feb-2015  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    03-Feb-2015  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    02-Feb-2015  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    19-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    18-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    17-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    16-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    15-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    12-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    11-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    10-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    09-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    08-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    05-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    04-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    03-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    02-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    01-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    28-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    27-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    26-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    25-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    24-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    21-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    20-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    19-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    18-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    17-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    14-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    13-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    12-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    11-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    10-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    07-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    06-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    05-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    04-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    03-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    31-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    30-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    29-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    28-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    27-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    24-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    23-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    22-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    21-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    20-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    17-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    16-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    15-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    14-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    13-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    10-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    09-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    08-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    07-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Wigney        
    03-Apr-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        

              NOR


----------



## seamisty (15 January 2014)

ASIC chief Greg Medcraft told to front Senate hearings

DateJanuary 15, 2014

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic...te-hearings-20140114-30t2y.html#ixzz2qPePXk7b


----------



## NOR (19 January 2014)

http://www.domain.com.au/property/for-sale/house/qld/kooralbyn/?


----------



## seamisty (23 January 2014)

No:  (P)NSD324/2009
Federal Court of Australia 
District Registry: New South Wales 
Division: General


CHARLES HODGES & MARK HODGES AS TRUSTEES OF THE CHARLES HODGES SUPERANNUATION FUND
Plaintiff

ANDREA JANE WATERS and others named in the schedule
First Defendant


ORDER

JUDGE:

Justice Foster
DATE OF ORDER:

23 January 2014
WHERE MADE:

Sydney

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The requirement to file an Interlocutory Application specified in r*34.66(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 be dispensed with.
2. Leave be granted to serve the subpoena to produce documents issued by the Court on 16*January 2014 on Justin James Bosley at Corporate Finance Limited as Liquidators of OPI Pacific Finance Limited (In Liquidation) (NZ*977908) at Corporate Finance Limited, Level*12, AMP Centre, 29*Custom Street West, Auckland City, 0000, New Zealand. 
3. The time for service of the said subpoena, an appropriate Notice to Witness in accordance with Form*98B of the Federal Court Forms and a copy of these Orders be extended to 30*January 2014.  

Date that entry is stamped:  

Deputy District Registrar
Schedule
	No:  (P)NSD324/2009
Federal Court of Australia
District Registry: New South Wales
Division: General 


Second Defendant:	KPMG
Third Defendant:	MANAGEMENT INVESTMENTS PTY WELLINGTON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED
Fourth Defendant:	OCTAVIAR LIMITED (ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTED)
Fifth Defendant:	GUY HUTCHINGS
Sixth Defendant:	JOHN ARTHUR WHATELEY
Seventh Defendant:	JACK SIMON DIAMOND
Eighth Defendant:	CRAIG ROBERT WHITE
Ninth Defendant:	DEBORAH BEALE
Tenth Defendant:	STEVEN KRIS KYLING
Eleventh Defendant:	STUART ROBERTSON PRICE
Twelfth Defendant:	MICHAEL GORDON HISCOCK
Thirteenth Defendant:	MICHAEL CHRISTODOULOU KING
Fourteenth Defendant:	PAUL JOSEPH MANKA


----------



## seamisty (23 January 2014)

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/cases/s275-2013/Wellington_Res1.pdf


----------



## NOR (10 February 2014)

seamisty said:


> http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/cases/s275-2013/Wellington_Res1.pdf




http://www.smh.com.au/business/g8-pays-105m-for-63-childcare-centres-20140210-32bvi.html                CLEVER JENNY..BEEN there & then down down sad.but.


----------



## seamisty (11 February 2014)

ASIC continue to appear to be as much use as 't1ts on a boar pig'!!! http://media.theage.com.au/national/selections/asic-under-fire-5144287.html


----------



## NOR (11 February 2014)

NOR said:


> hi all ..it is for 4 supoenas ..who to ??? It looks like a big long year for class action going into 2015....I WONDER WHY JUSTICE PERRAM who has been over seeing our case since may22nd 2009 now JUSTICE  WIGNEY. HAS TAKEN OVER the case but on3rd april justice perram is back for one more day.. see court  DATES.
> 
> File details
> 
> ...




ok 13-Feb-2015  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    12-Feb-2015  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    11-Feb-2015  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    10-Feb-2015  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    09-Feb-2015  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    06-Feb-2015  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    05-Feb-2015  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    04-Feb-2015  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    03-Feb-2015  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    02-Feb-2015  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    19-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    18-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    17-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    16-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    15-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    12-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    11-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    10-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    09-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    08-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    05-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    04-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    03-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    02-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    01-Dec-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    28-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    27-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    26-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    25-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    24-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    21-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    20-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    19-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    18-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    17-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    14-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    13-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    12-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    11-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    10-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    07-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    06-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    05-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    04-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    03-Nov-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    31-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    30-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    29-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    28-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    27-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    24-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    23-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    22-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    21-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    20-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    17-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    16-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    15-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    14-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    13-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    10-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    09-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    08-Oct-2014  10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram        
    07-Oct-2014  10:15 Hearing Justice Perram        
    03-Apr-2014  10:15 Interlocutory Hearing Justice Perram 
now got my reply from ..GOOGLE ....Cheers NOR


----------



## MAE (12 February 2014)

Hi All I came across this website this morning and thought you might be interested to know where Michael King is now working.

Look at who is also working there as Company Secretary.

How this man is allowed to provide these services is beyond me.  I am surprised that his trusted right hand woman, my ex financial advisor isn't working there as well. 


This is only an extract viewed online from the website of Diversified Mining Pty Ltd.  

The Company's Board of Directors has a broad mix of skills and experience in mining, finance and management of public companies.

Michael King - Director

Michael is a lawyer with significant corporate experience. He was the founder and CEO of MFS Ltd, an Australian Stock Exchange Limited company, as well as a large number of other public and private companies.

Michael is currently a director of the Mineore group of companies involved in phosphate and potash exploration. He also provides investment banking and corporate finance consultancy services to a large range of clients both in Australia and internationally.

Narelle McBain - Company Secretary

Narelle holds a Bachelor of Business and also holds a Diploma in the financial services sector. She has been involved in a range of significant businesses throughout her professional life as an administrator and in providing managerial services to listed and private companies.

Narelle has been providing company secretarial services to the Diversified Mining group.


----------



## seamisty (21 February 2014)

"We read about case after case where ASIC has simply failed to act, for unreasonably long periods of time," he said. "Crooks have been given plenty of time to milk investors, without penalty."

Read full article:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ts-asic-replaced/story-e6frg90f-1226833358236


----------



## seamisty (24 February 2014)

Half Yearly Financial Report to 31 December 2013

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021728248.PDF


----------



## Anglolane (27 February 2014)

Hi Guys,

I have been following the (frustrating) progress since WC became involved.
My units are in a company name (my company, and I am a director. originally purchased when it was MFS). Do you know if I do an off market transfer now of the units into my own personal name, will my entitlements be compromised (should any benefits to unitholders be forthcoming)??

Thanks in advance

R.


----------



## seamisty (28 February 2014)

Anglolane said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I have been following the (frustrating) progress since WC became involved.
> My units are in a company name (my company, and I am a director. originally purchased when it was MFS). Do you know if I do an off market transfer now of the units into my own personal name, will my entitlements be compromised (should any benefits to unitholders be forthcoming)??
> ...



Probably be best to seek a professional opinion on this Angolane, especially with the controversy relating to ARL and WCL. Cheers


----------



## wally3218 (1 March 2014)

ASIC failed to take action again , local Geelong company goes into receivership.

THE closure of In2 Sheds is all too familiar for Natarsha Ryan.
The Torquay woman first complained to the Australian Investment and Securities Commission about Mark Adam Thomason on June 16, 2011.
In total, she sent 30 emails and letters but no action was taken.

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au...into-liquidation/story-fnjuhovy-1226840744973

When are ASIC going to start taking notice of complaints aren't they suppose to be looking out for consumers and investors.


----------



## NOR (1 March 2014)

Interlocutory 
 Provisional; interim; temporary; not final; that which intervenes between the beginning and the end of a lawsuit or proceeding to either decide a particular point or matter that is not the final issue of the entire controversy or prevent irreparable harm during the pendency of the lawsuit.

 Interlocutory actions are taken by courts when a Question of Law must be answered by an appellate court before a trial may proceed or to prevent irreparable harm from occu...rring to a person or property during the pendency of a lawsuit or proceeding. Generally, courts are reluctant to make interlocutory orders unless the circumstances surrounding the case are serious and require timely action.

 Interlocutory appeals are restricted by state and federal appellate courts because courts do not want piecemeal litigation. Appeals courts generally review only cases that have reached final judgment in the trial courts. When a court administrator enters final judgment, this certifies that the trial court has ended its review of the case and jurisdiction shifts to the appellate court.See More















WELLINGTON CAPITAL LIMITED ACN 114 248 458 AS RESPONSIBLE ENTITY OF THE PREMIUM INCOME FUND ARSN 090 687 577
 Plaintiff

 ANDREA JANE WATERS and others named in the schedule
 Defendant...

 ORDER

 JUDGE:

 Justice Perram
 DATE OF ORDER:

 27 February 2014
 WHERE MADE:

 Sydney

 THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

 1. The matter be listed for interlocutory hearing on 13 March 2014 at 10:15 am.

 Date that entry is stamped: 

 Deputy District Registrar****           Nor


----------



## NOR (1 March 2014)

And on MFS** Fee grab

And so the calls went on this week. There were two phone calls which spring to mind. The first one pointed out that administrators Bentleys had charged almost $20 million in fees and disbursements from the failed Summit Mortgage Fund. This was half the $40 million in recoveries from Summit, guzzled in lawyers' and liquidators' charges.

This time last year we reported how Bentleys had ripped $17 million out of the corpse of Octaviar (nee MFS). The regulatory failure in insolvency is epic


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/comm...enforcement-20140228-33r4a.html#ixzz2ufh1oMEi


----------



## seamisty (1 March 2014)

Sorry I don't have access to the full article:

Fortress Targeted In $200M Clawback By Bankrupt Aussie Co.


 By Stephanie Russell-Kraft 0 Comments 
Law360, New York (February 28, 2014, 7:05 PM ET) -- The liquidators of Australia-based property finance group Octaviar Administration Pty. Ltd. filed a $210 million clawback suit against a hedge fund managed by Fortress Investment Group LLC in New York court Friday, alleging Drawbridge siphoned off funds belonging to Octaviar while it was insolvent.

The liquidators, which have filed a similar suit in Australian court, allege that when Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP caught wind of the deteriorating financial situation of the larger group of affiliated Octaviar companies, it devised a scheme to divert funds away from...

http://www.law360.com/bankruptcy/ar...geted-in-200m-clawback-by-bankrupt-aussie-co-


----------



## seamisty (1 March 2014)

wally3218 said:


> ASIC failed to take action again , local Geelong company goes into receivership.
> 
> THE closure of In2 Sheds is all too familiar for Natarsha Ryan.
> The Torquay woman first complained to the Australian Investment and Securities Commission about Mark Adam Thomason on June 16, 2011.
> ...



It makes you wonder what they actually do all day, year in, year out. probably too busy these days defending their pathetic performance relating to all the submissions made against them at the Senate Enquiry to do anything else apart from their usual fob offs!


----------



## Anglolane (3 March 2014)

seamisty said:


> Probably be best to seek a professional opinion on this Angolane, especially with the controversy relating to ARL and WCL. Cheers




Thanks Seamisty.
Just thought you guys (knowing the story from day dot) would have a good idea on the gist of the Q.
Me thinks I would probably incur costs more than the units are worth to get a professional opinion – as god knows how long it would take for them to get up to speed with the history/trail!!
R.


----------



## seamisty (12 March 2014)

> MFS liquidators pursue Fortress in US court to recoup $210m 'siphoned' from company
> 
> LEO SHANAHAN | The Australian  | March 12, 2014 12:00AM
> 
> ...




More: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ed-from-company/story-fn91v9q3-1226851945177#


----------



## Cookie1 (12 March 2014)

Good work, Seamisty; I was wondering how we were going to get the full article without going out to buy the newspaper! 

Cookie


----------



## seamisty (14 March 2014)

Even though I feel posting PIF info is becoming a waste of time I do think we are gaining some traction with the Class Action!!!
	No:  (P)NSD324/2009
Federal Court of Australia 
District Registry: New South Wales 
Division: General


CHARLES HODGES & MARK HODGES AS TRUSTEES OF THE CHARLES HODGES SUPERANNUATION FUND 
Plaintiff

ANDREA JANE WATERS and others named in the schedule
Defendants



ORDER

JUDGE:

Justice Perram
DATE OF ORDER:

13 March 2014 
WHERE MADE:

Sydney


THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The interlocutory application dated 28 February 2014 be listed for judgment on 17 March 2014 at 9:30 am.
2. The proceedings be listed for directions on 19 March 2014 at 9:30 am.


Date that entry is stamped:


----------



## marcom (15 March 2014)

ASIC v Managed Investments

20 more hearing dates added to the ASIC case against Directors & officers - more evidence to hand or ASIC having difficulties proving "on the balance of probabilities"?

4/08/2014 Trial Civil Trials Douglas J
5/08/2014 Trial Civil Trials Douglas J
6/08/2014 Trial Civil Trials Douglas J
7/08/2014 Trial Civil Trials Douglas J
8/08/2014 Trial Civil Trials Douglas J
11/08/2014 Trial Civil Trials Douglas J
12/08/2014 Trial Civil Trials Douglas J
13/08/2014 Trial Civil Trials Douglas J
14/08/2014 Trial Civil Trials Douglas J
15/08/2014 Trial Civil Trials Douglas J
18/08/2014 Trial Civil Trials Douglas J
19/08/2014 Trial Civil Trials Douglas J
20/08/2014 Trial Civil Trials Douglas J
21/08/2014 Trial Civil Trials Douglas J
22/08/2014 Trial Civil Trials Douglas J
25/08/2014 Trial Civil Trials Douglas J
26/08/2014 Trial Civil Trials Douglas J
27/08/2014 Trial Civil Trials Douglas J
28/08/2014 Trial Civil Trials Douglas J
29/08/2014 Trial Civil Trials Douglas J

Hearing date set for High Court appeal:

Wellington Capital Limited v. Australian Securities & Investments Commission and Anor
Case No.S275/2013

*13/05/2014* Hearing (Full Court, Canberra)


----------



## seamisty (17 March 2014)

File details


One month off 5 years since legal proceedings commenced in the Class Action and we have just got to a 'judgement'

Court:
Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales Registry  

Number:
NSD324/2009 

Title:
Charles Hodges and Mark Hodges as trustees of the Charles Hodges Superannuation Fund v Andrea Jane Waters & Ors 

Filing Date:
17-Apr-2009 

Finalised Date:




 17-Mar-2014  9:30 Judgment Justice Perram Court Room 22A


----------



## NOR (17 March 2014)

15 March 2014 - Interim Financial Report for the Half Year ended 31 December 2013

The Directors of ARL have lodged the company's Interim Financial Report with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in accordance with the requirements of the Coporations Act (Cth) 2001. 

Shareholders can download the Report here.

The Net Asset backing as at 31 December 2013 is 2.98 cents per share.


----------



## NOR (17 March 2014)

NOR said:


> 15 March 2014 - Interim Financial Report for the Half Year ended 31 December 2013
> 
> The Directors of ARL have lodged the company's Interim Financial Report with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in accordance with the requirements of the Coporations Act (Cth) 2001.
> 
> ...




 hi Marcom your post 13-5-2014... may have some think to do with my post today


----------



## NOR (25 March 2014)

NOR said:


> hi Marcom your post 13-5-2014... may have some think to do with my post today




http://www.smh.com.au/business/a-few-gremlins-in-asic-system-20140324-35e5u.html#ixzz2wvJyWW3g


----------



## NOR (25 March 2014)

NOR said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/business/a-few-gremlins-in-asic-system-20140324-35e5u.html#ixzz2wvJyWW3g




http://www.afr.com/p/entrepreneurs/education_breaks_its_own_rules_to_SfoWpojd7HQWjF0Rry1YXO


----------



## seamisty (1 April 2014)

YAWN YAWN!! Here we go again, another 'clayton's contract'?? http://www.beaudeserttimes.com.au/story/2111726/kooralbyn-resort-settlement-delayed/


----------



## seamisty (8 April 2014)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021728463.PDF
Premium Income Fund
NSX Release: 8 April 2014
Sale of Assets for $5.2 million – update
As announced on 19 June 2013 Wellington Capital Limited as Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund
entered into an unconditional contract to sell its interest in five assets for $5.2 million. Completion of the sale
occurred on 18 June 2013 and $1.2 million was received at settlement.
As announced on 23 September 2013 a further $100,000 has been received.
The balance $3.9 million was due for repayment on 31 March 2014 but has been extended to 30 September 2014
by agreement.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021728464.PDF
Premium Income Fund
NSX Release: 8 April 2014
High Court of Australia Hearing
Wellington Capital Limited as Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund advises that the hearing of the
High Court of Australia granted through the Special Leave application on 8 November 2013, which appeals the
orders of the full court of the Federal Court of 28 May 2013, is scheduled to be heard on 13 May 2014.
Wellington Capital Limited as Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund sought to appeal the orders made
by the Full Federal Court of 28 May 2013 as set out in the announcement of 28 May 2013 in the case brought by
the Australia Securities and Investments Commission against Wellington Capital Limited in relation to the inspecie
distribution of Asset Resolution Limited shares in September 2012.
The case was decided in favour of Wellington Capital Limited at first instance before Justice Jagot of the Federal
Court. Her Honours decision was overturned on appeal before the Full Federal Court.
This hearing in the High Court of Australia on 13 May 2014 will hear Wellington Capital Limited’s appeal of the
orders made by the Full Federal Court.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021728465.PDF
Premium Income Fund
NSX Release: 8 April 2014
Mortgagee in Possession Sale – Nelson Bay
Wellington Capital Limited as Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund advises that the call option that it
had entered into over the property as announced to the market on 10 July 2013 was not exercised and has since
lapsed.
Wellington Capital Limited as Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund has however exchanged a contract
for the sale of the property.
The contract is for $500,000 plus GST, with $200,000 payable at settlement and the balance due in 12 months from
settlement. The contract is due to settle in May 2014.


----------



## seamisty (8 April 2014)

Big Jim and the hund for the missing $5m  

 BRENDEN HILLS  •
  News Limited  •
 April 06, 2014 12:00AM 
COLOURFUL Sydney business identity Big Jim Byrnes has been drawn into the bankruptcy dramas of labour identity George Alex - and it could cost him millions. 
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...r-the-missing-5m/story-fni0cwl5-1226875472127


----------



## Bushmedicine (8 April 2014)

wally3218 said:


> ASIC failed to take action again , local Geelong company goes into receivership.
> 
> THE closure of In2 Sheds is all too familiar for Natarsha Ryan.
> The Torquay woman first complained to the Australian Investment and Securities Commission about Mark Adam Thomason on June 16, 2011.
> ...




ASIC are a joke is all I can say...


----------



## NOR (9 April 2014)

http://www.smh.com.au/national/jim-...NO010&promote_channel=edmail&mbnr=MTI2MTI2Njk


----------



## evelyn (9 April 2014)

Due to poor 'word processing' ability following meningitis I haven't kept up with the class action and goings on of the ex PIF (what is it called these days ARL?).

What to do re opting out of the Class Action or not?? I'd really appreciate some 'advice' (no responsibility) or just knowing what others think/intend. I'm feeling stressed as I don't know whats what. I have the responsibility for my mum's shares also.

sincere thanks for any answer.


----------



## seamisty (9 April 2014)

evelyn said:


> Due to poor 'word processing' ability following meningitis I haven't kept up with the class action and goings on of the ex PIF (what is it called these days ARL?).
> 
> What to do re opting out of the Class Action or not?? I'd really appreciate some 'advice' (no responsibility) or just knowing what others think/intend. I'm feeling stressed as I don't know whats what. I have the responsibility for my mum's shares also.
> 
> sincere thanks for any answer.



Hi evelyn, I will be staying with the Class Action and yes it's hard to keep up with what is going on with the PIF. I have been waiting for over a week for a response from Ginette Muller,FTI consulting relating to who is actually responsible for the PIF asset Kooralbyn Resort which was meant to have been sold. My response was my email would be answered shortly. I resent a further three enquiries, including one to the ARL chairman David Beddall yesterday who hasn't responded as yet. Millions being paid in consultancy and management fees and no one can satisfactorily answer a simple question.


----------



## NOR (9 April 2014)

hi Evelyn.   I to will be staying with class action been long wait but hope the end  is now not to far away.
 good luck to you & mum.


----------



## JohnH (9 April 2014)

evelyn said:


> Due to poor 'word processing' ability following meningitis I haven't kept up with the class action and goings on of the ex PIF (what is it called these days ARL?).
> 
> What to do re opting out of the Class Action or not?? I'd really appreciate some 'advice' (no responsibility) or just knowing what others think/intend. I'm feeling stressed as I don't know whats what. I have the responsibility for my mum's shares also.
> 
> sincere thanks for any answer.




Hi Evelyn, As far as I can see there is no advantage to opting out, and we may get something if we stay in (though I'm not working that into my cashflow!!).  IMF have also confirmed that we are not up for any contribution if we lose.

Cheers,   John H


----------



## evelyn (10 April 2014)

Thanks Seamisty, NOR and John H.

I did read the latest doco re opting out and couldn't see the point but thought I may have missed something or be 'implicating' myself in some unknown way  if I stayed in. Grateful to know what others more informed are doing.

So just do nothing?

hope all is good for you apart from the stress of this long-term drama.


----------



## seamisty (14 April 2014)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA


Wellington Capital Limited v Waters (No 1) [2014] FCA 329 

Judge:

PERRAM J

Date of judgment:

2 April 2014
 Judgement here http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2014/2014fca0329


----------



## NOR (16 April 2014)

Resort focus at Kooralbyn meeting 


By  Tanya Marschke 
April 16, 2014, noon




THE Kooralbyn Chamber of Commerce will hear updates on the Kooralbyn Resort and Bromelton tomorrow.

The chamber will meet at 7am at The Valley Kitchen on the corner of Wellington Bundock Drive and Salisbury Avenue, Kooralbyn.

Members will hear a presentation about Bromelton from guest speaker Mark Goodman and an update on the Kooralbyn Resort from Mark Heinrich of Yong Real Estate and JHC Holdings.....     Nor....


----------



## NOR (24 April 2014)

NOR said:


> Resort focus at Kooralbyn meeting
> 
> 
> By  Tanya Marschke
> ...





http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...in-court/story-fnihsps3-1226891525843Bookmark and Share


----------



## seamisty (27 April 2014)

http://www.bfcsa.com.au/index.php/e...mfs-bigger-losses-octaviar-even-bigger-losses


----------



## NOR (30 April 2014)

NOR said:


> http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...in-court/story-fnihsps3-1226891525843Bookmark and Share




http://www.beaudeserttimes.com.au/s...ery-behind-the-kooralbyn-resort-fences/?cs=12


----------



## seamisty (7 May 2014)

ASIC to feel heat over 'star' financial planner



Senator Williams said: ''I'm sick of hearing about people getting their nest eggs robbed. I expect the industry to be cleaned up and I want a regulator that is feared, not a wimpy group of bureaucrats.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic...ial-planner-20140506-37ulj.html#ixzz30yTWpVYG


----------



## seamisty (7 May 2014)

http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2014/2014fca0329


----------



## seamisty (7 May 2014)

Affidavits in the Class Action gaining momentum?

File details


Court:
Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales Registry  

Number:
NSD324/2009 

Title:
Charles Hodges and Mark Hodges as trustees of the Charles Hodges Superannuation Fund v Andrea Jane Waters & Ors 

Filing Date:
17-Apr-2009 


Date Filed

Document Title

Filed By


07-May-2014 Affidavit  Steven Kris Kyling  
07-May-2014 Affidavit  STUART PRICE  
06-May-2014 Affidavit  Mark Robert Hodges And Janet Anne Hodges As Trustee Of The Charles Robert Hodges Super Trust Fund


----------



## NOR (8 May 2014)

News.com.au














BUSINESS 

The Australian

Jenny Hutson sells four sites but keeps jewels in the crown 

Lisa Allen |
 The Australian |
 May 08, 2014 12:00AM 



Print

Save for later



development: As the resource sector cools, mining accommodation start-up Village National has divested four of its lesser-performing sites for about $40 million while managing to retain three of its more strategic properties in the Queensland mining towns of Emerald and Moranbah. 

Headed by Brisbane entrepreneur Jenny Hutson, Village National specialises in developing mining accommodation ”” renting out one-person rooms in motels and caravan parks to workers for more than $100 a night


----------



## seamisty (9 May 2014)

Fallen Gold Coast millionaire Michael King’s failed MFS group leaves tangled web  

 Emmaline Stigwood  •
  Gold Coast Bulletin  •
 May 09, 2014 8:08AM 
http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au...aves-tangled-web/story-fnje8bkv-1226911259757


----------



## NOR (13 May 2014)

seamisty said:


> Fallen Gold Coast millionaire Michael King’s failed MFS group leaves tangled web
> 
> Emmaline Stigwood  •
> Gold Coast Bulletin  •
> ...




13 May 2014
WHERE MADE:

Sydney
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. To give effect to the non-publication order made on 7 May 2014:
b. the documents referred to in order 1 of the orders of 7 May 2014 are to remain on the Court file in sealed envelope(s) marked “Confidential Affidavit – Not to be Opened Except by Direction of a Judge of the Court”;
c. on or before 16 May 2014, the applicants file redacted versions of the affidavits referred to in sub-paragraphs (c)–(i), which redact the material the subject of the non-publication order.
Date that entry is stamped: 


Deputy District Registrar


----------



## seamisty (14 May 2014)

Good read
http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/04/28/childs-play-is-there-a-sustainable-business-in-kids-care/


----------



## seamisty (8 June 2014)

HAS failed Gold Coast businessman Michael King been secretly working behind the scenes as a key consultant on the proposed $8 billion Aquis mega-resort for Cairns?
http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...ack-on-the-horse/story-fnihsps3-1226942036187


----------



## seamisty (8 June 2014)

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/bus...orda-under-fire-on-advice-20140530-397tg.html

One of Australia's best-known insolvency practitioners, KordaMentha partner Mark Korda, has been accused of giving substandard advice to failed investment group Octaviar in the run-up to its collapse in September 2008.

In a lawsuit filed with the Queensland Supreme Court, the liquidators of two companies in the Octaviar group accuse KordaMentha's advisory arm, 333 Capital, of breach of duty and misleading or deceptive conduct.

The claim is based on advice given by Mr Korda to directors of Octaviar, formerly known as MFS, at a series of board meetings from late January 2008.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/inso...e-on-advice-20140530-397tg.html#ixzz343Dh3OyK


----------



## seamisty (12 June 2014)

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021728603.PDF



> Chifley Wollongong – update
> 
> As announced on 11 March 2013 Wellington Capital Limited as Responsible Entity of the Premium Income Fund realised the Fund’s 57.5% interest in the Harbour Street Development Trust for $8.9 million, payable over time.
> 
> ...


----------



## seamisty (13 June 2014)

Latest CA update/orders

	No:  (P)NSD324/2009
Federal Court of Australia 
District Registry: New South Wales 
Division: General

CHARLES HODGES & MARK HODGES AS TRUSTEES OF THE CHARLES HODGES SUPERANNUATION FUND and another 
Plaintiff

ANDREA JANE WATERS and others 
Defendant

ORDER

REGISTRAR:

Registrar Ng
DATE OF ORDER:

11 June 2014 
WHERE MADE:

Sydney


THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Subpoenas addressed to PriceWaterhouseCoopers, KordaMentha Pty Ltd and 333 Capital Pty Ltd (all issued on 25 March 2014) be stood over until 9:30am on Wednesday, 25 June 2014.

Date that entry is stamped:


----------



## NOR (13 June 2014)

MANTRA REVIVES $449M FLOAT

Written on the 11 June 2014 by Nick Nichols 
 MANTRA REVIVES $449M FLOAT
MANTRA Group, buoyed by surging global share markets, has taken a second stab at listing on the Australian Securities Exchange through a $449 million float.

The Surfers Paradise-based accommodation provider has launched its prospectus to raise $239.1 million through the issue of 132.8 million shares at $1.80 each.

This represents 53 per cent of the company’s issued capital.

The move will amount to a partial sell-down by majority shareholders CVC Asia Pacific and UBS who will retain a 43.3 per cent interest in the company after listing.

Management, including CEO Bob East, will hold a 3.5 per cent stake and all shares owned by the major shareholders will be held in escrow until June 30, 2015.

The quickfire IPO will see Mantra shares trading on the ASX as early as June 20.

The retail offer opened yesterday and closes on June 17.

According to the prospectus, Mantra Group will be trading on a multiple of 12.7 times 2015 net profit, based on the issue price.

Mantra carried net debt of $89.1 million at the end of December last year and the proceeds of the float will be applied to a partial paydown of that debt.

The company expects to pay its first dividend in March 2015 with a targeted dividend ratio of between 70 and 80 per cent of after-tax net profit.

The prospectus reveals Mantra Group’s revenue has grown from $396.2 million in the 2011 financial year to $424.4 million in 2013 in a rising tourism market.

It is forecasting revenue of $450.1 million this financial year and a jump to $490.9 million in 2015.

Net Profit after Tax in the 2013 financial year landed at $24.6 million, while NPAT this financial year is expected to be $27.4 million, climbing to $32.6 million in 2015.

East was not immediately available for comment, but the Mantra boss has previously revealed to Gold Coast Business News his ambitions to grow the business in the Asia-Pacific region.

Mantra has expanded into Fiji and Indonesia, which East says will be the focus of offshore growth initially.

Mantra Group has 113 properties in its portfolio and manages more than 11,600 rooms through its three brands – Peppers, Mantra and BreakFree.

The company is the Gold Coast’s largest accommodation provider and is ranked number two across Australia.

The public listing marks a return of sorts for the business to the stock exchange.

While it was once part of the failed MFS Group until 2008, Mantra also retains assets that were once held by former listed Gold Coast companies S8 Group, headed by Chris Scott, and BreakFree Resorts, headed by Tony Smith.

Mantra Group earlier this year took a tilt at its first public listing since CVC Asia Pacific bought the company from liquidators to MFS, but the plan was abandoned after a lukewarm reception from institutional investors.
At the time, East said a share market float was likely to be revisited by the company’s owners later in the year.


----------



## NOR (20 June 2014)

http://www.goldcoastbusinessnews.co...ail&utm_term=0_c0c75cde48-624b56c6ea-95514501


----------



## wally3218 (21 June 2014)

Just received a email.

PIF Class Action - In Principle Settlement

Another step in a long process hope I am allowed to post this good news.


----------



## NOR (27 June 2014)

http://www.goldcoastbusinessnews.com.au/articles/kooralbyn-vision-seeks-a-partner.html#


----------



## seamisty (2 July 2014)

http://www.arlimited.com.au/updates


----------



## seamisty (2 July 2014)

Investors Action Group has also been updated after a year in suspension!http://www.investorsactiongroup.com.au/premium-income-fund-pif/







LikeLike ·


----------



## NOR (8 July 2014)

it helps if the Manager has shares in the Company... http://******************/threads/n...rategy.2313865/?post_id=13626121#.U7uXYelZrIU If this link seem to not work just click on
 blank space. gem trading @ min just under $5.00 ...oct 4 cents


----------



## NOR (21 July 2014)

Former MFS boss Aquis project manager 

Print 
 Email 
 Monday, 21 July 2014 09:07 
 Article Read: 147 .


AN65-3-News-Michael-KingMichael King has been employed by Hong Kong billionaire Tony Fung as his project manager for the proposed $8.15 billion Aquis resort-casino at Yorkeys Knob in North Queensland.

Mr King was the co-founder of the MFS tourism group that collapsed in early 2008 owing about $2.5 billion.

Octaviar Ltd (formerly MFS Ltd) is an Australian investment company in the funds management and financial services sectors. The company, once valued at $2.4 billion was forced to sell its main asset, the Stella Group (now trading well as the Mantra Group), in February 2008.

On August 1, 2009 the company was placed into liquidation.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission commenced civil proceedings in the Queensland Supreme Court against five former officers and three subsidiary companies of the formerly-listed MFS Ltd, now known as Octaviar. The Supreme Court trial for the matter has been ongoing, to be heard again next month in Brisbane.

ASIC named the defendants in the matter as the former chief executive and director of MFS Ltd and MFS Investment Management, Michael King, deputy chief executive Craig White, the former chief executive of MFS Investment Management, Guy Hutchings, the former chief financial officer and company secretary of MFS Ltd, David Anderson, and a former fund manager with MFSIM, Marilyn Watts.

Aquis' Justin Fung said, “Michael is a project manager who has helped us gain access to networks in Australia,’’ he said. “We’ve found him to be extremely effective and a good character.”


----------



## NOR (31 July 2014)

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-on-directors-liabilities-20140730-3cuic.html


----------



## NOR (8 April 2018)

seamisty said:


> For the purpose of record keeping:::
> 
> http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/cases/s275-2013/Wellington_Chrono.pdf
> 
> ...



hi is any body on this page any more to read updates on ARL..


----------



## NOR (8 April 2018)

https://www.asic.gov.au/…/18-088mr-former-chair-of-g8-educ…/




18-088MR Former chair of G8 Education Limited charged | ASIC - Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Former chair of G8 Education Limited charged
asic.gov.au
PLUS LOTS MORE


----------



## NOR (8 April 2018)

Hi all WELLINGTON CAPITAL **PIF ***OCTAVIAR ***MSF**
        Are you still there??????Like to hear from you!!!
              All news is good


----------



## tinhat (8 April 2018)

A huge congratulations to the moderator of this board for re-opening this thread. This discussion is actually what brought me to become a regular reader of this board. 

I've never owned any shares in any company associated with the drama around this AFAIK. I admit I had G8 Education on my watch list for a long while but never found a good reason to enter.

I don't know what else to contribute except to say that:

be conservative,

follow your gut,

listen, look,

sleep on any major decision.


----------



## seamisty (3 October 2018)

ASS Shares are on the way up, still worth stuff all in the grand scheme of things considering the huge consolidation we were lumped with by current management ARL who have not made a single acquisition that I am aware of or a distribution of any kind.


----------



## MAE (8 October 2018)

seamisty said:


> ASS Shares are on the way up, still worth stuff all in the grand scheme of things considering the huge consolidation we were lumped with by current management ARL who have not made a single acquisition that I am aware of or a distribution of any kind.



I agree!!!


----------



## goggy (21 October 2018)

Anything happening ?


----------



## seamisty (30 January 2019)

goggy said:


> Anything happening ?



This link is an ASIC update relating to PIF https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/news...court-of-appeal-confirms-dishonesty-findings/


----------



## seamisty (1 February 2019)

How do I start a new thread? Trying to post in a  general thread,  *

*
*SR GROUP EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST *
Compensation for Victims of Financial Misconduct and Dishonest Behaviour


----------



## seamisty (5 February 2019)

seamisty said:


> How do I start a new thread? Trying to post in a  general thread,  *
> 
> 
> SR GROUP EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST *
> Compensation for Victims of Financial Misconduct and Dishonest Behaviour



A number of former unit holders in the above fund have paid particular attention to findings of the Royal Commission into banks, other Financial Institutions and operators of such entities.  We feel that MFS former unit holders are worthy of consideration for compensation for our losses due to the way our life savings were handled by numerous managers and employees of the fund.  I would like you to read the undermentioned proposal if you wish and for you to make your own considered judgment as to whether you feel it worthwhile for your further investigation.   Without encouraging you one way or the other I would like to point out that there is interest being shown by our fellow former unit holders in the proposition.   I have set out below relevant information which may assist you in your deliberations. 

*The following is a proposal for representation  put forward by the SR Group on behalf of investors of the Premium income Fund who held units when MFS/OCTAVIAR collapsed*


_ SR Group, assists and represents victims of financial misconduct and dishonest behaviour by seeking redress through various methods of compensation._

_We currently represent 10 different victim groups in their pursuit of compensation. Through our experience with the Prime Trust and Trio Capital Groups, among others, we have learnt there are thousands of people who have fallen victim to financial misconduct and dishonest behaviour._

_The MFS group of victims’ plight to recover losses caused by the dishonest activity of the former Directors of the MFS over the last ten years has been very disappointing for all involved. Upon researching the MFS scheme and the ongoing saga faced by investors, SR Group have identified potential avenues of redress for MFS investors and the practicality of pursuing them. _

_We have been contacting MFS investors with an opportunity for a final compensation claim through a closed group action. We do not envisage long drawn out proceedings like many experienced in the Class Action and we are very mindful of the average age of those involved._



_For more information on our closed group action or to register please visit *srgroup.com.au *and click on the *MFS - Octaviar Group Registration*. Alternatively call our team on (02) 9053 0062 and we can assist you. _


----------



## seamisty (16 February 2019)

Mary-Anne Greaves
Friday 15 February 2019

*19-031MR Queensland lawyer pleads guilty to giving false or misleading information to ASIC*
Mary-Anne Greaves, of Mount Sheridan, Queensland, has pleaded guilty before the Brisbane Magistrates’ Court to one count of giving false or misleading information to ASIC.

The examination of Ms Greaves, a former lawyer, was part of an investigation conducted by ASIC into a 2015 takeover bid by G8 Education Limited (G8 Education) for ASX-listed Affinity Education Group Limited (Affinity). The investigation included enquiries into alleged undisclosed arrangements between G8 Education and West Bridge Holdings Pty Ltd (West Bridge) for the acquisition of Affinity shares as part of the takeover bid.

The charge related to Greaves’ false denial, on 2 June 2016, during an ASIC examination under oath, that she had not been provided information relating to the acquisition by West Bridge of Affinity shares at the time of the takeover bid by G8 Education.

The matter has been listed for a sentencing hearing before the Brisbane Magistrates’ Court on 24 May 2019.

The matter is being prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions


----------



## seamisty (16 February 2019)

Mary-Anne Greaves is Company Secretary of Wellington Investment
Management Limited. She is a Director of Wellington Capital Limited and is
responsible for the Wellington Capital group’s compliance functions.
Mary-Anne is a lawyer and has a particular focus in the property and finance
industries. She has 16 years experience in finance and property in various roles
with Bendigo Bank Limited and Northern Building Society Limited. She has been
a corporate lawyer for 8 years, specialising in licensing, compliance and capital
raising issues for funds management businesses. Mary-Anne also holds a Real
Estate Agent’s Licence.
Mary-Anne has led numerous due diligence assignments and has a strong interest in the area of
corporate governance and compliance. She is a Chartered Secretary and an Associate of Chartered
Secretaries Australia.
Mary-Anne ensures compliance with Wellington Capital group’s regulatory requirements.
Qualifications and Memberships
Bachelor of Laws, University of New England
Solicitor, Supreme Court of Queensland
Chartered Secretary
Licensed Real Estate Agent – Queensland
Member, Queensland Law Society
Member, Real Estate Institute of Queensland
Associate, Chartered Secretaries and Administrators and Chartered Secretaries Australia

Source _https://www.nsx.com.au/ftp/news/021720763_


----------



## NOR (11 December 2020)

The Manager Company Announcement Office NSX Suite 3.3, 1 Bligh Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Dear Sir/Madam Octaviar Notices Asset Resolution Limited (ARL or the Company) is pleased to announce that the liquidators of Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd and Octaviar Limited have published notices on the ASIC website of intention to declare a dividend for each company. They will declare the dividends on 5 February 2021.


----------



## NOR (27 December 2020)

NOR said:


> The Manager Company Announcement Office NSX Suite 3.3, 1 Bligh Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Dear Sir/Madam Octaviar Notices Asset Resolution Limited (ARL or the Company) is pleased to announce that the liquidators of Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd and Octaviar Limited have published notices on the ASIC website of intention to declare a dividend for each company. They will declare the dividends on 5 February 2021.



The Manager
Company Announcement Office
NSX
Suite 3.3, 1 Bligh Street,
Sydney NSW 2000
Dear Sir/Madam
Octaviar Notices
Asset Resolution Limited (ARL or the Company) is pleased to announce that the liquidators of
Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd and Octaviar Limited have published notices on the ASIC website
of intention to declare a dividend for each company. They will declare the dividends on 5 February
2021.


----------

